2015
DOI: 10.14746/sllt.2015.5.4.3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence

Abstract: This paper synthesizes cross-sectional studies of the effect of proficiency on second language (L2) pragmatics to answer the synthesis question: Does proficiency affect adult learners' pragmatic competence? Findings have revealed an overall positive proficiency effect on pragmatic competence, and in most cases higher proficiency learners have higher pragmatic competence. However, increased proficiency does not guarantee a native-like pragmatic performance because proficiency effect varies depending on the natu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(97 reference statements)
1
21
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Neben den spezifisch auf das Russische ausgerichteten methodisch-didaktischen Untersuchungen von Kolotova & Kofanova (2012) und Stadler (2015a, 2015b sei hier noch überblicksartig eine Reihe von Arbeiten vorgestellt, die sich der soziolinguistischen Kompetenz (Krulatz 2014(Krulatz , 2015 -ebenfalls für das Russische), der pragmatischen (Kanik 2013, Xiao 2015 und soziopragmatischen Kompetenz (Blattner & Fiori 2011) in anderen Sprachen widmen. So untersucht Krulatz (2014) …”
Section: Ein Kurzer Forschungsüberblickunclassified
“…Neben den spezifisch auf das Russische ausgerichteten methodisch-didaktischen Untersuchungen von Kolotova & Kofanova (2012) und Stadler (2015a, 2015b sei hier noch überblicksartig eine Reihe von Arbeiten vorgestellt, die sich der soziolinguistischen Kompetenz (Krulatz 2014(Krulatz , 2015 -ebenfalls für das Russische), der pragmatischen (Kanik 2013, Xiao 2015 und soziopragmatischen Kompetenz (Blattner & Fiori 2011) in anderen Sprachen widmen. So untersucht Krulatz (2014) …”
Section: Ein Kurzer Forschungsüberblickunclassified
“…Thirdly, pragmatic development during SA is likely to vary across individual learners, and particularly across learners of different proficiency levels (e.g. Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012; see Xiao, 2015b, for a discussion of the effects of proficiency on L2 pragmatic development, and Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, forthcoming 2018, for a review of the influence of individual differences on L2 pragmatic development).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, as it ocurred with responses to the SOD-high situation, it is important to note that the higher group was more likely to negotiate a complaint across scenarios compared to the lower group, who barely used the negotiation sub-strategies. Following Xiao's (2015) suggestions, a possible explanation of these results could be that higher proficiency learners had more knowledge of fixed pragmalinguistic forms to perform the conventional acts of requesting and suggesting, whereas lower proficiency learners had a limited knowledge of those formulas.…”
Section: Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…
Research on the effect of language proficiency on L2 pragmatics seems to provide somewhat mixed results (Xiao, 2015). On that account, this paper investigates the effect of English language proficiency on English language learner's use of complaining strategies in contrasting situations which varied according to the sociopragmatic factors of social status, social distance and severity of offense.
…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation