Applied Linguistics 301 1ndash25 Oxford University Press 2007

doi101093applinamm049 Advance Access published on 12 December 2007

The Effects of Input-Based Tasks onthe Development of Learnersrsquo PragmaticProficiency

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO

The present study evaluates the relative effectiveness of three types of

input-based approaches for teaching English polite request forms to sixty

Japanese learners of English (a) structured input tasks with explicit informa-

tion (b) problem-solving tasks and (c) structured input tasks without explicit

information Treatment group performance was compared with control group

performance on pre-tests post-tests and follow-up tests consisting of a discourse

completion test a role-play test a listening test and an acceptability judgement

test The results revealed that the three treatment groups performed significantly

better than the control group However the group that received the structured

input tasks with explicit information did not maintain the positive effects of the

treatment between the post-test and follow-up test on the listening test

component

INTRODUCTION

Among the issues in second language (L2) pragmatics a fundamental

question is which instructional approaches are most effective for teaching L2

pragmatics Most studies that compare the effectiveness of different teaching

approaches select two types of awareness-oriented instruction explicit and

implicit instruction Kasper and Rose (2002) argued that some form of

awareness-oriented instruction is necessary because pragmalinguistic forms

and sociopragmatic rules are often not salient enough for learners and that

mere exposure to these rules in action does not help learners notice them

Recent studies within the awareness-oriented instruction framework have

lent empirical support to this claim (eg Alcon 2005 Koike and Pearson

2005 Martınez-Flor and Fukuya 2005) Alcon (2005) reported that learnersrsquo

awareness of a target pragmatic feature request strategies benefited from

both types of awareness-oriented instruction Similarly findings in Koike and

Pearson (2005) indicated that treatment groups with these types of

awareness-oriented instruction became aware of not only a greater number

of options for expressing suggestions but also the necessity for performing

pragmatic mitigation more quickly than the control group Finally

Martinez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) showed that groups exposed to both

types of awareness-oriented instruction improved in their production of

pragmatically appropriate suggestions Two key issues here are the extent to

which it is possible to provide learners with opportunities for developing

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

their pragmatic proficiency and the level of awareness learners should

develop to improve their pragmatic proficiency

AWARENESS-ORIENTED INPUT-BASED INSTRUCTION

The present study bases its definition of awareness-oriented instruction

explicitimplicit instruction on Jeon and Kaya (2006) which described

instruction as a continuum between the absolutely explicit and the

absolutely implicit extremes The extent to which the target of the

instruction is made overt to the learners determines the positioning of that

kind of instruction between explicit and implicit poles To test claims about

the role of awareness and attention in L2 learning researchers have

conducted a number of interventional studies on grammar and pragmatics

teaching Norris and Ortegarsquos (2001) meta-analysis of instructional studies

with an emphasis on morphosyntax research suggested the superiority of

explicit instruction (eg Fotos and Ellis 1991) over implicit instruction

(eg DeKeyser 1995 Robinson 1996) Jeon and Kayarsquos (2006) meta-analysis

on the role of instruction in the development of L2 pragmatics also indicated

that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction (for explicit

instruction see Lyster 1994 Witten 2000 for implicit instruction see Fukuya

and Zhang 2002) However Jeon and Kaya (2006) noted that due to limited

available data the seemingly superior effects of explicit pragmatic instruction

should not be taken as definitive but should be examined in greater detail in

future studies In the existing literature on teaching pragmatics some

interventional studies have shown that pragmatic features can be taught

explicitly together with input enhancement activities whereas others have

shown that pragmatic features can be taught implicitly with input

enhancement activities (for explicit instruction see House 1996 Tateyama

et al 1997 Rose and Ng 2001 Takahashi 2001 for implicit instruction see

Takahashi 2005)

A review of interventional studies on input-based teaching of L2

pragmatics reveals that the studies were largely motivated by the theories

and frameworks built for grammar learning Ellis (2003) explained that two

types of input-based approaches structured input and consciousness-raising

can be best used in teaching grammar The adaptability of both approaches to

the teaching of L2 pragmatics will be examined thoroughly in the present

study

Structured input

Research on the development of grammatical ability offers L2 pragmatics

ways of conceptualizing and implementing different instructional approaches

in particular structured input tasks

2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

The structured input task occupies an important part in processing

instruction According to VanPatten (1996) processing instruction entails

three basic features

1 an explanation of the relationship between a given form and the meaning

it can convey

2 information about processing strategies showing learners how natural

processing strategies may not work to their benefit and

3 structured input activities in which learners are given the opportunity to

process form in the input in a controlled situation so that better form-

meaning connections might happen compared with what might happen

in less controlled situations (VanPatten 1996 60)

A number of grammar teaching studies have provided empirical evidence

that structural input tasks themselves without explicit information are

effective in improving learnersrsquo grammatical proficiency level (eg VanPatten

and Oikennon 1996)

Ellis (1997) argued that structured input texts must be designed in such a

way that the target forms are frequent the meanings of the target forms are

clear and comprehending the target forms is essential for comprehending the

whole text Although Ellis described two ways of structuring input input

flooding and interpretation tasks only the latter is of direct relevance to

the present study The following are general principles for the design of

interpretation tasks (Ellis 1997)

1 An interpretation activity consists of a stimulus to which learners must

make some kind of response

2 The stimulus can take the form of spoken or written input

3 The response can take various forms such as truefalse check a box

select the correct picture draw a diagram perform an action but in each

case the response will be either completely non-verbal or minimally

verbal

4 The activities in the task can be helpfully sequenced to require first

attention to meaning then noticing the form and function of the

grammatical structure and finally error identification

5 Interpretation tasks should require learners to make a personal response

that is relate the input to their own lives as well as a referential response

(Ellis 1997 155ndash9)

The present study draws on the interpretation framework proposed by Ellis

(1997) and employs interpretation tasks designed to engage learners in

intentional and conscious learning of target pragmatic expressions based on

exemplars in the input A key issue is exploring how such interpretation

tasks can be extended to the teaching of L2 pragmatics To teach pragmatics

instruction must promote learnersrsquo conscious noticing of both the relation-

ship between forms and meanings of target structures and the relationship

between strategies for realizing speech intentions linguistic forms used to

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 3

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

express these intentions and social conditions governing language use

Knowledge of the strategies for realizing speech intentions and linguistic

items used to express these intentions is called knowledge of pragmalinguistics

whereas knowledge of the social conditions governing language use is called

knowledge of sociopragmatics (Leech 1983 Thomas 1983) Therefore the

fourth general principle above needs to be revised so that activities in the

task are sequenced to first require attention to sociopragmatic features then

noticing of pragmalinguistic features of target structures and finally aiding

the learner in error identification

Problem-solving

Another type of input-based approach is consciousness-raising In the

present study the term problem-solving is used in place of the term

consciousness-raising The goal of both problem-solving and structured input

tasks is to make better formndashmeaning connections with different degrees of

overtness Whereas problem-solving tasks lead to more overt instruction

structured input tasks lead to less overt instruction Furthermore the content

of the problem-solving tasks is the language used in the tasks while the

structured input tasks are built around the content of general topics other

than language used in the tasks such as stories pictures of objects or

opinions Empirical evidence from a number of grammar teaching studies has

shown that problem-solving tasks are effective in improving learnersrsquo

grammatical proficiency level (eg Fotos 1994 Fotos and Ellis 1991) Thus

the rationale for using problem-solving tasks in the present study is

to compare a more overt way of raising awareness of pragmalinguistic-

sociopragmatic (problem-solving tasks) with a less overt way (structured

input tasks) Ellis (2003) argued that three types of operations identification

of the target structure judgement of appropriateness of the target

structure and rule provision of the target structure can be embedded in

the problem-solving tasks by (a) isolating a specific linguistic feature

(b) providing data to illustrate the target feature (c) encouraging learners

to use their intellectual resources to understand the target feature and

(d) requiring learners to verbalize rules describing the grammatical structure

in question

Again the important question here is how the problem-solving approach

can be extended to the teaching of L2 pragmatics As with the structured

input task the problem-solving task needs to be revised for pragmatic

teaching purposes Important revisions should include isolating specific

pragmalinguistic features providing learners with data for the target

pragmatic features engaging learnersrsquo intellectual efforts and requiring

students to understand and verbalize the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic

features of the target structures

4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

INPUT-BASED INTERVENTION STUDIES OF L2 PRAGMATICS

As noted in the previous section intervention studies on L2 pragmatics have

employed input-based approaches in teaching pragmatics with explicit and

implicit instruction Approaches on the explicit end of the intervention

continuum include studies of teacher-fronted explicit explanation treating

awareness-raising as a method to promote better pragmatic ability (House

1996 Tateyama et al 1997 Rose and Ng 2001) and studies of teacher-fronted

explicit explanation treating awareness-raising as an objective (Takahashi

2001) For example House (1996) studied the effect of two types of

instruction on high-intermediate to advanced university students of German

as a foreign language and examined their improvements in the areas of

initiating and responding to speech acts and conversational routines In the

explicit instruction group students received teacher-fronted explicit

metapragmatic information about the sociopragmatic conditions governing

the use of routines and their pragmatic functions Students in the implicit

instruction group did not receive explicit metapragmatic information about

the target features After 14 weeks of instruction and listening to tapes of

their own language behaviour sample conversation recordings showed that

both groups had improved but the explicit grouprsquos improvement exceeded

that of the implicit group

Tateyama et al (1997) investigated how beginner learners of Japanese as a

foreign language developed Japanese pragmatic proficiency under two types

of instructional treatment Targeted pragmatic features were the three

functions of the routine formula sumimasen as an attention-getter an

apology and an expression of thanks In the explicit group students

discussed the different functions of sumimasen received explicit teacher-

fronted explanations and watched short video clips of examples of the

pragmatic routines The implicit group watched the same video clips as the

explicit group but did not engage in any explicit metapragmatic activities

After only 50 minutes of instruction the results of quantitative and

qualitative instruments including role-play multiple-choice test and self-

reports showed the explicit grouprsquos advantage over the implicit group

In a similarly designed study Rose and Ng (2001) investigated the

effectiveness of explicit and implicit approaches to teaching compliments and

compliment responses Both explicit and implicit instruction groups followed

the same procedures with one exception the implicit group was exposed to

film segments and additional examples with a guided questionnaire on the

target feature in place of teacher-fronted instruction After six 30-minute

lessons self-assessment discourse completion and metapragmatic ques-

tionnaires showed that both groups improved in pragmalinguistic proficiency

but only the explicit instruction group effectively developed sociopragmatic

proficiency In a later study Rose (2005) explained the similar improvement

of both explicit and implicit instruction groups as a result of participantsrsquo

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 5

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

advanced proficiency and the relative easiness of the pragmalinguistic target

features

In another study that provided support for explicit instruction Takahashi

(2001) investigated four input enhancement conditions for Japanese learners

acquiring request strategies in English explicit instruction form-comparison

form-search and meaning-focused conditions In the explicit instruction

condition a teacher provided metapragmatic and explicit explanations of the

target feature In the form-comparison condition learners compared their

own request strategies with those provided by native speakers of English In

the form-search condition learners compared request strategies of Japanese

learners of English with those provided by native speakers of English Finally

in the meaning-focused condition learners simply listened to read and

answered comprehension questions based on the input After four 90-minute

weeks of instruction the results of discourse completion tests and self-reports

demonstrated that the explicit group learned all of the different request

strategies more successfully than the other three groups

Despite general support for explicit instruction in the literature a number

of studies have reported inconclusive findings regarding the effectiveness of

explicit instruction on the acquisition of L2 pragmatics In their study of

English pragmatic mitigators in requests Fukuya and Clark (1999) compared

input enhancement with explicit metapragmatic instruction for intermediate

and advanced ESL learners The explicit group watched a video of explicit

instruction on English mitigators with 30 example scenarios without

subtitles In contrast the implicit instruction group watched a video of

explicit instruction on listening comprehension strategies with thirty example

scenarios where requests were subtitled and the mitigators were highlighted

After one 48-minute lesson the results of two assessment measures a

listening comprehension test and a pragmatic multiple-choice test indicated

no differences between the input enhancement group and explicit group

Fukuya and Clark suggested that the brevity of treatment may have

contributed to their statistically insignificant results Although lesson length

affects pragmatic learning it should be noted that Tateyama et al (1997)

produced clear results even within a short 50-minute lesson To reexamine

previous findings Tateyama (2001) conducted a follow-up study increasing

the instructional period to four 20-minute sessions and found that there were

no significant differences between the explicit and implicit groups As

explanation Tateyama noted that students in the implicit group had more

contact with native speakers of Japanese outside of class and this threat to

internal validity contributed to the inconclusive results

Lastly regarding the nature of the L2 pragmatic learning studies show

differing levels of acquisition in terms of accuracy and retention Takahashi

(2001) found some of the participants in the explicit teaching condition used

non-target pragmalinguistic forms in the discourse completion tests as a

result of previous instruction interfering with their restructuring process

House (1996) also found that neither implicit nor explicit instruction

6 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

improved learnersrsquo performance in the realization of appropriate routinized

responses Finally Takahashi (2001) observed that the degree of attainment

and lasting effect of L2 pragmatic proficiency under the explicit teaching

condition was doubtful These findings lead to the question of what sort of

input-based approach with or without the teacher-fronted explicit

information is the most appropriate way of allowing learners to access and

integrate sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge more quickly and

efficiently

THE PRESENT STUDY

To date only a small number of studies have examined input-based

methods of teaching L2 pragmatics For this reason there is no clear

indication in the literature as to what type of input-based task involving

pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connections is most effective in teaching L2

pragmatics Moreover no studies have compared the effectiveness of

structured input tasks with and without explicit information for L2

pragmatics To address these gaps the following research question is

investigated in this study

What are the relative effects of three different input tasksincluding (1) structured input with explicit information (2)problem-solving and (3) structured input without explicitinformation on the development of Japanese learnersrsquo pragmaticproficiency in English

METHOD

Participants

Prospective participants were solicited in Japan through an employment

advertisement in a weekly magazine and on the Internet Both the weekly

magazine and the Internet website target students After checking applicantsrsquo

scores for the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) only

learners with intermediate English proficiency defined as TOEIC scores

between 500 and 700 were selected for inclusion in the study This decision

was made to exclude the extreme ends of learner proficiency levels low

and high which might obscure the effects of the different types of

instruction The sixty participants were assigned to one of the four groups

consisting of the three treatment groups structured input tasks with explicit

information problem-solving tasks and structured input tasks without

explicit information and the control group (nfrac14 15 for all four groups) The

participants included three high school students ten vocational training

school students twenty-nine university students and eighteen non-students

All participants had studied English in Japan for a range of five to twenty-

two years without receiving explicit instruction on English pragmatics

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 7

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

All had Japanese as their first language and they ranged in age from 18 to 40

The present study was conducted at an English conversation school instead

of at a regular EFL school because it was not possible at the instructorrsquos

institution a regular university to include the control group necessary

for observing and comparing the effects of the different instructional

treatments

Instructional goals

The present study draws on past research on EFL Japanese studentsrsquo

acquisition of downgraders a pragmatic resource for mitigating the strength

of a statement or request (Takahashi 1996 Hill 1997) Takahashi (1996)

found that Japanese EFL learners tended to use monoclausal English request

forms when downgrader biclausal request forms were more appropriate for

example lsquoWouldCould you VPrsquo vs lsquoWould it be possible to VPrsquo Hill (1997)

found that even as the proficiency of Japanese EFL learners increased they

continued to underuse clausal downgraders lexical downgraders and

syntactic downgraders Lexicalclausal downgraders soften the difficulty

that the speaker experiences when asking the hearer to perform a request by

modifying the Head Act lexically or clausally for example lsquoCould you possibly

come herersquo (lexical) or lsquoWould it be possible to come herersquo (clausal-mitigated

preparatory question) lsquoI wonder if you could come herersquo (clausal-mitigated

preparatory statement) lsquoI would appreciate it if you could come herersquo (clausal-

mitigated want statement) Syntactic downgraders on the other hand

modify the Head Act syntactically by mitigating the level of difficulty that the

speaker experiences through syntactic choices using tense or aspect for

example lsquoI am wondering if you could lend me a bookrsquo (continuous aspect)

lsquoI was wondering if you would comersquo (past tense) Given Takahashi (1996) and

Hillrsquos (1997) findings the current study focuses on teaching lexicalclausal

and syntactic downgraders in English requests

Three social context variables were carefully controlled for in the dialogues

in the instructional and testing materials (a) power the status of the speaker

with respect to the hearer (b) distance the relationship between the

speaker and the hearer and (c) speaker difficulty the difficulty that the

speaker experiences when asking the hearer to perform the request These

three variables were selected because in cross-cultural pragmatics they are

considered to be the three independent and culturally sensitive variables that

subsume all other variables and play important roles in speech act behaviour

The participants in the three treatment groups were instructed to pay

attention to these social context variables as well as the pragmalinguistic

features of the target structures Only participants in the structured input

tasks with explicit information group were provided with the explicit

information about the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features of the

target structures

8 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Instructional treatments

Each group received four 40-minute treatment sessions in Japanese at a

major English conversation school in Osaka Japan All groups received

instruction from the same instructor who was also the researcher1 The three

instructional treatments were matched for target structure and all four

groups were matched for instruction time The first treatment session

highlighted lexicalclausal downgraders in English requests and the second

treatment session focused on syntactic downgraders The third and fourth

treatment sessions were reviews of the first and second treatments Handouts

contained highlighted pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features to

promote participantsrsquo conscious noticing of those features Specific treatment

features of each participant group are presented in Table 1

Structured input tasks with explicit information

The structured input tasks with explicit instruction treatment consisted of

two components (a) teacher-fronted explanation of the target downgraders

and (b) structured input tasks comprising pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic

connection activities and reinforcement activities of the target downgraders

In each lesson the group received handouts with a brief summary of the

targeted downgraders and examples of the target structures in English The

explicit teacher-fronted component lasted 10 minutes during which time

the teacher read the summary and examples aloud in English and explained

the summary and the examples in Japanese with special attention to

Table 1 Treatment features of each group

Group Treatment Explicitinformation

Structured inputtasks with explicitinformation (nfrac14 15)

Explicit information (10 minutes)thornPragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic connectionactivities (18 minutes)thornReinforcementactivities (12 minutes)

Yes

Problem-solvingtasks (nfrac14 15)

Pragmalinguistic-focused activities(10 minutes) thorn Sociopragmatic-focusedactivities (10 minutes)thorn Pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic connection activities(10 minutes)thornMetapragmatic discussion(10 minutes)

No

Structured inputtasks without explicitinformation (nfrac14 15)

Pragmalinguistic-sociopragmatic connectionactivities (24 minutes)thornReinforcementactivities (16 minutes)

No

Control group (nfrac14 15) TOEIC reading comprehension exercises(40 minutes)

No

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 9

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

sociopragmatic conditions In the second part the group engaged structured

input tasks consisting of three pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connection

activities and three reinforcement activities (see Appendix A available online

to subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) In the pragmalinguisticndash

sociopragmatic connection activities the participants read dialogues for given

situations and chose the more appropriate request form out of the two

offered based on their pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge

Participants then listened to an oral recording of the dialogue and underlined

the correct request form In the reinforcement activities participants read

each dialogue aloud and listened to the oral recordings again Finally they

were asked to rate the level of appropriateness of each underlined request on

a 5-point scale The goal of the pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connection

activities was to ensure that participants focused on understanding the

relationship between the request the relevant social context variables and

the targeted pragmalinguistic resources In contrast the purpose of the

reinforcement activities was to strengthen the pragmalinguisticndashsocioprag-

matic connections by providing the participants with more opportunities to

observe and understand how the different factors the request the social

context variables and the targeted pragmalinguistic features were

interrelated

Problem-solving tasks

The problem-solving treatment consisted of four activities highlighting

the targeted downgraders in English pragmalinguistic-focused activities

sociopragmatic-focused activities pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connec-

tion activities and metapragmatic discussion In each lesson the participants

received handouts with three sets of English dialogues (see Appendix A

available online to subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) The

participants read each situation and the dialogue and then listened to the

dialogue In the first activity the pragmalinguistic-focused activity

participants were asked to copy and compare the underlined request forms

in two dialogues while looking for the differences between the request forms

In the second activity the sociopragmatics-focused activity participants

answered two questions regarding the relationship between the two

characters and the difficulty of the requests In the third activity the

pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connection activity participants were asked

to rate the level of politeness of the requests in both dialogues and to list the

ways in which one character tried to be more polite than the other character

when making requests In the last activity paired participants discussed the

features of the target structures with each other The aim of the first three

activities was to provide participants with step-by-step problem-solving

opportunities through which they could develop their own explicit

knowledge about the target features In turn this explicit knowledge

would help participants to reinforce the pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic

10 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

connections during their paired metapragmatic discussions of the features of

target structures The decision to include paired metapragmatic discussions

was based on findings in Rose (2005) that suggested metapragmatic

discussion about the target request forms in context is more effective for

learning sociopragmatic distinctions than the teacher-fronted approach

Structured input tasks without explicit information

The treatment for the structured input tasks without explicit information

group was the same as for structured input tasks with explicit information

but without the teacher-fronted explicit instruction

Control group

Lessons for the control group were designed to help participants do well on the

TOEIC Participants in this group engaged in reading comprehension exercises

for the TOEIC however they were not exposed to the target structures at all

Testing instruments and procedures

This study employed a pre-test post-test and follow-up test design The pre-

test was administered two to three days prior to the instructional treatment

the post-test eight to nine days after the treatment and the follow-up test in

the fourth week following instruction Each test consisted of two input-based

tests a listening test and an acceptability judgement test and two output-

based tests a discourse completion test and a role-play test Immediately

following the treatments participants completed an evaluation questionnaire

Situations in the four testing instruments comprised the speech act request

with the three social context variables power distance and speaker difficulty In

particular the tests included situations with a high level of speaker difficulty

combined with power and distance which were validated by Hill (1997)

Hudson et al (1992 1995) and Takahashi (1998 2001) One high speaker

difficulty item is shown below

You are writing a difficult paper for Professor Hill You need somehelp with the paper but Professor Hill is away for a monthA friend of yours has suggested you go and see Professor WatsonAlthough you do not know Professor Watson and ProfessorWatson is extremely busy you have decided to ask ProfessorWatson to look through your long paper before you hand it in thenext day What would you ask Professor Watson (based onTakahashi 1998 2001)

Situations with a low level of speaker difficulty were added as distractors to

increase the reliability of instruments The discourse completion test the

role-play test and the acceptability judgement test consisted of twenty

situations (ten high speaker difficulty and ten low speaker difficulty items) while

the listening test consisted of fifteen situations (nine high speaker difficulty

items and six low speaker difficulty items)

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 11

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Three versions of the four tests were developed and counterbalanced for

order of presentation of the same situations across the pre-tests post-tests

and follow-up tests During the testing these counterbalanced versions were

used to minimize the possible effect of test learning

During the pre-tests post-tests and follow-up tests test components were

administered in the following order discourse completion test role-play test

listening test and acceptability judgement test The two input-based tests were

administered after the output-based tasks to address the concern that they

might provide participants with models for the production tests Although

participants were instructed to complete the four tests in the span of 2 hours

only the listening test was timed In the listening test participants had two

seconds to judge the appropriateness for each question which required

participants to access their proceduralized knowledge of the target structure

Discourse completion test

The discourse completion test (see Appendix B available online to subscribers at

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) required the participants to read short

descriptions of twenty situations in English and to write what they would say

in each situation in English Although there was no time limit for the discourse

completion test most participants finished in 30ndash45 minutes Each response

was rated by two native English speakers according to the appropriateness

of the request forms on a 5-point scale The test contained ten target items with

a maximum score of 100 based on the two ratersrsquo scores (10 5 2)

Role-play test

The role-play test (see Appendix B available online to subscribers at http

applijoxfordjournalsorg) consisted of short descriptions of twenty situations

written in English and required the participants to play particular roles with

an interlocutor Prior to the role play participants received role cards that

described the situations and their roles In each role play the participants

were required to initiate the conversation by requesting something from

their interlocutor2 The instructor a non-native speaker of English acted as

the interlocutor On average participants took 2ndash3 minutes to prepare for

each role play Role plays were tape-recorded and individual performances

were rated for appropriateness of request forms on a 5-point scale by two

native speakers of English The test contained 10 target items with a

maximum score of 100 based on the two ratersrsquo scores (10 5 2)

Listening test

The listening test (see Appendix B available online to subscribers at

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) required participants to listen to dialogues

between a Japanese university student and a native speaker of English

in fifteen different situations and to score the appropriateness of the

Japanese university studentrsquos request forms on a 5-point scale The test

12 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

involved an audio-recording of the dialogue and had a time constraint of

2 seconds per question for responding to each dialogue Participant

ratings were compared with English native speakersrsquo baseline data3 on a

5-point scale The test contained nine target items with a maximum score

of 45 (9 5)

Acceptability judgement test

The acceptability judgement test (see Appendix B available online to

subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) was a computer-based test

that required participants to read written English descriptions of 20

situations After reading the descriptions participants were presented with

a series of isolated requests and instructed to score the first request on an

11-point scale and then to score subsequent responses proportionally higher

or lower in accordance with the degree of perceived acceptability Participant

ratings were compared with English native speakersrsquo baseline data4 on a

5-point scale The test contained ten target items with a maximum score of

50 (10 5)

Evaluation questionnaire

The evaluation questionnaire was administered as a supplement to the

present study with the goal of examining whether the aims of the

instructional treatments had been achieved and how the instruction could be

improved for future use The questionnaire consisted of three 5-point scale

close-ended questions and three open-ended questions

RELIABILITY

Interrater reliability was estimated by calculating the correlation of the

two ratersrsquo scores Correlation coefficients for the discourse completion

and role-play tests were 995 and 994 respectively which were statis-

tically significant (p5 001) With regard to internal consistency the

Cronbach Alpha reliability estimates for the tests ranged from 853 for

the listening comprehension test5 to 926 for the role-play test with

893 for the acceptability judgement test and 917 for the discourse

completion test

VALIDITY

To promote content validity the present study matched test items to the

theoretical framework that outlined the degree of the three social context

variables speaker difficulty power and distance Tables 2 and 3 show the

distribution and degree of social context variables across tests

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 13

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

RESULTS

The results showed that the three treatment groups performed significantly

better than the control group However the group that received the

structured input tasks with explicit information did not retain the positive

effects of the treatment between the post-test and follow-up test on the

listening test component

In the data analysis a Bonferroni adjustment was employed to maintain an

approximate experiment-wide 05 alpha level In other words the overall

alpha level was set at 05 but with four group comparisons (discourse

completion role-play acceptability judgement and listening tests) for one

item type (high speaker difficulty) Therefore 05 was divided by the number

of comparisons (four) resulting in a p value of 0125 for individual statistical

decisions

Results from the discourse completion test

Results of a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main

effect for Instruction for the three treatment groups (structured input tasks

with explicit information problem-solving tasks and structured input tasks

without explicit information) F (3 56) frac14 9992 p frac14 000 A significant main

effect for Time across the pre-test post-test and follow-up test was also

Table 2 Distribution of social context variables (Version A for the discoursecompletion role-play and acceptability judgement tests)

S4 S6 S10 S18 S2 S8 S12 S14 S16 S20 S1 S3 S5 S11 S13 S7 S9 S15 S17 S19

SD thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn

P thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn

D thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn

Note Sfrac14 Situation SDfrac14 Speaker difficulty Pfrac14Power Dfrac14Distance thornfrac14More frac14Less

frac14Equal

Table 3 Distribution of social context variables (Version A for thelistening test)

S3 S5 S8 S13 S2 S6 S10 S12 S15 S1 S4 S9 S7 S11 S14

SD thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn

P thorn thorn thorn

D thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn thorn

Note Sfrac14 Situation SDfrac14 Speaker difficulty Pfrac14 Power Dfrac14Distance thornfrac14More frac14Less

frac14Equal

14 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

found F (3 56) frac14 58357 p frac14 000 Lastly the results revealed a significant

interaction effect between Instruction and Time F (9 56) frac14 4864 p frac14 000

Figure 1 illustrates three important characteristics of the discourse completion

test results (1) there were no statistically significant differences among the

four groups on the pre-test scores (2) the three treatment groups made gains

from the pre-tests to the post-tests and the follow-up tests and (3) positive

effects for the three treatments were maintained through the post-test to the

follow-up tests

These results suggest that the three different types of treatment were

effective in promoting learnersrsquo acquisition and retention of English request

forms in the context of discourse completion activities Furthermore the lack

of crossover between the treatment and control groups on the post-tests

demonstrates the relative superiority of the three treatment groupsrsquo

performances over the control grouprsquos performance Post-hoc Scheffe tests

conducted on the post-test and the follow-up test scores for the main effect

for treatment showed the following two contrasts (1) the three treatment

groups performed significantly better than the control group on the discourse

completion test and (2) there were no significant differences among the

three treatment groups

Results from the role-play test

The results of a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA for the role-play test

scores revealed the same significant main effects as the discourse completion

test a significant main effect for Instruction F (3 56)frac14 8393 pfrac14 000

a significant main effect for Time F (3 56)frac14 50261 pfrac14 000 and a

TIME

Follow-up testPost-testPre-test

ME

AN

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

INSTRUCTION

SP

PS

SI

Control

Figure 1 Interaction plot for the discourse completion testNote SPfrac14 Structured input tasks with explicit information PSfrac14 Problem-solving tasks SIfrac14 Structured input tasks without explicit information

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 15

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

significant interaction effect between Instruction and Time F (9 56)frac143388

pfrac14 000

The results displayed for the role-play test in Figure 2 follow the same

pattern as the discourse completion test there were no statistically significant

differences among the four groups on the pre-test scores the three treatment

groups improved from the pre-test to the post-test and the follow-up test

and positive effects for the three treatments were retained As in Figure 1

above the lack of crossover between the treatment and control group scores

in Figure 2 shows the superior performance of all three treatment groups on

the post-test and follow-up tests Post-hoc Scheffe tests provided further

evidence for the following two contrasts (1) the three treatment groups

performed significantly better than the control group on the role-play test

and (2) there were no significant differences among the three treatment

groups

Results from the listening test

The results of a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA of the listening test

scores showed the same significant main effects as both the discourse

completion and the role-play test a significant main effect for Instruction

F (3 56)frac14 2748 pfrac14 000 a significant main effect for Time F (3 56)frac148127

pfrac14 000 and a significant interaction effect between Instruction and Time

F (9 56)frac14797 pfrac14 000

Figure 3 reveals two of the same main results for the listening test as for

the discourse completion and role-play tests there were no statistically

significant differences among the four groups on the pre-test scores and the

three treatment groups improved from the pre-tests to the post-tests and the

TIME

Follow-up testPost-testPre-test

ME

AN

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

INSTRUCTION

SP

PS

SI

Control

Figure 2 Interaction plot for the role-play testNote SPfrac14 Structured input tasks with explicit information PSfrac14 Problem-solving tasks SIfrac14 Structured input tasks without explicit information

16 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

follow-up tests However Figure 3 also shows that unlike the problem-

solving tasks and structured input tasks without explicit information groups

the structured input tasks with explicit information group did not retain the

positive effects of the treatment between the post-test and the follow-up test

A separate one-way ANOVA performed on the follow-up test scores showed

a significant difference between the three treatment groupsrsquo performance

on the listening test Despite the differences in the follow-up test

performance all three treatment groups outscored the control group without

any crossovers between group scores confirming the superior performance

of the treatment groups on the listening test Post-hoc Scheffe tests

provided further support for the following four contrasts (1) all three

treatment groups performed significantly better than the control group

on the post-test and follow-up test (2) there were no statistically

significant differences among the three treatment groups on the post-test

(3) there were no statistically significant differences between the problem-

solving tasks and structured input tasks without explicit information

groups on the follow-up test and (4) problem-solving tasks and structured

input tasks without explicit information groups performed significantly better

than the structured input tasks with explicit information group on the

follow-up test

Results from the acceptability judgement test

The results of a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA for the acceptability

judgement test showed two of the same significant main effects as the other

tests a significant main effect for Instruction F (3 56)frac14 732 pfrac14 000 and a

TIME

Follow-up testPost-testPre-test

ME

AN

50

40

30

20

10

INSTRUCTION

SP

PS

SI

Control

Figure 3 Interaction plot for the listening testNote SPfrac14 Structured input tasks with explicit information PSfrac14 Problem-solving tasks SIfrac14 Structured input tasks without explicit information

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 17

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

significant main effect for Time F (3 56)frac14 4307 pfrac14 000 However

no significant interaction effect between Instruction and Time was found

F (9 56)frac14 321 pfrac14 006

The results displayed in Figure 4 for the acceptability judgement test follow

the same pattern as the other test components there were no statistically

significant differences among the four groups on the pre-test the three

treatment groupsrsquo performance improved from the pre-test to the post-test

and follow-up test and positive effects for the three treatments were

maintained As with the other test components the acceptability judgement

test scores exhibit no crossover between groups showing the superior effects

of the three treatment conditions as compared with the control condition on

participantsrsquo post-test performance Post-hoc Scheffe tests provided further

evidence for the following contrasts (1) the three treatment groups

performed significantly better than the control group on the acceptability

judgement test and (2) there were no significant differences among the

three treatment groups

Results from the evaluation questionnaire

Analysis of responses on the evaluation questionnaire provided insight into

the participantsrsquo experience from a first-person retrospective point of view

Table 4 summarizes responses on the close-ended questions (Q1ndashQ3) with

the mean standard deviation degrees of freedom and p-values for each

question Participants responded on a scale of 1ndash5 with 1frac14not at all and

5frac14 very interestingdifficultclearly

TIME

Follow-up testPost-testPre-test

ME

AN

60

50

40

30

20

INSTRUCTION

SP

PS

SI

Control

Figure 4 Interaction plot for the acceptability judgement testNote SPfrac14 Structured input tasks with explicit informationPSfrac14 Problem-solving tasks SIfrac14 Structured input tasks without explicitinformation

18 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

These results suggest that the lessons were interesting (Q1 Mfrac14378)

relatively easy to follow (Q2 Mfrac14 249) and comprehensible (Q3 Mfrac14389)

The results also show that there were no significant differences among the

treatment groupsrsquo responses on Q1 Q2 or Q3 Analysis of the participantsrsquo

responses on the open-ended questions (Q4 Q5 and Q6) are reported in

Table 5 Responses for Q4 demonstrate that all participants were able to

remember the main points they learned in the lessons In their responses to

Q5 73ndash80 per cent of the participants reported that the main good point of

the lessons was learning polite requests The fact that all participants

remembered the main points of the lessons and a high proportion of the

Table 4 Results for close-ended questionnaire items (Q1 Q2 and Q3)

Question Mean SD

Q1 Did you find the lessons interesting 378 83 F (2 42)frac14 51 pfrac14 60

Q2 Did you find the lessondifficult to follow

249 105 F (2 42)frac14 97 pfrac14 39

Q3 Did you understand clearlyhow to make polite requests

389 76 F (2 42)frac14 189 pfrac14 17

Table 5 Summary of open-ended question items (Q4 Q5 and Q6)

Questions andreported contents

Task types

Structured inputtasks with explicitinformation

Problem-solving Structured inputtasks withoutexplicitinformation

Q4 Write down the main points you learned in lessons

Including all main points 15 (100) 15 (100) 15 (100)

Q5 Were there things you liked a lot about the lessons

Learning polite requests 12 (80) 12 (80) 11 (73)

Learning the samething over and over

2 (13) 1 (7) 1 (7)

Other 1 (7) 2 (13) 3 (20)

Q6 Were there things you did not like about the lessons

Monotonousness of lessons 4 (27) 4 (27) 8 (54)

No output practices 1 (7) 1 (7) 0 (0)

Little feedback 3 (20) 3 (20) 2 (13)

Prohibition on takingmaterials home

4 (27) 1 (7) 0 (0)

Other 3 (20) 6 (39) 5 (33)

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 19

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

participants reported learning polite requests as a highlight of the lessons

indicates that the three types of input-based instruction were effective

Responses to Q6 show differing participantsrsquo views on the weaknesses of the

lessons including monotony no chance to produce language and limited

feedback

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relative effects of input

tasks including structured input tasks with and without explicit information

and problem-solving tasks on the development of Japanese learnersrsquo L2

pragmatic proficiency in the area of requests The results show that

participants who received the three different types of input-based instruction

outperformed the control group Furthermore the results for the two types

of input-based tasks structured input tasks (with or without explicit

information) and problem-solving tasks indicate that both types are equally

effective These results show that the development of L2 pragmatic

proficiency can be influenced by manipulating input lending support to

findings in previous studies on the effects of structured input tasks and

problem-solving tasks on the acquisition of L2 pragmatics

There are two possible reasons for the effectiveness of the different types

of input-based tasks One possibility is that the different treatments drew

the participantsrsquo attention to pragmalinguistic forms in the input that they

received Despite their differences the treatment conditions may have made

the target structures equally salient The participants in the structured input

task condition with or without explicit information engaged in tasks that

required their attention to the pragmalinguistic forms of target structures In

the pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connection activities the participants

chose the more appropriate request form from two options and in the

reinforcement activities participants rated the level of appropriateness of

each bold-faced underlined request On the other hand participants in the

problem-solving condition had to pay attention to the highlighted requests in

two dialogues in order to copy and compare the request forms before

discussing the metapragmatic features of target structures in the dialogues

The second possible reason for the effectiveness of the input-based tasks is

the deeper processing that arises when pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic

connections are involved In their discussion of the level of processing

involved in meaning Craik and Lockhart (1972) claim that the quality of a

memory trace depends on the level or depth of perceptual and mental

processing where meaning plays an important role When the participants

focused on the pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connections of the target

feature they may have been inclined to process the meanings at a deeper

level leading to greater retention The tasks in the present study were

designed to require participants to access and integrate their pragmalinguistic

and sociopragmatic knowledge through various activities Moreover the

20 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

participants in the problem-solving tasks had the opportunity to discuss

the metapragmatic features of target structures thereby reinforcing

pragmalinguisticndashsociopragmatic connections and allowing for processing at

a deeper level

The results indicate that the three types of treatments had similar effects on

the development of Japanese learnersrsquo pragmatic proficiency as measured by

three of the four test components discourse completion role-play and

acceptability judgement tests However regarding the listening test although

all three treatment conditions showed significant improvement on the post-

test the structured input tasks with explicit information group performed at a

significantly lower level than the other two conditions on the follow-up test

Why then did the structured input tasks with explicit information group

perform as well as the problem-solving and structured input tasks without

explicit information groups on the listening post-test but not the follow-up

test while all the groups performed similarly on the other post-tests and

follow-up tests Any answer to this question is necessarily speculative as no

information on the psycholinguistic processing involved in either the

treatments or the test was available What distinguishes the listening test

from the other tests is the requirement for online processing Online

processing tests place demands on working memory as participants have to

process and respond to the stimuli rapidly

Also all three treatments can be assumed to have provided the participants

with some explicit knowledge but the treatments differed in how this

knowledge was achieved In the case of the first treatment structured input

tasks plus explicit information the participants were simply given explicit

information they did not have to discover the rules for themselves In the

other two treatments problem-solving and structured input tasks minus

explicit information participants had to discover the rules for themselves

It is possible then that the problem-solving and structured input tasks

without explicit information participants attended to the pragmalinguistic

and sociopragmatic features of the target structures more deeply That is

the provision of explicit information did not push the participants in the

structured input tasks plus explicit information group to process the target

structures deeply The problem-solving and structured input tasks without

explicit information treatments however involved greater depth of

processing resulting in knowledge that was more firmly embedded and

thus more easily accessed Immediate post-test results did not reveal this

difference because the explicit knowledge was fresh in the participantsrsquo

memories However on the listening follow-up test participants in the

structured input tasks with explicit information group were less successful in

accessing their weakly established explicit knowledge while coping with

the testrsquos demands on their working memory capacities Participants in

problem-solving and structured input tasks without explicit information

groups however were still able to cope with the demands of the listening

test because their explicit knowledge was firmly entrenched Although the

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 21

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

explanation provided here is speculative at best the current studyrsquos results

are consistent with results in VanPatten and Oikennon (1996) which showed

that in that teacher-fronted explicit information is not important because

structured input tasks by themselves are effective Takahashi (2001) also

found that the explicit teaching condition was effective through the post-test

stage but expressed doubts regarding the lasting effect of gains in L2

competence due to explicit enhancement

CONCLUSION

The present study examined the relative effects of input-based approaches

and the presence or lack of explicit information on teaching polite request

forms in a Japanese EFL context The results indicate that input processing

tasks including structured input and problem-solving tasks function

effectively when they provide learners with an emphasis on the

pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features of the target structure

An important pedagogical implication of this study is that teachers should

be aware that effective learning occurs when the tasks provide learners with

opportunities for processing both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic

features of the target structures Structured input tasks and problem-solving

tasks can be used together and can even complement each other The

findings of this study have practical applications especially in the Japanese

EFL context where English pragmatics rather than English grammar is an

increasingly important area of instruction In such classrooms learners are

encouraged to have strong pragmatic awareness to make use of the limited

class time typically available for learning English These findings may be

generalizable to other EFL countries with similar situations

Limitations of the present study suggest several areas for future research

Regarding the activities within each treatment condition multiple activities

were packaged together and there is no way of disentangling the

contributions of each individual activity to the effect on learning outcomes

Another limitation of the study was the representativeness of the participants

and the generalizability of the results Participants in the present study were

recruited on a volunteer-basis and may have differed in their outcomes and

responses than students at existing educational institutions or the general

population given the same instruction Conducting the same experiment at an

existing educational institution would strengthen the generalizability of the

results to other EFL situations Furthermore conducting the same experiment

with a representative sample of any population would improve the general-

izability of the studyrsquos results to broader contexts Kasper (2001) argued that the

benefit of conducting research within an established institution is that the

results can be translated into recommendations for pedagogical practice with

more plausibility than laboratory studies Perhaps the relationship between

teaching at different types of institutions for example language schools vs

universities and learning outcomes could be a subject for future research

22 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

Despite the shortcomings above the present study contributes to our

understanding of how input-based approaches to teaching English pragmatics

lead to positive outcomes in the Japanese EFL context The author hopes that

the results of the present study will show researchers and teachers that

successful input-based tasks should involve effective pragmalinguisticndash

sociopragmatic connection activities and be designed to raise the learnerrsquos

interest in acquiring L2 pragmatics

Final version received September 2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Rod Ellis and Dr Gabriele Kasper for their

valuable comments and guidance I would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their

constructive comments and suggestions Thanks are also due to Mattew Prior and Castle

Sinicrope for proofreading the manuscript

NOTES

1 In behavioural research researcher

expectancy can be a problem when

the researcher teaches experimen-

tal groups The researcher followed

the instructional guidelines rigidly

controlled for the effect with the

double-blind technique after the data

were collected in order to minimize

any researcher expectancy effect

during the treatments

2 Ellis (2003) suggested that a testing

situation where the examinees

interact with other non-native

speakers rather than with native

speaker examiners is more likely to

elicit the examineesrsquo best perfor-

mances

3 Ten native speakers of English listened

to a dialogue between a Japanese

university student and a native

speaker of English in fifteen different

situations and then scored the appro-

priateness of the Japanese university

studentrsquos request forms on a 5-point

scale The native speakersrsquo data were

relatively uniformed and consistent

(SDfrac14 00 53 rangefrac14 00 100)

These data were used as the

baseline data

4 Ten native speakers of English were

required to read written English

descriptions of twenty situations with a

Japanese supplement They were then

presented with a series of isolated

requests and instructed to score the

first request on an 11-point scale and

then to score subsequent responses

proportionally higher or lower in accor-

dance with the degree of perceived

acceptability The native speakersrsquo data

were relatively uniformed and con-

sistent (SDfrac14 82 108 rangefrac14 200

400) These data were used as the

baseline data

5 The reliability estimate for the LT was

low because of five problematic items

By deleting the five problematic items

out of the twenty items a higher level

of reliability was achieved However

the reliability estimate for the LT was

still somewhat lower than the others

and this might be related to the

narrower rating scales in this test That

is the LT used a 5-point scale while the

AJT used an 11-point scale According

to Hatch and Lazaraton (1991) a

broader scale range encourages more

precision in respondentsrsquo judgements

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 23

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

REFERENCES

Alcon E 2005 lsquoDoes instruction work for learning

pragmatics in the EFL contextrsquo System 33

417ndash435

Craik F and R Lockhart 1972 lsquoLevels of

processing A framework for memory researchrsquo

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11

671ndash84

DeKeyser R 1995 lsquoLearning second language

grammar rules An experiment with a miniature

linguistic systemrsquo Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 464 613ndash42

Ellis R 1997 SLA Research and Language Teaching

Oxford Oxford University Press

Ellis R 2003 Task-based Language Learning and

Teaching Oxford Oxford University Press

Fotos S 1994 lsquoIntegrating grammar instruction

and communicative language use through

grammar consciousness-raising tasksrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 28 323ndash51

Fotos S and R Ellis 1991 lsquoCommunicating

about grammar A task-based approachrsquo TESOL

Quarterly 25 605ndash28

Fukuya Y and M Clark 1999 lsquoInput enhance-

ment of mitigatorsrsquo in L Bouton (ed) Pragmatics

and Language Learning Monograph Series 10

111ndash30 Urbana-Champaign IL Division of Eng-

lish as an International Language University of

Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Fukuya Y and Y Zhang 2002 lsquoEffects of recasts

on EFL learnersrsquo acquisition of pragmalinguistic

conventions of requestrsquo Second Language Studies

211 1ndash47

Hatch E and A Lazaraton 1991 The Research

Manual Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics

Boston MA Heinle amp Heinle

Hill T 1997 The Development of Pragmatic

Competence in an EFL Context Unpublished

doctoral dissertation Temple University Japan

House J 1996 lsquoDeveloping pragmatic fluency in

English as a foreign language Routines and

metapragmatic awarenessrsquo Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 182 225ndash52

Hudson T E Detmer and J D Brown 1992

A Framework for Testing Cross-cultural Pragmatics

(Technical Report 2) Honolulu HI University

of Hawairsquoi Press

Hudson T E Detmer and J D Brown 1995

Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-cultural

Pragmatics (Technical Report 7) Honolulu HI

University of Hawairsquoi Press

Jeon E and T Kaya 2006 lsquoEffects of L2 instruc-

tion on interlanguage pragmatic development A

meta-analysisrsquo in J Norris and L Ortega (eds)

Synthesizing Research on Language Learning

and Teaching Philadelphia John Benjamins

pp 165ndash211

Kasper G 2001 lsquoClassroom research on interlan-

guage pragmaticsrsquo in K Rose and G Kasper (eds)

Pragmatics in Language Teaching New York Cam-

bridge University Press pp 33ndash60

Kasper G and K Rose 2002 lsquoThe role of

instruction in learning second language prag-

maticsrsquo Language Learning 52 237ndash73

Koike D and L Pearson 2005 lsquoThe effect of

instruction and feedback in the development of

pragmatic competencersquo System 33 481ndash501

Leech G 1983 Principles of Pragmatics London

Longman

Lyster R 1994 lsquoThe effect of functional-analytic

teaching on aspects of French immersion

studentsrsquo sociolinguistic competencersquo Applied

Linguistics 153 263ndash87

Martınez-Flor A and Y Fukuya 2005 lsquoThe

effects of instruction on learnersrsquo production of

appropriate and accurate suggestionsrsquo System 33

463ndash80

Norris J and L Ortega 2001 lsquoDoes type of

instruction make a difference Substantive find-

ings from a meta-analytic reviewrsquo in R Ellis (ed)

lsquoForm-focused instruction and second language

learningrsquo Language Learning 51 (Suppl 1)

157ndash213

Robinson P 1996 lsquoLearning simple and complex

second language rules under implicit incidental

rule-search and instructed conditionsrsquo Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 181 27ndash67

Rose K 2005 lsquoOn the effects of instruction in

second language pragmaticsrsquo System 33 417ndash35

Rose K and C Ng 2001 lsquoInductive and deductive

teaching of compliments and compliment

responsesrsquo in K Rose and G Kasper (eds)

Pragmatics in Language Teaching New York

Cambridge University Press pp 145ndash70

Takahashi S 1996 lsquoPragmatic transferabilityrsquo

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 182

225ndash52

Takahashi S 1998 lsquoQuantifying requestive

imposition Validation and selection of situation

for L2 pragmatic researchrsquo Studies in Languages

and Cultures 9 135ndash59

Takahashi S 2001 rsquoThe role of input enhance-

ment in developing interlanguage pragmatic

competencersquo in K Rose and G Kasper

(eds) Pragmatics in Language Teaching

24 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNERrsquoS PRAGMATIC PROFICIENCY

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

New York Cambridge University Press

pp 171ndash99

Takahashi S 2005 lsquoNoticing in task performance

and learning outcomes A qualitative analysis

of instructional effects in interlanguage prag-

maticsrsquo System 33 437ndash61

Tateyama Y 2001 lsquoExplicit and implicit teaching

of pragmatic routines Japanese sumimasenrsquo in K

Rose and G Kasper (eds) Pragmatics in Language

Teaching New York Cambridge University Press

pp 200ndash22

Tateyama Y G Kasper L Mui H Tay and

O Thananart 1997 lsquoExplicit and implicit

teaching of pragmatic routinesrsquo in L Bouton

(ed) Pragmatics and Language Learning

Monograph Series 8 Urbana-Champaign IL

Division of English as an International

Language University of Illinois Urbana-Cham-

paign pp 163ndash78

Thomas J 1983 lsquoCross-cultural pragmatic fail-

urersquo Applied Linguistics 4 91ndash112

VanPatten B 1996 Input Processing and Grammar

Instruction in Second Language Acquisition Nor-

wood NJ Ablex

VanPatten B and S Oikkenon 1996 lsquoExplana-

tion versus structured input in processing

instructionrsquo Studies in Second Language Acquisition

184 495ndash510

Witten C 2000 lsquoUsing video to teach for socio-

linguistic competence in the foreign language

classroomrsquo Texas Papers in Foreign Language

Education 51 143ndash75 (Eric Document Repro-

duction Service No ED468314)

MASAHIRO TAKIMOTO 25

at University of C

alifornia Santa Barbara on N

ovember 21 2014

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from