The Effect of Different Types of Instruction and Feedback on the Development of Pragmatic Proficiency: The Case of Pragmatic Markers
محورهای موضوعی : Research in English Language Pedagogy
Saeedeh Shafee Nahrkhalaji
1
(
Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch PO Box 517,
)
کلید واژه: explicit instruction, Pragmatic markers, Structured input instruction, Metalinguistic Feedback, Pragmatic proficiency,
چکیده مقاله :
The necessity of conducting more studies addressing the development of pragmatic profciency and strong pragmatic awareness for English language learners has made the role of instruction and feedback in teaching pragmatic knowledge of utmost importance. The present study evaluates the relative effectiveness of four types of instruction for teaching some pragmatic markers including topic change markers, mitigation markers, interjections and hybrid basic markers to 75 advanced Iranian learners of English: explicit instruction only, explicit instruction with metalinguistic feedback, structured input instruction only, and structured in- put instruction with metalinguistic feedback. Treatment group performance was compared with control group performance on pre-tests, post-tests and follow-up tests that contained an open-ended discourse completion test and a multiple-choice pragmatic listening comprehension test. The results of the data analysis revealed that students› ability to comprehend and produce pragmatic markers improved significantly in treatment groups and that pragmatic interlanguage is permeable to instruction in EFL settings. However, there were statistically significant differences among the four treatment groups regarding awareness of different pragmatic markers and their appropriate use. These findings give us some useful insight on the teachability of pragmatic markers and the role of instruction and feedback in the classroom to develop pragmatic competence of EFL learners.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z., 1998. Do language learners recognize prag- matic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 32: 233–59.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R.,
1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Scarcella, R., Anderson, E. and Krashen S., (Eds), Developing communicative competence in a second language. Newbury House, pp. 55–73.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M., 1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 357–66.
Crystal, D., 1988. Another look at, well, you know. English Today, 13: 47–49.
Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Fraser, B., 1996. Pragmatic markers. Journal of
Pragmatics 6: 167–190.
House, J. & Kasper, G., 1981. Zur Rolle der Kognition in Kommunikationskursen. DieNeueren Sprachen, 80: 42-55.
Kubota, M., 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9: 35–67.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B., 2003. Making communicative language teaching hap- pen (2nd Ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Long, M.H., & Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In Doughty C., & Williams, J., (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–41.
Müller, S., 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Giessen John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Painter, C., 1999. Learning through Language in Early Childhood. Cassell, Lon- don.
Pütz, M. & Aertselaer, N., 2008. Developing Contrastive Pragmatics Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M., 1985. Consciousness raising and universal grammar. Applied linguistics, 6: 274-282.
Samuda, V., 2001. Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: the role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., (Eds), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Longman, pp. 119–40.
Schmidt, R., 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21–42.
Sharwood Smith, M., 1981. Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied linguistics, 2: 159-168.
Sharwood Smith, M., 1991. Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language researcher, 118-132.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P., 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 205–24.
Svartvik, Jan, 1980. ‘Well’ in conversation. In: Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (Eds.), Studies in English Linguistics. Longman, London, pp. 167–177.
Takahashi, S., 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing interlanguage pragmatic competence. In Rose, K. and Kasper, G., (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press, 171–99.
Takimoto, M. , 2006. The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic profciency. Language Teaching Research 10,4 (2006), pp. 393–417
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T.,1993. Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77: 45-57.
VanPatten, B., 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., 2004. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trillo, R., 2002. Pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speak- ers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 769–784. Wilkins, D., 1976. Notional syllabuses. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
