Profiling Pragmatic Ability of Foreign Language Learners

Profiling Pragmatic Ability of Foreign Language Learners Marija Kusevska, Biljana Ivanovska, Nina Daskalovska & LiljanaMitkovska; GoceDelcev University-Stip, Republic of Macedonia

Project title The role of explicit instruction in developing pragmatic competence in learning English and German as a foreign language GoceDelcev University-Stip, Republic of Macedonia

Aims of the project 1. to research how explicit instructions influence the development of pragmatic competence in foreign language learning; and 2. to investigate the role of the Internet as a platform for foreign language learning.

Focal points of the project • comparison of the realization of the speech acts of requesting, apologizing and complaining in Macedonian and in English, i.e German; • realization of the above speech acts in the interlanguage of English and German language learners in Macedonia; • definition of the reasons that bring about pragmatic failure by foreign language learners; • the role of explicit instructions in the development of the pragmatic competence of English and German foreign language learners; • the role of the Internet as a medium for learning foreign languages.

Project phases Phase 1. Review of existing research; Design of appropriate instruments for pragmatic competence assessment; Selection of English and German language students who will be participating in the project and administration of the instruments for profiling students’ pragmatic competence; Phase 2. Definition of the pragmatic features to be observed; Design of e-learning modules; Introducing student-participants to the project; Phase 3. Definition of the instruments for evaluation of the effects of the explicit instructions; Phase 4. Dissemination of the results (monograph and conference).

Motivation • lack of valid data on communicative competences of Macedonian learners of English and German • lack of syllabi focusing on teaching communicative competences • need of tracing effective methods for reinforcing communication skills

Defining learner’s pragmatic ability or interlanguage pragmatics 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: 240) Pragmatic failure (Thomas, 1983) could occur when learners misunderstand what a speaker of a TL says, and/or when they produce inappropriate expressions that do not meet the TL pragmatics or cultural norms.

What learners should know • Sociopragmatic knowledge refers to the “specific ‘local’ conditions on language use […] for it is clear that the Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle operate variably in different cultures or language communities, in different social situations, among different social classes, etc.” (Leech 1983: 10). - This means knowledge of the context, recognition and production of illocutionary meaning, distribution of politeness strategies, the speaker-hearer relashionships, formality of the situation, social values and cultural beliefs, etc.

Pragmalinguistic knowledge, on the other hand, refers to the particular linguistic resources which a given language provides for conveying particular illocutions. - This means knowledge of socially appropriate language use with respect to the sociopragmatic variables.

What abilities do learners have to acquire in order to become pragmatically competent • The ability to perform speech acts • The ability to convey and interpret non-literal meanings • The ability to perform politeness functions • The ability to perform discourse functions • The ability to use cultural knowledge

Instruments for assessing interlanguage pragmatic ability • define instruments for measuring pragmatic competence, • context variables, i.e. the setting in which the speech act takes place, the interlocutors and their relationship, etc. • the importance of authenticity, and • the importance of retrospection

The responses will be analysed for: (1) ability to use the correct speech act; (2) typicality of expressions; (3) appropriateness of amount of speech and information given; (4) level of formality; (5) directness; and (6) politeness.

Discourse Completion Test • requests, apologies and complaints • six tasks for each speech acts = 18 tasks • contextual setting, participant’s role, social status (vertical distance/power), social distance (horizontal distance), severity of offence/degree of imposition • piloting the DCT • 134 students

Role plays • are more similar to real life speech situations • as in real conversation “there is a distributed responsibility among interlocutors for the creation of sequential coherence, identities, meaning, and events.” (McNamara, p 46) • the situation is described in more detail, roles are described more precisely, there is a moment of surprise • there is language planning, asking for clarification, conversation management, etc.

Still, it cannot establish context as in real world. There is nothing at stake, the face of the speaker and the hearer is not really threatened, speakers may be bolder and risk more than in real life. • 9 role plays, three for each of the speech acts • same variables as in DCT tasks

Drawbacks • It is more difficult to organize it and manage the whole situation. It is difficult to keep track of a large number of students. • It is difficult to ensure that pairs are formed of students of the same level of proficiency. • It is time consuming and it is difficult to transcribe the conversations. • For most of the students it is an interesting experience. However, for some students it may be stressful.

Retrospective interview • To check if the students are aware of the norms of interaction in a given context: power, social distance and severity of offence/degree of imposition • To check if the students are aware of the characteristics/norms of interaction of the English and Macedonian culture (positive politeness/ negative politeness; directness/ indirectness) • To check how the actual environment influences their behavior (classroom, not natural environment)

Verbal reports from raters-native speakers • collecting verbal report from the raters • to check native-speaker’s expectations in the given situations and if this coincides with learners’ production • to check how native speakers would react to learner’s utterances • to receive some guidance from native speakers on how they think our learners should improve their communication skills

Issues often investigated in interlanguage pragmatics • Misunderstandings between speakers • L1 pragmatic transfer • Participating in a conversation as a listener (backchannelling) • Understanding the unsaid and assessing the unsaid • Avoiding a speech act to accommodate a target culture norm • Nonverbal behaviour • Relationship between language proficiency and pragmatic competence

What learners should know about speech acts • speech acts are what we do with words to achieve a specific goal: request, invite, refuse, apologize, complement, complain, agree, disagree, etc. Ss need to be able to formulate speech acts appropriately with respect to who the speakers and hearers are, the context, the seriousness of the offence, urgency, etc., as well as to combine speech acts into speech act sets • to apply the politeness principles in their L2 as well as to vary their strategies for speech act realization with reference to their interlocutors, the social distance between them and the context.

to be able to recognize their interlocutor’s indirect strategies and decode the implicit meaning of their utterances; • to be able to apply the appropriate linguistic means in accordance with the socicultural norms;

Profiling Pragmatic Ability of Foreign Language Learners