Evaluating the explicit pragmatic instruction of requests and apologies in a study abroad setting

293 Pages·2017·2.62 MB·English

by  Nicola Halenko

Evaluating the explicit pragmatic instruction of requests and
apologies in a study abroad setting: the case of Chinese ESL
learners at a UK Higher Education Institution

Nicola Halenko

This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy
Department of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University

December 2016
i

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not have reached this point without the support from a great
supervisory team: Dr Marije Michel, Dr Jenefer Philp and Dr Gila Schauer. I’m very
grateful for all of your expertise and direction. A special thanks also goes to Professor
Geoffrey Leech with whom I began this journey. Your kindness and guidance are
greatly missed. Finally, thanks to Marjorie Wood for words of encouragement
throughout.
Stephen, Jacob and Emily- I’m all yours again. Thank you for your patience and
helping me keep things in perspective, as only you can do.
ii

Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effects of an explicit instructional treatment, within
a study abroad context, for improving the spoken pragmatic competence of Chinese
English as a Second Language (ESL) learners in the UK. The intervention in this
study specifically focused on the speech acts of requests and apologies, and the
effects of differentiated training materials, i.e., paper-based versus computer-based
tasks. Instructional effects were compared to a control group receiving no instruction
to further investigate the extent to which exposure to the second language
environment naturally enhanced the development of request and apology language.
The data were captured from 61 undergraduate Chinese learners of English. Two
experimental groups (paper-based vs. computer-based training materials)
participated in ten hours of explicit instruction on the linguistic and cultural aspects of
making requests and apologies in an academic setting. A language contact
questionnaire tracked learners’ engagement with English outside the classroom. A
pretest and multiple posttest design using oral and written production tasks analysed
instructional effects over time, measured against the uninstructed control group. The
oral task took the format of innovative computer-based virtual role plays, which were
also employed for communicative practice with one of the experimental groups. The
data were: i) rated for socio-pragmatic success by experienced tutors, and ii)
linguistically analysed, including identifying what were considered the essential
components for successful requests and apologies. Results showed that explicit
instruction was highly effective, with the group using computer-based tasks
outperforming the other groups. Some evidence of attrition was found in the longer
term, however. Exposure to the L2 environment facilitated little change in the
production of request and apology language though increased L2 interaction
appeared concomitant with prolonged L2 stay. The outcomes underline the positive
benefits of explicit pragmatic instruction and technology-enhanced teaching, but
iii

indicate a need for regular input and practice opportunities for long-term retention of
pragmatic knowledge
iv

Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... i
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... ii
Contents ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of figures ........................................................................................................... viii
List of tables .............................................................................................................. ix
List of key terms ........................................................................................................ xi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background to the research and aims of the thesis ............................................... 1
1.2 Theoretical background to language learning ........................................................ 4
1.3 Theoretical frameworks of the current study .......................................................... 9
1.4 Research questions .............................................................................................. 10
1.5 Outline of the thesis.............................................................................................. 11
2. Pragmatics and language learning ..................................................................... 13
2.1 An overview of L2 pragmatics and its development ............................................. 13
2.2 Speech act and politeness theories ..................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Speech act theory. ..................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Politeness theory. ....................................................................................... 18
2.2.2.1. Challenges to the universality of politeness theory. ........................... 23
2.3 The speech act of Requests ................................................................................. 27
2.3.1 Western empirical request studies. ............................................................ 31
2.3.2 Non-Western empirical request studies. .................................................... 33
2.4 The speech act of Apologies ................................................................................ 40
2.4.1 Western empirical apology studies. ........................................................... 45
2.4.2 Non-Western empirical apology studies. .................................................... 47
3. Pragmatics and language teaching .................................................................... 52
3.1 The effectiveness of study abroad (SA) programmes for pragmatic development
................................................................................................................................... 52
3.1.1 Research from uninstructed SA programmes for native English students. 54
3.1.2 Research from English-based uninstructed SA programmes for non-native
students............................................................................................................... 55
v

3.1.3 Examining the effects of target language contact for pragmatic
development........................................................................................................ 58
3.1.3.1 Empirical findings on learner contact with the L2. ............................... 59
3.1.3.2 Measuring L2 learner contact with the host environment. ................... 61
3.1.4 SA instruction versus exposure studies with foreign language students. .. 65
3.2 Evidence for classroom-based pragmatic instruction ........................................... 68
3.3 The teachability of pragmatics .............................................................................. 69
3.3.1 Explicit and implicit teaching approaches. ................................................. 71
3.4 Formulae-based approach to developing pragmatic language ............................ 77
3.5 The use of technology in pragmatics instruction .................................................. 80
4. Background to the present study ....................................................................... 84
4.1 Methodological approaches to SLA research design ........................................... 84
4.2 Overview of data collection instruments in ILP research ...................................... 86
4.2.1 Written discourse completion task (WDCT). .............................................. 87
4.2.2 Oral discourse completion task (ODCT). ................................................... 88
4.2.3 Innovative data collection instruments (e.g., CAPT). ................................. 91
4.3 Research gaps ..................................................................................................... 94
4.4 Aims ..................................................................................................................... 95
5. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 96
5.1 Pilot study ............................................................................................................. 96
5.1.1 Results of the perception questionnaire. .................................................... 97
5.2. Main study design ............................................................................................... 99
5.2.1 Participants. ............................................................................................... 99
5.2.2 Instruments. ............................................................................................. 100
5.2.2.1 The CAPT. ......................................................................................... 103
5.2.2.2 The WDCT. ........................................................................................ 105
5.2.2.3 The study abroad language contact questionnaire. ........................... 106
5.2.3 Data collection procedure. ....................................................................... 108
5.2.3.1 Instructional phase. ........................................................................... 108
5.2.3.2 Testing phases. ................................................................................. 112
5.3 Data treatment and analysis ............................................................................... 115
5.3.1 Coding scheme for request strategies. .................................................... 117
5.3.2 Coding scheme for apology strategies. .................................................... 120
5.3.3 Statistical analyses. .................................................................................. 122
vi

6. Results: Request data ........................................................................................ 124
6.1 Raters’ assessment of the request data ............................................................. 124
6.2 Linguistic analysis of the request data ............................................................... 126
6.2.1 Linguistic analysis of classroom access scenario. ................................... 127
6.2.2 Linguistic analysis of essay extension scenario. ...................................... 130
6.2.3 Linguistic analysis of book a study room scenario. .................................. 131
6.2.4 Frequency of combined production of all key request strategies. ............ 132
6.3 Non-target-like features of requests ................................................................... 135
7. Results: Apology data ....................................................................................... 139
7.1 Raters’ assessment of the apology data ............................................................ 139
7.2 Linguistic analysis of the apology data ............................................................... 141
7.2.1 Linguistic analysis of lost library book scenario. ...................................... 142
7.2.2 Linguistic analysis of noisy party at flat scenario. .................................... 143
7.2.3 Linguistic analysis of missed appointment with tutor scenario. ................ 144
7.2.4. Frequency of combined production of all key apology strategies. .......... 145
7.3 Non-target-like features of apologies ................................................................. 148
8. Results: Study abroad language contact questionnaire ................................ 151
8.1 Questionnaire Part A results .............................................................................. 152
8.1.1 CAPT, PAPER and control groups’ self-evaluations of overall English use
(combined productive and receptive use). ........................................................ 153
8.1.2 Experimental groups’ T1-T4 self-evaluations of productive and receptive
English use........................................................................................................ 156
8.1.3 Experimental groups’ T1-T4 self-evaluations of productive and receptive
English use by activity. ...................................................................................... 159
8.1.3.1 Experimental groups’ T1-T4 self-evaluations of productive English use
by activity. ...................................................................................................... 160
8.1.3.2 Experimental groups’ T1-T4 self-evaluations of receptive English use
by activity. ...................................................................................................... 162
8.1.4 Experimental within-group and between-group comparisons for productive
and receptive English use T1-T4. ..................................................................... 163
8.2 Questionnaire Part B results .............................................................................. 165
8.2.1 Experimental and control group comparisons of listening, speaking,
reading, writing and interaction skills T1-T2. ..................................................... 166
8.2.2 Experimental group comparisons of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
and interaction skills T1-T4. .............................................................................. 168
vii

9. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 174
9.1 Discussion of research question 1 ..................................................................... 174
9.1.1 Request language. ................................................................................... 175
9.1.2 Apology language. ................................................................................... 185
9.2 Discussion of research question 2 ..................................................................... 195
9.3 Discussion of research question 3 ..................................................................... 198
10. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 203
10.1 Contributions .................................................................................................... 203
10.1.1 Theoretical contribution. ......................................................................... 203
10.1.2 Methodological contribution. .................................................................. 205
10.1.3 Pedagogical contribution. ....................................................................... 206
10.2 Limitations and directions for future research .................................................. 209
10.3 Concluding remarks ......................................................................................... 211
References .............................................................................................................. 213
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 247
Appendix 1: Original slides from the CAPT .............................................................. 247
Appendix 2: The WDCT ........................................................................................... 248
Appendix 3: Study abroad language contact questionnaire (T1) ............................. 250
Appendix 4: Study abroad language contact questionnaire (T2 & T4) ..................... 253
Appendix 5: Scheme of work for the six-week explicit instructional period .............. 255
Appendix 6: Sample of instructional materials (week 3) ........................................... 259
Appendix 7: Sample of NS raters’ evaluation sheet for apology scenario: lost library
book ......................................................................................................................... 263
Appendix 8: Sample of researcher’s coding sheet for apology strategies employed
(CAPT group, lost library book scenario) ................................................................. 265
Appendix 9: Experimental group gain scores by skill at three time periods (T1-T2, T2-
T4, T1-T4) ................................................................................................................ 277
Appendix 10: Sample request and apology responses from the experimental and
control groups (T1-T4) .............................................................................................. 278
viii

List of figures
Figure 1.1: Bachman’s (1990) components of communicative competence ................ 4
Figure 2.1: Strategy choice for request head acts ...................................................... 28
Figure 2.2: Formulaic strategies for the apology speech act ...................................... 42
Figure 4.1: Common data collection instruments on a scale of authenticity and
control......................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 5.1: Results of the perception questionnaire: CAPT vs. paper-based
activities for language practice ................................................................................... 98
Figure 5.2: An example of the essay extension request scenario from the CAPT ... 104
Figure 5.3: Procedure for completion of the CAPT .................................................. 105
Figure 5.4: An example of the missed meeting apology scenario from the WDCT .. 106
Figure 5.5: Six-week classroom-based instructional procedure ............................... 109
Figure 5.6: The instructional framework adopted for teaching request and apology
speech acts .............................................................................................................. 110
Figure 5.7: Testing procedure over the 12-week period (T1-T4) for the experimental
groups (CAPT, PAPER) and control group .............................................................. 113
Figure 6.1: CAPT group performance of request production (T1-T4) ...................... 134
Figure 6.2: PAPER group performance of request production (T1-T4) .................... 134
Figure 6.3: Control group performance of request production (T1-T4) .................... 134
Figure 7.1: CAPT group performance of apology production (T1-T4) ...................... 147
Figure 7.2: PAPER group performance of apology production (T1-T4) ................... 147
Figure 7.3: Control group performance of apology production (T1-T4) .................... 147
Figure 8.1: Evolution of skills assessment by the experimental groups T1, T2, T4 . 172
ix

List of tables
Table 2.1: Non-target-like features of requests reported for L1 Chinese speakers .... 30
Table 2.2: Non-target-like features of apologies reported for L1 Chinese speakers .. 43
Table 5.1: Content of CAPT and WDCT scenarios .................................................. 102
Table 5.2: Rating scale to evaluate participant request and apology responses ..... 116
Table 5.3: Coding scheme for request strategies ..................................................... 118
Table 5.4: Coding scheme for apology strategies .................................................... 121
Table 6.1: Descriptive statistics: NS raters’ scores for request responses from the
experimental and control groups T1-T2 ................................................................... 125
Table 6.2: Descriptive statistics: Gain scores for requests responses from the
experimental and control groups T1-T2 ................................................................... 126
Table 6.3: Frequency of requisite request strategies: classroom access scenario .. 128
Table 6.4: Frequency of requisite request strategies: essay extension scenario ..... 130
Table 6.5: Frequency of requisite request strategies: book study room scenario .... 132
Table 6.6: Frequency of combined production of all key request strategies by
scenario (T1-T4) ....................................................................................................... 133
Table 6.7: Non-target-like features of requests T1-T4 ............................................. 136
Table 7.1: Descriptive statistics: NS raters’ scores for apology responses from the
experimental and control groups T1-T2 ................................................................... 140
Table 7.2: Frequency of requisite apology strategies: lost library book scenario ..... 142
Table 7.3: Frequency of requisite apology strategies: noisy party at flat scenario ... 143
Table 7.4: Frequency of requisite apology strategies: missed appointment with tutor
scenario .................................................................................................................... 144
Table 7.5: Frequency of combined production of all key apology strategies by
scenario .................................................................................................................... 146
Table 7.6: Non-target-like features of apologies T1-T4 ............................................ 149