pragmatic consciousness.pdf

8/14/2019 pragmatic consciousness.pdf

1/29

The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on thedevelopment of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidentialmarkers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language

Ritsuko Narita *

Department of Asian Languages and Cultures, Macalester College, 1600 Grand Ave, Saint Paul, MN 55105, USA

1. Introduction

This study investigates the effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising (PCR) activities in the acquisition of pragmatic

competence, morespecifically Japanese hearsay evidential markers,such as rashii I heardthat. PCR is an inductive approach to

facilitating awareness of how languageforms are usedappropriately,given a context.The consciousness-raising (hereafter,CR)used in the present studyderivesfrom Roses (1999, 2000)PCR. The purposeof PCR is to exposelearners to pragmatic aspects of

language and provide them with the necessary analytical tools for understanding contextually appropriate language usage

(Rose,1999,2000). It is hypothesizedthat PCRactivities mayaccelerateL2 acquisitionof pragmatic competence. If thisis indeed

the case, this study would lead to the development of teaching materials incorporating PCR activities with metalinguistic

discussion so that L2 learners may be made aware of critical differences between L1 and L2. In this manner, L2 learners may

come to a better understanding of how the target language (hereafter, TL) functions in natural, everyday speech.

Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 129

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 26 December 2010

Received in revised form 15 September 2011

Accepted 26 September 2011

Available online 25 November 2011

Keywords:

Consciousness-raising

Hearsay evidential markers

Noticing hypothesis

Japanese as a foreign language

Awareness

A B S T R A C T

This study investigates the effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising (PCR) activities in

the acquisition of pragmatic competence, focusing on hearsay evidential markers such as

rashiiI heard that in Japanese. PCR is an inductive approach to facilitating awareness of

how language forms are used appropriately in a given context.

Schmidt (1995)has proposed in his noticing hypothesis that L2 learners must first

demonstrate a conscious awareness of some particular form in the input before any

subsequent processing or intake of that noticed form can take place. This study explores

the question of whether awareness is necessary for L2 pragmatic learning.

A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test format was adopted. Forty-

one learners of Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) were divided into two groups: the PCR

treatment group and the control group. The tests consisted of metapragmatic knowledge

tests and an oral discourse production test. In total, four treatment sessions were given tothe PCR group just before the post-tests.

This study showed that the PCR group performs better than the control group on both

the immediate post-tests and the delayed post-tests. Through the PCR activities, JFL

learners maybecome awareof critical differences between L1 and L2, and enhance their L2

pragmatic competence successfully.

2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

An early version of this paper was presented at the 18th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, July 2010, in Kobe, Japan.

* Tel.: +1 651 696 6753; fax: +1 651 696 6428.

E-mail address:[email protected].

Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p r a g m a

0378-2166/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016


2/29

2. Features of hearsay evidential markers

Evidentials in the present study indicate a speakers epistemic stance, including the speakers commitment to the truth of

his/her message, the speakers certainty about his/her utterance, and the speakers certainty about source of information

(Barnes,1984; Givon,1982;Ohta, 1991). That is,hearsayevidential markersare considered to be those linguistic markerswhich

indicate the source of information communicated when the information does not originate with the speaker. The

representatives of hearsay evidential markers in English are I heard that, It seems like , apparently, etc. The

representatives of hearsayevidentialmarkers in Japaneseare such Japanese modal auxiliaries as (suru)soo, yoo/mitai,and rashii;

reported speech such as to itta (somebody) said that, to yonda I read that and to kiita I heard that; quotative markers i.e., tte Iheard that , to iu koto daand to no koto dait says.

The target pragmatic feature in the present study is use of hearsay evidential markers. Several studies considering the role

of hearsay evidential markers in the Japanese language have been conducted (Ishida, 2006; Mushin, 1998, 2001; Trent, 1997,

1998). The authors of these studies point out numerous differences between the respective hearsay systems of the Japanese

and English languages, and address the difficulties involved in comprehending usage patterns of L2 hearsay evidential

markers.Trent (1997, 1998)states that the English and Japanese languages have different intrinsic pragmatic rules for the

relation of third-party information; native Japanese speakers tend to relate hearsay information more indirectly than native

English speakers.Ishida (2006)found that L2 learners whose native language is English use fewer overt hearsay evidential

markers when conveying hearsay information in their L1 and L2 Japanese than native Japanese speakers in L1 Japanese. He

points out that the English speakers scant use of hearsay evidential markers in English could translate into low frequency

usage of overt hearsay evidential markers in Japanese (L1 negative pragmatic transfer).

In fact, as several scholars (Ishida, 2006; Kamada, 1986, 1990; Trent, 1997, 1998) indicate, native speakers of Japanese

quite commonly conclude a high percentage of their sentences with a hearsay evidential marker. On the other hand, learnersof JFL at even the most advanced levels rarely use hearsay evidential markers in reporting third-party information. Such L1

pragmatic transfer into L2 systems of reporting third-party information may cause misunderstanding (Kasper et al., 2003).

Additionally,Trent (1997) claims that native speakers of Japanese, who emphasize indirectness in communication, may

receive the impression that native speakers of English are direct and very certain regarding information obtained from third

parties due to the extensive use of direct forms in spoken English.

Trent (1997, 1998) points out that English speakers often state information sources and tend to treat second-hand

information as a basis for their own opinions, whereas Japanese speakers are more likely to use hearsay markers at the end of

each sentence, or to connect sentences using the te-form (connecting sentences) with the final sentence marked with a

hearsay evidential. Trent (1997, 1998) also attributed this difference to word order; English is a SVO language, whereas

Japanese is a SOV language (in which a verb comes at the end of sentence). With English, in the case of hearsay, once a

speaker uses a hearsay marker at the beginning of the discourse, the rest can be spoken without hearsay markers (see English

hearsay report example below). This strategy does not fit in spoken Japanese because the verbs and the hearsay markers

come at the end of a sentence. Japanese speakers tend to use hearsay markers as illustrated below:

English hearsay report Japanese hearsay report

(Information source) (information source)

information 1 (overt hearsay marker) information 1 (overt hearsay marker)

information 2 (no hearsay marker) information 2 (overt hearsay marker)

information 3 (no hearsay marker) information 3 (overt hearsay marker)

OR

(information source)

information 1 te (overt/no)

information 2 te (overt/no)

information 3 (overt)

Examples:

(According to the CNN news,) (CNN no nyuusu ni yorimasu to)

CNN GEN News according to

Information 1

I heard a bomb exploded in Turkey. Toruko de bakudan ga bakuhatsu

Turkey in bomb-S explore

shita soo desu.

ASP heard

R. Narita/ Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 1292


3/29

Information 2

About 150 people were injured. 150 nin ga fushoo shita soo desu.

150 people S injure-ASP heard COP-POL

Information 3

The Istanbul governor suggests Isutanbuuru no chiji wa kono hankoo o

the convincing culprit is indeed the PKK. Isutanbul GEN governor TP this O

PKK niyoru mono da to kangaeteiruPKK by COP QT think

yoo desu.

seem COP-POL

In order to use hearsay evidential markers properly, JFL learners must be made aware of cross-cultural differences between

L1 English and L2 Japanese methods of hearsay transmission, and must be subsequently exposed to authentic situations in

which the pragmatic aspects of hearsay evidential markers may be learned. The problem JFL teachers are faced with is

determining what sort of pedagogical methods are most effective for teaching these pragmatic aspects.

3. Consciousness-raising and awareness

3.1. Theories of consciousness-raising

With regard to the issues related to consciousness-raising (hereafter, CR), conscious learning has been favored by a great

number of scholars (Ellis, 1990, 1995; Gass, 1997;Gass and Madden, 1985; Robinson, 1995, 1996, 1997a, 1997b; Schmidt,

1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 2001; Sharwood Smith, 1981, 1988, 1991; Sharwood Smith, 1993). These researchers claim

that explicit learning is more efficient and effective than implicit learning for L2 adult learners. Schmidt (1990)states that

there has been no evidence to suggest that subliminal learning occurs in L2 study, and claims that conscious processing is a

crucial prerequisite for the initial stages in the language learning process. Schmidt (1993a)suggests that explicit learning,

i.e., conscious problem solving, allows L2 learners to form and test hypotheses, and to search their memory for pertinent

knowledge relating to what newly acquired knowledge can be understood. This process is referred to as the noticing

hypothesis. Schmidt (2001) stated that attention is necessary in order to understand all aspects of second language

acquisition and argued that attention is a key fact that determines whether something is noticed in the input; for Schmidt,

noticing is a prerequisite for intake.

The role of CR in the acquisition of pragmatics has also been addressed by numerous scholars (Judd, 1999; Kasper and

Schmidt, 1996; Rose, 1994, 1997, 1999; Rose and Ng, 2001; Schmidt, 1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 2001).Kasper and Schmidt

(1996)assert that what is needed for pragmatic development is a pedagogy which focuses learner attention on the co-

occurring features of context and relevant linguistic resources. According to Kasper and Schmidt (1996), this can be

accomplished in the following three ways: (1) overt metapragmatic discussions, (2) teaching materials, and (3) the indirect

means of classroom discourse. Similarly,Judd (1999) states that CR activities may help learners develop an awareness of the

pragmatic features of a given TL.

More specifically,Schmidt (1993a)discusses the role of consciousness in the learning of L1 pragmatic rules, drawing on

previous research from the fields of psychology, linguistics, and language acquisition. Based on evidence from studies of

human learning and L1 and L2 pragmatics acquisition, Schmidt (1993a:35)argues that an understanding of L2 pragmatics

requires attention to linguistic forms, functional meaning, and relevant contextual features. Schmidt (1995)goes on to

suggest that L2 learners need to look for clues as to why TL speakers say what they say in given situation; L2 learners must

also compare their own speech patterns with those of TL speakers in similar contextual situations. In a more recent study,

Schmidt (2001:30) points out that one must attend to both a linguistic form and the relevant social and contextual features

with which they are associated in order to acquire pragmatics. The L2 learners noticing is essential. For the L2 learners

noticing to occur, instruction is useful.

While the noticing hypothesis accounts for initial input selection, several other researchers provided some insights into

the control issue of pragmatic competence (Bialystok, 1993; Sharwood Smith, 1993). Sharwood Smith (1993)presented

another description of control, stating that it has to do with the ability to use knowledge to perform a whole range of specific

tasks. In his analysis, knowing a word or structure is different from knowing how to produce or understand it efficiently.

Furthermore,Bialystok (1993)pointed out that, unlike L1 pragmatic acquisition, adult L2 learners must acquire processing

control over already existing representation. For adult L2 learners, the task of forming representations of pragmatic

knowledge is already accomplished to the extent that the most important task facing them is the development of control

over attention in selecting knowledge when appropriate (Kasper and Rose, 2002). Furthermore,Gass and Varonis (1994)

distinguish between different levels of information processing by the L2 learners. They developed a hierarchy in terms of

what information is ultimately acquired by the L2 learners. The learners information processing levels are labeled

apperceived input, comprehensible input, intake, and integration. Input can be apperceived, or noticed, based on the

saliency of the features and the learners L2 competence. The second stage of input processing is comprehension.

R. Narita/ Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 129 3


4/29

Comprehended input may be available for intake for acquisition as explicit or implicit knowledge. The process of intake

mediates between input and the learners internalized rules. The intake then must be integrated into the implicit knowledge

system for acquisition; the L2 learners integrate their knowledge base for the L2 pragmatic development.

While earlier works focused on grammatical CR (Fotos, 1993, 1994; Sharwood Smith, 1981, 1988),Rose (1999)stresses

the importance of PCR as well. According to him, PCR is essentially an inductive approach to developing awareness of how

language forms are used appropriately in context. The purpose of PCR is to expose learners to pragmatic aspects of language,

such as differences between L1 and L2 usage of seemingly analogous linguistic features, and encourage development of

analytical tools with which learners may formulate accurate generalizations concerning contextually appropriate language

use. Analysis of a learners L1 may facilitate an understanding of the TL pragmatic system, and illustration of the semantic

importance of linguistic choices in a learners L1 may heighten awareness of subtle differences in L2.

A similar thread runs through the various claims discussed above. L2 learners must be made to recognize co-occurring

features and understand why certain forms are used in certain situations if they are to move beyond the noticing stage to

actual comprehension (at which point contextually appropriate usage becomes a real possibility). This process is facilitated

by observation of the TLs usage by native speakers. However, several factors regarding CR should be taken into

consideration, such as to what extent L2 learners should be aware of the target L2 features (i.e., proper placement on the

noticing and understanding continua), whether L2 learners metapragmatic knowledge affects their production of the target

pragmatic features, and whether PCR activities are effective in L2 pragmatic instruction. The first two questions concern the

actual learning process undergone by L2 students, while the last question concerns pedagogical methods.

3.2. Metapragmatic knowledge and L2 production

Metalinguistic knowledge serves as a tool to achieve competence. As this knowledge becomes automatic, speakers may

be able to use the target language fluently.Truscott (1998)claims that instruction designed to increase learners awareness

of form does not help learners acquire language, but does help in the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge. Some

researchers also argue that metalinguistic knowledge leads to improved comprehension, which then facilitates the

development of competence (VanPatten, 1993).Schmidt (2001)points out that attention must be given to the sequential

order of elements during both input processing and production. The question in this study is whether CR activities aimed at

developing metapragmatic knowledge actually influence production as well as comprehension levels.

Pearson (2001) investigated the effects of metapragmatic discussion and pragmatic instruction on L2 learners acquisition

of speech acts in the Spanish language. Her results indicate that few significant statistical differences were found between

the treatment groups (i.e., the metapragmatic discussion group and the pragmatic instruction group). However, the group

which participated in the metapragmatic discussions demonstrated a higher level of pragmatic competence in areas such as

the use of intensifiers and speech act appropriateness in apologies. It was also found that comparison of the experimental

groups with the control group revealed few significant differences, and that the variations in instructional methodology only

influenced the use of linguistic functions of low complexity due to learners low level of competence. Pearson points out that,

with regard to the most complex strategies, the subjects use of indirect request forms indicates that noticing may have

occurred, but the actual strategies were not observed in the speech act performance of the learners. She states that some of

the information concerning speech acts was noticed by the learners, but various aspects of the TL rules, especially complex

ones, did not reach the stage of integration in the interlanguage system. Additionally, she states that the learners may have

explicit knowledge concerning complex speech act strategies which has not yet reached a level sufficient for application in

production. Although Pearson states that the learners in the experimental group exposed to metapragmatic instruction were

able to notice the pragmatic features, this statement was based on her observation of the class and not on quantitative

analysis. Without quantitative data analysis, such as that which may be obtained through the use of a debriefing survey, her

statements remain speculative.

Witten (2004)also examined the role of consciousness awareness in learning L2 Spanish pragmatics (speech acts). She

observed beginning learnersof Spanish in a semester-long course featuring interactivevideo as a method of instruction.On the

subject of heightening learner awareness, Witten (2004) focuses on input enhancement (hereafter, IE, Sharwood Smith, 1991,

1993) ratherthan CR,believingthat itis easierto describewhatthe instructoris doing thanit isto knowwhatis happening inthe

minds of learners. In her study, the L2 learners were divided into an experimental group and a control group. Thesubjects in her

experimental group were asked to find examples of L2 speech acts corresponding to those in their L1, and to note contexts in

which theSpanish second person singularwas used. Thecontrol group viewed a video series andlater completed content-based

quizzes concerning plot. All participants in her study received nine treatments and subsequently completed three activities,

consisting of written feedback aimed at determining to what degree learners noticed and could articulate pragmatic features,

perform oral role-play, and complete a multiple-choice quiz. Witten employed these tactics as a means of examining (1)

learners awareness of L2 pragmatics,(2) their attitudes toward the video component of the course,(3) thetime dedicated to the

video component, and (4) the learners overall comprehension. Data analysis indicated thatthe experimental group performed

significantly better on the written task. Results of the oral task showed some positive trends, but no statistical significance,

while results from the multiple-choice task did not reflect any difference between the two groups. Her findings revealed a

patternof better performance by the test group withsecond person addressees,which is an areathat was repeatedly enhanced.

Numerous research projects can be derived from Wittens study. Firstly, it may be worth investigating to what extent

metapragmatic knowledge influences learners production skills. As stated earlier, her data indicated that the multiple-choice



5/29

task did not reveal any differences between the two groups, while the experimental group slightly outperformed the control

group in her production test. She attributes the difference in the results to the factor of time pressure. The factor of time

restriction was more significant in the oral role-playing task than in either the multiple-choice task or the written feedback. As

to the results of the written feedback, the experimental group was able to state pragmatic features more explicitly than the

control group. Thesefindingssupportthat althoughindividualsmay be aware of certain pragmatic features of a language,they

maynot necessarilyactivate suchmetapragmatic knowledge whenproducingthe language. Secondly, herstudy did notemploy

a pre-and post-testingformat because of the concern that a pre-testto determine the participants pragmatic knowledge might

alert both instructors and learners, who were not informed of the nature of study, and could taint the results. However, it is

necessary to find out to what extent learners develop pragmatic competence during the course of an experiment in order to

investigate the effectiveness of consciousness-raising instruction. Furthermore, her speech act findings indicate that the roleof

consciousness is an important factor in the learning of L2 pragmatic features, which seems to support Schmidts noticing

hypothesis. However, she ultimately concludes that some features are more axially assimilated than others and that the

noticing hypothesis does not apply equally to all pragmatic material.

Recent researches regarding awareness-raising components on L2 pragmatic development showed positive effects on L2

pragmatic instruction for beginning-level JFL learners (Ishida, 2009; Iwai, 2010; Tateyama,2001, 2008). In more detail, Ishida

(2009) investigated the effects of awareness-raising and communicative practice on beginning-level learners pragmatic

development of their understanding and use of the Japanese plain anddesu/masuforms. The subjects in his study showed a

deeper understanding of the indexical use of all forms over two semesters. Ishida argues that teaching the pragmatic

functions of the forms should not be neglected in early stages of instruction. In accordance with instruction effects on L2

pragmatic development,Iwai (2010)also investigated the effects of pragmatic-focused instruction on JFL learners ability to

engage in small talk. The beginning-level learners developed their L2 pragmatic competence over a semester period (a

second semester Japanese class). These two studies showed evidence that L2 pragmatic instruction enabled beginning-level

learners to enhance their L2 pragmatic competence. Therefore, it is worth investigating in this study if this could be

applicable to intermediate-advanced learners as well.

In sum, Pearsons (2001) study shows little support for the noticing hypothesis, while Wittens (2004) study supports the

noticing hypothesis (though it may not equally apply to all aspects of pragmatics). Pearson (2001)attributes her findings to

the learners low level of linguistic competence. It indicates that there may be correlation between low pragmatic awareness

and low language proficiency (Garcia, 2004; Koike, 1996; Niezgoda and Roever, 2001).

In contrast, Ishida (2009) and Iwai (2010) showed positive effects on L2 pragmatic instruction for beginning-level

learners L2 pragmatic development. Furthermore, inWittens (2004)study, a pre-test and a post-test were eschewed and a

comparison between two participating groups was the focus of the experiment. Therefore, it might be worth examining if

intermediate learners (in this case, third year students of Japanese) may develop the target pragmatic competence through a

comparison of their pre-tests and post-tests, i.e., within-subjects factor.

3.3. Level of awareness

Schmidt (1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995)argues that noticing is the first step necessary in SLA and that learners must

first be able to notice the target features of various forms of input. For Schmidt, consciousness is the key concept in

understanding the noticing hypothesis. He claims that conscious noticing or awareness is a necessary and sufficient

condition for the conversion of input into intake. In this regard, Schmidt and Frota (1986) found from a diary study that there

were many instances in which the learners reports of what had been noticed though interaction with native speakers

matched the learners performance in recorded interview data, including cases in which incorrect use could be traced to

specific misanalyses of what input was heard. This study supports the hypothesis that language learning cannot be

accomplished without noticing. Leow (2000)also observed that the learners who were aware of the target grammatical

features significantly increased their ability to recognize and produce the target forms in L2 Spanish, whereas the learners

who were unaware of those features did not.

A few more words must be said on the subject ofSchmidts (1995) distinction between noticing and understanding.

Noticing is defined as the conscious registration of the occurrence of stimulus events in conscious awareness, while

understanding is defined as the recognition of some general principle, rule, or pattern (Schmidt, 1994:197). The level of

understanding is related to the ability to analyze, compare, andtest hypotheses about thelinguistic input. Schmidt (1995:29)

further elucidates the distinction by saying that noticing refers to surface level phenomena and item learning, while

understanding refers to deeper levels of abstraction related to (semantic, syntactic, and communicative) meaning, and

system learning. Schmidt (1995) claims that awareness (without input or interaction) is clearly inadequate and that

relevant input features must be noticed. Schmidt (1995) anecdotally illustrates the difference between noticing and

understanding in pragmatics in the following passage:

In pragmatics, awareness that on a particular occasion someone says to his or her interlocutor something like Im

terribly sorry to bother you, but if you have time could you look at this problem? is a matter of noticing. Relating the

various forms used to their strategic deployment in the service of politeness and recognizing their co-occurrence with

elements of context such as social distance, power level of imposition and so on, are all matters of understanding.

(Schmidt, 1995:30)



6/29

Learners must notice and attend to both the linguistic forms and the relevant contextual features involved in the use of

various expressions. In the acquisition of grammatical structures, Robinson (1997a) investigated the varying levels of

consciousness induced by manipulation of training conditions (subjects were divided into instructed, rule-search, implicit,

and incidental groups) in order to see how these variables affected the learning of easy and hard L2 grammar rules. He

assessed rule awareness on the basis of responses to a debriefing questionnaire which asked if learners had noticed rules,

were looking for rules, and could verbalize said rules. He found that awareness at the level of noticing did not indicate

superior learning in any of the condition groups, but subjects who were able to verbalize the rules demonstrated superior

learning in both the implicit and rule-search learner groups.

Rosa and ONeill (1999)also examined the connection between reported levels of awareness and differential effects on

the internalization of Spanish grammatical structure by L2 learners. They found that (1) the participants who received

explicit instruction performed significantly better than those immersed in implicit treatment conditions, and (2) both the

degree of noticing and the degree of understanding facilitate L2 acquisition. From these studies, the question arises as to

whether the ability to verbalize usage rules or features is an accurate indicator of L2 pragmatic competence.

4. Research questions

This study examines the effects of PCR activities based on Schmidts (1993a, 1993b, 2001) noticing hypothesis and the

relationship between L2 learners pragmatic knowledge and their production of said knowledge. To reiterate, Schmidt

(1993a, 1993b, 2001) claims that noticing is necessary, but not in and of itself a sufficient condition, for L2 pragmatic

learning; L2 learners must also understand the semantic, syntactic, and sociolinguistic meanings of the TL. In this study I

intend to investigate whether PCR instruction triggers learner noticing and understanding of target pragmatic features, in

this case hearsay evidential markers. My first research question is as follows:

RQ1a: Does PCR instruction significantly affect learners pragmatic ability to understand and produce the Japanese

hearsay evidential markers when compared with a control group as measured by metapragmatic

knowledge tests (MKTs) and an oral discourse production test (OPT)?

Additionally, as Truscott (1998)points out, some CR studies lacked any long-term follow-up activity. Therefore, it is

necessary to address this concern. A second aspect of the first question, then, is as follows:

RQ1b: Are the effects of PCR instruction durable for L2 pragmatic acquisition, as measured by a post-test and a

delayed post-test, when compared with the control group after one month?

The second problem addressed in this PCR study concerns two levels of pragmatic awareness: noticing and

understanding. In this study, the concept of noticing entails noticing the target pragmatic features. The learners perceivecross-cultural differences of hearsay discourse features between L1 English and L2 Japanese, as well as differences between

L1 Japanese and the JFL learners L2 Japanese (Schmidt, 1995; Rose, 2000; Rose and Ng, 2001; Takahashi, 2001).

Understanding is considered to have been reached if the learners are able to state reasons for different uses of hearsay

evidential markers in Japanese and English hearsay reports.

As for the acquisition of grammar, Robinson (1997a) found that awareness at the level of noticing did not indicate

superior learning in any of the condition groups, but subjects who were able to verbalize the rules demonstrated superior

learning in both the implicit and rule-search learner groups. Additionally, Rosa andONeill (1999) found that both the level of

noticing and the level of understanding facilitate L2 acquisition. From these studies, the question arises as to whether the

ability to verbalize usage rules or features is an accurate indicator of L2 pragmatic competence.

Pearson (2001)claims that, in certain cases, learners may have explicit metapragmatic knowledge about strategies for

speech acts which remains unavailable for application in production. The issue here is therefore whether learners must have

explicit metapragmatic knowledge in order to produce a TL appropriately, and whether this knowledge, once obtained,

necessarily translates into production. This study also investigates whether and to what degree, metapragmatic knowledgeis internalized and available for later use. Thus, the second research question is as follows:

RQ2: If PCR instruction effectively assists JFL learners in the acquisition of metapragmatic knowledge, does the level

of awareness reported by the JFL learners in the PCR instruction group (i.e., noticing vs. understanding) have a

differential effect on the learners abilities to use hearsay evidential markers, as measured by metapragmatic

knowledge tests and an oral discourse production test?

5. Methodology

5.1. Procedure

First, in order to create base data for the PCR study, native speakers of Japanese were asked to complete the

metapragmatic knowledge test 1 (hereafter, MKT 1: Scope of hearsay evidential markers) and the metapragmatic knowledge



7/29

test 2 (hereafter, MKT 2: Reliability of information). A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test format (immediate and

delayed) was adopted. The pre-tests were administered one day prior to the treatment sessions. There were four

experimental sessions (30 min per session) and two groups: the PCR group and the control group. The JFL learners in the

control group read stories in Japanese which were not hearsay reports and summarized them in English. The control group

teachers did not ask any questions that elicited hearsay evidential markers. As for the PCR group, the JFL learners first

compared the hearsay reports in L1 English and L1 Japanese, and then compared the hearsay reports in L1 Japanese and L2

Japanese. Both groups were given the same amount of time to complete the task. After the treatment periods were over, the

JFL learners were asked to complete immediate post-tests in which the question style was similar to the pre-tests. However,

in the immediate and delayed post-tests, minor modifications, such as names and locations of the third-party information,

were carried out. The tests were counterbalanced (i.e., the subjects who received Test A as the pre-test took Test B as the

immediate post-test, then took Test C as the delayed post-test; those who received Test B as the pre-test took Test C as the

immediate post-test, then took Test A as the delayed post-test), and a follow-up student evaluation was also conducted with

the PCR group to determine student attitudes toward the PCR activities. One month after the treatment sessions, both groups

took delayed post-tests. For validity, the JFL learners were asked whether they were exposed to the target pragmatic features

after the immediate post-tests.

5.2. Variables

In addressing the research questions, the following two variables should be considered: (1) cross-linguistic differences in

the scope of hearsay evidential markers in English and Japanese, i.e., how far hearsay evidential markers cover second-hand

reports, and (2) the reliability of second-hand information, i.e., what types of second-hand information a speaker considers

as reliable.

The first variable is the scope of hearsay evidential markers. As stated above in the literature review,Trent (1997, 1998)

found from her studies of hearsay discourse that English speakers, having used a hearsay marker at the beginning of a

discourse, often tend not to repeat the use of hearsay evidential markers to emphasize that they are talking about hearsay.

This seems to indicate that English hearsay markers have a wider weight in second-hand reports.

The other variable is the reliability of second-hand information. Kamio (1997) argues that when native speakers of

English considers a piece of information previously conveyed by a third party to be reliable, they may use a direct form, i.e., a

form wherein no hearsay markers are employed. However, in Japanese, even though the same information may be

considered reliable, it may fall outside what Kamio calls the speakers territory of information, in which case the speaker

will not use a direct form unless a sufficient amount of information processing occurs.

5.3. Participants

First, 39 native Japanese speakers who are close to the JFL learners ages were recruited in order to obtain the base data for

two variables: the scope of hearsay evidential markers and the reliability of hearsay information in L1 Japanese.

For the JFL learners, students enrolled in the third-year Japanese courses at universities in the U.S. were contacted for the

PCR study. 57 JFL learners participated in this experiment. Each student was randomly assigned to one of two groups: a PCR

group and a control group. Test scores of 16 students were later excluded due to uninterpretable performances, such as

students who demonstrated 65% accuracy on all pre-tests, those who missed at least one test, and those who left more than

20% of test items uncompleted. Therefore, there were 41 participants remaining, with 22 males and 19 females. Their ages

ranged from 18 to 24 years old, and the mean of the ages was 20.8. All of them were native speakers of English who had never

stayed in Japan for longer than two months.

The participants in this experiment had already learned all hearsay evidential markers. The JFL learners in the L2

study had learned (suru) soo, tte I heard, and kiita I heard in the first or second year Japanese course, but no other

hearsay evidential markers are introduced until they reach the first semester of the third-year level of Japanese courses.

The textbook that the JFL learners are using does not include a more detailed explanation regarding the scope of hearsay

evidential markers and the levels of reliability of hearsay information. Therefore, although the JFL learners may have

learned hearsay evidential markers, this would not affect the results of L2 instruction study due to the fact that there are

no statements on scope of hearsay evidential markers and level of reliability of hearsay information in their textbooks.

5.4. Test instruments

The tests administered in this study fell into two categories, one aimed at determining whether the JFL learners have

metapragmatic knowledge on hearsay evidentiality, the other aimed at determining whether they have the ability to use this

metapragmaticknowledge. An oraldiscourse production test was administered to research the productionof hearsay evidential

markers. Then, in order to test metapragmatic knowledge on the scope of hearsay evidential markers, the MKT 1 was

administered. The MKT 2 was then administered to check metapragmatic knowledge regarding the reliability of hearsay

information,

In other words, the MKTs were used to investigate whether the participants comprehended the features of hearsay

evidential markers, and the oral production tests were employed to examine whether the JFL learners metapragmatic



8/29

knowledge was reflected in their performance when reporting second-hand information. With respect to the order of these

tests, the oral production tests were conducted first (to minimize the influence of the input of hearsay evidential markers on

the participants), followed by the MKTs 1 and 2.

5.4.1. Metapragmatic knowledge test 1: scope of hearsay evidential markers

The MKT 1 was used for investigating the participants knowledge of the scope of hearsay evidential markers (Appendix A).

The test requires participants to choose which paragraph description sounds more natural, and then to mark unnatural parts

and give the reasons fortheir choice. The MKT1 containstwo examplesextractedfromnatural conversation, and has four types

of sets as seen inTable 1. Each example consists of two sentences of hearsay information. For example, the first type of set

examines whether both hearsay information sentences are marked exclusively with overt hearsay evidential markers. That is,

oneexamplecontains overthearsay evidential markers at eachsentence or clause, and the other doesnot includeovert hearsay

evidential markers at all. In terms of appropriateness, all four sets obtained more than 90% of the native Japanese speakers

agreement.To summarize, the MKT 1 consists of 12 items (4 sets 2 items) including 4 distractors. The distractors, such as requests

and narratives, were added so that the JFL learners would not notice the target pragmatic features. The types of sets are

summarized as below:

5.4.2. Metapragmatic knowledge test 2: reliability of information

The MKT 2 was employed in order to measure metapragmatic knowledge regarding the reliability of third-party

information (Appendix B). The JFL learners were asked to make judgments on whether two expressions are natural when

reporting third-party information to their teacher, who is a senior professor, and to indicate their reasons for each choice.

The test contains two types of information. The first type is a situation where a speaker has heard/read news from media

such as radios or newspapers which are considered reliable sources. The second type is a situation where a speaker has read

rumors/gossip in tabloids which are considered unreliable sources. There are two expressions in each situation. One maybe a

zero-hearsay evidential marker, i.e., a direct form, while the other may be a hearsay evidential marker, or both could be

hearsay evidential markers.Each situation contains only one piece of second-hand information that belongs to a third persons territory of

information, and all situations are past events. There was a concern that subjects may simply choose the non-bare form

(i.e., the hearsay form) due to the simplicity of multiple-choice. Therefore, distractors in which both include answers that are

not hearsay evidential markers were added in order to prevent the problem.

To summarize the MKT 2, there are six items for two types of information in the test, so the test consists of 18 items

including 6 distractors. Again, 39 native speakers of Japanese took the same test, and I obtained more than 92.75% of their

agreement for each situation.

5.4.3. Oral discourse production test

As for evaluatingperformance, learners abilitiesto use metapragmatic knowledgewere assessed on the basisof the oral

discourse production test. The oral discourse production test consisted of two parts: (1) reporting news, and (2) spreading

gossip or a rumor. As for part one, the participants were asked to report news that they heard from the radio or read in

newspapers. Visual movie sources suchas TVs

1

were excluded.In part two, theparticipants were asked to tell a listener anyavailable gossip or rumors. The first aim of the OPT is to examine whether the JFL learners would be able to use the L1

Japanese hearsay system, i.e., use a wider scope of hearsay evidential markers in their L2 Japanese second-hand reports, and

the second aim of the OPT is to find out whether the JFL learners would demonstrate co-occurring hearsay discourse

features, such as the use of hearsay evidential markers, in comparison with L1 Japanese second-hand reports by native

Japanese speakers obtained in the L1 study regardless of the reliability of second-hand information.

5.5. Experimental treatments

Instruction treatments for metapragmatic awareness consisted of four sessions. The first two sessions assessed the scope

of hearsay evidential markers, and the last two sessions assessed the reliability of third-party information.

Table 1

Summary of MKT 1.

Choice a Choice b Appropriateness Native Japanese speakers agreement ratio(%)

Clause 1 Clause 2 Clause 1 Clause 2

Set 1 Overt Overt Overt Zero No 92.75

Set 2 Overt Overt Zero Overt Yes 95

Set 3 Overt Overt Overt Overt Yes 95.5

Set 4 Overt Overt Zero Zero No 100

1 When reporting visual information, a speaker may internalize it as if s/he would experience it directly. This may influence the use of hearsay evidential

markers. In fact, Barnes (1984) indicatesthat the visuals arethe reliable evidential markers andthatthey areused when a speaker is a witness or when s/heis observing a situation or an event. Therefore, visual information sources, such as TV, were excluded.



9/29

Learner reports require not only concurrent noticing but also reflective awareness of what has been noticed ( Schmidt,

2001). ThePCR activities alert the learners as to what the concurrent noticing features are andwhy L1 speakers in English and

Japanese commonly use their language as they do, why certain meaning is conveyed differently in the L2, and how

underlying L2 ideologies, as well as shared cultural values and assumptions, influence L2 speakers pragmatic behavior. By

considering these factors, the following four treatments were provided.

In the first treatment, JFL learners in the PCR group received two transcripts of hearsay data in English and Japanese in

order to find out the differences of scope of hearsay evidential markers in L1 English and L1 Japanese. The JFL learners were

then asked to compare the English hearsay data with the Japanese data. Additionally, they were provided with questions to

guide their own discovery of pragmatic patterns (seeAppendix C).

Treatment 1: Scope of hearsay evidential markers between English and Japanese

Q1. What expressions do the English speaker and the Japanese speaker use when reporting hearsay information?

(Noticing)

Q2. Can you explain what the features of English and Japanese hearsay are? Are there any differences between them?

If you found the differences, why do you think they are different? (Understanding)

In the second treatment, the JFL learners in the PCR group receive a transcript of L2 Japanese hearsay reports. The

participants were asked to compare the L2 Japanese hearsay reports by JFL learners with those of L1 native Japanese

speakers, and to discover any differences in hearsay discourse patterns. The questions for the PCR activities are as follows:

Treatment 2: Scope of hearsay evidential markers between L2 Japanese vs. L1 Japanese

Q1. What expressions do Speaker A and Speaker B use when reporting hearsay information? (Noticing)

Q2. Who do you think Speaker A and Speaker B are (i.e., Japanese native speakers or the English speaking students

who are learning Japanese)?

Q3. Can you explain any differences between them? Why do you think they are different? (Understanding)

The third session and the forth session were similar to the first two sessions. However, the variable is the reliability level

of second-hand information. The questions are as follows:

Treatment 3: Reliability of information between L1 English and L1 Japanese

Q1. What expressions does the English speaker use when reporting hearsay information 1 and 2? (Noticing)


Treatment 4: Reliability of information between L2 Japanese vs. L1 Japanese

Q1. What expressions do both speakers use when reporting hearsay information 1 and 2? (Noticing)

Q2. Who do you think Speaker A and Speaker B are (i.e., Japanese native speakers or the English speaking students

who are learning Japanese)?


Through the PCR activities, the JFL learners were asked what they appear to notice and understand. This might be

called the articulate report questions (Schmidt, 1990:135).

5.6. Method of data analysis

After the data was collected and classified, the results of all these test instruments were tested for significance. The

frequencies that were predominant between the two groups and any statistically significant difference between the

responses of two groups were then determined.

For the MKT 1 and 2, all items which obtained at least 92.5% of the native Japanese speakers agreement were used for the

L2 study. If the JFL learners choose thesame answer as theNJSs, it suggests that they may have noticed the target pragmatic

features; if they are able to state the reasons for their choice, this indicates that they understand the target pragmatic

features (Schmidt, 1995). The reasons for the JFL learners choices were qualitatively analyzed for comparison with the data

from the native Japanese speakers.

As for a quantitative analysis, first, ANOVA procedures were performed on the pre-test scores in all three tests to see

whether there were significant differences among the two groups before the instructions, i.e., prior knowledge, to address

Research Question 1. Then, if there were no significant differences, the immediate post-test scores and the delayed post-test

scores were analyzed by means of ANOVA procedures. To address Research Question 2, ANOVA was performed with

participants grouped as +/ noticing and +/ understanding.



10/29

After the instruction sessions, the answers of the PCR group were rated by the researcher and a native speaker of English

in terms of appropriateness, in order to examine the JFL learners pragmatic awareness levels. The interrater reliability

reached r= .96. For the disagreed items, the researchers coding was used. When the JFL learners could answer both noticing

questions in Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 on scope of hearsay evidential markers, it was considered that they notice the

features of hearsay evidential markers. Likewise, when they could answer both understanding questions in the same

treatments, the participants were considered to understand the underlying rules of scope of hearsay evidential markers. In

other words, whether the JFL learners reached to understanding level was determined by whether they could state the

features of hearsay evidential markers in English. The same analysis was applicable to the Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 on

reliability of information.

6. Results

The data collected from the PCR study is shown and discussed in this section in regards to the effectiveness of pragmatic

consciousness-awareness raising (PCR) activities on Japanese hearsay evidential markers. First, section 6.1reports the means

and standard deviations of all three tests: the metapragmatic knowledge test 1 (MKT 1) (scope of hearsay evidential markers),

the metapragmatic knowledge test 2 (MKT 2) (reliability of information), and the oral discourse production test (OPT).

6.1. Means and standard deviations of all tests

The MKT 1 had a maximum possible score of 8, and the MKT 2 had a maximum possible score of 12. Means and standard

deviations for the pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test for each appear in Table 2. Three ANOVA procedures were

conducted on the pre-test scores for all three tests: one on the scores for the MKT1, one on the scores for the MKT 2, and the

other on the scores for the oral production test. The analyses revealed no significant differences between the two groups

before the treatment on the MKT 1 (F= .05, p < .006, n.s.), the MKT 2 (F= .21, p < .006, n.s.), and the oral production test

(F= .28, p < .006, n.s.).

The post-test results were statistically analyzed by means of two-way ANOVA procedures. Since a total of three overall

two-way ANOVA were conducted in this study, an approximate Bornferroni adjustment was made to correct the alpha level.

Thealpha level (.05) was divided by the number of procedures (3), and all subsequent statistical tests were made at that level

of significance (.0167) to maintain an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.

6.2. Results of the metapragmatic knowledge test

6.2.1. Results of the metapragmatic knowledge test 1: scope of hearsay evidential markers

Table 3 summarizes the results of the overall two-way ANOVA performed on the immediate and delayed post-tests in the

MKT 1 as repeated measures. The results of the two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Group ( df= 1,

Table 3

ANOVA summary table for the MKT 1 scores by Group and Time.

Source of variation SS df MS F p Eta2 Power

Within subjects

Time 80.77 2 40.39 25.3 .000 .393 .996

Treatment Time 29.03 2 14.52 9.09 .000 .189 .857

Error 124.53 78 1.6

Between subjects

Group 72.98 1 72.98 21.51 .000 .356 .952

Error 132.29 39 3.39

Table 2

Mean and standard deviation of the MKT 1, the MKT 2, and the oral production test scores by Group and Time in the PCR study(%).

PCR group Control group

Means SD Means SD

Pre-test MKT 1 (8) 3.27 (40.9%) 1.25 3.11 (38.9%) 1.63

MKT 2 (12) 5.5 (45.8) 1.44 5.74 (47.8%) 1.88

Oral test (100) 22.95 (22.95) 22.71 26.58 (26.58%) 20.19

Immediate post-test MKT 1 (8) 6.1 (76.3) 1.51 3.89 (48.6%) 1.37

MKT 2 (12) 9.36 (78) 2.17 6.68 (55.7%) 2.19

Oral test (100) 90.45 (90.45) 12.69 44.3 (44.3%) 18.32

Delayed post-test MKT 1 (8) 5.95 (74.4) 1.56 3.68 (46%) 1.6

MKT 2 (12) 8.41 (70.1) 2.46 6.63 (55.3%) 1.38

Oral test (100) 78.29 (78.29) 18.63 30.35 (30.35%) 22.21



11/29

F= 21.51, p = .000), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2, F= 25.3, p = .000), and significant interaction between Group

and Time (df= 2, F= 9.09,p = .000). The Eta2 values for the two-way ANOVA shows that the main effect for group and time

explains 35.6% and 39.3% of the variances, respectively. A significant interaction effect suggests that the distance between

means for each test is not parallel. A visual presentation of the means of the MKT 1 appears in Fig. 1.

With regard to the scope of hearsay evidential markers in MKT 1, it was found that most JFL learners answered correctly

when one of the pairs included hearsay evidential markers exclusively (Set 4 in Table 1), i.e., when both clauses in two

hearsay information were marked with hearsay evidential markers. On the contrary, the JFL learners seemed to have hard

time when they were asked to choose the pattern in which one of the clauses in one pair is not marked with a hearsay

evidential marker (Sets 13 in Table 1).

According to the reasons given by the JFL learners for their choices, they seemed to recognize the patterns of the sets 13

in Table 1; however, they had no clear understanding where and when the hearsay evidential markers can be used.

6.2.2. Results of the metapragmatic knowledge test 2: reliability of hearsay information

Table 4summarizes the results of the overall two-way ANOVA performed on the immediate and delayed post-tests in

the MKT 2 as repeated measures. The results of the two-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect for Group ( df= 1,

F= 60.52,p= .005), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2,F= 26.9,p= .000), and significant interaction between Group

and Time(df= 2,F= 22.73, p = .000). The Eta2 values for the two-way ANOVA showed that the main effect for group and

time explains 18.7% and 40.8% of the variance, respectively. A significant interaction effect suggests that the distances

between the means for each test are not parallel. A visual presentation of the adjusted means of the oral production test

scores appears inFig. 2.

With regardto level of information reliability, theitems in which unreliable news was conveyed were answered relatively

correctly by the JFL learners. This is due to the fact that even English speakers convey hearsay information using hearsay

markers when reporting unreliable second-hand information.

6.3. Results of the oral production test

Table 5 summarizes the results of the overall two-way ANOVA performed on the tests in the OPT as repeated measures. It

revealed a significant main effect for Group (df= 1, F= 47.46,p = .000.), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2, F= 67.27,

p= .000), and significant interaction between the Treatment Group and Time ( df= 2, F= 32.35,p= .000). The Eta2 values for

[

2

2.5

3

3.54

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Immediate post

test

Pretest Delayed posttest

PCR Control

Fig. 1. Mean scores on the MKT 1 by Group and Time.

Table 4

ANOVA summary table for the MKT 2 scores by Group and Time.


Within subjects

Time 131.28 2 65.64 26.9 .000 .408 1.000

Treatment Time 45.46 2 22.73 22.73 .000 .193 .867

Error 190.35 78 2.44

Between subjects

Group 60.52 1 60.52 8.95 .005 .187 .539

Error 263.77 6.67



12/29

the two-way ANOVA shows that the main effect for Group and Time explains 54.8%and 45.3% of the variance, respectively. A

significant interaction effect suggests that the distance between means for each test is not parallel. A visual presentation of

the adjusted means of the oral production test scores appears in Fig. 3.

To summarize the findings regarding the PCR activities, the JFL learners under the PCR condition had significantly higher

scores than the control group. Regarding the durability of the PCR activities, the effects of the PCR activities on the JFL

learners abilities to use hearsay evidential markers were generally maintained over a period of one month.

[

5

6

7

8

9

10

Immediate postPretest

test

Delayed posttest

PCR Control

Fig. 2. Mean scores on the MKT 2 by Group and Time.

[

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Immediate post Delayed posttestPretest

test

PCR Control

Fig. 3. Mean scores on the oral production scores by Group and Time.

Table 5

ANOVA summary table for the OPT scores by Group and Time.


Within subjects

Time 37845.09 2 18922.52 67.27 .000 .633 1.000

Treatment X Time 1820.57 2 910.29 32.35 .000 .453 1.000

Error 21941.53 78 281.3

Between Subjects

Group 27172.23 1 27172.23 47.46 .000 .548 1.000

Error 22456.37 39 575.8



13/29

6.4. Results of the metapragmatic knowledge tests and the oral production tests for the awareness groups

This study investigated whether and how different levels of awareness influenced learners abilities to use hearsay

evidential markers. Table 6 shows that almost all participants in the PCR group noticed the use of hearsay evidential markers

in Japanese hearsay reports. However, they did not necessarily reach the understanding level.

The JFL learners who could state the features of hearsay evidential markers in Japanese wrote as follows:

The understanding questions answers by the PCR group: scope of hearsay evidential markers

Participant 12: Hearsay markers in English are words normally added at the beginning of a sentence, whereas in

Japanese they are at the end of each sentence and built onto the words. (Treatment 1)

Participant 14: Japanese reporting uses more phrases to indicate not firsthand knowledge. English reporting only has

one hearsay marker that is expected to apply throughout. (Treatment 1)

Participant 2: I think the reports are different because if Speaker B is an English speaker learning Japanese then hewould speak like how English speakers would report in America. (Treatment 2)

Participant 7: Speaker A uses the hearsay markers at the end of most sentences, but Speaker B rarely uses them.

(Treatment 2)

The understanding questions answers by the PCR group: reliability of information

Participant 6: The English reports have differences, indicating differences in confidence in the reports. The Japanese

reports seem similar. (Treatment 3)

Participant 10: The English report #1 sounds more confident. English report #2 seems a lot like both Japanese reports.

Both Japanese reports use a similar style to explain hearsay, while the English ones differ according to

reliability (Treatment 3).

Participant 19: The Japanese speaker tends to use a lot more hearsay than the English reports, no matter what thereliability of the information source is. (Treatment 3)

Participant 19: Speaker Bs report sounds like it has been thought in English and then translated to Japanese without

taking into account the Japanese use of hearsay form. But Speaker A uses hearsay form for both

reports. (Treatment 4)

As seen above, the participants who could answer the understanding level questions correctly are able to explain

differences between English hearsay and Japanese hearsay, i.e., Japanese speakers tend to use hearsay evidential makers

more frequently than English speakers. Also, they noted that the English speakers are likely to transfer the English hearsay

system into the Japanese hearsay reports.

On the other hand, the participants who could not answer the understanding level question properly wrote below:

Some unacceptable answers by the PCR group: Scope of hearsay evidential markers:

Participant 9: In Speaker As reports, he stated the facts he was told/read while B just summarized it. (Treatment 2)

Participant 21: Both speakers (English and Japanese speakers) are explaining hearsay indirect information.

(Treatment 1)

Some unacceptable answers by the PCR group: reliability of information

Participant 17: They (the English and Japanese speakers) heard the information from another source. Since they did

not hear or see it first hand, they report is as hearsay. (Treatment 3)

Participant 22: Speaker B presents their information as fact without sources given. (Treatment 2)

As seen above, the participants who could not reach the understanding level do not state very precise points of hearsay

evidentiality. Instead, they merely point out that because second-hand information exists, the English and Japanese speakers

report it indirectly.

Table 6

Numbers of participants for each awareness level (%).

No awareness Noticing Understanding Total

Scope of hearsay evidential markers 0 14 (63.6) 8 (36.4) 22 (100)

Reliability of information 1 (4.6) 12 (54.5) 9 (40.9) 22 (100)



14/29

6.5. Means and standard deviations of all tests for the awareness groups

Table 7shows means and standard deviations of the MKT 1, the MKT 2, and the oral production test scores for each

awareness level(%). The post-test results were statistically analyzed by means of two-way repeated ANOVA procedures.

Since a total of three overall two-way repeated ANOVA were conducted in this study, an approximate Bornferroni

adjustment was made to correct the alpha level. The alpha level (.05) was divided by the number of procedures (4), and all

subsequent statistical tests were made at that level of significance (.0125) to maintain an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.

6.5.1. Results of the metapragmatic knowledge test 1 and the oral discourse production test for the awareness groups: Scope of

hearsay evidential markers

Table 8a summarizes the results of the overall two-way repeated ANOVA performed on the immediate and delayed post-

tests in the MKT 1 as repeated measures. The results of the two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect for Group

(df= 1, F= 0, p= .99), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2, F= 30.9, p= .000), and no significant interaction between

Group and Time (df= 2, F= .46,p = .63). A significant interaction effect suggests that the distance between means for each

test is not parallel. A visual presentation of the means of the MKT 1 appears in Fig. 4a.

Table 8bsummarizes the results of the overall two-way ANOVA performed on the immediate and delayed post-tests in

the OPT as repeated measures. The results of the two-way ANOVA showed no significant main effect for Group ( df= 1,

F= 3.29, p= .005), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2, F= 105.27, p= .000), and no significant interaction between

Group and Time(df= 2, F= 2.07,p= .139). A significant interaction effect suggests that the distances between the means of

each test are not parallel. A visual presentation of the adjusted means of the oral production test scores appears in Fig. 4b.

Table 8b

ANOVA summary table for the OPT scores by Group and Time: scope of hearsay evidential markers for the awareness groups.


Within subjects

Time 56893.35 2 28446.67 105.27 .000 .84 1.000

Awareness Group Time 1118.96 2 559.48 2.07 .139 .094 .139

Error 10808.83 40 270.22

Between subjects

Group 1353.72 1 1353.72 3.29 .0085 .141 .136

Error 263.77 6.67

Table 7

Mean and standard deviation of the MKT 1, the MKT 2, and the oral production test scores for each awareness level(%).

No awareness group Noticing group Understanding group

Means SD Means SD Means SD

Pre-test MKT1 (8) 3.61 (45.2) 1.28 3.13 (39) 1.13

MKT 2 (12) 4 (33.3) 0 5.25 (43.8) 1.48 6 (50) 1.32

OPT Scope (100) 23.93 (23.93) 23.39 21.25 (21.25) 22.95

OPT reliability (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18.75 (18.75) 21.11 28 (28) 23.69

Immediate post-test MKT 1 (8) 5.93 (74.1) 1.73 6.38 (79.8) 1.06

MKT 2 (12) 6 (50) 0 8.14 (67.8) 2.77 10.58 (88.2) 3.87

OPT scope (100) 85 (85) 13.12 100 (100) 0

OPT Reliability (100) 80 (80) 0 85.83 (85.83) 14.01 97.78 (97.78) 6.67

Delayed post-test MKT 1 (8) 6 (75) 1.57 5.88 (73.5) 1.64

MKT 2 (12) 5 (41.7) 0 7.38 (61.5) 3.87 9.44 (78.7) 3.81

OPT Scope (100) 72.5 (72.5) 19.07 88.42 (88.42) 13.46

OPT Reliability (100) 66.67 (66.67) 0 71.25 (71.25) 18.58 88.97 (88.97) 14.72

Table 8a

ANOVA summary table for the MKT 1 scores by Group and Time: scope of hearsay evidential markers for the awareness groups.


Within subjects

Time 104.47 2 52.25 30.9 .000 .607 1.00

Awareness Group Time 1.56 2 .78 .46 .633 .023 .023

Error 67.62 40 1.69

Between subjects

Group .001 1 .001 .000 .99 .000 .006

Error 62.36 20 3.12



15/29

These results indicated that there were no significant differences between the JFL learners at the noticing level group and

the ones at the understanding level group; however, it was observed that both awareness groups led to significant pre-test to

post-test improvements on the MKT1 and the OPT in case of the awareness groups of scope of hearsay evidential markers.

6.5.2. Results of the metapragmatic knowledge test 2 and the oral production test for the awareness groups: Reliability of

information

Table 9a summarizes the results of the overall two-way repeated ANOVA performed on the immediate and delayed post-

tests in the MKT 1 as repeated measures. The results of the two-way ANOVA revealed no significant main effect for Group

(df= 2, F= 3.26,p= .061), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2, F= 8.61,p= .001), and no significant interaction between

Group and Time (df= 4, F= .53,p= .715). A significant interaction effect suggests that the distance between means for each

test is not parallel. A visual presentation of the means of the MKT 2 appears in Fig. 5a.

Table 9bsummarizes the results of the overall two-way ANOVA performed as repeated measures on the immediate and

delayed post-tests in the OPT. The results of the two-way ANOVA showed no significant main effect for Group (df= 1,

Table 9b

ANOVA summary table for the OPT scores by Group and Time: reliability of information for the awareness groups.


Within subjects

Time 21872.18 2 10936.09 35.45 .000 .65 1.000

Awareness Group Time 206.52 4 51.63 .17 .95 .017 .012

Error 11721.27 38 308.45

Between subjects

Group 3735.59 2 1867.8 6.08 .009 .39 .500

Error 111.3 5.86

[

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8a b

ImmediatePretest

posttest

Delayed

posttest

Noticing Understanding

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ImmediatePretest

posttest

Delayed

posttest

Noticing Understanding

Fig. 4.(a) Mean scores on the MKT 1 by Group and Time for each awareness group: Scope of hearsay evidential markers. (b) Mean scores on the OPT by

Group and Time for each awareness group: Scope of hearsay evidential markers.

Table 9a

ANOVA summary table for the MKT 2 scores by Group and Time: reliability of information for the awareness groups.


Within subjects

Time 51.68 2 25.84 8.61 .001 .84 .79

Awareness Group Time 6.36 4 1.59 .53 .715 .094 .03

Error 114.09 38 3.002

Between subjects

Group 38.16 2 19.08 3.26 .061 .25 .218

Error 111.3 5.86



16/29

F= 3.29, p= .005), a significant main effect for Time (df= 2, F= 105.27, p= .000), and no significant interaction between

Group and Time (df= 2, F= 2.07,p= .139). A significant interaction effect suggests that the distances between means for each

test are not parallel. A visual presentation of the adjusted means of the oral production test scores appears in Fig. 5b.

These results indicated that there were no significant differences between the JFL learners in the noticing level group

and the ones in the understanding level group.In fact,it wasobserved that both awarenessgroups ledto significant pre-test

to post-test improvements on the MKT 2 and the OPT in the case of the awareness groups regarding reliability of

information.

The findings regarding the correlation between levels of awareness and acquisition of L2 pragmatics suggest that the

degree of awareness, i.e., noticing vs. understanding, may not be an important factor to understand the use of hearsay

evidential markers in both the immediate pre-test and delayed post-tests for the metapragmatic knowledge tests. That is, in

both the immediate post-test and the delayed post-test, no matter what levels of awareness the JFL learners have, the JFL

learners acquisition of metapragmatic knowledge is the same. Likewise, in case of the oral discourse production test, there

were no significant differences in both the immediate post-test and the delayed post-test in terms of level of awareness. This

indicates that, regardless of their respective levels of awareness, learners may be able to use hearsay evidential markers. This

issue will be discussed in detail in the following section.

6.6. Discourse analysis of the oral production test

As seen in the previous sections, the JFL learners in the PCR group marked hearsay information with hearsay evidential

markers more frequently in the immediate post-test than in the pre-test after they received the PCR instructions. Here, the

JFL learners oral discourses are analyzed to examine how the JFL learners actually use hearsay evidential markers over time.

Excerpt 1 is the oral hearsay report in the pre-test by the JFL learner 16 (see Appendix D).

Excerpt 1: JFL learner 16s pre-test

[

Fig. 5. (a) Mean scores on the MKT 2 by Group and Time for each awareness group: reliability of hearsay information. (b) Mean scores on the OPT by Group

and Time for each awareness group: Reliability of hearsay information.

1 JFL 16: Eeto Biru Geetsu wa Maikurosofuto no shachoo de

well Bill Gate TP Microsoft GEN President

2 2008 nen in, intai shimasu.

2008 year re retire-POL

Well, Bill Gates, who is the president of Microsoft will retire in 2008.

3 I: Hee soo na n desu ka.

Oh, so NR COP-POL IP.

Oh, I see



17/29

4 JFL 16: Hijookin no kaichoo ni narimasu.

Part-time GEN chairman become-POL

He will become a part-time chairman.

5 I: A soo na n desu ka. De sono ato doo suru n desu ka

Oh so NR COP-POL IP then that after what do NR COP-POL Q

Oh, I see. And then what will he do?

6 JFL 16: Charithii no katsudoo a, sekkyokuteki ni suru

Charity GEN activity, oh, actively do

7 tsumori desu.

will COP-POL

He will get involved in charity actively.

8 I: Hee, sugoi desu ne.

wow, great COP-POL IP

Wow, thats great.

9 JFL 16: Ima made ni eizu toka, takusan no okane o

now until AIDS etc. many GEN money O

10 kifu shite imasu.

donate-ASP-POL

He donates a lot of money for AIDS.

11 I: Hee

Hum.

12 JFL16: Kondo wa Afurika ni sapooto suru yotei desu.This time TP Africa support do will COP-POL

From now on, he will give a financial support to Africa.

As seen in Excerpt 1, lines 2, 4, 7, 10, and 12, the JFL learner merely reports what he read on the newspaper and does not use

hearsay evidential markers at all. However, in the immediate post-test, he uses hearsay evidential markers for each piece of

hearsay information seen in Excerpt 2.

Excerpt 2: JFL learner 16s post-test

1 JFL 16: Shinbun ni yoruto Penshirubenia de, Pensirubenia no

Newspaper according to Pennsylvania at Pennsylvania GEN

2 resutoran de chuumon? wa eego dake to iu

restaurant at order? TP English only QT said

3 harigami o harima, hatta rashii desu.

flyer O put put-ASP heard COP-POL

According to the newspaper, a flyer saying Order in English

was put in a restaurant in Pennsylvania.

4 I: Hee dooshite na n desu ka.

Oh why NR COP-POL Q

Oh, why was that?



18/29

In Excerpt 2, JFL learner 16 marks each piece of hearsay with hearsay evidential markers. In line 3 in particular, he corrects

himself by adding rashii atthe end of the sentence. It should be notedthat hedoesuse such hearsayevidential markers as mitai,and rashii, which wererarelyused in the JFL learners oralproductiontest in thepre-tests. In fact, thenativespeakers of Japanese

(NJSs) use such hearsay evidential markers more frequently than (suru) soo.

Through the PCR activities, the JFL learners in the PCR group were asked to analyze the two types of hearsay reports: one

includes the hearsay evidential markers and the other does not. The NJSs hearsay report included the hearsay evidential

markersmitaiand rashii. The JFL learner seems to notice the use of various hearsay evidential markers in the instruction

materials, and tries to use them in his report.

7. Discussion

In all post-tests (the MKT 1, MKT 2, and the OPT), the PCR group did perform better than the control group. This

suggests that the PCR activities may have impacted the JFL learners consciousness awareness and their pragmatic skills.

However, regarding awareness levels, the data suggest that there is no significant difference between levels of

awareness and the learners pragmatic competences regarding hearsay evidentiality. That is, the JFL learners awareness

levels did not impact on their pragmatic abilities. This section discusses the results in accordance with the research

questions.

7.1. Research Question 1: The effects of the PCR activities

RQ1a: Does PCR instruction significantly affect learners pragmatic ability to comprehend and produce the Japanese

hearsay evidential markers when compared with a control group as measured by metapragmatic knowledge tests

and oral discourse production test?

5 JFL 16: Supeingo o hanasu, imin wa Speingo de chuumon suru mitai desu.

Spanish O speak immigrant TP Spanish in order heard COP-POL

I read that the immigrants who are native speakers of Spanish order food in Spanish.

6 I: Aa, Eego de chuumon saseru tame desu ne?

Oh, English in order-CAU because COP-POL IP

Oh, are they forced to order in English, right?

7 JFL 16: Mise no oonaa wa imin de eego de kuroo shita node

Shop GEN owner TP immigrant English in suffer-ASP because

8 Eego o hana, hanashita hoo ga ii to omotta omotta rashii desu.

English O sp- speak should QT thought thought heard COP-POL.

The owner in the restaurant was (also) an immigrant and had a hard time with English, so apparently he

thought that (other immigrants) should have to speak English.

9 I: Aa, naruhodo.

Oh, I see.

Oh, I see.

10 JFL16: Bushhu daitooryoo ga, mo, Amerika kokka o

Bush president S also American national anthem O

11 supeingo janakute, eego de utau

Spanish NEG English in sing

12 beki da to itteiru soo desu.

should COP QT saying heard COP-POL

I heard(read) that President Bush also thinks the national anthem should be sung in English.



19/29

The JFL learners in the PCR group performed significantly better than the ones in the control group on both tests

(knowledge and production). This finding suggests that the PCR is effective in enhancing learners abilities to recognize the

usage of hearsay evidential markers and use hearsay evidential markers in a hearsay report. The PCR helped the JFL learners

focus their attention on target pragmatic features in the input, and consequently enhanced their intake as suggested by

Schmidt (1993a). In other words, the JFL learners become aware of particular features of L2 pragmatics, i.e., use of hearsay

evidential markers, and convert such input into explicit knowledge by being exposed to semi-authentic texts.

The main theoretical framework for this study was Schmidts claim concerning the role of conscious awareness in the

acquisition of L2 pragmatic competences (1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 2001). Schmidts noticing hypothesis stated that

attention is necessary in order to understand all aspects of second language acquisition, and argued that attention is a key

factor which determines whether something is noticed in the input. For Schmidt, awareness is necessary for L2 pragmatic

learning to take place. In the present study, the JFL learners in the PCR group were aware of L2 pragmatic features in the

input, and they outperformed the control group at a significant level. That is, conscious awareness enabled the JFL learners in

the PCR group to acquire the L2 pragmatic features. The findings in the present study supports Schmidts claim.

Whencompared with other studies which investigate the acquisition of L2 pragmatics under the framework of the noticing

hypothesis,Pearsons (2001)study shows little support for the noticing hypothesis, while Wittens (2004)study supports it

(though Witten mentions that it may not equally apply to all aspects of pragmatics).Pearson (2001) attributes her findings to

the learners low level of linguistic proficiency. That is, advanced learners seemed to be superior to lower level learners in

recognizing an inappropriate speech style and produced more target-like responses (Cook, 2001; Garcia, 2004; Koike, 1996;

Niezgoda and Roever, 2001). Therefore, the factor of the learners proficiency level may affect the L2 pragmatic acquisition.

In this regard,Kasper (1998)points out that adult learners may have an implicit knowledge of L2 pragmatic knowledge;

however, they do not fully make use of such knowledge. In fact, the transferability may be linked with learners proficiency

levels. In the present study, the JFL learners are intermediate level students; thus, they may be able to control L2 pragmatic

knowledge more effectively than beginning-level learners through the PCR activities. Also, the target L2 pragmatic features

in this study were the use of hearsay evidential markers in the hearsay report, which were introduced in the intermediate

level class. Therefore, although the target features between Pearsons study (i.e., speech acts in L2 Spanish) and the current

study (i.e., hearsay evidential markers in L2 Japanese) are different, it seems that thelearners proficiency level maystill be an

important factor for L2 pragmatic acquisition. That is, the higher the level, the more effectively the L2 learners may be able to

activate their L2 pragmatic knowledge into production.

Ishida (2009), however, found that his beginning-level learners were able to understand the target pragmatic features

through awareness-raising instructions. The discrepancy between the findings ofIshida (2009) and the present study could be

attributed to different pragmatic features. The target pragmatic features in Ishida (2009) were the indexical use of theJapanese

plain and desu/masu forms. In his study, L2 learners were able to develop L2 pragmatic knowledge of these forms, i.e., how and

why they are used depending on social contexts, utilizing what they already know from first-language resources, which is

referred to as learner competence, or their existing competences (Yoshimi, 2008). In contrast, the target feature in the current

study was the use of hearsay evidential markers, and as such the JFL learners may need to be aware of more complicated

structures such as hearsay evidential markers. These types of pragmatic features in Japanese hearsay discourse are different

from those in L1 English, so it would not be possible for the JFL learners to refer to their L1 existing knowledge.

Another difference between Ishida (2009) and the present study is the length of treatment sessions. The treatment

sessions in Ishidas study were from one to two semesters, whereas there were four treatment sessions of 30 min each in the

present study. The longer treatments in Ishidas study may be able to develop L2 pragmatic competences even in beginning-

level learners. In this regard,Iwai (2010)argues that the longer the learners are instructed in the same pragmatic resources,

the more proficient they become in using them.

Although long-term pragmatic instruction is possible for the acquisition of the Japanese plain and desu/masu forms

(Ishida, 2009) and small talk, i.e., listener responses and repair (Iwai, 2010), it may not be applicable to the present study.

Merely practicing the use of hearsay evidential markers over the entire semester is not plausible. Nevertheless, sustained,

continued instruction of L2 pragmatics that includes frequent awareness-raising and conversation practice, as well as

feedback of L2 learners use of the target pragmatic features, is necessary for learners to develop their L2 pragmatic

competence. Therefore, L2 learners proficiency levels, differences of target pragmatic features, and the length of treatment

sessions may be important factors for investigating the effects of L2 pragmatic instructions.

We also need to consider aspects of communicative competence beyond the use of language in social situations, such as

grammatical competence. In this regard, Bardovi-Harlig (1999)raised the question of whether pragmatic competence is

built on a platform of grammatical competence. She states that advanced levels of grammatical competence do not

automatically result in equally advanced levels of pragmatic competence. Kasper and Roever (2005) also argue that

pragmatic ability does not necessarily emerge from grammar because adult L2 learners are fully pragmatically competent in

at least one language. Therefore, they can make use of pragmatic universals and L1 transfers of discourse, and pragmatic and

sociolinguistic knowledge from the beginning stage of L2 acquisition. However, in the current study, the JFL learners could

not rely on universal features of pragmatics due to the different hearsay report systems in English and Japanese.

During the instruction periods in the PCR activities, the JFL learners were asked to look for clues as to why TL speakers say

what they say in a given situation, and to compare their L2 patterns with those of TL speakers in similar contextual situations.

During the treatment sessions, the JFL learners in the PCR group attended to both a linguistic form and the relevant contextual

features with which they are associated in order to acquire L2 pragmatic ability. They also compared their pre-existing (L1)



20/29

assumptions wit

pragmatic consciousness.pdf

Documents

Transcript of pragmatic consciousness.pdf