Professional Documents
Culture Documents
There are many definitions of pragmatics around. One I find particularly useful has
been proposed by David Crystal. According to him, "Pragmatics is 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" (Crystal 1985,
p. 240). In other words, pragmatics is the study of communicative action in its
sociocultural context. Communicative action includes not only speech acts - such as
requesting, greeting, and so on - but also participation in conversation, engaging in
different types of discourse, and sustaining interaction in complex speech events.
Following Leech (1983), I will focus on pragmatics as interpersonal rhetoric - the way
speakers and writers accomplish goals as social actors who do not just need to get
things done but attend to their interpersonal relationships with other participants at
the same time.
Leech (1983) and his colleague Jenny Thomas (1983) proposed to subdivide pragmatics
into a pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic component. Pragmalinguistics refers to the
resources for conveying communicative acts and relational or interpersonal meanings.
Such resources include pragmatic strategies like directness and indirectness, routines,
and a large range of linguistic forms which can intensify or soften communicative acts.
For one example, compare these two versions of apology - the terse 'I'm sorry' and
the Wildean 'I'm absolutely devastated. Can you possibly forgive me?' In both versions,
the speaker apologizes, but she indexes a very different attitude and social relationship
in each of the apologies (e.g., Fraser, 1980; House & Kasper, 1981; Brown & Levinson,
1987; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989).
Indeed, adult NNS do get a considerable amount of L2 pragmatic knowledge for free.
This is because some pragmatic knowledge is universal, and other aspects may be
successfully transferred from the learners' L1. To start with the pragmatic universals,
learners know that conversations follow particular organizational principles -
participants have to take turns at talk, and conversations and other speech events have
specific internal structures. Learners know that pragmatic intent can be indirectly
conveyed, and they can use context information and various knowledge sources to
understand indirectly conveyed meaning. They know that recurrent speech situations
are managed by means of conversational routines (Coulmas, 1981;
Nattinger&DeCarrico, 1992) rather than by newly created utterances. They know that
strategies of communicative actions vary according to context (Blum-Kulka, 1991);
specifically, along such factors as social power, social and psychological distance, and
the degree of imposition involved in a communicative act, as established in politeness
theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Brown & Gilman, 1989). Learners have demonstrated
knowledge of the directive and expressive speech acts that have been most frequently
studied in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics, such as requests and
apologies, and they have been shown to understand and use the major realization
strategies for such speech acts. For instance, in requesting, users of any language
studied thus far distinguish different levels of directness; direct, as in 'feed the cat',
conventionally indirect, as in 'can/could/would you feed the cat?', and indirect, as in
'the cat's complaining.' Furthermore, language users know that requests can be
softened or intensified in various ways, as in 'I was wondering if you would terribly
mind feeding the cat', and that requests can be externally modified through various
supportive moves, for instance justifications, as in 'I have to go to a conference', or
imposition minimizers, as in 'She only needs food once a day'. Studies document that
these strategies of requesting are available to ESL or EFL learners who are NS of such
diverse languages as Chinese (Johnston, Kasper, & Ross, 1994), Danish (Frch&
Kasper, 1989), German (House & Kasper, 1987), Hebrew (Blum-Kulka&Olshtain, 1986),
Japanese (Takahashi &DuFon, 1989), Malay (Piirainen-Marsh, 1995), and Spanish
(Rintell& Mitchell, 1989). In their early learning stages, learners may not be able to use
such strategies because they have not yet acquired the necessary linguistic means, but
when their linguistic knowledge permits it, learners will use the main strategies for
requesting without instruction.
Learners may also get very specific pragmalinguistic knowledge for free if there is a
corresponding form-function mapping between L1 and L2, and the forms can be used
in corresponding L2 contexts with corresponding effects. For instance, the English
modal past as in the modal verbs could or would has formal, functional and
distributional equivalents in other Germanic languages such as Danish and German -
the Danish modal past kunne/ville and the German subjunctive knntest and wrdest.
And sure enough, Danish and German learners of English transfer ability questions
from L1 Danish (kunne/ville du lnemig dine noter) and L1 German (knntest/ wrdest
Du mirDeineAufzeichnungenleihen) to L2 English (could/would you lend me your
notes) (House & Kasper, 1987; Frch& Kasper, 1989), and they do this without the
benefit of instruction.
Unfortunately, learners do not always make use of their free ride. It is well known from
educational psychology that students do not always transfer available knowledge and
strategies to new tasks. This is also true for some aspects of learners' universal or L1-
based pragmatic knowledge. L2 recipients often tend towards literal interpretation,
taking utterances at face value rather than inferring what is meant from what is said
and underusing context information. Learners frequently underuse politeness marking
in L2 even though they regularly mark their utterances for politeness in L1 (Kasper,
1981). Although highly context-sensitive in selecting pragmatic strategies in their own
language, learners may underdifferentiate such context variables as social distance and
social power in L2 (Fukushima, 1990; Tanaka, 1988).
So, the good news is that there is a lot of pragmatic information that adult learners
possess, and the bad news is that they don't always use what they know. There is thus
a clear role for pedagogic intervention here, not with the purpose of providing
learners with new information but to make them aware of what they know already and
encourage them to use their universal or transferable L1 pragmatic knowledge in L2
contexts.
The most compelling evidence that instruction in pragmatics is necessary comes from
learners whose L2 proficiency is advanced and whose unsuccessful pragmatic
performance is not likely to be the result of cultural resistance or disidentification
strategies (Kasper, 1995, for discussion). In a study of a large sample of advanced ESL
learners, Bouton (1988) examined how well these students understood different types
of indirect responses, or implicature, as in the following dialog:
Sue: How was your dinner last night?
Anne: Well, the food was nicely presented.
Bouton found that in 27% of the cases, implicatures were understood differently by
native speakers (NS) and NNS. A re-test of 30 students after 4 1/2 years demonstrated
that their comprehension now showed a success rate of over 90%. But some
implicature types resisted improvement through exposure alone. These included the
Pope question (as in Is the Pope Catholic?) and indirect criticism as in the Sue & Anne
dialogue. Students' comprehension of implicature may thus profit from instruction,
and as we will see shortly, this has indeed proved to be the case.
As you can see from the second column to the left, the teaching goals in these studies
extend over a large range of pragmatic features and abilities. Some studies examine
the discourse markers and strategies by which conversationalists get in and out of
conversations, introduce, sustain, and change topics, organize turn-taking and keep
the conversation going by listener activities such as backchanneling. Many of these
conversational activities are implemented by pragmatic routines which regularly occur
in spoken discourse, yet foreign language learners may have little exposure to them. A
number of discourse markers and strategies are illustrated in the following
conversational sequence.
A telephone conversation (Sacks, 1995, vol. II, p. 201f; transcript slightly modified)
A: Hello.
B: Vera?
A: Ye:s.
B: Well you know, I had a little difficulty getting you. (1.0) First I got the wrong number, and
then I got Operator, [A: Well.] Anduhm (1.0) I wonder why.
A: Well, I wonder too. It uh just rung now about uh three ti//mes.
B: Yeah, well Operator got it for me.
A: She did.
B: Uh huh. So //uh
A: Well.
B: When I- after I got her twice, why she [A: telephoned] tried it for me. Isn't that funny?
A: Well it certainly is.
B: Must be some little cross of lines someplace hh
A: Guess so.
B: Uh huh,uh, am I taking you away from yer dinner?
A: No::. No, I haven't even started tuh get it yet.
B: Oh, you have//n't.
A: hhheh heh
B: Well I- I never am certain, I didn't know whether I'd be m too early or too late // or ri-
A: No::. No, well I guess uh with us uhm there isn't any - [B: Yeah.] p'ticular time.
Another group of studies explores whether students benefit from instruction in specific
speech acts. So far, speech acts examined are compliments, apologies, complaints, and
refusals. There is a research literature on all of these speech acts, documenting how
they are performed by native speakers of English in different social contexts. Based on
this literature, students were taught the strategies and linguistic forms by which the
speech acts are realized and how these strategies are used in different contexts. As
one example, consider the realization strategies (or 'speech act set') for apologies
(adapted from Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989):
Bringing together the ability to carry out speech acts and manage ongoing conversation,
House (1996) examined instructional effects on what she calls pragmatic fluency - the extend
to which students' conversational contributions are relevant, polite, and overall effective. And
finally, while most studies focus on aspects of production, two studies examined pragmatic
comprehension: in Bouton (1994), students were taught different types of implicatures, as in
the Sue & Anne dialogue quoted earlier, and Kubota (1995) replicated Bouton's study in an
EFL context.
Wildner-Bassett's (1994) and Tateyama et al.'s studies are also the only ones in which
the target language is not English - in Wildner-Bassett's study, the L2 is German, in
Tateyama et al., it is Japanese. Note that in some studies, the target language is a
foreign language whereas in others, it is a second language. This has consequences for
the learning outcomes, as I will show a bit later.
The studies differed in their research goals. Olshtain and Cohen (1990), Wildner-Bassett
(1994) and Morrow (1996) explored whether the features under investigation were
teachable at all. These studies did not employ control groups but compared students'
test performance before and after instruction to that of NS of the target language,
referred to as 'L2 baseline' in the 'design' column in Table 1. Billmyer (1990) and
Bouton (1994) examined whether students who received instruction in complimenting
and implicature did better than controls who did not.
Yet another group explored the effectiveness of specific teaching approaches. In these
studies, two or more student groups received different types of instruction. House and
Kasper (1981), House (1996), and Tateyama et al. (1997) compared explicit with implicit
approaches. Explicit teaching involved description, explanation, and discussion of the
pragmatic feature in addition to input and practice, whereas implicit teaching included
input and practice without the metapragmatic component. Wildner-Bassett (1984,
1986) compared an eclectic approach with a modified version of suggestopedia, and
Kubota (1995) compared an inductive approach, where students had to figure out in
groups how implicatures in English work, to a teacher-directed deductive approach
and zero instruction in implicature. Information about the designs and assessment
procedures and instruments is provided in the two rightmost columns in Table 1, but
I'm not going to comment on those. Instead, let's proceed to the findings of the
studies.
First of all, the studies that examined whether the selected pragmatic features were
teachable found this indeed to be the case, and comparisons of instructed students
with uninstructed controls reported an advantage for the instructed learners. Secondly,
the studies comparing the relative effect of explicit and implicit instruction found that
students' pragmatic abilities improved regardless of the adopted approach, but the
explicitly taught students did better than the implicit groups. Thirdly, with respect to
other teaching approaches, Wildner-Bassett (1984, 1986) found that both the
eclectively taught students and the suggestopedic group improved their use of
conversational routines considerably, however the eclectic group outperformed the
suggestopedic group. Kubota (1995) reported an advantage for students receiving
either deductive or inductive instruction over the uninstructed group, with a superior
effect for the inductive approach, this initial difference had evaporated by the time a
delayed post-test was administered.
Wildner-Bassett (1994) and Tateyama et al. (1997) demonstrated that pragmatic
routines are teachable to beginning foreign language learners. This finding is
important in terms of curriculum and syllabus design because it dispels the myth that
pragmatics can only be taught after students have developed a solid foundation in L2
grammar and vocabulary. As we know from uninstructed first and second language
acquisition research, most language development is function-driven - i.e., the need to
understand and express messages propels the learning of linguistic form. Just as in
uninstructed acquisition, students can start out by learning pragmatic routines which
they cannot yet analyze but which help them cope with recurrent, standardized
communicative events right from the beginning.
There is little evidence for aspects of L2 pragmatics that resist development through
teaching, but the few documented cases are instructive. One such study is Kubota's
replication of Bouton's (1994) research on the teaching of implicature. Kubota's
Japanese EFL learners were able to understand the exact implicatures that were
repeated from the training materials but were unable to generalize inferencing
strategies to new instances of implicature. However, these students' English proficiency
was much less advanced than that of the learners in Bouton's studies, and with more
time, occasion for practice, and increased L2 input, the students' success rate might
have improved.
NS: Oh I tell you what we go shopping together and buy all the things [we need]
NNS: [Of course] of course
NS: Okay then and you try and call Anja and ask her if she knows somebody who owns a grill
NNS: Yes of course (House, 1996, p. 242)
More appropriate acceptances of the NS' suggestions would have been ' ok/good
idea/let's do it that way then' or the like. Why would inappropriate rejoinders persist in
these advanced learners' discourse despite instruction? A plausible explanation is
Bialystok's (e.g., 1993) notion of control of processing: fluent and appropriate
conversational responses require high degrees of processing control in utterance
comprehension and production, and such complex skills may be very hard to develop
through the few occasions for practice that foreign language classroom learning
provides.
But despite those few limitations, the research supports the view that pragmatic ability
can indeed be systematically developed through planful classroom activities. In order
to address the next question -
a more narrow range of speech acts (Long, Adams, McLean, &Castaos, 1976)
a lack of politeness marking (Lrscher& Schulze, 1988)
shorter and less complex openings and closings (Lrscher, 1986; Kasper, 1989)
monopolization of discourse organization and management by the teacher (Lrscher,
1986; Ellis, 1990), and consequently,
a limited range of discourse markers (Kasper, 1989).
The reason for such differences is not that classroom discourse is 'artificial'. Classroom
discourse is just as authentic as any other kind of discourse. Rather, classroom interaction is
an institutional activity in which participants' roles are asymmetrically distributed (Nunan,
1989), and the social relationships in this unequal power encounter are reflected and re-
affirmed at the level of discourse. Teacher's and students' rights and obligations, and the
activities associated with them, are epitomized in the basic interactional pattern of traditional
teacher-fronted teaching - the (in)famous pedagogical exchange of elicitation (by the teacher)
- response (by a student) - feedback (by the teacher) (cf. discussion in Chaudron, 1988, p. 37).
The classic scenario is consistent with a knowledge-transmission model of teaching, according
to which the teacher imparts new information to students, helps them process such information
and controls whether the new information has become part of students' knowledge. Such
functions can be implemented through a very limited range of communicative acts.
But despite its unique structure, even teacher-fronted classroom discourse offers some
opportunities for pragmatic learning. One important learning resource is classroom
management, because in this activity language does not function as an object for
analysis and practice but as a means for communication. If classroom management is
performed in the students' L1, they miss a valuable opportunity for experiencing the L2
as a genuine means of communication. In a recent call for a role of students' native
language in ESL teaching, Auerbach (1993) proposed that classroom management is
one of the activities that could be carried out in students' L1 rather than the L2.
Auerbach argues that using minority students' native language for classroom
management is one way of validating the students' ethnolinguistic identity in an ESL
classroom. In my view, Auerbach's call against English Only classrooms in ESL settings
for immigrant minorities is valid and necessary, but I want to caution against extending
it to EFL situations or any other foreign language classrooms, for that matter. For
students of English in Continental Europe or Asia, or students of Japanese and French
in the US, the FL classroom may be the only regular opportunity for using the FL for
communication. These opportunities should not be curtailed, and certainly not when it
comes to routinized activities such as classroom management discourse. In a recent
study of his learning of Japanese as a Foreign Language, Cohen (1997) reports:
Because little genuinly communicative interchange was conducted in Japanese, students had
not much exposure to authentic input in this classroom.
From the studies reviewed earlier and from other theory and research of SL learning,
we can distill a number of activities that are useful for pragmatic development. Such
activities can be classified into two main types: activities aiming at raising students'
pragmatic awareness, and activities offering opportunities for communicative practice.
Awareness-raising
Authentic L2 input is essential for pragmatic learning, but it does not secure successful
pragmatic development. When students' observe L2 communicative practices, their
minds don't simply record what they hear and see like a videocamera does. Students'
experiences are interpretive rather than just registering. Cognitive psychology (e.g.,
Sanford &Garrod, 1981) as well as radical constructivism (e.g., von Glaserfeld, 1995)
emphasize the importance of prior knowledge for comprehension and learning. In our
attempt to understand the practices of an unfamiliar community, we tend to view such
practices through the lenses of our own customs. We tend to classify experiences into
'familiar' and thus not requiring further reflection or analysis, and 'unfamiliar', i.e.,
peculiar, enigmatic, inviting explanation, and attracting evaluation. Mller (1981)
referred to this interpretive strategy as cultural isomorphism. As a strategy for the
acquisition of everyday knowledge, cultural isomorphism is a combination of
assimilation and spot-the-difference. L2 practices are subjected to the same social
evaluations as the apparently equivalent L1 practices. The resulting perspective is that
of a tourist who sorts experiences in the visited country into 'just like home' and
'strange'. As Elbeshausen and Wagner (1985) comment, "Tourism is not educational
but it dramatically increases our repertoire of anecdotes" (p. 49), and this is because
through the assimilative and contrastive strategy of isomorphism, stereotypical
evaluations of L2 practices emerge. Language teaching therefore has the important
task to help students situate L2 communicative practices in their sociocultural context
and appreciate their meanings and functions within the L2 community. The research
literature on cross-cultural pragmatics documents the rich intracultural variation of
communicative action patterns and thus offers compelling counter-evidence against
unhelpful and often mutual stereotypes. For example, a stereotype held by some
Japanese learners of English is that Americans have a very direct style of
communication (Tanaka, 1988; Robinson, 1992); however, research on requests (Blum-
Kulka& House, 1989; Blum-Kulka, 1991) and refusals (Beebe, Takahashi, &Uliss-Weltz,,
1990; Beebe & Cummings, 1996) provides evidence to the contrary.
Thirdly, members of the target community may perceive NNS's total convergence to
L2 pragmatics as intrusive and inconsistent with the NNS's role as outsider to the L2
community, whereas they may appreciate some measure of divergence as a disclaimer
to membership. Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1991) documented that in many
ethnolinguistic contact situations, successful communication is a matter of optimal
rather than total convergence. Optimal convergence is a dynamic, negotiable
construct that defies hard-and-fast definition. It refers to pragmatic and sociolinguistic
choices which are consistent with participants' subjectivities and social claims, and
recognizes that such claims may be in conflict between participants.
Fourthly, as Peirce (1995) noted, language classrooms provide an ideal arena for
exploring the relationship between learners' subjectivity and L2 use. Classrooms afford
second language learners the opportunity to reflect on their communicative
encounters and to experiment with different pragmatic options. For foreign language
learners, the classroom may be the only available environment where they can try out
what using the L2 feels like, and how more or less comfortable they are with different
aspects of L2 pragmatics. The sheltered environment of the L2 classroom will thus
prepare and support learners to communicate effectively in L2. But more than that, by
encouraging students to explore and reflect their experiences, observations, and
interpretations of L2 communicative practices and their own stances towards them, L2
teaching will expand its role from that of language instruction to that of language
education.
References
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27, 9-32.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and
pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning Vol. 7 (pp. 21-
39). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., &Drnyei, Z. (1997). Pragmatic awareness and instructed L2 learning:
An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the AAAL 1997 Conference, Orlando, March.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative
conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40, 467-
501.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal
study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.A.S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D.W.
(1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written
questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M.
Gass& J. Neu (Hg.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(Original version 1985).
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., &Uliss-Weltz, R.(1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In
R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence
in a second language (55-73). New York: Newbury House.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic
competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-59).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Billmyer, K. (1990). "I really like your lifestyle": ESL learners learning how to compliment.
Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 6:2, 31-48.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E.
Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/ second language
pedagogy research (pp. 255-272). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.