Production data was elicited by means of DCTs and role play in a pretest-posttest format. While the deductive group was provided with metapragmatic rules directly at the beginning of the instruction, the inductive group only encountered such rules after engaging in language use and guided discovery. The instruction consisted of three 90-minute lessons, which were spread out over the duration of a 15-week academic semester and designed according to the deductive principle and the inductive principle, respectively. Addressing this research gap, this article reports about a quasi-experimental study into possible differences between an explicit-inductive and an explicit-deductive instructional approach in the teaching of pragmatic skills in English as a Foreign Language (EFL), more specifically the teaching of offer refusals to 49 advanced adult EFL learners in Germany. While the role of pragmatic skills in a foreign or second language has been receiving increased attention both from a research and a language teaching perspective, there is still a lamentable scarcity of systematic empirical studies into the effectiveness of instructional methods in the teaching of pragmatics. A further growing field is devoted to questions of pragmatic testing and assessment (Roever 2011 Ross and Kasper 2013). This is thanks to as well as accompanied by an increasingly rich body of research into the factors that determine and shape the development of pragmatic competence in an L2, such as the production of speech acts (Economidou-Kogetsidis and Woodfield 2012 Taguchi 2007), of discourse markers (Hellermann and Vergun 2007) and of listener signals (Cutrone 2005) the comprehension of speech acts (Garcia 2004), of implicatures (Taguchi 2013) and phatic utterances (Padilla-Cruz 2009) metapragmatic perceptions across cultures (Abdolrezapour and Eslami-Rasekh 2010 FĂ©lix-Brasdefer 2008a), pragmatic awareness in learners (Niezgoda and Roever 2001 Schauer 2006) the role of exposure and immersion (Cohen and Shively 2007 Matsumura 2003), of pragmatic transfer (Su 2010 Wannaruk 2008), and of study abroad experience (Barron 2003 Schauer 2009). The acquisition of pragmatic competence as a vital component of language mastery alongside lexico-grammatical proficiency has gained more and more importance in the foreign language classroom over the past decades (Ishihara and Cohen 2010). It then suggests unexplored areas where technology could be used to aid the development of pragmatic competence and where pragmatic theory can inform SLA research. This article reviews the efforts so far to explore the connections between interlanguage pragmatics and a variety of technologies and innovations, as well as existing resources to bring L2 pragmatic teaching into the language classroom. ![]() The lack of research in this area is puzzling if one considers that pragmatic competence is one of the essential components of communicative competence and that most of the technologies today exist in the service of communication. ![]() As with any other large field of study, some subareas have become the focus of study, often influenced by advances and research in applied linguistics, while others remain to be explored further among these is the area of technology-mediated second/foreign language (L2) pragmatics, also known as interlanguage pragmatics. The field of technology and language learning, also known as CALL (computer-assisted language learning), is now a robust area of study informed by research and practice in the fields of language education, computer science, psychology, sociology, cognitive science, cultural studies, and, most of all, applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |