论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Pragmatic competence is one of the aspects of language that provides many challenges for EFL learners； hence， focus on effects of instruction in pragmatics thrives and results in a large body of literature. This study is to review the literature on pragmatic instruction on EFL learners. Following this are some suggestive implications about studies on pragmatic instruction in China： emphases on greater variety of instructional approaches， participants of different cultural background and effectiveness and maintenance of pragmatic instruction deserve more emphases.
【Key words】pragmatic competence； pragmatic instruction； instructional approaches； review
1. Introduction
Pragmatic competence in communication has been given great significance in developing EFL learners’ communicative ability. Focus on effects of instruction in pragmatics thrives， involving mainly three issues： teachability， instruction vs. exposure to target language and effectiveness of different teaching approaches. This paper is an attempt to give a review of pragmatic instruction on EFL learners and tends to offer some suggestions for future pragmatic instruction in EFL teaching in China.
2. A review of pragmatic instruction
2.1 Teachability
The most basic question for studies on pragmatic instruction is definitely whether pragmatic competence is teachable or not. Most studies make a comparison and a contrast between the results from a pre-test and a post-test. Rose （2005） makes a through literature review on effects of instruction in second language pragmatics and offers comments on the studies. Alcon-Soler （2015） explores to what extents pragmatic instruction influences learners competence to make request in email communication and finds that knowledge gained from instruction is used and reconstructed to decide when and how to use request mitigators according to levels of imposition. A study by Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan （2015） focuses on the role of instruction on learners’ use of complaining-apologizing semantic formulas. Their research shows positive effects in learners’ performance and an increase in variety of complaining and apologizing strategies when they are engaged in the instructional process. Generally speaking， ample evidence has demonstrated the teachability of pragmatic competence.
When research goes further， the question presents itself that whether learners who receive pedagogical intervention perform better than those who are simply exposed to target language. Nguyen and Pham （2012） study the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence and find that both treatment groups （with explicit and implicit instruction） significantly improve compared with their pre-test， outperforming the controlled groups （with no instruction at all）. It appears that pedagogical intervention works better than exposure to the target language alone in the developing of second language pragmatic competence. 2.2 Instructional approaches
A variety of studies have been carried out on the effect of pragmatic instruction to prove the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Most research selects to make a contrastive study of implicit and explicit instruction. Eslami and Eslami-Rasekh （2008） examine the positive effects of metapragmatic instruction in speech act patterns and strategies on learners’ pragmatic awareness and production ability. They find there is an interaction between metapragmatic instruction in speech act patterns and strategies and pragmatic awareness and production. Ishihara （2010）， by presenting three processes in teaching pragmatics： noticing， awareness and attention， points out that noticing the pragmatic information and strategies is the foundation for attention and awareness， through which learners can intake the pragmatic knowledge and store it in long-term memory. Ghavamnia et al （2014） make a comparative study on the degree of input-enhancement. Four treatment groups are taught in four different input-enhanced instructions respectively， and their results prove the effectiveness of input-enhancement instruction. The more important finding is that the groups with form-comparison and the metapragmatic explanation greatly outperform the other two treatment groups.
2.3 Teaching focuses
Different speech acts are often taken as the focus of researchers. Kondo （2008） studies refusals by Japanese EFL learners and investigates the effects of explicit instructions on learners’ refusal strategies. After sessions of explicit instruction， learners’ choice of refusal strategies becomes more similar to the American pattern and they are more aware of metapragmatic information in their discussion of refusal speech acts. Shishavan and Sharifian （2013） focuses on how refusal strategies differ in L1 and L2. Data from 86 Iranian English language learners shows that learners’ use of supportive move strategies in L1 and L2 responses is different. Besides refusal， request is also a commonly-studied speech act. Halenko and Jones （2011） examine the influence of explicit instruction of making production of spoken request made by Chinese learners of English in British higher education institutions. The findings reveal that explicit instruction facilitates development of pragmatically appropriate request language， although this is not noticeably maintained after a six week period. Other speech acts include apology （Chang， 2010） and complimenting （Felix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker， 2015）. Although these researches concentrate on the characteristics of each speech act， their findings share some similarities in the context of pedagogic intervention in developing EFL learners pragmatic competence， which proves the teachability of pragmatic competence and the relatively positive effect of explicit instruction. 3. Implications on pragmatic instruction in EFL teaching in China
Studies on pragmatic instruction in EFL teaching have been carried out for decades since its introduction to China and have made substantial achievements. Based on the above literature review， several tentative implications about EFL teaching in China can be offered here.
3.1 Greater variety of instructional approaches should be designed
Most researches on instructional approaches take the divisions of implicit and explicit instruction and make a contrast and a comparison between their pedagogical effectiveness. Implicit instruction is often carried out in the forms of providing a range of pragmatic routines and discourse strategies related to targeted speech acts. Learners are supposed to first notice them and then figure their function out in the specific speech act and finally make use of them in their own production. Teaching in explicit instruction provides metapragmatic information regarding the target features. The separation between implicit and explicit instruction， however， is not so easily and clearly defined. Furthermore， teachers in real pragmatic classroom always adopt a combination of various instructional approaches. Instead of a distinctive separation between implicit and explicit instruction， studies on approaches of different degrees of in-put enhancement deserve more emphases.
3.2 Participants of different cultural background should be involved
Each language is characteristic of its cultural feature. Development of pragmatic competence relies heavily on learners’ understanding of target cultural context. If refusal speech act is taken as an example， Chinese EFL learners may adopt different strategies from learners from other western countries due to specific Chinese cultural context； as a result， they may display different pragmatic transfers with their own features， which needs more specific instruction. Hence， cultural features should be taken into account.
3.3 More emphasis on effectiveness and maintenance of pragmatic instruction should be placed.
The development of pragmatic competence is a long-term process for EFL learners. Most studies adopt a contrast and a comparison between a pre-test and a post-test result， and the latter one often takes place immediately after pedagogic intervention. The problem is after noticing and being taught the pragmatic strategies， whether learners intake them and store them in their long-term memory for future application is not known. Relatively few studies have taken into account the long-term effects weeks after instruction. A delayed test is necessary to investigate its sustaining results weeks or months later， especially for EFL learners who have fewer chances to practice real life pragmatic competence. 4. Conclusion
Considerable evidence indicates that a range of EFL pragmatic features can be taught and proves the relative effectiveness of explicit instruction. With these conclusions， some suggestions are offered for future studies on EFL pragmatic teaching in China. Besides implicit and explicit instruction， more approaches should be integrated into research to explore the different degrees of input enhancement instruction. Learners of various cultural backgrounds should be included and the delayed-effect of pragmatic instruction can also be a focus for future studies.
References：
[1]Alcon-Soler，E.2015.Pragmatic learning and study abroad： Effects of instruction and length of stay.System 48（2015）62-74.
[2]Chang，Y.F.2010.‘I no say you say is boring’： the development of pragmatic competence in L2 apology.Language Sciences 32（2010）408–424.
[3]Eslami，Z.R.，Eslami-Rasekh，A.2008.Enhancing the pragmatic comprehension on non-native English-speaking teacher candidates（NNESTCs）in an EFL context.In Soler E.A.
【Key words】pragmatic competence； pragmatic instruction； instructional approaches； review
1. Introduction
Pragmatic competence in communication has been given great significance in developing EFL learners’ communicative ability. Focus on effects of instruction in pragmatics thrives， involving mainly three issues： teachability， instruction vs. exposure to target language and effectiveness of different teaching approaches. This paper is an attempt to give a review of pragmatic instruction on EFL learners and tends to offer some suggestions for future pragmatic instruction in EFL teaching in China.
2. A review of pragmatic instruction
2.1 Teachability
The most basic question for studies on pragmatic instruction is definitely whether pragmatic competence is teachable or not. Most studies make a comparison and a contrast between the results from a pre-test and a post-test. Rose （2005） makes a through literature review on effects of instruction in second language pragmatics and offers comments on the studies. Alcon-Soler （2015） explores to what extents pragmatic instruction influences learners competence to make request in email communication and finds that knowledge gained from instruction is used and reconstructed to decide when and how to use request mitigators according to levels of imposition. A study by Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan （2015） focuses on the role of instruction on learners’ use of complaining-apologizing semantic formulas. Their research shows positive effects in learners’ performance and an increase in variety of complaining and apologizing strategies when they are engaged in the instructional process. Generally speaking， ample evidence has demonstrated the teachability of pragmatic competence.
When research goes further， the question presents itself that whether learners who receive pedagogical intervention perform better than those who are simply exposed to target language. Nguyen and Pham （2012） study the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence and find that both treatment groups （with explicit and implicit instruction） significantly improve compared with their pre-test， outperforming the controlled groups （with no instruction at all）. It appears that pedagogical intervention works better than exposure to the target language alone in the developing of second language pragmatic competence. 2.2 Instructional approaches
A variety of studies have been carried out on the effect of pragmatic instruction to prove the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Most research selects to make a contrastive study of implicit and explicit instruction. Eslami and Eslami-Rasekh （2008） examine the positive effects of metapragmatic instruction in speech act patterns and strategies on learners’ pragmatic awareness and production ability. They find there is an interaction between metapragmatic instruction in speech act patterns and strategies and pragmatic awareness and production. Ishihara （2010）， by presenting three processes in teaching pragmatics： noticing， awareness and attention， points out that noticing the pragmatic information and strategies is the foundation for attention and awareness， through which learners can intake the pragmatic knowledge and store it in long-term memory. Ghavamnia et al （2014） make a comparative study on the degree of input-enhancement. Four treatment groups are taught in four different input-enhanced instructions respectively， and their results prove the effectiveness of input-enhancement instruction. The more important finding is that the groups with form-comparison and the metapragmatic explanation greatly outperform the other two treatment groups.
2.3 Teaching focuses
Different speech acts are often taken as the focus of researchers. Kondo （2008） studies refusals by Japanese EFL learners and investigates the effects of explicit instructions on learners’ refusal strategies. After sessions of explicit instruction， learners’ choice of refusal strategies becomes more similar to the American pattern and they are more aware of metapragmatic information in their discussion of refusal speech acts. Shishavan and Sharifian （2013） focuses on how refusal strategies differ in L1 and L2. Data from 86 Iranian English language learners shows that learners’ use of supportive move strategies in L1 and L2 responses is different. Besides refusal， request is also a commonly-studied speech act. Halenko and Jones （2011） examine the influence of explicit instruction of making production of spoken request made by Chinese learners of English in British higher education institutions. The findings reveal that explicit instruction facilitates development of pragmatically appropriate request language， although this is not noticeably maintained after a six week period. Other speech acts include apology （Chang， 2010） and complimenting （Felix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker， 2015）. Although these researches concentrate on the characteristics of each speech act， their findings share some similarities in the context of pedagogic intervention in developing EFL learners pragmatic competence， which proves the teachability of pragmatic competence and the relatively positive effect of explicit instruction. 3. Implications on pragmatic instruction in EFL teaching in China
Studies on pragmatic instruction in EFL teaching have been carried out for decades since its introduction to China and have made substantial achievements. Based on the above literature review， several tentative implications about EFL teaching in China can be offered here.
3.1 Greater variety of instructional approaches should be designed
Most researches on instructional approaches take the divisions of implicit and explicit instruction and make a contrast and a comparison between their pedagogical effectiveness. Implicit instruction is often carried out in the forms of providing a range of pragmatic routines and discourse strategies related to targeted speech acts. Learners are supposed to first notice them and then figure their function out in the specific speech act and finally make use of them in their own production. Teaching in explicit instruction provides metapragmatic information regarding the target features. The separation between implicit and explicit instruction， however， is not so easily and clearly defined. Furthermore， teachers in real pragmatic classroom always adopt a combination of various instructional approaches. Instead of a distinctive separation between implicit and explicit instruction， studies on approaches of different degrees of in-put enhancement deserve more emphases.
3.2 Participants of different cultural background should be involved
Each language is characteristic of its cultural feature. Development of pragmatic competence relies heavily on learners’ understanding of target cultural context. If refusal speech act is taken as an example， Chinese EFL learners may adopt different strategies from learners from other western countries due to specific Chinese cultural context； as a result， they may display different pragmatic transfers with their own features， which needs more specific instruction. Hence， cultural features should be taken into account.
3.3 More emphasis on effectiveness and maintenance of pragmatic instruction should be placed.
The development of pragmatic competence is a long-term process for EFL learners. Most studies adopt a contrast and a comparison between a pre-test and a post-test result， and the latter one often takes place immediately after pedagogic intervention. The problem is after noticing and being taught the pragmatic strategies， whether learners intake them and store them in their long-term memory for future application is not known. Relatively few studies have taken into account the long-term effects weeks after instruction. A delayed test is necessary to investigate its sustaining results weeks or months later， especially for EFL learners who have fewer chances to practice real life pragmatic competence. 4. Conclusion
Considerable evidence indicates that a range of EFL pragmatic features can be taught and proves the relative effectiveness of explicit instruction. With these conclusions， some suggestions are offered for future studies on EFL pragmatic teaching in China. Besides implicit and explicit instruction， more approaches should be integrated into research to explore the different degrees of input enhancement instruction. Learners of various cultural backgrounds should be included and the delayed-effect of pragmatic instruction can also be a focus for future studies.
References：
[1]Alcon-Soler，E.2015.Pragmatic learning and study abroad： Effects of instruction and length of stay.System 48（2015）62-74.
[2]Chang，Y.F.2010.‘I no say you say is boring’： the development of pragmatic competence in L2 apology.Language Sciences 32（2010）408–424.
[3]Eslami，Z.R.，Eslami-Rasekh，A.2008.Enhancing the pragmatic comprehension on non-native English-speaking teacher candidates（NNESTCs）in an EFL context.In Soler E.A.