Rationale for Instruction in Pragmatics

In SLA research, there has been a consensus that the learner, no matter in a tutored or an untutored learning environment, must pass through a certain stage regardless of their age and L1 background (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Since the routes of learning for all the language learners are identical, researchers such as Krashen (1982) argues that formal instruction should be abandoned and that learners can benefit most if they are allowed to construct their interlanguage system along a natural route. However, there has been another challenging line of research which claims that although formal instruction cannot change the order of acquisition, it has two major advantages. First, it has a beneficial effect on the process of language development, rate of acquisition and ultimate level of attainment (Pavesi, 1984; Pica, 1983; Sharewood Smith, 1981; Tarone, 1983). Second, through practice, routinization and consciousness-raising in the classroom (Sharewood Smith, 1981), formal instruction can transform from learning to acquisition (Stevick, 1980), from explicit to implicit knowledge (Bialystock, 1982), and from controlled processing to automatic processing (McLaughlin, 1978).

The effect of instruction in SLA research has been demonstrated by a large body of morphosyntactic studies, but there have been relatively fewer experiments in ILP research which compare pragmatic competence acquired in a natural setting and in a classroom setting. The most representative study which has demonstrated that instruction shortens the time in the acquisition of pragmatics is Bouton (1999). He

found that implicatures can be acquired in a natural setting, but the acquisition requires 33-months to 4-7 years. Therefore, he conducted an experiment to investigate the development of non-native speakers’ skill at interpreting implicatures in American English through explicit pedagogical interventions. He developed handouts with six different types of implicatures, which could be broadly categorized as idiosyncractic and formulaic implicatures. Idiosyncractic implicatures were easier but formulaic implicatures were more difficult for newcomers to the United States. The results showed that after six hours of formal instruction, the learners’ interpretations of formulaic implicatures reached the same level as those who have resided in the United States for seventeen months to seven years. However, idioscyctactic implicatues, which were easier at the beginning, proved to be resistant to explicit instruction.

Bouton’s study is significant because it has evidenced that teaching pragmatic knowledge may not alter the route of acquisition, but may accelerate the process of acquisition. Moreover, the other influence which explicit instruction has on the learners, as Bouton put it, is that learners became interested in using implicatures as indirect communication.

The other question concerning whether teaching pragmatics is necessary is discussed by Kasper (1997). Since some pragmatic knowledge such as the Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown & Levinson, 1987) are universal, adult learners seem to be able to get a considerable amount of pragmatic knowledge for free. The universality of pragmatic knowledge may lead learners to conduct positive transfer successfully if there are parallels between L1 and L2 in terms of forms and functions (Kasper, 1997; Kasper & Rose, 2001). However, as Kasper (1997) pointed out, learners do not always make good use of what has already been available to them. In addition, the appropriate use of a given strategy may not be identical across languages. As reviewed in section 2.2.2, ILP research has

repeatedly shown cultural variability in that differences exist in the performances of a given speech act between native and non-native speakers of the target language.

These studies have confirmed Gumperz’s argument that second language learners may have a good command of grammar and lexicon of the target language, but may

“contextualize their talk by relying on the rhetorical strategies of their first language”

(Gumperz, 1996: 383). In other words, negative pragmatic transfer from L1 may occur if pragmatics is not one of the components in a language curriculum.

Having recognized the role of instruction in pragmatics, it is necessary to understand the three hypotheses underlying the intervention studies in SLA research.

These three hypotheses include Schmidt's noticing hypothesis, Swain's output hypothesis and Long's interaction hypothesis (Kasper, 2001), each of which will be discussed in detail as follows.

2.3.1.1 Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis

Schmidt's noticing hypothesis acknowledges that both conscious and unconscious processes are important to second language learning (Schmidt, 1990).

According to Schmidt (1995), all learning, whether intentional or incidental, requires attention. Input can become intake only when the learner notices it. According to Schmidt (1993), implicit learning, which refers to nonconscious generalizations from examples, seems to be the most effective for the learning of fuzzy patterns, while explicit learning, which refers to conscious problem solving, seems to be the most effective for the learning of rules. To learn pragmatics in a second language, Schmidt (1993) argues that it is important for the learner to consciously pay attention to the input and to analyze relevant features such as linguistic forms, functional meanings and contextual clues. Therefore, explicit teacher-fronted approach is helpful because these features residing in the input are sometimes not salient enough for the learner.

The consciousness-raising approach in classroom teaching can help accelerate the

speed of learning and reorganize what is contained in the input.

2.3.1.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis

Swain (1985), in contrast with Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis, highlights the value of output in second language acquisition. She formulated the output hypothesis, which proposes that language acquisition may take place through producing the language and argues that output can promote both fluency and accuracy in second language acquisition (Swain, 1993). Intuitively, fluency can be enhanced through constant production of the target language. Accuracy, on the other hand, can be reflected upon the three functions of output: the noticing/triggering function, the hypothesis-testing function, and the metalinguistic function (Swain, 1993). The noticing/triggering function can force the learner to shift from semantic processing to syntactic processing. In comprehension, the learner may pay full attention to the meanings of the messages and ignore the linguistic details such as definite/indefinite articles and singular/plural forms. However, as he/she produces the target language, the learner would start to notice the gaps between what has already been recognized and what has not been identified in the linguistic knowledge (Swain, 1993).

In addition, noticing can trigger cognitive processes, which generally produce new linguistic knowledge for the learner through explicit or implicit feedback from the interlocutor (Swain, 1996). The hypothesis testing function views output as the learners’ hypothesis testing (Swain, 1996). To put it another way, output provides the opportunity to try out the learner's hypotheses during the negotiation of meaning.

Also, the feedback which the learner receives provides information about the extent of comprehensibility and well-formedness of the utterances (Swain, 1993).The last function of output is that it provides conscious and metalinguistic reflection. This reflective process is generally not demanded in the learner's communicative tasks where attention is largely paid to meaning rather than form. Swain thus suggests that

one classroom activity which can lead the learners to the reflective process is to ask them to negotiate the form through the use of the target language.

2.3.1.3 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis

Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis suggests that negotiation for meaning between the native speaker and non-native speaker provokes interactional adjustments, which include linguistic forms, conversational structures and message content. It facilitates learners’ acquisition because the process productively associates input, internal learner capacities, and output (Long, 1996). The exposure to linguistic input is important because it consists of positive and negative evidence with which a competent interlocutor can provide the learner. Positive evidence offers native models of grammaticality and acceptability, while negative evidence provides direct or indirect, explicit or implicit grounds for ungrammaticality produced by the learner.

In an NS-NNS interaction, the native speaker frequently simplifies the language through omission, expansion and rearrangement to make the input more comprehensible. However, Long proposes that comprehensible input alone is not enough, particularly when an adult learner intends to achieve native-like proficiency.

There are two reasons for his argument. First, the learner may not attend to a particular linguistic form even if it exists in the input. Selective attention is therefore necessary to extract items from an array of stimulus (Long, 1996). Second, linguistic support in the form of comprehensible input may sometimes prohibit learning because the learner tends to understand the message content without noticing the syntactic structures or lexical items encoded in the language. Therefore, Long agrees with Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis that a learner should be given the opportunity to produce the language.

In short, this section reviews the rationales for pedagogical interventions in pragmatics. Although adult learners possess pragmatic universals, they may not be

able to employ them when learning a second/foreign language. The cultural variability even complicates their learning. Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis, Swain’s output hypothesis and Long’s interaction hypothesis provide theoretical grounds for instructions in SLA, which can also be applied to the teaching of pragmatics.

Bouton’s study in implicatures has provided empirical data demonstrating that instruction can speed up the process of acquisition. Since pedagogical intervention has its place in enhancing learners’ pragmatic competence, the next concern is to search for effective instructional approaches, which leads us to the discussion of the following section.