Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Challenges and opportunities for teaching pragmatics in efl context
1. ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW,
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
INVESTIGATING THE CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING PRAGMATIC
COMPETENCE OF EFL STUDENTS: THE CASE OF ST.
JOSEPH SCHOOL IN ADAMA
By
KORIE SHANKULIE
Advisor: HAILELEUL ZELEKE (PHD)
JUNE 2012
2. INVESTIGATING THE CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING PRAGMATIC
COMPETENCE OF EFL STUDENTS: THE CASE OF St.
JOSEPH SCHOOL IN ADAMA
By
Korie Shankulie
A Thesis Submitted to School of Humanities and Law,
Department of English in partial fulfillment for
the requirement of Master of Arts degree (MA) in
English
JUNE 2012
Adama
3. Declaration
I declare that the research paper hereby submitted to Adama science
and Technology University for the degree, Masters of English has
not previously been submitted by me or anyone else for a degree at
this university or any other university, but it is my own work in design
and execution and that all materials contained therein HAVE been
fully acknowledged.
____________________________ ___________________________
Korie Shankulie Date
4. ADAMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND LAW
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
(GRADUATE PROGRAM)
Investigating the Challenges and Opportunities
for Developing Pragmatic Competence of EFL
Students: the Case of St. Joseph School in Adama
By
Korie Shankulie
Approved by the Board of Examiners:
Name Signature
Advisor
_________________________________________ ______________________
External Examiner
__________________________________________ _______________________
Internal Examiner
__________________________________________ _______________________
5. Acknowledgments
I sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Haileleul Zeleke, for his insightful comments, professional
guidance and detailed advice throughout the development of this thesis. I remain greatly indebted to
him again for his fruitful comments and suggestions at the very earliest stage of the thesis. I am very
much indebted to the kindness, patience and warm-welcome he has shown me in the course of time.
I owe my gratitude to Dr. Luc Journe, for his constructive comments reading the first three chapters
of this work.
I am also grateful to my friends: Muktar Hussein, and Taddele Mognehode, for their enthusiasm and
warm-hearted encouragement.
I would like to express my particular gratitude to my mother, Soreti Dewano, for her unfailing
moral support.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge all the students and teachers who completed the questionnaires. My
thanks especially go to those teachers who allowed me to observe their classes.
Korie Shankulie,
-I-
6. List of Figures and Tables
List of Figures Page
Figure 1.Models of Communicative Competence……………………………………………………..…17
List of Tables
Table 1. Checklists for Absence or Presence of the Pragmatic Features.................................................62
Table2.Communicative Acts in the Textbooks...........................................................................................64
Table 3.Frequency Communicative Acts in each textbooks…………………………………..………….69
Table 4.Pragmatic Contents of Grade 10th English textbook………………………………………..…..70
Table 5.Grade11Textbook Pragmatic contents………………………………………………………….74
Table 6.Challenges related to Teachers’ Training Programs……………………………………...........74
Table 7.Whether any lesson received helped the teachers or not………………………………..............72
Table 8.Challenges related to Students Textbooks………………………………………………….…...76
Table 9. Do the teachers include any lesson in their daily plan to teach pragmatics?.............................76
Table 10.Why teachers do not teach pragmatic aspect of English language?..........................................77
Table11.General Perception of Teachers about opportunities to learn pragmatics in EFL context……78
Table12. Classroom Observation Results………………………………………………………………..80
Table 13.Learners’ Language Skills Proficiency Background…………………………………………..83
Table 14.Exposure to the English Language outside the Classroom……………………………………84
Table 15. Learners’ Self-perceived Sociolinguistic Competence………………………………………..86
Table 16. Learners’ Self-perceived Discourse Competence………………………………………..........88
Table 17. Learners’ Self-perceived Pragmatic Competence…………………………………………….89
Table 18.Scaling the difficulty Level of Communicative Acts…………………………………………....92
-II-
7. Table 19. Table 19. MDCT Score Description………………………………………………………..…99
Table 20. The MDCT score of the students by group…………………………………………….........100
Table 21. Summary of MDCT Situation and the Weight of Distance, Power, and Rank of
Imposition………………………………………………………………………………..…..101
Table 22.Sources of Students’ Pragmatic Knowledge………………………………………………….101
-III-
8. List of Acronyms Used
L1…………………………………..first language
L2…………………………………. second language
FL…………………………………… foreign language
EFL………………………………… English as a foreign language
ILP…………………………………interlingual/language pragmatics
SLA………………………………..second language acquisition
SPCC………………………………self-perceived communicative competence
MDCT………………………………multiple choice discourse completion test
-IV-
9. ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the challenges and opportunities for teaching pragmatics in EFL context.
Learners often find the area of language use difficult. Teachers are advised to explicitly teach pragmatic
features of language and make use of authentic models of language to help learners practice using
appropriate language in social contexts. In spite of this, information about pragmatic aspect of language
and pragmatic-focused instruction is lacking in an EFL Ethiopian context classroom. Textbooks and
teachers are an integral part of language teaching in general in an EFL setting where there are no
opportunities to learn the language informally outside the classroom. However, the textbooks almost
never provide adequate pragmatic information for students to develop successfully their pragmatic
competence. The findings indicated that there is a scarcity of pragmatic information contained in the
English for Ethiopia, and the variety of pragmatic information is limited. Most of the metalanguage
explanations are simple; and there are no metapragmatic explanations at all.
It is fairly possible to infer from the teachers’ response that well-designed teacher training and teaching
materials should be in place for teachers to develop students’ pragmatic competence. Moreover, the
teaching hours to cover the issue of pragmatics; thus, to properly manage each lesson may solve the
current problem of teaching pragmatics in the classroom. The results of this study also showed that
teachers seldom use pragmatic instruction in classrooms, and mostly students have to spend time by
themselves developing pragmatic competence without explicit instruction. Overall, the pragmatics
instruction is immature and needs to be developed, and teachers need professional training to be aware
of how to teach pragmatics effectively. Although the learners’ self-perceived competence mean score
was high, their MDCT result was low; and this confirmed that self-perceived competence and the actual
performance never match. This is why according to Dewaele (2007) higher levels of self-perceived
competence are linked to lower levels of communication which in fact has to be further investigated in
our own context.
The research was entirely qualitative except that some simple statistical calculations were used to
compute the frequency, mean and percentage of the numerical data. The data were drawn from the
content analysis of two student textbooks (grade 10 &11), responses of four teachers teaching grade 9-
12 and self-perceived competence and pragmatic awareness test results of 183 students. The findings of
this study have implications for teaching pragmatics to EFL learners, the development of pragmatic-
focused materials, future research and well-designed teacher training.
-V-
10. Table of contents
Page
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………….I
List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………………………….II
Acronyms……………………………………………………………………………………………...IV
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………..V
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………1
1.1.Background…………………………………………………………………………………….1
1.2. The Rationale for the Current Research………………………………………………………3
1.3.Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………...4
1.4.Objectives of the Study………………………………………………………………………..8
1.4.1.General objective…………………………………………………………………………..8
1.4.2.Specific objectives…………………………………………………………………………8
1.5.Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………9
1.6.Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………………...9
1.7.Delimitation of the Study……………………………………………………………………..10
1.8.Limitation of the Study……………………………………………………………………….10
1.9.Organization of the Study…………………………………………………………………….11
1.10. Definitions and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………...12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE……………………………………….13
2.1.Communicative Competence……………………………………………………………….13
2.2. Communicative Performance………………………………………………………………15
2.3.Models of Communicative Competence……………………………………………………15
11. 2.4. Pragmatics………………………………………………………………………………….17
2.4.1.Dimensions of Pragmatics………………………………………………………………18
2.4.2.Pragmatic Competence………………………………………………………………….19
2.4.3.The Importance of Teaching Pragmatics………………………………………………..19
2.4.4.Teachability of Pragmatics in EFL Setting…………………………………..................21
2.4.5.Pragmatic Instructions: Explicit vs. Implicit……………………………………………23
2.5.Communicative Function (Speech Acts)……………………………………………………24
2.5.1.Describing Speech Acts………………………………………………………………….25
2.5.1.1.Speech Acts of Apology……………………………………………………………..26
2.5.1.2.Speech Acts of Compliments………………………………………………………..28
2.5.1.3.Speech Acts of Complaints………………………………………………………….31
2.5.1.4.Speech Acts of Refusals……………………………………………………………..33
2.5.1.5.Speech Acts of Requests……………………………………………………………..34
2.5.1.6.Speech Acts of Gratitude…………………………………………………………….35
2.6.Challenges for Teaching Pragmatics………………………………………………………...38
2.6.1.Challenge Related to Course Books……………………………………………………39
2.6.2.Challenge Related to Courses in Teachers’ Training……………………………………39
2.6.3.Challenge Related to Language Class Size……………………………………………..41
2.6.4.Challenge Related to Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy…………………………….…..41
2.6.5.Challenge Related to the Attitude toward English Language…………………………..41
2.6.6.Learners’ Level of Target Language Proficiency……………………………………….42
2.6.7.Challenge Related to Pragmatics Teaching Methods…………………………………...42
2.6.8.Challenge Related to the Availability of Authentic Inputs……………………………...43
12. 2.7.Possibilities/Opportunities for Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classroom…………………….44
2.7.1.The Role of Language Teacher’s Talk……………………………………………………45
2.7.2.The Role of Textbooks………………………………………………………………........46
2.7.3.The Role of Culture……………………………………………………………………….47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY……………………….50
3.1. Methods of the Study………………………………………………………………………50
3.2. Research Design……………………………………………………………………………50
3.3. Procedures of the Study……………………………………………………………………50
3.4. The Data……………………………………………………………………………………51
3.4.1. Content Analysis Sampling Process…………………………………………………..52
3.4.1.1. Sampling Units for the Content Analysis……………………………………….....52
3.4.1.2. Data Coding Scheme for Content Analysis……………………………………….53
3.4.1.3. Procedure of Content Analysis…………………………………………………....53
3.5. Participants………………………………………………………………………………..54
3.6. Procedure for Collecting Data……………………………………………………………54
3.6.1. Data Sources……………………………………………………………………….54
3.6.2. Research Setting………………………………………………………..................54
3.6.3. Sampling………………………………………………………………..................55
3.7. Tools of Data Collection………………………………………………………………55
3.7.1. Questionnaire……………………………………………………………..............55
3.7.2. Classroom Observation………………………………………………………….56
3.7.3. Discourse Completion Test……………………………………………..............56
3.7.4. Content Analysis…………………………………………………………...........57
13. 3.8. Procedure for Data Analysis………………………………………………………….59
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION…………………………..60
4.1. Pragmatic Content Analysis of the Textbooks......................................................................61
4.2. Pragmatic Features Contained in each Textbooks.................................................................69
4.3. Questionnaires for Teachers.......................................................................................73
4.4. Classroom Discourse Observation.............................................................................79
4.5. MDCT for Students…………....................................................................................82
4.6. Learners’ Self-perceived Communicative Competence............................................85
4.7. MDCT Scores and Descriptions…………………………………………………….97
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………...103
5.1. Summary of Research Results....................................................................................103
5.2. Conclusions.................................................................................................................104
5.3. Recommendations.......................................................................................................106
5.4. Implications.................................................................................................................110
Bibliography................................................................................................................................I-XXV
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………..I-XXII
Appendix 1: Textbooks’ Pragmatic Content Evaluation Checklist…………………………….I
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Teachers………………………………………….....................III
Appendix:3 MDCT for Learners……………………………………………………………….VII
Appendix:4 Classroom Observation Checklist…………………………………………………XIII
Appendix:5 Communicative Acts in the Textbooks……………………………....…………….XV
Appendix:6 Self-perceived Competence Questionnaire ……………………………..................XX
14. CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Learning a foreign language is regarded nowadays as an essential component in the curricula at
different educational levels. In particular, learning the English language has become necessary
given its widespread use throughout the world according to House and Kasper (see, Martinez-Flor,
2004). However, in order to make learners become communicatively competent in the English
language, there is a shift from previous theoretical frameworks, which considered language as a
formal system based on grammatical rules, towards a more communicative perspective (ibid).
Alcaraz (see, Martinez-Flor, 2004) points out that the shift from language usage rule to language
use rule was possible due to the advent of pragmatics as a specific area of study within linguistics
that favored a focus on interactional and contextual factors of the target language (TL).
English is more of a foreign language than a second language in Ethiopia. This mainly is because
English is used so infrequently in daily life outside the classroom and students do not have the
opportunity to learn the language informally. Thus, the main way students have been expected to
learn English has been by using it as a medium of instruction. As put forward by Heugh, K. (2006)
role of English in Ethiopia, at least outside the educational system, resembles more closely that of
countries where English is considered as a foreign language than that of countries where it is
considered a second language used relatively widely as a lingua franca (e.g. In some urban settings
in Kenya). Contrary to this Amlaku (2011) argues that speaking English, or at least mixing English
while using a local language, is perceived by the majority of the societies as a sign of being
educated and modernized. Despite all weaknesses, English is increasingly getting acceptance and
stamina in Ethiopia for purposes of both domestic and foreign interactions and transaction other
than in the educational contexts as subject and medium of instruction.
As international and cross-cultural communication has become part of everyday life in Ethiopia,
pragmatic competence should be an important asset to a person and thus, rehearsing pragmatic skills
alongside other linguistic aspects should be one of the objectives of language teaching in formal
education. In Ethiopia, formal instruction of English or the learning environment, most commonly
comprises of a non-native language teacher, a fairly large classroom full of learners with very
dissimilar aptitudes, and the teaching materials, which refer to anything that can be used to facilitate
15. the learning of a language, such as textbooks, printouts, or grammar books. Teaching authentic
language use, which resembles the way the language is used in the “real world” outside the
classroom, in these circumstances is very challenging and the teaching materials should play an
integral role in offering the students a model of real-life language use.
Although language teachers have the right to develop their own materials, the most commonly used
materials are only published textbooks. As Vellegna (2004) aptly points out, the textbook is often
the very center of the curriculum and syllabus. In such cases, textbooks used should be carefully
designed, to make sure that they are perfectly in line with the learning objectives and learners’ need.
Basically, the chosen textbook should provide all the important linguistic inputs outlined for each
stage of learning and life outside the school. However, studies have shown (for example Vellegna
2004, Peiying, 2007; 2008) that textbooks rarely provide enough information for learners to
successfully acquire pragmatic competence.
Similarly, knowledge about how conversations work and what the sociocultural norms and practices
are in each communication culture is often inadequately presented in the textbook contents
(Bardovi-Harling 2001:25). In order for students to learn how language really works, they need
authentic materials of authentic communication situations. The demand for pragmatic input is
particularly relevant when upper secondary school teaching materials are concerned, because at this
level, students are expected to be quite proficient language users. In other words, at upper secondary
school stage, they are at an advanced level and competent to understand the subtleties of English.
Most students in upper secondary school study English as their compulsory language, that is, the
language that has started in the lower stage of the comprehensive school and that is obligatory to all
students.
Practicing pragmatic abilities in a classroom requires student-centered interaction. The teaching
materials should provide a relatively wide range of exercises designed to rehearse the
sociopragmatic knowledge of students. In a similar vein, Kasper (1997) suggests the inclusion of
activities such as role-play, simulation, and drama to engage students in different social roles and
speech events. The activities in the textbooks provide valuable opportunities to practice the
pragmatic and sociolinguistic skills that students need in their everyday interactions outside the
classroom.
16. Pragmatic competence can also be acquired through raising awareness on the pragmatic aspects of
second/foreign language, and in this process, the metalanguage, that is, “a language which is used to
describe language” (Lyons 1995: 7), can assist significantly. In teaching and learning of any
language, metalanguage is essential, both in classroom interaction and within the teaching materials.
In language instruction context, metalanguage helps the learners to understand the key elements of
the target language and the major differences between the target language and the learner’s L1.
Evidently, as the learner’s metalinguistic awareness increases, the level of language proficiency
increases as well (Renou 2001: 261), and therefore the teaching materials should be rich in
pragmatic metalanguage and teachers should also be aware of the significant role of learning
pragmatics.
In conclusion, this study entirely focused on challenges and opportunities for teaching pragmatic
competence. Besides, it was the intent of this research to evaluate teachers’ perception of the
textbooks content in terms of their pragmatic content. Furthermore, it was the concern of this study
to look at what teachers think are impediments for them to deliver pragmatic instructions in the EFL
setting.
1.2. The Rationale for the Current Research
It is might be questioned that why some researches of this kind are conducted and what main cause
motivated the researcher to study the problem in question. Hence, this research has its own grounds
to be conducted for.
1. The first motive of conducting this research largely grew from a belief that the teaching of
vocabulary and grammar is not enough to enable learners to become competent and naturalistic
users of English.
2. The other rationale is to provide enough information or basic guidelines for teachers to start
tackling the area of pragmatics in the classroom; at least in an informed, logical and confident
pedagogical manner.
3. It is also necessary to provide some basic or essential information on pragmatics, and to be of
practical use to teachers who are interested in, but have little knowledge of, pragmatics in a foreign
language context.
Many literatures depict that people who are trained with pragmatics are finding more positions
related to teaching, research, editing, forensics, trade, negotiation, corpus analysis, computer
17. programming, among other things. Indeed it is related to any work with a touch of language. To this
end, the study aims at investigating the challenges side by side with the opportunities/possibilities of
developing pragmatic competence of learners in an EFL context.
1.3. Statement of the Problem
Learning a language is more than just acquiring a simple understanding of the rules of grammar;
learners must be able to use the language as well. This use is needed far beyond the classroom, in a
variety of situations, where politeness and tact will help soothe tensions and open doors for
communication. Each context has its unique traits that require unique forms of language. Pragmatic
ability is this context-dependent use of language (Christiansen, 2003:1). If language learners want to
function smoothly in a society, their pragmatic ability is of utmost importance. Wolfson (see,
Christiansen, 2003) points out:
People do not normally take offense or make negative character judgments when
a nonnative speaker mispronounces a word or when grammatical errors are made;
indeed, such differences as those which result in a foreign accent are often found
very charming. Errors in rules of speaking are a very different matter. An
inappropriate question or the failure to utter the customary apology, compliment,
or congratulations will not be judged as an error natural to the process of language
learning or indeed, of intercultural differences, but as a personal affront. (p. 1).
Pragmatic ability is not only fundamental to the smooth functioning of society; it is also a crucial
skill for students who intend to study abroad in another language. According the body of literatures,
although it is such an important aspect of language, pragmatics did not receive considerable
attention in the English as foreign language contexts. For example, (Peiying, 2007 and 2008; and
Vellegna, 2004) evaluating the pragmatic content of the English language textbooks, found
respectively:
• neither English textbooks nor English classroom teaching provide adequate pragmatic input
to learners with regards to quantity and quality of pragmatic input,
• the extent of pragmatic knowledge in college English textbooks and classroom teaching is
limited and predominantly concentrates on metapragmatic information, metalanguage,
speech acts, cultural information,
• pragmatic information in the textbooks and classroom teaching is randomly distributed,
18. • the pragmatic input is taught explicitly with limited tasks and task varieties,
• the content(information-based) approach reflecting an information-transmission model
neglects the appropriate use of the target language, essential for effective communication,
and affords students with few opportunities for interactive learning and the use of English
for real purpose.
• textbooks include a paucity of explicit metapragmatic information, and teachers’ manuals
rarely supplement adequately (Vellegna, 2004).
The above mentioned research findings in other words could be challenges to teaching pragmatics
in an EFL context. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of research on pragmatics in the setting of the
current research. Pragmatics plays a very important role in the process of language teaching and
learning because it draws the teacher’s attention to the development of the learner’s communicative
competence, which is now considered the goal of the language teaching process (Celce-Murcia,
et.al. 1995; Vellegna, 2004; Garcia, 2004 and Peiying, 2007).
English language textbooks present the language to students in terms of written and spoken
language, but their presentation of the language may not be as comprehensive as the one students
need to succeed in communication. However, textbooks play vital role in English language teaching
(ELT), especially in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom where they provide the
primary, perhaps the only, form of linguistic input (Kim and Hall, 2002 in both Vellegna, 2004 and
Peiying, 2007). Textbooks are, hence, one of the challenges being faced by the teachers because
they rarely provide adequate pragmatic information for students to successfully develop their
pragmatic competence.
Further studies also suggest that teachers seldom bring in outside materials related to pragmatics, as
a result of which heavily relying on the contents of the textbooks to teach pragmatic ability is
unlikely (Vellegna, 2004). Vellegna again argues that textbook developers could include authentic
examples of speech acts and sufficient metaprgamatic explanations to facilitate acquisition of
pragmatic competence (2004:1). If both classroom teachers and textbook writers do not strive for
the inclusion of pragmatic materials to substantiate the textbooks, students will lose pragmatic
ability; the ability to use language appropriately according to the communication situation (Garcia,
2004:1). Garcia further points out that if students do not have the pragmatic ability, they will lack
the ability to:
19. understand a speaker’s intentions;
interpret a speaker’s feelings and attitude;
differentiate speech act meaning, such as the difference between a direct and commissive;
evaluate the intensity of a speaker’s meaning, such as the difference between a suggestion
and a warning;
recognize sarcasm, joking, and other facetious behavior; and
be able to respond appropriately (p. 1-2).
Vellegna (2004) opines that acquisition of pragmatic competence in English through textbooks is
highly unlikely, given that the amount and quality of pragmatic information provided in the
textbooks (p.1). Beside this Peiying (2007:1) asserts ‘there is a dearth of pragmatic information
contained in …textbooks and the variety of pragmatic information is limited.’ Peiying further
contends that most of the metapragmatic explanations are simple indicating the inadequacy of
pragmatic inputs in the textbooks.
The current Ethiopian upper secondary school’s English textbooks are written by foreigners, yet
most materials have been written based on the intuition of the textbook writers (CARLA, 2011:2).
There seems to exist a shared belief that native English speakers just know intuitively how to
interact in their language and should be able to explain the social use of the language to the learners.
However, this commonly shared belief is not necessarily true; in fact, a native speaker's intuition is
sometimes unreliable (ibid). By intuition they mean that textbook developers may not have real
experience of the textbook users to include good amount of pragmatic lesson in the textbook.
Similarly, Rover (see El-okoda, 2010:191) points out that although pragmatic competence is
considered to be a major component of communicative competence, little attention has been paid to
testing it in the literature. Likewise, EFL student teachers’ curriculum and in-service professional
development program lack the inclusion of good amount of pragmatic aspect of language teaching
(Cohen, 2008).
In addition, pragmatic errors are more serious than grammatical ones and people who speak with
pragmatic errors are often considered impolite; sometimes they could be interpreted as breach of
etiquette (Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor, 2003). Hence, it is
imperative for learners to acquire the ability to properly use language.
20. Equipping Ethiopian students with communicative competence in order to help them communicate
effectively in all walks of their lives and international communication is truly essential. English has
been used as a medium of instruction from grade 7 or 9 upwards since long time ago, but problems
in learning and teaching English have been observed ever since (Jarvis, as cited in Amlaku, 2010)
had given his personal account of experiences and observations. Presently, says Amlaku for his part
‘[teachers] at schools and employers in industries have been complaining about the low level
English language competence of students and graduates, respectively’ (p.9). But what are the
challenges that pull back language learners not to competently communicate when there is a need to
do so?
Although there have been studies about communicative language teaching in Ethiopian schools, the
investigation on pragmatic information in English textbooks used in Ethiopia has not yet been
conducted. Similarly, whether there exist any additional pragmatic features in teacher’s book as a
resource for teachers has not been questioned. Likewise, whether English language teachers bring in
outside materials to help learners develop pragmatic competence has not yet been investigated in
the setting of the current research.
There is paucity of pragmatic contents and their presentations are marginalized as compared to
other language items. There are no courses offered to pre-service language teachers in the area of
pragmatics as a result of which teachers do not supplement textbook with inputs to help learners
acquire pragmatic competence. Although it is vitally important to acquire communicative
competence, there are no research emphases in the area of pragmatics in the present research area.
The current research, therefore, looks into the challenges and opportunities in teaching pragmatics
to language learners in the EFL context and the way forward to it.
1.4. Objectives of the Study
1.4.1. General Objectives of the Study
The major objective of the present study was to investigate the challenges of teaching pragmatics in
an EFL setting; by means of analyzing textbooks in terms of their pragmatic contents; exploring
opportunities/possibilities of teaching pragmatics in an EFL setting; discovering whether students
can choose appropriate language in a given situation; and forwarding possible recommendations
based on the research results.
21. 1.4.2. Specific Objectives of the Study
This study was aimed to evaluate the communicative competence of Ethiopian EFL learners,
specifically those in St. Joseph School, through the discourse completion test analysis. In this
regard, the present study had three specific objectives:
Analyzing English textbooks on the basis of thanking strategies, apologizing strategies,
complimenting strategies, complaining strategies, refusing strategies, and requesting
strategies presented in Aijmer (1996); and Ishihara and Cohen, (2010).
Analyzing the discourse completion data collected from St. Joseph 10th and 11th grade
students,
Investigating the challenges teachers in EFL setting, particularly those in St. Joseph
School, were facing in teaching pragmatic aspects of the English language,
Considering these concerns, the aim of this study was two-fold: to deal with those theoretical
approaches that inform the process of learning speech acts in particular contextual and cultural
settings; and, secondly, to present a variety of methodological proposals, grounded on research-
based ideas, for the teaching of the major pragmatic features in foreign language classrooms.
1.5. Research Questions
One of the main purposes of English language education in Ethiopia can be to cultivate the
communicative competence of Ethiopian EFL learners. Many innovations have been made to
improve English education contexts and cultivate the communicative competence of Ethiopian
students. The notion of communicative syllabus has been adopted from various theories of language
teaching and learning which in fact reflects this innovation atmosphere of English language
education policies in Ethiopia. The notion of communicative competence has had a very powerful
influence on every aspect of language teaching. English language textbooks have been published on
the basis of communicative syllabus since very recently. Whereas, ‘communicative competence is
not on the list of items learned, but a set of strategies for realizing the value of linguistic elements in
context of use is on the list’ Widdowson(see in Chang, 2004:1 ).
In order to attain the above objectives, this study attempted to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent do the students’ textbooks provide pragmatic information for learners to
acquire pragmatic competence?
22. 2. What are the challenges perceived by high school teachers to develop students’ pragmatic
competence?
3. How do the teachers perceive students’ textbooks pragmatic contents-are they challenges or
opportunities for them?
4. Do students choose appropriate language based on a provided situation/context?
5. To what extent do teachers consider other possibilities than the textbook, for teaching
pragmatics in an EFL setting?
1.6. Significance of the Study
The need to teach pragmatics in a target language has been demonstrated in studies conducted in the
fields of interlanguage and crosscultural pragmatics which indicate that the performance of
pragmatic features may differ considerably from culture to culture, thus creating communication
difficulties in cross-cultural encounters.
In this research an attempt was made to examine the socio-pragmatic aspect of the students’
textbook, the challenges faced by teachers and the availability of opportunities to teaching
pragmatic competence to EFL learners. Generally, this research is expected to have the following
significance:
1. It can help syllabus designers to revise English language syllabuses to include substantial
quantity of pragmatic features and the quality of their presentations in the textbooks.
2. The research would also be worthwhile resource for teachers who are interested to develop
their own teaching materials for teaching pragmatics/speech acts.
3. The research would be helpful for textbook writers to consider including the substantial
amounts of the pragmatic aspect of the English language in the English language textbooks
and wishing to have an informed opinion on the pedagogical implications derived from
research on pragmatics/speech act performance.
4. It fills the research gap that exists in studying challenges and possibilities to teaching
pragmatics in an EFL setting of Ethiopian context.
5. Above all, the research would be of importance for the other researchers to look into the
field attentively.
23. 1.7. Delimitation of the Study
It is not an easy task to make an investigation of the challenges and opportunities of developing the
pragmatic competence in an EFL context. It would have been a good idea if the research work of
the present kind had addressed all micro level approaches to pragmatics: indexicals, presupposition,
implicature and speech acts. The present research, however, confined itself to the study of
pragmatic competence with particular emphasis on some speech acts and challenges to teaching
pragmatics along with the existing opportunities, if any, in the context of English as a Foreign
Language. Another concern was that it needed sufficient time, human power and financial resources
to incorporate all upper high schools in the Adama Town in the current research.
1.8. Limitation of the Study
This study was believed to have certain constraints. Researches of the present kind require practical
or experimental examination of the respondents’ awareness of pragmatics aspects of language use.
Many such experimental research works are available since the coming into attention of pragmatics
beginning from 1970s. In spite of this fact, the search for local research works could not be able to
avail any related works undergone at home. This in turn has hampered and limited the depth of the
current research.
In addition to the above points, lack of both multimedia resources and laboratories for conducting
experimental research in the schools while the learners practice language use, was a hurdle for the
current research. Furthermore, the research was first designed to be conducted on homemade
English language textbooks. Unfortunately, the new textbooks authored by foreign writers came
into use in the middle of the research work and they are voluminous in size. This might also throw
some light on the result of the present research.
Researches in the area of pragmatics (Ishihara, N. and Cohen, A. 2010) recommend that various
sources of data can be employed while undertaking a study: intuition and introspection, discourse
completion tasks (DCTs), role-plays, recording of natural conversation; and field observation of
natural conversation. However, due to the time, financial and material limitations the current
research employed only discourse completion tests, questionnaires, textbook content analysis and
class observation.
24. 1.9. Organization of the study
This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One, presents an overview of the study in which
the background to the research, rationale for the research, the objectives, the research questions, the
scope of the study, the limitation of the study as well as the organization of the study were briefly
presented. Chapter Two, reviews the theoretical issues relevant to the study including
communicative competence, pragmatics and pragmatic competence, speech act of complaining,
refusing, apologizing, requesting, complimenting etc. and the challenges and possibilities of
teaching pragmatic competence to the EFL learners. Chapter Three, discusses issues of
methodology and outlines the study design, data collection instruments, reliability and validity test
of the data collection instruments, procedure of data collection, selection of subjects and analytical
framework. Chapter Four, presents the data analysis and discusses the findings on the challenges
and possibilities of teaching pragmatic competence in EFL setting. Chapter 5, provides an overview
of major findings and conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further research.
1.10. Definitions of the Study terms/ Technical Terms
(Online Language Dictionaries. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sociolinguistic)
Sociolinguistic/pragmatic transfer: refers to the learners’ strategy of incorporating native
language based elements in target language production and behaviour.
Pragmatic failure/deviance: it is a communicative failure that results from lack of compatibility
between speakers’ intent and hearers’ standards for acceptability.
Sociocultural competence: refers to the speakers’/writers’ ability to determine the pragmatic
appropriateness of a particular speech act in a given context.
Speech act information: speech act information in this study consists of 3 categories-types of
speech act, numbers of linguistic form provided for each speech act, and exercises or tasks using the
speech acts the students have just learned in each particular unit.
Usage: refers to the explanations about the usage of any linguistic forms and of any grammatical
features, expressions, phrases, or words which could enhance pragmatic knowledge of the students.
Politeness: refers to the use of appropriate language considering different social factors, including
social distance, age, role relationships, and so forth, between the speaker and the interlocutor in the
given contexts.
25. Register: refers to the sort of social genre of linguistic use. It comprises three dimensions-field,
tenor, and mode. Field refers to the social setting and purpose of the communication. Tenor refers to
the relationship between interlocutors or participants in the event. Mode refers to the medium of
communication as in spoken or written.
Style: refers to variations within registers representing choices along social dimensions. In this
study, it refers to the degrees along formality-casualness continuum.
Cultural information: in the present study refers only to the information about culture that one has
to know and be aware of when communicating verbally in order to avoid pragmatic failure or
breakdown in communication. Therefore, other information about cultures, for example, music or
food was ignored in the present study.
Quality: refers to the amount of details or explanation, the complexity or variety of examples
provided in the context.
MDCT refers loosely to a pragmatics instrument that requires students to read a written description
of a situation and select what would be best to say in that situation from a set of choices.
26. CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Communicative Competence
People in virtually all locations of the globe are more mobile than ever, and more likely to traverse
into cultures different from their own. Literally and figuratively, the walls that separate us are
tumbling down. Though we may not have fully become a "global village," there is no denying that
the various cultures of the world are more accessible than ever before, and that the peoples of these
cultures are coming into contact at an ever increasing rate. These contacts ultimately comprise
interpersonal encounters. Whether it is the negotiation of an arms treaty, or the settlement of a
business contract, or merely a sojourner getting directions from a native, cultures do not interact,
people do. Communicative/interactional competence in such intercultural context is therefore
mandatory.
According to Bara (2010) the term competence refers to that abstract set of capacities which the
system [communication system] possesses, independently of the actual use to which those
capacities are put. Performance, instead, refers to the capacities actually exhibited by a system in
action (Bara, 2010:203).Therefore, the term “communicative competence” is comprised of two
words, the combination of which means competence to communicate. “Competence” is one of the
most controversial terms in the field of general and applied linguistics according to various works in
the area.
In some literature, it is also broadly called intercultural communication competence that it is
considered very broadly as an impression that behavior is appropriate and effective in a given
context. Normally, competence is considered as ability or a set of skilled behaviors. However, any
given behavior or ability may be judged competent in one context, and incompetent in another.
Consequently, competence cannot inhere in the behavior or ability itself. It must instead be viewed
as a social evaluation of behavior. This social evaluation as pointed out by Spitzberg (2009:380) is
composed of the two primary criteria -appropriateness and effectiveness.
27. As stated by Spitzberg (2009) Appropriateness means:
…the valued rules, norms, and expectancies of the relationship are not violated
significantly. Effectiveness is the accomplishment of valued goals or rewards
relative to costs and alternatives. With these dual standards, therefore,
communication will be competent in an intercultural context when it
accomplishes the objectives of an actor in a manner that is appropriate to the
context and relationship (p. 380).
The phrase ‘Communicative Competence’ currently in use was primarily coined by the US
anthropologist Dell Hymes according to Leung, C. (2005:2). The notion is intended to replace
Noam Chomsky's dichotomy of competence and performance. Competence is the knowledge of
rules of grammar, performance, is how the rules are used. Speakers draw on their competence in
putting together grammatical sentences, but not all such sentences can be used in the same
circumstances: Close the window and would you mind closing the window, please? are both
grammatical, but they differ in their appropriateness for use in particular situations. Speakers use
their communicative competence to choose what to say, as well as how and when to say it.
In the words of Georgakopoulou, and Goutsos, (2001) communicative competence is a relative term
in that, for example, a phrase like “I think I deserve a drink too” could be factually stating the
speaker’s wish to buy herself a drink; or it could be expressing a complaint to the person who has
not bought the speaker a drink; or it could be indirectly soliciting the hearer’s offer (p. 3).
Generally, this example may suggest that there is no hope for successful communication in our
everyday life, since we can utter so many speech acts in so many different ways. However,
surprisingly we do establish the link between linguistic form and function in a specific environment
in which they occur and interpret speech acts accurately.
Generally, communicative competence is not a matter of knowing rules for the composition of
sentences and being able to employ such rules to assemble expressions from scratch as and when
occasion requires. ‘It is much more a matter of knowing a stock of partially pre-assembled patterns,
formulaic frameworks, and a kit of rules, so to speak, and being able to apply the rules to make
whatever adjustments are necessary according to contextual standards’ Widdowson (1989:135).
28. 2.2. Communicative Performance
The idea once competence is acquired, performance will take care of itself is false (see Widdowson
in Ohno, 2004). According to Widdowson, there are two distinguished aspects of performance: Use
and Usage. ‘Usage’ makes evident the extent to which the language user demonstrates his/her
knowledge of linguistic rules, whereas, ‘Use’ makes evident the extent to which the language user
demonstrates his ability to use the language rules for effective communication. This can be
summarized as:
Performance Use rules of socioculture social context
Usage rules of grammar linguistic context
In keeping with this Ohno (2011) opines that linguistic context focuses on usage to enable the
students to select which form of sentence is contextually appropriate, while social context focuses
on use to enable the students to recognize the type of communicative function their sentences
fulfill(p,28).
2.3. Models of Communicative Competence
Life in this contemporary globalized world commands respective challenges in communication and
brings nearly everyone into contact with people of other languages and cultures. Through this
contact cultures make people require exchanging cognitive notions, thoughts and precepts, and to do
so a strong medium is required. Foreign and second language education has developed to unravel
the challenges the present and prospective interlocutors encounter, by emphasizing on learning how
to communicate successfully with others speaking a different language and living a different
culture. On the basis of this reality various authors have developed different models of
communicative competence.
The first comprehensive model of communicative competence, which was intended to serve both
instructional and assessment purposes, is that of Canale & Swain (1980), further elaborated by
Canale (1983) as shown in (Kasper and Kenneth 2006; Martinez-Flor & Uso-Juan, 2006 & 2008
and Celce-Murcia, et.al 1995). This model posited four components of communicative competence:
1. Grammatical competence - the knowledge of the language code (grammatical rules, vocabulary,
pronunciation, spelling, etc.). Grammatical or formal competence, which refers to the Chomskyan
concept of linguistic competence(Alptekin, 2002:57); it is the native speaker’s knowledge of the
29. syntactic, lexical, morphological, and phonological features of the language, as well as the capacity
to manipulate these features to produce well-formed words and sentences.
2. Sociolinguistic competence - the mastery of the sociocultural code of language use appropriate
application of vocabulary, register, politeness and style in a given situation). Sociolinguistic
competence, as said by (Alptekin, 2002:58), deals with the social rules of language use, which
involve an understanding of the social context in which language is used. Such factors as the role of
the participants in a given interaction, their social status, and the information they share, and the
functions of the interaction are given importance. Social context here refers to the culture-specific
context embedding the norms, values, beliefs, and behavior patterns of a culture. Appropriate use
of the language requires attention to such constructs. Pragmatic knowledge is also subsumed under
this model according to Bachman and Palmer (see in Bagaric and Mihaljevic, 2007; Celce-Murcia,
2007).
3. Discourse competence - the ability to combine language structures into different types of
cohesive texts (e.g., political speech, poetry). Discourse competence, which is the ability to deal
with the extended use of language in context. This is ordinarily achieved through the connection of
a series of sentences or utterances to form a meaningful whole. These connections are often quite
implicit: ideas are linked to each other based on general knowledge of the world as well as
familiarity with a particular context. Where these conceptual and experiential bonds are weak or
inadequate, the meanings inferred from them are likely to be erroneous.
4. Strategic competence - the knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies which
enhance the efficiency of communication and, where necessary, enable the learner to overcome
difficulties when communication breakdowns occur. The summary of various models of
communicative competence are presented in the following diagram.
30. Canale and Swain (1980) Canale (1983) Bachman and Palmer (1996)
Grammatical Grammatical Language Knowledge
Competence Competence
Strategic Organizational Knowledge
Strategic Competence
Competence
Grammatical Knowledge
Sociocultural Sociocultural
Competence Competence Textual Knowledge competence
Discourse
Competence Pragmatic Knowledge
Fig 1. Models of Communicative Competence (in Bagaric and Mihaljevic, 2007:102)
2.4. Pragmatics
Pragma-is etymologically traced back to the Greek language and refers to activity, deed, affairs
(Trosborg, 1994:5). However, linguistic pragmatics is to be distinguished from non-linguistic
pragmatics, i.e. pragmatics in the domains of the sociologist, psychologist, the ethno methodologist,
the literary scholar, and so on. There are numerous definitions of pragmatics, and one of interest in
second language pedagogy has been proposed by Crystal (in Kasper and Kenneth, 2001: 2) 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.”
In other words, pragmatics is the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context. This
seems to deal with what many teachers find a very challenging and complex area; how do we help
our students understand what the effects of inappropriate language use will be, how do we equip our
students to know when and how to be polite, to be casual, to be direct or authoritative etc.
Unanimously (Kasper and Rose, 2001; Rose and Kasper, 2002) indicated that communicative
actions include not only using speech acts (such as apologizing, complaining, complimenting, and
requesting) but also engaging in different types of discourse and participating in speech events of
varying length and complexity in various contexts.
According to Andrian, et.al (2003), ‘pragmatics is fundamentally about how the context of use
contributes to meaning, both semantic meaning and speaker’s meaning. The core topics of
31. pragmatics are indexical, presupposition, implicature, and speech acts, but in reality there is no limit
to the ways in which context can influence meaning’ (163). Fromkin and Others (2011) also
contend that pragmatics is concerned with our understanding of language in context. According to
them, there are two kinds of contexts that are relevant to understand language. The first is linguistic
context-the discourse that precedes the phrase or sentence to be interpreted; the second is
situational context-virtually everything nonlinguistic in the environment of the speaker and hearer.
Situational context includes the speaker, hearer, and any third parties present, along with their
beliefs and their beliefs about what the others believe. It includes the physical environment, the
social environment/milieu, the subject of conversation, the time of the day, and so on, and infinitum
(p. 167). This implies almost any imaginable extra-linguistic factor may, under appropriate
circumstances, influence the way language is interpreted.
Almost these all definitions of pragmatics have some features in common i.e. language meaning
from the point of its users and various contexts (situations) of language use do exert some sort of
pressure on communication meanings.
2.4.1. Dimensions of Pragmatics
Basically, the study of pragmatics deals with areas such as deixis, conversational implicature,
presupposition, conversational structure/conversation analysis and speech acts. So far various
studies have classified components of pragmatics into two based on Leech’s and Thomas’s finding
(see in Eslami-Rasekh, 2005): sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics.
According to Alcon and Martinez-Flor, (2008:3) pragmalinguistics refers to the linguistic resources
for conveying communicative acts and interpersonal meanings, whereas sociopragmatics refers to
the social perceptions underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative
acts. Hence, while dealing with pragmatics attention is paid to consider knowledge of the means to
weaken or strengthen the force of an utterance (i.e. pragmalinguistic knowledge) and knowledge of
the particular means that are likely to be most successful for a given situation (i.e. sociopragmatic
knowledge). Generally, the ability to make appropriate choices from a large range of linguistic
forms and pragmatic strategies such as directness/indirectness and routines in the realization of
communicative acts is referred to as pragmalinguistics. Sociopragmatics is social assumptions or
principles underlying participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative acts. As such,
32. sociopragmatics is essentially about appropriate social behavior in a certain speech community
which has to do with context that is dealt separately in the forthcoming section.
2.4.2. Pragmatic Competence
Kasper says, ‘competence, whether linguistic or pragmatic, is not teachable. Competence is a type
of knowledge that learners possess, develop, acquire, use or lose’ (1997:1). But, why should
pragmatic competence be developed? Some works in the area indicate that grammatically correct
sentences would not mean appropriate utterances in different contexts because, language use choice
is determined or affected by various factors such as social norms, relationship between the
interlocutors, shared knowledge /background: ‘baby on sale’, social distance between the
interactants, age, gender, social power/rank/class, degree of imposition, etc. Similarly, grammatical
competence doesn’t guarantee pragmatic competence. Learning language involves many aspects:
not merely its sounds, words, grammar, meanings, functions, but the social, cultural and discourse
conventions.
Grammatical development does not guarantee a corresponding level of pragmatic development
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001:14). Knowledge of language that is appropriate to the situations in which one
is functioning is a must, because failure to do so may cause users to miss key points that are being
communicated or to have their messages misunderstood (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005:199). EFL learner
may gain comfortable control of the vocabulary and grammar of the language without achieving a
comparable control over the pragmatic functional uses of the language (speech acts) (Cohen,
1996:253).
2.4.3. The Importance of Teaching Pragmatics
Developing pragmatic competence cannot be achieved overnight unless learners are exposed to and
practice authentic language use. What are the goals of teaching pragmatics? What are the ultimate
benefits to the learners? “English has now acquired the title of the world’s leading “global
language” (Crystal 2003:1) because it is used for business, science, and politics” Sonia and Thomas
(2009:2). Research into the pragmatic competence of adult foreign and second language learners
has demonstrated that grammatical development does not guarantee a corresponding level of
pragmatic development Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei, (see in Eslami-Rasekh, 2005:199) and that
even advanced learners may fail to comprehend or to convey the intended intentions and politeness
values. It is necessary to understand and create language that is appropriate to the situations in
33. which one is functioning, because failure to do so may cause users to miss key points that are being
communicated or to have their message misunderstood (Elslami-Rasekh, 2005:199).
Hui (2007) further points out to the following reasons as to why to teach pragmatics in English
language classroom:
‘For avoiding miscommunication caused by cultural difference, being familiar
with diverse cultures and pragmatics is essential…. In other words, the teaching
and learning of pragmatics would release the difficulties of international
communications for both native and non-native speakers’ (p. 1).
Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003), state that the chief goal of instruction in pragmatics is to
raise learners’ pragmatic awareness and give them choices about their interactions in the target
language. They further indicate “the goal of instruction in pragmatics is not to insist on conformity
to a particular target language norm, but rather to help learners become familiar with the range of
pragmatic devices and practices in the target language” (p. 3). Kondo (see in Bardovi-Harlig and
Mahan-Taylor, 2003) argues ‘with such instruction, learners can maintain their own cultural
identities and participate more fully in the target language communication, and gain control of the
force and outcome of their contributions’ (p.1).
The main objective in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) is to enable students to
communicate effectively in many situations and contexts. According to Teresa (2009) this involves
being able to control a wide range of language functions, which are how speakers use language for
requesting, congratulating, apologizing, complaining, consoling, and promising, among many other
functions (p.1). Nowadays, the relationship between pragmatics and language learning and teaching
is clear.
As Bouton in Guerra (2003) states:
Pragmatics and language learning are inherently bound together. Pragmatics
provides language teachers and learners with a research based understanding of
the language forms and functions that are appropriate to the many contexts in
which a language is used-an understanding that is crucial to a proficient speaker’s
communicative competence (p.10).
34. Generally, pragmatics is needed if we want a fuller, deeper and more reasonable account of human
language behavior (Mey, 2001). Furthermore, outside of pragmatics, no understanding; sometimes,
a pragmatic account is the only one that makes sense (p.4). Having pragmatic ability means being
able to go beyond the literal meaning of what is said or written, in order to interpret the intended
meanings, assumptions, purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that are being performed
(Cohen, 2007).
2.4.4. Teachability of Pragmatics in EFL Setting
Knowledge without justification is not real knowledge, and pragmatic knowledge is no exception.
To act or behave appropriately in out of one’s own culture is a demanding task. However, pragmatic
ability is part of a learner’s communicative competence, and it has received attention in the
proposed models of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell, 1995 and
Celce-Murcia, 2007; Kasper, 1997) questions whether teaching pragmatics is possible or not.
However, Brock and Nagasaka (2005), answer the question saying ‘Teaching Pragmatics in the EFL
Classroom? SURE You Can!’ In answering that question, they suggest that teachers should consider
adopting the simple acronym S.U.R.E. to guide them as they help their students See, Use, Review,
and Experience pragmatics in the EFL classroom (p. 20).
See: Teachers can help their students see the language in context, raise
consciousness of the role of pragmatics, and explain the function pragmatics plays
in specific communicative events. Use: Teachers can develop activities through
which students use English in contexts (simulated and real) where they choose
how they interact based on their understanding of the situation suggested by the
activity. Review: Teachers should review, reinforce, and recycle the areas of
pragmatic competence previously taught. Experience: Teachers can arrange for
their students to experience and observe the role of pragmatics in communication
(p, 21-24).
As suggested by Rose (2005: 386), there seem to be three central questions, i.e. ‘whether
pragmatics is teachable, whether instruction in pragmatics produces results that outpace exposure
alone, and whether different instructional approaches yield different outcomes’. First, with regard
to the teachability of pragmatics, there is evidence indicating that pragmatics is teachable and that
35. pedagogical intervention has a facilitative role in learning pragmatics in FL contexts (see Bardovi-
Harlig, 2001; Rose and Kasper 2001).
Pragmatics can easily be integrated into any classroom; whether traditional or communicative
Bardovi-Harlig, et.al. (2003:1). However, Kasper (2000:1) has argued:
In a foreign language situations…, students lack the need and opportunity of
genuine communication in the target language; therefore, it is nearly impossible
for students to develop pragmatic ability…the ability to interpret utterances in
context, especially when what a speaker says is not the same as what the speaker
means; to carry out communicative action effectively and interact successfully in
different environments and with different participants.
Kasper herself has admitted that as an increasing number of studies demonstrate, most of aspects of
pragmatics are quite amenable to teaching in foreign language classroom, but with reservation that
not all approaches to teaching pragmatics are equally effective (2000:2). It can be argued here
again that as it is the case for approaches of presenting pragmatics contents in an EFL classroom, it
is also true for the language teaching approach in general that there is no single perfect approach or
method or technique to teach language. In fact it is true that unless teachers also know about
methods of evaluating students’ progress in pragmatics, they may be reluctant to focus on
pragmatics in their teaching even though a number of assessment instruments for pragmatics is
available now (Kasper, 2001:2). In this case it is arguable that curriculum revision is not complete
without an integrated assessment component.
The question of teachability of pragmatic competence has inspired a number of research projects
exploring the role of instruction in learners’ pragmatic development. Kasper (1997) for example
argues that while competence cannot be taught, students should be provided with opportunities to
develop their pragmatic competence. Pragmatics in EFL setting is therefore teachable based on the
availability of the opportunities in the teaching environment.
2.4.5. Pragmatic Instructions: Explicit vs. Implicit Pragmatic Instruction
Studies propose that learners benefit from attention-drawing activities with pragmatic instruction
and appropriate feedback more than being exposed to new language items without any instruction.
They show that the target pragmatic features are most effectively learned when they are taught
36. explicitly using input enhancement techniques. Explicit pedagogic intervention is viewed as
necessary in order to develop learners’ pragmatic ability.
Takahashi (see Kasper & Rose, 2001:171-199) argues that “the target pragmatic features were
found to be most effectively learned when they were under the condition in which a relatively high
degree of input enhancement was realized with explicit metapragmatic information.” At the same
time, the degree of attainment of a second language pragmatic competence is to a certain extent
limited in the classroom environment. It is claimed that simple noticing and attention to target
pragmatic features in the input do not lead to learning.
Tateyama, Kasper, and Thananart (see Kasper& Rose, 2001:200) studied the effects of explicit and
implicit instruction in pragmatics with beginning English language learners of Japanese. Their pilot
study revealed that the explicit group outperformed the implicit group. The effects of pragmatic
instruction on learners were especially apparent in rather complicated situations where the learners
benefited from the teacher’s instruction.
Alternatively, Criado (2009:43) suggests that when approaching the learning of functions of
language two options are generally considered: explicit and incidental learning. Explicit learning
advocates for a conscious presentation of the information to be learned. It is assumed that being
conscious and aware of what we have to learn is more efficient for acquisition. On the other hand,
explicit attention consumes a lot of time and this slows down the process. Incidental learning
advocates usage (meaningful usage, with no explicit information on the words).
Various researchers have presented their studies which shed light on various aspects of pragmatic
competence and the way to improve that competence through explicit/implicit instruction.
Pragmatics should be explicitly taught, no matter how the learners are apt to use that knowledge in
their social interactions; because ‘the purpose of teaching pragmatics is to provide learners with
explicit knowledge of pragmatics, focusing on teaching sociocultural and pragmalinguistic routines’
Kawate-Mierzejewska (see JALT, 2001:109).
It is clear that the question what aspect of pragmatics should be taught is answered in the sense that
when designing tasks that are used to raise learners’ pragmatic conscious those aspects of
pragmatics: socioprgamatics and pragmalinguistics should receive attention. Therefore, conscious
raising tasks are important because, “(a) it can raise learners’ awareness about specific sociocultural
and pragmalinguistic routines that should be focused, and as a result, (b) it can provide the learners
37. with explicit sociocultural and pragmalinguistic knowledge about those routines focused on”
(JALT, 2001:110).
Tatsuki, Donna (see, JALT, 2001:912) also discusses three pedagogical foci that are relevant to the
teaching of pragmatics. The first one is a focus on form in which metapragmatic explanations are
implemented based on the assumption that explicit knowledge can later become implicit. The
second is a focus on meaning in which scaffolding was implemented based on the assumption that
through social interaction a learner can enlarge his/her repertoire of formulaic expressions. The final
focus is on awareness. The assumption is that pragmatic competence will improve if learners
become more aware of mismatches between their L1 pragmatic norms and those of the TL.
2.5. Communicative Functions (Speech Acts)
An important figure in the development of pragmatics, John Austin (see in Fasold and Connor-
Linton, 2006:162) has pointed out that when people use language they are performing a kind of
action. The actions are called speech acts. Within the realm of pragmatic ability, the ways in which
people carry out specific social functions in speaking such as apologizing, complaining, making
requests, refusing things/invitations, complimenting, or thanking have been referred to as speech
acts (Cohen, 2007, 2010).
When language is used by human beings in real-life situations, there are generally communicative
goals associated with every utterance. Speakers express their emotions, ask questions, make
requests, and commit themselves to actions - they do things with words. In linguistic pragmatics, we
use the term speech act to describe such language actions. A wide range of utterances can qualify
as speech acts.
Speech-act theory/speech act deals primarily with meaning in communication (as opposed to
meaning in language) and thus is part of the pragmatic aspect of a language's meaning-that it relates
to the knowledge of the world shared by speakers and hearers, rather than relating to signs and their
designations or name (semantic aspect) or to formal relations among signs (syntactic aspect).
Semantics should be restricted to assigning interpretations to signs alone-independent of a speaker
and hearer.
38. 2.5.1. Describing Speech Acts
Under this section we shall discuss descriptions of different situations, which may call for different
speech acts. When performing or realizing speech acts, there are commonly identified factors that
can either negatively or positively affect the meaning/sense of speech acts in communication. The
examples of these factors may include (a) Social status: Relative social status of the speaker/writer
and the listener/reader. (b) Distance: Level of social distance and psychological distance (how
distant or close the speaker/writer and listener/reader feel to each other). (c) Intensity (power):
Intensity of the act (e.g., the magnitude of the imposition in a request or the severity of the
infraction in an apology).
In the following sub-section we will look at selected speech acts to a certain extent. The CARLA
Speech Acts website (http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html/ accessed on 19/10/2011)
has descriptions of six speech acts (apologies, complaints, compliments and responses to
compliments, requests, refusals, and thanks), with examples from various languages. The amount of
information on a given speech act varies greatly depending on the availability of research articles
that investigate that speech act.
2.5.1.1. Speech Acts of Apologies
Apology is a frequently used speech act which serves different purposes ranging from maintaining
polite rituals that could vary from one society to another (social etiquette), to the acknowledgment
of serious offences. In spoken and written interactions and in effect in intercultural interactions it
becomes relevant to ascertain what conditions must be present for the adequate performance of an
apology. This speech act must have the following conditions:
a) An act has occurred,
b) A believes that the act has offended B,
c) A takes responsibility for the act (Fahey, 2005:3).
In apologizing, the speaker/writer recognizes the infraction or offense caused through his/her fault
and attempts to repair the relationship with the listener/reader. The situation may be fairly tense if
the infraction is large or if the listener is in a more powerful position on the social scale than the
speaker. What are some routinized patterns in apologies in English and what strategies work most
effectively to repair and maintain a good relationship with the listener/reader? Speakers of English
language typically use apologies for a variety of reasons or functions. There are three reasons
39. people typically use apologies for (see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html) These
are: to say that they are sorry, to explain why the offence happened, and to make a repair for the
offence and maintain a good relationship with the addressee (see also Cohen and Ishihara 2010:56).
Apologies are usually perceived as negative politeness devices that express respect rather than
friendliness and apology is considered to be a polite speech act used to restore social relations
following an offence (Holmes 1995: 154). Next, Holmes lists three categories of apologies focusing
on the relative status of the participants: upward apology is to a superior person of greater power,
equal apology is to an equal, and downward apology is to a subordinate or person of lesser power.
Complex speech acts like apologies actually consist of a set of strategies that are used by competent
speakers of the language with some regularity. There are five relatively typical strategies for making
an apology (see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html):
1. An expression of an apology. The speaker/writer uses a word, expression, or sentence
containing a verb such as ‘sorry’, ‘excuse’, ‘forgive’, or ‘apologize.’ Languages have certain words
that are used to express an oral apology more than others. For example, in American English, ‘I
apologize . . .’ is found more in writing than it is in oral language. An expression of an apology can
be intensified whenever the apologizer feels the need to do so. Such intensification is usually
accomplished by adding intensifiers such as ‘really’ or ‘very’ e.g., ‘I’m really sorry.’
2. Acknowledgment of responsibility. The offender recognizes his/her fault in causing the
infraction. The degree of such recognition on the part of the apologizer can be placed on a scale.
The highest level of intensity is full acceptance of the blame: ‘It’s totally my fault.’ At a somewhat
lower level would be an expression of self-deficiency: ‘I was confused/I didn’t see/You are right.’
At a still lower level would be the expression of lack of intent: ‘I didn’t mean to.’ Lower still would
be an implicit expression of responsibility: ‘I could be wrong, but I was sure I had given you the
right directions.’ Finally, the apologizer may not accept the blame at all, in which case there may be
a denial of responsibility: ‘It wasn’t my fault,’ or even blaming of the listener: ‘It’s your own fault.’
3. An explanation or account. The speaker/writer describes the situation which caused him/her to
commit the offense and which is used by this speaker/writer as an indirect way of apologizing. The
explanation is intended to set things right. For instance, in some cultures this may be a more
acceptable way of apologizing than in others (Cohen, 2008:123). Thus, in cultures where public
40. transportation is unreliable, coming late to a meeting and giving an explanation like, “The bus was
late,” might be perfectly acceptable.
4. An offer of repair. The apologizer makes a bid to carry out an action or provide payment for
some kind of damage resulting from his/her infraction.
If someone is late for an appointment with a friend s/he might say something like:
How can I make it up to you? Can I buy you lunch on Friday? Or why don’t I buy you lunch on
Friday?
Or someone who fails to make it to an appointment might say:
Would you be willing to reschedule the meeting?
5. A promise of non-recurrence. The apologizer commits him/herself to not having the offense
happen again, which is situation-specific and less frequent than the other strategies. For example, if
you bump into a stranger, you are not going to promise you will never do it again, but you might if
it is a co-worker who you don’t pick up on time.
The five major patterns or strategies that make up the apology speech act are almost universally
available to speakers/writers, regardless of the language in which they are speaking or writing.
Nonetheless, preference for any one of these strategies or for a combination of them will depend on
the specific situation a speaker/writer is in within the given language and culture group.
(see, http://www.iles.umn.edu/Apolohies/Apologies.htm)
In realizing apologies people may use interjections and/or intensifiers. Not only could an intensifier
play an important role, but even an interjection like ‘Oh!’ could have an important role. In fact,
there could be times when a well-placed ‘Oh!’ and an offer of repair could take the place of an
expression of apology in English: e.g., ‘Oh! Here, let me help get something on that burn and clean
up the mess,’ as opposed to, ‘I’m very sorry that I bumped into you.’ Other ways of intensifying
apologies include expressing explicit concern for the listener and using multiple intensifying
strategies. So apologies can be intensified in the following ways:
1. Intensifying the apology expression:
(a) Use of adverbials, e.g., I’m really sorry.
(b) Use of repetition or multiple intensifiers, e.g., I’m really very sorry.
41. In English, there is a difference between ‘very’ and ‘really,’ with ‘really’ implying more regret
and ‘very’ more etiquette.
2. Expressing explicit concern for the listener, e.g., Have you been waiting long?
3. Using multiple intensifying strategies, e.g., I’m so sorry. Are you all right? I’m terribly sorry.
(see, http://www.iles.umn.edu/Apolohies/Apologies.htm accessed 19/10/2011).
2.5.1.2. Speech Acts of Compliments
Compliments in English often function as a social lubricant, helping the social relationships to go
smoothly. How compliments are used, for example, in English language? What strategies are used
to give and respond to compliments? Are there any taboos in giving or responding to compliments?
How do these norms of behavior vary across languages and cultures? Compliments are expressions
of positive evaluation that commonly occur in everyday conversational encounters among
interlocutors of equal or higher status. A compliment may be used to open a conversation or to
smooth conversational interaction by reinforcing the links of solidarity between the interlocutors.
People often compliment qualities related to personal appearance (e.g., clothes, hair), possessions,
skill, or accomplishments. (see, http://www.iles.umn.edu/Compliments/Compliments.html).
Research has shown that compliments are formulaic in terms of both their meaning and forms used
to compliment other people. For example, with regard to their meaning, compliments are mainly
realized by means of adjectives and verbs. In the majority cases compliments realized by means of
five adjectives: nice, good, beautiful, pretty, and great. And the majorities are realized through the
combination of two verbs such as like and love (Cohen and Ishihara, 2010:57-60).
Compliments are usually performed when the speaker wants to have a positive effect on the
interpersonal relationships with persons complimented. With respect to their form, almost all of the
compliments are realized in three patterns given and received by speakers as Manes and Wolfson
(see in Cohen and Ishihara, 2010). They found that most of the compliments in English fall into
three patterns, which are:
1. Your hair looks nice --> Noun Phrase + is/looks/ (really) Adjective
2. I like your car --> I (really) like/love + Noun Phrase
3. That's a nice tie --> (PRO (really) (a) Adjective + Noun Phrase (Note: NP=Noun Phrase,
ADJ=Adjective, PRO=Pronoun, V=Verb).
42. Likewise other researchers have also identified topics of compliments. According to Cohen and
Ishihara (2010:58) the major referents of compliments include attributes of the conversational
partner, such as:
1. appearance/possessions (e.g., You look absolutely beautiful!)
2. performance/skills/abilities (e.g., Your presentation was excellent.)
3. personality traits (e.g., You are so sweet.)
With regard to gender differences, females tend to give and receive more compliments to and from
other females and males, while males tend to give more compliments to women (overall
appearance) and, to a lesser degree, to other males (Cohen, 2008:124). Like other communicative
acts, compliment also has various distinctive functions and strategies.
According to recent research, compliments in English are often used to:
1. express admiration or approval of someone’s work/appearance/taste;
2. establish/confirm/maintain solidarity;
3. serve as an alternative to greetings/gratitude/apologies/congratulations;
4. soften face-threatening acts such as apologies, requests and criticism;
5. open and sustain conversation (conversation strategy); and
6. reinforce desired behavior. (Cohen and Ishihara, 2010:57)
The most commonly used adjectives in compliments were nice, good, pretty, great, and beautiful,
although the list undoubtedly varies for other varieties of English. As there are strategies to
compliment a given character, there are also strategies to respond to the given compliment.
Semantically, common responses to compliments can be categorized into acceptance, mitigation,
and rejection. Each category has sub-categories:
1. Accept:
a. Token of appreciation (Thanks/Thank you.)
b. Acceptance by means of a comment (Yeah, it’s my favorite, too.)
c. Upgrading the compliment by self-praise (Yeah, I can play other sports well too.)
2. Mitigate:
a. Comment about history (I bought it for the trip to Arizona.)
b. Shifting the credit (My brother gave it to me/It really knitted itself.)
43. c. Questioning or requesting reassurance or repetition (Do you really like them?)
d. Reciprocating (So is yours.)
e. Scaling down or downgrading (It’s really quite old.)
Alternatively, at this stage, learners can be introduced to and practice a variety of strategies for
responding to compliments (see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html/ and Cohen
and Ishihara, 2010:59), such as:
1. showing appreciation (Thank you);
2. agreeing (Yeah, it’s my favorite too);
3. downgrading (It’s really quite old);
4. questioning (Do you really think so?);
5. commenting on history (I bought it for the trip to Arizona);
6. shifting credit (My brother gave it to me); and
7. returning the compliment (So is yours).
2.5.1.3. Speech Acts of Complaints
Complaints are used to express such instances as disapproval, annoyance, blame, threats, or
reprimand as a reaction to a supposed offence, also to hold the hearer responsible for the offensive
action and possibly request a repair, to share a specific negative evaluation, obtain agreement, or
establish a common link between the speaker and the addressee by ‘trouble sharing’; for example,
“I can't believe I didn't get an A on that course. I worked so hard!” has the following reaction from
the Hearer: “Same here. She doesn't give away A's very easily, that's for sure.”
(http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html).
Trosborg (1994:57) defined complaints as both ‘an abusive act and, like request, a face-threatening
act’. The speech act of complaint may consist of a number of acts, such as threatening, cursing, and
accusation, and these acts are likely to cause certain damage to the social relation between the
complainer and the complainee. In addition, a complaint is by definition non-polite because its
function is to show disapproval or cause offence to interlocutors. Like requests, if the complainer
does not want to impose too much impact on the complainee, the mitigating devices are still needed
when performing complaints. These mitigating devices may include the use of modifiers or
downgraders to lessen the degree of directness or to make a complaint sound more polite.
Complaints can be done in an even indirect way by replacing the complaint with other acts, such as
a request, or censuring in a way of hint. However, in some situations the complainer may want to
44. make the censure more justifiable by providing supportive statements, or by using upgraders to
increase the force of a complaint.
A coding method or strategies of speech act of complaint realization provided by Olshtain and
Weinbach (see in Cohen and Ishihara, 2010) is presented as follows:
1. Below the level of reproach-these are various realizations that enable the speaker to avoid
explicit mention of the offensive event or direct focus on speakers (e.g. “Such things
happen”, “Don’t worry about it, there is no real damage”).
2. Expression of annoyance or disapproval-encompasses various realizations that are vague
and indirect and do not explicitly mention either the socially unacceptable act, but do
express general annoyance at the violation (e.g. “Such lack of consideration!”, “This is
really unacceptable behavior!”).
3. Explicit complaint-refers to realizations where the speaker has made the decision to use an
open face-threatening act toward the hearer, but to instigate no sanctions
(e.g. “You’re inconsiderate!”, “One should not postpone this type of operation”,
“You should not have postponed such an operation”).
4. Accusation and warning-as a complaint when the speaker chooses to perform an open
face-threatening act and further implies potential sanctions against the hearer
(e.g. “Next time I’ll let you wait for hours!”).
5. Immediate threat-is expressed when the speaker chooses to openly attack the hearer (e.g.
“You’d better pay the money right now”, “I’m not moving one inch before you change my
appointment”), or as direct insults (e.g. “You’re an idiot!”).
Complaints have the following strategies/speech act sets: first of all, there is an explanation of
purpose, for example, ‘Look, I don’t want to be horrible about it’, then comes a complaint, for
example, ‘I think maybe the grade was a little too low’, then follows a request for solution, for
example, ‘I would appreciate it if you would reconsider my grade’, and finally a request for non-
recurrence, for example, ‘Well, I’d really like to find out about this because I’m hoping it won’t
happen again’. These are generally classified into two: direct and indirect strategies. Indirect
complaints are given to addressees who are not responsible for the perceived offence, for example,
‘She never cleans up after her. Isn’t that horrible’) and often open a conversation and create
solidarity between the speakers. Indirect complaints tend to center on three themes: Self (Oh, I’m so
stupid), other (John is the worst manager.) and Situation (Why did they have to raise tuition?).
45. 2.5.1.4. Speech Acts of Refusals
In making a refusal, the speaker/writer is typically communicating a potentially undesirable
message as far as the listener/reader is concerned. What strategies can be used to mitigate refusals in
English? What pragmatic norms prevail in making and interpreting refusals in English?
There are distinctive functions and strategies for refusing. Refusals are often made in response to
requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions (Cohen and Ishihara, 2010:60). The direct and indirect
strategies of refusals can be described as follows:
I. Direct
1. Using performative verbs (I refuse.)
2. Non-performative statement:
a).“No”
b). Negative willingness/ability (I can’t.)
II. Indirect
1. Statement of regret (I’m sorry.)
2. Wish (I wish I could help you.)
3. An excuse, a reason, an explanation (I have a headache.)
4. Statement of alternative:
a). I can do X instead of Y (I’d rather . . .)
b).Why don’t you do X instead of Y? (Why don’t you ask someone else?)
5. Set condition for future or past acceptance (If you had asked me earlier, I would have . . .)
6. Promise of future acceptance (I’ll do it next time.)
7. Statement of principle (I never do business with friends.)
The following adjuncts to refusals can also be used to accompany the refusals described above:
1. statement of positive opinion/feeling or agreement (I’d love to come);
2. statement of empathy (I realize you are in a difficult situation);
3. pause fillers (um, well); and gratitude/appreciation (thanks so much for the invite).
4. gratitude/appreciation (Thanks so much for the invite).
(see http://www.carla.umn.edu/speech acts/refusal/index.html accessed 19/10/2011)
46. 2.5.1.5. Speech Acts of Requests
By making a request, the speaker infringes on the recipient’s freedom from imposition
(http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/descriptions.html). The recipient may feel that the request is
an intrusion on his/her freedom of action or even a power play. As for the requester, s/he may
hesitate to make requests for fear of exposing a need or out of fear of possibly making the recipient
lose face. In this sense, requests are face threatening to both the Requester and the Recipient. Since
requests have the potential to be intrusive and demanding, there is a need for the Requester to
minimize the imposition involved in the request. One way for the Speaker to minimize the
imposition is by employing indirect strategies rather than direct ones. People tend to use a greater
degree of indirectness with people who have some power or authority over them than to those who
do not.
By making a request, the speaker/writer infringes on the listener’s freedom from imposition. The
recipient may feel that the request is an intrusion on his/her freedom of action or even a power play.
As for the requester, s/he may hesitate to make requests for fear of exposing a need or out of fear of
possibly making the recipient lose face. In this sense, requests are face threatening to both the
requester and the recipient.
Researchers have identified functions for and strategies for making requests. Because requests have
the potential to be intrusive and demanding, there often is a need for the requester to minimize the
imposition involved in the request. One way for the requester to minimize the imposition is by
employing indirect strategies rather than direct ones (Cohen and Ishihara 2010:66). The more direct
a request is, the more transparent it is and the less of a burden the recipient bears in interpreting the
request. The scale of directness can be characterized according to the following three strategies:
1. Direct strategies (marked explicitly as requests, such as imperatives):
a).Clean up the kitchen.
b).I’m asking you to clean up the kitchen.
c).I’d like to ask you to clean the kitchen.
d).You’ll have to clean up the kitchen.
e).I really wish you’d clean up the kitchen.
2. Conventionally indirect strategies (referring to contextual preconditions necessary for its
performance as conventionalized in the language):