Email this article 
Hide
Show all
An Explicit/Implicit Lead to Producing Requests: Eliciting Learners’ Awareness or Soliciting Metapragmatic Knowledge
Abstract
This study attempted to investigate the extent to which two types of pragmatic instruction -explicit versus implicit- affect learners’ knowledge in terms of their awareness and production of request strategies. Thirty students with the same level of proficiency were divided into two groups (explicit and implicit). They were exposed to listening excerpts taken from the book Tactics for Listening, with the focus on request making strategies. While the explicit group was equipped with direct awareness-raising tasks and written metapragmatic explanations on the use of appropriate requests, the implicit group was provided with a set of implicit awareness-raising tasks. Outcomes of the study demonstrate that pragmatic instruction of requesting improved learners’ awareness of both groups. Also an improvement of learners’ production of requests did take place in both groups after the interventional period. However, the explicit group outperformed the implicit one as far as production of request making was concerned.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alcon, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatic in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417-435.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L.F. Bouton, (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, (pp. 21-39). University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100012122
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171-188. doi: 10.1017/S027226310001487X
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D.W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45 (1), 4-15. doi:10.1093/elt/45.1.4
Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? –A pilot study. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp.88-109). Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Bouton, L. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series (pp. 1-20). Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Chapman, S. (2011). Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuya, Y. J., & Clark, M. K. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators, In L. Bouton, (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (vol. 10, pp.111-130). Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Fukuya, Y. J., Reeve, M., Gisi, J., & Christianson, M. (1998). Does Focus on Form Work for teaching sociopragmatics? Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452736).
Grant, L., & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials: Closing from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 39-50. doi: 10.1515/iral.39.1.39
Hatch, E., Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design statistics of applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-253.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Zur Rolle der Kognition in Kommunikationskursen. [The role of cognition in communication courses] Die Neueren Sprachen, 80, 42-55.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2 (1), 46-61. doi: 10.5539/elt.v2n1p46
Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Pragmatics in SLA. Studies in second Language Acquisition,18, 145-148. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014856
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 502-530. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.4.502
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Research methods in pragmatics. Mahwal, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 9, 35-67.
Mahani, S, T. (2012). A cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners’ realization of request speech acts. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus.
Martinez-Flor, A. (2004). The effect of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in the English as a foreign language context: A study based on suggestions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universitat Jayme I, Castellon, Spain.
Matreyek, W. (1990). Communicating in English: Examples and Models. Prentice Hall, UK.
Morrow, C. K. 1995. The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learners’ production of complaint and refusal speech acts. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Oleshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7 (2), 45-65.
Richards, J. C. (2003). Tactics for listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, K. R. (1993). Sociolinguistic consciousness-raising through video. Language Teacher, 17, 7-9.
Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in the classroom: Theoretical concerns and practical possibilities. In: L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol 8, pp. 267-295). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Rose, K. R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In: E. Hinlke (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 167-180). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100001029
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Rose, K. R., & Ng Kwai-Fun, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In: K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge University Press, Cambrigde.
Safont, M. P. (2005). Third language learners: Pragmatic production and awareness. Multilinguals Matters, Clevedon.
Saslow, S., & Ascher, A. (2007). Top notch. Pearson Education, NY.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and Interlanguage pragmatics, In: G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford University Press, New York.
Searle, J. R. (1979). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 8, 137-151. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
Stalnaker R. C. (1972). “Pragmatics”. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantic of natural language (2nd ed., pp. 380-397). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In: K. R. Rose, G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H., & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series vol. 8 (pp. 163-178). Urbana-Campaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign.
Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10 (4), 21-26.
Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meeting and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, 45-58. doi: 10.1093/applin/9.1.45
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.1p.115
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.