Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: A Portrait of Adolescent Writing in Multiple Languages 9781788923651

Citation preview

Tasks, Pragmatics and ­Multilingualism in the ­Classroom

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Associate Professor Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Salzburg, Austria This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policymakers in general whose interests include a second language ­ acquisition component. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 140

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom A Portrait of Adolescent Writing in Multiple Languages

Sofía Martín-Laguna

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

To my family. To Nacho, Sofía and Ignacio. DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/MARTIN3644 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Martín-Laguna, Sofía, 1987, author. Title: Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: A Portrait of Adolescent Writing in Multiple Languages/Sofía Martín-Laguna. Description: Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 2020. | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 140 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: ‘This book reports on a longitudinal study of the acquisition of pragmatic markers in written discourse in a third language (English) by secondary students living in the bilingual (Spanish and Catalan) Valencian Community in Spain. It examines pragmatic transfer, specifically positive transfer, in multilingual students from a holistic perspective’ – Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019049219 (print) | LCCN 2019049220 (ebook) | ISBN 9781788923644 (hardback) | ISBN 9781788923651 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788923668 (epub) | ISBN 9781788923675 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: English language – Study and teaching (Secondary) – Spain – Valencia. | English language – Study and teaching (Secondary) – Spanish speakers. | English language – Writing – Study and teaching (Secondary) – Spain – Valencia. | English language – Written English – Study and teaching (Secondary) – Spain – Valencia. | Second language acquisition – Study and teaching (Secondary) – Spain – Valencia. | Multilingualism – Study and teaching (Secondary) – Spain – Valencia. Classification: LCC PE1068.S6 M37 2020 (print) | LCC PE1068.S6 (ebook) | DDC 428.0071/2 – dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019049219 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019049220 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-364-4 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2020 Sofía Martín-Laguna. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Riverside Publishing Solutions. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by NBN.

Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

1 Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Contributions of this Book for Classroom Pragmatics Research 1.3 Context of the Study: Multilingualism in the Valencian Community 1.4 Defining Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer 1.5 Organisation of the Book

1 1 3 6 13 18

2 Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts 20 2.1 Classroom Pragmatics 20 2.2 Pragmatic Learning Using a Task-Based Approach 24 2.3 Longitudinal Pragmatics Research Across Learning Contexts29 2.4 Pragmatic Learning in the Multilingual Classroom 36 3 Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer 3.1 Approaches and Theories of Language Transfer: Towards the Multilingual Turn 3.2 Researching Pragmatic Transfer: From Monolingual to Multilingual Approaches 3.3 The Role of Proficiency Level in Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer 3.4 Research Questions

40 40 59 65 68

4 Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context 70 4.1 Classroom Participants: Teachers, Learners and the Researcher’s Background 70 4.2 Collecting Real Classroom Data with a Pragmatic-Focused Task73 4.3 Collecting Real Classroom Data in Context 79

v

vi Contents

4.4 Pragmatic Focus: Pragmatic Markers 4.5 Data Collection Procedure 4.6 Data Analysis 5 Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners 5.1 Development of Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer from the Task’s Data 5.2 The Learners’ Perspective on Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer 5.3 Development of Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer: Summary and Interpretation 6 Effect of Proficiency Level on Pragmatic Transfer 6.1 Additional Data Sources: Proficiency Test 6.2 Proficiency Level and Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer 6.3 Proficiency Level and Pragmatic Transfer: Summary and Interpretation

80 87 89 90 90 94 104 108 108 108 113

7 Summary and Conclusion 115 7.1 Originality of the Study and Summary of Main Findings 115 7.2 Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research118 7.3 Pedagogical Implications 122 8 Appendices 125 Appendix 1  English Prompts 125 Appendix 2  Catalan Prompts 127 Appendix 3  Spanish Prompts 130 Appendix 4  Questions in Learners’ Guided Diaries 132 Appendix 5 Target Pragmatic Marker Forms in English, Catalan and Spanish 134 Appendix 6 Background Information and Language Contact Questionnaires136 References

142

Index

163

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to a number of people for their support and encouragement throughout the preparation of this book. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Eva Alcón-Soler for being my mentor and guide throughout all the stages of this work, and for her endless patience and valuable feedback. I would also like to thank Naoko Taguchi for accepting me as a visiting scholar at the Modern Languages Department at Carnegie Mellon University, for her suggestions and for believing in the strength of this project from the first moment. Thanks also to Alicia Martínez-Flor for her insightful comments and constant personal and academic support since the early stages of writing. I am grateful to María-José Arrufat-Marqués for her friendship and excitement with this work. I would like to acknowledge the generous aid of all the teachers and students who participated in this project. I cannot mention all of them here, but I owe them more than thanks. And last but not least, special thanks to my family, Nacho and our kids, for their love, support and understanding. As a member of LAELA (Lingüística Aplicada a l’Ensenyament de la Llengua Anglesa) research group at Universitat Jaume I (Castellón, Spain), I would like to acknowledge that this study was conducted within the framework of a research project funded by (i) Plan de promoción de la investigación (Universitat Jaume I) UJI-B2019-23 and (ii) Projectes d’Innovació Educativa de la Unitat de Suport Educatiu (Universitat ­ Jaume I) 3821/20. Note: We have tried to secure permissions and we are happy to clear up any mistakes in a second edition.

vii

1 Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Education programmes have always been in a constant process of adaptation in order to prepare future generations to meet the demands of a challenging world. One of these demands is the ability to learn and communicate in multiple languages. In particular, the European context presents complex linguistic patterns that have been influenced by history, geographical factors and mobility. At the same time, respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the EU’s major values, as stated in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted by EU leaders in 2000 (European Parliament et al., 2000). It concerns not only the 24 official languages of the Union but also the many regional and minority languages spoken by segments of its population. This context also entails challenges in trying to foster foreign language learning while preserving and promoting regional languages in language education nowadays. On the one hand, learners are expected to develop full competence in a foreign language. Given its hegemony as the lingua franca of international communication, English has become the most frequently taught foreign language in the world, and also in the EU, with the exception of French in the Flemish and German communities of Belgium (European Commission, 2012). During the last three decades, researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) have emphasised the importance of successfully developing the ability to communicate, and have suggested models of communicative competence (Alcón-Soler, 2000; Bachman, 1990; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995, revised in Celce-Murcia, 2007; Savignon, 1983, 2001; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006). In addition to grammatical, discourse and strategic competences, these models have placed pragmatic competence as an essential component. Crystal (1997: 301) defines pragmatics as ‘the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language 1

2  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

has on other participants in the act of communication’. In short, pragmatics is concerned with language use in a social context. Failure to convey and understand intended meaning in communication may lead to what Thomas (1983) calls pragmatic failure. In foreign language learning contexts, dealing with pragmatics in the classroom becomes paramount given the lack of opportunities for learners to interact in the foreign language outside the classroom. Research on interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has therefore increasingly focused on instruction and acquisition of pragmatic competence since the 1990s, with a recent shift into a broader scope of contexts of learning and interaction in the last decade (see Taguchi, 2015a; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). On the other hand, another challenge in current language education is related to the promotion and protection of the use of regional and minority languages to preserve them as part of the EU’s cultural heritage. With this aim in mind, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was adopted in 1992 (Council of Europe, 1992). It obliges States Parties to actively promote the use of these languages in virtually all domains of public life: education, the courts, administration, media, culture, and economic and social life. Some EU member states have taken a variety of steps to implement education and language policies to meet these demands, which has led to the emergence of multilingual educational contexts. This new learning context brings particular characteristics in which the learning of several languages coexists, which is a dimension in which pragmatics research is still incipient. Related to the above, scholars have emphasised what has been referred to as ‘the centrality of context in language development’ (Taguchi, 2015a: 3). Traditionally, the idea of the language learning context has been viewed and researched as the classroom or the programme where learning takes place, such as English as a second language (ESL) versus English as a foreign language (EFL), or study abroad versus immersion. In this regard, Bardovi-Harlig (2013) suggests the need to conduct research on pragmatics across different learning environments. One such context that has emerged is the multilingual classroom. Besides, recent research seems to highlight a wider approach to the notion of context in language learning. Taguchi (2015a: 16) has noted that a paradigm shift on research on language learning is taking place, moving ‘to a more ecologicallyoriented approach’ in which the relationships between the context, the individuals and learning over time are emphasised. Because the research context may exert an influence on the results of the study (Li, 2010), and we are interested in determining what happens in the real situation in multilingual secondary schools, the present project is carried out in an authentic classroom context, using tasks that are commonly performed in the classroom to elicit the use of pragmatic markers. The aforementioned ecologically-oriented approach has been largely influenced by a new epistemological trend seeing language learning as a

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  3

dynamic, non-linear, adaptive and context-dependent process, inspired by the application of dynamic systems theory (De Bot, 2008; De Bot et al., 2007; Verspoor et al., 2011) and chaos/complexity theory (LarsenFreeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) to language learning.1 Taking into consideration the centrality of context, the current research is based on the idea that the instructional learning context, i.e. the multilingual classroom in this study, and personal experiences may influence the process of pragmatic learning. Since this book investigates pragmatic learning in a multilingual context, it has also been motivated by the so-called multilingual turn (Ortega, 2014).2 Thus, in the present research, learners are seen as having valuable resources in their language background, which may contribute to additional language development, knowledge which may be transferred between languages and contribute to positive outcomes (House, 2010). For this reason, we will take into account the languages in which the learners participating in this study receive instruction. The book reports on a one-year longitudinal study of multilingual pragmatic transfer in 313 Catalan–Spanish bilingual learners of English as a third language (L3)3 during task performance in intact secondaryschool classrooms. In particular, two research questions are addressed: (i) Is pragmatic ability to use pragmatic markers transferred between the languages in which multilingual learners receive instruction in the school context? In particular, how does multilingual pragmatic transfer change over time?; and (ii) Does proficiency level in L3 English influence multilingual pragmatic transfer? This research emphasises the value of being multilingual in the process of pragmatic learning. The participants in this study completed argumentative writing tasks in order to measure their ability to produce pragmatic markers (textual and interpersonal) in the three languages in which they receive instruction at school (English, Catalan and Spanish). The tasks were administered three times over one academic year in each language (i.e. three times in English, three in Catalan and three in Spanish). A longitudinal design allowed us to capture changes in the interaction between languages, and adopting a mixed method approach provided a more comprehensive picture of this process. Thus, qualitative data were collected from learners’ guided diaries and supplemented with data from lesson observations, field notes and informal conversations with the teachers and the students. 1.2  Contributions of this Book for Classroom Pragmatics Research

This book makes some important contributions to the area of classroom pragmatics research that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, we set out a classroom-based study that would guarantee ecological validity, meaning that the study’s methods, materials and setting approximate the real world under investigation. Moving away from the traditional

4  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

environments examined, one instructional context that has received little attention in pragmatics is the multilingual classroom. In particular, the few studies that have analysed this setting have mainly investigated infant, primary and tertiary education (Alcón-Soler, 2012; Cenoz, 2003a; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2005; Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012; Safont & Portolés, 2015), but we noticed a gap at the secondary-education stage, which the present study intends to fill (see Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). Secondly, in line with Alcón-Soler (2015), in this project we examine how pragmatics is learnt in a multilingual classroom, looking both at the product and the process of pragmatic learning. This ‘centrality of context’ (Taguchi, 2015a: 16) pointed out above in the process of pragmatic learning entails understanding its dynamics and complexity (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Mixed method research on pragmatic learning trajectories to date has focused on only one language in a variety of instructional contexts (Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2017; MartínLaguna, 2019; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012), but little attention has been paid to multilingual classrooms to date in order to explore developmental trajectories (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018). From this perspective, this project can be described as a non-interventional longitudinal descriptive study, conducted in intact secondary-school classrooms, where the participants’ points of view are used to trace pragmatic changes following a mixed method approach. Another contribution related to context is the use of authentic tasks to explore pragmatics in the language classroom. In spite of the growing interest in the connection between pragmatics and task-based language teaching (TBLT) nowadays (see González-Lloret, 2019; Taguchi & Kim, 2018a), research on the intersection between TBLT, pragmatics and multilingualism is still incipient (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; MartínLaguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). Thirdly, in contrast to studies that have focused on speech acts, the present book examines a pragmatic target that has not yet been explored in classroom pragmatics research in a multilingual instructional context, that of pragmatic markers. The only exceptions are the studies by Martín-Laguna and her colleagues (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; MartínLaguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). The use of pragmatic markers is an important component in students’ preparation for university entrance exams in the Valencian Community in English, Catalan and Spanish, and, as a result, it receives attention when the focus is on written performance. Tavakoli et al. (2012: 130) have pointed out that ‘writing is, thus, more than just communication of ideas and presentation of ideational meaning; rather, it is viewed as a social engagement which involves writers and readers [sic] interaction’. Traditionally, the use of pragmatic markers has been related to coherence relations and discourse

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  5

competence. However, this view is rather limited. In line with other scholars (Blakemore, 2002; Carter & McCarthy, 2006; Crismore et al., 1993; Cuenca, 2001; Fraser, 1990; Hyland, 2005, 2010, 2015; Rieber, 1997; Vande Kopple, 1985), we argue that the function of pragmatic markers is not simply text-organising or discursive, but also the result of the writer’s assumptions about the reader and writer’s relationship. In other words, they primarily involve a pragmatic dimension, since there is common ground in all types of pragmatic markers that conveys interpersonal meaning (Hyland, 2005). Taking into account that there is a strong interrelation between pragmatics and discourse both as disciplines (Van Dijk, 2011) and in terms of communicative abilities (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000), in the current monograph we understand that pragmatic markers can be placed in a discourse–pragmatics continuum, and they are analysed from this perspective (see Section 4.4). Fourthly, the need to take into account the language background of the learners is another aspect that has been considered. Bringing together recent trends in SLA, third language acquisition and multilingualism research, in the multilingual turn learners are thought to possess valuable resources for additional language development (Cenoz, 2013a, 2013b; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a, 2013, 2014; Cook, 1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b; House, 2010; Ortega, 2014). In fact, the coexistence of three languages in the school curriculum offers scholars the opportunity to conduct studies on relationships between languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014). This provides new insights into how to exploit the potential of pragmatic multicompetence, to paraphrase Cook (2003), for pedagogical purposes in multilingual instructional settings. As far as we know, the only studies that have addressed transfer of pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom context are cross-sectional (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). From this perspective, the current monograph examines multilingual pragmatic transfer over time. Finally, there seems to be no consensus regarding whether a threshold proficiency level in the target language (TL)4 is necessary for the transfer of pragmatic skills (Blum-Kulka, 1982; Bu, 2012; Chang, 2009; Cohen, 1997; Hashemian, 2012; Hill, 1997; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2003; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Rossiter & Kondoh, 2001; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Wannaruk, 2008; and Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015 in multilingual learners). As a result, this study tries to shed light on this issue to determine the role of L3 proficiency on pragmatic transfer. In summary, the current volume presents a longitudinal classroombased study on pragmatic transfer in an intact multilingual instructional setting. The analysis combines ecologically valid quantitative and qualitative data sources to account for changes in the relationship between languages over time. The above-mentioned gaps, i.e. (i) the need to examine the secondary-education stage in studies in multilingual

6  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

instructional settings; (ii) the importance of considering the context in the process of pragmatic learning using context-authentic tasks for collecting data to trace the underlying reasons for changes in longitudinal research; (iii) the possibility of investigating pragmatic aspects beyond speech acts; (iv) the crucial point of taking into account the learners’ language background and the potential benefits of transfer; and (v) the role of proficiency level in multilingual pragmatic transfer, are covered in the classroom pragmatics research included in this book. In order to provide a comprehensive view to understand this project, the section that follows presents the sociolinguistic and educational setting of the Valencian Community within the context of Spain as a multilingual country. 1.3 Context of the Study: Multilingualism in the Valencian Community

Spain is a multilingual country in which Spanish coexists with many languages in the different regions or autonomous communities (see Figure 1.1). While Spanish is official throughout the country, the rest of the languages may or may not have co-official status in their respective communities. Some minority languages, such as Aragonese in Aragon, Asturian in Asturias and Leonese in Castile-Leon, are recognised but not granted official status. Some others, such as Extremaduran and Fala, are sometimes regarded as Spanish dialects. The languages that have been recognised as co-official in the territories where they are spoken are Aranese, Basque, Galician and Catalan. With the exception of Basque, whose filiation is unclear, all of the languages present in mainland Spain are Indo-European languages, belonging to the Romance language family. We will briefly refer to each of them, focusing mainly on Catalan because of its connection to the present study. Aranese is a variety of Gascon, which in turn is a variety of Occitan. It has been co-official in Catalonia since 2010 (Law 35/2010), in particular in the area where it is spoken, the Pyrenean region of the Aran Valley (Val d’Aran), in northwestern Catalonia. Basque is co-official in the Basque Country and northern Navarre. Galician is co-official in Galicia. Catalan is co-official in Catalonia, the Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community. It is recognised, but not official, in Aragon (La Franja), and also spoken in Carche (Murcia) (see Figure 1.2). Outside Spain, Catalan is also spoken in a city on the Italian island of Sardinia, Alghero, in Andorra, where it is the only official language, and in the former Roussillon, an area in the department of Pyrénées-Orientales in Southern France. Catalan dialects are divided into two blocks, Eastern and Western, differing mostly in pronunciation (see Figure 1.3). Catalan is known by the name of its Balearic and Valencian varieties in the Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community respectively. In this monograph, we will

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  7

Figure 1.1  Spanish dialects and other languages in Spain. © Martorell. Translation: Stephen Shaw. Used under a Creative Commons licence. Source: https://commons. wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13182360

use the term Catalan to refer to Valencian, the variety of the Catalan language spoken in the Valencian community. We will only name it as Valencian when reporting official data from the regional government. Spanish regions that have a co-official language have adapted their education systems to their sociolinguistic situation. Given the focus of

8  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Figure 1.2  Catalan-speaking territories (in dark grey). Dialects. © Mutxamel. Used under a Creative Commons licence. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Paisos_catalans.svg

this study, it is first necessary to describe the sociolinguistic context of the Valencian Community (Section 1.3.1) and, related to it, its education system (Section 1.3.2). 1.3.1  The sociolinguistic context of the present study

The population of the Valencian Community constitutes 10.8% of the Spanish population with 5,129,266 inhabitants (Generalitat Valenciana, 2012). Two linguistic areas may be distinguished in the context of the Valencian Community (see areas in light grey in Figure 1.2): a mono­ lingual Spanish-speaking area (13% of the population) and a bilingual Spanish- and Valencian-speaking area (87% of the population). The current research was carried out in the latter area. According to the latest sociolinguistic survey in the Valencian Community in 2015 (Conselleria d’Educació, 2015), Catalan was used

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  9

Figure 1.3  Catalan dialects. © Ebrenc. Used under a Creative Commons licence Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3731611

usually by 28% of respondents in the Spanish- and Valencian-speaking area, quite frequently by 21%, a lot by 5%, never by 5%, and a little by 40%, while 1% did not answer, did not know or refused to answer the survey. The same survey reports that, in the Valencian Community, 44.1% of the population perfectly understands Catalan, while 33.0% can speak it perfectly, 28.0% can read it perfectly, and 20.2% can write it perfectly (see Table 1.1). The Catalan language was not officially recognised during the 40 years under Franco’s rule. After his death in 1975, Spain went through a process of transition to democracy, which involved a revitalisation of

10  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Table 1.1  Knowledge of Catalan in the Valencian Community (Conselleria ­d’Educació, 2015) Understand % Nothing

Can speak %

Can read %

Can write %

6.2

21.7

20.1

40.3

A little

21.4

27.3

27.0

24.9

Quite well

28.3

17.9

24.9

14.5

Perfectly

44.1

33.0

28.0

20.2

–

0.1

–

–

Dk/Na/Ref

Note: ‘Dk/Na/Ref’: Doesn’t know/No answer/Refuse.

Catalan. In 1978, the Spanish Constitution was approved and Catalan gained national government recognition. Article 3 of the Constitution states that Castilian, i.e. the variety of Spanish spoken in Spain, is the official language of the state, and that the other Spanish languages shall also be official in their respective Autonomous Communities according to their own statutes. It adds that this linguistic richness in Spain is a cultural heritage that should be specially respected and protected. Becoming an autonomous community gave the language heritage status and made it a co-official language in the Statute of Autonomy (Estatut d’Autonomia) of the Valencian Community in 1982. This paved the way towards a future with greater presence of this language in all sorts of official dimensions of life. In spite of all this, Catalan remains the minority language, whereas Spanish is the majority and dominant language in the Valencian Community context and has greater social prestige. 1.3.2  The educational context of the present study

Regarding education, the 1983 Law of Use and Teaching of Valencian (Llei d’Ús i Ensenyament del Valencià) (Law 4/1983) incor­ porated Catalan at all levels of the Valencian education system. The application of this law was regulated in a later decree (Decree 79/1984), which introduced three aspects. First of all, it established Catalan language teaching as a compulsory subject together with Spanish lan­ guage at all levels of the education system. Secondly, it stated the right of students to be taught and to learn in Catalan, taking into account the sociolinguistic context of instruction. Finally, it regulated that all administrative work should be performed in Catalan. With these aims, several linguistic programmes have been developed and applied since 1997. By the time the data for the present study were collected in the academic year 2012–2013, these programmes were: • Programa d’Ensenyament en Valencià or PEV (Valencian Teaching Programme). • Programa d’Immersió Lingüística or PIL (Linguistic Immersion Programme).

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  11

• Programa d’Incorporació Progressiva or PIP (Progressive Incorporation Programme). The Programa d’Ensenyament en Valencià or PEV had Catalan as the dominant language in the education system. Spanish was orally introduced in infant education and a Spanish language subject was introduced in primary education. This programme was targeted at Catalan-speaking children or those who lived in Catalan-speaking contexts so that they could develop formal knowledge of Catalan and a balanced knowledge of Spanish as stated in the curriculum. The Programa d’Immersió Lingüística or PIL also had Catalan as the main language of instruction from an early age. In contrast to the PEV model, in the PIL, Spanish was progressively introduced during the first and second cycle of primary education. This programme adopted an immersion approach, so that non-Catalan-speaking learners or those who lived in a context where Catalan was not the dominant language could develop linguistic competence in a language that they did not normally use. In the Programa d’Incorporació Progressiva or PIP, the language used as the basis of teaching was Spanish. Catalan was orally introduced in infant education. In primary education, these learners had a language subject in Catalan, Valencià: Llengua i Literatura, from the first year of primary education, and at least one content subject, Coneixement del Medi Natural, Social i Cultural, from the third year of primary education. The idea was to ensure the development of both curricular content and linguistic competence in Catalan. These bilingual programmes were normally simplified into two models, also known as lines (línies), depending on the main language of instruction. Catalan-based programmes (PIL and PEV) were known as Línia en Valencià (Valencian Line), and the Spanish-based programme (PIP) was known as Línia en Castellà (Castilian Line). Moreover, in the Valencian Community curriculum, Catalan and Spanish coexist with the learning of L3 English. Several measures have been taken to improve learners’ English skills in the Valencian education system with the implementation of programmes with a foreign language as the medium of instruction. Taking into account the context of the Valencian Community, these programmes have tried to complement the pre-existing bilingual programmes (PEV, PIL, PIP). In other words, new regulations have been intended to continue providing learners with the opportunity of learning content subjects in Catalan and Spanish, adding English to these. These programmes have been implemented gradually. One of the first attempts was the Enriched Bilingual Education Programme (Programa d’Educació Bilingüe Enriquit or PEBE), which was introduced to be applied from the year 1998–1999. It consisted in adding a foreign language as the language of instruction from the first cycle of primary education (Orden de 30 de junio de 1998). The idea was that

12  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

schools could gradually implement this programme from the beginning to the end of primary education. The amount of time devoted to English depended on the level. This measure meant moving English instruction forward from the second cycle (eight years old, third year in primary school) to the first cycle (six years old, first year in primary school). In 2008 (Resolución de 30 julio de 2008), a plurilingual programme in the second cycle of infant education was started, allowing for the introduction of English in pre-school education at the age of four. It was applied from the year 2008–2009. This programme was integrated with the bilingual programmes (known as Plurilingual PEV, PIL or PIP) by adding between one hour and one hour and a half of English instruction to the pre-existing programmes. All the programmes described above were optional and represented the experimentation phase prior to a generalised implementation of plurilingual programmes in the Valencian education system. In 2012, a new law (Decree 127/2012) regulated officially plurilingual programmes in the Valencian education system. Plurilingual programmes were thus defined as those linguistic programmes characterised by the use of Catalan, Spanish and English as the medium of instruction. Other foreign languages could be added. With this law, the PIL and PEV were merged into the Valencian Teaching Plurilingual Programme (Programa Plurilingüe d’Ensenyament en Valencià or PPEV) and the PIP in its plurilingual version became the Castilian Teaching Plurilingual Programme (Programa Plurilingüe d’Ensenyament en Castellà or PPEC). The PPEV had Catalan as the basis of instruction, while the PPEC had Spanish as the main language of instruction. Both programmes should include at least one content subject in the language that was not the basis for the programme (Catalan or Spanish) in addition to the language subjects at all educational stages and some degree of instruction of a content subject in English. Students should acquire equal competence in Spanish and Catalan and be able to use English efficiently. The possibility of learning an additional foreign language as an optional subject was also considered, thus meeting the objectives of the Barcelona Council of March 2002, which called for the goal of learning two foreign lan­guages in addition to the mother tongue. In infant education, Catalan and Spanish were the main languages of instruction and learners had exposure to English from the second cycle of infant education. In primary and secondary education, in addition to Catalan and Spanish as languages of instruction, content instruction of a non-linguistic subject or module was to be performed in English. These plurilingual programmes were supposed to be implemented progressively, being introduced in the first year of infant education with three-year-old children in the academic year 2012–2013, but were cancelled before their implementation moved forward due to changes in governments and regulations. Currently, the Programa d’Educació Plurilingüe e Intercultural or PEPLI (Law 4/2018)

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  13

establishes the minimum time to teach content through each language, i.e. 25% in Spanish and Catalan and between 15 and 25% in English. Each school must choose through which language the remaining 25% of content subjects will be taught depending on their own resources. In spite of the attempts, to date, only experimental phases have reached some secondary schools. The first experimental programmes were initiated in the year 2008–2009. In 2011, a Plurilingual Schools Network (Xarxa de Centres Plurilingües) was created (Orden 19/2011) including all the schools that conducted any type of content instruction in a foreign language, mainly English. The data for this study were collected in the academic year 2012–2013, when the implementation of plurilingual programmes had not reached secondary education. Our participants followed bilingual programmes in Catalan and Spanish as the medium of instruction only in primary education. The reason is that, by the time the data were gathered, due to the difficult economic situation, secondary schools offered subjects taught in Catalan and Spanish depending on their possibilities. Regardless of the programme followed, in the Valencian secondary-education curriculum all learners have always had three language subjects (English, Catalan and Spanish), which are taught in their respective languages. Students have the option of studying other foreign languages such as French or German, although the vast majority of students choose English. These other foreign languages fall outside the scope of this study. The present monograph focuses on one important aspect of pragmatics and multilingualism – multilingual pragmatic transfer. We have taken a holistic approach, considering the languages in which learners receive instruction (English, Catalan and Spanish). 1.4  Defining Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer

The concept of multilingual pragmatic transfer involves three dimensions: transfer, pragmatics and multilingualism. The origins of pragmatic transfer can be traced back to research conducted on general language transfer in SLA in the 1950s, while the interplay between transfer and multilingualism has seen a rapid increase in interest over the past 20 years. The convergence of the three dimensions is a relatively new addition. In what follows, we will discuss each of these elements in order to provide our own definition of multilingual pragmatic transfer. 1.4.1  Pragmatics and transfer

The learning of a foreign language is undoubtedly related to transfer phenomena. However, the term is not without problems, given the association of interference and transfer with behaviourism in L2 learning. The term was initially understood in the 1950s as the influence of the

14  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

learner’s L1 on the acquisition of an additional language. However, Sharwood Smith and Kellerman (1986) argued that the term transfer was inadequate and a superordinate theory-neutral name was needed. As a result, they suggested the term crosslinguistic influence ‘to subsume under one heading such phenomena as “transfer”, “interference”, “avoidance”, “borrowing” and L2-related aspects of language loss’ (Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1986: 1). They also use this notion to refer to the interplay between earlier and later acquired languages in a broader sense (effect of the L1 on L2, L2 on L3, irrespective of the direction). Ellis (1994) adopts a comprehensive view in the study of transfer, including the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive transfer), avoidance of target language forms, and their overuse. Regarding pragmatics, it was not until Hymes’ (1972) proposal of a socially situated notion of communicative competence that researchers became aware of its importance for communication. This led to the gradual inclusion of pragmatics in general language transfer studies and models of communicative competence for language teaching (Alcón-Soler, 2000; Bachman, 1990; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995, revised in Celce-Murcia, 2007; Savignon, 1983, 2001; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006). Thus, pragmatics and language use became a focus of interest for SLA researchers. Dealing with pragmatic transfer in particular, Bou-Franch (1998: 4) reports that it has been referred to in many ways, such as ‘sociolinguistic transfer’, ‘transfer of L1 sociocultural competence’, ‘transfer of conversational features’ or ‘discourse transfer’, thus reflecting the broad scope of transfer and pragmatic features. The definition of pragmatic transfer depends on how it is understood. In this regard, Bou-Franch (2013a: 4623–4624) distinguishes two different perspectives on pragmatic transfer. One is represented by Kasper (1992), drawing from ILP, and the other, by Kecskes and Papp (2000), motivated by Cook’s (1992) notion of multicompetence. Pragmatic transfer is one of the main interests of ILP. A widely acknowledged definition of transfer is the one proposed by Kasper (1992), who describes it as ‘the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information’ (Kasper, 1992: 207). As reported by Takahashi (2000), pragmatic transfer has been operationalised adopting the research design developed by Selinker (1966, 1969), comparing data from three sources: L1 baseline data from native speakers of the learners’ L1, L1 baseline data from native speakers of the TL, and interlanguage data of the TL from learners. Thus, similarity in response frequencies in the interlanguage, the learners’ L1 and the TL is associated with positive transfer, whereas similar response frequencies in the learners’ L1 and the interlanguage with divergences between the TL and the learners’ L1 and between the TL and the interlanguage are considered to show negative transfer. In other words, many studies have attempted to explore learners’ divergence from/convergence with the native pragmatic

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  15

norm, which has been considered the target norm. However, the so-called native speaker norm has been challenged in later views of research in SLA, ILP and English as a lingua franca (e.g. Alcón-Soler, 2007a; Ortega, 2014). As pointed out by Kecskes (2014), in intercultural communication, norms of interaction, conventions and values are co-constructed by the participants in the communicative event with the aim of achieving mutual agreement and common ground, regardless of the target language norm. In addition, one may argue that divergences between the TL and L2 performance do not always result in communication problems. Kasper (1992) further claims that transfer does not necessarily have a negative effect, since it can act as a facilitator for learning. This role of transfer has been emphasised by LoCastro (2012), who notes that, although misunderstandings or communication breakdowns may take place as a result of the influence of a speaker’s L1, and his/her values and beliefs, ‘positive transfer from the L1 into L2 language use does occur and paves the way for successful communication across languages and cultures’ (LoCastro, 2012: 111). Drawing on the distinction of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics proposed by Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983), Kasper (1992) proposes two types of transfer, pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer. Pragmalinguistic transfer designates the transfer of linguistic means for conveying pragmatic meanings, whereas sociopragmatic transfer refers to the social perceptions underlying appropriate linguistic behaviour. In this regard, research in ILP has demonstrated that learners have full access to the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic components of pragmatic competence (see Kasper, 1992: 210–212). According to Kasper (1992), this evidences a universal pragmatic base available to learners when using a TL. In spite of that, learners may not use this available knowledge due to lack of awareness (Bou-Franch, 2013a: 4624) or linguistic competence (Kasper, 1992: 211). It is at this point that the teaching of pragmatics comes into play, taking into account the important role of instruction on raising students’ awareness of what they already know and promoting the transfer of these universals (Bou-Franch, 2013a: 4624). This aspect is particularly important in multilingual education, where several languages coexist in the learning context. This is related to the second perspective on pragmatic transfer referred to above by Kecskes and Papp (2000). It is motivated by Cook’s (1992) notion of multicompetence, and connected to the notion of multilingualism, the third term involved in multilingual pragmatic transfer. 1.4.2  Multilingual pragmatic transfer

As mentioned above, most research on ILP has compared data from learners’ performance in the TL to data from native speakers of the participants’ L1 and the TL of the study (Selinker, 1966, 1969), idealising the native speaker norm. As a result, SLA research has been criticised

16  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

for having a monolingual bias where the (unachievable) target is the native speaker norm, and for not taking into consideration the presence of other languages in the learners’ repertoire. Drawing on these claims, Cook (1992) introduced the notion of multicompetence, i.e. two or more languages in one mind. He argues that the L2 user is not a sum of monolinguals (or a deficient monolingual speaker in the L2), but should be seen as an independent individual with multicompetence. Thus, the author considers transfer to be part of multicompetence, performing a function both in the process of acquisition and in the L2 user’s state of knowledge at a particular moment. One of the applications of Cook’s (1992) model on pragmatic transfer from a multicompetence perspective is the work of Kecskes and Papp (2000). Adopting a cognitive-pragmatic approach, these researchers advocate that multilinguals have two or more language systems that are in constant interaction. In addition, multicompetent speakers have a common underlying conceptual base that allows them to transfer concepts, pragmatic knowledge and abilities from one language to the other language channel. This idea has been echoed in further models of general language transfer, e.g. the interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 1978, 1981, 2000), the dynamic model of multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) and focus on multilingualism (Cenoz, 2013a, 2013b; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a, 2013, 2014). Moreover, in multilingual speakers, this influence between languages may not be unidirectional, but bidirectional or multidirectional. In the last decades, not only the influence of the L1 on the L2, but also the reverse process (L2L1 influence), has received a great deal of attention. This mutual influence has been referred to as bidirectional transfer (e.g. Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Other approaches have seen codeswitching/ codemixing practices, or, more recently, translanguaging (see García, 2008) or flexible multilingualism (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Creese & Blackledge, 2010) as part of the same phenomenon. Herdina and Jessner (2002: 29) have proposed the concept of crosslinguistic inter­ action, emphasising the dynamic interactions of language systems in multi­linguals. This idea has been adopted in studies on third language acquisition and multilingualism (see, for example, studies in De Angelis & Dewaele, 2011; Gabryś-Barker, 2012). Taking into account the perspectives presented above, we will try to present a comprehensive definition of multilingual pragmatic transfer. Bearing in mind the idea that the different terms suggested share ‘the metaphoric notion of one language influencing another’ (Odlin, 2013: 151), we will use the denomination transfer and consider it as a subtype of the cover term crosslinguistic influence (Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1986) or crosslinguistic interaction (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). In this sense, it is possible to distinguish transfer from other subtypes such as translanguaging, and we follow the seminal publications in pragmatics

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  17

(e.g. Kasper, 1992; Takahashi, 2000) that refer to this phenomenon as transfer. Because pragmatic transfer can include influence in different directions, and languages beyond the L1 and L2 (L3, L4, L5, etc.), we understand it as multilingual (pragmatic) transfer, paraphrasing Odlin (2013: 152). Kasper’s (1992: 207) definition of pragmatic transfer will be taken as a point of departure because, in general terms, it seems suitable for the purpose of this book in the following points noted by Bou-Franch (1998: 4): ‘[it] (1) is process-oriented; (2) allows the study of transfer in learning and in communication; and (3) is comprehensive, in the sense that she talks of “influence” without explicit mention of the types of influence referred to’. However, Kasper’s definition dates from the 1990s, and, in the light of new research findings and theoretical approaches, some observations should be made. Firstly, we understand the term L2 in Kasper’s (1992) definition as referring to any language, be it L1, L2, L3 or any additionally acquired language, given that all the languages in the learners’ linguistic repertoire may influence each other (e.g. Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; see also De Angelis & Dewaele, 2011 and Gabryś-Barker, 2012). Secondly, and related to the previous statement, the influence exerted by languages is considered to take place not in the L1L2 direction only, but L2L1 (Kellerman & Sharwood Smith, 1986; Kecskes & Papp, 2000), and other additional language influence is also possible (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013). Thus, we believe that the bi- or multidirectional dimension of transfer (e.g. Su, 2010) should be considered in the definition of transfer. Thirdly, taking into account the varied contexts in which language learning can take place (e.g. EFL, ESL, English for Academic Purposes, Content and Language Integrated Learning), and the possibility of learning a language as an L3 or further, in our definition, the term TL is used to designate the language being learnt. Finally, it should be noted that some factors may determine this influence (Cenoz, 2001). Having considered these specifications, we have re-elaborated the definition suggested by Kasper (1992: 207) as follows: Multilingual pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics shall refer to the positive or negative influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures in the languages available in their linguistic repertoire. This influence can take place in different directions, i.e. it may be multi-directional. Thus, it includes L1TL influence as well as other types of influence and processes (TLL1, L1L2, L1L3, L3L2, TLL2, etc.). Some factors may promote or constrain pragmatic transfer.

In the present monograph, the focus will be on the influence of the TL (L3 English) on Catalan and Spanish as languages of instruction

18  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

and also on the influence of these two languages among them and on English. We will further analyse some aspects that may foster or inhibit pragmatic transfer. 1.5  Organisation of the Book

The remaining part of this book is divided into six main chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 provide a literature review, and the last four present the study itself. Chapter 2 focuses on pragmatics in instructional contexts, and narrows the scope down to classroom pragmatics. First, an overview of classroom pragmatics research is given, and then three relevant aspects considered in this study are discussed. One of them concerns research on pragmatic learning using a task-based approach, since this study makes use of real classroom tasks to elicit pragmatics. The following section then deals with the process of pragmatic learning in longitudinal studies across classroom contexts. Especial attention is paid to mixed methods research that takes into account pragmatic changes over time. The last part of Chapter 2 is devoted to the classroom research context that is the target in this book, i.e. the multilingual classroom. Chapter 3 deals with multilingual pragmatic transfer. The chapter is divided into four sections. In the first section, we present an overview of approaches and theories underlying language transfer, with an emphasis on the current trends in the multilingual turn in which learners are seen as multicompetent users of the languages they know (Cook, 1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b) and boundaries between languages become blurred (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a, 2013, 2014). Transfer thus becomes a significant aspect in multilinguals. In the same section, we also highlight theories pointing out the dynamics and complexity of the language learning process (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). The following section deals with research on pragmatic transfer. The starting point are studies on transfer in L2 pragmatics, and then we refer to the few carried out in multilingual learners and narrow down to evidence pointing at transfer on pragmatic markers in multilinguals. After that, the role of proficiency level in multilingual pragmatic transfer is discussed. Taking into account the research gaps and main findings reported in Chapters 1, 2 and 3, Chapter 3 concludes with the formulation of the research questions that guide the study presented in this book. Chapter 4 deals with the research method. This chapter consists of six sections presenting the details of the classroom research project carried out. The chapter opens with a description of the participants, which is followed by a specification and justification of the quantitative (i.e. argumentative writing task) and qualitative (i.e. learners’ guided diaries) instruments, as well as a provision of additional data sources.

Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction  19

Then pragmatic markers, that is the pragmatic focus of this study, are defined as metadiscourse elements, including the taxonomy of pragmatic markers adopted, the descriptions of the categories and pragmatic marker forms selected, and an explanation of the database used and of the problems encountered and solutions adopted. The data collection procedure is then presented and, finally, the chapter concludes with a section dealing with data analysis, involving the statistical tests and the qualitative analysis of the data used to explore each research question. Chapters 5 and 6 present the results. Chapter 5 includes results of the first research question, related to the possibility and changes related to multilingual pragmatic transfer over time. First, quantitative findings related to the development of multilingual pragmatic transfer obtained from the task data are provided, which are then supplemented by qualitative data from the learners’ perspective. Chapter 6 deals with the results regarding the second research question on the role of L3 proficiency level on pragmatic transfer and incorporates details on additional data sources needed to conduct the analysis. In each of these chapters, the presentation of findings is followed by a summary and discussion of results. Chapter 7 is a general conclusion of the book. First, we provide a summary of the main findings and contributions of the present research. The limitations of our study and possible points of departure for future research are then outlined. Bearing in mind the pedagogical implications, some suggestions derived from the present book that may help to improve language learning in the multilingual classroom are mentioned. Notes (1) See also the application of these theories in multilinguals in the dynamic model of multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). (2) See also the book edited by May (2014a). (3) Following recent studies on the sociolinguistic context of the Valencian Community (Portolés, 2015; Portolés & Safont, 2013; Safont, 2011; Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012), we will consider English as an L3. Additionally, as explained above, we will use the terms TL and foreign language interchangeably to designate L3 English as the language being learnt in this sociolinguistic context. Catalan (minority language) and Spanish (majority language) will be considered languages of instruction. In line with holistic approaches blurring the boundaries between languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a), we will address the participants as multilingual learners and users. (4) Following Modirkhamene (2011), we have adopted the term TL to refer to proficiency in a language that is the object of learning regardless of whether it is approached as an L2 or as an L3/additional language.

2 Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts

2.1  Classroom Pragmatics

For language educators and researchers, classroom pragmatics involves the development of pragmatic competence in instructional contexts. This is especially important when pragmatic learning occurs out of the target community, where opportunities for exposure or interaction in the foreign language outside classroom settings are very limited. The study of language learning processes in the classroom is of particular interest for what it can reveal. Williams (2012: 541) identifies the following characteristics of classroom research contexts: (i) the purpose is educational; (ii) an instructor is present; and (iii) more than one learner is present. As a result, the role of the teacher and the dynamics of learners’ interaction are highlighted in this type of research. In fact, one of the strengths of classroom research is that it can be complemented with a variety of data collection techniques that can be given context-specific adjustments (Mackey, 2017). For example, in the study presented in this book, learner journals or diaries are used, which provide useful information on several dimensions of the language learning process and contextual factors. Thus, the traditional dichotomy between quantitative, laboratory-based research versus qualitative, classroom-based research is evolving into the use of mixed method approaches (Mackey, 2017; see also the special issue on mixed method research on pragmatic learning edited by Alcón-Soler & Safont, 2018). Williams (2012) further argues that experimental studies that take place outside the classroom and are designed only for research purposes are not classroom research. Some scholars draw a distinction between classroom research and other similar types of research, such as studies of interaction between dyads outside the classroom, considering that such aspects may have implications for classroom learning (Nunan, 2005; Williams, 2012). In this respect, Nunan (2005) distinguishes between two types of studies, i.e. classroom research and classroom-oriented research: Classroom research includes empirical investigations carried out in language classrooms (however the term classroom might be defined). Classroom-oriented research, on the other hand is research carried out outside the classroom … but which make claims for the relevance of 20

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  21

their outcomes for the classrooms. (Nunan, 2005: 226, cited in Mackey, 2017: 542)

In fact, Mackey (2017) points out several challenges when conducting research in real classroom settings in comparison to laboratory contexts. First, in classroom experimental studies, it is more difficult to guarantee random group assignment to control intervening variables, so most research becomes quasi-experimental with the placement of learner participants in intact classrooms. Second, classroom research needs to allow for some degree of flexibility and receptiveness on the part of the researcher, since the study aims may not always meet the plans or needs of collaborating instructors or institutions. Williams (2012) concludes that classroom-oriented studies are more frequent, probably due to the fact that they are easier to conduct and control, but lack the greater ecological validity of pure classroom research. Whether research outside the classroom represents what happens in the actual classroom is still a topic of debate (Foster, 1998; Gass et al., 2005; Li, 2010). Thus, in a classroom-based study on negotiation for meaning sequences, Foster (1998) found results that contradicted those of experimental studies, indicating that the research context may influence participants’ behaviour. On the contrary, Gass et al. (2005) demonstrated that these settings (laboratory vs classroom) do not exert much influence on learners’ interactions, and it is the task rather than the setting that exerts the greatest impact on interaction and, as a result, on learning. In a meta-analysis of feedback studies, Li (2010: 316) argues that there is enough evidence to conclude that the research context has an effect on the results. This author emphasises that, in a laboratory setting, distraction is kept to the minimum and pedagogical interventions can be put into practice better than in classroom contexts, where distracting variables are more difficult to control. However, classroom research confers ecological validity to the study. In this book, both studies conducted in intact classrooms and those conducted outside of the classroom, if it is for practical research purposes (e.g. recording), will be considered classroom research on pragmatics. Taking into account the above, generally speaking, Williams (2012: 542–543) identifies and describes two major categories of classroom second language research: studies that involve researcher intervention, and research in intact classrooms. In the former, the researcher intervenes by determining the tasks or how the participants are grouped, and attempts are made to control the variables of the study. These results are more generalisable but may somehow influence the natural state of the learners and the classroom. The latter involves the researcher’s observations and/or recordings of the lesson or part of it. The learners may be asked to report their thoughts or reflections by means of stimulated recall, but there is no intervention in instruction. They aim

22  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

at describing what happens in the actual classroom. In most cases, these studies are qualitative and do not deal with actual learning but with how learning opportunities are provided and organised. Some others try to explain how different variables influence learning outcomes. Similarly, but dealing with classroom research on ILP, Kasper (2001: 34) distinguishes and reviews two types of studies: observational1 and interventional studies. The early observational studies analysed language use rather than development in classroom contexts. Until the late 1980s, these non-developmental studies were mainly concerned with analysis of pragmatic input and interaction opportunities provided in instructional settings (House, 1986; Kasper, 1985; Long et al., 1976). Other studies in the late 1980s compared teacher-fronted interaction with aspects of pragmatics and discourse outside the classroom. These studies showed that teacher-fronted interaction simplifies pragmatic input and restricts opportunities for production (Kasper, 1989; Lörscher, 1986; Lörscher & Schulze, 1988), favoured by the IRF (initiation–response–follow-up) exchange structure in the discourse organisation of teacher-fronted teaching. In the 1990s, research on classroom pragmatics was influenced by new theoretical approaches, namely language socialisation theory (Ochs, 1996), and sociocultural and sociocognitive theory (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978), and gave a pre-eminent role to the linguistic environment in language learning. Research on language socialisation approaches language learning as a process that is related with the process of achieving full membership in a social group (Ishida, 2013: 5119). When applied to classroom pragmatics, it investigates ‘how cultural information is conveyed implicitly through teacher–student interaction and how the teachers’ socialisation practices are informed by the social and pragmatic norms of the target culture’ (Kasper, 2001: 37). The sociocultural theory of L2 learning sees the potential of linguistic interaction in developing L2 pragmatics (e.g. Belz & Kinginger, 2003; Van Compernolle, 2014). Similar to sociocultural theory, sociocognitive approaches analyse pragmatic development in the zone of proximal development, pointing out the limitations of teacher-fronted interaction for pragmatic learning and the benefits of discourse-pragmatic abilities2 in peer interaction (e.g. Hall, 1998; Ohta, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001). Regarding non-interventional pragmatics research in classroom environments, it has been noted that incidental learning is possible (e.g. Forman, 2011; Taguchi, 2012), despite the fact that classrooms are poor environments for learning pragmatics where opportunities for pragmatic learning are rather infrequent (Taguchi, 2015a; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). In addition to the scarcity of models of interaction outside the classroom in foreign language contexts and of adequate pragmatic input in textbooks (Barron, 2016; Diepenbroek & Derwing, 2013; Inawati, 2016; Limberg, 2016; Vellenga, 2004), research on teaching pragmatics has motivated a large amount of classroom-based research. Interventional studies mainly

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  23

address the question of whether pragmatics can be learnt and taught in instructional settings (Alcón-Soler, 2005; Alcón-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Arrufat-Marqués, 2019; Houck & Tatsuki, 2011; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Kasper, 1997; Taguchi, 2011b, 2015b; Taguchi & Roever, 2017; Takahashi, 2010a). Two dimensions have raised special interest3: the nature of intervention (explicit vs implicit), and factors that constrain pragmatic learnability. Although a thorough review of instructional studies falls outside the scope of this book, a brief overview is provided here because of the relevance of the findings for pragmatic learning. Dealing with the nature of intervention, in a pioneering study, Kasper (1997) showed that certain pragmatic aspects, such as routine formulas, are teachable. This study inspired further research on the effect of pragmatic instruction (e.g. Alcón-Soler, 2005; Alcón-Soler & Guzmán, 2010; Arrufat-Marqués, 2019; see also studies in Alcón-Soler, 2008; Alcón-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2005, 2008; Martí & SalazarCampillo, 2013; Martínez-Flor et al., 2003; Rose & Kasper, 2001; see also Barron, 2012; Taguchi, 2011b, 2015b; and Takahashi, 2010a for reviews on instructional pragmatics; and Jeon & Kaya, 2006 and Plonsky & Zhuang, 2019 for meta-analyses). As reported by Kasper (2001: 47), the first studies were grounded on pragmatic theory and, to a lesser extent, on pedagogical approaches (e.g. Wildner-Bassett, 1984, 1986). However, a study by Lyster (1994) evidenced a shift towards research informed by psycholinguistics and cognitive theory. Three hypotheses have inspired interventional studies in the last three decades: Schmidt’s (1995) noticing hypothesis, Swain’s (1996) output hypothesis and Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis. As for the second focus of interest in classroom pragmatics, concerning learnability in second language pragmatics, Takahashi (2010b) summarises the major findings of empirical studies on pragmatic instruction. Firstly, explicit instruction and the provision of metapragmatic information seem to have a positive effect on learners’ pragmatic development in an L2 (Alcón-Soler, 2005; Kasper & Rose, 2002), thus confirming Schmidt’s (1995) noticing hypothesis. Secondly, in spite of being noticed, some pragmatic aspects have been reported to be difficult to learn (e.g. Takahashi, 2001). Thirdly, some forms of implicit intervention can be as effective as explicit intervention (e.g. Martínez-Flor, 2006). If pragmatics is teachable, one crucial question is how we can teach pragmatics. Much attention has been paid to the comparison of explicit and implicit teaching in pragmatic instruction (see Taguchi, 2015b; Takahashi, 2010b), whereas other instructional approaches have been investigated to a much lesser extent. One such approach that has received attention in the field of instructed SLA recently is TBLT (see Ellis, 2003; Ellis & Shintani, 2014; González-Lloret, 2016, 2019; Long, 2015; Van den Branden et al., 2009; and the edited volumes by Byrnes & Manchón, 2014; García-Mayo, 2007; González-Lloret & Ortega,

24  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

2014; Taguchi & Kim, 2018a). A task-based approach is based on the principles that communicative competence can be developed by using meaning-focused tasks, and that interaction and negotiation of meaning contribute to language learning. In the next section, we discuss the intersection between TBLT and pragmatics. 2.2  Pragmatic Learning Using a Task-Based Approach

Since the incorporation of pragmatics in the communicative competence construct (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia, 2007; Usó-Juan & MartínezFlor, 2006), this ability has been recognised as an essential dimension to be taken into account in foreign language learning and teaching. While language errors are normally related to a deficiency in the speaker’s linguistic competence, pragmatic errors lead to personalityrelated negative judgements, giving the impression of being impolite or unfriendly (Thomas, 1983). We argue that pragmatics is not only important to avoid pragmatic errors but also to guide and smooth communication – for example when using pragmatic markers to make assumptions about what the speaker/reader knows or does not know or to guide their interpretation of the message. In spite of the relevance of pragmatics for successful communication, language curricula and textbooks tend to ignore or simplify pragmatic-related aspects (Barron, 2016; Diepenbroek & Derwing, 2013; Inawati, 2016; Limberg, 2016; Vellenga, 2004). In addition, classroom discourse is limited in the range of social contexts and power relationships for pragmatics practice (González-Lloret, 2019). Thus, learners need to be provided with a variety of situations and contexts to interact with different interlocutors. An approach that has recently received a great deal of attention from language educators and researchers is TBLT (Bygate, 2015; Ellis, 2009, 2017a, 2017b; González-Lloret, 2019; Long, 2015, 2016). TBLT seems a suitable guiding framework for teaching pragmatics, since it emphasises the use of language in context to address learners’ realworld needs during task performance (González-Lloret, 2019; Taguchi & Kim, 2018b). Moreover, tasks are also useful tools to elicit real learners’ data in intact classrooms, which grant ecological validity to classroom research. However, research in the intersection between pragmatics and TBLT is still incipient (see the volume by Taguchi & Kim, 2018a). The central concept in TBLT is the notion of task. In spite of the discussions and research carried out in this regard over the last decades (see Ellis, 2009, 2017a; Long, 2016), scholars have not agreed on a single definition of task to distinguish it from activities or exercises, yet some recurrent features stand out. Long (2015) and Willis and Willis (2007) emphasise real-world communication of tasks, and Long (2015) further claims the importance of conducting learners’ needs analysis. Ellis (2017a),

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  25

based on Breen (1989), makes a distinction between task-as-workplan, i.e. the task instructional materials, and task-as-process, i.e. the learners’ performance of the task. For instance, in the task ‘Candidates for a job’, the task-as-workplan is the information about the candidates and the job, while task-as-process involves the decision-making process of evaluating the best candidate. Considering task-as-workplan, Ellis (2003; see also Ellis & Shintani, 2014: 135) suggests four criterial features that a task should meet in order to be classified as such: (i) a primary focus on meaning; (ii) existence of a gap; (iii) learners’ reliance on their own resources; and (iv) existence of a clearly defined outcome (for more details, see Section 4.2). These criterial features contribute to distinguish a task from an exercise. However, Ellis (2010) also argues that some classroom activities may not satisfy all but only some of these criteria. For example, Kim and Taguchi (2015) used drama script writing tasks, which may not be considered authentic tasks to be performed outside the classroom taking into consideration learners’ needs, whereas other criteria are met. Ellis (2010) approaches these materials as workplans in a continuum between a task and an exercise, while Taguchi and Kim (2018b) view them as examples of pedagogic tasks, taking into account that they are meaning-oriented, their context-specific authenticity, and their clear task outcomes. Pedagogic tasks do not represent real-life situations but generate natural language use and interactional authenticity; in contrast, real-world tasks are authentic both in terms of the situation and interaction (Nunan, 1989: 40). This categorisation is similar to Long’s (2015) distinction between task-types and pedagogic tasks. In the area of classroom pragmatics, the definition of task is problematic, since the term task has been used to refer to ‘any pedagogical activity used to explicitly or implicitly teach pragmatics’ (Taguchi & Kim, 2018b: 6). Frequently, instructional materials used do not share the characteristics of tasks proposed by TBLT researchers (for a discussion, see Taguchi & Kim, 2018b). At the same time, one of the gaps in the current TBLT research is the lack of focus on pragmatics. In a recent review of TBLT studies, Plonsky and Kim (2016) evidenced that only 6% out of 85 studies examined addressed pragmatic aspects. Similarly, the field of pragmatics can contribute to TBLT by extending the definition of task to incorporate contextual features usually taken into account in pragmatics research (Taguchi & Kim, 2018b). Some studies on pragmatics have incorporated tasks in research following the TBLT literature. The range of tasks is varied, including tasks that promote metapragmatic discussion (e.g. Kim et al., 2018), meaning-based tasks with real-life interlocutors (e.g. Cunningham, 2016; Kim & Lee, 2017), technology-mediated tasks (e.g. Sykes, 2014; see also the volumes by González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; and Taguchi & Sykes, 2013), or different task modalities (e.g. oral and written; see Fukuya & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Reagan & Payant, 2018).

26  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Although an extensive review of studies on pragmatics from a taskbased approach is out of the scope of this book,4 we would like to illustrate the main trends in the TBLT–pragmatics intersection currently. Research connecting these two fields may be grouped into three main areas of interest: (i) research investigating the relationship between the use of tasks in different instruction modes (Alcón-Soler, 2007b, 2018); (ii) studies exploring the effectiveness of task-based teaching of pragmatics (Shoushinasab, 2013; Taguchi & Kim, 2014; Tajeddin et al., 2012; Winke & Teng, 2010); and (iii) studies on how particular tasks may provide opportunities to learn or practise a specific pragmatic feature (Martín-Laguna, 2014; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2013; Neary-Sundquist, 2013). Dealing with the relationship between task and mode of instruction, Alcón-Soler (2007b) analysed the effect of consciousness-raising tasks on learners’ awareness and production of requests. She compared instructional effects in two treatment groups (explicit and implicit) and a control group of 132 high-school EFL learners. The results demonstrated that the use of consciousness-raising tasks promotes learners’ awareness of requests. It was also found that the effects of explicit instruction are longer-lasting than implicit instruction. Alcón-Soler (2018) focused on the effect of task-supported language teaching and the impact of different classroom participatory structures (i.e. student–students vs teacher–students interaction) in an email message collaborative writing task by L1 Spanish college students learning L2 English. Results showed that both treatment groups outperformed the control group when mitigating requests, although group differences were found regarding the degree of interactional engagement during task performance. A few studies have focused on the efficacy of TBLT procedures in pragmatic learning. Winke and Teng (2010) investigated how a taskbased tutorial programme involving explicit pragmatic teaching could benefit learners’ pragmatic competence. The participants were university learners of Chinese as a foreign language in a study abroad context (n = 19) in a summer programme. Each student in the experimental group was assigned to a trained Chinese tutor, who rotated every two weeks. The pairs worked through a pragmatics workbook during the eight-week programme. In addition to the tutorials, the learners wrote a learning and awareness journal. The students in the control group stayed in the US and did not study Chinese over the summer. A test of Chinese pragmatics was administered before and after the programme to both groups and showed that the group studying abroad significantly outperformed the control group, and that the gains during the period abroad were also statistically significant. The learners’ journal provided further insights into those gains, suggesting that they could be attributed to the pragmatics tutorial programme. Tajeddin et al. (2012) investigated task-based effects on pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness and pragmatic self-assessment

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  27

in two experimental groups (pre-task and post-task focus vs while-task feedback), and a control group with no pragmatic focus. Five speech acts (requests, refusals, apologies, suggestions and compliments) were examined. The instructional materials were tasks following Ellis’ (2003) framework. A series of tasks involving different task types to focus on the four skills were designed on the basis of the target speech acts. The results revealed that pragmatic focus and feedback in the experimental groups contributed to the development of self-assessment and metapragmatic awareness. However, it was concluded that the use of tasks had a positive effect on pragmatic development, given that pragmatic production was enhanced at a similar level in the three groups at the end of the study in terms of production, regardless of the presence or absence of feedback or a focus. Shoushinasab (2013) conducted a study to determine which aspects of pragmatic competence (implicatures, situational routines and speech acts) were enhanced most by applying a task-based instructional approach. One hundred adult learners of English in a language school in India participated in the study. The experimental group received taskbased instruction involving role-plays, learning together and pair talk types of activities, while the control group received instruction according to the conventional method. The results showed that task-based instruction of pragmatics affected each pragmatic dimension studied in a different way, and benefited the learning of situational routines to a greater extent than implicatures and speech acts. Taguchi and Kim (2014) explored the effects of collaborative dialogue in learning requests. The participants in the study were female high-school students in South Korea (n = 74), divided into three groups: collaborative, individual and control group. Both the collaborative group and the individual group received metapragmatic information and performed a dialogue construction task. The former carried it out in pairs, while the latter did it individually. The control group did not receive any instruction. The study showed that learners in the collaborative group outperformed the individual group in the production of target-like request head acts in the immediate post-test, although the gains were not sustained over time, since after one month both groups performed the same. No group differences were reported in relation to the use of modification. Another focus of interest has been on the potential that specific tasks may have to produce or learn a particular pragmatic feature. NearySundquist (2013) explored the relationship between task type and production of pragmatic markers in learners at varying proficiency levels. The study made use of existing data from an oral proficiency university test administered to prospective international teaching assistants at an American university with no research purposes. The participants (n = 47) were graduate students that were native speakers, and non-native

28  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

speakers at different proficiency levels. The data were obtained from four tasks differing in their structure (news, personal, passing information, and telephone). The results indicated that non-native speakers used pragmatic markers less than native speakers in the four tasks under study. It was found that proficiency level and task type affected the frequency of pragmatic markers used in a way that was not expected. The learners with the highest proficiency level showed patterns closer to those of native speakers than to learners at lower proficiency levels. Focusing on the role of the interlocutor on task performance, Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2013) examined learners’ production of refusals in a set of role-play situations by secondary-school learners at different proficiency levels and in interaction with peers and teachers. The results showed that the higher-proficiency group and the learners interacting with the teachers produced more indirect strategies than lower-proficiency students and students interacting with other learners. As part of the same research project but dealing with collaborative tasks, Martín-Laguna (2014) analysed attention to pragmatics during the performance of a pragmatic-focused task with different interlocutors (teacher vs peer). The findings suggested that attention to pragmatics, operationalised by means of language-related episodes, only took place in teacher–learner interaction, although not in the targeted speech act (refusals). The studies seen above have been conducted in ESL or EFL instructional contexts. However, new approaches in the language classroom, the demanding needs on learners in the modern world, and awareness of sociolinguistic contexts have given way to the emergence of new and varied language learning contexts,5 such as the study abroad context (e.g. Alcón-Soler, 2015; Barron, 2003; Vilar-Beltrán, 2014), technology platforms (Taguchi & Sykes, 2013), Content and Language Integrated Learning programmes (e.g. Basterrechea & García-Mayo, 2014; Dalton-Puffer, 2005; see Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013; Llinares et al., 2012; Nikula et al., 2013) and other plurilingual programmes (MartínLaguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018; Portolés, 2015). In spite of this, research on the intersection between TBLT, pragmatics and multilingualism is still in its initial stages. The present study tries to contribute to shed light on this issue by using tasks to explore pragmatic learning in a context that has received scant attention to date, the multilingual classroom. In addition, the few studies that have used tasks to focus on pragmatics in the classroom have followed experimental/quasi-experimental or cross-sectional designs. A research gap in task-based research on classroom pragmatics is related to the study of pragmatic development and how pragmatics changes over time from a multilingual approach. In the next section, studies that have addressed the process of pragmatic learning in classroom settings over time are discussed.

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  29

2.3  Longitudinal Pragmatics Research Across Learning Contexts

One aspect of pragmatic learning is how it develops over time. However, most research on ILP has analysed pragmatic use rather than development (see Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2000; De Paiva, 2010; Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Li, 2016; Taguchi, 2010). Previous longitudinal studies have tried to account for this aspect using a wide range of methodologies, from ethnographic to descriptivequantitative studies, and have explored three main aspects in pragmatic functions: comprehension, metapragmatic awareness and recognition, and production (see Li, 2016 and Taguchi, 2010 for overviews; see also Kasper & Rose, 2002). Longitudinal research in pragmatic production in particular constitutes the main focus of interest in the present study, since ‘different from pragmatic comprehension and perception, the production of pragmatic functions involves the knowledge of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics in unison with the capacity to articulate the knowledge while coping with on-line demand of production’ (Taguchi, 2011a: 606). Whether the focus is on pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic aspects of production, it cannot be denied that pragmatic learning takes time. Sociopragmatic knowledge seems to display a regular, increasing progress (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Schauer, 2004; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007). In contrast, the process of learning pragmalinguistic forms is slow and non-linear (e.g. Schauer, 2004; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007), and explicit correction, feedback and noticing play a decisive role in the facilitation of pragmatic gains (e.g. Barron, 2003; BardoviHarlig & Hartford, 1993; Belz & Kinginger, 2003). In other words, while sociopragmatic abilities seem to develop naturally over time, linguistic resources to encode pragmatic intentions do not follow such a rapid development (see Taguchi, 2010: 352). Taguchi (2011a) suggests that the modest gains regarding pragmalinguistic competence in production can also be related to the fact that linguistic and lexical processing demands partially constrain pragmatic development. In this regard, while a threshold level of grammatical ability is necessary to encode pragmatic functions, it cannot be assumed that a high level of grammatical competence or proficiency translates into a corresponding level of pragmatic competence (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Martí, 2008; Schauer, 2006; see Xiao, 2015 for a discussion on the effects of proficiency on pragmatic learning). Moreover, Taguchi (2010) accounts for the differences in sociopragmatic versus pragmalinguistic development, suggesting that learners who are fully competent in their L1 pragmatics possess a base of universal pragmatic knowledge and strategies (Bialystok, 1993; Levinson, 1983; Mey, 2001) that are re-adjusted in L2 learning. This establishes the link between pragmalinguistic forms and contexts of occurrence.

30  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Another explanation for the existence of different patterns when comparing the development of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic abilities, and also when analysing diverse pragmatic targets (see MartínLaguna, 2018), may be related to factors around the context of learning and learner agency, which may influence the process of pragmatic learning (Taguchi, 2011a). To put it another way, in the process of learning pragmatics over time, it is not only the language learning context that affects pragmatic learning, but also the way in which learners experience and respond to the available learning opportunities (e.g. Kinginger, 2008). Thus, different experiences in the same learning context may lead to varied patterns of development over time. For example, the study abroad context offers possibilities to interact with lingua franca speakers of the TL that learners may decide to take advantage of or not. In the setting that is the focus of this book, the multilingual classroom, learners are provided with pragmatic input and output opportunities in an academic context in several languages. They may experience and use these possibilities in different ways to shape varied patterns of interaction between languages over time. Taking into account this dimension, some scholars have claimed that the portrait of pragmatic development is rather incomplete, since longitudinal research alone is not enough to provide a complete picture. Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005: 41, cited in Taguchi, 2010: 354) have pointed out that the ‘goals of these [longitudinal] studies have been, rather than documenting and understanding change over time, to capture continuity and to achieve deep understanding of roles, interrelationships, and intentionalities in ecologies of second language learning that are viewed as stable over time’. Taguchi (2010: 354–355) notes that ethnographic studies provide rich qualitative data but lack systematicity in data collection points, while quantitative-descriptive studies should include qualitative data to provide a more detailed account of pragmatic development and the nature and influence of the social context. As a matter of fact, current epistemological orientations in SLA research have pointed out the importance of looking at the learning process in a social context, inspired by sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2000, 2012). In a similar vein, recent theoretical trends, such as dynamic systems theory (De Bot et al., 2007; Verspoor et al., 2011) and complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), have emerged in response to traditional approaches, taking a broader view where classrooms are seen as complex and dynamic systems, and language learning is viewed as a non-linear process emerging from the interaction of multiple variables, including broader social aspects and the learning environment (Atkinson, 2011; Block, 2003; Duff, 2012; Lantolf, 2012; Larsen-Freeman, 2012a). Taguchi (2011a) has indicated that research exploring the dynamicity of multiple dimensions in pragmatic changes is needed. Thus, longitudinal research combining qualitative and

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  31

quantitative analyses seems to be an adequate means to provide a more complete account of the process of pragmatic learning and of the multiplicity of variables that may interact in the actual classroom (see the special issue on mixed method approaches in pragmatics research by Alcón-Soler & Safont, 2018). Although some longitudinal studies have provided a detailed account of the interaction between context, learners and pragmatic learning (e.g. DuFon, 2000; Hassall, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Ohta, 2001; Schmidt, 1983; Siegal, 1996), most of them have addressed second and foreign language contexts. Taguchi (2011a) has argued that the notion of language learning context needs to be broadened to a wider range of instructional settings, and that ecological approaches to analyse the impact of learners’ experiences and contextual aspects on language learning are also needed. Taking into account this idea, a few longitudinal studies have explored pragmatics in specific language learning contexts, paying attention to the interplay of the characteristics of those classroom settings with their pragmatic development over time. Such studies have adopted a mixed method approach, combining data from qualitative and quantitative measures. To our knowledge, very few longitudinal studies in pragmatics have taken this ecological perspective to date, some of them involving teaching intervention in a study abroad context (AlcónSoler, 2015, 2017), and some others in intact classrooms where there was no pragmatic instruction for research purposes, in particular in an EFL context (Martín-Laguna, 2019), in immersion settings (Taguchi, 2011a, 2012), during study abroad (Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019), and in multilingual instructional contexts (Martín-Laguna & AlcónSoler, 2018) (see Table 2.1). In the area of teaching pragmatics, Alcón-Soler (2015) analysed the effects of instruction and length of stay on pragmatic learning in a study abroad context in order to determine whether these factors had an effect on learners’ pragmatic ability to mitigate requests. Data were collected from student-initiated naturally occurring emails. The study showed that the immediate gains of pragmatic instruction were not sustained during the study abroad. Although the study apparently seemed to lend support to the influence of length of stay rather than instruction in pragmatic production, the qualitative analysis revealed changes and individual variation in learners’ ability to mitigate email requests, and in the use of openings and closings in the experimental group, which did not occur in the control group. As a follow-up study, Alcón-Soler (2017) looked at how different factors may influence pragmatic change at an individual level in real email communication in the same setting. The two students involved in Alcón-Soler’s (2017) study had similar characteristics – both were in the experimental group, had an intermediate level of English, studied English in a study abroad context, and lived with their Spanish families in England. In spite of this, they differed in their developmental

Recognition of pragmatic routines

English

English

English

Sánchez-Hernández and Alcón-Soler (2019)

Taguchi (2011a)

Taguchi (2012)

Speech act comprehension (implicatures) and production (appropriateness)

Speech act production: requests and opinions (appropriateness and fluency)

Discourse-pragmatic markers (textual and interpersonal)

Speech act production: requests

Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018)

English

Alcón-Soler (2017)

Speech act production: requests

Textual discoursepragmatic markers

English

Alcón-Soler (2015)

Target pragmatic aspects

Martín-Laguna (2019)

Target language

Study

Quantitative: computerised pragmatic listening test, oral DCT. Qualitative: student interviews, teacher interviews, class observations, journals and field notes.

Quantitative: computerised oral DCT. Qualitative: interviews, class observations and field notes.

Quantitative: vocabulary knowledge scale, sociocultural adaptation scale and language contact survey. Qualitative: semi-structured interviews.

Quantitative: argumentative writing tasks. Qualitative: teachers’ semistructured interviews, learners’ guided diaries and field notes.

Quantitative: argumentative writing tasks. Qualitative: teachers’ semistructured interviews.

Quantitative: naturally occurring emails. Qualitative: naturally-occurring student emails, learners’ reports on perception on request imposition, semi-structured interviews and researcher’s notes.

Quantitative: naturally occurring emails. Qualitative: learners’ reports on gained knowledge.

Measures/data

Table 2.1  Studies on pragmatic development taking into account the context of learning

48 Japanese learners 25 English native speakers

48 Japanese learners 24 English native speakers

31 Brazilian learners of English

313 Catalan–Spanish bilingual learners of L3 English 15 language teachers

313 Spanish learners of English 4 case learners 4 English teachers

60 Spanish learners of English 2 Spanish learners of English

60 Spanish learners of English

Participants

Immersion

Immersion

Study abroad

Multilingual

EFL

Study abroad

Study abroad

Context

1 academic year

1 academic year

1 semester

1 academic year

1 academic year

1 academic year

1 academic year

Study length

32  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  33

trajectories in the performance of email requests. The study reveals that changes in the perception of request imposition, which may evolve as the learners become language users in the target community, influence email performance of requests. Reasons such as the desire to be accepted in the community, as well as the learners’ personal choice to adopt the pragmatic norms of the target community, seem to have influenced their trajectories. Thus, the author concludes that understanding the process of pragmatic learning not only involves learners’ learning trajectories but also the reasons behind them. Dealing with non-interventional descriptive research, Martín-Laguna (2019) analysed in what ways individual differences affect pragmatic learning trajectories in adolescent EFL learners in intact classrooms. Each learner wrote one argumentative essay three times over one academic year during regular classes, and a mixed method approach was followed to examine gains in the production of textual discourse-pragmatic markers. A quantitative analysis at the group level showed that gains in the use of textual discourse-pragmatic markers tend to occur rapidly and be sustained at the end of the academic year. In spite of the pragmatic gains, individual pragmatic learning trajectories from four participants (involving high and low generators of discourse-pragmatic markers) were qualitatively examined. Results showed that individual pragmatic learning trajectories seem to be closely related to the nature of what happens to the learners in the instructional context, together with their personal experiences, such as teachers’ support when facing academic problems. Taguchi (2011a, 2012) analysed patterns of pragmatic development and how the course of this development can be affected by individual differences and experiences in an immersion context. Taguchi (2011a) explored the performance of speech acts (requests and opinion) at different levels of imposition. As part of the same project, Taguchi (2012) expanded the objective to the comprehension of implicatures in speech acts (refusals and opinions) and routines. The participants in both studies were 48 Japanese college students of English in an immersion setting – in particular, in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme at an English-medium university in Japan. The instrument used to collect the data was an oral discourse completion test (DCT) that was administered three times over one academic year. Regarding production, findings revealed that over time participants showed gains in appropriateness, although the pattern of development was constrained by the situational variable (low- vs high-imposition). In contrast, speech rate showed a large gain in the initial period with no growth in the second one regardless of the situation type, which is related to a possible need for time in order to report a meaningful increase in gains. As for pragmatic comprehension, conventional implicatures were found to be easier and faster to understand than non-conventional ones, and showed faster development, probably due to the fewer processing

34  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

demands in the former. In addition, in conventional implicatures, gains in speech acts were stronger than routines, which were slow-developing. It was also revealed that the pattern of learning regarding speech acts may have been facilitated by the transfer between L1 Japanese and L2 English shared conventions – for example, knowledge of indirect refusals. Similar to routines, the ability to comprehend non-conventional implicatures, which involved higher processing demands, was found to be late-developing, possibly motivated by the transfer of inferential skills from the students’ L1 to L2 comprehension of implied meaning. The qualitative analysis showed that individual variation in the type and intensity of contact influenced pragmatic learning. For example, in the case of one of the students, named ‘Shoko’, her positive attitude towards feedback and sensitivity regarding formality and politeness in English seemed to have contributed to pragmatic gains. Another student, ‘Tomoyo’, was an example of pragmatic backsliding. She was open and expressive. It seems that her perception of formality was altered by being highly socialised into the target sociopragmatic norms, and she tended to opt for casual and informal language. As a result, she lacked opportunities to use formal language on campus and all these aspects may have influenced the fact that Tomoyo progressed in all aspects of pragmatic competence analysed except for appropriateness of highimposition speech acts. These two cases provide evidence for the role of learners’ experiences in the learning context, which mediate pragmatic change and can account for variation at the individual level. In a study abroad context, Sánchez-Hernández and Alcón-Soler (2019) found that both sociocultural adaptation and intensity of inter­ action contributed to increase the 31 Brazilian students’ ability to recognise pragmatic routines during a semester abroad in a US university. As in the studies reviewed above, qualitative data from semi-structured interviews on two informants revealed that the nature of their adaptation experiences and the interaction patterns they were exposed to influenced individual trajectories. In multilingual classrooms, Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018) explored patterns of pragmatic development focusing on the production of two types of discourse-pragmatic markers (textual and interpersonal). The participants were 313 Catalan–Spanish bilingual learners of L3 English in secondary school. They were asked to perform argumentative writing tasks in English, Catalan and Spanish together with guided diaries three times over the academic year (see Table 2.1 for more details). Quantitative results evidenced gains in the production of textual discourse-pragmatic markers in English, in contrast to the irregular pattern observed in interpersonal discourse-pragmatic markers. Findings also revealed variations between languages: learning trajectories in the minority language (Catalan) and the L3 (English) were more fluctuating and the trajectories interacted with each other, which contrasted with

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  35

the linear development shown in the majority language (Spanish). Qualitative results from both the teachers and the learners illustrate that factors related to the research context, such as learners’ pragmatic awareness, teachers’ practices and the sociolinguistic context of the study, may interact in the process of pragmatic learning in the multilingual classroom. To summarise, longitudinal research on pragmatic development across contexts has shown that (i) pragmatic development is non-linear and subject to the pragmatic aspect under study; (ii) the characteristics of different settings provide diverse opportunities for pragmatic learning that affect the course of pragmatic development (Alcón-Soler, 2015; MartínLaguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012); (iii) the interplay between context and individual differences shapes changes in pragmatic development over time (Alcón-Soler, 2017; Martín-Laguna, 2019; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012); and (iv) instruction has a facilitative role, both quantitatively, in immediate gains, and qualitatively, in instructed learners’ ability to make informed decisions of their pragmatic choices (Alcón-Soler, 2015). The insights provided as a result of the adoption of a mixed method approach, i.e. combining data from quantitative and qualitative measures in longitudinal research, seem to make it an adequate method to account for the dynamicity and complexity of the language learning process that has been claimed in dynamic systems theory (De Bot et al., 2007; Verspoor et al., 2011) and complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Most longitudinal research on pragmatics (see Taguchi, 2010 and Li, 2016 for overviews) has mainly focused on speech acts. The study of pragmatic learning trajectories should be expanded to additional pragmatic targets. Among the range of pragmatic aspects that remain underexplored, scholars have pointed to the need to conduct longitudinal studies and adopt a more qualitative approach in the study of pragmatic markers, also taking into account learners’ awareness of pragmatic marker use (Neary-Sundquist, 2013: 17). However, to our knowledge, only Martín-Laguna’s (2019) and MartínLaguna and Alcón-Soler’s (2018) studies, reviewed above, have taken this into consideration. Moreover, longitudinal research considering the interplay between context and pragmatic development reported above has explored EFL, immersion and study abroad contexts. Taguchi (2010: 355) has noted an additional research gap regarding the need to broaden the focus of studies with a longitudinal design to diverse TLs and learning contexts. One such context that remains to be further investigated is the multilingual classroom. The coexistence of languages in a multilingual classroom makes it a distinct classroom context (see Section 3.1), different from learning a language in the traditional EFL/ESL classroom, or in immersion or study abroad settings. Since the multilingual

36  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

classroom is the research context examined in the present study, in the next section, research on pragmatics in such an instructional setting is examined. 2.4  Pragmatic Learning in the Multilingual Classroom

In Section 2.1, it was pointed out that most classroom pragmatics research to date has focused on how instruction facilitates pragmatic learning in classroom settings. Within classroom research, Section 2.2 discussed the connection between TBLT and pragmatics, and Section 2.3 emphasised the value of longitudinal research that takes into account the opportunities and experiences that each setting provides to learners in the process of pragmatic learning. One such context that has raised interest is the multilingual classroom. Multilingual instructional contexts are worth studying because the learning of a foreign language coexists with other languages present in the community of speakers, and, if recognised by institutions, in the education system too. In contrast to the approach followed in traditional EFL settings, multilingual learners have a particular linguistic background and should be considered multicompetent learners (Cook, 2003, 2013a, 2013b), having a ‘complex system with its own parameters exclusive to the multilingual speaker’ (Jessner, 2003: 48) that makes them different from monolinguals (see Chapter 3). Although research has examined language acquisition in multilingual learners (see studies in De Angelis & Dewaele, 2011 and GabryśBarker, 2012), the study of pragmatics in multilingual instructional settings is still incipient. Studies to date have shown two trends that define the peculiarities of this learning context. First, one of the main findings reported to date concerns the superiority of multilinguals over monolinguals.6 In particular, research has indicated that instructed bilinguals outperform monolinguals in L3 oral production, in particular in awareness and production of requests (Safont, 2005), request modifiers (Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012) and refusals (Alcón-Soler, 2012). Similar results have been reported in non-interventional studies examining production (Cenoz, 2003a), awareness and comprehension of requests (Portolés, 2015; Portolés & Safont, 2018) and formulaic speech (Safont & Portolés, 2016) in multilingual classrooms. Other studies that focus on classroom discourse have adopted a multilingual perspective in the study of translanguaging practices in the multilingual classroom, reporting use of a wider variety of strategies by multilinguals (Martí & Portolés, 2019; Portolés & Martín-Laguna, 2012; Portolés & Safont, 2013). Second, research has evidenced that multilinguals can benefit from the pragmatic knowledge available in the languages in their linguistic repertoire (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). Other studies, although with different objectives, have also

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  37

noted this possibility in the diverse pragmatic aspects analysed (Cenoz, 2003a; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015). In spite of multilingual learners’ ability to transfer pragmatic skills, there seems to be some apparent contradiction in the results obtained. On the one hand, Cenoz (2003a) seems to support the fact that there is a threshold level for pragmatic transfer to occur, since, in her study on requests in Spanish–Basque bilingual learners of L3 English, higher proficiency in English seems to promote similarities in pragmatic production in the languages involved in comparison to the less advanced group. On the other hand, research by Safont (2011, 2012, 2013) in pragmatic production, and Safont and Portolés (2015) in pragmatic comprehension, seems to evidence the fact that linguistic interaction, and therefore transfer, may happen even at beginner levels. The current monograph tries to contribute to this discussion point. Additional gaps concern the educational stages addressed, the instruments used and the study design. Firstly, the classroom-based studies reviewed above cover mainly three stages of education: preschool and primary education (Portolés, 2015; Portolés & Safont, 2018; Safont & Portolés, 2015, 2016) and tertiary education (Alcón-Soler, 2012; Cenoz, 2003a; Safont, 2005; Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012). To our knowledge, only the studies by Martín-Laguna and her colleagues (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018) have paid attention to the educational stage between primary and tertiary education, i.e. secondary education, in the study of pragmatic learning in multilinguals. The only exception is Nightingale and Safont’s (2019) study on multilingual translanguaging practices in adolescent online discourse. Secondly, these studies have focused on oral comprehension or production. Some have analysed naturally occurring classroom discourse or have used written DCTs to elicit pragmatics. However, none of them have used tasks that are part of day-to-day learners’ work in the classroom to elicit pragmatics (except for Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). We would like to shed light on pragmatic transfer over time in this classroom setting using contextauthentic pragmatics-focused tasks involving written production. Thirdly, so far, there has been a preference for cross-sectional or interventional designs. As stated earlier (see Section 2.3), longitudinal research seems to be an adequate means to have a more complete account of how pragmatics develops and the changes involved in the process. Previous longitudinal studies have investigated pragmatic production in L2 learners in a variety of instructional settings (e.g. Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2017; Martín-Laguna, 2019; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012; see Li, 2016 and Taguchi, 2010 for recent reviews of longitudinal research in ILP). However, our interest here is on pragmatic development in L3

38  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

learners of English, taking into account the languages in which they receive instruction (English, Catalan and Spanish). To our knowledge, so far, the only longitudinal studies dealing with pragmatic development in these learners are the classroom-based study on pragmatic learning trajectories by Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018), and also the ones by Safont (2011, 2012, 2013) in a family context. Safont (2011, 2012, 2013) addresses early trilingual pragmatic learning in a one-year case study project on the development of requests by a trilingual child (L1 Catalan, L2 Spanish, L3 English). With data in these three languages obtained from play and mother–child interaction, these studies evidence that the three languages interact and modify one another. The researcher notes that the positive-politeness orientation in both Spanish and Catalan could explain the similar patterns observed in L1 Catalan and L2 Spanish. In contrast, English has a negative-politeness orientation that motivates the use of strategies to soften the request and may account for the differences in the patterns of L3 English request production. Most interestingly, Safont’s (2011, 2012, 2013) findings suggest that the introduction of English at the age of 2 years and 11 months had an effect on the decrease in the use of direct requests in the participant’s L1 and L2, which is attributed to the influence of the negative-politeness orientation of English. The author argues for the existence of a transfer in pragmatic skills, such as acknowledgement of directness level in request formulation (Safont, 2011: 268). Cenoz (2007) provides a clear explanation to account for this pragmatic transfer effect in multilinguals: The fact that multilinguals are exposed to different dimensions of communicative competence in several languages and in the case of pragmatic competence to different ways to achieve pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence in the different languages could enhance the use of simplification strategies. In this way, multilinguals could use the same common underlying conceptual base and develop an intercultural style which explains the similarities of their requests in different languages. Monolinguals do not have the need to use these simplification strategies and their requests correspond to their experience in a single language. (Cenoz, 2007: 135)

The studies reported above seem to agree on the existence of a bior multidirectional interaction of language systems in the learners’ repertoire in multilingual classroom contexts (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). It seems then appropriate to consider theoretical underpinnings and research related to multilingual pragmatic transfer in the next chapter. Notes (1) Williams (2012: 541–542) calls these studies descriptive studies and research in intact classrooms.

Pragmatics in Instructional Contexts  39

(2) In most studies on pragmatics, discourse-pragmatic ability is understood as interaction patterns in oral discourse, e.g. initiation moves (see Trosborg’s (1995) discourse analysis model). (3) For a complete review of these dimensions see Takahashi (2010a, 2010b). (4) See also the TBLT studies on pragmatics reviewed in González-Lloret (2019) and the volume by Taguchi and Kim (2018a). (5) For a review of studies in ILP in additional language learning contexts, see Taguchi (2015a) and the volumes on second language pragmatics across contexts edited by Salazar-Campillo and Codina-Espurz (2019) and Sánchez-Hernández and HerraizMartínez (2018). (6) Monolinguals are understood here as speakers of one language or passive bilinguals learning an additional language, in contrast to active bilinguals or active users of two languages learning an additional language.

3 Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer

3.1 Approaches and Theories of Language Transfer: Towards the Multilingual Turn

In Chapter 1, we provided a definition of the notion of multilingual pragmatic transfer, emphasising the fact that, contrary to the traditional view, transfer can be positive and multidirectional in multilinguals. In this section, the early approaches to transfer are taken as a point of departure to later examine and discuss new theoretical trends acknowledging the uniqueness of multilinguals. Regardless of the differences between the fields of SLA, bilingualism1 and third language acquisition/multilingualism2 research, there is common ground criticising the monolingual bias in research and teaching, and claiming that languages in multilinguals are not separate and influence each other. Multilingualism is a paramount and particular condition for the role learners’ linguistic repertoire plays and the advantages it can bring into the process of learning a language. Therefore, this should be taken into account both in education and research with the adoption of a holistic multilingual perspective.

3.1.1  Pioneering work on transfer

During the 1940s and 1950s, scholars in bilingualism and SLA research noticed how L1 aspects influenced the use and learning of an L2, especially at the phonological level, but also regarding syntactic and lexical aspects. Under the influence of behaviourism and the audiolingual method, teachers and researchers in the US tried to predict which linguistic features would be most difficult for learners. The effect of the L1 on the L2 led researchers to propose the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) (Lado, 1957). In its strong form, this hypothesis claimed that learners’ difficulties in mastering some features of a TL could be predicted depending on the extent to which the learners’ L1 and the TL differ. As Bou-Franch (1998: 2) suggests, two assumptions were made at that time. Firstly, the L1 was assumed to exert a strong influence on the L2. Secondly, this influence was regarded as negative, as L1 interference on L2 learning. As a result, it was believed that when the two 40

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  41

languages being learnt were different, there would be negative transfer because learners would experience difficulties and produce errors due to this difference; on the contrary, when the two languages were similar, there would be positive transfer because learning would be facilitated, resulting in no errors. In the 1970s, when predictions arising from the CAH were finally subjected to empirical tests, the CAH and behaviourism were strongly criticised. Although it cannot be denied that the L1 influences L2 performance, the CAH became untenable theoretically and empirically because the assumption that L1 interference could account for all errors could not be proved. Thus, although the CAH predicted some errors, not all of them always materialised (i.e. they were overpredicted), while others were not anticipated (i.e. they were underpredicted) (see LarsenFreeman & Long, 1991: 55). In addition, there were some frequent errors that learners generally made irrespective of their L1. As a result, a weaker form of this hypothesis was later proposed. It was claimed that transfer could not account for all errors, and that the CAH should aim at explaining rather than predicting errors. However, this version was also found to be problematic. On the one hand, Ellis (1994) pointed out that this hypothesis should be able to predict in order to be considered valid. On the other hand, Takahashi (1995: 2) further suggested that the problem of the CAH was not whether it predicted errors or not, but its product-oriented nature. In other words, the CAH only looks at whether or not transfer occurs in the comparison of learners’ native languages and TLs and does not consider that the TL analysed is in the process of being learnt, i.e. it is an interlanguage produced by second language learners (Long & Sato, 1984). In an effort to move away from behaviourism and the CAH, in the 1970s there was a shift towards error analysis (EA) and cognitivism. In EA, the focus of interest was examination of errors that students actually made, considering that they may play an important role in L2 acquisition (Corder, 1967) and may provide evidence of the state of the learner’s progress in language development (Gass & Selinker, 2001). Gass and Selinker (2001) distinguished two types of errors: interlingual (related to the L1) and intralingual or developmental (related to the TL). This perspective is not entirely unproblematic. The main criticism of EA was its strong reliance on errors, which were not considered enough to account for the whole acquisition process. The rejection of the CAH also led to the emergence of ‘minimalist positions’, underestimating the role of the L1 (see Ellis, 1994: Chapter 8). On the one hand, the creative construction paradigm (e.g. Dulay & Burt, 1974) tried to demonstrate that L1 transfer had a minor role in L2 acquisition because L2 acquisition is ruled by universal innate principles (Ellis, 1994; Faerch & Kasper, 1987; Takahashi, 1995). In a study on the acquisition of English grammatical morphemes by Spanish and Japanese

42  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

children learning English in an ESL context, Dulay and Burt (1974) observed that errors were developmental rather than caused by L1 transfer and therefore advocated a universal order of acquisition irrespective of the L1. Further studies have supported this view in adult learners (e.g. Bailey et al., 1974). This position was challenged for underestimating the role of the L1, especially in instructed foreign language contexts, where learners tend to rely on their L1 (Faerch & Kasper, 1987). On the other hand, the ignorance hypothesis (Newmark & Reibel, 1968), which also adopted a minimalist position, saw L1 transfer primarily as a communication strategy to fill in gaps in the learner’s competence (see Ellis, 1994: Chapter 8). The main criticism of this perspective was that it ignores the role of transfer in developing the interlanguage and the fact that direct transfer actually happens (Ellis, 1994). All these positions were found to be problematic because they either overestimated (in the case of CAH) or minimised the role of the L1 on language learning (in the cases of creative construction and ignorance hypothesis). However, the role of the L1 on language learning cannot be denied. Thus, while the leading paradigm in the US was creative construction, in Europe, the ideas suggested by Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972) in the interlanguage hypothesis were considered to be the most appropriate in explaining the processes of language learning (Faerch & Kasper, 1987). Selinker (1972) distinguishes five psycholinguistic mechanisms or processes that are key to second language learning: language transfer, transfer of learning, strategies of second language communication, strategies of second language learning, and overgeneralisation of the target language linguistic material. It is important to emphasise that the notion of language transfer is thus pointed out as a relevant mechanism in the process of learning a language. In this way, Selinker succeeded in integrating the notion of transfer in language learning theory taking into account the contributions of the previous perspectives (Faerch & Kasper, 1987; Takahashi, 1995). In other words, he recognised that the mother tongue definitely plays a part in language learning, while acknowledging that its influence may be realised in forms other than positive and negative transfer, such as overuse (Gass & Selinker, 1992; Odlin, 1989). Nevertheless, one of the objections to Selinker’s perspective was that, in spite of the importance placed on L1 transfer as a process, this approach was seen as rather product-oriented in the kinds of transfer identified (Faerch & Kasper, 1987). It was not until the 1980s that a more process-oriented approach was taken. Kellerman (1977, 1978, 1983, 1986) introduced a psycholinguistic view of transfer, approaching the study of transfer as a mental activity from a cognitive perspective. His main contribution was the idea that learners perceive the linguistic features of the languages and decide whether they are transferable or non-transferable. Kellerman (1983) views the learner as the one who decides which forms and functions

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  43

are adequate for TL use. In this regard, this author proposes three factors that affect language transfer. The first is psychotypology or the learner’s perception of L1–L2 distance. The second factor is the degree of markedness of an L1 structure. This refers to the idea that learners categorise the linguistic features into language-neutral features (features that learners consider to be common to all languages), and languagespecific features (features that learners identify as unique to their language). Finally, the third factor is the reasonable entity principle, related to learners’ beliefs regarding what is possible in the L2 system. A recent view following Kellerman’s (1977, 1978, 1983, 1986) ideas on the importance of learners’ perception is that of Ringbom (2013: 396), who underlines that similarity is an important point in transfer. In line with Kellerman (1977, 1978, 1983, 1986), he argues that these similarities are ‘either perceived or assumed’ by the learners, ‘depending on the relationship between source language and TL (psychotypology), and on whether comprehension or production is involved’ (Ringbom, 2013: 396). He further argues that these similarities can be formal, if similarity is obvious in individual items or words. When formal similarities do not occur, it is also possible to find functional and semantic similarities when these are established between grammatical categories and semantic units. Thus, in comprehension, learners perceive similarities in the TL features that resemble their L1, whereas in production, they assume these similarities when they encode their ideas ‘into language structures either previously learned or created in the absence of learned knowledge’ (Ringbom, 2013: 396) (see Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; Ringbom, 2007; Ringbom & Jarvis, 2009). Ringbom (2013) identifies three levels of transfer: item level, system level and overall level. Before explaining each of them, it is important to clarify the concept of item and system. According to Ringbom (2013: 396), ‘an item is an individual form (sound, letter, morpheme, word, phrase, syntactic unit), while system involves organising forms and mapping meaning onto those forms’. At initial stages, learning occurs on an item-by-item basis in all dimensions of language: phonological, morphological, syntactic and phraseological. According to this author, beginning learners apply an ‘oversimplified equivalence hypothesis, L2 = L1’ (Ringbom, 2013: 396) in which similarities of form are perceived, and simplified one-to-one relationships of meaning and functions are established or assumed. In comprehension, functions and meanings of L2 items are applied to existing L1 items, while in production, those of L1 items are applied to L2 items. Ringbom (2013) further argues that learners at initial stages tend to focus on form rather than on abstract dimensions such as meaning or function. System or procedural transfer concerns the transfer of L1-based abstract principles of organising information to L2 production. Similarities in form are not necessarily perceived; the assumption is rather made based on the fact that the L1 and L2 work

44  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

in almost the same way. Errors may happen in distant languages, which may evidence transfer, but are not the only manifestation of it. Finally, overall transfer concerns ‘learners’ reliance on formal similarities across individual items and functional equivalences between underlying systems’, and depends on the perception of similarities in items and systems between languages (Ringbom, 2013: 397). When these similarities are put together under the principle ‘the whole is more than the sum of individual parts’, they have a facilitating effect on learning. Using Ringbom’s (2013) terms, in this study we are concerned with functional similarities at the item level regarding the use of pragmatic markers, seeing them as phraseological or formulaic constructions. In particular, we are interested in exploring whether existing similarities in textual and interpersonal functions between the languages in the learners’ education system (English, Catalan and Spanish) are assumed or identified by learners. Although Ringbom (2013) argues that beginning learners focus on form rather than on the transfer of function, the participants in this study are not absolute beginners and have been studying English for about ten years, so some degree of transfer of functions at a simple level (item level) is expected. Nevertheless, the effect of proficiency level will be explored to determine whether it plays a role in the transfer of pragmatic competence operationalised as the use of textual and interpersonal pragmatic markers. Current scholars, from a number of different perspectives, would generally acknowledge that transfer plays a role in different areas of language, from phonology to discourse (Ortega, 2009: 31–54). However, there are still different points of view about these influences (Mitchell et al., 2013: 17). While some researchers claim that L1 influence is weak (Klein & Perdue, 1992), others argue that learners with different mother tongues develop differently (e.g. Ringbom, 2007). In this sense, Odlin (2010) identifies two different orientations in recent works on transfer: relativist and universalist, neither of them uncontroversial. The relativist perspective to transfer (e.g. Odlin, 2010; Kellerman, 1995; Jarvis, 1998) questions the universality of patterns in languages. For example, taking a contrastive rhetoric approach, Kaplan (1966) argued that rhetorical differences evolved out of a culture and were not universal (Kaplan, 1966: 44). This author proposed a typology of textual progression associated with different cultures. According to it, English texts were linear and hierarchical, Semitic (Hebrew and Arabic) used parallel patterns, Oriental texts were indirect, and Russian and Romance were characterised by a preference for digressions (see Kaplan, 1966: 21). This typology was very influential and many works based on the premise that ‘rhetorical aspects of each language are unique to each language and culture’ (Casanave, 2007: 27, cited in DePalma & Ringer, 2011: 135) have been conducted since then (e.g. Connor, 1996; Kang,

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  45

2005; Kobayashi, 1984). These studies assumed that L2 users’ difficulties when writing in the TL are caused by negative transfer from L1 to L2 (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1966, 1988). Nevertheless, not all researchers agree that transfer never occurs. These claims were challenged by further studies, which argued that there is no clear evidence that such differences are significant, nor that they may be problematic for language learners (see McCarthy, 1991: 164– 165). On the one hand, some researchers acknowledge that transfer of writing abilities may have limitations (James, 2009) and that it cannot be claimed that writing is a global skill where transfer occurs in any context (McCarthy, 1987). On the other hand, other scholars (Carroll, 2002; Walvoord & McCarthy, 1990; see also Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009 for a review) suggest that learners can adapt prior writing knowledge to new contexts if taught to think rhetorically. For instance, in a twoyear longitudinal study with seven learners who took a first-year writing course, Wardle (2009) found that meta-awareness about writing, language and rhetorical strategies had an effect on the way students later wrote in classes across disciplines. Regarding the limitations of transfer in writing, Smit (2004) distinguishes betweeen broadly based and localised aspects of writing knowledge and ability. While the former can transfer from one context to another, the latter cannot. Thus, Smit (2004) recognises that transfer in writing occurs, although it does not affect all dimensions. In addition, recent research has shown that individual writers tend to develop their own writing style or ‘discoursal self’ regardless of the language used (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a). Kobayashi and Rinnert (2012a: 62) have also argued that the ways arguments are constructed are very similar across languages. Contrastive rhetoric falls outside the scope of this book because we are addressing language transfer in the interlanguage pragmatic development of the same learners using the different languages in the education system. The universalist perspective (e.g. Levinson, 2003) claims that, even though there are language-specific forms, ‘panlinguistic patterns will inform human languages’ (Odlin, 2010: 311). Scholars supporting this view contend that there are elements that all languages share (e.g. deictic elements in Anderson & Keenan, 1985), while others are languagespecific. Some of the analyses from this perspective have been carried out following prototype theory, considering core and peripheral meanings developed by Rosch (1975) and others. Links have also been made between connectionism and cognitive grammar and neurolinguistics (e.g. Ellis, 2013; MacWinney, 2008, 2012). Although it is beyond the scope of this book to give a comprehensive review of these positions, it is important to highlight that they evidence that the issue of relativism remains controversial mainly due to the complexity between relativism and linguistic universality, and, consequently, a continuing balance between these two positions will

46  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

prevent ‘the dangers of wild pendulum swings in theories of acquisition’ (Odlin, 2010: 308). Another recent interest in the current research agenda has been raised in crosslinguistic influence, L3 acquisition and multilingualism research regarding the transfer from other languages in the learners’ repertoire (L2s, L3s, L4s, etc.). According to this perspective, the language systems in the multilingual learner interact and influence each other (Hufeisen & Jessner, 2009). Thus, it could be assumed that the acquisition of any L3 or subsequent languages is related to other languages in the learners’ system and vice versa. In conclusion, it must be noted that language transfer is nowadays considered under the cover term crosslinguistic influence (Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1986). Researchers have gone through several ‘swings of the pendulum’ (Gass, 1996), from behaviourist views in the 1950s and 1960s accounting for all errors in terms of transfer (Lado, 1957) to ‘minimalist’ approaches reducing the role of the L1 (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Newmark & Reibel, 1968). Currently, the role of transfer in language learning is commonly accepted, although it is also acknowledged that such transfer is selective, i.e. some properties may transfer while others may not (Mitchell et al., 2013: 49). Recent studies of transfer and, in its broader sense, crosslinguistic influence, have considered other languages in the learners’ repertoire (Portolés & Safont, 2013; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015; see also Cenoz et al., 2001 and Gabryś-Barker, 2012) and have pointed out that transfer can occur in various directions (e.g. Kecskes & Papp, 2000). It is in fact the role of the coexistence of languages in multilinguals and the interaction between them what is leading to a shift in the recent perspectives on transfer. Early critiques and new approaches are examined in more detail in the sections that follow. 3.1.2  Early critiques: From monolingual to holistic approaches

Until the late 1980s, research on SLA and bilingualism shared three ideas (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a: 357): (i) they had rarely gone beyond two languages; (ii) competence in a second language and bilingual competence were measured against the model of a native speaker; and (iii) the interaction between languages in multilinguals was disconsidered, and ‘hard boundaries’ between languages were encouraged in school contexts, e.g. one teacher, one language and independent language syllabi in the curriculum. These ideas were questioned by scholars from within SLA (Cook, 1991, 1992, 2003, 2013a, 2013b) and bilingualism (Grosjean, 1989, 1992, 2008, 2010). One of the most criticised elements is the adoption of a monolingual bias in SLA. In this regard, Ortega (2014: 33–34) points out three early critiques. The first is Bley-Vroman’s (1983). This

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  47

author warned about the ‘comparative fallacy’, i.e. the difficulties caused by ‘the mistake of studying the systematic character of one language by comparing it to another’ (Bley-Vroman, 1983: 6). This author further argued that study of the learner’s system should be done in its ‘own right’, based on its ‘internal logic’. The second was by Klein (1998), who claimed that the ‘target deviation perspective’ in SLA, which sees learners’ linguistic manifestations as deviations from a target rather than expressions of the learners’ underlying language capacity, limits the potential of SLA contributions. The third and most elaborated critique was Cook’s (1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b). He argued that bilinguals and multilinguals have unique multicompetence, which involves a distinctive state of mind that is not the sum of monolinguals. Multicompetence is currently defined as ‘the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind or the same community’ (Cook, 2013a: 447; 2013b: 3769). According to this definition, at the individual level, the L2 user3 is seen as a whole rather than a sum of monolingual native speakers, and, at the community level, two or more languages are used alongside each other. Cook (2002: 11) proposes three ways in which languages can be related in the same mind (see Figure 3.1): (i) total separation (the two languages are independent); (ii) interconnection (languages are connected to a greater or lesser degree); and (iii) total integration (the languages form a single system). This integration could apply to different areas of language, such as grammar or phonology. However, Cook (2002: 12) further argues that neither total separation (the languages are in the same mind and produced/perceived by the same mouth and ears) nor total integration (due to the user’s capacity to keep one language at a time4) can be completely possible, and proposes the following dimensions in which these relationships could vary: different relationships could apply to different areas of language; the relationship separation

interconnection

integration

LA LA LA & LB LB LB

Figure 3.1  The integration continuum (Cook, 2003: 9). © Multilingual Matters. Reproduced with permission

48  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

might change according to the stage of development or of language attrition; closeness of languages may affect the relationship; and the relationship may vary from one person to another. Placing the L2 user in this integration continuum makes Cook (2002, 2003) reconsider the idea of transfer. He does not see the terms transfer and crosslinguistic influence as appropriate because they imply the idea of moving something from one place (a source) to another (a destination). However, in the integration continuum, linguistic objects are not seen as separate entities but rather as merged overlapping systems where boundaries are blurred. Hence, ‘language acquisition or use is not transferring something from one part of the mind to another, but two systems accommodating to each other’ (Cook, 2002: 18). Following this perspective, two arguments are used in favour of the concept of multicompetence and a move away from the native speaker norm (Cook, 2013a, 2013b). One of the arguments is that the L2 user is the rule rather than the exception. This means that there are probably more L2 users than monolingual native speakers in the world. Although it is difficult to measure the number of multilingual speakers in the world, this is evidenced in the existence of a large number of multilingual communities, as in the case of India, and in the learning of foreign languages in a globalised world, especially English as a lingua franca. The second argument concerns the fact that in linguistic studies it is maintained that one group should not be measured against a group with a different standard. Cook (2013a, 2013b) argues that L2 users are not native speakers of the TL and, consequently, should not be judged against them because L2 users have a distinct compound state of mind. A similar claim has been made by scholars of English as a lingua franca (House, 2003, 2010): the yardstick by which such a ‘still unstable’ ELF speaker should be measured is the stable bilingual or multilingual speaker under com­ parable social, cultural, historical conditions of language use with comparable goals for interaction in different discourse domains. (House, 2003: 149)

As a result, Cook (1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b) argued for the need to adopt a holistic perspective in the study of language learning that would go beyond the native speaker norm. In spite of the wide acceptance of Cook’s (1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b) construct of multicompetence by applied linguists, it has been criticised for not taking into account the context and the interlocutor (see Hall et al., 2006) and for not adopting a usage-based perspective (see Alptekin, 2010). Ortega (2014: 35–36) also points out three consequences of the nonnative speaker–native speaker monolingual bias that entail the erasure of the number of languages in SLA research. Firstly, there is the fact that the

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  49

monolingual is taken as the implicit norm. Being functionally competent in one language from birth is seen as the default characteristic, whereas learning an additional language later in life is considered a less natural and even subordinate form of learning a language unsatisfactorily. Secondly, multilingual competence is made invisible in study designs in which non-native speakers are seen as emerging (and, therefore, deficient) monolinguals. Finally, language is considered a birthright, and monolingual upbringing is elevated to a right and advantage that is never altered and of which a language user is never dispossessed. This ownership is legitimated through language exposure in the early years and primary language socialisation. Along with these consequences, Ortega (2014) notes that this monolingual view has contributed to serious validity and ethical problems in the adoption of a monolingual perspective on language learning and teaching research (e.g. Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009; Shohamy, 2006).

3.1.3 Recent trends: Towards the multilingual turn in SLA and bilingualism

More recently, scholars have searched for alternatives to monolingual theories and suggested research approaches and practices that adopt a holistic perspective. In this regard, two recent general trends have been identified (Ortega, 2013, 2014; Ortega & Carson, 2010: 50): the so-called bi/multilingual turn5 (see May, 2014a) and the social turn (Block, 2003). The multilingual turn takes Cook’s (1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b) and Grosjean’s (1989, 1992, 2008, 2010) holistic perspectives as a starting point to further elaborate approaches and theories in the fields of SLA, bilingualism and third language acquisition/multilingualism (Cenoz, 2013a; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Cummins, 1978, 1981, 2000; Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Kecskes & Papp, 2000; Ortega, 2014). Although they hold different views,6 all these scholars have two basic ideas in common. Firstly, all of them have questioned the traditional view of the idealised native speaker taken as a reference for language teaching and research. Secondly, they share the idea that the languages in the multilingual user are not isolated but somehow related. Therefore, this view challenges the design followed in most studies on pragmatic transfer, comparing native speakers of the TL, learners’ production in the TL, and the production of native speakers of the learners’ L1 (Selinker, 1966, 1969). The social turn suggests more interdisciplinary, ecologically valid and contextsituated research for a full understanding of L2 learning (Block, 2003; see also May, 2014a; Ortega & Carson, 2010). It emphasises that the context of communication, or the complex dynamics of interactions in multilingual environments (Kramsch, 2010), also plays a decisive role in language performance (Firth & Wagner, 1997). This idea is

50  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

followed in sociocultural and ecological approaches in SLA research and multilingualism (Kramsch, 2002, 2010) and is also compatible with dynamic systems theory (Van Lier, 2004). Although this book is mainly concerned with the multilingual turn, the difference is not so clear-cut. Some of the new trends in SLA have taken a dynamic systems theory (DST) and complexity theory perspective (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Meara, 1999), inspired by general systems theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1950), chaos theory and complexity theory in the natural sciences (Weaver, 1948), which are also applied in other sciences such as mathematics or meteorology. DST is known as ‘the science of complex systems’ (De Bot et al., 2007: 8). According to Van Geert (1994), two key features of dynamic systems are particularly worth noting. One is that all variables are interconnected and subject to change if one variable in the system changes. The other is that, since systems are parts of a sub- and super-system(s), changes may also affect those related systems. De Bot et al. (2007) have indicated the main properties of DST: (i) change over time; (ii) interconnection; (iii) variability; (iv) uniqueness; (v) non-linearity; (vi) self-organisation; (vii) emergence; and (viii) non-predictability. When DST/complexity theory are applied to SLA, language is seen as a complex and dynamic system in which variables are interrelated and can influence one another (De Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Verspoor et al., 2011). Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) adopts a complexity theory approach, very similar to DST, to second language development and acquisition. Following general systems theory, this author argues against a reductionist view in which entities are seen as the sum of their parts and supports a systems approach instead, in which the relationships between parts are seen as connecting them to the whole. These relationships keep changing and new structures are built, and are self-organised in a more complex order spontaneously, i.e. stabilities emerge in dynamic systems. Identity is maintained in spite of this continuous change and, therefore, a language, e.g. Spanish, stays strong enough to keep its name. Larsen-Freeman (2011: 51) compares these changes to the cells of the body, which are constantly being transformed – some even die – and affect each other, while at the same time they are interconnected and they together form the organism, which preserves its identity in spite of the changes. Following DST, SLA processes need to be understood as ‘complex, situated, and likely multivariate’ and language development is seen as ‘neither unidirectional nor linear’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2011: 49). Furthermore, this author sees language use and acquisition as ‘mutually constitutive, simply occurring at different levels of ecological scale – individual through speech community – and timescale’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2011: 49).

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  51

Another recent view to redirect the SLA field concerns the adoption of usage-based linguistics (UBL) (e.g. Bybee, 2010; Tomasello, 2003) proposed by Ortega (2014). As the author herself explains, UBL is compatible with other theories and interrelated approaches in language and also additional language learning, such as complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) or DST (Verspoor et al., 2011). From a UBL perspective, language knowledge emerges from the user’s experience with other language users. This emergent property characterises it as a process, in contrast with nativist/biolinguistic views (Chomsky, 2011). As a result of the different language-usage events experienced by users, language knowledge and performance are also shaped differently by each individual. Other properties that define UBL’s perspective on language are the centrality of meaning, the continuity between lexis and grammar, and embodied cognition (Ortega, 2014: 40). Dealing with bilinguals, it is important to mention Cummins’ (1978, 1981, 2000) interdependence hypothesis, which is formulated as follows: To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly. (Cummins, 1981: 29)

The interdependence hypothesis (also called the developmental interdependence, linguistic interdependence and common underlying proficiency hypothesis) (Cummins, 1978, 1981, 2000) suggests that literacy-related aspects are interdependent and can transfer across languages if the appropriate conditions for development, such as educational support for both languages, are provided. In spite of the surface differences between languages, in aspects such as pronunciation, this is possible due to the existence of a common underlying proficiency (CUP), or knowledge base, that enables the transfer of concepts, literacy skills and learning strategies between languages. Cummins (2013: 336) himself exemplifies the interdependence hypothesis: (…) in, for example, a Basque-Spanish bilingual program in the Basque Country in Spain, Basque instruction that develops Basque reading and writing skills is not just developing Basque skills, it is also developing a deeper conceptual and linguistic proficiency that is strongly related to the development of literacy in the majority language (Spanish).

This idea has been represented by means of a ‘dual iceberg’, where the different surface manifestations of each language are underlain by common crosslingual proficiencies (Cummins, 2005: 7).

52  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

An alternative proposal to the interdependence hypothesis is the separate underlying proficiency (SUP) model. Such a model implies that (Cummins, 2005: 5–6): proficiency in Lx and in Ly are separate; there is a direct relationship between exposure to a language (in home or school) and achievement in that language (time-on-task/maximum exposure hypothesis); content and skills learned through Lx cannot transfer to Ly and vice-versa.

However, research evidence has shown the existence of transfer of conceptual knowledge and skills across languages, thus rejecting the SUP model (Cummins, 2005). In contrast, the interdependence hypothesis has been supported by empirical studies (see reviews by Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2000; Dressler & Kamil, 2006; Genesee et al., 2006) and is held to be true in reading comprehension across typologically different languages, at different academic levels, in ESL and EFL contexts, in longitudinal studies and bidirectionally (L1 to L2 and vice versa) (see August & Shanahan, 2006). It has also been evidenced in students from minority and majority language backgrounds in different types of bilingual programmes and sociolinguistic contexts (August & Shanahan, 2006). Thus, it could be said that the interdependence hypothesis (i) has widely demonstrated that bilingual education programmes do not exert a negative influence on learners’ academic development; and (ii) that literacy-related aspects are transferred across languages under adequate conditions. Some issues need to be noted regarding the interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 2013). Firstly, it does not specify the language in which initial reading instruction must be performed in bilingual programmes, although Cummins (2000) argues that it should be done either in L1 or L2, or in both at the same time. Another aspect is that the hypothesis does not say that minority language learners with limited ability in their L1 will never develop good L2 skills. The final aspect is that it does not predict that minority students will outperform similar students in bilingual programmes but instead predicts that transfer compensates any possible effect of having less instruction in the majority language. Cummins (2013: 337) suggests five types of crosslinguistic transfer depending on the sociolinguistic situation: transfer of conceptual elements (e.g. understanding the concept of photosynthesis); transfer of metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies (e.g. vocabulary acquisition strategies); transfer of pragmatic aspects of language use (e.g. use of gestures to aid communication); transfer of specific linguistic elements (knowledge of the meaning photo in

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  53

photosynthesis); and transfer of phonological awareness (the knowledge that words are composed of distinct sounds). The focus of this monograph is on the transfer of pragmatic markers as pragmatic and metalinguistic elements. Kecskes and Papp’s (2000) most interesting contribution in the context of this book departs from Cummins’ (1978, 1981, 2000) interdependence hypothesis and the notion of common underlying (language) proficiency. Thus, from a cognitive-pragmatic perspective, Kecskes and Papp (2000) have advocated that multilingual development is a dynamic and cumulative process characterised by transfer from a common underlying conceptual base (CUCB) that controls the functioning of language channels. They have further argued that Selinker’s (1972) notion of interlanguage does not account for multilingual development because it refers to a straightforward developmental process that implies native-like competence as a final (and unattainable) goal and, therefore, looks at L2 speakers as having two monolingual native-like competences. Instead, in line with Cook (1991, 2003, 2013a, 2013b), they claim that language systems in multilinguals are related and, following Grosjean (1989, 1992, 2008, 2010), they consider that language fluency is influenced by linguistic needs and is domain-specific. While monolingual speakers have a monolingual conceptual base and a single language channel, Kecskes and Papp (2000) posit that multilinguals have a CUCB with two or more language channels that are in constant interaction with each other. This CUCB is responsible for all linguistic operations in these languages and is constituted not only by the specific knowledge and concepts in a language but also by universal concepts and mental representations. In order to express ideas in a particular language, for example in an L2, learners need to adapt their conceptual base so that this partly language-specific knowledge can also be revealed through their L2 channel. This can be possible due to the fact that concepts, knowledge and skills acquired by a multicompetent speaker in a language can be transferred to another language. As seen above, Cummins predicts that transfer can occur bidirectionally, from Lx to Ly, and from Ly to Lx, as long as exposure and motivation conditions are favourable. Kecskes and Papp (2000) note that Cummins (1986) highlighted that the most common direction of transfer was L1L2, and that absence of motivation and exposure determined lack of transfer in the opposite direction. These authors include intensive and effective foreign language learning in classroom settings as special cases of multilingual development, and argue that these programmes also have a positive effect on L1 development and multicompetence. In their study, Kecskes and Papp (2000) demonstrate that the positive influence of the second language on the mother tongue predicted by the interdependence hypothesis occurs when intensive and effective foreign language learning is provided.

54  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

3.1.4  Transfer in multilingualism: A dynamic approach

Over the last decade, a growing body of research has addressed the acquisition of third or additional languages. These studies point out that L3 or multilingual speakers, who have gone through the process of acquiring at least two languages, can apply prior linguistic knowledge and the skills and strategies they have developed in the language learning process to the acquisition of an L3, L4 or any additional language. Following this, research on third language acquisition/multilingualism claims that third or additional language acquisition processes are totally different from SLA processes because TL/multilingual learners are more experienced learners than monolinguals. One of the reported advantages of multilinguals over monolinguals concerns the development of metalinguistic awareness, i.e. the capacity to reflect on the language and operate with it (Bialystok, 2001; Jessner, 2006; Safont, 2005; see also Baker, 2011). Jessner (2013: 1801) has noted that, since the start of the new millennium, there has been a growing interest in the application of DST and complexity theory, both in SLA and multilingualism research (Aronin & Hufeisen, 2009; De Bot et al., 2007; Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Verspoor et al., 2011). Thus, going beyond the acquisition of a second language and emphasising linguistic interaction in multilinguals, Herdina and Jessner (2002) have applied DST to multilingualism in their dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM), pointing out that transfer phenomena are important features in multilingual systems. According to the DMM, language in a multilingual mind is seen as a dynamic and adaptive system in which languages in a person’s linguistic repertoire interact. This dynamic system is subject to continuous change. The development of the linguistic repertoire of a multilingual is characterised by nonlinearity (including language attrition), interdependence and complexity in a changing system. Variation in multilingual development and use is related to the dependence of the system on social, psycholinguistic and individual factors as well as to the mode of language learning (natural, formal or a combination). A holistic approach is a requirement to understand the dynamic interaction between complex systems in multilingualism. As a result, ‘the presence of one or more language systems influences not only the development of the second language but also the development of the overall multilingual system’ and ‘the behavior of each individual language system in a multilingual system largely depends on the behavior of previous and subsequent systems’ (Jessner, 2013: 1802). This idea of not looking at language systems in isolation but as interdependent systems acknowledges the work of previous holistic approaches, i.e. Cook’s (1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b) notion of multicompetence and Grosjean’s (1989, 1992, 2008, 2010) work

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  55

on bilingualism. However, taking a multilingual perspective in particular, in the DMM, multilingual proficiency is described as follows: Multilingual proficiency is defined as the dynamic interaction between the various psycholinguistic systems (LS1, LS2, LS3, LSn) in which the individual languages (L1, L2, L3, Ln) are embedded, crosslinguistic interaction, and what is called the M(ultilingualism)-factor. (Jessner, 2013: 1802)

The M-factor refers to those qualities that a multilingual speaker or learner develops as a result of the increase in language contact(s) in the multilingual system, which distinguishes it from a monolingual one. This factor is considered an emergent characteristic that can contribute to accelerating the effects in L3 acquisition. As a result, particular skills and abilities, whether language-specific or not, may be developed by multilingual learners constituting a ‘metasystem’ in multilinguals that monolingual speakers lack (Jessner, 2013). In spite of this characteristic in the multilingual system, each individual brings different backgrounds, uses and competences to the learning process, and language development may be determined by the individual’s initial conditions or prior knowledge (Todeva & Cenoz, 2009). This sensitive dependence on initial conditions is related to the butterfly effect (Lorenz, 1972), which notes that even subtle changes can affect the other variables in the system and vice versa, and have important consequences for the system. This makes measuring all of the variables needed to predict an outcome almost impossible. Applying these ideas to research, Larsen-Freeman (2011) acknowl­ edges that it is impossible to study everything at once and a focal point should be determined in research. In spite of this difficulty, LarsenFreeman (2011) points out the limitations of ‘experimental designs attempting to control for all factors’ (2011: 48) in a linear way and emphasises the importance of research that guarantees ecological validity, relying not only on the ‘questionable assumption that a single factor caused some effect’ (2011: 49) but also on ‘multiple or reciprocally interacting factors that change over time’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2011: 60). Therefore, this author advocates that research should be performed taking a complexity theory approach that ‘seek[s] to view mind, body, and world relationally and integratively, as constituting a continuous ecological circuit’ (Atkinson et al., 2007: 170, cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2011: 61). In addition, Jessner (2013: 1803) highlights that linguistic research should apply a multilingual norm from a holistic perspective, following the contributions by Grosjean (1989, 1992, 2008, 2010) and Cook (1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b). The coexistence of systems implies that they influence each other and contributes to the development of not only the second language but the

56  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

entire multilingual system (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 28). As a result, it could be said that transfer is a significant aspect in multilingual systems. From a DMM perspective, two working hypotheses related to transfer are formulated (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 19): (i) the multi­lingual system is not reducible to multiple monolingualism; and (ii) transfer phenomena should be viewed as a coherent set of phenomena. The former refers to the fact that, from a dynamic point of view, the presence of several languages results in a complex dynamic system totally different from monolingual speakers. In this regard, this new system is compared to a chemical reaction between two liquids that, when mixed, acquire new and different properties from the individual parts (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 27). In this sense, the DMM proposes a high degree of linguistic interaction in multilinguals giving rise to a new complex dynamic system, which contrasts with the view of transfer phenomena as an overlap between subsystems. The latter hypothesis implies that transfer, codeswitching/ codemixing or, more recently, translanguaging (see García, 2008) or flexible bilingualism (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Creese & Blackledge, 2010) should be seen as aspects of the same phenomenon, i.e. as multilingual practices that evidence dynamic interaction (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a). As a result, Herdina and Jessner (2002: 29) suggest using the concept of crosslinguistic interaction as a more general term than crosslinguistic influence, proposed by Kellerman and Sharwood Smith (1986) to emphasise the dynamic interaction of systems in multilinguals. Most of the work on crosslinguistic influence has concentrated on lexical, phonological and morphological transfer. However, as Hammarberg (2001: 49) has pointed out, little research has been conducted at the level of meaning. Following previous research (Koike & Palmiere, 2011: 82), we consider that pragmatics mainly operates at the level of meaning. As a result, codeswitching practices fall outside the scope of this study, and the focus here will be on transfer at the level of meaning. 3.1.5 Transfer from a holistic multilingual perspective in education: Focus on multilingualism

The recent theories and approaches in the study of SLA, bilingualism and third language acquisition/multilingualism discussed above seem to share a common view towards softening the boundaries between the languages and against a monolingual bias in research in which languages have been analysed separately. The role of social context has also been highlighted. Although these trends implicitly point at a change of approach towards a more holistic view, not only in research but also in language teaching, they do not seem to explicitly take the educational perspective as a point of departure, and discussions are

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  57

mostly done at a theoretical level to be applied in research. Taking into account these recent contributions in the fields of SLA, bilingualism and multilingualism,7 Cenoz (2013a, 2013b) and Cenoz and Gorter (2011a, 2013, 2014) propose a perspective to be implemented both in research and teaching in the multilingual classroom, called ‘Focus on Multilingualism’. Considering this need, Focus on Multilingualism is defined as follows: (…) an approach that looks at the whole linguistic repertoire of multilingual speakers and language learners and at the relationships between the languages when conducting research, teaching, or assessing different languages. (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a: 356)

Three dimensions characterise Focus on Multilingualism (Cenoz, 2013a; Cenoz & Gorter, 2014): (i) the multilingual speaker; (ii) the whole linguistic repertoire; and (iii) the context. Firstly, the focus on the multilingual speaker takes into account the idea that multilingual competence is a different type of competence (Cook, 1991, 2003, 2013a, 2013b; Grosjean, 1989, 1992, 2008, 2010) and, as a result, cannot be compared to that of several monolinguals. However, this is not as easy as it seems, because, as noted by Cenoz (2013a), there are different types of bilinguals. She refers to those who actively use their languages in everyday life while learning an L3 as active bilinguals. In contrast, those learners who have acquired a foreign language and are in the process of acquiring a third or additional foreign language are called foreign language users. Focus on Multilingualism proposes to take into account the different types of L3 learners, paying attention to how these languages are integrated and alternated. This will provide a more accurate account of the effects of prior linguistic knowledge on the different types of L3 learners. Secondly, the focus on the linguistic repertoire characteristic emphasises that, in contrast to traditional approaches in which each language is considered separately, the Focus on Multilingualism looks at the whole linguistic repertoire to provide a complete account of the interaction betweeen the languages. This view of languages as related entities is the one adopted in the present book and is in line with the multilingual turn presented above. This perspective also provides support for the assumption that language transfer in multilinguals may be possible. It is also worth noting that Focus on Multilingualism is therefore compatible with complexity theory and DST (De Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b) because it explores how the different subsystems interact and support each other in language development. Van Geert (2008) explained that, in order for a system to develop, it needs to be supplied with enough resources, connected growers, which have to interact collectively to promote growth or

58  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

development.8 This idea can be applied to the effect of bilingualism on L3 acquisition (De Bot et al., 2007) when subsystems promote internal and external resources that connect the languages in their development. For example, a strategy learnt in a foreign language can be applied to the multilingual speaker’s L1 or L2. In the present study, we are concerned with how languages in the learners’ repertoire can act as growers, in the sense that they can support each other in promoting language development. In fact, Cenoz and Gorter (2011a) argue that Focus on Multilingualism can enhance these connected growers or further interaction across languages to promote a more efficient use of these resources.9 Finally, focus on context emphasises the role of multilingual practices in social interaction in constructing multilingual competence and shaping the identities of multilingual speakers. Therefore, context is important in analysing the use of the L3 in these language practices. In the current book, the focus will be on the multilingual speaker and his or her linguistic repertoire in the educational context. Studies have looked at how Focus on Multilingualism and similar perspectives lead to results showing that some features overlap across languages (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a; Muñoz, 2000), and the study of multidirectionality in translanguaging/ codemixing practices (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a). The main focus of interest of the present monograph will be the former. In summary, this book is in line with an important transformation that has taken place in language learning research in recent decades: the multilingual turn. Certain ideas characterise the multilingual turn. Firstly, multilinguals are seen as competent speaker-hearers that have developed a distinct type of competence, multicompetence, which is different from that of monolinguals (Cook, 1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b; Grosjean, 1989, 1992, 2008, 2010). Secondly, because multilingual learners should not be seen as the sum of monolinguals, the multilingual turn has criticised the adoption of a monolingual bias in research (May, 2014b), raising awareness of the importance of moving away from the role of the native speaker as a model (Ortega, 2014). This idea is shared by researchers that view English as a lingua franca (e.g. Alcón-Soler, 2007a; House, 2010). A third aspect, related to the ones previously mentioned, is the idea that languages are not seen as separate entities, as in traditional approaches, but as interacting. This interaction has been referred to and explained in different ways, such as linguistic interdependence (Cummins, 1978, 1981, 2000), common underlying proficiency (Cummins, 2005), common underlying conceptual base (Kecskes & Papp, 2000) and crosslinguistic interaction (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Following these recent trends, the present study adopts a holistic perspective to the study of pragmatic transfer, which goes beyond the native speaker norm and takes into account the learners’ linguistic repertoire. In

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  59

particular, we will explore pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners of English, considering them to be multicompetent speakers whose languages are in constant interaction. We will also address the influence of individual dimensions and learning context as a result of the complex interaction of factors. Because the present study is classroom-based, it is worth noting that the multilingual turn also has some implications regarding language teaching. Thus, multicompetence has entailed a shift from the native speaker as a goal to a more realistic perspective focusing on the learner’s needs. Moreover, it has opened up the possibility of establishing connections between languages in the curriculum that could facilitate language learning. In some instructional contexts, such as the context of the Valencian Community in Spain, at least three languages coexist and, considering the above, are assumed to interact in the education system. For this reason, our aim in the next section is to determine whether research shows that pragmatic transfer is possible and, if so, whether it applies to multilinguals as well. 3.2 Researching Pragmatic Transfer: From Monolingual to Multilingual Approaches

Taking into account the current trends discussed above, this section reviews studies dealing with transfer in L2 pragmatics, narrowing into pragmatic transfer in multilinguals and closing with research evidence to date pointing at transfer of pragmatic markers in multilingual learners, which motivated this study. 3.2.1  Transfer in L2 pragmatics

Kasper (1992) distinguishes, on the one hand, between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer and, on the other hand, between positive and negative transfer. In Thomas’ (1983) terms, sociopragmatic failure concerns deficiency in performing a particular speech act in a given context, whereas pragmalinguistic failure is deviation from the TL norm. This researcher suggested that pragmalinguistic transfer was ‘the inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another’ (Thomas, 1983: 101). Kasper (1992: 209) criticised this definition, claiming that transfer is not always negative or ‘inappropriate’, since it can be ‘positive transfer’ (when it facilitates learning) and ‘negative transfer’ (when it prevents learning). The facilitative role of positive transfer has also been noted by LoCastro (2012). As stated by Odlin (2013), negative transfer could be considered equivalent to ‘interference’, whereas positive transfer could be a synonym for ‘convergence’. Most studies dealing with pragmatic transfer have focused on negative rather than positive transfer to determine divergences in learners from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Both sociopragmatic transfer and pragmalinguistic transfer have been

60  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

addressed in research. In language teaching and learning research in particular, the main focus of interest has been on pragmalinguistic aspects, leaving aside the challenge of connecting pragmalinguistic knowledge with sociopragmatic conventions, which are two inseparable dimensions. Sociopragmatic transfer, also referred to as sociocultural transfer, is observed in a number of studies (see Kasper, 1992 and Takahashi, 2000, for reviews). Most research addressing the issue of sociopragmatic transfer focuses on politeness strategies (Beebe et al., 1990; García, 1989; Takahashi & Beebe, 1993), the influence of L1 communicative style on L2 performance (Al-Issa, 2003; Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; House, 1988; Olshtain, 1983; Robinson, 1992; Scarcella, 1983; Wannaruk, 2008) and speech acts. These studies demonstrate that sociopragmatic transfer from L1 to L2 does occur and that this influence is mainly negative. One of the implications that can be drawn from the general findings of research on sociopragmatic transfer for the purposes of the present study is that the data collection instruments or tasks should take into account sociopragmatic aspects, i.e. sociopragmatic factors have to be controlled in the instruments employed to examine how language use is influenced by social and contextual aspects. Pragmalinguistic transfer, or ‘the process whereby illocutionary force or politeness value assigned to particular linguistic material in [Lx] influences learners’ perception and production of form-function mappings in [Ly]’ (adapted from Kasper, 1992: 209), has been documented in a number of studies. Most research has analysed speech acts, such as requests (Blum-Kulka, 1982, 1983; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; House & Kasper, 1987; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989), apologies (Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Olshtain, 1983), complaints (DeCapua, 1989) and, more recently, refusals (Chang, 2009; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Wannaruk, 2008). Several studies have also explored directness level (Bou-Franch, 2013b; DeCapua, 1989; House & Kasper, 1987; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989). All the studies regarding directness level, except for the one by Bou-Franch (2013b), have shown some degree of deviation from the native speakers’ norm in learners’ performance. Although there is a predominant focus on negative transfer, research has shown that both types of pragmalinguistic transfer, i.e. positive and negative, are possible (e.g. Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Blum-Kulka, 1982, 1983; Wannaruk, 2008). For example, Wannaruk (2008) found that most of the refusal strategies analysed were used in a similar way by the groups participating in the study (L1 Thai speakers, L1 American English speakers and EFL learners of English at different proficiency levels), and reported that pragmatic transfer occurred in the choice and content of refusal strategies. Proficiency also seemed to play a role in the transfer of L1 refusal strategies. Kasper (1992: 213) has claimed that positive transfer has not received enough attention in research for two reasons. One of them concerns methodological difficulties. She points out that

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  61

performance data is not enough to determine whether learners applied their L1 knowledge or their interlanguage pragmatic competence. In order to overcome this problem and have a more complete picture of transfer, a mixed method approach will be adopted in the study presented in this book. The other reason is the importance given to miscommunication, or pragmatic failure, in the literature. Kasper (1992) argues that positive transfer is problematic if it causes miscommunication. However, in most cases, positive transfer may promote successful communication. In the present monograph, we take this claim into account to explore the potential that positive transfer can have for the development of pragmatic competence. Research has also evidenced that some pragmatic aspects are subject to transfer, while others may not be. For example, Bou-Franch (2013b) observed that degree of (in)formality was more likely to transfer than degree of (in)directness in her analysis of academic emails (n = 140) sent by undergraduate students to their lecturers. The study explored two written data sets: the EFL corpus, containing 40 emails sent by EFL learners to their lecturer as an academic task, and the L1 corpus, containing 100 spontaneous emails sent by undergraduates to their lecturers in their L1 (50 in British English and 50 in Peninsular Spanish). The findings showed evidence for transfer in EFL email communication, in particular regarding the use of formal means of expression in EFL. However, there was an absence of pragmatic transfer regarding (in)directness patterns. With a clear influence of cross-cultural pragmatics, existing research on L2 pragmatic transfer has predominantly adopted the research design proposed by Selinker (1966, 1969), comparing the performance of native speakers of the learners’ L1 and the TL with data from learners of the TL, which is English in most cases. In addition, the studies cited above compare transfer in two languages, the mother tongue and an additional language. However, the participants under investigation may be multilinguals who are in the process of learning an L3. This is the case, for example, of learners from bilingual communities such as the Valencian Community in the present study. The question that is raised at this point is whether other languages in the learners’ repertoire also play a role in the transfer of pragmatic competence. In this regard, Cenoz’s (2003a) study evidenced bidirectional interaction, but between the L1, Spanish, and English as L3 in higher-proficiency learners. Following the suggestions that linguistic interaction may be bi- or multidirectional (Cenoz, 2013a; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Kecskes & Papp, 2000), we may assume that there might be a role for the L2 in third or additional language acquisition (Hammarberg, 2001; Jessner, 2006; Modirkhamene, 2011) also at the pragmatic level. This interaction can be even more influential in multilingual education contexts, where two or more languages are part of the curriculum. Given the fact that the subjects in the present study are learners in a

62  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

multilingual instructional context, the influence of the languages in their language curriculum needs to be taken into account. Therefore, in the next section, we will discuss research addressing pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners. Although most attention so far has been paid to negative pragmatic transfer, we agree with Kasper (1992) and LoCastro (2012) in that pragmatic transfer should not be restricted to negative transfer, especially regarding the pragmalinguistic component and its potential role as a facilitator of pragmatic learning. This is the perspective research on multilingual learners seems to have adopted, looking at convergence rather than divergence. 3.2.2  Pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners

One of the main criticisms of previous studies on transfer, including pragmatic transfer, has been the adoption of a monolingual bias where learners’ performance has been measured against the model of native speakers. In addition, although the L1 is an important source of transfer, the possibility of bidirectional pragmatic transfer has also been acknowledged. Given that this study explores a multilingual classroom, and following the claims suggested by recent trends in the multilingual turn discussed in Section 3.1, which point to interaction between languages in multilinguals, in this section we would like to explore existing research on pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners. To our knowledge, just a few studies have addressed pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners. Some studies have pointed at pragmatic transfer in relation to the role of the heritage language in L3 learning (Koike & Flanzer, 2004) and the effect of typological distance (Koike & Palmiere, 2011; Shah, 2009). L1 pragmatic transfer into an L2 and L3 has also been reported (Włosowicz, 2011). Adopting a multilingual perspective for the analysis of requests, the studies by Safont (2011, 2012, 2013), Safont and Portolés (2015), and Portolés (2015) point out that pragmatic transfer may occur even at lower proficiency levels in multilingual learners. Given the scarcity of studies on pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners, we may thus conclude that further research is still needed to determine whether pragmatic transfer occurs and the factors that contribute to it. All the studies dealing with pragmatic transfer cited above focus on speech acts. Taking into account the linguistic target of the present study, the next section discusses research pointing at some evidence for transfer of pragmatic markers in multilinguals. 3.2.3 Evidence for transfer of pragmatic markers in multilingual learners

Back in the 1950s, Weinreich (1953: 30) claimed that ‘it is to be investigated whether forms belonging to some classes are more subject

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  63

to transfer than others’. Bardovi-Harlig (2010: 243) claims that research on pragmatics has mainly relied on previous research, populations and tools, and insists on the fact that ‘researchers should build on existing research to study the unstudied’. The transfer of pragmatic markers in multilingual learners belongs to this category of unstudied, and this is one of the reasons why this is the pragmatic target this book aims to examine. A few studies have in some way pointed to the existence of such transfer in the study of writing and analysis of text features in multilinguals. Thus, previous research on writing has suggested the possibility of the existence of shared writing knowledge across languages in L1 and L2 (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2008, 2012b; see also Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009) and in multilinguals (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; De Angelis & Jessner, 2012; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013; Modirkhamene, 2011). Because the data for the present study are in written mode, it was worth looking at what studies on writing in multilingual learners have reported regarding pragmatic markers. A few case studies on writing make some explicit reference to the transfer of pragmatic markers in multilinguals (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013), and the only studies addressing pragmatic markers in particular are part of the research project for the present study (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; MartínLaguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). Kobayashi and Rinnert (2012a) conducted a cross-sectional analysis of text features, among which pragmatic markers were included. The research was a case study of five Japanese university students from a variety of majors in three languages, L1 Japanese, L2 English, and L3 French, Spanish or Korean. The participants in the study are not given a learner status, as they would have had if they had been enrolled in a language course. Instead, they are referred to as ‘multicompetent writers’. Data collection instruments included argumentative essays, retrospective interviews and background questionnaires. Regarding pragmatic marker use, the lowest frequency within the three languages was found in L1 Japanese writings, in comparison with L2 and L3 essays. In addition, these authors argue that pragmatic marker use and the way of constructing arguments were consistent across the three languages, which seems to illustrate the fact that individual writers develop a personal style in the way they construct text that is shared across languages. Some factors that seem to influence the choice of L1, L2 or L3 features in writing are writing instruction/experience, perceptions, language proficiency, topic, audience and other factors, such as recency and perceived language similarity. Thus, sensitivity to the audience was observed to be higher in L1. Kobayashi and Rinnert (2013) conducted a longitudinal case study of Natsu, an L1 Japanese, L2 English and L3 Chinese multicompetent writer. The investigation followed her writing development and the factors influencing it throughout two and a half years. The participant

64  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

had spent three years of study abroad in Australia, three years of undergraduate studies in a Japanese university and one year of university study in China. The data were collected from multiple data sources: argumentative essays in the three languages, retrospective stimulating recall, interviews and natural observations. The results revealed that, by writing course papers in L2 English, the writer had acquired knowledge of paragraph structure and pragmatic markers. While in the first research period the participant perceived Japanese writing to be distinct from English writing, this view was changed in the second period, after having taken an English writing training course taught by a Japanese teacher. Thus, in the latter period, L1 and L2 writing features were merged in the writer’s repertoire. Regarding pragmatic markers in particular, the study showed that, contrary to L2 and L3 essays, the writer did not employ pragmatic markers such as ‘first’ and ‘second’ to relate paragraphs in her L1. In the interviews she accounted for this difference as follows: ‘I think Japanese readers would understand the relationships without explicit markers’ (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2013: 17). The authors interpret these results as showing that writers have readers in their mind in their compositions. This view is in line with the one supported by Hyland (2005, 2010, 2015) and Hyland and Tse (2004) on metadiscourse markers in writing, and the one adopted in this book for the study of pragmatic markers. Thus, while many text features overlap across the three argumentative essays, some others remain language-specific. Martín-Laguna (2016, 2018) and Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2015) analysed pragmatic markers in the three languages present in the participants’ school curriculum, namely English, Catalan and Spanish. In an exploratory study, Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2015) investigated the extent to which 22 multilingual secondaryschool students’ production of textual metadiscourse markers (Hyland, 2000) may be related between languages, and how instructional input seems to influence the learners’ choices and production of accurate forms. Learners were asked to write three opinion essays, one in English, one in Catalan and one in Spanish, about three topics related to the school. The results showed that learners tended to use the same categories of textual metadiscourse markers in the three languages, although there was more variety in Catalan and Spanish than in English. Regarding the influence of instructional input, it was observed that the learners mostly relied on the forms present in the input available, rather than looking for more creative alternatives and, in 90% of cases, these forms were accurately used in the three languages. The study by Martín-Laguna (2016) analysed a total of 939 argumentative essays in English, 939 in Catalan and 939 in Spanish written by a group of 313 multilingual secondary-school learners together with reflections on their compositions. It was found that participants were able to establish relationships between languages regarding textual pragmatic markers,

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  65

an ability which was related to their awareness of genre. Retrieving data from the same corpus, and with the aim of exploring similarities and differences across types of pragmatic markers in multicompetent secondary-school learners, Martín-Laguna (2018) found that both textual and interpersonal pragmatic markers were subject to transfer, but qualitative data revealed differences in terms of variety of the forms used and awareness across markers, results being lower in interpersonal pragmatic markers. To sum up, overall, it seems that the boundaries between languages are blurred regarding the writing dimensions investigated so far. As far as pragmatic markers are concerned, research to date shows that the use of pragmatic markers is consistent across languages in individual learners (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a; Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). In particular, it was found that learners tended to use more pragmatic markers in their L2 and L3 than in their L1 (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a). Research has also shown that the pragmatic markers present in the input are the ones preferred by learners and most correctly used (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). In addition, contextual and individual dimensions as well as personal experiences seem to exert an influence on the development of textual features (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013). Besides, research to date regarding the transfer of pragmatic markers in multilinguals is very limited, and restricted to cross-sectional studies (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). Kobayashi and Rinnert’s (2012a, 2013) investigations are longitudinal case studies that provide very useful insights regarding pragmatic marker use and development in multicompetent language users, constituting a valuable starting point for this study. However, they do not pay close attention to pragmatic markers, partly because of their qualitative nature, and probably because there are other writing abilities under consideration. Finally, the participants in Kobayashi and Rinnert’s (2012a, 2013) studies are highly competent in two foreign languages, while in the present study we are dealing with learners at different proficiency levels in a bilingual context in which the L3 is a foreign language, and the three languages are taught at school. Because some factors may influence pragmatic transfer, these are addressed in the next section. 3.3 The Role of Proficiency Level in Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer 3.3.1 L1 transfer and the role of proficiency level in the target language

The relationship between TL proficiency (or established multi­ competence in the TL) and pragmatic transfer has received a great deal

66  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

of attention in pragmatics research, possibly due to the fact that the studies have not led to conclusive results. Dealing with L2 pragmatics, Takahashi and Beebe (1987) proposed the positive correlation hypothesis, predicting that the most proficient learners in the L2 would be more likely to transfer L1 pragmatic aspects than lower-proficient learners due to the greater linguistic knowledge available to the former group. This hypothesis has been supported by empirical research (e.g. Blum-Kulka, 1982; Cohen, 1997; Hill, 1997; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989). However, other studies provide evidence that contradicts the positive correlation hypothesis. Studies by Maeshiba et al. (1996), Rossiter and Kondoh (2001), Wannaruk (2008) and Hashemian (2012) have shown that learners with lower L2 proficiency level are more likely to transfer pragmatic knowledge. Maeshiba et al. (1996) investigated intermediate and advanced Japanese-speaking ESL learners in Hawaii. Their findings showed that lower-proficiency learners were more inclined to transfer L1 apology strategies than the higher-proficiency ones. Rossiter and Kondoh (2001) investigated Japanese EFL learners and found that mid-proficiency learners transferred more request strategies from their L1 than higher-proficiency ones. In a similar vein, in a study on Thai EFL learners, Wannaruk (2008) observed that lower-proficiency learners tended to translate L1 Thai refusal strategies into L2 English more frequently than higher-proficiency learners. By means of a DCT, Hashemian (2012) examined whether Persian EFL learners at different proficiency levels transferred their L1 refusal patterns into the L2. The study revealed that, although transfer was present in both higherand lower-proficiency groups of learners, the lower-proficiency one transferred more strategies. On the other hand, some other studies have reported no difference (e.g. Bu, 2012; Chang, 2009; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2003). Kobayashi and Rinnert (2003) compared the performance of two groups of Japanese EFL learners in role-play tasks with naturally occurring samples of English and Japanese requests. The findings reported no positive or negative correlation between pragmatic transfer and proficiency. Chang (2009) examined refusals elicited by means of a DCT in two linguistic versions, Chinese and English. There were four groups of subjects under study: American college students, English-major seniors (representing a high proficiency level group in English), English-major freshmen (representing a low proficiency level group in English) and Chinesemajor sophomores. The results did not show any differences in the amount of transfer between learners at different proficiency levels, which led the author to suggest that other factors may be more influential than linguistic proficiency or that this relationship between transfer and L2 proficiency may vary depending on the speech act analysed. More recently, Bu (2012) did not reach conclusive findings in an analysis of

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  67

L1 transfer on requestive behaviour of Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. The analysis of data obtained from DCTs revealed that L1 transfer decreased with proficiency in some cases, whereas in some others there was no clear relationship. The author claims that this study partially supports the negative correlation hypothesis. Finally, some authors have also pointed out that learners at all proficiency levels transfer from their L1 to various degrees (Hashemian, 2012; Sabaté i Dalmau & Curell i Gotor, 2007). With a focus on pragmatics in multilinguals, Cenoz’s (2003a) study seems to support the fact that there is a threshold level for pragmatic transfer to occur, given that higher proficiency in English seemed to promote similarities in pragmatic production in the languages involved in comparison with the less advanced group. In contrast, the studies by Safont (2011, 2012, 2013) in pragmatic production, as well as Safont and Portolés (2015) and Portolés (2015) in pragmatic comprehension, suggest that interaction between languages in multilinguals may take place even at lower proficiency levels. Given the lack of consensus in this area of pragmatics, research needs to be done to determine how TL proficiency may contribute to pragmatic transfer. 3.3.2  The role of the L2 in L3 pragmatic transfer

Another dimension influencing transfer is related to claims that it cannot be taken for granted that the L1 is the one that plays a stronger role in interlanguage production (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001: 44). When there are two or more non-native languages involved, the influence of a non-native language on another non-native language has been referred to as interlanguage transfer (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; De Angelis, 2005, 2007). In this vein, in comparison with native languages, it has been claimed that the effect of L2 status (also called the second language factor, the L2 factor or the status of interlanguage factor) has important effects on the acquisition of additional languages (Dewaele, 1998; Hammarberg, 2001; Sánchez, 2011). The second language factor has been defined as follows: The ‘second language (L2) factor’ in L3 acquisition refers to the general tendency of transfer (representations) from L2(s) rather than L1. In online processing/performance terms, ‘L2 status’ is usually used to express the idea of general tendency to activate L2(s) rather than the L1. (Leung, 2007: 102, cited in Sánchez, 2011)

Most of these studies deal with general language transfer and just a few have explored pragmatic transfer in multilingual learners. Thus, Hammarberg (2001) observed that the participant in his study

68  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

relied on her L2 German, rather than L1 English, in her L3 Swedish speech production in terms of the lexicon. He concluded that the fact that both German and Swedish had an L2 status or foreignlanguage status caused this influence. Combining different sources of influence on transfer, Sánchez (2011) analysed the role of perceived typological closeness (psychotypology) and L2 status in the transfer of syntax and verb placement in L4 English. The participants were 154 primary-school children from different grades. They were simultaneous bilinguals (Spanish and Catalan) from birth, learning German as L3 in a partial-immersion setting with some degree of formal instruction and occasional naturalistic exposure. They were also learning English as L4 in a classroom context. The study evidenced that German as a nonnative language exerted a more influential effect on L4 English than typological similarities between English, Catalan and Spanish in the linguistic aspect under study. These findings differ from the ones on pragmatic transfer in the study by Koike and Palmiere (2011) reported above, indicating that similarities between L1 or L2 Spanish and L3 Portuguese played more of a determining role than the status of Spanish. Given the paucity of studies regarding the role of the L2 on L3 pragmatic transfer, and the relevance of this dimension in the multilingual instructional context addressed in the present book, the current project would like to contribute to shedding more light on this issue. 3.4  Research Questions

In light of the aforementioned current trends and gaps in the fields of SLA and ILP, this study is guided by two research questions: (1) Is pragmatic ability to use pragmatic markers transferred between the languages in which multilingual learners receive instruction in the school context? In particular, how does multilingual pragmatic transfer change over time? (2) Does proficiency level in L3 English influence multilingual pragmatic transfer? Notes (1) Cenoz (2013b: 7) explains that different perspectives can be adopted to refer to bilingualism and multilingualism as generic or different terms. In this study, we will use multilingualism as a generic term including bilingualism. (2) As Cenoz (2013a: 72) notes, third language acquisition and multilingualism are often used as synonyms. Technically, third language acquisition refers to the acquisition of an L3, whereas multilingualism is a broader term that can include acquisition but also other areas not necessarily related to it. In this study, in line with previous research, the term L3 will be used to refer to a language acquired after the L1 and the L2 chronologically and also after the two L1s when related to early bilinguals (Cenoz, 2013a).

Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer  69

(3) Cook prefers the term L2 user to refer to ‘people who know and use a second language at any level’, while L2 learner is used to describe ‘people who have no everyday use of the second language, say children in foreign language classrooms’ (Cook, 2013b: 3770). In this book we will use the term learner because of its relationship with the language classroom, regardless of their everyday contact with the language. (4) Regarding this point, Grosjean (1989) indicates that one of the characteristics of a bilingual is the ability to switch from a bilingual mode in which they are codeswitching to a monolingual one in which only one language is used. (5) Since this book explores a multilingual instructional context and, as explained above, the term multilingualism is used here as a generic term including bilingualism (Cenoz, 2013b), we will refer to the multilingual turn. (6) It should be noted that researchers on third language acquisition/multilingualism agree with Cook (2003) and Grosjean (1985) that a ‘bilingual is not the sum of two complete or incomplete monolinguals; rather, he or she has a unique and specific linguistic configuration’ (Grosjean, 1985: 467). However, these researchers further claim that ‘a multilingual speaker is a speaker of three or more languages with unique linguistic configurations, often depending on individual history, and as such, the study of third or additional language acquisition cannot be regarded as an extension of second language acquisition or bilingualism’ (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001: 45). (7) Cenoz (2013a) and Cenoz and Gorter (2011a) criticise that, despite calls for the adoption of the holistic perspective summarised above, research on SLA/bilingualism/ multilingualism has not adopted a true multilingual focus looking at the whole linguistic repertoire of the languages spoken or taught at school by multilingual speakers. Instead, most studies analyse ‘one language only’ or ‘one language at a time’ (Wei, 2011), even in third language acquisition, where often only the L3 is examined. (8) Verspoor and van Dijk (2011: 86) explain that it is more meaningful to describe development, observing how various growers that have a meaningful relationship to each other interact over time, i.e. they suggest ‘to describe the ecological relationships that can hold for any couple of components or variables which we call “growers”’. They suggest three different kinds of relationship between growers: supportive (growers develop in unison because they support each other), competitive (growers develop in alternating patterns – when one goes up the other goes down) because they compete with each other, and conditional (a minimal level of one grower is a necessary precondition for another grower to develop, also referred to as precursor interaction). Additionally, if the relationship changes over time, it is asymmetric. They exemplify this, saying that being able to use words actively may be a necessary condition for developing more advanced syntax, but this relationship may not be so straightforward after syntax has begun to develop. (9) Another advantage of Focus on Multilingualism in language acquisition, noted by Cenoz and Gorter (2011a), is that it also softens the boundaries between languages in the social context, thus echoing the social turn (Block, 2003). As a result, this perspective allows learners to acquire and use languages while engaged in the language practices that are natural in multilingual environments (codemixing/translanguaging). Analysis of this dimension falls outside the scope of this study.

4 Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context

4.1 Classroom Participants: Teachers, Learners and the Researcher’s Background 4.1.1  The learners

Participants were 313 students from 10 high schools in the province of Castellón, Spain. Table 4.1 presents the general characteristics of the schools and the participants’ distribution. These participants were the ones that completed all of the study’s measurement instruments. A total of 44.7% (n = 140) of them were males and 55.3% were females, and their mean age at the outset of the study was 16.24, ranging from 16 to 20 years old (16 years old, n = 250 (79.9%); 17 years old, n = 56 (17.9%); 18 years old, n = 3 (1%); 19 years old, n = 2 (0.6%); 20 years old, n = 2 (0.6%)). Although longitudinal studies are very valuable for what they can reveal, multi-wave data collection also entails some difficulties. One of these is the risk of losing participants, and this study, conducted in a naturalistic instructional setting with all the challenges that an Table 4.1  General characteristics of the schools and the participants’ distribution Class groups

Number of students participating in the study

School 1

3

30

School 2

2

School 3

3

School 4

Type of school

Location

9.6

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

33

10.5

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

38

12.1

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

4

38

12.1

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

School 5

5

50

16

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

School 6

1

9

2.9

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

School 7

3

42

13.4

State-run school

Alcora (town)

School 8

1

10

3.2

State-run school

Almazora (town)

School 9

3

41

13.2

State-run school

Castellón de la Plana (city)

Semi-private school1

Castellón de la Plana (city)

School 10 TOTAL

1

22

26

313

% of participants

7.0 100

70

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  71

authentic classroom context brings about, was no exception. The initial number of participants was 792. The reasons behind participants’ mortality, which were beyond the researcher’s control, were as follows: (i) participants dropping out of school, since the educational stage covered by this research is non-compulsory and is meant to prepare students for university entrance examinations and, therefore, more demanding than lower secondary education; (ii) extensive strikes against educational reforms and budgetary cuts in education during the academic year 2012–2013; (iii) absenteeism from school; and (iv) unexpected events (e.g. teachers leaving). Of these, there were a few participants (n = 4) that wrote about a different topic in one of the writing tasks or wrote only a couple of lines, and one student who obtained a C1 level of English because her L1 was English. These participants had to be discarded from the analysis too. In spite of all these setbacks, one of the advantages of having only students who completed all the tasks and questionnaires assigned to them is that, since the tasks and questionnaires were answered on different days without notifying the students in advance, there was an increased likelihood that the participants in the final sample attended the classes regularly and therefore received the input considered in the analysis, providing more reliable data. As for the participants’ language background, their L1 was pre­ dominantly Spanish (63%, n = 198), followed by Catalan2 (30%, n = 92), Romanian (6%, n = 20) and a minority of speakers of other L1s (1%, n = 3). All participants were enrolled in upper secondary education (bachillerato), equivalent to the sixth form in the English system. This is a non-compulsory stage of education lasting two years that is intended to prepare learners for the university entrance examinations (pruebas de acceso a la universidad). The learners that took part in this study were specifically in the first year (primero de bachillerato). At this stage, students can choose whether to follow the Science, Humanities and Social Sciences or Arts programme. These programmes involve modules that are specific to the option chosen, and common compulsory subjects, which include English, Catalan and Spanish language. Language instruction at this stage involves three hours a week of each language (English, Catalan and Spanish). Learners reported having had at least 10 years of formal instruction in English (since their first year in primary education). Their proficiency level ranged from A1 to B2 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) levels, as measured by the Quick Oxford Placement Test (UCLES, 2001) at the beginning of the study. In particular, 8.3% (n = 26) of the learners had an A1 level of English, 65.2% (n = 204) had an A2 level, 22.4% (n = 70) had a B1 level, and 4.2% (n = 13) had a B2 level. Most schools were state-run and offered both Catalan-based and Spanish-based instruction depending on their possibilities. In the

72  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

School 1

School 2

School 3

School 4

School 5

School 6

School 7

School 8

School 9

School 10

TOTAL

Table 4.2  Teachers in each school by language

n Spanish teachers

3

1

1

3

3

1

3

1

2

1

19

n Catalan teachers

2

2

3

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

18

n English teachers

1

1

3

3

4

1

2

1

2

1

19

TOTAL

56

semi-private school, Spanish-based instruction was offered. In the present study, 59.74% (n = 187) of the participants followed Catalanbased instruction, whereas 40.26% (n = 126) followed Spanish-based instruction. 4.1.2  The teachers

Table 4.2 shows the number of teachers involved in the study (n = 56) divided by school and language. The researcher had a meeting with each teacher at the beginning of the study and had regular contact during the data collection process to comment and take notes on the students, classes, materials, syllabus and any events that may be related to the study. 4.1.3  The researcher

The researcher was born in Castellón de la Plana and graduated in English Studies from Universitat Jaume I. After graduating, she did a master’s degree in Teaching in Secondary Education, Vocational Training and Language Schools (specialisation: English Language Teaching) during which she became interested in this stage of education and in the application of the TBLT framework in teaching English to secondaryschool learners. At the same time, she completed a master’s degree in English Language Teaching in Multilingual Contexts, which raised her interest in pragmatic learning in multilingual classroom contexts and became the topic of her PhD project. Although she started to work at university, the researcher has always been in touch with the secondaryschool stage, visiting schools regularly, giving teacher-training seminars and participating in activities organised for the students by the English departments of some schools. This academic background, together with direct contact with the practices and needs in authentic classroom contexts, laid the foundation for the topic of this study. The researcher was able to visit the schools regularly during the seven months of data collection in the academic year 2012–2013, where she observed lessons, took field notes and had informal conversations with the teachers and the students.

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  73

Both learners and teachers in these schools were used to having teacher-training students from the master’s degree in Teaching in Secondary Education, Vocational Training and Language Schools in class, so the researcher’s presence did not interfere with the running of the lessons. In fact, getting the students used to having the researcher in the classroom prior to the outset of the study has been pointed out as an important aspect to consider in order to minimise the Hawthorne effect (see Mackey, 2017). The learners were told that the researcher was doing a study and that she would be seen in the lessons regularly, but they were not told what the study was about, and the tasks that were used for the study were performed as day-to-day activities in class with the corresponding language teacher. In order to avoid any influence on the teachers, and, by extension, on the results of the study, the teachers were given just a general idea of what the project was about, and the researcher did not do any teaching or tell the teachers what to teach or how. As a result, we may state that the present research was carried out in intact classrooms (Williams, 2012). 4.2  Collecting Real Classroom Data with a Pragmatic-Focused Task

Research on ILP has used a variety of data elicitation techniques. Some of the most widely used data collection instruments are DCTs (either oral or written), role-plays and multiple-choice questionnaires (see Bardovi-Harlig, 2013 for a discussion on tasks to elicit pragmatics). Most of these instruments have been used in laboratory and classroom settings to analyse speech acts, which still represent the main area of interest in ILP studies. The present research is intended to be an ecologically valid classroom-based study on pragmatics. Our aim is to explore pragmatic learning in an authentic classroom, keeping the researcher’s intervention to the minimum. When doing classroom research, it is important to consider whether the data collection instruments are natural to the context where data are collected. In this regard, from a teaching point of view, tasks are inherent to the language classroom. And dealing with research, TBLT is in fact a growing area of interest, and the application of this framework to ILP research is still incipient (see the volume by Taguchi & Kim, 2018a). Bearing this in mind, the task needed to collect the data had to be part of the activities commonly performed in class in the three languages and also elicit a pragmatic aspect. After class observations and interviews with some teachers, it was concluded that argumentative writing tasks met these requirements. Kuiken and Vedder (2013: 370) have referred to this type of task as ‘a “typical” writing task’. This idea reinforces the fact that this task is part of the usual classroom activities, which makes it a suitable target of investigation in classroom research. In fact, using such a task for our investigation is particularly interesting because the type of text

74  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

involved is required in university entrance examinations (pruebas de acceso a la universidad) in the three languages (English, Catalan and Spanish). Another advantage of using an argumentative type of text is that, being a persuasive text, it elicits the use of both general types of pragmatic markers, i.e. textual and interpersonal. Moreover, it is also a ‘typical’ task in the sense that it has been employed in previous research on pragmatic marker use in learners’ written production (e.g. Crismore et al., 1993; Markkanen et al., 1993; Martín Úriz et al., 2005; Neff et al., 2003; Rica, 2010; Simin, 2004; Simin & Tavangar, 2009), in studies on writing abilities (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013) and in the collection of existing learner corpora (Granger, 2003, 2009, 2012), allowing for comparability. What is new in this study in comparison with most research on pragmatic markers to date is that we have collected data on the same multilingual learners writing in three languages (see also Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018), in line with studies on other pragmatic dimensions (Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013) and on writing abilities (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013) in multilingual learners. 4.2.1  Task description and design

In the prompts, the structure of the task and the text type were kept constant so that using different text types would not influence pragmatic marker use (Norment, 1994). Thus, the task had the following structure in all three languages (see examples of the prompts in Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3): • Context. A context was provided to make the task more communicative and real-life, e.g. The headmaster of your secondary school is considering the possibility of banning smartphones at school and is interested in knowing the students’ opinion. • Main question for debate and instructions (in a box, in bold). This had the aim of focusing the participants’ attention on the task, the topic and the reader, e.g. Should students be allowed to take smartphones to school? Write your opinion taking into account that the headmaster of your school may read it. • Picture related to the topic. The presence of illustrations added to task simplicity, making it more reader-friendly, and was intended to represent the main idea being discussed. • Ideas to think about related to the main question. Teachers reported that one of the main problems they usually encountered was that learners would run out of ideas. This part was based on the activities found in the textbook, related to the process of writing, in order to overcome this drawback – e.g. What if students get distracted during the lesson? Can we use smartphones for learning purposes?

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  75

• Task procedure, i.e. the conditions for performing the task. There was a time limit of 20 minutes but no word limit was set. The decision about time was made taking into account (i) several tests in the pilot study; (ii) the overall time available in the university entrance exams; and (iii) previous research on pragmatic markers in bachillerato learners of EFL in Spain (Martín Úriz et al., 2005). As explained below, time pressure was a way of ensuring adolescent learners would focus on the task and complete it successfully. In accordance with university entrance exam conditions, learners were not allowed to use a dictionary or ask the teacher or other learners questions. The task design is justified by a pilot study involving several phases and participants from two schools who were not part of the final sample. The pilot study determined the task procedure and the choice of topics (see Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). The pilot study revealed that time pressure worked better in making adolescents concentrate on classroom activities and practise for the university entrance exams, which are timed. In addition, it was considered better not to specify a word limit so as not to affect task completion and the outcome, i.e. persuading the reader. In this regard, the teachers said that the learners were aware of the fact that in the university entrance exams the required length would be around 130–150 words or one side of a page, and the text should include an introduction, body and conclusion. This decision was confirmed in the pilot study (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). Another issue is related to topic choice. Topic commonalities across tasks in order to minimise the possible effect of topic variability in the pilot study resulted in learners losing interest on the task. Focusing on meaning, learners considered that writing their opinion more than once about the same topic was unnecessary. Our primary aim was to guarantee ecological validity and ensure that the topics would be relevant and interesting for the learners, and that they would have an opinion about them. Prompts based on the learners’ suggestions were then written up and they were presented to the learners for them to rate in terms of difficulty. The ones selected for the final study were those that had been rated as having similar difficulty. The learners also decided the language in which they preferred to write about each topic. The topics were based on authentic situations that had raised extensive discussion in the school context (see Table 4.3). Each topic was assigned to Time 1, Time 2 or Time 3 depending on its relevance at that time of the year. For example, writing about exchange programmes and going out at night on a school trip were topics assigned to Time 2 because exchange programmes and school trips normally take place in spring. In contrast, general issues about the end-of-school trip are normally discussed at the beginning of the year in order to have time to organise it, so this topic

76  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Table 4.3  Topics used in the task3 Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

English

The end-ofschool trip

Smartphones at school

New technologies in the classroom

Catalan

The school has won a prize

Exchange programmes

Drinking alcohol at the graduation party

Spanish

The university entrance exams

Going out at night on a school trip

Content-based instruction in English

was assigned to Time 1. Finally, three language teachers also looked at the prompts to give their approval. Thus, time pressure and topic variation, in this particular case with adolescents in an authentic classroom context, guaranteed ecological validity during task performance. Previous research on pragmatic markers (Martín Úriz et al., 2005) and trilingual writing (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a) has also made use of different topics. In addition, the instructions of real classroom tasks were improved regarding two aspects: (i) so that the task could be defined as a task versus an exercise (Ellis, 2003); and (ii) in order to control for pragmatic aspects (power, social distance and degree of imposition). The latter decision was made taking into account research reporting that situational variables influence pragmatic learning trajectories (Taguchi, 2011a, 2012). With the purpose of keeping intervention to the minimum in order to elicit natural classroom data on pragmatics, no other pragmatic or task conditions were manipulated. Regarding the definition of the task, following Ellis (2003), the task was focused because it was designed to provide learners with opportunities for using the target pragmatic aspect, i.e. pragmatic markers. It may be argued that the learners may decide not to use pragmatic markers. However, pragmatic markers were expected to be used by the learners for two reasons. Firstly, in the marking criteria of the university entrance exams, one of the valued aspects in the ‘clarity of expression and textual organisation’ section is the ability to use pragmatic markers (see Example 1, our translation): Example 1 Clarity of expression and textual organisation: -Sequencing and clear and logical text organisation. -No excessive repetition. -It is not a confused and obscure text. -Adequate use of connectives for the different ideas. -Coherent and original approach to the topic. -Structuring the ideas in paragraphs.

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  77

Secondly, pragmatic markers were an aspect that the teachers reported insisting upon when asked how they taught writing in general and what was important in writing a good composition. In fact, previous empirical research has shown that pragmatic marker use may be an indicator of writing quality (Intaraprawat & Steffensen, 1995; Lahuerta Martínez, 2004). Moreover, the task was manipulated so it would meet the criteria of a task proposed by Ellis (2003, cited in Ellis, 2009: 223): (1) The primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (by which is meant that learners should be mainly concerned with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of utterances). (2) There should be some kind of ‘gap’ (i.e. a need to convey information, to express an opinion or to infer meaning). (3) Learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) in order to complete the activity. (4) There is a clearly defined outcome other than the use of language (i.e. the language serves as the means for achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right). Ellis’ (2003) criteria stated above were met in the task as follows: • Criterion 1 (‘focus on meaning’). The learners were not told explicitly what the target pragmatic feature was so that they would focus on meaning, i.e. stating their view on a topic of debate related to the learners in the school context. • Criterion 2 (‘existence of a gap’). There was a decision to be made and a need to know the learners’ opinion about the topic, because they would be directly affected. • Criterion 3 (‘learners’ reliance on their own resources’). As stated in Criterion 1, the learners were not told what linguistic or pragmatic resources to use and they had to use their own. • Criterion 4 (‘existence of a non-linguistic outcome’). The ultimate outcome of the task was to persuade the reader, i.e. the head teacher of the school, to favour the point argued by the learners. Following Ellis (2003: 89), this task is an open task because there is no pre-determined solution. Although the topic to discuss was suggested to the students, relative freedom to approach the general topic was allowed. Ellis (2003: 86) calls these kinds of tasks opinion gap tasks and compares them with information gap tasks. Thus, opinion gap tasks are characterised by: (i) learners’ going beyond the information provided by giving their own ideas (vs exchanging information); (ii) the information provided is shared (vs split); and (iii) the information exchange is optional (vs required). In order to overcome any problems related to the latter, the topics had a direct relationship with the learners’ concerns.

78  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Table 4.4  Pragmatic dimensions considered in task design Power

unequal

Social distance

medium

Degree of imposition

low

As far as pragmatic dimensions are concerned (see Table 4.4), the task was manipulated to control for power, social distance and degree of imposition, measured by the learners’ perception in the pilot study. Thus, in all the prompts, the learners had to write a text stating their justified opinion to be read by the school’s head teacher about an issue related to the school. In terms of power, the relationship was ‘unequal’, because the head teacher was the one who could take the final decision. Social distance was difficult to classify. The learners argued that there was some distance from the head teacher as compared with a friend or a relative, but it could not be classified as ‘high’ because the head teacher was also one of their teachers, and he or she was seen as one of them, in spite of having an additional role, which mitigated the distance. It was finally rated as ‘medium’, based on the students’ perception when the task was piloted. The third pragmatic aspect involved, degree of imposition, was classified as ‘low’, because asking for the students’ view is common practice in the secondary-school context, and it does not imply any obligation on the reader. The fact that the head teacher is the one who initiates the request for students’ opinions also contributes to reducing the imposition. Furthermore, in contrast to requests, giving an opinion is not considered a face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The importance of using a low-imposition situation in relation to real-life interaction in a secondary-school context is reinforced by the results obtained by McGroarty and Taguchi (2005), who found just a few examples of high-imposition requests in a 50,000-word corpus of student–professor conversations. A final remark should be made regarding the importance of using tasks to elicit pragmatic data in written mode. Although previous research has used tasks to investigate pragmatic marker use (NearySundquist, 2013), oral performance has been the main focus of attention, and the same applies to the wider area of ILP. However, pragmatic knowledge does not only concern oral production. As a matter of fact, communicating in written mode in English, the lingua franca of international communication, is not only relevant in academia, but also in the corporate world, for example via email (Ädel, 2006). Thus, the pragmatic dimension of written performance becomes a crucial area in need of investigation that has raised recent interest in areas such as cyber-communication (Alcón-Soler, 2013a, 2013b). Language learning goes beyond mastering basic knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and spelling. It also involves ‘the knowledge of how to present facts

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  79

effectively, how to argue one’s case convincingly, and how to manage writer and reader visibility’ (Ädel, 2006: 4), and pragmatic markers are a means to achieving those ends. As a result, it becomes paramount to shed light on how pragmatic markers are learnt, and to examine whether this knowledge can be transferred among the languages in which multilingual learners receive instruction to reconsider how pragmatics can be taught. 4.3  Collecting Real Classroom Data in Context

In addition to quantitative data from the task, qualitative data were considered to triangulate quantitative data obtained in the classroom and provide multiple perspectives on our research topic in context. In particular, this information was taken from learners’ guided diaries. To a lesser extent, we also made use of our field notes obtained during classroom observations and informal conversations with teachers to clarify some points. 4.3.1  Learners’ guided diaries

Learners were asked to write guided diaries on their performance of the task. Our aim was to provide insight into the students’ views and awareness, especially regarding the process of task performance in relation to pragmatic marker teaching and use, without making them aware of the pragmatic target under study. These diaries were untimed (they lasted 10 minutes approximately) and were written after completing each task in each language. They consisted of four questions about the task. As a result, each learner filled in nine diaries, one per essay. As shown by the pilot study, it was too demanding to ask the learners to answer the questions in English, so these were given in Spanish and Catalan (each version on each side of the page) and could be answered in either of those languages. The questions were related to the writing process (question 1), the organisation of the text (textual pragmatic markers) (question 2), and the reader (interpersonal pragmatic markers) (questions 3 and 4) as follows (see Appendix 4): • Question 1: Explain the steps that you followed to write the text. • Instructions before question 2: Read the text again and answer the questions. • Question 2: State the words or expressions in your text that, in your opinion, make it an organised text with the parts connected. If you cannot find any examples, say so and explain why. • Question 3: While you were writing your opinion, did you take into account who was going to read the text or would you have written the same for any reader?

80  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

• Question 4: State the words or expressions that, in your opinion, justify your previous answer. If you cannot find any examples, say so and explain what you based your previous answer on. 4.4  Pragmatic Focus: Pragmatic Markers 4.4.1  Defining pragmatic markers as metadiscourse elements

Pragmatic markers might be one of the most unclear language dimensions. A number of definitions and categorisations have been adopted in recent decades (e.g. Aijmer & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2011; Fischer, 2006; Fraser, 1999, 2006; Hyland, 2005; Schiffrin, 1987, 1994, 2001; Schourup, 1999). In addition, a wide variety of labels have been used to refer to pragmatic markers (e.g. cue phrases, discourse connectives, discourse operators, pragmatic connectives, pragmatic markers, pragmatic expressions, sentence connectives) (see Fraser, 1999: 932). Their meanings depend on the perspective taken in each study. The number of names illustrates, among other things, the fact that scholars have not reached a consensus on the core meaning and functions of these expressions. Taking into account the approach adopted in this study, we will refer to them as pragmatic markers (PMs). Traditionally, the use of PMs has been related to coherence relations (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). However, this view is rather limited, and recent research has adopted a broader view of PMs. Many researchers examine PMs from a pragmatic perspective, the one adopted in this study. For example, Cuenca (2001: 54) refers to a pragmaticalisation of literal or referential meaning in some PMs, which is re-elaborated into a non-literal, metalinguistic meaning. She exemplifies this phenomenon with the PM això és in Catalan (that is). Although the literal or referential meaning would be ‘A is B’, e.g. això és un gos (that is a dog), this marker means that A is equivalent to B, i.e. B is a reformulation of A. Rieber (1997) uses but to discuss that it brings pragmatic meaning to texts or utterances. Going further in the study of the uses of but, however and yet, Blakemore (2002: 12) claims that PMs carry pragmatic meaning because ‘they do not contribute to the truth conditional content of the utterances that contain them’. Some pragmatic approaches have emphasised the interactional functions of PMs in discourse, arguing that the role of PMs is not simply text-organising or discursive, but also the result of the writer’s assumptions about the reader and writer’s relationship. In this vein, Fraser (1990: 390) suggests that PMs are ‘extremely useful guides for clarifying a speaker’s communicative intention’. Carter and McCarthy (2006: 208) see them as ‘a class of items which (…) encode speakers’ intentions and interpersonal meanings’. Similarly, some researchers see

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  81

PMs as metadiscourse elements that show awareness of participants in the communicative event (e.g. Crismore et al., 1993; Hyland, 2005, 2010, 2015; Vande Kopple, 1985). The term metadiscourse was coined by Zellig S. Harris in 1959 to refer to textual elements that comment on the main information in a text, but which are of secondary importance in terms of content. It has been traditionally defined as ‘discourse about discourse’ or ‘talk about talk’, depending on the nature of the discourse investigated, either oral or written. Hyland (2005: 16) argues that this is a partial view of metadiscourse since it ‘has enormous potential to include features of language which describe not only how we organise our ideas, but also how we relate to our readers or listeners’. In other words, Hyland (2005) points out that there is common ground in all types of PMs that conveys interpersonal meaning. Thus, a widely accepted definition is that metadiscourse is the linguistic material of text which, rather than adding propositional content,4 signals the author’s presence in helping the reader ‘organise, classify, interpret, evaluate, and react to such material’ (Vande Kopple, 1985: 83). In the same vein, Crismore (1983) argues that metadiscourse is the author’s intrusion into the ongoing discourse in order to guide rather than inform the reader. A more recent and generally accepted definition of metadiscourse is the one proposed by Hyland (2005): Metadiscourse is the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers as members of a particular community. (Hyland, 2005: 37)

In this study, we adopt a pragmatic and metadiscourse view of PMs for two main reasons. Firstly, it emphasises the interrelation between discourse and pragmatics; and secondly, it goes beyond the textual context, seeing PMs in the wider context of communication in which there is interaction between the participants in the communicative event. We understand that PMs can be placed in a discourse–pragmatics continuum (see Figure 4.1), since both functions are fulfilled by PMs at the same time, and they are analysed from this perspective. Interpersonal PMs are thus placed towards the pragmatic end of the continuum, whereas textual PMs are more discourse-related.

Figure 4.1  The discourse–pragmatics continuum

82  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

4.4.2  Selection of categories and target pragmatic marker forms

The classification adopted in this study was adapted from Crismore et al. (1993) and Hyland (2000, 2005), who based their taxonomies on the one proposed by Vande Kopple (1985). The changes were made taking into account two aspects: (i) frequency of use as shown in the pilot study (see Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015); and (ii) the input expressions that the learners were exposed to in the teaching materials in English, Catalan and Spanish. The pilot study (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015) involved manual analysis and showed that learners preferred to use PMs that were present in the input materials. In doing so, the PMs were correctly used in most cases. The pilot study also revealed that the use of endophoric markers and evidentials in students’ argumentative essays was low or absent in English, Catalan and Spanish. These findings were interpreted in relation to the type of text analysed, which differed from the academic genres in which PMs have frequently been analysed. As a result, these categories were excluded from the final taxonomy adopted in this book and the target forms analysed were taken from the instructional input that learners received. Two additional categories that were excluded from our final analysis were interpersonal PMs functioning as engagement markers and self-mentions. These two categories proposed by Hyland (2005) could be considered equivalent to Crismore et al.’s (1993) commentary, a category to classify PMs that build a relationship with the reader. In Hyland’s (2005) terms, the engagement markers category was disregarded in the present study because there is no evidence that they are dealt with in all the schools, due to the fact that their presence is not clear in the content dealing with PMs. The self-mention category was not considered in our taxonomy for several reasons. First of all, we agree with Dafouz-Milne (2000) and Martín Úriz et al. (2005) about the fuzziness and lack of homogeneity of this category. As a matter of fact, as Ädel (2010: 79) argues, researchers do not agree on whether all occurrences of the first person should be considered metadiscourse: Note that, according to the interactive model of metadiscourse, every single occurrence of these pronouns is as an example of metadiscourse. In the reflexive model, by contrast, not all instances of such pronouns are considered self-reflective. (…) Although such involvement features naturally may affect the relationship between the writer-speaker and ­audience – as emphasised by, for example, Crismore (1989) and Hyland (2005) – ­according to the reflexive model of metadiscourse, occurrences of first and second person pronouns do not automatically qualify as metadiscourse.

Secondly, as in the case of engagement markers, the use of selfmention as metadiscourse is not clearly addressed in the school syllabus,

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  83

and we could not guarantee that all the schools participating in the study were familiar with it. Finally, another reason to eliminate selfmention was that it may overlap with other categories when being part of expressions such as ‘I think’. For example, ‘I think’ would be counted as a self-mention (I) and as a hedge (I think). In these cases, we considered that the core meaning (Fraser, 1999, 2006) carried by the marker was hedge. The reason is that in English a subject is always needed in expressions such as ‘I think’, i.e. the self-mention is obligatory. In contrast, in Catalan and Spanish the subject can be omitted because the person is marked by the verb ending, e.g. ‘piens-o’ in Spanish, ‘pens-e’ in Catalan (I think in English). This would have resulted in a high frequency of self-mentions in English compared with Spanish and Catalan. To summarise, in the present study we have only considered three categories of interpersonal PMs, namely hedges, certainty markers and attitude markers. In addition to the reasons stated above, previous research has selected the same categories of interpersonal metadiscourse (Neff & Dafouz-Milne, 2008), based on a previous analysis in which these categories were found to be statistically significant (Dafouz-Milne, 2003). The classification adopted in the current research is presented in Table 4.5. The detailed list of the target PM forms in English, Catalan and Spanish investigated are provided in Appendix 5. 4.4.3  Database and coding of pragmatic markers

There was a total of 2,817 essays, 939 in each language (English, Catalan and Spanish). The essays were typed up exactly as they were written by the learners, including any mistakes, so they were in electronic format (.txt). In some cases learners used personal data (the name of the school, the head teacher or their own name). Whenever there was such information, it was deleted and substituted by a generic expression describing the proper name, e.g. , , , . This large amount of data, together with the information from the learners’ questionnaires and proficiency tests, were entered in a Microsoft Access database containing the participants’ information (see Figure 4.2), the PM forms analysed (see Figure 4.3) and the compositions (see Figure 4.4). The coding of PM categories was semi-automatic. The automatic search for expressions was performed using the Microsoft Access database. The items investigated (available in Appendix 5) were entered in the database. In order to make sure each PM was correctly recognised by the database, there was a space where tests could be done, and, below it, an example of analysis. The word or expression in a rectangle was the one that the system recognised (see Figure 4.3). The automatic analysis was based on the use of pattern sets to define regular expressions that could be recognised by the system. For example, in

INTERPERSONAL PMs Involve the reader in the argument.

TEXTUAL PMs Help to guide the reader through the text.

Distinguishes between two parts or aspects of the discourse. Introduces a new topic or a different aspect. Closes the discourse or an aspect in it, emphasising the thesis or summarising the main ideas defended.

Distribution Topic shift Conclusion

Express partial commitment to the truth-value of the assertion and open dialogue. Express the writer’s full commitment to the certainty of the assertion Express the writer’s affective values towards the proposition

Certainty markers

Attitude markers

Illustrates an idea or reinforces it by means of an example.

Initiates, shows a sequence or lists points.

Sequencing

Exemplification

Describes a cause or reason.

Cause

Clarifies what has been said before, either to say it differently or to introduce a subtle difference.

Indicates a cause–effect relationship.

Consequence

Clarification

Introduces opposing points, disadvantages or counterarguments.

Adds points on the same topic or to continue with the same topic.

Contrast

Addition

DEFINITION

Hedges

Code glosses Help readers grasp meanings of textual material showing instances or alternative contents or formulations. They are used to reformulate, clarify, exemplify or specify textual material.

Frame markers Indicate sequences, text organisation or text stages.

Logical connectives Express semantic relation between main clauses.

CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES

Table 4.5  Classification of PMs adopted in the present study5

fortunately

evidently, of course

maybe, I think that

for example, for instance

that is

in conclusion, to sum up

regarding…

on the one hand… on the other hand

first of all, secondly, finally

because, for this reason

consequently

however

in addition

EXAMPLES

84  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  85

Figure 4.2  Snapshot of a participant’s background information in the database

Figure 4.3  Snapshot of an example of how the PMs were entered in the database

the case of the interpersonal attitude PM ‘agree’, there was alternation between ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’. In this case, the regular expression introduced was ‘(dis|)agree’, meaning the search would match either of the expressions. Special attention was paid to multiword PMs that contained one word in common, e.g. ‘en’ in Spanish PMs ‘en consecuencia’, ‘en cambio’ and ‘en cuanto a’, and Catalan PMs ‘en

86  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Figure 4.4 Snapshot of a composition entered in the database and PM analysis

conseqüència’ and ‘en primer lloc’, so that they would be recognised adequately. If they belonged to the same category, they were introduced as alternations of the same expression. For example, the Spanish code gloss clarification PMs ‘en concreto’, ‘en particular’ and ‘en especial’ were entered as ‘en (concreto|particular|especial)’ in the database. Some PMs may appear combined or embedded within a larger PM unit. In these cases, they were counted as two separate instances. In Example 2 below in Spanish, ‘pienso que’ was counted as a hedge, a type of interpersonal PM, and ‘para acabar’ as an interpersonal PM indicating conclusion. Example 2 También veo conveniente un examen oral de inglés, dado su utilidad ingente en la sociedad actual. Pienso, para acabar, que deberían examinarse de las asignaturas que sean útiles para la carrera y que proponga, así pues, la facultad de la carrera. (Student 248, Spanish, Time 1) [I also see advisable an oral exam of English, given its enormous usefulness in the current society. I think, to finish with, that they should be examined on subjects that will be useful for the degree and proposed, therefore, the faculty of the degree.]

The results were verified with the free concordance software AntConc (Anthony, 2014). We did not use this existing programme for the coding because we needed the results for each essay and participant. Moreover, AntConc did not allow us to edit the texts in order to discard some meanings in polysemous words. In addition, some characters in Spanish and Catalan, such as ‘ñ’, ‘ç’ and vowels with the diacritical mark showing pronunciation, e.g. ‘í’, were not recognised by the

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  87

programme. The database allowed us to make adjustments to counteract the problems that appeared in the first trial of the automatic analysis; showed the PMs analysed in each essay in rectangles and showed the frequencies by type, essay, language, participant and term, as shown in Figure 4.4. This system also allowed us to edit the essays once the search had been performed and to carry out manual analysis of problematic expressions, parallel to the automatic search. One of the problems concerned an overlap of categories. In some cases, one PM could be interpreted in different ways and, therefore, assigned to more than one category. In this respect, we agree with Fraser (1999), who claims that PMs have a ‘core meaning’ and that their specific interpretation is negotiated within the context. This approach explains that different uses of the same PMs are possible and that some functions may overlap (Moreno, 2005). Although we acknowledge that the particular meaning of each PM depends on the context, in this book we will consider only their ‘core meaning’ and adopt a solution where one form could have several PM functions. For example, the PM ‘on the other hand’ in English could express contrast, distribution or topic shift. In these cases, we entered the regular expression in the database, marking it with predefined signs (see Example 3), and each occurrence of the marker was considered individually and classified correspondingly. Example 3 • On the other hand: when acting as a TEXTUAL PM> logical connectives> contrast. • {[On the other hand]}: when acting as a TEXTUAL PM> frame markers> distribution.

Related to this issue is the case of some forms that, depending on the context, may or may not act as PMs. This is the case of ‘and’, which would act as a textual PM (indicating addition and linking clauses) and would connect noun phrases (e.g. the students and the teachers). Each occurrence of these PMs was looked at in context in order to determine whether they functioned as PMs or not. When ‘and’ connected noun phrases it was discarded. 4.5  Data Collection Procedure

The present study followed a longitudinal design that would allow us to explore transfer during the process of pragmatic learning and factors related to change. The data on PM performance were collected in the three languages in which the learners received instruction. Prior to the study, the researcher contacted the head teacher of the school, the English, Catalan and Spanish department directors, and the corresponding teachers involved in the teaching of these languages

88  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

at the educational stage where the study was conducted in each school to present them with the general idea of the project, request their interest in collaborating, agree on the best dates to start, and make the necessary arrangements concerning consent forms. In order to avoid any influence by the teachers on the results of the study, only a general idea of the study was presented. The teachers evaluated the measurement instruments involved in the study before giving their consent and going further with the rest of permissions. Figure 4.5 shows a timeline of the data collection procedure. The data collection started in December and finished in June. At the outset of the study, the participants were administered the Oxford Quick Placement Test (UCLES, 2001) and the Background Information and Language Contact Questionnaire (see Appendix 6) in class. The Background Information Questionnaire (adapted from Mackey & Gass, 2005) asked for general information about the following issues: personal details, parents’ educational background and use of English professionally, academic achievement, linguistic background (adapted from Marian et al., 2007) and previous experience abroad. In addition, a set of four questionnaires aimed at recording the participants’ contact with the official languages in the region, i.e. Catalan and Spanish, and the foreign language, i.e. English, inside and outside school, was administered. All these questionnaires were written in Spanish but the participants were free to answer in Catalan.

Figure 4.5  Data collection timeline6

Doing Classroom Research in a Multilingual Context  89

The data from the pragmatic-focused task and the diaries were gathered in three waves and there were 10 teaching weeks between each data collection time. All the essays and their matching guided diaries were written in the corresponding language class (English, Catalan and Spanish) and lasted about 45 minutes overall. 4.6  Data Analysis

In the present study, pragmatic ability was operationalised as ability to produce textual and interpersonal PMs fluently. Fluency was assessed by the ratio of PM use, dividing the number of PM tokens by the total number of words in each essay to calculate the percentage of PMs per number of words that were used by each participant in each essay, and in each language. The resulting percentages were then averaged to give the average percentage of PM use for all responses at each time for each type of marker. Two main types of PMs were analysed: textual PMs and interpersonal PMs (Hyland, 2000). In order to have a more complete picture of our data, the type-token ratio per essay and the mean were calculated. Regarding pragmatic transfer between English, Catalan and Spanish over time in Research Question 1 and the influence of proficiency level on pragmatic transfer in multilinguals in Research Question 2, correlation analyses were conducted in order to identify the strength of association between the ratio of use of interpersonal and textual PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish and to determine its significance. The statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) programme. In addition, a mixed method approach has been followed, analysing both quantitative and qualitative data for the present study. Notes (1) Semi-private schools (colegios concertados) are run as private schools but with public funding. (2) Note that participants from Spanish–Catalan families, i.e. when each parent speaks one language to the child from birth, reported that their L1 was Catalan or Spanish depending on the language they mainly used and felt to be their L1. (3) Table 4.3 appears in Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018). We would like to thank the journal System for the permission to reproduce this table. (4) For a discussion on whether metadiscourse should be considered propositional or nonpropositional material, see Ädel (2006: 209–212). (5) Table 4.5 appears in Martín-Laguna (2016, 2018) and Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018). We would like to thank Brill-Rodopi, Peter Lang and the journal System for the permission to reproduce this table. (6) Figure 4.5 partially appears in Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018). We would like to thank the journal System for the permission to reproduce this figure.

5 Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners

This chapter deals with the longitudinal development of pragmatic transfer of 313 secondary-school multilingual learners in the three languages in which they receive instruction at school, i.e. English, Catalan and Spanish. Transfer in two types of PMs during the performance of written production tasks was captured: textual and interpersonal PMs. It then presents the results from the first research question: Is pragmatic ability to use PMs transferred between the languages in which multilingual learners receive instruction in the school context? In particular, how does multilingual pragmatic transfer change over time? To address this research question, two measures were administered: a pragmatic-focused task to obtain quantitative data (see Section 4.2) and learners’ guided diaries in order to collect qualitative data (see Section 4.3). The researcher’s field notes were also taken into consideration. The research instruments were given to learners three times over one academic year in the three languages involved in the study in order to trace changes in the development of multilingual pragmatic transfer. In what follows, we explore the possibility of multilingual pragmatic transfer between three languages (English, Catalan and Spanish), focusing on two main aspects: (i) development of PM production over time; and (ii) learners’ reflections on their PM production in English, Catalan and Spanish over time. The chapter concludes with a summary and interpretation of the main findings. 5.1 Development of Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer from the Task’s Data

Prior to focusing on the findings related to the development of multilingual pragmatic transfer in textual and interpersonal PMs, it is worth presenting a brief overview of the data. Overall, the English corpus contained 116,283 words with a mean of 123.8 words per essay (SD = 46.73); the Spanish corpus contained 152,894 words with a mean

90

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  91

of 162.8 words per essay (SD = 60.13); and the Catalan corpus contained 149,756 words with a mean of 159.5 words per essay (SD = 51.07) (see Table 5.1). The mean type-token ratio (TTR) was similar in the three corpora but was lowest for English (61.7%, SD = 8.16), followed by Spanish (64.8%, SD = 7.13) and Catalan (65.2%, SD = 6.89) (see Table 5.2). Table 5.3 shows the descriptive statistics of the ratio of use of both types of PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish over the academic year. A Pearson correlation coefficient (2-tailed) was used to assess the relationship between the ratio of use of textual and interpersonal PMs in the three languages (English, Catalan and Spanish) at three different times. The analysis was first done at a general level, involving the overall results, then separating textual and interpersonal PMs, and finally separating textual and interpersonal PMs in the three languages at the three data collection times. As shown in Table 5.4, the general results Table 5.1  Corpora details Time 1 Lang.

Total words

Time 2

Mean

SD

Time 3

Total Mean words

SD

Overall

Total Mean words

SD

Total Total words mean

SD

EN

43,854

140.1 49.45 37,499

119.8 45.40 34,930

111.6 40.33 116,283 123.8 46.73

SP

57,554

183.9 63.94 49,138

157.0 55.32 46,202

147.6 54.88 152,894 162.8 60.13

CAT

48,602

155.3 46.98 53,765

171.8 52.95 47,389

151.4 50.26 149,756 159.5 51.07

Total

150,010 159.8 56.90 140,402 149.5 55.81 128,521 136.9 52.23 418,933 148.7 55.79

Table 5.2  Descriptive statistics of the type-token ratio (%) Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Total

Lang.

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

EN

59.0%

7.37

62.6%

8.30

63.5%

8.11

61.7%

8.16

SP

62.8%

6.67

66.0%

6.87

65.7%

7.40

64.8%

7.13

CAT

66.9%

6.66

64.6%

6.67

64.0%

7.01

65.2%

6.89

Total

62.9%

7.61

64.4%

7.43

64.4%

7.57

63.9%

7.57

Table 5.3  Descriptive statistics of the ratio of use of PMs (per 100 words) (general) Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Total

Lang.

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

EN

6.231

2.046

6.747

2.187

7.059

2.284

6.679

2.199

SP

5.514

2.020

5.566

2.005

5.527

2.083

5.536

2.034

CAT

5.654

2.068

6.351

2.179

6.025

2.269

6.010

2.190

6.075

2.192

Total

92  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Table 5.4  General correlations between the ratio of use of PMs in the three ­languages English–Spanish

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Pearson correlation

.335

.388

.467**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

**

**

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 5.1  Representation of general PM transfer in English, Catalan and Spanish1

of the correlation analysis indicate that there are statistically significant correlations between each pair of languages (English–Spanish r = .335, p < .001; English–Catalan r = .388, p < .001; Spanish–Catalan r = .467, p < .001). As illustrated in Figure 5.1, the figures that overlap represent statistically significant correlations. As shown in Table 5.5, the same findings apply to the general correlations separating textual and interpersonal PMs in the three languages (textual PMs: English–Spanish r = .199, p < .001; English– Catalan r = .306, p < .001; Spanish–Catalan r = .356, p < .001; interpersonal PMs: English–Spanish r = .369, p < .001; English–Catalan r = .328, p < .001; Spanish–Catalan r = .412, p < .001). In a more detailed analysis, Table 5.6 shows the correlations between textual PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish at the three data collection Table 5.5  General correlations in textual and interpersonal PMs in the three ­languages (sum of the ratio of use at T1, T2 and T3)2 English–Spanish Textual PMs Interpersonal PMs

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Pearson correlation

.199**

.306**

.356**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

Pearson correlation

.369**

.328**

.412**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  93

Table 5.6  Correlations between textual PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish at T1, T2, T3 English–Spanish Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Pearson correlation

.032

.106

.239**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.573

.062

.000

Pearson correlation

.099

.058

.116*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.080

.304

.040

Pearson correlation

.083

.203**

.187**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.141

.000

.001

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

points, and Table 5.7 presents the same results for interpersonal PMs. Regarding textual PMs (see Table 5.6 and Figure 5.2), correlations are significant between Spanish and Catalan at all three times (T1 r = .239, p < .001; T2 r = .116, p = .040; T3 r = .187, p = .001). As for correlations between English and Catalan and Spanish in textual PMs, our results are not conclusive at the .01 and .05 levels of significance. The only exception is the highly significant correlation between English and Catalan at Time 3 (r = .203, p < .001). In relation to interpersonal PMs, as shown in Table 5.7 and illustrated in Figure 5.3, our analysis shows conclusive results at the .01 and .05 levels of significance at all three data collection times. The only exception is the relationship between English and Catalan at Time 1 (r = .075, p = .186). It should be noted that, especially at the end of the academic year, when the third data collection took place, the results are highly significant between each pair of languages (English–Spanish r = .284, p < .001; English–Catalan r = .208, p < .001; Spanish–Catalan r = .295, p < .001). To sum up, quantitative analysis has provided evidence supporting multilingual PM transfer, both textual and interpersonal. In addition, a detailed analysis of the data over time confirms transfer of interpersonal PMs, but partial transfer in relation to textual PMs.

Figure 5.2  Representation of textual PM transfer among English, Catalan and Spanish over the academic year

94  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Table 5.7 Correlations between interpersonal PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish at T1, T2, T3 English–Spanish Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Pearson correlation

.146**

.075

.276**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.010

.186

.000

Pearson correlation

.125*

.174**

.218**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.027

.002

.000

Pearson correlation

.284**

.208**

.295**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Figure 5.3  Representation of interpersonal PM transfer among English, Catalan and Spanish over the academic year

5.2 The Learners’ Perspective on Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer

The quantitative results were triangulated with qualitative data from the learners’ guided diaries in the three languages and illustrated with the actual compositions. General trends for starting and finishing the text were observed, in addition to transfer at the individual level. A generalised practice concerns the use of similar PM strategies to start the essays. In the data, learners tend to start not only their English compositions with hedges such as ‘I think’ or ‘in my opinion’, but also use their PM counterparts in the compositions written in Spanish and Catalan. In fact, these interpersonal PM forms in Catalan and Spanish are the most frequent in the three languages. Example 43 illustrates how the same learner (Student 777) starts all his compositions, regardless of the language, with a hedge (‘I think’ in English, ‘Jo crec que’ in Catalan, ‘En mi opinión’/‘Yo creo que’ in Spanish), followed by a logical connective indicating cause (‘because’ in English, ‘ja que’/‘perquè’ in Catalan, ‘porque’/‘ya que’ in Spanish).

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  95

Example 4 St. 777

English

Catalan

Spanish

Time 1

I think that the best place to go on the end of school trip is Mallorca because we need to relax ourselves at the beach and go to parties too. (…)

Per a començar senyor director, jo crec que seria una bona opció el manteniment del centre ja que cal arreglar algunes coses com per exemple fer els banys mes grans perque s’acumula molta gent i no hi podem entrar o ficar aire acondicionat perque quan fa calor, a les classes, no es pot quasi ni respirar. (…)

En mi opinión, yo creo que la ley está mejor como la tenemos ahora, es decir, con la prueba de la Selectividad porque es a lo que estamos acostumbrados y creo que la otra opción puede ser un poco mas dura. (…)

Time 2

I think that ­students should be allowed to take the smartphones to school but with some rules that they should respect. (…)

Jo crec que seria important fer un ­intercanvi amb un ­institut estranger perque així, a més de aprendre un altre idioma també ­tindriem l’oportunitat de coneixer altres païssos i ciutats. (…)

En mi opinión salir por las noches no acarrearia ningún problema ya que de esta manera también podriamos saber como son estas c ­ iudades por la noche. Además tambien nos vendria bien para ­relacionarnos con los compañeros a los que no conocemos tanto. (…)

Time 3

I think that using new technologies should be very beneficial for us because if we have any dout we can look for it on the Internet and we could not interrupt the lesson. (…)

Jo crec que si que es tendrie que deixar beure als menors o al menys als majors de 16 anys. Beure alcohol no es ­important pero quan vas de festa sempre ajuda a que ho pases millor. (…)

Yo creo que seria mala idea poner más asignaturas en inglés ya que esto nos ayudaría a ­desenvolvernos mejor en diversas ­situaciones. (…)

96  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

In Example 4, the only exceptions are the English composition at Time 2 and the Catalan one at Time 3. However, in the latter, as shown in the modified version below (see Example 5), the logical connective indicating reason (‘perquè’ in Catalan) can be considered to be omitted, because the second sentence explains the opinion stated in the first sentence. Example 5 Jo crec que si que es tendrie que deixar beure als menors o al menys als majors de 16 anys (because) beure alcohol no es important pero quan vas de festa sempre ajuda a que ho pases millor. (…) (modified, Student 777, Catalan, Time 3)

Another general trend is finishing the text with a frame marker indicating conclusion (‘Finalment’ in Catalan, ‘Finally’ in English, ‘En conclusión’ in Spanish) followed by a hedge (‘pense que’ in Catalan, ‘I think’ in English, ‘opino que’ in Spanish) in the three languages, as Example 64 from Student 110 illustrates: Example 6 (…) Finalment, pense que sí que hi hauria d’haver alcohol en la festa de graduació, ja que, alguns, som prou responsables per veure com ens trobem i quina quantitat de alcohol beure sense anar malament. (Student 110, Catalan, Time 3) (…) Finally, I think that in my secondary school should improve a lot of things than importants how the technologie. (Student 110, English, Time 3) (…) En conclusión, opino que sí que sería positivo una asignatura, pero si se hace se hace desde el principio de primaria o secundaria. (Student 110, Spanish, Time 3)

Moreover, Student 97’s compositions at Time 3, provided in Example 7, illustrate the results obtained in the statistical analysis, which show highly significant correlations between Catalan and Spanish in textual and interpersonal PMs. Following the general trend, the compositions in Example 7 start with a similar structure (hedge+cause/ consequence) in the three languages, but an analysis of the rest of the text only shows Catalan–Spanish PM transfer in the use of frame markers (‘en segon lloc’ in Catalan and ‘en segundo lugar’5 in Spanish, or ‘per últim’ in Catalan and ‘finalmente’6 in Spanish). Example 7 below is also an instance of how certain PMs, such as frame markers and hedges in initial position, may be more transferable than others.

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  97

Example 7 English

Catalan

Spanish

In my opinion, dear headmaster, you should spend some money on new technologies for our school, because they would do learning easier and more confortable.

Jo crec, senyor director, que és una festa dedicada a nosaltres i en la qual hem de disfrutar, per tant, sí que s’hauria de deixar beure alcohol en la nostra graduació.

Yo creo señor director, que esta medida es una buena solución para aumentar el nivel académico de los alumnos, ya que se fomentaría una lengua extranjera y estaría más bien preparada.

I think we shoul spend about 1000 euros in new technologies like computers, iPads and more. They would help us to learn things that we’re not interested in, because we would use them happier.

És clar que l’alcohol provoca els efectes que provoca i que tots sabem, però també és cert que si es beu amb moderació i responsabilitat no ha de pasar res. Per això, la meva proposta és introduir en la festa unes quantitats limitades d’alcohol perquè els alumnes tampoc s’ho pasen malament.

En primer lugar, esto ayudaría a mejorar nuestro nivel de inglés, porque es un poco pobre, además esto no afectaría tus conocimientos, al revés, los mejoraría, porque al tenerlo que traducir los usarás dos veces.

It’s convenient using new computers in subjects like biology (to take information about everything) and the languages (English, spanish and Valencian) because we would can search the meaning of the words we don’t know and do this more useful.

En segon lloc, si les lleis permitiren la venda d’alcohol a menors, es posaria en pràctica la responsabilitat d’aquests adolescents, perquè a l’estar prohibida la seva venda, fa que els joves ho desitgen més i acaben adquirin begudes alcohòliques de maneres il·lícites i, com el van a aconseguir igualment, el millor seria proporcionar-lo des del centre i estalviar-se possibles infraccions. Per últim, i en la meva opinió, pense que l’alcohol dóna el punt màgic a les festes, i fa que, de vegades, resulten inoblidables.

En segundo lugar y en mi opinión, esta medida se debe implantar a todos los alumnos porque todos van a tener un futuro laboral. Las asignaturas que se pueden dar en inglés son, por ejemplo, historia, economía, …. De esta manera, se impartirían dos clases en inglés, ya que no se podrían quitar el inglés troncal.

Moreover, this would be interesting to do the school more modern and competitive, because more students would come to our school to learn and study. (Student 097, English, Time 3)

Finalmente, se buscarían profesores cualificados, por ejemplo, profesores con la carrera de filología inglesa y algún master. Gracias por su atención.

(Student 097, Catalan, Time 3)

(Student 097, Spanish, Time 3)

98  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Moreover, tracking PM use in English, Catalan and Spanish by individual learners over time is interesting for what it can reveal. For example, the case of Student 81 (see Example 8, Example 9 and Example 10) is of particular relevance, because this learner follows a clear evolution towards PM transfer over the academic year, leading him to adopt a very similar approach in the three languages at Time 3. This learner had an A2 level of English at the beginning of the year and intensive classroom exposure to English with extra English classes, although he reported having low out-of-school contact with English (between one and six hours a week). Student 81 did the Humanities and Social Sciences subject option in Catalan-based instruction, which was also his L1 and the language he mostly used in social interaction. Dealing with the compositions, at Time 1 (see Example 8), each composition seems to follow a different pattern in the use of PMs. Example 8 English

Catalan

Spanish

I would like to go to New Zealand because I thik it would be an incredible experience with my partners. We can practice English and we will surf on the sea, we will be able to climb mountains, etc. In New Zealand there are lots of mountains and forests. It is in the Pacific Ocean and the sea is so blue. We’ll be able to relax in beaches while we listening music.

Estimat director,

Señor director, ahora voy a escribirle unas razones por las que creo que el acceso a la universidad debería quedarse tal cual cómo está.

My partners and I can sell chocolate, ­perfumes, etc. We’ll be able to go there when we’ll finish our final exams. If all of us can we’ll be in a hotel. The trip will be very ­expensive and I think we won’t go to any place after our final exams

Amb els diners que hem guanyat crec que podriem fer millores considerables al centre i que tots eixirem beneficiats. Podriem aconseguir nou material, ja que les taules estan molt malament, o aconseguir noves pissarres, si pot ser antireflectants, perquè molts alumnes es queixen de que no es veu la pissarra. Amb aquests diners també podriem fer un viatge per a tot 1r o 2n de Batxiller, crec que amb sis mil euros podriem anar a algun lloc bonic, com a algun lloc en platja o una ciutat molt gran, com Barcelona o Madrid. Amb els diners

Por una parte creo que no habría que aprobar esa ley, ya que sería dificilísimo hacer un exámen de todo el bachillerato y además la prueba de selectividad y creo que las universidades deben tener los mismos criterios de admisión, siempre basándose en las notas de cada uno, por que si no entraríamos en que en una universidad es más fácil entrar que otra y nos moveríamos por la exclusividad, y creo que

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  99

because anybody say anything about this. If we couldn’t go to New Zealand we would go to London, Barcelona, Madrid or Italy. I would like to go there without parents or teachers but we aren’t eighteen. (Student 081, English, Time 1)

podriem comprar nous llibres per a la biblioteca del centre, es podria comprar nous ordinadors, fotocopiadores, molt de material d’oficina, etc. Una altra solució seria guardar-lo per a algun cas d’emergència, perquè amb aquest rotllo de la crisi mai es sap quan anem a poder necessitar els diners, i si pasa la crisi i encara tenim els diners doncs els gastem en coses com he dit abans. Una altra solució seria que li donàres els diners a , de 1r de Batxillerat grup D...Però què fer amb els diners es cosa vostra i jo pense que faràs el millor per a l’institut i per a ­nosaltres i els professors. Un salut,

(Student 081, Catalan, Time 1)

todos tenemos el mismo derecho si sacamos buenas notas. Está claro que teniendo el exámen en Junio y la recuperación en septiembre hay más tiempo para estudiar, pero eso implica la “repesca” y algunos alumnos no llegan a entrar en la universidad. El exámen en Julio implica menos tiempo para estudiar, pero llevas el temario más reciente y te ahorras la “repesca”. El tema del exámen oral en inglés es complicado, por que yo creo que se debería hacer voluntario, cómo una forma de subir nota o entrar a otro tipo de carreras. No creo que sea justo que alguien saque muy buena nota en gramática y que por suspender el oral de inglés saque mala nota en general. (Student 081, Spanish, Time 1)

At Time 2, as shown in Example 9, some degree of PM transfer among languages is observed, especially in the use of the frame markers indicating distribution (‘Per una banda’ and ‘Per una altra banda’ in Catalan, equivalent to the use of ‘On the one hand’ and ‘On the other hand’ in the English composition). In the Spanish composition, another frame marker, ‘respecto a’, indicating topic shift, is used twice. Similarly, the conclusion frame markers ‘En conclusió’ and ‘In conclution’7 are used in Catalan and English respectively at Time 2, although not in Spanish.

100  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Example 9 English

Catalan

Spanish

Smartphones are very good for ­students, but they has to be used with responsability.

Un intercanvi es una activitat molt complicada de fer i molt costosa.

Estimado director.

On the one hand, smartphones are good things for us because we can look for lots of ­exercises about all the subjects. Our mobile can because in a ­dictionary or calculator. Another great thing about smarphones is that you can call ­everybody if you have an emergency. On the other hand, smartphones can be bad things. One of the most typical problem in a hihg school if you take a smartphone is if you get distracted during the lesson. For lots of students are more funny play with their mobile phone in the class while teacher is teaching. Another problem is if ­somebody steals your smartphone. We can’t know who has stolen your mobile and the headmaster can’t do anything.

Per una banda, es una cosa molt bona per a l’institut i per a les ­families i alumnes. Ajuda a ser més tolerant en altres cultures i més obert. Rebre estudiants d’un altre pais, parlar un altre idioma, coneixer els costums de la gent de l’altre pais... son tot coses molt bones. Per una altra banda, pense que és molt complicat, hi ha que ajudar tots els professors, o els necessaris per a que ixca bé. Hi ha que organitzar moltes coses, com excursions, eixides, les families d’acollida... A mi em semba que un dels millors països per a fer un ­intercanvi es Anglaterra o ­alomillor França, perquè pense que tenen cultures diferents a la nostra però sense xocar massa. El millor que es pot fer quan es va d’intercanvi es quedar-se amb una familia d’acollida, per què aixina coneixes els costums, l’idioma... des de dins. Si et quedes en una residència amb els teus companys quasi no parles l’idioma. Per a que un intercanvi siga bo i que aprengues coses deuría durar almenys una setmana com a mínim i com a molt vint dies. Així tens temps de ­adaptar-te a les constums i l’idioma i aprendre moltes mes coses.

Respecto a la excursión cultural a Andalucía, a los alumnos nos gustaria salir por la noche. Ya que vamos a Sevilla, donde hay mucho ambiente nocturno, muchas discotecas, pubs, cafeterías... creemos que sería buena idea salir de noche, para conocer de forma diferente la ciudad. No creo que salir de fiesta supusiera un gran problema, ya que todos nos llevamos muy bien y nos lo pasaríamos genial. Tampoco afectaría al viaje porque seríamos responsables respecto a la hora de vuelta, no muy tarde, y podríamos despertarnos pronto para salir a ver la ciudad. Respecto a los profesores tendrían más responsabilidad pero se podrian hacer quedados durante la noche para controlar que todo el mundo está bien. También estan las autorizaciones de los padres que quitan al profesor cualquier responsabilidad.

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  101

In conclution, I think we souldn’t take smarphone in class because we don’t listen the lesson. (Student 081, English, Time 2)

Hi han moltes activitats que es podrien fer, com alguna sortida cultural per la ciutat, pels pobles del costat i de la comarca... També anar a la capital de la zona per a què coneguen una ciutat més gran. Anar a vore obres de teatre, al cine...

un saludo,

(Student 081, Spanish, Time 2)

En conclusió, pense que fer un intercanvi està molt bé, però sense deixar res a l’atzar i ­tindre-ho tot controlat. (Student 081, Catalan, Time 2)

At Time 3 (see Example 108), the three compositions start with an equivalent time expression to introduce the topic as a current issue: ‘Avui en dia’ (Catalan), ‘Hoy en día’ (Spanish) and ‘Nowadays’ (English). From our field notes and classroom observations, it is possible to confirm that this way of starting a text is a clear influence from English instruction. In the first paragraph, the opinion to be defended in the composition is stated, preceded by a hedge (‘Jo crec que’ in Catalan, ‘En mi opinión’ in Spanish and ‘I think’ in English). The second and third paragraphs state the arguments to defend the thesis introduced by equivalent sequencing frame markers in the three languages (‘En primer lloc’ and ‘En segon lloc’ in Catalan, ‘En primer lugar’ and ‘En segundo lugar’ in Spanish, and ‘Firstly’ and ‘Secondly’ in English). The last paragraph involves the closing of the text and the conclusion, and is introduced by the corresponding frame markers in the three languages (‘En conclusió’ in Catalan, ‘En conclusión’ in Spanish and ‘In conclution’9 in English). Example 10 English

Catalan

Spanish

Nowadays, all around the world there are lots of high schools that have one computer for person. In Spain I think that this idea isn’t ­necessary because lots of people wouldn’t use correctly, however other people would use that computers to do their homework and

Avui en dia, quasi tot el mon veu alcohol, ja siga en menor o major ­quantitat. Els jovens i ­adolescents compren alcohol encara que no puguen, s’ho demanen a un adult, falsifiquen el DNI o fins i tot van a c ­ omprar-lo com qui compra un paquet de xiclets i les caixeres s’ho venen.

Hoy en día, a ­ prender varias lenguas es ­fundamental, aparte de la lengua nativa deberíamos saber almenos dos lenguas más, opya que el mundo en el que vivimos está completamente globalizado. En mi opinión, dar clases en otro idioma sería muy buena idea.

102  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

to look for information on the internet, so I think it wouldn’t be a good idea. Firstly, spanish ­teenagers aren’t like the other teenagers, I don’t know why, but I think that. If these ­teenagers noramlly have a bad behaviour with the computers in their homes imagine if they would have ­computers in the school. Secondly, lots of ­teachers don’t know how they have to use that machines, and the pupils would have to help them. If the teachers don’t know how they have to use a computers, how will they teach their ­students. Furthermore, there could be a lazy teacher who wouldn’t like doing class any day and he would swich on the computer to put a film for his pupils. In conclution, new technologies are one of the best things invented ever, but we must know to use correctly. (Student 081, English, Time 3)

Jo crec que no estaria bé deixar entrar alcohol en la festa de graduació, si els alumnes volen veure que ho fagen fora i que siga la seua responsabilitat i la dels pares. En primer lloc, no está bé que els menors beguin alcohol, peró tots sabem que encara que fagen campanyes per a modera l’ús d’alcohol continuarem bebent, això no està gens be per que pot tindre ­conseqüències per a la salut, per exemple et pot donar un coma etíl·lic o pots tindre adicció davant l’alcohol.

En primer lugar, como vivimos en un mundo globalizado, tarde o ­temprano deberemos usar otra lengua que no sea la nuestra, ya sea por que vamos de viaje o por que los extranjeros vienen de viaje aquí. El inglés es el idiomas más importante hoy en día, no se muy bien porqué, pero lo es. En España, pienso que los adolescentes y la gente en general no se ­preocupan de aprender nuevos idiomas.

En segundo lugar, para poner en marcha este En segon lloc, l’entrada de proyecto de dar clases en inglés, necesita un begudes alcohòliques a estudio ya que supondría un centre públic cre que el despido de algunos està prohibit. Apart d’açò, profesores por no saber el director podría tindre problemes si pasara alguna hablar otro idioma y la contratación de nuevos. cosa relacionada amb Es muy ­importante que l’alcohol. Encara més, no crec que els pares estiguen los profesores sepan d’acord en deixar beure als hablar perfectamente seus fills, fins i tot hi ha pares otros idiomas y que tengan recursos a la que, encara que el seu fill hora de ­explicar por si los és major d’edat, veuen com una cosa dolenta que alumnos no entienden algo. bega alcohol. En conclusió, pense que no seria correcte deixar beura alcohol al centre perquè està prohibit i el director podría tindre problemes. Apart de que, en l­’adolescència, pot tindre greus conseqüències. (Student 081, Catalan, Time 3)

En conclusión, es muy bueno dar clases en inglés y en otros idiomas por que los alumnos salen preparados, pero es necesario un estudio previo. (Student 081, Spanish, Time 3)

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  103

This evolution in PM use and transfer over the academic year is consistent with the information provided by this learner in the guided diaries. For example, at Time 1, when no clear transfer was observed, the explanations given by Student 81 regarding the steps followed to write the text show lack of awareness. As shown in Example 11 from the learner diary corresponding to the Catalan composition at Time 1, this learner explains that he has followed the ideas suggested by the task to write the text. These explanations are consistent in the diaries matching the compositions written in the three languages at Time 1. Example 11 M’he guiat prou pels punts de la primera pàgina de totes, encara que he afegit algunes coses més personals. [I have followed the points in the first page, although I have added a few more personal ideas]

In the diary matching the English composition at Time 1, Student 81 mentions a mixture of elements that, in his opinion, help organise the ideas in the text (e.g. would, while, when), among which he only mentions one PM, i.e. the interpersonal PM ‘think’. In contrast, the explicit explanations given by this learner in the guided diaries at Time 3 (see Example 1210) show a higher degree of awareness in the three languages, probably as a result of instruction. It should be noted that not only are the explanations the same in English, Catalan and Spanish, but these steps are clearly reflected in the compositions. Higher awareness seems to be connected to PM transfer in Student 81’s compositions at Time 3. Example 12 (referring to the English essay written at Time 3) He utilitzat la típica composició d’una redacció d’opinió. 1r paràgraf) opinió I descripció 2n) Motiu per el que lo he escrit en contra 3r) Altre motiu 4) Conclusió. [I have used the typical composition of an opinion essay: 1st paragraph) Opinion and description, 2nd) Reason why I have written against, 3rd) Another reason, 4th) Conclusion.]

This learner shows genre awareness and is consistent with the teachers’ guidelines on what a good composition should contain. This is illustrated in statements such as ‘He escrit el text amb un model de redacció d’opinió’ (‘I have written following a model of opinion essay’) in the Catalan diary or ‘He utilitzat la típica organització de la redacció

104  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

d’opinió’ (‘I have used the typical organisation of an opinion essay’) in the Spanish one. This structure is the one described in Example 12. The fact that the English teachers’ instructions coincide with the learner’s approach to the text may indicate that, in this particular case, PM transfer may be related to teaching, in particular from L3 English. To summarise, the qualitative analysis of the compositions clearly supports the quantitative results showing that transfer occurs at the level of interpersonal PMs. At the level of textual PMs, this in-depth analysis also suggests that transfer of textual PMs may be influenced by learners’ individual writing styles and the degree to which learners apply information provided in the instructional context. 5.3 Development of Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer: Summary and Interpretation

Previous research pointed at the possibility of multilingual pragmatic transfer (Cenoz, 2003a; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013; MartínLaguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015). In particular, this study deals with transfer of PM use in English, Catalan and Spanish in multilingual learners. In addition to the general quantitative analysis, longitudinal data made it possible to see the changes in pragmatic transfer among English, Catalan and Spanish over time. Findings from the quantitative analysis have shown that: (i) PM transfer occurs if the data are analysed in general; (ii) over time, there is a clear evolution towards transfer among English, Catalan and Spanish in interpersonal PMs; (iii) regarding textual PMs, transfer between Catalan and Spanish takes place at the three data collection points, but it is at Time 3 when there is Catalan–English transfer; and (iv) all correlation coefficients are positive, which shows the transfer of PMs between languages. Our results have also shown that there appears to be a difference between textual and interpersonal PMs. As argued in Section 4.4, textual and interpersonal PMs are pragmatic elements, but they may perform a more discourse- (textual PMs) or pragmatic-like (interpersonal PMs) function as they are represented in the discourse–pragmatics continuum (see Figure 4.1). This difference in functions seems to have led to different results regarding transfer. On the one hand, results for textual PMs over time are not conclusive for all pairs of languages at all times, probably because textual PMs are more complex than interpersonal ones. Textual PMs may require more reasoning to relate one idea to the other, and probably greater intellectual maturity that is achieved over time. On the other hand, the results from our analysis seem to be conclusive concerning interpersonal PMs. These types of markers are more natural to use, require less planning, and there are more opportunities to practise them in both oral and written language

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  105

as pragmatic routines or formulas. There may also be more typological similarities in them between languages. In contrast to textual PMs, some interpersonal ones, such as ‘in my opinion’ in English, ‘en mi opinión’ in Spanish and ‘en la meua opinió’ in Catalan, involve words of Latin origin that may have facilitated transfer of this type of PM. Moreover, the results obtained in the detailed analysis of textual PMs seem to imply that typological similarity between Spanish and Catalan, as Romance languages, determines significant correlations between these languages at the three times. We also found highly significant correlations between Catalan (the minority language in the sociolinguistic context of study) and English (the L3) at Time 3, showing the dynamics and complexity of pragmatic learning in multilingual learners (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015). Taking into account that the majority of the population in our study (63%) reported having Spanish as their L1 (see Section 4.1) and given the paucity of opportunities to write in English and Catalan in the sociolinguistic context under study, this might be a case of interlanguage transfer (De Angelis, 2005, 2007; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001), i.e. the influence of a non-native language on another non-native language. In this regard, it has been claimed that the effect of the L2 status (also called the second language factor, the L2 factor or the factor status of interlanguage) has important effects on additional language learning (Dewaele, 1998; Hammarberg, 2001; Sánchez, 2011). In contrast, dealing with pragmatics, Koike and Palmiere (2011) found that similarities between L1 or L2 Spanish and L3 Portuguese played a more determining role than the status of Spanish. Further research should contribute to this debate exploring which factor (typological similarities or L2 status) exerts a stronger effect on L3 transfer and learning. Another tentative hypothesis derives from the fact that transfer between Catalan and English only happened at Time 3 in textual PMs, which may imply that transfer took place once a certain level of English was reached at Time 3. The relationship between transfer and proficiency is explored in Chapter 6, taking into consideration previous research pointing at the fact that proficiency level in L3 English may have an effect on transfer (Cenoz, 2003a; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987). In addition to the findings revealed by the quantitative analysis, the qualitative results have helped us gain a deeper understanding of pragmatic transfer. These results have shown that: (i) there are general trends that most learners follow; (ii) some PMs seem to be more transferable than others (e.g. frame markers and hedges), especially when they are placed in certain positions (i.e. initial position); (iii) transfer seems to be influenced by genre awareness as a result of L3 instruction; and (iv) there is transfer at the individual level. In other words, in spite

106  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

of the quantitative results partially supporting transfer in textual PMs, in line with previous research (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a, 2014; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a), qualitative analysis of learners’ written production and learners’ diaries confirms that multilingual learners tend to use the same textual and interpersonal PM strategies across languages at the individual level in written production, even though the essays were written on different days, about different topics and in different languages. This study has gone further, suggesting that awareness as a result of L3 instruction may be transferred across languages. In this regard, it should be noted that transfer may have been influenced by an overgeneralisation of instruction. Furthermore, drawing on Ellis (1992), Kasper and Rose (2002: 140) propose a developmental sequence for the speech act of request including the following stages: (i) pre-basic; (ii) formulaic; (iii) unpacking; (iv) pragmatic expansion; and (v) fine-tuning. Adapting this sequence to our pragmatic target, our participants may be placed at the ‘formulaic’/‘unpacking’ stage, where formulas may be incorporated into productive language use in order to help them approach the task as a stage prior to the use of more complex forms. Further research should explore whether there is a growth in the learners’ PM repertoire, and also in the use of more complex syntactic structures. Our results also appear to support research to date on classroom pragmatics indicating that bilinguals (or active bilinguals) benefit more from instruction than monolinguals (or passive bilinguals) (AlcónSoler, 2012; Safont, 2005; Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012), and show higher awareness and interaction between languages (Portolés, 2015; Portolés & Safont, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015). For instance, the data obtained from Student 81, an active bilingual learner, show a clear evolution towards transfer among English, Catalan and Spanish over the academic year. Research is needed to explore the question of whether bilinguals tend to transfer more than monolinguals from the languages in which they receive instruction. To summarise, we may conclude that the results reported and discussed above support multilingual pragmatic transfer, although there are differences across PM types over time. On the one hand, the findings from the general quantitative analysis at the group level support PM transfer, and also over time at the level of interpersonal PMs. However, our quantitative outcomes are not conclusive regarding transfer in textual PMs over time. It should be noted that, in spite of this, the correlation coefficients are statistically significant but low, which shows there is a need to implement pedagogical measures even in cases in which transfer takes place. On the other hand, the qualitative data have shown that transfer occurs at the individual level and have revealed that instruction may play a crucial role. Our results imply that learning PMs may be facilitated if teachers focused on PMs in class from a holistic

Development of Pragmatic Transfer in Multilingual Learners  107

perspective, since PMs can be transferred between languages in the learners’ repertoires. Notes (1) Figure 5.1 appears in Martín-Laguna (2016). We would like to thank Brill-Rodopi for the permission to reproduce this figure. (2) Table 5.5 appears in Martín-Laguna (2018). We would like to thank Peter Lang for the permission to reproduce this table. (3) Example 4 partially appears in Martín-Laguna (2018) and Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018). We would like to thank Peter Lang and the journal System for the permission to reproduce this example. (4) Example 6 appears in Martín-Laguna (2018) and Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler (2018). We would like to thank Peter Lang and the journal System for the permission to reproduce this example. (5) Equivalent to ‘secondly’ in English. (6) Equivalent to ‘finally’ in English. (7) Spelling in the original text (Student 81). (8) Example 10 appears in Martín-Laguna (2016). We would like to thank Brill-Rodopi for the permission to reproduce this example. (9) Spelling in the original text (Student 81). (10) Example 12 appears in Martín-Laguna (2016, 2018). We would like to thank BrillRodopi and Peter Lang for the permission to reproduce this example.

6 Effect of Proficiency Level on Pragmatic Transfer

Chapter 5 provided results related to multilingual pragmatic transfer over time in the main group of 313 participants. Findings revealed that this type of transfer does occur at the individual and group levels, although textual and interpersonal PMs follow different developmental patterns over time. This chapter presents further results on multilingual pragmatic transfer focusing on the effect of L3 proficiency level on transfer. The data belong to two subsets of students at two different proficiency levels representing the vast majority of students from the participant group. After explaining additional data sources, the chapter addresses the second research question: Does proficiency level in L3 English influence multilingual pragmatic transfer? 6.1  Additional Data Sources: Proficiency Test

The participants were administered the Oxford Quick Placement Test (UCLES, 2001) at the beginning of the study to establish their proficiency level in English. Ideally, the participants should have been asked to complete another version at the end of the data collection. Given the contextual constraints of a classroom-based study, the end of the academic year was a busy period for both teachers and students. Considering the limited availability of time that teachers had to finish the syllabus and the students’ worries about their final exams, it was considered that asking the latter to complete the test again would have been counter-productive. To make up for this limitation, a sub­sample of the students (n = 28) were asked to do the test in order to determine whether there was a noticeable improvement. In 98% of cases, the results reported no difference in proficiency level from Time 1 to Time 3. 6.2  Proficiency Level and Multilingual Pragmatic Transfer

The analysis was carried out on a subsample of participants (n = 274) from the overall group which represented the majority of students in terms of L3 proficiency level (see Section 4.1). Two groups were made: a lowerproficiency group, including learners that were at the A2 CEFR proficiency level (n = 204, 65% of the general sample), and a higher-proficiency 108

Effect of Proficiency Level on Pragmatic Transfer  109

group, involving students at the B1 CEFR proficiency level (n = 70, 23% of the general sample). Learners at the remaining levels (n = 39, 12% of the general sample) were not considered in this part of the analysis due to their low number. With the aim of exploring whether L3 proficiency level influences transfer, the correlations between the ratio of PM use in each pair of languages were computed for each group of students. As shown in Table 6.1, the general correlations in the ratio of use of PMs were highly significant at the .01 level between each pair of languages in both proficiency groups (lower-proficiency group: English– Spanish r = .284, p < .001; English–Catalan r = .381, p < .001; Spanish– Catalan r = .474, p < .001; higher-proficiency group: English–Spanish r = .377, p < .001; English–Catalan r = .439, p < .001; Spanish–Catalan r = .465, p < .001). Similarly, when the overall use of textual and interpersonal PMs is separated out, the results of the correlation analysis indicate that there are statistically significant correlations between each pair of languages in both proficiency groups, with the exception of English–Spanish correlations in textual PMs in the lower-proficiency group, which were found not to be significant. The results are provided in Table 6.2. At a more detailed level of analysis, the correlations at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3 were calculated for each proficiency group to observe changes over time in textual and interpersonal PMs (see Table 6.3 and Table 6.4). Regarding textual PMs (see Table 6.3), our analysis shows that, at Time 1, the only statistically significant correlations are the ones between Spanish and Catalan in the lower-proficiency group (r = .273, p = .001), and between English and Catalan in the higher-proficiency one (r = .337, p = .004). At Time 2, no significant correlations at the .01 and .05 levels of significance were obtained in any of the proficiency groups. At Time 3, the analysis shows that there are statistically significant correlations only between English and Catalan in the lower-proficiency group (r = .230, p = .001), and significant correlations between each pair of languages in the higher-proficiency one (English–Spanish: r = .255, p = .033; English–Catalan: r = .285, p = .017; Table 6.1  General correlations in the ratio of use of PMs in the three languages in the lower- and higher-proficiency groups

English–Spanish

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Lower proficiency

Higher proficiency

Pearson correlation

.284**

.377**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.001

Pearson correlation

.381**

.439**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

Pearson correlation

.474**

.465**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

110  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Table 6.2  Correlations in textual and interpersonal PMs in the three languages (sum of the ratio of use at T1, T2 and T3) (lower- and higher-proficiency group)

English–Spanish

Textual PMs

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

English–Spanish Interpersonal PMs

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Lower proficiency

Higher proficiency

Pearson correlation

.106

.330**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.132

.005

Pearson correlation

.300**

.434**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

Pearson correlation

.321**

.418**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

Pearson correlation

.403

.346**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.003

Pearson correlation

.310**

.277*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.020

Pearson correlation

.433**

.401**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.001

**

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 6.3  Correlations between textual PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish at T1, T2 and T3 (lower- and higher-proficiency group)

English–Spanish

Time 1

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

English–Spanish

Time 2

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

English–Spanish

Time 3

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Pearson correlation

Lower proficiency

Higher proficiency

–.024

.175

Sig. (2-tailed)

.737

.147

Pearson correlation

.043

.337**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.537

.004

Pearson correlation

.273**

.216

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.072

Pearson correlation

.042

.173

Sig. (2-tailed)

.555

.153

Pearson correlation

.115

.002

Sig. (2-tailed)

.102

.986

Pearson correlation

.062

.172

Sig. (2-tailed)

.378

.153

Pearson correlation

.043

.255*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.539

.033

Pearson correlation

.230**

.285*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

.017

Pearson correlation

.114

.373**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.104

.001

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Effect of Proficiency Level on Pragmatic Transfer  111

Table 6.4  Correlations among interpersonal PMs in English, Catalan and Spanish at T1, T2 and T3 (lower- and higher-proficiency group)

English–Spanish

Time 1

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

English–Spanish

Time 2

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

English–Spanish

Time 3

English–Catalan

Spanish–Catalan

Lower proficiency

Higher proficiency

Pearson correlation

.122

.211

Sig. (2-tailed)

.083

.079

Pearson correlation

.078

.082

Sig. (2-tailed)

.270

.502

Pearson correlation

.276**

.255*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.033

Pearson correlation

.149

–.023

Sig. (2-tailed)

.034

.852

Pearson correlation

.189**

.194

Sig. (2-tailed)

.007

.107

Pearson correlation

.304**

.175

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.148

Pearson correlation

.307**

.383**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.001

Pearson correlation

.186**

.154

Sig. (2-tailed)

.008

.204

Pearson correlation

.299

.314**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.008

*

**

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Catalan–Spanish: r = .373, p = .001). Figure 6.1 graphically illustrates significant correlations at the .01 and .05 levels in textual PMs for each proficiency group over time. As for interpersonal PMs (see Table 6.4), at Time 1 significant correlations were found between Spanish and Catalan at both proficiency levels (lower proficiency: r = .276, p < .001; higher proficiency: r = .255, p = .033). At Time 2, the results were not significant in the higher-proficiency group, but significant correlations were obtained in the lower-proficiency one for each pair of languages (English–Spanish: r = .149, p = .034; English–Catalan: r = .189, p = .007; Spanish–Catalan: r = .304, p < .001). At Time 3, the correlations were significant between each pair of languages in the lower-proficiency group (English–Spanish: r = .307, p < .001; English–Catalan: r = .186, p = .008; Catalan–Spanish: r = .299, p < .001), whereas in the higherproficiency group, they were significant only between English and Spanish (r = .383, p = .001), and Spanish and Catalan (r = .314, p = .008). Figure 6.2 graphically illustrates significant correlations obtained at the .01 and .05 levels in interpersonal PMs for each proficiency group over time.

112  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Figure 6.1 Representation of textual PM transfer at different proficiency levels from Time 1 to Time 3

A2

B1

Figure 6.2  Representation of interpersonal PM transfer at different proficiency levels from Time 1 to Time 3

Effect of Proficiency Level on Pragmatic Transfer  113

6.3 Proficiency Level and Pragmatic Transfer: Summary and Interpretation

This study aimed at determining the role of proficiency on multilingual PM transfer. The results reported above bring to light the differences between doing a cross-sectional analysis with all the data and a longitudinal one over one academic year. Thus, the overall cross-sectional results apparently seemed to show that multilingual PM transfer took place regardless of the learners’ proficiency level. However, a detailed analysis of textual and interpersonal PMs over time revealed divergences. When comparing the evolution of correlations obtained at Time 1 and Time 3 in textual PMs, learners with a B1 proficiency level were able to transfer textual PMs between all the languages in which they received instruction at Time 3, whereas learners with an A2 level were only able to do so between Catalan and English. These findings suggest that the higher the proficiency level, the more able learners were to transfer pragmatic knowledge of this PM type among languages. These results support the positive correlation hypothesis (Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; see also Blum-Kulka, 1982; Cohen, 1997; Hill, 1997; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989), and Cenoz’s (2003a) study on multilingual learners of English. It seems that these learners had more linguistic resources available to be able to establish a relationship between languages in textual PMs. In contrast, the results dealing with interpersonal PMs show that pragmatic transfer of this type of PM works better in lower-proficiency learners. These findings are in line with studies on L2 pragmatics showing that learners at lower proficiency levels were more inclined to transfer pragmatic abilities (Hashemian, 2012; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Rossiter & Kondoh, 2001; Wannaruk, 2008). In multilingual pragmatics, research carried out by Portolés (2015), Safont (2011, 2012, 2013) and Safont and Portolés (2015) also suggested that transfer takes place even at lower proficiency levels. One possible explanation for the different role of proficiency across types of PMs may be related to the fact that textual PMs are usually associated with the written mode, whereas interpersonal PMs are closely related to oral production. Apparent divergences in the results obtained from studies dealing with multilingual learners may be related to the nature of the data analysed. The study by Cenoz (2003a), supporting the supremacy of higher proficiency in pragmatic transfer, uses written DCTs and her results are in line with ours in textual PMs. In contrast, those by Portolés (2015), Safont (2011, 2012, 2013) and Safont and Portolés (2015) analyse pragmatics in oral comprehension or production and are supported by the type of PM that is more likely to occur in oral performance. Another aspect that needs to be highlighted is the fact that students in the higher-proficiency group showed a clear change towards positive

114  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

and significant correlations between languages at the end of the academic year in textual PMs. A tentative hypothesis derived from these results may be that textual PMs are more complex, academic and difficult to learn, and a higher proficiency level may be needed so that learners can transfer the pragmatic knowledge available in their linguistic repertoire. In contrast, interpersonal PMs are more intuitive and learners tend to rely on a more limited range of forms or expressions. This may explain why transfer of interpersonal PMs is more likely to occur at lower proficiency levels, whereas at higher proficiency levels the results were inconclusive, probably due to a development in the use of more elaborated formulas. Finally, the findings obtained at Time 2 illustrate the complexity of pragmatic learning in multilingual learners (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013). These results show that pragmatic development in multilinguals is a non-linear process where there is pragmatic interdependence in a changing system, thus providing evidence supporting the DMM (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013). In conclusion, this study shows that transfer in textual and interpersonal PMs is affected by proficiency level. However, whereas higher proficiency appears to be a requirement for transfer in textual PMs, transfer of interpersonal PMs is observed at lower proficiency levels.

7 Summary and Conclusion

The main purpose of the present book was to explore multilingual pragmatic transfer in secondary-school learners between the languages in which they receive instruction (English, Catalan and Spanish). In particular, two main aspects have been investigated: (i) multilingual PM transfer over time; and (ii) the role of L3 English proficiency level in multilingual pragmatic transfer. With these aims, our participants were 313 secondary-school learners of L3 English in a multilingual instructional context. Pragmatic competence was operationalised as the ability to produce PMs fluently, when learners performed an argumentative pragmatic-focused written task. Our research questions were as follows: (i) Is pragmatic ability to use PMs transferred between the languages in which multilingual learners receive instruction in the school context? In particular, how does multilingual pragmatic transfer change over time?; and (ii) Does proficiency level in L3 English influence multilingual pragmatic transfer? A total of 2,817 essays were analysed, collected at three data collection points in the three languages in which those learners receive instruction (939 essays in English, 939 in Catalan and 939 in Spanish). The longitudinal data in the three languages were collected from the same learners. The coding of PMs was based on a taxonomy adapted from the ones proposed by Crismore et al. (1993) and Hyland (2000, 2005). Following a mixed method approach, findings were triangulated with qualitative data from learners’ guided diaries and field notes to gain deeper insight into the process of pragmatic learning. The contributions and a summary of the main findings of this study are presented below. 7.1  Originality of the Study and Summary of Main Findings

The study was motivated by the need to expand the body of research on pragmatics across different learning environments (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013). Previous research on pragmatics in multilingual contexts has explored infant, primary and tertiary education, with a focus on speech acts and formulaic speech (Alcón-Soler, 2012; Cenoz, 2003a; Portolés, 2015; Portolés & Safont, 2013; Safont, 2005; Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012; Safont & Portolés, 2015). Our research was carried out in a context that, to our knowledge, has received little attention so far in classroom pragmatics research: a multilingual secondary-education context. In an 115

116  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

attempt to expand the target pragmatic aspects investigated beyond the focus on speech acts, the study addressed a pragmatic target that was relevant in the research setting, that of PMs. The importance of conducting ecologically-oriented studies has been pointed out (Taguchi, 2011a). Thus, the use of ecologically valid instruments in the context in which the present study was conducted was an issue to consider. One growing area of research in language learning is the adoption of a TBLT framework (Alcón-Soler, 2007b; Gómez-Laich & Taguchi, 2018; Martín-Laguna, 2014; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2013; Neary-Sundquist, 2013; Shoushinasab, 2013; Taguchi & Kim, 2014; Tajeddin et al., 2012; Winke & Teng, 2010; see also the volume by Taguchi & Kim, 2018a). In addition, to our knowledge, just a few used tasks to explore pragmatic learning in a multilingual classroom context (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). Bearing these aspects in mind, we adapted a task that was part of the regular classroom activities to meet the criterial features of a task (Ellis, 2003), and controlled it for pragmatic dimensions (Brown & Levinson, 1987). An aspect related to ‘the centrality of context in language development’ (Taguchi, 2015a: 3) is the need to understand not only the product, but also the process of pragmatic learning (Alcón-Soler, 2017). These claims have been inspired by current epistemological trends seeing languages as complex and dynamic systems which are in constant interaction with both social and individual factors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008). Taking into account the above ideas, our primary concern has been to explore not only multilingual pragmatic transfer, but also how it changes and develops over time, considering the languages in which the participants receive instruction. An important contribution of this book is related to the uniqueness of the classroom context under study, in which English, Catalan and Spanish coexist, and the attempt to look at pragmatic transfer in these languages over time. In so doing, this volume brings together recent trends in SLA, third language acquisition/multilingualism and education, which have been referred to as the multilingual turn (Ortega, 2013, 2014). One of the most prominent principles is based on the idea that language learners are not seen as partially competent speakers any more, but as fully competent speakers of the languages they know, having valuable resources for additional language development (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Cook, 1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b; House, 2010; Ortega, 2013, 2014). Previous research on pragmatic development in instructional contexts (Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2017; Martín-Laguna, 2019; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012) has not examined whether the participants had instruction in other languages as part of formal education, the only exception being Martín-Laguna and Alcón-Soler

Summary and Conclusion  117

(2018). In order to fill this gap, we have adopted a holistic approach to determine whether there is evidence indicating that the ability to use PMs can be transferred between the languages in which learners receive instruction in a multilingual context. In line with Cenoz and Gorter (2011b: 342), ‘this approach focuses more on what multilinguals can do with their languages rather than the comparisons between multilinguals and ideal native speakers of each of their languages’. However, the potential pedagogical value of such an approach has not been explored sufficiently in either research or teaching. Regarding the results, the first research question explored multi­ lingual pragmatic transfer over time, in light with the findings pointed out by previous research (Cenoz, 2003a; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a, 2013; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015). While a cross-sectional analysis of the overall data clearly supports multilingual pragmatic transfer, analysis over time reveals interesting information depending on the type of PM investigated. Therefore, there is a clear evolution towards transfer among the three languages investigated in interpersonal PMs, whereas in textual PMs, English does not correlate with Spanish at Time 3. These results support previous studies indicating the non-linearity, dynamics and complexity of pragmatic learning in multilingual learners, and in particular the interaction between Catalan and English in pragmatic development (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015) in this sociolinguistic context. Thus, the scarce opportunities to write in Catalan, which is a minority language in the context under study, and the few opportunities to use L3 English outside of school, may have influenced this interaction in textual PMs. Another explanation may be related to attitudes to the three languages, which have been shown to exert an effect on pragmatic awareness (Portolés, 2015). Additional evidence has been provided by qualitative analysis, which shows that most learners seem to follow similar PM forms and functions to open and close their compositions in English, Catalan and Spanish. Furthermore, individual learners tend to use the same textual and interpersonal PM strategies across languages, lending support to the results obtained by previous studies on written production (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012a). Two additional relevant contributions are derived from our findings. Firstly, some PMs, such as the ones belonging to the subcategories frame markers and hedges, seem more subject to transfer than others, which points to the possibility of selective transfer (Bou-Franch, 2013b; see also Mitchell et al., 2013: 49). Secondly, transfer seems to be influenced by genre awareness as a result of L3 instruction. Regarding the second research question, results showed that multilingual pragmatic transfer was influenced by L3 proficiency level in

118  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

a different way in textual and interpersonal PMs over time. On the one hand, higher proficiency level seemed to encourage transfer of textual PMs, supporting the positive correlation hypothesis, indicating that learners at higher proficiency level were more likely to transfer pragmatic abilities (Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; see also Blum-Kulka, 1982; Cenoz, 2003a; Cohen, 1997; Hill, 1997; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989). On the other hand, interpersonal PMs were more likely to be transferred by the lower-proficiency group, in line with the studies by Hashemian (2012), Maeshiba et al. (1996), Portolés (2015), Rossiter and Kondoh (2001), Safont (2011, 2012, 2013), Safont and Portolés (2015), and Wannaruk (2008). This apparent contradiction may be explained in relation to the data collection instruments (oral versus written), which may be connected with the use of interpersonal PMs (closer to oral production) and textual PMs (closer to written production). Moreover, our results provided evidence supporting previous research indicating the complexity of pragmatic learning and interdependence in a changing system (AlcónSoler, 2015; Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012; see also Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013). To summarise, two main conclusions can be drawn from the study reported in this book. First, paraphrasing Cook’s (2003, 2013a, 2013b) notion of multicompetence, we may say that the present study provides evidence for pragmatic multicompetence in multilingual learners of English, where languages and other contextual factors are in constant interaction in multilingual pragmatic transfer. In this regard, our findings also support Kasper’s (1992) and LoCastro’s (2012) claims indicating that pragmatic transfer should not be restricted to negative transfer, and its potential role as a facilitator of pragmatic learning. And second, given that multilingual pragmatic transfer does not seem to be linear in the three languages investigated over time or across PM functions, we may conclude that in multilingual instructional settings, pragmatic learning can be described as a dynamic and complex process in which the relationships between the sociolinguistic and learning context, awareness and L3 proficiency also play a role (Alcón-Soler, 2015; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012; see also Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008). Having outlined the main findings of this study, the limitations and future lines of research are discussed in the following section. 7.2  Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

In addition to the relevant findings, the present study also has some limitations that need to be acknowledged, some of which may open up

Summary and Conclusion  119

lines for further research. First of all, some limitations are derived from the challenge of doing classroom pragmatics research. The elicitation tasks were performed as day-to-day activities in intact language classrooms. However, the regular presence of the researcher in class, and the fact that the learners and teachers had to give their consent to participate in the study, may have influenced task performance. Moreover, we did not consider teachers’ individual variation and teaching style, but it is worth noting that, in order to compensate for this, there was a representative sample of research participants. With the intention of keeping variation to the minimum, the task chosen was part of the university entrance exams. As a result of preparing learners with the same objective, different teachers reported that they insisted on the same aspects when teaching PMs in written production, and most schools followed the same textbooks, which used similar approaches. In addition, in spite of belonging to different schools, populations and contexts, field data gathered from conversations with teachers and the qualitative data obtained from learners’ guided diaries have shown similar trends that are consistent across learners, teachers and contexts. Secondly, the current project elicited multiple samples from the same students over time. In line with previous research on PMs (Martín Úriz et al., 2005) and trilingual writing (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a), we made use of different topics, although the structure of the task and the argumentative type of text were kept constant. This was done to avoid the effect of repetition, students’ boredom and lack of interest, and to grant ecological validity as a classroom-based study. In spite of this, we acknowledge that the topics chosen for the prompts may have influenced the results. Research on learner corpora has addressed the issue of topic variability by examining whether a particular lexical bundle appears only in the essays discussing certain aspects. Considering previous investigations (Paquot, 2013: 9), it was assumed that there was no topic effect in students’ essays. In order to fully guarantee that there was no topic effect, further research should explore whether the topic influences the use of PMs, counterbalancing the task with a Latin square design.1 Another limitation concerns the length of the compositions and the possibility of not using PMs. These issues are discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, where we dealt with the pragmatic-focused task used in the data collection in relation to the requirements of the university entrance examinations. Thirdly, another limitation is related to the fact that all PM instances scored 1, without taking into account whether some PM forms were more developmentally advanced or complex than others. This book intended to explore multilingual pragmatic transfer over time and the role of L3 proficiency in this process, whereas developmental aspects fell outside the scope of this study (see Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011: 352

120  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

for a discussion on how proficiency influences developmental patterns in pragmatic production). This is an issue that further research should address. In addition, we acknowledge that conducting a semi-automatic analysis may have left out some PM forms or equivalent formulas used by the learners. However, we were interested in the PM forms present in the input materials, which, as shown in our pilot study (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015), are the ones preferred by the students at this stage of learning. The same explanation applies to incorrect use of PMs in terms of form and meaning, which was excluded from the analysis. The pilot study showed that incorrect use appeared in a few cases only in the PM forms present in the input. In a similar vein, we acknowledge that, from the point of view of acquisition, some PM forms discarded for reasons such as spelling or punctuation do not imply that the PM has not been acquired. However, because this was a classroom-based study, we have relied on the teachers’ correction criteria to grant ecological validity to the study. In this regard, more research is needed to explore the correct and incorrect use of PMs and its relationship with the process of pragmatic learning. Furthermore, the originality and broad scope of the current monograph, involving a longitudinal analysis of PMs in essays written in the languages in which learners receive instruction in a multilingual classroom context, and triangulating our results with data from qualitative sources, also entailed limitations regarding the number of dimensions addressed. We have analysed multilingual pragmatic transfer in terms of the ratio of PM use per number of words, and we have looked at the variety of PMs used from a qualitative perspective. Future research analysing additional measures, such as the PM type-token ratio,2 may shed light on other dimensions of language performance. In addition, further studies are needed to examine multilingual pragmatic transfer from holistic pragmatic approaches by assessing general functional adequacy in multilinguals (Kuiken & Vedder, 2017, 2018; Kuiken et al., 2010). We also acknowledge that more does not always mean better. Comparing PM use in language learners’ and native speakers’ writing, Hinkel (2002, 2004) observed that learners used too many markers and that the use of PMs ‘does not necessarily make the L2 academic writing cohesive or the information flow easy to follow’ (Hinkel, 2004: 292). It has also been argued that superfluous use of PMs may make the reading process difficult and be interpreted as imposing and condescending (Rahman, 2004). As Crismore and Abdollehzadeh (2010) conclude, PMs can be used effectively and ineffectively, and ‘the increased use of metadiscourse by learners cannot by itself be a sign of language development’ (Crismore & Abdollehzadeh, 2010: 202). In spite of these criticisms, PMs have been found to be signs of good writing (Cheng & Steffensen, 1996; Intaraprawat & Steffensen, 1995) and they seem to

Summary and Conclusion  121

increase the intelligibility of discourse (e.g. Alavinia & Zarza, 2011; Chaudron & Richards, 1986; Jalilifar & Alipour, 2007; Khorvash, 2008; Kuhi et al., 2014; Sadeghi & Heidaryan, 2012; Tavakoli et al., 2010). In this regard, Hyland (2005: 178–179) lists 12 possible contributions that metadiscourse (his own term) can bring to a text: (1) It provides a context in which to place a propositional information. (2) It injects a human presence into a written text and so makes students more attentive and engaged with a text. (3) It increases the persuasiveness of a text. (4) It aids comprehension and recall of text content. (5) It assists coherence and relates issues clearly to each other. (6) It helps mediate the real world and the school world through a real writer. (7) It highlights writer uncertainties and makes readers aware of the subjective interpretation of truth. (8) It helps show the author’s position on the propositional information in a text. (9) It indicates the writer’s attitude to the reader of the text, including intimacy, relative power, status, etc. (10) It relieves the reader’s processing load by highlighting important points, indicating direction, anticipating structure, linking sections and ideas, etc. (11) It shows readers that the writer recognizes their needs and is seeking to engage them in a dialogue. (12) It reveals the writer’s awareness of the interactional conventions of a community.

An additional limitation of the current study concerns learners’ language background, since we have only taken into account three languages in which participants receive instruction. It needs to be noted that we have not considered the language background of immigrant students and other languages in which learners may receive instruction to a lesser extent, such as French or German. Dealing with immigrants in particular, Cenoz (2003b, 2013a) pointed out that, in general terms, no differences have been reported between monolinguals and bilinguals in studies on L3 acquisition in Europe. In spite of this, further research should take into account the language background of learners in learning English as an additional language. Last, but not least, there is an additional aspect that needs to be clarified taking into account the approach adopted in this book. It might be argued that a native speaker baseline is necessary to determine whether learners underuse or overuse PMs, as it has been traditionally done in research. In line with the claims of the multilingual turn discussed in Chapter 3, and studies in English as a lingua franca (House, 2010), the participants in our study are not seen as partially competent

122  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

speakers but instead as fully competent or multicompetent users of the languages they know (Cook, 1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b). Thus, our primary concern in this volume has been to look at ‘the different ways these speakers learn and use their languages [PMs in this case] without comparing them to ideal native speakers of different languages’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014: 245). In conclusion, in spite of the limitations, the present study has contributed to further understanding of pragmatic learning in instruc­ tional settings. To our knowledge, it is the first longitudinal study ana­ lysing multilingual pragmatic transfer in a multilingual instructional context. Unlike previous studies on pragmatic transfer, we have followed a holistic approach in which the languages learners receive instruction in (English, Catalan and Spanish) are taken into account. The present study thus lends support to previous research evidencing the dynamics and complexity of pragmatic learning processes (Alcón-Soler, 2015; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012; see also Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), and suggests some pedagogical implications directly derived from our findings. These are discussed in the next section. 7.3  Pedagogical Implications

The main finding of the present project is that in multilingual instructional settings, pragmatic learning can be described as a dynamic and complex process (Alcón-Soler, 2015; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012; see also Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) in which multilingual learners are able to transfer knowledge of PMs between languages. This book has revealed that multilingual pragmatic transfer is possible but does not seem to be linear in the three languages across PM functions. In light of these results, pedagogical innovations are needed to teach pragmatics with a Focus on Multilingualism (Cenoz, 2013a, 2013b; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a, 2013, 2014). Dealing with instruction of PMs, one of the points raised by Hyland (2005) is that teachers need to consider ‘the writer’s prior writing and learning experiences’ (Hyland, 2005: 181). However, as pointed out by Cenoz and Gorter (2014: 247), ‘multilingual speakers are not always aware of the resources they have and they may not use them because they are not activated’. A teaching approach with a Focus on Multilingualism has relevant benefits because it proposes one way to achieve a more efficient use of resources by ‘softening the boundaries among languages’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013),

Summary and Conclusion  123

i.e. relating the different languages in the learner’s repertoire, in contrast to the language separation practices common in language education. In doing so, something that is learnt in one language will be enhanced in the other languages. Cenoz and Gorter (2014: 246) use the image of weaving to illustrate this idea: Using the image of weaving, we can think of the longitudinal threads, or warp, as the languages that are being learnt. They are vertical and parallel and they do not touch each other, they are the languages in the curriculum that are separate from each other. However, we can add the lateral threads, the weft, so as to create the interlacing or interaction between these languages and the processes of learning them. The weft goes across the curriculum of languages and establishes interrelationships. The weft adds support to the cloth even if it also requires time, effort, attention and interest.

In order to implement this approach, Cenoz and Gorter (2013: 596– 597) suggest (i) setting attainable goals to become multilingual speakers and not idealised monolingual native speakers; (ii) using plurilingual competence as a resource to accelerate language development; (iii) implementing language-integrated curricula and teaching practices that make students aware of the resources available to them when looking at the whole linguistic repertoire (Elorza & Muñoa, 2008); and (iv) creating resources to use multilingual practices. Related to the above, in her ‘Continua of Multilingual Education’, Cenoz (2009) highlights the role of teachers as an educational variable, and the importance of teacher training for multilingual education. In this sense, an important aspect that needs to be taken into account is coordination between language teachers to promote pragmatic learning in the languages in which learners receive instruction. Parallel to this, more research examining instruction in the three languages, or how pragmatic transfer is enhanced across languages, is also needed. From a pedagogical point of view, it is worth noting that adopting a Focus on Multilingualism perspective is realistic in the sense that the starting point for implementation of it is coordination between teachers. It does not require an unattainable dramatic change of the education system, which would be more difficult to achieve, but rather a different attitude towards language teaching and learning. Finally, dealing with the area of teaching pragmatics, one aspect addressed by existing literature concerns materials development and teacher education. Teachers’ guides and resource books available in the field have demonstrated how it is possible to incorporate key elements of pragmatics – context, functional language use and interaction – into classroom activities (e.g. Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). In the present study, we have used tasks to explore multilingual pragmatic transfer in multilingual classrooms, but further research is needed to reveal

124  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

the benefits of TBLT for researching and teaching pragmatics across languages and instructional settings (Alcón-Soler, 2007b, 2018; Kim & Taguchi, 2015, 2016; Martín-Laguna, 2014, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2013, 2015, 2018; Neary-Sundquist, 2013; Shoushinasab, 2013; Taguchi & Kim, 2014; Tajeddin et al., 2012; Winke & Teng, 2010; see also the volume by Taguchi & Kim, 2018a). In conclusion, the fundamental contribution of this study is that it provides evidence supporting the fact that learners can benefit from the knowledge available in their language repertoire. Dealing with pragmatics using a multilingual approach is an area that presents new teaching and research challenges. The benefits of using tasks to enhance learners’ pragmatic awareness and performance of language in the classroom have been addressed in the field of ILP. It is perhaps time to look at the benefits of using pragmatic-focused tasks in multilingual education. If so, findings from the present study might shed light on the benefits of teaching pragmatics with a multilingual approach. Notes (1) I am grateful to Dr Andrea Révész for this suggestion. A Latin square design to see if there are any topic effects would consist in asking three groups of participants to perform the same three tasks, but in different order, over a shorter period of time, to avoid maturation effects: 1-2-3 (Group A), 2-3-1 (Group B), 3-2-1 (Group C). (2) The PM type-token ratio may be calculated by obtaining the percentage resulting from dividing the number of PM types by the number of PM tokens.

8 Appendices

Appendix 1  English Prompts THE END-OF-SCHOOL TRIP

CONTEXT: The headmaster of your secondary school is organising the end-of-school trip, and is interested in knowing the students’ opinion. TASK

What is your opinion about the end-of-school trip? Write your opinion taking into account that the headmaster of your school may read it. Justify your opinion. IDEAS TO THINK ABOUT:

(You don’t need to use them all. You can add new ones.) • • • •

Where? A cultural trip or a holiday trip How to finance it After the final exams or during the year • Teachers/parents go with the students or students are allowed to go on their own • etc. RULES:

• You have 20 minutes to plan, write and revise your composition. • There is no word limit, so please write as much as you can. • You are not allowed to use any books/dictionaries or ask your teacher/ classmates for help.

125

126  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

SMARTPHONES AT SCHOOL (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018)

CONTEXT: The headmaster of your secondary school is considering the possibility of banning smartphones at school, and is interested in knowing the students’ opinion. TASK

Should students be allowed to take smartphones to school? Write your opinion taking into account that the headmaster of your school may read it. Justify your opinion. IDEAS TO THINK ABOUT:

(You don’t need to use them all. You can add new ones.) • • • • • •

What if students get distracted during the lesson? Can we use smartphones for learning purposes? Can smartphones be addictive? What if you have to make an emergency call? What if somebody steals your smartphone? What if somebody records your voice, the teacher’s voice or takes a picture without permission? • etc. RULES:

• You have 20 minutes to plan, write and revise your composition. • There is no word limit, so please write as much as you can. • You are not allowed to use any books/dictionaries or ask your teacher/ classmates for help. NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CLASSROOM

CONTEXT: The headmaster of your secondary school is considering the possibility of spending some money on new technologies for the school. Some students like using new technologies in the classroom, whereas other students don’t. The headmaster is interested in knowing your opinion.

Appendices 127

TASK

Do you think your school should spend money on new technologies for the classroom? Write your opinion taking into account that the headmaster of your school may read it. Justify your opinion. IDEAS TO THINK ABOUT:

(You don’t need to use them all. You can add new ones.) • Do new technologies facilitate learning or make it more difficult? • If you think they facilitate learning, which new technologies should the school buy? Justify your opinion. • If you think that new technologies do not help your learning, which ones would you eliminate from the ones that you have nowadays? Justify your opinion. • In what subjects are new technologies useful? • Which technologies do you think should be renewed in your school? • etc. RULES:

• You have 20 minutes to plan, write and revise your composition. • There is no word limit, so please write as much as you can. • You are not allowed to use any books/dictionaries or ask your teacher/ classmates for help. Appendix 2  Catalan Prompts L’INSTITUT HA GUANYAT UN PREMI

SITUACIÓ: El teu institut ha rebut un premi de 6 000 euros. El/la director/a del teu institut vol saber l’opinió dels alumnes sobre què els agradaria fer amb els diners. TASCA

Com s’han de gastar els diners del premi que ha guanyat l’institut? Escriu la teua opinió justificada sobre el tema. Tingues en compte que la llegiria el/la director/a.

128  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

IDEES PER A REFLEXIONAR:

(No cal que consideres totes. Pots afegir-ne d’altres.) • • • • • •

Mantenimient del centre Repartir el premi entre els alumnes i professors Invertir en noves tecnologies per al centre Comprar material per a la biblioteca Fer un donatiu a una ONG o als pobres Organitzar activitats extraescolars (excursions, viatges, festes, equips esportius, etc.) • etc. NORMES:

• Tens 20 minuts per a planificar, escriure i revisar la redacció. • No hi ha límit de paraules, així que intenta escriure tant com pugues. • No està permès utilitzar llibres ni diccionaris ni demanar ajuda al/la professor/a o als/les companys/companyes. PROGRAMES D’INTERCANVI

SITUACIÓ: Al teu institut s’està considerant la possibilitat de fer un intercanvi amb un institut estranger. El/la director/a vol saber l’opinió dels alumnes. TASCA

És important fer un intercanvi? Quina és la teua proposta? Escriu la teua opinió justificada sobre el tema. Tingues en compte que la llegiria el/la director/a. IDEES PER A REFLEXIONAR:

(No cal que consideres totes. Pots afegir-ne d’altres.) • Per què penses que és (o no és) important fer un intercanvi? • Amb quin país t’agradaria fer l’intercanvi i per què? • Preferiries quedar-te a una família o a una residència i per què? • Penses que val la pena perdre hores de classe al teu institut per a fer l’intercanvi o s’hauria de fer en vacances? • Quant de temps t’agradaria que durara l’intercanvi?

Appendices 129

• Què prefereixes, que vinguen els estudiants estrangers primer o que hi vages tu abans? • Quines activitats (escolars i extraescolars) es podrien organitzar per als estudiants que rebreu? • etc. NORMES:

• Tens 20 minuts per a planificar, escriure i revisar la redacció. • No hi ha límit de paraules, així que intenta escriure tant com pugues. • No està permès utilitzar llibres ni diccionaris ni demanar ajuda al/la professor/a o als/les companys/companyes. ALCOHOL A LA FESTA DE GRADUACIÓ

SITUACIÓ: El curs s’acaba i els alumnes estàn preparant la festa de graduació. Segons la llei, com són menors d’edat, no poden ni beure ni comprar alcohol. Davant d’aquesta situació, el/la directora/a del centre s’està plantejant què fer i voldria saber la vostra opinió. TASCA

S’hauria de deixar beure alcohol als menors d’edat? Escriu la teua opinió justificada sobre el tema. Tingues en compte que la llegiria el/la director/a. IDEES PER A REFLEXIONAR:

(Recorda que la pregunta principal és la de dalt. No cal que consideres totes les idees relacionades. Pots afegir-ne d’altres.) • Té sentit que no es deixe beure ni comprar alcohol als menors? • Per què creus que és important (o que no és important) beure alcohol? • Les conseqüències de l’alcohol per a la salut i per als demés. Té riscos el consum d’alcohol a l’adolescència? • Creus que el alcohol pot crear addicció? • Alguns menors falsifiquen el DNI o demanen a un major d’edat que els compre l’alcohol. Què opines? • La responsabilitat del director o directora del centre. S’hauria de controlar que els menors no introdueixen alcohol en el centre el dia de la festa de graduació? • etc.

130  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

NORMES:

• Tens 20 minuts per a planificar, escriure i revisar la redacció. • No hi ha límit de paraules, així que intenta escriure tant com pugues. • No està permès utilitzar llibres ni diccionaris ni demanar ajuda al/la professor/a o als/les companys/companyes. Appendix 3  Spanish Prompts LAS PRUEBAS DE ACCESO A LA UNIVERSIDAD

SITUACIÓN: Las autoridades educativas han elaborado una propuesta de reforma de las pruebas actuales de acceso a la universidad. El/la director/a de tu instituto se va a reunir con ellas para hablar del tema y está interesado en saber la opinión de los estudiantes. TAREA

¿Cómo deberían ser las pruebas de acceso a la universidad? Escribe tu opinión justificada sobre el tema. Ten en cuenta que la leería el/la director/a. IDEAS PARA REFLEXIONAR:

(No hace falta que consideres todas. Puedes añadir otras.) • En la nueva ley se propone un examen final de bachillerato para todos y que cada universidad establezca a su criterio unos procesos de admisión. ¿Qué es mejor, la prueba actual de acceso a la universidad (“Selectividad”) o la nueva propuesta de acceso? • Fechas de examen: ¿junio y septiembre o junio y julio? • ¿Debe hacerse un examen oral en inglés? • ¿Qué asignaturas deberían examinarse y cuáles no? • etc. NORMAS:

• Tienes 20 minutos para planificar, escribir y revisar la redacción. • No hay límite de palabras, así que intenta escribir tanto como puedas. • No puedes utilizar ni libros ni diccionarios ni preguntar a tu profesor/a o a tus compañeros/as.

Appendices 131

SALIDAS NOCTURNAS EN UN VIAJE DEL INSTITUTO

SITUACIÓN: Tu instituto está organizando un viaje cultural a Andalucía. El/la director/a se va a reunir con los padres para hablar de las salidas nocturnas y quiere saber antes vuestra opinión. TAREA

¿Se debería permitir que los alumnos salieran por la noche? ¿Qué límites se deben establecer? Escribe tu opinión justificada sobre el tema. Ten en cuenta que la leería el/la director/a.

IDEAS PARA REFLEXIONAR:

(No hace falta que consideres todas. Puedes añadir otras.) • Piensa en el objetivo del viaje. ¿Salir impediría cumplir el objetivo del viaje? • ¿Crearía mejor ambiente o acarrearía problemas? • ¿A qué hora deberíais volver al hotel/albergue? • ¿Merece la pena ese gasto extra? ¿Por qué? ¿Cuánto dinero sería? • “Sin alcohol no te lo puedes pasar bien”. ¿Qué opinas? • ¿Alguna otra propuesta de actividad nocturna? • etc. NORMAS:

• Tienes 20 minutos para planificar, escribir y revisar la redacción. • No hay límite de palabras, así que intenta escribir tanto como puedas. • No puedes utilizar ni libros ni diccionarios ni preguntar a tu profesor/a o a tus compañeros/as. TENER ASIGNATURAS DE CONTENIDO EN INGLÉS

SITUACIÓN: En tu instituto se ha planteado la posibilidad de unirse a un programa plurilingüe en el que se impartirían asignaturas de contenido en inglés. Al director/a le gustaría saber la opinión de los estudiantes.

132  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

TAREA

¿Crees que dar asignaturas de contenido en una lengua extranjera es positivo? Escribe tu opinión justificada sobre el tema. Ten en cuenta que la leería el/la director/a. IDEAS PARA REFLEXIONAR:

(No hace falta que consideres todas. Puedes añadir otras.) • ¿Esta medida ayudará a mejorar tu nivel de lengua extranjera? ¿Perjudicará tu nivel de castellano y valenciano? ¿Lo mejorará? • ¿Crees que esta medida afectará a tus conocimientos de la asignatura de contenido? ¿Positivamente o negativamente? • ¿Debe ser obligado o solamente para los que lo elijan? • ¿En qué cursos se debe implantar este programa? • ¿Qué asignatura o asignaturas es mejor dar en lengua extranjera? • ¿Es suficiente tener una asignatura de contenido en inglés para aprender inglés? ¿Seguirá haciendo falta la clase de inglés? • ¿Está el alumnado preparado para recibir clases en lengua extranjera? ¿Y el profesorado? ¿Qué se podría hacer? • etc. NORMAS:

• Tienes 20 minutos para planificar, escribir y revisar la redacción. • No hay límite de palabras, así que intenta escribir tanto como puedas. • No puedes utilizar ni libros ni diccionarios ni preguntar a tu profesor/a o a tus compañeros/as. Appendix 4  Questions in Learners’ Guided Diaries

• Question 1: Explica qué pasos has seguido para escribir el texto. (Spanish) Explica quins passos has seguit per a escriure el text. (Catalan) [Explain the steps that you followed to write the text.] (English)

Appendices 133

• Instructions before Question 2: Relee el texto que has escrito y responde a las preguntas. (Spanish) Rellegeix el text que has escrit i respon a les preguntes. (Catalan) [Read the text again and answer the questions.] (English) • Question 2: Indica las palabras o expresiones de tu texto que, en tu opinión, lo hacen un texto organizado con las partes conectadas. Si no encuentras ejemplos, dilo y explica por qué. (Spanish) Indica les paraules o expressions del teu text que, des del teu punt de vista, el fan un text organitzat amb les parts connectades. Si no trobes exemples, digues-ho i explica per què. (Catalan) [State the words or expressions in your text that, in your opinion, make it an organised text with the parts connected. If you cannot find any examples, say so and explain why.] (English) • Question 3: Mientras escribías tu opinión, ¿has tenido en cuenta quién iba a leer el texto o hubieras escrito lo mismo para cualquier destinatario? (Spanish) Quan escrivies la teua opinió, has tingut en compte qui anava a llegir el text o hauries escrit el mateix per a qualsevol destinatari? (Catalan) [While you were writing your opinion, did you take into account who was going to read the text or would you have written the same for any reader?] (English) • Question 4: Indica las palabras o expresiones de tu texto que, en tu opinión, justifican la respuesta anterior. En caso de no encontrar ejemplos, dilo y explica en qué te has basado para responder a la pregunta anterior. (Spanish) Indica les paraules o expressions que, segons la teua opinió, justifiquen la resposta anterior. En cas de no trobar exemples, digues-ho i explica en què t’has basat per valorar el teu text a la pregunta anterior. (Catalan) [State the words or expressions that, in your opinion, justify your previous answer. If you cannot find any examples, say so and explain what you based your previous answer on.] (English)

Frame markers

Logical connectives

TEXTUAL PMs

i, després [sentit continuatiu], a més (a més), també, fins i tot, així mateix no obstant això/això no obstant, malgrat tot, de tota manera/de totes maneres, al contrari, però [connector parentètic], tanmateix, per contra, en canvi, tot i que, encara que, malgrat+sintagma nominal, malgrat que+oració, en lloc de, en comptes de, a pesar de+sintagma nominal, a pesar que+oració doncs, per tant, així, en/com a conseqüència, de manera que, cosa que per això, perquè, per aquesta/es raó/raons, per aquest/os motiu/s, com (que), ja que, gràcies a, per culpa de, a causa de per començar, d’entrada, en primer/segon/tercer lloc, primerament, a continuació, primer de tot d’una banda… d’altra (banda)/de l’altra(banda) pel que fa a, quant a, en relació a, un altre punt és, respecte a, per una altra part, d’altra banda

in contrast, but [textual marker], however, nevertheless, in spite of, despite, although, on the other hand

therefore, as a result, consequently, as a consequence, thus, so

for this reason, for these reasons, because of, because, since, due to, given that

to start with, to begin with, first of all, first, firstly, second, secondly, third, thirdly

on the one hand, on the other hand

with regard to, regarding, as far as… is/are concerned, on the other hand, concerning, in regard to

Contrast

Consequence

Cause

Sequencing

Distribution

Topic shift

Addition

CATALAN

and [textual marker], moreover, furthermore, besides, too, in addition, then [continuation sense]

LIST OF ITEMS INVESTIGATED

ENGLISH

CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES

Appendix 5 Target Pragmatic Marker Forms in English, Catalan and Spanish

respecto a, por/en lo que respecta a, a propósito de, en lo referente a, en lo que se refiere a, en lo que concierne a, en relación con, con relación a, en cuanto a, por otra parte, por otro lado

por un lado, por otro lado, por una parte, por otra (parte)

para empezar, primero de todo, primero, en primer lugar, en segundo lugar, en tercer lugar, seguidamente, a continuación

por ello, porque, dado que, por esta/s razón/ones, por este/os motivos, como, por culpa de, a causa de

por/por lo tanto, por consiguiente, como/ en consecuencia, como resultado, así pues, así que

en cambio, sin embargo, por el contrario, pero [conector textual], no obstante, de todas maneras, de todos modos, aunque, a pesar de, en lugar de, en vez de

y, además, después [sentido continuativo, no temporal], luego [sentido continuativo, no temporal], del mismo modo

SPANISH

134  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

INTERPERSONAL PMs

Exemplification

Clarification

(estic/estem) d’acord, no (estic/estem) d’acord, per sort/desgràcia, des/afortunadament, dissortadament, és important, és necessari, cal/ caldria (que), és interessant, (m’/ens) agradaria, vull, volem, voldríem, esper(-e/-em)

I agree, I disagree, I don’t agree, I do not agree, fortunately, unfortunately, it is/’s/is not/’s not important/interesting/necessary, I would/’d/would not/wouldn’t like to, I/we want, I/we hope, I/we would/’d/wouldn’t/would not/’d not like

Attitude markers

(jo) crec que, (nosaltres) creiem que, (jo) pense que, (nosaltres) pensem que, en la meua/ nostra opinió, des del meu/nostre punt de vista, probablement, potser, pot ser que, (jo) opine que, (nosaltres) opinem que, de vegades, en general, generalment, normalment, possiblement, considere/em/aria/aríem

in my/our opinion, I/we believe (that), I/we think (that), I/we feel (that), in my/our view, it seems to, personally, as I see it, probably, perhaps, maybe, sometimes, in general, generally, normally, as far as I’m/am concerned, I/we consider that

Certainty markers

per exemple, com, com ara, per citar-ne un cas

for example, for instance, such as, like

per descomptat, de fet, evidentment, òbviament, és obvi, és evident, és clar que, sens dubte (que), sense cap (mena de) dubte, naturalment, efectivament, en efecte

és a dir, o siga, això és, en altres paraules, dit d’una altra manera/forma, millor dit, en concret, en particular, especialment, en especial, específicament

that is, in other words, specifically, in particular, particularly, as a matter of fact, especially

strongly, of course, in fact, evidently, obvious, obviously, indeed, it is known that, without doubt, no doubt, it is clear that, actually

Hedges

Code glosses

Conclusion

per últim, en resum, resumint, en conclusió, en definitiva, finalment, per a acabar, en poques/ quatre paraules, així doncs

to sum up, summarizing/sing, summing up, in short, last(ly), to conclude, in conclusion, all in all, finally

(estoy/estamos) de acuerdo, no (estoy/estamos) de acuerdo, des/ afortunadamente, por suerte, por desgracia, es importante, es necesario, es interesante, (me/nos) gustaría, quiero, queremos, querría(mos), esper(-o/-amos)

por supuesto, de hecho, evidentemente, obviamente, es obvio, es evidente, está claro que, sin duda, sin lugar a dudas, desde luego, efectivamente, en efecto, naturalmente

(yo) creo que, (nosotros) creemos que, (yo) pienso que, (nosotros) pensamos que, en mi/nuestra opinión, desde mi/ nuestro punto de vista, probablemente, quizá(s), puede que, (yo) opino que, (nosotros) opinamos que, a veces, en general, generalmente, normalmente, posiblemente, considero/amos/aríamos que

por ejemplo, como

esto es, es decir, o sea, mejor dicho, en otras palabras, dicho de otro modo, en concreto, en particular, especialmente, en especial, específicamente

en resumen, en definitiva, en pocas palabras, en conclusión, por último, para terminar, para acabar, para finalizar, así pues, finalmente

Appendices 135

136  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

Appendix 6 Background Information and Language Contact Questionnaires CUESTIONARIO DE INFORMACIÓN GENERAL DATOS PERSONALES

Sexo:

Hombre

Mujer

Edad hoy: .......................................................................................... Origen (nacionalidad): ...................................................................... Años en España (en el caso de extranjeros): ……………….....……….. Curso:

1º bachillerato. Grupo: ………............................................

Modalidad de Bachillerato: ................................................................ INFORMACIÓN DE LOS PADRES (independientemente de su ocupación actual)

1. Madre Graduado de Educación Secundaria Formación Profesional/ciclo formativo (ATS, mecánico, secretaría, administración, etc. ) Licenciatura,  Ingeniería superior, Arquitectura superior (ingeniero/a, abogado/a, médico, químico/a, economista, etc.) Otros (especifica la profesión): 2. Padre Graduado de Educación Secundaria Formación Profesional/ciclo formativo (ATS, mecánico, secretaría, administración, etc. ) Licenciatura,  Ingeniería superior, Arquitectura superior (ingeniero/a, abogado/a, médico, químico/a, economista, etc.) Otros (especifica la profesión): …………………………………….. 3. ¿Tu padre o tu madre ha vivido en el extranjero? (Si son extranjeros, indícalo, explica de dónde son y di en qué país o países han vivido. España cuenta como país extranjero para un extranjero.) Sí. ¿Dónde?............................................ No.

Appendices 137

4. ¿Tus padres suelen viajar al extranjero? Sí. ¿Dónde?............................................ No. 5. ¿Tus padres usan el inglés en el trabajo? Sí. No. TUS DATOS ACADÉMICOS

6. Tu media el trimestre pasado (de todas las asignaturas):………. 7. Tu media el curso pasado (de todas las asignaturas):………. LAS LENGUAS QUE CONOCES

8. Lengua materna: ……………………………………… 9. Lenguas que dominas (por orden, de la que más dominas a la que menos, incluyendo tu primera lengua): 1………………………………………….. 2………………………………………….. 3………………………………………….. 4………………………………………….. 5………………………………………….. 10. Lenguas por orden de aprendizaje (de la que primero aprendiste a la última que has aprendido, incluyendo tu lengua materna): 1………………………………………….. 2………………………………………….. 3………………………………………….. 4………………………………………….. 5………………………………………….. 11. ¿Estudias otras lenguas extranjeras además del inglés? Si es el caso, indica cuáles. ………………………………………………………………………… 12. ¿En casa hablas otra lengua además del valenciano y el castellano? Si es el caso, indica qué lengua.........................………………………

138  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

ESTANCIAS EN EL EXTRANJERO

13. ¿Alguna vez has estado en un país de habla inglesa? (Ej. Reino Unido, Estados Unidos de América, Canadá, Australia, etc.)? Sí.    No. 14. Si has estado en un país de habla inglesa, indica en qué país, cuánto tiempo estuviste, qué hiciste allí y cuándo estuviste. Si has respondido que no a la pregunta anterior, deja esta tabla en blanco. PAÍS Ejemplo: 1ª vez: Inglaterra

CANTIDAD DE DÍAS, MESES O SEMANAS QUE ESTUVISTE ALLÍ Ejemplo: 10 días

¿CUÁL FUE EL OBJETIVO/MOTIVO DE TU VIAJE? Ejemplo: programa de intercambio con el instituto

¿CUÁNDO ESTUVISTE? Ejemplo: en julio de 2008

1ª VEZ 2ª VEZ 3ª VEZ 4ª VEZ 5ª VEZ

15. ¿Has estado alguna vez en un país de habla no inglesa donde hayas usado el inglés como lengua internacional para comunicarte? (Ej. Japón, Noruega, Alemania, Holanda, etc.)? Sí. No. 16. Si has respondido afirmativamente a la pregunta anterior, por favor indica el país, cuánto tiempo estuviste, qué hiciste allí y cuándo estuviste. Si has respondido que no a la pregunta anterior, deja esta tabla en blanco. PAÍS Ejemplo: 1ª vez: República Checa 1ª VEZ 2ª VEZ 3ª VEZ 4ª VEZ 5ª VEZ

CANTIDAD DE DÍAS, MESES O SEMANAS QUE ESTUVISTE ALLÍ Ejemplo: 10 días

¿CUÁL FUE EL OBJETIVO/MOTIVO DE TU VIAJE? Ejemplo: turismo

¿CUÁNDO ESTUVISTE? Ejemplo: en septiembre de 2005

Appendices 139

CONTACTO CON EL INGLÉS EN EL AULA

17. Por favor, marca (√) los cursos en los que has estudiado inglés en el colegio y las horas semanales de clase que tenías. ¿Has estudiado inglés en el colegio?

Horas semanales de clase en cada curso

Preescolar 3 años Preescolar 4 años Preescolar 5 años 1º Primaria 2º Primaria 3º Primaria 4º Primaria 5º Primaria 6º Primaria 1º ESO 2º ESO 3º ESO 4º ESO 1º Bachillerato 2º Bachillerato

18. ¿Estudias inglés fuera del instituto en la actualidad? No.  

Sí.

19. Si has respondido afirmativamente a la pregunta anterior, detalla qué tipo de clases de inglés recibes fuera del instituto y cuántas horas a la semana. Escuela Oficial de Idiomas..……..horas a la semana Academias..……..horas a la semana Clases particulares..……..horas a la semana 20. ¿Cuál es el objetivo de estas clases de inglés adicionales? Estoy preparando los exámenes de Cambridge o algún otro  examen oficial (Trinity, Escuela Oficial de Idiomas, etc.). Son clases de repaso de inglés para reforzar lo que damos en clase. Otro objetivo (explicar):...............................................

140  Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom

CONTACTO CON EL INGLÉS FUERA DEL AULA

21. Nos gustaría saber qué contacto tienes con el inglés además de el de las clases. Por favor, indica con un círculo el tiempo aproximado que dedicas por regla general semanalmente a realizar las siguientes actividades (piensa en una semana normal del año): 1. Ver películas, vídeos, dibujos animados o series en la televisión o por internet en inglés.

Nunca

1 hora a la semana

2-4 horas por semana

5 o más horas por semana

2. Jugar a videojuegos/juegos de ordenador en inglés.

Nunca

1 hora a la semana

2-4 horas por semana

5 o más horas por semana

3. Escuchar música en inglés (Youtube, CD, etc.).

Nunca

1 hora a la semana

2-4 horas por semana

5 o más horas por semana

4. Leer libros, revistas, cómics, páginas web, etc. en inglés.

Nunca

1 hora a la semana

2-4 horas por semana

5 o más horas por semana

5.  Hablar en inglés fuera de clase.

Nunca

1 hora a la semana

2-4 horas por semana

5 o más horas por semana

6. Escribir en inglés (por e-mail, Messenger, Tuenti, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

Nunca

1 hora a la semana

2-4 horas por semana

5 o más horas por semana

CONTACTO CON VALENCIANO Y CASTELLANO EN EL AULA

22. ¿En qué modelo lingüístico o línea estudias en la actualidad? Línea Valencià (PEV) Línea Castellano (PIP) Otras (PIL, colegio privado, etc.). Por favor, especifícalo:.……..… 23. Marca (√) en qué modelo lingüístico o línea has estudiado en cada nivel del sistema educativo.

Línea Valencià

Preescolar 3 años Preescolar 4 años Preescolar 5 años 1º Primaria 2º Primaria 3º Primaria 4º Primaria 5º Primaria 6º Primaria 1º ESO

Línea Castellano

Otras (PIL, vivía en otro país—indica en qué país—e iba al colegio allí, colegio privado, etc.) Por favor, especifica: .………………..

Appendices 141

2º ESO 3º ESO 4º ESO 1º Bachillerato 2º Bachillerato

CONTACTO CON VALENCIANO Y CASTELLANO FUERA DEL AULA

24. Nos gustaría saber qué contacto tienes con el castellano y el valenciano fuera del instituto. Por favor, indica qué lengua de las dos sueles usar normalmente en cada uno de los contextos que se presentan a continuación. Si nunca utilizas castellano o valenciano en ese contexto indícalo también. Por favor, MARCA UNA SOLA “X” para cada situación, es decir, aunque uses varias lenguas debes marcar únicamente la lengua que PREDOMINA.

VALENCIANO EN LA MAYORÍA DE LOS CASOS

EN CASA 1. ¿En qué lengua hablas con tu padre/ persona a tu cargo? 2. ¿En qué lengua hablas con tu madre/ persona a tu cargo? 3. ¿En qué lengua hablas con tus hermanos/ as u otras personas con las que vives? EN LA SOCIEDAD 4.  ¿En qué lengua hablas con tus amigos? 5. ¿En qué lengua hablas con otras personas de la familia? 6. ¿En qué lengua hablas en tu barrio o vecindario? EN EL CENTRO EDUCATIVO 7. ¿En qué lengua hablas en clase (con los compañeros de clase y profesores excepto en el caso de los profesores de lenguas)? 8. ¿En qué lengua hablas durante el recreo/ los descansos? 9. ¿En qué lengua hablas con el personal del instituto (administración, limpiadoras, conserjes, personal de la cantina).

CASTELLANO EN LA MAYORÍA DE LOS CASOS

NUNCA USO ESTAS LENGUAS EN ESTE CONTEXTO Si este es el caso, por favor indica qué lengua utilizas (ej. Rumano) ………………

References

Ädel, A. (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ädel, A. (2010) Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2), 69–97. Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. (2011) Pragmatic markers. In J. Zienkowski, J. Östman and J. Verschueren (eds) Discursive Particles (pp. 223–247). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Alavinia, P. and Zarza, S. (2011) Metadiscourse markers revisited in EFL context: The case of Iranian academic learners’ perception of written texts. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies 3 (2), 51–84. Alcón-Soler, E. (2000) Desarrollo de la competencia discursiva oral en el aula de lenguas extranjeras: Perspectivas metodológicas y de investigación. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Segundas Lenguas. Adquisición en el Aula (pp. 259–276). Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística. Alcón-Soler, E. (2005) Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33 (3), 417–435. Alcón-Soler, E. (2007a) Linguistic unity and cultural diversity in Europe: Implications for research on English language and learning. In E. Alcón and M.P. Safont (eds) Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 23–40). Dordrecht: Springer. Alcón-Soler, E. (2007b) Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M.P. García-Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 221–241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Alcón-Soler, E. (ed.) (2008) Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context. Bern: Peter Lang. Alcón-Soler, E. (2012) Teachability and bilingualism effects on third language learners’ pragmatic knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics 9 (4), 511–541. Alcón-Soler, E. (2013a) Mitigating e-mail requests in teenagers’ first and second language academic cyber-consultation. Multilingua 32 (6), 779–799. Alcón-Soler, E. (2013b) Pragmatic variation in British and international English language users’ e-mail communication: A focus on requests. RESLA 26, 25–44. Alcón-Soler, E. (2015) Pragmatic learning and study abroad: Effects of instruction and length of stay. System 48, 62–74. Alcón-Soler, E. (2017) Pragmatic development during study abroad: An analysis of Spanish teenagers’ request strategies in English emails. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 37, 77–92. Alcón-Soler, E. (2018) Effects of task supported language teaching on learners’ use and knowledge of email request mitigators. In N. Taguchi and Y. Kim (eds) TaskBased Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 56–81). Amsterdam/ Philadephia: John Benjamins. Alcón-Soler, E. and Guzmán, J. (2010) The effect of instruction on learners’ pragmatic awareness: A focus on refusals. International Journal of English Studies 10 (1), 65–80. Alcón-Soler, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (eds) (2005) Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System 33 (3) (Special issue), 381–546. Alcón-Soler, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (eds) (2008) Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

142

References 143

Alcón-Soler, E. and Safont, M.P. (eds) (2018) Mixed method approaches in investigating pragmatic learning. System 75 (Special issue), 1–114. Al-Issa, A. (2003) Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, 581–601. Alptekin, C. (2010) Redefining multicompetence for bilingualism and ELF. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (1), 95–110. Anderson, S.R. and Keenan, E.L. (1985) Deixis. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (pp. 259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthony, L. (2014) Antconc [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. See http://laurenceanthony.net/ (accessed 18 June 2013). Aronin, L. and Hufeisen, B. (2009) Methods of research in multilingualism studies: Reaching a comprehensive perspective. In L. Aronin and B. Hufeisen (eds) The Exploration of Multilingualism (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arrufat-Marqués, M.J. (2019) Instruction and attitudes in EFL: A focus on recognition and production of conventional expressions. PhD Thesis, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana, Spain. Atkinson, D. (ed.) (2011) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T. and Okada, H. (2007) Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91, 169–188. August, D. and Shanahan, T. (eds) (2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners. Report of the National Literacy Paner on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bachman, L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, N., Madden, C. and Krashen, S. (1974) Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult second language learning? Language Learning 21, 235–243. Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999) Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49, 677–713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000) Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 182–192). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010) Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 219– 259). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013) Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63 (1), 68–86. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Bastos, M.-T. (2011) Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (3), 347–384. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B. (1993) Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 279–304. Barron, A. (2003) Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barron, A. (2012) Research timeline: Interlanguage pragmatics: From use to acquisition to second language pedagogy. Language Teaching 45 (1), 44–63. Barron, A. (2016) Developing pragmatic competence using EFL textbooks: Focus on requests. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ) 7, 2172–2179.

144 References

Basterrechea, M. and García-Mayo, M.P. (2014) Dictogloss and the production of the English third person -s by CLIL and mainsteam learners: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies 14 (2), 77–98. Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T. and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990) Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R.C. Scarcella, E. Andersen and S.D. Krashen (eds) Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55–73). New York: Newbury House. Belz, J.A. and Kinginger, C. (2003) Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning 53 (4), 591–647. Bergman, M.L. and Kasper, G. (1993) Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 82–107). New York: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (1993) Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic com­ petence. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 43–59). New York: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2010) Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective. London: Continuum. Blakemore, D. (2002) Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bley-Vroman, R. (1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33, 1–17. Block, D. (2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982) Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3 (1), 29–60. Blum-Kulka, S. (1983) Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 36–55). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bou-Franch, P. (1998) On pragmatic transfer. Studies in English Language and Linguistics 0, 5–20. Bou-Franch, P. (2013a) Pragmatic transfer. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 4622–4626). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Bou-Franch, P. (2013b) EFL email writing: A focus on pragmatic transfer. In N. Estevez and B. Clavel (eds) La Adquisición de una Segunda Lengua en el Nuevo Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (pp. 39–55). Valencia: Universitat de València. Breen, M. (1989) The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.K. Johnson (ed.) The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bu, J. (2012) A study of relationships between L1 pragmatic transfer and L2 proficiency. English Language Teaching 5 (1), 32–43. Bybee, J.L. (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bygate, M. (ed.) (2015) Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries from the International Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrnes, H. and Manchón, R.M. (eds) (2014) Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 1–47. Carroll, L.A. (2002) Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

References 145

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English Paperback with CD ROM: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casanave, C. (2007) Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and Decisions in Research and Instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Celce-Murcia, M. (2007) Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón Soler and M.P. Safont Jordà (eds) Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer. Celce-Murcia, M. and Olshtain, E. (2000) Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: A Guide for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1995) Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6, 5–35. Cenoz, J. (2001) The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition (pp. 8–20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2003a) The intercultural style hypothesis: L1 and L2 interaction in requesting behaviour. In V. Cook (ed.) Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 62–80). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2003b) The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism 7 (1), 71–87. Cenoz, J. (2007) The acquisition of pragmatic competence and multilingualism in foreign language contexts. In E. Alcón and M.P. Safont (eds) Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 123–140). Dordrecht: Springer. Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2013a) The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching 46 (1), 71–86. Cenoz, J. (2013b) Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33, 3–18. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2011a) Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 356–369. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2011b) A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 339–343. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2013) Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly 47 (3), 591–599. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2014) Focus on multilingualism as an approach in educational contexts. In A. Blackledge and A. Creese (eds) Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 239–254). Dordrecht: Springer. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. and Jessner, U. (eds) (2001) Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chang, Y.-F. (2009) How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences 31 (4), 477–493. Chaudron, C. and Richards, J.C. (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics 7 (2), 113–127. Cheng, X. and Steffensen, M.S. (1996) Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English 30 (2), 149–181. Chomsky, N. (2011) Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language Learning and Development 7, 263–278. Cohen, A. (1997) Developing pragmatic ability: Insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In H. Cook, K. Hijirida and M. Tahara (eds) New Trends and Issues in Teaching Japanese Language and Culture (pp. 133–159). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Cohen, A.D. and Olshtain, E. (1981) Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning 31, 113–134.

146 References

Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conselleria d’Educació (2015) Knowledge and Social Use of Valencian Language. General Survey 2015. Synthesis of Results. See http://www.ceice.gva.es/documents/ 161863132/164868986/encuesta+uso+valenciano+2015+ingles.pdf/e267f44e-1b21469a-b1af-4e5f9f3c8f54 (accessed 27 February 2019). Cook, V. (1991) The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research 7 (2), 103–117. Cook, V. (1992) Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42 (4), 557–591. Cook, V. (2002) Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (ed.) Portraits of the L2 User (pp. 1–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2003) Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In V. Cook (ed.) Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 1–18). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2013a) Multi-competence. In P. Robinson (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 447–450). London and New York: Routledge. Cook, V. (2013b) Multicompetence. In C. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3768–3774). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL 5 (4), 161–170. Council of Europe (1992) European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. See http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/148.htm (accessed 20 April 2014). Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching. The Modern Language Journal 94, 103–115. Crismore, A. (1983) Metadiscourse: What it is and How it is Used in School and NonSchool Social Science Texts. University of Illinois: Centre for the Study of Reading. Technical Report 273. Crismore, A. and Abdollehzadeh, E. (2010) A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2), 195–219. Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M. (1993) Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1), 39–71. Crystal, D. (1997) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cuenca, M.J. (2001) Anàlisi contrastiva dels marcadors de reformulació i exemplificació. Caplletra Revista Internacional de Filologia 30, 47–71. Cummins, J. (1978) Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance for minority language groups. Canadian Modern Language Review 34, 395–416. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center California State University. Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review 56, 18–36. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2005) Teaching for Cross-Language Transfer in Dual Language Education: Possibilities and Pitfalls. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education: Teaching and Learning Two Languages in the EFL Setting. Cummins, J. (2013) Interdependence hypothesis. In P. Robinson (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 336–338). London and New York: Routledge. Cunningham, J. (2016) Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communiation: The role of focused instruction. Modern Language Journal 100, 484–507.

References 147

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2000) El Metadiscurso como estrategia retórica en un corpus de textos periodísticos. Estudio contrastivo de lengua inglesa y lengua española. PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2003) Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudios Ingleses de La Universidad Complutense 11, 29–52. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2005) Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: Directives in content and language integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (8), 1275–1293. Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U. (2013) Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching 46, 545–559. De Angelis, G. (2005) Multilingualism and non-native lexical transfer: An identification problem. International Journal of Multilingualism 2, 1–25. De Angelis, G. (2007) Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Angelis, G. and Dewaele, J.M. (eds) (2011) New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. De Angelis, G. and Jessner, U. (2012) Writing across languages in a bilingual context: A dynamic systems theory approach. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 47–68). Berlin: Mouton. De Angelis, G. and Selinker, L. (2001) Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) CrossLinguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Bot, K. (2008) Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. Modern Language Journal 92, 166–178. De Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 7–21. De Paiva, B. (2010) Theoretical and methodological approaches in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 261–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DeCapua, A. (1989) An analysis of pragmatic transfer in the speech act of complaints as produced by native speakers of German in English. PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York. DePalma, M.J. and Ringer, J.M. (2011) Toward a theory of adaptive transfer: Expanding disciplinary discussions of ‘transfer’ in second-language writing and composition studies. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2), 134–147. Dewaele, J.M. (1998) Lexical interventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics 19, 471–490. Diepenbroek, L. and Derwing, T. (2013) To what extent do popular ESL textbooks incorporate oral fluency and pragmatics development? TESL Canada Journal 30, Special Issue 7, 1–20. Dressler, C. and Kamil, M. (2006) First- and second-language literacy. In D. August and T. Shanahan (eds) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners. Report of the National Literacy Paner on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 197–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Duff, P.A. (2012) Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S.M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 410–426). New York: Routledge. 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, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee and E. Tarone (eds) Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 77–97). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 315–330.

148 References

Ellis, N. (2013) Second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds) Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1992) Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14 (1), 1–23. Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2003) Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (3), 221–246. Ellis, R. (2010) Second language acquisition and language teaching materials. In N. Harwood (ed.) English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice (pp. 33–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (2017a) Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen and M. Sato (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acqusition (pp. 108–125). London/New York: Routledge. Ellis, R. (2017b) Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching 50, 507–526. Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2014) Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Routledge. Elorza, I. and Muñoa, I. (2008) Promoting the minority language through integrated plurilingual language planning: The case of ikastolas. Language, Culture and Curriculum 21, 85–101. European Commission (2012) First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. See http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/ language-survey-final-report_en.pdf (accessed 20 April 2014). European Parliament, Council of Europe and European Commission (2000) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ charter/default_en.htm (accessed 20 April 2014). Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (1987) Perspectives on language transfer. Applied Linguistics 8 (2), 116–136. Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (1989) Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 221–247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (1997) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81, 285–300. Fischer, K. (ed.) (2006) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Forman, R. (2011) Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics 33, 541–565. Foster, P. (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 19, 1–23. Fraser, B. (1990) An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (3), 383–398. Fraser, B. (1999) What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931–952. Fraser, B. (2006) A theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fukuya, Y. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2008) The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and pragmatic instruction. Foreign Language Annals 41, 478–500. Gabryś-Barker, D. (ed.) (2012) Cross-Linguistic Influences in Multilingual Language Acquisition. London: Springer. García, C. (1989) Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and nonnative speakers. Multilingua 8, 3–20. García, O. (ed.) (2008) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. García-Mayo, M.P. (ed.) (2007) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

References 149

Gass, S.M. (1996) Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 317–345). San Diego: Academic Press. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (1992) Introduction. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds) Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 1–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (2nd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S.M., Mackey, A. and Ross-Feldman, L. (2005) Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning 55, 575–611. Generalitat Valenciana (2012) Portal estadístico de la Generalitat. See http://www.ive.es/ (accessed 5 March 2019). Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W.M. and Christian, D. (eds) (2006) Educating English Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gómez-Laich, M.P. and Taguchi, N. (2018) Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task: A conversation analytic perspective. In N. Taguchi and Y. Kim (eds) Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 83–109). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. González-Lloret, M. (2016) A Practical Guide to Integrating Technology into Task-Based Language Teaching. Washington: Georgetown University Press. González-Lloret, M. (2019) Task-based language teaching and L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics (pp. 338–352). London/New York: Routledge. González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (eds) (2014) Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R.B. (1989) Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D.M. Johnson and D.H. Rohen (eds) Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students (pp. 263–283). White Plains, NY: Longman. Granger, S. (2003) The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly 37 (3), 538–545. Granger, S. (2009) The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In K. Aijmer (ed.) Corpora and Language Teaching (pp. 13–32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Granger, S. (2012) Learner corpora. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3235–3242). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–477. Grosjean, F. (1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language 36, 3–15. Grosjean, F. (1992) Another view of multilingualism. In R. Harris (ed.) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 51–62). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Grosjean, F. (2008) Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grosjean, F. (2010) Bilingual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hall, J. (1998) Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning the IRF. Linguistics and Education 9, 287–311. Hall, J.K., Cheng, A. and Carlson, M.T. (2006) Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27 (2), 220–240. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hammarberg, B. (2001) Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Harris, Z. (1959) The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics 1 (1), 27–29.

150 References

Hashemian, M. (2012) Cross-cultural differences and pragmatic transfer in English and Persian refusals. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 4 (3), 23–46. Hassall, T. (2006) Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 31–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002) A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Changing the Psycholinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hill, T. (1997) The development of pragmatic competence in an EFL context. PhD thesis, Temple University, Japan. Hinkel, E. (2002) Second Language Writers’ Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hinkel, E. (2004) Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Holliday, A. and Aboshiha, P. (2009) The denial of ideology in perceptions of ‘nonnative speaker’ teachers. TESOL Quarterly 43, 669–689. Houck, N. and Tatsuki, D. (2011) Pragmatics from Research to Practice: New Directions. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. House, J. (1986) Learning to talk: Talking to learn. An investigation of learner performance in two types of discourse. In G. Kasper (ed.) Learning, Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 43–57). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. House, J. (1988) ‘Oh excuse me please…’: Apologizing in a foreign language. In B. Kettemann, P. Bierbaumer, A. Fill and A. Karpf (eds) Englisch als Zweitsprache (pp. 303–327). Tübingen: Narr. House, J. (2003) Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: The case of English as a lingua franca. In A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan and A. Fernández-Guerra (eds) Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 133–159). Castellón: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. House, J. (2010) The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 363–387). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. House, J. and Kasper, G. (1987) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Loerscher and R. Schulze (eds) Perspectives on Language in Performance (pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Narr. Hufeisen, B. and Jessner, U. (2009) Learning and teaching multiple languages. In K. Knapp and B. Seidlhofer (eds) Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning (pp. 109–138). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education. Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse. Oxford: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2010) Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2), 125–143. Hyland, K. (2015) Metadiscourse. In K. Tracy (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004) Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25 (2), 156–177. Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Inawati, I. (2016) The pragmatics of greetings reflected in textbooks for teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia. Ahmad Dahlan Journal of English Studies (ADJES) 3 (2), 1–10. Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M.S. (1995) The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (3), 253–272. Ishida, M. (2013) Second language pragmatic development. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 5117–5123). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ishihara, N. and Cohen, A. (2010) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow: Longman.

References 151

Jalilifar, A. and Alipour, M. (2007) How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning 38 (1), 35–52. James, M.A. (2009) ‘Far’ transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 69–84. Jarvis, S. (1998) Conceptual Transfer in the Interlanguage Lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Jarvis, S. and Pavlenko, A. (2008) Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge. Jeon, E.H. and Kaya, T. (2006) Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In J.M. Norris and L. Ortega (eds) Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jessner, U. (2003) The nature of cross-linguistic interaction in the multilingual system. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) The Multilingual Lexicon (pp. 45–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Jessner, U. (2006) Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jessner, U. (2013) Dynamics of multilingualism. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1798–1805). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Kang, J.Y. (2005) Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing 14, 259–279. Kaplan, R.B. (1966) Cultural and thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 16, 1–20. Kaplan, R.B. (1988) Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes towards a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A.C. Purves (ed.) Writing across Languages and Cultures (pp. 275–304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kasper, G. (1985) Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 200–215. Kasper, G. (1989) Interactive procedures in interlanguage discourse. In W. Olesky (ed.) Contrastive Pragmatics (pp. 189–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kasper, G. (1992) Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8 (3), 203–231. Kasper, G. (1997) Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Net Work #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. See www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/ (accessed 12 April 2014). Kasper, G. (2001) Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose and G. Kasper (eds) Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 33–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (1999) Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19, 81–104. Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (2002) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1996) Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2), 149–169. Kecskes, I. (2014) Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kecskes, I. and Papp, T. (2000) Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kellerman, E. (1977) Toward a characterization of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2, 58–145. Kellerman, E. (1978) Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15, 59–92. Kellerman, E. (1983) Now you see it, now you don’t. In S.M. Gass and L. Selinker (eds) Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 112–134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kellerman, E. (1986) An eye for an eye: Cross-linguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. In E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds) Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 35–48). New York: Pergamon.

152 References

Kellerman, E. (1995) Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 125–150. Kellerman, E. and Sharwood Smith, M. (eds) (1986) Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon. Keshavarz, M.H., Eslami, Z.R. and Ghahreman, V. (2006) Pragmatic transfer and Iranian EFL refusals: A cross-cultural perspective of Persian and English. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, G. Kasper and C. Félix-Brasdefer (eds) Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 359– 403). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Khorvash, Z. (2008) The effect of metadiscourse awareness on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Master’s thesis, University of Isfahan, Iran. Kim, M., Lee, H. and Kim, Y. (2018) Learning of Korean honorifics through collaborative tasks: Comparing heritage and foreign language learners. In N. Taguchi and Y. Kim (eds) Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 27–54). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Kim, S.H. and Lee, H. (2017) Politeness in power-asymmetrical e-mail requests of Korean and American corporate employees. Intercultural Pragmatics 14, 207–238. Kim, Y. and Taguchi, N. (2015) Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal 99, 656–677. Kim, Y. and Taguchi, N. (2016) Learner–learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals 49, 42–57. Kinginger, C. (2008) Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal 92, 1–124. Klein, W. (1998) The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning 48, 527–550. Klein, W. and Perdue, C. (1992) Utterance Structure: Developing Grammars Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kobayashi, H. (1984) Rhetorical patterns in English and Japanese. Dissertation Abstracts International 45 (S), 2425A. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2003) Coping with high imposition requests: High vs. low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan and A. FernándezGuerra (eds) Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 161–184). Castellón: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2008) Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 7–29. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2012a) L1/L2/L3 text construction by multicompetent speakers. In C. Conlan (ed.) Evolving Paradigms: Language and Applied Linguistics in a Changing World. Refereed proceedings of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia Annual Conference, School of Education, Curtin University. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2012b) Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In R.M. Manchon (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 101–134). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (2013) L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Journal of Second Language Writing 22, 4–33. Koike, D.A. and Flanzer, V. (2004) Pragmatic transfer from Spanish to Portuguese as an L3: Requests and apologies. In A. Simoes, L. Wiedemann and A. Carvalho (eds) Portuguese for Spanish Speakers: Acquisition and Teaching [Português para Falantes de Espanhol: Acquisiçao e Ensino] (pp. 95–114). Sao Paulo: Editora Pontes. Koike, D.A. and Palmiere, D.T.L. (2011) First and second language pragmatics in third language oral and written modalities. Foreign Language Annals 44 (1), 80–104. Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002) Language Acquisition and Language Use: An Ecological Perspective. New York: Continuum.

References 153

Kramsch, C. (2010) The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kuhi, D., Asadollahfam, H. and Anbarian, K.D. (2014) The effect of metadiscourse use on Iranian EFL learners’ lecture comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (6), 1026–1035. Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2013) Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S.M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 364–377). Abingdon: Routledge. Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing 34 (3), 321–336. Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2018) Assessing functional adequacy of L2 performance in a taskbased approach. In N. Taguchi and Y. Kim (eds) Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 265–285). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Kuiken, F., Vedder, I. and Gilabert, R. (2010) Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin and I. Vedder (eds) Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research (pp. 81–100). (Eurosla Monographs Series 1). Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lahuerta Martínez, A.C. (2004) Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. Ibérica 8, 63–80. Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. (2012) Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S.M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18, 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48–72). New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012a) Complexity theory. In S.M. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 73–87). New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012b) Complex dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching 45, 202–214. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman. Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leung, Y.-K. (2007) Third language acquisition: Why is it interesting to generative linguists? Second Language Research 23, 95–114. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S.C. (2003) Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Q. (2016) Variations in developmental patterns across pragmatic features. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6 (4), 587–617. Li, S. (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60 (2), 309–365. Limberg, H. (2016) Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research 20, 700–718. Llinares, A., Morton, T. and Whittaker, R. (2012) The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LoCastro, V. (2012) Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. London: Routledge.

154 References

Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. (2015) Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Long, M. (2016) In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 5–33. Long, M. and Sato, C. (1984) Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective. In A. Davies, C. Criper and A. Howatt (eds) Interlanguage (pp. 253–279). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Long, M., Adams, L., McLean, M. and Castaños, F. (1976) Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In J. Fanselow and R. Crymes (eds) On TESOL ’76 (pp. 137–153). Washington, DC: TESOL. Lorenz, E. (1972) Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? Paper presented at The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Washington, DC. Lörscher, W. (1986) Conversational structures in the foreign language classroom. In G. Kasper (ed.) Learning, Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 11–22). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Lörscher, W. and Schulze, R. (1988) On polite speaking and foreign language classroom discourse. IRAL 26, 183–199. Lyster, R. (1994) The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15, 263–287. Mackey, A. (2017) Classroom-based research. In S. Loewen and M. Sato (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 541–561). London/New York: Routledge. Mackey, A. and Gass, S.M. (2005) Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MacWinney, B. (2008) A unified model. In P. Robinson and N.C. Ellis (eds) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 341–371). Abingdon: Routledge. MacWinney, B. (2012) The logic of the unified model. In A. Gass and S. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 211–227). Abingdon: Routledge. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. and Ross, S. (1996) Transfer and proficiency. In S. Gass and J. Neu (eds) Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 155–187). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H.K. and Kaushanskaya, M. (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 940–967. Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M.S. and Crismore, A. (1993) A quantitative contrastive study of metadiscourse: Problems in the design and analysis of the data. In J. Fisiak (ed.) Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (pp. 137–151). Poznan: Mickiewicz University. Martí, O. (2008) Grammatical and pragmatic competence in EFL context: Do they really go hand in hand? In E. Alcón-Soler (ed.) Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context (pp. 163–190). Bern: Peter Lang. Martí, O. and Portolés, L. (2019) Is teacher talk for very young learners pragmatically tuned? Directives in two EAL classrooms. In P. Salazar-Campillo and V. Codina-Espurz (eds) Investigating the Learning of Pragmatics across Ages and Contexts (pp. 87–122). Leiden: Brill. Martí, O. and Salazar-Campillo, P. (eds) (2013) Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond. Amsterdam/New York, NY: Rodopi. Martín-Laguna, S. (2014) Raising learners’ attention to refusals during Focus on Form interaction: Does the interlocutor matter? In A. Díaz Galán, M. del C. Fumero Pérez,

References 155

M. del P. Lojendio Quintero, S. Burgess, E. Sosa Acevedo and A. Cano Ginés (eds) Comunicación, Cognición, Cibernétic@. Actas del XXXI Congreso Internacional de AESLA (pp. 368–379). La Laguna, Spain: Universidad de La Laguna. Martín-Laguna, S. (2016) Exploring textual pragmatic markers in multilingual classroom context. In F. Bianchi and S. Gesuato (eds) Pragmatic Issues in Specialized Communicative Contexts (pp. 195–216). Leiden/Boston: Brill Rodopi. Martín-Laguna, S. (2018) Learning pragmatics in the multilingual classroom: Exploring multicompetence across types of discourse-pragmatic markers. In A. SánchezHernández and A. Herraiz-Martínez (eds) Learning Second Language Pragmatics beyond Traditional Contexts (pp. 203–221). Bern: Peter Lang. Martín-Laguna, S. (2019) Exploring case stories in the development of textual discoursepragmatic markers in formal English language classrooms. In P. Salazar-Campillo and V. Codina-Espurz (eds) Investigating the Learning of Pragmatics across Ages and Contexts (pp. 40–53). Leiden: Brill. Martín-Laguna, S. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2013) The effect of proficiency and interlocutor on learners’ performance during refusal focused tasks. In À. Llanes Baró, L. Astrid Ciro, L. Gallego Balsà and R.M. Mateu Serra (eds) Lingüística Aplicada en la era de la globalización [La Lingüística Aplicada en l’era de la globalització / Applied Linguistics in the Age of Globalization] (pp. 80–87). Lleida: Publicacions de la Universitat de Lleida. Martín-Laguna, S. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2015) Do learners rely on metadiscourse markers? An exploratory study in English, Catalan and Spanish. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 173, 85–92. Martín-Laguna, S. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2018) Development of discourse-pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom: A mixed method research approach. System 75, 68–80. Martín Úriz, A., Barrio Luis, M., Hidalgo Downing, L. and Whittaker, R. (2005) El metadiscurso: El escritor como organizador y evaluador de su texto. In A. Martín Úriz and R. Whittaker (eds) La Composición como Comunicación: Una Experiencia en las Aulas de Lengua Inglesa en Bachillerato (pp. 131–152). Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Martínez-Flor, A. (2006) The effectiveness of explicit and implicit treatments on EFL learners’ confidence in recognizing appropriate suggestions. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Féliz-Brasdefer and A.S. Omar (eds) Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 119–225). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E. and Fernández-Guerra, A. (eds) (2003) Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Castellón, Spain: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. May, S. (ed.) (2014a) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. New York: Routledge. May, S. (2014b) Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 7–31). New York: Routledge. McCarthy, L.P. (1987) A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the curriculm. Research in the Teaching of English 21 (3), 233–265. McCarthy, M. (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGroarty, M. and Taguchi, N. (2005) Evaluating comunicativeness of EFL textbooks for Japanese secondary schools. In J. Frodesen and C. Holten (eds) The Power of Context in Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 211–224). Boston: Thomson/Heinle and Heinle. Meara, P. (1999) Self-organisation in bilingual lexicons. In P. Broeder and J. Muure (eds) Language and Thought in Development (pp. 127–144). Tübingen: Narr. Mey, J. (2001) Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Mitchell, R., Myles, F. and Marsden, E. (2013) Second Language Learning Theories (3rd edn). Abingdon: Routledge.

156 References

Modirkhamene, S. (2011) Cross-linguistic transfer or target language proficiency: Writing performance of trilinguals vs. bilinguals in relation to the interdependence hypothesis. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 7, 115–143. Moreno, C. (2005) Logical connectors in EFL writing: Learners’ use and instruction. PhD thesis, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana, Spain. Muñoz, C. (2000) Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In J. Cenoz and U. Jessner (eds) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Neary-Sundquist, C. (2013) Task type effects on pragmatic marker use by learners at varying proficiency levels. L2 Journal 5, 1–21. Neff, J. and Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008) Argumentation patterns in different languages: An analysis of metadiscourse markers in English and Spanish texts. In M. Pütz and J. Neffvan Aertselaer (eds) Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and CrossCultural Perspectives (pp. 87–102). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Neff, J., Dafouz-Milne, E., Herrera, H., Martínez, F., Rica, J.P., Diez, M., Sancho, C. (2003) Contrasting learner corpora: The use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance. In S. Granger and S. Petch-Tyson (eds) Extending the Scope of CorpusBased Research: New Applications, New Challenges (pp. 211–230). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Newmark, L. and Reibel, D. (1968) Necessity and sufficiency in language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 6, 145–164. Nightingale, R. and Safont, M.P. (2019) Pragmatic translanguaging: Multilingual practice in adolescent online discourse. In P. Salazar-Campillo and V. Codina-Espurz (eds) Investigating the Learning of Pragmatics across Ages and Contexts (pp. 167–195). Leiden: Brill. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C. and Llinares, A. (2013) CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1 (1), 70–100. Norment, N. (1994) Contrastive analyses of cohesive devices in Chinese and Chinese ESL in narrative and expository written texts. Chinese Language Teaching Association Journal 29 (1), 49–81. Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2005) Classroom research. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 225–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ochs, E. (1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz and S.C. Levinson (eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Odlin, T. (1989) Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Odlin, T. (2010) Language transfer and cross-linguistic studies: Relativism, universalism, and the native language. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 307–317). New York: Oxford University Press. Odlin, T. (2013) Cross-linguistic influence (CLI). In P. Robinson (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 151–155). London and New York: Routledge. Ohta, A. (1995) Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner– learner collaborative interaction in the zone of optimal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6, 93–121. Ohta, A. (1997) The development of pragmatic competence in learner–learner classroom interaction. In L. Bouton (ed.) Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 223–242). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champain. Ohta, A. (1999) Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1493–1512.

References 157

Ohta, A. (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Olshtain, E. (1983) Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. In S.M. Gass and L. Selinker (eds) Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 232– 249). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. (1989) Speech act behavior across languages. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds) Transfer in Language Production (pp. 53–67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ortega, L. (2009) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education. Ortega, L. (2013) SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning 63 (1), 1–24. Ortega, L. (2014) Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (ed.) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge. Ortega, L. and Carson, J. (2010) Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In P.K. Matsuda and T. Silva (eds) Practicing Theory in Second Language Writing (pp. 48–71). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Ortega, L. and Iberri-Shea, G. (2005) Longitudinal research in SLA: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 26–45. Paquot, M. (2013) Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (3), 391–417. Plonsky, L. and Kim, Y. (2016) Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 73–97. Plonsky, L. and Zhuang, J. (2019) A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. In N. Taguchi (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics (287–307). London/New York: Routledge. Portolés, L. (2015) Multilingualism and Very Young Learners: An Analysis of Pragmatic Awareness and Language Attitudes. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Portolés, L. and Martín-Laguna, S. (2012) Code switching in classroom discourse: A multilingual approach. In E. Alcón-Soler and M.P. Safont (eds) Discourse and Language Learning across L2 Instructional Settings (295–319). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Portolés, L. and Safont, M.P. (2013) Translanguaging and formulaic speech in the L3 classroom. In A. Diaz, M. Fumero, M. Lojendio, S. Burgess, E. Sosa and A. Cano (eds) Comunicación, Cognición, Cibernétic@. Actas del XXXI Congreso Internacional de AESLA (pp. 407–420). La Laguna, Spain: Universidad de La Laguna. Portolés, L. and Safont, M.P. (2018) Examining authentic and elicited data from a multilingual perspective: The real picture of child requestive behaviour in the L3 classroom. System 75, 81–92. Rahman, M. (2004) Abide by the reader: The use of metadiscourse devices in scientific discourse. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 18, 29–48. Reagan, D. and Payant, C. (2018) Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. In N. Taguchi and Y. Kim (eds) Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 113–136). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Rica, J.P. (2010) Corpus analysis and phraseology: Transfer of multi-word units. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 6 (1–3), 321–343. Rieber, S. (1997) Conventional implicatures as conventional implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (1), 50–72. Ringbom, H. (2007) Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ringbom, H. (2013) Linguistic transfer. In P. Robinson (ed.) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 396–400). New York: Routledge. Ringbom, H. and Jarvis, S. (2009) The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In M.H. Long and C.J. Doughty (eds) The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 106–118). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

158 References

Rinnert, C. and Kobayashi, H. (2009) Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role of previous experience and instruction. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) Writing in Foreign Language Contexts. Learning, Teaching, and Research (pp. 23–48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Robinson, M.A. (1992) Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (ed.) Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center Technical Report No. 3 (pp. 27–82). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Rosch, E. (1975) Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7 (4), 532–547. Rose, K. and Kasper, G. (eds) (2001) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rossiter, P. and Kondoh, A.S. (2001) Pragmatic transfer in making requests. In K. Matsuno and S. Yoshijima (eds) Foreign Language Theory: From Theory to Practice (pp. 107– 154). Tokyo: Asahi Shuppan. Sabaté i Dalmau, M. and Curell i Gotor, H. (2007) From ‘Sorry very much’ to ‘I’m ever so sorry’: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 287–315. Sadeghi, B. and Heidaryan, H. (2012) The effect of teaching pragmatic discourse markers on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. English Linguistics Research 1 (2), 165–176. Safont, M.P. (2005) Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Safont, M.P. (2011) Early requestive development in consecutive third language learning. International Journal of Multilingualism 8 (3), 256–276. Safont, M.P. (2012) A longitudinal analysis of Catalan, Spanish and English request modifiers in early child language learning. In D. Gabryś-Barker (ed.) CrossLinguistic Influences in Multilingual Language Acquisition (pp. 99–114). Heidelberg: Springer. Safont, M.P. (2013) Early stages of trilingual pragmatic development: A longitudinal study of requests in Catalan, Spanish and English. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 68–80. Safont, M.P. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2012) Teachability of request act peripheral modificaton devices in third language learning contexts. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis and H. Woodfield (eds) Interlanguage Request Modification (pp. 275–313). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Safont, M.P. and Portolés, L. (2015) Pragmatic awareness in early consecutive third language learners. In M.P. Safont and L. Portolés (eds) Learning and Using Multiple Languages: Current Findings from Research on Multilingualism (pp. 220–239). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Safont, M.P. and Portolés, L. (2016) Pragmatic functions of formulaic speech in three different languages: A focus on early L3 learners of English. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 4 (2), 225–250. Salazar-Campillo, P. and Codina-Espurz, V. (eds) (2019) Investigating the Learning of Pragmatics across Ages and Contexts. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Sánchez, L. (2011) ‘Luisa and Pedrito’s dog will the breakfast eat’: Interlanguage transfer and the role of the second language factor. In G. De Angelis and J.-M. Dewaele (eds) New Trends in Cross-Linguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 86–104). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sánchez-Hernández, A. and Alcón-Soler, E. (2019) Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines. Journal of Pragmatics 146, 54–71. Sánchez-Hernández, A. and Herraiz-Martínez, A. (eds) (2018) Learning Second Language Pragmatics beyond Traditional Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. Savignon, S.J. (1983) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

References 159

Savignon, S.J. (2001) Communicative language teaching in the twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 13–28). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Scarcella, R. (1983) Discourse accent in second language performance. In S. Gass and L. Selinker (eds) Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 306–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schauer, G. (2004) May you speaker louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook 4, 253–272. Schauer, G. (2006) Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning 56, 269–318. Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Schiffrin, D. (2001) Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Schmidt, R. (1983) Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. (1995) Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (ed.) Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report #9) (pp. 1–63).. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Schourup, L. (1999) Discourse markers. Lingua 107 (3–4), 227–265. Selinker, L. (1966) A psycholinguistic study of language transfer. PhD thesis, Georgetown University. Selinker, L. (1969) Language transfer. General Linguistics 9, 67–92. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL 10, 209–231. Shah, M.J. (2009) The role of L1 English and L2 Hindi in L3 Spanish acquisition: A study of pragmatic transfer in request and apology situations. PhD thesis, University of Texas Austin. Sharwood Smith, M. and Kellerman, E. (1986) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition: An introduction. In E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds) Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1–9). New York: Pergamon. Shohamy, E. (2006) Rethinking assessment for advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes, H.D. Weger-Guntharp and K. Sprang (eds) Educating for Advanced Foreign Language Capacities: Constructs, Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment (pp. 188–208). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Shoushinasab, F. (2013) The effects of task-based instruction on the development of different aspects of pragmatic competence. ELT Voices-India 3 (2), 32–44. Siegal, M. (1996) The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17, 356–382. Simin, S. (2004) Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Master’s thesis, Isfahan University, Iran. Simin, S. and Tavangar, M. (2009) Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal 11, 230–255. Smit, D.W. (2004) The End of Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Su, I.-U. (2010) Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi-directional perspective. The Modern Language Journal 94 (1), 87–102. Swain, M. (1996) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds) Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 245–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sykes, J.M. (2014) TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In M. González-Lloret and L. Ortega

160 References

(eds) Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 149–182). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Taguchi, N. (2010) Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 333–361). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Taguchi, N. (2011a) Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex process: General patterns and case histories. The Modern Language Journal 95 (4), 605–627. Taguchi, N. (2011b) Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 289–310. Taguchi, N. (2012) Context, Individual Differences, and Pragmatic Competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N. (2015a) ‘Contextually’ speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System 48, 3–20. Taguchi, N. (2015b) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching 48, 1–50. Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (2014) Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmaticrelated episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–23. Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (eds) (2018a) Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (2018b) Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics: An overview. In N. Taguchi and Y. Kim (eds) Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Taguchi, N. and Roever, C. (2017) Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N. and Sykes, J.M. (eds) (2013) Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. Philadelphia, MA: John Benjamins. Tajeddin, Z., Keshavarz, M.H. and Zand-Moghadam, A. (2012) The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners’ pragmatic production, metapragmatic awareness, and pragmatic self-assessment. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL) 15 (2), 139–166. Takahashi, S. (1995) Pragmatic transferability of LI indirect request strategies perceived by Japanese learners of English. PhD thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu. Takahashi, S. (2000) Transfer in interlanguage pragmatics: New research agenda. Studies in Language and Culture 11, 109–128. Takahashi, S. (2001) The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose and G. Kasper (eds) Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takahashi, S. (2010a) The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor and E. Usó-Juan (eds) Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues (pp. 127–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Takahashi, S. (2010b) Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 391–421). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Takahashi, S. and DuFon, M. (1989) Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 439.) Takahashi, T. and Beebe, L.M. (1987) The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal 8, 131–155. Takahashi, T. and Beebe, L.M. (1993) Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 138–157). New York: Oxford University Press. Tavakoli, M., Bahrami, L. and Amirian, Z. (2012) Improvement of metadiscourse use among Iranian EFL learners through a process-based writing course. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 4 (9), 129–164.

References 161

Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A. and Khorvash, Z. (2010) The effect of metadiscourse awareness on L2 reading comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching 3 (1), 92–102. Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4, 91–112. Todeva, E. and Cenoz, J. (eds) (2009) The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism: Personal Narratives and Researchers’ Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Trosborg, A. (1995) Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. UCLES (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate) (2001) Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Usó-Juan, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2006) Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. In E. Usó-Juan and A. Martínez-Flor (eds) Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills (pp. 3–25). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Van Compernolle, R.A. (2014) Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M. and Norris, J. (eds) (2009) Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Dijk, T.A. (2011) Introduction: The study of discourse. In T.A. Van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 1–7). London: Sage. Van Geert, P. (1994) A dynamic system model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review 98, 3–53. Van Geert, P. (2008) The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal 92, 179–199. Van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. New York: Springer. Vande Kopple, W. (1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 36, 82–93. Vellenga, H. (2004) Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESOL-EJ 8 (2), 25–38. Verspoor, M. and Van Dijk, M. (2011) Visualizing interactions between variables. In M. Verspoor, K. De Bot and W. Lowie (eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques (pp. 85–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. and Lowie, W. (eds) (2011) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vilar-Beltrán, E. (2014) Length of stay abroad: Effects of time on the speech act of requesting. International Journal of English Studies 14, 79–96. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1950) The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science 111, 23–29. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walvoord, B.E. and McCarthy, L.P. (1990) Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in Four Disciplines. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English. Wannaruk, A. (2008) Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC Journal 39 (3), 318–337. Wardle, E. (2009) ‘Mutt genres’ and the goal of FYW: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication 60 (4), 765–789. Warga, M. and Scholmberger, U. (2007) The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (2), 221–251. Weaver, W. (1948) Science and complexity. American Scientist 36, 536–544. Wei, L. (2011) Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code- and modeswitching by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 370–384.

162 References

Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (1st edn). New York: Linguistic Circle of New York. Wildner-Basset, M. (1984) Improving Pragmatic Aspects of Learners’ Interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr. Wildner-Basset, M. (1986) Teaching and learning ‘polite noises’: Improving pragmatic aspects of advanced adult learners’ interlanguage. In G. Kasper (ed.) Learning, Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 163–178). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Williams, J. (2012) Classroom research. In S. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 541–554). Abingdon: Routledge. Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007) Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winke, P.M. and Teng, C. (2010) Using task-based pragmatics tutorials while studying abroad in China. Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (2), 363–399. Włosowicz, T.M. (2011) Ways of expressing birthday, Christmas and New Year’s and Easter wishes in L2 and L3: Cross-cultural transfer and interlanguage pragmatics. In J. Arabski and A. Wojtaszek (eds) Aspects of Culture in Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning (pp. 217–231). London: Springer. Xiao, F. (2015) Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5 (4), 557–581.

Index

active bilinguals 39, 57, 106 additional language 3, 5, 14, 17, 19, 39, 49, 51, 54, 61, 67, 69, 105, 116, 121 adolescent 33, 37, 75–6, 97, 101–2 Alcón-Soler, Eva vii, 1, 4–5, 14–15, 17, 19–20, 23, 26, 28, 31–2, 34–8, 58, 63–5, 74–5, 78, 82, 89, 104–7, 114–18, 120, 122, 124, 126 authentic classroom 2, 71–3, 76 authentic situations 75 authentic task 4, 6, 25 automatic analysis 83, 87

Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) 51, 58 Common Underlying Proficiency Hypothesis 51 communicative competence 1, 14, 24, 38 complexity of pragmatic learning 105, 114, 117–18, 122 complexity theory 3, 30, 35, 50–1, 54–5, 57 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) 40 Cook, Vivian 5, 14–16, 18, 36, 46–9, 53–5, 57–8, 69, 116, 118, 122 crosslinguistic influence 14, 16, 46, 48, 56 crosslinguistic interaction 16, 55–6, 58 Cummins, Jim 16, 49, 51–3, 58

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2, 29, 63, 73, 115, 119 Basque 6, 37, 51 bidirectional interaction 61 bilingual communities 61 bilingual context 65 bilingual learners 3, 32, 34, 37 bilingual programmes 11–13, 52 bilingualism 40, 46, 49, 55–8, 68–9 Bou-Franch, Patricia 14–15, 17, 40, 60–1, 117 boundaries between languages 18–19, 46, 65, 69 Brown, Penelope 78, 116

De Bot, Kees 3, 30, 35, 50, 54, 57–8 discourse completion test (DCT) 33 discourse-pragmatic markers 32–4 discourse-pragmatics continuum 5, 81, 104 Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM) 16, 19, 54 Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) 3, 30, 35, 50 ecological approach(es)/ecological perspective 31 ecological validity 3, 21, 24, 55, 75–6, 119–20 ecologically-oriented approach 2 ecologically valid 5, 49, 73, 116 Ellis, Rod 14, 23–5, 27, 41–2, 45, 76–7, 106, 116 English as a lingua franca 15, 48, 58, 121

case study/studies 38, 63, 65 Catalan-based instruction/programme(s) 72, 98 Cenoz, Jasone 4–5, 16–19, 36–8, 46, 49, 55–8, 61, 63, 67–9, 74, 76, 104–6, 113, 115–19, 121–3 centrality of context 2–4, 116 classroom pragmatics 3–4, 6, 18, 20, 22–3, 25, 28, 36, 106, 115, 119 classroom-based research/classroom research 2, 18, 20–2, 24, 36, 70, 73 classroom-based study 3, 5, 21, 38, 73, 108, 119–20 codemixing 16, 56, 58, 69 codeswitching 16, 56, 69 Common Underlying Conceptual Base (CUCB) 16, 38, 53, 58

Focus on Multilingualism 16, 56–8, 69, 122–3 focused task/tasks 24, 28, 37, 73, 89–90, 119, 124 Fraser, Bruce 5, 80, 83, 87 functional adequacy 120 González-Lloret, Marta 4, 23–5, 39 Gorter, Durk 5, 16, 18–19, 46, 49, 56–8, 61, 63, 69, 74, 76, 106, 116–17, 119, 122–3 163

164 Index

Grosjean, François 46, 49, 53–5, 57–8, 69 guided diary/diaries 3, 18, 32, 34, 79, 89–90, 94, 103, 115, 119, 132 Herdina, Philip 4, 16, 18–19, 38, 49, 54, 56, 58, 61, 114, 116, 118, 122 holistic approach(es) 13, 19, 46, 54, 117, 122 holistic multilingual perspective 40, 56 holistic perspective(s) 48–9, 55, 58, 69 House, Juliane 3, 5, 22, 48, 58, 60, 116, 121 Hyland, Ken 5, 64, 80–2, 89, 115, 121–2 ignorance hypothesis 42 individual differences/individual variation 31, 33–5, 119 intact classroom(s) 3–5, 21, 24, 31, 33, 38, 73, 119 Intaraprawat, Puangpen 77, 120 integration continuum 47–8 interaction hypothesis 23 interdependence hypothesis 16, 51–3 interference 13–14, 40–1, 59 interlanguage 2, 14, 17, 41–2, 45, 53, 61, 67, 105 interlanguage factor 67 interlanguage hypothesis 42 interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) 2, 17 interpersonal pragmatic marker(s)/ interpersonal PM(s) 44, 65, 79 interventional/non-interventional 4, 22–3, 33, 36–7 Jessner, Ulrike 4, 16, 18–19, 36, 38, 46, 49, 54–6, 58, 61, 63, 114, 116, 118, 122 Kecskes, Istvan 14–17, 46, 49, 53, 58, 61 Kellerman, Eric 14, 16–17, 42–4, 46, 56 Kim, YouJin 4, 24–7, 39, 73, 116, 124 Kobayashi, Hiroe 5, 45, 58, 63–6, 74, 104, 106, 117 L2 acquisition 41 L2 factor 67, 105 L2 user 16, 45, 47–8, 69 L3 acquisition 46, 55, 58, 67, 121 laboratory-based research 20 language background 3, 5–6, 52, 71, 121

language development/pragmatic development/pattern(s) of development 2–3, 5, 22–3, 27–35, 37–8, 41, 45, 50, 55, 57–8, 114, 116–17, 120, 123 language education 1–2, 123 language user(s) 33, 49, 51, 57, 65 languages of instruction 12, 17, 19 Larsen-Freeman, Diane 3–4, 18, 30, 35, 41, 50–1, 54–5, 57, 116, 118, 122 learner corpora 74, 119 learners’ repertoire 16, 38, 46, 58, 61, 107 learning context(s)/context of learning 2–3, 15, 28–32, 34–6, 39, 59, 118 learning process(es) 18, 20, 30, 35, 54–5, 122 learning trajectories/pragmatic learning trajectories 4, 33–5, 38, 76, 84 Levinson, Stephen C. 29, 45, 78, 116 linguistic interdependence (see also ‘interdependence hypothesis’) 51, 58 linguistic repertoire 17, 36, 40, 54, 57–8, 69, 114, 123 literacy 51–2 Long, Michael H. 22–5, 41 longitudinal data/design/studies 3, 18, 29–31, 35, 37–8, 52, 70, 87, 104, 115 longitudinal (pragmatics) research 6, 29–30, 35–7 longitudinal study(ies) 3, 45, 122 Mackey, Alison 20–1, 73, 88 majority language 19, 35, 51–2 Martínez-Flor, Alicia 1, 14, 23–5 May, Stephen 19, 49, 58 metadiscourse 19, 64, 80–3, 89, 120–21 metapragmatic awareness 26–7, 29 minority language(s) 1–2, 6, 10, 19, 34, 52, 105, 117 mixed method approach 3–4, 31, 33, 35, 61, 89, 115 models of communicative competence 1, 14 monolingual bias 16, 40, 46, 48, 56, 58, 62 monolingual native speakers 47–48, 123 multicompetence 5, 14–16, 47–8, 53–4, 58–9, 118 multidirectional interaction 38 multilingual approach 28, 124 multilingual classroom 2–5, 18–19, 28, 30, 34–6, 38, 57, 62, 72, 116, 120, 123 multilingual classroom context 5, 38, 72, 116, 120 multilingual turn 3, 5, 18, 49–50, 57–59, 62, 69, 116, 121 multilingualism 6, 40, 57–8, 69, 122–23

Index 165

noticing hypothesis 23 Odlin, Terence 16–17, 42, 44–6, 59 Ortega, Lourdes 3, 5, 15, 23, 25, 30, 44, 46, 48–9, 51, 58, 116 output hypothesis 23 Papp, Tünde 14–17, 46, 49, 53, 58, 61 pattern(s) 1, 28, 30, 33–4, 38–9, 44–5, 61, 66, 69, 83, 98, 108, 120 persuasive 74 persuasiveness 121 positive correlation hypothesis 66, 113, 118 pragmalinguistic(s) 15, 29–30, 38, 59–60, 62 pragmatic awareness 26–7, 29, 35, 117, 124 pragmatic failure 2, 61 pragmatic learning in the multilingual classroom 35 pragmatic marker(s) (PMs) 2–5, 18–19, 24, 27–8, 35, 44, 53, 59, 62–5, 68, 74–80, 82–3 pragmatic multicompetence 5, 118 pragmatic instruction 23, 31 pragmatics and TBLT 24 process-oriented/product-oriented 17, 41–2 proficiency level 3, 5–6, 18–19, 28, 44, 60, 62, 65–8, 71, 89, 105, 108–09, 111–15, 117–18 prompts 74, 76, 78, 119 qualitative analysis/qualitative results 19, 31, 34, 104–6, 117 quantitative analysis/quantitative results 33, 93–4, 104–6 questionnaire(s) 88, 136 ratio 89, 91–2, 109–10, 120, 124 relativist 44 Rinnert, Carol 5, 45, 58, 63–6, 74, 104, 106, 117 Ringbom, Håkan 43–4 Safont, Pilar 4–5, 17, 19–20, 31, 36–8, 46, 54, 62, 67, 74, 104–6, 113–15, 117–18, 122 second language factor 67, 105

secondary education 4–5, 12–13, 37, 71–3, 115 Separate Underlying Proficiency (SUP) 52 Sharwood Smith, Michael 14, 16–17, 46, 56 sociopragmatic(s) 15, 29–30, 34, 38, 59–60 Spanish-based instruction/programme(s) 11, 71–2 Speech act 4, 6, 32–5, 59–60, 62, 66, 73, 106, 115–16 Steffensen, Margaret S. 77, 120 Taguchi, Naoko vii, 2, 4, 22–33, 35, 37, 39, 73, 76, 78, 116, 118, 122, 124 task(s) (pragmatics-focused tasks/ argumentative writing task(s)) 3, 18, 32, 34, 37, 73 task-based approach 18, 24, 26 task-based instruction 27 Task-based language teaching (TBLT) 4, 23–6, 28, 36, 39, 72–3, 116, 124 task-based research 28 teaching pragmatics 22, 24, 31, 123–4 Third Language Acquisition 5, 16, 40, 49, 54, 56, 68–9, 116 transfer interlanguage 67, 105 language 13–14, 16, 18, 40, 42–3, 45–6, 57, 67, 105 multilingual pragmatic 3, 5–6, 13, 15–19, 38, 40, 65, 68, 90, 94, 104, 106, 108, 115–20, 122–3 pragmatic 3, 5–6, 13–19, 37–8, 40, 49, 58–62, 65–8, 89–90, 94, 104–6, 108, 113, 115–20, 122–3 sociopragmatic transfer 15, 59–60 in writing 45 typological distance 62 universalist 44–5 university entrance examinations 71, 74, 119 university entrance exams 4, 75–6, 119 Valencian Community 4, 6–11, 19, 59, 61