Teaching English Pragmatics by Taking a Sociocultural Stance

Zaferanieh, E.; Tavakoli, M.; Eslami Rasekh, A.

doi:10.22061/jte.2019.3632.1927

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2019.3632.1927

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of sociocultural instruction on developing the speech act of criticizing. The participants were second language learners in two English learning classrooms as experimental and control groups. The participants in the experimental group operated under the basic principles of the socio-cultural approach with interactive tasks, cooperation, and scaffolding. They were asked to read and criticize a peer’s work orally. For this group, the teacher provided fined tuned instruction and mediated individual tutor feedback. For both the experimental and control groups, the learners’ pragmatic development was measured through pre-tests, immediate and delayed posttests performance of discourse completion and role-play tests. The researchers analyzed the results of tests through statistical procedures such as paired and independent t-tests. The results revealed that the experimental group signiﬁcantly improved and performed better than the control group, indicating the successfulness of sociocultural instruction. Next, the researchers interviewed the participants to find about their feelings. After interviewing the participants, the researchers found positive feelings of learners about this kind of instruction including low degrees of stress, high levels of excitement, fun, motivation, and clarity that provided another evidence for worthwhile impacts of sociocultural instruction.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1398.13.4.12.9

Main Subjects

Modern Educational Approaches

COPYRIGHTS
©2019 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Taguchi N. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching. 2015; 48: 1–50.

[2] Nguyen TTM. Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticism by EFL learners. Language Awareness. 2013; 22(1): 76-94.

[3] Ellis R. The study of second language acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.

[4] Jeon E, Kaya T. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In: John, Norris, Ortega, Loudres (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2006.

[5] Rose K. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System. 2005; 33: 385–399.

[6] Kasper G, Rose K. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford; 2002.

[7] Tateyama Y. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In: Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 200–222). New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

[8] Alcon Soler, E. Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221-241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 2007.

[9] Ghobadi A, Fahim M. The effect of explicit teaching of English thanking formulas on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System. 2009; 37: 526-537.

[10] Li Q. Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modiﬁcation. TESOL Quarterly. 2012; 46(1): 30-55.

[11] Schmidt, R. Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Gabriele, Kasper, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.

[12] Sharwood Smith M. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1993; 15: 165-179.

[13] Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.

[14] Ohta AS. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.

[15] Takahashi S. Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, Handbooks of pragmatics, Vol. 7 (pp. 391−421). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2010.

[16] Nguyen TTM, Pham TH, Pham MT. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form- focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics. 2012; 44(4): 416-434.

[17] Shayer M. Not just Piaget, not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as an alternative to Piaget. In: Shayer, M., ed. Learning intelligence, cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years. UK, Open University Press; 2002.

[18] Donato R. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel, (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1994.

[19] Van Lier L. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman; 1998.

[20] Takimoto M. Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on recognition and production of second language request down graders. Intercultural Pragmatics. 2012; 9: 71–96.

[21] Van Compernolle RA. Developing second language socio pragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A micro genetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics. 2011; 43: 3267–3283.

[22] Domakani M, Felfelian S. L2 learner interlanguage pragmatic development within ZPD activated proximal context. Paper presented at the first conference on interdisciplinary approaches to language learning and teaching, Mashhad, Iran; 2012.