Home A Comparative Study of the L2 Pragmatic Competence of University Students in Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland: The Contributions of Sociocultural Context and Linguistic Proficiency
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A Comparative Study of the L2 Pragmatic Competence of University Students in Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland: The Contributions of Sociocultural Context and Linguistic Proficiency

  • Scott Aubrey

    Scott Aubrey (the corresponding author) is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research efforts have focused on learner engagement, task-based language teaching, and instructed second language acquisition.

    EMAIL logo
    and Rod Ellis

    Rod Ellis is Distinguished Research Professor at Curtin University, Australia, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of the University of Auckland, a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand and in the top 1% of social and humanities scientists in the world. He has held teaching positions in universities in Zambia, UK, Japan, USA, New Zealand and Australia and has conducted talks and seminars throughout the world on second language acquisition and task-based language teaching.

Published/Copyright: September 18, 2024
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students. Participants included 19 native speakers of English, 115 Chinese mainland students, divided into those who had spent time abroad in an English-speaking country (CM A) and those who had not (CM NA), and 97 Hong Kong students, divided into those from an English-medium secondary school (Hong Kong EMI) and those from a Chinese-medium school (Hong Kong CMI). Linguistic proficiency was measured by a C-test, and pragmatic competence by a Metapragmatic Knowledge Test, an Irony Test and a Monologic Role Play. Group scores were compared using ANCOVAs to control for differences in proficiency. The results point to a continuum of pragmatic competence—EMI > CMI > CM A > CM NA—reflecting the groups’ access to English in real-life contexts. The differences between the Hong Kong groups and the Chinese mainland groups were clearest in those tests measuring processing capacity (i. e., Irony Response Time and the Monologic Role Play). CM A, but not CM NA, performed as well as the Hong Kong groups on measures of metapragmatic awareness. The results are discussed in terms of Bialystok’s (1993) distinction between analyzed representation and control of processing.

About the authors

Scott Aubrey

Scott Aubrey (the corresponding author) is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research efforts have focused on learner engagement, task-based language teaching, and instructed second language acquisition.

Rod Ellis

Rod Ellis is Distinguished Research Professor at Curtin University, Australia, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of the University of Auckland, a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand and in the top 1% of social and humanities scientists in the world. He has held teaching positions in universities in Zambia, UK, Japan, USA, New Zealand and Australia and has conducted talks and seminars throughout the world on second language acquisition and task-based language teaching.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the help of Carsten Roever, University of Melbourne, in designing the pragmatics tests, Yan Zhu, Fudan University, for collecting the Chinese mainland data, and Natsuko Shintani, Kansai University, for collecting the native-speaker data.

References

Al-Ghatani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Role-playing L2 requests: Head acts and sequential organization. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 42-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr03110.1093/applin/amr031Search in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2019). Routines in L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 47-62). Routledge.10.4324/9781351164085-4Search in Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/358758310.2307/3587583Search in Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp 43-58). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195066029.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Bolton, K., Bacon-Shone, J., & Luke, K. K. (2020). Hong Kong English. In B. Kingsley, W. Botha & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 449-478). Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118791882.ch19Search in Google Scholar

Bouton, L. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberatively taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157-167. https://doi. org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90065-510.1016/0378-2166(94)90065-5Search in Google Scholar

Chan, J. Y. H., & Walsh, S. (2023). English learning and use in Hong Kong’s bilingual education: Implications for L2 learners’ development of interactional competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.1248610.1111/ijal.12486Search in Google Scholar

Chiang, B. (2016). Pragmatic norms of request making of spoken business English in Hong Kong. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Education University of Hong Kong.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL learners. Language Testing, 9(2), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322920090020610.1177/026553229200900206Search in Google Scholar

Education Bureau. (2023). English language education—Curriculum documents. https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/kla/eng-edu/curriculum-documents.html.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Roever, C., Shintani, N., & Zhu, Y. (2024). Measuring second language pragmatic competence. Multilingual Matters.10.21832/ELLIS7731Search in Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2007). Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 4(2), 159-185. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.4.2.03fel10.1075/sic.4.2.03felSearch in Google Scholar

Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2013). Refusing in L2 Spanish: The effects of the context of learning during a short-term study abroad program. In O. Martí -Arnándiz & P. Salazar-Campillo (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 147-173). Brill.10.1163/9789401209717_009Search in Google Scholar

Ficzere, E. (2019). An investigation into assessing ESL learners’ pragmatic competence at BC-A2 levels (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bedfordshire.Search in Google Scholar

Gil, J., & Adamson, B. (2011). The English language in the Chinese mainland: A sociolinguistic profile. In A. Feng (Ed.), English language education across greater China (pp. 23-45). Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847693518-004Search in Google Scholar

Grotjahn, R. (1987). How to construct and evaluate a c-test: A discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. In R. Grotjahn, C. Klein-Braley & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Taking their measure: The validity and validation of language test (pp. 219-253). Bochum.Search in Google Scholar

Ikeda, N. (2017). Measuring L2 oral pragmatic abilities for use in social contexts: Development and validation of an assessment instrument for L2 pragmatics performance in university settings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne.Search in Google Scholar

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001486810.1017/S0272263100014868Search in Google Scholar

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230240766Search in Google Scholar

Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.1203710.1111/flan.12037Search in Google Scholar

Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language history questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 202-210. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF0319277010.3758/BF03192770Search in Google Scholar

Lo, Y. Y., & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programs in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24(3), 215-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950078090357612510.1080/09500780903576125Search in Google Scholar

Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465-491. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/2410.1093/applin/24.4.465Search in Google Scholar

McConachy, T., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2020). Developing pragmatic awareness. In K. P. Schneider & E. Ifantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics (pp. 393-428). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110431056-014Search in Google Scholar

Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524797.008Search in Google Scholar

Osnos, E. (2014). The party and the people. The New Yorker, 90(31), 45.Search in Google Scholar

Pan, L. (2015). English as a global language in China. Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-10392-1Search in Google Scholar

Rao, Z. (2013). Teaching English as a foreign language in China: Looking back and forward: Reconciling modern methodologies with traditional ways of language teaching. English Today, 29(3), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026607841300029110.1017/S0266078413000291Search in Google Scholar

Roever, C., & Ikeda, N. (2022). What scores from monologic speaking tests can(not) tell us about interactional competence. Language Testing, 29(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532221100333210.1177/02655322211003332Search in Google Scholar

Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S. (2014). Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(4), 377-401. https://doi. org/10.1515/iral-2014-001610.1515/iral-2014-0016Search in Google Scholar

Sauer, L., & Ellis, R. (2019). The social lives of adolescent study abroad learners and their L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 739-762. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.1258910.1111/modl.12589Search in Google Scholar

Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language learning, 56(2), 269-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.xSearch in Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Search in Google Scholar

Shepard, C., & Rose, H. (2023). English medium higher education in Hong Kong: Linguistic challenges of local and non-local students. Language and Education 37(6), 788-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.224057110.1080/09500782.2023.2240571Search in Google Scholar

Shimizu, T. (2009). Influence of learning context on L2 pragmatic realization: A comparison between JSL and JFL learners’ compliment responses. In T. Shimizu (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 167-198). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110218558.167Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2022). The roles of language proficiency and study abroad in Japanese students’ receptive pragmatic competence. Applied Pragmatics, 4(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.20011.shi10.1075/ap.20011.shiSearch in Google Scholar

Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818-1835.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2008a). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in English as a second language. Language Learning, 58(1), 33-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.xSearch in Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2008b). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 423-452. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310808071610.1017/S0272263108080716Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics: Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 333-361). Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214444.2.333Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904-939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.0063310.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00633.xSearch in Google Scholar

Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124-137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481500044010.1017/S0261444815000440Search in Google Scholar

Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tseng, W. -T., Liu, Y. -T., Hsu, Y. -T., & Chu, H. -C. (2024). Revisiting the effectiveness of study abroad language programs: A multi-level meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 156-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216882098842310.1177/1362168820988423Search in Google Scholar

Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783091409Search in Google Scholar

Vidal, C. P., & Shively, R. L. (2019). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad settings. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 355-371), Routledge.10.4324/9781351164085-23Search in Google Scholar

Xiao, F. (2015). Adult second language learners’ pragmatic development in the study-abroad context: A review. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 25(1), 132-149. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v25i1.34910.36366/frontiers.v25i1.349Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, L., & Aubrey, S. (2024). The role of individual differences in second language pragmatics: A systematic review. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.1257310.1111/ijal.12573Search in Google Scholar

Appendix A: Skewness and Kurtosis z Values

Skewness z-Value/Kurtosis z-Value

Measure CM NA CM A Hong Kong CMI Hong Kong EMI NS
IRT Accuracy -.30 / -.59 -.86 / .88 .14 / −1.06 -.93 / .37 -.70 / -.26
IRT Response Time −1.22 / 1.39 -.99 / 1.73 -.64 / .15 -.38 / .03 -.24 / -.56
MKT .78 / .48 .10 / -.80 .02 / -.49 -.31 / -.64 -.53 / -.54
MRP Gen. Structure −1.11 / .54 .00 / -.04 -.58 / -.36 -.16 / -.73 -.21 / -.66
MRP Prag. Features .10 / .37 .20 / -.91 .27 / -.96 -.12 / -.69 -.32 / -.17
C-test .36 / -.57 -.38 / -.69 -.10 / -.66 .08 / -.82 -.82 / -.15
  1. Note. z-scores did not exceed +/-1.96, indicating normal distribution.

Published Online: 2024-09-18
Published in Print: 2024-09-25

© 2024 BFSU, FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Downloaded on 15.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/CJAL-2024-0301/html
Scroll to top button