- Email: [email protected]
Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective?
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
System 39 (2011) 240e250
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? Nicola Halenko, Christian Jones* School of Languages and International Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, United Kingdom Received 16 July 2010; revised 24 February 2011; accepted 24 February 2011
Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of explicit interventional treatment on developing pragmatic awareness and production of spoken requests in an EAP context (taken here to mean those studying/using English for academic purposes in the UK) with Chinese learners of English at a British higher education institution. The study employed an experimental design over a 12 week period with 26 students assigned to either an explicitly instructed group or a control group receiving no instruction. Performance was measured based on a pre, immediate and delayed post test structure using Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs). The findings firstly revealed that explicit instruction facilitated development of pragmatically appropriate request language, although this was not noticeably maintained after a six week period. Secondly, despite the potential advantage that the second language environment affords to pragmatic development, this was not necessarily instrumental in enhancing competence. Finally, study abroad (ESL) (taken here to mean those studying English in an English speaking country as opposed to EFL learners studying English in their home country) learners found pragmatic instruction valuable, which suggests practitioners should consider incorporating this at the pre departure stage in order for learners to be more adequately prepared for communicating in similar EAP contexts. Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP); EAP; Study abroad; Requests; Instructional effects
1. Introduction The motivation behind the present study was that despite students’ long term residency in the UK, the experience of staff at a British higher education institution showed that non-native speaker (NNS) students were often unable to produce pragmatically appropriate language in interactions inside and outside the classroom. Indeed, many staff reported that learners with an adequate level of grammatical and lexical competence to undertake an undergraduate programme struggled with simple speech acts such as requesting information from a tutor. This meant their language could be perceived as rude as they may not adhere to expectations of positive or negative politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987), as appropriate to the context. In addition, their language may lack the expected moves of such speech acts, making them difficult to follow and meaning tutors had to work hard to ‘fill in the gaps’. Staff also * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0) 1772 893150; fax: þ44 (0) 1772 892909. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Halenko), [email protected] (C. Jones). 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
241
reported that this could also frustrate other more competent learners in classes when interacting with such learners in groups. Put simply, learners may get the grammar or words right but the pragmatics wrong and this seems to have a very negative impact on how effective their communication is. This is consistent with literature illustrating that, even with advanced learners of English, imbalances exist between NNS linguistic proficiency and pragmatic competence (Kasper and Rose, 2002). According to Ishihara and Cohen (2010), the origins of learners’ pragmatic divergence include negative L1 transfer, limited L2 grammatical ability, inadequate instructional materials and overgeneralisation of L2 pragmatic norms. Another likely cause is the fact that successful performance is generally dependent on knowledge of L2 social and cultural norms. First, these may differ in the L1 and therefore need to be specifically taught. Second, they are largely undocumented and not easily discernible to L2 learners in interaction. Further to this, studies also suggest that whilst authentic pragmatic input is likely to be more readily available in the study abroad (ESL) context and NNS may be in a more favourable position to develop this knowledge, it can still be a slow process (Cohen, 2008). Estimates have suggested this could take up to 10 years (Olshtain and Blum-Kulka, 1985), and some researchers suggest competency may never be achieved despite permanent residency in the L2 environment (Kasper and Rose, 2002; Cohen, 2008). The question also remains if, and how much, students actually take advantage of the L2 setting and develop pragmatic competence at our institution. In order to enhance our students’ study abroad experience and address the above concerns, this study assesses the impact of explicit interventional treatment on NNS production of requests in an EAP setting. 2. Literature review 2.1. Interventional studies on requests Interventional treatments through classroom instruction have received growing attention in ILP research and most studies demonstrate positive effects on language learners’ pragmatic development regardless of linguistic background. Qualitative studies also suggest that learners themselves favour explicit instruction in pragmatics, particularly when studying in a country where their second language is the mother tongue. Kasper and Zhang (1995), for example, interviewed 21 advanced learners of Chinese who had spent a study period in China and found that the learners believed that sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic instruction prior to their study trip would have been beneficial. Studies set in the foreign language context greatly outnumber those in the study abroad setting. Of more recent interest, Alco´n Soler (2005) examined the efficacy of explicit and implicit instruction on students’ production of request strategies. Three groups of 44 EFL students (explicit, implicit and control) received input via the novel stimulus of a popular American TV series which for the two instructed groups was then complemented with a number of awareness-raising activities. The control group received no instruction. In line with DeKeyser’s (1995) definition of the explicit-implicit paradigm, additional metapragmatic feedback was included for the explicit group in order to differentiate input from the implicit group. Achievement was assessed through written role plays and, similar to the present study, was independently scored. The significant gains made by both experimental groups substantiate conclusions that learners do benefit from instruction but, as highlighted by Norris and Ortega (2000), the results also illustrated that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit input alone. Following instruction, the explicit group were able to more easily identify the influence of social distance and imposition, for instance, to justify their linguistic choices. Similar to the above study, Safont Jorda` (2004) implemented a pre, post test format at four stages to elicit the effect of explicit instruction concerning request formulations on a group of 160 Spanish EAP students (pre instruction, beginning of instruction, end of instruction and post instruction). As with the present study, the students were studying in an EAP context. However in contrast to our investigations, not all of the scenarios in the DCT typified EAP situations. Unlike Alco´n Soler’s investigation, no control group was employed in this study, yet there were clear indications that instruction had a positive effect on the variety of linguistic output, specifically regarding conventionally indirect strategies. The importance of directing learners to ‘notice’ L2 language features as outlined by Schmidt (1993) has become central to the argument that explicitly instructed students tend to fare better when developing their pragmatic knowledge. Takahashi (2005) investigated if and how types of noticing tasks can affect learners’ pragmatic
242
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
performance. 49 Japanese EFL students were tested in two treatment conditions: Form Comparison (NNS’ own request forms directly compared and analysed with NS) and Form Search (General NNS NS comparisons). DCTs and self test reports illustrated that the Form Comparison treatment increased learners’ ability to notice mitigating devices and the strategy sequence for producing requests. It was further highlighted however, that students’ perceived value of learning particular target forms was also influential in determining outcomes and not treatment task alone. This corroborates evidence of the impact of learner effort in improving pragmatic performance (Kasper and Rose, 2002) and highlights that for development to take place, learners need to see a useful application for the input received. Quantifiably fewer studies have located their investigations in the ESL context. Barron’s (2003) seminal work on Irish learners of German is illustrative of the positive effects of studying overseas on learners’ pragmatic development if certain conditions are met. Specifically, learners need to encounter sufficient salient input and be explicitly guided to notice and understand the gaps between their own interlanguage and the L2 output around them for progress to take place. Barron further records that sociopragmatic competence is more difficult to notice than pragmalinguistic competence and, as a result, is often the weaker constituent to develop within learners’ interlanguage. A recent interventional study in the ESL setting focussing on requests mirrors Takahashi’s attempts at assessing types of explicit instruction when teaching pragmatics in the classroom (Fukuya and Clark, 2001). Here, 34 adult ESL students were assigned to three groups; a Focus on Form group was exposed to typographical enhancements of mitigators through audiovisual scenarios whilst another group (Focus on Form) watched a version which also included explicit instruction on mitigators, but offered additional input enhancement. A third group acted as a control. A multiple choice listening comprehension and pragmatic test assessed development within both experimental groups. Findings were inconclusive in terms of whether one of the treatments was more effective than the other for producing six different request formulations (perhaps, possibly, I’d be grateful if, I’d appreciate it if, I was wondering if, I know.but). The authors claim this was largely due to the post test only design, low sample size and brevity of the 48 min treatment period. Although not involving English as the target language, Cohen and Shively’s (2007) methodology and findings have direct links to the present study. They examined the effects of instruction on 67 learners of Spanish and 19 learners of French at the pre departure stage of their semester long sojourn abroad. The participants were assigned to either an experimental group who received a range of instruction or a control group who received no instruction. The former attended a 2 hour pre departure orientation which included an introduction to learning speech acts and information on a self study guide to help raise awareness of requests and apologies. During the residence abroad, the experimental group were required to complete journal entries to record their experiences and systematically work through the self study guide. The data collection instrument employed a written, multiple rejoinder DCT capturing the pre test responses prior to departure and post test towards the end of the semester abroad. Similar to our primary study, these were subsequently rated by French and Spanish native speakers on a 5 point Likert scale according to whether the responses would satisfy a native speaker interlocutor in each situation. The results showed that for both the experimental and control groups, the sojourn abroad yielded significantly better pre post test scores demonstrating the positive impact of the L2 environment. In contrast, although minor gains were evident, the interventional instruction did not appear to contribute to significantly improved performance. As rationalised by the authors, length, intensity, effectiveness and perceived value of the treatment at the pre departure stage may have influenced these results. 2.2. Research gaps In spite of the recorded successes of interventional treatments in teaching speech acts within ILP research, there are a number of operational and methodological issues still to be addressed (Kasper and Rose, 1999, 2002; Rose and Kasper, 2001). Firstly, the paucity of studies in the ESL context is apparent. This is perhaps because of a higher perceived need to provide instruction to foreign language learners as their exposure to authentic pragmatic input is more limited. This presupposes ESL students interact with their environment on a regular basis which in our experience is not always the case. Instead, we have found that many learners tend to interact with other learners sharing their L1 both inside and outside of class and thus do not always benefit from the pragmatic input available to them in the ESL setting. We therefore suggest that instruction is of equal, if not more, salient value in the EAP
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
243
context given that students must at least interact in an appropriate manner with their peers and members of staff in any academic setting. Secondly, the few studies in this area which specifically address the EAP context demonstrate the need for further research. Cornbleet (2000), for instance, found that international EAP students in the UK struggled to understand and produce indirect speech acts including requesting and instructing when compared to native speaker students. Her research suggests that explicit instruction in this area is necessary because appropriate use of indirect language plays a vital part in interpersonal communication in the UK and ‘this area is no less important for university life than formal academic work’ (Cornbleet, 2000:32). Thirdly, whilst implementing a control group can help determine if instruction can genuinely be attributed to intervention alone, logistics often restrict employing this placebo condition as is evident in many ILP studies (Rose and Kasper, 2001). Similarly, incorporating a delayed post test also addresses the question of longer term retention and is a useful measure to support the benefits of instruction. This, too, is uncommon in investigations primarily because of access to the original groups following completion of the main study. Studies which have successfully administered a delayed post test reveal mixed results. Morrow (1996), for instance, reported sustained improvement amongst ESL learners 6 months following instructional treatment of complaints and refusals. Such gains could not be clearly maintained across all taught pragmatic aspects in the EFL setting, however, as is evident with Lyster’s (1994) investigations of sociolinguistic competence with French immersion students. Similarly, Kubota’s (1995) study with Japanese learners of English revealed only short term gains in some areas of conversational implicature which were not evident one month later. Our investigations have specifically addressed the issues above and incorporated both a control group and delayed post test. Finally, it is suggested that ILP studies are often compromised by over reliance on quantitative data alone (Kasper and Rose, 1999). Schauer and Adolphs (2006) and Geluykens (2007) are among researchers calling for supplementing DCT analyses with qualitative methods to improve data reliability. In light of this, the captured DCT data in the present study is supported with a semi-structured oral interview. This not only provides a clearer insight into students’ perceptions of the benefits of the instruction, but guides practitioners as to the value of incorporating this into the learning agenda. 2.3. Background to the study The current study seeks to focus specifically on requests produced by Chinese learners of EAP within a UK higher education context. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it is, as previously discussed, somewhat underresearched. As the largest nationality of international students in the UK as a whole and in our institution, Chinese students now play a significant part in the international student cohort and it is therefore worth investigating ways in which we can teach pragmatic routines such as requests. Secondly, there is evidence that indirectness exists in Chinese language requests but that this may be shown in the way information around requests is organised and not in grammatical features of requests themselves (Zhang, 1995:9). This may explain why, in our experience, Chinese learners in EAP contexts often struggle to make requests which are pragmatically effective, particularly because the language used often does not pay enough attention to negative or positive politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and can seem too abrupt or direct. A simple translation illustrates this point. Let us imagine a typical EAP request scenario : a student knocks on her tutor’s office door but a colleague who the student has not met before answers. We might imagine that such a request for a tutor (named Andrea in this case) may be realised with a request formula such as ‘Sorry to bother you, could I speak to Andrea please?’ something which displays the kind of negative politeness Brown and Levinson (1987) describe. Here we have a phrase which seeks to acknowledge and minimise the imposition on the listener (‘Sorry to bother you’), followed by a polite form (‘could.please?’). If we translate this into Chinese we can see that the request is likely to be phrased in a way which would sound far more direct if said in English.
Thirdly, we would agree with Cornbleet’s (2000) suggestion that EAP teaching should pay attention to interpersonal aspects of spoken language, as these are often just as important as standard features of EAP courses such as essay writing. Lastly, if our assumption is correct that explicit instruction in this area is needed, there are implications for EAP syllabus design in our institution and others in the UK at least.
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
244
The present study set outs to contribute to existing ILP studies by addressing the following research questions: 1. To what extent does explicit instruction of requests enhance pragmatic competence in Chinese EAP learners in the UK? 2. To what extent are these learners able to retain pragmatic knowledge of requests over time? 3. Do Chinese EAP learners themselves believe that ‘learning’ pragmatic awareness enhances their productive and receptive skills when making requests in the UK? 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants The participants consisted of two intact classes of thirteen Chinese learners, assigned to one experimental group and one control group. The research was conducted during in sessional EAP classes over the duration of 12 weeks with final year undergraduate Business Communication students. In total there were 12 male and 14 female students, all within the age ranges of 21e24, with no previous study abroad experience. Each had studied English for approximately 10 years prior to coming to the UK, although this was their first year studying at our institution, having completed their first two years of their degree in China. All students received a standardised placement test on arrival at the university and had been placed at B2 level on the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) global scales. Although the CEFR does not detail specific pragmatic competencies at each sub level, the global descriptor suggests that at this level a learner can “interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party’’ (CEFR, 2010: 24). Our reading of this, particularly the description of ‘without strain’ suggests that a fair degree of pragmatic competence is expected at this level. 3.2. Instrument The study followed an experimental classroom research design, as outlined by Do¨rnyei (2007: 119) and exploited the commonly used pre post delayed test structure. The experimental group received 6 hours of explicit instruction on requests whilst the control group received no instruction. Instruction focussed on the use of requests strategies in EAP contexts which students were likely to encounter in and around the UK university setting. Each phase was structured to focus on Thomas’ (1983) sociopragmatic or pragmalinguistic aspects of spoken requests. In each input session of 2 hours, students were taught in three phases: Phase 1 (sociopragmatic) Aim: Introduction of topic/awareness-raising Example activity: Students discuss potential situations where they need to make requests in and around the university and are given a list of sample requests in this EAP setting and asked to discuss which may be inappropriate and why, including a discussion of cultural differences. Phase 2 (pragmalinguistic) Aim: Explicit instruction Example activity: Students analyse the typical moves in an EAP request scenario and the pre request and request phrases used, students are given controlled practice of these phrases focussing on stress and intonation. Phase 3 (sociopragmatic) Aim: Production practice and discussion Example activity: Students practise making requests in given EAP scenarios in pairs and in front of the class, students discuss as a group the appropriacy of the pre requests and requests used.
Prior to instruction, both groups were given a DCT as a pre test. Despite criticisms that DCTs elicit fewer semantic formulae (Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992) and shorter responses (Beebe and Cummings, 1996) in comparison to naturally occurring data,Billmyer and Varghese (2000: 517) highlight that ‘there are to date no other sociolinguistic data collection instruments that have as many administrative advantages as the DCT’. In our case, a DCT was
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
245
primarily chosen for its ability to capture a large data set in a controlled environment (Kasper and Dahl, 1991). The six request scenarios were designed to focus on EAP situations in and around the university (see Appendix A for one sample DCT used) and reflected a variety of social distance and status. An equivalent DCT was administered to each group immediately following the 6 hours of instruction (post test) and then after a delay of six weeks (delayed post test). In order to avoid learners memorising test responses, the request strategies required that some interlocutor roles and situations differed across each of the three DCTs but the patterns of social distance and status remained constant (see Table 1 below). Although generally uncommon in DCT design, careful consideration was given to the construction of the scenarios and characters in the DCTs to maximise relevance to the learners, as suggested by Bardovi-Harlig (1999). It was further hoped this would maximise learner effort at the same time. Three experienced EAP teachers not involved in the study were then asked to rate each response on the DCTs using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (inappropriate response which would lead the interlocutor to react negatively) to 5 (wholly appropriate response which would satisfy the interlocutor). An instruction sheet and introduction to the study were provided to each of the raters for standardisation purposes. These scores were subsequently compared using a series of independent and paired t-test analyses in SPSS. Overall, the raters’ independent mean score show little variance on the pre, post and delayed tests. This illustrates general consistency in their reactions to the responses provided on the DCTs. On average, the range of marks given for each of the DCTs was þ/ 2 points. Table 1 DCT scenarios (pre test, post test, delayed post test). Social distance
Status
þSD þSD þSD -SD -SD -SD
x x x x x x
< > ¼ < > ¼
y y y y y y
DCT A (pre test)
DCT B (post test)
DCT C (delayed post test)
1. 5. 6. 3. 4. 2.
1. At the library 5. On campus 6. On campus 3.At the tutor’s office 4. At your accommodation 2.In the classroom
1. At the university sports centre 5. At the study centre 6.In the computer room 3. At the tutor’s office 4.In your university accommodation 2. In the library
At the student information desk At the international society On campus At the tutor’s office At your university accommodation In the study centre
Note: x ¼ NNS student role, y ¼ interlocutor.
Following completion of the instruction period and DCTs, a semi-structured interview was conducted with two students from the experimental group, as timetable restrictions did not allow for the use of a larger focus group. The interview was conducted using the following five broad prompts: 1. We have recently finished some lessons about requests. Could you explain your general thoughts about this? 2. Do you think it was useful to focus upon requests? Why is/isn’t it useful? 3. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you better understand what people say to you at university? (If yes) Can you explain why you think this? (If no) Can you explain why you think this? 4. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you to communicate better at university? Why/why not? (If yes) Can you give an example of how it has helped you to communicate better?(If no) Can you give an example of why this has not helped you? 5. Do you wish to make any final comments about learning requests in this way? These prompts were formulated using suggestions from Richards (2003) on conducting semi-structured interviews. Broad opening and closing questions were used alongside a closed question/open question pattern in an attempt to encourage students to give honest feedback about the process without trying to influence their responses. 4. Results and discussion Research question 1: To what extent does explicit instruction of requests enhance pragmatic competence in Chinese EAP learners in the UK? Both groups were relatively homogeneous in terms of age, background and linguistic proficiency. To determine if variability existed between the two groups at the pre test stage, our first statistical analysis was a comparison of the pre
246
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
test scores. The alpha level chosen is p 0.05. An independent samples t-test analysis confirmed there was no significant difference between either group prior to the instructional period regarding their current pragmatic knowledge of request strategies. The experimental group scored 16.07 points and the control group 14.87, but this difference was not statistically significant, (p ¼ .135). We subsequently applied a similar analysis to ascertain overall improvement from the experimental and control groups following the treatment period. A further independent t-test analysed pre and post test gain scores and revealed positive effects of instruction for the experimental group (M ¼ 3.98) but not for the control group (M ¼ 0.05) with the difference between the two groups being statistically significant (p ¼ .001). The comparison of the pre vs. immediate post test results for the experimental group revealed an improved performance in the post test (pre test: M ¼ 16.077; post test: M ¼ 20.05). This difference was statistically significant (p ¼ .000). From the analyses conducted with the control group, there was no evidence of improved pragmatic performance over the entire 12 week period. The pre vs. immediate post test findings for the control group showed no overall gains (pre test: M ¼ 15.12; post test: M ¼ 15.33) which contradicts an assumption that the study abroad environment alone contributes to acquisitional development. Considering the first research question posed, the present study indicates that the learners have benefited from the explicit input on request strategies and adds further weight to previous studies investigating the positive effects of explicit instruction. In addition, our investigation suggests that including awareness-raising activities as a means of facilitating pragmatic development in learners can be a successful classroom approach as highlighted in other studies (e.g. Billmyer, 1990; House, 1996). ILP literature indicates that language courses (Cohen, 1997; Kasper and Rose, 2002) and teaching materials (Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Crandall and Basturkmen, 2004; Vellenga, 2004) do not generally provide enough of a focus on pragmatic input and that, arguably, class time is better spent focusing on grammar, vocabulary and writing. It should therefore be encouraging to practitioners that integrating even partial pragmatic instruction into existing programmes can be effective in enhancing learners’ competence and this does not need to be at the expense of more traditional types of input such as grammar and vocabulary. Examples of the learners’ DCT requests and their raw scores are given in Appendix B. The more successful requests in terms of the scores assigned indicate that students attained better marks when they pay attention to pragmatic aspects such as pre-request/supportive moves (e.g. ‘I want to check the dates for my exams on the website’), negative politeness/head act (e.g. ‘Would you mind to be the first one to give the introduction about our presentation?) and attention getters/alerters (e.g. ‘Excuse me’). In some instances, these three features combine, as in the following example which was awarded a mean score of 4.3 from all raters: ‘Excuse me, I’ve some problem with this computer, it can’t access to my university email account. Could you help me please?’ These examples correspond to aspects of typical, routinised formulae found in requests as noted by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984). Research question 2: To what extent are these learners able to retain pragmatic knowledge of requests over time? Our paired t-tests data analyses examining retention of request strategies support earlier research showing that learners are unlikely to sustain the same level of knowledge post instruction (Lyster, 1994; Kubota, 1995). In the present study, six weeks after initial instruction, the learners in the experimental group also failed to perform as well as immediately following instruction. In fact, the results denote a statistically significant decrease (p ¼ .003) in their overall ability to produce appropriate requests in the delayed tests (M ¼ 17.13) in comparison to their immediate post test scores (M ¼ 20.05). The experimental group’s mean scores do indicate that the learners performed marginally better in the long term (M ¼ 17.13) than at the pre test stage (M ¼ 16.08) but, equally, it suggests only minimal knowledge has been retained following instruction. For comparative purposes, the control group’s performance was consistently low in the 18 week period from pre test to delayed post test stages with minimal gains that were not statistically significant (pre test M ¼ 15.13; post test M ¼ 15.33; delayed test M ¼ 15.42). However, it must be acknowledged that fewer students from the control group participated in the delayed test (n ¼ 7). In light of the findings, despite the availability of the L2 environment which presents obvious opportunities for development and/or application of pragmatic knowledge, this appears to have had little bearing on long term performance. The implications are that sustained input is required to maintain competence levels. This directly
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
247
contrasts with Cohen and Shively’s (2007) findings in particular that the L2 environment is influential in pragmatic development. Their study demonstrates that for the L2 to have a positive influence, students need to be directed to actively engage in the target language and reflect on their experiences in order to enhance pragmatic awareness and production. This was achieved by combining instruction with tasks that used the L2 environment as a resource. As Barron (2003) also proposes, this suggests complementing explicit instruction with directed learning activities outside the classroom could be more effective for longer term pragmatic development. Research question 3: Do Chinese EAP learners themselves believe that ‘learning’ pragmatic awareness enhances their productive and receptive skills when making requests in the UK? Whilst we must acknowledge that the two students who took part in the interview cannot be considered fully representative of the sample, we can argue that they give us an indication of how this sample of students view learning about the pragmatics of requests. Overall, the comments in Table 2 strongly indicate that these students felt the pragmatic input on requests was useful and worthwhile. Their comments suggest that the instruction helped them to communicate more effectively in and around the university setting as it focused their attention on the sociopragmatic aspects of requests such as the relationship between the speakers and pragmalinguistic choices of request forms. The comments also show that they felt the input did not help with receptive skills as their focus tended to be on the message itself rather than the way that it is conveyed. Their final remarks indicate that these students would like more opportunities to hear request forms being used in context and more chances to practise them. These suggestions would support the quantitative data above, which indicate that a greater amount of input is needed over time to ensure the pragmatic awareness is retained.
Table 2 Learners’ perceptions on pragmatic instruction. 1. We have recently finished some lessons about requests. Could you explain your general thoughts about this? S1: First time I think very easy because we learnt in senior school, but later we found some words and some skills. I always forget to use all some ways I was wrong so it’s very useful. S2: In my opinion I think this is important. First I don’t mind whether I know these people or I don’t know these people always say ‘Can you.?’ or ‘blah blah blah’. But after learn I know maybe someone like a friend or classmates you can not use so polite.And maybe for the teachers or someone you don’t know you should use the polite way maybe ‘Could you please?’. That will maybe let other people feel good because not very rude I think. 2. Do you think it was useful to focus upon requests? Why is/isn’t it useful? S1: Yes, because the request is every day, every time you must use. S2: Yes..I think if we need someone’s help and we use politely like ‘could you mind? ’or something I think it is better.I think they were happy to help. 3. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you better understand what people say to you at university?(If yes) Can you explain why you think this? (If no) Can you explain why you think this? S1: I don’t think so because when we talk to English people we just check the key words, not listen all the language. S2: Maybe not. I’m not care about the words they use at the beginning of the sentence, just focus on what they said. 4. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you to communicate better at university? Why/why not?(If yes) Can you give an example of how it has helped you to communicate better?(If no) Can you give an example of why this has not helped you? S1: Yes, because it will help me to build a good relationship. Maybe sometimes when I go to the ‘I’ [student information counter] or something I will use ‘Could you please?’ S2: I think just as he said. Maybe some foreigner people will think we are doing our best to communicate with them because we have different cultures. Even our language may be weaker but the polite form will let them know we are very nice. 5. Do you wish to make any final comments about learning requests in this way? S1: I think. more listening and more movie watching will help me to learn. Learning English need some feeling and listen more you can get the feeling. S2: Maybe need more practice. Like at the class, teacher can choose two students. I think important is our own practice. Note: S1 ¼ male student, S2 ¼ female student.
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
248
5. Conclusions The results indicate that explicit instruction did facilitate pragmatic development of requests in our EAP context. They further suggest that for our participants, the L2 context alone did not influence their development in this area. The fact that the impact of instruction was not sustained over time leads us to conclude that regular explicit instruction in areas of pragmatics such as requests could form a part of EAP programmes. The remarks of the students themselves imply that there is value in teaching interpersonal spoken language such as requests within the broad EAP context. Having established that explicit instruction did have an impact, further research is needed into the effect of different methods of explicit instruction in this area, such as task based learning or traditional presentation and practice approaches. There is also a need to investigate what impact intervention in this area has before the study abroad period as it would seem to be useful to begin developing pragmatic awareness before students arrive in the UK, an approach particularly advocated by Barron (2003). Finally, given the positive outcome from the qualitative aspect of this study, it would seem that more extensive focus groups could valuably inform further studies of this kind and ultimately impact upon EAP syllabus design in this area. Acknowledgements This study was funded by an action research project grant from the Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS) within The Higher Education Academy. The LLAS had no involvement beyond approving the grant and requiring the results to be submitted to a peer reviewed journal or as a report. Thanks also go to colleagues involved in rating the DCTs and to Feixia Yu, Director of the UCLan Confucius Institute, for providing advice and translation work.
Appendix A Pre test DCT scenarios 1. At the ‘I’ (Student Information Services) You are having problems with your accommodation. You ask an older and experienced member of staff at the ‘I’ to help you. You want the staff member to help you find a new place to live. What would you ask them? You: 2. In the study centre You are working with your classmates preparing a group presentation. You are deciding who will take responsibility for which part of the presentation. Your friend is very good with computers. You want to ask him to design the powerpoint slides. What would you ask him? You: 3. At the tutor’s office You have just received an essay back and want to discuss it with your tutor. S/he is very busy. You go to your tutor’s office after the class. You want to make an appointment to see her/him as soon as possible. What would you ask? You: 4. At your university accommodation Your new roommate at university, who is three years younger than you and also a university student, keeps playing loud music late at night and you are having trouble sleeping. You want your roommate to play the music more quietly. What would you ask? You: 5. At the International Society You are president of the International Society at the university. You are interviewing other international students to become part of the team which organises social events. You meet the next candidate but then get called away to an urgent appointment. You want to delay the interview for 30 min. What would you ask? You: 6. On campus You have a lecture in Marsh Building but don’t know where the building is. You stop another student (who you don’t know) on campus. You want directions to the building. What would you ask? You:
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
249
Appendix B Experimental group DCT samples. Social distance, Status
DCT A (pre test)
DCT B (post test)
DCT C (delayed post test)
þSD
x
1. At the student information desk (SJ)Excuse me, I want to find a new place to live. The place must be including gas, water, net and electricity. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 1.6)
1. At the university sports centre Excuse me sir, I lost my jacket at the university sport centre. I put it on the table but I can’t find it now. The jacket is black. What should I do? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.7)
þSD
x>y
þSD
x¼y
5. At the international society (SX) Hello, this is X. I’m sorry to tell you that I will have an urgent appointment now. Could I delay the interview for thirty minutes? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.3) 6. On campus (SH) Excuse me; I want to go to the Marsh Building. Do you know where it is? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
1. At the library Excuse me. I’ve some problem with this computer, it can’t access to my university email account. Could you help me please? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 4.7) 5. On campus I’m sorry to tell you but could we change the date we arranged because I’m very busy now. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
SD
x
2. At the tutor’s office (SE) Could I make an appointment to see you? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2 )
SD
x>y
4. At your university accommodation (ST) Excuse me, your loud music has trouble me. Could you play the music more quietly? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
SD
x¼y
2. In the study centre (SY) Can you help me to design the powerpoint? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.7)
6. On campus Hello. I am very sorry about that I can’t show you around the university campus when we are arranged. I am really very busy so could we change another time (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.7) 3. At the tutor’s office Sorry, because I have personal reason I want to ask for extension for my assignment (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.3) 4. At your accommodation I’m sorry to trouble you but could you wash the dirty cups and plate after eating and put them in the right place? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.7) 2. In the classroom Hi, I Know you are good at doing the presentation, would you mind to be the first one to give the introduction about our presentation? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 4)
5. At the study centre Could we change the meeting place? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.3)
6. In the computer room Excuse me, I want to check the dates for my exams on the website. Could you tell me where to look? Thanks so much (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
3. At the tutor’s office Excuse me, you has told us about a useful book for me. Could you borrow me the book? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3) 4. In your university accommodation Hi friend, I know you are new here. I saw you always forget lock the door and close the windows. But that’s really danger for us, please pay attention for that. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2) 2. In the library Hi,now I need to research some information for a group project, as I know you did a very similar project, thus I want you can give some suggestions for me with the research. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.7)
References Alco´n Soler, E., 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33, 417e435. Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49, 677e713. Barron, A., 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Beebe, L.M., Cummings, M.C., 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance. In: Gass, S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 65e86. Billmyer, K., 1990. I really like your lifestyle: ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6, 31e48.
250
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
Billmyer, K., Varghese, M., 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21, 517e552. Blum-Kulka, S., Olshtain, E., 1984. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study speech-act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5, 196e213. Boxer, D., Pickering, L., 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal 49, 44e58. Brown, P., Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cohen, A.D., 1997. Developing pragmatic ability: insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In: Cook, H.M., Hijirida, K., Tahara, M. (Eds.), New Trends and Issues in Teaching Japanese Language and Culture (Technical Report No. 15). University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre, Honolulu, pp. 137e163. Cohen, A.D., 2008. Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: what can we expect from learners? Language Teacher 41, 213e235. Cohen, A.D., Shively, R.L., 2007. Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. Modern Language Journal 91, 189e212. Cornbleet, S., 2000. Illocutionary Force and the EAP context. In: Cutting, J. (Ed.), The Grammar of Spoken English and EAP Teaching. University of Sunderland Press, Sunderland, pp. 21e38. Crandall, E., Basturkmen, H., 2004. Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal 58, 38e49. DeKeyser, R.M., 1995. Learning second language grammar rules: an experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 379e410. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fukuya, Y.J., Clark, M.K., 2001. A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 10. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana. Geluykens, R., 2007. On methodology in cross-cultural pragmatics. In: Kraft, B., Geluykens, R. (Eds.), Cross Cultural Pragmatics and Interlanguage English. Lincom, Mu¨nchen, pp. 21e72. Hartford, B.S., Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In: Bouton, L., Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, pp. 33e52. House, J., 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 225e253. Ishihara, N., Cohen, A., 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Longman, Harlow. Kasper, G., Dahl, M., 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 215e247. Kasper, G., Rose, K., 1999. Pragmatics and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 215e247. Kasper, G., Rose, K., 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford. Kasper, G., Zhang, Y., 1995. ‘It’s good to be a bit Chinese’: foreign students’ experience of Chinese pragmatics. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. Univeristy of Hawai’i Press, Hawai’i, pp. 1e22. Kubota, M., 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin 9, 35e67. Lyster, R., 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15, 263e287. Morrow, C.K., 1996. The Pragmatic Effects of Instruction on ESL Learners’ Production of Complaint and Refusal Speech Acts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. State University of New York, Buffalo. Norris, J., Ortega, L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417e528. Olshtain, E., Blum-Kulka, S., 1985. Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behaviour. In: GassS, C.Madden, C (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, pp. 303e329. Richards, K., 2003. Qualitative Research in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Safont Jorda`, M.P., 2004. An analysis on EAP learners’ pragmatic production: a focus on request forms. Ibe´rica 8, 23e39. Schauer, G.A., Adolphs, S., 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34, 119e134. Schmidt, R., 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 21e42. Takahashi, S., 2005. Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System 33, 437e461. The Common European Framework of References for Languages. 2010 Online. Available from: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/ Framework_EN.pdf. Thomas, J., 1983. Cross cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4, 91e112. Vellenga, H., 2004. Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? TESL-EJ 8, 1e17. Available from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/ wordpress/issues/volume8/ej30/ej30a3/. Zhang, Y., 1995. Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. University of Hawai’i Press, Hawai’i, pp. 69e100.
System 39 (2011) 240e250
www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? Nicola Halenko, Christian Jones* School of Languages and International Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, United Kingdom Received 16 July 2010; revised 24 February 2011; accepted 24 February 2011
Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of explicit interventional treatment on developing pragmatic awareness and production of spoken requests in an EAP context (taken here to mean those studying/using English for academic purposes in the UK) with Chinese learners of English at a British higher education institution. The study employed an experimental design over a 12 week period with 26 students assigned to either an explicitly instructed group or a control group receiving no instruction. Performance was measured based on a pre, immediate and delayed post test structure using Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs). The findings firstly revealed that explicit instruction facilitated development of pragmatically appropriate request language, although this was not noticeably maintained after a six week period. Secondly, despite the potential advantage that the second language environment affords to pragmatic development, this was not necessarily instrumental in enhancing competence. Finally, study abroad (ESL) (taken here to mean those studying English in an English speaking country as opposed to EFL learners studying English in their home country) learners found pragmatic instruction valuable, which suggests practitioners should consider incorporating this at the pre departure stage in order for learners to be more adequately prepared for communicating in similar EAP contexts. Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Keywords: Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP); EAP; Study abroad; Requests; Instructional effects
1. Introduction The motivation behind the present study was that despite students’ long term residency in the UK, the experience of staff at a British higher education institution showed that non-native speaker (NNS) students were often unable to produce pragmatically appropriate language in interactions inside and outside the classroom. Indeed, many staff reported that learners with an adequate level of grammatical and lexical competence to undertake an undergraduate programme struggled with simple speech acts such as requesting information from a tutor. This meant their language could be perceived as rude as they may not adhere to expectations of positive or negative politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987), as appropriate to the context. In addition, their language may lack the expected moves of such speech acts, making them difficult to follow and meaning tutors had to work hard to ‘fill in the gaps’. Staff also * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0) 1772 893150; fax: þ44 (0) 1772 892909. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Halenko), [email protected] (C. Jones). 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
241
reported that this could also frustrate other more competent learners in classes when interacting with such learners in groups. Put simply, learners may get the grammar or words right but the pragmatics wrong and this seems to have a very negative impact on how effective their communication is. This is consistent with literature illustrating that, even with advanced learners of English, imbalances exist between NNS linguistic proficiency and pragmatic competence (Kasper and Rose, 2002). According to Ishihara and Cohen (2010), the origins of learners’ pragmatic divergence include negative L1 transfer, limited L2 grammatical ability, inadequate instructional materials and overgeneralisation of L2 pragmatic norms. Another likely cause is the fact that successful performance is generally dependent on knowledge of L2 social and cultural norms. First, these may differ in the L1 and therefore need to be specifically taught. Second, they are largely undocumented and not easily discernible to L2 learners in interaction. Further to this, studies also suggest that whilst authentic pragmatic input is likely to be more readily available in the study abroad (ESL) context and NNS may be in a more favourable position to develop this knowledge, it can still be a slow process (Cohen, 2008). Estimates have suggested this could take up to 10 years (Olshtain and Blum-Kulka, 1985), and some researchers suggest competency may never be achieved despite permanent residency in the L2 environment (Kasper and Rose, 2002; Cohen, 2008). The question also remains if, and how much, students actually take advantage of the L2 setting and develop pragmatic competence at our institution. In order to enhance our students’ study abroad experience and address the above concerns, this study assesses the impact of explicit interventional treatment on NNS production of requests in an EAP setting. 2. Literature review 2.1. Interventional studies on requests Interventional treatments through classroom instruction have received growing attention in ILP research and most studies demonstrate positive effects on language learners’ pragmatic development regardless of linguistic background. Qualitative studies also suggest that learners themselves favour explicit instruction in pragmatics, particularly when studying in a country where their second language is the mother tongue. Kasper and Zhang (1995), for example, interviewed 21 advanced learners of Chinese who had spent a study period in China and found that the learners believed that sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic instruction prior to their study trip would have been beneficial. Studies set in the foreign language context greatly outnumber those in the study abroad setting. Of more recent interest, Alco´n Soler (2005) examined the efficacy of explicit and implicit instruction on students’ production of request strategies. Three groups of 44 EFL students (explicit, implicit and control) received input via the novel stimulus of a popular American TV series which for the two instructed groups was then complemented with a number of awareness-raising activities. The control group received no instruction. In line with DeKeyser’s (1995) definition of the explicit-implicit paradigm, additional metapragmatic feedback was included for the explicit group in order to differentiate input from the implicit group. Achievement was assessed through written role plays and, similar to the present study, was independently scored. The significant gains made by both experimental groups substantiate conclusions that learners do benefit from instruction but, as highlighted by Norris and Ortega (2000), the results also illustrated that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit input alone. Following instruction, the explicit group were able to more easily identify the influence of social distance and imposition, for instance, to justify their linguistic choices. Similar to the above study, Safont Jorda` (2004) implemented a pre, post test format at four stages to elicit the effect of explicit instruction concerning request formulations on a group of 160 Spanish EAP students (pre instruction, beginning of instruction, end of instruction and post instruction). As with the present study, the students were studying in an EAP context. However in contrast to our investigations, not all of the scenarios in the DCT typified EAP situations. Unlike Alco´n Soler’s investigation, no control group was employed in this study, yet there were clear indications that instruction had a positive effect on the variety of linguistic output, specifically regarding conventionally indirect strategies. The importance of directing learners to ‘notice’ L2 language features as outlined by Schmidt (1993) has become central to the argument that explicitly instructed students tend to fare better when developing their pragmatic knowledge. Takahashi (2005) investigated if and how types of noticing tasks can affect learners’ pragmatic
242
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
performance. 49 Japanese EFL students were tested in two treatment conditions: Form Comparison (NNS’ own request forms directly compared and analysed with NS) and Form Search (General NNS NS comparisons). DCTs and self test reports illustrated that the Form Comparison treatment increased learners’ ability to notice mitigating devices and the strategy sequence for producing requests. It was further highlighted however, that students’ perceived value of learning particular target forms was also influential in determining outcomes and not treatment task alone. This corroborates evidence of the impact of learner effort in improving pragmatic performance (Kasper and Rose, 2002) and highlights that for development to take place, learners need to see a useful application for the input received. Quantifiably fewer studies have located their investigations in the ESL context. Barron’s (2003) seminal work on Irish learners of German is illustrative of the positive effects of studying overseas on learners’ pragmatic development if certain conditions are met. Specifically, learners need to encounter sufficient salient input and be explicitly guided to notice and understand the gaps between their own interlanguage and the L2 output around them for progress to take place. Barron further records that sociopragmatic competence is more difficult to notice than pragmalinguistic competence and, as a result, is often the weaker constituent to develop within learners’ interlanguage. A recent interventional study in the ESL setting focussing on requests mirrors Takahashi’s attempts at assessing types of explicit instruction when teaching pragmatics in the classroom (Fukuya and Clark, 2001). Here, 34 adult ESL students were assigned to three groups; a Focus on Form group was exposed to typographical enhancements of mitigators through audiovisual scenarios whilst another group (Focus on Form) watched a version which also included explicit instruction on mitigators, but offered additional input enhancement. A third group acted as a control. A multiple choice listening comprehension and pragmatic test assessed development within both experimental groups. Findings were inconclusive in terms of whether one of the treatments was more effective than the other for producing six different request formulations (perhaps, possibly, I’d be grateful if, I’d appreciate it if, I was wondering if, I know.but). The authors claim this was largely due to the post test only design, low sample size and brevity of the 48 min treatment period. Although not involving English as the target language, Cohen and Shively’s (2007) methodology and findings have direct links to the present study. They examined the effects of instruction on 67 learners of Spanish and 19 learners of French at the pre departure stage of their semester long sojourn abroad. The participants were assigned to either an experimental group who received a range of instruction or a control group who received no instruction. The former attended a 2 hour pre departure orientation which included an introduction to learning speech acts and information on a self study guide to help raise awareness of requests and apologies. During the residence abroad, the experimental group were required to complete journal entries to record their experiences and systematically work through the self study guide. The data collection instrument employed a written, multiple rejoinder DCT capturing the pre test responses prior to departure and post test towards the end of the semester abroad. Similar to our primary study, these were subsequently rated by French and Spanish native speakers on a 5 point Likert scale according to whether the responses would satisfy a native speaker interlocutor in each situation. The results showed that for both the experimental and control groups, the sojourn abroad yielded significantly better pre post test scores demonstrating the positive impact of the L2 environment. In contrast, although minor gains were evident, the interventional instruction did not appear to contribute to significantly improved performance. As rationalised by the authors, length, intensity, effectiveness and perceived value of the treatment at the pre departure stage may have influenced these results. 2.2. Research gaps In spite of the recorded successes of interventional treatments in teaching speech acts within ILP research, there are a number of operational and methodological issues still to be addressed (Kasper and Rose, 1999, 2002; Rose and Kasper, 2001). Firstly, the paucity of studies in the ESL context is apparent. This is perhaps because of a higher perceived need to provide instruction to foreign language learners as their exposure to authentic pragmatic input is more limited. This presupposes ESL students interact with their environment on a regular basis which in our experience is not always the case. Instead, we have found that many learners tend to interact with other learners sharing their L1 both inside and outside of class and thus do not always benefit from the pragmatic input available to them in the ESL setting. We therefore suggest that instruction is of equal, if not more, salient value in the EAP
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
243
context given that students must at least interact in an appropriate manner with their peers and members of staff in any academic setting. Secondly, the few studies in this area which specifically address the EAP context demonstrate the need for further research. Cornbleet (2000), for instance, found that international EAP students in the UK struggled to understand and produce indirect speech acts including requesting and instructing when compared to native speaker students. Her research suggests that explicit instruction in this area is necessary because appropriate use of indirect language plays a vital part in interpersonal communication in the UK and ‘this area is no less important for university life than formal academic work’ (Cornbleet, 2000:32). Thirdly, whilst implementing a control group can help determine if instruction can genuinely be attributed to intervention alone, logistics often restrict employing this placebo condition as is evident in many ILP studies (Rose and Kasper, 2001). Similarly, incorporating a delayed post test also addresses the question of longer term retention and is a useful measure to support the benefits of instruction. This, too, is uncommon in investigations primarily because of access to the original groups following completion of the main study. Studies which have successfully administered a delayed post test reveal mixed results. Morrow (1996), for instance, reported sustained improvement amongst ESL learners 6 months following instructional treatment of complaints and refusals. Such gains could not be clearly maintained across all taught pragmatic aspects in the EFL setting, however, as is evident with Lyster’s (1994) investigations of sociolinguistic competence with French immersion students. Similarly, Kubota’s (1995) study with Japanese learners of English revealed only short term gains in some areas of conversational implicature which were not evident one month later. Our investigations have specifically addressed the issues above and incorporated both a control group and delayed post test. Finally, it is suggested that ILP studies are often compromised by over reliance on quantitative data alone (Kasper and Rose, 1999). Schauer and Adolphs (2006) and Geluykens (2007) are among researchers calling for supplementing DCT analyses with qualitative methods to improve data reliability. In light of this, the captured DCT data in the present study is supported with a semi-structured oral interview. This not only provides a clearer insight into students’ perceptions of the benefits of the instruction, but guides practitioners as to the value of incorporating this into the learning agenda. 2.3. Background to the study The current study seeks to focus specifically on requests produced by Chinese learners of EAP within a UK higher education context. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it is, as previously discussed, somewhat underresearched. As the largest nationality of international students in the UK as a whole and in our institution, Chinese students now play a significant part in the international student cohort and it is therefore worth investigating ways in which we can teach pragmatic routines such as requests. Secondly, there is evidence that indirectness exists in Chinese language requests but that this may be shown in the way information around requests is organised and not in grammatical features of requests themselves (Zhang, 1995:9). This may explain why, in our experience, Chinese learners in EAP contexts often struggle to make requests which are pragmatically effective, particularly because the language used often does not pay enough attention to negative or positive politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and can seem too abrupt or direct. A simple translation illustrates this point. Let us imagine a typical EAP request scenario : a student knocks on her tutor’s office door but a colleague who the student has not met before answers. We might imagine that such a request for a tutor (named Andrea in this case) may be realised with a request formula such as ‘Sorry to bother you, could I speak to Andrea please?’ something which displays the kind of negative politeness Brown and Levinson (1987) describe. Here we have a phrase which seeks to acknowledge and minimise the imposition on the listener (‘Sorry to bother you’), followed by a polite form (‘could.please?’). If we translate this into Chinese we can see that the request is likely to be phrased in a way which would sound far more direct if said in English.
Thirdly, we would agree with Cornbleet’s (2000) suggestion that EAP teaching should pay attention to interpersonal aspects of spoken language, as these are often just as important as standard features of EAP courses such as essay writing. Lastly, if our assumption is correct that explicit instruction in this area is needed, there are implications for EAP syllabus design in our institution and others in the UK at least.
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
244
The present study set outs to contribute to existing ILP studies by addressing the following research questions: 1. To what extent does explicit instruction of requests enhance pragmatic competence in Chinese EAP learners in the UK? 2. To what extent are these learners able to retain pragmatic knowledge of requests over time? 3. Do Chinese EAP learners themselves believe that ‘learning’ pragmatic awareness enhances their productive and receptive skills when making requests in the UK? 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants The participants consisted of two intact classes of thirteen Chinese learners, assigned to one experimental group and one control group. The research was conducted during in sessional EAP classes over the duration of 12 weeks with final year undergraduate Business Communication students. In total there were 12 male and 14 female students, all within the age ranges of 21e24, with no previous study abroad experience. Each had studied English for approximately 10 years prior to coming to the UK, although this was their first year studying at our institution, having completed their first two years of their degree in China. All students received a standardised placement test on arrival at the university and had been placed at B2 level on the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) global scales. Although the CEFR does not detail specific pragmatic competencies at each sub level, the global descriptor suggests that at this level a learner can “interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party’’ (CEFR, 2010: 24). Our reading of this, particularly the description of ‘without strain’ suggests that a fair degree of pragmatic competence is expected at this level. 3.2. Instrument The study followed an experimental classroom research design, as outlined by Do¨rnyei (2007: 119) and exploited the commonly used pre post delayed test structure. The experimental group received 6 hours of explicit instruction on requests whilst the control group received no instruction. Instruction focussed on the use of requests strategies in EAP contexts which students were likely to encounter in and around the UK university setting. Each phase was structured to focus on Thomas’ (1983) sociopragmatic or pragmalinguistic aspects of spoken requests. In each input session of 2 hours, students were taught in three phases: Phase 1 (sociopragmatic) Aim: Introduction of topic/awareness-raising Example activity: Students discuss potential situations where they need to make requests in and around the university and are given a list of sample requests in this EAP setting and asked to discuss which may be inappropriate and why, including a discussion of cultural differences. Phase 2 (pragmalinguistic) Aim: Explicit instruction Example activity: Students analyse the typical moves in an EAP request scenario and the pre request and request phrases used, students are given controlled practice of these phrases focussing on stress and intonation. Phase 3 (sociopragmatic) Aim: Production practice and discussion Example activity: Students practise making requests in given EAP scenarios in pairs and in front of the class, students discuss as a group the appropriacy of the pre requests and requests used.
Prior to instruction, both groups were given a DCT as a pre test. Despite criticisms that DCTs elicit fewer semantic formulae (Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig, 1992) and shorter responses (Beebe and Cummings, 1996) in comparison to naturally occurring data,Billmyer and Varghese (2000: 517) highlight that ‘there are to date no other sociolinguistic data collection instruments that have as many administrative advantages as the DCT’. In our case, a DCT was
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
245
primarily chosen for its ability to capture a large data set in a controlled environment (Kasper and Dahl, 1991). The six request scenarios were designed to focus on EAP situations in and around the university (see Appendix A for one sample DCT used) and reflected a variety of social distance and status. An equivalent DCT was administered to each group immediately following the 6 hours of instruction (post test) and then after a delay of six weeks (delayed post test). In order to avoid learners memorising test responses, the request strategies required that some interlocutor roles and situations differed across each of the three DCTs but the patterns of social distance and status remained constant (see Table 1 below). Although generally uncommon in DCT design, careful consideration was given to the construction of the scenarios and characters in the DCTs to maximise relevance to the learners, as suggested by Bardovi-Harlig (1999). It was further hoped this would maximise learner effort at the same time. Three experienced EAP teachers not involved in the study were then asked to rate each response on the DCTs using a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (inappropriate response which would lead the interlocutor to react negatively) to 5 (wholly appropriate response which would satisfy the interlocutor). An instruction sheet and introduction to the study were provided to each of the raters for standardisation purposes. These scores were subsequently compared using a series of independent and paired t-test analyses in SPSS. Overall, the raters’ independent mean score show little variance on the pre, post and delayed tests. This illustrates general consistency in their reactions to the responses provided on the DCTs. On average, the range of marks given for each of the DCTs was þ/ 2 points. Table 1 DCT scenarios (pre test, post test, delayed post test). Social distance
Status
þSD þSD þSD -SD -SD -SD
x x x x x x
< > ¼ < > ¼
y y y y y y
DCT A (pre test)
DCT B (post test)
DCT C (delayed post test)
1. 5. 6. 3. 4. 2.
1. At the library 5. On campus 6. On campus 3.At the tutor’s office 4. At your accommodation 2.In the classroom
1. At the university sports centre 5. At the study centre 6.In the computer room 3. At the tutor’s office 4.In your university accommodation 2. In the library
At the student information desk At the international society On campus At the tutor’s office At your university accommodation In the study centre
Note: x ¼ NNS student role, y ¼ interlocutor.
Following completion of the instruction period and DCTs, a semi-structured interview was conducted with two students from the experimental group, as timetable restrictions did not allow for the use of a larger focus group. The interview was conducted using the following five broad prompts: 1. We have recently finished some lessons about requests. Could you explain your general thoughts about this? 2. Do you think it was useful to focus upon requests? Why is/isn’t it useful? 3. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you better understand what people say to you at university? (If yes) Can you explain why you think this? (If no) Can you explain why you think this? 4. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you to communicate better at university? Why/why not? (If yes) Can you give an example of how it has helped you to communicate better?(If no) Can you give an example of why this has not helped you? 5. Do you wish to make any final comments about learning requests in this way? These prompts were formulated using suggestions from Richards (2003) on conducting semi-structured interviews. Broad opening and closing questions were used alongside a closed question/open question pattern in an attempt to encourage students to give honest feedback about the process without trying to influence their responses. 4. Results and discussion Research question 1: To what extent does explicit instruction of requests enhance pragmatic competence in Chinese EAP learners in the UK? Both groups were relatively homogeneous in terms of age, background and linguistic proficiency. To determine if variability existed between the two groups at the pre test stage, our first statistical analysis was a comparison of the pre
246
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
test scores. The alpha level chosen is p 0.05. An independent samples t-test analysis confirmed there was no significant difference between either group prior to the instructional period regarding their current pragmatic knowledge of request strategies. The experimental group scored 16.07 points and the control group 14.87, but this difference was not statistically significant, (p ¼ .135). We subsequently applied a similar analysis to ascertain overall improvement from the experimental and control groups following the treatment period. A further independent t-test analysed pre and post test gain scores and revealed positive effects of instruction for the experimental group (M ¼ 3.98) but not for the control group (M ¼ 0.05) with the difference between the two groups being statistically significant (p ¼ .001). The comparison of the pre vs. immediate post test results for the experimental group revealed an improved performance in the post test (pre test: M ¼ 16.077; post test: M ¼ 20.05). This difference was statistically significant (p ¼ .000). From the analyses conducted with the control group, there was no evidence of improved pragmatic performance over the entire 12 week period. The pre vs. immediate post test findings for the control group showed no overall gains (pre test: M ¼ 15.12; post test: M ¼ 15.33) which contradicts an assumption that the study abroad environment alone contributes to acquisitional development. Considering the first research question posed, the present study indicates that the learners have benefited from the explicit input on request strategies and adds further weight to previous studies investigating the positive effects of explicit instruction. In addition, our investigation suggests that including awareness-raising activities as a means of facilitating pragmatic development in learners can be a successful classroom approach as highlighted in other studies (e.g. Billmyer, 1990; House, 1996). ILP literature indicates that language courses (Cohen, 1997; Kasper and Rose, 2002) and teaching materials (Boxer and Pickering, 1995; Crandall and Basturkmen, 2004; Vellenga, 2004) do not generally provide enough of a focus on pragmatic input and that, arguably, class time is better spent focusing on grammar, vocabulary and writing. It should therefore be encouraging to practitioners that integrating even partial pragmatic instruction into existing programmes can be effective in enhancing learners’ competence and this does not need to be at the expense of more traditional types of input such as grammar and vocabulary. Examples of the learners’ DCT requests and their raw scores are given in Appendix B. The more successful requests in terms of the scores assigned indicate that students attained better marks when they pay attention to pragmatic aspects such as pre-request/supportive moves (e.g. ‘I want to check the dates for my exams on the website’), negative politeness/head act (e.g. ‘Would you mind to be the first one to give the introduction about our presentation?) and attention getters/alerters (e.g. ‘Excuse me’). In some instances, these three features combine, as in the following example which was awarded a mean score of 4.3 from all raters: ‘Excuse me, I’ve some problem with this computer, it can’t access to my university email account. Could you help me please?’ These examples correspond to aspects of typical, routinised formulae found in requests as noted by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984). Research question 2: To what extent are these learners able to retain pragmatic knowledge of requests over time? Our paired t-tests data analyses examining retention of request strategies support earlier research showing that learners are unlikely to sustain the same level of knowledge post instruction (Lyster, 1994; Kubota, 1995). In the present study, six weeks after initial instruction, the learners in the experimental group also failed to perform as well as immediately following instruction. In fact, the results denote a statistically significant decrease (p ¼ .003) in their overall ability to produce appropriate requests in the delayed tests (M ¼ 17.13) in comparison to their immediate post test scores (M ¼ 20.05). The experimental group’s mean scores do indicate that the learners performed marginally better in the long term (M ¼ 17.13) than at the pre test stage (M ¼ 16.08) but, equally, it suggests only minimal knowledge has been retained following instruction. For comparative purposes, the control group’s performance was consistently low in the 18 week period from pre test to delayed post test stages with minimal gains that were not statistically significant (pre test M ¼ 15.13; post test M ¼ 15.33; delayed test M ¼ 15.42). However, it must be acknowledged that fewer students from the control group participated in the delayed test (n ¼ 7). In light of the findings, despite the availability of the L2 environment which presents obvious opportunities for development and/or application of pragmatic knowledge, this appears to have had little bearing on long term performance. The implications are that sustained input is required to maintain competence levels. This directly
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
247
contrasts with Cohen and Shively’s (2007) findings in particular that the L2 environment is influential in pragmatic development. Their study demonstrates that for the L2 to have a positive influence, students need to be directed to actively engage in the target language and reflect on their experiences in order to enhance pragmatic awareness and production. This was achieved by combining instruction with tasks that used the L2 environment as a resource. As Barron (2003) also proposes, this suggests complementing explicit instruction with directed learning activities outside the classroom could be more effective for longer term pragmatic development. Research question 3: Do Chinese EAP learners themselves believe that ‘learning’ pragmatic awareness enhances their productive and receptive skills when making requests in the UK? Whilst we must acknowledge that the two students who took part in the interview cannot be considered fully representative of the sample, we can argue that they give us an indication of how this sample of students view learning about the pragmatics of requests. Overall, the comments in Table 2 strongly indicate that these students felt the pragmatic input on requests was useful and worthwhile. Their comments suggest that the instruction helped them to communicate more effectively in and around the university setting as it focused their attention on the sociopragmatic aspects of requests such as the relationship between the speakers and pragmalinguistic choices of request forms. The comments also show that they felt the input did not help with receptive skills as their focus tended to be on the message itself rather than the way that it is conveyed. Their final remarks indicate that these students would like more opportunities to hear request forms being used in context and more chances to practise them. These suggestions would support the quantitative data above, which indicate that a greater amount of input is needed over time to ensure the pragmatic awareness is retained.
Table 2 Learners’ perceptions on pragmatic instruction. 1. We have recently finished some lessons about requests. Could you explain your general thoughts about this? S1: First time I think very easy because we learnt in senior school, but later we found some words and some skills. I always forget to use all some ways I was wrong so it’s very useful. S2: In my opinion I think this is important. First I don’t mind whether I know these people or I don’t know these people always say ‘Can you.?’ or ‘blah blah blah’. But after learn I know maybe someone like a friend or classmates you can not use so polite.And maybe for the teachers or someone you don’t know you should use the polite way maybe ‘Could you please?’. That will maybe let other people feel good because not very rude I think. 2. Do you think it was useful to focus upon requests? Why is/isn’t it useful? S1: Yes, because the request is every day, every time you must use. S2: Yes..I think if we need someone’s help and we use politely like ‘could you mind? ’or something I think it is better.I think they were happy to help. 3. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you better understand what people say to you at university?(If yes) Can you explain why you think this? (If no) Can you explain why you think this? S1: I don’t think so because when we talk to English people we just check the key words, not listen all the language. S2: Maybe not. I’m not care about the words they use at the beginning of the sentence, just focus on what they said. 4. Do you think that learning about requests has helped you to communicate better at university? Why/why not?(If yes) Can you give an example of how it has helped you to communicate better?(If no) Can you give an example of why this has not helped you? S1: Yes, because it will help me to build a good relationship. Maybe sometimes when I go to the ‘I’ [student information counter] or something I will use ‘Could you please?’ S2: I think just as he said. Maybe some foreigner people will think we are doing our best to communicate with them because we have different cultures. Even our language may be weaker but the polite form will let them know we are very nice. 5. Do you wish to make any final comments about learning requests in this way? S1: I think. more listening and more movie watching will help me to learn. Learning English need some feeling and listen more you can get the feeling. S2: Maybe need more practice. Like at the class, teacher can choose two students. I think important is our own practice. Note: S1 ¼ male student, S2 ¼ female student.
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
248
5. Conclusions The results indicate that explicit instruction did facilitate pragmatic development of requests in our EAP context. They further suggest that for our participants, the L2 context alone did not influence their development in this area. The fact that the impact of instruction was not sustained over time leads us to conclude that regular explicit instruction in areas of pragmatics such as requests could form a part of EAP programmes. The remarks of the students themselves imply that there is value in teaching interpersonal spoken language such as requests within the broad EAP context. Having established that explicit instruction did have an impact, further research is needed into the effect of different methods of explicit instruction in this area, such as task based learning or traditional presentation and practice approaches. There is also a need to investigate what impact intervention in this area has before the study abroad period as it would seem to be useful to begin developing pragmatic awareness before students arrive in the UK, an approach particularly advocated by Barron (2003). Finally, given the positive outcome from the qualitative aspect of this study, it would seem that more extensive focus groups could valuably inform further studies of this kind and ultimately impact upon EAP syllabus design in this area. Acknowledgements This study was funded by an action research project grant from the Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS) within The Higher Education Academy. The LLAS had no involvement beyond approving the grant and requiring the results to be submitted to a peer reviewed journal or as a report. Thanks also go to colleagues involved in rating the DCTs and to Feixia Yu, Director of the UCLan Confucius Institute, for providing advice and translation work.
Appendix A Pre test DCT scenarios 1. At the ‘I’ (Student Information Services) You are having problems with your accommodation. You ask an older and experienced member of staff at the ‘I’ to help you. You want the staff member to help you find a new place to live. What would you ask them? You: 2. In the study centre You are working with your classmates preparing a group presentation. You are deciding who will take responsibility for which part of the presentation. Your friend is very good with computers. You want to ask him to design the powerpoint slides. What would you ask him? You: 3. At the tutor’s office You have just received an essay back and want to discuss it with your tutor. S/he is very busy. You go to your tutor’s office after the class. You want to make an appointment to see her/him as soon as possible. What would you ask? You: 4. At your university accommodation Your new roommate at university, who is three years younger than you and also a university student, keeps playing loud music late at night and you are having trouble sleeping. You want your roommate to play the music more quietly. What would you ask? You: 5. At the International Society You are president of the International Society at the university. You are interviewing other international students to become part of the team which organises social events. You meet the next candidate but then get called away to an urgent appointment. You want to delay the interview for 30 min. What would you ask? You: 6. On campus You have a lecture in Marsh Building but don’t know where the building is. You stop another student (who you don’t know) on campus. You want directions to the building. What would you ask? You:
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
249
Appendix B Experimental group DCT samples. Social distance, Status
DCT A (pre test)
DCT B (post test)
DCT C (delayed post test)
þSD
x
1. At the student information desk (SJ)Excuse me, I want to find a new place to live. The place must be including gas, water, net and electricity. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 1.6)
1. At the university sports centre Excuse me sir, I lost my jacket at the university sport centre. I put it on the table but I can’t find it now. The jacket is black. What should I do? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.7)
þSD
x>y
þSD
x¼y
5. At the international society (SX) Hello, this is X. I’m sorry to tell you that I will have an urgent appointment now. Could I delay the interview for thirty minutes? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.3) 6. On campus (SH) Excuse me; I want to go to the Marsh Building. Do you know where it is? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
1. At the library Excuse me. I’ve some problem with this computer, it can’t access to my university email account. Could you help me please? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 4.7) 5. On campus I’m sorry to tell you but could we change the date we arranged because I’m very busy now. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
SD
x
2. At the tutor’s office (SE) Could I make an appointment to see you? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2 )
SD
x>y
4. At your university accommodation (ST) Excuse me, your loud music has trouble me. Could you play the music more quietly? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
SD
x¼y
2. In the study centre (SY) Can you help me to design the powerpoint? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.7)
6. On campus Hello. I am very sorry about that I can’t show you around the university campus when we are arranged. I am really very busy so could we change another time (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.7) 3. At the tutor’s office Sorry, because I have personal reason I want to ask for extension for my assignment (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.3) 4. At your accommodation I’m sorry to trouble you but could you wash the dirty cups and plate after eating and put them in the right place? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3.7) 2. In the classroom Hi, I Know you are good at doing the presentation, would you mind to be the first one to give the introduction about our presentation? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 4)
5. At the study centre Could we change the meeting place? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.3)
6. In the computer room Excuse me, I want to check the dates for my exams on the website. Could you tell me where to look? Thanks so much (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3)
3. At the tutor’s office Excuse me, you has told us about a useful book for me. Could you borrow me the book? (Raters’ mean score ¼ 3) 4. In your university accommodation Hi friend, I know you are new here. I saw you always forget lock the door and close the windows. But that’s really danger for us, please pay attention for that. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2) 2. In the library Hi,now I need to research some information for a group project, as I know you did a very similar project, thus I want you can give some suggestions for me with the research. (Raters’ mean score ¼ 2.7)
References Alco´n Soler, E., 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33, 417e435. Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: a research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49, 677e713. Barron, A., 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Beebe, L.M., Cummings, M.C., 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance. In: Gass, S.M., Neu, J. (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 65e86. Billmyer, K., 1990. I really like your lifestyle: ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6, 31e48.
250
N. Halenko, C. Jones / System 39 (2011) 240e250
Billmyer, K., Varghese, M., 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21, 517e552. Blum-Kulka, S., Olshtain, E., 1984. Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study speech-act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5, 196e213. Boxer, D., Pickering, L., 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaints. ELT Journal 49, 44e58. Brown, P., Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cohen, A.D., 1997. Developing pragmatic ability: insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In: Cook, H.M., Hijirida, K., Tahara, M. (Eds.), New Trends and Issues in Teaching Japanese Language and Culture (Technical Report No. 15). University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre, Honolulu, pp. 137e163. Cohen, A.D., 2008. Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: what can we expect from learners? Language Teacher 41, 213e235. Cohen, A.D., Shively, R.L., 2007. Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. Modern Language Journal 91, 189e212. Cornbleet, S., 2000. Illocutionary Force and the EAP context. In: Cutting, J. (Ed.), The Grammar of Spoken English and EAP Teaching. University of Sunderland Press, Sunderland, pp. 21e38. Crandall, E., Basturkmen, H., 2004. Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal 58, 38e49. DeKeyser, R.M., 1995. Learning second language grammar rules: an experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 379e410. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fukuya, Y.J., Clark, M.K., 2001. A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In: Bouton, L. (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 10. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana. Geluykens, R., 2007. On methodology in cross-cultural pragmatics. In: Kraft, B., Geluykens, R. (Eds.), Cross Cultural Pragmatics and Interlanguage English. Lincom, Mu¨nchen, pp. 21e72. Hartford, B.S., Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In: Bouton, L., Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, vol. 3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, pp. 33e52. House, J., 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 225e253. Ishihara, N., Cohen, A., 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Longman, Harlow. Kasper, G., Dahl, M., 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 215e247. Kasper, G., Rose, K., 1999. Pragmatics and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 215e247. Kasper, G., Rose, K., 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford. Kasper, G., Zhang, Y., 1995. ‘It’s good to be a bit Chinese’: foreign students’ experience of Chinese pragmatics. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. Univeristy of Hawai’i Press, Hawai’i, pp. 1e22. Kubota, M., 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. The Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin 9, 35e67. Lyster, R., 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15, 263e287. Morrow, C.K., 1996. The Pragmatic Effects of Instruction on ESL Learners’ Production of Complaint and Refusal Speech Acts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. State University of New York, Buffalo. Norris, J., Ortega, L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417e528. Olshtain, E., Blum-Kulka, S., 1985. Degree of approximation: nonnative reactions to native speech act behaviour. In: GassS, C.Madden, C (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, pp. 303e329. Richards, K., 2003. Qualitative Research in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Safont Jorda`, M.P., 2004. An analysis on EAP learners’ pragmatic production: a focus on request forms. Ibe´rica 8, 23e39. Schauer, G.A., Adolphs, S., 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34, 119e134. Schmidt, R., 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 21e42. Takahashi, S., 2005. Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System 33, 437e461. The Common European Framework of References for Languages. 2010 Online. Available from: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/ Framework_EN.pdf. Thomas, J., 1983. Cross cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4, 91e112. Vellenga, H., 2004. Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? TESL-EJ 8, 1e17. Available from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/ wordpress/issues/volume8/ej30/ej30a3/. Zhang, Y., 1995. Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In: Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language. University of Hawai’i Press, Hawai’i, pp. 69e100.