1 / 24

Evaluating the emiprical evidence

Evaluating the emiprical evidence. Grounds for instruction in pragmatics ? . Revealing the emprical evidence. Showing that NSs and NNSs have different system of pragmatics , Diccusing the factors affecting the development of L2 pragmatics system ,

yves
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating the emiprical evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluatingtheemipricalevidence Groundsforinstruction in pragmatics?

  2. Revealingtheempricalevidence ShowingthatNSsandNNSshavedifferentsystem of pragmatics, Diccusingthefactorsaffectingthedevelopment of L2 pragmaticssystem, Addressingthequestionwhetherdifferences in pragmaticssystemswarrantinstructionaltreatment.

  3. Evindence Perspective: Speech act Stundets: intermediatetoadvancedwithdifferent L1 Data collectiontechniques: naturalconverations, role-plays, writtenquestionnaires,… A learner of highgrammaticalproficiencywill not necessarilypossessrelatedpragmaticcompetence.

  4. Production • Therearemanyways in which NNS differfromNSs in theproductionspeechacts. • Cohen (1996) identifiesthreeareas: • Speech acts • Semanticformulas • Forms • Blum-Kulka (1982) speechactrealizationdeviates on threelevels: • Socialacceptibility of theutterance, • Lingusiticacceptibility of theutterance, • Pragmaticacceptibility of

  5. Inthispart Choice of speechacts Semanticformulas Content Forms

  6. Choice of speechacts Environment: authenticacademicadvisingsession (a flexible, authenticconversation) NNS: morerejections NS: moresuggestions Bothparticipating in determiningwhatcoursestotake. Samefunction but differentspeechacts. Optingout: choice of not performing a speechactunderinvestigationandit’sdifficulttoinvestigate in writtenquestionnaires.

  7. Semanticformulas Semanticformulasrepresentthemeansbywhich a particularspeechact is accomplished in terms of theprimarycontentfo an utterance. Forexample: An apologymaycontain an illocutionaryforceindicatingdevice: I’m sorry. An explanation of thesituation: Thebuswaslate. An acknowledgment of a responsibility: It’smyfault. An offer of repair: I’ll pay forthebrokenvase.

  8. Semanticformulasusedwhenrejecting an advisor’ssuggestion Semanticformulas: name thetype of informationgiven

  9. Contentspecificinformationgivenby a speaker NSsandNNSsmayusethesamesemanticformulas but thecontent can be different. In an investigation of explanations: Americans: givingmoredetails Japanese: beingvaguebytheAmerican norm. American: I have a businesslunchthatday. Japanese: I havesomethingto do.

  10. Form • A longitudinalstudyfoundthat in latestagesNSsand NNS usedthesamespeechacts but in a different form. • NNS usednomitigators, but a lot of aggravators, upgraders • NS usedmitigators, but noaggravators, downgraders. • I’m not sure that I’m reallyinterested in thistopic • I wouldrather not takethiscoursebecausethetopicdoes not interest me at al.

  11. Judgmentandperception Thesestudiesanalysethedifferenceswhichare not clearlyobviousto an observer. Learnersjudgmentsandcomprehensionareoftendifferentfromthose of NSs.

  12. Examplesfromstudies NNS differentiatemorerequeststrategiesthan NS. NNS mayhavedifficulty in identifyingtheintent of a speechact. «how aboutlending me somemoney» rejectedbyadultHebrewlearners, acceptedbyIsraelis. «lend me somemoney, please» is thesame. As lenght of residenceincreases, learnersmovetowardtarget-likenorms.

  13. Learnersperformedworse on formula-basedimplicatures. Eg. Pope-questions (questionswhoseanswer is obvious) NNS: willtheteacheractuallygivetheexamtomorrow? NS: Doesthe sun comeup in theeastthesedays? TheanswertoNS’squestion is obviously YES. So is theanswertoNNS’squestion. Withoutthisknowledge, NNS cannotunderstandtheimplicature.

  14. Wolfson (1989a) arguesthat NNS oftenareunawarethatstatus-equalAmaricansusecompliments as conversationopeners. InWolfson’scorpus, NNS showthattheyundersandtheillocutionaryforce, but not theirconversationalfunctionsof opening a conversation. NS: Yourblouse is beautiful. NNS: Thankyou. NS: Didyoubring it fromChina? NNS: Yeah.

  15. Factors in determining L2 pragmaticcompetence Thereareseveralproposedexplanationsforpragmaticdifferencesbetween NNS and NS. Availability of input Influence of instruction Proficiency Length of exposure Transfer

  16. Input • Academic talk betweenteacherandstudent is unequal. • Speech of teacher as higherstatusdoes not serve a pragmatic model. Result of research on textbooks • Dialoguesdon’talwayshaveclosingsappropriately • Invitationformsareonlyquaterlysimilarto NS corpus • Theylackso-calledindirectcomplaints, • Information abouttheinterlocutors • Information aboutthecontext of thetextbookconversations. • Textbooks do not present a pragmaticinputforclassroomlanguagelearners.

  17. Instruction Instructionmayplay a role in sustainingsomenontarget-likerealization of speechacts. Also, it mayincreaselearners’ movementtowardstarget-language norm. Instructionalemphasis on onesemanticformula (I’m sorry) maycauseoveruse. Where as learnerstakegrammar-orientedexams, rewardsarealsoprıvidedbysuccessfulcominicationwithNSs. Micro-levelgrammaraccuracymaycausemacro-levelpragmaticinappropriateness.

  18. Level of proficiencyandlenght of stay • Proficiencymayhave a littleeffect on therange of realizationsstrategies of NNS. • Bothintermediateandadvanced NNS usethesamerealizationstrategieswith NS. • Itmayinfluence transfer. Advance NNS werefoundto be betterthanintermediate NNS at identifyingcontextswhere L1 apologystrategiescouldandcould not be used. • Use of modalitymarkersincreasewithproficiency.

  19. Length of stay is also a factor in pragmaticdevelopment. • As thelength of stayincreases, NNS performmoretarget-likespeechacts. • ESL learnersaremoresensetivethan EFL learnerstopragmaticinfelicities. • Grammaticalcompetencemayalso limit thevalue of theinputtothe NNS. (eg. Tense, mood, aspect) Eg. • …. İftomorrow is goodforyou, I couldcomeany time… Could=past tense, but here future?????? • Grammaticalcompetencedoes not guaranteepragmaticcompetence.

  20. First language, firstculture • L1 andculturearethemostinvestigatedinfluence on speechactrealization. • Pragmatic transfer from L1 to L2 can havepositiveandnegativeoutcomes. • Positive: successfulexchanges • Negative: nonnativeuse of semanticformulas, linguisticforms, andspeechacts.

  21. Evaluatingtheempiricalevidence Therearedifferencesbetween L1 and L2 pragmatics. NNS withoutanyspecificinstruction in L2 pragmaticshaveclearlydifferentpragmaticsystemthan NS. Differentsystem in productionandcomprehension. Areas of difficultyhavebeentraditionallyinterpreted as areas in need of instruction.

  22. Towards a target-likepragmatics Overcomingincompleteormisleadinginput in pedagogicalmaterials. Assistinglearnerswithcomprehension. Provideassistanceforsocialinterpretations of speechacts. Theuseornonuse of certainspeechacts as a result of culturalpreferencesis difficulttotackle in class. Pragmalinguisticerrorsareeasiertocorrect, but sociopragmaticmiscalculationsareharder. NNS can be sensetiveabouthavingtheirsocial (political, religious, moral) judgementcalledintoquestion.

  23. The role of instructionmay be t0 helpthelearnerencode her ownvaluesinto a clear, unambigiousmessage. Learnerscould be aidedbybeingpointedtowordthe (culturally) moresuccessfulsemanticformula. Pedagogyshouldaimtomakecontextualized, pragmaticallyappropriateinputavailabletolearnersfromearlystages of acqusition. Withoutinput, acquisitioncannottakeplace.

  24. Thanks

More Related