The Effect of L1 Linguistic and Cultural Background on L2 Pragmatic Competence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates how Cypriot Greek learners of English use request strategies in L2, focusing on directness, perspective, and modifications across different tasks (oral and written) and social contexts. The paper is theoretically robust, the data show a useful mix of different methodologies thus resulting in very sound results.

I have, however, some minor suggestions to improve some aspects of the overall paper:

1. some of the research questions could be more effectively specified by rephrasing them in order to reflect measurable constructs, e.g. “To what extent does social distance influence the use of the speaker-oriented perspective in DCTs versus ORPs?”
2. when presenting your data, please offer some examples, especially taken from the DCT, to more effectively explain how you have classified your data before the actual analysis
3. as for the statistical analysis, consider to include measures of effect size (e.g., Cramér’s V) and provide a clearer interpretation of what statistically significant findings mean in practical terms.
4. the pedagogical implications are important for this kind of study, especially when dealing with language learners; therefore, I suggest that in the discussion or in the conclusion, the authors add a brief section suggesting how the findings could inform pragmatic instruction in ESL/EFL contexts (e.g., role-playing diverse request scenarios, raising awareness of perspective shifts).
5. in the discussion, I feel you should briefly comment the use of different methodologies and how this could impact the overall results and help better understanding pragmatic phenomena and their variability.

Overall, the paper offers a great insight in speech act theory and pragmatic research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates how Cypriot Greek learners of English use request strategies in L2, focusing on directness, perspective, and modifications across different tasks (oral and written) and social contexts. The paper is theoretically robust, the data show a useful mix of different methodologies thus resulting in very sound results.

I have, however, some minor suggestions to improve some aspects of the overall paper:

1. some of the research questions could be more effectively specified by rephrasing them in order to reflect measurable constructs, e.g. “To what extent does social distance influence the use of the speaker-oriented perspective in DCTs versus ORPs?”

The author would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback, but question 1 already includes this question, otherwise, the author would need to come up with other 4

1. Is there any effect of ±social distance, hearer dominance, power, familiarity and imposition on:
2. the degree of (in)directness,
3. request perspective,
4. internal modification,
5. external modification,

of the request speech acts produced by L1 CG learners of L2 English?

 

1. when presenting your data, please offer some examples, especially taken from the DCT, to more effectively explain how you have classified your data before the actual analysis.

This comment has been addressed, examples have been added.

1. as for the statistical analysis, consider to include measures of effect size (e.g., Cramér’s V) and provide a clearer interpretation of what statistically significant findings mean in practical terms.

 

1. the pedagogical implications are important for this kind of study, especially when dealing with language learners; therefore, I suggest that in the discussion or in the conclusion, the authors add a brief section suggesting how the findings could inform pragmatic instruction in ESL/EFL contexts (e.g., role-playing diverse request scenarios, raising awareness of perspective shifts).

This comment has been addressed.

This was added to the discussion:

This study offers important pedagogical implications, as its findings can inform the instruction of pragmatics in ESL/EFL settings. Developing pragmatic competence is crucial for effective communication and relies on sociolinguistic rules that help pre-vent misunderstandings and inappropriate behavior in specific contexts. Various teaching approaches and strategies can support L2 English learners in enhancing their pragmatic awareness. It is essential that the teaching of L2 English pragmatics is ade-quately represented and integrated into instructional materials. When teaching and learning pragmatics in L2 and/or EFL contexts, educators should consider students' proficiency levels, abilities, areas of difficulty, and challenges with applying pragmatic knowledge in both production and comprehension—challenges often stemming from limited competence or L1 transfer.

 

This was added in the conclusion:

Overall, the findings of this study indicate that additional efforts are necessary to enhance pragmatic awareness and to integrate pragmatics and politeness more prom-inently into the EFL curriculum and teaching resources. Employing alternative, con-textualized, and communication-focused teaching approaches can encourage students to become more engaged and motivated to develop pragmatic skills by considering language and cultural differences alongside linguistic and extralinguistic factors. These insights can inform the explicit instruction of L2 English pragmatics and intercultural communication. Further research is needed in both private and public educational contexts at secondary and higher education levels in Cyprus.

 

1. in the discussion, I feel you should briefly comment the use of different methodologies and how this could impact the overall results and help better understanding pragmatic phenomena and their variability.

The mixed-methods approach of this study provided a more comprehensive un-derstanding of pragmatic phenomena and their variability. Multiple tools can be em-ployed to assess L2 learners’ pragmatic competence and to increase awareness of the significance of pragmatics and politeness. It is crucial to select an appropriate task aligned with the research design and research questions to ensure the validity and re-liability of the findings. When doing so, factors such as practicality, authenticity, and the comparability of tasks to natural speech should be considered, along with so-cio-pragmatic knowledge, as well as the structure and content of the task.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and well-researched paper on a consistently interesting topic. I would be pleased to see it published. I have only a few minor suggestions for revisions in the Discussion section, which I believe would enhance the paper. I summarize them below:

 

-p. 14, l. 415-418: Could the authors elaborate further upon this point?

-p. 15, l. 421: I may be missing something, but is it established that the hearer perspective is the norm for Cypriot Greek? How is the claim for transfer supported?

-p. 15, l. 429: The tendency to underuse lexical modifiers has been observed not only among learners of English but also in learners of other L2s (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer 2012 and Shively 2011 for Spanish, Bella 2012 for Greek, and Barron 2003 for German). I suggest that the author(s) acknowledge this pattern and reference some of these studies (just as they do for the tendency for more external than internal modification to be used, next paragraph). For their convenience, I have provided the relevant references below.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bella, S. (2012). Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of request strategies in a study-abroad context. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1917–1941.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). Pragmatic competence: Refusals in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Shively, R. L. (2011). Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 pragmatic development in interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 95(S1), 141–162

-p. 15, l. 457-463: This is an important and interesting point. Could the author(s) explain and discuss it a bit more?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and well-researched paper on a consistently interesting topic. I would be pleased to see it published. I have only a few minor suggestions for revisions in the Discussion section, which I believe would enhance the paper. I summarize them below:

 

-p. 14, l. 415-418: Could the authors elaborate further upon this point?

This comment has been addressed:

The speakers generally employed conventionally indirect approaches and used fixed expressions influenced by extralinguistic contextual factors—such as the interlocutors’ gender, age, social class, their relationship, and the setting—rather than relying solely on variables like power, social distance, and hierarchy to communicate politeness (Manes & Wolfson, 1981; Terkourafi, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2012).

 

 

 

 

-p. 15, l. 421: I may be missing something, but is it established that the hearer perspective is the norm for Cypriot Greek? How is the claim for transfer supported?

This is explained in the lit review earlier

L2 learners of English exhibit a strong preference for the hearer perspective compared to L1 speakers (German and Greek learners of L2 English: Woodfield, 2008; Cypriot Greek learners of L2 English: Woodfield & Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010; Econo-midou-Kogetsidis, 2012, 2013;

 

-p. 15, l. 429: The tendency to underuse lexical modifiers has been observed not only among learners of English but also in learners of other L2s (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer 2012 and Shively 2011 for Spanish, Bella 2012 for Greek, and Barron 2003 for German). I suggest that the author(s) acknowledge this pattern and reference some of these studies (just as they do for the tendency for more external than internal modification to be used, next paragraph). For their convenience, I have provided the relevant references below.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bella, S. (2012). Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of request strategies in a study-abroad context. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1917–1941.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). Pragmatic competence: Refusals in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Shively, R. L. (2011). Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 pragmatic development in interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 95(S1), 141–162

This comment has been addressed

 

 

-p. 15, l. 457-463: This is an important and interesting point. Could the author(s) explain and discuss it a bit more?

The differences between internal and external modifications in the current study can be attributed to L1 and L2 influence, respectively, as well as to cross-linguistic and cross-cultural interference. These differences reflect the polarity in the pragmatic behaviour of vertical (Greek: solidarity is affected by power asymmetries, with an emphasis on group belonging) and horizontal (British: solidarity is not affected by power asymmetries) societies (Brown, 1965; Vassiliou et al., 1972; Hofstede, 1980, 1983; O’Driscoll, 1996; Koutsan-462 toni, 2004; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2008).

 

This comment was addressed

Power Distance is one of the dimensions of the Hofstede’s model, a framework developed by Geert Hofstede to compare cultural values (de Mooij and Geert Hofstede, 2010; Epaminonda, 2022). It reflects how much less powerful members of institutions or organizations accept and expect unequal distributions of power within a society. In high Power Distance cultures, hierarchical structures are accepted as natural, with in-dividuals respecting their designated roles without questioning inequalities. Relations tend to be paternalistic and autocratic, with authority centralized. Conversely, in low Power Distance societies, there is a preference for more equal and democratic rela-tionships, with people seeking justification for power differences and favoring consul-tative approaches. Overall, Power Distance indicates how societies manage and per-ceive social inequalities. According to Hofstede's dimensions, Cyprus has a medium to high score in power distance (Epaminonda, 2022).

Epaminonda, E. (2022). Drawing a Sociocultural Profile of Cyprus by Reviewing Some Key Findings and Discussing Change and Diversity. Cyprus Review, 33(2), 21-39. https://cyprusreview.org/index.php/cr/article/view/795