Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics

SYSTEM System 33 (2005) 437–461 www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics Satomi Takahashi

*

College of Economics, Rikkyo University, 3-34-1 Nishi-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 171-8501, Japan Received 25 January 2005; received in revised form 8 April 2005; accepted 9 May 2005

Abstract This study aims to provide an in-depth qualitative analysis of instructional effects in L2 pragmatics by exploring the manner in which Japanese EFL learnersÕ noticing of target English request forms is constrained by different types of treatment tasks and the subsequent effect of the learnersÕ noticing on their learning outcomes. Following the pretest, 49 learners were assigned to one of the two instructional (treatment) conditions: a form-comparison condition and a form-search condition. The treatment data were examined with regard to the extent to which the learners had noticed the appropriate manner of request realization in English. The treatment data were further compared with the posttest self-reports, which revealed the learnersÕ primary concerns regarding their L2 request realization. The results indicated that during the treatment, the learners in the form-comparison condition noticed the target request forms to a greater extent than those in the form-search condition. Further, the learnersÕ higher awareness of the target forms tended to ensure the emergence of these forms during their posttest performance. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Interlanguage pragmatics; Implicit learning; Noticing; Awareness; Attention; Language instruction; Input enhancement; Request

*

Fax: +81 3 3733 6789. E-mail address: [email protected].

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.006

438

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

1. Introduction Recent research on interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has revealed that providing learners with explicit metapragmatic instruction yields more effective learning outcomes than providing them with implicit target input (e.g., House, 1996; Tateyama et al., 1997; Rose and Ng, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001). The superior effects of explicit instruction were also confirmed in second language acquisition (SLA) research focusing on morphosyntactic features (e.g., Doughty, 1991; Alanen, 1995; Robinson, 1995a,b, 1996, 1997; see Doughty and Williams, 1998; Long and Robinson, 1998 for an overview; Norris and Ortega, 2000 for a meta-analytic review). All these findings support SchmidtÕs (1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001) noticing hypothesis, which claims that for further second language (L2) development, learners have to notice the L2 features in the input. The issue of noticing in SLA, however, has been controversial with regard to the depth of noticing or awareness and its learning outcomes. This has been reflected in recent SLA studies that investigated the nature of awareness exemplified in different learning conditions and their effects on L2 intake.1 For instance, some studies have provided evidence suggesting that the awareness of targets without an explicit formulation of their rules is not sufficient to learn them (e.g., Robinson, 1995b, 1996, 1997; Gass et al., 2003); however, other studies attested that such a lower level of awareness is sufficient for the intake of some L2 features (e.g., Leow, 1997; Rosa and OÕNeill, 1999; Rosa and Leow, 2004). These studies provided further evidence for the following two points: (1) higher levels of awareness are associated with more explicit conditions and (2) learners with greater awareness have an increased ability to recognize and produce target forms than those with lesser awareness (also see Leow, 2000; Laufer and Hulstijn, 2001; Philp, 2003; see Simard and Wong, 2001 for the claim for graded nature of awareness). The above indicates that the level of awareness is a crucial determinant for the level of intake of L2 forms. This, in turn, implies that if higher levels of awareness are assured by manipulating input, then learnersÕ intake of target forms could be greatly enhanced, even in implicit input conditions (Rosa and OÕNeill, 1999). In the field of ILP, Takahashi (2001) discovered that explicit teaching was the most effective input (instructional) condition for Japanese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) to study English bi-clausal request forms (e.g., ‘‘I wonder if you could VP (verb phrase)’’). However, it was also observed that in one of the three implicit input conditions, several learners noticed the target request forms and used them in the posttest. This particular input condition was the formcomparison condition (FC), which manifested the greatest degree of input enhancement of the three implicit conditions. In my previous study, however, I did not further examine whether the greatest effect of this particular input condition could be ensured at each instance during comparison with other implicit conditions. As a follow-up of Takahashi (2001), this study aims to provide an in-depth qualita-

1 The terms ‘‘noticing’’ and ‘‘awareness’’ are used interchangeably in this study; however, precisely speaking, ‘‘noticing’’ is a higher-order concept of ‘‘awareness’’.

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

439

tive analysis of instructional effects in L2 pragmatics by exploring the manner in which Japanese EFL learnersÕ noticing or awareness of target English request forms is constrained by different types of treatment tasks (or differential degrees of input enhancement) and the subsequent effect of the learnersÕ noticing on learning outcomes. The obtained findings would thus form the base for hypothesizing the nature of awareness related to successful acquisition of pragmalinguistic competence in L2.

2. The study This study addresses the following two research questions: (1) How do types of treatment tasks manifesting differential degrees of input enhancement affect Japanese EFL learnersÕ noticing of target bi-clausal request forms in the treatment input? (2) How do Japanese EFL learnersÕ differential degrees of noticing of the target request forms in the treatment input affect their learning of those forms? These questions will be investigated by reanalyzing the data of Takahashi (2001) in the treatment analysis tasks, the retrospective follow-up for the treatment, and the posttest self-reports for two of the three implicit input conditions. These two input conditions are as follows: (1) FC, wherein learners compare their request forms with those provided by native English speakers and then describe any feature of native-speaker request realization; and (2) the form-search condition (FS), wherein learners point out any ‘‘native-like usage’’ in the input containing the targets. As mentioned earlier, FC manifests a higher degree of input enhancement than FS.2 The target bi-clausal request forms are complex forms consisting of two clauses (i.e., a main and a subordinate clause), as exemplified in the following forms (with a VP): (a) I wonder if you could VP; (b) Would it be (or is it) possible to VP? (c) Do you think you could VP? and (d) If you could VP.3 Regarding the second research question, ‘‘learning’’ of these request forms is defined here as learnersÕ ‘‘production’’ of those expressions in one or more of the request situations in the posttest.

2

In Takahashi (2001), another implicit input condition—the meaning-focused condition—was investigated with regard to its effectiveness in developing L2 pragmatic competence. In this condition, learners were required to listen to and read the input and answer comprehension questions. Of the three implicit conditions, this condition manifested the least degree of input enhancement. It has been excluded in this study because it did not provide a treatment ‘‘analysis’’ task comparable to those for FC and FS. 3 The request form ‘‘If you could VP’’ is an elliptical version of the bi-clausal form that consists of a subjunctive clause only.

440

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

3. Method 3.1. Participants The participants were 49 Japanese college students who were freshmen or sophomores. They were divided into two general English classes, taught by this author, which were assigned to the two input conditions: 25 students in FC and 24 students in FS. The participants had received formal English instruction in Japan for 7–8 years. 3.2. Instruments 3.2.1. Pretest and posttest Takahashi (2001) employed the discourse completion tests (DCTs) for the pretest and posttest. The target request situations for both tests were as follows: (1) the ‘‘Appointment’’ situation, wherein a college student requests his/her professor to reschedule an appointment because he/she needs to visit the dentist due to a sudden toothache; (2) the ‘‘Paper Due’’ situation, wherein a college student requests his/her professor to extend the due date for a paper since he/she has been overwhelmed with preparations for the final exams; (3) the ‘‘Makeup Exam’’ situation, wherein a college student requests his/her professor to grant permission for a makeup exam because he/ she was unable to appear for the exam due to poor health; and (4) the ‘‘Feedback’’ situation, wherein a college student requests his/her professor to reread his/her revised paper since he/she wishes to submit it for publication. These four situations were empirically validated as manifesting the same degree of requestive imposition. In the pretest DCTs, the four target situations were presented along with eight distractor situations. The posttest DCTs contained only four target situations. For each situation in the posttest, the DCT was followed by questions that were intended to elicit the participantsÕ self-reports on the process of selecting the request expressions provided in the DCT. 3.2.2. Treatment materials The following two request situations were used with regard to the input situations contained in the treatment: (1) the ‘‘Violin’’ situation (VIO), wherein a college student requests her next-door neighbor to discontinue her daughterÕs evening violin practice; and (2) the ‘‘Questionnaire’’ situation (QUS), wherein a college student requests her next-door neighbor to fill out a questionnaire (which was requested earlier as well) to be returned at the earliest. In terms of situational variables, these two input situations were judged to be suitably comparable to the four target situations. The requests made in these situations were elicited through role-plays in Takahashi (1987), where native speakers (NSs) of English interacted with each other, and role-plays in Takahashi and DuFon (1989), where a NS conversed with a non-native speaker (NNS) of English (Japanese learners of English). Therefore, the treatment input was presented to the participants through transcripts of role-plays recorded in those studies. The following three types of materials were prepared for the FC participants: (1) open-ended DCTs for VIO and QUS; (2) three transcripts of the NS-NS role-plays

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

441

for each input situation; and (3) instruction sheet for the task. The FS participants received the following three types of materials: (1) three NS-NS role-play transcripts for VIO and three similar ones for QUS; (2) one NS-NNS role-play transcript for VIO and a similar one for QUS; and (3) instruction sheet for the task. 3.2.3. Follow-up retrospection materials In order to elicit information on whether the participants actually noticed the target request forms in the role-play transcripts, a retrospective follow-up questionnaire was developed for use after the posttest. This questionnaire also aimed to elicit information on the extent to which the participants realized the function of the target request forms during the treatment and their possible use in the posttest, and whether the participants actually used the forms in the posttest (see Appendix A). 3.3. Procedures The participants took the pretest at the beginning of the semester. The treatment sessions in the general English classes lasted over 4 weeks (90 min per week). The FC participants were instructed to fill out open-ended DCTs for VIO and QUS. In subsequent classes, they were required to compare their own English request expressions in the DCTs with those provided by the NSs in the role-plays for both VIO and QUS and to describe any differences in request realization strategies. It is noteworthy that the FC participants provided only mono-clausal request forms (e.g., ‘‘Would/Could you VP?’’), and not target bi-clausal forms, in the treatment DCTs as well as in the pretest DCTs. The FS participants were required to compare the NS English in the VIO and QUS role-play transcripts with the NNS English in corresponding situations. They were then instructed to list the NS expressions that were distinct from the NNS expressions. It is noteworthy that the NNSs in the role-plays exclusively employed mono-clausal request forms; therefore, the FS participants, who also provided mono-clausal request forms in the pretest DCTs, were more likely to project their usage of request forms onto the NNSsÕ requests. After the treatment session, the posttest was administered to the participants in both the input (instructional) conditions. They were asked to provide appropriate request expressions along with their written self-reports. A week later, a retrospection for the treatment tasks was administered to the participants using the retrospective follow-up questionnaire.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. The influence of treatment tasks on learnersÕ noticing Regarding research question 1, in the framework of ‘‘FC versus FS’’, I analyzed the data obtained from the treatment analysis tasks and that available from the retrospective follow-up tasks. These analyses revealed major differences in noticing

442

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

between the FC and FS groups in the following three respects: the target request forms, mitigating devices and levels of directness, and the sequence of the requests (also see ‘‘Attentional Targets in Treatment Input’’ in Tables 3–6). 4.1.1. Noticing the target request forms All the FC participants, except one, reported noticing the target request forms in the treatment input. However, only approximately half of the FS participants (11 out of 24) noticed the forms. Moreover, only two of 11 FS participants referred to the forms in the treatment tasks for both VIO and QUS; a majority of them listed the forms in the task for either VIO or QUS. Interestingly, the FS participants who noticed the forms focused exclusively on the request form ‘‘I wonder if you could VP’’ as their attentional target in the treatment input. This could be attributed to the higher frequency of this particular request form as compared to those of the others, suggesting that the frequency of a target feature in L2 input could play a crucial role in learnersÕ attentional allocation. Another explanation, as already highlighted in Takahashi (2001), could be that the other bi-clausal forms such as ‘‘Do you think you could VP?’’ and ‘‘Is it possible to VP?’’ are interrogative forms that learners are already familiar with and thus manifest a relatively low saliency. 4.1.2. Noticing mitigating devices and levels of directness Sixteen FC participants indicated the usefulness of some mitigating devices in buffering the forces of requestive imposition in the treatment task. In particular, they indicated their interest in the syntactic downgrader ‘‘past progressive’’, which was employed by the NSs, as seen in the request form ‘‘I was wondering if your daughter could practice earlier in the evening’’ (e.g., Participants 4 and 27, Table 1). The other mitigating devices noticed by the FC participants included the modals ‘‘could’’ and ‘‘would’’ and subjunctive clauses (e.g., Participant 4, Table 1). Furthermore, some FC participants believed that sentential modifiers preceding the request forms, such as ‘‘if you get a chance’’, play a relatively important role in mitigating all the requestive forces (e.g., Participant 16, Table 1). The FC participants interested in the mitigating devices are more likely to focus on the levels of directness exemplified in the NS request realization in the treatment input. In fact, 15 participants in this group indicated that NSs are unexpectedly ‘‘indirect’’ in making requests, as opposed to their initial assumption that NSs are ‘‘direct’’ (e.g., Participant 27, Table 1). This was because, in high-school English classes, teachers were likely to emphasize expressing oneself more directly in English. Contrarily, the participants observed that the NS requests were sufficiently indirect, with the use of various devices that buffer the forces of requestive imposition. In contrast, FS participants displayed a tendency to ignore the devices mitigating requestive forces. This is understandable since the FS participants were less likely to notice the target request forms modified by such mitigating devices. Furthermore, although FS participants also referred to the levels of directness, their assessment of directness was impressionistic; they merely commented that NS requests are overall indirect, without stating the exact difference (e.g., Participants 31 and 38, Table 2).

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

443

Table 1 Examples of learnersÕ analyses in the treatment task for the form-comparison (FC) condition Participant

Analysis

4

Watashi ga shiyou shita irai hyogen wa, chokusetsu aite ni mono wo tanomu katachi ni natte iru noni taishi, ‘‘I was wondering. . .’’ no youni, katei-hou ya, shinkou-kei, tokuni kako-shinkou-kei wo tsukatte iru. Sarani, ‘‘I was wondering if your daughter could. . .’’ no youni, ‘‘can’’ no kawari ni ‘‘could’’ wo tsukattari shite iru. Korede, tameraigachi na kanji ya teineisa wo dasou to shite iru. [‘‘Violin’’ situation] (When asking the interlocutor to do something, my requests take the direct form. However, native speakers use subjunctive forms, progressive forms, in particular past progressives, as used in the expression ‘‘I was wondering. . .’’ Furthermore, they use the modal ‘‘could’’ instead of ‘‘can’’, such as ‘‘I was wondering if your daughter could. . .’’ In reality, all these expressions enable the native speakers to convey their hesitation and politeness while making requests.)

16

Neitybu wa aite ni ankeeto wo kinyuu shite kudasai to iu maeni, ‘‘if you get a chance’’ no youna hyougen wo tsukatte iru. Isshu no ÔbaffaaÕ de, irai wo yawaragete iru ga, watashi wa koushita hyougen wa tsukae nai. [‘‘Questionnaire’’ situation] (Before asking the interlocutor to fill out the questionnaire, native speakers use the expression ‘‘if you get a chance’’. This is a manner of ‘‘buffering’’ the requestive imposition; however, I am unable to use such an expression in my request.)

26

Teinei na hyougen toshite ‘‘Please. . .’’ wo tsukai, sono ato ni irai suru riyuu wo kaita. Amerikajin wa riyuu wo nobete kara irai wo shite iru. Amerika-jin wa riyuu wa atomawashi ni shite, sutoreeto na kanji da to omotte ita ga, kekkou, riyuu wo kuwashiku nobete kara, irai suru koto ni kiga tsuita. [‘‘Questionnaire’’ situation] (I used the expression ‘‘Please. . .’’ before presenting the justification for the request. Americans present the reasons before making the requests. I thought that Americans are straightforward by providing the reasons for the request later; however, I have learned that they generally present detailed explanations before making requests.)

27

Watashi no irai ‘‘Please change the time. . .’’ wa, amari nimo youchi na hyougen de ari, aite ni taishite shitsurei na iikata dato wakatta. Koreni taishi, neitybu wa ‘‘I was wondering if. . .’’ to, yawarakai iikata wo shite iru. Beikoku-jin wa, nihon-jin to kurabete, motto chokusetsu-teki ni irai suru mono dato omotte ita ga, meue no hito ni taishite wa, yahari, nihon-jin to onaji youni toomawashi na hyougen wo suru youda. [‘‘Violin’’ situation] (My request, ‘‘Please change the time. . .’’, is a childish expression, and I have learned that it is impolite to use it with the interlocutor. In contrast, native speakers use a more mitigating expression, such as ‘‘I was wondering if. . .’’ I believed that Americans convey their requests in a more direct manner (regardless of the interlocutorÕs status); however, their comparatively indirect manner of making a request to a person of a higher status is similar to that of the Japanese.) (parentheses mine)

4.1.3. Noticing the sequence in making requests Fourteen of 25 FC participants focused on the request sequence, in particular, providing justification/explanation before using the target request forms (e.g., Participant 26, Table 1). Compared to FC, the FS participants were less likely to refer to this feature in their treatment analysis. However, it does not imply that they tended to ignore this pragmatic feature; they might have recognized it but merely chosen not to list it in their treatment task (see Philp, 2003 for a similar view). This interpretation might be more plausible in two respects. First, in their posttest self-reports,

444

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

Table 2 Examples of learnersÕ analyses in the treatment task for the form-search (FS) condition Participant

Analysis

31

‘‘ItÕs just yes-no’’ no you ni, hitotsu no tango wo kyouchou suru bun no tsukaikata ga ooi. Zentaiteki ni, kansetsu-teki ni irai suru. [‘‘Questionnaire’’ situation] (Native speakers are likely to use sentences wherein a particular word is emphasized, such as ‘‘ItÕs just yes-no’’. Overall, they are making indirect requests.) (italics mine)

38

Eigo gakushuusha no hou wa chokusetsu-teki ni mono wo tanon de iru ga, neitybu wa aruteido kansetsu-teki na hyougen wo tsukatte iru. Mata, ‘‘you know’’ ga ooi. [‘‘Violin’’ situation] (The Japanese learner of English is likely to make a direct request, whereas native English speakersÕ requests are indirect to a certain extent. Furthermore, native speakers use the phrase ‘‘you know’’ rather frequently.)

39

‘‘That sounds good’’ ya ‘‘It was nice to meet you’’ wa eigo gakushuusha no eigo niwa mirare nai hyougen de aru. [‘‘Violin’’ situation] (The native speakerÕs expressions, ‘‘That sounds good’’ and ‘‘It was nice to meet you’’, are not the type of utterances the Japanese learners of English would make.)

43

Neitybu wa, san-gyoume de, ‘‘youÕd’’ to iu hyougen wo mochiite iru ga, gakushuusha wa douyou no hyougen wo tsukatte inai. Mata, neitybu wa ‘‘How ya doin?’’ toka ‘‘keepin busy’’ to iu shouryaku-kei wo shiyou shite iru ga, gakushuusha wa tsukatte inai. [‘‘Questionnaire’’ situation] (Native English speakers use ‘‘youÕd’’ in line 3; however, the Japanese learner of English does not use such forms. Furthermore, native speakers use several elliptical forms, such as in the case ‘‘How ya doin?’’ and ‘‘keepin busy’’, whereas the Japanese learner does not use these forms.) (italics mine)

several FS participants referred to the request sequence as the feature that they noticed in the treatment input (see the self-report by Participant 41, Appendix B (Group D)). Second, the task in the FS condition required the participants to focus on ‘‘expressions’’ that were distinct from the NSs and not on their sequence. In fact, the FS participants were much more likely to notice discourse markers (e.g., ‘‘well’’, ‘‘you know’’), idiomatic expressions (e.g., ‘‘That sounds good’’), and colloquial forms (e.g., ‘‘youÕd’’, ‘‘keepin busy’’) as their attentional targets in the treatment input, which are apparently not the ‘‘sequence’’ features (e.g., Participants 38, 39, and 43, Table 2). In contrast, the treatment task for FC required the participants to compare their request realization strategies with those of the NSs, which might inevitably also allow them to focus more on supportive moves for making requests (justification/explanation). 4.1.4. Summary for research question 1 The treatment tasks for FC and FS presented different impacts on the learnersÕ noticing of the target request forms and other features in the treatment input. The FC condition, wherein learners were required to compare their usage with the corresponding NS usage, apparently provided further opportunities for noticing the target forms than the FS condition, wherein no such comparison existed. Further, compared to FS, the treatment task for the FC condition allowed the learners to notice

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

445

the mitigating devices and the sequence of making requests more intensely. In particular, the learnersÕ awareness of the mitigating devices appeared to lead them to a more concrete understanding of the nature of directness manifested in NS request realization. All these demonstrate that the FC treatment task is definitely more effective than the FS task with regard to increasing learnersÕ awareness of NS request realization strategies in implicit input conditions. 4.2. The influence of learners’ noticing on their learning outcomes Regarding research question 2, based on the data available from the retrospective follow-up, I categorized the participants from both the input conditions into four groups (Groups A, B, C, and D) according to the degree of noticing or awareness of the target request forms and their functions and based on whether they provided the target request forms in the posttest.4 Then, for each participant in each group, I analyzed the attentional targets in the treatment input, the focus in the posttest as manifested in the self-report, and the request forms provided in the posttest. 4.2.1. Group A The participants in Group A noticed the target request forms and their function in the treatment tasks and actually provided these forms in the posttest (see Table 3; also see Appendix B (Group A)). There were eight participants in this group, all in the FC condition. The participants in this group listed almost all the target request forms (in both VIO and QUS). They had a relatively high awareness of those forms and consequently used one or more of them in the posttest. However, in one or two situations in the posttest, almost half of the participants also provided non-target request forms (i.e., mono-clausal forms), suggesting that they were unable to gain absolute proficiency with regard to target bi-clausal forms. Furthermore, the participants referred to some mitigating devices in the treatment task; however, these devices do not appear to have been their primary concern in their posttest performance. It appears that noticing the mitigating devices in the treatment input does not ensure the intake of these features. Unlike mitigating devices, all the learners in this group, except one, failed to refer to the request sequence (or justification for request) in the treatment task. However, they focused on this feature in the posttest performance. As discussed in the previous section (related to FS), we are unable to conclude that all of these learners failed to notice the request sequence in the treatment input. There might have been some

4 In the retrospective follow-up questionnaire, I specifically elicited information on whether learners recognized the possible use of the target request forms in the posttest, based on which I initially created five groups rather than four (see Appendix A). However, a close examination of learnersÕ attention in the treatment input and their posttest performance revealed few differences between two of the groups; one realized the possible use of the target forms in the posttest and the other did not. Hence, the data from these two groups were combined, resulting in a total of four groups for the analysis for research question 2.

446

Table 3 Attention in the treatment and focus in the posttest for Group A Condition

Condition

FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC

4 10 18 22 24 25 27 28 Participant

4 10 18 22 24 25 27 28

Attentional Targets in treatment input Target request forms

Mitigating devices

Discourse markers

Idiomatic expressions

Colloquial forms

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Content

Other features

X X X X X X X X

X X – X – – X X

– – – X – X – –

– – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – –

X X X – – – X X

– – X – – – – –

X X – – – – – –

– – – X – – – –

Focus in posttest (self-report)

Request forms used in posttest

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

Mitigating devices

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Difficulty in expressing

Content

Other features

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

X X X X X X X X

– X – – – – – –

X – – – – – – –

X – – – – – – X

– X X X X X X X

– – – – – – – –

– – – X – – – –

– – – – – – – –

X X X X X X X X

X X – X – X – X

X, presence; –, absence; FC, form-comparison.

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC

Participant

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

447

learners who actually did notice it but failed to mention it because their primary concern was the comparison of their request forms with those of the NSs. On the whole, the Group-A learnersÕ intensive analysis of the request forms might enable them to process the forms more efficiently than would any other feature in the treatment, thus ensuring the use of the target request forms in the posttest. 4.2.2. Group B Group B comprised learners who noticed the target request forms and their function in the treatment task but failed to provide them in the posttest (see Table 4; also see Appendix B (Group B)). Thirteen FC participants and two FS participants belonged to this group. Similar to the case in Group A, the learners in Group B noticed the target request forms and their related features, such as mitigating devices and directness, in the treatment input. However, they failed to use the forms in any of the four situations in the posttest. In fact, the learnersÕ self-reports revealed that they had concentrated on the use of non-target request forms—mono-clausal forms—during their posttest performance. This suggests that these learners were unable to transfer what they noticed in the treatment task into new request contexts. The retrospective follow-up questionnaire elicited the learnersÕ reasons for their failure to provide the target request forms in the posttest. One of these reasons is as follows (only the English translation is provided): ‘‘I realized the appropriate manner of requesting in English while comparing my expressions with those of the native speakers. However, I was unable to use the native request forms because I failed to completely incorporate them into my knowledge of English’’ (Subject 16 (FC)). The above reason clearly indicates that some learners did not entirely incorporate the form-function relationships manifested in these target request expressions into their L2 repertoires for practical use, although they realized the disparity between their inappropriate forms and the NS strategies. Compared to the Group-A participants, the learners in this group appeared to allocate their attention to various features in the treatment input—the target request forms, mitigating devices, discourse markers, idiomatic expressions, directness, content, and request sequence. It is possible that the learnersÕ divided attention reduced their likelihood of completely memorizing the target forms, which might have increased the likelihood of remembering other input features, yielding the current learning outcomes. This interpretation might be supported by the comment from one of the participants in this group, which was elicited in response to the following question in the retrospective follow-up questionnaire—Why did you not realize the possible use of these request expressions (target forms) in the test (posttest)? (only the English translation is provided): ‘‘During the lessons (treatment task), I concentrated on the sequence of expressions before and after the request form (target form)’’ (Subject 39 (FS), parentheses mine).

448

Condition

FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FS FS

Participant

1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16 21 26 39 46

Attentional targets in treatment input Target request forms

Mitigating devices

Discourse markers

Idiomatic expressions

Colloquial forms

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Content

Other features

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X – – – X – X X – – – –

X X – X – – X – – X – X X – X

– – – – X – – – – X – – – X X

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – X

– X X – X X – X – – X X – – X

X X – X X – X X X X – X X X X

– – X X X X X – – – – – – – –

X – X X X X – – X X – – – – –

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

Table 4 Attention in the treatment and focus in the posttest for Group B

Condition

1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16 21 26 39 46

Focus in posttest (self-report)

Request forms used in posttest

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

Mitigating devices

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Difficulty in expressing

Content

Other features

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – X X X – X X X X – – X – –

– – – – – – – – – – X – – – –

– – – – – – – X – X – – – – –

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X – X X – – – – – – – – – X –

– – – – – – X – – – – X – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X, presence; –, absence; FC, form-comparison; FS, form-search.

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FS FS

Participant

449

450

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

The above comment suggests that despite noticing the target forms in the treatment input, the learners were unable to incorporate them entirely into their L2 if there were a larger number of attractive features overriding the target forms in the input. 4.2.3. Group C This group is characterized by learners who noticed the target request forms in the treatment input but did not display an interest in the function of the forms. Eventually, they failed to provide the target request forms in the posttest (see Table 5; also see Appendix B (Group C)). There were three FC and nine FS participants in this category. Since this group primarily consisted of FS participants, its overall features are similar to those of FS mentioned in Sections 4.1.1–4.1.3. Group-C learners listed the target forms in the task for either VIO or QUS, with particular focus on the request form ‘‘I wonder if you could VP’’. Their insufficient attention to the target forms triggered their lack of interest in mitigating devices in the treatment input. Further, probably due to the treatment task effect of FS, whereby the participants were directed to focus on ‘‘expressions’’ distinct from the NSs, the FS participants in this group were less likely to refer to the request sequence in the treatment; however, they tended to recall the NS strategy of request sequence during the posttest performance. Despite their reference to the ‘‘I wonder’’ form in the treatment task, the learners in this group failed to provide this particular target form in the posttest. This could be attributed to the fact that their processing of this target form was extremely vague and they were therefore unable to completely analyze its function in the treatment. Instead, further processing capacities might have been allowed for discourse markers, idiomatic expressions, and/or request sequence as new targets for learning in the treatment. All this implies that although learners noticed the target request forms in the input, insufficient processing did not ensure a higher awareness of those forms, resulting in the learnersÕ failure to incorporate them into their L2 system. This might induce a difficulty in expressing themselves while making requests in English. 4.2.4. Group D Learners in Group D entirely ignored the target request forms in the treatment tasks (see Table 6; also see Appendix B (Group D)). This group comprised one FC participant and 13 FS participants. The learners in this group were apparently disinterested in the request forms because they failed to even focus on the non-target request forms in the posttest. As repeatedly highlighted in my previous studies, this can be attributed to their misconception that they had already attained proficiency in the request forms although the use of these forms is actually context dependent. In contrast, in the treatment input, learners indicated a greater interest in discourse markers, idiomatic expressions, colloquial forms, and/or (probably) the request sequence (as indicated by the self-report of Participant 41, Appendix B (Group D)) because of their deficient proficiency in these features (except the request sequence). Again, one reason here could be related to the task effect: Except for the FC participant, the learners in the FS condition were

Table 5 Attention in the treatment and focus in the posttest for Group C Condition

Condition

FC FC FC FS FS FS FS FS FS

Attentional targets in treatment input

17 20 29 31 34 35 37 40 42 47 52 53 Participant

17 20 29 31 34 35 37 40 42

Target request forms

Mitigating devices

Discourse markers

Idiomatic expressions

Colloquial forms

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Content

Other features

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X – – – – – – – – –

X X – – – – X – X X X –

– – – – X X X X – X X X

– – – – – – – – – – – –

X – X X X X – X – – – –

X X – – – – – – – X – X

– X – – – – – – – – – –

– – X X – – – – – – X X

Focus in posttest (self-report)

Request forms used in posttest

Non-target request forms

Mitigating devices

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Difficulty in expressing

Content

Other features

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

– – – – – – – – –

X – X – – – X – –

– – – – – – – – X

X – – – – – – – –

X X X X X X – X –

– – – – X X X – X

– – – – – – – – –

– X – X – – – – –

– X – X – X – X – X – X – X – X – X (continued on next page)

451

Target request forms

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

FC FC FC FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS

Participant

452

Condition Participant Focus in posttest (self-report)

FS FS FS

47 52 53

Request forms used in posttest

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

Mitigating devices

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Difficulty in expressing

Content

Other features

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

– – –

X X X

– X –

– – –

X – X

X X X

– – –

– – –

– – –

X X X

X, presence; –, absence; FC, form-comparison; FS, form-search.

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

Table 5 (continued)

Table 6 Attention in the treatment and focus in the posttest for Group D Condition

Condition

FC FS FS FS FS FS FS

Attentional targets in treatment input

11 32 33 36 38 41 43 44 45 48 49 50 51 54 Participant

11 32 33 36 38 41 43

Target request forms

Mitigating devices

Discourse markers

Idiomatic expressions

Colloquial forms

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Content

Other features

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

X – – – – – – – – – – – X –

X X X X X X X – – – X X X X

– X X X X X X X X X X X X X

– X X – X X X – – X X X – X

X – – – X – – – – – – – – –

X – – – – – – – – X – – X X

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– X X X X X X – – – X X X X

Focus in posttest (self-report)

Request forms used in posttest

Non-target request forms

Mitigating devices

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Difficulty in expressing

Content

Other features

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

– – – – – – –

– – – – X X X

– – X X – – –

– – – – – – –

X – – X X X X

– – X X – – –

– – – – X – –

– – – – X X –

– X – X – X – X – X – X – X (continued on next page)

453

Target request forms

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

FC FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS FS

Participant

454

Condition Participant Focus in posttest (self-report)

FS FS FS FS FS FS FS

44 45 48 49 50 51 54

Request forms used in posttest

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

Mitigating devices

Directness

Sequence (justification)

Difficulty in expressing

Content

Other features

Target request forms

Non-target request forms

– – – – – – –

X – – – – – X

– X – – – – –

– – – – – – –

X X X X X X X

X – X X – – –

– – – – – – –

– X – – X – –

– – – – – – –

X X X X X X X

X, presence; –, absence; FC, form-comparison; FS, form-search.

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

Table 6 (continued)

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

455

not instructed to specifically compare their request realization strategies with those of the NSs. Overall, the learnersÕ lack of interest in and awareness of request forms in the treatment could eventually lead them to experience difficulties in expressing themselves while making requests in English during the posttest performance. 4.2.5. Summary for research question 2 Due to the small number of participants in Group A, any findings here are explanatory in nature and any claims made should be considered tentative. However, the observed tendency might enable an understanding of the relationship between learnersÕ attentional allocation in the treatment input and their learning outcomes in the following manner: The sufficiently high degree of noticing/awareness of the target request forms in the treatment input, as shown by Group-A learners, might lead to learning of the forms. However, absolute proficiency in the target forms was questionable, along with the absence of learning of mitigating devices. With a decrease in the degree of noticing/awareness of the target forms in the treatment input, learnersÕ attention was more likely to be allocated to discourse markers, idiomatic expressions, colloquial forms, and/or request sequence, which prevented them from learning the target forms. Learners who failed to notice the target forms tended not to focus even on the non-target request forms in the posttest.

5. General discussion and conclusion From the analysis for research question 1, it is evident that the FC treatment task allowed learners to notice the target request forms to a greater extent than did the FS treatment task. The FC learners analyzed their request forms against the NSsÕ forms, whereas the FS learners merely compared the NNSsÕ forms with those of the NS. As Rosa and OÕNeill (1999) argue, the ‘‘task demands may have an influence on how L2 input is processed’’ (p. 546) and the different tasks may require the learners to process the input differently (also see Leow, 1997). However, the current analysis for research question 2 indicated that learnersÕ noticing and learning outcomes were not equally observed among the learners engaged in the same task. For instance, some learners in FC belonged to Group A, while others in the same input condition belonged to Groups B or C. This suggests that learnersÕ attention to target forms cannot always be ensured by a particular treatment task (or instruction). It may be greatly influenced by the learnersÕ individual requirements and interests, i.e., individual differences factors (Robinson, 2002; Gass et al., 2003; Takahashi, 2005). This study has also revealed that a substantially high degree of awareness of target request forms, as shown by Group-A learners, might lead to the learning of these features, and vice versa. In the latter case, learnersÕ attention in the treatment input was more likely to be allocated to discourse markers, idiomatic expressions, and/or request sequence. Perhaps the learnersÕ greater interest in these non-target features restricted them from processing the targets sufficiently, resulting in their failure to learn them.

456

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

It might be noteworthy that although the Group-A learners indicated the highest awareness, thereby obtaining learning outcomes, their absolute proficiency in the target request forms was not ensured, as indicated by the simultaneous use of non-target request forms in one or two situations in the posttest. This was despite the fact that the four situations in the posttest manifested the same degree of requestive imposition. According to Schmidt (1990), the noticing hypothesis postulates two levels of awareness: awareness at the level of noticing (by referring to the targets without mentioning any rules) and awareness at the level of understanding (by referring to the targets with explicit formulation of the rules). In view of this distinction, the treatment task for FC, in which all the participants in Group A were engaged, was supposed to assure learners of the awareness at the former level since this level is related to the ability to analyze, compare, and test hypotheses related to the input. In reality, however, learners were unable to demonstrate their appropriate performance evenly across situations in the posttest. A similar posttest performance was observed in the explicit teaching condition in Takahashi (2001), where metapragmatic information on the target request realization strategies was provided during the treatment. Thus, it could be hypothesized that even awareness at the level of understanding may be insufficient to gain absolute proficiency at the pragmatic level (cf. Robinson, 1997; Rosa and OÕNeill, 1999; Gass et al., 2003; Rosa and Leow, 2004). This might lead us to debate whether the acquisition of L2 pragmalinguistic competence is completely explicable by the noticing hypothesis alone. There might exist some other crucial factors or conditions involved with awareness related to understanding, eventually enabling learners to acquire pragmatic competence to such an extent that they are able to cope with various L2 communicative contexts. Evidently, the ultimate goal of the ILP research is the exploration of such crucial factors.

Acknowledgment I thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Appendix A. Retrospective Follow-Up Questionnaire

Target Request Forms: I was wondering if you could
! Dialog D (Violin), Dialog F (Violin) If you could (can)
! Dialog G (Violin), Dialog E (Questionnaire), Dialog H (Questionnaire) Do you think you could (can)
! Dialog E (Questionnaire) Is it possible that
/Would it be possible that
! Dialog C (Questionnaire)

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

457

Setsumon 1: Enshuu no toki ni, korera no hyougen wo, gakushuusha no eigo ni mirare nai neitybu supiikaa dokutoku no eigo unyou (shiyou) hou toshite kaki dashi mashita ka? Gaitou suru kaitou wo maru de kakon de kudasai. (Question 1: Did you write down one or more of the above expressions as the one(s) displayed as native-speaker usage, distinct from learner usage? Please circle your answer.) Hai (Yes) ! Setsumon 2 he (Go to Question 2) Iie (No) ! Setsumon 6 he (Go to Question 6) Setsumon 2: Toransukuriputo ni dete kita korera no hyougen ga, meue no hito ni taisuru tekisetsu na eigo no irai hyougen de aru koto ni kizuki mashita ka? (Question 2: Did you realize that the expressions that appeared in the transcripts were appropriate English request expressions addressed to higher-status people?) Hai (Yes) ! Setsumon 3 he (Go to Question 3) Iie (No) ! Setsumon 6 he (Go to Question 6) Setsumon 3: Zenkai no jugyou de okonatta tesuto no kaku bamen demo, korera no hyougen ga shiyou kanou de aru koto ni kizuki mashita ka? (Question 3: Did you realize the possibility of using these expressions in the request situations that appeared in the test (posttest) administered in the previous class?) Hai (Yes) ! Setsumon 4 he (Go to Question 4) Iie (No) ! Setsumon 5 he (Go to Question 5) Setsumon 4: Zenkai no jugyou de okonatta tesuto no izure ka no bamen de, korera no hyougen no ichibu wo jissai ni shiyou shimashita ka? (Question 4: Did you actually use one or more of these expressions in the situations in the test (posttest) administered in the previous class?) Hai (Yes) ! Shuuryou (Stop here) Iie (No) ! Naze jissai ni shiyou shina katta no ka, sono riyuu wo setsumei dekireba shita no yohaku ni kaite kudasai. (Please write down, if possible, the reason why you did not use it/them in the test (posttest) in the space below.) ! Shuuryou (Stop here) Setsumon 5: Naze kigatsuka nakatta no ka, sono riyuu wo setsumei dekireba shita no yohaku ni kaite kudasai. (Question 5: Please write down, if possible, the reason why you did not realize the possible use of these request expressions in the test (posttest) in the space below.) ! Shuuryou (Stop here) Setsumon 6: Enshuu ni okeru kaiwa hikaku bunseki dake dewa, meue no hito ni taisuru tekisetsu na eigo no irai hyougen hou wo shuutoku suru koto wa muzukashii to

458

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

omoi masu ka? (Question 6: Do you consider it difficult to learn how to formulate appropriate English requests addressed to higher-status people through the tasks you were instructed to engage in during the class?) Hai (Yes)/Iie (No) ! Shuuryou (Stop here) Appendix B. Sample posttest self-reports for each awareness group

Group

Self-report

Group A Participant 10: Zibun no irai naiyou wo dekirudake kuwashiku setsumei shiyou to kangaeta. Sorekara, ‘‘Kyouju ga isogashii koto wa wakatte iru ga. . .’’ to iu fuu ni, aite no jijou mo kouryo shite iru koto wo apiiru shita. Sonoato ni, ‘‘Is it possible. . .?’’ to, ippo hiite tanomi, aite ni fukaikan wo atae nai you ni shita. [‘‘Feedback’’ situation] (I attempted at providing a detailed explanation for my request. Further, I stressed that I could understand the professorÕs current situation by saying, ‘‘I understand that you are very busy, but. . .’’ Next, I used the request form ‘‘Is it possible. . .?’’ without imposing on him, in order to avoid making him feel bad.) Zibun no jijou wo kichin to setsumei suru. Sonogo, aite tono senyaku wo kotowaru koto wa moushiwake nai to iu koto wo tsutaeru. Soshite, ‘‘Would you please. . .?’’ to, teinei na hyougen wo mochiite irai suru. [‘‘Appointment’’ situation] (I explain my situation to the professor in detail. Next, I apologize for not keeping the appointment with him. I then make a request, using the polite expression, ‘‘Would you please. . .?’’) Group B

Participant 6: Mazu, meue no hito dakara, shitsurei no nai youni, to omoi, tsugini, ichiban iitai koto wa nan de aruka wo kangaeta. Komento wo hoshii to, saigo ni iu koto wo kimeta. Kyoju to zibun ga amari shitashiku nai node, zibun no koto wo setsumei shite kara, teinei ni, komento ga hoshii to iu kanji ni shitakatta. ‘‘Would you. . .?’’ no hyougen ga teinei de aru to handan shita. [‘‘Feedback’’ situation] (First, I considered approaching the professor in a respectful manner because of his higher status. Next, I attempted to concentrate on the content of the message that I was actually required to convey, i.e., I required him to provide his comments at the end. Since I am not very familiar with the professor, I believed it would be appropriate to explain my situation and then request for his comments in a polite manner. I considered the phrase ‘‘Would you. . .?’’ to be a very polite expression.)

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

459

Appendix B (continued) Group Self-report Participant 8: Repooto wo teishutsu dekiru youni, maiban gambatte iru koto to, hoka no tesuto no junbi de isogashii to iu riyuu wo nobe, repooto wo kigen made ni teishutsu dekinai koto wo iu. Soshite, sensei-gata ga suguni seiseki wo tsuke naku te wa naranai koto mo wakatte iru to iu koto wo nobeta ue de, teishutsu kigen wo nobashite kureru youni irai suru. [‘‘Paper-Due’’ situation] (I provide the professor with the justification for the request by saying: ‘‘I have been attempting to complete my paper to the best of my ability by working every night. However, I have been extremely busy preparing for the final exams, which will make it difficult for me to meet the deadline’’. Next, I also stress that I understand that professors are required to submit the final grades at the earliest possible. I then request him to extend the due date.) Group C Participant 34: Zibun ga dare nanoka akirakani suru. Sorekara, joukyou wo setsumei shi, irai suru. Donoyouna hyougen ga teinei nanoka wakaranai. Bimyou na hyougen toka wo eigo de arawashi kire nai. [‘‘Appointment’’ situation] (I am required to introduce myself to the professor. I am then required to explain my current situation and make a request. I am unaware of the types of polite expressions that are appropriate for this situation. I do not possess any knowledge regarding the forms that would enable me to express the finer aspects of the English language.) Group D Participant 36: Genjou wo setsumei shi, irai no riyuu wo nobe, sorekara tanonda. Eigo de kansha suru hyougen ga muzukashii. [‘‘Appointment’’ situation] (I explained my current situations to the professor, along with the reason for my request (to be made). I then made the request. I faced some difficulty in conveying my appreciation to the professor in English.) Participant 41: Irai no riyuu wo setsumei shite kara youkyu ni haitta. Korewa, jugyou de yatta sukuriputo de neitybu mo setsumei wo saki ni shite ita kara da. ‘‘I know’’ to iu hyougen wa jugyou chuu ni yatta sukuriputo nimo ooku dete kite ita node, tsukaeru to omotta. Sore igai no hyougen mo tsukaeru to omotta. [‘‘Makeup Exam’’ situation] (I provided the professor with the justification for the request before making the request because native speakers used this strategy in the scripts that were provided to us in class. I thought I could use the phrase ‘‘I know’’ since it frequently appeared in the scripts. I thought I could use other expressions that appeared in the scripts.)

460

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

References Alanen, R., 1995. Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In: Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report 9). University of Hawaii, Second Language & Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI, pp. 259–302. Doughty, C., 1991. Second language acquisition does make a difference: evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 431–469. Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998. Issues and terminology. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–11. Gass, S., Svetics, I., Lemelin, S., 2003. Differential effects of attention. Language Learning 53, 497–545. House, J., 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 225–252. Laufer, B., Hulstijn, J., 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22, 1–26. Leow, R.P., 1997. Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 47, 467–505. Leow, R.P., 2000. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 557–584. Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 15–41. Norris, J., Ortega, L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative metaanalysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528. Philp, J., 2003. Constraints on ‘‘Noticing the Gap’’: nonnative speakersÕ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Learning 25, 99–126. Robinson, P., 1995a. Attention, memory and the ‘‘noticing’’ hypothesis. Language Learning 45, 283–331. Robinson, P., 1995b. Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In: Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report 9). University of Hawaii, Second Language & Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI, pp. 303–357. Robinson, P., 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rulesearch, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 27–67. Robinson, P., 1997. Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning 47, 45–99. Robinson, P. (Ed.), 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Rosa, E., OÕNeill, M., 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 511–556. Rosa, E., Leow, R.P., 2004. Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics 25, 269–292. Rose, K., Ng, C., 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 145–170. Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R., 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 21–42. Schmidt, R., 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11–26. Schmidt, R., 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In: Schmidt, R. (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report 9). University of Hawaii, Second Language & Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI, pp. 1–63.

S. Takahashi / System 33 (2005) 437–461

461

Schmidt, R., 2001. Attention. In: Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3–32. Simard, D., Wong, W., 2001. Alertness, orientation, and detection: the conceptualization of attentional functions in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 103–124. Takahashi, S., 1987. A contrastive study of indirectness exemplified in L1 directive speech acts performed by Americans and Japanese. Unpublished MasterÕs Thesis, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Takahashi, S., 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 171–199. Takahashi, S., 2005. Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics 26, 90–120. Takahashi, S., DuFon, M., 1989. Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: the case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 439). Tateyama, Y., 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: Rose, G., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 200–222. Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H., Thananart, O., 1997. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines. In: Bouton, L.F. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 8. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 163–178.