Effects of explicit instruction on efl learners' pragmatic competence development

明示教学对提高外语学习者语用能力的作用及局限性研究Effects of Explicit Instruction on EFL learners’ Pragmatic

Competence Development

By: Zhao Yurong

From: Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology

On: May,18th, 2007

Outline Background Questions and hypotheses Methodological issues Design Findings Conclusion

I. Background of the present study 1. Pragmatic competence and interlanguage competence Pragmatic competence ---one of the essential elements of

communicative competence. In Bachman’s (1990) model, communicative competence is

composed of organizational competence (which refers to knowledge of linguistic units and textual rules) and pragmatic competence (which refers to knowledge and ability to interpret and perform illocutionary acts corresponding to the social and contextual factors)

Interlanguage pragmatic competence---the developing state of an L2/FL learners’ pragmatic competence.

Importance of TL pragmatic competence A big number of researches, such as Thomas (1983), Tannen (1984),

Wolfson (1989), Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford (1993), Scollon & Scollon (2000), etc., have demonstrated the importance of TL pragmatic competence in intercultural communication. In fact, to some extent, it is even more important than the TL organizational competence.

The fact is simply that while native speakers often forgive syntactic and lexical errors, they typically interpret pragmatic failure as arrogance, impatience, rudeness, and so on.

Therefore, in order to prevent missteps in intercultural communication, L2 learners have to develop the TL pragmatic competence on the basis of improving their overall TL proficiency and accuracy.

Accordingly, researchers and teachers need to explore how nonnative learners acquire and develop this type of competence.

Solution?

3.Rational of explicit teaching

Potential danger for

intercultural communication

Divergence in L2 learners’ pragmatic competence REMEDY:

Explicit instruction of pragmatics

Noticing hypothesis

Inefficient development under the normal teaching condition (Ellis, 1992;Hill,1997)

The role of focused instruction in L1 pragmatics acquisition

“Noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input to intake” (Schmidt, 1990: 129), or “The attentional threshold for noticing is the same as the threshold for learning” (Schmidt, 1993:35). And simple exposure to the TL pragmatics was insufficient for learners’ noticing of L2 pragmatic features (Schmidt, 1993).

4. Previous experimental studies

Experimental studies on the effects of explicit instruction of pragmatics--incongruent results

But other studies reported that no significant effects of the explicit instruction could be found

(e.g.Locastro,1997; Kubota,1995; Overfield,1996;Pearson,2001; etc.) .

A bigger part of studies support the effectiveness of the explicit approach (e.g. Billmyer, 1990; Olshtain & Cohen, 1990; Morrow, 1995; Takahashi, 2001;

Bouton, 1994, 2001; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001; Wishnoff, 2000; etc.)

Compare and contrast:

1) Takahashi, 2001 (intermediate/advanced learners; bi-clausal requests; detailed metapragmatic information given in the handouts)

vs. Pearson, 2001(low proficiency; gratitude, apology, directive; metapragmatic discussion)

2) Morrow, 1995 (prescribed speech act formulas; various types of performance activities; learner factors are controlled )

vs. Overfield, 1996 (extralinguistic features discussion; role-play; uncontrolled learner factors, especially, the experience of traveling abroad)

Tentative interpretation:

Differences in teaching designs; Influences of learner factors Investigations into the relationship between individual factors and

pragmatic competence development associate the possible intervention of learner factors in the the instructional process of pragmatics

Integrative Motivation: Schmidt, 1983; Niezgoda and Rover, 2001

Sociocultural Identity: Locastro, 1998, 2001; Siegal, 1996

Grammatical competence: Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei,1998; Koike, 1996

II. Research questions and hypotheses (1)II. Research questions and hypotheses (1)This study investigates in the context of explicit teaching IF and To What Extent nonnative learners can improve their pragmatic performance; and meanwhile, IF and TO What Extent learner factors can exert some influences on the outcome of the explicit teaching.

Make difference in learners’ pre- and post-treatment performance?

Bring more benefits for learners’ improvement in TL pragmatic competence than normal teaching?

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

Learners’ individual differences have effects on learners’ progress under the same explicit teaching condition?

II. Research questions and hypotheses (2)II. Research questions and hypotheses (2) (i) Explicit instruction of pragmatics does make difference in

nonnative learners’ pragmatic performance; (ii) Explicit instruction can better facilitate nonnative learners’

pragmatic competence development than normal teaching approach;

(iii) FL learners’ lower integrative motivation and lower-leveled identity for TL sociocultural norm may impede learners’ investment in pragmatics learning, and thus shadow the effects of pragmatics teaching;

(iv) Grammatical competence is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition for learners’ pragmatic competence development. Learners’ lower grammatical competence might hinder learners from getting benefits of pragmatics instruction.

HYPOTHESES

III. Explicit Teaching of Requests and Refusals: Methodological Issues

Principles for explicit teaching of pragmatics

A Pilot Investigation

Findings—possible learning obstacles

Modified taxonomy of requests and refusals

1. Principles for explicit teaching of Pragmatics

Noticing hypothesistwo-dimensional model hypothesis

output hypothesisTheoretical underpinnings

Principles for explicit

teaching of

pragmatics

Principle of consciousness-raising

Principle of explicit input

Principle of activating acquired knowledge

Principle of practice

Principle of teaching data’s authenticity

General Introduction: a comparative study Time: July, 2004 Participants: 49 undergraduates in Tsinghua university 19 native English speakers. Data collection: DCT questionnaires, an English version, and a Chinese version Elicited data: 17 copies of effective NE data 30 copies of effective interlanguage data 19 copies of effective NC data

Modified taxonomy of requests and refusals A: Realization strategies of the head act Classical scheme: three macro categories, nine micro categories (Blum-Kulka et al, 1989: 277-280) Modified scheme: three macro categories, eleven micro categories+opting out preparatory strategy –>WP, AP, PEP, POP strong hints, mild hints-- > hints)

B. Mitigation devices (Blum-Kulka et al, 1989: 281-288) Group the categories of mitigators into two macro categories: NF mitigators and PF mitigators

2. Pilot Investigation (1)

2. Pilot Investigation (2)

C. Re-categorization of refusal semantic formulas Classical scheme: thirteen categories of refusal semantic formulas

(Beebe et al,1990: 72)

Modified scheme: nine categories of semantic formulas

Direct refusals Direct denials; Negative ability/willingness

Non-substantive acceptance Subjunctive supposition of acceptance (wish); and Acceptance that function as a refusal

Future acceptance: Promise of future acceptance; Set condition for future acceptance

Attempts to dissuade the interlocutors: Statement of principle or philosophy

2. Pilot Investigation (3) Based on the pilot investigation, the problematic areas for Chinese university-

level EFL learners to learn English requests and refusals may involve the following items:

1) Contextual appropriateness in making direct requests; preparatory strategies to make CID requests; CID request perspectives; syntactic downgraders (mainly conditional clause); and internal mitigation devices, especially those addressing negative face.

2) Direct refusals; certain indirect refusals (reason, alternative, avoidance, non-substantial acceptance.); adjuncts (pause fillers, gratitude, and positive opinion).

As to the possible causes, the influence of Chinese pragmatic conventions are responsible for a bigger part of differences, except the usage of WP, PF mitigators, reason, alternative, avoidance.

The difficult points listed in the above were to be taken as the treatment focuses, and the aspects in which the L1 norms exert influences were to be included in the the discussions of the differences between L1 and L2 pragmatic norms during the treatment.

* Background information of the participant groups

* A Cochran-Cox test on the experimental group (EXP) and the control group (CON) learners’ achievements (Mean: EXP 99.93, CON 102.6; SD: EXP, 17.6, CON, 10.4) in the entrance examination of English showed that there was no significant difference in English proficiency between the two groups (t’=2.67<t’0.01/2, 3.009).

Treatment design [Time span: three months; eleven 20-minute periods]

Experimental teaching material *Film segments from Brave Heart, A Few Good Men, American President, and Raising Helen. *Model dialogues recorded by native speakers based on the depicted contextual information (20

request model dialogues and 24 refusal model dialogues). * Multiple-choice exercise and metapragmatic judgment exercise devised on the basis of Chinese

researchers’ studies on pragmatic errors (He & Yan, 1986; Jia, 1997; Cai, 2003; Chen, 2003; Zhang, 2000, etc. )

IV. Design of the Major Experiment (2)

Group Age Male Female Length of

English study

Traveling abroad

Artistic design

(major)

Artistic history

(major)

EXP 19.0 15 17 6.5 years none 15 17

CON 19.1 10 13 7.3 years none 23 0

DS direct strategy CID conventionally indirect strategy NCID non-conventionally indirect strategy DCT discourse completion task EXP group experimental group CON group control group AP ability preparatory WP willingness preparatory PEP permission preparatory POP possibility preparatory NF mitigator negative face preserving mitigator PF mitigator positive face preserving mitigator DRF direct refusal DN direct denial NA negative ability/willingness statement

V. Findings

Written self-report and structured interview

Influence of learners’ sociocultural identity

Influence of learners’ grammatical competence

Learners’ performance of requests

Learners’ performance of refusals

Influence of learners’ integrative motivation


0. 00%20. 00%40. 00%60. 00%80. 00%

100. 00%

Safe Sit.

Risky Sit.

A. Situational distribution of DSs (1)


Moreover, the results of the independent samples t-tests of the cross-group differences in the employment of DSs over ‘risky’ situations also suggest the greater progress made by the EXP group learners.

Finding: Theses facts suggest that although the normal teaching (if the course book is a well-designed one) can bring certain benefits to learners, the explicit teaching can be significantly more effective.

Pretest PosttestEXP vs.CON EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE

t=-1.748 t= 3.015 t= 4.746

df=53 df= 43.369 df=29.475

P=.086 p=0.004 p= .000

EXP vs. CON EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE

t= -2.010 t= 1.041 t=3.012

df= 53 df= 46 df=37

p= .049 p=0.303 p=.005

A. Situational distribution of DSs (2)

B. Employment of preparatory strategies (1)

Findings: 1) Remarkable overtime difference in the EXP group learners’ pre-and post- treatment employment of the preparatory strategies;

2) Greater progress made by the EXP group than the CON group.

0. 00%10. 00%20. 00%30. 00%40. 00%50. 00%60. 00%70. 00%

WPAPPEPPOP

B. Employment of preparatory strategies (2) Independent samples t-tests

Results of the paired samples t-test of the EXP group learners’ employment cases of the preparatory strategies

AP1-AP2 p=.000 ; WP1-WP2 p=.039; PEP1-PEP2 p=.004 ; POP1-POP2 p=.020

Findings: Significant improvement; significantly more benefits

EXP vs. CON EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE

Pretest Posttest AP, p=.022 AP, p=.517

WP, p=.233 WP, p=.035

PEP, p=.625 PEP, p=.028

POP, p=.402 POP, p=.020

Pretest PosttestAP, p=.001 AP, p=.661

WP, p=.005 WP, p=.144

PEP, p=.000 PEP, p=.536

POP, p=.000 POP, p=.637

Pretest PosttestAP, p=.672 AP, p=.882

WP, p=.001 WP, p=.006

PEP, p=.000 PEP, p=.236

POP, p=.000 POP, p=.027

C. Employment proportion of request perspectives (1)

Analysis: 1) Before the treatment both learner groups highly depend on hearer-oriented requests and employ drastically less speaker- oriented requests and both learner groups didn't make any requests from inclusive or impersonal perspectives.

2) In the posttest, however, the EXP group’s employment of hearer-oriented requests and speaker oriented requests were at a proportion similar to the NE norms, and the employment of impersonal oriented requests can be found in the learners’ posttest performance, though no presence of inclusive- oriented requests can be detected.

3) In contrast, the CON group’s progress towards the NE norm is not so remarkable. Their employment of hearer-oriented requests in the posttest remains at a very big proportion, and their employment of speaker-oriented requests remains much less than the NE norm. And they still fail to use impersonal oriented requests and inclusive oriented requests.

Perspec--tives

H1 S1 IM1 H&S1 H2 S2 IM2 H&S2

NE 58.2% 35.3% 4.7% 1.8% 59.6% 21.3% 10.6% 8.5%

EXP 94% 6% 0 0 67.8% 27.1% 5.1% 0

CON 92.3% 7.7% 0 0 86.8% 13.2% 0 0

C. Employment of request perspectives (2)

Results of the independent samples t-tests of the differences in the aspect of the average employment cases

Results of the paired samples t-tests of the differences in the EXP group learners’ pre-and post- treatment employments of request perspectives

H1-H2, p=.042; S1-S2, p=.000; IM1-IM2, p=.002

Findings: Significant improvement; significantly more benefits

EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE

Pretest Posttest

H, p=. 000 H, p=. 088

S, p=. 000 S, p=. 171

IM,p=.020 IM,p=.434

H&S,p=.163 H&S,p=.041

Pretest Posttest

H, p=. 000 H, p=. 015

S,p=.000 S,p=.299

IM,p=.020 IM,p=.020

H&S,p=.163 H&S,p=.041

D.Employment of bi-clausal requests and NF mitigators

Bi-clausal requests NF mitigatorsMean Pretest Posttest

NE 1.0000 .8750

EXP .2188 1.4688

CON 8.696E-02 .3043

Paired samples t-test

BIC1-BIC2 p=.000

Independent samples t-tests

EXP pre vs. CON pre p=.255

EXP post vs. CON post p=.000

EXP post vs. NE post p=.106

CON post vs. NE post p=.043

Mean Pretest Posttest

NE 1.2353 .6875

EXP .7500 1.0625

CON .5217 .2174

Paired samples t-test

NF1-NF2 p=.056


EXP pre vs. CON pre p=.177

EXP post vs. CON post p=.004

EXP pre vs. NE pre p=.038


Learners’ performance of refusals

A. Average employment of direct refusals and t-tests of the means

EXP pre vs. NE pre EXP post vs. NE post EXP post vs. CON post

DRF, p=.014 DN, p= .000

NA, p= .671

DRF, p=.236

DN, p=.000

NA, p=.001

DRF, p=.516

DN, p=.456

NA, p=.396

Group DRF1 DN1 NA1 DRF2 DN2 NA2

NE 2.8235 1.4706 1.3529 1.6875 .8750 .8125

EXP 1.7188 .2188 1.5000 2.0938 .1563 1.9375

CON 1.8261 .5217 1.3043 2.3043 8.696E-02 2.2174

B. Employment of indirect refusals and the results of t-tests

Formulas EXP pre

vs. NE pre

EXP post

vs. NE post

CON pre

vs. NE pre

CON post

vs. NE post

Alternative p=.080 p= .764 p=.143 p=.503

Avoidance p= .002 p=.800 p= .054 p=.074

Non-substantive

acceptance

p=.014 p=.869 p= .037 p=.010

Group Alt1 Avoid1 Non-A1 Alt2 Avoid2 Non-A2

NE 9.2% 8.2% 3.1% 33% 5.3% 4.3%

EXP 4% 1.1% 0 31% 4.3% 4.8%

CON 3.8% 2.3% 0 24.3% 1.5% 0

C.Usage of semantic formula of reason

Means Results of t-tests

Mean Pretest Posttest

NE 3.5294 3.8125

EXP 3.9688 4.4375

CON 3.3913 4.9565



EXP post vs. NE post p=.067CON pre vs. NE pre p=.675 CON post vs. NE post p=.003

Paired samples t-tests

EXP pre vs. EXP post p=.053

CON pre vs. CON post p=.000

D. Usage of adjuncts

Gratitude Positive opinion

Overall distribution

Pretest Posttest

NE 23.7% 23.4%

EXP 28.2% 40.1%

CON 16.7% 39.7%

Results of t-tests



EXP post vs. CON Post p=.685

Overall distribution

Pretest Posttest

NE 19.4% 16%

EXP 31.6% 32.6%

CON 26.7% 29.4%

Results of t-tests



EXP post vs. CON Post p=.888

Written Self-report and Structured interview

Self -report 1) Some learners have a wrong belief in the indirectness encoded in want statement expressions, which is

possibly due to the influence of Chinese culture. 2) The learners are somewhat reluctant to follow the native norm of using the direct denials in ‘safe’ cases

because they are afraid that the direct denial would hurt their friends’ feelings; some learners could intentionally choose an ‘inter-norm’ between L1 culture and L2 culture.

3) Learners seem to have a tendency of using adjuncts to modify the refusals when they feel unsure of the necessity. They argued for the Chinese traditional belief in “no one will blame a person who is excessively polite”.

Structured Interview

The interview reveals that most learners have a preference for Chinese cultural norm, but meanwhile, they are willing to follow English cultural norm when communicating with others in English. So, perhaps, in performing speech acts, they just consciously or unconsciously follow an inter-norm.

Influence of learners’ integrative motivation

Results of paired samples t-tests HM pre vs. HM post LM pre vs. LM post DSA1-DSA2 p=.003 DSA1-DSA2 p=.000 NONH1-NONH2 p=.036 NONH1-NONH2 p=.105 BIC1-BIC2 p=.001 BIC1-BIC2 p=.010 DRF1-DRF2 p=.597 DRF1-DRF2 p=.229

Test & Group ‘Safe’ DSs Non-H perspective

Bi-clausal request

Direct

refusal

Pretest LM (15)

HM (15)

40.5%

48.6%

10.9%

7.1%

2.7%

0.8%

26.7%

32.2%

Posttest LM (15)

HM (15)

65.8% (+25.3%)

77% (+28.4%)

20.2% (+9.8%)

23.3%(+16.2%)

23.4% (+20.7%)

28.6% (+27.8%)

32.2%

37.8%

Influence of learners’ sociocultural identity

Findings:

1) On the one hand, the HI subgroup learners are more ready to accept the NE norm in employing direct refusals;

2) On the other hand, the HI subgroup learners also show reluctance to choose direct denials from the two available choices and depend predominantly on the alternative, negative ability or willingness to perform direct refusals.

Interpretation: Possibly, the underlying cause is that the HI subgroup learners can be still subject to the influence of L1 culture, and thus, to solve the conflicts of two cultural conventions, they would prefer an ‘inter-norm’.

Subgroup DN1 NA1 DRF1 DN2 NA2 DRF2

LI 3.5% 24.1% 27.6% 2.2% 26.9% 29%

HI 4.9% 32.1% 37% 4.6% 38.6% 43.2%

Influence of learners’ grammatical competence

Results of paired samples t-test HG pre vs. HG post LG pre vs. LG post

AP&WP1 vs. AP&WP2 p=.000 p=.000

PEP & POP1 vs. PEP&POP2 p=.002 p=.060

BIC1vs.BIC2 p=.000 p=.006

Subgroup AP& WP1 PEP&POP1 BIC1 AP& WP2 PEP&POP2 BIC2

LG .7500 6.618E-02 .2.206E-02

.4216 .1667 .2157

HG .7583 .1000 3.333E-02

.2750 .2889 .2778

VI Conclusion and implications (1)

Answers to the research questions

The approach of explicit teaching does bring significant benefits for learner’s progress towards the NE norm, but its effectiveness seems to be restricted in teaching pragmatic features related with sociopragmatics.

The experimental treatment can bring more benefits to learners than the normal teaching condition despite the fact the explicit treatment cannot bring all the expected effects in the EXP group learners’ performance.

Learners’ lower integrative motivation and their L1 cultural beliefs can have certain constraints over learner’ progress towards the native speakers’ pragmatic norm andaccordingly affect the outcome of explicit teaching to a certain degree; learners with lower grammatical competence are likely to get less benefits from the explicit teaching of pragmatics.


Tentative conclusions: The present experiment of explicit teaching approach designed on the basis

of the teaching principles is successful for a bigger part but not in every aspect in facilitating learners’ TL pragmatic competence development.

1) Regarding the increase of pragmalinguistic means to achieve higher degreed indirectness and politeness, the explicit approach brought remarkable benefits for learners’ pragmatic progress.

2) Explicit teaching of sociopragmatics seem to be effective in teaching ‘politeness’, but not so effective in teaching appropriateness, or, native-like usage.

3) It seems that the limitations of the explicit approach revealed in this experiment were more often caused by the intervening factors than the approach itself.


Implications

Interlanguage pragmatics

researches

L2 instruction

A consolidated theoretical construct

Influences of learner factors

Integration of pragmatics instruction into normal teaching

Explicit teaching principles

Goal of L2 pragmatics instruction

Modified taxonomy of requests and refusals

Native speakers’ norm?

VII.Limitations and suggestions Limitations

1) The population size is rather small.

2) There are some drawbacks in the design of the DCT questionnaires and the employment of two sets of baseline data.

3) Due to the restriction of time, less sufficient practice was administered of some TL pragmatic usage in subtle aspects.

4) Because of the failure in finding a native speaker as a co-rater, the comprehensive evaluation of learners’ pragmatic performance was not done.

Suggestions 1) To get a clear picture of the role of instruction or individual factors in the process of pragmatic competence

development, investigations of a big population of versified background and different proficiency are expected.

2) The present study strongly recommends Chinese interlanguage pragmatics researchers to go beyond the model of comparative study and conduct experimental studies to investigate the developmental process of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence.

Thank you for your attendance and precious advice!

Education

Effects of explicit instruction on efl learners' pragmatic competence development