Chapter I. Pragmatic aspects of english teaching and learning

Level of Proficiency
Does proficiency have any influence on the acquisition of pragmatic rules? Bardovi-Harlig argues that some areas are probably more sensitive to level of proficiency than others. But in general terms, proficiency has little effect on the realization strategies that learners use (see Kasper & Rose, 2001: 26-27).
On the other hand, in a study of refusals carried out among Japanese ESL learners at both, lower and higher level of proficiency, Takahasi and Beebe (2007) found that these two groups differed in the order and frequency of semantic formulas they used. The lower-level learners were also more direct than the higher-level learners.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. & Rose, S. (2016) found out that transfer may be also influenced by the level of proficiency. Advanced learners do better than intermediate learners at recognizing the contexts in which L1 apology strategies cannot be used.
Trosborg (2007) claims that the use of modality markers, such as downtoners, understaters, hedges, subjectivizers, intensifiers, also improves with proficiency.
Scarcella (2019) found that when making requests, the low-level students relied on imperatives, whereas higher-level students showed sensitivity to status and were using imperatives only with close people or subordinates.
Pragmatic competence is also influenced by the length of the learning process. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the length does not guarantee a better pragmatic competence unless the learners are trained in pragmatics. Without consistent and regular pragmatic training, the process of gaining pragmatic competence is very slow or it is not developed at all.
Pragmatic Tests
Pragmatic proficiency has become an essential aspect which is taken into consideration in modern examination systems. Students who undergo a regular pragmatic training show better results than those who lack such attention. Focus on pragmatic competence in language testing reflects the content and form of language teaching.
Pragmatic proficiency is tested in pragmatic tests. There are written discourse completion tasks, multiple-choice discourse completion tasks, oral discourse completion tasks, discourse role-play tasks, discourse self-assessment tasks, and role-play self-assessments.
Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (2018) investigated the relevance of grammatical and pragmatic errors as they are viewed by the English as a foreign language (EFL), English as a second language (ESL) learners and native speakers (NSs). In a test of 543 learners and their teachers in Hungary and the United States, the results showed that EFL learners and their teachers identified and ranked grammatical errors as more serious than pragmatic errors, but ESL learners and their NS English teachers showed the opposite pattern. Another interesting result of this study was that learners did not always recognize the pragmatically correct items (see Kasper & Rose, 2001: 63-79).
Drawing on the situation in the Czech environment, the test would probably bring similar results. Most learners still regard grammatical errors as more serious than the pragmatic ones. This is due to the old educational system when students’ performance was judged by their errors, not by what they were good at. Unfortunately, the effects of this system are still to be observed in Czech schools in general. Undoubtedly, the absence of teaching pragmatic competence at schools contributes to the fact that grammatical errors are still regarded as less relevant than the pragmatic ones which, paradoxically can lead to much more misunderstanding and social faux pas.
Most of EFL learners first realize the importance of pragmatic competence no sooner than during their university studies, maybe not as a part of their practical English seminars but in seminars of sociolinguistics.
Test of Pragmatic and Grammatical Error Recognition
The following multiple-choice test is to be found in an old edition of English File Upper-Intermediate Teacher’s Book. This test is designed as a revision and consolidation of social responses as they were introduced in Practical English sessions at the end of each unit in English File Intermediate. Students are presented with fourteen situations. Their task is to choose the most appropriate response. One of the three choices contain a grammatical error, one is false from the pragmatic point of view and one is correct both grammatically and pragmatically.
The test serves as a valuable source for pragmatic discussion. Students tackle each option, identify the correct one and give reasons for their choice. Czech adult students may sometimes feel anxious about making grammatical mistakes in their speech. Some students require an immediate error correction, which might have a counterproductive effect on their fluency. By providing activities where they are to compare the relevance and impact of pragmatic and grammatical errors and an appropriate teacher’s guidance, students usually realize that making a pragmatic error may lead to more far-reaching consequences.
Teacher’s intervention in the form of explicit pragmatic instruction is necessary. Students benefit from a deductive approach in instruction which is based on a preliminary statement of rules and patterns of a particular language item. The application of these rules and patterns follows immediately after the instruction. This prevents students from creating their own confusing hypotheses, which acknowledges the results of the study conducted by Rose and Ng Kwai-fun (see Kasper & Rose, 2001:145-169).
In terms of instructional treatments, two approaches can be applied. Decoo (see Kasper & Rose, 2001:148) distinguishes Modality A, which is described as a deductive method, and Modality B, defined as an inductive method. The deductive method suggests that a grammatical rule or pattern is explicitly stated at the beginning of the learning process and the students apply this rule or pattern in the following examples and exercises. The inductive method works as a guided discovery when students first encounter various examples of a language phenomenon in an appropriate textual context. The discovery is then lead by the teacher who asks a few clear concept questions in order to direct students’ attention to the important aspects of the language phenomenon and to formulate the rule or pattern themselves.
The effects of inductive and deductive approaches to instruction in pragmatics were analysed in the study Rose and Ng Kwai-fun (see Kasper& Rose, 2001:145-170). The research questions for their study centred on whether learners benefit from instruction in compliments and compliment responses in a foreign language context and the second question sought to determine whether there are differential effects of instruction for inductive and deductive approaches to the teaching of compliments and compliment responses in a foreign language context. The authors of the study claim that the results from a written discourse completion questionnaire offer some evidence that the instruction was effective. Nevertheless, it would have to be concluded from a self-assessment questionnaire and a metapragmatic assessment questionnaire that there is no evidence that the learners benefited from the teacher’s instruction. The results also indicate that although inductive and deductive instruction may both lead to an improvement in pragmalinguistic proficiency, only the deductive method may be effective for developing sociopragmatic proficiency. They even argue that the inductive instruction had a negative impact on sociopragmatic development. It might have been caused by raising difficult issues without providing unambiguous solutions. The tentative nature of the conclusions reached in the research provide teachers with a specific recommendation for providing explicitly the kind of information necessary for learners to develop their sociopragmatic proficiency in the target language in order to prevent confusion and establish comprehension.
Linguistic studies in the field of pragmatics have encouraged awareness of the degree to which cross-cultural communication is affected by culturally-related factors. These factors include people’s expectations concerning the appropriate level of formality and degree of politeness. Cultural awareness is a term which describes sensitivity to the impact of culturally-induced behaviour on language use and communication.
In Teaching Culture, Ned Seelye (2018) provides a framework for facilitating the development of cross-cultural communication skills. The following are modifications of his seven goals of cultural instruction (Tomalin, Stempleski, 1993:7-8).
1. To help students to develop an understanding of the fact that all people exhibit culturally-conditioned behaviours.
2. To help students to develop an understanding that social variables such as age, sex, social class, and place of residence influence the ways in which people speak and behave.
3. To help students to become more aware of conventional behaviour in common situations in the target language.
4. To help students to increase their awareness of the cultural connotations of words and phrases in the target language.
5. To help students to develop the ability to evaluate and refine generalizations about the target culture, in terms of supporting evidence.
6. To help students to develop the necessary skills to locate and organize information about the target language.
7. To stimulate students’ intellectual curiosity about the target culture, and to encourage empathy towards its people.
Language and culture cannot be separated. Successful communication entails more than competence in grammar and vocabulary. Learners must also develop an awareness of verbal and non-verbal culturally-determined patterns of communication. Culturally different patterns of communication are a common source of misunderstanding.
Cultural awareness raising activities should become an integral part of English lessons. A wide range of materials is available. They include textbooks, radio and television broadcasts, internet sources, newspapers and magazines. Today textbooks contain sections focused on cultural awareness. These sections are to be found predominantly in business textbooks which aim to prepare entrepreneurs for situations in which they have to demonstrate an ability to deal with their foreign business partners sensitively.
1.3. Language in context
Foreign language pedagogy is aware of the need to teach language in context. In this respect the language classroom offers a unique and specific context. As Hymes (2012: xix) claims: The key to understanding language in context is to start not with language, but with context.
Realizing a speech event means not only having a choice of grammatical and lexical structures but it also involves the ability to decide which of them to choose according to the whole situation. At the beginning of their learning process, learners tend to use grammatical and linguistic features that seem to be the simplest, for example in terms of shortness, similarity to their own language, or just the appealing sound of it. Some learners, not being guided appropriately by their teachers, or because of their own reluctance to accept the teachers’ instructions and recommendations, find it sufficient to use only one of the many request phrases available in English. They use Can you/Could you in every situation, regardless what the situational context conveys.