Teaching Pragmatics -- Introduction -- Office of English Language Programs

Teaching Pragmatics explores the teaching of pragmatics through lessons and activities created by teachers of English as a second and foreign language. This book is written for teachers by teachers. Our teacher-contributors teach in seven different countries and are both native-speakers and nonnative speakers of English. Activities reflect ESL and EFL classroom settings. The chapters included here allow teachers to see how other teachers approach the teaching of pragmatics and to appreciate the diversity and creativity of their endeavors. Taken together, the activities constitute a spectrum of possibilities for teaching pragmatics. Each submission provides novel insight into the ESL/EFL classroom and demonstrates that there is no single approach to the teaching of pragmatics. The variety of approaches means that pragmatics can be integrated easily into any classroom, whether traditional or communicative.

What is pragmatics?
The study of pragmatics explores the ability of language users to match utterances with contexts in which they are appropriate; in Stalnaker's words, pragmatics is "the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed" (1972, p. 383). The teaching of pragmatics aims to facilitate the learners' ability to find socially appropriate language for the situations they encounter. Within second language studies and teaching, pragmatics encompasses speech acts, conversational structure, conversational implicature, conversational management, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use, such as choice of address forms. These areas of language and language use have not traditionally been addressed in language teaching curricula, leading one of our students to ask if we could teach him "the secret rules of English." Pragmatic rules for language use are often subconscious, and even native speakers are often unaware of pragmatic rules until they are broken (and feelings are hurt, offense is taken, or things just seem a bit odd). Neither does pragmatics receive the attention in language teacher education programs that other areas of language do. Nevertheless, rules of language use do not have to be "secret rules" for learners or teachers. A growing number of studies describe language use in a variety of English-speaking communities, and these studies have yielded important information for teaching. From the teacher's perspective, the observation of how speakers do things with words has demystified the pragmatic process at least to the point where we can provide responsible, concrete lessons and activities to language learners. We are in the position to give assurance that they can learn pragmatics in their second or foreign language and be "in the club" of English speakers. Teachers can successfully decode the apparently secret rules for classroom learners.

Why teach pragmatics in language classes?
We advocate teaching pragmatics because, quite simply, observation of language learners shows there is a demonstrated need for it, and instruction in pragmatics can be successful.

Learners show significant differences from native speakers in language use; the execution and comprehension of certain speech acts; conversational functions, such as greetings and leave takings; and conversational management, such as back channeling and short responses. (See, for example, Bardovi-Harlig, 1996, 1999, 2001; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 1999.) Without instruction, differences in pragmatics show up in the English of learners regardless of their first language background or language proficiency. That is to say, a learner of high grammatical proficiency will not necessarily show equivalent pragmatic development. As a result, learners at the higher levels of grammatical proficiency often show a wide range of pragmatic competence. Thus, we find that even advanced nonnative speakers are neither uniformly successful, nor uniformly unsuccessful, but the range is quite wide.

The consequences of pragmatic differences, unlike the case of grammatical errors, are often interpreted on a social or personal level rather than as a result of the language learning process. Being outside the range of language use allowed in a language or making a pragmatic mistake may have various consequences. As the teachers contributing to this volume point out, a pragmatic error may hinder good communication between speakers (Takenoya), may make the speaker appear abrupt or brusque in social interactions (Lee), or may make the speaker appear rude or uncaring (Yates). Gallow points out that maintaining a conversation in English requires underlying knowledge of responses that prompt a speaker to continue, show understanding, give support, indicate agreement, show strong emotional response, add or correct a speaker's information, or ask for more information. Berry discusses the importance of learning how to take turns and demonstrates that listening behaviors that are polite in one language may not be polite or recognizable in another. Unintentional insult to interlocutors (Mach & Ridder) and denial of requests (Weasenforth) have been identified as other potential pragmatic hazards.

Left to their own devices with respect to contact with the target language in and out of the classroom, the majority of learners apparently do not acquire the pragmatics of the target language on their own (Bouton, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Kasper, 2001). What makes pragmatics "secret" seems to be in some cases insufficient specific input and in others insufficient interpretation of language use. Language classrooms are especially well suited to provide input and interpretation. Instruction addresses the input problem by making language available to learners for observation. Some speech acts, such as invitations, refusals, and apologies often take place between individuals, so learners might not have the opportunity to observe such language without being directly involved in the conversation. Some speech events, such as office hours and advising sessions, are generally not observed by a third party, but closed events need not be as private as going to the doctor, as one of our graduate students pointed out: A person might want to know the conventions for talking to a hair stylist in a second language, something equally difficult to observe!

The second problem of input that instruction addresses is salience. Some necessary features of language and language use are quite subtle and not immediately noticeable by learners, such as the turns that occur before speakers actually say "goodbye" and the noises they make when encouraging other speakers to continue their turns. Differences in making requests, such as by saying "Can I?" (speaker-oriented) instead of "Can you?" (hearer-oriented) might not be immediately salient to learners. By highlighting features of language and language use, instruction can inform the learner.

Finally, the classroom is the ideal place in which to help learners interpret language use. Instruction can help learners understand when and why certain linguistic practices take place. It can help learners to better comprehend what they hear ("What does this formula mean?") and to better interpret it ("How is this used?" "What does a speaker who says this hope to accomplish?"). A classroom discussion of pragmatics is also a good place to explore prior impressions of speakers. For example, Americans are often thought of as being very direct. As Howard reports, her learners often tell her that "you don't have to be polite in English." Instruction provides the opportunity to discuss the absence of some types of politeness markers in English and the presence and function of others that may not be immediately recognizable to learners.

As discussed above, the need for pragmatics instruction is fairly easy to document. Recent studies suggest instruction benefits pragmatic development, both in production and comprehension. (For overviews see Kasper, 1997a, and 2001. For a collection of studies see Rose & Kasper, 2001. For individual studies see Bouton, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994).

What are the goals of teaching pragmatics? What are the ultimate benefits to learners? The chief goal of instruction in pragmatics is to raise learners' pragmatic awareness and give them choices about their interactions in the target language. The goal of instruction in pragmatics is not to insist on conformity to a particular target-language norm, but rather to help learners become familiar with the range of pragmatic devices and practices in the target language. With such instruction, learners can maintain their own cultural identities (Kondo), participate more fully in target language communication, and gain control of the force and outcome of their contributions. Kondo notes that "successful communication is a result of optimal rather than total convergence" (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991). Expanding upon this view, the authors included in this volume point out that exposing learners to pragmatics in their second or foreign language helps the learners to expand their perception of the target language and those who speak it..

The classroom provides a safe place within which learners can try out new forms and patterns of communication in an accepting environment. They can experiment with unfamiliar forms of address, attempt shorter conversational openings or closings than they are used to, or try longer openings or closings that initially might feel too drawn out-just to get the feel of it. The instructor and other student participants can provide feedback.

Instruction should allow students to choose how much of the pragmatic norms of the culture they would like to include in their own repertoire. As a result of the activities suggested in this book they will be better able to interpret the speech of others and, therefore, to decide what they feel comfortable adopting. They will also enjoy greater insights into the target culture. Equally important, we believe that students genuinely enjoy learning about pragmatics because it is like being let into a secret!

How can pragmatics be taught?
We emphasize that there is not a single best way to teach pragmatics. The teaching activities we have included here represent a wide range of teaching styles and approaches. Regardless of method, however, the activities share some important pedagogical practices. Readers will find that 1) awareness activities generally begin the units described in the chapters, 2) authentic language samples are used as examples or models, and 3) input precedes interpretation by learners or production activities.

Instruction in pragmatics may utilize the learners' first language as well as the target language. Awareness raising activities can profitably involve demonstrations in the L1 or L1 language samples. Demonstrations may include the use of space, such as where people stand in a line, or nonverbal gestures that accompany certain types of talk, such as shaking hands during greetings or introductions. In Berry's lesson on listening behaviors, students demonstrate active listening behavior in their own language(s) before observing native speakers. L1 language samples can serve to introduce learners to ideas in pragmatics in a context in which they have native control of the language. The samples can also serve as the basis of L1-L2 comparisons, as in Howard's lesson on politeness in which L1 and L2 business letters are compared. All languages have pragmatic systems, and with a little encouragement all learners will recognize that their L1s also have "secret rules."

Pragmatics is an area of language instruction in which teachers and students can learn together. The use of authentic language samples in this volume is important because, as Wolfson (1988) points out, in contrast to intuitions about language form or grammar, the intuitions of native speakers regarding language use are notoriously poor. Moreover, the use of authentic language included herein makes possible the teaching of pragmatics by nonnative speakers of English. Throughout this volume, the teacher-authors demonstrate many ways to collect authentic language samples on which to base lessons, including -to name just a few- tape recording messages on answering machines, using internationally broadcast English language talk shows, showing educational films, exploring appropriate world wide web sites; and saving letters and correspondence.

The presentation of authentic language samples generally precedes interpretation or production activities, thus giving learners something to build on. It is important to take into account the fact that, just as teachers cannot rely on their intuition in teaching pragmatics, neither can learners do so in their second/foreign language prior to instruction.

Pragmatics can be integrated into the English-language curriculum at the earliest levels: There is no reason to wait to introduce learners to the pragmatics of a second language. In fact, the imbalance between grammatical and pragmatic development may be ameliorated by early attention to pragmatics in instruction. Kontra's lesson shows how pragmatics can be introduced to learners even at beginning levels.

Contents and organization
Each chapter has five main sections: description of the activity, procedure, rationale, alternatives or caveats, and additional pedagogical resources. The chapters specify the level of the learners for whom the lesson was designed, the time required to conduct the lesson, resources needed, and the goal of the activity. The chapters open with a description of the activity, followed by the step-by-step procedure for implementing it with language learners. In the rationale sections, teacher-authors review the reasons behind the development of the activities. Applications of the activities to other learners, settings, modes, or areas of pragmatics; ways to expand or elaborate the activities; and caveats associated with the activities are all included. Examples appear throughout the chapters, with worksheets and overheads following the chapters.

This book is organized into five main sections. The chapters in each section are ordered according to the level of the learners for whom the lesson was designed, beginning with activities for the lowest level learners and progressing to advanced learners. The first section, Awareness, presents teaching activities that focus on raising learners' awareness of pragmatic differences between languages. The sections following Awareness offer production activities. The activities that focus on production are organized by the area of pragmatics they address: conversational management, conversational openings and closings, requests, and daily life. Conversational Management includes activities that address the mechanics of conversation, such as turn taking, active listening, relevant short responses, and using hesitation markers. Conversational Openings and Closings deals with the boundaries of conversations: how to begin and end conversations both in person and on the telephone. Requests deals with the specific speech act of asking someone to do something. Finally, Assorted Speech Acts presents a variety of speech acts, including complaining during service encounters, turning down invitations, complimenting, and responding to compliments.

Finally, the book has an index designed to help teachers find activities appropriate for their students. To make this easier, the index is organized around major features, such as level of learners, type and content of activity, computer use, and nonverbal communication.

References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol. 7, pp. 21-39). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, pp. 677-713.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 17, pp. 183-196.

Bouton, L. F. (1990). The effective use of implicature in English: Why and how it should be taught in the ESL classroom. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol 1, pp. 43-51). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically--without being explicitly taught? In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol 3, pp. 53-65). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicatures in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, (Vol 5, pp. 88-109). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1991). Contexts of accommodation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G. (1997a). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NFLRC Network #6, University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. [http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/]

Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, pp. 81-104.

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, pp. 149-169.

Rose, K., & G. Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stalnaker, R. C. (1972). Pragmatics. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 380-397). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Wolfson, N. (1988). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Overviews of teaching of pragmatics
These sources provide general orientations to the teaching of pragmatics, including general statements of methods and pedagogical philosophy.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol. 7, pp. 21-39). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Vol 7, pp.1-20). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Kasper, G. (1997b). The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford, (Eds.) Beyond methods: Components of language teacher education (pp. 113-136). New York: McGraw Hill.

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: Division of English as an International Language.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, pp. 91-112.

Practical examples of teaching pragmatics
These practical sources provide concrete lessons on specific pragmatic features, including textbook evaluations.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic competence: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, pp. 4-15.

Boxer, D. (1993). Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly, 27, pp. 277-299.

Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49, pp. 44-58.

Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd edition, pp. 154-190). New York: Newbury House.

Holmes, J., & Brown, D. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, pp. 523-546.

Scotton, C. M., & Bernsten, J. (1988). Natural conversations as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 9, pp. 213-243.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, pp. 91-112.

Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9, pp. 45-58.

Yoshida, K., Kamiya, M., Kondo, S., & Tokiwa, R. (2000). Heart to Heart: Overcoming Barriers in Cross-Cultural Communication. Tokyo: Macmillan Languagehouse.

Resources for teaching and language samples
The following series is dedicated, as its name suggests, to pragmatics and language learning. The wide variety of articles provides excellent language samples that can be exploited in teaching, as well as descriptions of language learning in the pragmatic domain. Articles serve as excellent needs assessments for teachers and programs that are implementing instruction in pragmatics. Volumes in this series are available directly from the University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.

Bouton, L. F., & Kachru, Y. (Eds.). (1990-1994). Pragmatics and language learning, (Vols 1-5). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Bouton, L.F. (1995-1999). Pragmatics and language learning, (Vols 6-9). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

From:
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Mahan-Taylor, R. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington DC: U.S. Department of State
Office of English Language Programs. Available online at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/pragmatics.htm