Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NFLRC NetWork #6
'Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught?' The simple answer to the question as formulated is
"no". Competence, whether linguistic or pragmatic, is not teachable. Competence is a type of
knowledge that learners possess, develop, acquire, use or lose. The challenge for foreign or
second language teaching is whether we can arrange learning opportunities in such a way
that they benefit the development of pragmatic competence in L2. This, then, is the issue I
will address in this paper.
1/13
11/3/2014
degree of imposition involved in particular communicative acts (Takahashi & Beebe, 1993;
Blum-Kulka & House, 1989; Olshtain, 1989). The values of context factors are negotiable; they
can change through the dynamics of conversational interaction, as captured in Fraser's (1990)
notion of the 'conversational contract' and in Myers-Scotton's Markedness Model (1993).
Pragmatic ability in a second or foreign language is part of a nonnative speakers (NNS)
communicative competence and therefore has to be located in a model of communicative ability
(Savignon, (1991, for overview). In Bachman's model (1990, p. 87ff), 'language competence' is
subdivided into two components, 'organizational competence' and 'pragmatic competence'.
Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic units and the rules of joining
them together at the levels of sentence ('grammatical competence') and discourse ('textual
competence'). Pragmatic competence subdivides into 'illocutionary competence' and
'sociolinguistic competence'. 'Illocutionary competence' can be glossed as 'knowledge of
communicative action and how to carry it out'. The term 'communicative action' is often more
accurate than the more familiar term 'speech act' because communicative action is neutral
between the spoken and written mode, and the term acknowledges the fact that communicative
action can also be implemented by silence or non-verbally. 'Sociolinguistic competence'
comprises the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It thus includes the
ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending
on the current status of the 'conversational contract' (Fraser, 1990).
2/13
11/3/2014
directive and expressive speech acts that have been most frequently studied in cross-cultural
and interlanguage pragmatics, such as requests and apologies, and they have been shown to
understand and use the major realization strategies for such speech acts. For instance, in
requesting, users of any language studied thus far distinguish different levels of directness;
direct, as in 'feed the cat', conventionally indirect, as in 'can/could/would you feed the cat?',
and indirect, as in 'the cat's complaining.' Furthermore, language users know that requests can
be softened or intensified in various ways, as in 'I was wondering if you would terribly mind
feeding the cat', and that requests can be externally modified through various supportive moves,
for instance justifications, as in 'I have to go to a conference', or imposition minimizers, as in
'She only needs food once a day'. Studies document that these strategies of requesting are
available to ESL or EFL learners who are NS of such diverse languages as Chinese (Johnston,
Kasper, & Ross, 1994), Danish (Frch & Kasper, 1989), German (House & Kasper, 1987),
Hebrew (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986), Japanese (Takahashi & DuFon, 1989), Malay
(Piirainen-Marsh, 1995), and Spanish (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989). In their early learning stages,
learners may not be able to use such strategies because they have not yet acquired the necessary
linguistic means, but when their linguistic knowledge permits it, learners will use the main
strategies for requesting without instruction.
Learners may also get very specific pragmalinguistic knowledge for free if there is a
corresponding form-function mapping between L1 and L2, and the forms can be used in
corresponding L2 contexts with corresponding effects. For instance, the English modal past as
in the modal verbs could or would has formal, functional and distributional equivalents in other
Germanic languages such as Danish and German - the Danish modal past kunne/ville and the
German subjunctive knntest and wrdest. And sure enough, Danish and German learners of
English transfer ability questions from L1 Danish (kunne/ville du lne mig dine noter) and L1
German (knntest/ wrdest Du mir Deine Aufzeichnungen leihen) to L2 English (could/would
you lend me your notes) (House & Kasper, 1987; Frch & Kasper, 1989), and they do this
without the benefit of instruction.
Positive transfer can also facilitate learners' task in acquiring sociopragmatic knowledge. When
distributions of participants' rights and obligations, their relative social power and the demands
on their resources are equivalent in their original and target community, learners may only
need to make small adjustments in their social categorizations (Mir, 1995).
Unfortunately, learners do not always make use of their free ride. It is well known from
educational psychology that students do not always transfer available knowledge and strategies
to new tasks. This is also true for some aspects of learners' universal or L1-based pragmatic
knowledge. L2 recipients often tend towards literal interpretation, taking utterances at face
value rather than inferring what is meant from what is said and underusing context
information. Learners frequently underuse politeness marking in L2 even though they regularly
mark their utterances for politeness in L1 (Kasper, 1981). Although highly context-sensitive in
selecting pragmatic strategies in their own language, learners may underdifferentiate such
context variables as social distance and social power in L2 (Fukushima, 1990; Tanaka, 1988).
So, the good news is that there is a lot of pragmatic information that adult learners possess, and
the bad news is that they don't always use what they know. There is thus a clear role for
pedagogic intervention here, not with the purpose of providing learners with new information
but to make them aware of what they know already and encourage them to use their universal
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
3/13
11/3/2014
4/13
11/3/2014
languages
research goal
design
assessment/
procedure/
instrument
discourse
markers &
strategies
advanced
L1 German FL
English
explicit vs
implicit
roleplay
pragmatic
routines
intermediate
L1 German FL
eclectic vs
English
suggesto-pedia
roleplay
Billmyer 1990
compliment
high
intermediate
L1 Japanese SL
+/-instruction
English
elicited
conversation
Olshtain &
Cohen 1990
apology
advanced
L1 Hebrew FL
English
teachability
discourse
completion
question.
WildnerBassett 1994
pragmatic
routines &
strategies
beginning
L1 English SL
German
teachability to
beginning FL
students
Bouton 1994
implicature
advanced
L1 mixed SL
English
+/-instruction
deductive vs
inductive vs
zero
explicit vs
implicit
study
teaching goal
House &
Kasper 1981
WildnerBassett 1984,
1986
Kubota 1995
implicature
intermediate
L1 Japanese FL
English
House 1996
pragmatic
fluency
advanced
L1 German FL
English
Morrow 1996
complaint &
refusal
intermediate
L1 mixed SL
English
teachability/
explicit
Tateyama et
al. 1997
pragmatic
routines
beginning
L1 English FL
Japanese
explicit vs
implicit
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
roleplay
multi-method
5/13
11/3/2014
6/13
11/3/2014
7/13
11/3/2014
deductive or inductive instruction over the uninstructed group, with a superior effect for the
inductive approach, this initial difference had evaporated by the time a delayed post-test was
administered.
Wildner-Bassett (1994) and Tateyama et al. (1997) demonstrated that pragmatic routines are
teachable to beginning foreign language learners. This finding is important in terms of
curriculum and syllabus design because it dispels the myth that pragmatics can only be taught
after students have developed a solid foundation in L2 grammar and vocabulary. As we know
from uninstructed first and second language acquisition research, most language development
is function-driven - i.e., the need to understand and express messages propels the learning of
linguistic form. Just as in uninstructed acquisition, students can start out by learning pragmatic
routines which they cannot yet analyze but which help them cope with recurrent, standardized
communicative events right from the beginning.
There is little evidence for aspects of L2 pragmatics that resist development through teaching,
but the few documented cases are instructive. One such study is Kubota's replication of
Bouton's (1994) research on the teaching of implicature. Kubota's Japanese EFL learners were
able to understand the exact implicatures that were repeated from the training materials but
were unable to generalize inferencing strategies to new instances of implicature. However, these
students' English proficiency was much less advanced than that of the learners in Bouton's
studies, and with more time, occasion for practice, and increased L2 input, the students' success
rate might have improved.
The other study that suggests limitations to teachability in L2 pragmatics is House's (1996)
investigation on improving the pragmatic fluency of advanced German EFL students. All but
one feature of pragmatic fluency gained from consciousness raising and conversational practice;
the resistent aspect was to provide appropriate rejoinders, or second pair parts, to an
interlocutor's preceding contribution, as in this exchange:
NS: Oh I tell you what we go shopping together and buy all the things [we need]
NNS: [Of course] of course
NS: Okay then and you try and call Anja and ask her if she knows somebody who owns a grill
NNS: Yes of course (House, 1996, p. 242)
More appropriate acceptances of the NS' suggestions would have been 'ok/good idea/let's do it
that way then' or the like. Why would inappropriate rejoinders persist in these advanced
learners' discourse despite instruction? A plausible explanation is Bialystok's (e.g., 1993) notion
of control of processing: fluent and appropriate conversational responses require high degrees
of processing control in utterance comprehension and production, and such complex skills may
be very hard to develop through the few occasions for practice that foreign language classroom
learning provides.
But despite those few limitations, the research supports the view that pragmatic ability can
indeed be systematically developed through planful classroom activities. In order to address the
next question -
8/13
11/3/2014
9/13
11/3/2014
native language for classroom management is one way of validating the students'
ethnolinguistic identity in an ESL classroom. In my view, Auerbach's call against English Only
classrooms in ESL settings for immigrant minorities is valid and necessary, but I want to
caution against extending it to EFL situations or any other foreign language classrooms, for that
matter. For students of English in Continental Europe or Asia, or students of Japanese and
French in the US, the FL classroom may be the only regular opportunity for using the FL for
communication. These opportunities should not be curtailed, and certainly not when it comes
to routinized activities such as classroom management discourse. In a recent study of his
learning of Japanese as a Foreign Language, Cohen (1997) reports:
"Classroom talk was focused primarily on completing a series of planned
transactions, such as making introductions, buying stamps or postcards at a post
office, buying clothes in a department store, telling the doctor about our illness, and
the like. There was little non-transactional social conversation in class, other than
asides in English. In addition, spoken language tended to be focused on structures
that we were to learn (...). Toward the end of the second month, we would start the
class off with teacher-directed questions and answers, usually inquiring about what
we had done the previous day or weekend, or what we intended to do - usually with
the purpose of practicing some structure or other."
Because little genuinly communicative interchange was conducted in Japanese, students had
not much exposure to authentic input in this classroom.
From the studies reviewed earlier and from other theory and research of SL learning, we can
distill a number of activities that are useful for pragmatic development. Such activities can be
classified into two main types: activities aiming at raising students' pragmatic awareness, and
activities offering opportunities for communicative practice.
Awareness-raising
Through awareness-raising activities, students acquire sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic
information - for instance, what function complimenting has in mainstream American culture,
what appropriate topics for complimenting are, and by what linguistic formulae compliments
are given and received. Students can observe particular pragmatic features in various sources of
oral or written 'data', ranging from native speaker 'classroom guests' (Bardovi-Harlig, et al.,
1991) to videos of authentic interaction, feature films (Rose, 1997), and other fictional and nonfictional written and audiovisual sources.
Observation tasks
Especially in a second language context, students can be given a variety of observation
assignments outside the classroom. Such observation tasks can focus on sociopragmatic or
pragmalinguistic features.
A sociopragmatic task could be to observe under what conditions native speakers of American
English express gratitude - when, for what kinds of goods or services, and to whom (cf.
Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993). Depending on the student population and available time, such
observations may be open or structured. Open observations leave it to the students to detect
what the important context factors may be. For structured observations, students are provided
with an observation sheet which specifies the categories to look out for - for instance, speaker's
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
10/13
11/3/2014
and hearer's status and familiarity, the cost of the good or service to the giver, and the degree to
which the giver is obliged to provide the good or service. A useful model for such an observation
sheet is the one proposed by Rose (1994) for requests.
A pragmalinguistic task focuses on the strategies and linguistic means by which thanking is
accomplished - what formulae are used, and what additional means of expressing appreciation
are employed, such as expressing pleasure about the giver's thoughtfulness or the received gift,
asking questions about it, and so forth. Finally, by examining in which contexts the various
ways of expressing gratitude are used, sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects are
combined. By focusing students' attention on relevant features of the input, such observation
tasks help students make connections between linguistic forms, pragmatic functions, their
occurrence in different social contexts, and their cultural meanings. Students are thus guided to
notice the information they need in order to develop their pragmatic competence in L2
(Schmidt, 1993). The observations made outside the classroom will be reported back to class,
compared with those of other students, and perhaps commented and explained by the teacher.
These discussion can take on any kind of small group of whole class format.
Whether gathered through out-of-class observation or brought into the classroom through
audiovisual media, authentic native speaker input is indispensible for pragmatic learning. This
is not because students should imitate native speakers' action patterns but in order to build
their own pragmatic knowledge on the right kind of input. Comparisons of textbook dialogues
and authentic discourse show that there is often a mismatch between the two. For instance,
Bardovi-Harlig, et al. (1991) examined conversational closings in 20 textbooks for American
English and found that few of them represented closing phases accurately. Myers-Scotton and
Bernstein (1988) discovered similar discrepancies between the representation of many other
conversational features in authentic discourse and textbook dialogues. The reason for such
inaccurate textbook representations is that native speakers are only partially aware of their
pragmatic competence (the same is true of their language competence generally). As Wolfson
(1989) noted, most of native speakers' pragmatic knowledge is tacit, or implicit knowledge: it
underlies their communicative action, but they cannot describe it. Even the most proficient
conversationalist has little conscious awareness about turn-taking procedures and politeness
marking. Miscommunication or pragmatic failure is often vaguely diagnosed as 'impolite'
behavior on the part of the other person, whereas the specific source of the irritation remains
unclear. Because native speaker intuition is a notoriously unreliable source of information
about the communicative practices of their own community, it is vital that teaching materials on
L2 pragmatics are research-based (Myers-Scotton & Bernstein, 1988; Wolfson, 1989; Olshtain
& Cohen, 1991; Bardovi-Harlig, et al., 1991).
Authentic L2 input is essential for pragmatic learning, but it does not secure successful
pragmatic development. When students' observe L2 communicative practices, their minds don't
simply record what they hear and see like a videocamera does. Students' experiences are
interpretive rather than just registering. Cognitive psychology (e.g., Sanford & Garrod, 1981) as
well as radical constructivism (e.g., von Glaserfeld, 1995) emphasize the importance of prior
knowledge for comprehension and learning. In our attempt to understand the practices of an
unfamiliar community, we tend to view such practices through the lenses of our own customs.
We tend to classify experiences into 'familiar' and thus not requiring further reflection or
analysis, and 'unfamiliar', i.e., peculiar, enigmatic, inviting explanation, and attracting
evaluation. Mller (1981) referred to this interpretive strategy as cultural isomorphism. As a
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
11/13
11/3/2014
12/13
11/3/2014
pervasively and even intrinsically flawed, partial, and problematic". And yet, by and large NS
communication succeeds more than it fails - not because it is perfect but because it is good
enough for the purpose at hand. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to place higher
demands on L2 learners' communicative abilities than on those of NS. Therefore, there is a
continued need for studies examining how NS and NNS communicate effectively in different
contexts.
Secondly, there often appears to be an implicit understanding that effective and successful
NNSs have the same or very similar pragmatic ability as NS. On this view, pragmatic
competence as a learning objective should be based on a NS model. However, as Siegal (1996)
points out, "Second language learners do not merely model native speakers with a desire to
emulate, but rather actively create both a new interlanguage and an accompanying identity in
the learning process" (1996, p. 362ff) Second language learners' desire for convergence with NS
pragmatics or divergence from NS practices is shaped by learners' views of themselves, their
social position in the target community and in different contexts within the wider L2
environment, and by their experience with NS in various encounters.
Thirdly, members of the target community may perceive NNS's total convergence to L2
pragmatics as intrusive and inconsistent with the NNS's role as outsider to the L2 community,
whereas they may appreciate some measure of divergence as a disclaimer to membership.
Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1991) documented that in many ethnolinguistic contact
situations, successful communication is a matter of optimal rather than total convergence.
Optimal convergence is a dynamic, negotiable construct that defies hard-and-fast definition. It
refers to pragmatic and sociolinguistic choices which are consistent with participants'
subjectivities and social claims, and recognizes that such claims may be in conflict between
participants.
Fourthly, as Peirce (1995) noted, language classrooms provide an ideal arena for exploring the
relationship between learners' subjectivity and L2 use. Classrooms afford second language
learners the opportunity to reflect on their communicative encounters and to experiment with
different pragmatic options. For foreign language learners, the classroom may be the only
available environment where they can try out what using the L2 feels like, and how more or less
comfortable they are with different aspects of L2 pragmatics. The sheltered environment of the
L2 classroom will thus prepare and support learners to communicate effectively in L2. But more
than that, by encouraging students to explore and reflect their experiences, observations, and
interpretations of L2 communicative practices and their own stances towards them, L2 teaching
will expand its role from that of language instruction to that of language education.
Go to References.
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
13/13