The Theory and Practice of Teaching Pragmatics: Distinguishing Myths from Realities

A Workshop for the American Association for Applied Linguistics, March 20, 2022

​

​

​

Andrew D. Cohen, Professor Emeritus, U. of Minnesota adcohen@umn.edu, https://z.umn.edu/adcohen

INTRODUCTION� SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE PRESENTATION OF 12 ISSUES� INVOLVING MYTHS AND REALITIES�

• Note: Pragmatics primarily focuses on speech, but also includes texting and other forms of written discourse.
• A caveat regarding attempts to dichotomize issues in pragmatics:

there tends to be a continuum from what is not at all true to what is absolutely true regarding every issue.

• Determining the reality in a given case calls for empirical investigation.

2

INTRO (CONTD.)

• Practically-oriented claims about pragmatics run the risk of being myopic, as in touching different parts of the elephant.
• To what extent do researchers give adequate attention to the Pedagogical Implications section of their research articles on target language (TL) pragmatics?
• How many operationalizable takeaways are there for teachers in the average pedagogical section of an empirical study?

​

3

INTRO (CONTD.)

• To what extent is pragmatics more an erudite domain for researchers as opposed to a generator of pedagogical contributions that make a contribution to how instructors actually teach it and how learners learn it?
• How fruitful is it for teachers to read the current research literature if they want practical takeaways?

4

#1 – “TEACHING THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM DOESN’T LEAVE TIME FOR TL PRAGMATICS”

• How much do the following statements reflect the reality in TL classrooms?
• “What is explicitly taught about pragmatics is likely to be learned.”
• “Learners enjoy learning pragmatics since it enhances their performance.”
• To what extent can learners benefit from self-access to pragmatics materials out of class? For example:
• through self-access websites,
• through data gathering with NSs and highly competent NNSs.

5

#2 – “IT IS BEST TO RESERVE THE TEACHING OF PRAGMATICS TO HIGHER-PROFICIENCY STUDENTS”

• To what extent is there a need for instruction re the pragmatics of greetings, thanking, and requesting in beginning TL lessons?
• To what extent do beginning students benefit from strategies for performing certain routine behaviors in pragmatically acceptable ways?

6

#3 – “THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATIVE AND NONNATIVE PRAGMATICS IS ELUSIVE”

• In critical applied pragmatics parlance, teaching ESL/EFL towards idealized UK/US/Australian norms is inappropriate. Instead, the view is expressed that the pragmatics of international varieties of English (e.g., World Englishes) needs to be promoted.
• To what extent are native speakers (NSs) of the so-called “prestigious” varieties of English considered by teachers and learners of the TL to be a resource regarding what is considered acceptable pragmatics performance for the given situation and context?
• To what extent are there limits to the “international varieties of English” position?
• And what about international varieties of other TLs?

7

#4 – “IF IT’S YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE, YOU ARE LIKELY TO GET THE PRAGMATICS RIGHT”

• Not all NSs get it “right” if other NSs are put off by their:
• boorishness,
• rudeness,
• unthoughtfulness,
• patronizing behavior,
• belittling,
• teasing.

8

#5 – “NO NEED TO TEACH PRAGMALINGUISTICS EXPLICITLY SINCE IT’S ACQUIRED”

• Is it a myth that exposure is the best teacher when it comes to the niceties of pragmalinguistics?
• My experience as a hyperpolyglot: after having lived in Israel for over10 years, I still hadn’t acquired the pragmalinguistic options for expressing an apology (assuming the sociopragmatics indicated the need) – from a trivial to a substantial apology.

9

#6 – “MUCH OF SOCIOPRAGMATICS IS TOO SUBTLE TO TEACH”

• Researchers seem to spend more time studying the niceties of pragmalinguistics than they do investigating the ins and outs of sociopragmatics.
• Why is there not more research on sociopragmatic failure? Examples:

10

#6 – “SOCIOPRAGMATICS…” (CONTD.)

• Asking questions about topics that are taboo,
• Cursing inappropriately,
• Offering criticism where and/or when it is inappropriate to do so,
• Not perceiving when others’ sarcasm is aimed at you, or unintentionally coming across as sarcastic.

​

11

#7 – “WHY FOCUS ON DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL INTERACTION RATHER THAN ON SIMILARITIES?”

• While there are clearly similarities in pragmatic performance across language communities, aren’t there also striking differences as well?
• The speech acts of apologizing, requesting, complimenting, and complaining are researched extensively due to sometimes glaring cross-cultural differences. What about exploring similarities and differences in less-researched speech acts – e.g. rendering condolences?

12

#8 – “SINCE NONVERBAL TL PRAGMATICS IS NOT A COMMON RESEARCH FOCUS, WHY TEACH IT?”

• Should what is researched dictate what is taught?
• Some crucial but under-researched areas of nonverbal behavior:
• physical contact,
• facial expressions,
• gestures,
• stress and intonation.

13

#9 – “MANY SPEECH ACTS ARE TOO COMPLEX TO TEACH”

• True that propositional and grammatical analyses of speech acts (especially as pertains to politeness theory) may get dense.
• However, teaching the basics of speech act performance is doable:
• Learners may welcome a class discussion about strategies for performing speech acts in general.
• They may also enjoy getting tips as to strategies for performing given speech acts – re whether, where, when, and how.

​

14

#10 – “PRAGMATIC FAILURE IS USUALLY A RESULT OF NEGATIVE TRANSFER”

• To what extent is negative transfer a cause of pragmatic failure?
• While pragmatic failure in the TL can be due to negative transfer from the dominant language(s), overgeneralization of learned TL behaviors can also impact performance – e.g.:
• The formal Iie, kekkoudesu ‘No thanks’ in an informal meal setting.
• Americans sharing intimacies with a stranger on a plane.
• In addition, learners’ sense of agency may play a role – unwilling to perform pragmatically as TL speakers would.

15

#11 – “ASSESSMENT OF PRAGMATICS IS FOR RESEARCHERS, NOT FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS”

• To what extent is the assessment of classroom language devoid of measures of pragmatics?
• If this is the case, what may be reasons for this?
• Such assessment is seen to call for time-consuming ratings,
• Teachers may not feel comfortable rating such performance.
• A powerful counter-argument: The washback effect from including pragmatics in assessment.
• Opportunities for innovative types of assessment.

16

#12 – “LEARNERS CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY LEARN OR PERFORM PRAGMATICS”

• To what extent are the following true with regard to learners’ ability to describe how they deal with TL pragmatics?
• Learners vary in terms of their consciousness about, awareness of, and attention to TL pragmatics.
• Learners vary in terms of how their sensory, cognitive, and personality-related style preferences influence their handling of TL pragmatics.

17

#12 – “LEARNERS…” (CONTD.)

• What else could help to explain why some learners are better at analyzing their performance metapragmatically than others?
• Where they fall on the continuum toward native proficiency in the TL?
• The extent to which they have been exposed to explicit instruction in pragmatics instruction through teachers and/or through websites.
• Is it fair to say that with proper orientation, any language users can explain how they perform pragmatics?

​

​

18

ACTIVITY: DEBATING ISSUES INVOLVING MYTHS AND REALITIES�

#1 – “TEACHING THE LANGUAGE CURRICULUM DOESN’T LEAVE TIME FOR TL PRAGMATICS”

#2 – “BEST TO RESERVE THE TEACHING OF PRAGMATICS FOR HIGHER-PROFICIENCY STUDENTS”

#3 – “THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATIVE AND NONNATIVE PRAGMATICS IS ELUSIVE”

#4 – “IF IT’S YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE, YOU ARE LIKELY TO GET THE PRAGMATICS RIGHT”

#5 – “NO NEED TO TEACH PRAGMALINGUISTICS EXPLICITLY SINCE IT’S ACQUIRED”

#6 – “MUCH OF SOCIOPRAGMATICS IS TOO SUBTLE TO TEACH”

#7 – “WHY FOCUS ON DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL INTERACTION RATHER THAN ON SIMILARITIES?”

#8 – “SINCE NONVERBAL TL PRAGMATICS IS NOT A COMMON RESEARCH FOCUS, WHY TEACH IT?”

#9 – “MANY SPEECH ACTS ARE TOO COMPLEX TO TEACH”

#10 – “PRAGMATIC FAILURE IS USUALLY A RESULT OF NEGATIVE TRANSFER”

#11 – “ASSESSMENT OF PRAGMATICS IS FOR RESEARCHERS, NOT FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS”

#12 – “LEARNERS CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW THEY LEARN OR PERFORM PRAGMATICS”

19

CONCLUSIONS

• It is a myth that pragmatics is mostly for researchers – in order to explore theories about the role of intention in verbal (and nonverbal) communication.
• It is a myth that much of the material is too sophisticated for classroom instruction.
• It is time to move beyond myths based on inaccurate beliefs.

​

​

20

CONCLUSIONS (CONTD.)

• There is now ample evidence that teaching and learning of pragmatics contributes to successful communication across languages and cultures.
• A reasonable goal for applied pragmatics research would be to generate pedagogically operationalizable findings.
• Good news that ITAP was founded in Spain – the International Association for Teaching Pragmatics (ITAP).

​

21

CONCLUSIONS (CONTD.)

• Also, check out the Second and Foreign Language Pragmatics Wiki, a TL pragmatics wiki meant to give teachers access to pragmatics materials for the classroom in a variety of languages: http://wlpragmatics.pbworks.com/w/page/99620139/Second%20and%20Foreign%20Language%20Pragmatics%20Wiki

​

22