Facebook Use and Pragmatic/Grammatical ...

Running head: FACEBOOK AND PRAGMATIC/GRAMMATICAL AWARENESS

Facebook Use and Pragmatic/Grammatical Awareness Among Japanese Learners of English

Brendon P. Albertson

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in TESOL Department of English

Central Connecticut State University New Britain, Connecticut

November 2011 Thesis Advisor: Dr. Matthew Ciscel Department of English

1

EFFECTS OF FACEBOOK USE ON ESL LEARNERS

2

Abstract Previous research suggests that ESL learners more readily acquire pragmatic awareness than grammatical awareness (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Schauer, 2006, 2009), which is likely due to a greater amount of natural L2 input in the ESL environment. Although EFL learners are thus at a disadvantage in this respect, computer-mediated communication (CMC) may provide a suitable medium to compensate for this lack of input outside the classroom. The present study was designed to 1) examine how the social networking website Facebook (FB) as a form of CMC relates to learners’ pragmatic and/or grammatical awareness, and 2) study how FB is used by learners. Forty Japanese EFL and ESL learners from a foreign studies university in Japan completed a questionnaire regarding their FB use and performed an utterance judgment task to assess pragmatic/grammatical awareness, while 32 provided access to their FB activity for data collection. Results revealed that grammatical awareness had a rather strong correlation with the amount of NS contact that learners received via FB, although no significant correlation was found between pragmatic awareness and NS contact via FB. Both positive and (more often) negative influence from NSs and NNSs on participants’ acquisition of English grammatical forms was also found among Facebook conversations. Learners often appeared to use FB for keeping in touch with foreign friends, although frequently produced utterances that required no interlocutor, suggesting a preference for indirect communication. These findings suggest that FB use may have an effect on learners’ grammatical competence and provide insight into the speech acts learners produce on FB. Pedagogical implications for using Facebook in and out of the classroom are discussed. Keywords: Facebook, grammatical competence, pragmatic competence


3

Table of Contents List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................5 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................6 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................7 Acquiring Pragmatic Competence: The EFL versus ESL Environment .................................. 10 Computer-mediated Communication and Language Learning ................................................ 23 Online Social Networking and Language Learning ................................................................ 31 Statement of Need ................................................................................................................. 37 Method ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Participants and Recruitment ................................................................................................. 38 Instruments ............................................................................................................................ 41 Quantitative instruments..................................................................................................... 42 Qualitative instrument ........................................................................................................ 44 Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 45 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 46 Demographic Data and Contact with NSs .............................................................................. 46 General Use of FB ................................................................................................................. 46 Analysis of FB Use, Contact with NSs, and Pragmatic/Grammatical Competence ................. 48 Prag x FBTime and Prag x FBContact ................................................................................ 51 Gram x FBTime and Gram x FBContact ............................................................................ 53 Other possibilities .............................................................................................................. 54 FB as a means to keep in touch with NSs ........................................................................... 57


4

Opinions of FB as Helping to Learn English .......................................................................... 58 Quantitative Analysis of FB Posts.......................................................................................... 59 Speech acts ........................................................................................................................ 59 Code-switching .................................................................................................................. 61 Qualitative Analysis of FB Posts............................................................................................ 65 Negative (N)NS influence .................................................................................................. 68 Failure to make use of input ............................................................................................... 71 Types of Facebook users .................................................................................................... 73 Other trends ....................................................................................................................... 78 Pedagogical Implications ....................................................................................................... 80 Practicing speech acts ........................................................................................................ 80 Teacher and peer feedback ................................................................................................. 81 Noticing activities .............................................................................................................. 81 Facebook as a language learning diary ............................................................................... 82 Limitations/Alternative Explanations ..................................................................................... 82 Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................................ 84 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 85 Appendix A............................................................................................................................... 88 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... 97 References ................................................................................................................................ 99 Biographical Statement and Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 103


5

List of Tables Table 1: Length of time participants had been using FB at the time of the study ........................ 47 Table 2: Frequency with which participants use FB ................................................................... 47 Table 3: Definitions of variables ............................................................................................... 48 Table 4: Quantitative data from participants who completed quantitative instruments................ 50 Table 5: Significant correlations for quantitative data ................................................................ 51 Table 6: Participants with high FBContact scores ...................................................................... 54

List of Figures Figure 1: Frequency distribution for initiation in Facebook posts............................................... 52 Figure 2: Example of detailed conversation in Participant 34’s posts ......................................... 56 Figure 3: Frequency of speech acts in English used by participants in Facebook posts ............... 60 Figure 4: Frequency distribution for code-switching in Facebook posts ..................................... 62 Figure 5: Instances of code-switching in posts directed at NNSs of Japanese ............................. 63 Figure 6: Instances of code-switching in posts directed at Japanese NSs .................................... 64 Figure 7: Participant 52 expressing her learning of a new expression ......................................... 66 Figure 8: Participant 52 demonstrating use of her newly-learned expression with an NS ........... 66 Figure 9: Examples of negative influence from NSs and NNSs on learners................................ 67 Figure 10: Examples of failure to make use of input among learners of Facebook ..................... 70 Figure 11: Examples of posts from Type 1 users ....................................................................... 72 Figure 12: Examples of posts from Type 2 users ....................................................................... 73 Figure 13: Examples of status updates from Type 3 users .......................................................... 76 Figure 14: Examples of posts expressing missing/longing ......................................................... 78


6

Introduction This study aims to investigate how the online social networking website Facebook (FB) affects the pragmatic and grammatical awareness of Japanese learners of English. Pragmatic awareness is a receptive ability, defined here as the ability to understand which expressions, language registers, and vocabulary are appropriate with regard to different social situations. Grammatical awareness is likewise receptive, and defined as the ability to recognize the grammaticality of utterances in the input. The terms pragmatic and grammatical competence, on the other hand, encompass an awareness with the addition of the ability to use such language in a pragmatically and grammatically appropriate way. This includes knowledge of appropriate ways to accomplish various speech acts, such as making requests, disagreeing, inviting, or accepting compliments. Three goals have been proposed for the present study. The first is to determine to what extent the use of FB is able to “bridge the gap” between ESL and EFL environments in acquiring pragmatic awareness by exposing EFL learners to authentic language use, thus emulating the benefits to pragmatic awareness that may come from learning in an ESL environment (BardoviHarlig and Dörnyei, 1998; Schauer, 2006; 2009). The second goal of this study is to determine how pragmatic competence acquisition possibly occurs via FB discourse. This will be accomplished by examining learners’ online asynchronous utterances for any trends that could elucidate how acquisition of pragmatic competence occurs via FB. The third goal of this study is to discover how Japanese learners of English typically use FB, including commonly used speech acts and learners’ typical behavior on FB. In keeping with these goals, the following research questions have been proposed: 1) How does FB use (frequency, length of time, and amount of contact with NSs)


7

correlate with the pragmatic versus grammatical awareness of EFL and ESL learners? 2) Can explicit evidence for the triggering of pragmatic competence acquisition be found in FB discourse, particularly via receiving native-like input or recasts? 3) Which speech acts are commonly produced by Japanese learners on FB? The first research question is confirmatory and aims to reveal how FB possibly influences the pragmatic and grammatical awareness of learners due to the fact that it serves as a source of input from native speakers. The second and third research questions are exploratory and aim to shed light on the types of communication in which English learners typically engage on FB, which may help determine FB’s usefulness in language learning. With reference to the first research questions, it is hypothesized that learners who use FB will generally have a greater pragmatic awareness than learners who do not use FB. This hypothesized increase is expected to correlate positively with the total amount of FB use time and the amount of communication with native English-speaking contacts the learner has on FB. Literature Review The importance of an ability to use a language, rather than simply a knowledge of the language and its grammar has been generally accepted in the field of language learning. Chomsky (1965) first made a distinction between linguistic performance, or one’s actual use of language; and linguistic competence, which comprises one’s subconscious knowledge of the language. In terms of language learning, the successful learner should strive to be proficient in both areas. In addition, learners also acquire communicative competence, or the knowledge of when certain forms or vocabulary are acceptable, to be socially proficient in a language. Communicative competence entails knowledge of what is acceptable in a language grammatically, what is sociolinguistically appropriate, and what is actually said by native


8

speakers (NSs) (Hymes, 1972). A learner who lacks communicative competence might, for example, utter a perfectly grammatical sentence such as ‘I give this to you’ as he or she presents a gift, yet be perceived as socially awkward by NSs during real communication. Thomas (1983) defines such situations as instances of “pragmatic failure,” which may often occur as a result of negative transfer from the learner’s native language. Other cases of pragmatic failure may be more serious and harm the relationship of the learner with his or her interlocutor by being unintentionally rude or overly direct. An example is the learner who asks for a drink of water by saying, ‘I’ll drink water, OK?’ Similarly, a remark beginning with ‘I wonder if I might ask you…’ between close people such as husband and wife “would be likely to be perceived as sarcastic or hostile rather than polite” (Thomas, 1983). Thus, whereas grammatical competence is abstract and decontextualized, pragmatic competence requires a knowledge of whether or not something is acceptable in a particular context (Thomas, 1983). An important aspect of pragmatic competence is therefore a knowledge of which social events require which utterances. Even if these utterances are memorized and unflexible, they may give an impression of fluency and make for smooth conversation (Richards & Sukwiwat, 1983, p. 115). It must also be kept in mind that the utterances considered appropriate for a given social situation vary across cultures, so what is pragmatically appropriate in a learner’s native language may be considered odd or rude if directly translated into the L2 (Richards & Sukwiwat, 1983). Richards and Sukwiwat categorize these differences among cultures into two types. The first are those in which the social situation, such as complimenting or apologizing, exists in both cultures, although a different routine is used in each culture to carry out the appropriate speech act. For example, one culture may require a simple acknowledgment of one’s own responsibility when apologizing, while in another culture it would be rude not make an offer of repair. The


9

second type of difference includes routines which are the same between cultures, although used for different functions. Richards and Sukwiwat mention as an example that “thank you may be used to accept an offer in English, but to decline one in Malay” (p. 116). Other areas in which cultures, and therefore appropriate styles of speaking differ include directness, the acceptability of disagreeing, methods of marking different speech styles, degrees of social distance, power differences, and the extent to which one’s personal thoughts should be shared (Richards and Sukwiwat, 1983). These differences are all sources of possible pragmatic failure among nonnative speakers (NNSs), who may use the correct routine in the wrong situation, or an inappropriate routine altogether. Thomas (1983) makes a distinction between two types of pragmatic failure: pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. The former refers to instances “when the pragmatic force mapped by [the speaker] onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by NSs of the target language, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2” (Thomas, 1983, p. 99). In other words, the speaker may say A when he or she means B, or produce a word-for-word translation from the L1 such as ‘Are you healthy?’ in place of ‘How are you?’ Thomas (1983) mentions that the modals in English are often the source of pragmalinguistic error among learners, an example of which is the phrase ‘You are to be here by eight,’ which would be quite direct in English although not in Russian (p. 103). The other type of failure, sociopragmatic, occurs when the speaker comes off as unintentionally polite, impolite, or socially awkward through his or her choice of language. This “stems from cross-culturally different perceptions of what constitutes appropriate linguistic behavior” (Thomas, 1983, p. 99). Although pragmatic universals— pragmatic concepts common to all languages—may exist, the way of expressing them varies


10

across cultures. Chinese speakers, for example, may comment on the weight of a friend or point out facial blemishes to express their concern for his or her health. Such comments would be considered odd, if not inappropriate or rude, to the average native English speaker; he or she would be more likely to show concern by inquiring about the friend’s health instead. A learner must therefore possess a certain amount of pragmalinguistic awareness as well as a knowledge of the social norms common to NSs of the L2 in order to avoid pragmatic failure. This being said, as an essential part of his or her communicative competence a learner also possesses some level of pragmatic competence, or “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context” (Thomas, 1983, p. 92). Acquiring Pragmatic Competence: The EFL versus ESL Environment Research in the field has suggested that a relationship exists between pragmatic competence and the environment in which English is studied. English learners who study abroad in an ESL environment, such as the United States, may acquire pragmatic competence differently while doing so than those who have studied only in their home countries. This may be due to a larger amount of natural input in the target language, which can assist the learner in noticing a wider variety of pragmatically appropriate speech acts. In addition, many idiomatic expressions essential to pragmatic competence can be acquired only through repeated observations in a variety of contexts until the meaning and appropriate usage is learned through inference (Richards & Sukwiwat, 1983, p. 117). A number of studies have been conducted to examine the differences in pragmatic competence between ESL and EFL learners. These studies have formed a promising line of research, and will be reviewed below. Results from a study by Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998), designed to investigate variables contributing to differences between English learners’ pragmatic and grammatical


11

awareness, suggest that ESL learners are more aware of pragmatic infelicities than are EFL learners. Participants included 173 ESL learners from an intensive language program in the United States, along with 370 EFL learners in Hungary, 112 non-native English speaking teachers from Italy, and 53 teachers (both NSs and NNSs) from the students’ language programs. Participants were divided into two groups based on English proficiency. They were tested for pragmatic and grammatical awareness by responding to a judgment task, in which they viewed a collection of 20 video scenes between two speakers and rated an utterance from each scene as appropriate or inappropriate. In addition, participants gave any incorrect utterance a score based on how severe they judged the perceived error to be. The collection of utterances included those that were both grammatically and pragmatically appropriate, those that were inappropriate only pragmatically, and those that were inappropriate only grammatically. The utterances to be judged in the scenarios represented four speech acts: requesting, apologizing, suggesting, and refusing. The dialogues used for the 20 test items were authentic in that they were composed of actual NS and NNS responses to discourse completion tasks (DCTs), taken from both other studies and from a DCT that Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei had developed for this study. The grammatical errors were inserted by the researchers, while the pragmatic errors were represented by using unaltered nonnative-like utterances. Although the authors had chosen to test “four speech acts…that have been reasonably well studied” (p. 240), a brief critique of their judgment task items should be noted. The possibility exists that several of the pragmatic errors they included were such that they would be considered unacceptable in languages other than English. In item 10, for example, the situation was “Anna needs directions to the library. She asks another student,” and the utterance to be judged by participants was Tell me how to get to the


12

library (said after Anna had said “hi” to who is presumably a stranger) (p. 261). This style of speaking may very well be considered rude or overly direct in Italian or Hungarian (the native languages of participants), if not in other languages as well. This would cause participants to quickly mark this utterance as pragmatically inappropriate, regardless of their pragmatic awareness. If the utterance was instead judged as (incorrectly) appropriate, this might have only indicated that the participant did not have a high enough English proficiency to “read beyond the grammar” and dedicate processing to the pragmatic content of the utterance. A similar example is item 13, in which the context is an encounter with a busy teacher in his office. The teacher asks, “Could you come back later?” while the utterance to be judged is “OK, I’ll be here tomorrow morning at 8,” (p. 261). This response is clearly unacceptable, but is deemed so by cultural, rather than linguistic or pragmatic considerations. In other words, there is no language in this utterance that could be misinterpreted as pragmatically acceptable; it is simply unacceptable because the speaker assumes without first asking that the teacher will be available tomorrow morning at eight. The utterance seems to therefore assess only the participant’s knowledge of cultural practices (namely that in Western culture it is somewhat rude to assume another person’s availability) rather than solely pragmatic awareness. It may help to elucidate why this utterance is not useful here by proposing an alternative that would actually test for pragmatic awareness. Such an utterance might be, “OK, tomorrow at 8 is good, right?” In this case, the learner might wrongly believe the confirmatory right and interrogative nature of the utterance to indicate confirmation, rather than assumption, which would of course be socially acceptable. However, it is the language of this utterance (the word right and status as a question) that the learner takes into account when making a judgment, rather than the content of the utterance with relation to cultural norms. Due to the sensitive nature of creating items to


13

validly judge pragmatic competence, special attention should be paid to this task. This was kept in mind for the design of the instrument for the present study, which will be discussed later. Despite the questionable validity of pragmatic items as mentioned above, the results of Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) study revealed interesting trends, namely that the ESL learners recognized more of and were more sensitive to the pragmatic errors than the EFL learners, while the EFL learners recognized more of the grammatical errors and rated them as being more severe. The learning environment thus had a strong relationship with the type of error recognized by learners. Additionally, the ESL learners, were shown to benefit from a greater pragmatic awareness, yet suffer from less grammatical awareness than their EFL peers, and vice-versa. The teachers’ responses did not differ from this trend. Furthermore, results indicated that the higher proficiency group of ESL learners rated pragmatic errors as even more severe and grammatical errors as even less severe than the lower proficiency ESL learners. The same was true of the EFL learners, although the changes were in the opposite directions. These findings point to the suggestion that the higher a learner’s proficiency, the greater the “gap” between his or her pragmatic and grammatical awareness. From the ESL learners’ data, Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei also correlated the length of residence in the U.S. with results from the pragmatic and grammatical judgment tasks, and found that a learner’s ability to notice pragmatic errors increased with the amount of time he or she had been in the U.S. This could be due to a greater amount of English use outside the classroom while in an English-speaking country, which the authors mention is a result of the need for “establishing and maintaining smooth relationships with NSs in the host environment” (p. 253). Although revealing, the results of this study could have been affected by participant motivation or the validity of pragmatic items in the judgment task as previously mentioned. ESL learners, because they have travelled


14

to another country to learn English, may naturally have greater language-learning motivation than EFL learners, and could have acquired pragmatic competence from an interest in English movies, television, or other media rather than the ESL environment. Niezgoda and Röver (2001) replicated the study by Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) with an additional goal of determining whether “a highly select group of exceptional students may be able to overcome [the effects of an EFL environment]” (p. 63), and thus achieve a similar level of pragmatic awareness to learners in an ESL setting. Their participants consisted of 48 ESL university students in Hawaii and 124 EFL university students in the Czech Republic. Each group of participants was separated into high and low proficiency subgroups. Although the EFL students selected for this study were in a non-native speaking environment, they were admitted to the university only “after passing rigorous written and oral entry examinations on the basis of which only 50 out of several hundred applicants…were accepted,” (p. 70) and thus considered by the researchers to represent exceptional students. These students were also studying to be English teachers and expected to communicate in English with teachers outside of class, and were therefore deemed more proficient and submersed in an English-speaking environment (although still an EFL setting) than the participants in Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) study. The same testing instrument was used as in Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) original experiment. Results showed that among the ESL learners, the high proficiency group surpassed the low proficiency group in both their recognition of grammatical errors and their severity ratings; this was to be expected. However, in terms of pragmatic errors, the high proficiency group did not find as many errors as did the low proficiency group, and did not rate the recognized errors as severely. The lengths of residence of the high and low groups were correlated with these scores to determine if they affected the error recognition in any way,


15

although no significant correlation was found. These results suggest that as proficiency increases among ESL learners, grammatical awareness increases although pragmatic awareness decreases, a finding contradictory to the results of Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) study. The Czech EFL learners in Niezgoda and Röver’s (2001) study, on the other hand, did not differ in their awareness of or error severity ratings for pragmatic errors with respect to their proficiency level. In addition, they obtained higher scores on the pragmatic awareness test than did the ESL learners in Hawaii, again contradicting Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) results. Niezgoda and Röver suggest that this could be due to a low threshold for noticing a grammatical or pragmatic linguistic feature (in turn due to factors such as high motivation, effort, or natural aptitude for language learning), or because the pragmatic test items were based on university situations, which as university students they were familiar with (p. 77). These results suggest that a high level of proficiency and/or rigorous study was indeed able to overcome the effects of the learning environment, and make it clear that a host of other factors, including perhaps proficiency level, motivation, and specific classroom environment, may interact with the linguistic environment to contribute to pragmatic and grammatical awareness separately. Schauer (2006) also replicated Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) study, with the addition of a longitudinal element to determine if the pragmatic awareness of German learners of English increased with their length of residence (LOR) in an ESL environment. The study involved two groups of university students. The first comprised 16 German students of a variety of proficiency levels, who had been studying at a British university in various disciplines for one month. The second group comprised 17 German EFL learners in their final year of an intensive translation program at a German institution, who were taught by both native and non-native English speakers and had a large amount of input due to a large number of classes and reduced


16

vacation time. Both groups of learners had studied English for an average of eight years in German secondary schools. A final control group consisted of 20 native English speakers enrolled at a British university. Participants completed the judgment task based on video scenarios borrowed from Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998), and additionally engaged in a post-hoc interview with the researcher in their L1 to determine what it was that they perceived to be problematic about incorrect utterances from the videos, and to compensate for any test items that were judged by participants to be correct or incorrect for reasons unrelated to pragmatic or grammatical awareness. The addition of this interview element would have compensated for the possible threats to validity mentioned previously among Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) test items. Schauer’s (2006) ESL group participated in the research again approximately six months after the original round of data collection. In agreement with Bardovi-Harlig’s and Dörnyei’s (1998) results, a larger number of learners in the ESL group were able to detect the pragmatic errors than those in the EFL group (84.6% versus 61.9%, respectively), whereas the EFL group were more likely than the ESL group to recognize grammatical errors (82.4% versus 54.5%). After studying in Britain for six months, the ESL group’s percentage scores for recognizing pragmatic and grammatical errors rose from 86% and 77% to 95% and 93%, respectively. Their severity ratings for the pragmatic errors also indicate that they found the errors to be more serious after their six-month stay, implying that they were more sensitive to pragmatic infelicities. These results suggest that pragmatic awareness increases with LOR in an ESL environment, and because the time span of six months used in this study is relatively short, the benefits of an ESL environment to pragmatic awareness may occur rather quickly. In fact, the ESL learners had, after only two semesters in an ESL environment, achieved a mean score for their recognition of pragmatic errors identical to that of the NS group. This suggests that an


17

academic year of study in an ESL environment may provide learners with the pragmatic skills they need to function in “the simple, everyday interactions targeted by the research instrument” (p. 310). The concept of length of residence (LOR) as a factor contributing to pragmatic awareness has been expanded upon in a study by Xu, Case, and Wang (2008), involving 126 international university students in the United States with 20 different native languages. Participants represented two levels of English proficiency: graduate students with an average TOEFL score of 576.74, and undergraduates with an average score of 528.24. They were additionally separated into two groups based on their LOR in the U.S., representing those who had been in the ESL environment for either up to one year or for more than one year. Discourse completion tasks based on Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) study were used and participants were similarly asked to judge utterances that were sometimes either pragmatically or grammatically incorrect. It was found that the higher proficiency graduate students, regardless of LOR, correctly found more errors of both types during the judgment task. This suggests that overall English proficiency is a stronger factor in determining both pragmatic and grammatical awareness than LOR. This also contradicts the results from the previously mentioned studies (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Niezgoda & Röver, 2001; Schauer, 2006), which all suggest that pragmatic and grammatical awareness are independent and related to the learning environment. These differing results may have been due to the fact that the participants in Xu, Case, and Wang’s (2008) study were all ESL students, leaving LOR as the only variable. Xu, Case, and Wang (2008) mention that their participants, as ESL learners and regardless of their proficiency or LOR, had all come to the U.S. “with the motive to improve skills in both English and their academic fields of interest” (p. 214), while among the participants in the studies by


18

Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) and Niezgoda and Röver (2001) it was only the ESL students who had lived in the U.S. for any amount of time. The EFL students in these two studies may have possessed less motivation than the ESL students. Xu, Case, and Wang’s (2008) results suggest that ESL students who have stayed in the U.S. for a shorter amount of time do not necessarily have lower proficiency or pragmatic/grammatical awareness than those who have stayed there longer. Other factors such as motivation, the type of academic environment, or overall proficiency may also play a role in the acquisition of pragmatic versus grammatical awareness. A learner’s desire to make friends and socialize with NSs while studying abroad could very well influence the amount of exposure to authentic idioms or expressions he or she receives and thus affect pragmatic awareness. Additionally, because the learners in the study by Xu, Case, and Wang (2008) were all of a relatively high proficiency, unlike those in BardoviHarlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) study, the possibility of a “plateau effect” could exist, in which pragmatic and grammatical competency would level out as proficiency increases beyond a certain level, regardless of LOR. The studies mentioned thus far have all involved the receptive skill of pragmatic awareness, or the ability to recognize what types of utterances are pragmatically appropriate in certain speech acts. Schauer (2009) further performed a study to examine the differences between this receptive pragmatic ability and productive pragmatic ability, specifically in the speech act of making requests. She used the pragmatic awareness data from Schauer (2006) for comparison and designed a novel multimedia elicitation task to test for productive ability. This task involved a sequence of 16 scenarios on a computer, each beginning with a brief introduction and description of the scenario via an audio recording and image, followed by a prompt for the participant to utter a request based on the situation. The scenarios were developed to elicit


19

requests in four different conditions, with status and imposition as the two variables used to classify the situation requiring a request. The four conditions included both high and low imposition requests to equal status interlocutors (friends), and high and low imposition requests to higher status interlocutors (professors) (p. 80). As examples, asking the interlocutor to speak louder or open a window were considered low imposition requests, while requesting that something be postponed or asking to borrow something were considered high imposition requests (p. 81). Participants in this study included nine German learners of English studying abroad at a British university (ESL learners), 13 German students in the final year of a three-year translation course as in Schauer’s (2006) study (EFL learners), and 15 British native speakers of English. Many of these participants had also participated in Schauer’s (2006) study on receptive pragmatic ability. The multimedia elicitation task was given to both the native speaking and EFL groups once, and to the ESL group three times over the course of their stay in Britain. The requests produced by participants were coded into three categories in terms of their directness: direct requests, conventionally indirect requests (those which, although indirect, make clear the intention of the utterance as a request), and non-conventionally indirect requests (those described by Schauer as “hints” and which may not make clear the intention of the utterance) (p. 86). Results showed that the German participants in the British ESL environment, like the NSs, used a wider range of request strategies than the German EFL learners, which also included more nonconventionally indirect requests. In addition, a larger percentage of the ESL learners used internal modifiers, or “linguistic or syntactic devices that are used by speakers to modulate the illocutionary force of their request” (p. 167), than the EFL learners. Specifically, downgraders and upgraders, “internal modifiers that downgrade [or upgrade, respectively] the force of the request utterance” (p. 167), were examined and found to occur in a larger variety and in a larger


20

number of the ESL learners. The most striking trend found in the longitudinal data was that over the series of three sampling sessions, the ESL group showed a very steady increase in their use of intensifiers as a type of upgrader when asking high-imposition requests of equal status interlocutors, while showing a decrease in their use with higher status interlocutors in the same level of imposition (p. 180). In the former case, the ESL learners progressed gradually away from the behavior of the NSs, who used intensifiers much less frequently; while in the latter case the ESL learners started with a higher level of intensifier use than the NSs, and at the end of their stay in Britain showed less intensifier use than the NSs. These findings support two impressions: first, that ESL learners develop pragmatic productive ability differently than EFL learners, as was suggested for receptive ability in Schauer’s (2006) and Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) results; and second, that their productive ability changes with the time spent in the ESL environment, as was suggested for receptive ability in Schauer (2006). However, the ESL group’s ability to use a wider variety of internal modifiers is not indicative of increased pragmatic competence, as NNSs may very well employ such modifiers in nonnative-like ways. Similarly, a non-directional change in pragmatic behavior (where “direction” in this case refers to either toward or away from native-like behavior) does not imply that a learner is advancing his or her pragmatic competence. An ESL environment in which the learner socializes only with close friends due to shyness, for example, may very well increase his or her ability to use informal request strategies yet simultaneously inhibit the ability to make polite requests of strangers. However, a closer look at Schauer’s (2009) results reveals that in most cases the ESL learners had frequency scores closer to the NSs’ than did the EFL learners. Any exceptions may have been due to restructuring among the ESL learners, who at certain times could have been struggling with understanding exactly how to use a certain request strategy. In summary, this


21

study shows that the effect of the learning environment on pragmatic competence is not limited to receptive ability, though caution must be taken when proposing that time in an ESL environment actually improves pragmatic comptence. Although revealing, Schauer’s (2009) study was limited to examining the acquisition of requests, and other speech acts may develop more or less slowly with time spent in an ESL environment, or show little difference between acquisition in an ESL versus an EFL environment. Other factors may also affect which speech acts are acquired, such as the social skills of the learner, or as Schauer mentions, the “amount of contact with age peers and difficulties adjusting to the new environment” (p. 163). Taguchi (2008) conducted a study to examine the role of the learning environment (ESL versus EFL) on acquisition of pragmatic awareness among Japanese learners. Participants included a group of 57 ESL students studying at a college in the United States and 60 EFL students studying at a college in Japan. Both groups were in the first session of their respective intensive English programs. All except three of the ESL students had no prior experience living in an English-speaking country, and both groups of learners possessed a similar educational background and general English proficiency. In both programs, all classes were taught in English, no explicit instruction on pragmatics was given, and attention was given to all four language skills. The English program in Japan was intended to prepare students for future study in an English-speaking country, although Taguchi mentions previous research that has shown a lack of focus on sociocultural and pragmatic skills in Japanese classrooms (p. 434). Participants were given a listening task which assessed their comprehension of implied meanings in refusals and opinions via yes/no questions. The opinions and refusals given were largely indirect and thus required a measure of pragmatic awareness to be interpreted correctly. The listening task


22

was given both before and after the first half-semester period of the participants’ intensive English programs, which represented 120-130 hours of instruction. Both groups of learners showed improvement in the speed of their responses and their pragmatic comprehension over the seven week period. However, the EFL group showed a greater improvement in accuracy of responses to the listening task items. These findings suggest that pragmatic awareness develops without regard to the learning environment, and in this case more effectively in an EFL environment. This is contradictory to previous research by Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) and Schauer (2006; 2009). Although a number of studies have been performed to compare pragmatic and grammatical awareness/competence with respect to the learning environment (ESL versus EFL), results have be contradictory and few have been done without including other variables such as overall proficiency or LOR. Niezgoda and Röver’s (2001) select group of EFL learners were able to outperform the ESL learners in terms of pragmatic awareness perhaps only due to their high proficiency and motivation. Similarly, Xu, Case, and Wang’s (2008) ESL participants may have shown differences if compared to an EFL group rather than other ESL learners with varying LORs. The fact that these students had travelled to an ESL environment may itself have indicated a high level of motivation; the environment may thus be a much more important factor in affecting pragmatic competence than LOR. In addition, Schauer’s (2009) and Taguchi’s (2008) studies have focused only on the effects of the learning environment on pragmatic competence in terms of a limited number of speech acts. The learning environment and LOR are therefore still significant factors worthy of investigation as influences on pragmatic awareness/competence in general, and Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (1998) and Schauer’s (2006; 2009) results have provided convincing trends in this area.


23

Computer-mediated Communication and Language Learning Previous research, although not extensive, has been contradictory and further studies must be performed before a definite correlation between pragmatic awareness/competence and either learning environment or LOR in native-speaking countries can be established. Learners in an EFL environment, unless their proficiency and/or motivation is very high, may be at a disadvantage in acquiring pragmatic competence since they may have little if any contact with NSs outside of the classroom and thus limited natural input in the L2. Unlike ESL students, they cannot walk out of the classroom and “test what the teacher taught them in the real world” (Thelmadatter, 2008). One possible solution to this limitation is computer-mediated communication (CMC) as a means of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), which can allow EFL learners to engage in authentic communication with NSs residing in other countries. CMC has often been suggested as a means by which learners can attend to the sociocultural theory of learning (Thelmadatter, 2008; Blattner & Fiori, 2009), which states that “the goal of learning in general is to become a functioning and contributing member of a community” (Thelmadatter, 2008, p. 48). In the context of L2 learning, such a “community” would consist of native speakers of the L2, of which the learner should aim to be a part in order to develop his or her proficiency in the L2. Communities can also be virtual and include chat rooms, online role playing games, and other forms of both synchronous and asynchronous online communication (Thelmadatter, 2008). CMC may be able to reproduce to some extent the ESL environment for EFL learners, who may not have access to NSs or authentic materials (Al-Hashash, 2007). When used in EFL settings, CMC can “establish the link between the EFL learners and their counterparts in English speaking countries” (Al-Hashash, 2007, p. 5). Additionally, CALL media such as CMC generally promote control of what is learned by the learner, provide a non-


24

threatening learning environment, and offer authentic materials (Al-Hashash, 2007). If CMC could reduce the gap between the ESL and EFL environments, it may also be able to increase the pragmatic competence or awareness of EFL learners, although the previously-mentioned studies have been contradictory in determining if this skill is affected by the learning environment. Regardless, benefits of CMC to language learners’ pragmatic competence have been demonstrated in several studies involving students communicating and collaborating with NS peers online (Belz & Kinginger, 2002; 2003) and with NNS peers of higher proficiency (Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgerald, 2006). Learners may also use CMC to improve their pragmatic competence through self-discovery of natural speech acts produced by NSs (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005, p. 201). In a case study, Belz and Kinginger (2002) examined the effectiveness of telecollaboration in promoting pragmatic competence with T/V forms of address in learners of French and German. Participants were fourth-semester native English speakers in the U.S. studying French or German and were each paired with a “keypal” who was a native French or German speaker living in Europe and learning English as an L2. Pairings were chosen by the participants and according to perceived mutual interests. Participants collaborated with their keypals via online synchronous chatting while designing websites. Two participants were selected for detailed analysis and were chosen because they had each demonstrated a use of the V form at the beginning of the study and “received explicit peer assistance in the formal and/or sociopragmatic aspects of the second person pronouns” (p. 196). A longitudinal analysis of conversations between these two native English speakers and their corresponding native French or German speaking peers indicated that the former displayed an “evolution toward greater awareness of the use of the T forms of solidarity” over time (p. 209). The native French and


25

German speaking participants also provided assistance in directing their English-speaking peers toward the appropriate form in certain contexts. The authors mention that the results do not suggest that the rules for the use of T/V forms were acquired completely, although telecollaborating with NS peers did “lead to changes in learner language use” (p. 641). Perhaps a longer exposure to authentic discourse in the L2 would allow the learners’ production of T/V forms to show a stronger convergence toward acquisition and target-like use. Belz and Kinginger performed a similar study in 2003 to further investigate use of forms of address in French, German, and Spanish by learners in the U.S. during telecommunication with native-speaking peers of these three L2s. For a period of two months, participants discussed mutually assigned readings with the corresponding native-speaking peers of their L2s via synchronous chat and email, and designed websites for comparing views on the readings. It was found that all of the native German speakers consistently used the T form with their native English speaking peers throughout the entirety of the correspondence, which “seem[ed] to contradict rule-based explanations in which it is suggested that one should use V with a stranger” (p. 618). The authors further state that this finding “call[s] into question the notion that T is necessarily a marker of familiarity” (p. 619). In addition, nine out of the eleven U.S. participants were explicitly directed by their German-speaking peers not to use the V form while chatting or writing emails to them. This generally caused a change in its use. The U.S. participants demonstrated what the authors refer to as “abrupt development,” in which they switched to using the T form exclusively after receiving peer correction, and “gradual development,” in which the T form was used more frequently after peer correction than before it. These discoveries also support the suggestion that rule-based and textbook-driven models for T/V pragmatics are inaccurate or outdated, and the authors note that “pedagogical materials normally display a


26

preference for simplicity and parsimony over accuracy in this domain” (p. 641). The acquisition of authentic, accurate pragmatics thus seems unlikely in a classroom and would benefit from authentic communication with NSs of the target language. Nonetheless, Belz and Kinginger’s (2003) study appears to have some limitations. The German-speaking participants were young students who may not have followed the same pragmatic rules for forms of address as older speakers. In addition, the participants’ communication took place in a relaxed environment between peers who had never met face-toface. This promoted a sense of anonymity and thus casualness that may have not been present had the communication been face-to-face or had the participants been real-world acquaintances; this could have explained the lean towards the T form. Nevertheless, the stray from conventional rules for forms of address in Belz and Kinginger’s (2003) study suggests that pragmatic awareness may require authentic communication to be developed properly, including “exposure to a broader range of L2 discourse options,” “opportunities for critical moments of noticing,” and peer assistance, none of which a textbook can provide (p. 594). Benefits of peer feedback to ESL learners were also demonstrated in a study by Guardado and Shi (2007), in which the authors examined feedback given to Japanese ESL students by anonymous Japanese ESL peers on essay assignments. This study was similar to those previously mentioned in that feedback was anonymous; ESL students and their peers had never met face-to-face. Feedback comments generally included a general positive statement followed by negative statements of critique. Ten of the 22 ESL students (45 percent) made follow-up revisions to their essays that were based on the feedback they had received, and expressed that “they did not feel ‘uncomfortable’…when receiving critical comments since they did not know


27

who sent them” (p. 456). These findings suggest that peer feedback can be beneficial to ESL students’ writing when given anonymously. Dekhinet (2008) further examined online peer feedback between English language learners (ELLs) and NS peers over an eight-week period. Her study differs from those previously mentioned in that participants, who were university students, communicated with peers who were English NSs rather than fellow ELLs and did so synchronously, via MSN Messenger. The volunteer NS tutors were given a list of feedback strategies to use in conversations with the ELLs, which included recasting, clarification requests, and echoing, among others. The authors note that none of the ELL participants had any “friends as NSs of English” at the onset of the study (p. 414). The ELLs and NS tutors were each given a list of topics to discuss. Through conversation analyses, it was found that 93% of the ELLs “notice[d] and react[ed] to the corrective feedback provided by their respective tutors” (p. 419). From this it appears that online social contact is beneficial to language acquisition in that it allows learners to receive feedback, although the NS participants in this study were instructed beforehand to give feedback using specific strategies. This leaves the question of whether online socializing can be beneficial to language acquisition even when feedback and correction are not given to the learner explicitly. Non-explicit feedback seems more likely to occur in the real world, as NSs may be less likely to provide intentional, explicit corrections to NNS peers when not asked to do so for the purposes of a study such as Dekhinet’s (2008). Schmidt (1990) proposes the hypothesis that any portion of the input a learner receives becomes intake if it is noticed. Noticing may occur when the learner discovers a difference between his or her interlanguage and the input received from an NS. This may cause the learner to question his or her assumptions about a certain language


28

form, and trigger the start of correction as acquisition. In this way, feedback is received naturally and implicitly, resulting in unintentional learning. Online socializing with NSs can provide the learner with such input, and thus deserves attention as a potential tool for language acquisition. Unintentional feedback through online communication that affected learners positively was found in a 1995 study by St. John and Cash (cited in Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgerald, 2006, p. 350), in which learners were “able to correct lexical mistakes by noticing differences between [their] usage and the usage of peers with higher language competence, even when the peers [didn’t] provide any explicit feedback.” In a study by Zha, Kelly, Park, and Fitzgerald (2006), in which elementary school ESL students cooperated to complete tasks via CMC with their ESL peers, “it was evident that students adopted their peers’ appropriate writing styles and made corrections in their own writing styles accordingly” (p. 361). The authors suggest that collaborative online activities with ESL peers give students “opportunities to observe their peers’ written language and to increase their awareness of appropriate use of language” (p. 362). These observations and self-corrections are all forms of unintentional feedback, in which no explicit correction is given to the learner. Research has also demonstrated that language learning often occurs as a byproduct of normal activities in which the goal is something other than learning. This is known as incidental learning, defined by Rogers (1997) as learning in which “the learner does not intend to learn, and the source of the learning does not intend to promote learning” (p. 116). Incidental learning of vocabulary words was shown to occur through sustained silent reading for pleasure among Japanese high school and university students in a study by Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu (1991), although the authors suggest that more extensive reading would be required for words to enter


29

students’ long-term receptive knowledge (p. 545). Incidental learning of English through the social networking website Facebook (FB) was demonstrated among Malaysian university students in a study by Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010), as these students expressed that FB had benefited their English learning though they had primarily joined the network “not to learn and improve their language and communication skills but to socialize” (p. 184). In survey responses, students mentioned that participating in FB had helped in both discovering and using new vocabulary, which the authors claim “entail a complete cycle of learning a new word, in which the students acquire a word and use it within the right context” (Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin, 2010, p. 184). Online communication among ESL learners can promote the acquisition of colloquial expressions and vocabulary they may not pick up in a traditional classroom setting, perhaps due to the lack of time to examine input closely when it is in aural rather than written form. The inclusion of native English-speaking students in an online class examined in Tan, Nabb, Aagard, and Kim’s (2010) study gave the ESL students exposure to “live and useful words,” which a student cited as a motivating factor to learn such words “because the others were using them” (p. 11). On the other hand, exposure to a large amount of colloquial expressions in online discussion can also induce anxiety among ESL learners, as was the case with another student in the same study. In addition to incidental learning, Rogers (1997) further calls for the distinction of another category known as “non-formal learning,” or that which occurs “when the learner intends to learn but the learning source does not intend to teach” (p. 116). In other words, the learner must take an active role and be conscious of the intent to learn for non-formal learning to occur. This type of learning was also observed via FB in the previously mentioned study by


30

Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010). The “comment” feature of FB, for example, allows others to post remarks on one’s pictures or profile page, which encouraged students to consult dictionaries to find the meanings of unknown words in comments directed toward them (Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin, 2010, p. 184). Although the primary motivations for using FB may be socializing and sharing personal activities with friends (Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin, 2010, p. 184), the personal and relevant nature of a comment directed toward an English-learning FB user may likely increase the motivation for discovering its meaning and cause the user to take an active role in the learning process. Kasper (2001) suggests a “language socialization” perspective for the acquisition of pragmatic competence, since it is often acquired implicitly “through the novices’ participation in recurrent communicative practices” (p. 520). Given this approach, a learner would theoretically be able to increase his or her pragmatic competence through socializing in the target language. This relates to Lave and Wenger’s (2001) concept known as legitimate peripheral participation, a framework for understanding how learning in general takes place, which they define as “engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent” (p. 35). According to this framework, learning is essentially “increasing participation in communities of practice” (p. 49), and learning occurs largely implicitly through interaction with more experienced members of a group. A learner will start socializing in a community without full confidence or involvement, but will eventually make his or her way toward full participation and function as would any other member of the group. Applying the framework to the acquisition of pragmatic competence, an ELL may begin socializing with native-speaking peers with little confidence in his or her abilities, but through exposure to natural use of language in various social situations and a large amount of input, he or she will gradually improve his or her pragmatic competence


31

with the ultimate goal of achieving native-like proficiency. When language learning is seen as legitimate peripheral participation, the motivation to learn may also come naturally through interaction with NSs, as Lave and Wenger remark that “acceptance by and interaction with acknowledged adept practitioners make learning legitimate and of value from the point of view of the apprentice” (p. 110). Online Social Networking and Language Learning One of the main benefits that CMC provides to learners in EFL environments is the ability to communicate with, or at least be exposed to, native speakers of English without the need to travel to a foreign country. Previous research, although inconclusive, opens the possibility that ESL learners may acquire pragmatic competence more effectively than EFL learners, while other studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using CMC to facilitate communication with NSs and emulate the ESL environment. Through use of CMC, learners may acquire pragmatic competence or other skills in the target language through incidental learning. Online social media, especially those which are popular internationally such as Facebook (FB), allow both synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (non-real-time) methods of establishing the necessary contact with NSs, and thus deserve examination as potential tools for language learning. As Blattner and Fiori (2009) state, “Facebook allows its users to carry out meaningful interaction synchronously or asynchronously with speakers of different languages and also to access an incredible amount of valuable and authentic information on a variety of topics. In other words, [Facebook] can be seen as an innovative tool to facilitate the development of socio-pragmatic awareness and competence in second language learners through meaningful intervention” (par. 3).


32

The present study will focus specifically on the use of FB among English learners as a form of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in which learning is largely unintentional. Chapelle (as mentioned in Al-Hashash, 2007) provides two basic questions as a framework for evaluating CALL activities: 1. What kind of language does the learner engage in during a CALL activity? 2. How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning? Because these questions guide the development of CALL, they can also be used to determine if an existing medium can be harnessed as a potential form of CALL. The present study hopes to provide answers to these questions regarding FB. It is first useful to introduce a designation between CALL as being either formal (something specifically designed for language learning, such as computer software) or informal and promoting incidental learning (as in the case of social media). Several formal CALL tools have been developed that seek to emulate the social media environment; these include online social networking tools specifically designed for language learning such as Lang 8 (lang8.com), iTalki (italki.com), English Baby (Englishbaby.com), and LiveMocha (livemocha.com). However, unless users pay for one-on-one tutoring or lessons, these tools frequently rely on “language exchanges,” in which two users may compete between which language is used for communicating. This competition arises from the fact that if one user speaks his or her L1 so that another user may learn it as an L2, the former speaker receives no benefit in terms of language learning, and vice-versa. Additionally, social networking tools designed with language learning in mind can be generally seen as communities of practice, as members have a shared goal, which in this case is learning a foreign language. The language learners in these communities will therefore consist only of those with a high enough motivation to join a network


33

specifically to assist them in learning a language. They will thus only have contact with similar such users rather than a variety of native speakers of the target language. On the other hand, a social networking tool not designed specifically for language learning, such as FB, allows language learners to communicate with willing native speakers of their target language whose motivation might be the sole desire to make friends and learn about foreign culture rather than learn a language. This would solve the issue of competition between the two possible languages used in communication, and learners might join such a network for purely social purposes, rather than out of a desire to improve their English. In June of 2010, approximately 50% of users spoke a language other than English on FB, according to Inside Facebook Gold (as cited in Morrison, 2010). Many of these users are likely English learners who joined FB for socialization rather than improving their English. It is in this regard that FB may provide a more authentic environment for learning English than formal CALL technologies. Blattner and Fiori (2009) suggest that FB can provide activities that both raise the pragmatic awareness of ESL students and allow them to practice communication. Such tasks can present users with authentic language produced by NSs in an uncontrolled environment and are often “an eye opening experience for many language learners who usually have had little exposure to the language variation” (par. 4). By observing and participating in discussions with NSs in FB Groups, for example, learners can “develop their awareness about the fact that certain speech acts are difficult to translate from their native language to the target one for cultural reasons” (par. 5). Although FB may be a potential resource in terms of raising pragmatic awareness among language learners, the exposure to NSs and authentic language use that individual ELLs receive via FB varies. This is because ELLs vary in the multiplexity of their relationships with their FB


34

contacts. Certain ELLs may have studied abroad at the same university as their native English speaking FB friends, for example, while other ELLs may have become “FB friends” with NSs they have never met in person. The ELLs who have supplemented their face-to-face friendships with virtual contact may have common experiences and the ability to reminisce about past events with their NS friends, unlike the ELLs who have not met their FB friends face-to-face. An interesting area of research that remains to be explored is peer feedback given in a more natural, less formal environment and by native-speaking peers who are actual real-life acquaintances with the ESL learner. The activity of ELLs in online social networking discourse, such as that on FB, differs from that studied in previous research on language learning via CMC in three main areas. Firstly, unlike in the communication in the studies by Guardado and Shi (2007) and Belz and Kinginger (2002; 2003), interaction on FB is not anonymous and an ELL may indeed also be a face-to-face acquaintance with his or her contacts. Secondly, an ELL using FB will generally have personally selected his or her contacts based on shared personal interests, face-to-face encounters, or common qualities such as being a student of the same university. An ELL using FB would thus be likely to have more in common with his or her contacts. Thirdly, discourse on FB is supplemented by media such as pictures and videos, and communication is generally in the form of short “posts” and “comments” on contacts’ profiles or pictures rather than longer written samples such as emails. It is because of the personal relationships, non-anonymity, and multimedia FB offers that it may better simulate authentic face-to-face communication. Additionally, FB provides a more natural setting in which socialization, rather than completing a task, is the incentive for communication. Informal language is therefore more likely to be used, and this may reveal new opportunities by which ELLs acquire pragmatic competence. Zha,


35

Kelly, Park, and Fitzgerald (2006) suggest that CMC in general allows for informal language to arise: “when [ESL students] accustom themselves to a CMC environment and know their peers well, they would use informal language as they do in casual face-to-face communications” (p. 362). Although the above-mentioned studies have explored CMC as a tool for language learning, FB’s potential as a form of CALL and the types of communication in which ELLs engage on FB are both largely unexplored areas of research. Although L2 writing skills are generally seen as useful for employment or academics, the type of informal written communication that is performed on FB may also be a valuable skills for learners. Currie and Cray (2004) conducted a study in which they interviewed Canadian teachers and learners, in addition to observing ESL classes of three different levels, with the goal of discovering which types of writing are taught in the classroom and whether writing is “conceived as a social practice” among teachers and learners (p. 114). Additionally, they aimed to determine student and teacher attitudes towards ESL writing. The 19 participants in their study had been in Canada for an average of 1.8 years and were from a variety of countries and occupational backgrounds. They were all studying in a “Language Instruction for Newcomers” program. It was discovered that the majority of learners’ writing outside the classroom was for functional purposes, such as banking (53% of participants) or writing thank-you notes (63% of participants). In addition, many participants used home computers to do their writing, of which most was basic and “if public, often highly predictable” (p. 115). Currie and Cray mentioned that if writing was private, it was mostly “protected from any type of evaluation as to accuracy or appropriateness” (p. 115). This type of writing would include notes to oneself, shopping lists, and the like. The most relevant finding of Currie and Cray’s study was the gap between what learners used writing for outside the classroom and what they were actually learning inside the


36

classroom. All but one participant reported that they had spent time in the classroom filling out bureaucratic forms and practicing language, including grammar, phrases, and writing paragraphs. Other commonly reported classroom practices (of which more than half of participants reported) included writing stories, free-writing, copying, and answering questions. In contrast, only 6 of the 19 participants had reported that they expressed ideas in their classroom writing. Interestingly, none of the writing practices they had indicated they performed outside the classroom were mentioned when asked what they learned in their ESL classes. Currie and Cray state that the students in their study had not become “users of literacy, but students to whom writing was taught as a means to provide language practice and to increase grammatical and spelling accuracy” (p. 116-117). However, when asked what students wanted to do more of their writing classes, the most common response was “language practice (exercises, spelling, idioms, dictation, sentences)” (p. 116, Table 3). Other responses included tasks related to careers, such as resumes or cover letters. This finding suggests a view of writing by students to be similar to that of the teacher, which does not reflect their real-world writing practices. From the teacher interviews, Currie and Cray (2004) report that writing was often seen as language practice, and “little attention was given to the need to write text that was appropriate for a given task or context” (p. 117). This, they claim was likely a way to reinforce “lexical and structural knowledge” (p. 119). However, one teacher had defended such styles of teaching by stressing the importance of accurate grammar and spelling when writing resumes, etc. (p. 118), thus linking such seemingly rote classroom practices to useful skills in the real world. Nevertheless, teachers in this study had shown “a commitment to behaviorist approaches to learning” and a decontextualized view of writing—the absence of reference to the social aspects of writing or to the environment in and the purposes for which newcomers might write” (p. 120).


37

Currie and Cray (2004) proceed to advise that a collection of “everyday literacy events…could be used to examine the authentic writing that is done in the community.” Given that FB is commonly used among English learners, including 45.7% of the Malaysian college students in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s (2010) study, communication through FB could be seen as an example of such “authentic writing” among learners. Although the writing on FB is primarily used for socialization rather than accomplishing tasks such as applying for jobs, paying bills, etc., it may allow learners “to use English for practical purposes that are not governed by linguistic rules” (Kabilan, Ahmad, & Abidin, 2010, p. 183). FB is also context-rich, in that posts are often in the form of asynchronous conversations, or are responses to a picture or another’s status. When writing a FB post, a learner knows who he or she is addressing, the status of the interlocutor, and the context of the communication. This would seem to alleviate the problem of the “decontextualized view of writing” that Currie and Cray mention was common among the teachers and learners in their (2004) study, as well as their agreement with Barton (cited in Currie & Cray, 2004, p. 127) that “we need to situate people’s literary practices as being part of social practices.” Statement of Need The present study was developed in an attempt to fill two gaps in the research on pragmatic awareness and the effectiveness of CMC in language learning. Firstly, further research is needed to conclude that a native-speaking environment is conducive to the acquisition of pragmatic competence. Secondly, online social networks such as FB, when examined as forms of CMC, appear promising in EFL contexts as tools for language learning, although they have received little attention in research to examine how they may affect pragmatic competence or awareness. In light of these two needs, the present study aims to examine the social


38

networking website FB as a form of CMC and observe how it affects the pragmatic competence of EFL learners. The focus of this study will be on asynchronous communication via FB. Asynchronous communication allows learners “more time to work on a reply, which may then prompt more in-depth understanding of the information and more thoughtful responses” (Smith, Alvarez-Torres, & Zhao, 2003, p. 706). This type of communication also allows learners to “pick up on commonalities across related messages” (Smith, Alvarez-Torres, & Zhao, 2003, p. 706), and thus may be suitable for learning speech acts, idioms, or pragmatic expressions. This study aims to be both comparative and remedial, the former in that it will examine the pragmatic awareness of learners who use FB and those who do not; and the latter in that it will explore possible means by which the pragmatic competence (or other areas of linguistic competence) of learners are increased via interaction on FB, and whether this increase is substantial enough to suggest that FB can serve as a substitution for an ESL environment among EFL learners. Method Participants and Recruitment Japanese learners of English were chosen as participants for the present study, due to the fact that they come from a culture and native language with quite different pragmatic rules than those in English; acquisition of pragmatic competence via FB may thus be more apparent and/or have a greater range among Japanese learners due to the stark contrast between a learner’s input and his or her interlanguage. A total of 40 participants (11 males and 29 females) were recruited for this study, 32 of whom had completed the quantitative instruments. Participants were mostly English majors, between the ages of 18 and 26, and had varying degrees of (self-reported) English proficiency, represented by an average TOEFL score (for the 18 participants who had


39

provided scores) of 490 at the time they were recruited. Each participant was a student or alumnus of Kansai Gaidai University, a foreign language school with two campuses located in the Osaka prefecture of Japan. This university, as a sister school of the researcher’s home university Central Connecticut State University, was a convenient and easily accessible school in Japan. It was also an EFL environment for Japanese students learning English. Students may thus rely more on online social networking such as FB to communicate with native speakers of English. However, the university also has a large number of study-abroad programs and international students; both of these factors cause Japanese students at the school to have many opportunities for contact with native English speakers even while in their home country. Overall, the EFL nature of the school combined with the many opportunities for NS contact were thought to provide a group of participants with varying amounts of communication with NSs, as well as a few learners with a large number of NS friends on FB from whom to receive input. Recruitment took place in three phases. In the first phrase, participants were recruited online via FB during early July, 2011. A search via FB for users whose school was listed as “Kansai Gaidai University” was performed to identify potential participants, and the first 15 users from the results of the FB search were sent a message from the researcher’s FB account introducing the researcher and a brief summary of the study, along with a link to an online consent form followed by an online version of the instruments (described below). Those who agreed to participate completed the online instruments from their own computers and had no further communication with the researcher. Only two participants were recruited in this manner, although neither had granted permission for the researcher to add them as “friends” on FB. In addition, three of the researcher’s personal acquaintances were recruited online via a similar FB


40

message and link to the online instruments. These three granted permission to be networked with via FB and have their posts examined, for a total of five participants during this stage. The second phase of recruitment took place in the student lounge of the Center for International Education (CIE) at Kansai Gaidai University, toward the end of the last trimester during summer 2011. The CIE is the location of many international courses and the office in which students receive information about studying abroad. The gatekeeper at the CIE explained that the student lounge is generally a place where students gather to socialize, study, and practice their English with foreign students who may be present. The researcher approached potential participants, identified as those who seemed to be socializing or passing the time, and introduced himself as a graduate student from Central Connecticut State University, a sister school of Kansai Gaidai. They were then asked if they would like to participate in a research project about how Facebook may help people learn English. If they agreed, they were provided a copy of the consent form, appropriate questionnaire, and test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness. The researcher explained the purpose of the instruments and requested that the potential participants look over the instruments to understand their length and content. Participants were also asked if they wished to provide their FB account name and allow the researcher to observe their activity on FB including wall posts, status updates, and picture comments over the next two months. When participants had confirmed their agreement a second time, they signed the consent form and began the procedure (described below). Each participant who provided a FB name was later networked with using the “request as a friend” feature on the researcher’s FB account. Several participants, due to lack of time or other reasons, had agreed to provide a FB account name and allow their FB activity to be studied, although not complete the questionnaire or test. A total of


41

27 participants were recruited during this phase, 21 of whom had completed the questionnaire and test. The third phase of recruitment took place at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU), the researcher’s home university in the U.S., toward the end of September, 2011. Participants recruited during this phase were Japanese exchange students from Kansai Gaidai studying in the Intensive English Language Program (IELP) at CCSU and known through personal acquaintance. The IELP at CCSU is one of the many intensive English programs in English speaking countries that students from Kansai Gaidai may enroll in to earn credit at their home university. Participants had been enrolled in the program for approximately one month at the time of recruitment. Each participant was approached and recruited in the same manner as in the second phase. This last phase of recruitment was an effort to increase the sample size for this study by a convenient means, and as mentioned previously, all participants recruited during this phase were also students of Kansai Gaidai University. A total of 8 participants were recruited during this phase, and each had completed the questionnaire and test. Instruments The present study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods of collecting data. The quantitative method was confirmatory in nature, and was designed to determine the pragmatic awareness, study abroad experience, and FB usage of participants; these data were later correlated. The qualitative method was both confirmatory and exploratory, and its purpose was to gather a collection of FB “posts” created by participants. These were analyzed to determine the type of speech acts commonly produced by learners on FB, and were examined in an attempt to find utterances in contexts which exhibited the acquisition of some aspect of pragmatic competence or awareness. On FB, user posts are asynchronous and for the purposes


42

of this study are defined as one of the following: a comment on another user’s profile or picture, a response to a user’s comment, or use of the “status update” feature on FB to broadcast a message to one’s FB contacts. Quantitative instruments. The instruments used for the quantitative portion of data collection included a questionnaire and test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness. Two separate versions of the questionnaire were used, one given to participants who use FB and the other to those who do not. Both questionnaires, written in English, elicited identical information about participants’ education and English learning experience, and the questionnaire given to the FB users included additional questions regarding their FB use. The questionnaire given to FB-using participants is presented in Appendix A; the questionnaire given to non-FB-using participants was identical minus the items related to FB. The test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness (English version, Appendix B), contained instructions in Japanese and was of a format similar to one of the judgment tasks developed by Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998), in which participants judged certain utterances in short, written conversations for appropriateness. As in Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s (2008) original study, utterances included those that were either pragmatically or grammatically inappropriate, along with an element in which participants rated the severity of conceived errors. However, none of the original items developed by BardoviHarlig and Dörnyei (1998) were included, as these types of speech acts were deemed less likely to occur in a virtual environment such as FB. It was presumed that if FB could increase learner’s pragmatic awareness, it would be through providing pragmatically appropriate input that the learner will notice. Thus, FB could only affect a learner’s pragmatic awareness of speech acts encountered on FB, which would seem to rarely include most of those used in Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei study: requests, apologies, and suggestions. The last type of speech act included by


43

Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei was a refusal, which was included in the present study although in the form of novel items that were thought to more realistically represent the type of refusals one might encounter on FB. Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei’s original study included several refusals between a student and teacher, for example, which would most likely not occur on FB and therefore be irrelevant if included in the present study. Therefore, new items were created to this speech act. In addition to refusals, the test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness in the present study included the speech acts of disagreeing, inviting, requesting a service, and responding to a compliment; for a total of five speech acts. The test included a total of 25 items, divided into five items for each type of speech act. Each item was designed by the researcher to be representative of a speech act that could be realistically encountered during interaction on FB. It should be noted that it was the type of speech act, rather than the actual utterance, in each test item that was considered to realistically occur on FB. Thus, several items may not realistically occur on FB, such as item 4 (Anna offers Peter something to drink, Appendix B). Because the present study focuses on input received from online social networking, for which commonly used speech acts have not yet been determined, an effort was made to create new speech acts and situations that could be realistically encountered during such communication; these were mentioned above. The test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness used in this study is thus not intended to be a substitution for a well-rounded test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness in general, but rather a means by which the knowledge of a given set of speech acts can be measured. Many other speech acts and their appropriate pragmatic necessities may only be encountered through other forms of interaction, such as during professional meetings, at parties, or in conversations with the elderly; the test used in the present


44

study is not concerned with these and seeks only to determine one’s pragmatic awareness with regard to speech acts commonly presumed to occur in online social networking. After an initial set of items for the test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness was developed, it was trialed on three NS university students and several ambiguous items were removed. In addition, it was found that a number of the original pragmatically inappropriate items were such that they were likely to be inappropriate in many, if not all languages. If these were included and judged as pragmatically inappropriate by a participant, they would not provide a suitable measure of the learner’s pragmatic awareness in English, and if judged as (incorrectly) appropriate would likely only indicate that the participant did not have a high enough proficiency to “read beyond the grammar” and dedicate processing to the pragmatic content of the utterance. Qualitative instrument. The qualitative instrument for this study was designed to provide further insight into the FB activity of English learners in order to explain any trends (or lack thereof) in the quantitative data, and to answer the second and third research questions: can explicit evidence for the triggering of pragmatic competence acquisition be found in FB discourse, particularly via receiving native-like input or recasts? and which speech acts are commonly produced by Japanese learners of English on FB? Furthermore, this instrument allowed for data collection of learners’ actual activity on FB, rather than simply their intuitions, which were examined by Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010). Qualitative data collection was accomplished by requesting permission of participants to “add them as a friend” on FB, which allowed the researcher to view participants’ FB activity. The researcher added willing participants as contacts to his FB profile, and collected the 40 most recent posts in English or a mix of English and Japanese at the time of data collection created by each participant. Several participants had less than 40 total posts, in which case all of their posts were collected. Posts


45

written primarily in Japanese in which the participant had inserted occasional words in English were not collected. Names of people and specific places were omitted to protect the privacy of participants. All posts and any relevant contexts were copied and pasted into a separate text file for each participant on the researcher’s computer, and each utterance was coded according to the speech act each it represented. Once the study was complete, the text file of participants’ FB utterances and their contexts was deleted. As data was collected, a list of common speech acts was compiled. Sometimes a single post created by a participant contained more than one speech act, and likewise a single utterance was occasionally classified as performing more than one speech act. For this reason, the total number of speech acts for a participant did not always equal the total number of posts or utterances collected from his or her FB account. A list of the speech acts encountered with their number of occurrences among all participants grouped together is shown later in Figure 3. Posts were also examined for any trends including evidence of pragmatic competence or awareness development. Instances of such development, whether receptive (awareness) or productive (competence), were hypothesized to occur via input from NS contacts who may have posted comments containing colloquial expressions used to express certain speech acts. In turn, the learner could show receptive acquisition of such an utterance by posting a response that indicates comprehension, or show productive acquisition via a later post that actually uses the expression in a pragmatically correct way. Procedure Participants first completed the questionnaire, followed by the test of pragmatic/grammatical competence. Each instrument was given to participants in either penciland-paper form (for those recruited in person) or via an online link to a survey including the same items (for those recruited online). They were told there was no time limit for completing


46

the instruments, and were instructed not to consult dictionaries of any kind or discuss the items with others. During one phase of the in-person procedure, two individual participants had asked the researcher in person the meaning of the word complimenting, which occurs in the scenario description for items 7 and 17 (see Appendix B). As this question was essential to participants’ understanding of the speech act they were judging (responding to a compliment), and because a response did not seem detrimental to the validity of the procedure, the researcher attempted to explain the meaning of the word by giving several examples of a compliment. Results and Discussion Demographic Data and Contact with NSs The following data reflects the 32 participants who completed the questionnaire. Among these learners, 21 (65.5%) had or were currently living or studying abroad in an Englishspeaking country, 15 (46.9%) having done so for a semester or longer. The majority of participants (78.1%) had a major related to English, while those who did not were generally Spanish majors. At the time of recruitment, 12 participants (37.5%) were in the first year of their college study, 6 (18.8%) in their second year, 2 (6.3%) in their third year, and 9 (28.1%) in their fourth year. In addition, 3 participants (9.4%) were recent alumni of Kansai Gaidai University. All participants had indicated having at least a minimal amount of in-person contact with NSs outside of class, while 10 participants (31.3%) had specified they had at least 3 hours per week of such contact. General Use of FB According to the data collected via the questionnaires, 35 of the 40 participants (87.5%) had FB accounts. However, seeing as five participants were recruited online through FB (thus not chosen at random and not able to represent the population), these can be excluded from the


47

effective sample size when calculating the percentage of participants who have FB accounts. This would bring the number of participants not recruited via FB but possessing FB accounts to 30 out of 35 (85.7%). This percentage is still much larger than that found among the 300 Malaysian students in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s (2010) study (45.7%), which is recent enough for the increase in the present study to not reflect an increase in general popularity of FB. The 27 FB-using students in the present study who provided data regarding their FB use varied in the amount of time they had been using FB, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Length of time participants had been using FB at the time of the study. Time using FB < 1 month 1-6 months 6-12 months 1-2 years >2 years

Number of Participants 3 (11.1%) 9 (33.3%) 4 (14.8%) 4 (14.8%) 7 (25.9%)

The general frequency with which FB is used by the Japanese students in the present study, shown below in Table 2, was also larger than that of the Malaysian students in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010). Of the Japanese students, 71.3% claimed to use FB every day, whereas only 33% of Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s Malaysian participants had said they logged in at least once daily (p. 182). Table 2 Frequency with which participants use FB. Response every day a few times a week a few times a month very rarely

Number of Participants* 19 (73.1%) 5 (19.2%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%)

* n = 26


48

Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010) did not sample for study abroad experience among their participants, although the larger number of FB users and greater frequency of FB use in the present study could perhaps be attributed to the fact that participants were all students of a foreign language school with numerous study abroad programs; this would have made for a larger percentage of participants who had studied abroad and made foreign friends they wished to keep in contact with. In addition, the motivation of students in the present study to communicate with foreigners may have been greater since they attended a school specializing in foreign language programs and the majority of them had majors related to English. Analysis of FB Use, Contact with NSs, and Pragmatic/Grammatical Competence The non-demographic, scalar variables used in this study included pragmatic competence score, grammatical competence score, TOEFL score, communication with NSs (hours/week), time spent in an English-speaking country (months), length of time possessing a FB account (years), frequency of FB use (percentage of once/day), amount of foreign contacts (friends) on FB, and percentage of FB communication that is with foreigners. Each of these variables is abbreviated and defined in Table 3. Table 3 Definitions of Variables. Variable Prag Gram TOEFL NSTalk TimeAbroad FBTime FBFreq ForFriend NSComm

Definition Pragmatic competence score (% of pragmatic errors found) Grammatical competence score (% of grammatical errors found) TOEFL score Avg. in-person communication with NSs outside of class (hours/week) Time spent in native English-speaking country (months) Length of time possessing a FB account (months) Frequency of FB use (percentage of once/day; every day = 1.00) Amount of foreign contacts on FB (representative score, 1-5) Percentage of FB Communication that is with foreigners (%)


49

Scores for pragmatic and grammatical competence (prag and gram, respectively) were computed based on the percentage of utterances of the relavent types judged correctly for appropriateness. The element of the judgment task requiring participants to rate the severity of a pragmatic or grammatical error was disregarded for the present study after collecting data, as it was found that an overwhelming number of participants had not responded to this portion at all, or had given every item an identical, “right down the middle” rating. This likely occurred due to confusion of this portion of the judgment task, as regrettably no verbal clarification was given. Non-numerical variables were made quantifiable by extrapolating values based on participant responses on the questionnaire. Values assigned to each of the possible responses are shown in parentheses in Appendix A. Because of the multiple variables contributing to the amount of contact a participant had with NSs on FB, a composite score was created as a function of these variables, labeled FBContact. This score represents the total amount of contact with NSs via FB a participant had experienced at the time of the study, and is arrived at via the following formula:

FBContact = FBTime x FBFreq x NSComm

Table 4 below displays a summary of quantitative data for the variables listed in Table 3 from all participants who completed the questionnaire and test of pragmatic and grammatical awareness. Cases are sorted in ascending order by participants’ scores for pragmatic awareness.


50

Table 4 Quantitative data from participants who completed quantitative instruments. Time FB FB For Abroad Time Freq Friend 41 100 90 530 6 0.5 30 1 5 63 100 90 573 6 1 30 1 5 33 100 80 487 0.2 0.5 30 1 5 34 90 90 0.5 0.5 3.5 1 4 32 90 60 473 0.2 0.15 30 0.5 4 36 90 60 6 0.15 9 1 3 25 90 40 420 0.5 0 3.5 0.5 1 61 80 60 550 1.5 2 30 1 5 44 80 40 450 1.5 0.15 9 1 3 1 70 10 1.5 0.15 28 70 10 430 0.2 0 3.5 1 3 30 60 70 457 0.2 0.5 30 1 5 31 60 70 523 0.2 0 9 1 5 23 60 40 0.2 0 3.5 0.5 1 27 60 40 4 0 3.5 NA 4 3 60 30 0.2 0 62 50 70 550 0.5 2 30 1 5 24 40 50 450 1.5 0 3.5 1 1 64 40 50 6 0.5 3.5 0.25 3 2 40 40 0.2 0.15 43 40 40 4 0.15 9 1 4 5 40 30 450 0.5 0 4 40 20 0.5 0 22 30 90 1.5 1 18 1 5 42 30 70 490 4 0.15 18 1 4 26 30 50 513 0.2 0 3.5 1 3 38 30 40 480 6 0.15 1 1 3 29 30 30 487 0.2 0 3.5 1 5 21 20 80 0.2 1 18 0.5 3 40 20 70 6 0.15 1 0.5 4 65 20 70 507 0.2 1 18 0.1 5 39 20 30 6 0.15 1 1 4 Note: Definitions and units of each variable are presented in Table 3. NA = No response. Code Prag Gram TOEFL NSTalk

NS Comm 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.5

FB Contact 15 15 15 1.75 3.75 2.25 0.44 22.5 4.5

0.5 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5

1.75 22.5 4.5 0.44

0.75 0.25 0.5

22.5 0.88 0.44

0.5

4.5 0

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

9 9 1.75 0.5 2.63 4.5 0.25 0.9 0.5


51

Using SPSS statistical software, Pearson product-moment correlations were performed for all possible permutations of variables. Several correlations were found significant at p < .05. Table 5 shows a list of significant correlations worth noting, along with their coefficients. Table 5 Significant correlations for quantitative data. Variables Pearson r Prag x FBTime .404 Prag x FBContact .345* Gram x FBTime .689 Gram x FBContact .553 TimeAbroad x FBContact .733 TimeAbroad x ForFriend .484 * approaching significance at p = .053

p .022 .053 .000 .001 .000 .010

N 32 32 32 32 32 27

Prag x FBTime and Prag x FBContact. Among the 32 participants who had FB accounts and had completed the questionnaire and test, a moderate correlation (r = .404, p = .022) was found between pragmatic awareness and length of time using FB (FBTime), the latter of which is part of the composite variable FBContact. Additionally, a slightly weaker correlation (approaching significance at r = .345, p = .053) was found between pragmatic awareness (Prag) and total contact with NSs on FB (FBContact). These correlations suggest that contact with NSs on FB may have some relationship with a learner’s pragmatic awareness. Perhaps because since NSs can serve as a source of authentic input for the learner in terms of natural language that may not be learned in the classroom, this had benefited their pragmatic awareness. However, this weak correlation may in reality not be totally representative of the influence of FB on pragmatic awareness. One of the variables contributing to the construct FBContact is NSComm, or the percentage of communication on FB that is “with foreign friends.” Participants may have indicated a low percentage for this item if they do not often initiate communication or actively


52

participant in conversations via FB. However, this overlooks the amount of observing the participant does on FB. Learners may browse FB and read the posts and conversations of NSs without actually communicating with them. These types of learners could be termed passive FB users. Such passive use of FB, although it does not encourage language practice, still allows FB to serve as a source of input. Due to the possibility of participants having improved their pragmatic competence through passive FB use, the weak correlation mentioned above may in reality be stronger. In order to further examine and quantify passive FB use among participants, the posts of those who provided access to their FB data were analyzed for initiation, a construct defined as the percentage of posts created by the participant on another user’s FB profile or picture. These included responses to another user, as long as such responses were still on that user’s profile or picture. Status updates or responses to a comment on one’s own profile or picture were, naturally, not considered initiative. The initiation construct was developed to determine how active a participant was in using English on FB. Figure 1 displays frequencies for the percentage of posts considered initiative among participants. Figure 1 Frequency Distribution for Initiation in Facebook Posts. 9 8 7 6 Frequency 5 (no. of 4 Participants) 3 2 1 0 0

1-10

11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Initiation (% of Total Posts)


53

In general, less than half of participants’ posts were initiative. From the data in Figure 1, a number of participants showed relatively high initiation (20 – 40%), indicating that they posted on others’ FB profiles at least once in every five posts. These participants could be considered active users of FB who “go out of their way” to post messages or comments to others. On the other hand, 12 participants (41%) had 10% or less initiation; among the data collected, they posted on others’ profiles only once in every ten or more posts. Eight participants (28%) did not post on others’ profiles at all among the data collected. These participants could be considered passive users of FB. However, among the participants who had no initiative posts, only two had enough FB data available to collect 40 posts. In other words, most of these passive FB users simply did not use FB enough (or perhaps not long enough) to considered posting to another user’s profile or picture. Still, a look at these participants’ responses regarding their FB use reveals that they had all indicated they use FB at least once a day. In addition, with the exception of Participant 36, each had indicated that at least half of their communication on FB was with foreigners. It thus seems that these users have ample opportunities to actively communicate with NSs via FB, although they rarely do so and could thus safely be deemed passive users. As mentioned previously, passive users may still use FB as a source of L2 input by reading the posts of others, which may or may not relate to their pragmatic awareness. However, among the participants with no initiation, only one (Participant 44) had indicated that she uses FB to practice her English reading. A study examining how often passive users of FB read the posts of NSs would be useful in this regard. Gram x FBTime and Gram x FBContact. Stronger correlations were found between grammatical awareness and contact with NSs on FB (r = .553, p = .001), as well as with length


54

of time using FB (r = .689, p = .000). Similar to pragmatic awareness, the reason for this correlation may be that FB serves as a source of L2 input for learners. Other possibilities. Although it appears from the data that pragmatic and grammatical competence correlate positively with participants’ contact with NSs via FB (FBContact), this trend could have been skewed by the amount of contact with NSs that participants had outside of FB, or with their English proficiency in general. Examining these two extraneous variables among participants who had a large amount of NS contact via FB (FBContact ≥ 15.00), we find that several also had large amounts of contact with NSs in person outside of class or high TOEFL scores. Participants whose score for FBContact equaled or exceeded 15.00 are shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 Participants with high FBContact scores. Code 63 41 33 61 30 62

Prag 100 100 100 80 60 50

Gram 90 90 80 60 70 70

TOEFL 573 530 487 550 457 550

TimeAbroad 1 .5 .5 2 .5 2

NSTalk 6 6 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.5

FBContact 15.00 15.00 15.00 22.50 22.50 22.50

From Table 6, it is evident that the high pragmatic and grammatical awareness scores for several of the participants could be explained by factors other than their large amount of NS contact on FB (indicated by the value for FBContact). Several of these participants also had a large amount of NS contact not via FB, namely outside of their classes (NSTalk). Participants 41 and 63, for example, each had a relatively high amount of NS contact on FB (FBContact = 15.00), although they had also both indicated they had more than five hours per week of contact with NSs per


55

week in person (NSTalk = 6), and had lived or studied abroad for some time (TimeAbroad). These two participants also had relatively high TOEFL scores: 530 and 573, respectively. Their higher English proficiency coupled with the abundance of non-FB contact with NSs could perhaps explain their high scores for both pragmatic and grammatical awareness, rather than the previously mentioned correlations between these two constructs and FBContact. Participants 61 and 62, on the other hand, had even higher amounts of contact with NSs via FB (FBContact = 22.50), and although had comparatively little contact with NSs in person (≤ 2 hours/week, NSTalk ≤ 2), had lived abroad for a rather lengthy two years. Both had provided identical, and rather high, TOEFL scores as a measure of overall English proficiency. Interestingly, these participants scored less for both pragmatic and grammatical awareness than those with less FB contact, mentioned above. This may suggest that contact with NSs in person is more effective in increasing pragmatic and/or grammatical awareness than is contact via FB. However, it is unclear whether the two years of time spent abroad by participants 61 and 62 can be deemed equivalent to the one year or less abroad but more than five hours per week of contact with NSs that participants 41 and 63 had. In addition to the exceptional cases mentioned from Table 6, several participants obtained a high score (≥ 80%) for pragmatic awareness based on the test although they had a low score for NSContact based on their data from the questionnaire. These included participants 25, 28, 32, and 34. Two of these four participants had provided access to their FB activity (28 and 34). Taking a closer look at the FB posts created by Participant 28, nothing unusual could be noted except that she had a relatively high score for initiation (44% of posts were on others’ profiles). Examining posts from Participant 34 however, revealed that in addition to relatively high initiation (35% of posts), her posts were also generally quite long and involved lengthy


56

conversations with who were presumably native speakers. The length of her posts can be expressed by the fact that she only had 37 posts containing English, although a total of 112 speech acts were found among these posts, resulting in an average of approximately three speech acts per post. Most other participants had produced short posts composed of only one speech act. Participant 34’s posts, on the other hand, often represented detailed, email-like messages written to NS acquaintances in other countries. Figure 2 below is an excerpt from a conversation between Participant 34 and an NS, which lasted a total of four turns. Figure 2 Example of detailed conversation in Participant 34’s posts. NS:

HI [name]!! Genki? My japanese language class was cancelled because not very many people signed up for it. I was really upset!! Good luck with driving school! I hope you do well. I hear that driving school is kind of difficult, gambare!! I hope you put some more pictures up on facebook soon, the others were sooo good! How have you been? Do you miss [place in Canada]? Talk with you soon…

P34:

Hi [name]!! I'm genki. Oh...that's too bad, but please keep study Japanese.Driving is fun, but a written test is hard X( I don't have my computer now, so I'll put some picture after driving school. I miss [place in Canada] and you!! I can't believe that one month have passed since I left [place in Canada].

NS:

I will get one of my japanese friends to tutor me soon, that will have to do untill the course starts again. Post your driving pics soon, I want to see them. So you miss [place name]? you should come back soon! I hope to be in Japan in 2012, maybe we could meet up then. Hopefully I'll know more japanese... talk to you soon…

P34:

wow,it's good idea.You really like Japan!! I'm glad :D 2012?! it's very nice, but I feel it's still a long time:( Do you decide where will you go already?? Anyway I'm looking forward to seeing you,and your Japanese. Someday I wanna go to Canada again.

The relatively lengthy conversations, such as the one above, that Participant 34 has with NSs offer rich input and could possibly account for the fact that she scored high for pragmatic awareness despite having a low amount of NS contact via FB. Additionally, her NSContact


57

score was mostly low due to the fact that she had only been using FB for between one and six months. Although she had indicated she rarely spoke to NSs outside of class at the time of the study, her one semester of study abroad experience may have been rather enriching and allowed her to make friends with many native speakers, also contributing to her pragmatic awareness. Although the amount of contact with NSs outside of class could be responsible for a higher pragmatic awareness (whether such contact is provided while living abroad or while speaking with NSs in one’s home country), no significant correlation was found between length of residence in an English speaking country and pragmatic awareness, contrary to the results from Schauer (2006) and Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998). However, the lack of any significant correlation could of course be due to two other factors that may influence pragmatic awareness while a student is not living abroad, namely contact with NSs via FB and contact with NSs in person outside of class. It appears from the results of this study that these factors interact with length of residency abroad in complex ways, and it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion as to whether FB contact with NSs can predict pragmatic awareness. FB as a means to keep in touch with NSs. One significant, strong correlation found that did not relate to language ability was between time spent abroad in an English speaking country and amount of contact with NSs on FB (r = .725, p = .000). Another moderate, yet interesting correlation was discovered between time spent in an English speaking country and the amount of foreign contacts one possessed on FB, referred to as “FB friends” in the FB community (r = .490, p = .010). These correlations seem logical, as Japanese students in Japan who are close friends with English NSs on FB would likely have met them while studying or living abroad (or in some cases, while the NSs were studying in Japan) and would be likely to engage in more communication with NSs via FB than students who had never met their FB


58

contacts in person. FB could thus be seen as a useful tool for keeping in touch with foreign friends even after studying abroad. In other words, English learners could built an initial relationship with NSs while studying abroad, then continue this relationship (and the valuable L2 input that comes with it) via a form of computer mediated communication such as FB. Opinions of FB as Helping to Learn English The Malaysian students in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin (2010) had, on average, answered between “slightly agree” and “agree” (leaning more toward the latter) when asked about their opinions regarding FB’s potential in helping students practice reading and writing in English, as well as in helping to learn new words in English and with learning English in general, among a variety of other aspects. The opinions given by Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s Malaysian students at first appear to be not quite in agreement with responses from the Japanese students in the present study. Only 11.5% (n = 3) of students in the present study who had FB accounts had indicated that they use FB to practice their English reading, while 19.2% (n = 5) said they use FB to practice their English writing. Additionally, only 23.1% (n = 6) had stated that they use FB to learn new English. These comparatively low numbers, although from a much lower sample size and reflecting opinions of only students who have FB accounts (unlike in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s study, which elicited opinions from students who both did and did not have FB accounts), do not reflect the general agreement of the Malaysian students in the aforementioned study. One reason for this contrast could be that roughly half of the students (54.3%) in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s study did not possess FB accounts, and were thus merely commenting on their perceptions of how FB might be able to help students learn English; they had never experienced such potential for English learning firsthand. The students who gave their opinions in the present study, on the other hand, were all FB users and perhaps had seen a


59

more realistic (and less beneficial) picture of how FB can help their English. However, the small sample size of the present study seems unlikely to dismiss the strong trend found among Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s 300 participants, even if the non-FB users skew the results slightly. Further inspection of the present study’s data is thus warranted, and it was found that there exists some disagreement among participants between what they usually use Facebook for and how often FB helps them with different aspects of English learning. While few of the Japanese FBusing students had claimed FB helps them learn new English or practice their reading and writing, these same students had, on the five-point Likert scale (0 = “never”, 4 = “often”) used in the questionnaire, answered with mean scores of 2.52, 2.80, and 2.56 (all leaning toward “often”) for how often FB helps them learn new English words, learn new expressions/slang, and practice their English with NSs, respectively. This difference suggests that when asked about whether students use FB with the aim of learning or practicing English, they are more likely to reply that they do not; however, when asked whether FB helps them learn or practice English regardless of their intention to do so, they are more likely to reply that it does so somewhat often. These results are interesting in that they suggest incidental learning via FB. Quantitative Analysis of FB Posts The posts of the 32 participants who provided access to their FB activity were analyzed for instances of code-switching, the speech acts each post represented, and any general trends. The results found for each of these analysis factors are presented below. Speech acts. A total of 882 FB posts comprising 1779 speech acts were collected, among which 27 different speech acts were identified as being somewhat frequent among participants. An additional category of speech act, labeled “other” was included to account for nonsensical postings and speech acts encountered only once among all participants. Where


60

several consecutive sentences were describing the same topic and served the purpose of expressing the same speech act, they were treated as one instance of that speech act. However, if two consecutive sentences expressed the same type of speech act but were on different topics, they were considered two separate instances of the same speech act. As an example, a single post in which the participant thanks another person, then proceeds to describe his or her plans followed by information about his or her class schedule, would be recorded as three speech act instances: one being thanking and the other two providing info/describing event or plans. Finally, a single post was sometimes recorded as multiple speech acts. For example, a participant who posted so cool! on a picture of a friend would be both complimenting and expressing opinion. A list of speech acts commonly found and their definitions are presented in Appendix C, and the results of the speech act analysis for participants’ FB activity in Figure 3. Figure 3 Frequency of speech acts in English used by participants in Facebook posts.

info statement thank emotion desire interest opinion ask congratulate wish luck suggest agree request favor present greet respond greet ask rhetorical friend compliment request info acknowledge humor apologize quote sympathy respond comp. excuse

20% 18% 16% 14% % of Total 12% 10% Utterances 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

Speech Acts

As shown in Figure 3 above, the most commonly encountered speech act was info (providing information or describing future plans or past actions), which comprised 18% of all speech acts produced by participants. Other speech acts frequently encountered were making


61

statements or observations (statement), thanking (thank), expressing emotion (emotion), and expressing desire (desire). It is interesting to note that, with the exception of thanking, none of the five most commonly encountered speech acts require an interlocutor. If posted as a “status update,” a feature of FB that allows users to broadcast a message to all of their contacts, such speech acts would indeed be directed at no person in particular. Consequently, such speech acts appear to be less communicative that those aimed at an interlocutor. Speech acts with a target would be more likely to invite responses and increase communication, while those without a target may simply be read by others and invite no responses. This is curious, and suggests that FB may not allow communication with NSs so much as it allows learners to simply practice producing monologue-like utterances. It may also be suggestive of a higher affective filter on FB than imagined, as learners may produce more speech acts not requiring a target out of a hesitancy to communicate directly with NSs. In other words, learners may prefer to broadcast their present emotions, opinions, or other information rather than engaging in conversation on FB. In addition to the commonly encountered speech acts mentioned, participants also frequently congratulated each other (especially regarding birthdays), and produced simple, short greetings or expressions of friendship such as hope you are doing well. A large number of the utterances classified as emotion were expressing a longing to return to a country one had visited or to see friends one had made abroad; phrases such as I miss you (or of a similar meaning) were very common. Examples of such posts are presented later in Figure 14. Code-switching. Unlike the Malaysian students in Kabilan, Ahmad, and Abidin’s (2010) study, all of the 32 Japanese students in the present study who provided FB data exhibited a use of both their native language and English while on FB. Individual students in Kabilan, Ahmad,


62

and Abidin’s study had responded that they use the national language of Malaysia only, English only, or a mix of the two, each in relatively equal frequencies (p. 182, Table 2). Among participants in the present study, an average of 11.4% of posts that contained English also contained another language, typically Japanese. A few instances of code-switching to French, Chinese, and Korean were also found. The frequencies among participants of FB posts involving inter- or intra- sentential code-switching to or from English by the students in the present study are shown in Figure 4. Where a code-switch involved a single, common word such as thanks, fun, or yes, it was considered stylistic and not counted. Similarly, cases in which the codeswitched word was a person’s name or title (the latter being common in Japanese) were not counted. Figure 4 Frequency distribution for code-switching in Facebook posts. 8 7 6 5 Frequency 4 (no. of Participants) 3 2 1 0 0

1-5

6-10

11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 % of Posts Containing Code-switching

Figure 4 shows that most participants code-switched in less than 15 percent of their English posts. It should be noted that a low amount of code-switching does not necessarily reflect a high or low amount of English use. Examining the contexts of posts from participants who frequently


63

code-switched reveals that many posts were aimed at users who were likely native speakers of English or another language learning Japanese. In other cases, the users who the code-switched posts were aimed at appeared to be native speakers of Japanese who might have been students of English as well; hence the use of English (the L2) between two native speakers of Japanese. Instances of code-switching in posts directed at English NSs are presented in Figure 5, and those directed at Japanese NSs in Figure 6. In spite of the uncertainty regarding the native language of a FB user who was not a participant in this study, judgments were made as to the native language based on the context, user’s name, and whether he or she had an abundance of native-like utterances in the language presumed to be his or her L1. Such evidence of the L1 was generally overwhelming, and thus the NS/NNS status of a non-participant was likely judged correctly in every case. Figure 5 Instances of code-switching in Facebook posts directed at NNSs of Japanese. P30:

it's good to hear that you recieved it^^よかったー♪ come and buy some more じゃがり

こー:D!! i'm glad i gave you the birthday present だよーXD anyway 誕生日おめでとねー★!

P33 (to English NS): …wow! i guess your japanese is getting much better! youre good at learning a language =) とても日本語が上手ですね =)

P50 (response to English NS): [name]! いうみっしょう？ What's?!! What mean? :)

NS:

新しい写真を見た、楽しそう...メグミに会いたい...


P65:

64

i'm in [place name] with my friend :D

さくらが、きれいだよ。 i miss you a lot だよー！ NS:

桜を見たい...来月、ニューヨークで見えるかもしれない

P65:

[place name]にさくはがあるの？ i didn't know that!! that's sound fun :D

Figure 6 Instances of code-switching in Facebook posts directed at Japanese NSs. P30 : りささーーーん!! 誕生日おめでとです one♥

ーーーー♥♥!!! hope you have an awsome

P33:

[name], ありがとう！でもぎりぎり平成だから逆に古く感じるよ~ omg!!! haha i miss you too.. we live in same country though

P33:

… yes finally we became 成人.. Posts like those in Figures 5 and 6 indicate that FB is not only used by learners to practice

their English with NSs, but also with NNSs. Furthermore, the English learners in this study show willingness to speak with Japanese learners on FB in Japanese, possibly in order to help them practice, as Participant 33 seems to have done in Figure 5. Similarly, Participant 50 appears to be questioning the acceptability of a Japanese utterance made by a nonnative Japanese speaker. It seems that such bidirectional use of languages between FB users could indeed give rise to the competition over which language is used for communication as mentioned previously, thought only to occur on social media designed specifically for language learning. A particular


65

example of this competition could be the conversation between Participant 65 and an English NS, in which the English NS (confirmed as such by virtue of being an acquaintance of the researcher) initiates a conversation in Japanese on the participant’s profile. Along with Japanese, Participant 65 uses English in each of her responses, although the English NS seems to “refuse” to code switch to English out of a possible desire to practice Japanese (or possibly to make communication more efficient if his Japanese is better than the participant’s English). This English NS then remains speaking only in Japanese for the remainder of the conversation. As with any close examination of only a few participants’ activity, the above observations should be interpreted as possibilities, rather than generalizations, of how learners communicate with NSs and NNSs on FB in both their L1 and L2. Such instances shed light on how FB might be used by some learners, which could highlight potential problems (as when language competition occurs) or possible benefits (such as when English learners communicate in their L2 with other English learners, increasing their use of the language even in the absence of an NS). Qualitative Analysis of FB Posts With regard to the second research question (Can explicit evidence for the triggering of pragmatic competence acquisition be found in FB discourse, particularly via receiving nativelike input or recasts?), the FB posts of participants who provided them were examined for any instances of explicit pragmatic competence acquisition, including any triggering of pragmatic competence by other FB users providing the correct input. Overall, no explicit evidence of acquisition was found via FB alone. One learner however, Participant 52, had exhibited the use of a recently-learned expression, veg out, which she stated she was taught by an NS. The series of posts which illustrate this are shown in Figures 7 and 8.


66


67

Figure 7 Participant 52 expressing her learning of a new expression. P52:

I learned "veg out" from [name]!XDXD haaaaa... I wanna just veg out forever !

Figure 8 Participant 52 demonstrating use of her newly-learned expression with an NS. P52:

i want to veg out with uuuuu!!

NS:

We should become studying vegetables!

P52:

yeeeeeeeey!!!!

P52:

first , i will become studying tomatooooooo!! Although in Figure 7, Participant 52 broadcasts that she has learned the new expression

veg out, it was quite possibly acquired through some other form of interaction with the friend she mentions rather than on FB. Nevertheless, her mentioning of the new phrase on FB and use of it in context demonstrates two interesting things: namely that this learner has used FB as a sort of language learning journal by announcing via a status update that she has learned a new expression (Figure 7), and that FB has allowed her to start a simple conversation with an NS in which she had an opportunity to use the new expression (Figure 8). Additionally, by broadcasting her learning of veg out as her status on FB, she has invited others (including NSs) to comment on the expression or start a conversation about it. Despite the interesting case with Participant 52 mentioned above, no explicit evidence to demonstrate the acquisition of pragmatic competence or native-like expressions entirely through the use of FB was found. On the contrary, a number of cases were found which involved either


68

negative influence from a FB user on the participant’s English; or which provided an opportunity for acquisition to occur, although the participant did not exhibit acquisition. These two types of cases are described in further detail below. Negative (N)NS influence. In contrast to providing a helpful source of input for learners to increase their pragmatic or grammatical competence, a surprising number of cases were found in which an NS or NNS exerted what was likely negative influence on a learner by providing him or her with nonnative-like input. This occurred among participants 21, 53, 54, 62, and 65. In addition, one case occurred in which a learner (Participant 62) requested helpful feedback from an NS, although it was not provided. These cases are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9 Examples of negative influence from NSs and NNSs on learners. (N)NS: …my good friend, moon waxes and wanes. I would miss you guys. P21:

I would do, too. Hope we'll meet soon and be on the same ground.

NS:

…You two need to come here dayo

P53:

we have to ;_; we'll find "どこでもドア".

NNS: Last night! :) sooo much fun! :) P54:

yeah!! :) it was sooo nice time!!

NS:

I’m gonna tattoo your face in my arm lol jk :D”

P65:

…when I come back there, i’m gonna tatto[sic] your face in my leg…


NS:

Happy B-day buddy! Hope you and a sexy one?[sic]

P62:

Thanks big brooooo!!!! What is a sexy one? lol

NS:

Ohhhh, you know ^.-

69

In Figure 9, Participant 21’s NNS interlocutor uses the subjunctive would ungrammatically to express his/her emotion. Participant 21 then adopts this ungrammatical usage in her own post. This is an example of negative influence from an NNS. Another is when Participant 54 utters the phrase *it was sooo nice time in response to her NNS interlocutor’s sooo much fun, indicating she had possibly been eager to mirror her interlocutor’s use of the adverb so but had mistakenly used it with the adjective good. In this case Participant 54 was not exposed to nonnative-like input, but had managed to make an incorrect generalization based on the input. In contrast, Participant 53 may have received negative influence from an NS, as she seems to misunderstand the pragmatic effect of her NS interlocutor when he says that she and someone else need to go somewhere. The verb need here was presumably used for the illocutionary effect (Austin, 1975) of expressing a sense of urgency or strong desire for Participant 53 to go, rather than its general meaning of expressing necessity. Although need to could be identified as pragmatically appropriate in this context given the sense of urgency that the NS intended to create, Participant 53 seems to adopt the use of a verb expressing necessity when she replies with we have to. Whether the participant understands that the use of verbs of necessity here is contextual and intended to create a sense of urgency, rather than necessity, is unclear. Nevertheless, it is possible that Participant 53 may have learned from this encounter with an NS that verbs of necessity like need to and have to have the additional illocutionary force of expressing a strong desire, as in the phrase you need to come take a look at this. This could constitute an instance of negative influence from an NS on a learner’s pragmatic competence.


70

Participant 65 receives what is questionably native-like input from her NS interlocutor, in that he uses the prepositional phrase in my arm rather than the seemingly more common on my arm as the complement of the verb tattoo, perhaps for the pragmatic (and humorous) effect of making the tattoo procedure sound more permanent or severe. Participant 65 then uses the same phrase in her response, indicating that she has noticed the NS’s use of the unusual preposition. Although the preposition in is not ungrammatical in this context, it is less common than on, and the learner will likely wrongly believe in to be the norm in the future. As a side note, Participant 65 does not seem to copy the correct spelling of tattoo from her interlocutor, as she had misspelled it here. This could indicate a lack of self-monitoring or low affective filter and thus disregard for minor details such as spelling. It could also of course be attributed to a typo, given that FB is a computer-based medium of communication. Participant 62, in a conversation with an NS, encounters a phrase he does not understand, and [presumably have] a sexy one and explicitly asks the NS for its meaning. The NS, in what is a likely attempt at humor, withholds the information and gives a sarcastic response instead. Despite the good-natured quality of this exchange, the participant comes across an opportunity to be instructed by an NS concerning a highly contextual expression, presumably have a sexy one, but never learns the exact meaning. Although seemingly frivolous, such an expression could be useful since it is of a form identical to phrases such as have a good one, which are common, natural, and useful for learners. Despite the failed opportunity for NS instruction on FB presented here, this result proves that such opportunities for instruction are possible. Perhaps a larger sample size and greater number of FB posts collected among learners who often interact with NSs would reveal more similar cases.


71

Failure to make use of input. Several cases were found in which a native-like form occurred in the input, although the learner used a nonnative-like version of this form in his or her response. Three participants, 33, 62, and 63, exhibited this phenomenon, whose relevant conversations with other FB users are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 Examples of failure to make use of input among learners on Facebook. (N)NS: …and take care until we meet again some time later. P33:

…take care and let’s see soon

NS:

… How are things going in Japan?

P62:

I just got a job, and I'm gonna work for the firm in next year after my graduation on March:)

(in later posts, same day) P62:

How's it going on?…How’s it going on?…How’s it going on man??…How’s it going on?…How’s your life going on?…How’s going on man?

(in post six days later) P62:

…How’s it going?…

NNS: …i heard your [sic] going to have your wedding at that time next year right? P63:

Yeah, we’ll have wedding next Aug;) In Figure 10 above, Participant 33 receives the native-like input of meet again, showing

the use of meet in the correct context. However, she responds with the nonnative-like *let’s see soon, using see intransitively. Participant 33 may have not noticed the use of meet in the input,


72

or may have noticed it but still decided to use see, which she believed to also be acceptable in this context. Participant 62 receives as input the native-like greeting how are things going in Japan from an NS, which is likely at odds with the corresponding form in the participant’s interlanguage, as he had previously produced several posts of the form *how is…going on among the 40 of his posts that were collected. Despite this, Participant 62 continues to use the incorrect form six times in responses to posts on his profile (all within the same day, as it appeared to be his birthday and he was receiving many greetings from friends not seen recently) before producing the correct form how’s it going six days later. Due to the large amount of time between the input and production of the correct form, it is unclear whether the participant was actually influenced by the input. Participant 63, despite her NNS interlocutor’s use of the native-like your wedding, does not use a determiner with the noun wedding in her response, producing the nonnative-like *we’ll have wedding next Aug. This could indicate that she did not pick up on the use of a possessive pronoun in her friend’s message, as if this were the case, she would likely have responded using our wedding. These examples would seem to indicate either a failure to notice the difference between the correct form in the input and the incorrect form in the learner’s interlanguage, or a lack of monitoring during the output. It might also reflect a low affective filter on such an informal medium of communication as FB, which would thus make for a less strict monitoring of one’s output. Nevertheless, the above examples demonstrate that both NSs and NNSs were able to provide native-like input to learners on FB.


73

Types of Facebook users. While examining participants’ FB posts, several “types” of FB users emerged. One type of user, denoted here as Type 1, could be classified as he/she who only makes simple, short utterances, sometimes not in complete sentences and often as status updates. This may reflect the fact that much electronic communication is often in abbreviated form, whether asynchronous (as in text messages) or synchronous (as through instant messaging programs). Participants 44, 51, and 57 exhibited this type of behavior. Examples of these users’ posts are shown in Figure 11. Participant 26 (not shown) also demonstrated these types of simple utterances, in that she limited her FB use to mostly giving birthday wishes to others (which occurred in nearly three-quarters of her 14 posts). Figure 11 Examples of posts from Type 1 Facebook users. P44:

P51:

nooooo lol

(to friend)

i wanna go

(to friend)

i see… (followed by Japanese)

(to friend)

too hot!!! but i love summer♡very exciting XD

(status update)

but hothothothot....!! haha P57:

waiting for [name]

(status update)

wanna go together!

(to friend)

f---in’ class lol

(status update)

sleepyyy

(status update)

Another type of user, denoted as Type 2, was he/she who frequently engaged in lengthy conversations with NSs. These types of conversations provide a greater amount of input to learners and may involve more complex topics other than simple greetings or inquiries. The


74

average length of posts for Type 2 users was also longer and generally included multiple sentences and speech acts. Such users included participants 21, 33, 34, and 62. Examples of posts from these participants are shown in Figure 12 below, except Participant 34, from who an example was presented in Figure 2 previously. Figure 12 Examples of posts from Type 2 Facebook users. (Conversation 1) P21:

Ferrari = The Supreme God ever

NNS:

It was interesting to know that Top Gear Korea (Top Gear Britain spin off series) just started in Korea recently. :) Have you watched the british show before? I thought it would be so interesting for you! :)

P21:

I know it!! ive ever watched them on You Tube some times and they are actually nice for me^^

(Conversation 2) P33:

무서웠죠？i have ridden on this in Tokyo Disney Sea before.. after riding, we almost cried..ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

NNS 1: Ahahahaha ~ [P 33] ! You and your friends are so cute ! It made me fall asleep [P 33] ... I really could not understand why people scream T.T At that time, I crossed my arms and tooka nap until it finished ! :D Do you know "Hulk roller coaster in Universal studio" [P 33] ??? That was really fun ! P33:

really?? i really cant understand why you didnt scream!! haha i will never ride on this..>< yes, i know! it was really really exciting! ayaka and i had much fun!! finally i can understand you＾＾ haha


75

NNS 2: hahaha ~ I am so glad that you understand me now [P 33] ! I may understand you too ! :) Now, I am watching one Japanese movie " Suspect.x"???? It is very very very interesting moive so far [P 33] !!! Do you know this movie ??? I bet you do because main character is handsome !!! :p hahahha P33:

hahaha thank you＾＾ maybe i know the movie.. you watch it for study of Japanese? haha youre right! i like him who is very popular as a singer and an actor in Japan ＾＾ hahaha but ive never seen it just watched its drama version! really glad that you are interested in Japan!!

NNS 2: I am always interested in Japan [P 33]! Before I went to Japan, actually I had some prejudices of Japanese people [P 33]! You know why ... because of our history problem and some stories ! After Japan trip, I had good memories with Japanese people in Japan, so now I love Japan in many ways [P 33] ! P33:

I know We have a history to each other.. So I'm glad you met nice japanese and enjoyed the trip! I also met many nice korean friends in Korea and US^^ and I like your way to call our name like [P 33]!^^ haha

(Conversation 3) P62:

Thanks [name]!!! It was so much fun to talk over Skype last time!! After a few days, I've got a job!! :P Now, I need to get a part-time job for the ticket!! I'll have a blast in [state in U.S.] hopefully:P

NNS:

woooww!!! congratulation!!! so are you working woth [company] now? lol, jk. thats great man! i'm happy for you!! btw im sending you some stuff either this week or early next week. hopefully it will arrive safely to your house

P62:

Thanks man!!! :)


76

Yea, I'll let you know when it arrives. I still don't get a package from [friend] though:( NNS:

Lol, do you think the post office guy took the coffee?

P62:

It is possible, man. Lol I'm not sure, but the post office guy really likes the French vanilla coffee, lol. Above, Participant 21 discusses his hobby, sports cars, with a friend. Although short, this

conversation features a rather unique topic which differs from the common, simple greetings and expressions of longing (mentioned later) that most other participants exhibited in their posts. Participant 33 begins a conversation about amusement park rides after seeing a picture of her friend on such a ride, but the topic of discussion later moves to a particular movie and finally to promoting cultural understanding between Japan and Korea, lasting a total of seven turns and involving two interlocutors. Participant 62 keeps in touch with a friend about his new job and future plans, even adding a touch of rather sophisticated humor at the end of the conversation. The types of lengthy, detailed conversations among these participants stray from the typical greetings and simple utterances commonly produced by other participants on FB, and would seem to promote use of a wider range of vocabulary and sentence structures. Interestingly, many of these types of conversations were between the participant and another NNS. Not surprisingly, participants in this category of FB user had all studied abroad for at least one semester (two years in the case of Participant 62), and had all scored at least 70% for grammatical competence. Additionally, Participant 62 was one of the few who had no Japanese in any of his posts. Participant 33 had also scored high (100%) for pragmatic competence, although Participants 21 and 62 had scored fairly low (20% and 50%, respectively). This would seem to suggest that grammatical competence more closely reflects a learner’s FB use than pragmatic competence,


77

and is in accord with the correlation between grammatical competence and FBContact found in the quantitative analysis mentioned previously. The third type of user (Type 3) that emerged in the analysis of FB posts was he/she who seldom engaged in conversations with others and instead used FB to broadcast his/her emotions, opinions, thoughts, or other information by means of the “update status” feature. Although other users sometimes responded to these posts, the posts were generally not aimed at a specific interlocutor and were thus less likely to involve turn-taking or speech acts that required interlocutors such as asking, suggesting, or complimenting. This type of user included participants 22, 56, 57, and 63, from who examples of status updates are shown in Figure 13 below. Figure 13 Examples of status updates from Type 3 users. P22:

In the cram school, the math teacher was always dropping on me, because obviously I did not concentrate on classes. Compared to lazy me, they are industrious.

P56:

This is a movie which I made last month. People who likes Godzilla should watch it!

P57:

I have class from now :( sleepyyy

P57:

it was really fun! I love u guys! can't wait to tomorrow :)

P63:

junior high's alumni association tonight♪

P63:

was talking about being lazy, watching movies with having hot coco on this kinda cool autumn day… Participant 22, for which posts similar to the above example were typical, frequently

broadcasted his thoughts or made observations about current events or school work. Nearly all


78

of his posts (38 of 40) were fairly long status updates, were not aimed at particular people, and received few responses from others. They also involved rather complex grammatical forms and sophisticated vocabulary. He appeared to use FB as a tool for practicing his English writing rather than socializing, and confirmed his use of FB to practice English writing via his response on the questionnaire. His responses also suggest that he browses other users’ FB posts to improve his English, as he indicated he uses FB to learn new words and expressions and to see how English is used naturally by NSs, although little evidence was found in his posts of actually communicating with others. As with Participants 21, 33 and 62 in Figure 12, Participant 56 also had a high score (90%) for grammatical competence, suggesting a relationship between this variable and the quality of one’s FB posts (where “quality” is defined here as the length and depth of one’s posts and conversation topics). Participant 56, as illustrated in Figure 13, often posted links to songs or videos he liked, along with his opinions about them. Participant 57, who was also considered a Type 1 user and mentioned previously, frequently posted her enjoyment of a certain event or current state of mind. Similarly, Participant 63 often used status updates to broadcast her plans or events happening in her life as in the above examples. Other trends. From examining the FB posts qualitatively, several other trends emerged in addition to those mentioned thus far. For one, it appeared that many of the learners were using FB to keep in touch with friends abroad. A commonly encountered speech act among participants’ FB posts was expressing emotion or self-reflection, and a large percentage of posts in this category were written to express the act of missing someone (I miss you, etc.). Most if not all of these posts were likely (based on context) directed at a friend overseas whom the participant had met while studying abroad, or while the recipient of the message was studying


79

abroad in Japan. Likewise, another common speech act was expressing desire/wish, for which the majority of posts were written to express a desire to return to the place where a participant had studied or lived abroad. Posts such as I want to go back to [name of school or place] were frequent. Examples of these types of posts are presented in Figure 14 below. Figure 14 Examples of Facebook posts expressing missing/longing. P50:

I miss [school in U.S.]…

P53:

reallyyyy wanna see u all !! Wanted to stay 1more year though,, i hope i can go back before graduate.

P41:

We should have a reunion party of [school in U.S.] members soooon!

NS:

I'm so happy you finally got facebook! It's such a good way to keep in touch with people... how are you??!

P34:

I'm fine, but I miss [place]. Study abroad was very good experience for me. I was glad that I could become friend with you :D

P34:

…I miss [place in Canada] and you!! I can't believe that one month have passed since I left [place in Canada].


P62:

80

How's it going on man?? Well, I'm planning to come visit [school in U.S.] before my graduation…I'm waiting for you here in Japan…

NS:

i'm good yo how's being back in japan? I'm sure you miss [campus building] and [restaurant] food. These findings suggest that FB is a valuable tool for keeping in contact with both NSs

and NNSs (as some of the participants’ friends seemed to be other international NNS students) even after the study abroad period has ended. In fact, the NS who communicated with P34 in Figure 13 above specifically mentions how FB is a good way to keep in touch with people. This suggestion is supported by the fact that most of the learners who exhibited this form of “keeping in touch” had indeed studied or lived abroad for short times. Perhaps not surprisingly, all of the learners who had never studied or lived abroad failed to display any instances of these types of expressions of missing or longing. These findings are in line with the correlations mentioned previously between time spent in a native English-speaking country and both the amount of contact with NSs and amount of foreign friends on FB. Pedagogical Implications Practicing speech acts. The speech acts found to be commonly produced by learners in this study were providing information, describing future or past events, making statements, and expressing emotion, desire, and interest. FB thus serves as an appropriate setting for allowing students to practice these speech acts naturally. When teachers are searching for an appropriate medium to allow students to use speech acts they have learned in class, they can consider FB. Eslami-Rasekh (2005) suggests that in addition to teaching certain speech acts, teachers can allow students to choose a speech act they would like to learn and “observe it in naturalistic


81

settings,” (p. 205); FB could serve as such a setting. This would allow a student to see how the speech act is performed in the L2, which may be different from in the L1. Teacher and peer feedback. In terms incorporating FB in the classroom, students may benefit from teacher or peer feedback regarding the pragmatic or grammatical appropriateness of their FB posts. Such feedback, even when an utterance was nonnative-like, was not provided by any NSs with whom the participants communicated in the present study. One possible way to allow for teacher or peer feedback would be for students to print their conversations or posts on FB and bring them to class for analysis during short writing conferences. However, Thelmadatter (2008) found that when EFL university students were told to print conversations from a chat room activity to have the teacher correct their grammar, they “severely limited the way they communicated in order to avoid making errors” (p. 52). This raising of affective filter could be remedied through an explanation of the purpose of the in-class feedback activity. Additionally, FB is often used by students outside of their classes and for purposes other than learning English, unlike the activity mentioned by Thelmatter (2008), which forced students to communicate in a chat room as part of their coursework. Noticing activities. FB may serve as a medium for input in the L2, from which learners can be exposed to various pragmatic forms. Nonetheless, Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei advise that to maintain a balance between grammatical and pragmatic competence, “awareness-raising and noticing activities should supplement the introduction of pragmatically relevant input in instructed L2 learning, particularly in the EFL setting (p. 256). In addition to allowing students to browse FB and be exposed to new expressions, teachers should also allot class time to noticing activities, in which students examine closely any new expressions they have encountered to raise their awareness. One suggestion is that students print new expressions they


82

encounter on FB along with their contexts and bring them to class for analysis and presentation to the rest of the class. Facebook as a language learning diary. One participant in this study (P52, Figures 7 & 8) had showed use of FB as a sort of language learning diary, in which she used the FB status update feature to broadcast a new phrase she had learned. This has implications for FB to be used as a language learning diary. Furthermore, the participant who mentioned the new phrase she had learned received several responses from an NS and carried out a mini-conversation in which she was able to use the phrase. Students may thus benefit from assignments in which they are instructed to post new phrases they learn on FB, which may invite responses from NSs and allow opportunities to use the new phrases in context. Limitations/Alternative Explanations The present study is not without limitations. Perhaps the most apparent is that the correlations between pragmatic/grammatical awareness and FB use do not imply causation. In other words, learners who scored higher for these two types of awareness may have been more likely to use FB due to a higher motivation, interest in Western culture, or other factors. On the other hand, FB may have indeed caused higher scores among these learners as hypothesized. In addition to these two possibilities, there exist the myriad of other factors suggested to contribute to pragmatic awareness by the contradictions that have arisen in previous research, namely between Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) and Niezgoda and Röver (2001). Takahashi’s (2005) results also suggest that intrinsic motivation could be a possible contributor, while the length of time spent in an English-speaking country is clearly another factor (Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, 2008; Schauer, 2006; 2009, Xu, Case, and Wang, 2008). The relatively small sample size of the present study made it difficult to isolate the variable of FB use and reduce the effects


83

of these other extraneous variables. Furthermore, in terms of participants recruited online for this study, those students very interested in FB or English learning may have been more likely to participate. The validity of the test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness used in this study is also a limitation. As mentioned earlier, only certain speech acts were covered in this test’s items, assumed to be those encountered on FB, and the validity of any test is limited by its items. The test of pragmatic/grammatical awareness contained the speech acts of refusals, disagreeing, inviting, requesting a service, and responding to a compliment; although the analysis of participants’ FB posts revealed that the most commonly produced speech acts in fact did not include any of these. Furthermore, the grammatical and pragmatic errors created for this test were designed based on the researcher’s personal experiences with common errors by English learners, and with advice from both native and nonnative-speaking acquaintances. Such a method of selecting which errors to include in the test, while deemed sufficiently valid for the purposes of this study, is nonetheless a limitation and a test with different items may have yielded different results. The inclusion of the eight participants who had just begun studying abroad in the U.S. at the time of the study could also have affected results, as these participants could have had increased contact with NSs both in real life outside of class and on FB. As suggested by the correlation between amount of foreign friends on FB and time spend abroad, these participants could have been in the process of making friends with NSs in real life and then networking with them on FB, increasing their score for NSContact. Future studies could replicate the process of collecting and analyzing FB posts over a larger amount of time to reduce the effects of this


84

possible “spike” in learners’ amount of socialization with NSs that may occur during the onset of studying abroad Another extraneous factor possibly affecting results was the recruitment location for students in Japan. Students were approached in the Center for International Education (CIE), a room located in the same building as classes for foreign students, to which students go for studying and practicing English with native speakers. Many western students were present and holding conversations in English with Japanese students at the time of recruitment. These aspects suggest that many students who go to the CIE might be those who are relatively interested in learning English and practicing with native speakers, which might have influenced the pragmatic/grammatical awareness or motivation of participants in the present study. If this were the case, these participants could be considered “exceptionally motivated” students, which might have caused the relationship between FB use and pragmatic/grammatical awareness to differ from that of other learners. Suggestions for Future Research In addition to a medium for practicing production in the L2, Facebook would also seem to serve as a rich source of input for learners. In this regard, a future study examining posts on learners’ FB profiles by both NSs and NNSs would prove useful in discovering what kinds of input learners are exposed to. In order to further explore the types of language in the L2 that learners are exposed to on FB, one must not neglect the fact that learners may simply “surf around” on FB, browsing posts containing English created by others without actually communicating with them directly. Collecting data for all posts that a learner is exposed to in this manner would seem a difficult task. Perhaps future research could be devoted to examining this “browsing” activity via think-aloud protocols among learners while they use FB.


85

As mentioned previously, the validity of the test of pragmatic/grammatical competence used in the present study was jeopardized by the inclusion of speech acts that were rarely produced by learners on FB. Using the findings from the present study regarding which speech acts are commonly produced, future research might also be devoted to redesigning this test to include the common speech acts and using it to replicate the procedure of the present study. Conclusion In light of the suggestions made in previous research that exposure to native-like input can benefit the pragmatic competence of English learners, this study examined the use of Facebook (FB) as a form of CMC among Japanese learners of English and how it relates to their pragmatic and grammatical awareness. A summary of the findings with reference to the three research questions is presented below. Research Question #1: How does FB use (frequency, length of time, and amount of contact with NSs) correlate with the pragmatic versus grammatical awareness of EFL and ESL learners? It was found that the amount of contact with NSs that learners received via FB correlated positively with grammatical awareness and, to a lesser extent, with pragmatic awareness. Further research is necessary to confirm the possibility that FB use increases pragmatic awareness or competence, as a variety of extraneous factors exist including motivation and exposure to NSs outside of FB. Research Question #2: Can explicit evidence for the triggering of pragmatic competence acquisition be found in FB discourse, particularly via receiving native-like input or recasts? Although the number of total posts collected in the present study (1779) was large


86

enough to likely include instances of observable pragmatic competence acquisition on FB were they to occur at least occasionally, only two cases of explicit evidence suggesting input via FB possibly triggering pragmatic competence acquisition were found: Participant 52 had learned a new expression outside of FB but had used FB to practice it and thus aid acquisition. Furthermore, Participant 62 had changed his usual output to the target-like form six days after receiving the appropriate input, which may or may not suggest that the input was what triggered the change. In both cases, the learners may have received further input outside of FB which aided acquisition. More often, negative influence on learners’ grammatical and pragmatic competence was found in the form of input from both NSs and NNSs. These findings among the qualitative data collected are somewhat contradictory to the positive correlation found between exposure to NSs on FB and grammatical awareness mentioned above, although the few instances of negative influence found in the FB posts may not be enough to dismiss the correlation. The quantitative and qualitative results in general suggest that learners are affected by the input they receive via FB, although not always favorably, while the input received may not be abundant enough to trigger the observable acquisition of particular grammatical or pragmatic forms. Future studies designed to examine how well learners notice input on FB or to explore the effectiveness of explicit feedback from NSs via FB would be useful in this regard. Research Question #3: Which speech acts are commonly produced by Japanese learners on FB? The most commonly produced speech acts on FB among learners were those that generally did not require an interlocutor, suggesting a preference among learners for broadcasting their utterances rather than engaging in communication with others. Common speech acts included giving information; making statements; thanking; and expressing emotion,


87

desire, interest, and opinion. In addition, an analysis of participants’ FB posts suggests that learners often used FB to keep in contact with both NSs and NNSs in other countries, allowing them to continue practicing English and receiving input after they had finished their study abroad. The findings of the present study have pedagogical implications for use of FB both in the classroom and by learners for self-study. FB can be used as a medium by which learners may be exposed to certain speech acts and practice using them, or may be useful as a type of language learning diary with the added element of possible responses from NSs or NNSs. The most apparent limitations of this study appear to be rooted in the validity of the speech acts used in assessing participants’ pragmatic competence. Nonetheless, FB appears to have a relationship with English learning among the Japanese students in this study, and may be a useful tool for practicing and receiving input outside of class even in an EFL environment.


88

Appendix A: Questionnaire for Participants with Facebook Accounts

Questionnaire – EFL Students with Facebook accounts Thank you for helping with this research project! Please answer the questions below: 1. How old are you? ______ 2. Are you…

male

female 

3. What is your major? Please write it below. __________________________________________________ 4. Which year are you in at your University?

 Year 1  Year 2  Year 3  Year 4 5. How would you rate your English ability? If you have taken the TOEFL test, please write your score. Beginner  Advanced (low) (high)

TOEFL Score: ____________

6. How often do you talk to native English speakers outside of class?

 very rarely (NSTalk = 0.20)  maybe 5-10 minutes a few times per week (NSTalk = 0.50)  1-2 hours every week (NSTalk = 1.50)  3-5 hours every week (NSTalk = 4.00)  >5 hours every week (NSTalk = 6.00) 7. Have you ever lived or studied abroad in a country where the native language was English?

 Yes

 No

8. If you answered yes to #7, how long did you live or study abroad?

 2 years (FBTime = 30) 10. I use Facebook…

 every day (FBFreq = 1.00)  a few times a week (FBFreq = 0.50)  a few times a month (FBFreq = 0.25)  very rarely (FBFreq = 0.20)  only if someone sends me a message (FBFreq = 0.10) 11. How many foreign friends do you think you have on Facebook?

 50 (ForFriend = 5) 12. Who do you usually communicate with on Facebook?

 Only Japanese people (NSComm = 0)  Mostly Japanese people, and a few foreigners (NSComm = 0.25)  Some Japanese people, some foreigners (NSComm = 0.50)  Mostly foreigners, and a few Japanese people (NSComm = 0.75)  Only foreigners (No responses) 13. What do you usually use Facebook for? You may have more than one answer.

 Talking with friends  Making plans to meet friends  Looking at pictures of friends.  Playing games

 Practicing my English writing  Practicing my English reading  Learning new English  Other (please write) ____________________________


90

14. How often does Facebook help you… Learn new English words

Never  Often

Learn new English expressions/slang


Practice your English with native speakers


Make new friends with English native speakers


See how native speakers use English naturally


15. You may write your Facebook name below. I will “add you as a friend” and observe how you use Facebook within the next two weeks. “Then I will remove you as a friend.” If you have any questions about this, please ask me. If you don’t want to write your Facebook name, please just leave this part blank. ____________________________________________________ Thank you very much!


91

Appendix B: Test of Pragmatic/Grammatical Awareness (Instructions translated into English)

Instructions Thank you for helping with this research project. Below you will see 25 short conversations between Peter and Anna. Their English will sometimes be correct but will sometimes have a problem. Your job is to decide how good their English is and decide if the bold part is appropriate/correct or not. Please see the following example: Peter: Let’s go eat! Anna: No. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?

If there was a problem, how bad do you think it was?

Not bad at all  Very bad Yes

No

Anna's answer is very strange and rude. So we should put an X in the box marked No. After this, you decide how big the mistake is. Put an X in one of the boxes between “not bad at all” and “very bad.” For a small mistake, mark the second or third box; for a serious mistake mark the last box. Remember: This is not a test; I am interested in what you think! If you have a question, please ask.

Conversations 1. Peter is inviting Anna to a party. P: Hey, do you want to come to a party this weekend? A: I’m kind of busy, but if I have free time I come. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

2. Anna is asking about Peter’s trip to Canada. A: So how was your trip to Canada? It seems like you had fun! P: Actually it was terrible! I am sick the whole time! Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



92


No

3. Peter invites Anna to his house. P: Don’t you want to come to my house tonight? A: Sure! Want me to bring anything? Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

4. Anna offers Peter something to drink. A: Peter, do you want something to drink? P: Never, I’m a huge trouble for you. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

5. Peter and Anna are making plans for the weekend. P: What are your plans for this weekend? A: I might go hiking. Would you like to come? Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

6. Peter is asking Anna to lend him a book. P: Can I borrowing that book when you are finished? A: Sure, no problem. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

7. Peter is complimenting Anna about a picture she took. P: Wow, this picture is so beautiful! A: You’re complimenting me! Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



93


No

8. Anna is inviting Peter to drink coffee together and talk. A: Hey, do you want to have a cup of coffee with me and talk? P: Excuse me, I have too much homework today. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

9. Peter is talking to Anna about a movie they saw. P: I love that movie! It’s awesome! A: Really? I don’t think it’s that good. What you liked about it? Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

10. Anna and Peter are talking about the weather. A: This weather is too hot! P: Excuse me, I think this weather is nice. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

11. Anna is talking to Peter, who she has recently met. A: Nice to meet you, Peter. We’d better be friends. P: Nice meeting you too. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

12. Peter offers Anna a hamburger. P: Hey Anna, do you want a hamburger? A: No thanks. I don’t really like the hamburger. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



94


No

13. Anna is asking her friend Peter to help her fix her bicycle. A: Hi Peter! You’ll help me fix my bicycle this weekend, OK? P: Sure, Just give me a call on Saturday or Sunday. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

14. Anna sees a picture of Peter. A: Peter, you look so cool in this picture! P: Thanks! I was in Brazil. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

15. Peter just heard Anna sing in a school performance. P: I can’t believe how well you sing! Your voice was amazing! A: I’m not thinking it’s that great, but thanks anyway! Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

16. Peter invites Anna to see a movie. P: You may want to see a movie with me tomorrow night. A: Sure, what time? Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

17. Peter offers to help Anna with her homework. P: Hey, do you need some help with that assignment? A: Sure, would you mind? Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



95


No

18. Peter asks if Anna is able to come to New York. P: Hey! Can you coming to New York with me this weekend? A: Sorry, I don’t think I’ll have free time. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

19. Anna needs directions to the bus stop. She asks Peter. A: Can you tell me where is the nearest bus stop? P: Sure, it’s over there. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

20. Anna and Peter are talking about a song. A: I love Lady Gaga’s new song! P: I disagree with you and don’t like that song. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

21. Anna and Peter are having some soup at a restaurant. A: This soup is delicious. P: Really? I think it’s a little too salty. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

22. Anna is complimenting Peter on a dinner he cooked. A: Peter, the dinner you made was delicious! P: Thanks! I’m happy that you like. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



96


No

23. Peter asks Anna about plans for the summer. P: What should I do during my summer vacation? A: Do you want to travelling to Spain with me? Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

24. Peter is commenting on Anna’s resume picture. P: Wow, you look so professional in this picture! A: Your saying makes me happy. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No

25. Anna is inviting Peter to the mall. A: Hey, want to come to the mall with us? P: Sorry, I’m a little busy now. Maybe another time. Is the bold part appropriate/correct?



No


97

Appendix C: Speech acts in English found in participants’ Facebook posts Speech act acknowledge

Definition Participant acknowledges another's utterance.

Examples I see. Oh, good. Me too. I think so too. Sorry!

agree

Participant expresses agreement.

apologize

Participant apologizes.

ask

Participant asks a question with a one-word answer or confirms something say by another.

Are you going to the U.S.?

ask rhetorical

Participant asks a rhetorical question.

Where’s my cell phone?

congratulate

Participant congratulates another (includes birthday or holiday greetings).

Nice job! Congratulations! Happy birthday!

humor

Participant uses sarcasm or a pun for a humorous effect.

emotion

Participant expresses his/her emotion or produces a statement indicating self-reflection.

I'm so nervous. Enjoying life to the fullest!

present

Participant describing his/her present action or location.

Doing homework again.

friend

Participant expresses friendship to another (includes I love you, etc.).

I love you guys! So glad we can stay friends!

desire

Participant expresses desire to do sth.

interest

Participant expresses interest, enthusiasm, enjoyment, or surprise.

opinion

Participant expresses his or her opinion about sth.

I wanna go to the U.S. Can't wait to see you! Wow! That's so cool! I love that place! I can't believe you got the job! I don't think it's a good school.

compliment

Participant gives a compliment to another.

I love your hair! You look so pretty! Cute! (to picture of someone)


98

excuse

Participant gives an excuse or offer of repair.

I can help tomorrow instead.

greet

Participant greets another using standard interrogative expression.

How have you been? What's up?

statement

Participant makes a statement or observation about sth.

Looks like today will be fun.

info

Participant provides information or describes his/her future plans or past actions.

I went back to Japan. Going to New York this weekend!

quote

Participant quotes or paraphrases a book or another person.

Speech act request favor

Definition Participant requests an (often rhetorical) favor using a question or imperative.

Examples Come to Japan! Can you tell me your address?

request info

Participant asks an open-ended question requiring a multiple-word response.

How are classes this semester?

respond comp.

Participant responds to a compliment from another.

respond greet

Participant responds to an interrogative greeting from another (includes How about you?, etc.)

Haha, I don't think it's that great. Thanks! Good, and you? I've been good.

suggest

Participant attempts to make plans or a suggestion (sometimes rhetorical).

Let's go to the mall tomorrow! You guys should come tonight.

sympathy

Participant sympathizes with or encourages another.

Keep trying! Sorry to hear that.

thank

Participant thanks someone.

wish luck

Participant wishes luck, fun, a good day, etc. for another.

other

Participant utters a nonsensical phrase, one for which the speech act is none of the above, or one for which the speech act cannot be determined based on the context.

Have fun! Good luck! Have a good day!


99

References Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, C. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262. Belz, J. A. & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review: 59(2), 189-214. Belz, J. A. & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: the case of address forms. Language Learning: 53(4), 591-647. Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). Facebook in the language classroom: promises and possibilities. Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL), 6(1), 17-28. Currie, P & Cray, E. (2004). ESL literacy: language practice or social practice? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 111-132. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.008 Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(2), 541-551. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/PastIssues/rfl72day.pdf Dekhinet, R. (2008). Online enhanced corrective feedback for ESL learners in higher education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(5). 409-425. doi:10.1080/09588220802447669 Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3). 199-208. doi:10.1093/elt/cci039


100

Guardado, M. & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443-461. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002 Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.) Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning. New York: Longman. Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: an online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13, 179-187. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003 Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 502-530. Kerka, S. (2000). Incidental learning. Trends and Issues Alert, 18. Retrieved from ERIC. (ED446234) Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Morrison, C. (2010). Seven languages grow, three hold steady on Facebook for June 2010. Inside Social Games. Retrieved from http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2010/06/22/ seven-languages-grow-three-hold-steady-on-facebook-for-june-2010/ Niezgoda, K. & Röver, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: a function of the learning environment? In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 63-79) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, A. (1997). Learning: can we change the discourse? Adults Learning, 8(5), 116-117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. (9703240122)


101

Richards, J. C. & Sukwiwat, M. (1983) Language transfer and conversational competence. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 113-125. doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.113 Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269-318. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Zhao, Y. Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners’ online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19. 703-729. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00011-6 Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension. SSLA, 30, 423-452. doi:10.1017/S0272263108080716 Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120. doi:10.1093/applin/amh040 Thelmadatter, L. (2008). Becoming a part of a “community” online in order to acquire language skills. MEXTESOL Journal, 32(1), 47-62. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91 Xu, W., Case, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2008). Pragmatic and grammatical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 proficiency. System, 37, 205-216. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.09.007


102

Zha, S., Kelly, P., Park, M. K., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). An investigation of communicative competence of ESL students using electronic discussion boards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 349-367.


103

Biographical Statement and Acknowledgements Brendon Albertson has taught English as a foreign language in Shenzhen, China and Yongin, South Korea prior to completing his Master’s Degree in TESOL at Central Connecticut State University. He currently teaches Mandarin Chinese and tutors adult ESL students in West Hartford, CT with plans to return to Asia in the near future. Brendon enjoys studying Asian languages, cross-country running, beatboxing, and the subtleties of brewing tea (especially green). He would like to thank his thesis committee, Dr. Matt Ciscel and Dr. Seunghun Lee for their valuable input regarding the present study, as well as his girlfriend Narumi Okubo and good friend Takuya Tsujioka for their assistance with translation and recruitment. Gratitude is further extended to everyone at the Hotani Nature Farm, the Okubo family, and all who participated in this study.