Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching (JLLT)

Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 10 (2019) Issue 1
pp. 45-73

Acquiring Pragmatic Competence during Short-Term Study Abroad: The Service Encounter Request

Todd Hernández (Milwaukee (WI), USA) & Paulo Boero (Nashville (TN), USA)

Abstract (English)

The present study investigated the combined effects of pragmatic instruction and short-term study abroad (SA) on students’ service encounter requests after a four-week program in Valladolid (Spain). During pre-departure orientation, the SA participants received 90 minutes of explicit instruction about requests. While abroad, they were given structured tasks and guided reflection assignments designed to develop their pragmatic competence and language awareness. The data were collected through a discourse completion task (DCT) containing two request scenarios. In the first scenario, the students had to order a drink, while the second required them to exchange a pair of shoes without having the receipt. Based on native speaker performance ratings of the DCT, the students increased their pragmatic appropriateness over the course of their time abroad. Further, the SA participants’ request strategies also improved in both scenarios. Findings indicated that incorporating pragmatic instruction before and during students’ SA experience is an effective method for facilitating their L2 pragmatic development.

Keywords: Pragmatics, requests, service encounters, speech acts, study abroad

Abstract (Spanish)

Este estudio investiga el impacto de la enseñanza explícita de la pragmática y el estudio en el extranjero sobre la producción de peticiones de servicio por parte de estudiantes que participaron en un programa de cuatro semanas en Valladolid, España. Antes del viaje, los estudiantes recibieron 90 minutos de instrucción explícita sobre peticiones. Durante su estadía en el extranjero, ellos completaron tareas de producción y de reflexión diseñadas para ayudarles a desarrollar su habilidad pragmática y a pensar con mayor agudeza sobre características del lenguaje implicadas en el acto de petición. Antes de la intervención pedagógica y del viaje a España, y al final del programa de estudio en el extranjero, los participantes completaron por escrito dos diálogos sobre diferentes situaciones de pedido de servicio. En la primera situación, los estudiantes tenían que pedir algo para beber, y en la segunda ellos tenían que devolver un par de zapatos sin tener a mano el recibo. Según la evaluación de los diálogos llevada a cabo por nativo hablantes, los estudiantes mejoraron en relación a lo apropiado de las peticiones que ellos hicieron al final de su estadía en España. Además, en los diálogos también se nota que los estudiantes mejoraron con respecto a las estrategias de petición que ellos usaron. Los resultados indican que la incorporación de una intervención pedagógica antes de y durante el programa de estudio en el extranjero es un método eficaz para facilitar el desarrollo pragmático de los estudiantes.

Palabras clave: Pragmática, peticiones, interacciones transaccionales, actos del habla, estudio en el extranjero

1   Introduction

Pragmatic competence is a central feature of communicative competence. Pragmatic competence is often defined as “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context” (Thomas 1983: 92). Previous research has determined that explicit classroom-based pragmatic instruction is an important contributor to second language (L2) learners’ pragmatic development (Kasper & Rose 2002, Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan 2006, Reagan & Payant 2018; Rose 2005, Taguchi 2015, Taguchi & Kim 2018). At the same time, few studies have examined the impact of explicit pragmatic instruction in the study abroad (SA) context - this despite researchers having demonstrated that acquiring pragmatic competence is difficult for L2 learners even in an SA environment (Bataller 2010, Félix-Brasdefer 2004, 2013, Félix-Brasdefer & Hasler-Barker 2015, Shively & Cohen 2008). Short-term SA (eight weeks or fewer) is a particularly relevant context for this line of investigation when one reflects on the significant increase of such programs over the past decade. In 2005-2006, 46.7% of the total number of U.S. students studying abroad were enrolled in short-term programs, in comparison with 55.4% in 2015-2016 (Institute of International Education 2017^[1]).

The present study sought to measure the combined effects of pragmatic instruction and short-term SA on 15 American students’ service encounter requests after their participation in a four-week program in Valladolid (Spain). The organizational framework of this article is as follows: first, background information on service encounter requests is presented and then, service encounter requests in Peninsular Spanish and American English are compared and contrasted. Next, L2 request development in SA contexts is discussed before attention is turned to studies on the impact of pedagogical intervention on SA participants’ pragmatic competence. The research design, results, discussion, pedagogical implications, and limitations and directions for future research conclude the study.

2   Literature Review

2.1 Service Encounter Requests in Peninsular Spanish and American English

Service encounters is the term used to refer to social interactions in public settings (e.g. kiosks, cafés, restaurants, bookstores, department stores, travel agencies, outdoor markets, and other venues). In themselves, service encounter interactions represent an important context for SA participants who must acquire the pragmalinguistic knowledge (i.e. knowledge of the relationship between linguistic forms and their functions) and sociopragmatic knowledge (i.e. knowledge of the sociocultural appropriateness of the request in relation to a given context) of the host community in order to communicate their needs for goods and services successfully (Czerwionka & Cuza 2017, Félix-Brasdefer 2015, Shively 2011).

In contexts in which goods or services are exchanged, hearer-oriented (second person reference), direct requests are common in Peninsular Spanish (Czerwionka & Cuza 2017, Placencia 2005). In her examination of service encounters in Madrid, Placencia (2005) found that requests were often made with imperatives (e.g. dame una cerveza (‘give me a beer’)), simple interrogatives (e.g. ¿me pones un café? (‘will you give me a coffee?’)), and elliptical forms (e.g. un café (‘a coffee’)). Researchers have also documented the use of hearer-oriented, conventionally indirect or query ability requests (e.g. ¿me puedes poner un café? (‘can you give me a coffee?’)) in service encounter interactions (Bataller 2010, 2013). Want statements (e.g. quiero una Coca-Cola (‘I want a Coke’)) and internal mitigation of requests (e.g. lexical or verbal downgrading) have been reported as infrequent in these same contexts (Bataller 2010, 2013, Le Pair 1996, Pinto 2005, Placencia 2005). On the other hand, in service encounter situations in which the speaker needs to increase the politeness of the request in order to protect the hearer’s face needs (Brown & Levinson 1987), verbal downgrading is a common strategy in Peninsular Spanish and in other dialects (Bataller 2010, Hernández & Boero 2018a, 2018b). Bataller (2010), for example, found that native Spanish speakers (NSs) frequently employed verbal downgrading with the imperfect (e.g. quería devolver estos zapatos (‘I wanted to return these shoes”)) or with the conditional (e.g. ¿habría una posibilidad de cambiar estos zapatos? (‘would there be a possibility to exchange these shoes?)) when asking to exchange a pair of shoes without having the receipt . a context very similar to one of the scenarios used in the present study.

While hearer-oriented and elliptical requests seem to be the norm in Spanish service encounter interactions, American English speakers tend to prefer speaker-oriented forms (first person reference) in both service encounters and in other settings (Félix-Brasdefer 2015, Pinto 2005, Pinto & Raschio 2007, Shively 2011, Vélez 1987). Want statements (e.g. I would like a coffee), need statements (e.g. I need a gift card), and speaker-oriented conventional indirectness or query ability (e.g. can I have a coffee?) are some of the most extensively used request strategies in English (Ervin-Tripp 1976, Pinto 2005, Vélez 1987). By comparison, American English speakers do not tend to employ the three most common request types in Peninsular service encounters: simple interrogatives, elliptical forms, and imperatives (Shively 2011).

2.2 Development of L2 Requests in the SA Context

Although the SA environment is often assumed to offer ideal conditions for L2 pragmatic development, findings from studies on the acquisitions of requests in SA contexts are largely inconclusive (e.g. Bataller 2010, Czerwionka & Cuza 2017, Hernández 2016, Shively & Cohen 2008). In their examination of the request development of 67 American SA participants during a semester abroad in a Spanish-speaking country, Shively & Cohen (2008) found that students’ pragmatic appropriateness improved on only two out of five vignettes on a written Discourse Completion Task (DCT). Request strategies development was also limited: SA learners underused verbal downgrading on both pre- and posttests compared to a native speaker (NS) baseline group. In addition, they overused speaker-oriented and impersonal requests. In a similar study on pragmatic development during a short-term (four weeks) SA, Hernández (2016) found that students’ use of verbal downgrading and request perspective did not change from pre- to posttest.

In the context of service encounter requests, previous research has also generated conflicting findings (e.g. Bataller 2010, Czerwionka & Cuza 2017). Czerwionka & Cuza (2017) found that students shifted from speaker- to hearer-oriented requests in food and drink scenarios over a six-week program in Madrid. Bataller (2010), on the other hand, reported that her SA participants did not improve their request strategies in two service encounter scenarios after four months in Valencia. In the first scenario (Requesting Something to Drink), the students overused want statements (e.g. quiero un café (‘I want a coffee’)) and query permission (e.g. ¿puedo tener una Coca-Cola? (‘can I have a Coke?’)) both before and after the SA. Moreover, at no time on either the pre- or posttest did they employ simple interrogatives (e.g. ¿me pones un café? (‘will you give me a coffee?’)), which was the NSs’ preferred request strategy. In the second scenario (Exchanging a Pair of Shoes), the students overused unmitigated direct requests (e.g. quiero comprar otros zapatos (‘I want to buy other shoes’)). The NSs, for their part, chose indirect, less imposing forms (e.g. quería cambiar estos zapatos (‘I wanted to exchange these shoes’)), which were deemed considerably more appropriate for this context, given the request’s high imposition nature. Based on these findings, Bataller and other researchers have concluded that pragmatic instruction should be integrated into SA programs so that students are made aware of the target pragmatic features of the host community.

2.3 Pragmatic Instruction and Requests in the SA Context

As questions remain about whether or not students improve their pragmatic competence while abroad, some researchers have begun to consider the effects of pragmatic instruction on SA participants’ request production in service encounter interactions and other settings^[2] (e.g. Cohen & Shively 2007, Hernández & Boero 2018a, 2018b, Morris 2017, Shively 2010, 2011). Cohen & Shively (2007) examined the impact of pedagogical intervention on U.S. students’ acquisition of requests and apologies during a semester abroad in a Spanish or French-speaking country. In their pre-departure orientation, the experimental group received 60 minutes of presentation, discussion, and practice activities on learning how to perform speech acts in the L2. Participants responded to DCT request and apology scenarios and then compared their answers to those of their peers. Next, the students compared their responses to NSs who had also completed the same DCT scenarios. While in residence, the experimental group wrote reflective electronic journals about their SA experience. The control group did not receive instruction on speech acts nor did they write electronic journal entries. Despite treatment differences, no significant group differences in pre-posttest performance ratings were observed. Based on these findings, Cohen & Shively (2007: 203) concluded that pragmatic instruction for SA must consist of more extensive intervention during pre-departure orientation and then be combined with practice activities while students are abroad.

Shively (2011) reported on the service encounter requests of seven U.S students over the course of their semester abroad in Spain. As a required component of the program, students received explicit instruction on making requests during the first- and fifth-week of the semester. Naturalistic audio recordings between the SA participants and service providers in Spain indicated that students moved from speaker-oriented requests to greater use of hearer-oriented and elliptical forms. Students’ journal entries revealed that explicit instruction, their observations of NSs making requests, and conversations with host family members contributed to their pragmatic development. Morris (2017) investigated the effects of a task-based intervention on the pragmatic development of 12 students who studied beginning L2 Spanish in Spain for ten weeks. Pragmatic development was measured by pre- and posttest DCTs, pre- and posttest audio recordings of tasks performed in the host community, and self-reflections of task performance. The SA participants demonstrated significant gains in pragmatic competence on the DCT and in their task completion. Similarly, students’ reflections showed increased awareness of the pragmatic features that were introduced in the instructional treatment. In an examination of service encounter requests in the short-term SA context (five weeks), Hernández & Boero (2018b) also measured the effects of explicit intervention on students’ pragmatic competence. During pre-departure orientation, seven students received explicit instruction about requests. During their time abroad, they were given six structured tasks aimed at drawing their attention to target pragmatic features. Findings from pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest role-plays indicated that students shifted from speaker-oriented requests to hearer-oriented and elliptical forms in two service encounter scenarios. In addition, the SA participants’ greater use of target pragmatic features was retained five weeks after their return to the United States.

2.4 Native speakers’ Perceptions of L2 Learners’ Appropriateness

Previous research has also relied on NS perceptions of appropriateness to rate L2 learners’ pragmatic knowledge (Halenko 2018, Hernández 2016, 2018, Hernández & Boero 2018a, Taguchi 2006). Taguchi defined appropriateness as

the knowledge of the conventions of communication in a society, as well as linguistic abilities that enable learners to communicate successfully. (Taguchi 2006: 513).

In a study of 67 American students’ requests before and after their semester abroad in a Spanish-speaking country, Shively & Cohen (2008) found that participants improved their pragmatic appropriateness on only two out of five vignettes: Speak More Slowly (a student requests that the professor speak more slowly so he or she can better understand the lesson) and Paper Extension (a student requests from the professor that the deadline for a paper be extended in order to be able to visit friends over the weekend). Significant gains were not observed in Less Food (a student requests that the host mother serve him or her less food for dinner because the portions are too big), Airplane Seat (a student on an overseas flight requests that an older passenger sitting next to him or her switch seats with a friend so the two can sit together), and Leaving for School (a student asks the 15-year-old host sibling he or she walks to school with in the morning to get ready quicker in order to not make him or her late for class). Both vignettes that students improved on (Speak Slower and Paper Extension) represented a mid-level degree of imposition. The researchers were not surprised by these results, however, if one considers that the act of making a request to a professor may have been a conversational exchange that students were more accustomed to or were able to practice during SA. In a similar study on requests in the short-term SA context, Hernández (2016) found that SA participants did not improve their pragmatic appropriateness on the same five vignettes after four weeks in Spain. Taken together, these findings suggest that, asL2 pragmatic development does not always occur during SA, programs should consider integrating task-based pragmatic instruction into their programs. Employing such tasks provides the SA students with scaffolded opportunities to become aware of and practice utilizing socially-oriented behaviors, such as politeness, appropriateness, formality, and directness (Taguchi and Kim 2018).

3   The Present Study

In sum, pragmatic competence is one area of language acquisition that might be difficult to acquire even for students who are immersed in target language pragmatic input during SA. When one considers the importance of pragmatic knowledge for successful communication, it becomes essential to facilitate SA students’ pragmatic development through pedagogical intervention. However, despite previous research that has found such instruction to be beneficial for L2 pragmatic development (Cohen & Shively 2007, Hernández & Boero 2018a, 2018b, Morris 2017, Shively 2011), few studies have measured the effects of integrating classroom-based explicit instruction in SA programs. Further, the authors are not aware of previous studies on the acquisition of SA students’ service encounter requests that employ both ratings of pragmatic appropriateness as determined by NS raters and identification of specific request strategies used to perform the very speech act. According to Taguchi (2006), in order to better understand L2 pragmatic performance and perceptions of appropriateness, these multiple perspectives should be considered.

The goal of the present study was to further examine the impact of task-based pragmatic instruction on SA participants’ service encounter requests. Tasks were chosen as the central feature of the pedagogical intervention for their potential to create opportunities for learners to produce output, to notice gaps in their interlanguage, to obtain corrective feedback, and to then modify output (Reagan & Payant 2018, Swain 2005). The following two research questions were designed to explore this issue:

Research Question 1:

Do native Spanish speakers rate SA students as more appropriate in their service encounters requests after short-term SA combined with pragmatic instruction? 

Research Question 2:

Do students improve their service encounter request strategies after short-term SA combined with pragmatic instruction?

4   Methodology

4.1 Participants

The SA group consisted of fifteen (N = 15) undergraduate students (five males, ten females) who participated in a four-week SA program in Valladolid (Spain), during summer 2017. All were L2 Spanish learners, between 19 and 30 years old (M = 21.33, SD = 3.68). English was the participants’ L1; there were no heritage Spanish speakers. The students represented a variety of majors. Only five had declared a major in Spanish. The Spanish majors were double majors (two students also majored in exercise science and one each in social work, nursing, and engineering). Although proficiency tests were not administered because of time constraints, estimates of ACTFL (2012) proficiency levels prior to SA were provided by the second researcher who was very familiar with the participants’ abilities. Estimated proficiency levels were as follows: 4 Intermediate Low, 9 Intermediate Mid, and 2 Intermediate High. In terms of coursework completed before SA, two participants had completed third-semester college Spanish, four had completed the fourth-semester class, and the remaining students had completed fifth- or sixth-semester courses. None had prior SA experience, nor had they received previous pragmatic instruction. While in Spain, students took two intermediate or advanced courses taught in Spanish. Coursework did not target pragmatics as a unit of instruction. Students also participated in several cultural and academic excursions conducted in Spanish and designed to complement classroom instruction. In addition, each student recruited four NSs in Valladolid to perform four pragmatic tasks (Section 4.3). Students were asked to recruit a different person for each task. While the SA students often recruited members of their host families to complete the tasks, NSs from the host institution and surrounding community were also among the participants. Finally, all participants lived with individual host families.

A total of 20 NSs from Spain, ranging in age from 20 to 26 years old (M = 22, SD = 1.86), also participated in the study as a baseline comparison group. They were exchange students at the first author’s home institution and had been living in the United States for two weeks at the time of the data collection.

4.2 Pre-Departure and Post-Program Discourse Completion Task

Students completed a multiple-response written DCT four weeks prior to their departure for Spain and again at the end of the four-week program. The 20 NSs from Spain also completed the DCT in order to provide a baseline comparison with the SA participants’ data. A description of the DCT’s two scenarios is presented in Table 1 (see Appendix A for entire test items):

Scenario	Relative Social Status of Hearer	Social Distance	Degree of Imposition
Drink	Low	High	Low
Exchanging Shoes	Mid	High	High

Table 1: Description of the scenarios on the DCT

Because written DCTs are an indirect measure of pragmatic ability in speaking (Shively & Cohen 2008), the data do not necessarily reflect what participants would actually say in each situation, but rather what they think they would say (Golato 2003). Previous studies have demonstrated that DCT data often differ from data collected in natural settings (Golato 2003, Shively 2011) and through role-plays (Bataller & Shively 2011). Despite these limitations, the DCT method of data collection can offer several advantages, as outlined in Shively & Cohen (2008) and as noted below. In the context of the present study, data elicited from all students with the same pre- and posttest instrument allowed the researchers to measure the impact of the combined effect of SA and the intervention. Moreover, the DCT format allowed for the control of sociolinguistic variables (e.g. participants, context, social distance, and degree of imposition). Further, given the time constraints inherent in a short-term SA program, the written DCT was a feasible alternative to gathering naturally-occurring data or employing role-plays.

Two NSs from Spain rated the SA students’ performance on the pre- and posttest DCT. Both raters (one male, one female) were exchange students in their early 20s and enrolled in graduate programs at the first author’s home institution. Both had been living in the United States for approximately one month at the time of their participation in the study. Prior to rating, the first author described to them the DCT and evaluation criteria. Sample responses were provided to the raters and discussed. The researcher and the two raters then scored two practice tests together. Ratings were compared and discussed.  

The pragmatic appropriateness of the requests on the pre- and posttest DCT was evaluated by the NS raters as an “overall success” score adapted from Shively & Cohen’s (2008) study on requests. Overall success ratings were scored on a five-point Likert Scale:

5   I would happily comply with the speaker’s request.

4   I would comply with the speaker’s request, but somewhat reluctantly.

3   I would comply with the speaker’s request, but reluctantly.

2   I would comply with the speaker’s request, but only very reluctantly.

1   I would not want to comply with the speaker’s request.

The students’ written DCT responses were entered into a Word document and randomized so that the raters would not know whether a given response was from the pre- or posttest. Further, students’ responses were assigned a unique code number that was unknown to the raters. 

Both raters scored all of the SA students’ pre- and posttest DCTs and then submitted their ratings to the first author. When disagreement existed between the two raters of more than one point on the same scenario, the first author and the raters discussed the scores and then assigned new ratings. In order to reduce rater bias, raters were asked to describe their rationale for each rating on the evaluation form. In addition, they were given a limited number of participants to rate at a given time.

The raters’ scores were compared using Cronbach’s alpha. Coefficients were high on the pretest (0.75) and on the posttest (0.76). Raters’ scores were then averaged to create one final score for each scenario for each student’s pre- and posttest.

4.3 Pedagogical Intervention

After the pretest, the SA group received 90 minutes of explicit pragmatic instruction during their pre-departure orientation held in the U.S. The intervention was conducted in English; examples and task-based practice activities were given in Spanish. Based on an awareness-raising approach to developing pragmatic competence (Ishihara & Cohen 2010, Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan 2006, Shively 2010, Usó-Juan 2010), the instruction consisted of several components (Figure 1). This model was grounded in the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 2001), which states that there must be conscious attention or noticing of a target feature in the input for acquisition to occur. The authors considered this to be a guided, iterative process that would provide the participants with multiple opportunities to practice and reflect on their evolving pragmatic knowledge before and during their time abroad:

Figure 1: Pre-departure pedagogical intervention 

(based on Shively 2010: 117-119)

During the first stage of the pre-departure treatment, students received explicit instruction from the second author about the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects of requests. Using PowerPoint, he taught the students, for example, that with requests involving a high-degree of imposition (e.g. asking a professor to reschedule an appointment the student had missed for the third time), a greater degree of indirectness or politeness was required to protect the face of the interlocutor. Contrastively, for requests involving a low-degree of imposition situation (e.g. asking for a candy bar in a kiosk), more direct request strategies might be expected. Moreover, the second author taught students about the request perspective, formal versus informal address forms, and external modification (e.g. giving a justification or explanation for a request). In addition, the researcher described to them strategies from their L1 that might interfere with their request behavior, could contribute to the learner being perceived as rude, or result in communication breakdown.

Students were then given five pre-departure tasks involving a range of social and cultural features aimed at encouraging critical reflection of how context influences language use (Brown & Levinson 1987). Task scenarios included asking for a coffee or a soft drink at a café,^[3] asking a friend to borrow her book to finish an assignment, asking a professor for an appointment to discuss missed classes, asking a classmate for class notes, and asking to change seats at a movie theater. Two complete sample tasks are provided in Appendix B. Students practiced each task and shared their responses. The second author then provided the SA group with responses from the NSs from Spain who had previously completed the same request scenarios. Group discussion comparing and contrasting students’ responses with those of the NSs followed. The SA students were then provided with explicit feedback as their attention was drawn to the most appropriate strategies for making a request in each situation.

One week prior to the program, students completed self-assessments designed to evaluate their understanding of and promote further reflection about the concepts discussed during the pre-departure orientation. Participants submitted their self-assessments to the second author, who, in turn, provided feedback.

The second stage of the treatment took place while students were abroad. It was designed to move students through an iterative process of input- and output-oriented tasks, data collection, analysis and guided reflection, and targeted feedback (Figure 2):

Figure 2: In-country Pedagogical Intervention (based on Shively 2010: 120)

The SA group was given four tasks over the course of their time abroad, each representing a request scenario that a student might encounter during SA. The tasks consisted of asking to borrow a stranger’s cell phone, asking a host mother to wash some clothes, asking a professor to reschedule an important exam, and asking an information desk receptionist to use her personal printer. Two complete sample tasks (one oral; one written) are provided in Appendix C. These tasks were considered an important feature of the treatment because of their potential for facilitating L2 learners’ interaction with members of the host community and promoting noticing of pragmatic features (Ishihara & Cohen 2010, Swain 2005).

Employing a digital recorder, the SA students documented their responses to the first and third tasks and then asked the NSs to do the same. The respective responses were then transcribed. The second and fourth tasks involved the students and the NSs completing written multiple-turn DCTs. For all four tasks, the students compared their request strategies to those used by the NSs and then answered questions designed to encourage them to attend to form and context (Appendix D). The SA participants’ responses to the questions, their transcriptions, and a short reflection about their performance on each task were then submitted for evaluation to both authors. For each task, the authors provided students with explicit feedback so as to draw their attention to mismatches between their request performance and the target pragmatic norms. In addition, the researchers reviewed the NS audio recordings and the transcriptions students made of them in order to correct all errors and omissions. Students were asked to review this feedback and to once again compare their responses on each task with those of the NSs.

4.4 Analysis of Request Strategies

The researchers coded the SA students’ and NSs’ request strategies, using a modified version of the Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project Coding Manual (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989). Requests were coded for request strategy (e.g. want-statement vs. simple interrogative) and request perspective. For the request perspective, hearer-oriented requests involved second person reference - speaker-oriented requests were those with first person reference -, and elliptical requests had no overt marking of person (Czerwionka & Cuza 2017). Requests were further coded for verbal downgrading (e.g. the speaker employs conditional or aspect to lessen the impact of a request). Categories and examples of the SA group’s responses are shown in Table 2:

Coding Category	Example from SA Student Data
Request Strategies for the Head Act
Direct Strategies
Mood Derivable
Elliptic	Un café, por favor. (‘A coffee, please.’) Student 10 pretest: Drink
Want Statement	Buenos días. Me gustaría devolver los zapatos que compré ayer. (‘Good morning. I would like to return the shoes I bought yesterday.’) Student 1 pretest: Shoes
Need Statement	Buenos días. Necesito cambiar estos zapatos. (‘Good morning. I need to exchange these shoes.’) Student 15 pretest: Shoes
Simple Interrogative	Hola, buenos días. ¿Me das un café, por favor? (‘Hello, good morning. Will you give me a coffee, please?’) Student 11 posttest: Drink
Indirect Strategies
Query Ability	¿Me podría dar un café, por favor? (‘Could you please you be able to give me a coffee?’) Student 5 pretest: Drink
Query Permission	¿Puedo tener un café, por favor? (‘Can I have a coffee, please.’) Student 3 pretest: Drink
Query Possibility	¿Sería posible cambiar por otros zapatos? (‘Would it be possible to change for other shoes?’)  Student 8 posttest: Shoes
Hint	Hola, compré estos zapatos anoche y cuando llegué a casa no me quedé bien. (‘Hello, I bought these shoes last night and when I got home they didn’t fit’) Student 12 pretest: Shoes
Request Perspective
Speaker-Oriented	Hola, ¿puedo tener un café, por favor? (‘Hello, can I have a coffee, please?’) Student 6 pretest: Drink
Hearer-Oriented	¿Me das un café, por favor? (‘Will you give me a coffee, please?’) Student 9 posttest: Drink
Impersonal	¿Es posible cambiar para otros zapatos? (‘Is it possible to change for other shoes?’) Student 8 pretest: Shoes
Elliptical	Un café, por favor. (‘A coffee, please.’) Student 13 posttest: Drink
Verbal Downgrading
Conditional	¿Sería posible cambiar por otros zapatos? (‘Would it be possible to change for other shoes?’) Student 8 posttest: Shoes
Imperfect	Buenos días, quería cambiar mis zapatos. (‘Good morning, I wanted to exchange my shoes.’) Student 11 posttest: Shoes

Table 2.: Coding categories for requests 

(adapted from Bataller 2010: 166 ; Blum-Kulka et al. 1989: 273-284)

To ensure inter-coder reliability, the data were coded independently by the two researchers. The agreement was 92%. The remaining 8% of the cases were discussed and the request strategy, request perspective, and types of verbal downgrading were agreed upon.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 24.0) was used to analyze the data. The statistical tests employed were paired-samples t-tests (Research Question 1) and Fisher’s exact tests (Research Question 2). All tests were conducted using the Holm-Bonferroni method to adjust for inflated alphas.

5   Results

5.1 Research Question 1

The first research question examined whether the NSs rated the students as more appropriate in their service encounter request after SA than before. Table 3 provides the students’ pre- and posttest request performance scores on each of the two scenarios and on the two combined scenarios (composite).

Scenario	M	SD	t value	df	Sig.
Drink
Pretest	3.53	0.58	-2.902	14	.020
Posttest	4.17	0.62
Shoes
Pretest	3.23	0.53	-2.432	14	.029
Posttest	3.47	0.61
Composite
Pretest	6.77	0.94	-2.902	14	.012
Posttest	7.63	1.060

Table 3: Paired samples t-test for pretest and posttest mean scores on the DCT

Posttest mean scores were higher than pretest mean scores for the two scenarios as well as for the composite. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to measure differences in pre-posttest pragmatic appropriateness ratings. Significant differences were observed on the two scenarios, and also on the composite score. The students’ mean scores increased from 3.53 on the pretest to 4.17 on the posttest (p = 0.020) in the Drink scenario, and fro 3.23 to 3.47 (p = 0.029) in the Exchanging Shoes scenario. Further, composite scores increased from 6.77 on the pretest to 7.63 on the posttest (p = 0.012). Measures of effect size using Cohen’s d (1988) (d = .2 as a small effect, d = .5 as a medium effect, and d = .8 as a large effect) indicated a very large effect for Drink (d = 1.07) and a medium effect for Exchanging Shoes (d = 0.42). A large effect size was also found for the composite (d = 0.86). These findings indicate that students were rated as pragmatically more appropriate after SA combined with pragmatic instruction.

5.2 Research Question 2

The second research question addressed whether or not the students improved their service encounter request strategies over the course of their time abroad. To answer this question, the researchers analyzed the SA participants’ request strategies on the pre- and posttest DCT. Their strategies were subsequently compared to those of the 20 NSs who also completed the DCT. Results for the Drink scenario are presented first, followed by the Exchanging Shoes scenario. Table 4 presents the requests that the participants used in the first scenario. The request strategies were then subdivided into direct and indirect strategies:

Request Strategies	SA Students Pretest (N = 15)	SA Students Posttest (N = 15)	Native Spanish Speakers (N = 20)
Direct strategies
Mood Derivable	0 (0,0%)	1 (6,7%)	0 (00%)
Elliptic	5 (33,3%)	7 (46,7%)	9 (45,0%)
Want Statement	6 (40,0%)	3 (20,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Need Statement	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Simple Interrogative	0 (0,0%)	4 (26,7%)	10 (50,0%)
Direct strategies total	11 (73,3%)	15 (100,0%)	19 (95,0%)
Indirect strategies
Query Ability	1 (6,7%)	0 (0,0%)	1 (5,0%)
Query Permission	3 (20,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Query Possibility	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Indirect strategies total	4 (26,7%)	0 (0,0%)	1 (5,0%)
Strategies (Total)	15 (100,0%)	15 (100,0%)	20 (100,0%)

Table 4: Request strategies: Drink scenario

Both the students and the NSs preferred direct strategies over indirect strategies to request something to drink. Fisher’s exact tests were conducted to compare the students’ use of direct requests (pretest = 73%; posttest = 100%) to that of the NSs (95%), confirming that there were no significant differences between the two groups at the time of the pretest (p = 0.093) or posttest (p = 0.571). However, because the SA participants did increase their directness from pre- to posttest, this result suggests that their use of direct requests in the Drink scenario was more similar to that of the NSs after SA than before. 

A comparison of the students’ request perspective with that of the NSs appears in Table 5:

Request Perspective	SA Students Pretest (N = 15)	SA Students Posttest (N = 15)	Native Spanish Speakers (N = 20)
Speaker-Oriented	8 (53,3%)	3 (20,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Hearer-Oriented	2 (13,3%)	5 (33,3%)	11 (55,0%)
Elliptical	5 (33,3%)	7 (46,7%)	9 (45,0%)
Impersonal	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)

Table 5: Request Perspective: Drink Scenario

Fisher’s exact tests, performed to compare the SA participants’ request perspective to that of the NSs, identified a significant difference between the two groups on the pretest. Students underused hearer-oriented requests (13%) and ellipsis (33%) compared to the NSs, who used these forms 55% and 45% of the time, respectively (p = 0.000). At the time of the posttest, however, no significant differences were observed (p = 0.076). By the end of the program, students had increased their use of both hearer-oriented and elliptical requests while decreasing their use of speaker-oriented forms. This finding suggests that over time the SA participants had become more similar to the NSs in their use of the request perspective in the Drink scenario.

 

An examination of the SA participants’ specific request strategies at the time of the pretest indicated that their choices often differed from those of the NSs. Before the program, students overused want-statements and query permissions while not employing simple interrogatives - a strategy that 50% of the NSs used to ask for a drink. At the time of the posttest, the SA students had reduced their reliance on these two non-target-like strategies while simultaneously increasing their use of elliptical forms (47%) and simple interrogatives (27%) - the two strategies that the NSs most frequently employed. These findings suggest that over the course of their residence abroad, the SA participants had begun to adopt more target-like request strategies in the Drink scenario. Participants’ requests in the Exchanging Shoes scenario are presented in Table 6:

Request Strategies	SA Students Pretest (N = 15)	SA Students Posttest (N = 15)	Native Spanish Speakers (N = 20)
Direct strategies
Mood Derivable	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Elliptic	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Want Statement	2 (13,3%)	4 (26,7%)	10 (50,0%)
Need Statement	5 (33,3%)	3 (20,0%)	2 (10,0%)
Simple Interrogative	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Direct strategies total	7 (46,7%)	7 (46,7%)	12 (60,0%)
Indirect strategies
Query Ability	1 (6,7%)	2 (13,3%)	1 (5,0%)
Query Permission	4 (26,7%)	4 (26,7%)	3 (15,0%)
Query Possibility	1 (6,7%)	2 (13,3%)	4 (20,0%)
Hint	2 (13,3%)	0 (0,0%)	0 (0,0%)
Indirect strategies total	8 (53,3%)	8 (53,3%)	8 (40,0%)
Total strategies	15 (100,0%)	15 (100,0%)	20 (100,0%)

Table 6: Request Strategies: Exchanging-Shoes Scenario

When asking to exchange a pair of shoes without having the receipt, the NSs used more direct request strategies (60%) than indirect strategies (40%). In comparison, the SA students used direct request strategies 47% of the time on the pretest and 47% on the posttest. Fisher’s exact tests found no significant differences between the two groups on either the pretest (p = 0.506) or posttest (p = 0.506), however. This finding indicates that the SA participants’ use of direct request strategies in this scenario was similar to that of the NSs both before and after the program.

Request strategies were then coded for verbal downgrading, as shown in Table 7:

Verbal Downgrading	SA Students Pretest (N = 15)	SA Students Posttest (N = 15)	Native Spanish Speakers (N = 20)
Conditional	3 (20,0%)	9 (60,0%)	7 (35,0%)
Imperfect	0 (0,0%)	2 (13,3%)	13 (65,0%)
Total verbal downgrading	3 (20,0%)	11 (73,3%)	20 (100,0%)

Table 7: Verbal Downgrading: Exchanging Shoes

Before the program, the SA participants significantly underused verbal downgrading (20%) compared to the NSs who used it 100% of the time (p = 0.000). By the conclusion of the SA experience, students had increased their use of mitigation to 73%. Notwithstanding, significant differences existed between the SA group and the NSs even at the time of the posttest (p = 0.026), as determined by a Fisher’s exact test. These findings suggest that although some SA students had become more target-like by softening their requests in the posttests, others had not yet acquired full control of the required sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge for mitigating requests in this context.

A comparison of the SA students’ request perspective and that of the NSs is presented in Table 8:

Request Perspective	SA Students Pretest (N = 15)	SA Students Posttest (N = 15)	Native Spanish Speakers (N = 20)
Speaker-Oriented	11 (73,3%)	12 (80,0%)	15 (75,0%)
Hearer-Oriented	1 (6,7%)	1 (6,7%)	1 (5,0%)
Impersonal	1 (6,7%)	1 (13,3%)	4 (20,0%)

Table 8: Request Perspective: Exchanging-Shoes Scenario

Both groups favored speaker-oriented forms; Fisher’s exact tests revealed no significant differences between the students and the NSs on either the pre- (p = 0.433) or posttest (p = 0.527). Results thus suggest that the SA students’ request perspective in the Exchanging-Shoes scenario was consistent with target norms both before and after the program. 

6   Discussion

Building on previous research in L2 Spanish pragmatic development in the SA context, the present study measured the combined effects of pragmatic instruction and short-term SA on students’ service encounter requests. Important features of this study included an intervention consisting of explicit pragmatic instruction and task-based practice both before and during SA. Moreover, SA participants’ pragmatic development was measured from multiple perspectives: by both the NS ratings of the students’ pragmatic appropriateness in pre- and posttest DCTs and the identification of the specific request strategies used in their performance of the speech act. Findings indicated that students improved their pragmatic knowledge, as rated by the two NSs. A comparison of students’ request strategies to those of the NSs in the two service encounter scenarios further showed that the SA group improved their use of several pragmatic features that have been identified as difficult for SA students to acquire through exposure alone. Our findings suggest that explicit pragmatic instruction and task-based practice both before and during students’ SA experience have the potential to facilitate students’ L2 pragmatic development.

6.1 Request Performance Ratings

Paired samples t-tests revealed that students were rated as more appropriate by two NSs after SA than before. These improved appropriateness ratings hold true for each of the two individual request scenarios as well as for both scenarios combined. These findings are similar to Hernández & Boero (2018a), whose students also made significant gains in pragmatic appropriateness after being exposed to pedagogical intervention during their short-term (four weeks) SA program. While those participants increased their appropriateness ratings on four request scenarios, SA students in the present study did so in the context of two service encounter interactions: one involving a low degree of imposition (Drink) and the second one a higher degree of imposition (Exchanging Shoes). Taken together, these results suggest that students were perceived as more appropriate after their SA.

6.2 The Drink Scenario

An examination of students’ request strategies in the Drink scenario identified several areas of L2 pragmatic development that could have been responsible for their increased performance ratings from pre- to posttest. The first area was the SA participants’ greater use of direct requests on the posttests. Because research has shown that direct request strategies are the norm for service encounter interactions in Peninsular Spanish (Placencia 2005), this was considered an important shift toward more target-like request production. A second feature of pragmatic development was students’ decreased use of want-statements. Previous research has documented L2 learners’ overuse of want-statements to make their requests in service encounter situations (Bataller 2010, Pinto 2005, Shively 2011). Pinto (2005) found that 61.7% of his participants used want-statements when asking for a drink compared to 4.3% of the NSs. In the SA context, Bataller (2010) also observed overreliance on want-statements both before (45%) and after (70%) four months in Spain. In the current study, both NS raters’ agreed that the SA participants’ reduction in the use of want-statements (e.g. quiero un café and me gustaría un café (‘I want a coffee’ and ‘I would like a coffee’)) was an important contributor to their post-SA higher performance ratings. In the case of quiero un café (‘I want a coffee’), the NSs affirmed that this form was too direct and impolite for this situation. Regarding me gustaría un café (‘I would like a coffee’), the NS raters suggested that this expression, although taught early in the L2 instructional sequence and easy to use because of its transparency, was indeed not appropriate in the context of asking for a drink nor in other similar service encounter interactions. In addition, both NS raters commented that the SA students’ decreased use of the phrase puedo tener (‘can I have’) was also responsible for their higher appropriateness ratings on the posttest. As previous researchers have suggested, while Can I have…? is a common strategy in food-related service encounter requests in English (Pinto 2005, Shively 2011), this strategy is not considered pragmatically appropriate in service encounter interactions in Spanish (Pinto 2005, Placencia 2005, Shively 2011). These instances demonstrate that L1 transfer and prior instruction can have a significant role in shaping students’ use of language features - often to the detriment of their pragmatic development and ability to use socially appropriate language. It is for these reasons that SA directors may want to integrate explicit task-based pragmatic instruction into their programs, which draws SA students’ attention to and promotes their noticing of speech acts and other aspects of pragmatic behavior (Schmidt 2001, Swain 2005).

The SA students also increased their use of simple interrogatives on the posttests. As researchers have noted, the simple interrogative is a frequently employed request strategy in Peninsular Spanish as well as in other Spanish dialects (Bataller 2010, 2013, Pinto 2005, Shively 2011). The simple interrogative, however, is a problematic structure for L2 Spanish learners whose native language is English because of the lack of an equivalent expression in their own language. Consequently, previous studies suggest that SA students may not acquire this pragmatic feature without explicit instruction (Bataller 2010, Shively & Cohen 2008). Bataller (2010), for example, found that none of her 31 SA participants, whose Spanish prior to the program was similar to that of participants in the present study, used the simple interrogative even after a semester abroad in Spain. By comparison, some SA students of the current study had begun to incorporate this form into their posttests after only four weeks.

Turning to the request perspective, students shifted from overreliance on speaker-oriented requests before the program to a greater use of hearer-oriented and elliptical forms after their SA. Studies have identified the predominance of speaker-oriented forms in L2 Spanish request production as attributable to three factors: L1 transfer, simplification, and prior instruction (Bataller 2010, Pinto 2005, Shively 2011). As a consequence, researchers have reported that some SA students continue to rely on speaker-oriented requests even after a semester or more abroad (Bataller 2010, Shively & Cohen 2008). As in the present study,  SA students shifted from speaker-oriented forms to hearer-oriented and elliptical requests over the four-week program, it may be concluded that the explicit intervention has been a contributing factor in making them aware of the target norms for the request perspective in the context of service encounter interactions in Spain.

6.3 The  Exchanging-Shoes Scenario

The Exchanging-Shoes scenario involved a higher imposition request, as participants had to ask to exchange a pair of shoes without having the receipt. As such, the NSs were unanimous in their use of verbal downgrading (e.g. quería cambiar estos zapatos (‘I wanted to exchange these shoes’)) to soften their requests. Turning to the SA participants’ performance, students overused unmitigated requests (e.g. necesito cambiar estos zapatos (‘I need to exchange these shoes’)) on the pretests, which the NS raters affirmed were too direct and imposing for this situation. By the time of the posttest, students had increased their use of mitigation, employing both the conditional (¿me podría cambiar estos zapatos? (‘could you exchange these shoes for me?’)) and the imperfect (e.g. necesitaba devolver estos zapatos (‘I needed to return these shoes’)) to reduce the request’s imposition. The NS raters’ comments corroborated the role of verbal downgrading in producing pragmatically appropriate requests. Both raters indicated that the SA participants’ increased the use of mitigation on the posttests with either the conditional or the imperfect contributing to their higher appropriateness ratings after their SA. This finding suggests that the SA participants had begun to acquire the pragmatic norms for softening requests in higher imposition service encounter interactions. As researchers have demonstrated that verbal downgrading is a lengthy process that may well not occur even in a SA context (e.g. Bataller 2010, Hernández 2016, Shively  Cohen 2008), it is possible to conclude that explicit pragmatic instruction might indeed be necessary for helping SA participants to acquire some pragmatic features of the host community.

6.4 Pedagogical Implications

L2 learners exposed to task-based pragmatic instruction prior to their SA experience may become more capable of using and comprehending target language pragmatic input during their time abroad than students who do not participate in pre-departure activities. Prior knowledge and conscious use of the pragmatic features of the host culture with relevant listening comprehension activities utilizing many speakers’ voices will assist learners to become more confident about their comprehension skills and thus their speaking abilities in such exchanges. Such activities and topics covered have the potential for establishing a solid foundation for successful social interactions with members of the host culture. Findings from the present study suggest that pragmatic instruction in the pre-departure setting should thus move SA students through a guided, iterative process of explicit instruction, exposure to authentic input combined with awareness-raising activities, communicative output and appropriate targeted feedback as well as guided reflection (Hernández & Boero 2018).

It is recommended that, after developing students’ pragmatic knowledge during pre-departure orientation, SA participants be given structured tasks during the SA experience that require them to record, observe, and listen to NSs performing requests and other speech acts. After analysis of the targeted speech act patterns, SA students should be asked to practice those speech acts and interactions in the classroom setting. Instructors would then provide feedback about students’ language use and speech act strategies in comparison with target norms. Guided reflection activities will then encourage discussion of relevant sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic factors.

After returning from a study-abroad experience, students should be guided to continue their L2 development. As such, ethnographic projects represent one approach for further developing students’ critical reflection and pragmatic knowledge while also promoting their interaction with members of the host culture. Students may also explore a topic of interest by conducting interviews with NSs - at home or abroad through telecollaboration - and then report their findings to Spanish classes at their home institution or in their community (Shively 2010). Of special benefit to both students and the host culture members is the continuing interaction with NSs that  could, at least for some students, build the foundation of lasting friendships and life-long learning.

6.5 Limitations and Future Research

Several issues should be considered when interpreting the findings of the present study’. First, written DCTs that could be administered in a large group format were used to evaluate students’ pragmatic competence. DCTs measure what a participant knows rather than their use of that knowledge to interact with an interlocutor (Shively & Cohen 2008). In order to increase the validity of their results, researchers might consider supplementing written DCT data with other methods, such as role-plays, oral DCTs, or data collected through unscripted exchanges with NSs in natural settings (e.g. Shively 2011).

The second limitation was the lack of a control group. It might be argued, however, that in comparing the current SA students’ pragmatic development with SA participants who were not exposed to pedagogical intervention (e.g. Bataller 2010, Hernández 2016), one might conclude that the SA students in the present study outperformed those with similar backgrounds (e.g. previous Spanish). Regardless, researchers should consider comparing SA students exposed to pragmatic instruction to an SA group that does not receive the same treatment.

Third, neither the SA participants’ language contact nor their motivation were measured as these factors were actually beyond the scope of the present study. Both factors  might, however, have a certain impact on students’ pragmatic development and should therefore be included in future studies of the same type.

Because of high participant attrition, we were unable to administer a delayed posttest to measure long-term retention of pragmatic gains, an issue that Ren (2018) suggests should be addressed in future SA research.

Finally, compared to other more complex speech acts, service encounter requests might be considered easy to teach and assess in a short-term SA program because of their routine structure, sequence, and goal-oriented nature (Shively 2011). While the focus of the present study was on service encounters - a relevant context for SA participants who often need to request goods or services as part of their day-to-day social interaction -, researchers should also investigate the effectiveness of teaching other speech acts in short-term SA. The latter, however, was beyond the scope of our study.

7   Conclusion

The present study measured the effects of pragmatic instruction and short-term SA on students’ service encounter requests. Several important findings were reported. Based on NS performance ratings, students increased their pragmatic appropriateness over the course of their study abroad. The SA participants’ request strategies themselves also improved in both scenarios. In the Drink scenario, for example, students employed more direct requests after the program while also shifting from speaker-oriented to greater use of hearer-oriented and elliptical forms. In addition, simple interrogatives, a problematic structure for L2 Spanish learners, began to emerge in some participants’ posttests. Another important finding was their reduction in the use of want-statements. In Exchanging Shoes, the SA participants’ most significant area of pragmatic development was their increased use of verbal downgrading to soften high-imposition requests - a feature that previous research has identified as difficult for SA students to acquire without explicit instruction (Bataller 2010, Shively & Cohen 2008). Incorporating task-based pragmatic instruction before and during students’ SA experience thus appears to be an effective method to facilitate their L2 pragmatic development. Given the findings of the present study, SA programs should continue to investigate how to integrate research-based interventions into SA curricula so as to improve outcomes.

APPENDIX A

Pre- and posttest DCT

Drink: You are at a café in Spain with a group of friends and want a drink. You approach the counter and order a drink (coffee, tea, or soft drink) from the young man working behind the counter.

Barista: Buenas. ¿Qué tomas? (‘Hi. What will you have to drink?’)

You:

Barista: Sí, claro. (‘Yes. Of course’)

You:

Exchanging Shoes: You bought a pair of shoes last night at a department store in Valladolid. After you return home, you realize that your new shoes do not fit well. Before classes the next morning you decide to go to the department store in order to exchange the shoes. You cannot find the receipt.

Store employee: Buenos días. (‘Good morning.’)

You:

Store employee: Sí, ¿cómo no? ¿Me puede enseñar el ticket de compra? (‘Yes, of course. Can you show me your receipt?’)

You:

Store employee: Entiendo. Mire, sin el ticket de compra no podemos hacer nada. (‘I understand. But look, without the receipt there’s nothing we can do.’)

You:

Store employee: Bueno. Ahora que me dice eso, creo que podemos hacer una excepción. (‘Well. Now that you put it that way, I think we can make an exception.’)

You: 

APPENDIX B

Sample pre-departure tasks

XAsk to borrow notes: You miss class and need to borrow someone’s notes. After class you approach one of your classmates, Carlos, to ask if you can borrow his notes. You do not know Carlos well and have not interacted with him. This is also your fourth absence. Ask Carlos if you can borrow his notes.

Ask to change seats at a movie theater: You go out to the movie theater with a group of four friends. You want to sit together but you are unable to find five seats together. You do see, however, four available seats in the same row. A 55-year old gentleman is in the fifth seat. You know that there are two or three seats available where he could sit but those seats are in the second row toward the front of the theater. Ask him if he can exchange seats with you so that you can be with your friends.

APPENDIX C

Sample study abroad tasks

Ask to borrow a stranger’s cell phone: Your evening class at your university in Spain finished later than usual and you miss your bus to go home. It does not take long for you to realize that you will be late for dinner at your host family’s house. To make matters worse, you forget your cell phone at home this morning. Standing next to you at the bus stop is a young Spanish woman; she looks like a student and is about twenty years old. You get up the courage and ask her to borrow her phone so that you can let your host parents know you will be late for dinner.

Ask to use a printer: You need to print a research paper for one of your classes this afternoon but there is a long line of students waiting to use the two available printers. Your paper is due in five minutes. A 35-year old lady is at the help desk and you notice that she has a private printer next to her computer. Ask her if you can print your paper using her printer instead of the public printer that everyone is waiting to use.

You:

Help desk person: Lo siento, pero esta impresora no es para uso común. Lo siento mucho. (‘I’m sorry, but this printer is not for the public to use. I’m really sorry.’)

You:

Help desk person: Bueno…si es tan urgente, dame tu pen drive y te imprimo el documento en seguida. (‘Well… if it’s that urgent, give me your USB stick and I’ll print the document for you right away.’)

You:

APPENDIX D:

Sample reflection questions for study abroad oral tasks

1. Use a digital recorder or other recording device to record yourself making this request. Transcribe your request.
2. Ask a Spaniard if you can record him or her making the same request. Be sure to give him or her the task instructions written in Spanish. Transcribe the speaker’s request.
3. What specific strategies and structures did each of you use to make the request? Did your speaker use strategies or expressions that you had not heard used before?
4. Consult your PowerPoint handout and consider the structures you and your speaker used to make this request more direct or indirect.
5. Did you or your speaker use mitigation, e.g. employing the conditional or imperfect to soften the request, when performing it?
6. Did you and your speaker use a hearer-oriented, speaker-oriented, or impersonal request perspective in making the request?
7. Consult your PowerPoint handout and consider what external mitigation strategies you and your speaker used.
8. Was your language appropriate given the nature of the request and your relationship to your interlocutor? Should you have been more formal or more informal? Consider the social distance, power, and imposition factors we discussed in pre-departure orientation.
9. In English, write a reflection comparing your request to that of your speaker. Submit the audio recordings, transcriptions, answers, and reflection to the researchers by email.

References

Bataller, Rebeca. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development in the study abroad setting. In: Foreign Language Annals, 43 (2010) 1, 160-175.

Bataller, Rebeca. (2013). Role-plays vs. natural data: Asking for a drink at a cafeteria in peninsular Spanish. In: Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 18 (2013) 2, 111-126.

Bataller, Rebeca & Shively, Rachel L. (2011). Role-plays and naturalistic data in interlanguage pragmatics research: Service encounters during study abroad. In: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 2 (2011) 1, 15-50.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Julian & Kasper, Gabriele. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual. In: Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Julian House, and Gabriele Kasper. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-cultural        pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex, 273-294.

Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, Andrew D. & Shively, Rachel L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. In: Modern Language Journal, 91 (2007) 2, 189-212.

Czerwionka, Lori & Cuza, Alejandro. (2017). Second language acquisition of Spanish service industry requests in an immersion context. In: Hispania, 100 (2017) 2, 239-260.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. In: Language in Society, 5 (1976) 1, 25-66.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. In: Language Learning, 54 (2004) 4, 587-653.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. (2013). Refusing in L2 Spanish: The effects of the context of learning during a short-term study abroad program. In: Martí Arnándiz, Otilia and Patricia Salazar-Campillo. (Eds.) (2013). Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 147-173.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. (2015). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discursive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César & Cohen, Andrew D. (2012). Teaching pragmatics in the foreign language    classroom: Grammar as a communicative resource. In: Hispania, 95 (2012) 4, 650-669.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. César & Hasler-Barker, Maria. (2015). Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context. In: System, 48 (2015) 75-85.

Golato, Andrea. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2003) 1, 90-121.

Halenko, Nicola. (2018). Using computer-assisted language learning (CALL) tools to enhance output practice. In: Jones, Christian (Ed.) (2018). Practice in second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137-163.

Hernández, Todd A. (2016). Acquisition of L2 Spanish requests in short-term study abroad. In: Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 1 (2016) 2, 186-216.

Hernández, Todd A. (2018). L2 Spanish apologies development during short-term study abroad. In: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8 (2018) 3, 599-620.

Hernández, Todd A. & Boero, Paulo. (2018a). Explicit intervention for Spanish pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: An examination of learner request production and cognition. In: Foreign Language Annals, 51 (2018) 2, 389-410.

Hernández, Todd A. & Boero, Paulo. (2018b). Explicit instruction for request strategy development during short-term study abroad. In: Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 5 (2018) 1, 35-49.

Institute of International Education. (2017). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. (http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/).

Ishihara, Noriko & Cohen, Andrew D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge.

Kasper, Gabriele & Rose, Kenneth R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Le Pair, Rob. (1996). Spanish request strategies: A cross-cultural analysis from an intercultural perspective. In: Language Sciences, 18 (1996) 1, 651-670.

Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Usó-Juan, Esther. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. In: Applied Language Learning, 16 (2006) 2, 39-64.

Morris, Kimberly J. (2017). Learning by doing: The affordances of task-based pragmatics instruction for beginning L2 Spanish learners studying abroad. Dissertation. University of California, Davis.

Pinto, Derrin. (2005). The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish. In: Spanish in Context, 2 (2005) 1, 1-27.

Pinto, Derrin & Raschio, Richard. (2007). A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1Spanish, and L1 English. In: International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 (2007) 2, 135-155.

Placencia, María E. (2005). Pragmatic variation in corner store interactions in Quito and Madrid. In: Hispania, 88 (2005) 3, 583-598.

Reagan, Derek & Payant, Caroline. (2018). Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. In: Taguchi, Naoko and Youjin Kim. (Eds.) (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 113-135.

Ren, Wei. (2018). Developing L2 pragmatic competence in study abroad contexts. In: Sanz, Cristina and Alfonso Morales-Front. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice. New York: Routledge, 119-33.

Rose, Kenneth R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. In: System, 33 (2005) 3, 385-399.

Schmidt, Richard. (2001). Attention. In: Robinson, Peter (Ed.) (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3-33.

Shively, Rachel L. & Cohen, Andrew D. (2008). Development of Spanish requests and apologies during study abroad. In: Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 13, (2008) 20, 53-118.

Shively, Rachel L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. In: Foreign Language Annals, 43 (2010) 1, 105-137.

Shively, Rachel L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (2011) 6, 1818-1835.

Swain, Merrill. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: Hinkel, Eli (Ed.) (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 471-483.

Taguchi, Naoko. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. In: Pragmatics, 16 (2006) 4, 513-533.

Taguchi, Naoko. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. In: Language Teaching, 48 (2015) 1, 1-50.

Taguchi, Naoko & Kim, YouJin. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. In: Taguchi, Naoko and YouJin Kim (Eds.) (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1-24. 

Thomas, Jenny. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. In: Applied Linguistics, 4 (1983) 2, 91-112.

Usó-Juan, Esther. (2010). A sociopragmatic approach. In: Martínez-Flor, Alicia and Esther Usó-Juan (Eds.) (2010). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237-56.

Vélez, Jorge A. (1987). Contrasts in language use: A conversational and ethnographic analysis of service encounters in Austin and San Juan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Authors:

Todd Hernández, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Spanish

Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures

Marquette University

P.O. Box 1881

Milwaukee, WI 53201

Email: todd.hernandez@marquette.edu

               

Paulo Boero, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Spanish

Department of Foreign Languages

Belmont University

1900 Belmont Boulevard

Nashville, TN 37212

Email: paulo.boero@belmont.edu

---

^[1] https://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-and-Infogra-phics; 13-03-2019.

^[2] While some researchers have examined the effects of pragmatic instruction on other request types (e.g. Cohen & Shively 2007, Hernández & Boero 2018a), the present study focuses on service encounter requests.

^[3] This task was one of the two service encounter scenarios used on the pre- and posttest.