1.2 Rationale of the Study

The major reason to conduct the present research is the importance of ILP competence in communication. According to Ellis（2008），second language acquisition（SLA）researchers have paid attention to learners’ ability in pragmatic aspects. This has been encouraged by the belief that only by exploring the way in which the formal properties are used in real communication can have a full understanding of how they are learnt. It has also been encouraged by the belief that the study of learner language needs to considerate pragmatic aspects in their own right. The view that “the goal of SLA research is to describe and explain not only learners’ linguistic competence，but also their pragmatic competence”（Ellis，2008，p.159）shows the importance of pragmatic ability in SLA. On a review of the academic literature in the study of ILP competence，the following research gaps have been found.

First，up to now，the studies of ILP competence of the EFL learners have focused on very limited kinds of speech acts，such as request（Liu，2004；Garcia，2004；Takahashi，2005；Rover，2006；Xu，Case & Wang，2009；Li，2010；Shao，Zhao & Sun，2011；Soo，2013；Li & Chen，2016），refusal（Rover，2006；Xu，Case & Wang，2009；Soo，2013；Li & Lin，2015），apology（Liu，2004；Rover，2006；Xu，Case & Wang，2009；Shao，Zhao & Sun，2011；Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor，2015），suggestion（Garcia，2004；Xu，Case & Wang，2009），offer（Garcia，2004），correction（Garcia，2004），compliment（Shao，Zhao & Sun，2011，Cher，2015），invitation（Shao，Zhao & Sun，2011）and comment（Soo，2013）. Even fewer studies can be found in understanding implicature（Bouton，1988，1994 and 1999；Rover，2010b；Akerman，2015）and in performing routines（Pürschel，Doktor and Jaritz et al.，1994；Rover，2006；Aijmer，2014）. No research has been found to examine the ILP competence of the EFL learners including such a broad domain of speech acts，implicature and routines. The present research aims to examine the EFL learners’ ILP competence in the aspects of conducting the most frequently used ten speech acts，understanding implicature and performing routines.

Second，previous studies have investigated the ILP competence of different groups of test-takers，such as the different levels of language proficiency（Yamanaka，2003；Liu，2004，2012；Garcia，2004；Xu，Case & Wang，2009；Soo，2013；Xiao，2015），different length of residence in English speaking countries（Xu，Case & Wang，2009；Naoko，2013；Alcón-Soler，2015），different genders（Wang，2006；Li，2012），motivations（Takahashi，2005；Shao，Zhao & Sun，2011），cognitive styles（Liu & Huang，2013）and so on. Some researchers also investigated the ILP competence of minority students in China（Li，2010；Tian，2013），and the ILP competence of non-English major students（Yang，2015）. However，through an extended review of previous studies，no research concerning the comparison of the ILP competence between Han and ethnic minority groups has been found，so it is necessary to conduct such a study to investigate L2 and L3 learners in their competence of interlanguage pragmatics in the Chinese context. The present research plans to fill in this gap.

Last but not the least，the studies on the relation between ILP competence and level of language proficiency have been conducted frequently. The previous studies show that researches about the relation between the level of language proficiency and ILP competence have been conducted in the past decades，but researchers have not reached an agreement. Some researchers reported a positive relationship between level of language proficiency and ILP competence，such as Yamanaka（2003），Garcia（2004），Xu，Case & Wang（2009），Soo（2013），Naoko（2013），and Xiao（2015），while others did not find a relation between the level of language proficiency and ILP competence，such as Hoffman-Hicks（1992），Liu（2004，2012）and Takahashi（2005）. Thus，further study is needed，for the results may be different with different participants and different contexts. No researcher has been found to have carried out such a research with English majors in the Guizhou Province of China. Therefore，it is worth conducting the research to explore the relationship between the level of language proficiency and ILP competence with the English major participants in the Guizhou Province of China.

Ellis（2008）stated that the relationship between pragmatic development and linguistic ability is still poorly understood. It may differ depending on the EFL learners’ development stage and the acquisitional context. “What is not clear in the foregoing account of research into interlanguage pragmatics is the extent to which the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge is distinct from or related to the acquisition of linguistic knowledge”（Ellis，2008，p.194）. Since there are still research gaps in the field of ILP studies，further research is worthy of consideration.

The frameworks for ILP competence（Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei，1998；Jung，2005）have illustrated a number of variables under investigation. However，it is hardly possible to investigate most，if not all，of the variables examined in the previous literature. The theoretical framework for the present study includes three variables：nationality，gender，and level of language proficiency. The following discussions are about the rationales for the selected variables based on the previous studies and theories.

（1）Nationality. China is a country with 56 nationalities，and except for Han，all the others are minority groups. Guizhou is a province with 49 minorities，and has the second largest minority group in the country. The majorly inhabitant minorities are：Tujia，Miao，Buyi，Dong，Gelao，Bai，Shui，and etc. For most of the minority students，their first languages are their minority languages，and their pronunciations，syntaxes and vocabulary are totally different from Mandarin—the official language of China. These minority students normally begin to learn Mandarin when they enter primary school，so Mandarin is their second language（L2）. Different from most Han people for whom English is their second language，English is the third language（L3）for them（Qin，2015）. Thus，their acquisition of English is influenced by both the minority languages and Mandarin. It is interesting to explore whether there is a difference in the ILP competence between the Han who consider English as L2 and the minority people who regard English as L3.

（2）Gender. Sunderland（2000）indicated that a wide range of language phenomena，including literacy practices，self-esteem，styles，language test performance，and strategies，have been proved to be connected with learners’ gender. Ellis（2008）included gender as a variable which may have influence on the second language acquisition（SLA）. Penelope & Sally（2003）pointed out that gender may structure language learners’ access to participate in situations，activities，and events，hence to the opportunity to perform in particular speech acts legitimately. They also thought that one gender may perform certain pragmatic behaviors more often than the other or that their effect was different depending on who performs those behaviors. They also found that the same or closely related oppositions can also describe gender differentiation in politeness，and females tend to be more polite and use more polite language than males. This is because females are more other-oriented，more collaborative，and more affective. Thus，it is worth exploring gender-related variation in ILP competence.

（3）Level of Language Proficiency. Ellis（2008）suggested that language proficiency is a factor which is of vital importance in pragmatic competence acquisition according to the studies to date. Language proficiency was defined by Bachman & Palmer（1996）as learner’s knowledge of L2 grammar and vocabulary，as well as their ability in using language skills. It is a part of general language ability. It is always selected as a variable in the ILP competence studies，not only because it is an equal component with pragmatic competence in communicative competence but also because it is an important factor in SLA. Ellis（2008）held the view that language learners are not able to construct native-speaker-type discourse unless they are equipped with the linguistic means to do so. Learners with limited L2 proficiency have fewer problems in conducting speech acts which are communicatively important to them but difficult in conducting them as native speakers. Since pragmatic competence is a component of overall L2 proficiency，the common sense assumption would be that an increase in overall L2 proficiency would be companied by an increase in L2 pragmatic competence（Arghamiri & Sadighi，2013）. However，some previous researchers did not agree with this，so it would be worthy of investigating the relationship between language proficiency and ILP competence with different EFL contexts.