Rose 2005 Pragmatics Synthesis.pdf - Oncourse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

390 K.R. Rose / System 33 (2005) 385–399 4. Research issues and findings Studies on the effect of instruction in pragmatics seek to answer three basic questions: first, is the targeted pragmatic feature teachable at all Second, is instruction in the targeted feature more effective than no instruction And third, are different teaching approaches differentially effective The first question, whether pragmatics are amenable to instruction at all, is the most basic of the three questions, representing at best a starting point analogous to LongÕs (1983) early survey of instructed second language acquisition research which attempted to answer the question Does second language instruction make a difference Question two – the comparison of the relative merits of instruction versus simple exposure – echoes Norris and OrtegaÕs (2000) first research question, reflecting the fact that this is the point where things begin to get more interesting. Knowing whether a given feature is teachable is one thing, but knowing whether instruction is more effective than exposure is another. The third question further specifies the issue by addressing the differential effects of more than one type of instructional intervention. Studies which fall into the third category are likely to yield information that is most relevant for pedagogical purposes. 4.1. Teachability The most basic question that studies on the effect of instruction in pragmatics may consider is whether a particular area of pragmatics is at all teachable. Such studies typically adopt a one-group pretest–posttest design. Olshtain and Cohen (1990) chose as their learning target the more subtle aspects of apologizing, such as the differences between excuse me and IÕm sorry, and the effects of context on the choice of intensifiers. LoCastroÕs (1997) pedagogical intervention dealt with politeness strategies in group discussion, such as requesting answers, directing the talk, and seeking (dis)agreement, whereas Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) set out to teach appropriately elaborated responses to the French question TÕas passé un bon week-end (Did you have a good weekend). Two studies done with university students learning English in Spain by Safont (2003) and Salazar (2003) both dealt with the effects of instruction on requests, with the former focusing on the use of internal and external modification. In these studies, treatment lengths varied from a minimum of two (Salazar, 2003) or three (Olshtain and Cohen, 1990) 20-min sessions to a maximum of instruction spread out over a 9-week period (LoCastro, 1997). Assessment measures also varied considerably, from written DCTs (Olshtain and Cohen, 1990; Safont, 2003; Salazar, 2003) to role-plays (Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001) and observations of small group interaction (LoCastro, 1997). The type of instruction adopted in these studies could be characterized as explicit, which, according to DeKeyser (1995), requires that metalinguistic generalization be part of the instruction, whether it is provided by the teacher or the learners themselves. Results provided by teachability studies have been mixed. LoCastro (1997) found no change after 9 weeks of instruction – participants continued to rely on bare head acts at the time of the posttest. Olshtain and CohenÕs (1990) participants did not benefit from instruction in terms of overall frequency of semantic formulas used, but posttest responses did contain a wider
K.R. Rose / System 33 (2005) 385–399 391 variety of apology strategies and an increased use of intensifiers compared to the pretest, indicating some benefit from the pragmalinguistic aspects of the instruction. Results of the first posttest conducted by Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) showed that the instruction had a greater impact on the overall content of the responses than on use of appropriate interactive devices such as feedback and repetition – for the interactive devices (what they refer to as ÔformÕ) the instruction had little impact. Results from a delayed posttest one year after the instructional period showed that learners retained most of the content features, but the only interactional practice they performed was feedback. Safont (2003) found that her participants evidenced a marked increase in the use of request modification on the posttest, but SalazarÕs (2003) participants showed very short-lived effects from the instruction during a treatment session – by the time of the posttest, these effects had disappeared. What accounts for these findings One issue to consider is whether outcome measures influence observed instructional effectiveness. In the case of LoCastroÕs (1997) study, there is reason to believe that her pretest/posttest measures may have contributed to the lack of instructional effects, despite a relatively lengthy instructional period. She relied on transcripts of a single group discussion conducted in a reading class to determine whether individual learners had benefited from instruction on politeness strategies provided in a speaking class. If it was her goal to assess learnersÕ ability to use these strategies in interaction, more than a single observation would have been advisable because it is possible that participants lacked ample opportunity to demonstrate what they might have learned in a single session. If the aim was to assess learnersÕ knowledge of the strategies, some sort of individual measure would have done the trick. It is entirely possible, then, that learners benefited from the instruction but this did not register on a single occasion of small-group interaction in a classroom context. A second issue has to do with quantity, and the related difficulty of the subject matter – was enough instruction provided to reasonably expect results for the particular learning target For instance, Salazar (2003) provided a mere 40 min of instruction – or even less because the first of her two 20 min sessions was used to administer the pretest. This can hardly be considered sufficient for mastering a range of request strategies. On the other hand, the partial success of the studies by Olshtain and Cohen (1990) and Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) also poses interesting theoretical problems. For Olshtain and Cohen, the problem appears to have been that instruction was not effective in equipping learners to deal with tasks for which some knowledge of sociopragmatics was required. That is, learners were presented with contexts together with a range of possible apology strategies, and asked to indicate whether they considered the various apologies ÔacceptableÕ, Ômore or less acceptableÕ or Ônot acceptableÕ. The fact that learnersÕ ratings did not change as a result of instruction, and remained different from those of native speakers, indicates a lack of sociopragmatic knowledge on their part. Olshtain and Cohen maintain that this is a simple exposure issue, and that a long length of residence is the solution. But exposure alone does not account for gains in pragmatic ability. Bouton (1994b) has demonstrated that some aspects of pragmatics do become (more or less) native like over time, but Bardovi-Harlig (2001) points out that even after lengthy periods of residence in the target language context, pragmatic infelicities can remain.
Page 1 and 2: System 33 (2005) 385-399 SYSTEM www
Page 3 and 4: K.R. Rose / System 33 (2005) 385-39
Page 5: K.R. Rose / System 33 (2005) 385-39
Page 9 and 10: alone appears to have had some effe
Page 15: K.R. Rose / System 33 (2005) 385-39

Rose 2005 Pragmatics Synthesis.pdf - Oncourse

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?