Do Pragmatic Awareness and Grammatical Awareness Relate to Motivation and Severity Rating, and Do They Relate to One Another?
Keywords:grammatical, L2 Thai learners, motivation, pragmatic, severity rating
Motivation is one of the factors that are believed to be related to the awareness of the second language (L2) features and the L2 pragmatic learning. This study aims to determine if the pragmatic and grammatical awareness relates to motivation and severity rating, and if the pragmatic and grammatical awareness are correlated to one another. The subjects were 81 first-year English-major Thai students at Naresuan University. These students learned English within a foreign language (EFL) context. Two sets of analyses were carried out; one for each type of awareness being investigated. The first set, with the dependent factor being grammatical awareness, used the following independent factors: five types of motivation (ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, L2 learning experience, intended effort, L2 anxiety), the severity rating of the grammatical inappropriateness and the pragmatic awareness. The independent factors of the second set were similar to the first, except that the severity rating of the grammatical inappropriateness and the pragmatic awareness were changed into the severity rating of the pragmatic inappropriateness and the grammatical awareness, and the dependent factor was pragmatic awareness. The findings showed that the severity rating of the grammatical inappropriateness was the only factor that was significantly correlated to the grammatical awareness, and the severity rating of the pragmatic inappropriateness was the only factor that was significantly related to the pragmatic awareness. These findings suggest that L2 learners’ perception of the seriousness of the grammatical and pragmatic mistakes has a greater bearing on grammatical and pragmatic awareness than motivation or the other awareness factors.
Ahn, S. J. (2007). Korean ESL learners' pragmatic competence: Motivation, amount of contact, and length of residence. (PhD thesis), Texas A&M University, Texas.
Al-Qahtani, M. F. (2013). Relationship between English Language, Learning Strategies, Attitudes, Motivation, and Students' Academic Achievement. Education in Medicine Journal, 5(3).
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying "No": Native and normative rejections in English. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 41-57). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Division of English as an International Language.
Bardovi‐Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259.
Csizér, K., & Lukács, G. (2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38(1), 1-13.
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). Questionnaires in Second Language Research Construction, Administration, and Processing. MahWah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fox, J., & Bouchet-Valat, M. (2017). Rcmdr: R Commander. R package version 2.4-0.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Hiromori, T. (2006). Gaikokugo gakusyuusya no doukizuke wo takameru riron to jissen [Theories and practices for enhancing foreign language learners' motivation]. Tokyo: Taga Shuppan.
Hu, R.-J. S. (2011). The relationship between demotivation and EFL learners’ English language proficiency. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 88.
Kitikanan, P. (2016). L2 English fricative production by Thai learners. (PhD thesis), Newcastle University, Newcastle.
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 3-18.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38(3), 467-479.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Ran, L. (2007). The relationship between linguistic proficiency and pragmatic ability. US-China Foreign Language, 5, 13-17.
Sternad, S., & Bobek, S. (2014). Comparative analysis of acceptable factors for SAP and Microsoft Dynamics NAV ERP solutions in their maturity use phase: Enterprise 2.0 issues. In M. M. Cruz-Cunha, F. Moreira, & J. o. Varajão (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Enterprise 2.0: Technological, Social and Organizational Dimensions (pp. 389-415). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.
Tagashira, K., Yamato, K., & Isoda, T. (2011). Japanese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness through the looking glass of motivational profiles. JALT Journal, 33(1), 5-26.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xu, W., Case, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2009). Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37(2), 205-216.
Yamanaka, J. E. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL. University of Hawai'I Second Langauge Studies Paper 22 (1).
Yamashiro, A., & McLaughlin, J. (2001). Relationships among attitudes, motivation, anxiety, and English language proficiency in Japanese college students. Second language research in Japan, 112-126.