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-abroad
experience on pragmatic comprehension in second-language English. Participants were
25 native English speakers and 64 Japanese college students of English divided into
three 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 but
differed in their study-abroad experience. Group 2 had no study-abroad experience, but
Group 3 had a minimum of 1 year of study-abroad experience in an English-speaking
country. They completed a pragmatic listening test measuring their ability to comprehend
conventional and nonconventional implicatures. Group performance was compared for
the comprehension accuracy scores and response times. There was a significant effect of
proficiency on response times but no effect of study-abroad experience. Comprehension
accuracy scores revealed mixed findings. It was advantageous for students to have studyabroad experience in the comprehension of nonconventional implicatures and routine
expressions but not in indirect refusals.
Keywords interlanguage pragmatics; pragmatic comprehension; conventional and
nonconventional implicatures; routines; study-abroad
Introduction
Corresponding to the growing interest in the functional and social aspects of
second-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 Languages Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Baker Hall 160, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890.
Internet: taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu
Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

C 2011 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00633.x
904
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-specific
and external factors that affect pragmatic competence because these factors are
believed to explain the variation observed among learners in the outcome of
development and augment our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
that development. Among the factors examined, L2 proficiency and experience
in living in the target language community have been the most popular factors.
Abundant studies have compared learners across proficiency levels or different living arrangements (e.g., study-abroad vs. domestic, formal instructional
settings) 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 examined
the 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 of
language proficiency and study-abroad experience on L2 learners pragmatic
comprehension. Three groups of Japanese learners of English with differing
levels of proficiency and study-abroad experience completed a pragmatic listening test measuring their ability to comprehend two types of conventional
indirect meaning: indirect refusal intentions and routines, and nonconventional
indirect meaning. The study examined whether proficiency and host country experience jointly or separately explain learners ability to comprehend different
types of indirect meaning accurately and fluently.
Background
Over the last few decades, research on interlanguage pragmatics has shown a
rapid development as a field that investigates wide-ranging issues in the nature
and development of L2 pragmatic competence (for reviews, see Cohen, 2008;
Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002; Kasper, 2007; Kasper & Roever, 2005). One of the
central questions explored in these studies is what factors affect pragmatic competence and development. Among them, general proficiency and study-abroad
experience 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 these
two factors is explained by the conceptualization of pragmatic competence:
905
Taguchi
Many aspects of pragmatic competence are inseparable not only from cognitive
considerations but also from sociocultural practices. To become able to communicate intentions appropriately in a situation or to comprehend meaning that
is not explicitly stated, one needs a refined knowledge of linguistic systems as
well as target language skills to mobilize the knowledge in real-time interaction. To this end, a functional level of proficiency is necessary for pragmatic
performance. However, the social nature of pragmatic competence also implies
that exposure to the target pragmatic input, combined with opportunities to
engage in social interaction and practice pragmatic functions, is indispensable
to pragmatic growth. Because the target community is likely to afford those opportunities, a number of studies have examined the experience of living in a host
country, such as a study-abroad experience, as a potential factor contributing to
successful pragmatic learning (e.g., Barron, 2003; Kinginger, 2008; Schauer,
2009). Below, I will review a group of studies that have examined these two
factors, L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience, in relation to pragmatic
competence and development.
Effect of L2 Proficiency on Pragmatic Competence
Interest in the effects of proficiency on pragmatic competence in part stemmed
from the emergence of theoretical models of communicative competence in
the 1980s and 1990s (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale &
Swain, 1980). Drawing on Hymess (1972) emphasis on the sociocultural use of
language, these models situated pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence as a
distinct, indispensable component within L2 proficiency, apart from grammatical, discourse, and strategic competencies. Empirical efforts followed the lead
by investigating whether pragmatic competence makes unique contributions
to general proficiency. A large body of studies compared L2 learners performances of a particular pragmatic feature across different proficiency levels
determined 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; HoffmanHicks, 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 repeatedly
found that high general proficiency supports quality pragmatic performance,
but it does not guarantee a nativelike performance (see Bardovi-Harlig, 2001,
for a review).
906
Taguchi
In the area of pragmatic production, this generalization has been drawn from
cross-sectional studies that have compared speech act productions across different proficiency groups. Early studies compared speech acts with corresponding
first-language (L1) and L2 data, and they documented cases of positive and
negative 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 proficiency effect on transfer, leaving somewhat contradicting evidence. Some
studies have found that L2 proficiency is positively correlated with pragmatic
transfer: 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 correlation between proficiency and transfer (e.g., Takahashi & Beebe, 1987). Lower
proficiency learners end up with more targetlike production than higher proficiency learners because they do not have sufficient linguistic resources to
transfer complex L1 pragmatic conventions in L2 production.
These findings suggest that the relationship between L1 transfer and proficiency is in part mediated by the nature of the target pragmatic features. Supporting evidence comes from Takahashis (1996) study. Using a transferability
judgement scale, Takahashi examined whether Japanese English-as-a-foreignlanguage (EFL) students of two different proficiency levels could judge the
transferability of L1 request strategies to L2 in an appropriate manner. She
found that the perceived transferability of certain L1 strategies was negatively
influenced by learners low proficiency. However, regardless of proficiency,
learners overall projected false form-function mappings between L1 and L2
on complex, biclausal L2 request forms. They did not perceive syntactically
complex English forms as functionally equivalent to Japanese polite request
utterances and thus refused to transfer them.
More recent studies have continued to explore the effect of proficiency
on speech acts, contributing to the generalization that higher proficiency does
not always lead to native-like L2 pragmatic performance. For instance, FelixBrasdefer (2007) examined the speech act of requests produced by L2 learners
of Spanish at three different proficiency levels: beginning, intermediate, and
advanced (proficiency determined by course level). Open role-plays were used
to collect data in four situations of varying degrees of formality. Analyses
of request head acts and modifications revealed a decline in the use of direct strategies with increasing proficiency: More than 80% of the beginners
requests were direct requests, whereas the percentage was 36% and 18% for
the intermediate group and advanced group, respectively. In contrast, a strong
907
Taguchi
preference for conventionally indirect strategies was found among intermediate

and advanced learners, although their use was limited to two forms of query
preparatory strategies. Advanced learners employed lexical and syntactic mitigators often, but the frequency and variety of these mitigators fell short of
native speakers norms.
Dalmau and Gotor (2007), on the other hand, compared the speech act of
apology produced by 78 Catalan learners of English at three different proficiency levels (proficiency determined by the standardized proficiency exam and
the level of study). They responded to a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) containing eight apology situations. The apology strategies used by the participants
were coded. A proficiency effect was found in the repertoire of apology expressions, with higher proficiency learners attempting a greater variety of apology
strategies and decreasing the overgeneralization of non-target-like apology expressions (e.g., using excuse me when apologizing). More proficient learners
also used a greater number of lexical intensifiers, approximating the target
norm, but the overall frequency still fell short of that of native speakers. Higher
proficiency learners also struggled at the morphosyntactic level, as seen in the
production of erroneous forms (e.g., Im sorried).
While most previous studies examined the impact of proficiency on learners appropriate production of pragmatic functions, Taguchi (2007b) examined
the proficiency effect on the processing dimension of pragmatic competence
(i.e., fluency of speech act production). Fifty-nine Japanese students of English at two different proficiency levels (proficiency determined by TOEFL
scores) produced requests and refusals in a role-play task involving low- and
high-imposition situations. The learners speech acts were analyzed for overall
appropriateness (rated on a 6-point scale), planning time, and speech rate. There
was a significant proficiency effect on appropriateness ratings and speech rate.
However, the two proficiency groups did not differ on planning time. These
findings inform us that linguistic competence is not sufficient for pragmatic
fluency as operationalized as planning time.
Previous cross-sectional studies have also looked into the relationship between 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-proficiency
L2 English speakers by examining their ability to recognize indirect speech
acts (proficiency determined by TOEFL scores). Comprehension of indirect
requests, suggestions, corrections, and offers were assessed using a multiplechoice listening test developed from corpora of naturalistic conversations. Garcia found that proficient speakers had an advantage in comprehension, whereas
908
Taguchi
the difference between native speakers and the high-proficiency group was minimal. The type of speech act had a significant effect on comprehension ability,
and a significant group difference in comprehension was found in all speech
acts except indirect requests.
Taguchi (2009a), on the other hand, examined the effect of proficiency
on the comprehension of implicatures in L2 Japanese. Thirty native Japanese
speakers and 84 college students enrolled in the elementary-, intermediate-,
and advanced-level Japanese courses completed a listening test that measured
their ability to comprehend three types of implicatures: indirect refusals, conventional indirect opinions, and nonconventional indirect opinions. Refusals
were found to be the easiest to comprehend, followed by conventional and nonconventional indirect opinions. This tendency was the same across learners
proficiency levels, but there was no difference in native speakers comprehension. Advanced and intermediate students scored significantly higher than
the elementary students, but no difference was found in comprehension speed
across groups.
In summary, the previous studies summarized above revealed mixed findings regarding the effect of proficiency on pragmatic comprehension and production. In general, the proficiency effect is positive, reiterating the integral
role that pragmatic competence plays within the framework of communicative competence and L2 proficiency. As their proficiency develops, learners
gain better control of pragmatic functions, as evidenced in their ability to
block negative L1 transfer, ability to manage appropriate levels of directness
in speech acts, use of more targetlike mitigating expressions, and more accurate comprehension of indirect meaning. However, previous research has also
revealed that linguistic competence does not guarantee nativelike pragmatic
competence. Advanced-level learners still transfer L1-based speech act strategies, lack nativelike sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge, and lag
behind in processing efficiency and fluency in pragmatic performance. These
findings call for more investigation of the proficiency effect in pragmatic performance over a variety of pragmatic functions and attributes in order to determine the relationship among proficiency, pragmatic targets, and pragmatic
competence.
Effect of Study-Abroad Experience on Pragmatic Competence
Because the majority of the studies that have revealed a positive relationship
between proficiency and pragmatic competence were conducted in a foreign
language context, the findings imply that development of pragmatic competence is possible solely with linguistic maturity, without an exposure to the
909
Taguchi
target language in a country where it is spoken natively. However, whether

the host country experience facilitates pragmatic development has been examined in a separate line of study-abroad studies. These studies are divided into
two major strands. One is a group of cross-sectional studies that compared
pragmatic competence between learners in a study-abroad context (SA) and
at-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 learning
in a study-abroad context as a unique case of second language acquisition and
examined the effect of this specific learning context on pragmatic development
in single-learner groups, without a comparison group in a domestic educational
setting (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 SA
and 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 over
AH contexts in pragmatic development (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998),
but evidence also exists that AH learners demonstrate superior performance
to SA learners (e.g., Niezgoda & Roever, 2001). Furthermore, similar to the
effect of L2 proficiency, a trend gleaned from these study-abroad investigations
is a rather selective effect of the study-abroad experience on pragmatic development. The acquisition of some pragmatic features (e.g., comprehension of
routines) 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 development intuitively makes sense, considering that pragmatic competence entails
the ability to control the complex interplay of language, interlocutors, and the
context in which the interaction takes place. In the target language environment, learners potentially have abundant opportunities to gain such pragmatic
awareness and practice. They have opportunities to observe how people convey
appropriate levels of politeness and formality in speech acts. Being exposed
to unscripted, authentic discourse in everyday interaction, learners can also
practice inferential comprehension.
910
Taguchi
Some previous studies support this premise by documenting the superiority

of a SA context over an AH context in pragmatic performance and development. Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei (1998) examined English-as-a-secondlanguage (ESL) and EFL learners ability to detect pragmatic and grammatical errors in the performance of speech acts. Learners watched video
scenes in which the interlocutors speech acts contained either grammatical
or pragmatic errors. EFL learners detected more grammatical errors, whereas
ESL learners detected more pragmatic errors. High-proficiency ESL learners
showed better grammatical and pragmatic awareness. The findings were confirmed by Schauers (2006) replication study, which found that, compared with
EFL learners in Germany, German ESL learners recognized a considerably
higher number of pragmatic errors. Their pragmatic awareness continued to
improve during their 9-month study-abroad period almost to native-speaker
levels.
However, Niezgoda and Roevers (2001) study, another replication of
Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei (1998), yielded contrasting findings. EFL learners
in the Czech Republic detected a higher number of pragmatic and grammatical errors in speech acts and judged both error types as more serious than
ESL learners. EFL learners sensitivity to pragmatic inappropriateness was
attributed to the fact that they were advanced speakers enrolled in a teacher education program. Proficiency also influenced their appropriateness judgments.
Low-proficiency learners in both environments recognized more pragmatic than
grammatical errors and rated pragmatic errors as more severe, but the tendency
was the opposite for the high-proficiency learners.
Adapting Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyeis (1998) instrument, a recent study
by Xu et al. (2009) examined the effect of length of residence (LOR) in the target
language community and L2 proficiency on pragmatic competence. Participants
were 126 L2 English speakers in U.S. universities at two proficiency levels.
Higher proficiency participants were enrolled in graduate programs and had a
minimum TOEFL score of 550, whereas lower proficiency participants were
all undergraduate students. They were further divided into two groups based on
their LOR. One group had lived in the United States more than 1 year, whereas
the other group had LOR of less than 1 year. Results revealed a significant effect
of LOR and proficiency on correct identifications of pragmatic errors, but there
was no interaction effect between the two variables. Both factors contributed
to the accurate recognition of pragmatic infelicities, although proficiency had
a stronger impact than LOR (the eta squared effect size of .07 for proficiency
vs. .03 for LOR). These findings add to the previous literature: Amount of
time spent in the host country, not experience of residence abroad per se, plays
911
Taguchi
a role in increased pragmatic competence, but when compared with general

proficiency, the effect is weaker.
The findings contrast with Matsumura (2003), who used structural equation
modeling to examine the effect of proficiency and amount of target language
exposure on recognition of appropriate advice-giving expressions among 137
Japanese learners of English during study-abroad. He found that exposure
was 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, which
consequently fostered their pragmatic development.
In the area of pragmatic comprehension, very few studies to date have directly compared SA and AH groups. Rover (2005) compared ESL and EFL
learners on three pragmatic constructs: comprehension of implicatures, comprehension of routines, and production of speech acts. The implicature section
tested comprehension of two types of implicatures: formulaic implicatures that
were marked by conventional structures (e.g., showing agreement by saying
Is the Pope Catholic?) and idiosyncratic, nonconventional implicatures. The
routine items tested recognition of situational routines that were tied to specific
situations and functional routines that were not situation-bound. The speech
act section had 12 items that elicited requests, refusals, and apologies. There
was a significant effect of residence abroad on the comprehension of routines
but no effect of context on the comprehension of implicatures and production
of speech acts, although there was a significant L2 proficiency effect on both.
Taguchi (2008c), on the other hand, compared the gains in accurate, speedy
comprehension of conversational implicatures between SA and AH contexts.
Sixty EFL students in Japan and 57 ESL students in the United States completed
a computerized listening task that measured their ability to comprehend indirect
refusals and indirect opinions. Indirect refusals were considered conventional
because they followed a common, predictable discourse pattern (giving a reason
for refusal). In contrast, indirect opinions were considered less conventional and
idiosyncratic in nature because meaning was not attached to specific linguistic
expressions or predictable patterns and because linguistic options regarding
how to express the opinion are wide open (e.g., indicating a negative opinion of
a movie by saying I was glad when it was over). Comprehension was analyzed
for accuracy (scores) and speed (response times). Results revealed a reversed
pattern of development between the two groups. For the EFL group, the size of
gain was much smaller for comprehension speed than for accuracy. In contrast,
ESL learners showed significant improvement in comprehension speed with a
sizable effect size, but with only marginal improvement in accuracy.
912
Taguchi
Taguchi (2008c) explained the findings from the perspective of cognitive

theories of skill development that postulate that processing speed develops
naturally in accordance with increased associative practices between input and
response (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Anderson et al., 2004). The processing of pragmatic meaning involves a coordinated action of a number of factors, including
linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural processes, which must be automatized to
achieve speedy comprehension. The small gain in comprehension speed found
among the EFL learners may be due to the fact that they lacked sufficient opportunities for associative practices to develop performance speed. In a foreign
language environment, these EFL learners had limited incidental exposure to
L2; as a result, mapping practices between form and meaning did not occur
frequently. Greater gains in comprehension speed shown by the ESL learners,
on the other hand, could be due to the abundant incidental processing practice
available in their environment.
As shown in these cross-sectional studies, the positive effect of sojourn
abroad was not all-encompassing over different pragmatic targets: Some aspects of pragmatic competence were more influenced by study-abroad experience than others. Similar observations are drawn from longitudinal studies. By
tracking down learners development during their sojourn abroad, those studies
have documented learners changes in pragmatic competence as well as factors
that might have triggered those changes.
In the area of pragmatic comprehension, Bouton (1992, 1994) investigated
the longitudinal development of ESL learners comprehension of conversational implicatures. Learners completed a written test that had 33 short dialogues including different types of implicatures. After 17 months of living in
the 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, generally
have found that during study abroad, learners use of strategies and tactics to
perform pragmatic functions shows a solid progress, whereas the precise syntax
and 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 Scholmbergers
study (2007) that examined the speech act of apology, seven English-speaking
learners of L2 French completed a DCT six times during a 10-month studyabroad period. In the situations of equal relationship, learners initially justified
913
Taguchi
their conduct and did not offer to repair the damage caused. Over time, learners
handling of these strategies improved. Justifications decreased from 80% to
20%, approximating the native-speaker frequency of 30%, and offers of repair
increased in frequency from 50% to 70%. However, learners acquisition of
pragmalinguisitc forms remained largely unchanged. Learners continued to
overuse certain upgrading expressionsfor instance, tres, meaning very
and underuse anothervraiment meaning really.
Schauer (2004, 2008, 2009), on the other hand, examined the development of the request speech act among German learners of English. In Schauer
(2004), a multimedia elicitation task was administered three times over a 9month study-abroad. A few external modifiers that were initially underemployed (small talk, flattering, showing appreciation, showing consideration)
improved after the 4-month stay. Development toward the native speakers request strategy preferences was also found in the increased use of hinting in
low-imposition situations and also in a broad repertoire of request strategies
that the SA group acquired, comparable to the native-speaker range (Schauer,
2008). In contrast, several internal modifiers involving lexical and syntactic
downgraders remained underdeveloped. Consultation devices (e.g., Would you
mind), imposition minimizers (e.g., a bit), and tag questions were used 25
50% less frequently than in the production of native speakers, and the degree
of progress was negligible. After the 9-month period, the learners still retained
the 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 from
the L1.
As shown in these longitudinal studies, form-function-context mappings
are not internalized in a linear, fast-paced manner even when living in the
target language community. Moreover, the study-abroad experience does not
seem to have equal effects over different aspects of pragmatic competence.
Some aspects get picked up quickly in learners systems as a result of exposure to the target language in its full social context, whereas other aspects
take some time to get internalized. These variations in the pace of development have been attributed to a variety of factors within individuals, context,
and the interaction between them. Those factors include differential amount
and intensity of sociocultural contact and the range of social experiences (i.e.,
variety of social situations that one encounters in context), learner agency and
subjectivity in accessing opportunities for pragmatic practice, and availability of feedback and modeling from native-speaker peers (e.g., DuFon, 2000;
Hassall, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger & Farrell, 2004; Schauer, 2006,
2009).
914
Taguchi
A rare study by Matsumura (2007) illustrates the sociocontextual factors

that affect pragmatic changes before and after study-abroad. It is a follow-up to
an earlier study by the author that examined L2 English learners recognition
of advice-giving expressions (Matsumura, 2003). Japanese learners of English
received a questionnaire containing 12 advice-giving scenarios and were asked
to select the most appropriate of four advice options: direct advice (the use
of should), hedged advice, indirect comments with no advice, and opting
out. The learners in Canada and Japan took the questionnaire four times in
1 year. Initially, both groups chose indirect and hedged forms of advice when
interacting with high-status interlocutors (i.e., professors). This tendency, which
was congruent with that of native speakers of Canadian English, remained the
same over the length of their stay in the target culture. By contrast, when
advice was given to equal or lower status interlocutors (e.g., friends), the SA
group outperformed the AH group and became able to choose more direct
advice forms over time. SA learners superior performance was attributed to
the amount of exposure in the target language, which was mediated by general
proficiency.
Matsumura (2007) examined changes among those Japanese participants
after they returned from studying abroad in Canada. A subset of 15 learners
completed the same questionnaire three times: 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year
after their return to Japan. Their choice of advice expressions gradually diverged from that of native speakers of Canadian English. Interestingly, students
retained their ability in lower status and equal-status situations, but they diverged the most in higher status situations. After the 3-month point of reentry,
the learners increasingly preferred not to give advice to professors. Follow-up
interviews revealed that the learners perceptions of professor-student relationships in Japan caused this pragmatic attrition. Due to their awareness of social
status in Japan and L1 sociopragmatic norms, they gradually realized that expressing opinions to higher status persons is not a Japanese social norm. As a
result, they began to refrain from giving advice in such situations in their L2 as
well.
In summary, previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have yielded
mixed findings regarding the effect of residence abroad on pragmatic performance and development. Findings generally support the facilitative effect
of the SA over the AH context on the perception of pragmatic appropriateness (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998; Matsumura, 2001; Schauer, 2006) and
production of speech acts (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Olshtain & Bulm-Kulka,
1985; Shimizu, 2009). However, counterevidence exists that AH learners sometimes outperform their SA counterparts in the perception of appropriateness
915
Taguchi
(Niezgoda & Roever, 2001) and in the accurate comprehension of implicatures

(Taguchi, 2008c).
Furthermore, SA experience brings about different effects according to
pragmatic targets. As shown in Rover (2005), the decisive variable for the comprehension of routines is the residence in the host country, whereas proficiency
plays a crucial role in the comprehension of implicatures and production of
speech acts. In Taguchis (2008c) study, on the other hand, both SA and AH
learners gained more on accurate and speedy comprehension of indirect refusals
than indirect opinions. When the gains between accuracy and comprehension
speed are compared, the SA and AH groups showed a reversed pattern of
development. The SA learners showed much more profound development in
comprehension speed than accuracy, whereas for the AH group, the gain was
greater for accuracy than comprehension speed.
Longitudinal studies have also confirmed the differential effect of SA experience on pragmatic targets. Comprehension of implicatures that draws on
general inferencing mechanisms (i.e., relevance-based implicatures) develops
naturally after learners spend some time in the target country, but some formulaic implicatures that draw on culture-specific knowledge (e.g., Pope questions
and irony) remain difficult to comprehend (Bouton, 1992, 1994). Rituals and
manners of performing pragmatic acts, such as how to offer a repair for the
damage caused when apologizing or how to establish a positive atmosphere
through small talk when making a request, are learned relatively quickly during study abroad, but the acquisition of morphosyntactic devices shows slow
development (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Barron, 2003; Schauer,
2004, 2009; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007). These findings suggest a complex
relationship between residence abroad experience and pragmatic targets, with
general proficiency as a mediating factor (Matsumura, 2003; Rover, 2005). The
structure of pragmatic targets, proficiency, and experience in the host country
interact with each other and jointly influence ones ability to perform pragmatic
functions.
More empirical research is needed to confirm these generalizations. To further expand the construct of pragmatic competence, the effects of proficiency
and residence abroad should be examined based on learners processing efficiency in performing pragmatic functions, not only in relation to accurate and
appropriate pragmatic performance. Following Kaspers (2001) claim that pragmatic competence entails the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge and gaining
automatic 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 articulate speech intentions and draw inferences of indirect meaning, and the findings
916
Taguchi
have generally confirmed that accuracy and fluency, as measured by response

times, speech rate, and planning time, form distinct dimensions of pragmatic
competence and do not coincide perfectly in the course of pragmatic development. Hence, it is worth investigating whether these two different dimensions
of pragmatic competenceaccuracy and fluencyare affected differently by
proficiency and residence-abroad experience. Such an analysis will provide a
more fine-tuned understanding of the construct of pragmatic competence and
factors affecting the competence and its development.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience
on L2 English learners pragmatic comprehension. Pragmatic comprehension
was operationalized as the ability to comprehend conventional and nonconventional implicatures accurately, in a speedy manner. This study asked: Do L2
proficiency and study-abroad experience affect pragmatic comprehension in
L2 English?
Method
Participants
Participants were 25 native speakers of English and 64 Japanese students of
English in a liberal arts college in Japan (hereafter EFL students). The college
provides a unique immersion environment in which all courses are taught in
English and international students are 1015% of the population. First-year
students receive about 20 hours of instruction per week in the intensive English
program, and after that, they proceed to upper level courses to complete their
undergraduate degree. Students are required to study abroad for the whole of
their third year. The 64 participants formed three groups (Table 1). Students in
Group 1 were all first-semester EFL students who had lower proficiency based
on their TOEFL scores. Group 2 and Group 3 students were from the upper level
of the college. Both groups had higher proficiency than Group 1 but differed
in their study-abroad experience.1 Group 3 had experience of studying in an
English-speaking country for a minimum of 1 year, whereas Group 2 students
had never left Japan. Group 3 students average time in Japan after the study
abroad was 15 months, ranging from 3 months to 3 years (SD = 10). In addition
to the EFL participants, 25 native English speakers (14 males and 11 females)
also participated and provided baseline data. They were undergraduate students
at a U.S. university.
917
Taguchi
Table 1 Demographic information about the participants

Group 1
Gender
(male:female)
Average age (range)
Formal English
study
Average TOEFL
(SD)
Study-abroad
experience
Group 2
Group 3
6:16
6:14
3:19
18.18 (1820)
5.91 years
20.15 (1924)
7.60 years
21.55 (1929)
8.46 years
443.64
(SD = 12.71)
Range: 413457
None
554.70
(SD = 16.81)
Range: 520580
None
554.86
(SD = 17.38)
Range: 520583
Average: 13.73
months
(SD = 8.36, range:
941)
Instrument: Pragmatic Listening Test

A computerized pragmatic listening test (PLT) was developed from corpora
of naturalistic conversations in English to examine EFL students ability to
comprehend two types of implicatures: conventional implicatures (k = 16)
and nonconventional implicatures (k = 16). (See Taguchi, 2009b, for the descriptions of the test development process.) Conventional implicatures convey
meanings by fixed linguistic forms or by the conventions of language use specific to the situation. There were two types: indirect refusals and routines.
Indirect refusals involved conventionalized discourse patterns of giving an
excuse to refuse someones invitation, request, and suggestion (e.g., saying
Im not feeling well when refusing an invitation to a dinner). Routines were
defined as more or less immutable macrolexemes with a fixed meaning within a
situation and a communicative function (Coulmas, 1981; Wray, 2000). They reflected conventions of linguistic forms associated with situations. For instance,
the expression How can I help you? represents a speech act of offer that
takes place within the frame of shopping. This study used fixed and semifixed
expressions that commonly occur under certain situational conditions and functions (e.g., For here or to go? in a service encounter exchange and Thats so
sweet of you when thanking someone). (See Table 2 for the complete list of the
routine expressions.) The author consulted the previous literature to identify
target routines (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2008; Kecskes, 2003; Rover, 2005).
Nonconventional implicatures, on the other hand, encode meaning that is
understood not only from linguistic forms or conventional language use. Rather,
918
Taguchi
Table 2 Sample PLT items

Conventional Implicatures
Refusals
Mike:
Hey Nancy, what are you doing? Do you wanna do something tonight?
Nancy:
I dont 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 dont have any money this week to pay the bills.
1. Nancy doesnt 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.
Routines
Salesclerk:
Customer:
Salesclerk:
Customer:
Salesclerk:
Customer:
Hi how can I help you?

Ah, could I get a small regular coffee, with milk? And a slice of apple
pie.
For here or to go?
To go please.
Heres a large cup, we dont have small because we ran out of the small
ones.
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 Implicatures
Mike:
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 medical
school.
Mike:
What was your score before?
Nancy:
Ten fifty.
Mike:
Id be happy with seven hundred.
1. Mike thinks Nancys exam score is good. (CORRECT)
2. Mike thinks Nancys score is poor.
3. Nancy is a medical school student.
4. Nancys medical school exam is next month.
Note. Routine expressions extracted from the corpora and used in the PLT are: Thats
so sweet of you, For here or to go? Ill be right back, Out of 10 (dollars)? It
comes to 5 (dollars), Here you go, There we go, and Im sorry (expression of
sympathy).
919
Taguchi
they result from a consideration of the utterance within a particular discourse

context. 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, options regarding how to express them are wide open. Thus, compared with conventional implicatures, nonconventional implicatures are more idiosyncratic
and less stable across contexts. Nonconventional implicatures used in this
study involved indirect comments or opinions that did not involve conventional
linguistic features or language use patterns (e.g., indicating a negative opinion
of a dinner by saying The food was late).
Conventional and nonconventional implicatures were taken from corpora of
naturalistic conversations. Two corpora of face-to-face conversations of American English were used for this study, representing two registers: family/friends
interactions and service encounter interactions. Family/friends interactions
were from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBC)
(Du Bois, Chafe, Meyer, & Thompson, 2000), whereas service encounter interactions were taken from the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic
Language 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 among
family and friends. Service encounters in the T2K-SWALC were analyzed to
find routines in service situations.
The implicatures were taken from the corpora if the conversational context was judged accessible to the beginner EFL students whom this study
tested. Dialogues that involved culture specific knowledge, educationally
inappropriate content, technical language, and slang were excluded. This initial
process yielded a total of 24 nonconventional implicatures and 26 conventional
implicatures (14 indirect refusals and 12 unique routines). While largely maintaining the target implicature, I wrote dialogues based on the context in which
they 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 learner
group and goals of the research.2
The initial pool of dialogues was pilot-tested with native speakers of English
in order to confirm the reliability of the intended interpretations of the target
implicatures. Ten native speakers of English, all undergraduate students in a
U.S. university (five males and five females) were asked to read each dialogue
and supply the interpretation of the target nonliteral utterance included in the
920
Taguchi
dialogue. Individual interviews were also conducted to gain insights into the
factors that influenced their interpretation. The items that revealed inconsistent
interpretations were eliminated.
The first version of the PLT had a total of 42 items: 2 practice items, 8
filler items, and 32 experimental items. The filler items tested literal comprehension and were adapted from the corpora. The experimental items were of
two types: conventional implicatures (16 items) and nonconventional implicatures (8 refusals and 8 routines). Each item had a short dialogue followed
by multiple-choice questions with four possible answer options (see Table 2).3
The test asked participants to listen to the dialogue and select the statement
that is correct based on the content of the conversation. In the experimental
dialogues, the correct answer was the speakers implied intention. Conversations 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 impact
on short-term memory. The number of words used in dialogues was on average
49, with a range of 4652 (SD = 1.5) In addition, because the response time
was part of the investigation, the number of words used in question and option
sentences was kept similar to make response times comparable. The number of
words in option sentences was either 26 or 27 words (SD = 0.50). To reduce
the potential effects from different vocabulary knowledge, all vocabulary in
conversations and option sentences were drawn from the JACET List of 8000
Basic Words (JACET, 2003). Because the 3,000 most frequent words are at the
high school level, they were used to write conversations and option sentences.
These vocabulary items were considered attainable by the EFL students in
this study because they were all high school graduates and passed the college
entrance exam.
The PLT was computerized using the software Revolution (Runtime Revolution Ltd., 1997) and first administered to 25 native speakers of English in a
U.S. university. There were four items on which the native speakers achieved
lower than a 90% accuracy rate, and these were revised. The revised items were
then checked with the same native speakers. The test was then given to the EFL
students. Internal consistency reliability based on Cronbachs alpha was .89
for the full test, .80 for conventional implicatures, and .82 for nonconventional
implicatures. Table 2 displays sample items.
Data Collection
The PLT was given individually using PC computers via the program Revolution. The participants put on headphones and read directions in English with
921
Taguchi
Japanese translations. They practiced two items and then proceeded to the 40
test items. Each item had the same format: immediately following each dialogue, a multiple-choice question with four answer options in English appeared
on the screen. Participants were told to read each possible answer option and
choose the correct statement based on the content of the dialogue by pressing
the corresponding key from 1 to 4. Response time was measured between the
moment when the question appeared on the screen and the moment when they
pressed the number key. The computer recorded the answers and latencies.
Data Analysis
This study investigated the effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on EFL students pragmatic comprehension. Pragmatic comprehension
was operationalized as the accurate identification of implied meaning and the
speed with which the answer was chosen. Accuracy was measured by the PLT
using an interval scale between 0 and 32 across two item types: conventional implicatures (indirect refusals and routines combined, k = 16; scale of 016) and
nonconventional implicatures (k = 16; scale of 016). Comprehension speed,
also interval data, was operationalized as response times and was calculated by
averaging the number of seconds taken to answer items correctly. The independent variable was group membership, which had three levels: lower proficiency,
no study-abroad experience (Group 1); higher proficiency, no study-abroad
experience (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 did
not form a normal distribution, a logarithmic transformation was performed on
the 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 was
adjusted 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 and
response times for each participant group. All EFL groups showed lower accuracy scores and slower response times when comprehending nonconventional
implicatures than conventional implicatures. Of the two conventional implicature types, indirect refusals were easier and took less time to comprehend
922
Taguchi
Table 3 Descriptive statistics: PLT accuracy scores

Item type
Conv. (k = 16)
Refusal (k = 8)
Routine (k = 8)
Nonconv. (k = 16)
Group
Mean
SD
Min.
Max.
1
2
3
NS
1
2
3
NS
1
2
3
NS
1
2
3
NS
7.64
12.75
14.23
15.29
4.20
6.95
7.27
7.88
3.80
5.80
6.95
7.42
7.00
8.45
10.32
14.67
2.89
1.80
0.97
0.75
1.67
0.76
0.55
0.34
1.70
1.32
0.79
0.72
2.38
1.96
2.17
0.96
4.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
6.00
3.00
4.00
7.00
12.00
13.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
6.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
12.00
12.00
15.00
16.00
Note. Conv. = conventional implicatures; Nonconv. = nonconventional implicatures.

Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad (n = 22); Group 2: higher proficiency, no
study 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 uniformly accurate and fast across item types. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a
significant group difference in accuracy scores for all item types: 2 = 59.27
(p < .025, 2 = .94) for nonconventional implicatures and 2 = 61.55
(p < .025, 2 = .98) for conventional implicatures. Similarly, significant group
differences were found in response times: 2 = 46.77 (p < .025, 2 = .74)
for nonconventional implicatures and 2 = 46.35 (p < .025, 2 = .74) for
conventional implicatures. In order to detect the location of the differences,
post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U
test. See Tables 5 and 6 for the summary.
As shown in Table 5, the Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant
difference in the comprehension accuracy of nonconventional implicatures in
all contrasts. Group 1 learners obtained significantly lower accuracy scores
than Group 2 and Group 3. The Group 3 score was higher than that of the
Group 2 participants, although it was still considerably lower than that of
native English speakers. Hence, both proficiency and living experience in a host
923
Taguchi
Table 4 Descriptive statistics: PLT response times

Item type
Conv. (k = 16)
Refusal (k = 8)
Routine (k = 8)
Nonconv. (k = 16)
Group
Mean
SD
Min.
Max.
1
2
3
NS
1
2
3
NS
1
2
3
NS
1
2
3
NS
15.48
11.26
11.50
7.61
14.73
9.87
10.18
6.67
15.62
12.97
12.81
8.63
17.65
13.88
13.31
8.33
6.20
2.53
2.59
1.32
5.09
8.44
2.54
1.46
7.43
3.11
3.26
2.00
5.05
5.04
3.80
2.40
7.79
7.83
7.73
5.14
8.18
6.89
6.25
4.40
6.63
8.79
8.21
4.09
11.39
8.04
7.18
5.15
31.17
18.54
16.42
10.14
26.37
18.12
14.64
10.48
35.96
21.61
19.51
12.28
30.08
29.42
22.92
16.32
Note. Conv. = conventional implicatures; Nonconv. = nonconventional implicatures.

Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad (n = 22); Group 2: higher proficiency, no
study 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 to
answer each item correctly.
Table 5 Summary of pairwise comparisons: PLT accuracy scores
Group 1 vs. 2
Group 1 vs. 3
Group 2 vs. 3
Conventional implicatures
Nonconventional implicatures
z = 4.72
z = 5.58
z = 2.78
z = 2.26
z = 4.08
z = 2.56
Note. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad, Group 2: higher proficiency, no study
abroad, Group 3: higher proficiency with study abroad.
p < .025.
country significantly affected comprehension of nonconventional implicatures.

Comprehension of conventional impicatures revealed a different pattern. There
was a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 but not between
Group 2 and Group 3, suggesting that general proficiency, not study-abroad
experience, affected the comprehension accuracy of conventional implicatures.
As a post hoc analysis, two types of conventional implicatures (i.e., indirect
924
Taguchi
Table 6 Summary of pairwise comparisons: PLT response times
Group 1 vs. 2
Group 1 vs. 3
Group 2 vs. 3
Conventional implicatures
Nonconventional implicatures
z = 2.75
z = 2.51
z = 0.28
z = 2.97
z = 3.33
z = 0.05
Note. Group 1: lower proficiency, no study abroad; Group 2: higher proficiency, no study
abroad; Group 3: higher proficiency with study abroad.
p < .025.
refusals and routines) were analyzed separately. The findings revealed that
comprehension accuracy differed in all group contrasts for the routines but not
for the indirect refusals: There was no significant difference between Group 2
and Group 3, indicating that study-abroad experience did not affect L2 learners
ability to comprehend indirect refusals. However, it should also be noted here
that there was a ceiling effect in the comprehension of indirect refusals. As this
item type was easy to comprehend, it is possible that there was no additional
advantage of study-abroad experience in comprehension.
Concerning the comprehension speed measured as response times, as shown
in Table 6, both implicature types revealed similar patterns: Significant group
differences were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 but not between
Group 2 and Group 3. Hence, proficiency, not study-abroad experience, positively affected comprehension speed, regardless of the implicature type. This
pattern was the same for the indirect refusals, a type of conventional implicatures. However, the pattern for the routine items was different: no significant
difference was found in any group contrasts, indicating that neither proficiency
nor study-abroad experience affected the speed with which the students comprehended routines.
Discussion
This study revealed a complex interaction among proficiency, host country
experience, and multiple dimensions of pragmatic comprehension. Different
aspects of pragmatic comprehensioncomprehension of conventional and
nonconventional meaning, accuracy, and comprehension speedwere affected
differently by proficiency and study-abroad experience, lending support to the
previous literature. Although higher level proficiency or residence experience
in the target country is advantageous for increased pragmatic abilities to some
extent (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1999; Bouton, 1994; Dalmau & Gotor,
925
Taguchi
2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003, 2007; Geyer, 2007; Hill, 1997; Matsumura, 2001;
Pinto, 2005; Rose, 2000; Schauer, 2006; Shimizu, 2009; Xu et al., 2009), they
do not necessarily translate into superior performance on all aspects of pragmatic competence (e.g., Garcia, 2005; Rover, 2005; Taguchi, 2008b, 2008c).
Significant effects of proficiency and study-abroad experience were found
in the comprehension accuracy of both implicature types. However, when routines and indirect refusals were analyzed separately, study-abroad experience
affected the comprehension of routines but not indirect refusals. As for comprehension speed, proficiency, not study-abroad experience, was the decisive
factor, and the pattern was the same for both implicature types. These findings
suggest an intricate relationship among item type, comprehension ability, and
the factors affecting them. Different degrees of comprehension load encoded
in implicatures were affected differently by proficiency and residence-abroad
factors.
In this study, indirect refusals were the easiest and fastest to comprehend for
all 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 comprehend indirect refusals significantly better and faster than less conventional
indirect opinion expressions, and general proficiency affects the comprehension. 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 effort
in communication (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). Because this refusal pattern is
shared between Japanese and English, Japanese learners of English are able to
transfer their knowledge to L2 comprehension and use it to their advantage.
Due to this shared conventionality, proficiency probably becomes a decisive factor here. Because the pragmatic aspect of processing is relatively
easy to handle, what differentiates learners is their general English abilities to
comprehend aural input, skim through answer options written in English, and
make a timely decision about the refusal intentions. Higher proficiency learners are more skilled at using these component linguistic processes, leading to
more accurate and faster comprehension of this item type than is the case with
lower proficiency learners. In the present study, study-abroad experience did
not particularly benefit comprehension because what learners needed was the
functional-level threshold proficiency that would allow them to take advantage
of the shared conventionality of this discourse pattern.
In contrast, comprehension accuracy of routines was significantly affected
by both proficiency and study-abroad experience, suggesting a different nature of conventionality between indirect refusals and routines. Compared
with refusals, routines have a stronger association with specific situations or
926
Taguchi
communicative functions. For instance, the phrase For here or to go? occurs
in the service encounter situation of buying food, and the meaning is fixed
across similar situations. The invariant nature of routines typically assists our
comprehension because they are processed as a chunk rather than a series of
isolated words, and their meaning is immediately retrievable from long-term
memory, as long as people are aware of the forms and their contextual requirements. Due to the situation-specific nature of the routines, experience in the
target 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 in
the host country were probably not able to pick them up naturally in a home
country environment that has more limited access to situations in which these
routines occur. The present findings are in line with Rovers (2005) study: ESL
learners were significantly better at comprehending routine expressions than
EFL learners. These findings together indicate that students with study-abroad
experience have an edge when it comes to routines.
Similar to routines, comprehension of nonconventional implicatures was
affected by both proficiency and study-abroad experience. Comprehension of
this item type was the most difficult and slowest for all groups. Different from
conventional implicatures, they were context-independent and did not reflect
fixed linguistic forms or customized discourse patterns of refusals. Because the
linguistic expressions used to convey these implicatures are highly variable,
they demanded more word-by-word bottom-up processing, such as analysis
of syntactic and lexical information, as well as analysis of contextual cues to
infer meaning. Due to the greater linguistic and inferential demand involved,
comprehension of this implicature type probably required more linguistic and
processing resources in which higher proficiency was an advantage.
Study-abroad experience provided an additional advantage for the comprehension accuracy of this implicature type. Similar to routines, learners who
spent at least a year abroad probably had more exposure to target language
input and communication patterns which afforded plenty of opportunities to
practice inferential processing. This, in turn, boosted their comprehension of
nonconventional implicatures. As Bialystok (1993) claimed, adult L2 learners
already have pragmatic rules internalized in their L1s; they know how to convey
thoughts politely or how to interpret indirect meaning in L1. The problem for
adults is to relearn the form-function relations appropriate to their L2, which
entails learning new expressions and conventions as well as the social conditions and contexts in which they occur. When expressions and conventions
are shared between L1 and L2, like in the case of indirect refusals, transfer of
927
Taguchi
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 and
practice opportunities become beneficial. Regarding nonconventional implicatures, opportunities to encounter these are probably more available in the target
language community. Because violations of Gricean maxims (Grice, 1975) are
common in everyday conversation (Cutting, 2008), learners who spend time
abroad probably gain plenty of practice in inferential processing while engaged
in authentic interaction, and the result is superior performance in this area.
Regarding the other aspect of pragmatic comprehension examined in this
studynamely, fluency of processingthere was a significant proficiency effect on comprehension speed for both conventional and nonconventional implicatures. The present findings contradict previous findings that found a proficiency effect on accuracy but not on comprehension speed (Taguchi, 2005,
2007a, 2008b). In Taguchis previous studies, proficiency was examined either
via regression analysis with proficiency as the predictor variable and response
times as the dependent variable or via cross-sectional analysis comparing response times across different proficiency groups. Here I will discuss Taguchis
cross-sectional study (2008b) to draw meaningful comparisons with the present
findings. Taguchi (2008b) used a multiple-choice listening test to examine the
ability to comprehend implicatures among learners enrolled in elementary and
intermediate Japanese courses at a U.S. university. The listening task used in
her study had the same format as the one used in the present study, except that
the multiple-choice options were given in the learners L1, not in the L2. She
found that the intermediate-level learners scored significantly higher than the
elementary group for both conventional and nonconventional implicatures but
that response times showed no between-group differences.
Contradictory findings gleaned from these studies could be attributed to the
way they operationalized proficiency. Taguchi (2008b) used the course level
to 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 the
difference in comprehension speed was not so large across adjacent levels of
proficiency. Different from accuracy scores, a larger proficiency gap might be
necessary to observe a proficiency advantage in fluent pragmatic processing. In
contrast, the present study used TOEFL scores to distinguish proficiency levels,
and the difference was large, more than 100 points apart between the low- and
high-proficiency group (i.e., Group 1 and Group 2), which might have resulted
in different processing speed. Additionally, different from Taguchis study, this
928
Taguchi
study presented the multiple-choice options in the learners target language.

Hence, the response times inevitably involved the time spent on reading and
processing the option sentences in the L2. Although grammar and vocabulary
used to write the sentences were kept at the beginner level, higher proficiency
learners might have been more skilled at word-by-word processing of syntactic
and lexical information than lower proficiency learners, resulting in shorter
response times.
Another difference between Taguchis (2008b) study and this study is the
instructional arrangement. The participants in Taguchis study were enrolled in
a form-oriented Japanese class that met 4 hours a week and had limited contact
with the target language outside of class. Because improved speed in pragmatic
processing requires repeated processing practice and exposure to input, which
neither proficiency group had, the participants probably took a similar amount
of time to process pragmatic information despite their proficiency differences.
In contrast, the participants in the present study were enrolled in an intensive
language program and received 20 contact hours per week in a bilingual university. Thus, it is possible that the intensity of the target language contact and
repeated processing practice available on campus served as a decisive factor
for the development of processing speed. Group 1 and Group 2 in this study
differed in their TOEFL scores, but they also differed in the length of study
in this particular immersion environment. Group 1 students were all freshmen
who had just started their academic English study in the university, whereas
Group 2 involved sophomores and beyond. The differential speed of inferential
processing detected between the groups could come from the combination of
proficiency difference and the length of study in the intensive learning context.
Regrettably, this study could not separate these two factors in the design. It
will be left to future research to investigate whether the length of study in an
immersion setting makes a unique contribution to pragmatic performance and
development.
Not finding a study-abroad effect on comprehension speed in relation to any
of the implicature types is somewhat counterintuitive, considering that L2 exposure and practice available during study abroad are likely conditions in which
performance speed develops. According to cognitive theories of skill acquisition, the speed of language processing develops naturally in accordance with
increased associative practices between input and response (e.g., Anderson,
1993; Anderson et al., 2004). Performance speed gradually increases through
practice, because connections of nodes in the neural network system become
reinforced through repeated activations of these nodes. At the elementary level,
performance requires a great deal of attention and thus takes time. As learners
929
Taguchi
become more skilled, basic processing components become automatic, freeing

up space for more complex processing components. Repetition and practice
promote this development of performance speed (Segalowitz, 2000, 2007).
Hence, in theory, the study-abroad context, which provides abundant processing practice in a naturalistic setting, is an ideal place for the development of
processing speed.
This premise was partially supported by Taguchis (2008a) study, which
compared ESL and EFL learners in their development of comprehension speed
of 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 on
the basis of skill acquisition theory. Compared with the EFL learners, the ESL
learners were probably more often exposed to everyday out-of-class incidental
practice in processing the target input, leading to increased comprehension
speed.
The present study did not support these previous findings. One potential
explanation is that the students with study-abroad experience examined here
were all returnees. They had spent a year abroad previously but were not
residing in the target language environment at the time of data collection. On
average, they had spent 15 months in Japan after they returned from studying
abroad. Hence, it is possible that the skill they gained during study abroad
gradually decreased after they came back to Japan. In that sense, they were
no different from the other EFL participants with no study-abroad experience
in their living arrangement. Upon data collection, they were living in Japan
and had limited incidental exposure and processing practice in English. Hence,
sustained, unremitting practice with the target language input and concurrent
time-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 hoc
correlational analyses between comprehension response times and the amount
of L2 contact on campus reported by the EFL learners in this study. After
completing the pragmatic measures, the participants took a 10-item survey
adapted from Segalowitz and Freed (2004), which asked them to indicate how
many days per week and how many hours per day they spent doing certain
activities in English, including using the four basic language skills, interacting
with native or fluent speakers of English, watching TV and movies, or doing
homework. There was a significant correlation between the total amount of time
spent in English and response times on the PLT (r = .34, p = .005). Hence,
930
Taguchi
there seems to be a moderate relationship between time-on-task and processing

speed of processing pragmatic meaning.
The present findings partially support Matsumuras (2001, 2003, 2007)
findings. He found that EFL learners recognition of appropriate advice-giving
expressions showed profound progress during study abroad in recognizing appropriate expressions to use with equal-status and lower status interlocutors,
and the ability was retained after their study abroad. However, the ability to
recognize appropriate expressions addressed to higher status interlocutors gradually declined after they returned to their home country. The learners choice
of advice-giving expressions was strongly influenced by their perception of social status and evaluation of appropriate behavior in their living environment.
Pragmatic development took place at an early stage of study abroad when
learners had ample opportunities to observe native-speaker norms of sociopragmatic patterns. However, the gains were not retained post-study-abroad in
the home country context because of the different sociocultural norms and conventions between the L1 and L2. Supporting Matsumuras findings, the present
study suggests a rather short-lived effect of study-abroad experience on pragmatic competence, at least in the dimension of speedy inferential processing.
More future investigations are warranted on the robustness of the study-abroad
effect.
Limitations of the Study and Implications for Future Research
The present study revealed which aspects of pragmatic comprehension could
develop naturally in a home country environment corresponding to their
linguistic maturity and which aspects benefit more from exposure to the target
language community. Based on the limitations of the study, I will present several
implications for future research. In addition to the small sample size, this study
was limited because it only indirectly examined the effect of study-abroad
experience on pragmatic performance. The participants with study-abroad experience were all returnees who had spent a year abroad but were not living in
the host country at the time of data collection. Although the effect of the studyabroad experience was still present in the accurate comprehension of routines
and nonconventional implicatures, in order to seek a more direct relationship
between residence abroad and pragmatic performance, future research should
include L2 groups recruited in the host country environment. Such an addition
is important because the processing aspect of pragmatic competence (i.e., response times) was found to be impervious to the study-abroad experience in
this study.
931
Taguchi
Another limitation of this study is that it used general proficiency as a variable 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, in
particular, the difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was notable. Although
the length of target language study inevitably interacts with the level of proficiency one gains in that language, future research should make an effort to
either 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 for
Group 3. Among the 22 Group 3 students, 17 reported TOEFL scores taken
after study abroad, whereas 5 reported scores before study abroad. Although a
majority of the students reported recent scores (i.e., after study abroad), variation in the timing of TOEFL might have affected the findings. In future studies,
a more homogeneous composition of Group 3 students would strengthen the
conclusions drawn from the study. Future investigations could also pursue more
in-depth analysis of the performance among members of Group 3. There was
considerable variation in the range of time that had elapsed after the Group 3
students had returned from study abroad. Because attrition effects were probably at work in some cases in Group 3, it would be interesting to see to what
extent the group members performance differed according to the period that
had passed since their return. Equally interesting would be to add qualitative
measures to examine the quality of their study-abroad experience and its effect
on pragmatic comprehension.
Finally, different levels of mastery among the subconstructs of pragmatic
comprehension exhibited in this study, along with differential degrees to which
they were affected by the two target variables, tell us that pragmatic competence
is a multifaceted construct, and single variables cannot explain all dimensions
of pragmatic competence. Because the majority of previous studies, whether
cross-sectional or longitudinal, limited their analyses to one aspect of pragmatic
knowledge within single-participant groups, future research should expand the
scope of the target pragmatic construct, investigating both the comprehension
and production of pragmatic functions as well as both the knowledge and
processing 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 entered
the university, and their TOEFL scores were their entry scores. Group 2 and Group
3 students reported TOEFL scores taken at different times of their undergraduate
932
Taguchi
study (from sophomore to senior year), not necessarily the scores taken at the time
of data collection. However, considering that the Group 1 students were all at entry
level, it is reasonable to assume that they had lower proficiency than Group 2 and
Group 3 students, who were mostly juniors and seniors. Among the 22 students in
Group 3, 17 students reported a TOEFL score taken after study abroad and five
students reported a score before study abroad.
2 The following example shows how a naturalistic dialogue was adapted and modified
to a listening test dialogue. The excerpt below is from the SBC file #035, a
conversation among mother (Patty), daughter (Stephanie), and sister (Gail). Patty
suggests 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 many
majors, and she wants to go to a school with a variety of majors.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Patty:
How about this school called Adrian College in Michigan,
Stephanie: Yeah,
Patty:
Its real
Stephanie: its in Adrian Michigan.
Patty:
not very far from uh Ann Arbor.
. . . They sent you a lotta information.
. . Sounds like a neat school.
Stephanie: But,
. . they dont ha=ve a lot of
Patty:
Its a smaller school.
Gail:
. . I had a really good book that I should give you.
Stephanie: They dont 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), several
modifications were made to the rest of the conversation to create a plausible test
item (see below). First, mother-daughter conversation was changed to mother-son
conversation to distinguish gender. Second, the sisters interruption (line 8) was
eliminated. Third, the first utterance by the mother was added to provide a sense of
beginning. The sons response was inserted in line 2 to clarify the situation and topic
of the conversation.
1 Mother:
2 Son:
3 Mother:
4 Son
933
Hey Steve, youre still on the internet. What are you doing?
Im checking out some colleges to see which one I should apply to.
How about this school called Adrian college in Michigan. They sent
us a lot of information. It sounds like a neat school.
They dont have many majors.
Taguchi
Due to these modifications made to the original conversations, I acknowledge that

the dialogues in the listening test were not truly authentic as they were represented
in the corpora.
3 The three option sentences were written in the following manner: (a) the option
containing a meaning opposite to the target meaning, (b) the option containing
words or phrases taken from the last utterance, and (c) the option related to the
overall 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, 10361060.
Atsusawa-Windley, S., & Noguchi, S. (1995). Effects of in-country experience on the
acquisition of oral communication skills in Japanese. ARAL, 12, 8398.
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,
677713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in
pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching
(pp. 1332). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics.
In Understanding second language process (pp. 205222). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Bardovi-Harlig, K, & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognise pragmatic
violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning.
TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233259.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A
longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
15, 279304.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do
things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barron, A. (2006). Learning to say you in German: The acquisition of
sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill
(Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 5982). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Barron, A. (2007). Ah no honestly were okay: Learning to upgrade in a study
abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 129166.
934
Taguchi
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned
variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L.
Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and
pragmatics (pp. 199218). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. Scarcella, D. Andersen, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language (pp. 5574). New York: Newbury
House.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic
competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics
(pp. 4358). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in
the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 948.
Bouton, L. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come
automatically without being explicitly taught? In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),
Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol. 3 (pp. 6680). UrbanaChampaign: University of Illinois.
Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be
improved through explicit instruction?: A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru
(Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol. 5 (pp. 88108).
Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting connversational
implicatures in English. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching
and learning (pp. 4770). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 147.
Cohen, A. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from
learners? Language Teaching, 41, 213235.
Cohen, A., & Shivery, R. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and
French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. Modern
Language Journal, 91, 189212.
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, 1939.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized
communication 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 Im ever so
sorry: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287315.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.),
Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology (pp. 208226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
935
Taguchi
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S.A. (2000). Santa Barbara
corpus of spoken American English, Part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data
Consortium.
DuFon, M. (2000). The acquisition of negative responses to experience questions in
Indonesian as a second language by sojourners in naturalistic interactions. In B.
Swierzbin, Morris, F., Anderson, M., Klee, C., & Tarone, E. (Eds.), Social and
cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 7797). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003) Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of
pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish, Multilingua,
22, 225255.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length
of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54, 587653.
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 pragmatic
awareness study. Language Awareness, 13, 96115.
Geyer, N. (2007). Self-qualification in L2 Japanese: An interface of pragmatics,
grammatical, and discourse competences. Language Learning, 57, 337367.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 4158). 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. 3158). 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 in
the overall competence of the language learner. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),
Pragmatics and language learning monograph series vol. 3 (pp. 6680). UrbanaChampaign: University of Illinois.
Hymes, H. D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguisitics: Selected readings (pp. 269293). Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
JACET (Japan Association of College English Teachers). (2003). JACET list of 8,000
basic words. Tokyo: Author.
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied
Linguistics, 22, 502530.
Kasper, G. (2007). Pragmatics in second language learning: An update. Language
learning celebrates 30 years of AAAL. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from
http://www.aaal.org/index.php?id=53.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 81104.
936
Taguchi
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. 317334).
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, 1124.
Kinginger, C., & Blattner, G. (2008). Development of sociolinguistic awareness in
study abroad. In L. Ortega & H. Bynes (Eds.), Longitudinal studies and advanced
L2 (pp. 223246). New York: Routledge.
Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of metapragmatic
awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad,
10, 1942.
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. 257281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maeshiba, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage
apologizing. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155187).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Marriot, H. (1995). The acquisition of politeness patterns by exchange students in
Japan. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context
(pp. 197224). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach
to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635679.
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic
development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24, 465491.
Matsumura, S. (2007). Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguage
pragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics, (2), 167192.
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. 6379). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions
to native speech act behavior. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 303325). 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. 5367).
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 series
vol. 2 (pp. 5973). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International
Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
937
Taguchi
Pinto, D. (2005). The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish.

Spanish in Context, 2, 127.
Robinson, K. R. (1992). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics
research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language
(Tech. Rep No.3). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second Language
Teaching & 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, 2767.
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 a
native and foreign language (pp. 83125). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at
Manoa.
Schauer, G. (2004). May you speaker louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic
development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook, 4, 253272.
Schauer, G. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and
development. Language Learning, 56, 269318.
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 and
cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 399426). 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. 200219). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan.
Segalowitz, N. (2007). Access fluidity, attention control, and the acquisition of fluency
in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 181186.
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 175201.
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. 167198). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shiveley, R. (2008). Politeness and social interaction in study abroad: Service
encounters in L2 Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 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.
938
Taguchi
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a second language.

Modern Language Journal, 89, 543562.
Taguchi, N. (2007a). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension
in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 313338.
Taguchi, N. (2007b). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics,
28, 113135.
Taguchi, N. (2008a). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic
comprehension in English as a second language. Language Learning, 58, 3371.
Taguchi, N. (2008b). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language.
Modern Language Journal, 92, 558576.
Taguchi, N. (2008c). The role of learning environment in the development of
pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423452.
Taguchi, N. (2009a). Comprehension of indirect opinions and refusals in L2 Japanese.
In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 249274). New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Taguchi, N. (2009b). Corpus-informed assessment of L2 comprehension of
conversational implicatures. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 738749.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 189223.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by
Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131158.
Takahashi, S., & Dufon, M. A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The
case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED370439)
Takenoya, M. (2003). Terms of address in Japanese: An interlanguage pragmatics
approach. 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 pragmatic
comprehension of Japanese ESL learners. Second Language Studies, 22, 107175.
Yamashita, S. (1996). Six measures of JSL pragmatics (Tech. Rep. No. 14). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Warga, M., & Scholmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior
in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 221251.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Xu, W., Case, R.E., & Wang, Y. (2009). Pragmatic and grammatical competence,
length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205216.
939

Taguchi 2011 Language Learning

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Taguchi 2011 Language Learning

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Language Learning

The Effect of L2 Proficiency

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

studies of L2 pragmatic competence and development (for reviews, see Cohen,

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

preference for conventionally indirect strategies was found among intermediate

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

target language in a country where it is spoken natively. However, whether

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Some previous studies support this premise by documenting the superiority

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

a role in increased pragmatic competence, but when compared with general

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Taguchi (2008c) explained the findings from the perspective of cognitive

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

A rare study by Matsumura (2007) illustrates the sociocontextual factors

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

(Niezgoda & Roever, 2001) and in the accurate comprehension of implicatures

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

have generally confirmed that accuracy and fluency, as measured by response

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Table 1 Demographic information about the participants

Instrument: Pragmatic Listening Test

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Table 2 Sample PLT items

Hi how can I help you?

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

they result from a consideration of the utterance within a particular discourse

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Table 3 Descriptive statistics: PLT accuracy scores

Note. Conv. = conventional implicatures; Nonconv. = nonconventional implicatures.

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Table 4 Descriptive statistics: PLT response times

Note. Conv. = conventional implicatures; Nonconv. = nonconventional implicatures.

country significantly affected comprehension of nonconventional implicatures.

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Table 6 Summary of pairwise comparisons: PLT response times

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

study presented the multiple-choice options in the learners target language.

Language Learning 61:3, September 2011, pp. 904939

Proficiency, Study-Abroad, and Pragmatic Comprehension

become more skilled, basic processing components become automatic, freeing