Overall, the results form the data analysis supported the claim that explicit metapragmatic instruction facilitates interlanguage pragmatic development. Although this study did not deal with the ‘sequence’ of acquiring speech act patterns and strategies, it showed that explicit metapragmatic instruction in these patterns and strategies makes significant contributions to the learners’ speech act comprehension processes. The results revealed that pragmatic competence does not seem resistant to explicit metapragmatic instruction.
The results of this study support the claim that L2 learners may not detect relevant input features in purely meaning-based L2 use (c.f., Schmidt, 1983; Schmidt & Frota, 1986). It is claimed that in order for noticing to happen, input might have to be made salient through input enhancement, which will raise the learners’ consciousness about the target features.
The findings of this study shed light on the rather controversial issue of what effects–if any–explicit instruction has on interlanguage development in an EFL setting. As indicated, result of the data analysis of this study showed that explicit metapragmatic instruction by providing input enhancement in the L2 classroom, raising L2 learners’ awareness about the input features, and engaging students in productive class activities and language use precipitated and facilitated IL pragmatic development to a considerable degree. The study shows the pivotal role that explicit instruction can play in EFL settings. [-7-]
The study contributes to the theory of interlanguage pragmatic development. As noted earlier, pragmatic ability in another language is an important component of an ELL’s communicative competence and must be incorporated in a model of communicative ability. Although Schmidt (1993, p. 21) points out that ‘there has been little discussion of how pragmatic abilities are acquired in a second language’, much has been contributed to interlanguage pragmatics since then. Studies have flourished within the field with the eventual aim of providing finding answers to such issues as teachability of pragmatic competence, the need for teaching L2 pragmatics and, the best instructional measures to develop pragmatic competence. These issues, as indicated, have received far too little attention in FLT contexts. This study, as a result, can have very valuable theoretical and pedagogical implications and applications for this under-visited area.
The results of the pretest showed that even advanced learners of English did not have pragmatic awareness of speech acts in the absence of any pertinent instruction. This implies that some form of metapragmatic instruction—deductive, inductive, implicit, or explicit—is necessary. According to Kasper (1999), L2 classrooms afford L2 learners the opportunity to reflect on their communicative encounters and to experiment with different pragmatic options. For EFL learners, however, the classroom may be the only available setting where they can try out what using the foreign language feels like, and how much more or less comfortable they are with various aspects of L2 pragmatics.
In addition, a prerequisite for pragmatic instruction is the availability of especially prepared and appropriately tuned materials, like books, speech act scenario-based films with on-screen captions, cassettes, etc. Unfortunately, there is the scarcity of materials suited for pragmatic development of students. Therefore, material developers can, following Bardovi-Harlig (1996), adopt a “speech acts framework” in planning, developing, or writing instructional materials. Many of the recent language textbooks have attempted to incorporate sociocultural information as an integral part of language functions. However, they often fail to base their selections on theoretical descriptions and research evidence on language functions. There is a vast amount of literature on most speech acts, documenting and revealing how they are performed by NSs of English with various features in different social contexts. Based on the available literature, materials could be developed in order to teach students the patterns, rules, strategies, and linguistic forms by means of which the important speech acts are interpreted and realized in different contexts. It is necessary, therefore, for textbooks and teaching syllabuses to reflect the constantly widening scope of sociocultural research related to speech acts.
Teaching Implications
Pedagogical decisions concerning what and how to teach speech act behavior are based on the student population and their goals. It seems to us that the first step toward acquisition of pragmatic rules of speech act realization patterns is a program aimed at sensitizing learners to cultural differences in speech act behavior across languages. Making the learner aware of major patterns of behavior in the target language and of available choices for speech act realization may well help learners become better users of pragmatic input in L2 and help them make informed choices in the speech act production as they become more proficient. [-8-]
There is a vast amount of literature describing what major semantic formulas make up the English speech acts of requesting, apologizing, and complimenting. . For the purpose of syllabus design, we would assume that the learner needs to know how to interpret and produce these speech acts in a variety of interactive discourse situations in the target language. However, in what contexts, and which of these speech acts learners are most likely to come across must be considered by teachers and syllabus designers in each case.
Once we have developed a list of most likely encountered situations for each of the speech acts relevant for a particular group of learners, we need to decide which of the realization patters are suitable for the early part of the course and which should be left for a later stage. Such sequencing decisions would depend mostly on the immediate needs of the learners and linguistic complexity of the specific speech act realization patterns.
The next step in the syllabus design process would be to decide which and how many semantic formulas should be introduced at each point in the syllabus or in each class session based on the selected situations.
In order to empower learners to make their own choices, we need to expose them to patterns used most commonly by native speakers of the L2. Speech act research is abundant and can be used by teachers to expose students to the most prevalent patters of language use for different speech functions. Manes and Wolfson (1981) and Wolfson (1989) emphasize the regular structure, highly formulaic, and the astonishing repetitiveness of English compliments, for example. Studies on apologies further illustrate the little variation in apology speech act formulas in English (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981). Furthermore, literature on requestive speech acts have shown the relative regularity of realization patters for requesting in English (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989)
It seems appropriate then to incorporate the most common linguistic forms native speakers use to realize a speech act at the beginning, while the various subformulas and supportive moves that either mitigate or intensify the force of the speech act can be introduced gradually as learners become more proficient.
A critical issue in relation to conforming to target language community norms is the willingness or necessity for ELLs to perform according to the target community pragmatic norms. Most ELLs in this study are going to be future teachers of English and we have assumed that they are desirous of improving L2 pragmatics, especially pragmatic awareness. We have provided input to learners that goes beyond teacher-fronted, status unequal input and assisted learners with their pragmatic comprehension. As Bardovi-Harlig (2001, p. 30) mention promoting pragmatic comprehension and providing authentic input to learners provides them with a ‘fighting chance’ and empowers them to make informed decisions in their pragmatic choices. Learners need to recognize the social function of different speech acts and the significance of different degrees of indirectness. Making contextualized, pragmatically appropriate language input available to learners in an EFL context in which they don’t have the chance to encounter this input outside the classroom is pedagogically necessary and politically right. Helping students to understand the way pragmatic principles operate in other cultures, encouraging them to look for the different pragmatic or discoursal norms which may underlie national and ethnic stereotyping, is pedagogically necessary. Such techniques, I would suggest, are desirable both pedagogically and politically. To give the learner the knowledge and tools to make an informed choice and allowing her/him the freedom to flout pragmatic conventions, is to acknowledge her/his individuality and freedom of choice and to respect her/his system of values and beliefs (Thomas, 1983). The adoption of sociocultural rules as one’s own in L2 pragmatic production is an individual decision. However it is our responsibility to equip the learners with enough knowledge to make an informed choice and to not inadvertently convey messages they did not intend.