Metapragmatic awareness and pragmatic production of third language learners of English: A focus on request acts realizations*1

Abstract

The present study attempts to expand the scope of investigation on the role of bilingualism in third language use. Recent studies have attributed an advantage to bilinguals over monolinguals with respect to particular aspects of language use like communicative sensitivity(Oskaar, 1990), metalinguistic awareness(Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Jessner, 1999; Lasagabaster, 1998) and interactional competence(Jessner, 1997). Nevertheless, very little research to date has been devoted to investigate pragmatic competence of third language learners(Fouser, 1997). On that account, our study aims at ascertaining the effect of bilingualism in third language learners' pragmatic production and metapragmatic awareness with a focus on request acts linguistic formulations. Regarding pragmatic production, we analyzed the use of request formulae by 80 monolingual(Castilian) and 80 bilingual(Catalan and Castilian) female learners of English as a foreign language in a discourse completion test and role-play task. We also contrasted participants' responses to a discourse evaluation test in determining their degree of metapragmatic awareness. Results from our analysis point to the advantage of bilinguals over monolinguals in justifying their evaluation on the appropriateness of certain requests'strategies to particular contexts, as well as on their use of request realizations. Findings from our study seem to call for further research on the pragmatic competence of third language learners of English thereby considering other speech acts or pragmatic aspects and also by analyzing subjects from different linguistic backgroun ds.

Language Learning and Control in Monolinguals and Bilinguals

“…In natural language instruction, where training is constant and final proficiency varies, bilinguals outperform monolinguals in learning novel language vocabulary (Cenoz, 2003; Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009a,b; Keshavarz & Astaneh, 2004; Sanz, 2000; Thomas, 1992; van Hell & Mahn, 1997), grammar (Klein, 1995; Sanz, 2000; Thomas, 1992), and pragmatic rules (Safont Jorda, 2003). Differences in language transfer (MacWhinney, 2007; Murphy, 2003), metalinguistic awareness, (Jessner, 1999, 2008), and phonological working memory (Papagno & Vallar, 1995) are thought to contribute to the bilingual language learning advantage, but by training participants to a proficiency criterion, the effect of these factors on our results is reduced.…”

Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching

“…In a number of studies, mainly carried out in Scandinavia and the Basque territory, an additive effect of bilingualism on third language learning, which in these cases was English, was found (Cenoz and Valencia 1994;Lasagabaster 1997;Safont 2003;Thomas 1992). Cenoz (2003) presented a detailed, critical review of studies on the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development, which she based on an extensive overview of research on bilingualism and additional language learning.…”

Predictors Revised: Linguistic Knowledge and Metalinguistic Awareness in Second Language Gain in Russian

“…Interest in metacognition is growing in the field of learning, and metacognitive strategies are being adapted to specific teaching curricula in, for example, elementary education, math, and science (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). In SLA, research involving metacognition has focused on the role of metalinguistic awareness in language learning and language use in relation to bilingualism (Jessner, 1999;Safont Jorda, 2003;Thomas, 1988), third language acquisition (Cenoz, 2001(Cenoz, , 2003Cenoz & Valencia, 1994), and cross-training (Rivers, 2001). In general, the pertinent literature suggests that more experienced learners use a wider variety of metacognitive learning strategies and demonstrate more metacognitive selfawareness than less experienced learners.…”