EXPLORING THE UNDERREPRESENTATION OF PRAGMATIC COMPETNECE IN THE L2 CLASSROOMS IN IRAN

Abstract

Considering the importance of pragmatic competence as one of the components of communicative language ability, SLA researchers have recently called for the inclusion of L2 pragmatics into the classrooms and teaching materials. Despite such calls, it seems to be largely underrepresented in L2 classrooms in Iran. This study, adopting a multi-method data collection procedure, attempted to investigate how and why underrepresentation of pragmatic competence occurs in L2 teaching materials and classrooms in Iran. Two questionnaires were developed based on Bachman’s (1990) and Bachman and Palmer’s (1996, 2010) models of communicative language ability and administered to the participants. Twenty five L2 classrooms were observed and appraised using a checklist developed based on the above-mentioned models. The results of the study indicated that L2 classrooms did not provide language learners with the required information, instruction, and practice in L2 pragmatics. It was evidenced that EFL teachers in Iran generally emphasized the isolated, mechanical aspects of language as these have been given special momentum in the school curriculum, course books, time limitation, and the related tests. In contrast, the main focus of the classroom activities was on developing reading skills, learning new vocabularies, word formation, and grammar. It was also argued that the present underrepresentation of L2 pragmatics would not lead learners to develop pragmatic competence as a central objective in developing communicative language ability

Keywords

• Pragmatic competence, Underrepresentation, L2 classrooms

References

1. Bachman, Lyle (1990), Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
2. Bachman, Lyle, Adrian Palmer (1996), Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Test, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bachman, Lyle, Adrian Palmer (2010), Language Assessment in Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (1996), “Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and Pedagogy Together”, Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 21, pp. 2-40.
5. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Robert Griffin (2005), “L2 Pragmatic Awareness: Evidence from the ESL Classroom”, System, Vol. 33, pp. 401-415.
6. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Beverly Hartford, Rebecca Mahan-Taylor, Mary Morgan, Dudley Reynolds (1996), “Developing Awareness: Closing the Conversation”,(in T. Hedge and N. Whitney-Ed., Power, Pedagogy and Practice,) Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 24-43.
7. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Rebeca Mahan-Taylor (2003), Teaching Pragmatics, Washington DC: U.S. Department of State Office of English Language Programs, http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/pragmatics.htm, 8.8.2012)
8. Bouton, Lawrence, F. (1994), “Can NNS Skill in Interpreting Implicature in American English Be Improved Through Explicit Instruction? A Pilot Study”, Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 4, pp.88-109.

9. Bulut, Doc (2009), “Pragmatic Awareness of a Foreign Language in a Gender- Segregated Society”, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 123- 139.
10. Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Zoltan Dörnyei, Sarah Thurrell (1995), “Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications”, Issues in Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6, pp. 5-35.
11. Cohen, Andrew, D. (1996), “Developing the Ability to Perform Speech Acts”, Studies of Second Language Acquisition, Vol.18, pp. 253-267.
12. Eslami-Rasekh, Zohreh (2005), “Raising the Pragmatic Awareness of Language Learners”, ELT Journal, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp.199-208.
13. DeCapua, Andrea, Ann Wintergerst, (2005), “Assessing and Validating a Learning Styles Instrument”, System Vol. 33, pp. 1-16.
14. Juan, Esther, Alicia Martínez-Flor (2008), “Teaching Learners to Appropriately Mitigate Requests”, ELT Journal, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 349-357. Kasper,
15. http://eca.state.gov/forum/vols/vol42/no3/p16.htm, [Accessed 8.10.2012] (1997), Can Pragmatic Competence Be
16. Taught? Koike, Dale April, Lynn Pearson (2005) “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Development of Pragmatic Competence”, System, Vol. 33, pp. 481-501.
17. Kondo, Sachiko (2002), “Raising Pragmatic Awareness in EFL Context”, Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 4, pp. 49-72.
18. Martínez-Flor, Alicia, Esther Usó-Juan (2006), “A Comprehensive Pedagogical Framework to Develop Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: The 6Rs Approach”, Applied Language Learning, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 39-64.
19. Rose, Kenneth (1999), “Teachers and Students Learning About Requests in Hong Kong”, (in E. Hinkel-Ed., Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning,) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167-180.
20. Schmit, Richard (1993), “Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics”, (in Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka-Eds., Interlanguage Pragmatics) New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 138-157.
21. Schmidt, Richard (1995), “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning”, (in Richard Schmidt-Ed., Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Technical Report 9) Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, pp. 1–63.
22. Schmidt, Richard (2001), “Attention”, (in Peter Robinson-ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction), New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–33. Rose, Kenneth (2005), “On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics”, System, Vol. 33, pp. 358-399.
23. Rose, Kenneth (2009), “Interlanguage Pragmatic Development in Hong Kong, Phase 2”, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 41, pp. 2345-2364.