PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE and the CHALLENGE of SPEECH EXPRESSION and PRECISION Thesis Submitted to the College of Arts and Sciences O

Home , Idiolect, Noticing hypothesis, Speech

PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE AND THE CHALLENGE OF SPEECH EXPRESSION

AND PRECISION

Thesis

Submitted to

The College of Arts and Sciences of the

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of

Master of Arts in English

Samar Muftah Elemam, M.S.

Dayton, Ohio

May 2018

PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE AND THE CHALLENGE OF SPEECH EXPRESSION

AND PRECISION

Name: Elemam, Samar Muftah

APPROVED BY:

______Jennifer Haan, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor.

______Lori Phillips, M.S. Faculty Advisor

______Bryan Bardine, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor

 Copyright by

Samar Elemam

2018

iii

ABSTRACT

PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE AND THE CHALLENGE OF SPEECH EXPRESSION

AND PRECISION

Name: Elemam, Samar Muftah University of Dayton

Advisor: Dr. Jennifer Haan

With the increasing advancements in communication technology and the acceleration of globalization, English is becoming a de facto world-wide standard for

language. It is not just grammar, spelling and diction that determine successful

communication between intercultural speakers. The social awareness aspect, or what is

referred to as pragmatic competence, of communication can be just as important. Without

a solid understanding of pragmatics, a non-native speakers of English may encounter

professional failure in their future.

The primary objective of this research was to investigate the significance of ways

that students learning English as a second language, develop pragmatic awareness. A

second objective was to recommend teaching activities that could enhance that

development, enabling second language learners to discern cultural and contextual

meaning in real-life situations outside the classroom. This will help to further develop

linguistic skills and instill confidence to students.

Every challenging work needs self-efforts as well as guidance of

elders especially those who were very close to our heart.

My humble effort I dedicate to my sweet and loving

Father & Mother

Whose affection, love, encouragement and prays of day and night

make me able to get such success and honor

To My Husband

Abdul Saide

For his love, sacrifices and my shining armor

To My Friend

Lori Phillips

served as my inspiration and strength during stormy days.

To Allah

For always being with me thank you for everything.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My special thanks to Dr. Jennifer Haan, my advisor, for her support, motivation, patience, and immense knowledge. Her guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I couldn’t have imagined having a better advisor for my thesis.

Besides my advisor, I would like to express my appreciation to the rest of my thesis committee: Prof. Lori Phillips, and Dr. Bardine, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions. My sincere thanks also go to Dr. Slade the associate professor and chair of the department of English for always having open doors to assist and help me.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents, Muftah Elemam and Najia Aldharrat, and to my husband, Abdul Saide, for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iv

DEDICATION……………………………...………………………………………….....v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………….………………...…...vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS…………………….…………...... viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….1

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR LEARNING PRAGMATICS...... 3

CHAPTER 3 GRAMMAR AND PRAGMATICS...... 17

CHAPTER 4 TEACHING PRAGMATICS……………………..……………….…...... 20

CHAPTER 5 IMPROVING PRAGMATICS WITH THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY….32

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION…………………………….…………………….……….35

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………...... 38

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS

CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning

DCT Discourse Completion Task

EFL English as a Foreign Language

FLL Foreign Language Learner

FTA Face Threatening Action

IPA International Phonetic Alphabet

NS Native English Speaker

NNS Non-native English Speaker

SLL Second Language Learner

L1 First Language

L2 Second Language

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

As defined by Hughes and Allen (2013), pragmatics is a branch of linguistics aimed

at studying the peculiarities of using language, with a major focus on examining its

contextual use. For both the first and second language learners, the issues related learning

pragmatics are linked to text organization, implicature, presupposition, and the handling of

turns in conversation (Schmidt 6). I believe that to become truly fluent in a second

language, the learning of pragmatics is as essential as learning the grammar, spelling,

diction and syntax of the target language.

The aim of pragmatics, in any second language instruction, is to provide the foreign

language learners an opportunity to develop their pragmatic competence in the new

language (Ziran 10). Two methods of learning pragmatics are first, through teacher provided inputs such as classroom instruction and interactions, and second, through student outputs which are the student practicing the language outside of the classroom.

Additionally, it can be sourced from a preplanned pedagogical intervention aimed at the full comprehension of pragmatics (Hughes & Allen, 2013). Previous studies on pragmatics

have argued that poor pragmatic development by second language learners (SSL) was

primarily caused by a low level of interactions and poor quality of conversations with

1 native speakers. This not only limits the learning process but also imposes huge demands on the instructional process by making optimal gains less attainable within the traditional classroom format (Ziran, 13).

This paper will first present a discussion of the theoretical framework for learning pragmatics. This includes the speech acts theory, politeness, and requests. Next, the problems, obstacles, and critical issues that confront the teaching of pragmatics is discussed. Finally, the pragmatic development process itself is examined. Teacher activities that can help develop and improve pragmatics are proposed.

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR LEARNING PRAGMATICS

The theories of learning pragmatics try to explain the process of how people acquire

not only language capabilities but also to explain other ways we communicate our needs,

wants, and desires. These are the things people tend to take for granted since we are all

born into a culture that has ingrained norms, traditions, and ways of doing little things that

mean a lot. Several theories of how people learn a second language have been proposed.

Richard Schmidt suggested in 1990 his noticing hypothesis as a basis for studying the effect

of explicit instruction techniques in the attainment of second language pragmatic skills.

Also, both the Speech Acts Theory developed by Austin in 1962 and the Politeness Theory

proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in 1987 instill a structure for analysis.

As a specific example of learning pragmatic skills from these theories is presented

of a Taiwanese student learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL). These models: The

Noticing Hypothesis, the Speech Acts Theory, and the Politeness Theory along with a case study of the Taiwanese student are thoroughly examined in the following thesis.

2.1 The Noticing Hypothesis

The Noticing Hypothesis as promoted by Richard Schmidt in 1990 addresses the role of awareness in acquiring second language skills. Basically, he was saying that a second language learner (SLL) must first notice the grammatical differences to learn the

language. His theory addresses the initial resources available to the learner, their innate

processing abilities, and the attentional environmental conditions needed. These features

are combined as “input” to the student and if congealed properly will become true inputs

like interaction with native speakers as a step to notice and acquire the English language

(Schmidt, 1995). Particularly, Schmidt (1995) believes that awareness occurs at the initial

level of noticing and that this, is in of itself, a key component of learning. The researcher

states that the detection of appropriate input through awareness and subsequent attention is

a prerequisite for filtering intake from input and subjecting it to further processing

(Schmidt, 1995, 2001).

Previous studies contend that learning a language is mostly an unconscious process

(Chomsky, 1965, 1986, 1990; Gregg, 1984; Krashen, 1982; Seliger, 1983). Prior to this

concept, foreign language teaching methods emphasized the rules and patterns of the new

language – the grammar, structure, and syntax. This new unconscious learning proposition

led to a rejection of these methods to focus on teaching the “meaning” rather than the grammar and structure. The debate began and other researchers (Carlson & Dulany, 1985;

Fisk & Schneider, 1984; Kihlstorm, 1984), supported the thesis of Schmidt, that “there is no learning without attention” (Schmidt, 1995, p. 9). Schmidt (1990) also found evidence

that supports the role of consciousness in learning a second language. Some researchers

have taken the theory of consciousness even further, suggesting (Baars, 1988; Carr, 1979;

Gardner, 1985; Norman, 1986; Schmidt, 1990; Schneider, 1985) that consciousness plays

a crucial role especially when dealing with new, novel information such as a new language

and the associated cultural behavior, and contextual learning. The study on the past tense

vs. imperfect distinction by Leeman, Arteagoitia, Friedman, & Doughty (1995) found that

students who were presented with teaching activities that featured enhanced

communication innovation rather than presentations of rules and grammar, had improved

language comprehension. In fact, their study showed that with the enhanced

communication students had higher rates of accuracy and frequency regarding the use of

Spanish past tense forms as compared to learners who were only given the communicative

teaching technique. Schmidt supported this thesis when he cited his own learning of

Portuguese (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). He was taught past tense using an applied verbal

semantic distinction for choosing between past tense and past perfect tense.

Huot (1995) followed with a study of a French-speaking child learning English in

a natural setting. His observations revealed that the child noticed various aspects of

English, wrote contextual notes on new swords and mechanical linguistic (syntax,

semantics) forms encountered. He noticed that, as the child progressed, she also began to

use these learnings in her English utterances.

Schmidt projects that to acquire second or foreign language pragmatics, that mere

exposure to target language inputs is insufficient. Example, just listening to a Spanish radio

station does not mean that you will learn Spanish. Attention must be focused to specific

learning objectives and specified to the relevant ideas being presented. Schmidt believes,

that to sufficiently acquire pragmatics, adherence to both the correct linguistic forms of utterances and the applicable social and contextual facets in which they are associated are necessary (Schmidt, 2001).

Schmidt discriminates between the concepts of simply noticing something and

really understanding. He defined noticing as the conscious awareness of the occurrence of

events while defining understanding as the comprehension of the underlying generic

principles, rules, and patterns. He refers to noticing as a “service level learning” and understanding as “deeper and systematic” (Schmidt 2001). Schmidt (1995) elaborated on the distinction between noticing and understanding as follows: in pragmatics, awareness is an instance of someone saying something like, ‘I’m very sorry to ask you, but could you please help me with this problem?’ is unconsciously a matter of noticing. While understanding involves not just hearing the words but relating the words to the other aspects of the context (such as social distance, power, level of imposition etc.)

2.2 Speech Acts Theory

The theory of speech acts attempts to explain speech as how people communicate actions with words. Notably, “the act of speaking” is among the most essential concepts in linguistics (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). Speech acts have been studied from diverse perspectives, including linguistics, philosophy, and cultural anthropology. From a historical perspective, the study of speech acts originates with the philosophy of language origination (BlumKulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). The assumption that greeting, asking for help/information, apologizing, asking questions, and other acts constitutes the basis of human communication as the main idea presented in philosophers’ works (Austin, 1962;

Grice, 1975; Searle, 1969). To be more precise, these philosophers argue that the performance of the kinds of acts, but not linguistic expressions themselves, should be referred to as minimal units of communication.

The term “speech acts” denotes specific utterances in the context of human communication theory. Speech acts can be classified into subcategories, including apologies, requests, suggestions, greetings, compliments, and many more. Pragmatic analysis often studies utterances in terms of specific speech acts.

Speech acts were the main objects of numerous studies conducted by J. L. Austin

and John Searle in the early 1960’s. Austin (1962) described the nature of a speech act by

asserting that “in saying something, a speaker also does something.” By claiming to

Austin, the performance of a speech act implies the performance of three different kinds of

acts. The first one, a locutionary act, conveys utterances’ literal meaning. The second one, an illocutionary act, performs specific social functions that are a part of an utterance or a written text. The third act, which is defined as perlocutionary, is an outcome of an utterance determined by the message’s sender. Austin (1962) further explained these as acts that inflect meaning (locutionary act), apply specific force (illocutionary act), and provoke certain effects (perlocutionary act). For example, in saying, “I am cold,” the speaker performs the locutionary act of saying something that reflects his or her current physical state. If a request for a jacket is asked then value to the statement is added, and in such a way, the speaker performs an illocutionary act. The speaker may perform the perlocutionary act of producing what Austin called “certain consequential effects upon the actions, thoughts, or feelings of the audience” so that the audience may respond as the speaker intended. In Austin’s opinion, words do more than make a statement of fact; “to say” something is “to do” something (1962).

By considering Austin’s research findings and expanding them, Searle (1969)

greatly contributed to the development of the speech act theory. The researcher pointed out

five major categories of speech acts. These categories are: (a) assertives, (b) declarations,

leading the speaker to an assessment of a truth. Reporting, claiming, and announcing are

the most common assertives. Declarations link reality and propositional content (e.g.,

sentencing, dismissing, and so on). Commissives imply that the speaker will perform some

future action such as “I will take out the garbage.” Expressives are proclamations of some physical or psychological state, “I am cold” or “I am sorry”. Directives attempt to bring about some compliance through the action of the listener, “Please take out the garbage”

(e.g., requesting, ordering, and so on).

To achieve the success of a speech act, Austin (1965) and Searle (1965, 1975) suggested a range of conditions that involve the necessity of an utterance’s having specific form and context, which must be achieved for making the utterance meet its intended purpose. For example, at a wedding ceremony, a man and a woman exchange vows and rings; their explicit expressions such as “I do” demonstrate their decision to be married, but it is the officiates contextual pronouncement that they become husband and wife that makes them so. The pronouncement itself is the actual speech that produces the union, and the rest – the ceremony, the authority of the officiator - is the context necessary for the speech act to be effective.

Many studies over the last two decades have used the speech act theory as a basis to explain pragmatic differences between cultures and languages. Austin described categories of speech acts as what was actually said (locution), what was meant to be said

(illocution), and what actions resulted (perlocution). Machiko Achiba (2003) pointed out that these conundrums of what was said, what was meant, and what happened is very import to the study of pragmatics. According to the speech acts theory, speakers perform illocutionary acts by producing utterances. With this, speakers use their utterances to express communicative intentions, such as promises, refusals, compliments, etc. In this

context, the study of speech acts provides a useful way of relating linguistic form (the

grammar and syntax) to the communicative intent (what the speaker really meant to say).

2.3 Politeness and Speech Acts

Speech acts have been defined from various perspectives, and Penelope Brown and

Stephen Levison have suggested that speech acts are governed by worldwide values of

cooperation and politeness. In fact, Brown and Levinson’s (1987s) theory of politeness

provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing speech acts’ realization and determining factors that influence it. Dr. Maria Sifianou (1992) pointed out, speech acts theory is well aligned with the concept of politeness. Therefore, researchers who study interlanguage pragmatics and cross-cultural issues apply the Brown and Levison politeness theory for acquiring a better understanding of native and non-native speakers’ speech act

behaviors.

Brown & Levinson conducted a study in 1989 that illustrated their theoretical

framework with examples from three languages: Tamil from South India, Tzetal from

Chiapas, Mexico, and American and British English. Their model presumed the validity of

the Cooperative Principle for the use of language proposed by Paul Grice in 1975. Grice

was one of the first researchers to examine how a successful conversation can occur

between interlanguage speakers. The Cooperative Principal lists four principles or

guidelines that enable speakers to communicate most effectively: quality, quantity, relation,

and manner. Quality refers to being nonspurious, meaning speaking the truth and being

sincere. Quantity refers to the amount of utterance. Relation refers to relevance, while

manner means be perspicuous, or to avoid ambiguity and obscurity. Grice assumed that his

four principles are always observed in any communication (1975). Rules can be violated,

so politeness could deviate from these maxims. In the final analysis, speakers consider their

own needs and the recipient’s wants.

The concept of “face” is central to the politeness theory. Goffman (1967) introduced

this concept, and Brown and Levinson (1987) refined it by defining “face” as a desirable

public self-image, which every individual strives to acquire. In fact, face implies such

issues as self-respect and self-esteem that are shaped by circumstances related to both

public and personal matters. For instance, any efforts aimed at making others feel

comfortable or uncomfortable or avoiding embarrassment, determine an individual’s face.

Face consists of both positive and negative aspects. Positive face is when a person wants their desires, goals, possessions or achievements to be understood, liked and admired. It is their wish for the approval of others. Negative face is when a person wants their wishes or actions to be accepted unimpeded and without reservations.

Politeness is expressed in the actions, both linguistic and non-linguistic, that individuals perform during interactions to maintain their own face and that of others.

According to Brown & Levinson (1987), the idea of protecting the face of a listener leads

to the establishment of politeness strategies. The researchers emphasized the adverse

effects of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in terms of the listener’s need for maintaining self-

esteem and being treated with respect. Thus, Brown and Levinson (1987) consider it very

important to avoid FTAs or perform them with caution, which means preventing potentially

offensive language. Brown and Levinson have suggested several politeness approaches.

The first “Bald On-Record” is really a lack of politeness, because it does not negate or

minimize the impact of FTAs. This is most commonly used by groups who know each other

very well, such as family members, or close friends (i.e. “Clean your room or you will be

grounded!”). The next approach, “Request,” is a strategy utilizing questions to obtain a certain effortful result from others (i.e. “Will you please clean your room?” or “Will you please put your coat away!”). “Positive Politeness”, the speaker uses this technique to express friendship and support for the listener’s need to be respected. This will minimize the psychological distance between the speaker and the listener and promote intimacy by using friendliness and interest in the listener’s want and need for respect, thus minimize the FTA. This strategy is usually used between friends and in social situations where the speaker and listener know each other rather well (i.e. “My good friend, would you have time to clean your room today?”). Next, “Attend to the listener”, this strategy uses effortful attention and action to adhere to the listener’s needs (i.e. “You must be tired, perhaps you could clean your room tomorrow?”). A blunt approach is “Negative Politeness”. This approach imposes on the listener and intrudes into his or her space. (i.e. “Excuse me sir, your room is a mess – clean it now.”). It assumes the presence of social distance or awkwardness. “Minimize imposition”, this strategy attempts to reduce the negativity of imposing on the listener through gentle requests (i.e. "I just want to check if you were able to clean your room”). Off-Recorder, this category refers to indirect strategies that remove the speaker from any imposition (i.e. “It’s hot in here!” implying, “Please turn on your air conditioner!”)

It was proposed that the performance of a face-threatening act should involve the

following factors: (a) distance, (b) power, and (c) imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Distance (D) is a term denoting a “social distance” that occurs between the interlocutors.

Types of exchanges that take place between the speaker and the listener and the frequency

of contact determine distance. In turn, power (P) characterizes an unbalanced relationship

that demonstrates the inconsistency between listeners’ intention to have their desires

accepted and speakers’ desire. Both culture and situation define the statuses of impositions,

and this must be considered in terms of ranking (R). Noteworthy, the three factors – D, P,

and R – possess such important characteristics as relevance and independence. They

subsume other essential aspects that have a considerable impact on the ways in which face-

threatening acts are performed. These aspects are situational factors, friendship, authority,

ethnic identity, status, and occupation (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

2.4 Requests

Requests are simply asking for something “May I have a cup of coffee please?”

Trosborg (1994) defined regarded requests as an “impositive” speech act since it has an

intrusive effect on listeners. As an illocutionary act, the person making the request conveys

to the listener (or the requestee) that the requester wants the requestee to accomplish the

action being asked, most likely an action beneficial to the speaker (Trosborg, 1994, p. 187).

A request is a pre-event act because the desired result takes place after the request

is performed. In fact, Blum-Kulka et al. (1991, p. 256) define requests as prior actions to

the event from the speaker with intent to influence the listener’s behavior. An effective

request is one for which the listener recognizes the speaker’s intent and what action the

listener is expected to accomplish.

In terms of both the requestee and the requester, requests are face-threatening acts,

as multiple obstacles may hinder the requestee’s freedom while the requester might be at risk due to the potential non-compliance on behalf of the requestee.

A speaker making a request has four possible goals: action, goods, information, and

permission (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). For example, a speaker may ask a listener to do

some action (e.g., “Would you please close the window?”). When requesting a physical

object is the goal of material transfer (e.g. “goods “), a speaker desires a listeners to handover a material item or items (e.g., “Can I borrow your computer?”). A request for information is different than a request for goods because the speaker is asking for verbal information (e.g., “Do you know where the mall is?”). The request for permission is used when a speaker needs approval for an action (e.g., “Can I take a day off?”).

Requestors must weigh whether the goal of the request is appropriate according to prevalent social customs to prevent miscommunication. This requires the speakers to be familiar with the sociocultural norms of the target language community to choose an appropriate request. Even L2 learners with advanced language proficiency may use an inappropriate request goal if they have not acquired the sociocultural norms of the target language community.

Experience in the target community provides language learners with opportunities for exposure to L2 pragmatic input and for encounters with native speakers’ use of appropriate responses. As an illustrative example, Kim (1996) illustrates the acquisition of sociocultural norms of the target language community with this exchange: for successful

L2 communication in these ways for nonnative English speakers (NNS) and native English speakers (NS).

NNS: “Could you please send the package for me?”

NS: “No problem. I have errands to do at the post office today anyway.”

NNS: “I am terribly sorry. I wouldn’t ask you this if I wasn’t so busy.”

In Kim’s example, the utterance of “I am terribly sorry” by the non-native English

speaker is not appropriate. An expression such as “Thank you” would be more appropriate

under the target language norms.

Many factors contribute to a non-native English speaker’s use of “thank you,” including L2 proficiency, the recognition of status between communication interlocutors, and his or her experience in the target language community.

Review of Studies Focusing on Requests

Schmidt’s (1983) made a three-year study of the pragmatic development of a

Japanese artist learning English. Wes, the subject, lived in Hawaii and was a native

Japanese language speaker. Schmidt found that, at the beginning of his English learning,

Wes used a limited range of request formulas. He also used “please” as a requisite politeness marker more frequently than native English speakers. This may have been because Wes transferred Japanese sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic norms into L2

English. Schmidt found that Wes underwent important development after living in Hawaii for three years. First, Wes no longer used progressive forms of the directive function, and increased his use of imperatives. Wes’ use of requests became more elaborate and occurred in longer utterances. On the other hand, Schmidt also found that Wes’ use of requests still included some English features, such as “Can I —?” (e.g., “Can I bring cigarette?” to convey the request of “May I have a cigarette?”).

Ellis (1992) conducted a two-year study of requests from two beginning English learners a 10-year-old Portuguese boy and an 11-year-old Pakistani boy in classroom settings. Ellis found that the boys used direct requests more than all other directives.

Conventionally indirect request forms (e.g., “Can I —?”) also appeared in their use of

requests. Throughout the observation period, nonconventional requests, such as hints, were

rarely used. Additionally, the two boys failed to systematically vary their use of request

types of forms according to the addressee, no distinction was made between listeners who

were adults or peers. Although the boys showed some pragmatic developments such as the

use of indirect requests, Ellis pointed out that the range of request strategies these boys had

achieved throughout the observation period remained more restricted than those of adult

native speakers. Ellis suggested two explanations for this limited development. First, Ellis

claimed that the two young learners were still in the process of acquiring the pragmatic and

linguistic knowledge needed to perform requests in an ESL setting. Second, he suggested

that the boys did not feel the need to use elaborate request strategies since they were in

classroom settings and knew each other very well. The findings suggest that additional

studies with adults in ESL settings with baseline data are needed to better understand the

final achievement of request strategies.

A study by Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford (1993) examined how foreign graduate

students in an American university developed negotiation skills with their academic

advisers over time. They uncovered a substantial difference between NNSs and the NS

students by stating that the former are more inclined to reject advisers’ suggestions than the latter are. NNSs more frequently used rejections than NSs, perhaps because NNSs left course suggestions to their advisers and then reacted to them, whereas NSs were more likely to initiate course suggestions that led to fewer rejections by NSs. These different approaches to course suggestions indicated that even NNSs with high L2 proficiency still faced the challenge of using the appropriate form according to the sociocultural norms of

using suggestions in an American academic setting. NNSs were also found to use

inappropriate excuses for rejecting their academic advisers’ suggestions by referring to

either the difficulty or simplicity of the course. The findings imply that high L2 proficiency

alone is not sufficient for the development of pragmatic competence for NNSs.

Adva Hill (1997) studied how 60 Japanese L2 learners developed request

approaches changed according to differing proficiency levels of English. The findings

suggest that learners in low proficiency groups tended to rely on direct requests and used

fewer direct requests as their L2 proficiency increased.

In summation, the research reported above suggests the idea that mastery of L2 pragmatic competence by NNSs is deeply challenging. Second, language learners with advanced L2 proficiency are still challenged with the use of appropriate request forms to use with a target community. This implies that language learners with advanced L2 proficiency may not automatically possess corresponding levels of pragmatic competence.

The following section reviews studies conducted on the effects of teaching styles and activities on pragmatic development. Examining the effects of instruction on pragmatic development is important given that L2 proficiency alone is not sufficient for the full development of pragmatic competence.

CHAPTER 3

GRAMMAR AND PRAGMATICS

The relationship between grammatical knowledge and pragmatic competence has been neglected. Some studies on this issue have been conducted and two schools of thought have emerged regarding the relationship between the pragmatic understanding and knowledge of grammar. The studies of Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei (1997) assert that second language (L2 students cannot grasp pragmatics without also learning the underlying grammar for appropriate expressions. Niezoda & Rover (2001) claim the opposite, that learners can manage to be pragmatically skilled without fluent knowledge of the underlying grammatical structures that of native speakers.

The assertion that grammar knowledge precedes pragmatic understanding is supported by research finding that advanced L2 learners employed perfect target language grammar in a pragmatic fashion. The researchers pointed out three major forms of grammar training needed to develop pragmatics. First, Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig (2001) and Takahashi (1996) found out that students’ knowledge of certain grammatical structures and elements is rarely associated with their using them for expressing/modifying illocutionary force (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Second, the studies by Bardovi-Harlig and

Hartford (1991) and Scarcella (1979), demonstrated that language learners use form- function mapping. This is based on the pragmalinguistic approach, in the context of non-

native sociopragmatic forms despite their demonstrating their awareness of a grammatical

structure, as well as pragmalinguistic functions. Third, Bodman and Eisentein (1988) and

Beebe and Takahashi (1989), emphasized the fact that language learners know grammatical structures and use them for expressing pragmalinguistic functions in the target language force, though these functions remain non-conventionalized.

The first assertion, that pragmatics and grammar are learned together, disregards the fact that adult L2 learners are already pragmatically competent in their first language

(L1). The assertion ignores the existence of a universal pragmatic competence. All cultures recognize various speech acts, conversational implications, and politeness protocols.

Therefore, L1 learners should be able and are likely to transfer this this universal pragmatism to their L2. Universal pragmatic competence will, in practice, allow speakers to notice to make linguistic choices accordingly (Kasper & Rose, 2002).

The assertion that grammar knowledge and pragmatic skills are independent was shown by Schmidt’s 1993 study. His study of Wes, a native Japanese speaker living in

Hawaii and learning English, showed that a restrained interlanguage grammar is not an obstacle hindering the development of pragmatic competence. This is particularly evident in the language learners’ acculturation process in the target language. This finding has also been confirmed by other studies and their results (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986, 1993;

Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Walters, 1980). These studies indicate that foreign language and second language learners’ pragmatic skills results not from a lack of grammatical knowledge, but by performing actions in the target language. This tendency supports the reasonableness grammar and pragmatics are not learned in succession but are learned independently.

Reliance on first language pragmatic handover and the existence of a general universal pragmatism is the rationale for explaining the inconsistencies between these two claims. Also, the process of learners’ interlanguage development triggers changes in leaning tasks and contributes to a better understanding of the learned grammatical structures’ primary functions and meanings.

CHAPTER 4

TEACHING PRAGMATICS

Teaching pragmatics is an obscure concept since cultural differences vary significantly not only from one country to another but also among local regions within a country. Someone learning about southern USA culture may Experience a cultural shock if

they travel to Ohio. “Howdy yawl” may be a correct greeting in Ft. Worth, Texas but in

Dayton, Ohio. “Welcome everyone” is probably more common. Attempting to teach some

of the major features of cultural linguistic nuances would raise the competence level of

English second-language learners, but also their confidence in communicating effectively.

The teaching of pragmatics would facilitate the communication abilities between learners

of English as an L2 and native English speakers.

4.1 Critical Issues for Pragmatic Ability as a Teaching Goal

English language learners are often reluctant to speak fluently as native English

speakers. They have grown up in a completely different culture with different customs,

attitudes and practices. An L2’s self-image shapes their desire for observing native speaker pragmatic norms or imitate NS pragmatic conventions. It is also shaped by their social standing in the target L2 community, within the wider L2environment, as well as their personal experience with native speakers. It is crucial that learners be informed of the

various options available to them to learn pragmatics. They should not be coerced into

20 making choices, but free to choose among the options. Teachers should pay attention to such issues as acknowledging and respecting learners’ individualities, beliefs, attitudes, values, and choices.

For teachers, the general development of pragmatic awareness is important so that a desire can be instilled within students. The goal should be to give the students the skills so that they themselves can figure out pragmatic meaning when they encounter it outside the classroom. With the rapid technology advancements in communication, the accelerating globalization, and the worldwide use of English for communication, teachers need to help their students develop pragmatic awareness of English language norms in ELL contexts.

Community and in different contexts within the wider L2 environment, as well as their experience with native speakers in various encounters such as social encounters, formal speaking encounters, and informal speaking encounters. It is crucial that learners be informed of the various options offered by the pragmatic system of English without being coerced into making particular choices regarding those options. Teachers should pay attention to such issues as acknowledging/respecting learners’ individualities, beliefs, attitudes, values, and choices.

For teachers, importance of the general development of pragmatic awareness is important so that a desire can be instilled within students so that they can figure out pragmatic meaning when they encounter it outside our classrooms. With advancements in technology, the accelerating globalization of today’s world, and the worldwide use of

English for communication, teachers need to help their students develop pragmatic awareness of English language norms in ELL contexts.

4.2 Pragmatic Failure

Pragmatic failure results from learners’ mechanical usage of linguistic habits they

have grown up with. In general, there are two types of pragmatic failure: (a) linguistic

pragmatic failure and (b) social misunderstanding (Thomas, 1983). Notably, linguistic

failures might vary considerably, but the most common linguistic pragmatic failures results

from applying the “mother tongue” thinking mode when using the target language.

Pragmatic failure results from learners’ mechanical usage of linguistic habits they have

grown up with witch is known as linguistic transfer. The target language characteristics of

linguistic structure, habits and behavioral customs differs considerably from that of the

learners L1. Teaching direct translation words/expressions taken from the mother tongue

is among the widespread causes of linguistic pragmatic failure. Social pragmatic failure is

an outcome of the inconformity between expression means and the target language’s

pragmatic principles. Learners’ lack of cultural competency related to the target language

typically leads to this type of social pragmatic failure. Fortunately, foreign language

teaching can improve and correct the two types of failures discussed. Teaching direct

translation words/expressions taken from the mother tongue is among the widespread

causes of linguistic pragmatic failure.

4.3 The Pragmatic Development Process

In this section there are various types of pragmatic activities that lead to success and improvement of pragmatic skill development. There are two main categories of activities to develop those skills. The first one is activities intended to raise students’

knowledge of one’s language in social life for example through real life scenario that

present a context for conversation. The second one is activities offering ways in which

students can practice communication both in and out of the classroom. It is very beneficial

when teachers use social skills activities from every day speech to guide learners through their application of their skills. Social skills activities develop knowledge related to the appropriate use of various language forms within a specific context. Both awareness and practice deserve special attention as well.

4.4 Awareness Raising

Through awareness raising activities, which is the first step to raise pragmatic

awareness in second language learners and develop their understanding, students gain such

knowledge in certain pragmatic concepts of language. Students then know what strategies

to utilize for apologetic communication in their first language and second language, what

to consider as offensive language, and to what degrees of offense the language exhumes in

certain situations in their native culture compared to the target culture. They also learn how

the nature of the relationship between the participants affects the use of apologies.

Teaching learners to use appropriate tools interchangeably, and to select them in

order to adopt contextually acceptable language use is the primary goal associated with

exposing learners to the target language’s pragmatic aspects. The purpose of these

pragmatic activities is to increase learners’ conscious awareness of variations existing

between speech pacts of one’s mother tongue and the target language. This approach results

from the fact that learners tend to ignore the variations until they address them directly

under specific circumstances. One can apply a range of techniques for raising learners’

pragmatic awareness, although the most commonly used are only two techniques. First,

teachers present/discuss various findings related to certain aspects of pragmatics. Second,

23 students might obtain information through their own discovery procedures that typically involve questionnaires, interviews, and observations.

4.5 Teacher Presentation and Discussion

Teachers can utilize both deductive and inductive methods when providing students with relevant information obtained through research aimed at pragmatic issues.

Presenting/discussing this information inductively means moving from data to rules while doing it deductively means moving from rules to data. Effective teachers specify the status of class participants (ELL) learners’ situations, and the nature of the speech events to emphasize the significance of contextual variables pertaining to the usage of explicit or implicit language forms.

Both first language and second language learners will be able to acquire the knowledge of pragmatic features through the information conveyed by means of activities aimed at increasing awareness. One activity is for the student to do is to record words, sentences and phrases that the teacher is using in the classroom. Utilizing today’s cell phone capabilities, a digital notebook with recording ability could be employed.

Data collection activity is an essential component of a discovery procedure implemented by students since it provides them with an opportunity to conduct their own ethnographic research and observe and record the speech acts that occur in the natural language environment (Ziran, 1997). The goals of such procedure are: (a) helping learners acquire skills required for finding and analyzing necessary issues related to pragmatics; (b) teaching them to formulate their own hypotheses concerning language use and testing them; and (c) providing them with opportunity of making careful observations of language use in terms of first and second language acquisition. A more classical example might

involve second language learners engaging verbally with their native language speaking

peers, or a native teacher engaging his/her learners in the second language class.

4.6 The Motivation Phase

From the studies examined many techniques were found relating to problematic

interactions. Through translations activities, role playing activities, and examples of

complimenting, students can better understand pragmatic competence. These activities illustrate the challenges of expression and every day speech for second language learners.

The motivation phase involves a number of activities, including:

4.6.1 Translation Activities

Word for word translation of speech acts from students’ first language into English is a widely used strategy that makes it possible to make early translation activities successful. At the initial stage of this activity, motivating students by capturing their attention and fueling their interest in them is of paramount importance. A set of techniques helps achieve this purpose and these techniques vary by teacher and learners’ needs. Literal translation illustrates the ways in which cultural norms are highlighted in the language. For example, the direct translation of colloquial phrases can present a barrier to communication. The teacher plays a role in bridging the gap from these translations. This demonstrates the challenging nature of translating specific instances of language use. Such activities demonstrate major characteristic features of direct translation.

The translation process implies several important aspects; for example, it requires group discussion of pragmatic norms associated with a target community. Another example, it calls for students’ ability to reflect on these norms and come up with their own translation techniques, which is based on the gathered data. A study was conducted by

Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper in 1989 on cross-cultural pragmatics with the inclusion

of a discourse completion task (DCT). This type of task can be utilized during early stages

of the translation process. Many literary sources contain much information concerning

several types of DCTs and point out a specific version applied for enabling students to

obtain the desired speech functions. Presenting a situation requiring students’ responses in

their first language and translating these responses into the second one is the essence of

this form of DCT. Learners presented the relevant information obtained from native

English speakers once they had provided speech acts in their first language and translated

versions. The use of learners’ first language during the early stages is not a negative factor.

It provides multiple advantages since it demonstrates learners’ emphasizing pragmatics but not the target language. As soon as the student acquires sufficient knowledge concerning the required object of a pragmatic analysis, one can shift focus to English.

Example responses in Arabic:

(ﯾﺎ اﻟﮭﻲ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻣﺤﺮﺟﻮن ﻟﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﺴﺒﺐ) :In Arabic

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: /Ya Elahi, naɧno mooħ raʓune marah okhra, le nafss

al sabeb la aʕ’ ref li ma ða /

English translation: “Oh my goodness. We are embarrassed again, for some reason

I do not ħ know why.”

(ﺷﺊ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻊ اﻧﻲ اﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺎﻻﺣﺮاج ﻣﺸﺎﻏﻞ اﻟﺤﯿﺎه ﻟﻢ ﺗﺘﺮك ﻟﻲ وﻗﺖ ﻟﻼﻧﺸﻐﺎل ﺑﺸﺊ اﺧﺮ) :In Arabic

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: / Mo:tawaqʕ a:nj aʃ ʃʕo:rr bellaeħħraʓ ma:ʃaɣȃl al

ħa:ja:h lem tatru:k li waqt lili:nʃiɣall biʃjʔ a:xarr/

English translation: “Things happened. I feel embarrassed, the pressure of life has

not left time for me to worry about other things.”

(ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﺴﯿﺖ) :In Arabic

In Arabic IPA pronunciation:/ Laqd na:sjt/

English translation: “I forgot.”

Example response in American English: “Oh, my goodness! I’m so sorry. I

completely forgot. Can we meet another time?”

Discussion of the Case Examples

The two examples cited above were responses from students to the DCTs given to

them. The first one response was from Arabic language speaking students and the second

response came from Native American English-speaking students.

It is worth mentioning that it is difficult to fully comprehend the complexity and fullness of data gathered through a DCT. It enables learners to see stereotypical types of language that are applied in a certain context (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989). DCTs play an important role when students learn a language’s communicative functions during early stages of the learning process. DCTs make it possible to use language, which is close to the authentic one, though is devoid of excessive complexity. With the use of translation for increasing pragmatic awareness fosters student interest, students will be more aware of the interconnectedness of culture and language and untranslatability of certain speech acts in terms of second language.

The following is an example of offering food to a person in the Arabic language reveals that a literal translation is possible and how a pragmatic translation is not easily achieved:

English: [Please, help yourself; it is not of value compared to your value]

(ﻟﺘﻜﻮن ﻋﻠﻲ ﺳﺠﯿﺘﻚ, ﻻ ﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﯿﻤﺘﻚ) :Arabic literal translation

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: / Li tako:n ʕala saʒi:atak, laʃjʔ min qimatak. /

(ارﺟﻮك ﺳﺎﻋﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ, ﻻﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﯿﻤﺘﻚ.) :Arabic pragmatic translation

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: / arrʒo:k saʕed naffsak, laʃjʔ min qimatak. /

English: [Thanks a lot, I ate everything]

(ﺷﻜﺮا, ﻟﻘﺪ اﻛﻠﺖ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺊ.) :Arabic literal and pragmatic translation

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: / ʃökran Laqd akaltö kola: laʃjʔ /

English: [You have the authority, I did not see (you eating), you must have one

orange, and the oranges are juicy]

ﻟﺘﻜﻮن ﻋﻠﻲ ﺳﺠﯿﺘﻚ, ارﯾﺪك ان ﺗﺠﺮب ھﺬا اﻟﺒﺮﺗﻔﺎل)) :Arabic literal translation

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: / Li tako:n ʕala saʒi:atak, aori:dak an to:ʒareb haða

allbo:rtoqal/

(ادﯾﻚ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﮫ, ﻟﻢ اراك ﺗﺎﻛﻞ, ﯾﺠﺐ ﺗﺎﺧﺬ واﺣﺪه ﺑﺮﺗﻘﺎﻟﮫ, واﻟﺒﺮﺗﻘﺎل ﻋﺼﯿﺮ):Arabic pragmatic translation

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: /ladi:ka allsollth, lam a:rrak taʔkol, jaʒib tʔxð wahida

borto:qalh, wa albort:qal ʕa:sˁi:r/

English: [Thanks a lot, on my eye (humble and respectful form of okay)]

(ﺷﻜﺮا, ﻣﻦ ﻋﯿﻮﻧﻲ) :Arabic literal and pragmatic translation

In Arabic IPA pronunciation: / ʃökran min ʕjoni:/

Students who were giving these examples, could perceive the content was shared and explained in Arabic. In the Arabic culture making offers in a forceful and direct manner is polite. In contrast, indirect offers are more acceptable in English culture. Offering food

and/or drink and refusing to accept them is a ritual that is denoted by the term taarof and

remains a distinctive feature of Iranian culture. A host/hostess consider it his/her duty to

make a guest change his/her mind, as can be seen from the passage. The absence of ritual

formalities is among the main causes of intercultural misunderstanding. In fact, Iranians

have several stereotypes concerning American lifestyle. Thus, they believe that the absence

of proper manners is one of the most significant drawbacks of all Americans. Probably,

such assumption is the result of substantial differences related to language use. Hence,

initiating group discussion and promoting students’ involvements in it are effective

measures of promoting intercultural understanding.

4.6.2 Role Playing

These could be interactions posing potential problems. To explain certain pragmatic

peculiarities, educators should not omit presenting specific examples that would facilitate

explanation, such as ordering in a restaurant, asking for directions, going to a store. These

examples are associated with intercultural communication and causes of communication.

They might also show problematic interactions that, in turn, are indicative of pragmatic

peculiarity. Training students and helping them develop observation skills requires

educators’ own observing abilities. By observing any problematic situation carefully and

taking notes, teachers can collect new data exemplifying problematic interactions and their

causes. Such efforts are indispensable conditions for developing students’ observation skills since they make it possible to introduce pragmatics through potentially challenging events.

4.6.3 Complimenting.

Complimenting is among the most common examples shared by learners. As an example, consider a young female graduate assistant working alongside several American co-workers. On several occasions, a male worker may compliment on how pretty the young foreign lady looked, or what she was wearing that day. She may have mixed feelings and

may not know how to react due to a common assumption about sexual overtones

underlying men’s compliments concerning women’s appearance. Gradually, she

recognized the existence of differences between the two languages, cultures, and norms

and would not be offended by the compliments. Students’ own experience or situations,

which they witnessed indirectly (through movies and TV programs in the target language),

are sources of new cases demonstrating problematic interactions. These examples contain

useful information about intercultural pragmatic issues for both learners and educators.

4.7 Critical Issues for Pragmatic Ability as a Teaching Goal

Research has shown that many English language learners have a reluctance to

behave as pragmatically as native speakers of the language. (Washburn, 2001). Teachers

should pay much attention to the necessity of such issues as acknowledging/respecting

learners’ individualities, beliefs, attitudes, values, and choices. It is crucial to inform

learners about the variety of options found in the pragmatic system of the English language.

it is advisory to avoid forcing students to make an imposed choice regarding those options.

Second language learners are prone to creating an idiolect, which is typically referred to as

interlanguage. They are most likely to establish a supplementary identity in the process of

learning. Second language learners’ opinion about themselves, the experience they have acquired through the interaction with native speakers, and their social position in the environment in which the target language, determine their intention to observe pragmatic norms of this language. In this paper, I strived to put much emphasis on the significance of the ways in which students’ pragmatic awareness is developed. The main goal of instilling pragmatic awareness is enabling learners to discern a pragmatic meaning in real-life

situations outside the classroom. In my opinion, the development of students’ pragmatic

30 awareness of the norms of the English language is a top priority for educators since the rapid technical progress, globalization, and the expansion of influence of English in different spheres of human activity require such development.

CHAPTER 5

IMPROVING PRAGMATICS WITH THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Studies on computer-assisted language learning (CALL) techniques has focused on

both structural and instructional issues (Warchauer, 1997; Warchauer & Kern, 2000). This

research has documented examples of successful integration of technology into culture and

language curriculums. Also, they have provided descriptive characterizations of computer- mediated communication at the international level (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Sotillo, 2000).

Research into CALL activities has yet to examine the cultural, historical, or social dimensions of language learners (Chapelle, 2000). The jury is still out in using CALL techniques, since the fields of foreign-language learning and teaching have neither advocated nor presented linguistically critical interpretations of the development of intercultural competence (Belz, 2002).

Belz conducted research of a German-American telecollaboration effort in 2002.

The student participants were involved in a teacher education program in Germany as well as enrolled in a German Conversation and Composition class at Penn State University.

Web-based exchange of information, synchronous chat, and e-mail were the principal means of participants’ interaction. Foreign language acquisition and intercultural competence were two main purposes of the participants’ collaborative engagement in a range of tasks.

This study examined these collaborations’ ability to refine the use of a foreign language and shape the process of learning. According to Belz, partnerships that are built on the principle of telecollaboration involve close relationships between institutional and sociocultural factors, and for this reason, they are a productive means to examine social aspects of learning a foreign language. The researcher applied a set of strategies developed for social realistic investigation. This focus was aimed at collecting relevant data on the

German-American telecollaboration’s activities. The results demonstrated the complexity and multi-dimensional features of a foreign language education program that is based on a telecollaborative approach. The findings indicated the telecollaboration program is a social action. He further concluded that such action is “shaped by an intricate interrelationship of social and institutional affordances and constraints, aspects of individual psycho- biography, as well as language and computer socialization experiences and particular power relationships” (Belz, 2002, p. 73).

Another study conducted by Belz and Kinginger (2003) involved an examination of electronic exchange that, in turn, resulted from online communication in the context of the appraisal theory. By means of such examination, the researchers analyzed the ways in which intercultural competence was acquired through a German-American e-mail partnership. Three participants were selected for data analysis. The findings from these two studies suggest that the teacher can play an important role of moderator in telecollaborations in classroom settings.

Unlike the educators who resort to face to face learning in the classroom, those involved in telecollaboration should be prepared for a scarcity of paralinguistic meaning signals – facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, etc. This highlights the difficulty

33 that teachers may have in being able to identify and explain cultural contingent interaction patterns and to provide examples of such patterns, especially with email activity. This is a prerequisite for a telecollaborative teacher since civilizations overall do tend to disagree, at times, on the empirical details of their computer-mediated talk, especially without the facial signals and body language (Belz & Kinginger, 2003).

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the significance of the theories and

methods to develop students’ pragmatic awareness and to recommend teaching activities

to enhance that development. In my opinion, the development of students’ pragmatic

awareness of the norms of the English language should be a top priority for educators. This is especially true with the rapid technical progress, globalization, and the expansion of influence of English worldwide.

The aim of pragmatics in any second language instruction is to confer the foreign language learners an opportunity to develop their pragmatic competence in the new language (Ziran 10). This is provided from two sources: teacher inputs and student outputs.

The teacher inputs are the classroom activities, books, lectures and technology assistants

such as computers and the internet used to educate the students. The student outputs are

the instances of students speaking the target language with native speakers, interacting and

learning on their own outside the classroom. Together these inputs and outputs result in

learning pragmatics. Learning pragmatics can be hindered by poor quality and Teacher’s

instructional process by making optimal gains less attainable within the traditional

classroom format (Ziran 13).

I think that instructors should turn to technology to make these optimal gains.

Utilizing technology as an approach to teach the second language learners develops a

unique curriculum that allows for these students to better understand the nuance of the English language. While this approach might not work for every student, it will significantly aid those whose learning styles favor a hands on approach. Technology creates a different plat form which can help instructors across a variety of disciplines develop a lesson plan as these learners explore they complex world of language. In my own experience I found that the second language learner avoided pragmatic failure by interacting with technology and media through the radio, and this phenomenon does not just occur with radio: different media plat forms, like Facebook and television, provide new avenues for students to learn.

There are three major models of pragmatic learning: The Noticing Hypothesis, the

Speech Acts Theory, and the Politeness Theory. These models help to explain the process of how pragmatics are learned and how teaching activities can be developed to incorporate these innate concepts.

There is an on-going debate on grammar versus pragmatic learning. Which comes first? In the final analysis, maybe the order does not really matter. What matters, is that students receive both the grammar and the pragmatics. This is necessary to become good communicators in the second language. Teachers should to be aware of the need, problems, and obstacles in teaching pragmatics. Pragmatic learning is susceptible to failure.

Pragmatic failure is caused two sources: linguistic difficulties resulting in improper comprehension and social misunderstanding of English culture. These show the need for proper pragmatic linguistic practice in the classroom.

Teachers can develop activities such as translation, role playing, and complimenting to enhance the pragmatic learning environment. the use of technology such

36 as web-based interactions, chatting, and email can add a new dimension to learning pragmatics to link the second language learners to native speaking students and teachers.

The need for comprehensive pragmatic learning has never been greater and the obstacles are many. Good teachers will meet the challenge and make pragmatics great for all, using feedback to best apply this approach to their students.

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL. 55-73.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G., & Freedle, R. O. (1989). Cross-Cultural

Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies 1-34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bou Franch, P. (1998). On Pragmatic Transfer. SELL: Studies in English Language and

Linguistics, 05-19.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brown, P, & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 3:

Speech acts 41-58. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

He, Z. (1997). Pragmatics and English Learning. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language

Education Press.

Hughes, M. E., & Allen, S. M. (2013). The Effect of Individual Discourse-Pragmatic

Features on Referential Choice in Child English. Journal of Pragmatics: An

Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 5615-30.

Doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.005.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J.

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics 269–293. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht), 8(3), 203-

231.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Kramsch, C. J. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, OX: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning.

[Honolulu]: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of

Hawaii at Manoa.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. London,

Cambridge U.P.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin; New York

Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using Situation Comedies for Pragmatic Language Teaching

and Learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21.

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London; New York: Arnold; New

York: Oxford University Press.