臺灣英語為外語師生語用教學動機相關經驗：一個質化個案研究 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士班碩士論文. 指導教授：余明忠先生 Advisor：Ming-chung Yu. 中文題目. 政治大. 臺灣英語為外語師生語用教學動機相關經驗：一個質化個案研究. 學. ‧ 國. 立. 英文題目. ‧. A Qualitative Case Study on Teacher’s and Students’ Motivation-related. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Experiences of L2 Pragmatics in Taiwan. Ch. engchi. i n U. 研究生：謝明宏撰 Name：Ming-hung Hsieh 中華民國 101 年 7 月 July 2012. v.

(2) 國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士班碩士論文臺灣英語為外語師生語用教學動機相關經驗：一個質化個案研究（英語教學組）政治大立 ‧. ‧ 國. 學 sit. y. Nat. n. er. io. 指導教授：余明忠先生 al v i n Ch engchi U. 研究生：謝明宏撰國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士班中華民國一百零一年七月.

(3) A Qualitative Case Study on Teacher’s and Students’ Motivation-related Experiences of L2 Pragmatics in Taiwan. A Master Thesis Presented to Department of English. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. i. e. i n U. v. n g c hUniversity National Chengchi In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. by Ming-hung Hsieh July 2012.

(4) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(5) Acknowledgements. My warmest thanks go to my mentor Dr. Ming-chung Yu (余明忠), professor of Department of English of National Chengchi University, for his inspiring guidance and encouragement throughout my research for this work. Thank two committee members, Dr. Cheng-ching Li, chair professor in Shi-Hsin University and Distinguished Professor Huei-lin Lai of National Chengchi University, for their constructive feedback of reading the manuscript. I also want to thank my friend Dr. Icy Lee, professor at the Chinese. 政治大 to continue my career in English education. My sincere gratitude is also extended to Dr. 立. University of Hong Kong, for her kind suggestions and positive influence on my decision. Yi-ping Huang and my homeroom teacher Dr. Chieh-yu Yeh for their helpful feedback in. ‧ 國. 學. the oral defense of my master thesis proposal on March 25, 2011 and their conscientious. ‧. instruction during my study at National Chengchi University. I am cordially indebted to. sit. y. Nat. all the participating students and the university teacher Yuan-Yuan (pseudonym). Without. io. er. the aid of the participants, this study could not have come into fruition. I would like to thank all my school teachers and mentors who taught me throughout my education.. al. n. v i n C h homestay parents, Sincere thanks go to my American Attorney Chris Teras and Ann engchi U. Teras in Washington D. C. for their hospitality and devoted care during my 10-day journey in August, 2011. They let me experience the authentic American culture,. whereby I could understand the importance of L2 pragmatics. I would like to thank one of my foreign friends, Jin-Kyu Jung (鄭鎮奎), who invited me to South Korea in November, 2010, and who inspired me to understand and respect intercultural differences and to embrace the beauty of L2 pragmatics, one of the strongest intrinsic motivations for me to continue my studies on L2 pragmatics. I wish to thank my two Hong Kong homestay families, Peter Lam and Wilson Lam, for helping me know the important tradition of Chinese politeness. I thank all the brothers and sisters in Taipei Church Hall 42 and Hall iii.

(6) 10, especially two overseas Thai sisters 王秀容 and 王秀梅 for their Thai instruction. The book is dedicated to those who love me and support me along the way. Finally, this book is dedicated to my beloved English Corner students in Muzha Junior High School and ex-students who encouraged me to become a super English teacher, and who gave me a sense of achievement in teaching and learning L2 pragmatics. I also want to dedicate this book to my deceased grandparents, 謝慶貴 and 曾桂枝妹, who are watching me from heaven. I love them always and appreciate their loving care when I was young. Without them, I could not become who I am today.. 政治大 Song-kang Hsieh (謝松岡) and Huei-lu Li (李慧茹) and my dear long-term friend, also 立 Finally, I would like to extend my heart-felt thanks to my beloved parents,. my elder brother, Ming-feng Hsieh (謝明峯). Without their affective and financial. ‧ 國. 學. support, this thesis could not come into existence. All the remaining errors, of course, are. ‧. io. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. mine.. Ch. engchi. iv. i n U. v.

(7) Table of Contents Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................iii Table of Contents.................................................................................................................v Chinese Abstract................................................................................................................. xi English Abstract................................................................................................................xiii. 政治大. Chapter 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................1. 立. 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................1. ‧ 國. 學. 1.1 English as a Global Language........................................................................................1. ‧. 1.2 The Role of English in Intercultural Communication....................................................2. Nat. io. sit. y. 1.3 Sociolinguistic Competence (SC) .................................................................................3. er. 1.4 The Constraints and Opportunities of Implementing L2 Pragmatics in Asia.................5. al. n. v i n Ch 1.5 The Instructional Effect on Sociolinguistic e n g cCompetence...............................................6 hi U 1.6 Underexplored Areas in L2 Pragmatics Research..........................................................7 1.7 Motivations of the Study................................................................................................8. 1.8 Significance of the Study................................................................................................8. Chapter 2 Literature Review.................................................................................................9 2.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................9. v.

(8) 2.1 The Introduction and Implementation of CLT and TBLT in Asia..................................9 2.1.1 The Premise of CLT...........................................................................................10 2.1.2 TBLT as an Adaptation of CLT..........................................................................10 2.1.3 Difficulties of Implementing CLT.....................................................................11 2.1.4 Three Constraints of Implementing CLT...........................................................12 2.1.5 Example of Implementing CLT in Taiwan........................................................13. 政治大. 2.2 L2 Motivation Theory and Pragmatics.........................................................................17. 立. 2.3 Experimental/Intervention Studies of L2 Sociolinguistic Skills..................................21. ‧ 國. 學. 2.4 The Intrinsic Need to Learn Functional, Interactive and Social Use of English……..24. ‧. 2.5 Research Gaps on Prior L2 Pragmatics Studies...........................................................26. Nat. io. sit. y. 2.6 Rationale of the Current Study.....................................................................................28. n. al. er. 2.7 Research Questions......................................................................................................29. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Chapter 3 Methodology......................................................................................................31 3.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................31 3.1 Design of the Study......................................................................................................31 3.2 Selection of the Participants.........................................................................................32 3.3 Profile of the Participants.............................................................................................35 3.3.1 Courses Taken in the MA-TESOL Program......................................................35. vi.

(9) 3.3.2 Motivations of Pursuing a Ph.D. degree in Taiwan...........................................36 3.3.3 Perception of the Training.................................................................................37 3.3.4 Teaching Experience.........................................................................................38 3.3.5 Philosophy of Teaching English........................................................................38 3.3.6 Teacher Role as a Facilitator..............................................................................39 3.4 Student Profile..............................................................................................................40. 政治大. 3.4.1 Students’ English Learning Experience.............................................................40. 立. 3.4.2 Students’ Preferred English Learning Styles in English Classes.......................41. ‧ 國. 學. 3.5 Classroom Vignette & Course Materials......................................................................41. ‧. 3.6 Data Collection.............................................................................................................44. Nat. io. sit. y. 3.6.1 Instruments........................................................................................................45. er. 3.6.2 Classroom Observations....................................................................................46. al. n. v i n Ch 3.6.3 Role of the Researcher.......................................................................................47 engchi U 3.6.4 Teacher Interviews.............................................................................................48 3.6.5 Student Interviews.............................................................................................49 3.7 Data Analysis................................................................................................................50 3.8 Validation of Data Analysis..........................................................................................52. Chapter 4 Results...............................................................................................................55. vii.

(10) 4.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................55 4.1 The Effect of L2 Pragmatics Instruction on EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Ability………56 4.1.1 Teacher’s Insufficient L2 Pragmatics Instruction..............................................57 4.1.2 Students’ Limited English Proficiency to Learn L2 Pragmatics.......................59 4.1.3 Exam-Oriented Teaching that Constrained L2 Pragmatics...............................61 4.2 Motivation of Learning and Teaching L2 Pragmatics in Taiwan.................................64. 政治大. 4.2.1 Extrinsic Motivation Factors.............................................................................64. 立. 4.2.2 Intrinsic Motivation Factors..............................................................................70. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Chapter 5 Discussion..........................................................................................................77. Nat. io. sit. y. 5.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................77. er. 5.1 The Instructional Effects on L2 Pragmatics Learning..................................................77. al. n. v i n C h Instruction inULanguage Curricula..............87 5.2 The Neglected Aspect of Sociolinguistic engchi 5.3 Extrinsic Motivation on Learners’ English Learning Experiences..............................89. 5.4 The Relationship between Intrinsic Motivation and Sociolinguistic Instruction…….92 5.5. Teacher’s and Students’ Attitudes toward Sociolinguistic Instruction........................94. Chapter 6 Conclusions.......................................................................................................97 6.1 Summary of the Research Findings.............................................................................97. viii.

(11) 6.2 Pedagogical Implications for EFL Teachers and Students...........................................98 6.3 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................................99 6.4 Suggestions for Future Research................................................................................100 References........................................................................................................................101 Appendixes.......................................................................................................................111 A. Informed Consent Statement (Teachers)..............................................................111. 政治大. B. Informed Consent Statement (Students)..............................................................112. 立. C. Background Survey (Teachers)............................................................................113. ‧ 國. 學. D. Background Survey (Students)............................................................................114. ‧. E. Interview Guide (Teachers)..................................................................................115. Nat. io. sit. y. F. Interview Guide (Students)...................................................................................120. n. al. er. Curriculum Vitae..............................................................................................................124. Ch. engchi. ix. i n U. v.

(12) 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. x. i n U. v.

(13) 國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士班碩士論文提要. 論文名稱：臺灣英語為外語師生語用教學動機相關經驗：一個質化個案研究指導教授：余明忠先生研究生：謝明宏. 論文提要內容：. 政治大. 語用教學研究大多專注在教學成效，並以量化研究比較跨文化語用文化規範和. 立. 溝通策略之差異，然，只有少數的質化研究探討語用研究理論如何落實在外語教學. ‧ 國. 學. 師生的學習動機。準確來說，本研究檢視以英語為外語師生如何看待語用能力培養，以及學習社會語言之動機相關經驗。先前文獻已經指出，第二語言語用學習動機研. ‧. 究，需要投入更多的努力。. y. Nat. sit. 因此，本質化個案研究旨在探討臺灣以英語為外語師生學習語用動機。資料蒐. n. al. er. io. 集透過面訪、課室觀察和課堂筆記以及研究者的省思日誌，從學習動機的角度審視外語語用教學，洞悉多層次語言學習動機。. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 研究結果顯示，受訪師生均認為語用教學對第二語言發展極為重要，縱使社會政治情境因素的干擾，諸如考試領導教學、授課時數嚴重不足和偏重語法教學，然而，在學習語言禮貌和適切性方面，受訪者均偏好語言實用功能和實際生活應用，甚於傳統單一語法教學。受訪老師指出在語言四項技能統整課程，語用教學比例明顯偏低，認為語用教學在臺灣並不普及。另外，臺灣英語為外語老師普遍未能滿足學生語用學習需求。雖然師生起初對學習外語語用似乎未注意其重要性，然而，在回顧外語學習的歷程中，受訪者提高對於文化適切表達之醒覺。本研究期許幫助臺灣學習英語為外語師生了解語用教學在溝通功能中扮演的重要角色，促進未來語用教學研究之實 xi.

(14) 踐，發展語言使用者之溝通能力。. 關鍵字：第二語言語用，學習英語為外語，質化個案研究，學習動機. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. xii. i n U. v.

(15) Abstract. Though much of L2 pragmatics research has focused on the effectiveness of instructional pragmatics and cross-cultural variations of pragmatic norms and strategies used in the target language via cross-sectional quantitative research, little, however, has been conducted to explore teachers’ and students’ motivational experiences of implementing pragmatics instruction in real-life teaching and learning practices in EFL contexts. Specifically, little was known about what and how teachers and students. 政治大 socio-pragmatic functions since prior research has suggested that more research efforts 立. perceive the role of developing pragmatic ability and their motivations to teach and learn. should be done in the line of L2 pragmatics research.. ‧ 國. 學. Therefore, this study aims to investigate both teachers’ and students’ motivations of. ‧. learning and teaching pragmatics through qualitative research. Multiple data sources were. sit. y. Nat. collected through face-to-face interviews, classroom observations and field notes as well. io. motivational experiences of L2 instructional pragmatics.. al. er. as the researcher’s reflective journals, to illuminate the dynamic, multifaceted. n. v i n C hteachers and students The findings suggest that both considered the role of teaching engchi U. and learning pragmatics essential to second language development pertaining to the polite and appropriate use of the target language, and its learning utility, practical functions and intrinsic interest in using language for authentic communication purposes despite the sociopolitical factors, such as exam-oriented teaching, lack of top-down institutional support and the implementation of English language policy in Taiwan. Nevertheless, the teacher voiced her inadequacy of teaching L2 pragmatics in a four-skill integrated course and demonstrated her concerns about the prevalence of teaching students how to speak English in a culturally appropriate way, which is, however, contrary to students’ eager expectations to learn L2 pragmatics. xiii.

(16) Albeit both the teacher and the students tended to ignore L2 pragmatics at first, after the initial reflections they raised their awareness of culturally speaking in an appropriate way. In this study, it was hoped to empower both teachers and students to understand their teaching and learning practices by sensitizing them to L2 pragmatics in EFL contexts, to facilitate the implementation of L2 pragmatics instruction in the classroom and to underscore the importance of developing learners’ communicative competence in Taiwan.. Keywords: L2 pragmatics, EFL, qualitative case study, learning motivation. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. xiv. i n U. v.

(17) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. 1.0 Introduction The Introduction Chapter offers an overview about the background of the study. It begins with the introduction to English as a global language, highlighting the importance of English as an international language or lingua franca (a.k.a. common language) in the world today (Crystal, 2003). Second, given the importance of English. 政治大 intercultural communication in an era of multiculturalism (Taguchi, 2011). Third, 立 for global communication, attempts are made to illustrate the role of English in. since pragmatic ability has been considered closely related to the sociocultural ability. ‧ 國. 學. of the target language, a brief review about L2 pragmatics (i.e. sociolinguistic. ‧. competence) is presented, which is, though crucial, often neglected in communicative. sit. y. Nat. competence (CC), a core tenet in communicative language teaching (CLT). Next, the. io. er. constraints of the implementation of L2 pragmatics in CLT in Asia will be identified, followed by prior studies on speech acts, issues of extant pragmatics research,. n. al. Ch. motivations of the study, and research purposes.. engchi. i n U. v. 1.1 English as a Global Language English has become an increasingly important international language (Crystal, 2003; Jenkins, 2003). People throughout the world tend to use English during intercultural encounters on various social occasions. For example, Chinese people conducted international business and committed social faux pax or social mistakes in England (see Spencer-Oatey, 2000). Due to the expanding cultural globalization and intercultural interactions (Kumaravadivelu, 2008), the importance of intercultural. 1 .

(18) . communication through English has been increasing. Consequently, the role of English in intercultural communication calls for our attention.. 1.2 The Role of English in Intercultural Communication There is no denying that English plays a vital role in intercultural communication inasmuch as it has already been deemed the lingua franca today (Crystal, 2009). Thanks to the user-friendly modern technology (i.e. facebook, youtube, dropbox, skype, msn, etc.), communication between cultures has now become more accessible. 政治大 geographical and national borders. However, intercultural communication in English 立 on the Internet so that cross-cultural communication transcends its cultural,. is not without problems. As English has developed into an international language in. ‧ 國. 學. the new millennium (Seidlhofer, 2005; Crystal, 2009), intercultural understanding is. ‧. further required for an improved cultural understanding to facilitate a benign. sit. y. Nat. interpersonal relationship in an ever-increasingly multicultural society (e.g., Banks &. io. er. Banks, 2007; Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2010; Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Wolfson, 1989). Without an adequate understanding of the target language culture and its. al. n. v i n Ch societal norms or conventions, communication breakdowns are bound to occur. Worse engchi U still, offensive remarks and negative evaluations of a person may stem from (1) low. cultural awareness and sensitivity (e.g., Moran, 2001; Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2010); (2) scant transcultural knowledge (e.g., Hall, 2002; Ishihara, 2009; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Moran, 2001; Omaggio, 2001); and (3) insufficient explicit and implicit L2 pragmatics instruction in language classes (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Ishihara, 2007; Taguchi, 2011). Closely associated with the sociocultural ability in language curricula is sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence (e.g., Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989; Hall, 2002; Kasper, 1997; Omaggio, 2001; Taguchi, 2012). In this study, the synonymous terms, including sociocultural ability, pragmatic ability/competence, 2 .

(19) . sociolinguistic competence/skills, literally refer to the same to reduce the confusion of the various terms used by different authors. The use of L2 language arising from the target sociocultural norms or conditions are subject to a given social context (Taguchi, 2012) and fall into the category of pragmatic competence (illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence). So far, ample research has been devoted to the teaching and learning of sociolinguistic skills (Kasper, 1997), showing that L1 culture exerts a profound effect on L2 learners’ verbal behaviors (e.g., Hall, 2002). Sociolinguistic competence or. 政治大 2008). Thus, this research intends to bridge such a gap by investigating why this 立. pragmatic competence, however, tends to be ignored in language classes (e.g., Yu,. important social interpersonal skill tends to be ignored. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. 1.3 Sociolinguistic Competence (SC). sit. y. Nat. According to Cohen and Ishihara (2010), the study of pragmatics entails various. io. er. sub-domains, including references, discourse structures, and conversational principles (e.g., implicature and hedging) (see Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1996; Mey, 2001;. al. n. v i n C h2011), humors (Bell,U2011), and the most researched Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Taguchi, engchi area, speech acts, all of which are correlated to the sociocultural aspect in the target. language (Taguchi, 2011; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009). The sociolinguistic behaviors are often materialized in the teaching of speech acts, such as request, apology and invitation. In fact, L2 pragmatics instruction can now be seen in language curricula through four-skill instruction (see Cohen & Ishihara, 2010). According to Leech (1983), teaching pragmatics involves two important aspects: sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics. First, sociopragmatics refers to the language users’ assessment of the context where linguistic resources are employed. Second, pragmalinguistics drives at the resources available to realize language functions. For 3 .

(20) . example, in real-time interpersonal communication, learners have to recognize what grammatical structures and words they can use to refuse an invitation from a person, either a close friend or an acquaintance; meanwhile, they need to judge whether such refusal is culturally appropriate or polite in a particular situation in the L2, and if the reply is acceptable, convoluted decisions need to be made regarding what to say to refuse whom and under what circumstances. Consequently, L2 pragmatics research extends the traditional scope of EFL research on grammar to the combination of knowledge of forms and the functional possibilities together with contextual. 政治大 There are various reasons for teaching sociolinguistic competence, one of which 立. requirements that govern form-function mappings (Taguchi, 2011).. refers to the preeminence of learning English through meaningful communication in. ‧ 國. 學. real-time communication classes (Butler, 2011). In addition, it has been advocated in. ‧. the current language curriculum guidelines, such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan,. sit. y. Nat. among other Asian countries (Butler, 2004; Nunan, 2003). In a communication class,. io. er. teachers usually adopt a widely acclaimed communicative approach to improve students’ fluency and communicative confidence (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards &. al. n. v i n Ch Rodgers, 2001). The goal of the communicative approach is reported to enhance engchi U students’ communicative competence (hereafter CC), including grammatical,. organizational/ discourse, strategic and pragmatic/sociolinguistic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Among the four components, sociolinguistic competence refers to the ability to transcend the literal meaning of what is communicated to surmise the implied meanings, intentions, purposes or goals and various verbal behaviors realized in all language aspects. Despite the importance of developing sociolinguistic skills, it has been found that pragmatic ability was the least taught aspect in university EFL classes (Yu, 2008). Little pragmatics instruction, in addition, was offered in TESOL-related degree 4 .

(21) . programs (Nelson, 1998). A recent US-based national survey (Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009) also pointed out the instructional challenges and inadequacy of sociolinguistic training in TESOL-related programs. No wonder the teaching and learning of sociolinguistic skills tend to be ignored in language curricula in L2 classes, especially in EFL contexts.. 1.4 The Constraints and Opportunities of Implementing L2 Pragmatics in Asia Prior research has revealed the challenges of teaching and learning second. 政治大 2011; Li, 1998). First, it may have to do with its local societal-institutional-level 立. language (L2) pragmatics in communication classes (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Butler,. constraints: Asian countries tend to lay a heavy emphasis on decontextualized. ‧ 國. 學. grammar-driven exams or traditional grammar-and-translation practices (Butler, 2004,. ‧. 2011; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Liu, 2007), and insufficient educational knowledge and. sit. y. Nat. social experience in teacher education programs in the development of the. io. er. sociocultural ability (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Omaggio, 2001; Taguchi, 2011; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009). Second, it refers to the classroom-level constraints: EFL. al. n. v i n C hbased on textbook U textbooks are usually designed writers’ intuitions, failing to reflect engchi its genuine use of the target language (Omaggio, 2001; Taguchi, 2011; Vásquez &. Sharpless, 2009); in addition, impoverished English learning environment for real-life, functional, and pragmatic use of the target language may explain why students do not perceive the intrinsic value of learning English outside of the classroom (Butler, 2004; Brown, 2007; Dörnyei, 2005); EFL teachers’ perceived English proficiency levels may not satisfy students’ real needs for communication (Butler, 2004). The third type refers to the conceptual-level constraints. The views of learning and teaching in Asia are found to be different from those of Westerners (Taguchi, 2011). To implement the. 5 .

(22) . Anglocentric views of “language for communication”, EFL teachers’ cultural resistance was identified as the major hindrance (Hu, 2002). Despite the constraints of teaching students the sociocultural ability, Cohen and Ishihara (2010) argue that there are various opportunities to implement L2 pragmatics instruction through explicit consciousness-raising activities (see Cohen, 2005; Rose, 2005; Rose & Kasper, 2001) or in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments by receiving more authentic verbal input from native English-speaking teachers (NEST) (e.g., Ishihara, 2007). However, both Bardovi-Harlig (2001) and. 政治大 sufficient context for learners to acquire pragmatic information explicitly and 立. Taguchi (2003, 2011) pointed out that rarely do the classroom settings provide a. implicitly because the teaching of pragmatics pertaining to the cultural aspect in a. ‧ 國. 學. language has often been ignored in language curricula (Moran, 2001; Omaggio, 2001;. ‧. Taguchi, 2011). Notwithstanding the inherent instructional challenges (Li, 1998),. sit. y. Nat. teaching and learning L2 pragmatics is still considered important. It was maintained. io. er. by Kasper (1997) that L2 pragmatics is teachable and learnable. For example, one recent empirical study has corroborated the instructional effect of L2 pragmatics in. n. al. Ch. Japanese EFL classrooms (Narita, 2012).. engchi. i n U. v. 1.5 The Instructional Effect on Sociolinguistic Competence To equip students with such a sociocultural ability, the teaching practices revolve around L2 pragmatics, often realized through the teaching of speech acts (Ellis, 2008; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). With the scaffolding of explicit consciousness-raising activities and implicit L2 pragmatics instruction (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; Ishihara, 2007), improvements of teachers’ and students’ pragmatic performances have been found (Narita, 2012; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b; Takimoto, 2009, 2010). A growing body of empirical research on teaching L2 speech acts has been reported. For example, 6 .

(23) . scholars like Rose (1999), Alcón-Soler (2005), Ishihara (2009), and Narita (2012) investigated the effects of L2 pragmatics instruction and pointed out the positive effect of speech acts instruction on EFL students’ sociolinguistic skills.. 1.6 Underexplored Areas in L2 Pragmatics Research Three major underexplored areas in L2 pragmatics research have remained. First, much L2 pragmatics research has yielded substantial research findings concerning the instructional effects of sociolinguistic instruction (Ellis, 2008); however,. 政治大 pragmatics into practice (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). As described earlier, previous 立 discrepancies still exist between what we do in research and how we put L2. studies have reaffirmed the difficulty of instructing students pragmatic skills (Li, 1998;. ‧ 國. 學. Omaggio, 2001; Yu, 2008); nevertheless, little has been known about what may. ‧. contribute to the instructional difficulties from the standpoint of EFL instructional. sit. y. Nat. contexts (see Alcón-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Taguchi, 2011), such as Taiwan.. io. er. Second, given the importance of teaching and learning L2 pragmatics to develop learners’ communicative ability, limited understanding exists regarding teachers’ and. al. n. v i n learners’ attitudes toward L2Cpragmatics. Third, context h e n g c h i U plays an important role in. understanding the sociocultural learning in a target language because ESL and EFL have been reported to have diverse educational practices (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). Since prior L2 pragmatics research was conducted in the ESL context, little was known about EFL contexts. It is reasonable to identify the contextual variables that may facilitate or impede the teaching and learning of pragmatics in EFL contexts. To explore such experience-based classroom inquiry, the research design is thus qualitative in orientation. Through qualitative case study, insights could be gained into the role of L2 pragmatics in a university EFL class based on the insiders’ personal practical experience (see Clandinin & Connely, 2000; Xu & Liu, 2009). 7 .

(24) . 1.7 Motivations of the Study Driven by the motivation to fill the gaps of the extant literature, this qualitative case study utilized interpretive qualitative paradigm to meet three functions (see Nunan, 1992). First, it aims to uncover the insiders’ stories of L2 pragmatics, empowering both observed teachers and students to narrate their educational experiences concerning L2 pragmatics (Freeman, 1998). Second, this study hopes to understand the learning and teaching processes of language learning and teaching (Clandinin & Connely, 2000). Third, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, few. 政治大 students’ incentives about developing L2 pragmatics in a culture-specific setting. In 立. process-oriented, descriptive studies have been conducted to reveal EFL teachers’ and. brief, the major motivations to undertake the current study are driven by the. ‧ 國. 學. qualitative nature of the study, the extant few process-oriented studies and the gaps of. ‧. the literature.. sit. y. Nat. io. er. 1.8 Significance of the Study. The significance of the study was twofold: (1) to provide an insightful. al. n. v i n C h to reflect upon understanding for readers and the investigator and make sense of their engchi U. prior English language teaching and learning practices on L2 pragmatics, and (2) to contribute to an informed understanding about L2 pragmatics in EFL classroom. settings to transform current thinking about teaching and researching L2 pragmatics. In short, this study extends the scope of EFL research to the sociolinguistic aspect of a university EFL class. The findings may inform current understanding about how English language teachers can assist EFL learners in developing their sociocultural ability and provide important educational implications for future research to implement L2 pragmatics instruction.. 8 .

(25) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. 2.0 Introduction The following research reviews first introduce communicative language teaching (CLT) and task-based language teaching (TBLT) in Asia, followed by the studies concerning the current instructional practices in the educational levels of Taiwan’s English Language Teaching (ELT) contexts. Second, frameworks of second. 政治大 pragmatics will also be reviewed to explain teachers’ and students’ teaching and 立. language (L2) motivation employed to elucidate the learning and teaching of L2. learning L2 pragmatics in Asia. Third, endeavors will be made to explicate why. ‧ 國. 學. sociolinguistic competence tends to be ignored in language classes, followed by. ‧. underexplored pragmatics studies implemented in EFL classes. Fourth, the advantages,. sit. y. Nat. limitations and prior research methods of doing pragmatics research will be presented. io. er. (see Ellis, 2008; Kasper, 2000; Taguchi, 2011). Fifth, recent L2 pragmatics research on the effect of explicit and implicit learning on pragmatic ability will be described.. al. n. v i n Lastly, the literature review C ends with the researchU h e n g c h i gap, rationale of the current study and research questions.. 2.1 The Introduction and Implementation of CLT and TBLT in Asia In the last quarter of the 20th century, the dominant teaching theories and practices arise from communicative approach. Concepts closely associated with it are communicative language teaching (CLT), content-based instruction (CBI), task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Brown, 2007; for detailed reviews of CLT, see Butler, 2011; for detailed historical development of the approaches and methods in language. 9 .

(26) teaching, see Richards & Rodgers, 2001), rendering CLT a bandwagon term in English teaching today.. 2.1.1 The Premise of CLT According to Butler (2011), the premise of CLT is on the grounds of developing learners’ communicative competence in social interactions, objecting to a mere focus on linguistic forms. Meaningful communication is regarded as both the means and the goal in CLT. Considering the theoretical broadness that invites various interpretations,. 政治大 drives at the strong version of CLT, which assumes that language learning is a natural 立 CLT entails two versions on a communicative spectrum. One end of the spectrum. process where learners discover the language. This strong version posits that the. ‧ 國. 學. process cannot be directly controlled by the teacher whose role is to facilitate this. ‧. process. On the contrary, the weaker version of CLT affords teachers a more direct. sit. y. Nat. role in students’ learning process, asserting that the teacher should present structured,. io. er. meaningful communicative activities in a controlled manner in the classroom; thus, learners can gradually and freely express meaning in more naturalistic settings.. n. al. Ch. 2.1.2 TBLT as an Adaptation of CLT. engchi. i n U. v. To understand CLT, it is important to know one of its most distinctive variants, task-based language teaching (TBLT) (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). In TBLT, task was progressively used to supersede communicative activity during the 1980s (Skehan, 2003). Tasks can be defined as things people do where the connection with the real world’s activity is identified with the overall purpose of enhancing language learning through either process or product (Long, 1985). Various versions of TBLT have also been proposed, from a strong version (i.e. task-based teaching) to a weak version (i.e. task-supported teaching). The former views tasks as the chief constituent of syllabus 10 .

(27) design; the latter employs tasks for communicative practice together with a form-or-function-oriented syllabus (Butler, 2011).. 2.1.3 Difficulties of Implementing CLT Despite the aforementioned goal of developing students’ communicative competence embedded in communicative approach, ample studies have revealed that Asian EFL students tend to learn English for exam purposes (Butler, 2004), reinforcing exam-oriented language teaching in all grade levels of Asian English. 政治大 Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Hu, 2002; for Thailand: see Prapaisit de Segovia & Hardison, 立 language education (for Taiwan: see Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; for China: see. 2008; for Singapore: see Kirkpatrick, 1984; for Japan: see Gorsuch, 2000; Nishino,. ‧ 國. 學. 2008; Sakui, 2004; Samimy & Kobayashi, 2004; Taguchi, 2003; for South Korea: see. ‧. Li, 1998). The wash-back effect, or teaching-to-the-test effect, has generally been. y. sit. io. er. Liu, 2009).. Nat. considered to be devoid of learner autonomy (Butler, 2011; Tsai & Kuo, 2008; Xu &. Through the incorporation of CLT, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan. al. n. v i n C h English proficiency aims to promote students’ general level, meanwhile transforming engchi U. Taiwan into an internationalized country to enable its people to communicate. confidently in English. Additionally, Taiwan’s MOE (2009) revised its curriculum guidelines by incorporating the concepts of the widely acclaimed pedagogical principles embedded in CLT, for example learner-centered. However, it is not without challenges. The overall repercussion has been found discouraging in EFL contexts (Chang, 2009). Besides, huge gaps exist between theory and practice (Butler, 2011; Liu, 2007). According to Butler (2011), initial concerns regarding the implementation of CLT and TBLT include three primary constraints that contribute to the limitation of. 11 .

(28) implementing CLT in EFL contexts: (a) conceptual-level constraints, (b) classroom-level constraints, and (c) societal-institutional-level constraints.. 2.1.4 Three Constraints of Implementing CLT Butler (2011) synthesized prior studies that the first set of constraints arise from the differences between the major concepts of CLT and those of the traditional view of learning and teaching in Asia. From the earliest stages of implementing CLT in Asia, the communicative nature (e.g., oral-focused discussion activities, the. 政治大 views of learning and teaching in Asia are considered different from those of 立. preeminence of group work, and teachers as facilitators) has been questioned since the. Westerners. That is, the concept of communicativeness can be regarded as. ‧ 國. 學. Anglocentric ideologies, including the obsession with communicative activities and. ‧. mismatch in cultural values. However, Butler (2005) found that some EFL learners. sit. y. Nat. favored meaning-based communicative activities in elementary school classes. Thus,. io. er. it is premature to attribute the failure of implementing CLT to the traditional cultural values in shaping Asian classroom practices at all grade levels across Asia (Butler,. al. n. v i n C h CLT (e.g., only oral 2011). In addition, misconceptions about without written engchi U. practices and ignoring grammar instruction as well as the accuracy of language use) have been found regarding how CLT should be implemented (Li, 1998). The second set of constraints refers to classroom-level constraints, such as huge class size, limited teaching hours, inadequate reliable and effective assessment tools (Butler, 2011). Teachers generally encounter such constraints to develop proper materials and reliable alternative assessments. As a result, materials and activities fail to accurately reflect the actual use of the target language in English-speaking countries. Moreover, the classroom language students learn in expanding circle. 12 .

(29) countries is generally irrelevant to their language needs, which cannot meet the expectations for global communication (Butler, 2011; Kachru, 1992). The third set of constraints refers to the societal-institutional level constraints, such as grammar-driven exams and the limited opportunity to use English outside of the classroom (Butler, 2011; Hall, 2002). CLT might not be the most efficient way to teach or learn grammar or to enhance literacy skills, especially with the extra pressure of college exams (i.e. improving students’ scores within limited instructional hours). However, it is worth noting that a number of Asian countries, such as Taiwan, have. 政治大 exams (e.g., listening and writing skills). It is scheduled to include the listening test in 立 recently attempted to include communicative components in their college entrance. the 12-year national education as of 2014 to transform the current grammar-focused. ‧ 國. 學. English education. Albeit teachers may be fully aware of such changes, research has. ‧. identified the intended wash-back effects in language curricula (Gorsuch, 2000). In. sit. y. Nat. fact, it has already been indicated that relatively few opportunities to use English. io. er. outside of EFL classrooms, which still remains a primary concern among TESOL educators in the expanding circle countries, such as Japan and Taiwan (Kachru, 1992).. al. n. v i n Chas Much variability, in addition, found regarding students’ use of English U h ebeen i h ngc. outside of the classroom in comparison with that in ESL contexts (Taguchi, 2011).. 2.1.5 Example of Implementing CLT in Taiwan Take Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, for example. Children born in a wealthy family are able to start learning English in kindergarten to receive bilingual or monolingual education (mostly English and Chinese). The major ways of teaching young learners are purportedly to arouse learners’ interest in learning English (Butler, 2005; MOE, 2009). However, for parents and school teachers in Chinese learning contexts, they generally display early concerns about children’ learning outcome of 13 .

(30) college entrance examination by emphasizing the content of school exams, mostly the reported drudgery of grammar drills, sentence substitutions, and test-taking strategies (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005). To address such concerns, it is worth noting that cram schools provide custom-made service to students with various needs of taking relevant standardized exams (i.e. extrinsic motivation). In secondary schools, the teaching of language forms dominates Taiwan’s EFL classrooms. It has been reaffirmed that Asian EFL learners, such as Taiwanese students, have been spending considerable time memorizing vocabulary and grammar. 政治大 studies (Butler, 2011; Chen & Tsai, 2012; Chung & Huang, 2009). Exams have been 立 relevant to exam preparations and test-taking strategies, evidenced in several earlier. reported to exert a negative wash-back influence on students’ academic performance. ‧ 國. 學. and intrinsic motivation (Xu & Liu, 2009), possibly causing them to lose a genuine. ‧. interest, a sense of achievement or sustained motivations to learn English (Dörnyei,. sit. y. Nat. 2005). For some learners in EFL contexts, taking exams is believed to be the major. io. er. reason for learning English, a.k.a. instrumental and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Deci & Ryan, 1985) in that English is generally not. al. n. v i n considered a readily used language C in daily life in EFL contexts, h e n g c h i U especially in expanding circle countries (see Kachru, 1992; Chen & Tsai, 2012).. Although exams play a crucial role in assessment for learning (i.e. understanding one’s learning to improve one’s ability) (Williams, 2001), it seems, however, that the benefit of assessment of learning (i.e. learning for exams only), does not always lead to assessment for learning. Learning anchored in such an exam culture that stresses exams appears to be a reality in EFL contexts, especially in Asian learning contexts (for Taiwan: see Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Chen & Tsai, 2012; for China: see Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Hu, 2002; Liu, 2007; for Japan: see Gorsuch, 2000; Nishino, 2008; Sakui, 2004; Samimy & Kobayashi, 2004; for South Korea: see Choi, 2000; Li, 14 .

(31) 1998). Although the trend of ELT now incorporates communicative elements into language classes, it has been reported that learning situated in Taiwan’s sociocultural context, such as the predominance of cram schools that cater to learners’ extrinsic needs of taking exams (Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Tsai & Kuo, 2008) may affect teacher beliefs of teachers’ professional development. That is, if teachers’ conceptions are oriented toward preparing students for exam-taking (standardized paper exams on grammar and vocabulary), it is by no means easy for teachers to incorporate CLT into language curricula.. 政治大 forms to social-functional use of the target language in CLT. However, the progress of 立 ELT has been progressively directing its attention from traditional focus on. the situated ELT in Taiwan’s EFL classes has been considered stagnant perhaps. ‧ 國. 學. because current EFL teachers, if not all, did not receive continuous professional. ‧. TESOL education training in second language teacher education programs (Ishihara. sit. y. Nat. & Cohen, 2010; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009), which may be due to the lack of. io. er. intrinsic motivation for continuous professional development constrained by the local sociocultural context, such as the limited teaching hours and teachers’ low. al. n. v i n self-efficacy and confidenceC in their ability to implement h e n g c h i U CLT (Butler, 2011).. In fact, to implement culture-embedded teaching in English-mediated classes,. teachers are expected to have a good command of English and intercultural and pedagogical understanding to prepare an English lesson (Brown, 2007; Li, 1998; Moran, 2001). Although it is not necessary for teachers to have profound knowledge of both culture-general and culture-specific knowledge (Hall, 2002), it is still a sufficient condition for every teacher to have intercultural communicative ability to teach students to use English appropriately (Hall, 2002; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009). The motivation to teach may be constrained by the reality of ELT in Asian countries (Dörneyi, 2005). 15 .

(32) In a communication class, probably no one will deny the fact that students need ample opportunities to practice using English to perform various sociocultural functions, such as making requests and apologies, expressing gratitude and regrets, and showing agreement and disagreement in a culturally appropriate way (see Ellis, 2005). The above-mentioned comprise complicated skills of choosing correct vocabulary and sentence structures, understanding the social status, gender and distance of self and others, evaluating the context during interpersonal and intercultural exchanges, and what not (Spencer-Oatey, 2000). If teachers do not have. 政治大 reasonable to argue that they may not spend additional time improving their own 立. such a strong motivation to improve their own English proficiency (four skills), it is. sociocultural understanding regarding the teaching and learning of L2 pragmatics.. ‧ 國. 學. To be pragmatically competent, learners tend to orchestrate a wide range of. ‧. commonly used request strategies by the target language users, for example the ability. sit. y. Nat. to understand an invitation as a closing remark, such as we should get together. io. er. sometime). However, learners, who do not understand the sociopragmatic norms, and who have limited pragmalinguistic knowledge in a given speech community, such as. al. n. v i n C toh have difficulty understanding mainstream Anglophone culture, tend the real engchi U. intentions in the target language (Pinto, 2011). As a result, communication tends to break down due to cross-cultural misunderstandings (Spencer-Oatey, 2000) and limited sociolinguistic competence (Hall, 2002; Taguchi, 2011). Li (1998) pointed out that in communication-oriented classes, sociolinguistic competence was considered difficult to teach and learn for non-native English speakers who do not have much exposure to the authentic English learning environment regarding its cultural aspects in EFL contexts, mostly limited to classroom situations (see Alcón-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Taguchi, 2011). In addition, Omaggio (2001) also indicated that the teaching of culture tends to be 16 .

(33) neglected by language teachers in the classroom. Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003) also found out that the acquisition of pragmatic skills could not occur without instructed learning. It has been reaffirmed that explicit pragmatics instruction can generally improve L2 pragmatic ability by EFL learners in recent empirical studies (Narita, 2012; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b; Takimoto, 2009, 2010). However, factors that affect the acquisition of pragmatics were also suggested in the extant literature, such as learners’ ego/identity and cultural resistance (Hu, 2002; Judd, 1999; Taguchi, 2011). Another factor refers to teachers’ lack of confidence in. 政治大 constrained by their English skills in introducing the appropriate use of the target 立. their ability to teach L2 pragmatics (Omaggio, 2001). Since EFL teachers may be. language, it may pose a challenge for them to teach students (Li, 1998). Still other. ‧ 國. 學. factors refer to the EFL school textbook design according to textbook writers’. ‧. intuitions (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). Students’ limited English proficiency as well as. sit. y. Nat. individual differences may affect students’ motivations to learn L2 pragmatics. io. er. (Taguchi, 2011). Although Yu (2008) found that L2 pragmatics was the least taught aspect in language learning (i.e. classroom-level constraints), the study maintains that. al. n. v i n C h motivation, which there may be other, such as learning can influence the teaching and engchi U learning L2 pragmatics in EFL classes.. 2.2 L2 Motivation Theory and L2 Pragmatics To address the issue of L2 motivation that may influence L2 pragmatics instruction, it is important to operationalize motivation, an often discussed but elusive construct (Dörnyei, 2005). One of the most common and famous distinctions in motivation theories is that of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation (Vallerand, 1997). Intrinsic motivation deals with behaviors performed to experience desire and satisfaction, for example, the joy of learning American culture. Extrinsic motivation, 17 .

(34) on the other hand, refers to performing a behavior to accomplish a purpose or to receive some extrinsic rewards (e.g., parental praises, stickers and good grades). Although intrinsic motivation has generally been regarded as a one-dimensional construct, three subtypes of intrinsic motivation were pointed out by Vallerand (1997), including (1) to learn (to explore the world and to satisfy one’s penchant for knowledge), (2) to achieve (to engage in an activity for the satisfaction of surpassing oneself, overcoming challenges and accomplishing something), and (3) to experience stimulation (to engage in an activity to experience pleasant feelings). On the other. 政治大 identified regulation, and integrated regulation (see Deci & Ryan, 1985). External 立. hand, extrinsic motivation encompasses external regulation, introjected regulation,. regulation refers to the least self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, arising. ‧ 國. 學. solely from exterior forces, such as teacher’s rewards and tokens. Introjected. ‧. regulation involves externally imposed rules that the student obeys in order not to feel. sit. y. Nat. humiliated. Identified regulation occurs when the person engages in an activity. io. er. because he or she highly treasures and relates to the behavior, and perceives its usefulness (e.g., learning a language necessary to satisfy one’s job-related needs).. al. n. v i n C hand Ryan (1985),Uis the most Integrated regulation, according to Deci engchi. developmentally advanced form of extrinsic motivation, involving given behaviors associated with the individual’s values, needs and identity. For example, learning English is usually regarded as higher social status and greater job opportunities in EFL contexts. In 1997, Williams and Burden proposed a social constructivist model, raising two fundamental issues in researching motivation—context and time. Different from Deci and Ryan’s (1985) motivation theory, this model is based on the social constructivist conception of motivation, which is contingent upon social and contextual influences, including both external and internal factors. The external 18 .

(35) factors include significant others, the nature of interaction with significant others and the learning environment as well as the broader context involving family networks, local educational system, conflicting interests, cultural norms and societal expectations and attitudes. On the other hand, the internal factors encompass the intrinsic interest of activity conducted in the classroom, students’ perceived value of learning activity, sense of agency, mastery of the target language, self-concept and attitudes toward the target language, culture and community, and affective states, such as confidence, anxiety and fear.. 政治大 motivation, capturing a process-oriented perspective of motivation, synthesizing 立. In 1998, Dörnyei and Ottó proposed their all-inclusive process model of L2. various lines of research in a unified motivation framework, and building an. ‧ 國. 學. overarching framework. According to Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), their comprehensive. ‧. model includes three phases: preactional, actional and postactional phases. In the. sit. y. Nat. preactional phase, it involves the process of choosing a course of action to be realized,. io. er. the sub-processes include goal setting, intention formation and the initiation of intention enactment. Four main motivational factors underlie the goal-setting process,. al. n. v i n C hnorms. For example, including subjective values and learners may want to learn engchi U. effective communication with foreigners, so they select a specific learning goal, for example, understanding American request behaviors in an English-speaking university. In the actional phase, three basic processes include (1) subtask generation and implementation (e.g., the learner may desire to learn more about the appropriate request behavior of asking professors to write a recommendation letter); (2) an ongoing evaluative process (i.e. learners may need to evaluate their own learning of request behaviors and choose alternatives if their plans abort or terminate); and (3) the application of various action control mechanisms, which refer to knowledge and strategies used to cope with cognitive and non-cognitive demands for goal 19 .

(36) accomplishment. The self-regulatory mechanisms are activated to enhance, scaffold or protect learning-specific actions. According to Dörnyei (2005), active use of the mechanisms through the use of motivation maintenance strategies, language learning strategies and goal-setting strategies may monitor the ongoing learning process and prevent learning from slowing, stopping or backsliding (Oxford, 1990). In the postactional phase, causal attributions to the success or failure of the learning goal may be assessed against one’s own standard. Through such an on-going evaluation, a person is believed to cultivate a sense of an effective learner (Boekaerts, 1988).. 政治大 action phases of the model include (1) fundamental beliefs and feelings about the 立. According to Dörnyei (2005), several motivational influences on the different. importance of being culturally open-minded, knowing foreign languages and. ‧ 國. 學. engaging in cross-cultural communication, consistent with Deci and Ryan’s (1985). ‧. integrativeness; (2) the values and norms are mingled with the specific motives,. sit. y. Nat. arising from intrinsic pleasure a person receives from learning languages and the. io. er. instrumental benefits such as a well-paid job or increased travel opportunities, i.e. instrumental motivation; (3) the value preferences that determine the likelihood of. al. n. v i n C h environment, suchUas parents’ and teachers’ achieving the goals; and (4) the external engchi expectations and the school environment, can make a considerable impact on the. choice of possible goals. Intention formation is shaped by the learner’s perceived expectancy of success, the relevance of the goal (e.g., How is learning L2 pragmatics related to students’ lives?), and the accompanying risks the individual takes (e.g., What pros and cons does teaching and learning L2 pragmatics entail in a communication class?). To the best of the researcher’s understanding, there seems to be relatively few studies investigating the socio-psychological aspects of L2 pragmatics. Therefore, in this study efforts would be made to understand the. 20 .

(37) motivation-related experiences felt by EFL teachers and students from L2 motivation theory.. 2.3 Experimental/Intervention Studies of L2 Sociolinguistic Skills The teaching of L2 sociolinguistic skills arises from the model of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). One of its components refers to sociolinguistic or pragmatic competence (Brown, 2007; Moran, 2001). Sociolinguistic instruction marked a transformation of second language (L2) learning from a mastery of forms to. 政治大 competence deals with both the social and linguistic aspects in the target language, 立. the learning of functional and social use of the forms (Taguchi, 2011). Sociolinguistic. involving complicated skills and strategies, such as choosing the appropriate words,. ‧ 國. 學. sentence structures and social strategies (greetings or small talks served as. ‧. conversation starters), and the appropriate judgment of social contexts (Taguchi,. sit. y. Nat. 2011). For example, in French the social use of tu and vous (i.e. informal and formal. io. er. you in English) signifies different social distances that target at close friends and acquaintances. Thus, failure to recognize the differentiation of the address forms or. al. n. v i n C h may cause negative inconsistent use of the expressions evaluation or engchi U misunderstandings of the language user (Moran, 2001).. The importance of teaching sociolinguistic skills can be reflected in earlier studies (Li, 1998; Omaggio, 2001; Yu, 2008), which demonstrated that sociolinguistic skills were the least taught aspect in communication-oriented classrooms, and that researchers (Pinto, 2011; Spencer-Oatey, 2000) suggested that EFL students tend to lack pragmatic ability when interacting with people from various sociocultural backgrounds. Thus, the lack of pragmatic ability is likely to cause cross-cultural misunderstandings and cultural faux pas.. 21 .

(38) Two strands of L2 pragmatics can be found in current literature. The first strand of L2 pragmatics studies aims to identify the differences between L1 and L2 cultural norms and its accompanying strategies, such as request and apology behaviors. The other strand of literature refers to the intervention or experimental studies on teaching effectiveness from the cognitive standpoint. Alcón-Soler (2007) is an example of an intervention study that compared the effect of explicit and implicit treatment on Spanish EFL learners’ acquisition of request forms in English. The explicit group received metalinguistic information about requests (i.e. explicit explanations of social. 政治大 distance, and imposition of request). Subsequently, they were told to pay attention to 立 conventions and norms of the target language use, such as social status, gender, age,. examples of requests in the scripts and to justify their decisions. The implicit group. ‧ 國. 學. was offered awareness-raising tasks that include input enhancement (i.e. requests and. ‧. related sociopragmatic factors in bold type or capitalization), but it received no. sit. y. Nat. metapragmatic explanation. In the posttest, both groups outperformed the control. io. er. group; however, no significant differences were found between the two treatment groups. Nevertheless, the explicit group retained their learning up to the delayed. al. n. v i n C h In a recent studyUdone by Takahashi (2010a, posttests three weeks after the treatment. engchi 2010b), she reviewed 49 intervention studies on L2 pragmatics since the 1980s,. including three types of studies: (a) studies that investigated the effectiveness of explicit intervention (n=26); (b) studies that focused on the effectiveness of implicit intervention (n=2); and (c) studies that compared explicit and implicit situations regarding their teaching effects (n=21). Several generalizations were made in her study. First, echoing Jeon and Kaya’s (2006) insightful analysis, the strength of explicit instruction was largely corroborated, reaffirming the vital role of metalinguistic explanation for pragmatic improvement. Second, instructional treatments that suggested strong pragmatic performances in delayed posttests included 22 .

(39) cognitively demanding tasks by engaging participants in comparing their performance with target-like standards and/or increasing their awareness of target sociopragmatic norms. Alcon-Sóler’s (2007) and Takimoto (2009) contended that the superiority of explicit instruction can be explicated by learners’ greater cognitive engagement in the explicit condition; unlike implicit conditions where learners identified request forms that were controlled by researchers through input enhancement, learners in the explicit condition were self-guided to find target request forms independently. Despite sizable experimental studies on the effect of explicit instruction on. 政治大 studies were conducted to explore the development of pragmatic behaviors given the 立 learning gains of pragmatic ability, relatively few qualitative descriptive/interpretive. time-consuming nature of qualitative studies (Ellis, 2008; Vásquez & Sharpless,. ‧ 國. 學. 2009). In addition, qualitative studies conducted in non-Anglophone contexts were. ‧. few (Ishihara, 2009), most of which were conducted in Anglophone or ESL contexts. sit. y. Nat. (Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009). Recent trend on pragmatics research has witnessed a. io. er. burgeoning interest in qualitative studies, such as the development of pragmatic behaviors in study-abroad contexts (Barron, 2003; Ellis, 2008; Kinginger & Belz,. n. al. 2005).. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. However, learning in EFL and ESL differs concerning its contextual variables. Quantitative results and its research methods cannot explicate the subtle relationship between students’ English proficiency and its pragmatic development (Ellis, 2008; Vásquez & Sharpless, 2009). As quantitative research was carried out usually on a short-term basis, the effect of teachers’ intervention has been suggested to be limited. Besides, little was known exactly about what and how teachers and students teach and learn L2 pragmatics in a situated learning environment from the standpoint of L2 motivation. Since Yu (2008) found that pragmatics instruction may not be adequately taught by university teachers in Taiwan, the study extended the scope of L2 23 .

(40) pragmatics research to a more qualitative orientation to reveal the L2 pragmatics instruction and its impacts felt by teachers and students in one EFL class in Taiwan.. 2.4 The Intrinsic Need to Learn Functional, Interactive and Social Use of English Out of mutual respect and politeness, people from diverse multicultural backgrounds are supposed to communicate with each other in a pragmatically appropriate way (Samovar, Porter & MacDaniel, 2010). As mentioned earlier, the functional, pragmatic use of English did not receive focal attention in university. 政治大 teaching methods, i.e. grammar-translation and audio-lingual methods, still dominate 立 classes in Taiwan (Yu, 2008) possibly because deep-rooted concepts and traditional. the language classroom for the most part in Asia (Butler, 2011; Liu, 2007). The crux. ‧ 國. 學. of the underlying problem may not be the methods per se; rather, it could be how. ‧. teachers and learners perceive the role of English that affects their intrinsic desire for. sit. y. Nat. learning the practical, interactive and social use of the target language (Brown, 2007).. io. er. Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003) and Yu (2008) have shown that L2 pragmatics instruction was largely neglected by language teachers in the classroom,. al. n. v i n Cteach for some teachers may not be able to skills andU students may adhere to h esuch i h ngc their cultural values, upholding their L1 identity and resisting the target language. pragmatic features (Butler, 2011; Judd, 1999; Li, 1998; Taguchi, 2011). Often are the cases that learners do not know how to interact with people appropriately. Some may offend others unconsciously in intercultural encounters (Spencer-Oatey, 2000), form misunderstandings (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001), and cause cultural stereotypes (Banks & Banks, 2007) in an era of multiculturalism (Taguchi, 2011). It has been shown that the cultural differences between English and other languages vary in terms of the sociopragmatic norms, such as English and Chinese (Spencer-Oatey, 2000), and that cultural differences may also cause confusion and frustration (Brown, 2007). Rapid 24 .

(41) cultural globalization and frequent intercultural encounters make people unable to grasp all kinds of intercultural encounters, and therefore cross-cultural misunderstandings may occur from time to time (Kumaravadivelu, 2008; Pinto, 2011). As language has been considered by many to be a communication tool, its functional and pragmatic use is now emphasized concerning its importance of managing interpersonal relations. It is maintained that learners may find L2 pragmatics instruction practical and interesting, though sometimes confusing and. 政治大 consequently, the upshot of teaching and learning L2 pragmatics may not only give 立. frustrating, given its focus on authentic interpersonal communication (Taguchi, 2011);. learners the incentive to learn English, but it could also satisfy people’s intrinsic needs. ‧ 國. 學. of using language for real-life communication purposes on various social occasions. sit. y. Nat. understanding L2 pragmatics has received focal attention.. ‧. (Brown, 2007). To meet the increasing needs of intercultural communication,. io. er. In brief, communication across cultures is reflected in language use and function, and L2 pragmatics is one of the key components in communicative competence. al. n. v i n C h having such competence, (Canale & Swain, 1980). Without hardly can learners engchi U communicate smoothly and harmoniously with people from diverse cultural. backgrounds. In this study, language is considered a crucial communication tool for teachers and learners in EFL contexts in that the focus of the study is mostly on the verbal behaviors performed by teachers and learners in an EFL class through four skills—listening, speaking, reading and writing. The teaching and learning L2 pragmatics in one EFL university class was specifically investigated through classroom observations plus multiple sources of data collection, including teacher and student interviews as well as the researcher’s reflective journals. The following section illustrates the research gaps on prior L2 pragmatics studies. 25 .

(42) 2.5 Research Gaps on Prior L2 Pragmatics Studies Much pragmatics research has been investigated to identify the social variations of language use by two groups of L1 speakers and one group of L2 learners. Among all the pragmatics research, speech acts studies have been the most researched area in pragmatics (see Ellis, 2008). Its data collection methods, according to Cohen and Ishihara (2010), employed written and oral discourse completion test (DCT), questionnaire, judgment test, natural observations in a naturalistic setting, such as business meetings and academic institutions (see Spencer-Oatey, 2000). Few, however,. 政治大 of pragmatic ability in both ESL and EFL contexts because of its time-consuming 立. employed qualitative methods to investigate second language learners’ development. nature (Ellis, 2008; Taguchi, 2012). In addition, no clear understanding about the EFL. ‧ 國. 學. teachers’ perceptions of teaching L2 pragmatics in EFL classroom contexts on the. sit. y. Nat. 2011; Kachru, 1992).. ‧. grounds that students generally do not have ample opportunities to use English (Butler,. io. er. Albeit results on the effects of explicit and implicit instruction have been found (Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Taguchi, 2011), little was known about the application of the. al. n. v i n C h In Yu’s (2008)Ustudy, he identified that in empirical evidence in the current literature. engchi both high and low communicative classes, pragmatics seems to be the least taught aspect in CLT-based classes. Teachers may claim that they teach students such sociocultural skills, whereas it remains unknown whether and how students acquire the necessary language skills to perform social functions appropriately. For instance, Ishihara (2009) indicated that EFL learners, despite many years of learning English, did not know how to react to a certain situation in English appropriately. Apparently, gaps still exist between what we know in research and how we implement it in the classroom. Therefore, how we put the theory into practice has become one of the. 26 .

(43) major concerns by many spearheading English language teachers given its interactive nature of social use (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). As mentioned earlier, gaps exist between research and practice. What teachers claim to teach may not be consistent with their real teaching practices. Take CLT in Asia for example. Although CLT has been considered a widely acclaimed approach, its implementation has met criticisms and constraints. Conceptually, the values of learning and teaching in Asian contexts are distinct from those in Anglophone contexts, rendering CLT difficult to be implemented. Even though teachers and. 政治大 constraints, such as huge class size (Li, 1998), inappropriate materials (Butler, 2011), 立. students may be willing to embrace such a communicative approach, classroom-level. and few qualified language educators with TESOL expertise and relevant training,. ‧ 國. 學. may influence how teachers put their teaching philosophies and teacher beliefs into. ‧. classroom practices. Besides, societal-and-institutional-level constraints may also. sit. y. Nat. limit teachers’ autonomy to implement CLT, such as the prevalence of grammar-based. io. er. exams in Asia. The above-mentioned factors may exert a huge influence on the development of pragmatic ability.. al. n. v i n C hthis study assumesUthat generally EFL teachers and Based on the prior studies, engchi. learners lack pragmatic ability in the given sociocultural context in Taiwan. In. addition, L2 pragmatics tends to be ignored by language educators. Thus endeavors need to be made to explicate why L2 pragmatics was identified as the least taught aspect in a given context. As Ellis (2008) appealed to our attention, maybe focus could be shifted to the sociolinguistic environments on doing pragmatics research to uncover the insiders’ perspectives to understand the bigger picture of EFL classroom teaching and learning practices on L2 pragmatics.. 27 .