Second Language Motivational Selves and Interactional Pragmatics in Study Abroad: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

The effects of individual differences factors on second language (L2) pragmatic competence are of interest to researchers because the development of L2 pragmatic competence is directly related to learners’ personal traits and their knowledge of contextual factors. In a study abroad (SA) setting, prior studies have found that despite the abundant learning affordances in an SA context, learners vary in their use of such opportunities, such as social contact, to increase L2 pragmatic competence. A key factor contributing to these varying outcomes is motivation. The most recent model of L2 motivation integrates regulatory focus theory, which combines learners’ L2 self-guides, emotional responses, such as anxiety and enjoyment, and their patterns of eager and vigilant L2 use, all of which are closely linked to L2 achievements. Adopting this integrated model of motivation, this study examined the connections between L2 motivational selves and pragmatic competence in interaction in a study abroad context. Participants were four U.S. learners of Chinese who studied and interned abroad in Fall 2021 and 2022. They completed a role-play task on pragmatics in interaction, a survey on learning background and social contact, a survey on L2 motivational selves, and a semi-structured interview on their study abroad experience. The results indicate that both L2 motivational selves and the quantity and quality of L2 social contact influence interactional pragmatics. We proposed three pedagogical implications related to individual difference factors (e.g., motivation and L2 exposure) to enhance L2 pragmatic learning in an SA context.

1. Introduction

Within the framework of communicative competence (e.g., Bachman and Palmer 2010), pragmatic competence, defined as the ability to use language appropriately in different contexts, is deemed to be vital for competence in accurately using grammar and vocabulary. Studies on second language (L2) pragmatic development have demonstrated that not all learners can progress in their pragmatic competence at the same pace or to the same degree during a given period. These variations may be ascribed to individual differences, such as proficiency (e.g., Xiao et al. 2019), language aptitude (e.g., Li 2017), working memory (Li 2023), intercultural competence (Taguchi et al. 2016), and motivation (e.g., Zhang and Papi 2021). These factors hold particular significance in a study abroad setting because, in contrast to the traditional classroom setting at a home institution, study abroad can offer numerous opportunities to use the target language in daily routines, which may lead to pragmatic gains. Nevertheless, the degree to which learners can capitalize on these opportunities may hinge on the level of learner agency, defined as the inclination to take meaningful initiative in L2 learning within the target language context (Jin 2012, 2015; Lang 2019; van Lier 2008). As an individual factor, learner agency may mediate the impact of studying abroad, and is, in turn, shaped by personal traits, such as motivation. In particular, the present study examines the relationship between L2 motivational selves and interactional pragmatics.

In their latest articulation of language ability, Bachman and Palmer (2010) theorize that language ability includes language knowledge and strategic competence. The former includes organizational knowledge (i.e., grammar and vocabulary) and pragmatic knowledge, whereas the latter serves as an execution component of language knowledge, particularly sociolinguistic knowledge of appropriateness of linguistic forms in a specific context. This componential view of language ability suggests the connection between language knowledge and the use of such knowledge, but it does not explain the process by which language users access their pragmatic knowledge and execute pragmatic functions while strategically navigating real-time communication. This is due to the intricate interaction among various components of language ability, which are responsive to the dynamic shifts in discourse and context during communication. Put differently, Bachman and Palmer’s theoretical framework for pragmatic competence does not focus on the mutual and interactive aspects of language use in communication (interactional pragmatics) (Taguchi and Roever 2017).

Interactional pragmatics involves the utilization of pragmatic knowledge during the exchange of turns for meaning negotiation (e.g., D’hondt et al. 2009), emphasizing the adaptive nature and sequential relevancy of pragmatic competence (e.g., Xiao 2018). In Schegloff’s (2007) framework of sequence organization, an adjacency pair encompasses two interdependent turns of talk, forming sequences, such as a greeting–greeting or a question–answer sequence. Adjacency pairs act as the fundamental units for sequence construction. A minimal adjacency pair, consisting of two turns, can constitute a sequence of action (e.g., a greeting followed by another greeting). Multiple minimal adjacency pairs contribute to a series of sequentially relevant actions in a conversation. These co-constructed sequences of actions, like greeting-to-greeting and question–answer, are collaboratively undertaken by interlocutors to accomplish a communicative act, such as making a request.

Schegloff’s (2007) perspective on sequence organization highlights the role of sequential relevancy in performing a communicative act. While the first pair-part of an adjacency pair (e.g., a greeting) projects a matching second pair-part (e.g., another greeting) in the next turn, communicative actions often involve organizing several sequences. The number of adjacency pairs required for one action depends on the negotiation between participants, shaping the conversation’s structure based on the sequential context. Sequences are organized through interlocutors’ comprehension of prior turns and their ability to adjust responses. Essentially, sequence organization implies that understanding the preceding turn and producing the follow-up turn are mutually reliant, with actions co-constructed during the instantaneous transition between comprehension and the production of speech. Therefore, the present study focuses on L2 Chinese learners’ interactional pragmatics, defined as the ability to appropriately co-construct a sequence of turns to achieve a communicative act. Since interactional pragmatics is directly related to the exchange of turns in communication, it could be affected by individual differences such as motivation. However, no existing studies have examined the relationship between motivation and L2 interactional pragmatics.

2. L2 Motivational Selves and L2 Pragmatics

Many studies in applied linguistics have focused on motivation. These studies vary in their theoretical framework but have indicated the pivotal role of motivation in L2 learning (for a recent review, see Dörnyei and Ushioda 2021). A few studies have examined the relationship between motivation and L2 pragmatics. Many previous studies have focused on the relationship between motivation and L2 acquisition. For example, Carrió-Pastor and Mestre (2014) explored the traditional distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation. They found that integrative motivation—characterized by a desire to connect with speakers of other language groups—may be a stronger predictor of L2 proficiency than instrumental motivation. In the field of L2 Chinese pragmatics, two studies have focused on the effects of motivation (Li 2024). Sun (2011) examined the effects of integrative and instrumental motivation on the knowledge of L2 Chinese pragmatics and found both types of motivation were moderately correlated with L2 Chinese pragmatic knowledge. Different from Sun (2011), Su and Hu (2024), examined the effects of proficiency and motivation on the production of conventional expressions in L2 Chinese for communicative acts, such as asking directions, calling a professor, and bargaining at a night market. They found a strong and positive proficiency effect and a moderate and positive effect of motivational subscales, including cultural interest and importance (i.e., instrumental and personal).

More recently, a large number of studies have adopted Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 motivational self system (L2MSS). According to Dörnyei (2009), L2MSS includes an Ideal L2 Self (i.e., L2 attainment that learners would like to have), an Ought-to L2 Self (i.e., L2 features learners would like to have to meet others’ expectations), and L2 Learning Experience, which encompasses learners’ perceptions and attitudes toward different aspects of their learning process (e.g., classes, learning materials, instructors, learning environments). Al-Hoorie’s (2018) meta-analysis of 32 empirical studies found that all three factors in L2MSS can strongly predict L2 achievements, but the ideal L2 self’s predicting power is much larger than the ought-to L2 self. Similar findings were reported by studies on the relationships between L2MSS and L2 pragmatics. For example, Yang (2022) examined the effects of motivation on comprehending L2 English implicatures in a multiple-choice listening questionnaire. The quantitative findings showed that L2 pragmatic comprehension was correlated with attitude towards the L2 community, cultural interest, attitude towards learning English, and the ideal L2 self, but not with instrumentality, the ought-to L2 self, and intended learning efforts. The qualitative results showed that the learners were aware of the importance of L2 pragmatic comprehension in real-life communications, and they attributed their limited L2 pragmatic learning to insufficient explicit pragmatic instruction and no direct access to the target language community. These findings suggest that the ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self have a differential impact on L2 English pragmatic comprehension.

The different contributions of the ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self have gained a growing interest in revising L2MSS. One important approach is to revise L2MSS from a regulatory focus perspective (Higgins 1998). Papi and Khajavy (2021) proposed an integrated model of motivation based on regulatory foci. A regulator focus (either promotion or prevention) drives individuals to achieve positive outcomes or avoid negative outcomes. A promotion focus is often associated with the ideal L2 self, while a prevention focus is often associated with the ought-to L2 self. According to Papi and Khajavy (2021), promotion-focused learners pay more attention to advancement, growth, and accomplishments, whereas prevention-focused learners are concerned with duties, obligations, and responsibilities.

In L2MSS, the Ideal L2 Self represents learner’s maximal aspiration, including the desired L2 attributes they would like to achieve in L2 learning, such as fluent and effective communication, whereas the Ideal L2 Other refers to the ideal L2 user that the learner thinks their significant others, such as their parents, would like them to become. By contrast, the Ought-to L2 Self refers to the minimal goal, representing the necessary L2 skills needed to fulfill expectations, duties, and obligations, such as meeting school language requirements, while the Ought-to L2 Other represents L2 attributes that the learner believes others require or expect them to have.

In addition to L2MSS, emotion and L2 strategic inclination are two relevant domains in the integrated model of motivation. Emotion includes L2 anxiety and L2 enjoyment. L2 anxiety refers to the feelings of fear and tension related to L2 contexts, such as listening and speaking, whereas L2 enjoyment means the feeling of joy that learners experience when learning and using their L2 (MacIntyre and Gardner 1994; Khajavy et al. 2018; Papi and Khajavy 2021). L2 strategic inclination includes vigilant L2 use and eager L2 use. A vigilant strategic inclination refers to the tendency to minimize potential L2 errors, whereas an eager strategic inclination involves strategies to maximize opportunities for L2 use (Papi and Khajavy 2021; Papi et al. 2019).

The integrated model of motivation has been tested in two recent studies. Zhang and Papi (2021) investigated the motivational effects on L2 English pragmatic production (measured by a discourse completion task). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the learners’ promotion focus (associated with advancement, growth, and achievement) positively correlated with their speech act production, whereas the prevention focus (associated with safety, security, and stability) negatively correlated with their speech act production. Likewise, Zhang and Papi (2024) examined the motivational effects on pragmatic and grammatical awareness (measured by a judgment task). Multiple regression analysis showed that prevention regulatory foci (associated with obligations, responsibilities, and negative outcomes) predicted L2 grammatical judgment. By contrast, promotion focus (associated with achievements, developments, and positive outcomes) predicted L2 pragmatic judgment. Zhang and Papi provide three explanatory accounts for their findings. First, L2 speakers with a prevention focus tend to pay more attention to details and accuracy, leading to positive correlations between this regulatory orientation and their recognition of grammatical errors. Second, prevention-focused individuals tend to avoid negative outcomes when speaking the target language and adopt vigilant and cautious strategies, which contributes to their grammatical awareness, but not their pragmatic awareness. By contrast, promotion-focused individuals are more likely to take risks in L2 communication, prioritizing communicative effectiveness over grammatical accuracy. Third, promotion-focused individuals tend to use eager strategic inclinations and maximize L2 use in daily interactions in the target language culture, which improves their sensitivity to L2 pragmatic features. These insights highlight the complex interaction between the regulatory focus orientations (promotion and prevention), strategic inclinations (eager and vigilant L2 use), and L2 achievements.

In sum, the recent trend in the relationship between motivation and L2 learning has shifted from the traditional L2MSS model to an integrated model of motivation that includes regulatory focus theory. One study (Zhang and Papi 2024) has shown that promotion focus predicts pragmatic judgment. However, no prior studies have examined the relationship between the integrated model of motivation and interactional pragmatics. Different from the traditional view of pragmatic competence, interactional pragmatics is beyond the utterance level speech acts, which could be more difficult for learners to develop. Moreover, no previous studies have focused on the interaction between motivation and other variables, such as social contact (L2 exposure), and their joint effects on L2 pragmatics. To fill these gaps in the literature, the present study aims to address what is the complex relationship between motivation, L2 interactional pragmatics, and L2 exposure in a study abroad setting. In particular, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

• What are the motivational patterns of L2 learners in relation to regulatory foci within a study abroad (SA) context?
• How does L2 exposure influence L2 interactions in an SA context?
• How do SA learners differ in L2 pragmatic performance in terms of grammaticality, sequence organization quality, and communicative achievements?
• How do motivation and L2 exposure jointly impact L2 interactional pragmatics?

In this study, we assessed motivation using a survey developed by Papi and Khajavy (2021). To triangulate the quantitative data regarding the integrated model of motivation, we conducted a post hoc semi-structured interview. Additionally, we measured interactional pragmatics and L2 exposure. Interactional pragmatics was assessed by an open role-play task with four communicative acts, while L2 exposure was measured by a survey focused on service and personal encounters within the SA context.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Participants were four university students (3 female, 1 male, aged 21–22), who participated in the one-year Chinese Flagship Overseas Capstone Program at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. The participants undertook the capstone program during their junior or senior year. The capstone year comprised a one-semester study-abroad program and a one-semester internship in Taiwan. While abroad, they took Chinese language courses and regular academic content courses taught in Chinese alongside their native Chinese-speaking peers. They chose these courses based on their majors and interests. All participants had double majors in Chinese and another field, including Global Studies (2), Economics (1), and Multidisciplinary Sciences (1). They also participated in internships aligned with their majors. During their time abroad, they resided in dorms with a Mandarin-speaking peer. In this study, we have used pseudonyms to ensure the participants’ anonymity. Two of them, Ally and Noah, were born in China and were adopted by American families at the age of one and five, respectively. Helen was born in Korea and relocated to the U.S. with her parents when she was nine years old. Lora was born and raised in the U.S. and spoke Chinese at home. Despite their diverse backgrounds, all participants identified English as their dominant language used in daily life.

Table 1. Participants Profiles.

Participants	Age	Gender	Home Language	Dominant Language	Years of Learning Chinese	Pre-Program Proficiency	Post-Program Proficiency
Ally	22	F	English	English	8	Advanced-mid	Advanced-high
Helen	22	F	Korean	English	8	Advanced-mid	Advanced-high
Noah	22	M	English	English	17	Advanced-high	Superior
Lora	21	F	English/ Chinese/ Vietnamese	English	16	Advanced-high	Superior

summarizes the demographic information on the participants. The pre- and post-program proficiency was assessed by ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview.

3.2. Data Collection Instruments

The data collection instruments consisted of two questionnaires, role-play tasks eliciting L2 pragmatic data, and a semi-structured interview.

3.2.1. Questionnaires

Participants were first asked to complete two questionnaires through Qualtrics online. The first questionnaire was a background survey with a focus on their demographic information, experiences in Chinese learning, and the time they spent on interactive and non-interactive contact in Chinese during their study abroad (see Appendix A). The second questionnaire explored learner motivation, adapted from Papi and Khajavy’s (2021) integrated model of motivation. All variables were measured on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6, where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 6 indicates strongly agree (see Appendix B).

3.2.2. Open Role-Play Tasks

The utilization of open role-play tasks with contextual information is considered a preferred instrument for eliciting naturalistic data (Félix-Brasdefer 2007, 2010). The advantage of using role-play in L2 pragmatics research has also been discussed, as it has the potential for exhibiting “how speech act performance is sequentially organized (e.g., in terms of strategy choice and politeness investment), what kinds of interlocutor responses are elicited by specific strategic choices, and how such responses in turn determine the speaker’s next move” (Kasper and Dahl 1991, pp. 228–29). Previous L2 pragmatics studies have demonstrated that role-play can serve as powerful instruments to examine L2 pragmatic production in an SA context (e.g., Bataller 2010; Xiao and Shi 2014).

The role-play tasks designed for this study aimed to collect L2 interaction data for four communicative acts, including requests, complaints, negotiation, and refusals (see Appendix C). The tasks covered four real-life scenarios that were relevant to the participants’ lives in Taiwan, ensuring that they could easily imagine themselves in these situations. The scenarios included interactions that take place in various settings, ranging from academic and internship environments to service encounters, such as bargaining at a night market and asking for services at an airport. The interactants involved in these situations were also varied, taking into account factors such as social distance, relative power, and degree of imposition, which may influence politeness levels (Brown and Levinson 1987).

The four participants were invited to complete the four role-play tasks in Chinese between March and April 2023 on Zoom. They played as students, interns, and customers, engaging in scenarios that required them to perform the following: (1) make an appointment with a professor; (2) discuss internships with a coworker; (3) bargain with a street vendor; and (4) deal with missing luggage with airline ground staff. The first author played the roles reflecting the differences in social status and degrees of familiarity.

Table 2. Information on the role-play tasks.

No.	Situation	Description	Communicative Acts	Contextual Variables
1	Personal encounter (Academic setting)	Making an appointment with a professor	Requests	[+D +P +I]
2	Personal encounter (Internship setting)	Discussing internships with a coworker	Complaints	[+D +P –I]
3	Service encounter (Night market)	Bargaining with a street vendor	Negotiation	[–D –P +I]
4	Service encounter (Airport)	Dealing with missing luggage with airline ground staff	Refusal	[–D –P +I]

+D, +P, and +I indicate that the interactants are familiar with each other, the hearer has more power over the speaker, and the imposition level from the speaker is high, whereas –D, –P, and –I indicate an inverse pattern. P, D, and I show medium levels of social distance, relative power, and imposition.

lists the descriptions of the role-play tasks.

3.2.3. Semi-Structured Interview

After participants completed the role-play tasks, the first author conducted individual semi-structured interviews with each participant in English. The interviews aimed to invite learners to share their study- and intern-abroad experiences, reflections on their experiences of successful and less successful communications with locals, metapragmatic awareness of linguistic patterns they had recently learned or noticed, and any changes in their attitudes and motivations towards L2 Chinese learning. Each interview lasted 40 to 50 min.

3.3. Data Analysis

We conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination of the participants’ responses to the background survey. This step informs us about the participants’ self-reported motivation for learning Chinese, major challenges they faced in language learning, as well as the types of activities in L2 Chinese they enjoyed during SA, as indicated by the social contact hours. As pointed out by a review study (Lang 2019), while much of the empirical research on L2 Chinese pragmatic competence in an SA context attributes pragmatic gains to greater language exposure (e.g., Diao 2016; Jin 2012, 2015; Jing-Schmidt et al. 2016; Xiao 2017; Xiao and Shi 2014; Yang 2018), only a few studies have quantitatively measured the amount of social contact (e.g., Taguchi et al. 2013, 2016). Our investigation of the quantity of social interactions, complemented by an analysis of the quality of the interactions through semi-structured interviews, will provide a more nuanced understanding of how interactive language exposure provides opportunities for learners to improve their pragmatic development.

We also quantitatively analyzed the answers in the L2 motivation questionnaire. The results allowed us to determine the following: (a) the extent to which their learning behaviors were guided by the ideal L2 self/other and/or the ought-to L2 self/other; (b) whether they favored a promotion-oriented or prevention-oriented approach; (c) the level of enjoyment and anxiety they gain from learning Chinese; and (d) whether they were inclined to adopt an eager or vigilant strategy of L2 use.

The audio recordings of the role-play tasks were transcribed in Chinese and then translated to English. To ensure the accuracy of the transcripts, we listened to the recordings twice. We then conducted a sequential analysis of each task in the transcripts. To provide a more nuanced examination of the role of motivation in L2 task performance, we did not solely rely on the language control, accuracy, or appropriateness of the learners’ utterances to assess their pragmatic production. Instead, we assessed the learners’ performance of grammaticality, sequential organization in L2 Chinese at a discourse level, and their completion of the target communicative acts. According to Kasper (2006, 2009) and Taguchi (2014, 2017), sequential analysis is a useful analytical tool for examining pragmatics in interaction, such as the pragmatic functions of repair, turn-taking, and pre- and post-expansion of adjacency pairs. Empirical studies on L2 Chinese have indicated that the complexity of L2 learners’ sequential organization reflects the level of activeness in interactions and their attention to sociopragmatic knowledge, such as politeness (e.g., Xiao 2017).

The semi-structured interviews were recorded on Zoom cloud, which allows automatic generations of transcripts. We then downloaded the recordings and transcripts to a local computer, carefully listened to the recordings, and made necessary adjustments to guarantee the accuracy of the transcripts. Following this, we conducted a content analysis of the transcripts by examining the learners’ commonalities and distinctions. The primary goal of this analysis was to identify individual differences in their learning and working experiences in the study-abroad context, along with exploring the interplay between the learners’ motivation and language learning.

Since previous research (e.g., Su and Hu 2024) has shown a strong proficiency effect on the correlation between L2 pragmatic production and motivation, we paired the four learners based on their proficiency levels for analysis. Specifically, Ally and Helen, who both achieved an advanced-high proficiency level post-program, were paired together, as were Noah and Lora, who reached a superior level after the SA program. This approach minimizes the potential impact of proficiency differences.

4. Results

4.1. Motivation Analysis

Our first research question examines the motivational patterns of L2 learners in relation to regulatory foci within the SA context.

Table 3. Motivation analysis results.

Partici-Pants	L2 Motivational Self-System				Regulatory Focus		Emotion		L2 Strategic Inclination
	Ideal Self	Ideal Other	Ought-to Self	Ought-to Other	Promotion	Prevention	Enjoyment	Anxiety	Eager L2 Use	Vigilant L2 Use
Ally	5.8	5.33	1.75	1.75	5	5.8	6	3	5.4	1.2
Helen	4	5	3.5	3.5	3.75	3.6	4.25	3.8	3.2	3.6
Noah	3.6	3.33	2	1.25	4.5	4.6	5.75	3.6	2.6	3.2
Lora	4.2	5	2.75	3.75	4.25	3.6	4.5	3.8	3.6	2.8

presents the mean result for each subcategory within the four overarching categories, namely L2MSS, regulatory focus, emotion, and L2 strategic inclination, for each participant. In the table, we use bold font to highlight a higher value between two subcategories within subjects. In this section, we first compare the motivation analysis results between participants and then describe their distinctive types of motivations, emphasizing individual differences among learners.

Based on the motivation analysis and learner responses in the background survey and semi-structured interview, we summarized the distinctive types for each learner as follows:

• Ally, a prevention-focused learner with a stronger ideal self, who extremely enjoys L2 learning and is very eager in L2 use. Ally’s pursuit of ideal self, her tremendous enjoyment of L2 learning, and her eagerness to use L2 may be driven by her desire to “reconnect” with her country of birth, as she indicated in the background survey. Being adopted as a baby by an American family, Ally expressed that “I want to be able to communicate to my people.”
• Helen, a slightly promotion-focused learner with a stronger ideal other, who enjoys L2 learning but is vigilant in L2 use. Helen’s stronger ideal other might be related to her instrumental motivation of “using Chinese in her career in the future” as she mentioned in the interview. When she discovered that conversing with coworkers during the internship was more challenging than talking with teachers, Helen felt compelled to improve her fluency in Chinese for the workplace. Helen considered herself as an employee, in contrast to her identity as a student in the academic setting, where teachers anticipate that students will make mistakes.
• Noah, a slightly prevention-focused learner with a stronger ideal self, who immensely enjoys L2 learning but is vigilant in L2 use. In the semi-structured interview, Noah mentioned that he would regret not knowing his mother tongue. He also expressed his hope to return to China and live there for a period of his life. Like Ally, this internal drive might motivate him to pursue a stronger ideal self and to maximize his enjoyment in Chinese learning.
• Lora, a promotion-focused learner with a stronger ideal other, who enjoys L2 learning and is eager in L2 use. Lora’s stronger ideal other can be explained by her reasons for studying Chinese, as she indicated in the survey, which not only lies in the expectation of “using Chinese as a valuable life skill to join in the workforce” but is also rooted in her identity connecting with her family origin. As she noted, “I have a lot of Chinese speaking family members, and I think being Chinese and knowing Chinese is a big part of my identity, so I want to continually maintain and improve my Chinese.”

4.2. Second Language Exposure

Our second research question concerns L2 exposure in the SA context, particularly focusing on what could affect success in L2 communication. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the participants’ social contact profiles, we examined the quantity and quality of their L2 exposure.

4.2.1. Quantity of Second Language Exposure

In the background survey regarding social contact hours, we asked participants to estimate the time they spent on interactive and non-interactive activities in L2 Chinese. Interactive language exposure included communicating in L2 Chinese with instructors outside of class, Chinese-speaking friends and roommates, service people, online friends, and random people in public places, as well as interactions with police/security guards and hospital staff in Taiwan. Non-interactive language exposure comprised activities such as listening to Chinese music, watching Chinese TV shows or videos, reading Chinese materials unrelated to coursework, writing emails and text messages in Chinese, and using social network sites.

Table 4. Self-reported quantity of language exposure.

Participants	Language Exposure Type (Hours per Week)		Dominant Activity Type
	Interactive	Non-Interactive
Ally	21	16	Interactive orientated
Helen	10	12	Non-interactive oriented
Noah	4	13	Non-interactive oriented
Lora	10	13	Non-interactive oriented

shows that only Ally engaged in more interactive language exposure than non-interactive language exposure, whereas the other three participants exhibited an opposite pattern. It is also worth noting that Ally spent remarkably more time than her peers on both interactive and non-interactive L2 Chinese activities. By contrast, Noah, Helen, and Lora’s dominant activity type is non-interactive, with Noah spending the least time on interactive activities and Helen and Lora spending only slightly fewer hours on interactive activities compared to non-interactive ones.

According to the detailed self-reported quantity of language exposure, Ally, Helen, and Lora indicated that the interactive activity they spent the most time on was communicating with their Chinese-speaking friends. Noah, on the other hand, interacted more with random people in public places. In terms of receptive language exposure, our data shows that Ally and Helen favored reading and typing L2 Chinese on social media apps over other non-interactive activities. Noah was inclined towards watching Chinese TV shows, and Lora enjoyed listening to Chinese songs over other non-interactive activities.

4.2.2. Quality of Second Language Exposure

To examine the quality of interactive language exposure, we considered the participants’ metapragmatic awareness of linguistic patterns and functions, which they learned or noticed outside of the academic setting during SA. To elicit the learners’ observations, we asked in the semi-structured interview: “Do you think social interactions with people outside the classroom are helpful for second-language communication? If so, could you give an example?” All participants affirmed that engaging in social interactions with locals facilitated their L2 learning, and they shared their metalinguistic understanding of newly acquired knowledge in the SA context with the interviewer. To determine how well learners performed in L2 social communications, we also asked in the semi-structured interview: “What types of communication are more successful? What types of communication are less successful? Why?” In this section, we will again use proficiency as a control factor to discuss individual differences after presenting the learners’ responses to these questions.

• Ally: noticing politeness and hierarchy, communicating better in a one-on-one mode and online when typing is involved.

Ally reported learning how to appropriately address individuals in various social contexts. During her internship, she applied classroom language to interact politely with coworkers, positioning them slightly above her due to their age and experience. This understanding also guided her conversations outside the workplace. For example, she used 阿姨 (āyí, aunt) to address an Airbnb host, which demonstrates her awareness of how kinship terms signal hierarchical positions in Chinese culture.

In terms of quality of L2 interactions, Ally found having online conversations, such as reading and texting messages with her coworkers, easier than participating in face-to-face discussions at the workplace. Ally noted that sometimes her coworkers spoke so fast that she could only comprehend 25% of the conversation. As a result, the success of her social interactions depended on her comprehension of the conversation and the willingness of native speakers to clarify any portions she did not entirely grasp. The situation differed depending on whether the conversation was one-on-one or a group discussion. For example, Ally was able to acquire lexical variations, such as 若 (ruò, if) as a formal variation of 如果 (rúguǒ, if) and 为何 (wèihé, why) as a formal variation of 为什么 (wèishénme, why) in one-on-one discussions. She was also able to confirm with her interlocuter that these lexical variations are often used in formal conversations and written Chinese. She found it more comfortable to request clarifications and explanations in one-on-one conversations than in group discussions because she did not want to impede her coworkers’ workflow by slowing down their speech rate.

• Helen: observing formulaic language use, communicating better with teachers and when familiar with established routines.

Despite her inclination to engage in fewer interactive activities in L2 Chinese, Helen observed more linguistic patterns functioning at a discourse level than her peers, such as gratitude and compliment responses, utterance-final particles (UFPs), and context-specific lexical terms. For example, Helen shared her metapragmatic understanding that Taiwanese people often use 不会 búhuì in response to expressions of gratitude. She also noted that demonstrating humility is important when responding to compliments in both Korean and Chinese cultures, as shown in Example 1.

Example 1:

Helen:	I think búhuì is more like if you do somebody else a favor, and then you are like ‘You’re welcome’ so you’d say búhuì. But if people compliment me, I think I usually say.. well, it depends. I could say ‘Oh no búshì’ or ‘xièixiè.’
Interviewer:	Do Taiwanese people use búshì when they receive compliments?
Helen:	I think they do.
Interviewer:	In mainland China, people sometimes would use méiyǒu to respond to such compliments.
Helen:	I think they also say méiyǒu here. Yeah, yeah. I think I am used to saying that because in Korea it’s also like that. People would be more humble.

Utterance-final particles (UFPs) in Mandarin, such as 呗 bei, 吧 ba, 呢 ne, 啊 a, and 了 le, have grammatical and discourse functions (Zhu 2021). For example, when 了 le is used in the utterance-final position, it usually conveys a state change and is perceived as an opening boundary of an event (Jing-Schmidt et al. 2022). One high-frequency example is 饿了 (èle, start to feel hungry), referring to the new state of getting hungry. Sociolinguistic research has also found gender-marked usage of UFPs in East Asian cultures, observing that women used more particles than men to sound less assertive and more polite (Chan 1998a, 1998b; Erbaugh 1985; Farris 1995; Yueh 2017). In Helen’s case, she noticed the particles used by her female Taiwanese roommate in both sentence-initial and sentence-final positions. For instance, the roommate would use 诶 (ei) to start a conversation and conclude sentences with 咯 (lo) to signify departure or the start of an action, such as 我去吃饭咯 (Wǒ qù chīfàn lo. I am going to eat).

In terms of context-specific lexical terms, Helen observed a consistent routine at service encounters, such as 7-Eleven, during the checkout process. This routine generally involved questions, including “Need a bag?” “Would you like to 刷卡 (shuākǎ, use a credit card)?” “Do you have a membership?” “What’s your phone number?” “Do you need 载具 (zàijù, e-receipt)?”, as provided by Helen. Helen’s familiarity with these questions enabled her to anticipate the queries the cashier would pose, enhancing her confidence in responding, even when she was not completely certain about the meaning of some terms, such as 载具 (zàijù, e-receipt). Interestingly, her familiarity with the checkout routine prevented her from learning the meaning of this word, as she indicated that she was going to “leave soon”.

When asked what types of communication felt successful, Helen mentioned that conversations at convenient stores were easier because she was familiar with the conversation routine and had a script in her head. Interacting with her teachers was also less challenging for her due to the repetitive nature of the language instructors when talking with students. By contrast, she found communication with her boss during the internship was a bit harder. This was because she sensed a certain distance from her boss, who spoke in a faster and more casual manner. While not explicitly discussing the social distance observed at her workplace, Helen’s responses reveal that the hierarchical working culture, along with locals’ speech rate and style, can create barriers to her communication. However, her familiarity with the routine enhanced her ability to interact effectively with locals.

• Lora: noticing old linguistic patterns used with new social functions, communicating better under stress.

Lora also noticed that Taiwanese people use 不会 (búhuì, no problem) to respond to 谢谢 (xièxie, thank you),which puzzled her for a while, as she had learned to use 不用谢 (bùyòngxiè, no need to thank me) or 不客气 (búkeqi, you are welcome) as responses to expressions of gratitude. The following excerpt, in Example 2, from the interview shows how Lora came across this response when communicating with locals and learned how to use it after her Chinese instructor explained the function of búhuì in class. Notice that Lora chose to narrate her experience in Chinese rather than English.

Example 2:

Lora:

有很多台湾人会说的一些词汇，我从来没有听说过……最常见的就是，你说“谢谢”的时候，他们会说“不会。“ 一开始我以为是”啊，不会什么？“ 虽然我不太懂，但是我什么都不说，我就笑着，然后点头。 ……然后上课的时候老师解释了……我现在理解了。(There are many words commonly used by Taiwanese people that I had never heard before… The most common one is when you say “thank you,” they reply with “búhuì” (will not; not able to; no problem). At first, I thought, “Ah, what won’t happen?” Although I didn’t quite understand, I didn’t say anything; I just smiled and nodded. … Then the teacher explained it in class… Now I understand.)

Lora was aware that búhuì was used in a similar way when she first encountered it, despite her lack of knowledge of why this particular linguistic form was adopted by locals. The missing link between her pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge prevented her from comprehending the meaning of búhuì used in this particular situation. However, her L2 learning strategy was to pretend that she understood the new form–meaning pair by smiling and nodding, and then to consult her teacher to figure it out. Lora told the interviewer that once she was aware of the meaning of a new word, she suddenly heard it everywhere. By keeping her ears open to hearing it more often, she could incorporate new expressions in her daily life.

As for quality of social communications, Lora shared that stress could come into play in her success of conversing with local people, as shown in Example 3.

Example 3:

Lora:

There have been times where I feel like… anxiety inducing or I need to figure something out really quick, and I have to go talk to Taiwanese locals…all my communication is very smooth, and I’m able to figure a lot of things out… But if there’s no pressure added to it, I feel like the conversation feels a lot harder… When I’m trying to learn new words, then it gets very choppy and …feels very awkward…It’s a little odd.

She then provided two examples of efficiently communicating with Taiwanese locals during urgent situations. In one case, she helped Helen retrieve a lost student ID from a bus by following the bus office’s verbal instructions, even after getting lost. In another instance, she secured a temporary visa at a Japanese airport after misplacing her Alien Resident Certificate, allowing her to return to Taipei. Lora found that these real-life interactions were successful and efficient, unlike the choppy communication she experienced when using newly learned grammar and vocabulary in less natural settings. She attributed her success to focusing on practical communication goals rather than grammatical accuracy.

• Noah: observing phonological and lexical variations, communicating better when talking about familiar topics.

Noah observed phonological and lexical variations while socializing with native speakers of Chinese in Taiwan. For instance, he noted that Taiwanese locals use lèsè instead of lājī, which he learned from his instructors from mainland China, to refer to trash. He also noticed that instead of using 付钱 (fùqián, pay), Taiwanese locals tended to use 买单 (mǎidān, pay) or 结账 (jiézhàng, pay), as shown in Example 4.

Example 4:

Noah:	When I first came here and I would go to a restaurant to order, and I didn’t understand maybe it, uh, it was people speaking Taiwanese, which has a little bit of difference and is a little bit more difficult. I am very used to listening to Mandarin Chinese. I wouldn’t understand very basic things, like asking if I’m ready to pay my bill or if they take card. I didn’t understand their responses. Um, and then if I looked up in a Chinese translation app to find a word to use, and I say that word, maybe that’s actually not a word that Taiwanese people use at all.
Interviewer:	Do you remember what it was?
Noah:	I can’t remember exactly what it was. Um, I think for paying a bill, I would just be like, ‘你好我现在可以付钱 (Nǐhǎo, wǒ xiànzài kěyǐ fùqián. Hello I can pay now)’ and then they would say, ‘哦你要买单 (O, nǐ yào mǎidān, Oh you want to pay the bill)’ or ‘结账 (jiézhàng, pay the bill)’ and those two phrases I just hadn’t become very familiar with, so I would just be like ‘买单是什么？(mǎidān shì shénme? What is mǎidān) ’ … I think it’s a little bit awkward because it seems to them, from like their experience, I’m sure they’re very confused at why I wouldn’t understand a very basic phrase.

Although the three variations (付钱 fùqián, 买单 mǎidān, and 结账 jiézhàng) may not necessarily represent regional or dialectal differences in meaning ‘pay the bill’, as Noah mentioned, he showed a positive attitude towards learning new words through such “awkward” experiences. These types of incidental learning episodes assisted him in acquiring and employing new lexical terms in real-life situations.

Regarding the question about the flow of communication, Noah’s experiences show that the topic of conversation plays a role. Noah found it easier to discuss subjects he is familiar with or those he has had opportunities to talk about in Chinese within a formal academic setting, whereas topics unfamiliar to him, such as local culture, can hinder his comprehension of certain parts of the conversation when interacting with Taiwanese locals. The role of cultural influences or different cultural backgrounds may contribute to Noah’s difficulty in discussing unfamiliar topics. Additionally, speech rate may also make conversations not entirely comprehensible for Noah.

4.2.3. Summary

Our second research question is how L2 exposure affects L2 interactions in the SA context. In terms of the quantity of L2 social contact, Ally demonstrated the most dedication to both interactive and non-interactive L2 exposure in the target-language culture. Regarding the quality of L2 social contact, the four participants displayed distinct themes of success and challenges in L2 communication during SA. In terms of what hinders successful L2 communication, Ally, Helen, and Noah observed that speech rate (fast or slow), speech style (casual or formal), and the nature of the content (familiar or unfamiliar) influenced their comprehension and thus impeded their responses in L2 interactions. By contrast, Lora appeared unconcerned with these factors, possibly due to her strategy of pretending to understand. When it comes to what contributes to successful L2 communication, Lora noted that her successful L2 interactions were driven by the practical goal of solving real-life problems, especially in the face of stress and urgency. Compared to her peers, this goal-driven approach seemed to facilitate more effective L2 communication for her in the SA context.

4.3. Pragmatics and Sequential Analysis

The third research question explores the individual differences of the SA learners’ pragmatic performances. We found that the participants exhibited varied performances in the four open role-play tasks, each containing distinct contextual variables. Our analysis evaluated the pragmatic performance of each participant in these tasks with a focus on grammaticality, sequence organization, and communicative act accomplishment. Specifically, grammaticality was assessed by examining the quality and organization of words at the sentence level, as well as the sentence flow. Sequence organization was measured through the use of pre- and post-expansions. Communicative act accomplishment was used to assess whether the intended pragmatic functions were effectively realized in the communication. In the following sections, we will elaborate on how each participant communicated in achieving the same pragmatic function in a personal encounter and a service encounter respectively.

4.3.1. Personal Encounter

In initiating a phone conversation to request an appointment with a professor, the participants demonstrated different approaches after reading the scenario description. Ally and Helen started the conversation by exchanging greetings with the professor. Ally employed the formulaic expression 喂 (wéi, hello) specifically for phone calls, while Helen utilized the daily greeting expression used in an in-person academic setting, 老师好 (Lǎoshīhǎo, Hello teacher). On the other hand, Lora opted to directly address the topic, while Noah chose to wait until the professor greeted him before engaging in the conversation, which aligns with the convention that the phone call receiver typically responds first across languages (e.g., Reiter and Luke 2010).

The following examples show how the participants approached making a request to a person of higher social status. In Example 5, Ally naturally responded to the formulaic expression 好久不见 (Hǎojiǔbújiàn, long time no see) before directly asking whether the professor is available because she had some questions to ask.

Example 5:

Ally	喂？
	Wéi?
	Hello?
Teacher	喂，你好！好久不见！
	Wéi, nǐhǎo! hǎojiǔbùjiàn!
	Hello, hello! Long time no see!
Ally	好久不见，啊…请问你 (.) 啊什么时候有…空，我只是有一些问题要问你。
	Hǎojiǔbùjiàn, a… qǐn wèn nǐ (.) a shénme shíhòu yǒu… kòng, wǒ zhǐshì yǒu yīxiē wèntí yào wèn nǐ.
	Long time no see, ah… may I ask (.) ah when you have… some free time? I just have some questions to ask you.

Lora’s pragmatic performance in this scenario showed her sociopragmatic knowledge of L2 Chinese politeness. First, Lora employed a pre-expansion with the conventional expression 问一下 (wènyíxià, ask a bit) to soften her tone in Example 6. In Chinese requests, the expression “Verb+一下” (yíxià) often serves as a tone softener to reduce the degree of imposition on the hearer (e.g., Kasper 1995; Jiang 2012). Second, Lora used a post-expansion to provide further context regarding the topic of her questions, which indicates her ability to negotiate requests. This aligns with research on the sequential realization of requests in L2 Chinese as part of their pragmatic strategies (Su and Ren 2017). Third, Lora refrained from using the second-person pronoun 你 (nǐ, you) or 您(nín, a polite form of ‘you’ in Chinese) when addressing someone of higher social status. Instead, she used 老师 (lǎoshī, teacher) twice. Unlike Ally, who asked ‘when are you available’, Lora framed her question as ‘when can I come to the teacher’s office’ to lessen the imposition of the hearer. The avoidance of second-person pronouns in face-to-face interactions in Chinese society indicates a higher level of politeness (Kádár and Mills 2011; Hong 1985). In summary, Lora successfully demonstrated her understanding of sociopragmatic politeness by using conventional expressions, adopting pre- and post-expansions to negotiate requests, and avoiding second person pronouns to minimize the imposition on the hearer.

Example 6:

Lora	嗯…我 (.) 就是给老师打电话是因为 (.) 我想要问一下: …嗯，我什么时候可以来到老师的办公室 (.) 来问一些关于 (.) 嗯留学的问题。
	Ēn… Wǒ (.) jiùshì gěi lǎoshī dǎ diànhuà shì yīnwèi (.) wǒ xiǎngyào wèn yīxià: … ēn, wǒ shénme shíhòu kěyǐ lái dào lǎoshī de bàngōngshì (.) lái wèn yīxiē guānyú (.) ēn liúxué de wèntí.
	Um… I (.) called the teacher because (.) I wanted to ask: … um, when can I come to the teacher’s office (.) to ask some questions about (.) um studying abroad.

Helen also utilized a pre-expansion in Example 7. In Helen’s utterance, the comprehensibility would have been more acceptable if she had improved the sentence flow and organized the word order by placing the prepositional attributives before the noun (关于在台湾留学的问题 guānyú liúxué de wèntí, ‘questions regarding studying abroad in Taiwan’). It is worth noting that Helen used the modal verb 想 (would like, was wondering), which mitigated the imposition of the request, in contrast to Ally’s use of 要 (yào, want) and Lora’s adoption of 想要 (xiǎngyào, want). Despite the similar meanings of the three forms, 要 (yào, want) and 想要 (xiǎngyào, want) suggest a higher level of desire for something compared to the mild intention indicated by 想 (xiǎng, would like). Helen’s employment of 想 shows her advanced sensitivity to social status (sociopragmatics).

Example 7:

Helen	老师好: 嗯:
	Lǎoshī hǎo: ēn:
	Hello, teacher: um:
Teacher	你好！
	nǐ hǎo!
	Hello!
Helen	嗯: 我: (1.5) 嗯 (.) 我想: 问你一些: …问题关于: 呃: (1.0) 在台湾留学，嗯: 我可以安排时间: 嗯: 跟你: 说一说关于我的: (.) 嗯: (.) 我的留学的: 计划？
	ēn: wǒ: (1.5) ēn (.) wǒ xiǎng: wèn nǐ yīxiē: … wèntí guānyú): ē: (1.0) zài Táiwān liúxué, ēn: wǒ kěyǐ ānpái shíjiān: ēn: gēn nǐ: shuō yīshuō guānyú wǒ de: (.) ēn: (.) wǒ de liúxué de: jìhuà?
	Um: I: (1.5) Um (.) I’d like to: ask you some: … questions about: um: (1.0) studying abroad in Taiwan, um: can I arrange a time: um: to talk to you: about my: (.) um: (.) my study: plan?

Noah also utilized a pre-expansion in Example 8, although his pre-expansion contained information not directly related to the target communicative act. In terms of sociopragmatic knowledge, Noah demonstrated a sophisticated ability to set up a situation where he is troubled by challenges and requires the professor’s assistance. However, his pragmalinguistics is still an area in need of improvement, involving a need to differentiate potential and resultative complements, avoid consistent repairs and choppiness, and select more appropriate words (e.g., 实体 shítǐ, in-person vs. 见面 jiànmiàn, face-to-face meeting) in his expressions.

Example 8:

Noah	– 呃我是: 呃，你好。我: 你昨天给我们的作业我有一些问题，呃: –
	– Ē wǒ shì: ē, nǐ hǎo. Wǒ: nǐ zuótiān gěi wǒmen de zuòyè wǒ yǒu yīxiē wèntí, ē: –
	– Uh I’m: uh, hello. I: I have some questions about the homework you gave us yesterday, uh: –
Teacher	– 嗯。–
	– Èn. – – Yes. –
Noah	– 有了一两个部分需要: (.) 啊 (.) 我觉得 (.) 我我不太看得懂。呃: (.) 而且我觉得我们在 (.) 呃: …我给你 (.) 呃 (.) 发送讯息或者在 (.) 呃: 在打电话讨论可能不会让我能够 (.) 呃不会让我好好听得懂啊 (.) 了解这些问题，所以我就想要问你这个星期 (.) 呃我可以这个星期 (.) 来…呃 (.) 来跟你谈… 呃 (.) 实体讨论这些问题吗？
	– Yǒule yī liǎng gè bùfèn xūyào: (.) a (.) wǒ juédé (.) wǒ wǒ bù tài kàn de dǒng. Ē: (.) érqiě wǒ juédé wǒmen zài (.) ērqiě: … Wǒ gěi nǐ (.) ē (.) fāsòng xùnxí huòzhě zài (.) ē: zài dǎ diànhuà tǎolùn kěnéng bù huì ràng wǒ nénggòu (.) ē bù huì ràng wǒ hǎohǎo tīng de dǒng a (.) liǎojiě zhèxiē wèntí, suǒyǐ wǒ jiù xiǎng yào wèn nǐ zhège xīngqī (.) ē wǒ kěyǐ zhège xīngqī (.) lái… ē (.) lái gēn nǐ tán… ē (.) shítǐ tǎolùn zhèxiē wèntí ma?
	– There are one or two parts that I need: (.) um (.) I find (.) I can’t quite understand. Um: (.) and I feel that if we (.) um: … I send you (.) um (.) messages or if we (.) um: have a phone discussion, it might not allow me to (.) um not allow me to understand um (.) to know these issues well, so I just wanted to ask if this week (.) um I can come this week (.) to… um (.) to talk to you… um (.) have a face-to-face discussion about these issues?

In this personal encounter in an academic setting, all participants achieved the communicative act of requesting an appointment with the professor. Except for Ally, the other three participants employed more sequential organizations in their requests, with some avoiding directly addressing the professor and others incorporating detailed pre-expansions, such as greeting, and post-expansions explaining the reason for arranging a meeting. Each participant demonstrated distinct sociopragmatic strategies, with Lora softening her tone and negotiating her request, Helen mitigating the imposition of the request, and Noah laying out a situation that conveyed his challenges. Additionally, individual differences in pragmalinguistic knowledge were observed, such as Noah’s occasional need for word choice refinement.

4.3.2. Service Encounter

To achieve the goal of negotiating at a service encounter, participants employed various strategies with many opting for post-expansions. The following examples are the responses the participants offered in reaction to the prices presented by the street vendor. In Example 9, Noah offered post-expansions by drawing comparisons between the bargained item and similar ones. Despite occasional disconnectedness in his utterances, the use of expressions like 有一点 (yǒuyidiǎn, a bit), 就是 (jiùshi, just), and an unfinished 所以 (suǒyǐ, so) served as a means to temper his assertions. His adept use of the formulaic expression 差不多一模一样 (chàbuduō yìmúyíyàng, almost exactly the same) further highlights his pragmalinguistic knowledge in describing comparisons.

Example 9:

Noah	呃: 三百块可能 (.) 有一点贵。我就是觉得我在 (.) 呃我在美国的时候，呃: 这: …这种名牌就是跟 (.) 这条裤 (.) 啊差不多一模一样，我觉得它价格会跟另一 (.) 呃: 另一些…牛仔裤一样，所以 –
	Ē: sānbǎi kuài kěnéng (.) yǒu yīdiǎn guì. Wǒ jiùshì juéde wǒ zài (.) ē wǒ zài měiguó de shíhòu, ē: zhè: …zhè zhǒng míngpái jiùshì gēn (.) zhè tiáo kù (.) ā chàbuduō yīmó yīyàng, wǒ juéde tā jiàgé huì gēn lìng yī (.) ē: lìng yīxiē…niúzǎikù yīyàng, suǒyǐ –
	Um, three hundred yuan might (.) be a bit expensive. I just feel that when I was (.) um, when I was in the United States, um: this: …this kind of brand is almost identical to (.) this pair of pants (.) um, I think its price would be the same as another (.) um: some… jeans, so –

Adopting an alternative negotiation strategy, Lora’s response also incorporates a post-expansion. In Example 10, she employed the conventional expression 可以便宜一点吗 (Kěyǐ piányi yìdiǎn ma? Can it be a bit cheaper?) to bargain. In this role-play task, her use of the less commonly seen word 小洞 (xiǎodòng, small hole) and her act of being picky about an imaginary issue in the clothing item demonstrate her superior linguistic knowledge and sociopragmatic awareness in this specific context. This showcases her seasoned approach to evaluating the quality of the bargained item. She then reiterated her stance on the high price, employing another conventional expression 太贵了吧 (tàiguì le ba, too expensive) to emphasize the perceived expensiveness.

Example 10:

Lora	哦。嗯: …可以 (.) 可以便宜一点吗因为这 (.) 这件衣服它其实有个小洞。嗯:…嗯觉得一百五十有点太贵了吧。
	Ō. Èn: … kěyǐ (.) kěyǐ piányi yīdiǎn ma yīnwèi zhè (.) zhè jiàn yīfú tā qíshí yǒu gè xiǎo dòng. Ēn:… ēn juédé yībǎi wǔshí yǒudiǎn tài guì le ba?
	Oh. Um: … can (.) can it be cheaper because this (.) this piece of clothing actually has a small hole. Um: … um, I think one hundred fifty seems a bit too expensive.

While Noah and Lora employed diverse approaches to address issues with the bargained item, Helen took a different approach by shifting attention to herself. In Example 11, after expressing dissatisfaction with the high price using the mitigating marker 有点 (yǒudiǎn, a bit), Helen introduced a post-expansion, explaining that she lacks sufficient funds to afford the item. She then presented a negotiation price using the polite form 可以吗 (Kěyǐma? May I, is it okay?).

Example 11:

Helen	一千块有点 (1.0) 贵，我:就 (.) 我没有那么 (.) 多的钱（笑） [呃可以] (1.9) 可以卖:…嗯:…呃九百…块可以吗？
	Yīqiān kuài yǒudiǎn (1.0) guì, wǒ: jiù (.) wǒ méiyǒu nàme (.) duō de qián (Xiào) [ē kěyǐ] (1.9) kěyǐ mài:… ēn:… ē jiǔbǎi… kuài kěyǐ ma?
	One thousand yuan is a bit (1.0) expensive, and I: just (.) don’t have that (.) much money (Laughs) [Um can it be] (1.9) sold for:… um:… um nine hundred… yuan?

In contrast to her peers, Ally presented an alternative price in Example 12 without resorting to post-expansions to justify her offer. Notably, when the vendor rejected her proposal based on the claimed high quality, Ally responded with the formulaic expression 噢这样吗 (ò zhèyàng ma? Is that right?). The expression, despite being brief, reveals Ally’s sociopragmatic knowledge, demonstrating her symbolic affiliative stance with the vendor. Such linguistic behaviors and extralinguistic actions, such as nodding, are known as alignment, functioning as indicators of cooperation or affiliation during communications (Stivers 2008). After seeking alignment, Ally employed a post-expansion, drawing on her experiences of encountering similar styles in other stores to counter the vendor’s statements. However, there is a disconnect in Ally’s turn as her response deviates by negating the style instead of directly addressing the quality issue. Despite this potential comprehension gap, the response underscores her awareness of interactional pragmatics and her effort to actively participate in the communicative act of negotiation. Additionally, the grammaticality of her utterance 不太特色 (*bútài tèsè, not too characteristics) is still in need of improvement, but Ally’s use of the modal verb 应该 (yīnggāi, might) and the UFP 吧 serves to mitigate the assertiveness of her response, allowing for an interpretation as an expression of possibility rather than a firm statement. Ally’s choice of 这样子 (zhèyàngzi, such) instead of 这样 (zhèyàng, such) also reflects her awareness of lexical variation in Taiwanese Mandarin.

Example 12:

Ally	哦，五百块。嗯: (2.1) 嘶: 八 – 三百五十吧？
	Ò, wǔ bǎi kuài. Ēn: (2.1) sī: bā – sānbǎi wǔshí ba?
	Oh, five hundred yuan. Hmm (2.1) well, (2.1) uh, eight—three hundred fifty, how about that?
Vendor	…不行，你看我的衬衫是非常好的…面料 (.) 啊，是纯棉的。对，我的衬衫质量非常好。
	…Bùxíng, nǐ kàn wǒ de chènshān shì fēicháng hǎo de… miàoliào (.) a, shì chúnmián de. Duì, wǒ de chènshān zhìliàng fēicháng hǎo.
	…No, look, my shirt is made of very good… fabric (.) ah, it’s pure cotton. Yes, the quality of my shirt is very good.
Ally	噢这样吗。但我(.)我在…(1.6)在其他的街店看(.)过这样子的风格，所以: 嗯应该(.)不太(.)特色吧。
	Ò zhèyàng ma. Dàn wǒ (.) wǒ zài… (1.6) zài qítā de jiē diàn kàn (.) guò zhè yàngzi de fēnggé, suǒyǐ: (1.6) ēn yīnggāi (.) bùtài (.) tèsè ba?
	Oh, is that so. But I (.) I’ve seen (.) this style in… (1.6) other stores, so: (1.6) hmm, it might not be (.) very (.) distinctive.

In the service encounter, participant responses reflect their individual communication styles and varying levels of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge. They utilized formulaic expressions, the UFP, 吧 ba, and mitigating phrases, such as 就是 (jiùshi, just) and 有一点 (yǒuyidiǎn, a little). Additionally, sociopragmatic awareness was evident in their strategic use of post-expansions, including being discerning about the item, drawing comparisons, and expressing unaffordability. Ally’s case showed a temporary departure from the relevance of readdressing the act according to the preceding turn, but she engaged in negotiation. Overall, the interactions showcased the participants’ efforts to achieve successful communicative acts of negotiation.

4.3.3. Summary

To answer the third research question regarding how learners differ in L2 pragmatic tasks, we conducted a thorough examination of pragmatic performance in terms of grammaticality, sequence organization quality, and the achievement of communicative acts. Our findings show that all participants successfully carried out communicative acts in the open role-play tasks, but there were variations in grammaticality and sequence organization quality among them.

In terms of grammaticality, Lora demonstrated an exceptionally accurate linguistic pattern, whereas the other three participants exhibited minor lexical or grammatical errors at the utterance level. Some learners, such as Ally, also showed their knowledge in formulaic language use, including 喂 (wéi, hello) and 好久不见 (Hǎojiǔbújiàn, long time no see).

Moving to sequence organization, we examined the use of mitigators and pre- and post-expansions. All four learners incorporated mitigators such as 想 (xiǎng, would like), 就是 (jiùshi, just), 有点 (yǒudiǎn, a little), 应该 (yīnggāi, might, should), 一下 (yíxià, a bit), 可以吗 (Kěyǐma, May I, is it okay), and 吧 (ba). With the exception of Ally, all participants employed pre-expansions before making a request at the personal encounter and utilized post-expansions to negotiate the price at the service encounter. Although they varied in the use of linguistic devices to achieve the target communicative acts, the four learners were able to use their pragmalinguistic knowledge to achieve the target communicative acts.

Similarly, the four learners were able to use their sociopragmatic knowledge to assess contextual appropriateness for their pragmatic production, but noticeable variations were observed. For example, despite not employing post-expansions, Ally demonstrated her sociopragmatic knowledge by aligning with the interlocutor while negotiating price, whereas Noah and Helen showcased their sociopragmatic knowledge by expanding information or employing precise word choice to mitigate the level of imposition. Lora, on the other hand, adopted a bargaining strategy and was discerning about the quality, which is a notably native-like pattern (Xiao and Shi 2014). In summary, Lora displayed an exceptionally native-like quality in the tasks, while Ally, Helen, and Noah all showed considerable sociopragmatic knowledge despite minor pragmalinguistic errors.

Regarding the fourth research question, asking how motivation and L2 exposure impact the learners’ interactional pragmatics, we found that L2 exposure has a mediating effect on the relationship between motivation and L2 pragmatic achievements in the SA context. While some motivation types, such as promotion-focused and ideal-self/other-oriented learners, generally show higher pragmatic achievements, our findings suggest that prevention-focused learners, as well as learners with the ought-to self/other orientations, can also enhance their sociopragmatic awareness through extensive or high-quality L2 exposure in the target language culture. We will discuss this result in the following section.

5. Discussion

5.1. Individual Differences of Motivation Types

Our findings confirmed some of the predictions by Papi and Khajavy’s (2021) integrated model of motivation. First, Papi and Khajavy (2021) discussed that the pursuit of the ought-to L2 self/other may lead to the experience of L2 anxiety. In our case, learners who had higher ratings on the ought-to L2 self/other, also indicated a higher anxiety level compared to other learners, which aligns with the integrated model’s prediction. Second, learners who had higher ratings on the ought-to L2 self, also had higher scores on vigilant L2 strategic inclination, which is also in line with Papi and Khajavy’s (2021) finding that learners with a stronger ought-to L2 self were more vigilant L2 users.

On the other hand, our results have revealed dynamic L2 sub-systems that highlight the complex relationships among the variables in the integrated model of motivation. For example, students with higher levels of “prevention” may also exhibit a stronger ideal self, such as Ally and Noah. Additionally, although learners who enjoy L2 learning are more likely to show eagerness in L2 use, they can also be vigilant in L2 use, as shown in Helen’s and Noah’s cases. Lastly, while learners with a stronger ideal self are more likely to enjoy L2 learning, those with a stronger ideal other, and even the ought-to L2 self/other, can also enjoy L2 learning, such as Helen and Lora.

Our qualitative analysis also revealed that the learners’ cultural upbringing can affect their ought-to L2 self, which may play a more important role in motivation. This finding adds a more granular perspective to recent quantitative studies, which suggest that the ought-to L2 self plays only a limited role in the motivation of L2 learners of Italian in Australia (e.g., D’Orazzi and Hajek 2021, 2022). While learners in English-speaking countries may prioritize the ideal self over the ought-to self, cultural backgrounds may affect how learners perceive their ought-to self. For example, Helen, a second-generation immigrant from Korea to the U.S., had a stronger ought-to self than her peers. Similarly, Lora, who grew up in a Chinese–Vietnamese family in the U.S., had a higher rating on the ought-to other compared to her peers. Our findings contribute to the integrated model of motivation by showing that learners’ ought-to self can be closely linked to their cultural upbringing.

5.2. L2 Exposure’s Mediating Effect on the Relationship Between Motivation and L2 Pragmatic Achievements

Drawing on survey data, interview responses, and data from open role-play tasks, we analyzed four L2 Chinese learners’ motivation types, the quantity and quality of their L2 social exposures, and their pragmatic performances in a study-abroad context to answer the four research questions. First, our motivation analysis indicates that Papi and Khajavy’s (2021) integrated model of motivation may not fully predict learners’ motivational patterns in the SA context. Our quantitative account offers a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between the four subcategories (L2MSS, regulatory focus, emotion, and L2 strategic inclination). Second, in learners’ L2 social context, factors such as the quantity and quality of L2 exposure contributing to and hindering successful communication vary, indicating distinct individual differences. Third, although all participants achieved their communicative goals in the L2 pragmatics tasks, there were variations in grammaticality and sequential organization. The learners’ varying sequential organizations reflect their L2 pragmatic strategies, aligning with previous findings of the positive role of sequential realization in achieving communicative goals (Schegloff 2007; Su and Ren 2017). Despite minor pragmalinguistic errors, participants demonstrated different aspects of sociopragmatic knowledge in terms of contextual appropriateness. Based on these findings, we found that motivation and L2 exposure may jointly impact L2 interactional pragmatics. In the following discussion, we address the fourth research question regarding the complicated relationship between motivation types, L2 exposures, and pragmatic development.

While learners with certain motivation types are more likely to gain higher L2 achievement, as predicted by the integrated model of motivation, our findings suggest that L2 social contact in the SA context may mediate the relationship between motivation types and L2 pragmatic achievements. First, while learners pursuing the ought-to self may experience higher levels of anxiety and adopt vigilant L2 strategies, potentially a negative predictor to L2 achievement (Papi and Khajavy 2021), learners may still have greater L2 pragmatic development if they have high-quality L2 exposure. For example, despite having a stronger ought-to self and being cautious in her L2 use, Helen outperformed her peers at the same proficiency level in completing the role-play tasks and demonstrated considerable sociopragmatic awareness. This may be related to the high quality of her L2 exposure, such as her attention to formulaic expressions used by locals and her observations of cross-cultural similarities and differences in responding to different communicative acts.

Similarly, despite having a higher rating on ought-to other compared to her peers, Lora’s performance was considered more native-like due to her higher grammaticality and better sequential organization. Her higher L2 pragmatic achievement is likely due to her greater exposure to interactive types of L2 Chinese and her openness to acquiring new linguistic forms with their pragmatic functions. Additionally, the role-play tasks may have induced some stress for Lora, as she is a “promotion-focused” learner who reported more successful communication in real-life situations but faced challenges when concentrating on grammar during classroom tasks. These findings align with Zhang and Papi’s (2024) findings that individuals with promotion focus are more inclined to take risks in L2 interactions, prioritizing communicative effectiveness over grammatical accuracy.

Second, when “prevention-focused” learners do not outperform their “promotion-focused” peers at the same proficiency level, it does not necessarily imply that they have limited sociopragmatic awareness. For example, despite being a “prevention-focused” learner, Ally was the only participant who exhibited alignment or an affiliative stance, even when expressing disagreement with the interlocutor in the conversation. This may be attributed to her greater social contact hours and her particular attention to politeness and social hierarchy in the target-language culture. Learners’ greater L2 exposure may stem from a strong identity-driven motivation to connect with the target language culture. In Ally’s case, she demonstrated a strong desire to “reconnect” with her homeland, leading to higher motivation to actively seeking opportunities for cultural integration. This finding aligns with previous research (Jing-Schmidt et al. 2016; Oxford 2016a, 2016b), which suggests that learners’ reconstruction of identity within the L2 culture fosters greater agency for L2 communication. Similarly, although Noah is a “prevention-focused” learner and vigilant L2 user, he demonstrated sufficient sociopragmatic knowledge by setting up situations to elicit compassion from an interlocutor (e.g., seeking help from a professor for an urgent issue and requesting a discount from a street vendor). However, his pragmalinguistic competence might have improved with a higher quantity and quality of L2 exposure while abroad.

5.3. Pedagogical Implications

The findings of this study suggest several pedagogical implications that could facilitate L2 pragmatic learning in the SA context. First, given that learners exhibit diverse motivational patterns while studying abroad, language instructors may enhance teaching and learning by recognizing that different motivation types may lead to varying levels of L2 achievements. Our findings suggest that learners in the SA context benefit more when they prioritize positive learning outcomes in communicative tasks over grammatical accuracy in tests. Therefore, language instructors can encourage students to foster a “promotion-focused” learning mindset. For example, when encountering difficulties in communicating with locals, students can view these situations as opportunities for growth by asking questions (e.g., 我还没学，可以教我吗？ Wǒ hái méi xué, kěyǐ jiāo wǒ ma? I have not learned it yet. Could you please teach me?) rather than simply ending the conversation with phrases like 我不知道 (Wǒ bùzhīdào. I don’t know). As such, learners can increase the quality of their L2 exposure to maximize their attainments.

Second, we found that “prevention-focused” learners may have higher levels of anxiety and thus adopt more vigilant strategies in L2 use. However, higher-quality L2 exposure can enhance their sociopragmatic knowledge through learning episodes outside class. Given that vigilant L2 learners may be less likely to seek out interactive social contact with locals, language teachers can create opportunities for students to communicate in real-life situations, such as organizing field trips to local service encounters like restaurants and stores. This practice can orient learners to real-time interactions and expand their repertoire of interactional pragmatics.

Third, given that learners’ cultural backgrounds can influence how they respond to different communicative acts, language teachers can help increase students’ cross-cultural awareness. For example, instructors can show students videos demonstrating how people from diverse cultural backgrounds may respond similarly or differently to expressions of gratitude and compliments. Students can then discuss their observations and consider how this knowledge can help them navigate interactions in the target-language culture. This approach can increase students’ metalinguistic and cross-cultural awareness, reinforcing the form–function–situation mapping for L2 learning.

6. Conclusions

The present study theoretically and methodologically contributes to the broader field of L2 pragmatics. It is the first research to examine the complex relationship between the integrated model of motivation (Papi and Khajavy 2021) and L2 Chinese interactional pragmatics, while also revealing the mediating effect of L2 social contact in this relationship in a study-abroad context. From a theoretical standpoint, this study challenges the view of merely examining how motivation influences L2 pragmatics (e.g., Zhang and Papi 2021; Yang 2022). By exploring how individual difference factors collaboratively shape pragmatic outcomes, we emphasize the need to consider a broader range of individual difference factors in L2 pragmatics research. Methodologically, unlike large-scale quantitative studies, we provide a fine-grained qualitative analysis and suggest that L2 learners with different types of motivation may vary in their quantity and quality L2 exposure while abroad, leading to noticeable differences in their L2 interactional pragmatics. Moreover, unlike prior studies that relied on discourse completion tasks and error judgment tasks to evaluate learners’ pragmatic competence (e.g., Zhang and Papi 2021; Yang 2022), our research goes beyond the utterance level by focusing on L2 communicative acts in talk-in-interaction, which involves sequence organization (e.g., pre- and post-expansions). By employing open role-play tasks, the research emphasized the interactive nature of language use in communication. Finally, we consider the learners’ cultural upbringing and identity as individual difference factors, and their influence on ought-to self/other in the motivation system, showing how the ought-to self may play a more important role in some cultures compared to others.

We suggest three directions for future research. First, future studies could use a mixed-methods approach to explore how motivation influences L2 achievements. For example, incorporating a qualitative analysis alongside a large-scale quantitative study could triangulate the quantitative findings. Second, given that learners’ cultural backgrounds may influence their perception of ought-to self, future research could explore other individual difference factors that may impact motivation types. Lastly, since L2 motivation sub-systems may change over time, future studies could use longitudinal data to trace how changes in motivation and L2 exposure influence pragmatic development.