Applied Linguistics 2007 Taguchi 113 35

Applied Linguistics 28/1: 113135 Oxford University Press 2007doi:10.1093/applin/aml051

Task Difficulty in Oral Speech ActProduction

NAOKO TAGUCHI

Carnegie Mellon University

This study took a pragmatic approach to examining the effects of task difficulty

on L2 oral output. Twenty native English speakers and 59 Japanese students

of English at two different proficiency levels produced speech acts of requests

and refusals in a role play task. The task had two situation types based on three

social variables: interlocutors power difference (P), social distance (D), and the

degree of imposition (R). In one situation type, the power relationship was

equal, the distance was small, and the degree of imposition was small

(PDR-low). In the other situation type, the listener had greater power, the

distance was large, and the degree of imposition was also large (PDR-high).

The participants production was analyzed for overall appropriateness (rated on

a 6-point scale), planning time, and speech rate. Results showed that L2 learners

produced PDR-low speech acts significantly more easily and quickly, but little

difference was observed in native speakers production. There was a significant

proficiency effect on appropriateness ratings and speech rate, but not on

planning time. Post hoc analyses showed that each group demonstrated different

patterns in the choice of linguistic expressions over the two situation types,

indicating the noteworthy impact of situational variation on oral speech

act production.

In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), there has been growing

attention on the nature of tasks in which second language (L2) learners

engage to achieve language functions (Bygate et al. 2001; Crookes and Gass

1993; Ellis 2003; Robinson 2001; Skehan 1996, 1998). When describing

tasks, previous research mainly used variables from a cognitive, information-

processing perspective to operationalize task difficulty (e.g. the demands on

memory, time pressure) (Skehan 1996, 1998). For instance, tasks that use

unfamiliar information, involve numerous steps for completion, and provide

no planning time are considered more difficult to perform than simpler,

familiar tasks that involve only a few operations and provide plenty of

planning time. These psycholinguistic dimensions have been manipulated in

developing different task types. Previous research has analyzed learner

production elicited through different tasks or the same task with different

variables, and provided empirical evidence that features of L2 oral output,

such as accuracy, fluency, and complexity, vary by task type (e.g. Bygate

1999; Chang 1999; Robinson 1995, 2001; Robinson et al. 1995; Skehan and

Foster 1999; Wigglesworth 1997, 2001).

at University of H

uddersfield on April 12, 2015

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Although previous findings have generally confirmed that the psycho-

linguistic dimensions of tasks have consistent effects on performance, what

is lacking in the existing literature is the inclusion of pragmatic conditions in

defining task difficulty. Because the central objective of language teaching is

to develop learners communicative abilitythe ability to use linguistic

resources to perform functions in contextrecent literature has focused on

the social dimensions of language tasks. Within L2 pragmatics in particular,

social and interpersonal factors (e.g. speakers social distance and the degree

of imposition), have been incorporated into tasks to elicit L2 pragmatic

production. Following this trend, this study takes a pragmatic approach

to examining task difficulty. It uses social and interpersonal dimensions to

develop task types. Learner output is analyzed for appropriateness and

production speed to examine the kind of impact such task variation might

have on L2 oral output. This investigation intends to provide insights into

what makes a task more difficult pragmatically and how the task difficulty

is manifested in learners oral production.

BACKGROUND

A task is described as a goal-oriented activity involving a meaningful,

real-world process of language use, and engages four language skills as well

as cognitive processes (Ellis 2003). A main objective in researching language

tasks has been to identify a set of task characteristics based on the assumption

that learner performance varies according to task characteristics. Recent

research has examined how different task types affect the quality of learner

output in classroom settings and in the context of assessment (Bygate 1999;

Bygate et al. 2001; Candlin 1987; Long and Crookes 1992; Nunan 1989;

McNamara 1996; Norris 2002; Norris et al. 1998; Robinson 2001; Skehan

2001; Swain and Lapkin 2001). The mainstream approach has been to apply

psycholinguistic categories to operationalize the degree of task difficulty

(Robinson 2001; Skehan 1996, 1998). Drawing on Candlins (1987) claim,

Skehan (1996, 1998) outlined three factors that contribute to task difficulty:

code complexity (the syntactic and lexical difficulty of language input),

cognitive complexity (the processing demands of tasks such as memory and

attention) and communicative stress (e.g. time pressure and the modality

demand). These psycholinguistics factors, once incorporated into the task

structure, are considered to produce differential demands, and consequently

affect the quality of learners performance (Robinson 2001).

Previous researchers manipulated these psycholinguistic factors to design

tasks to elicit learner output, and the output was analyzed with the measures

of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of language (Chang 1999; Robinson

1995, 2001; Robinson et al. 1995; Skehan and Foster 1999; Wigglesworth

1997, 2001). In Robinsons (2001) study, 44 Japanese learners of English

completed two map tasks: a simple task involving giving directions to places

in a small, familiar area and a complex task involving giving directions to

114 TASK DIFFICULTY IN ORAL SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION

at University of H



ownloaded from

locations within a large, unfamiliar area. It turned out that neither task had

significant impact on syntactic complexity, as measured by the number of

subordinate clauses produced, but in the complex task, the production was

more accurate (as measured by the number of error-free clauses) and less

fluent (as measured by the number of words per clause).

Another psycholinguistic factor in task difficulty, planning time (a factor

included in Skehans model of communicative stress) has been the focus of

a number of studies, based on the assumption that the quality of production

depends in part on efficient planning. Previous research has examined the

effect of planning time on L2 output, yielding generally confirmed findings

that planning time positively influences linguistic output (Crookes 1989;

Ellis 1987; Foster and Skehan 1996; Mehnert 1998; Ortega 1995; Skehan and

Foster 1997; Wigglesworth 1997; Yuan and Ellis 2003). Wigglesworth (1997)

examined the effect of planning time on 107 learners of English in spoken

test. Results revealed that, for high proficiency learners, planning time

helped to produce complex, fluent language, but there was no effect on

accuracy. Yuan and Ellis (2003) examined the effects of pre-task and online

planning on speech. Forty-two learners of English narrated a story orally

based on a picture. The learners were divided into three task conditions:

no-planning, pre-task planning in which they received 10 minutes to plan,

and online planning in which they had unlimited time to narrate the story.

Results showed that pre-task planning enhanced grammatical complexity,

fluency, and lexical variety, while online planning promoted accuracy.

To summarize, previous research operationalized task difficulty mainly

from a psycholinguistic perspective, incorporating factors that are likely to

affect learners cognitive processing load (e.g. time pressure, topic

familiarity). The findings showed that tasks with greater cognitive demands

affect L2 spoken output in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity.

However, questions remain as to whether the concept of task difficulty can

be applied to other task types, specifically, those tasks that are more

pragmatic-oriented in design and thus reflect social and interpersonal

conditions. It is questionable whether the social and interpersonal

dimensions of a task, if manipulated to increase or reduce task demands,

could influence learner output in measurable ways, and whether the effect is

observed differently according to learners proficiency levels. Because

different tasks are likely to encourage different types of language processing,

tasks that are pragmatic-orientated should be included in the line of research

on task difficulty.

Such investigation will be useful because it corresponds to the current

emphasis on the functional, communicative use of language in context in

L2 instruction (e.g. Council of Europe 2001). Paralleling this trend,

developmental studies of pragmatic competence have received much

attention (Kasper and Rose 2002). Investigation of pragmatic task

characteristics could be a way to examine pragmatic development, because

it informs us which pragmatic tasks are more difficult to perform and thus

NAOKO TAGUCHI 115

at University of H



ownloaded from

are mastered at a later stage of development, as well as what factors create

such task demands. Thus, in addition to the psycholinguistic approach,

a pragmatic approach should be applied to define task difficulty.

When developing pragmatic tasks, previous research used a unit of speech

acts (e.g. requests) following Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969).

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), social and interpersonal factors,

namely interlocutors power difference, the social distance between them,

and the degree of imposition, influence the directness levels of speech act

expressions. In a situation where the speech act involves a high degree of

imposition, is addressed to a person who has more power, and is in a more

distant relationship (e.g. asking a teacher for a recommendation letter),

a greater degree of politeness is required to allow the interlocutor to save

face. In contrast, when the speech act involves a low degree of imposition

and is produced for a person in an equal relationship (e.g. asking a friend for

a pen), a lesser degree of politeness is required. Thus, the social factors of

power, distance, and imposition are thought to make speech acts more

demanding to perform in certain situations than in others.

These social factors have been included in L2 speech act research to

develop different task situations (e.g. Blum-Kulka et al. 1989; Beebe et al.

1990; Maeshiba et al. 1996; Rose 2000; Trosborg 1995). These studies have

examined learners sociolinguistic sensitivity: whether learners could vary

their linguistic forms according to situations, thereby approximating native

speaker norms. Findings showed that the social factors in tasks affected

linguistic expressions, and the expressions differed according to learners

proficiency. Advanced learners used more native-like expressions across

situations.

Although abundant research has examined L2 speech act production over

different social situations, little has been done to explicitly link the concept

of task difficulty to the social demands of a task, as well as to the nature of

L2 output affected by the demands. Fulcher and Marquez-Reiters (2003)

study is one of the few in this direction. Their study examined a relationship

between social features of speech act tasks and the perceived difficulty of the

tasks by native speakers. Twenty-three Spanish- and 32 English-speaking

students watched video recordings of their role play performance of requests

and judged how successful their requests were, based on a 10-point scale.

Their perceived degree of task difficulty was notably high in the extreme

cases of social power and imposition. Fulcher and Marquez-Reiters study

suggests that social factors such as power, relationship, and the degree of

imposition could serve as useful factors in creating contrasting task conditions

and predict task difficulty, consequently affecting output in measurable ways.

More empirical effort is needed in L2 to confirm the usefulness of the social

factors in conceptualizing task difficulty.

When conceptualizing task difficulty, measures of language output elicited

through a task require careful consideration because they reveal how

features of learner output vary according to tasks. Previous research used the


at University of H



ownloaded from

measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity of linguistic output. In speech

acts, however, specific measures should be adapted to examine the impact

of social demands of tasks on learner output. Previous studies mainly

measured L2 speech acts based on learners knowledge, as exemplified in the

types of linguistic expressions, and the extent to which they approximated

native speaker choices (e.g. Maeshiba et al. 1996; Rose 2000; Trosborg 1995).

Other features that could serve as measures, such as overall appropriateness,

planning time, and oral fluency, have usually been neglected, consequently

limiting the analysis to syntactic features. As Kasper (2001) states, pragmatic

competence refers to the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge and to gaining

automatic control in processing it in real time. Thus, indications of

performance fluency, such as planning speed and oral fluency, which have

been used in task-related research, could provide additional useful

information from a processing perspective, that is, how rapidly they can

process pragmatic knowledge and convey speech intentions.

The knowledge dimension of speech acts is reflected in learners ability

to use appropriate speech act expressions. Pragmatic knowledge of appropri-

ateness reflects two major concepts: sociopragmatics (i.e. evaluation

of contextual factors) and pragmalinguistics (i.e. linguistic resources available

to perform language functions) (Kasper 1992; Leech 1983; Thomas 1983).

As Leech (1983) argues, pragmalinguistics is applied to the study of the more

linguistic and grammatical end of pragmatics, while sociopragmatics

is applied more toward the sociocultural end. Both are necessary elements

of pragmatic knowledge that determine appropriateness of L2 speech act

production.

The processing dimension of speech acts, on the other hand, is reflected

in learners cognitive efficiency in accessing and processing pragmatic

knowledge. Speed of performance is considered an indirect reflection of such

cognitive efficiency and provides an indication of processing abilities, rather

than knowledge (Juffs 2001; Lennon 1990). According to Levelt (1989),

speech production involves three interacting components: conceptualizer,

formulator, and articulator. Conceptualizer is the message-generation phase

where planning of the discourse direction occurs. Pre-verbal message then

moves to the formulation stage, where lemmas are activated, and

grammatical and phonological encoding take place. The encoded message

then becomes articulated. These different components work simultaneously.

De Bot (1992) adapted Levelts model to bilingual speakers. According

to de Bot, the conceptualizer is partly language-specific and partly

language-independent. Different formulators exist for each language, while

there is one lexicon. The articulator uses language independent speech

motor plans.

As illustrated in the models, speaking is a process of translating concepts

into linguistic units and articulating them online. It involves the process

of planning what to say and how to say it (Foss and Hakes, 1978;

Wiese 1985). Speakers evaluate linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge

NAOKO TAGUCHI 117

at University of H



ownloaded from

and make decisions about how to convey communicative intentions, and

articulate intentions using linguistic means. Fluent speech acts result from

rapid transformation of social concepts and articulation of the concepts.

In speech acts non-linguistic, social knowledge, such as speaker relationship

and goals of interaction, contributes to planning. Thus, two dimensions of

production, planning speed and speaking speed, could jointly promote fluent

speech acts.

In summary, with increasing attention being given to the characteristics

of language tasks in communicative situations, alternative means to

operationalize task characteristics are necessary. One means is to extend

the notion of task difficulty to speech act pragmatics by studying the social

dimensions of tasks and their impact on oral speech act production. When

examining the impact of task demands, measures of processing capacity, such

as speed in planning and articulation, combined with the measures

of appropriateness, could provide more complete information on the quality of

L2 speech acts across different task situations. These multiple criteria could

provide a means to measure the impact of task types on L2 output, and thereby

enhance our understanding of task difficulty in pragmatic production.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study used social variables to develop different task situations for speech

acts and analyzed L2 speech acts according to three criteria: overall

appropriateness, planning time, and oral fluency operationalized as speech

rate. The study also examined whether the task characteristics showed

differential effect according to learners proficiency levels. Three research

questions guided this investigation:

1 Do the type of social situations and L2 proficiency have differential effects

on the appropriateness of L2 speech act production?


on the planning speed of L2 speech act production?


on the speech rate of L2 speech act production?

METHODOLOGY

Participants

The participants were 59 Japanese learners of English in a Japanese

university. They formed two proficiency groups: 29 higher proficiency

students (15 males and 14 females, a mean age of 20.48, ranging from 17

to 25) and 30 lower proficiency students (15 males and 15 females, a mean

age of 19.19, ranging from 18 to 27), based on the institutional TOEFL scores

(ITP TOEFL) and teacher ratings of oral proficiency. The 8-point rating scale


at University of H



ownloaded from

of oral proficiency adapted from ACTFL (1986) and the Ontario Test of Oral

Interaction Assessment Bands (John 1992) was used to obtain information

about the learners general speaking ability from classroom instructors. The

higher L2 group (n 29) had an average ITP TOEFL score of 508, ranging from480 to 590. Their average oral proficiency rating was 5.48. The lower L2 group

(n 30) had an average ITP TOEFL score of 397, ranging from 330 to 457. Theiraverage oral proficiency rating was 2.56. Except for one higher learner, none of

the learners had more than six months experience of living overseas.

Pragmatic speaking task

The pragmatic speaking task measured the learners ability to understand

situational information and to perform two speech acts, requests and refusals,

in role plays (see Taguchi 2003, for the details of the task). This study used

closed role plays, namely a role play in which the actor responds to the

description of a situation to an interlocutors standardized initiation (Kasper

2000). Three contextual factors served to categorize two social situations:

interlocutors power difference (P), social distance (D), and the degree of

imposition (R) (Brown and Levinson 1987). In one situation type, the power

relationship was equal, the distance between the interlocutors was small, and

the degree of imposition was low (PDR-low). In the other situation type,

the listener had greater power, the interlocutor distance was large, and the

degree of imposition was also high (PDR-high).

To confirm the PDR-low and PDR-high distinctions, a survey was carried

out. This survey contained 12 situations and the subjects were asked

to indicate on a Likert scale from 1 (easy) to 7 (difficult) according to the

degree of perceived ease/difficulty in performing the target speech act socially.

The situations were constructed under the influence of five references: Beebe

et al. (1990), Hudson et al. (1995), Rose and Ono (1995), and Sasaki (1998).

Based on the existing literature, asking for a pen and refusing an offer

of coffee were selected as benchmark PDR-low situations. The rating of 4 on

the scale indicated essentially the same degree of ease/difficulty with

the benchmark situation. The greater the number was, the more difficult the

speech act was perceived to be to perform socially, because it is harder to avoid

giving offense in such a situation. The survey was given to 13 native speakers

of Japanese and 11 native speakers of English in their L1s.1 PDR-high

situations received higher ratings (mean 39.56, SD 2.84) than PDR-lowsituations (mean 25.04, SD 2.87), indicating that PDR-high speech actswere perceived to be more difficult to perform socially. The difference was

significant using a matched t-test (p5 .05). In addition to the two PDR-lowsituations used as benchmarks, the two situations with the lowest ratings

were selected for the present task. Among the six PDR-high situations, four

situations with the highest ratings were selected for the task. Table 1 displays

the situations used in this study and their ratings.

NAOKO TAGUCHI 119

at University of H



ownloaded from

The situations were presented in written form on a card in L1. Following

Hudson et al. (1995), all role play scenarios had the participants perform

another speech act in addition to the target one to divert their attention

away from the particular speech act under study. The task included one

practice situation and four test situations (see Appendix).

Measures

Three types of measures were used to analyze the learners speech act

production: appropriateness ratings, planning time, and oral fluency. The first

measure, appropriateness, was assessed using a six-point rating scale ranging

from zero to five (Table 2). The sum of the ratings of the four PDR-high

speech acts (range of 020) and the four PDR-low speech acts (range of 020)

were used for analysis.

Appropriateness was defined as the ability to perform language functions

appropriately in a social context and subsumed two elements:

sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics (Kasper 1992; Leech 1983; Thomas

1983). By addressing these two holistically, the scale determined to what

extent learners could use expressions at the proper level of directness in the

given situations. Grammatical and discourse competencies were incorporated

into the rating on the basis of the degree to which they interacted with

appropriateness. Several references served as sources when developing the

scale (Cohen 1994; North 2000).

Six native speakers, all experienced ESL instructors, evaluated the speech

acts.2 The interrater reliability was 0.90 for the whole samples. The samples

that had a large discrepancy in evaluation (i.e. those that were more than

one point offapproximately 2 percent of the total number of samples)

were discussed in follow-up meetings, and the average score of the two raters

was assigned as the final score.

Other measures used in this study aimed to reveal the impact of task types

on learners speed of pragmatic processing. Two temporal measures were

Table 1: Role-play situations for the pragmatic speaking task

Category Situations Mean rating SD

PDR-high Ask your teacher to reschedule the exam. 6.13 0.90

(P D R) Ask your boss to give you a day off. 6.17 0.76Refuse your bosss request to reschedule work. 6.25 0.74

Refuse the teachers advice to take summer classes. 6.00 0.83

PDR-low Ask your friend for a pen.

(PD I) Ask your sister to pass you the remote. 2.79 1.10Refuse your friends invitation to the movies. 4.46 1.10

Refuse your sisters offer of coffee.


at University of H



ownloaded from

used: pre-task planning time and speech rate. Planning time was

operationalized as the time taken to prepare for each role play prior to the

task. Speech rate was used as one component of oral fluency that refers to

fluidity or smoothness of language use (Freed 1995). Speech rate

(the number of words spoken per minute) has been used extensively

in the previous research of oral fluency (Ejzenberg 2000; Freed 2000; Lennon

1990; Riggenbach 1991; Towell 2002), as well as in some task-based studies

(e.g. Robinson 1995, 2001). Previous research also found that speech rate

positively correlated with other measures of fluency, such as length of speech

without pauses, hesitations, or repeats (Freed et al. 2004; Segalowitz and

Freed 2004). In this study, word counts excluded false starts and repetitions.

Data collection procedures

Data collection took place on campus. After completing a brief survey and

signing the informed consent form, the participants started the task. First,

task directions were given by a female native English speaker interlocutor

who interacted with each learner during role plays. The role play descriptions

were given via individual situation cards. Every time the interlocutor gave

a situation card to a participant, she said, Here is the situation card.

The participants were given an unlimited amount of time to prepare

mentally. When ready, the participants were instructed to say Im ready.

and then return the situation card to the interlocutor and begin the role play.

Planning time was measured from the moment when the interlocutor said

Here is the situation card. until the moment the participant said Im ready.

All interactions except the practice one were tape-recorded and transcribed.

Table 2: Simplified appropriateness rating scale for the pragmatic speakingtask

Ratings Descriptors

5 Excellent Expressions are fully appropriate.

No or almost no grammatical and discourse errors.

4 Good Expressions are mostly appropriate.

Very few grammatical and discourse errors.

3 Fair Expressions are only somewhat appropriate.

Grammatical and discourse errors are noticeable,but they do not interfere with appropriateness.

2 Poor Due to the interference from grammatical anddiscourse errors, appropriateness is difficult to determine.

1 Very poor Expressions are very difficult or too little to understand.There is no evidence that the intended speech acts are performed.

0 No performance

NAOKO TAGUCHI 121

at University of H



ownloaded from

Data analyses

This study examined whether the two social situation types (PDR-high and

PDR-low) have a differential effect on features of oral output, and whether

the effects differed according to the learners L2 proficiency. A series of

repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed on L2 learners appropriateness

scores, planning time (i.e. the time taken to prepare for the role plays),

and the average speech rate (i.e. the number of words produced per minute).

The between-subject factor was proficiency levels (i.e. high and low

proficiency groups), and the within-subject factor was the situation type

(i.e. PDR-high and low). Prior to the statistical analyses, data distributions

were checked for underlying assumptions. Significance tests for skewness and

kurtosis and the KolmogorovSmirnov test of normality (Tabachnick and

Fidell 2001) confirmed the normality of all data distributions, except that

for planning time and speech rate. Thus, a logarithmic transformation was

to improve the normality of these data. The significance level was

set at .05. However, because this study used three statistical comparisons,

the significance level was adjusted to .017 using the Bonferroni correction

(Brown 1990).

RESULTS

Tables 3, 4, and 5 display descriptive statistics of appropriateness scores,

planning time, and speech rate.

Effects of situation types on appropriateness scores

The first research question asked whether learners appropriateness scores

differed between PDR-high and PDR-low situations and between groups of

different proficiency. The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant

main effects for situation type (F38.37, p .000, eta square .25) andL2 proficiency (F 85.20, p .000, eta square .43), and a significantinteraction between task type and proficiency (F 7.43, p .009, etasquare .06). Thus, PDR-high speech acts were more difficult to producethan PDR-low ones. The main effect found for task type must be interpreted

in light of its significant interaction with proficiency. Lower proficiency

learners had more difficulty in producing PDR-high speech acts than higher

proficiency learners.

Effects of situation types on planning time

The second research question addressed the difference in pre-task planning

speed between PDR-high and PDR-low situation types, and between the two

proficiency groups. The statistical analyses indicated significant main effect


at University of H



ownloaded from

for situation type (F 22.76, p .000, eta square .17). However, proficiencyrevealed no main effect on planning time (F 2.17, p .143). In addition,there was no significant interaction effect between situation type and

proficiency (F .04, p .844). Thus, learners were significantly faster inplanning when producing PDR-low than PDR-high speech acts. Because

planning time was not affected by proficiency or by the interaction between

proficiency and task type, it was concluded that L2 proficiency had no

significant impact on planning time for both types of speech act situations.

Effects of situation types on speech rate

The last research question examined the effects of situation type and L2

proficiency on speech rate. There were significant main effects for situation

type (F 60.44, p .000, eta square .35) and L2 proficiency (F 46.19,p .000, eta square .29) and a significant interaction between situationtype and proficiency (F 7.10, p .009, eta square .06). Thus, learnersshowed significantly faster speech rate when producing PDR-low than PDR-

high speech acts. The main effect found for situation type must be

interpreted in light of its significant interaction with proficiency. The lower

proficiency group was slower in producing PDR-high speech acts than the

higher proficiency group. A post hoc analysis was conducted to see whether or

not there is a relationship between the two temporal variables, namely

Table 3: Production appropriateness scores by speech act situations types

Group Situation Type K Mean SD Min. Max.

Higher L2 (n 29) PDR-High 4 14.55 2.26 10.00 20.00PDR-Low 4 15.97 2.26 8.00 19.00

Lower L2 (n 30) PDR-High 4 9.20 2.31 4.00 13.50PDR-Low 4 13.08 2.47 7.00 17.50

Notes. Knumber of speech acts. The means show the sum of the speech act ratings.

Table 4: Production Planning Time (in Seconds) by Speech Act Situation Type




Notes. Knumber of speech acts. The mean shows the average planning time per role play.

NAOKO TAGUCHI 123

at University of H



ownloaded from

planning time and speech rate. Pearson correlation showed no significant

relationship, r .04, p 0.8 for higher proficiency group, and r .05, p 0.8for lower proficiency group.

Descriptive analyses of linguistic expressions in speech acts

As a post hoc analysis, this study examined linguistic expressions used by

L2 learners to infer why PDR-high speech acts were more difficult and took

a longer time to perform than PDR-low ones. Request and refusal expressions

were classified for their directness levels, using coding frameworks adapted

from Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) (requests), and Beebe et al. (1990) and Nelson

et al. (2002) (refusals) (Tables 6 and 7). The frequencies of all the expression

types were tallied and compared for trends between the two L2 groups.

Native speaker data (10 males and 20 males) elicited under the same task

conditions was provided as baseline data.

Table 8 displays frequency distributions of request expressions.

In the PDR-high situations, 100 percent of the native speakers used

mitigated-preparatory expressions, for example requests embedded in clause

structures (e.g. Im wondering if clause), while L2 learners, especiallylower L2 learners, tended to overuse direct expressions, particularly the

imperatives with please. Learners also relied heavily on hinting expressions

(39.6 percent), as shown in Example 1. Hints were not conventionalized,

so they required more inferencing on the part of the interlocutor and

sometimes more extended negotiations and clarifications. The percentage

of hinting was greater for lower L2 learners (53.3 percent).

Example 1: L2 learner PDR-high request, asking for a day off

L (learner) : Is it OK if I go to camping with my friend nextSaturday?

I (interlocutor) : Sure, you can go camping.L : Oh, thank you. (pause)I : That means you wont be working, right?L : Yeah.

Table 5: Production speech rate by speech act situation type




Notes. Knumber of speech acts. The mean shows the average number of words produced perminute in each role play.


at University of H



ownloaded from

Learners overuse of hinting expressions may stem from their limited

linguistic abilities. The learners in this study did not know how to express

politeness linguistically in PDR-high situations because they were not

familiar with mitigated-preparatory expressions that contain complex

embedded clauses. As a result, they depended on simpler expressions to

request politely. Their implicit ways of conveying intentions using hints,

whether successful or unsuccessful, could stem from their strategies

for being polite and less face-threatening in these formal, high-stakes

request situations.

Table 6: Request coding framework

I. Direct expressions

1. Imperatives e.g. Please lend me a pen.

2. Explicit performatives e.g. Im asking you to lend me a pen.

3. Implicit performatives e.g. I want to ask you to lend me a pen.

3. Obligation statements e.g. You should lend me a pen.

4. Want statements e.g. I want you to lend me a pen.

II. Indirect expressions

II.A. Conventional indirect

5. Preparatory questions e.g. Could you lend me a pen?

6. Suggestions e.g. How about lending me a pen?

7. Permissions e.g. May I borrow a pen?

8. Mitigated preparatory e.g. Im wondering if you could lend me a pen.

9. Mitigated wants e.g. Id appreciate it if you could lend me a pen.

II.B. Non-conventional indirect

10. Strong hint e.g. My pen just quit. I need a pen.

11. Mild hint e.g. Can you guess what I want?

Table 7: Refusal coding framework

I. Direct expressions

1. No/Negative willingness/ability e.g. I dont want to./I cant.

II. Indirect expressions

2. Statement of regret e.g. Im sorry.

3. Wish e.g. I wish I could go.

4. Excuse e.g. I have a plan.

5. Statement of alternative e.g. Id rather drink tea.

6. Promise of future acceptance e.g. Ill do it next time.

7. Indefinite reply/hedging e.g. Maybe we can work something out.

8. Postponement e.g. Ill think about it.

9. Repetition/question e.g. Friday night?

NAOKO TAGUCHI 125

at University of H



ownloaded from

Table 9 displays the frequency distributions of refusal expressions. Native

speakers used notably more hedging expressions and indefinite replies

(e.g. probably and kind of). Unlike native speakers, both L2 groups did not

use many indefinite replies or much hedging. Instead, they used more

apologies, which were almost absent in the native speaker data (Example 2).

It seems that learners who were unfamiliar with hedging or indefinite

expressions used apologies as politeness strategies to soften the refusals.

Example 2: Learner PDR-high refusal, refusing the advice to takesummer classes

I : Your grades are little low, so you should take summer sessions.

L : Ah, but I have plan, I have some plan for spring vacation,summer vacation, so I cant take it.

I : OK.L : Im sorry.I : Just think about it.L : OK.

Table 8: Frequencies of request expressions, PDR-high situations

NS Higher L2 Lower L2

% (n) % (n) % (n)

I. Direct expressions 0 13.8 (8) 26.7 (16)

1. Imperatives 0 7.0 (3) 21.7 (13)

2. Explicit performatives 0 6.9 (3) 1.7 (1)

3. Implicit performatives 0 0 0

4. Obligations 0 0 0

5. Want statements 0 3.0 (2) 3.3 (2)

II. Indirect expressions 100 (40) 86.2 (50) 73.3 (44)

II. A. Conventional indirect 100 (40) 46.6 (27) 20.0 (12)

6. Preparatory 0 10.3 (6) 10.0 (6)

7. Permissions 0 27.6 (16) 10.0 (6)

8. Suggestions 0 0 0

9. Mitigated-preparatory 100 (40) 6.9 (4) 0

10. Mitigated-wants 0 1.7 (1) 0

II. B. Non-conventional indirect 0 39.6 (23) 53.3 (32)

11. Strong hint 0 39.6 (23) 46.7 (28)

12. Mild hint 0 0 6.6 (4)

Notes. The numbers in the parentheses show the raw counts. There were 20 native speakers

(NS), 29 higher, and 30 lower learners. The number of requests analyzed was 40 for native

speakers, 58 for higher, and 60 for lower learners.


at University of H



ownloaded from

DISCUSSION

This study found that situation type had a significant effect on both

appropriateness scores and production speed in L2 speech act production.

PDR-high speech acts were more difficult to produce and required a longer

production time for learners than did PDR-low ones, regardless of their

proficiency levels. Thus, the social factors involved in a task, namely power,

distance, and the degree of imposition, seemed to make certain situation

types more demanding to perform than others.

The greater degree of difficulty involved in PDR-high speech acts could

stem from the greater level of politeness required in those situations.

According to Brown and Levinson (1978), people attempt to maintain two

types of public image: positive face, the desire to be liked and approved of by

others, and negative face, the desire to be unimpeded by others. Refusals and

requests are considered potentially face-threatening because refusals threaten

the hearers positive face, while requests threaten the hearers negative face.

Thus, the speaker needs to use various politeness strategies to minimize such

threats. Longer planning time in PDR-high situations may be a reflection

of the amount of thinking involved in searching for those face-saving

expressions. Longer planning time could also reflect learners lack of

knowledge of those expressions. Because learners did not possess polite

expressions in their L2 repertoire, it is possible that they spent longer periods

of time planning how to proceed without them.

This interpretation also corresponds with speech production processes

discussed in the previous literature (Foss and Hakes 1978; Wiese 1985).

Table 9: Frequencies of refusal expressions, PDR-high situations

NS Higher L2 Lower L2

% (n) % (n) % (n)

I. Direct expressions 42.9 (30) 39.0 (41) 32.5 (37)

II. Indirect expressions 57.1 (40) 61.0 (64) 67.5 (77)

2. Apology 2.8 (2) 19.0 (20) 22.8 (26)

3. Wish 2.8 (2) 0 0

4. Excuse 37.1 (26) 27.6 (29) 33.3 (38)

5. Alternative 4.3 (3) 2.9 (3) 0.8 (1)

6. Promise for future 4.3 (3) 1.9 (2) 3.5 (4)

7. Indefinite reply/hedging 4.3 (3) 7.6 (8) 1.6 (2)

8. Postponement 0 0 0

9. Repetition/question 1.4 (1) 1.9 (2) 5.3 (6)

Notes. The numbers in the parentheses show the raw counts. There were 20 native speakers

(NS), 29 higher, and 30 lower learners. The number of refusals analyzed was 40 for native

speakers, 58 for higher, and 60 for lower learners.

NAOKO TAGUCHI 127

at University of H



ownloaded from

Linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge schemata interact in order to plan

what to say and how to say it. When producing speech acts, non-linguistic

knowledge, such as speaker relationship and the degree of formality of the

situations, carries weight in determining appropriate production. It is possible

that the greater the amount of non-linguistic knowledge required, as in

PDR-high situations, the longer the planning time becomes. In the case of L2

learners with limited L2 ability, longer planning time for PDR-high situations

could reflect their pragmatic challenge as well as linguistic challenge.

Speech rate, another temporal variable examined in this study, was also

slower for PDR-high speech acts than for PDR-low ones, indicating the

influence of situation types on one aspect of oral fluency. Although both

temporal variables were affected significantly by task type, a post hoc analysis

revealed no significant relationship between planning time and speech rate

for both L2 groups, suggesting that these two speed measures represent

different aspects of performance fluency in speech acts. The two temporal

variables are affected by the task type, but in an independent manner.

These results lend support to the two types of planning proposed by Wendel

(1997): off-line planning (i.e. planning prior to a task) and online planning

(i.e. planning while performing a task).

The distinction between off-line planning and online planning was also

documented by Yuan and Elliss (2003) study, which examined the effects of

pre-task and online planning on story narration by L2 English learners.

The study found that pre-task planning (planning prior to the task) enhanced

grammatical complexity, fluency, and lexical variety, while online planning

(planning while performing a task) promoted accuracy. Different types of

planning seem to direct learners attention to different aspects of language,

resulting in different production quality. Pre-task planning directs learners

attention to the conveyance of message that is reflected in greater fluency

and lexical variety. Online planning, on the other hand, encourages learners

attention to grammatical accuracy but results in reduced fluency.

Combined with previous findings, the present findings imply that online

and off-line planning engages learners with different attentional resources.

Learners seem to engage in different thought processes during performance

and focus on different requirements of a task at different phases of spoken

production. Because speaking tasks are considered more anxiety provoking

than other skill areas (e.g. Young 1992), it is possible that affective factors

such as anxiety, tension, and fear, as well as personality factors such as risk-

taking, may have influenced planning time in the task. On the other hand,

cognitive factors such as attention allocation, semantic access, and

phonological coding may have affected speech rate because learners were

required to interact spontaneously during role plays.

This study revealed that planning time had distinct characteristics on its

own, independent of speech rate, general proficiency, and appropriateness of

speech acts. Despite the more extensive planning time and slower speech

required for PDR-high speech acts, the mean appropriateness score for


at University of H



ownloaded from

PDR-high speech acts was significantly lower compared with PDR-low speech

acts, which suggests that polite expressions, even when located, were difficult

to employ. Additional analysis was conducted to check whether there was

a significant relationship between learners appropriateness scores and their

planning time. A Pearson correlation revealed no significant relationship

between the two variables, r0.12, p .71, which provides further supportfor the present results.

These findings contrast with the previous findings that planning time

positively influences the quality of learner output (e.g. Mehnert 1998;

Skehan and Foster 1997; Wigglesworth 1997; Yuan and Ellis 2003). In this

study longer planning time did not result in more appropriate speech act

production or more fluent articulation of production. It seems that planning

time did not necessarily affect the output from the tasks involving pragmatic

characteristics, probably because those tasks required processing of different

types of resources, including linguistic, contextual, and sociocultural

resources. As Mehnert claimed, time reduces the cognitive load to a

manageable level, but there might be variation in how learners utilize the

time with respect to the nature of the task.

The difficulty in performing PDR-high speech acts was probably due to the

relatively complex nature of the appropriate expressions, and the number

of supporting moves required in production. As shown by the analysis

of linguistic expressions, for PDR-high requests and refusals, native speakers

used complex, embedded sentence structures, and mitigated them with

supporting devices, such as hedges and indefinite responses. For instance,

in PDR-high requests, 100 percent of the native speakers used mitigatory-

preparatory expressions (e.g. Do you mind if clause), while they appearedin less than 10 percent for both L2 groups. These findings suggest that the

learners did not have the linguistic resources appropriate to the situation.

In order to compensate for the knowledge gap, L2 learners used expressions

that were ambiguous and thus ineffective (e.g. hinting) and consequently

failed to convey illocutionary intent. This tendency was stronger for the

lower L2 group. Learners spent more time in assessing the contextual

features in PDR-high situations, but in actual production, they were limited

in their use of appropriate linguistic forms that map the speech functions

onto the sociocultural context.

Although the present findings imply that the learners lower fluency in the

PDR-high situations is a reflection of production difficulty, it is also possible

that the less fluent speech was evidence of L1 pragmatic transfer.

In Japanese, a hesitant style is often deemed appropriately polite in

interactions with higher status interlocutors, especially as mitigating action

when the situation is face threatening. Speakers tend to avoid direct,

explicit verbalization of thoughts, and listeners are expected to become

sensitive enough to read the speakers message (e.g. Okazaki 1993).

Therefore, it is possible that the Japanese participants transferred

their L1 sociolinguistic norm to their role play interactions in L2 English.

NAOKO TAGUCHI 129

at University of H



ownloaded from

Learners poor performance in PDR-high speech acts, then, seem to

have resulted from multiple factors, including their overall low

proficiency, lack of linguistic resources, and transfer of L1 communicative

conventions.

In contrast to PDR-high speech acts, learners found PDR-low speech acts

easier and faster to produce, probably due to the less face-threatening nature

of the situation and the lower degree of politeness required. When producing

PDR-low speech acts, it was unlikely that these speech acts would threaten

the interlocutors face, and thus there was little need to use overly polite

expressions. As a result, the expressions used to perform these speech acts

were relatively short, simple, and thus more easily used by learners. The

illocutionary force of PDR-low requests was realized by using fixed linguistic

conventions, such as an utterance Could you verb phrase. Similarly, fixedresponse patterns such as I cant or No thanks served as appropriate

refusals in PDR-low situations.

In addition to the linguistic simplicity and conventionality of these

expressions, learners familiarity with the situations could have contributed

to the relative ease of performing PDR-low speech acts. It is also possible

that the PDR-low situations used in this study were more frequently

experienced in L1 and L2 contexts, and thus were more contextually

accessible. For these recurrent, standardized situations, the planning process

may become subconscious and automatic because learners have available

to them ready-made plans and accessible linguistic means that reduce

the processing load. Thus, it could be a combination of accessibility of

linguistic resources, familiarity of situations, and situational factors that

reduces task demands.

The analyses of the types of linguistic expressions also suggest the potential

value of looking at strategic devices as criteria when characterizing learner

performance according to task types. Previous studies used accuracy, fluency,

and complexity as criteria when analyzing various features of L2 output by

task type. However, as shown in this study, in PDR-high situations, learners

used various verbal strategies to convey the appropriate level of politeness.

Thus, the types of linguistic strategies in the learners output reflected

situational differences.

In summary, this study showed that the different types of pragmatic tasks

(i.e. PDR-high and PDR-low speech acts) created different demands on

performance. Some pragmatic tasks were more conventionalized, immediate,

and were also less face-threatening. Thus, participants were able to perform

them quickly and easily because they required fewer linguistic and

psychological resources. In contrast, tasks that were less common and more

face-threatening were more difficult and took longer to produce.

The differential task demands that stemmed from these different

sociolinguistic variables were reflected in the features of the learners

output, from both a linguistic and processing perspective. The differential

task demands interacted with learners general proficiency.


at University of H



ownloaded from

Implications for pragmatic teaching

This study provides evidence for the existence of task types in pragmatic

functions. It shows that sociolinguistic variables could be useful criteria in

distinguishing among tasks. Thus, when instructors design tasks as classroom

activities, they can manipulate both the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic

dimensions of these tasks, thereby increasing or decreasing the tasks

demands and developing tasks of different difficulty levels. This study also

identified those pragmatic tasks that are relatively easy to perform and that

should be placed at an earlier stage of the instructional syllabus. PDR-low

speech acts should be introduced before formal speech acts because they

were found to be easier and faster for L2 learners to produce.

Another instructional implication relates to the content of instruction.

The successful planning and production of speech acts depend on control

of two dimensions: pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics (Kasper 1992;

Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). This study demonstrates that, regardless of

proficiency levels, the learners faced greater challenges with pragmalinguistics.

In PDR-high situations, they took more time planning, but they could not use

elaborated linguistic expressions. Thus, for learners similar to those in this

study, an instructional priority should be placed on pragmalinguistics,

particularly the choice and control of those language forms in realizing

speech acts. The expressions gleaned from native speaker data could serve as

baseline speech act behaviors and help to develop pragmatics materials.

Limitations and implications for future research

One major limitation is that the study could not reveal the actual processes that

the L2 learners were engaged in while planning. It was not clear how learners

were using the planning time; while planning they could have been searching

for words, thinking about how to avoid grammatical errors, or looking for

strategies to convey politeness. Future research should use additional measures

such as think-aloud protocols to examine what aspects of language production

linguistic or pragmatic aspectsmost concerned the learners while they were

planning. This line of investigation could help us to understand the nature of

planning time, which has been shown to bear no relationship with L2

proficiency, oral fluency, and the appropriateness of speech acts.

This study is also limited because it used only one measure of oral fluency,

namely speech rate. The study did not include other measures such as pause

length, which has been used in previous task-related studies. In addition,

speech rate measured as words per minute is not sensitive to the nature of

speech that often involves multi-word lexical chunks. Based on these

limitations, future research should apply a wider range of oral fluency

measures to confirm the generalizability of the present findings.

Another worthy area of investigation is the impact of individual differences

in production speed. The much greater variance observed in the time data

NAOKO TAGUCHI 131

at University of H



ownloaded from

compared to the score data supports the claim that planning and production

time involves much individual variability. Individuals tend to differ in the

ways in which they cope with processing demands in real time. These

individual differences may be a reflection of differences in peoples planning

and decision-making, as well as differences in personality, affective, and

cognitive factors. Speed in pragmatic processing is influenced by a great

number of non-language factors, including ones sociocultural knowledge

and experience, which could eventually lead to greater individual variance.

Because several studies examined the relationship between personality and

speech production (e.g. Dewaele and Furnham 2000), future pragmatic

research should incorporate individual differences as additional variables

when addressing production speed.

Finally, future research should investigate a broader range of pragmatic tasks

to shed further light on the task difficulty of different speaking tasks.

Functional ability for language use can be extended beyond the typical speech

act types so widely investigated to include tasks from other areas. The areas

suggested as universal pragmatic competence by Kasper and Rose (2002), such

as face-saving ability and expressions of epistemic stance, could provide a

useful basis for designing tasks with different sociocultural characteristics.

Furthermore, in the future research, other measures that are specific to

pragmatic competence and spoken discourse, such as discourse management

strategies, can be applied in analyzing learner output. Future research using a

variety of task conditions drawn from pragmatic and sociocultural categories, as

well as different types of analytical criteria, could advance our understanding

of what tasks constitute and how they impact learner performance.

Final version received November 2005

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincere thanks to Dr Mary McGroarty, Dr Joan Jamieson, Dr Susan Fitzmaurice, and

Dr Barbara Freed for their valuable comments and guidance for this research. I would also like

to thank three anonymous reviewers and the Applied Linguistics editors for their constructive

comments and suggestions. I am also thankful to Dennis Johnson for proofreading the

manuscript. A special thanks also goes to Yuko Uchima at Akita International University for her

assistance on data analyses.

APPENDIX: SAMPLE PRAGMATIC SPEAKING TASK SITUATIONCARDS

PDR-low situation

Its 7:00 PM. You are in the school library studying for tomorrows English

test. A good friend of yours is also studying in the library. Your pen just quit,

so you want to ask her to lend you a pen. She asks if you want to take a

break and go to the movies with her. You want to refuse the invitation

because you have to study more for tomorrows test.


at University of H



ownloaded from

PDR-high situation

You are talking with your teacher in her office. Your test is next Friday, but

you have your friends wedding on the same day. You want to ask her if you

can take the test at some other time. Your teacher suggests that you should

take summer session because your grades are low. You want to refuse the

suggestion because you already have plans.

NOTES

1 The results of the pilot study showed

no discernable differences between

the Japanese and American partici-

pants responses, suggesting that the

PDR-low and PDR-high distinctions

had cross-cultural validity.

2 Experienced ESL instructors were

selected because of their extensive

experience in using holistic assessment

guidelines to evaluate L2 performance.

The raters were asked to listen to each

role play and write the rate that they

thought the most appropriate. After

the norming session, a set of 2025

samples were assigned randomly to

each rater and evaluated indepen-

dently at home. Each set of samples

was evaluated by two different raters.

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Beebe, L. M., T. Takahashi, and R. Uliss-Weltz.

1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals in R.

Scarcella, D. Andersen, and S. Krashen (eds):

Developing Communicative Competence in a

Second Language. New York: Newbury House,

pp. 5574.

Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, andG. Kasper. 1989.

Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, J. D. 1990. The use of multiple t tests in

language research, TESOL Quarterly 24: 7703.

Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1978. Universals in

language usage: Politeness phenomena in E. N.

Goody (ed.): Questions and Politeness: Strategies in

social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 56289.

Bygate,M. 1999. Quality of language and purpose

of task: Patterns of learners language on twooral

communication tasks, Language Teaching

Research 3: 185214.

Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. 2001.

Introduction in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and

M. Swain (eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks:

Second language learning, teaching, and testing.

New York: Longman, pp. 120.

Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task-based language

learning in C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds):

Language Learning Tasks. London: Prentice Hall,

pp. 522.

Candlin, C. 2001. Afterward: Taking the curricu-

lum to task in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and




Chang, Y. F. 1999. Discourse topics and inter-

language variation in P. Robinson (ed.):

Representation and Process: Proceedings of the 3rd

Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Vol. 1.

Tokyo: PacSLRF, pp. 23541.

Cohen, A. 1994. Assessing Language Ability in the

Classroom. Rowley, MS: Newbury House.

Cook,H.M. 2001. Why cant learners of Japanese as

a foreign language distinguish polite from impolite

speech styles? in K. R. Rose and G. Kasper

(eds): Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 80102.

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Crookes, G. 1989. Planning and interlanguage

variation, Studies in Second Language Acquisition

11: 18399.

Crookes, G. and S. Gass. 1993. Tasks in a Pedagog-

ical Context: Integrating theory and practice.

Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Press.

NAOKO TAGUCHI 133

at University of H



ownloaded from

de Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual production model:

Levelts speaking model adapted, Applied

Linguistics 13: 124.

Dewaele, J.-M. and A. Furnham. 2000. Person-

ality and speech production: A pilot study

of second language learners, Personality and

Individual Differences 28: 35565.

Ejzenberg, R. 2000. The juggling act of oral

fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor

in H. Riggenbach (ed.): Perspectives on

Fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,

pp. 287314.

Ellis, R. 1987. Interlanguage variability in narrative

discourse: Style shifting and use of the past tense,

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 120.

Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and

Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foss, D. J. and D. Hakes. 1978. Psycholinguistics:

An introduction to the psychology of language.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Foster, P. and P. Skehan. 1996. The influence

of planning and task type on second language

performance, Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 18: 299323.

Freed, B. 1995. What makes us think that

students who study abroad become fluent? in

B. F. Freed (ed.): Second Language Acquisition in

Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins,

pp. 12348.

Freed, B. 2000. Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes

(and ears) of the beholder? in H. Riggenbach

(ed.): Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: Univer-

sity of Michigan Press, pp. 24365.

Freed, B., N. Seqalowitz and D. Dewey. 2004.

Context of learning and second language

fluency in French, Studies in Second language


Fulcher, G. and R. Marquez-Reiter. 2003. Task

difficulty in speaking tests, Language Testing 20:

32144.

House, J. 1989. Politeness in English

and German: The functions of please and

bitte in S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G.

Kasper (eds): Cross Cultural Pragmatics:

Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,

pp. 96119.

Hudson, T., E. Detmer, and J. D. Brown. 1995.

Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-cultural

Pragmatics (Technical Report No.7). Honolulu:

University of Hawaii at Manoa, Second

Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

John, J. 1992. The Ontario test of ESL oral inter-

action test, System 20: 30516.

Juffs, A. 2001. Psycholinguistically oriented

second language research, Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 21: 20720.

Kasper, G. 1992. Pragmatic transfer, Second

Language Research 8: 20331.

Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics

research in H. Spencer-Catey (ed.), Culturally

Speaking. London: Continuum, pp. 31641.

Kasper, G. 2001. Four perspectives on L2

pragmatic development, Applied Linguistics 22:

50230.

Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic

Development in a Second Language, Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Harlow:

Longman.

Lennon, P. 1990. Investigating fluency in EFL:

A quantitative approach, Language Learning 40:

387417.

Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to

articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Long, M. and G. Crookes. 1992. Three

approaches to task-based syllabus design,

TESOL Quarterly 26: 5598.

Maeshiba, N., G. Kasper, and S. Ross. 1996.

Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage

apologizing in S. M. Gass and J. Neu (eds):

Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter, pp. 15587.

McNamara, T. 1996. Measuring Second Language

Performance. London: Longman.

Mehnert, U. 1998. The effects of different lengths

of time for planning on second language perfor-

mance, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:

83108.

Nelson, G. L., J. Carson, M. A. Batal,

andW.E.Bakary.2002. Cross-cultural pragmatics:

Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American

English refusals, Applied Linguistics 23: 16389.

Norris, J. 2002. Interpretations, intended uses

and designs in task-based language assessment,

Language Testing 10: 33746.

Norris, J., J. D. Brown, T. Hudson, and

J. Yoshioka. 1998. Designing Second Language

Performance Assessments. Technical Report No. 18,

Second Language Teaching and Curriculum

Center: University of Hawaii.

North, B. 2000. The Development of a Common

Framework Scale of Language Proficiency.

New York: Peter Lang.

Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the

Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.


at University of H



ownloaded from

Okazaki, S. 1993. Stating opinions in Japanese:

listener-dependent strategies in J. E. Atlatis

(ed.): Georgetown University Round Table on

Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press, pp. 6995.

Ortega, L. 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2

oral performance, Studies in Second Language


Riggenbach, H. 1991. Towards an understanding

of fluency: Amicroanalysis of nonnative speaker

conversations, Discourse Processes 14: 42341.

Robinson, P. 1995. Task complexity and second

language narrative discourse, Language Learning

45: 99140.

Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task

difficulty, and task production: Exploring

interactions in a componential framework,

Applied Linguistics 22: 2757.

Robinson, P., S. Ting, and J. Urwin. 1995.

Investigating second language task complexity,

RELC Journal 25: 6279.

Rose, K. R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional

study of interlanguage pragmatic development,

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 2767.

Rose, K. R. andR.Ono. 1995. Eliciting speech act

data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire

type, Language Learning 45: 191223.

Sasaki, M. 1998. Investigating EFL students

production of speech acts: A comparison of

production questionnaires and role plays,

Journal of Pragmatics 30: 45784.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An essay in the

philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Segalowitz, N, and B. Freed. 2004. Context,

contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisi-

tion, Studies in Second Language 27: 175201.

Skehan, P. 1995. Analyzability, accessibility, and

ability for use inG. Cook andB. Seidlhofer (eds):

Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, pp. 91106.

Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the implemen-

tation of task-based instruction, Applied


Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language

Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P.2001. Tasks and language performance

assessment in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and




Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1997. The influence

of planning and post-task activities on accuracy

and complexity in task based learning, Language

Teaching Research 1: 185211.

Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1999. The influence

of task structure and processing conditions

on narrative retellings, Language Learning 49:

93120.

Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2001. Focus on form

through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task

effects in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain

(eds): Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second language

learning, teaching, and testing. New York:

Longman, pp. 99118.

Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using

Multivariate Statistics (4th edn). Boston: Allyn

and Bacon.

Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic

failure, Applied Linguistics 4: 91109.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An

introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.

Towell, R. 2002. Relative degrees of fluency:

A comparative case study of advanced learners

of French, International Review of Applied


Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics:

Requests, complaints, and apologies. New York:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Wendel, J. 1997. Planning and second language

production. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation.

Temple University, Japan.

Wiese, R. 1984. Language production in foreign

and native languages: Same or different? in

H. W. Dechert, D. Mohie, and M. Raupach

(eds): Second Language Productions. Germany:

Gunter Narr Verlag Tugingen, pp. 1125.

Wigglesworth, G. 1997. An investigation

of planning time and proficiency level

on oral test discourse, Language Testing 14:

85106.

Wigglesworth, G. 2001. Influences on perfor-

mance in task-based oral assessments in

M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds):

Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second language

learning, teaching, and testing. New York:

Longman, pp. 186209.

Young, D. J. 1992. Language anxiety from the

foreign language specialists perspective:

Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley,

Terrell, and Radin, Foreign Language Annals

25:15772.

Yuan, Y. and R. Ellis. 2003. The effects of

pre-task planning and on-line planning on

fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2

monologic oral production, Applied Linguistics

24: 127.

NAOKO TAGUCHI 135

at University of H



ownloaded from

Applied Linguistics 2007 Taguchi 113 35

Documents

Transcript of Applied Linguistics 2007 Taguchi 113 35