Research on second language learning and instruction has recently acknowledged and empirically proved in the main that pragmatic awareness has an influence in learners’ adequate performance in a second language (L2). Pragmatic awareness refers to learners’ conscious knowledge of distinct linguistic, relational and socio-cultural assumptions operating across communicative situations and informing determinate linguistic choices in a given language. The present research explores the pragmatic awareness of a community of Spanish learners of English as a second language (ESL) temporarily living in the U.S. as regards the formulation of the specific communicative act of ‘directives’ in their first and second languages. It is believed that the enhancement of learners’ pragmatic perceptions of their own language (L1) facilitates awareness-raising of the differences and similarities between L1 and L2 pragmatics, hence pragmatic aspects in the latter. The data used for this study includes conversational encounters conducted in learners’ first language and ESL, interview data, and field notes and memos produced by the researcher as a result of participant observation. Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) typology of directives and Hymes’ (1972) descriptive framework guided the analysis together with Spradley’s (1980) Developmental Research Sequence (DRS). Results of the study mainly show that learners’ directive performance in their first and second languages was related to the enactment of a series of speech events or communicative activities that were governed by distinct linguistic, relational and socio-cultural assumptions in each language. One of the principal implications of the study for second language learning and instruction is that L2 learning and teaching should be organised around speech events or activities as opposed to centring on isolated communicative acts as a good way to raise learners’ pragmatic awareness in the target language.

Research on second language learning and instruction has recently acknowledged and empirically proved in the main that pragmatic awareness has an influence in learners’ adequate performance in a second language (L2) (cf. Billmyer, 1990; Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989; Blum-Kulka, 1990; House & Kasper, 1981; Tayetama et al., 1997; Wildner-Basset, 1984, 1986; etc.). Pragmatic awareness refers to learners’ conscious knowledge of distinct linguistic, relational and socio-cultural assumptions operating across communicative situations and informing determinate linguistic choices in a given language. Cross-cultural studies on specific communicative practices can be useful to help learners raise their pragmatic awareness in a L2, since these studies comprehensively link socio-cultural assumptions to patterns of conversational style instead of merely offering a series of ‘facts’ or ‘rules’ about language, society and culture (Evans Davies, 2004). These investigations can also be helpful for teachers in the instruction of L2 pragmatic aspects, as they provide empirically-based information they can deploy to design and implement classroom activities for this purpose. The present research could be said to belong to these cross-cultural studies in that it explores the specific communicative act of ‘directives’ focusing on the pragmatic awareness of a community of Spanish learners of English as regards the formulation of these acts in Spanish as their first language (L1), and English as their second language (L2). Such examination in learners’ source and target languages responds to the idea that the enhancement of learners’ pragmatic perceptions of their own language facilitates awareness-raising of the differences and similarities between their L1 and L2 at linguistic, relational and socio-cultural levels (Bou-Franch & Garcés-Conejos, 2003). As a result, pragmatic aspects of the L2 are expected to become more obvious. Differences and similarities between a L1 and L2 at these levels are even more salient for the learner who directly experiences the target culture. Subjects in this study were going through the intercultural experience of temporarily living in the U.S. This especial intercultural circumstance therefore contributed to better accomplish our research objectives.

               In light of the focus of this investigation, the following main research question was posited: which linguistic, discursive, relational and socio-cultural assumptions underlie directive performance in these learners’ L1 and L2? In order to provide an answer to this question, a wide variety of daily conversational encounters ranging from learners’ interactions among themselves in their L1 to conversations with native speakers of English in their L2 were collected for the study. A series of interviews were also conducted, and ethnographic fieldnotes and memos were produced by the researcher as a result of participant observation. Ervin-Tripp’s (1976) typology of directives and Hymes’ (1972) descriptive framework guided the analysis of conversational data, especially the notion of speech event in the latter. Speech events are socio-culturally identifiable communicative situations in which participants’ communicative actions are oriented towards the completion of some goal. Thus, directives were not examined in isolation; rather, they were viewed as part of speech events learners instantiated in their conversations. Spradley’s (1980) Developmental Research Sequence (DRS) was deployed for the analysis of interview data, fieldnotes and memos. Upon analysis, diverse speech events involving the performance of directives in Spanish and English as a second language (ESL) emerged in the data. Some of these events appeared in the two languages with certain similarities and differences in both, whereas others appeared only in one or the other, thus showing to be culture-specific events. Among the main findings of the study, there was a general preference for directness in the formulation of directives in learners’ L1, and this linguistic assumption was associated with relational closeness, and notions of honesty defining a Hispanic socio-cultural ethos, among other things. By contrast, there was a preference for indirectness in directive performance in learners’ L2. This linguistic assumption was not linked to any determinate type of relationship; rather, it was perceived as general for all social bonds, and was connected with notions of individualism describing an Anglo-American socio-cultural ethos. All these assumptions adopted specific shapes and meanings in the different speech events in which directives were produced in L1 and L2. Among the implications of this research for L2 learning and instruction, the results of this study principally suggest that L2 learning and teaching should be organised around speech events or activities as opposed to centring on isolated communicative acts as a good way to raise learners’ L2 pragmatic awareness. Consequently, teachers should implement speech event-based awareness-raising activities in the classroom that combine linguistic, relational and socio-cultural information to help learners situate their L2 communicative practices in their socio-cultural context, and appreciate their meanings and functions therein (see Kasper, 1997). These activities may consist of a) ethnographic assignments where learners are requested to make more or less open or structured observations on the conditions under which a determinate type of communicative acts is enacted in L1 and L2, b) assignments where they are requested to look for linguistic patterns in distinct L1 and L2 discursive manifestations involving the performance of the specific communicative acts under study, c) role plays in which they practice the production of these acts with certain relational parties and in certain socio-cultural circumstances in the target language, etc.