University of Mosul
College of Education
Department of English
Pragmatics in Language Teaching
Course instructor
Asst.Prof.Dr.Kamal H.Hussein
A Semiar
Prepared by
Hadeel Abdulmohsin Taha
2023/2024
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Definitions of pragmatics in language teaching
2. The Role of pragmatics in language teaching
3. Communicative competence
3.1 Canale and Swain 's model
3.2 Bachman's model
4.Issues in Pragmatic Teaching
4.1. Selecting material on L2 pragmatics
4.2 Teacher preparation in L2 pragmatics
4.3 The role of teachers in facilitating the learning of L2
pragmatics
5. Interlanguage pragmatics.
6. Approaches to teaching and testing pragmatics in the
language classroom .
7. How can pragmatics be taught ?
8.Conclusion
References
Introduction
The contribution of pragmatics to language teaching is
undeniable. The purpose of the application of different teaching
and learning activities is to help students become more
effective, fluent and successive communicators in the target
language. Students will be able to act different communicative
patterns, they will find themselves active and involved in
concrete acts in the classroom. They will react fluently,
coherently and accurately. In a nutshell, pragmatic competence
will urge their critical thinking.
1. Definitions of Pragmatics in Language Teaching
Brown, H. D. (2007) said that" it focuses on teaching
learners how to use language appropriately in different
communicative contexts, considering the social and cultural
norms".
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2019)Pragmatics in language
teaching involves teaching learners how to use language in
context, considering social and cultural factors to achieve
effective communication.
(Rose, 2021) defined this field as "the study of how context
influences the interpretation of language, encompassing the
social and cultural aspects of communication, such as politeness,
indirectness, and understanding implied meanings".
2. The Role of Pragmatics in Language Teaching
The chief goal of teaching in pragmatics is to raise learners‟
pragmatic awareness and give them choices about their
interactions in the target language. The role of instruction in
pragmatics is to help learners become familiar with the range of
pragmatic devices and practices in the target language. With
such instruction, learners can maintain their own cultural
identities, participate more fully in target language
communication, and gain control of the force and outcome of
their contributions. Exposing learners to pragmatics in their
second or foreign language helps the learners to expand their
perception of the target language and those who speak it.
The classroom provides a safe place within which learners
can try out new forms and patterns of communication in an
accepting environment. They can experiment with unfamiliar
forms of address. The instructor and other student participants
can provide feedback. Instruction should allow students to
choose how much of the pragmatic norms of the culture they
would like to include in their own repertoire. They will also
enjoy greater insights into the target culture. Equally important,
we believe that students genuinely enjoy learning about
pragmatics because it is like being let into a secret!
3. Communicative Competence
Numerous studies have examined the correlation between
pragmatic and communicative competence, investigating
whether they develop concurrently in second language
acquisition. This concept has been a driving force in SL
curriculum development, teaching, and testing. Definitions of
communicative competence typically incorporate at least two
key components:
1. A code component, which encompasses a language user's
understanding of syntax, morphology, semantics, vocabulary,
and phonology.
2. A use component, which reflects a language user's capacity to
appropriately utilize language for a specific purpose within a
particular context.
On the one hand, Campbell and , detailed models of
communicative competence have been suggested by
Canale and Swain and Bachman Wales (1970) and
Hymes (1972) conceptualize communicative competence
as the knowledge of rules of grammar. On the other,
rules of language use appropriate to a communicative
situation. Based on their conceptualizations.
3.1.Canale and Swain's model
Canale and Swain's (1980) model was a forerunner in
this trend. They included under communicative
competence three subcompetencies, later extended
by Canale (1983) to four, which are the following :
❖ grammatical competence, the knowledge of
linguistic code features such as morphology, syntax,
semantics, phonology .
❖ sociolinguistic competence, the knowledge of
contextually appropriate language use.
❖ discourse competence, the knowledge of
achieving coherence and cohesion in spoken or written
communication .
❖ strategic competence, the knowledge of how to
use communication strategies to handle breakdowns in
communication and make communication effective.
Figure 1: Canale‘s (1983) modification of Canale and Swain‘s (1980) model of
communicative competence (adopted from Alzeebaree, 2017: 17)
Pragmatic competence is represented in this model as
sociolinguistic competence, which Canale (1983, p. 7) described
as encompassing both “appropriateness of meaning” and
“appropriateness of form.” This distinction echoes Leech
(1983), with appropriateness of meaning paralleling Leech‟s
sociopragmatic component, which includes an interlocutor‟s
knowledge of pragmatic conventions and the ability to assess
situational context and speech intentions. Appropriateness of
form resembles Leech‟s (1983) pragmalinguistic component
(and Clark‟s [1979] conventions of means and form) and
concerns the mapping of a linguistic realization of a speech
intention to a situation.
3.2. Bachman’s model
Bachman (1990) proposed a second influential model and
revised by Bachman and Palmer (1996), considers
communicative competence a dynamic system in which world
knowledge (“knowledge structures”) and language competence
feed into strategic competence, which describes the degree to
which linguistic intentions are efficiently executed. Strategic
competence interacts with psychophysiological mechanisms,
which in turn interact with situational context. Grammatical and
pragmatic competence are part of Bachman‟s language
competence, which he subdivides into organizational
competence and pragmatic competence. Organizational
competence concerns a speaker‟s control of the formal aspects
of language and is further subdivided in grammatical
competence (vocabulary, syntax, morphology, phonology) and
textual competence (cohesion/coherence, rhetorical
organization), thereby encompassing Canale‟s (1983) discourse
competence. Pragmatic competence consists of sociolinguistic
and illocutionary competence, with the former again paralleling
Leech‟s (1983) sociopragmatic component and the latter
corresponding to Leech‟s concept of a pragmalinguistic
component.
To conclude, these models make a distinction between
competencies for pragmatic aspects of language use and for
aspects concerned with linguistic code features.
4. Issues in Pragmatics Teaching
Issues in the teaching of pragmatics are considered in
determining which material to teach, how to prepare teachers to
teach it, and the role of teachers in facilitating the learning of
pragmatics. We will consider issues in the teaching of
pragmatics as the following:
4.1 . Selecting material on L2 pragmatics
Teachers often teach or provide material on L2 pragmatics
to help learners use socially appropriate language. They can find
examples in sample pragmatics lessons available online, in
films, and TV shows. However, contrived media samples may
not accurately represent real-life situations. Recent research
shows that while L2 pragmatics instruction is important, the
authenticity and relevance of the materials used are crucial for
effective learning.
4.2 .Teacher preparation in L2 pragmatics
Teacher preparation in L2 pragmatics varies widely across
TESL degree programs in the United States. While almost all
programs include pragmatics in their curriculum, the extent of
coverage and how well it is conceptualized varies. Some
programs address pragmatics briefly in introductory courses,
while others dedicate 2-3 weeks to it in sociolinguistics or
discourse analysis courses. Only about 11% of programs have a
dedicated course on pragmatics for language teaching.
Consequently, many teachers may not feel fully confident in
teaching subtle aspects of pragmatics, such as fine-tuned
feedback on high-stakes requests, to their students.
4.3.The Role of teachers in facilitating the learning of L2
pragmatics
The question of how to provide explicit instruction in L2
pragmatics involves considering the responsibility of teachers,
the number of speech acts to cover, and the balance between
actual and idealized pragmatic behavior. Teachers must decide
how many speech acts to focus on, whether to teach oral and
written forms, and whether to include hybrid forms like email
requests. There's also the option for learners to gather
information from native speakers, although the authenticity of
native speaker speech acts compared to what is taught in the
classroom is uncertain. While corpora could potentially provide
authentic language examples, they currently play a minor role in
L2 pragmatics instruction.
5. Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP).
Interlanguage pragmatics is the study of non-native
speakers‟ use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge
(Kasper, 1996, P.145). In other words, it studies how non-native
speakers understand and perform linguistic action in a target
language, and how they acquire L2 pragmatic knowledge.
Most studies of ILP focus on second language use (Kasper,
1992). They are useful for exploring the real situation of L2
learners‟ knowledge or competence of Interlanguage
pragmatics. At the same time, because our way of speaking is
determined by context – to whom we are talking and under
what circumstances - learners need to know which forms are
appropriate to use in what situations. Hence, linguistic
knowledge and sociocultural knowledge of social conventions,
customs, and norms of interaction are two layers of pragmatic
competence.
More recently, Bardovi-Harlig (2010: 219) underlines that
pragmatics and pragmatic acquisition in ILP encompasses both
form and use . She writes: „[pragmatics] bridges the gap
between the system side of language and the use side, and
relates both of them at the same time. Interlanguage pragmatics
brings the study of acquisition to this mix of structure and use.
6. Approaches to Teaching and Testing Pragmatics
in the language classroom .
Nunn (2006) affirms that Pragmatics is applicable to
language teaching because classroom language teaching is an
occupation, which uses language in a social context. English
language teachers should consider the ever-increasing variety of
contexts in which users across the globe are learning and using
English pragmatically.
Pragmatics is a crucial discipline for language teachers to
understand and use in the classrooms. In support of this, Zagarac
(2002:12) states that „it is difficult to see pragmatics as
irrelevant to a profession so centrally and essentially concerned
with people and language use. Teaching and learning are always
mediated through language.
Ekpa (1996:179) suggests that students should be taught
pragmatics to recognize the situations and circumstances in
which different kinds of language are appropriate and should be
given practice in using the proper linguistic forms according to
those contexts.
Pragmatic teaching and testing focuses on practical
language use rather than just theoretical knowledge. Here are
some teaching approaches:
1. Authentic Materials: Use real-world materials like
newspapers, advertisements, and videos to teach language in
context.
2. Role-plays and Simulations: Encourage students to act out
real-life situations to practice language in context.
3. Problem-solving Activities: Have students work on language
tasks that require them to solve problems and communicate
effectively.
On the basis of the pragmatic theory of language,
"integrative" testing is the famous one (Carroll 1961). The
characteristic of integrative tests is that they require activities that
are similar to the normal use of language for communicative
purposes. The examinee must analyze and synthesize sequences
of linguistic elements.
Some of the types of tests that qualify as belonging to the
integrative family besides dictation , composition, oral interview
paragraph recognition, and cloze test, are Upshur's tests of
productive communication (Upshur 1969), reading aloud, and
some multiple choice tests of reading comprehension and other
skills. In general, all of these tests have remarkable characteristics
of stability and sensitivity.
7 . How can pragmatics be taught ?
It is widely recognized that language teaching methods and
content are heavily influenced by language testing . Specifically,
in educational settings where formal testing is routine, any
curriculum innovations aimed at teaching pragmatics will be
ineffective unless pragmatic skills are consistently assessed as
an essential component of language tests. Although the model
of communicative language ability (Canale & Swain, 1980;
Canale, 1983) was originally designed to guide both language
instruction and assessment, thus, tests of evaluating pragmatic
abilities are rare. One notable exception is the Canadian
Development of Bilingual Proficiency project (e.g., Harley,
Allen, Cummins, & Swain, 1990a), which developed tests to
assess grammatical, discourse, and "sociolinguistic" competence
in second language (L2) .
It is emphasized that there is not a single best way to teach
pragmatics. Regardless of method, however, activities should
share two important pedagogical practices: (1) authentic
language samples are used as examples or models, and (2) input
precedes interpretation or production by learners. Instruction in
pragmatics may utilize the learners‟ first language as well as the
target language. Awareness raising activities can profitably
involve demonstrations in L1 or L2 samples. Demonstrations
may include the use of space, such as where people stand in a
line, or nonverbal gestures that accompany certain types of talk,
such as shaking hands during greetings or introductions. L1
language samples can serve to introduce learners to ideas in
pragmatics in a context in which they have native control of the
language. The samples can also serve as the basis of L1-L2
comparisons. All languages have pragmatic systems, and with a
little encouragement all learners will recognize that their native
language also has “secret rules.”
8.Conclusion
The teaching of pragmatics aims to facilitate the learners‟ sense
of being able to find socially appropriate language for the
situations that they encounter. The study of pragmatics explores
the ability of language users to match utterances with contexts
in which they are appropriate; in Stalnaker‟s words, pragmatics
is "the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they
are performed" (1972, p. 383). So, the contribution of
pragmatics to language teaching is, thus, undeniable.
References
Alzeebaree, Y., & Yavuz, M. A. (2017). Realization of the
speech acts of request and apology by Middle Eastern EFL
learners. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 13(11), 7313-7327.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Exploring the pragmatics of
interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. Pragmatics
across languages and cultures, 7, 219-259.
Cai, L., & Wang, Y. (2013). Interlanguage pragmatics in
SLA. Theory and Practice in language Studies, 3(1), 142.
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics:
What can we expect from learners?. Language Teaching, 41(2),
213-235.
Deda, N. (2013). The role of Pragmatics in English language
teaching. Pragmatic competence. Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(4), 63-70.
Farinde, R. O., & Oyedokun-Alli, W. A. (2020). Pragmatics and
language teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 11(5), 841-846.
Farinde, R. O., & Oyedokun-Alli, W. A. (2020). Pragmatics and
language teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 11(5), 841-846.
Mahan-Taylor, R. Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig.
Oller, J. W. (1978). Pragmatics and language testing. Advances
in language testing series, 2.
Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics: A
historical sketch and future directions. The Routledge
handbook of pragmatics, 153-167.
