Empirical studies on this direction have analyzed the effect of instruction in the development of pragmatic knowledge dealing with a multiplicity of features. The results from most of these studies are promising with regard to the positive effect of pedagogical intervention, supporting in this way the view that pragmatic ability can be systematically developed through planned classroom activities.
Scholars favoring instruction in L2 pragmatics, who in fact are a majority, base their reasoning on the empirically proven fact that learners do not always make use of the knowledge and linguistic resources and strategies they have handy when faced with a new language task.
Currently, there is a consensus that the task of acquiring pragmatic knowledge in the L2 can be facilitated by utilizing universal pragmatic knowledge, as well as by the successful transfer of some aspects from the learners' first language L1. However, there is no guarantee that learners will spontaneously use these resources. In this respect, Blum-Kulka highlights that the main obstacle to learners' exploiting their general pragmatic knowledge base appears to be their restricted L2 linguistic knowledge or difficulty in accessing it smoothly.
In addition to acquiring processing control over their already existing pragmatic foundations, adult L2 or FL learners need to develop new representations of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge not existing in their L1 Bialystok, These difficulties can certainly be aided by instruction, including input exposure to pragmatic realizations, discussions of the metapragmatic knowledge underlying communicative action, and engagement in communicative activities where learners can practice using the linguistic knowledge they have acquired.
Arguments supporting the implementation of a pedagogy of pragmatics in L2 and FL instruction come from studies in the field. Bardovi-Harlig states that there are many aspects of L2 pragmatics that are not acquired without the benefit of instruction, or in the best case, they are learned more slowly, which makes instruction at least facilitative if not necessary.
Support for instruction has also been expressed by Schmidt , who underlines the fact that even in a L1, children's pragmatic development is facilitated by a range of strategies employed by caregivers to teach them the communicative practices of their social group; whereas adults, learning a L2 outside of instructional settings, tend to receive little feedback and sometimes lack relevant input for the learning of L2 pragmatics.
Proposals for instruction in pragmatics should seek to furnish students with linguistic tools that allow them to realize and comprehend linguistic action in a contextually appropriate way.
This task is evidently related to the teaching of the TL culture, not viewing it as a product, but as a process that shapes language and at the same time is shaped by language. This idea certainly frames Kramsch's view of "culture seen as discourse," where language and culture are inherent to people's interaction, and consequently susceptible to contextual factors, such as relative power and social distance.
These are negotiable and can change through the dynamics of conversational interaction, modifying the way things are said. Coming back to the purpose of pedagogical intervention in pragmatics, Bardovi-Harlig states: "the role of instruction may be to help the learner encode her own values which again may be culturally determined into a clear, unambiguous message This is backed up by Bardovi-Harlig , Jorden , and Saville-Troike , who point out that FL and L2 curricula should provide students with information on the socio-cultural rules of the TL, letting learners decide to what extent he or she wants to conform to the native speaker NS norms.
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics that has been defined as "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, , p.
This term was originally placed within philosophy of language Morris, , but has developed from this field to be related to sociolinguistics and other subdisciplines. Currently, this term is extensively used in the field of second and FL acquisition and teaching, especially in reference to pragmatic competence as one of the abilities subsumed by the overarching concept of communicative competence. The notion of pragmatic competence was early on defined by Chomsky as the "knowledge of conditions and manner of appropriate use of the language , in conformity with various purposes" p.
This concept was seen in opposition to grammatical competence that in Chomskyan terms is "the knowledge of form and meaning. Later on, Canale expanded this definition, and stated that pragmatic competence includes "illocutionary competence, or the knowledge of the pragmatic conventions for performing acceptable language functions, and sociolinguistic competence, or knowledge of the sociolinguistic conventions for performing language functions appropriately in a given context" p.
These components were taken up again in Bachman's model of language competence, in which pragmatic competence is a central component incorporating the ability to use the language to express a wide range of functions, and interpret their illocutionary force in discourse according to the sociocultural context in which they are uttered. More recently, Rose proposed a working definition of pragmatic competence, which has been extensively accepted by researchers in the field of interlanguage pragmatics ILP.
He defines the concept as the ability to use available linguistic resources pragmalinguistics in a contextually appropriate fashion sociopragmatics , that is, how to do things appropriately with words Thomas, ; and Leech, In Kasper's a words, pragmalinguistics "includes strategies like directness and indirectness, routines, and a large range of linguistic forms which can intensify or soften communicative acts.
According to Bialystok pragmatic competence includes: 1 the speaker's ability to use language for different purposes; 2 the listener's ability to get past the language and understand the speaker's real intentions e.
Two claims have been made about the relationship between the development of pragmatics and grammar. One states that L2 speakers cannot learn pragmatics without the grammar to express it, and the other affirms that learners can manage to be pragmatically appropriate without a command of the grammatical structures that native speakers expect. This claim also ignores the existence of universal pragmatic competence, by which L2 and FL learners distinguish principles and practices of turn taking and repair, discriminate between ordinary and institutionalized speech, differentiate acts of speaking and writing, as well as specific communicative acts, recognize conversational implicature and politeness conventions, identify major realization strategies for communicative acts and routine formulae for managing recurrent communicative events.
Bardovi-Harlig , offers evidence against the hypothesis that a grammatical platform is a mandatory prerequisite for pragmatic development, by displaying advanced L2 learners, employing perfect TL grammar in pragmatically non-target-like fashion.
The Pragmatics in spite of Grammar claim considers grammar competence as independent from pragmatic competence, and is supported by several studies, among them Schmidt's study of Wes, that demonstrated that a restricted interlanguage grammar does not necessarily prevent pragmatic and interactional competence from developing, especially when language learners acculturate to the TL community.
This last study found that children who spoke ESL appropriately addressed polite requests with ungrammatical forms to adult recipients. This bulk of research has demonstrated that when L2 or FL learners do not have the grammatical resources available to perform an action in the TL, they rely on a pragmatic mode, which points to the perspective that pragmatics precedes grammar.
Notwithstanding the contradictory character of these two hypotheses, they can be reconciled when considering them under a developmental perspective in which adult L2 or FL learners initially rely on L1 pragmatic transfer and pragmatic universals to communicate linguistic action in the TL, even with a limited command of the TL grammar. As their interlanguage development progresses, their learning task changes and they start figuring out not only the primary functions of the TL grammatical forms they have achieved, but also their secondary meanings, so the order reverses, and form precedes function.
This discussion offers valid viewpoints to consider that the development of pragmatic competence must be central for the teaching of a L2 or FL since early proficiency stages.
Traditionally, language classrooms have been considered as poor input environments for developing pragmatic ability in a TL; compared to real interaction outside the classroom, classroom discourse is functionally and formally limited for the achievement of this goal.
This statement is associated not with the instructed character of these learning contexts per se, but with the ways in which SL and FL classrooms are organized to enable or prevent the acquisition of the TL pragmatics.
It is an undeniable fact that teacher fronted initiation -response- follow-up IRF is an unproductive format for the development of pragmatic and discoursal abilities in the classroom.
As Cook states, FL instructional settings are characterized by restricted input and practice due to two facts: first, that the TL tends to be treated as an object of study instead of as a means of socialization and a communication tool; and second, that classroom organization is teacher-fronted.
In consequence, one function of pragmatic instruction is to compensate for incomplete or misleading input offered to learners by academic talk, instruction, and L2 learning materials. Similarly, Mir found that instruction sometimes emphasizes one semantic formula over others, encouraging the inappropriate overuse of some formulas.
Likewise, the vast majority of L2 learning materials frequently do not present realistic input, or sometimes neglect particular speech acts or language functions. Given this limitation, pragmatic instruction based on authentic and research-informed materials becomes a very helpful tool to provide L2 learners, and especially FL learners, with contextualized, pragmatically appropriate input from early stages of acquisition.
These ideas constitute a rationale for pedagogical intervention, with the two-fold goal of first, making learners aware of their previous knowledge and the ways to take advantage of it by using their existing pragmatic foundations in appropriate sociopragmatic contexts, and second, helping learners to attend to both the linguistic forms of utterances and the relevant social and contextual features with which they are associated Schmidt, Literature in the field has reported that learners can successfully learn grammar and literacy in SL and FL learning contexts, but the same results have not been observed in these environments for the development of pragmatic discourse, and sociolinguistic ability.
Under the second option, bringing pragmatics into the L2 or FL classroom is associated with two main goals: one addresses the development of pragmatic awareness, and the other deals with practicing TL pragmatic abilities Kasper, a, b.
Wildner-Bassett also refers to these two functions, identifying the first goal presented here, with the development of metapragmatic declarative knowledge , and the second goal with the development of metapragmatic procedural knowledge. Literature documents that the functions of pragmatic learning and teaching can change according to the setting in which instruction takes place. In the case of SLA contexts, instruction is strengthened by learners' previous contact with pragmatic aspects that come to be reinforced through instruction.
In such cases, instruction combines learning opportunities inside and outside the classroom: inside the classroom by raising learners' awareness about the aspect under instruction, and outside the classroom by focusing students' attention to observe real occurrences of the targeted aspect, as well as by seeking practice opportunities Kasper a, b; Rose, As Kasper notes, "the great potential of L2 teaching for developing learners' pragmatic ability lies in its capacity to alert and orient learners to pragmatic features encountered outside the classroom, encourage them to try out new pragmatic strategies, reflect on their observations and their own language use, and obtain feedback" p.
On the other hand, foreign language learning FLL contexts constitute less favorable learning environments, generally characterized by no interaction with native speakers of the TL. This limitation imposes huge demands on instruction that most likely cannot be reached through the classical format of the language classroom. According to Kasper , classroom interaction does not provide learners with adequate input to produce the "linguistic action" required for authentic communication in the TL.
It has been highlighted that these drawbacks make it " In consequence, pragmatic instruction in the FL classroom needs to fulfill three functions: 1 exposing learners to appropriate TL input, 2 raising learners' pragmatic and metapragmatic awareness about the instructed aspect, and 3 arranging authentic opportunities to practice pragmatic knowledge.
Several empirical studies have confirmed that an instructional approach combining communicative practice and corrective feedback enhances noticing and optimizes learners' abilities to attend to the interactional needs of the addressee. Moreover, continuous practice contributes to faster and more efficient access and integration of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge into the learners' interlanguage system. Although there exist proposals for instruction in different aspects of pragmatic competence, few have been examined in action, as they are implemented in classrooms with the purpose of determining how effective they are for the actual learning of the targeted feature.
In consequence, it is necessary to conduct research exploring the effects of instruction in pragmatic aspects. Rather, you have demonstrated application of an internalized psycholinguistic rule to a novel word. Now, you will have internalized more rules than just how to form regular plurals. Consider the following. Did you say doying? Many people do. But why not doys , or doyed , or redoy?
Well, this is because you have an internalized rule that explains how to create words that describe an action that is on-going at the time of utterance — what is known as the present progressive.
In English, the present progressive takes the form of the verb be , plus a head Verb to which has been added the suffix — ing , i. Like the word Zarp the action word doy is fabricated, it is not a real word it is a neologism , and yet the fact that most people respond with doying demonstrates that we have a relevant internalised psycholinguistic rule and that we can apply this to novel words.
First, we scan the construction This Zarp can doy and, by analogy with constructions such as This cat can bite , This dog can jump , This boy can laugh , we deduce that doy is most likely a verb. Our internalized rule regarding the construction of present progressive forms leads us to the conclusion that the verb be realized as is requires a head Verb — which we have already deduced is doy — plus an — ing ending.
Subsequently, question is, what do you mean by language competency? The term linguistic competence refers to the unconscious knowledge of grammar that allows a speaker to use and understand a language. Also known as grammatical competence or I - language. Contrast with linguistic performance. To Chomsky , the competence is the ability any speaker has in their own language to understand and create statements that are grammatically correct; whereas the performance is the actualization of that competence , in a certain situation of communication.
Communicative competence is a term in linguistics which refers to a language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the like, as well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately.
In the CEF, communicative competence is conceived only in terms of knowledge. It includes three basic components — language competence , sociolin- guistic competence and pragmatic competence. Thus, strategic competence is not its componential part. In fact, it is one of the four components of communicative competence : linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence.
Competencies and Performance. Competencies are the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified to perform a task. The competencies are observable or measurable skills, knowledge, and abilities.
The KSAs knowledge, skills, attitude must distinguish between superior and other performers. Competencies in English for Primary students Linguistic. Students listen, speak, read, and write appropriately for their developmental stage. Knowledge of the natural world. Managing information. Social responsibility. Art and culture. Learning how to learn. Personal initiative. Cook, defines grammatical competence as the knowledge of language stored in a person's mind.
The term was first used by Chomsky in the s and refers to the implicit knowledge of structural regularities of language in the mind and the ability to recognize and produce these distinctive grammatical structures.
0コメント