Contrastive Pragmatics and Second Language (L2) Pragmatics: Approaches to Assessing L2 Speech Act Production

Abstract

This state-of-the-art paper discusses common approaches to the assessment of pragmatic competence. Two approaches have dominated the assessment practice in the field of second language (L2) pragmatics. One approach, rooted in the tradition of contrastive pragmatics, involves comparing and contrasting L2 learners’ pragmalinguistic forms with those of native speakers to determine whether L2 forms approximate native speaker forms. The other approach, rooted in the tradition of performance-based assessment, involves using a rating scale to evaluate L2 pragmatic performance based on multiple criteria (e.g., clarity of intention, formality level of expressions, and interaction abilities). Focusing on the area of speech act assessment, this paper presents an overview of these two approaches, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. By doing so, the paper intends to illustrate the interface between contrastive pragmatics and L2 pragmatics. The paper concludes with critical insights in terms of what is missing in these approaches under the current trend of globalization and intercultural communication.

Speech acts and interaction in second language pragmatics: A position paper

“…Another advantage of our interactional typology of speech acts is that it enables a systematic comparison of speech act-related phenomena in both the learner's L1 and L2 (see a relevant overview of contrastive methodologies in L2 pragmatics in Taguchi & Li, 2020). While using a contrastive pragmatic methodology can have its own pitfalls (see an overview in , we would like to emphasise the important conceptual and methodological advantage of incorporating a contrastive comparative approach into speech act analysis.…”

Comparing holistic and analytic marking methods in assessing speech act production in L2 Chinese

“…In view of the findings from general L2 performance assessment (as discussed earlier), it is likely that results of pragmatics assessment would differ with these two marking methods. This constellation of factors may render it difficult for pragmatics researchers to apply the research findings from studies that adopted different marking methods (Taguchi & Li, 2021). This study can shed light on this issue by directly comparing the two marking methods within the context of pragmatic skills assessment.…”

“…Li et al, 2019). Although both holistic and analytic marking methods have been widely adopted in the field (Taguchi & Li, 2021; Taguchi & Roever, 2017), no published study has investigated the comparative effects of the two marking methods on assessing pragmatic performance, which suggests a lack of empirical basis for pragmatics researchers and classroom teachers measuring pragmatic skills to make informed decisions on which marking method to use.…”

Social distance and speech behavior: A case of Pakistani English speakers’ apology responses

“…These three principal points along the continuum are highlighted in the present study in order to achieve consistency with other speech act research that has studied the social distance variable. The work of Li et al (2019) as well as that of Taguchi and Li (2020), Culpeper et al (2018) and others used these broad categories of social distance relationships in their data analysis.…”