Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners' experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines The present study investigates second language (L2) learners' pragmatic development during study abroad (SA) programs by focusing on the recognition of pragmatic routines, and how sociocultural adaptation and intensity of interaction influence pragmatic gains. It is a longitudinal investigation that employed a mixed-method approach. Thirty-one Brazilian students in their first semester of study in a US university completed a pretest and posttest version of a sociocultural adaptation questionnaire, a language contact survey, and a routine recognition test. Quantitative data were complemented with qualitative information from semi-structured interviews with 2 of the participants, who provided details about the nature of their adaptation experiences and the patterns of interaction they held during the sojourn. Findings revealed that the recognition of pragmatic routines significantly increased during a semester abroad, and that this development was influenced by both sociocultural adaptation and intensity of interaction, interaction being the main predictor of pragmatic gains. Results from this study emphasize the importance of SA programs for the acquisition of pragmatic routines, and suggest that learners' willingness to acculturate in the SA environment, and exposure to recurrent situations outside of the classroom are determinant aspects for routine recognition. Keywords: L2 pragmatic development; interlanguage pragmatics; pragmatic routines; sociocultural adaptation; intensity of interaction; pragmatic awareness 2. Theoretical background 2.1 Pragmatic development in the study abroad context In the recent years, the field of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) has seen a proliferation of longitudinal studies addressing the development of pragmatic competence over a period of time studying abroad (see Xiao, 2015a, for a review of longitudinal ILP studies). As different scholars have argued (e.g. Taguchi, 2015), developmental studies are particularly necessary in the ILP field. Given the non-linear and variable nature of L2 pragmatic development, the analysis of the processes rather than the outcomes of SA provides a more comprehensive understanding of the SA experience. Nowadays, there is substantial evidence of the benefits of participation in SA programs for the development of L2 pragmatic ability (Barron, 2003;

A mixed-methods study of the impact of sociocultural adaptation on development of pragmatic production This study employs a mixed-method research approach to investigate the effect of sociocultural adaptation on the development of pragmatic production in a study abroad (SA) context. It focuses on the ability to produce pragmatic routines, and whether sociocultural adaptation experiences by learners of different cultural backgrounds predict pragmatic gains. Seventy-eight college students participating in SA programs in the US completed a pre-test and a post-test version of a sociocultural adaptation scale (SCAS) and of a written discoursecompletion task (DCT) that measured their ability to use prototypical routines. Supplementary interviews to a subset of 2 students provided further insights on the nature of their adaptation experiences. A quantitative analysis revealed that sociocultural adaptation development had a partial effect on pragmatic gains, due to the mediation of learners' background culture, which had a direct influence on routine production. The qualitative analysis revealed individual trajectories that illustrated the interplay among sociocultural adaptation, background culture, and gains in production of pragmatic routines.

The increasing mobility of speakers of different languages to different countries, together with the globalized world we live in, have led to multilingual societies in which linguistic exchanges between both native and non-native speakers have become a very common practice. This reality emphasizes the need to help learners of foreign and second languages become not only linguistically competent but also pragmatically competent, in order not to sound impolite or inappropriate in the target language. Addressing this need, studies in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have explored which methodology is most effective for teaching pragmatics. Earlier ILP studies compared explicit versus implicit instruction, highlighting the key role of explicit metapragmatic explanations. More recently, scholars have investigated how to create opportunities to for authentic pragmatic practice inside the classroom. To do so, some studies have implemented task-based language teaching to provide students with goal-oriented meaningful activities that address their real-world needs. Other studies have incorporated technology-enhanced materials such as simulated immersive environments and computer-mediated communication to promote students’ engagement in authentic use of the language beyond the classroom. Another current concern in L2 pragmatic instruction is how to account for the emergence of English as an International Language (EIL), and the consequent need to guide learners into acquiring language as a tool to mediate across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Different studies have adopted an EIL perspective, proposing the enhancement of students’ metapragmatic awareness and strategies to deal with the hybrid nature of English and its associated varieties and cultures. The special issue ‘Teaching second language pragmatics in the current era of globalization’ aims to illustrate such current trends, with six contributions by distinguished scholars in the field of L2 pragmatics from all over the globe.

No abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the production of pragmatic markers (PMs) by multilingual students in a CLIL context. Previous studies have analyzed pragmatic competence in multilingual settings (e.g., Cenoz, 2003; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015; Portolés, 2015; Safont & Portolés, 2016). However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the use of PMs across languages at the oral level in the multilingual classroom. As suggested by Nashaat-Sobhy (2017, p. 69), there is a need for studies that support or refute whether CLIL helps students communicate more appropriately. In an attempt to fill this gap, the overall aim of this research study is to explore how multilingual students use PMs across languages –namely Spanish, Catalan and English- in terms of frequency and type of PM. Participants were 19 Spanish students in an instructional context where three languages are in contact, namely English, Catalan and Spanish. They completed a language background questionnaire and comparable oral decision-making tasks carried out in pairs, one task in each of the target languages. The analysis explored the frequency and type of PMs (i.e. textual and interpersonal markers). Findings revealed significant differences in the frequency and type of both interpersonal and textual PMs across the three languages, shedding some light on the particular characteristics of the pragmatic competence of multilingual learners in a CLIL setting.

The present study examines second language (L2) learners' development of cross-cultural sensitivity (CCS) during study abroad (SA) programs, and how intensity of interaction with L2 speakers influences the reported gains. A group of US college students participating in a SA program in Mexico completed the Inventory of Cross-Cultural Sensitivity (ICCS) questionnaire (Cushner, 1986), a language contact questionnaire, and 10 weekly journal entries. The results revealed that learners did not significantly develop their CCS. Intensity of interaction, however, was enhanced during the semester, although it did not seem to affect CCS gains. Qualitative data provided insights into the reasons behind the reported development.

The current era of globalization and emergence of English as an international language (EIL) has brought about new opportunities for L2 pragmatic learning and teaching. The common view of pragmatic learning as an approximation to native-likeness is changing towards conceiving pragmatic ability as a tool to interact with people of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, the majority of whom are non-native speakers (NNSs) of English. While such reality is widely acknowledged, few attempts have been made to teach pragmatic competence in EIL. Addressing this concern, the present study investigates the effects that a pedagogical intervention on EIL pragmatics has on the oral use of pragmatic markers (PMs): a key tool for successful communication in the current increasingly multicultural and multilingual society. Seventy-three Spanish EFL students were divided into an instructional ( n = 34) and a control group ( n = 39). The instructional group received 4 interventional sessions that included (1) awareness of the legitimacy of EIL, (2) meta-pragmatic awareness of pragmatic behavior across the world, (3) task-supported instruction on PMs, and (4) strategy-based instruction. Pragmatic competence was assessed by students’ use of PMs in oral academic presentations. The results revealed that the instructional group had more significant changes in the frequency and variety of PMs used than the control one, as they widened the repertoire of PMs uttered in their academic presentations. These findings project the future of pragmatic instruction in EIL and provide directions for reorienting the EIL curriculum towards the integration of L2 pragmatics.

This special issue illustrates current research on the development of second language (L2) pragmatic competence in study abroad (SA) contexts. In doing so, it accounts for the complexity entailed in learning the linguistic and sociocultural norms of interaction with people of diverse backgrounds while facing the multiple challenges involved in adapting to a new and unknown setting. This introduction to the special issue presents key topics and previous findings that frame such processes of L2 pragmatic development. These include (1) a description of study abroad as a context for L2 pragmatic development, (2) pragmatic targets that students learn during SA, (3) internal and external factors that are likely to play a role in the learning process, and (4) the role of instruction in helping students maximize their stays abroad in terms of pragmatic learning. Finally, an overview of the articles included in this special issue is provided, highlighting how they contribute to the key themes illustrated throughout this introductory section.