6. Conclusion
3.6. Date Analysis
teaching would improve their pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions after the pragmatic language teaching treatment. In order to answer this question, the raters’ judgments of appropriateness of the subjects’ provided suggestions in each group are compared between the pretest and the posttest to ascertain whether the subjects have made progress in their pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions after the treatment. The results shown in Table 2 reveal that there are statistically significant differences in the subjects’ pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions between the pretest and the posttest in the explicit teaching group and in the implicit teaching group (p˘0.05), but there is no statistically significant difference between the pretest and the posttest in the subjects’ pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions in the control group ((p>0.05).
Table 2.
Paired Samples t-Tests for Rating Scales in Pragmatic Ability of Making Appropriate Suggestions between the Pretest and the Posttest in the Three Groups
Group Time N Mean SD t-Value Sig
The Explicit Teaching Group Pretest 30 3.04 0.74 -3.09 0.000***
Posttest 30 4.06 0.53
The Implicit Teaching Group Pretest 30 3.03 0.74 -2.51 0.000***
Posttest 30 3.67 0.53
The Control Group Pretest 30 3.04 0.74 2.15 0.073*
Posttest 30 3.06 0.53
* P᧸0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001
For the explicit teaching group, it can be seen from Table 2 that the mean score of appropriateness of the subjects’ provided suggestions in the posttest (4.06) is higher than that in the pretest (3.04) and the standard deviation decreases from 0.74 to 0.53. The result of the paired samples t-test (t= -3.09, p= 0.000) shows that there is a statistically significant difference between the two tests in terms of pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions at the significant level of 0.000.
For the implicit teaching group, it is shown in Table 2 that the mean score of appropriateness of the subjects’ provided suggestions increases from 3.03 in the pretest to 3.67 in the posttest and the standard deviation descends from 0.74 to 0.53. The t-value (-2.51) and the significance value (p= 0.000) for the paired samples t-test indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the two tests in terms of pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions at the significant level of 0.000. The mean score in the posttest is
significantly higher than that in the pretest.
As for the control group, the mean score of appropriateness of the subjects’
provided suggestions increases from 3.04 in the pretest to 3.06 in the posttest and the standard deviation also descends from 0.74 to 0.53. The result of the paired samples t-test (t=2.51, p=0.073)shows that there is no statistically significant difference between two tests in terms of pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions and the mean score in the posttest is approximately the same as that in the pretest.
From the above data analysis, it can be concluded that the explicit teaching group receiving an explicit type of pragmatic language teaching and the implicit teaching group receiving an implicit type of pragmatic language teaching have improved their pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act after the treatment.
The second research question of the present study concerns the effectiveness of both treatments (i.e., explicit pragmatic language teaching and implicit pragmatic language teaching) in fostering the subjects’ development of their pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions. In order to ascertain whether there are any statistically significant differences among the three groups before the treatment and after the treatment, one-way ANOVA for rating scales in pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions among the explicit teaching group, the implicit teaching group and the control group for the pretest and for the posttest is performed. Before one-way ANOVA is performed, the test of homogeneity of variances is made in order to check whether the variances of the three groups are equal. As shown in Table 3, Sig.
value is 0.163, which is greater than 0.05. This means that the variances of the three groups are the same and that the requirement of homogeneity of variances for one-way ANOVA is met. Therefore, the results of one-way ANOVA are statistically effective.
Table 3.
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.058 2 87 0.163
As illustrated in Table 4, the difference among the three groups in the pretest is not statistically significant (p > 0.05) , which indicates that their pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions for the three groups before the treatment is approximately at the same level. However, a statistical level of significance (p < 0.001) among the three groups for their pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions is found in the posttest.
Table 4.
One-Way ANOVA for Rating Scales in Pragmatic Ability of Making Appropriate Suggestions among the Explicit Teaching Group, the Implicit Teaching Group and the Control group for the Pretest and Posttest
Time Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig.
Pretest Between Groups 1042.93 2 521.47 1.0026 .068*
Within Groups 45253.05 87 520.15
Total 46295.98 89
Posttest Between Groups 1734.76 2 867.38 2.5963 .000***
Within Groups 29065.23 87 334.08
Total 30799.99 89
* P᧸0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001
By comparing the mean scores among the three groups in the posttest in Table 2, it can be observed that the control group attains the lowest mean score, which may explain why a statistically significant difference is obtained.
For this reason, in order to examine more accurately whether this difference is related to the performance of the two treatment conditions, pairwise multiple comparisons between the explicit teaching group, the implicit teaching group and the control group are respectively made for the posttest.
Table 5.
Pairwise Multiple Comparisons between the Explicit Teaching Group, the Implicit Teaching Group and the Control Group for the Posttest
Group Groups Mean Diff. Std. Error Sig.
The Explicit Teaching Group The Implicit Teaching Group 0.39 1.32 0.136*
The Control Group 1 1.57 0.000 ***
The Implicit Teaching Group The Explicit Teaching Group -0.39 1.32 0.136*
The Control Group 0.61 1.18 0.000 ***
The Control Group The Explicit Teaching Group -1 1.57 0.000 ***
The Implicit Teaching Group -0.61 1.18 0.000 ***
* P᧸0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001
It can be seen from Table 5 that Sig. value between the explicit teaching group and the implicit teaching group is 0.136, which is greater than 0.05, and there is no statistically significant difference between the explicit teaching group and the implicit teaching group for the posttest. Sig. value between the explicit teaching group and the control group is 0.000, which is less than 0.05, and there is a statistically significant difference between the explicit teaching group and the control group for the posttest. Sig. value between the implicit teaching group and the control group is 0.000, which is less than 0.05, and there is a statistically significant difference between the implicit teaching group and the control group for the posttest. It can also be shown in Table 5 that the mean difference between the explicit teaching group and the control
group (1) is greater than the mean difference between the implicit teaching group and the control group (0.61). It can be concluded that explicit pragmatic language teaching is more effective than implicit pragmatic language teaching in developing Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act.
5. Discussion
Two findings can be made from the results of data analysis.
1. The explicit teaching group and the implicit teaching group have improved their pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act after the treatment.
2. Explicit pragmatic language teaching is more effective than implicit pragmatic language teaching in developing Chinese EFL learners’
pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act. The findings can be discussed as follows:
For the explicit teaching group, the relative large number of the subjects in this group succeeds in employing the appropriate suggestion forms taught in class in terms of social-pragmatic factor (equal status, higher status) in the posttest. In view of this, it appears that the subjects’ learned target suggestion forms in the treatment sessions have successfully been incorporated into their English pragmalinguistic knowledge and that they are able to generalize what they have learned in the treatment sessions to new comparable situations. But a few of the subjects in this group use “you should . . . .” in higher status situations. According to them, the modal should can be used to express suggestions in all situations regardless of the hearers’ social status.
As one subject in this group says in his retrospective report “I use the word should because my high school teacher emphasizes that the modal should manifests a greater degree of politeness to give suggestions and I am familiar with it”. This suggests that a few of the subjects’ competence in realizing suggesting speech act is influenced by their inappropriate understanding of the usage of the modal should in context, and their previously learned knowledge is still operative and plays a relatively influential role in the subjects’ restructuring process.
With regard to the implicit teaching group, the subjects in this group use less appropriate suggestions than the subjects in the explicit teaching group in the posttest. This is due to the nature of the treatment tasks used in the implicit teaching group. The analysis of the treatment tasks for the implicit teaching group leads us to understand what the subjects in this group notice and attend to in the treatment tasks (role-play transcripts). The tasks require the subjects in the implicit teaching group to notice the gap (Schmidt & Frota,
1986) between the NS suggestion forms and their corresponding L2 suggestion forms. Because of the nature of this task, almost all of the subjects in the implicit teaching group refer to the NS target suggestion forms in some ways. Precisely speaking, their primary focus is placed on parts of the suggestion forms, but not on the entire forms and their functions. Their attention is more likely to be directed to linguistic features rather than pragmatic features of the target suggestion forms. The target suggestion forms and their functions can not be so successfully incorporated into the subjects’ English pragmalinguistic knowledge in the implicit teaching group as that of the subjects in the explicit teaching group that the subjects in the implicit teaching group provide less appropriate suggestions than the subjects in the explicit teaching group. One subject in this group says in her retrospective report “I have an awareness of distinguishing the differences between the suggestion forms used by NS English speakers and the suggestion forms employed by me. When I read suggestion situations in the posttest, I know what suggestion forms to use, but I am not sure how to use these suggestion forms according to the different situations.” Schmidt (1993) argues that simple exposure to appropriate input is unlikely to be sufficient for acquisition of L2 pragmalinguistic knowledge because the specific linguistic realizations are sometimes opaque to learners and the relevant contextual factors to be noticed may not be salient enough for learners (Alanen, 1995; Doughty, 1991; Hulstijn, 1989; Sharwood smith, 1991; William
& Evans, 1998). This study substantiates the arguments made by Schmidt and other researchers.
In contrast to the pragmatic behaviors of the explicit teaching group and the implicit teaching group, the subjects’ pragmatic performance of suggesting speech act in the control group does not show a similar development, as shown in Table 2. It seems that the subjects in the control group do not improve dramatically in providing appropriate suggestions for suggestion situations in the posttest, and the subjects in the control group provide fewer alternative appropriate suggestion expressions in the posttest than the subjects in the implicit teaching group in the posttest, and the subjects in the control group provide even fewer alternative appropriate suggestion expressions in the posttest than the subjects in the explicit teaching group in the posttest. This is related to the fact that the focus-on-meaning task for the control group can not make the subjects in this group have pragmatic awareness of suggesting speech actand therefore the subjects’ pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act in the posttest remains almost the same as that in the pretest. One subject in this group says in her written retrospective report “I notice the target suggestion forms when I read the NS-NS role-play transcripts. When I am asked to write down suggestions for suggestion situations in the posttest, I find no improvement in how to use
appropriate suggestions for these situations compared with the pretest.
There is no difference between the pretest and the posttest for my pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act.” This seems to indicate that the subjects who perform relatively appropriately in the pretest and who already have a certain level of pragmatic competence at the beginning of the study perform similarly in the posttest. Furthermore, the subjects in the control group do not receive any of the pragmatic language teaching treatments and therefore their pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act does not appear to have improved. Another subject in this group says “I have no idea of using appropriate suggestions for different situations because I have not received such training. I just use my previously-learned language to do the posttest.”
No overall variation could be appreciated in the two different moments as far as their pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic abilities of the subjects in the control group are concerned. This clearly indicates the relatively strong effects of their prior knowledge on their pragmatic performance of suggesting speech act.
Among these three groups, the subjects in the explicit teaching group substantially increase their pragmatic ability in supplying appropriate suggestions for the suggestion situations in the posttest. This is understandable because they are explicitly taught what the appropriate suggestion forms are. In contrast, the subjects in the implicit teaching group are asked to make comparisons between the NS suggestion usage and their own corresponding suggestion usage and are required to point out the features of the NS usage distinctive from those of the NNS suggestion usage.
This task might have led the subjects in the implicit teaching group to think that they would be expected to master native-like English pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act during the treatment, but the raters judge that they have not yet attained a NS-level performance of suggesting speech act as expected.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of pragmatic language teaching, some pedagogical implications can be proposed in light of the results obtained in the present study. First, this study has shown that pragmatic language teaching can foster Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act in English language. This is particularly case in China, where English is taught in foreign language context and great emphasis is placed on the teaching of linguistic features rather than the teaching of pragmatic features. This phenomenon consequently leads to a marginal component of pragmatic language teaching in Chinese EFL classrooms, and results in Chinese EFL learners’ poor pragmatic competence. Therefore, it is necessary that pragmatic knowledge of making appropriate suggestions, together with its lexical and grammatical knowledge, should be incorporated into English language teaching. Only by this means can Chinese EFL learners’
pragmatic ability of making appropriate suggestions be developed. Second, this study has indicated that explicit pragmatic language teaching is more effective than implicit pragmatic language teaching in facilitating Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of English pragmatic suggestion knowledge. In the process of explicit pragmatic language teaching, English pragmatic knowledge of suggesting speech act is explicated, and the explicated pragmatic knowledge can easily be incorporated into Chinese EFL learners’ English pragmatic knowledge of suggesting speech act and can facilitate their acquisition of English pragmatic suggestion knowledge. Therefore, language teachers are encouraged to use every possible explicit means to conduct their English pragmatic language teaching. Third, this study has suggested that Chinese EFL learners should develop their motivation for English pragmatic knowledge of suggesting speech act. Chinese EFL learners should be motivated to learn how to make appropriate suggestions according to different situations, what appropriate pragmalinguistic forms should be used in these situations. In so doing, Chinese EFL learners will learn English pragmatic suggestion knowledge more effectively. Fourth, this study has hinted that Chinese EFL learners should develop a pragmatic awareness, which is an ability to pay attention to English pragmatic features of suggesting speech act, English pragmalinguistic forms of realization of suggesting speech act, and more importantly, is an ability to pay attention to differences between English pragmatic features of suggesting speech act and Chinese pragmatic features of suggesting speech act, and between English pragmalinguistic forms of making appropriate suggestions and Chinese pragmalinguistic forms of making appropriate suggestions. Language teachers are recommended to develop Chinese EFL learners’ such a pragmatic awareness in order to make them learn English pragmatic knowledge of suggesting speech act more actively.
6. Conclusion
This study has shown the positive effects of pragmatic language teaching on the development of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act in Chinese EFL classrooms. It has provided support for Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1993, 1995, 2001), which claims that learners’ intentionally focused attention to L2 pragmalinguistic features is a necessity for successful language learning. In particular, the subjects in this study gain their awareness of making appropriate suggestions as a result of the treatments that aim at drawing the subjects’ attention to the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features of English suggestion forms. It may therefore claim that this study contributes to previous research that has suggested that teaching does make a difference (Doughty, 2003; Norris &
Ortega, 2000) and, more specifically, to research that has examined the
teachability of different pragmatic features (Kasper & Rose, 2002). In addition, this study has widened the range of pragmatic language teaching in Chinese EFL classrooms by focusing on suggesting speech act.
The current study has also demonstrated the effectiveness of the two different teaching treatments (i.e., explicit pragmatic language teaching and implicit pragmatic language teaching), which are operationalized by adopting a sequential method consisting of explicit metapragmatic teachings on the preselected English pragmalinguistic suggestion forms and Chinese-English translation tasks for the explicit teaching group and by using a sequential approach involving the subjects’ comparison of their English suggestion expressions in their completed role-plays with those in the NS-NS role-play transcripts and the subjects’ discovery of any differences in suggestion realization patterns between their suggestion forms and the NS suggestion forms for the implicit teaching group. In this regard, It may be stated that although implicit pragmatic language teaching is beneficial to the development of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence of suggesting speech act, explicit pragmatic language teaching proves to be more effective than implicit pragmatic language teaching in facilitating their acquisition of English pragmalinguistic suggestion forms.
The Author
Jiemin Bu (Email: bujiemin [at] 126.com) received his degree in English language and literature from Shanghai International Studies University in Shanghai, China. He is currently an associate professor of English in the foreign languages school, Zhejiang Guangsha College of Applied Construction, Zhejiang, China. He has been doing research in the field of linguistics, applied linguistics and pragmatics. He has published more than 20 papers in academic journals. His current research focuses on interlanguage pragmatics of Chinese learners of English.
References
Alanen, R.(1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R.. Schmidt(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Technical Report #9), 259-302. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Alcón, E., & Safont, P. (2001). Occurrence of exhortative speech acts in ELT materials and natural speech data: A focus on request, suggestion and advice realisation strategies. Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 3, 5–22.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S.. (1996). Input in an institutional setting.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 171–188.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J., Doughty, & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348).
London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference:
Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J., Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fukuya, Y., & Clark, M. (2001). A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 10, pp. 111–130). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Fukuya, Y., Reeve, M., Gisi, J., & Christianson, M. (1998). Does focus on form work for sociopragmatics? Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning.
Urbana, IL.
Hinkel, E.(1994). Appropriateness of advice as L2 solidarity strategy. RELC Journal, 25, 71–93.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data.
Applied Linguistics, 18, 1–26.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225–252.