Sociopragmatic Features of Learner-to-Learner Computer-Mediated Communication


  • Zsuzsanna I. Abrams



Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), Sociopragmatic Competence, Topic Assignment, Topic Development, Interactional Competence


The present study offers a holistic and rich description (as recommended by Ellis, 1999b) of the sociopragmatic features of exchanges among first-year learners of German. Specifically, it examines the use of opening and closing sequences, patterns of topic assignment, and maintenance by participants in computer-mediated interactions in order to gain insights into learners' sociopragmatic abilities in the foreign language. This is an important first step towards exploring the potential of computer-mediated communication (CMC) for fostering foreign language (L2) sociopragmatic competence, which--Kasper (1998) posited--may be developed only through practice and awareness raising. The results of the present study suggest that computer-mediated learner-to-learner interac-tion offers L2 learners unique opportunities for active control of topic selection and management and provides rich opportunities for learners to recognize and adapt to diverse interactional patterns through collaboration among the interactants. Thus, the study furthers the argument that through meaningful participation in different speech communities--here, CMC communities--L2 learners may develop the procedural knowledge (Wildner-Bassett, 1994) necessary for recognizing the interac-tional patterns of a microlevel speech community (e.g., an online discussion group) and for adapting their discourse effectively to function in these speech communities.


Abrams, Zs. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489-503. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from

Abrams, Zs. (2003). Flaming in CMC: Prometheus’ fire or Inferno’s? CALICO Journal, 20, 245-260.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.

Beauvois, M. H. (1995). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.

Beauvois, M. H. (1998). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching (pp. 93-115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Belz, J., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet-mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 324-362.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from

Bruce, B. C., Kreeft Peyton, J., & Batson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.

Condon, S. L., & Čech, C. G. (1996). Functional comparison of face-to-face and computer-mediateddecision making interactions. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 65-80). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Coupland, N., Wiemann, J. M., & Giles, H. (1991). Talk as “problem” and communication as “miscommunication:” An integrative analysis. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), “Miscommunication” and problematic talk (pp. 1-17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249-277. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from

Davies, C. E. (2001). Developing awareness of crosscultural pragmatics: The case of American-German sociable interaction. Multilingua, 23, 207-231.

Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.

Ellis, R. (1999a). Making the classroom acquisition rich. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 211-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (1999b). Theoretical perspectives on interaction and language learning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.) Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 3-30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In S. L. McKay, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 215-228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 220-240.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

Herring, S. C. (2003). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1970). On communicative competence. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from

Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 183-208). New York: Modern Language Association.

Kasper, G. (2004). Speech acts in (inter)action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 125-133.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Introduction to second language pragmatic development. Language Learning, Supplement 1, 52, 1-11.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.

Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501.

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. Modern Language Journal, 90, 249-252.

Lee, Y. (2006). Towards respecification of communicative competence: Condition of L2 instruction or its objective? Applied Linguistics, 27, 349-376.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Littlewood, W. (2006). Second language learning. In A. Davis & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 500-524). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Meunier, L. E. (1998). Personality and motivational factors in computer-mediated foreign language communication. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching (pp. 145-197). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pelletieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. (pp. 59-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.

Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computerassisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491-501.

Swaffar, J. K. (2006). Terminology and its discontents: Some caveats about communicative competence. Modern Language Journal, 90, 246-249.

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.

Wardhaugh, R. (1997). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 2&3, 7-26. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1989). Coexisting discourse worlds and the study of pragmatic aspects of learners’ interlanguage. In W. Olesky (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 251-275). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘Polite’ noises for cultural appropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, XXXII, 3-17.

Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88, 519-535.

Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: Pros and cons. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Longman.







How to Cite

Abrams, Z. I. (2013). Sociopragmatic Features of Learner-to-Learner Computer-Mediated Communication. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 1-27.