Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language

Zia Tajeddin, Minoo Alemi, Zia Tajeddin, Minoo Alemi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000298550
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Englisch

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language aims to bring to light L2 pragmatics instruction and assessment in relation to English as an International Language (EIL). The chapters in this book deal with a range of pedagogically related topics, including the historical interface between L2 pragmatics and EIL, reconceptualization of pragmatic competence in EIL, intercultural dimension of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, teacher pragmatic awareness of instruction in the context of EIL, pragmatics of politeness in EIL, pragmatic teaching materials for EIL pedagogy, teachers' and scholars' perceptions of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, assessment and assessment criteria in EIL-aware pragmatics, and methods for research into pragmatics in EIL.

This book is different from other books about both EIL pedagogy and pragmatics pedagogy. Exploring the interface between different dimensions of pragmatics pedagogy and EIL, it suggests instructional and assessment tasks for EIL-aware pedagogy and directions for research on EIL-based pragmatics pedagogy.

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language will be useful for a range of readers who have an interest in the pragmatics instruction and assessment of EIL as well as those whose main area of specialization is EIL but would like to know how EIL, with its rich conceptual and empirical background, can go beyond linguistic instruction to embrace the instruction of pragmatic competence.

1Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL

A Historical Perspective

Zia Tajeddin and Minoo Alemi

Introduction

Pragmatic competence is considered as an essential component of English as an international language (EIL) communication (Cogo, 2015; Jenkins, 2006; Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015; McKay, 2018; Sharifian, 2009; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018; Tajeddin, Alemi, & Pashmforoosh, 2018). It follows that EIL-aware pedagogy cannot be effectively implemented if the pragmatic component is not properly imbedded within it. Despite this intertwined connection, the conceptual status of EIL in L2 pragmatics has a rather short history (Ishihara, 2012; Murray, 2012; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018), and its empirical place in EIL pedagogy is in its very embryonic stage as it is the case with EIL pedagogy in general. This status has been achieved through a long-standing tradition which is rooted in both non-EIL and EIL-aware eras. The non-EIL era witnessed a belated integration of pragmatics in English language teaching pedagogy despite an earlier conceptualization of pragmatics as a main component of communicative competence (Bachman, 1990). Similarly, although the pragmatic core has been nested in the various conceptualizations of EIL (Berns, 2008; Matsuda, 2012; McKay, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2000, 2004; Sifakis, 2004), EIL has very recently received attention in pragmatics pedagogy mainly through the investigation of teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about the pragmatics of EIL rather than the actual implementation of EIL-based pragmatics pedagogy for instruction, assessment, materials development, and teacher education. The aim of this chapter is to explain the historical trajectory through which the interface between EIL and pragmatics pedagogy has been created and promoted during non-EIL and EIL-aware eras of pragmatics pedagogy.

Pragmatics Pedagogy in the Non-EIL Era

By the non-EIL era, we mean the period when pragmatics pedagogy was not informed by the relevant concepts and insights existent in EIL theorizing. Pragmatics pedagogy in the non-EIL era is characterized by descriptive and acquisitional studies of L2 pragmatics. These studies reflect two periods of L2 pragmatics history. The historical trajectory of L2 pragmatics, as delineated by Tajeddin and Alemi (2020), falls into three periods: Descriptive Pragmatic Awareness, Acquisitional Pragmatic Awareness, and (Critical) Pragmatic Awakening (Table 1.1). Drawing this delineation, we offer and extended classification (see Table 1.1). As the table shows, the first period, mainly dominant in the 1980s, did not manifest a major concern with pragmatics pedagogy, as studies were focused on speech acts within a single language (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1995; García, 1999; Ide, 1998) or cross-cultural domains with regard to speech act realization strategies in L1 and L2 or two native languages (Beckers, 1999; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; Kanemoto, 1993; Liao & Bresnahan, 1996; Nakata, 1989; Nelson, El-Bakary, & Al-Batal, 1993; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1985; Widjaja, 1997). However, pragmatics pedagogy in its full-fledged development has gained momentum since the early 1990s, i.e. in the second period of L2 pragmatics history, when acquisitional pragmatics became the dominant strand in L2 pragmatics. During this period, pragmatic acquisition of L2 learners shaped the main themes of studies. Accordingly, discussions were centered on the teachability of pragmatics, effective pragmatic instruction tasks, and the interface between L2 pragmatics and second language acquisition (SLA) theories (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2010; Barron, 2003; Cohen, 1996; Cohen & Tarone, 1994; Kasper, 1997; Kasper & Rose, 1999; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Rose & Kasper, 2001). The periods of descriptive and acquisitional pragmatic awareness largely correspond to what we mean by the non-EIL era of pragmatics pedagogy.

Table 1.1 Periods in L2 pragmatic instruction, assessment, and research

Descriptive Pragmatic Awareness

Speech act studies Cross-cultural pragmatic studies Studies of pragmatic features Studies of Speech act realization strategies

Acquisitional Pragmatic Awareness Pragmatic acquisition in L1Pragmatic acquisition in L2 Pragmatic instruction tasks Learner variables in pragmatic acquisition Pragmatic assessment methods Pragmatic rating criteria Interface between L2 pragmatics and SLA theories

(Critical) Pragmatic Awakening Teacher roleTeacher pragmatic awareness and cognition Pragmatically focused teacher education Pragmatic instruction and assessment for EIL and postcolonial period Pragmatic variation across world Englishes Learner and teacher pragmatic identity Legitimacy of (non)native speakers’ norms for pragmatic instruction and assessment

In the non-EIL period, the main objectives of pragmatics researchers and practitioners were informed by three principal questions: (a) Are the target pragmatic features teachable?; (b) Is the instruction of the target feature more effective than no instruction?; and (c) Are different instructional approaches differentially effective? (Kasper & Rose, 2002). While there was an agreement on the teachability of pragmatics, the central focus of studies was placed on the differences between exposure and instruction, as well as differences in pragmatic gains based on the type of instructional tasks. The entire volumes allocated to pragmatic development and instruction (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Rose & Kasper, 2001), as well as articles conceptually discussing pragmatic instruction or reporting on empirical findings (Kasper, 1997; see Rose & Kasper, 2001, for a review of empirical studies), addressed a range of instructional issues. The first area of inquiry concerned individual differences in L2 pragmatic development. Numerous studies falling within this area, as outlined by Kasper and Rose (2002), mainly set out to investigate L2 pragmatic development as affected by variables such as learners’ gender (Kerekes, 1992), age (Kim, 2000), motivation (Niezgoda & Röver, 2001; Takahashi, 2005), L2 proficiency (Tajeddin & Pirhoseinloo, 2012; Takahashi, 2005; Xiao, 2015), and, later on, general and pragmatic-specific learning strategies (Cohen & Ishihara, 2005; Tajeddin & Ebadi, 2011; Tajeddin & Malmir, 2015; Tajeddin & Zand-Moghadam, 2012; Takahashi, 2005) and learner identity (among the few studies on this subject, see Habib, 2008; Kim, 2014). The second area of inquiry embodied the learning context and the role of instruction. The related research explored pragmatic development in second and foreign language contexts and at home and abroad (Hassall, 2013; Schauer, 2009; Shively, 2011; Taguchi, 2015a; for a review, see Taguchi, 2018 and Barron, 2019). Aligned with this, the main instructional variables included the effect of instruction versus simple exposure and deductive versus inductive instruction (Glaser, 2013; Nguyen, Pham, & Pham, 2012; Rose, 2005; Tajeddin & Hosseinpur, 2014; Takimoto, 2008; for a review, see Taguchi, 2015b). Later in this period, attention was directed toward input- and output-driven pragmatic development (Takimoto, 2009), scaffolded instruction (Ohta, 2005; Tajeddin & Hosseinpur, 2013; Tajeddin & Tayebipour, 2012, 2015), and pragmatic corrective feedback (Nipaspong & Chinokul, 2010; Takimoto, 2006).

Although the acquisitional period flourished and expanded mostly in the 1990s and 2000s, it is still the main framework followed in L2 pragmatics research. In the early days of this acquisitional and interventionist period, research on pragmatics pedagogy was not strongly or clearly rooted in second language acquisition theories. A learner variable (e.g., gender) or contextual and instructional variable (e.g., EFL/ESL settings, inductive instruction) motivated the researcher to identify its impact on the pragmatic acquisition of the target feature. This state of lagging behind mainstream research on linguistic development, which was driven by SLA theories, resulted in a hotchpotch of pragmatic studies which did not contribute, or aim to contribute, to the construction of a picture of pragmatic development from a particular SLA perspective. However, Kasper and Rose’s (2002) work functioned as a milestone by allocating sufficient space to pragmatics from the perspective of SLA theories, such as the acculturation model (Schmidt, 1983), cognitive theories (DuFon, 1999; Hassall, 2003; Schmidt, 1993), and sociocultural theory (Ohta, 1995; Shea, 1994). In this work, pragmatic studies framed within each SLA theory were critically reviewed, and their contribution to the theories of pragmatic development was discussed.

Pragmatics Pedagogy in the EIL-Aware Era

Grappling with pragmatics pedagogy in EIL entails the analysis of two strands of development: the status of pragmatics in mainstream EIL studies and the status of EIL in mainstream pragmatics studies.

EIL-Oriented Strand

Compared with the late acceptance of EIL in L2 pragmatics, the status of pragmatics in EIL conceptualizations, i.e. the first strand, has a well-established history which is as long as EIL per se. A review of theoretical and empirical trends in EIL indicates that EIL researchers were continually concerned with its pragmatic aspects (Cogo, 2009; Cogo & Dewey, 2006; Cogo & House, 2018; Ehrenreich, 2009; Firth, 1996; House, 2012; Jenkins, 2006; Kecskes & Horn, 2007; McKay, 2002, 2003, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005; Widdowson, 2015). Unlike this picture, in the periods of descriptive and acquisitional pragmatic awareness, L2 pragmatics researchers were almost totally inattentive to the interface between EIL and pragmatics and to the significance of EIL to pragmatics (for exceptions, see House’s pioneering attempts to bring to light the need to revisit pragmatics in light of EIL, 2008, 2009). As one of the essential components of language competence, pragmatics has incrementally become a matter of particular interest for EIL/ELF researchers since the early days of EIL research. The importance of pragmatic competence was tangible for EIL scholars, as their central concern was the use and function of English in intercultural communication, while SLA and pragmatics researchers were inclined to the investigation of the learning and, to a lesser extent, the use of English in EFL/ESL settings. In fact, as EIL is used by speakers of various first languages as a means of communication, and hence “successful communication” is always prioritized over excessive focus on linguistic “correctness” (Jenkins, 2011, p. 284), it is reasonable to assume the mastery of language use (or pragmatic competence) as the main goal of EIL interactions. In various conceptualizations of EIL, its components, and EIL-related areas of research, the pragmatic dimension...