1. Introduction

This chapter introduces the influence of the learning environment on second language (L2) learning, with a focus on the difference between natural and classroom settings. The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of the learning context on the pragmatic competence of university-level learners of English in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland.

2. Literature Review

This chapter introduces the theoretical background that supports the claim that natural contexts are better for the development of pragmatic competence. It discusses how sociocultural theory emphasizes that social interaction and the opportunity for "languaging" allows the development of explicit sociopragmatic knowledge. The chapter then compares Hong Kong, an Outer Circle country, and the Chinese mainland, an Expanding Circle country, as contexts for learning English, highlighting the differences in the role of English in these two regions. It also explains that although there is greater exposure to English and more opportunity for the development of pragmatic competence in Hong Kong, there are also marked similarities in the two environments. The chapter examines the effect of context on the development of L2 pragmatic competence and reviews past research on comparing learners in classroom settings versus learners who had been in settings where English is used as the language of everyday communication. It discusses the advantages of study abroad settings and the mixed results reported from studies comparing pragmatic features in study abroad and at home learners.

3. Method

216 participants took part in the study; 19 were native English speakers and 197 were learners of English, attending either Fudan University in the Chinese mainland or the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The learners were divided into four groups based on their past exposure to English, while the native speakers provided a baseline. The language background questionnaire, C-test, irony test, metapragmatic knowledge test, and monologic role play were used as assessment tools. The study employed a criterion groups design and six measures of pragmatic competence to compare learners' performance. Data analysis was conducted on the C-test scores and the five measures of pragmatic competence. A bottom-up approach was used for scoring MRP performances, with six generic structural elements and six pragmalinguistic features identified. The pragmatic tests were developed by two applied linguists with a background in pragmatics testing and second language acquisition research.

4. Results

This chapter discussed the differences in linguistic proficiency and pragmatic measures between university students in Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland. The results showed that there were significant differences in language proficiency among the groups, and among learner groups, the Chinese Mainland North American group scored significantly lower on the C-test than both the English medium of instruction group and the Chinese Mainland Australian group. In terms of differences in pragmatics measures, the results revealed significant differences in IRT Accuracy and Response Time, MKT scores, MRP Generic Structure, and MRP Pragmalinguistic Features after controlling for proficiency. The study also found correlations among learners' pragmatic competence measures, showing that the tests could be measuring different underlying factors. A Principal Components Analysis identified two factors that explained 62.44% of the variance, with Factor 1 associated with IRT Accuracy and MKT, and Factor 2 associated with IRT Response Time and MRP generic structure.

5. Discussion

This chapter discussed the theoretical claim that greater exposure to the natural uses of English would provide better support for the development of pragmatic competence, compared two learning contexts—an Outer Circle context where English functions as an additional language and an Expanding Circle context where English is learned as a foreign language, and provided the results from the tests of pragmatic competence—irony, metapragmatic awareness, and production of a specific genre. The results indicated that the Hong Kong learners, especially the Hong Kong (EMI) group, performed better than the Chinese mainland learners, especially the Chinese mainland (NA) group. It was found that natural exposure to English in real-life contexts benefited the understanding of irony and the development of metapragmatic awareness, and that the ability to process pragmatic knowledge in real time was more clearly apparent in learners with access to real-life contexts. The analysis also revealed two factors of pragmatic competence—representational knowledge and processing control, where learners in an Expanding Circle context may develop similar levels of representational knowledge, but remain limited in their ability to process this knowledge in real-life situations.

6. Conclusion

The conclusion of the study emphasizes the importance of considering the configuration of language learning contexts rather than treating them as dichotomized categories. The findings highlight the influence of context on pragmatic competence, with learners in environments with regular English use demonstrating abilities comparable to native speakers. The study also suggests the need to assess both explicit and implicit pragmatic abilities, as well as the use of role plays to measure pragmatic competence. Additionally, the potential impact of learning context on routines should be considered in future studies.