Keywords
language learning
identity
How to Cite
Number of views: 926
Number of downloads: 549
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?References
*Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581-601.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barron, A. (2002). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2012). Study abroad and the development of second language identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 173-193.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Billmyer, K. (1990). The effect of formal instruction on the development of sociolinguistic competence: The performance of compliments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 1535.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 255-272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Pascalian meditations (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-167.
Brock, M. N., & Nagasaka, Y. (2005). Teaching pragmatics in the EFL classroom? SURE you can! TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27-41.
*Brown, L. (2013). Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural dimensions of language learning in study abroad (pp. 269-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cohen, A. D. (2012) Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict. In J. C. Felix-Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts (pp. 273-294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research. London: Sage.
*Davis, J. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57, 611-649.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Teaching Spanish pragmatics in the classroom: Explicit instruction of mitigation. Hispania, 91(2), 477-492.
*Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1-17.
Hoffman-Hicks, S. (1999). The longitudinal development of French foreign language pragmatic competence: Evidence from study abroad participants (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Hymes, D. (1979). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language (pp. 101-128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
*Iwasaki, N. (2011). Learning Japanese “politeness” and “impoliteness”: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature, 45, 67-106.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22, 502-530.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In G. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kim, I.-O. (2000). Relationship of onset of age of ESL acquisition and extent of informal input to appropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English: A study of native Korean adult speakers of ESL (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, USA.
Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 19-42.
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lafford, B. A. (1995). Getting into, through, and out of a survival situation: A comparison of communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and at home. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 97-121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
*Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1313-1328.
*LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29, 69-89.
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York: Routledge.
*Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal, 95, 519-540.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409-429.
Norton, B., & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 73-94). London: Routledge.
Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and linguistic transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 232-249). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 155-173). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Papastergiadis, N. (2000). The turbulence of migration. Cambridge: Polity.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2003). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1-33). New York: Multilingual Matters.
Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year abroad on second language learners of French. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 245-267). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 423-451.
*Shively, R. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818-1835.
Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 225-244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
*Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356-382.
Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395-430.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. New York: Multilingual Matters.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Blackwell.
Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second language studies: Working papers of the department of second language studies, University of Hawai`i, 19, 119-157.
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-244). New York: Cambridge University Press.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.