The Role of Pragmatics in Second Language Teaching - Article Example

Yule (1996, p. 4) described pragmatics as the study of ‘communicating more than was said”, with ‘more’, referring to the function of a linguistic act, as well as the social context in which it is performed. Others, such as Crystal defined pragmatics as: … the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication. (Crystal1997, p. 301) This has been further extended to include “joining in conversation, engaging in various discourse types and being involved in complex speech events”. (Kasper and Rose 2001, p 2) Within the broader framework of communicative competence, pragmatics has been categorised as ‘rules of use’, varyingly under categories such as language competence or sociopragmatics, depending on the researchers theoretical leaning. (Cohen & Salaberry in Salaberry 2007, p. 151) Within learner-centred analysis, pragmatics belongs to the set of ‘implicit mental representations, that any practitioner of language brings to the activity and, which includes besides pragmatics, implicit knowledge of phonology, syntax, semantics and words (Patten and Leeser in Salaberry 2007, p. 57). In practical terms, this means the way in which cultural meaning is constructed and the direct and implied messages that are conveyed by the act of speech, the level of politeness, discourse organisation and the register used (Halliday in Thornbury 2005, p. 19). This has far-reaching implications for the second language classroom, where the learning process may involve the making of assumptions based on L1 ‘implicit mental representations’, that do not match those needed for the target language. If not addressed during the teaching or communicative learning process, this may lead to the application of wrong codes to the L2 task, potentially producing misunderstandings that may result in embarrassment and feelings of failure for the student, thus hindering the process of language acquisition. It is therefore necessary, as Thornbury points out, to clearly identify the ‘secret rules’, both of L1 and of L2, and communicate these to the student, through the teaching of pragmatics (Thornbury 2005, p. 17) It has also been pointed out that the difficulties thus arising are unconnected with the level of grammatical or lexical proficiency of students and may occur even with student of high capabilities in these areas (Kasper & Rose 1999 in Kasper & Rose 2001, p 38). The benefits of such knowledge are now widely understood and there is a growing body of research that investigates no longer the ‘why’ but the ‘how’ of pragmatics teaching. According to Kasper & Rose, the main coding problems between L1 and L2 occur in the ‘use, execution and comprehension of certain speech acts’, generally in every-day functions of social interaction, with particular emphasis on the strategies language in general employs to avoid threats to what Thornbury calls ‘face’ (Thornbury 2005, p. 19) and to prevent misunderstandings which are often responsible for tensions arising between speakers and on a broader base between locals and foreign students, the latter sometimes being perceived as ill-mannered and boorish. The aim of pragmatics in foreign language teaching is therefore ‘consciousness raising’, by making learners aware that there are different codes in operation between their first language and L2, together with the consequences of using the wrong codes. This in turn will encourage transfer of pragmatic understanding where possible and the acquisition of knowledge about those L2 codes that are different. Current research also suggests different approaches to creating pragmatic awareness, through teaching variation of language forms, contrasting L1 and L2 and activities specifically designed for consciousness raising (Rose & Kasper, 2001, in Rose 2008, p. 38). Neither of these is exclusive of the other and it is conceivable that all three approaches may be incorporated into an extended lesson. There are as yet limited pragmatics resources available to teachers for use in L2 classrooms, and those that do exist, are related to isolated functions, such as politeness or greetings. This may be explained by the fact that research is still limited and the studies that have been carried out still leave questions unanswered. Promising research has come from Ohta (Kasper and Rose 2001, p. 39), who based classroom instructions on student-centred activities that included peer teaching, where it was possible to practice Japanese dialogue at an experimental level that would not have been possible in a teacher-centred environment (Kasper, in Rose 2008, pp. 39-40). Yet all this does not lead to a concrete set of instructions that may be used by all and sundry and it is often left to individual teachers to develop means to overcome problems caused by coding discordance. A detailed study of eight English ESL and EFL textbooks and a qualitative analysis of teacher willingness to add supplements showed that both books and teacher efforts are inadequate to facilitate pragmatics teaching (Vellenga, H. 2004). Study criteria were based on quantitative research into Politeness/Appropriacy/Usage/Register/Cultural information/Meta-language/Speech act information and quantitative research into teacher supplementation to incorporate pragmatics and modify course texts. The texts included Headway, Passages 1, Voyages 2, Interchange 2 and four grammar texts, across the range of intermediate to high intermediate. Information on pragmatics could be found on around 5% of all pages in the grammar texts and on 15-20% in the general English texts, with only Passages 1 containing more at 29.1%. The almost complete absence of meta-language, however, meant that the presence of pragmatics was at best declarative, since they were not accompanied by sources for input and language models (Vellenga 2004). From this study, Vellenga deduced that most textbooks are inadequate and it would require a further study of this kind to ascertain if pragmatics has a stronger representation in revised texts. In the absence of strong texts, it would appear to be left to the teacher, as Koike points out, to supplement as best they can: Textbook authors and classroom teachers need to make corresponding changes in approaches to L2 teaching, since the limitations imposed by the textbook and the classroom on pragmatically appropriate input hinder the learner from becoming truly proficient in communicating in the target language. (Koike, 1989, p. 287 in Vellenga 2004) What then is it that teachers need to do and what are the criteria that learners find difficult to understand or observe and how can pragmatics be made available to the learner? Bardovi-Harlig (1996, p. 171-188) classifies a number of particular types of pragmatics, where potential dialogues are in most cases hidden from the view of learners, as those are conventions that go on behind closed doors or away from the school. These include speaking to doctors, or making appointments for complex services, such as hairdressers and real estate agents or government agencies. She also referred to ‘salience’ and classroom discussion of pragmatics. Thus there are a range of activities that teachers can use to supplement existing texts – even if these should prove to be more inclusive of pragmatics than their predecessors: teach ‘softening and intensifying language’, relating it to social context for both L 1 and L2, highlighting similarities and differences. Allow for brainstorming sessions wherever possible, in mixed learner groups Create role plays or modify and correct existing dialogues to reflect either L1 or L2 social context, with the aim of highlighting the differences and the possibilities Discourse completion tasks with alternative endings Re-writing fairy tales This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive but will here suffice to highlight the possibilities for teachers. Functions and forms in these activities are recurring themes, often regardless of languages, which can also be viewed in broader terms of social distance, power relations and conversational settings and topics and others. In the case of students with Turkish L1, the difficulties arise in a different area. Turkish contains large number of formulaic utterances, which are not generally replicated in English. Whilst some equivalents exist, in the form of idioms, it is not common in English to speak in idioms. This produces a lack of repertoire for Turkish students of English, and it is necessary to produce equivalents that are well known and can easily be accessed, thus avoiding student distress. Dogancay (1992) has compiled a substantial body of these utterances in Turkish, which provide conversation scaffolding, and without which the speaker may be lost. Davies (1987 in Dogancay 1992) points out that these formulaic utterances are taught by parents to their children – an early introduction to formula. There are no parallels in English, even though Hakuta (1974 in Dogancay 1992) claims that ‘prefabricated patterns’ are the means whereby phrases are memorised, even in English (Goffman, 1971 in Dogancay 1992). This may be the case to some extent but these ‘prefabricated’ statements are usually cleverly inter-woven with general language and not easily recognisable. The absence of such formulaic utterances then causes conversational distress and must therefore be considered a failure to transfer pragmatic utterances to L2. This failure often results in frustration at the inability to express pre-selected utterances in L2. Acceptable English equivalents need therefore to be taught. This could be achieved in the following way: 1. Open a brainstorming session on Turkish formulaic utterances and encourage students (in pairs) to collate as many as possible. 2. Provide a matrix of standard meanings for these utterances, e.g. expressing appreciation, refusal, possibility, censure etc. and ask students to match the Turkish formulae with a function they fulfil. 3. Provide a list of English alternatives (which may be less formulaic but will serve as a workable substitutes) and, again, ask students to match the definition from (2) with the L2 quasi equivalent. For example: A. Formulaic utterance (FU): Gozu disarda - his eye is outside Meaning: Someone is on the lookout for someone or something 1 English equivalent: He has a roving eye B. FU: Alnim Acik Meaning: My forehead is clear – my thoughts are clear and clean English equivalent: My conscience is clear. Selected utterances would need to suit the student age and level of competency but such an activity would contribute significantly to awareness of the differences between L1 and L2, where such utterances are concerned, as well as the possibilities in L2 to have instant access to a repertoire of utterances, ultimately making communication significantly easier. Pragmatics as an element of communicative competence is clearly in need of more research, development of clearer theoretical frameworks and entry to curricula. Only when these steps have been accomplished, can it be hoped that a substantial body of work will spring up that allows the creation of pragmatics-oriented textbooks. In the meantime, the onus is on teachers to create awareness of pragmatics among their students. References Bardovi-Harlig, K and Hartford, B ed. 2005. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1996) Input in an institutional setting, in  Studies of Second Language Acquisition, vol. 18,  
 Crystal, D (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dogancay, S., Your Eye is sparkling: Formulaic expressions and routines in Turkish, Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (WPEL), Fall 1992. Accessed 20.11.2010 http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED354724&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED354724 Salaberry R and Lafford BA ed. 2007. The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. Rose, KR and Kasper, G ed. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S ed. 2005, Teach Speaking, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow. Vellenga, H 2004, Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Vol, 8 (No 2). Youtube, Assertiveness scenarios – 10 examples, last accessed 20.11.2010 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymm86c6DAF Yule, G ed 1996, Pragmatics, Oxford University Press.  Read More