The study reported in this paper investigated the pragmatic aspects of
task-performance in a series of argumentation tasks that 24 Hungarian learners of
English performed over a period of two years. The aim of our research project was to
determine how task-repetition, the long-term development of language skills, and a
short-term focused intervention influenced various pragmatic measures of
task-performance such as the pragmalinguistic markers of argumentation, the number
of claims, counterclaims, supports and counter-supports. We also analysed how these
variables differed when the participants performed the same type of task in their
mother tongue. The results showed that in the repeated version of the task,
familiarity with the task structure helped learners pay more attention to the
informational content of their message, which was reflected in the higher number of
supportive moves they produced. Participants were found to have better argumentation
skills in their mother tongue and used a wider variety of pragmalinguistic markers
than in L2. The language development assumed to have taken place during one year and
the argumentation training, however, did not result in better pragmatic and
pragmalinguistic performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
and
Dörnyei, Z.1998:
Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs.
grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning
. TESOL Quarterly32:
232-262
.
2.
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
and
Hartford, B.1993:
Learning the rules of academic talk: a longitudinal study of pragmatic development
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition15:
279-304
.
3.
Blum-Kulka, S.
and
Ohlstain, E.1986:
Too many words: length of utterance and pragmatic failure
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition8:
47-61
.
4.
Bygate, M.1996a: Effects of task repetition: appraising the developing
language of learners. In
Willis, D.
and
Willis, J.
, editors, Challenge: change in language teaching.
London: Heinemann
, 136-146.
5.
Bygate, M.
1996b:
Effects of task repetition on language structure and control
. Paper presented at AAAL Conference, March
1996, Chicago, IL.
6.
Bygate, M.
1999:
Words and phrases in argumentation and narrative tasks: do tasks activate
different nerve endings?
Paper presented at TESOL Convention, March
1999, New York, NY.
7.
Connor, U.1990:
Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing
. Research in the Teaching of English24:
67-87
.
8.
Connor, U.
and
Lauer, J.1985:
Understanding persuasive essay writing: linguistic/rhetorical approach
. Text5:
309-326
.
9.
Connor, U.
and
Lauer, J.1988: Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student
writing. In
Purves, A. C.
, editor, Writing across languages and cultures.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
, 138-159.
10.
Csölle, A.
and
Károly, K.1999: Patterns in FL spoken argumentative text structure.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
Dörnyei, Z.
and
Katona, L.1992:
Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners
. Language Testing9:
187-206
.
12.
Dörnyei, Z.
and
Kormos, J.1998:
Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication: a psycholinguistic perspective
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition20:
349-385
.
13.
Dörnyei, Z.
and
Kormos, J.2000:
The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance
. Language Teaching Research4:
275-300
.
14.
Dörnyei, Z.
and
Thurrell, S.1992: Conversation and dialogues in action.
New York: Prentice Hall
.
15.
Duff, P.1986: Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to
task. In
Day, R.
, editor, Talking to learn.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
.
16.
Ellis, R.1992:
Learning to communicate in the classroom
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition14:
1-23
.
17.
Enkvist, N. E.1985:
Text linguistics and written composition
. Text5:
284-302
.
18.
Faerch, C.
and
Kasper, G.1989: Internal and external modification in interlanguage request
realization. In
Blum-Kulka, S.
,
House, J.
and
Kasper, G.
, editors, Cross-cultural pragmatics.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex
, 221-247.
19.
Foster, P.
and
Skehan P.1996:
The influence of planning and task type on second language performance
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition18:
293-323
.
20.
Glendinning, E.
and
Mantell, H.1983: Write ideas: an intermediate course in writing skills.
London: Longman
.
21.
Hoey, M. P.1983: On the surface of discourse.
London: Allen & Unwin
.
22.
House, J.1996:
Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and
metapragmatic awareness
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition18:
225-252
.
23.
House, J.
and
Kasper, G.1987: Interlanguage pragmatics: requesting in a foreign
language. In
Lorscher, W.
and
Schulze, R.
, editors, Perspectives on language performance: Festschrift for Werner
Hullen.
Tübingen: Narr
, 1250-1288.
24.
Kasper, G.
and
Schmidt, R.1997:
Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition18:
149-169
.
25.
Klein-Braley, C.1985:
A close-up on the C-test: a study in the construct validation of authentic tests
. Language Testing2:
76-104
.
26.
Klein-Braley, C.
and
Raatz, U.1984:
A survey on research on the C-test
. Language Testing1:
134-146
.
27.
Kopperschmidt. J
. 1985: An analysis of argumentation. In
van Dijk, T. A.
, editor, Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 3.
London: Academic Press
, 159-169.
28.
Maeshiba, N.
,
Yoshinaga, N.
,
Kasper, G.
and
Ross, S.1996: Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage
apologizing. In
Gass, S.
and
Neu, J.
, editors, Speech acts across cultures.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
, 155-187.
29.
Ohlstain, E.
and
Blum-Kulka, S.1985: Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native
speech behaviour. In
Gass, S. M.
and
Madden, C.
, editors, Input in second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
, 303-325.
30.
Pica, T.
,
Kanagy, R.
and
Falodun, J.1993: Choosing and using communication tasks for language
instruction. In
Crookes, G.
and
Gass, S. M.
, editors, Tasks and language learning: integrating theory and
practice.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
, 10-34.
31.
Robinson, P.1995:
Task complexity and second language narrative discourse
. Language Learning45:
99-140
.
32.
Robinson, P.
,
Ting, C. C.
and
Urwin, J. J.1996:
Investigating second language task complexity
. RELC Journal26:
62-79
.
33.
Schiffrin, D.1985: Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in
talk. In
van Dijk, T. A.
, editor, Handbook of discourse analysis. Vol. 3.
London: Academic Press
, 35-46.
Skehan, P.1998b: A cognitive approach to language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
36.
Skehan, P.
and
Foster, P.
1996:
Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance
. Paper presented at the AAAL conference,
Chicago, IL.
37.
Skehan, P.
and
Foster, P.1997:
The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and
complexity in task-based learning
. Language Teaching Research1:
185-211
.
38.
Takahashi, T.
and
Beebe, L.1987:
The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English
. JALT Journal8:
131-151
.
39.
Tirkonnen-Condit, S.1985: Argumentative text structure and translation.
Jyvaskykla: University of Jyvaskala
.
40.
Toulmin, S.1958: The uses of argument.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
41.
Toulmin, S.
,
Rieke, R.
and
Janik, A.1979: An introduction to reasoning.
New York: Macmillan
.
42.
Trosborg, A.1987:
Apology strategies in natives/non-natives
. Journal of Pragmatics9:
147-167
.
43.
Varghese, S. A.
and
Abraham, S. A.1998:
Undergraduates arguing a case
. Journal of Second Language Writing7:
287-306
.
44.
van Eemeren, F. H.
and
Grootendorst, R.1984: Speech acts in argumentative discussions.
Dordrechts-Holland: Foris
.
45.
van Eemeren, F. H.
,
Grootendorst, R.
,
Jackson, S.
and
Jacobs, S.1997: Argumentation. In
van Dijk, T. A.
, editor, Discourse as structure and process.
London: Sage
, 208-229.
Wildner-Bassett, M.1994:
Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘polite’
noises for cultural appropriateness
. International Review of Applied Linguistics32:
3-17
.
