Rose 2005 Pragmatics Synthesis.pdf - Oncourse

386 K.R. Rose / System 33 (2005) 385–399
Keywords: Pragmatics; Politeness; Communicative language teaching; English as a second language instruction
1. Introduction
This paper examines what research on pedagogical intervention has to say about
the effects of different instructional strategies for second language pragmatic learning.
The rationale for examining the effects of instruction in pragmatics is underscored
by SchmidtÕs (1993) contention that simple exposure to the target language
is insufficient – pragmatic functions and relevant contextual factors are often not
salient to learners and so not likely to be noticed even after prolonged exposure. Furthermore,
Bardovi-Harlig (2001) makes a strong case for the necessity of instruction,
documenting that second language learners who do not receive instruction in pragmatics
differ significantly from native speakers in their pragmatic production and
perception in the target language. I will first discuss the learning targets, learner characteristics,
and learning contexts represented in the small, but growing body of research
on the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. Following this,
I turn to three central questions relating to the effect of instruction on pragmatics:
whether pragmatics is teachable, whether instruction in pragmatics produces results
that outpace exposure alone, and whether different instructional approaches yield
different outcomes.
2. Learning targets
A wide range of discoursal, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic targets of instruction
have been the object of research on the effectiveness of instruction in pragmatics.
These include discourse markers and strategies, pragmatic routines, speech acts,
overall discourse characteristics, and pragmatic comprehension.
Among the studies that have examined the effects of instruction on discourse
markers and strategies are Wildner-BassettÕs (1984, 1986) work on gambits in English
and YoshimiÕs (2001) study of Japanese interactional discourse markers. Wildner-Bassett
selected as the object of instruction formulas and conversational
routines for speech acts such as expressions of (dis)agreement and requests. Yoshimi
(2001) focused on the Japanese discourse markers n desu, n desu ne, and n desu kedo,
all of which ‘‘play important roles in organizing the presentation of an extended telling,
and in expressing the speakerÕs interpersonal orientation in such a telling’’
(p. 224). The various functions of these three interactional markers represent a range
of important, and often subtle, aspects of the pragmatics of Japanese oral narratives.
Pragmatic routines represented in the literature include the various functions of Japanese
sumimasen in Tateyama et al. (1997) and Tateyama (2001), as well as hedging
in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse in Wishnoff (2000). In the