Extensión del modelo Gaussiano

students.

The aforementioned SA investigations reveal three important trends. Firstly, sustained exposure to the target environment is key to development and

maintenance of pragmatic competence (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011; Felix-

Brasdefer, 2004; Kondo, 1997; Matsumoto, 2003, 2007; Schauer, 2009). Secondly, it

appears some pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic norms may not be fully acquired

unless explicitly taught, regardless of speech act (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993).

Instruction may also aid in the reduction of negative first language transfer; commonly

cited as being one of the primary causes of L1 divergence (Barron, 2003, 2007;

Kondo, 1997; Li, 2014; Schauer, 2009).

Despite these recommendations, the extent to which instruction can enhance

pragmatic competency alongside the SA environment is greatly underexplored. To

the best of my knowledge, only four studies to date have directly investigated the

instruction versus exposure dichotomy:Winkie and Teng (2010), Shively (2011),

Cohen and Shively (2007), and Alcon Soler (2015). These studies are reviewed in the

order of relevancy to the present study.

Winke and Teng (2010) examined the effect of an eight-week summer SA

programme in China, enhanced by guided output practice via tutorials, workbook

activities and integrated reflective journals. The American SA group (n=19) showed significant pretest-posttest improvements on a range of functional language including,

complimenting, declining, bargaining and gift-giving, over this short period of time. The SA learners also commented that their understanding of cross-cultural

SA group also outperformed an at-home control group needs to be interpreted with

caution given this group received no instruction, and had no formal study of Chinese

over the research period. Still, the within-group test differences found for the SA

group and the positive learner feedback, underline the value of the explicit instruction

for increasing pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic awareness.

Phased explicit instruction within the host environment, supported by reflective

journal writing were also features of Shively’s (2011) study of eight American learners

of Spanish during their 14-week SA semester. Though the focus specifically related to analysing naturalistic audio recordings of request language in service encounters,

and employed only a small number of participants, similar positive results were

reported as the learners shifted away from transferring first language pragmatic

norms (e.g., speaker-oriented, indirect verb forms, low frequency of elliptical

requests) to producing more target-like norms. Despite some resistance to using

some target language features of requests (e.g., use of imperatives), and residual

first language strategies (address terms and low frequency of politeness markers),

the journal entries concluded the positive instructional consequences for building self-

confidence when confronted with conflicting L2 norms.

Cohen and Shively’s (2007) investigation of 86 American learners’ semester-long SA

sojourns in France and Spain also debates the instruction versus exposure approach.

In addition to in-country self-study material and reflective journal entries, as described

in Winke and Teng (2010) and Shively (2011), an experimental group received a two-

hour pre-departure instruction and orientation on language and culture. From an

acquisitional perspective, the findings indicated that the four-month exposure had

been instrumental in the significant pretest-posttest gains achieved in both request

and apology language. From an instructional perspective, however, the input

received did not have a statistically significant effect, despite the six French and Spanish NS raters’ awarding the instructed group higher scores for their responses

on a 10-item written production task. The authors acknowledge that as most of the intervention involved self-study material, the extent of the participants’ engagement

may have affected results. Other contributory factors included the reliance on written

production data and the short interventional period.

Alcon-Soler (2015), most recently, examined 960 email requests from 60 Spanish

teenagers following an instructional intervention. This is the only instruction versus

exposure study situated in the UK, though the instructional period is comparatively

short to most other intervention studies. Her ESL learner study based in England and methodological approach of multiple testing phases; post-arrival, post-instruction

(+two months), and two delayed posttests (+three months, +seven months), closely

resemble the investigation presented in this thesis. An experimental group

participated in four x 20 minute sessions of instruction on request forms, sociocultural

norms and discourse structure of appropriate academic email communication. The

data were analysed against a control group to measure the effect of exposure against

instruction. Unlike the present thesis, however, no formal L2 contact questionnaire

was administered to any participant to measure L2 exposure, and possible

environmental influences on pragmatic gains, during the study.

On the one hand, the findings revealed immediate short-term effects of instruction for

the experimental group through increased frequency of request mitigators e.g., openers, softeners, intensifiers, and the use of ‘could’ and ‘please’. These positive

instructional effects declined after a three-month period. By the end of the academic

year, no observable difference between the experimental and control groups was

evident, indicating knowledge had been acquired implicitly through L2 exposure for

the control group who had no instruction, to levels similar to those of the experimental

group who did receive instruction. On the other hand, exposure could not account for

case, length of stay was insufficient and instruction helpful, for these pragmatic items,

at least.

In summary, section 3.1 has outlined that target language exposure does not

subsume pragmatic development, attributable to several factors. Though it seems

proficiency is not directly linked, length of stay, frequency of L2 contact, and negative

L1 transfer have been reported as potential interferences. Further, individual factors

of the participants themselves are also said to account for the variability of findings in

SA investigations. Whilst on the one hand investigations have shown L2 contact to play a facilitative role in developing pragmatic competence, establishing this L2

contact can be impeded by low levels of motivation and confidence, cultural barriers,

and challenges permeating the safety net of L1 groups. Instruction has been found to

be a successful means of stimulating pragmatic development, in particular for those

on short SA stays. The case for pragmatics instruction is explored further in the next

section.

3.2 Evidence for classroom-based pragmatic instruction