Pragmatic Consciousness PDF

The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the
development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential

markers 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, more specicallyJapanese hearsay evidential markers, suchas rashii I heard that. PCRis aninductive approachto
facilitatingawareness of howlanguage forms are usedappropriately, givena context. Theconsciousness-raising(hereafter, CR)
usedinthe present study derives fromRoses (1999, 2000) PCR. The purpose of PCRis toexposelearners topragmatic aspects of
language and provide them with the necessary analytical tools for understanding contextually appropriate language usage
(Rose, 1999, 2000). It is hypothesizedthat PCRactivities mayaccelerateL2acquisitionof pragmatic competence. If this is 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
rashii I 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 rst
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 to
the 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 may become aware of 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: narita@macalester.edu.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ pr agma
0378-2166/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.016
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; Givo n, 1982; Ohta, 1991). That is, hearsayevidential markers areconsideredtobethoselinguisticmarkers which
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 hearsayevidential markers inJapanesearesuchJapanesemodal auxiliaries as (suru) soo, yoo/mitai, andrashii;
reported speechsuch as to itta (somebody) said that, to yonda I read that and to kiita I heard that; quotative markers i.e., tte I
heard that , to iu koto da and to no koto da it 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 difculties 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, learners
of 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 nal 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 t 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) 129 2
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 kangaeteiru
PKK 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 efcient 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 classroomdiscourse. Similarly, Judd (1999) states that CR activities may help learners develop an awareness of the
pragmatic features of a given TL.
More specically, Schmidt (1993a) discusses the role of consciousness in the learning of L1 pragmatic rules, drawing on
previous research from the elds 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 formand 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 performa whole range of specic
tasks. In his analysis, knowing a word or structure is different from knowing how to produce or understand it efciently.
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.
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 rst 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 uently. 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 inuence production as well as comprehension levels.
Pearson (2001) investigated the effects of metapragmatic discussion and pragmatic instructionon L2 learners acquisition
of speech acts in the Spanish language. Her results indicate that few signicant 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 intensiers and speech act appropriateness in apologies. It was also found that comparison of the experimental
groups with the control group revealed fewsignicant differences, and that the variations in instructional methodology only
inuenced the use of linguistic functions of lowcomplexity due to learners lowlevel 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 sufcient 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 debrieng survey, her
statements remain speculative.
Witten (2004) also examined the role of consciousness awareness in learning L2 Spanish pragmatics (speech acts). She
observed beginninglearners of Spanishina semester-longcourse featuringinteractive videoas a methodof instruction. Onthe
subject of heightening learner awareness, Witten (2004) focuses on input enhancement (hereafter, IE, Sharwood Smith, 1991,
1993) rather thanCR, believingthat it is easier todescribewhat theinstructor is doingthanit istoknowwhat is happeninginthe
minds of learners. Inher study, the L2learners were dividedintoanexperimental groupanda control group. Thesubjects inher
experimental group were asked to nd examples of L2 speech acts corresponding to those in their L1, and to note contexts in
whichtheSpanishsecondpersonsingular was used. Thecontrol groupviewedavideoseries andlater completedcontent-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 L2pragmatics, (2) their attitudes towardthevideocomponent of thecourse, (3) thetime dedicatedtothe
video component, and (4) the learners overall comprehension. Data analysis indicated that the experimental group performed
signicantly better on the written task. Results of the oral task showed some positive trends, but no statistical signicance,
while results from the multiple-choice task did not reect any difference between the two groups. Her ndings revealed a
patternof better performance bythe test groupwithsecondpersonaddressees, whichis anarea that was repeatedlyenhanced.
Numerous research projects can be derived from Wittens study. Firstly, it may be worth investigating to what extent
metapragmatic knowledge inuences learners production skills. As stated earlier, her data indicated that the multiple-choice
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 signicant 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. These ndings support that althoughindividuals may be aware of certain pragmatic features of a language, they
maynot necessarilyactivatesuchmetapragmaticknowledgewhenproducingthelanguage. Secondly, her studydidnot employ
a pre- andpost-testing format because of the concernthat a pre-test todetermine 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 nd 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 ndings indicate that the role of
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 and desu/masu forms. 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 ndings to
the learners lowlevel of linguistic competence. It indicates that there may be correlation between lowpragmatic awareness
and low language prociency (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, in Wittens (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 rst step necessary in SLA and that learners must
rst 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 sufcient
condition for the conversion of input into intake. In this regard, Schmidt and Frota (1986) found froma 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
specic 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 signicantly 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 of Schmidts (1995) distinction between noticing and understanding.
Noticing is dened as the conscious registration of the occurrence of stimulus events in conscious awareness, while
understanding is dened 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 the linguistic 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)
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 debrieng 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 signicantly 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 sufcient 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 rst research question is as follows:
RQ1a: Does PCR instruction signicantly 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 rst 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 perceive
cross-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 boththe implicit and rule-search learner groups. Additionally, Rosa and ONeill (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 knowledge
is 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
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 rst
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 modications, 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 rst 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 sufcient 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 from18 to 24 years old, and the mean of the ages was 20.8. All of themwere 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 rst or second year Japanese course, but no other
hearsay evidential markers are introduced until they reach the rst 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
metapragmatic knowledge. Anoral discourseproductiontest was administeredtoresearchthe productionof hearsayevidential
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
knowledge was reected in their performance when reporting second-hand information. With respect to the order of these
tests, the oral production tests were conducted rst (to minimize the inuence 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
andgive the reasons for their choice. The MKT 1contains two examples extractedfromnatural conversation, andhas four types
of sets as seen in Table 1. Each example consists of two sentences of hearsay information. For example, the rst type of set
examines whether both hearsay information sentences are marked exclusively with overt hearsay evidential markers. That is,
one example contains overt hearsayevidential markers at eachsentence or clause, andthe other does not include overt 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 rst 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 whichare considered unreliable sources. There are two expressions in each situation. One may be 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 evaluating performance, learners abilities to use metapragmatic knowledge were assessedonthe basis of 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. Inpart two, the participants were asked to tell a listener any
available gossip or rumors. The rst 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 intheir L2Japanese second-handreports, and
the second aim of the OPT is to nd 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 rst 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 inuence the use of hearsay evidential
markers. In fact, Barnes (1984) indicates that the visuals are the reliable evidential markers and that they are used when a speaker is a witness or when s/he
is observing a situation or an event. Therefore, visual information sources, such as TV, were excluded.
Learner reports require not only concurrent noticing but also reective awareness of what has been noticed (Schmidt,
2001). The PCRactivities alert the learners as to what the concurrent noticing features are andwhy L1 speakers in Englishand
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, inuence L2 speakers pragmatic behavior. By
considering these factors, the following four treatments were provided.
In the rst treatment, JFL learners in the PCR group received two transcripts of hearsay data in English and Japanese in
order to nd 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 (see Appendix 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 rst 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 classied, the results of all these test instruments were tested for signicance. The
frequencies that were predominant between the two groups and any statistically signicant 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 the same answer as the NJSs, 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, rst, ANOVA procedures were performed on the pre-test scores in all three tests to see
whether there were signicant differences among the two groups before the instructions, i.e., prior knowledge, to address
Research Question 1. Then, if there were no signicant 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.
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 6.1 reports 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 signicant 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.
The alpha level (.05) was divided by the number of procedures (3), and all subsequent statistical tests were made at that level
of signicance (.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 signicant 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 Eta
2
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
F = 21.51, p = .000), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 25.3, p = .000), and signicant interaction between Group
and Time (df = 2, F = 9.09, p = .000). The Eta
2
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 signicant 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 4 summarizes 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 signicant main effect for Group (df = 1,
F = 60.52, p = .005), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 26.9, p = .000), and signicant interaction between Group
and Time (df = 2, F = 22.73, p = .000). The Eta
2
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 signicant 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 in Fig. 2.
With regard to level of informationreliability, the items in whichunreliable 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 signicant main effect for Group (df = 1, F = 47.46, p = .000.), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 67.27,
p = .000), and signicant interaction between the Treatment Group and Time (df = 2, F = 32.35, p = .000). The Eta
2
values for
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Immediatepost
test
Pretest Delayedposttest
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.
2
Power
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
the two-way ANOVA shows that the main effect for Group and Time explains 54.8% and 45.3% of the variance, respectively. A
signicant 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 ndings regarding the PCR activities, the JFL learners under the PCR condition had signicantly 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
Immediatepost Pretest
test
Delayedposttest
PCR Control
Fig. 2. Mean scores on the MKT 2 by Group and Time.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Immediatepost Delayedposttest Pretest
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.
2
Power
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
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 inuenced 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 rsthand 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 he
would 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 condence in the reports. The Japanese
reports seem similar. (Treatment 3)
Participant 10: The English report #1 sounds more condent. 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 the
reliability 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 rst 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)
6.5. Means and standard deviations of all tests for the awareness groups
Table 7 shows 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 signicance (.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 signicant main effect for Group
(df = 1, F = 0, p = .99), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 30.9, p = .000), and no signicant interaction between
Group and Time (df = 2, F = .46, p = .63). A signicant 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 8b summarizes 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 signicant main effect for Group (df = 1,
F = 3.29, p = .005), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 105.27, p = .000), and no signicant interaction between
Group and Time (df = 2, F = 2.07, p = .139). A signicant 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.
2
Power
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.
2
Power
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
These results indicated that there were no signicant 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 signicant 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 signicant main effect for Group
(df = 2, F = 3.26, p = .061), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 8.61, p = .001), and no signicant interaction between
Group and Time (df = 4, F = .53, p = .715). A signicant 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 9b summarizes 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 signicant 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.
2
Power
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
8
a
b
Immediate Pretest
posttest
Delayed
posttest
Noticing Understanding
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Immediate Pretest
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.
2
Power
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
F = 3.29, p = .005), a signicant main effect for Time (df = 2, F = 105.27, p = .000), and no signicant interaction between
Group and Time (df = 2, F = 2.07, p = .139). A signicant 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 signicant differences between the JFL learners in the noticing level group
andthe ones inthe understanding level group. Infact, it was observedthat bothawareness groups ledto signicant 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 ndings 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 signicant 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 howthe 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
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 nancial 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.
yer O put put-ASP heard COP-POL
According to the newspaper, a yer 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?
In Excerpt 2, JFL learner 16 marks each piece of hearsay with hearsay evidential markers. In line 3 in particular, he corrects
himself byaddingrashii at theendof thesentence. It shouldbenotedthat hedoes usesuchhearsayevidential markers as mitai,
andrashii, whichwererarelyusedintheJFL learners oral productiontest inthepre-tests. Infact, 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
markers mitai and 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 signicant 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 signicantly 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.
The JFL learners in the PCR group performed signicantly better than the ones in the control group on both tests
(knowledge and production). This nding 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 signicant level. That is, conscious awareness enabled the JFL learners in
the PCR group to acquire the L2 pragmatic features. The ndings in the present study supports Schmidts claim.
Whencompared withother 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 ndings to
the learners low level of linguistic prociency. 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 prociency 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 prociency
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 the learners prociency level may still 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 ndings of Ishida (2009) and the present study could be
attributedto different pragmatic features. The target pragmatic features inIshida (2009) were the indexical use of the Japanese
plain and desu/masu forms. In his study, L2 learners were able to develop L2 pragmatic knowledge of these forms, i.e., howand
why they are used depending on social contexts, utilizing what they already know from rst-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 fromone 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 procient 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 prociency 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 fromgrammar 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 formand the relevant contextual
features with which they are associated in order to acquire L2 pragmatic ability. They also compared their pre-existing (L1)
assumptions with their new discoveries about L2 Japanese pragmatic features through the PCR activities. In fact, the PCR
activities enabled the JFL learners to foster their awareness of the ways the NJS reports hearsay in L1 Japanese and the NES
reports hearsayinL1English, andalsothe ways that the NJS reports hearsayinL1Japanese andthe JFLlearner reports hearsayin
L2 Japanese.
Although the JFL learners noticed the target pragmatic features through the PCR activities, the problemis whether the JFL
learners control such L2 pragmatic knowledge in the output stage. Knowing a word or structure is different from knowing
how to produce or understand it efciently (Sharwood Smith, 1993). Truscott (1998) has raised the issue that increasing
learners awareness does help in the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge, but does not help learners acquire language.
Judd (1999) also states that even if learners understand howcontextual factors are evaluated, we cannot simply assume that
learners are able to produce these forms in a programmatically appropriate manner. That is, adult L2 learners may be able to
notice the TL pragmatic features based on the saliency of the features, but they do not necessarily knowhowto use the target
pragmatic expressions. In this regard, Bialystok and Sharwood Smith (1985) raised two independent dimensions: declarative
knowledge (knowledge of fact) which develops from unanalyzed to analyzed, and procedural knowledge (knowledge of
how) which varies along a continuumfromcontrolled to automatic. The question here is whether the JFL learners develop
both types of knowledge through the PCR activities.
In the present study, although the PCR group performed signicantly better than the control group, it might have been
difcult for some JFL learners to control such acquired pragmatic knowledge while simultaneously becoming aware of the L2
pragmatic features. Overall, most JFL learners in the PCR group seemed to be able to retain such TL pragmatic knowledge
after the PCR activities. In fact, their oral production test scores in the post-tests and delayed post-tests were signicantly
higher than the ones in the pre-tests. Therefore, the TL pragmatic rules that the JFL learners noticed are what become intake
for learning. They can use their metapragmatic knowledge to produce more appropriate output, thereby acquiring the TL
competence. The intake then must be integrated into the conscious knowledge for acquisition. In other words, the JFL
learners integrated such knowledge in order to produce the TL pragmatic expressions.
Noticing the target features is positively related to the emergence of the TL in learner output (Fotos, 1993; Schmidt and
Frota, 1986). The JFL learners may convert explicit knowledge (what they know about language) into implicit knowledge
(their ability to actually use language in real situations). This study showed that the PCR activities helped the JFL learners to
acquire language as well as to obtain metapragmatic knowledge, which is in contrast to Truscotts argument (1998) because
the JFL learners had a signicantly higher score regarding the use of hearsay evidential markers compared to the control
group. To summarize, the results show that the effects of the PCR give support to the noticing hypothesis regarding L2
pragmatic acquisition.
Another question concerns the long-term effects of PCR instruction.
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 control group?
The results of the delayed post-test show that the effects of the PCR activities are durable at least for one month for all
tests. Durability of instructional effects is affected by the length of treatments. The instructional effectiveness on L2 grammar
acquisition seemed to last beyond immediate observed effects although it gradually deteriorates (Norris and Ortega, 2000).
In the present L2 pragmatic acquisition study, the JFL learners may be able to still retain their L2 pragmatic knowledge at
least for one month. In terms of learning, awareness at the time of learning is required in the framework of the noticing
hypothesis (Schmidt, 1995:26), so at the time of the immediate post-test, one could state that the JFL learners were aware of
the target pragmatic features and were able to activate (make use of) such knowledge. However, at the time of the delayed
post-test, it is not certain whether the JFL learners still can employ implicit knowledge derived from explicit knowledge
transmitted through the PCR instruction.
Schmidt (1990) claims that processing in short-term memory is required for long-term storage through conscious
awareness. In the present study, it seems that for some JFL learners, acquired information may be rehearsed in short term
memory temporarily, then subsequently lost. However, although effects of the PCRgradually deteriorate in the delayed post-
tests, they still can retain their acquired information and comprehend and produce hearsay evidential markers in their
reports. Since they were not asked to recall the acquired knowledge at the time of the delayed post-tests, it is not clear
whether JFL learners transformed controlled processing in a short-termstore into a permanent storage. Also, it is not certain
whether the JFL learners attempted to rehearse the use of hearsay evidential markers after the treatment sessions.
Nevertheless, the effect of the PCR seems to last for at least one month.
To summarize, this study showed that the approach to simulating conscious pragmatic awareness via PCR techniques may
have a positive impact on JFL learners acquisition of pragmatic competence, at least when analyzed in terms of the learners
awareness of hearsay evidential markers in semi-authentic conversationinput. The ndings showed that the effects of the PCR
activities on the JFL learners abilities to use hearsay evidential markers were maintained over a period of one month.
7.2. Research Question 2: Awareness level
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 have a differential effect on their abilities to use
hearsay evidential markers as measured by metapragmatic knowledge tests and an oral discourse production test?
The present study investigated whether and how different levels of awareness inuenced the JFL learners use of hearsay
evidential markers. The results of the analyses presented in Tables 8a9b revealed that there was no signicant difference
between the JFL learners who demonstrated awareness at the level of noticing and the JFL learners who demonstrated
awareness at the level of understanding when they were categorized based on whether they had knowledge of the scope of
hearsay evidential markers. Yet, the JFL learners who demonstrated awareness at the level of understanding performed
slightly better than the ones who merely reported awareness at the level of noticing, as seen in Figs. 4 and 5.
With regards to the distinction between noticing and understanding, Schmidt (1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1995) states that
noticing implies registering the simple occurrence of some events, whereas understanding implies recognition of a general
principle, rule, or pattern. He argues that noticing the occurrence of the target form is necessary for L2 learning;
consciousness at the level of noticing is not sufcient for learning to occur. In fact, Robinson (1995, 1997a) found that only
awareness at the level of understanding, and not at the level of noticing, led to higher levels of learning. In the present study,
however, both noticing and understanding led to signicant pre-test to post-test improvement, which supports the notion
that noticing may be sufcient to convert input into intake.
The discrepancy between the ndings of Robinson (1995, 1997a) and the present study could be attributed to the method
of determining the level of awareness. As Robinson (1997a) pointed out, his method of investigating noticing and
understanding was done by means of post exposure questionnaire, which was less powerful than other methods such as
answering the pragmatic awareness questions. In Robinsons questionnaire, the contents of noticing were not assessed and
the participants were not required to recall the content of what they had noticed. However, in the present study, the JFL
learners actual answers to the questions about hearsay evidential markers were assessed in order to nd out whether they
noticed or understood the L2 pragmatic features during exposure to the data.
2
In terms of the awareness levels, i.e., noticing and understanding, the results on the level of awareness in the present
study revealed that there were no signicant differences between the noticing level group and the understanding level
group, whereas Rosa and ONeills study (1999) found that the understanding level group grasped signicantly more
instances of the target form than the noticing group. The discrepancy between their ndings and the ndings of the present
study could be attributed to the target structure. In Rose and ONeills study, the structure was a contrary-to-fact conditional
sentence in Spanish, which was one of the examples of complex structures for the learners in the fourth semester Spanish
class. However, in the current study, the target feature was the use of hearsay evidential markers in the hearsay reports. Once
the JFL learners realize the use of hearsay evidential markers at the end of the sentence, an act considered to demonstrate
awareness at the level of noticing, they may not have to reach the level of understanding. That is, although they may not be
able to understand how the markers are used in hearsay discourse, i.e., the understanding level, they could gain knowledge
through the PCR activities and produce hearsay evidential markers in their reports.
Furthermore, the JFL learners could actually see a hearsay evidential marker as a discourse marker which is syntactically
independent to the main sentence and has little explicit meaning, which may be another reason there were no signicant
differences between the noticing level group and the understanding level group. Hearsay markers have become
conventionalized in their hearsay reports. Such conventionalized expressions may have short-circuited inferencing. In other
words, the conventionalized hearsay markers may have speeded up the amount of time it takes to move from noticing to
understanding by shortening the inferential path. In the PCR activity, once the learners noticed a hearsay evidential marker
at the end of hearsay information, they could understand howthey were used in the hearsay report. Therefore, there were no
signicant differences between the JFL learners in both awareness group levels: noticing and understanding.
Also, the studies respective methods of nding L2 awareness was different. The method of Rosa and ONeills study (1999)
was the think-aloud protocol, which is the subjects verbal report; in the present study, the JFL learners actually answered
questions on the noticing and understanding levels. In the noticing level, the JFL learners reported the type of hearsay
evidential markers in the semi-authentic input, while in the understanding level they were asked to explain the occurrences
of hearsay evidential markers and how they were used in hearsay reports. It might not be necessary to understand the rules
2
Leow (2000) raises the level internal validity issue on the major differences between online data-elicitation measures and ofine data-elicitation
measures (i.e., the post-exposure questionnaire) with regards to L2 learners actual performances during interaction with the data. Leow(2000) argues that
online process measures are higher in internal validity, and that the post-exposure questionnaires can only make inferences about whether learners became
aware of targeted forms in the input. Although the methods of data-elicitation in the current study and in Robinsons (1997a) study are ofine data-
elicitation measures (i.e., post-exposure questionnaires), the L2 learners in the current study answered the questions regarding the use of hearsay evidential
markers right after being exposed to the data. Therefore, this study is similar to online data-elicitation measures, unlike Robinsons study in which the L2
learners completed the questionnaire after taking the post-tests.
or principles of the use of hearsay evidential markers in this study, because all the L2 learners need to understand is the
frequent use of hearsay evidential markers. To put it differently, awareness of the use of hearsay evidential markers such as
rashii and (suru) soo, rather than how frequently and where they were used in the hearsay reports, may be sufcient to
understand and produce hearsay evidential markers in L2 Japanese; even though the L2 learners may be able to notice the
target L2 pragmatic features, they do not necessarily verbalize the complicated patterns. In this regard, Schmidt (1990)
cautioned that lack of self-report does not necessarily imply lack of awareness because certain experiences may be difcult
to verbalize. Schmidt (2001) points out that verbal reports cannot be assumed to include everything that L2 learners noticed,
so it is difcult to see how this method shows whether the L2 learners notice something.
Nevertheless, despite of no signicant difference between the awareness groups at the level of noticing and
understanding, the JFL learners who could demonstrate awareness at the level of understanding achieved a slightly higher
level of learning than the ones who simply noticed the target L2 pragmatic features. When looking at the within-group
factors, it was found that both noticing and understanding categories demonstrated a signicant score improvement from
the pre-test to the post-tests. Therefore, the results regarding the noticing and understanding distinctionin the present study
may have little support for the notion that noticing is not sufcient for learning to occur.
In this regard, emergentists claimthat simple learning mechanisms are sufcient to bring about the emergence of complex
language representations (Ellis, 2003). If so, the level of noticing maybe sufcient for learninga complexlanguage system. Also,
froma viewpoint of language development, these two levels are seen not to be separate entities, but rather evolving cognitive
process in different stages. Therefore, it could be that noticing may not be entirely separate from understanding.
In any case, in this study, demonstrating one has reached the level of understanding may be preferred for the L2 learners to
convert input intointake, andtherebyacquiretheL2pragmaticabilities. This is becausetheJFLlearners whoreachedthelevel of
understanding slightly outperformed the ones who merely noticed the features of hearsay evidential reports. Rosa and ONeill
were concerned about cognitive registration, but Robinson was concerned about learning. In the present study, if learning
refers to production, it is shown that even awareness at the level of noticing may be sufcient for L2 pragmatic learning.
7.3. Results of debrieng questionnaire
The previous section discussed whether and how the PCR activities enhance the JFL learners pragmatic abilities with
hearsay evidential markers, as well as the following research question: howdoes the JFL learners metapragmatic awareness
affect their pragmatic skills? For these questions, an intervening variable, such as JFL learners affect, cannot be neglected.
The term affect is used to include the learners motivations, attitudes, and opinions toward the PCR activities.
The previous research (Takahashi, 2005; Tarone and Yule, 1989; Yule and Tarone, 1997) shows that motivation inuences
the learning process. Therefore, in order to nd out the learners affect, the students feedback toward the PCR activities was
conducted. After the immediate post-test, a questionnaire was given to the participants in the PCR group. The rst-half items
are multiple-choice questions which examined the JFL learners opinions on the degree of usefulness of, the effectiveness of,
and their interest in the PCR activities. The last-half items were open-end questions which addressed the positive and
negative feedback, including suggestions. The responses of each question are shown and discussed below (Figs. 68).
In the open-end questions regarding the positive feedback from the PCR participants, some students seem to be
interested in doing the analysis exercises using natural discourse data. They commented that it is always good to read more
real examples that do not come from a textbook or are not created specically for lessons. According to one participant,
English speakers cannot just translate their speech patterns into Japanese by analyzing both Japanese and English hearsay
Fig. 6. The degree of difculty in the PCR activities.
Q1. How would you rate the instructions: analyzing natural conversations?
examples. Successful learning involves not only noticing the forms used, but also an appreciation of their functional meaning
(Schmidt, 1993a).
In contrast, some commented that, at rst, it was difcult to understand the Japanese examples because of unfamiliar
words, regardless of existence of word translations. One noted that some questions were repetitive. As for suggestions, some
of themasked for more direct verbal explanations on the differences between Japanese hearsay and English hearsay fromthe
instructor because the participants were asked to merely do the analysis exercises in the PCR treatment sessions.
Also, one participant suggestedhavingoral exercises after thePCRactivities toreinforcewhat theyacquiredthroughthe PCR
activities. In an actual classroom, it might be benecial to have such oral exercises in addition to the analysis of authentic data.
Interestingly, one participant wondered if they had to use hearsay evidential markers even though they trust their friends
or read a very reliable newspaper. In this regard, sociopragmatic issues may come into play (Kamio, 1997). That is, a Japanese
speaker may use hearsay evidential markers to show politeness to ones professor or to avoid the responsibility of hearsay
information. Actually, in all examples in this study the hearer was the participants senior and professor, thus the participant
might be expected to use hearsay evidential markers more frequently than when they report to their friends. In further
studies it may be interesting to show more examples considering the interlocutor variable, i.e., to whom you are reporting.
Fig. 8. The degree of usefulness in the PCR activity.

Q3. How much did you learn about reporting hearsay information in Japanese?
Fig. 7. The degree of interests in the PCR activities.

Q2. How would you rate the instructions: analyzing natural conversations?
8. Conclusion
In this nal section, the overall ndings from this study are summarized. The ndings are then placed within the
contexts of language acquisition theory, language instruction, and pragmatic theory to determine what contributions this
study may offer to these elds. In addition, some strengths and limitations of the present study are discussed and various
future directions for this research are suggested. Finally, some concluding remarks are provided concerning this research
project.
8.1. The effects of the PCR activities on the acquisition of pragmatic competence
In formulating the noticing hypothesis, Schmidt claimed that consciousness of input in the form of noticing makes
target language items available for production. This investigation tested the proposition that the PCR activities used to
make learners notice aspects of the target pragmatic features wouldfacilitate the acquisitionof hearsay evidential markers.
Data was collected and analyzed to see if the PCR activities would signicantly affect learners use of hearsay evidential
markers.
The rst research question of the current study investigated the effects of the PCR activities on the acquisition of Japanese
hearsay evidential markers. In regards to the research question of whether PCR instruction affects learners pragmatic ability
to comprehend and produce Japanese hearsay evidential markers, the ndings appear to indicate that the PCR activities are
effective for learning L2 pragmatic features. The PCR activities seem to have inuenced the JFL learners of the PCR group to
perform better than those of the control group. The ndings from the data may indicate that exposure to the real discourse
analysis activity may have facilitated metapragmatic awareness to a more conscious level, as seen in the OPT.
In regards to the research question of whether the level of awareness reported by the JFL learners (i.e., noticing vs.
understanding) has a differential effect on the learners abilities to use hearsay evidential markers, this study indicated that
both the JFL learners who demonstrated awareness at the level of noticing and the JFL learners who demonstrated awareness
at the level of understanding experienced a signicant score increase from the pre-test to the post-test. Therefore, this may
lead to a conclusion that noticing L2 pragmatic features would be sufcient for L2 pragmatic learning to occur, at least in the
case of hearsay evidential marker acquisition, and for the intermediate learners.
A goal of this study was to examine metapragmatic analytic skills using natural discourse data that ideally could be
transferred to real-life situations. The JFL learners feedback indicates that some have enhanced their metapragmatic analytic
skills to a level higher than before, and that the learners also showed interest in the PCR activities as proved by PCR learners
comment in section 7.3. Therefore, through the PCR activities, the JFL learners may have developed metapragmatic
awareness. Whether this analytical skill will later transfer to real-life L2 situations is beyond the scope of this present study.
Nevertheless, the ndings appear to indicate that the PCR activities may enhance the JFL learners metapragmatic awareness
by inuencing their attitude towards analysis of real discourse data.
8.2. Implications of the ndings for second language acquisition
The main theoretical framework for this study was Schmidts research concerning the role of consciousness-raising in the
development of L2 pragmatic competence (1990, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 2001). Schmidts noticing hypothesis (1993a,
1993b) stated that awareness is necessary for L2 pragmatic learning to occur. The termlearning should be dened to assess
the implications of this study for Schmidts noticing hypothesis. If learning refers to conscious knowledge and the ability to
produce appropriate pragmatic expressions, this present studys ndings support Schmidts claims. The JFL learners in the
PCR group were able to produce hearsay evidential markers better than the control group.
In regards to levels of awareness, Schmidt (1993a, 1993b) further claims that although noticing the form of input is a
required condition for pragmatic learning to occur, it is not a sufcient condition. Robinson (1997a) also repeats the claim
that attention is not a sufcient condition for the learning of L2 grammatical skills; consciousness at the level of noticing is
not sufcient for learning to occur. What is noticed may be rehearsed in short-term memory, and then it might be lost.
Schmidt (1995) and Robinson (1997a) claimthat consciousness at the level of understanding facilitates learning, and the
ability to verbalize rules leads to successful learning. However, this current studys ndings contrast with those of Robinson
(1997a). In the present study, both noticing and understanding led to signicant pre-test to post-test improvement, which
supports the notion that noticing may be sufcient to convert input to intake, at least for acquisition of hearsay evidential
markers.
Overall, it appears that the present study shows support for Schmidts noticing hypothesis, especially in terms of the L2
learners ability to produce signicantly more appropriate forms in the OPT once they noticed and understood the L2
pragmatic features. The JFL learners in the PCR group performed signicantly better than the control group on both
knowledge and production tests.
8.3. Implications of the ndings for second language instruction
The implication of the results of this study for language teaching concerns the time it takes to learn L2 pragmatic features.
Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) state that without L2 instruction it may take years of immersion in the L2 culture to acquire
an appropriate pragmatic competence. Pienemann (1986, 1988, 1989) also claims that L2 instruction can accelerate the pace
of L2 learning. The present study suggests that the PCR activities may shorten the time it takes to learn L2 pragmatic features
when compared to being exposed to L2 culture in nature without any instruction.
The use of the PCR activities can be implemented for L2 pragmatic language learning. This study focused on the
acquisition of hearsay evidential markers. This teaching technique may be applicable to other L2 pragmatic features, such as
speech acts. The results of the data in the present study showed that through the PCR activities, the JFL learners might be able
to retain metapragmatic knowledge and produce the appropriate pragmatic features for at least a month. The PCR activities
can be implicated into a language curriculum. It may be possible for L2 learners to be more analytic towards L2 pragmatic
features by doing the PCR activities repeatedly.
There may be concern that the language instructors do not have enough time to add more components to the L2
curriculum. However, some websites regarding L2 Japanese pragmatic features have been developed (Ishihara, 2007;
Yamanaka, 2007). These websites may be effective and useful for L2 Japanese learners to do as a part of their homework
assignments because they are accessible at any time. Also, the learners may be encouraged to record and analyze naturally
occurring speech (Judd, 1999; Crandall and Basturkmen, 2004). This task makes a learner into a learner-as-ethnographer
(Bardovi-Harlig, 1996), or a learner-as-researcher (Tanaka, 1997). In this way, learners may be able to incorporate what they
have found into their own speech by comparing the naturally occurring L2 data. In the long run, the L2 learners may become
more aware of the pragmatic features in TL, and may be able to improve their pragmatic ability by means of the PCR task.
As for pedagogical implications, in order to reinforce the acquired knowledge through the PCR activities as Kasper (2001)
raised it might be effective for the L2 learners to have the instruction combine learning opportunities inside and outside the
classroom: inside the classroom by raising learners awareness about target pragmatic features and improving their
comprehension of it, and outside the classroom by focusing their attention to the target feature and practicing it in the real
world. Such L2 pragmatic instruction for developing learners pragmatic ability orients learners to develop pragmatic
features encountered outside the classroom, and encourages them to try to devise new pragmatic strategies.
In conclusion, the PCRactivities and ndings fromthis study seemto have a positive impact on L2 pragmatic teaching. The
JFL learners may be able to learn appropriate Japanese pragmatic features through the PCR activities.
8.4. Strengths and limitations of the investigation
The strengths of the present study are that it adds support for Schmidts noticing hypothesis, and it integrates L2
pragmatic theory and pedagogy. The PCR activities regarding Japanese hearsay evidential markers employed in this study
can be applicable to teach other pragmatic features. This can be an external validity of this study.
Also, this study was conducted with more than 50 participants. The assignment of the participants to either the PCR group
or control group was random, and most participants were homogeneous. Also, a pre-test to post-test format was employed in
this study. For these reasons, it is assumed that this study has internal validity.
Despite this, there were some limitations in the present study. First, there was a drawback in regards to the participants in
the PCR study. According to the participants feedback toward the PCR activities, one wanted more verbal explanation of the
rules and features of Japanese hearsay evidential markers by the instructors. The purpose of the PCR study was to let the
participants analyze the real discourse data in order to develop metapragmatic awareness, so this was not possible. In an
actual classroom, it may be benecial to combine the PCR study with classroom support through a summarization of
metapragmatic discussion (Kasper and Schmidt, 1996).
Another drawback of the present study was its methodology. There was one day between the pre-test and the rst
instruction because actual class periods were used. Also, the participants who just nish taking pre-tests may refer to the
Japanese textbook or ask Japanese instructors for clarication. Such external factors may have inuenced the results.
However, the features of Japanese hearsay evidential markers are not overtly addressed in the majority of Japanese
textbooks. Therefore, although there were not controls put on this aspect, this factor could not have skewed the results
severely.
Another limitation of the study is the length of the treatment periods. There were only four (30 min) instructions on
discourse analysis of hearsay evidential markers between L1 English/L1 Japanese and L1 Japanese/L2 Japanese, due to
limitedclass hours. Also, there was only one monthbetweenthe immediate post-test and the delayedpost-test. The results
of the study may therefore be valid for only a short time, i.e., for around one month. Future research is needed to clarify how
long instruction is needed and how long the L2 learners retain their pragmatic knowledge developed in the instruction
periods.
In conclusion, some strengths and limitations of the study may inuence the results of future study in L2 pragmatic
research. Some possible directions for future study are discussed in the following section.
8.5. Directions for future research
Possible future studies can be withdrawn fromthe results of the present study. First, it might be worth investigating how
the effective combination of the PCR study and direct verbal instruction would let L2 learners enhance L2 pragmatic
competence compared with the PCR activities or mere direct verbal instruction. Feedback from this study indicates that one
learner wanted concrete verbal instruction.
Second, future studies should examine whether the PCR activities could be effective for the acquisition of other pragmatic
features by elementary L2 learners as well as intermediate-advanced L2 learners. The pragmatic feature investigated in the
study was the use of hearsay evidential markers in Japanese. Because some hearsay evidential markers are not introduced
until the third-year Japanese course, the target subjects are intermediate-advanced learners of Japanese. Some pragmatic
researchers (Bardovi-Harlig and Do rnyei, 1998; Hadley, 1993) suggest that pragmatics is best taught when more advanced
L2 learners are involved. In contrast, some recent researchers (Ishida, 2009; Iwai, 2010) showed positive effects on L2
pragmatic instruction for beginning-level learners L2 pragmatic development. Thus, more studies are needed to investigate
whether the PCR activities would be useful for all-level L2 learners acquisition of various pragmatic features in the target
language. The collection of these pragmatic studies may eventually enable researchers and instructors to develop benecial
and useful L2 curricula for teaching pragmatics at all levels.
8.6. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, the ndings from the present study are positive in regards to L2 pragmatic instruction. The ndings
indicate that the L2 learners were able to produce appropriate Japanese pragmatic features through the PCR activities.
Accordingly, the present study showed support for Schmidts noticing hypothesis. The discourse analysis of real
conversation data may activate passive metapragmatic knowledge to a more conscious level in the learners L2
production.
There are both strengths and limitations concerning this investigation, which provides the motivation for future research.
It might be benecial to conduct similar studies utilizing a combination of the PCR activities, explicit instruction, and various
L2 pragmatic features with learners at various levels of L2 prociency. The collection of these pragmatic studies should assist
the development of L2 pragmatic curriculum in all levels and the development of pedagogical teaching materials employed
in the classroom.
Given learners enhanced L2 pragmatic awareness, it seems the PCR activities can potentially be effective by integrating
them into the class-based curriculum. In the classroom setting, a teacher could prepare authentic data by comparing L1
Japanese with L1 English, or L1 Japanese with L2 Japanese, in order to identify common pragmatic misunderstandings and
emphasize more accepted interpretations of L2 pragmatic use. A teacher might also employ communicative activities, such
as role-play or discussion about the L2 pragmatic use, in order to test what the L2 learners have discovered through the PCR
activities. Instructors can also encourage learners metapragmatic awareness by assigning reective writing on L2 use and
the learning process. Therefore, the PCR activities are applicable to many pragmatic features. In this manner, by
incorporating the PCR activities into the language curriculum, L2 learners may have opportunities to learn the target
pragmatic features and will be able to use L2 in a pragmatically appropriate manner.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to a large number of people who supported this study. First of all, I wish to express my special thanks
to those who participated in this research project and generously gave their time. I am also grateful to Kazue Kanno,
Satoko Suzuki, and the anonymous reviewers who gave me helpful and insightful suggestions on an earlier version of this
paper.
Appendix A. Example of metapragmatic knowledge test 1 (scope of hearsay evidential markers)
Situation: The speaker is talking to her teacher about earthquakes. She has heard a lot about them from her friend.
a. S1: Tomodachi kara kotoshi wa jishin ga ookatta rashiku,
S2: Hijoohin guzzu mo ureta to kikimashita.
((Translation)) S1:I heard from my friend that many earthquakes
occurred. (overt)
S2 and I heard a lot of emergency goods were sold. (overt)
b. S1: kotoshi wa jishin ga ookatta shi,
S2: Hijoohin guzzu mo ureta to kikimashita.
((Translation)) S1: Many earthquakes occurred. (zero)
S2: and a lot of emergency goods were sold. (overt)
Q. Which one sounds more natural?
a. a only-natural b. b only-natural c. both a and b-natural d. both a and b-unnatural.
Reason(s):
Appendix B. Example of metapragmatic knowledge test 2 (Reliability of hearsay information)
Question: You nd an article on CNN.com that says water was found on Saturn. How would you report this news to the
professor?
anata: sensee, dosei de mizu ga a. mitsukatta rashii desu.
b. mitsukarimashita.
((Translation)) a. I heard that water was found on Saturn.
b. Water was found on Saturn.
Q. Which one sounds more natural?
a. a only-natural b. b only-natural c. both a and b-natural d. both a and b-unnatural.
Reason(s):
Appendix C. Example of PCR activity instruction materials
Hearsay reports 1: English vs. Japanese
Situation: Both the English speaker and the Japanese speaker read news about the earthquake which occurred in Indonesia
in March 2005, and report it to their professor who does not know about it.
English
There was a big earthquake in Indonesia and, like, around 2000 people died. Fromwhat I read, by late March around 430
people were identied out of the 2000 dead, so they still have a lot of work left. Because of the earthquake, people in Sumatra,
including government ofcials, had to be evacuated, but, luckily, they had evacuation plans in place already due to some
earthquake damage a few years back. Some aftershocks and vibrations and that kind of stuff were also felt in Thailand and
Singapore, but nothing too horrible.
Japanese
<Translations>
An earthquake of magnitude 8.7 occurred off the coast of the Sumatra. Apparently, around 430 dead have been identied,
but the death toll could reach 2000 or more; the tsunami even reached Australia and Sri Lanka, and approximately 1000
people were evacuated. Sri Lanka ended up setting of an alarm, but it was called off after a few hours.
Appendix D. List of abbreviations used in interliner gross and transcript conventions
IP Interactional particle (e.g. ne, sa, no, yo na)
S Subject marker (-ga)
O Object marker, Accusative (-o)
GEN Genitive (-no)
TP Topic marker (-wa)
QT Quotative (-to, -tte)
Q Question marker (ka and its variants)
POL Politeness marker (desu, masu)
ASP Aspect (-te iru)
AUX Auxiliary
COP Copula
NR Nominalizer (eg, no, n)
ONO Onomatopoetic expressions
PSS Passive
PST Past
NEG for making negation
CAU Causative
References
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1996. Pragmatics and language teaching: bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and
language learning, monograph 7. Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Campaign, IL, pp. 2139.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language
Learning 49 (4), 677713.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Do rnyei, Zolta n, 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed
L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 32, 233262.
Barnes, Janet, 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 50, 255271.
Bialystok, Ellen, 1993. Symbolic representation and attention control in pragmatic competence. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage
Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 4357.
Bialystok, Ellen, Sharwood Smith, Michael, 1985. Interlanguage is not a state of mind: anevaluation of the construct for SLA. Applied Linguistics 6 (2), 101117.
Cook, Haruko, 2001. Why cant learners of JFL distinguish polite from impolite speech styles? In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 80102.
Crandall, Elizabeth, Basturkmen, Helen, 2004. Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal 58, 3849.
Ellis, Rod, 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis, Rod, 1995. Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28, 87107.
Ellis, Nick C., 2003. Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: the emergence of second language structure. In: Doughty, C.J., Long, M. (Eds.), The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 63103.
Fotos, Sandra, 1993. Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics
14 (4), 385407.
Fotos, Sandra, 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28,
323351.
Garcia, Paula, 2004. Developmental differences in speech act recognition: a pragmatic awareness study. Language Awareness 13 (2), 96115.
Gass, Susan, 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Gass, Susan, Madden, Carolyn, 1985. Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA.
Gass, Susan, Varonis, Evangeline, 1994. Input, integration, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 283302.
Givon, T., 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 6 (1), 2349.
Hadley, Alice Omaggio, 1993. Teaching Language in Context. Heinle & Heinle, Boston.
Ishida, Kazutoh, 2006. How can you be so certain? The use of hearsay evidentials by English speaking learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (8),
12811304.
Ishida, Kazutoh, 2009. Indexing stance in interaction: a pedagogical approach to teaching the pragmatic use of the Japanese plain and desu/masu forms.
Unpublished doctor dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Ishihara, Noriko, 2007. Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: an explicit awareness-raising approach.
Language Awareness 16 (1), 2040.
Iwai, Tomoko, 2010. Becoming a good conversationalist: Conversational competence as a target of JFL instruction. Unpublished doctor dissertation,
University of the Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Judd, Elliot, 1999. Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 152166.
Kamada, Osamu, 1986. Discourse analysis and second language pedagogy: A study of reported speech in Japanese as a rst and a second language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Kamada, Osamu, 1990. Reporting messages in Japanese as a second language. In: Kamada, O., Jacobsen, W. (Eds.), On Japanese and How to Teach. The Japan
Times, Tokyo, pp. 224245.
Kamio, Akio, 1997. Territory of information. John Benjamins/Modern Language Association, Amsterdam/New York, pp. 183208.
Kasper, Gabriele, 1998. Interlanguage pragmatics. In: Byrnes, G. (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship.
Modern Language Association, New York, pp. 183208.
Kasper, Gabriele, 2001. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22 (4), 502530.
Kasper, Gabriele, Roever, Carsten, 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Kasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth, 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning 52, 1.
Kasper, Gabriele, Schmidt, Richard, 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 149169.
Kasper, Gabriele, House, Juliane, Ross, Steven, 2003. Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk. Longman, London.
Koike, Dale, 1996. Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In: Gass, S., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts Across
Culture. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 257281.
Leow, Ronald, 2000. A Study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
22, 557584.
Mushin, Ilana, 1998. Evidentiality and epistemological stance in Macedonian, English, and Japanese narrative. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State of
University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Mushin, Ilana, 2001. Japanese reportative evidentiality and the pragmatics of retelling. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 13611390.
Niezgoda, Kimberly, Roever, Carsten, 2001. Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: a function of the learning environment? In: Kasper, G., Rose, K.
(Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 6379.
Norris, John, Ortega, Lourdes, 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50 (3), 417528.
Ohta, Amy, 1991. Evidentiality and politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2 (2), 211238.
Olshtain, Elite, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1985. Degree of approximation: nonnative reaction to native speech behavior. In: Gass, S., Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in
Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Cambridge, pp. 303323.
Pearson, Lynn, 2001. Pragmatics and foreign language teaching: the effect of metapragmatic discussion on the acquisition of expressions of gratitude,
apologies, and directives by L2 Spanish learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Pienemann, Manfred, 1986. Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. In: Pfaff, C. (Ed.), First and Second Language Acquisition Process.
Newbury House, Cambridge, MA, pp. 143168.
Pienemann, Manfred, 1988. Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. In: Rutherford, W., Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Grammar and Second
Language Teaching. Newbury House, New York, pp. 85106.
Pienemann, Manfred, 1989. Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 10 (1), 5279.
Robinson, Peter, 1995. Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning 45 (2), 283331.
Robinson, Peter, 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 18, 2767.
Robinson, Peter, 1997a. Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning 47
(1), 4599.
Robinson, Peter, 1997b. Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 223247.
Rosa, Elena, ONeill, Michael, 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 511556.
Rose, Kenneth, 1994. Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In: Bouton, L., Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph
Series, Vol. 5. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, pp. 5263.
Rose, Kenneth, 1997. Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative-speaking teachers: a consciousness-raising approach. Language, Culture, and
Curriculum 10 (2), 125138.
Rose, Kenneth, 1999. Teachers and students learning about request in Hong Kong. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rose, Kenneth, 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 2767.
Rose, Kenneth, Ng, Connie Kwai Fun, 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.),
Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 145170.
Schmidt, Richard, 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 129158.
Schmidt, Richard, 1993a. Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 2142.
Schmidt, Richard, 1993b. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 206226.
Schmidt, Richard, 1994. Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of articial grammars and SLA. In: Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of
Languages. Academic Press, London, pp. 165209.
Schmidt, Richard, 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In: Schmidt, R. (Ed.),
Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & CurriculumCenter, Honolulu, HI, pp. 163.
Schmidt, Richard, 2001. Attention. In: Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 333.
Schmidt, Richard, Frota, Silvia, 1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In: Day, R.
(Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA, pp. 237326.
Sharwood Smith, Michael, 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics 2 (2), 159168.
Sharwood Smith, Michael, 1988. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. In: Rutherford, W., Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), Grammar and
Second Language Teaching. Newbury House, New York, pp. 5160.
Sharwood Smith, Michael, 1991. Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the second language learner.
Second Language Research 7, 118132.
Sharwood Smith, Michael, 1993. Input enhancement in instructed second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 165180.
Takahashi, Satomi, 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 171199.
Takahashi, Satomi, 2005. Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and prociency? Applied Linguistics 26 (1), 90120.
Tanaka, Keiko, 1997. Developing pragmatic competence: a learners-as-researchers approach. TESOL Journal 6 (3), 1418.
Tarone, Elaine, Yule, George, 1989. Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Tateyama, Yumiko, 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 200222.
Tateyama, Yumiko, 2008. Learning to request in Japanese through foreign language classroom instruction. Unpublished doctor dissertation, University of
the Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Trent, Nobuko, 1997. Linguistic coding of evidentiality in Japanese spoken discourse and Japanese politeness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Trent, Nobuko, 1998. Cross-cultural discourse pragmatics: speaking about hearsay in English and Japanese. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education 3
(2), 131.
Truscott, John, 1998. Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research 14, 103135.
VanPatten, Bill, 1993. Grammar teaching for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals 26, 435450.
Witten, Caryn, 2004. The effects of input enhancement and interactive video viewing on the development of pragmatic awareness and use in the beginning
Spanish L2 classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Yamanaka, Emi, 2007, March. A Web-based tool for teaching pragmatic aspects of L2: www.talkpoint.org. Poster presented at the 17th International
Conference on Pragmatics & Language Learning. Honolulu, HI.
Yoshimi, Dina, 2008. Learner competence as a resource in the Japanese as a foreign language classroom: issues in oral assessment. In: Mori, J., Ohta, A.S.
(Eds.), Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social Perspectives. Continuum, London, pp. 301326.
Yule, George, Tarone, Elaine, 1997. Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: pros and cons. In: Kasper, G., Kellerman, E. (Eds.), Advances in
Communication Strategy Research. Longman, New York, pp. 1730.
Ritsuko Narita is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Japanese in the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures at Macalester College. Her current research interest
is pragmatics in language teaching, curriculum/material development in teaching Japanese language, computer-assisted language learning, and second language
acquisition.

Pragmatic Consciousness PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pragmatic Consciousness PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the

development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential

Fig. 8. The degree of usefulness in the PCR activity.

Fig. 7. The degree of interests in the PCR activities.

Você também pode gostar