Abstract

Pragmatic competence is an indispensable aspect of language ability in order for second and foreign language (L2/FL) learners to understand and be understood in their interactions with both native and nonnative speakers of the target language. Without a proper understanding of the pragmatic rules in the target language, learners may run the risk of coming across as insensitive and rude. Several researchers (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Kasper & Rose, 2002) suggest that L2 pragmatics not only can be taught in the L2/FL classroom, but, more importantly, that explicit approaches that involve direct explanation of target pragmatic features are beneficial for learning pragmatics. Just as native speakers of a language acquire a “set of dispositions to act in certain ways, which generates cognitive and bodily practices in the individual” (Watts, 2003, p. 149), instructors can help learners to become aware of the pragmatic features that characterize the target language. Although the importance of explicit teaching of pragmatics is well recognized in the literature, learning norms and rules of pragmatics largely depends on learners’ subjectivity. Learners’ convergence or divergence from the L2 pragmatic norms, both consciously and out of awareness, sometimes depends on whether these norms fit their image of self and their L1 cultural identity. Since identity-related conflict can have significant consequences for the acquisition of second language pragmatics, failing to consider the centrality of learners’ identities will produce an inadequate understanding of SLA. This paper synthesizes studies that document the reasons why learners opt to remain foreign by resisting certain L2 practic-es. The following synthesis question was proposed: Why do language learners resist the pragmatic norms of the target language?

Highlights

  • Pragmatic competence, namely, the knowledge that influences and constrains speakers’ choices regarding the use of language in socially appropriate ways, is an indispensable aspect of language ability for second and foreign language (L2/FL) learners to understand and be understood in their interactions with both native speakers (NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) of the target language

  • The findings presented emerged in attempting to answer the question: Why do language learners resist the pragmatic norms of the target language? Below, the studies are discussed according to three themes: (a) learners’ perception of L2 pragmatic practices as inconsistent with their L1 cultural values, (b) learners’ perception of L2 pragmatic practices as inconsistent with their self-identity, and (c) learners’ perception of their position as “foreigners”

  • The studies I have synthesized in this paper show that there are three main reasons why learners resist the pragmatic norms of the target language: (a) their

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The knowledge that influences and constrains speakers’ choices regarding the use of language in socially appropriate ways, is an indispensable aspect of language ability for second and foreign language (L2/FL) learners to understand and be understood in their interactions with both native speakers (NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) of the target language. Bardovi-Harlig (2001) makes a strong claim for the necessity of instruction, stating that the pragmatic production and comprehension in the target language of those learners who are not exposed to instruction in pragmatics usually differs significantly from that of NSs. According to Kasper and Rose (2002), the results of several studies (Billmyer, 1990; Bouton, 1994; Wishnoff, 2000; Yoshimi, 2001) strongly suggest that “most aspects of L2 pragmatics are teachable, that instructional intervention is more beneficial than no instruction targeted on pragmatics, and that for the most part, explicit instruction combined with ample practice opportunities results in the greatest gains” According to Kasper and Rose (2002), the results of several studies (Billmyer, 1990; Bouton, 1994; Wishnoff, 2000; Yoshimi, 2001) strongly suggest that “most aspects of L2 pragmatics are teachable, that instructional intervention is more beneficial than no instruction targeted on pragmatics, and that for the most part, explicit instruction combined with ample practice opportunities results in the greatest gains” (p. 273)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call