Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines

1. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines Japanese sumimasen

2. Available research on the effects of instruction in pragmatics generally focus on proficient learners. • There are only two studies on beginners/ • German beginners improves their ability to use routine formulas after instruction. ( Wildner-Bassett, 1994) • Comparing explicit and implicit instruction, Tateyama et al. found that explicit outperformed implicit on multiple choice test and role play.

3. Pedagogical perspectives To express gratitude, Japanese incorrectly use I’m sorry where as NS use Thank you in English. Japanese often use a quasi-apologetic expression such as sumimasen in thanking situations as they feel obliged to repay the received act of kindness. American learners of Japanese use arigatooin the same situation, which is a negative pragmalinguistictranfers from English thank you.

4. Research questions • What are the effects of explicit and implicit instruction in the use of the routine Japanese formula sumimasen on beginning JFL learners? Is explicit instruction more effective than implicit instruction? • What is the relative effect of long-term treatment as compared to short term treatment? • What is the relative effectiveness of various data elicitation measures for the study of the effects of instruction in pragmatics?

5. Participants 13 students in Explicit and 14 students in Implicit groups. Expect for one Korean and one Chinese students, all the students were native speakers of English. But the Chinese and Korean students were advanced learners of English.

6. Teaching objectives Sumimasen: getting attention, apologizing, expressing gratitude. Other formulas fulfilling these functions: • Attention getters: anoo, chotto • Apology routines: gomen, mooshiwakearimasen • Thanking: mooshiwakearimasen ( indebtness) arigatoo (appreciation) doomo Students were to use the forms, discourse functions, illocutionary forces, politeness of these routines with their context factors.

7. Instruction Over 8 weeks- 4 treatments- 20 minutes each

8. Assessment instruments and procedures A background questionnaire for motivation and goals for learning Japanese. One-paragraph narration on what was learnt from the lessons. Worksheets with discourse completion tasks to review what they learned after each treatment and to prepare for the role play and multiple choice test.

9. After the first and last treatment, students were participated in role play scenarios with a native Japanese. Immediately after, they completed a MCT on routine formulas. Then, they took a questionnaire on MCT probing self-assessment, item difficulty. Following this, there was a structured interview probing into role-play, assessment of the received instruction, exploring alternatives for teaching pragmatics.

10. MCT was used as it serves to elicit information without making demands on the learner’s fluency or interactional skills, whereas role plays assess the ability to compute contextual factors. Role-plays make more cognitive demands on learner’s comprehension and production systems. They are useful in examining learner’s ability to instantaneously incorporate sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge in interaction.

11. Data analysis

12. Analysis of variance MCT Scores

13. Role play overall rating scores Variance analysis of role play tasks

14. Discussion and implications MCT and role play results indicated no significant differences between implicit and explicit groups contrary to the pilot study. This may be due to: Motivation Contact with Japanese outside class Implicit group’s academical success

15. Explicit teaching is more effective than implicit teaching according to MCT results. Explicit taught students use the routine expressions in authentic situations more than implicit group. This may suggest the success of consciousness-raising by explicit teaching. The utility of verbal reports are considered important in diagnostic and L2 enhancer.

16. Thanks