Motivation and Second Language Pragmatics Performance

Year 2025, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 22 - 38, 24.01.2025

Mualla Elif Durmaz , Beyza Can , Vasfiye Geckin

Abstract

The relationship between pragmatic appropriateness and motivation is not a widely studied phenomenon. In this study, we investigate the role of promotion and prevention-oriented motivation on pragmatic appropriateness. Advanced level Turkish college students learning English as a Foreign Language (n=100) responded to a written discourse completion task which consisted of scenarios to elicit requests or opinions with different levels of imposition, power, and social distance. The findings showed that the students were more promotion oriented to achieve positive outcomes, and pragmatic appropriateness of their responses to the task were rated fair regardless of the imposition, power, and social distance depicted in the scenarios. Further studies could focus on the interplay between pragmatic appropriateness and factors such as gender and first language background.

Keywords

Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), motivation, pragmatic performance, regulatory focus

Ethical Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the University Board of Ethics (ID: 2025/01) on January 8th, 2025.

References

• References Akilandeswari, V., Kumar, A. D., Freeda, A. P., & Kumar, S. N. (2015). Elements of effective communication. New Media and Mass Communication, 37, 44-47.
• Alsmari, N. (2023). The interplay between l2 motivation and proficiency in predicting efl learners’ pragmatic engagement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 14(6), 1637-1645.
• Arabmofrad, A., Derakhshan, A., & Atefinejad, M. (2019). An interplay between Iranian EFL learners’ specific and general interlanguage pragmatic motivation and their meta-pragmatic awareness. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 77-94.
• Barbey, A. K., Colom, R., & Grafman, J. (2014). Neural mechanisms of discourse comprehension: a human lesion study. Brain, 137(1), 277-287.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347-384.
• Beebe, L. M. & Cummings, M.C. (1996). Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S.M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Mouton de Gruyter.
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self-system. In Z. Dörnyei, Z. & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Multilingual Matters.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and researching motivation. Routledge.
• Eom, M., & Papi, M. (2022). Interplay of a learner’s regulatory focus and genre on second language writing. English Teaching, 77(1), 41-66.
• Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-12.
• Ferrara, A. (1980). Appropriateness conditions for entire sequences of speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 321-340.
• Gizi, P. L. Z. (2021). Features that ensure the expressiveness of speech. Colloquium Journal, 34(121), 16-18.
• Hadwin, A. F., Wozney, L., & Pontin, O. (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33(5), 413-450.
• Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982.
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
• Higgins, E. T., & Cornwell, J. F. (2016). Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 56-67.
• Höl, D., & Aygün, Ş. (2023). An Investigation into grammatical and pragmatic awareness of prospective English teachers. International Journal of Eurasian Education & Culture, 8(22), 1093-1095.
• Ivanovska, B., Kusevska, M., Daskalovska, N., & Ulanska, T. (2016). On the reliability of discourse completion tests in measuring pragmatic competence in foreign language learners. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 25(1), 437-443.
• Jalilifar, A., Hashemian, M., & Tabatabaee, M. (2011). A cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners' request strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 790-803.
• Jiang, C., & Papi, M. (2022). The motivation‐anxiety interface in language learning: A regulatory focus perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25-40.
• Kanik, M. (2013). Reverse discourse completion task as an assessment tool for intercultural competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 621-644.
• Kida, I. (2011). Language distance across cultures as a way of expressing politeness and not only. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 183-191). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
• Papi, M., & Khajavy, G. H. (2021). Motivational mechanisms underlying second language achievement: a regulatory focus perspective. Language Learning, 71, 537-572.
• Kıyançiçek, E. (2023). The relationship between motivation and pragmatic awareness: A case study of Turkish EFL learners [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bursa Uludağ University.
• Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92, 1-124.
• Kitis, E., & Kitis, E. D. (2022). Metapragmatic awareness in EFL: Reporting speech-acts. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 1-32.
• Li, R., Raja, R., & Sazalie, A. (2015). The relationship between motivation and pragmatic awareness: A case study of Chinese EFL learners. 3L; Language, Linguistics and Literature, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(3), 41-55.
• Martínez-Flor, A. (2007). Analysing request modification devices in films: Implications for pragmatic learning in instructed foreign language contexts. In E. Alcón & M. P Safont (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 245-280). Springer Netherlands.
• Ogiermann, E. (2018). Discourse completion tasks. Methods in Pragmatics, 10, 229-255.
• Papi, M. (2016). Motivation and learning interface: How regulatory fit affects incidental vocabulary learning and task experience [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
• Papi, M. (2018). Motivation as quality: Regulatory fit effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 707-730.
• Papi, M., & Teimouri, Y. (2012). Dynamics of selves and motivation: A cross-sectional study in the EFL context of Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 287-309.
• Rintell, E. M., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-272). Norwood, Ablex.
• Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Miele, D. B. (2016). Do you have an opportunity or an obligation to score well? The influence of regulatory focus on academic test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 114-127.
• Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (1980). Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. (Vol. 10). D. Reidel. Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285-293.
• Taguchi, N. (2013). Individual differences and development of speech act production. Applied Research on English Language, 2(2), 1-16.
• Taguchi, T., Magid, M., Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self-system among Chinese, Japanese, and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66-97). Multilingual Matters.
• Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
• Takahashi, S. (2015). The effect of learner profiles on pragmalinguistic awareness and learning. System, 48, 48-61.
• Takahashi, S. (2023). Task motivation effects on L2 pragmatics. In L2 Pragmatics in Action: Teachers, Learners and the Teaching-Learning Interaction Process (pp. 191-213). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 681-709.
• Thomas, J. A. (2014). Meaning in interaction. Routledge eBooks.
• Tulgar, T. A. (2016). Students’ and faculty members’ perceptions of teaching and assessing pragmatic competence in EFL context [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Atatürk University.
• Voronin, A. N., & Kochkina, O. M. (2017). Discourse abilities in the structure of intelligence. Psychology in Russia, 10(3), 93-106.
• Wang, N., Johnson, W.L., & Gratch, J. (2010). Facial expressions and politeness effect in foreign language training system. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 165-173). Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
• Yang, H., & Ren, W. (2020). Pragmatic awareness and second language learning motivation: A mixed-methods investigation. Pragmatics and Cognition, 26, 455-483.
• Zarrinabadi, N., & Saberi Dehkordi, E. (2024). The effects of reference of comparison (self-referential vs. normative) and regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 556-576.
• Zhang, Y., & Papi, M. (2021). Motivation and second language pragmatics: A regulatory focus perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753605.