Introduction
There have been many generations of English-learners who finished their classes in this foreign language with a significant overall language proficiency but less proficient abilities to interpret a message and intention that are expressed in a conversation appropriately, as well as to send them. This specific competence is called pragmatic competence. Below, the crucial techniques to teach the latter in EFL classrooms, the theoretical foundation for this, and the related concepts – a speech act and politeness strategy – will be discussed.
Methodology
Before the core of the investigation process is provided, it should be clarified why this paper aims to follow notable practices of action research, as well as the relation of pragmatism to the latter is to be stated. Action research may be defined as “a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action” (Sagor, 2000, para. 2). Then, according to Sagor (2000, para. 2), “The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor” in improving and/or refining his or her actions.” The essential purpose of this discussion is to provide concrete steps, or actions, for EFL students that will improve their performance within the scope of interpreting messages and intentions throughout conversations properly. This purpose directly relates the investigation to action research and justifies such a choice because, given the mentioned approach, pragmatic competence may be gained significantly.
Moreover, action research seems to be the most rational option if to compare with other types of research. For instance, descriptive research would focus mostly on theoretical issues, without the provision of concrete steps to deal with the problem. Then, an experimental study would have required the involvement of a particular sample (Ranganathan and Aggarwal, 2018), which is not implied by the purpose of the paper. Meanwhile, action research will shed light on the specific ways in which significant EFL teaching can be achieved.
At this point, the correlation of action research and pragmatic competence is to be determined. To that end, it seems rational to give the definition of pragmatic competence – “knowledge of the linguistic resources available in a given language for realizing particular illocutions, knowledge of the sequential aspects of speech acts and finally knowledge of the appropriate contextual use of the particular language’s linguistic resources” (Barron, 2003, p. 10). Hence, pragmatic competence is related to the comprehension of linguistic resources, as well as the skill to utilize and expound them properly and expediently in a variety of situations. This may be considered as a vital foundation for EFL students to obtain a solid basis for orientation in the framework of the language and interpretation of its expression. It refers to the investigation of the action research method as there is a necessity of identifying concrete steps and approaches to teach this pragmatic competence.
All the above arguments justify the choice of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Hothersall’s study (2019) (cited in Kaushik and Walsh, 2019, p. 9) states the following, “As a paradigm, pragmatism offers an experience-based, action-oriented framework whereby the purpose of the research is to help us address the issues of dealing with how we experience and come to know the world in a practical sense.” As already claimed, action research – within the scope of this paper – aims to provide clear ways of stating pragmatic competence and raising awareness about including it in the teaching of English for EFL students. This highlights its relation to pragmatism, as well as the appropriacy of the chosen research overall. In particular, pragmatism implies appealing to evidence-based sources to determine proper actions within the topic. In turn, action research allows developing significant, coherent, and concrete steps for addressing the issue. Then, pragmatic competence tends to be the core notion for resolving this issue, appropriate teaching of which may be achieved via actions proposed by pragmatic action research.
Another crucial point that should be covered is the advantages of pragmatism over other paradigms within the context given. In the framework of this research, constructivism’s main weakness is that this method would rather create an agenda for change than provide concrete steps for resolving the EFL students’ issue. Positivism, in turn, would focus on observing and then measuring data numerically, which, again, hinders the provision of concise and appropriate actions that are the primary purpose of the study. Pragmatism, appealing to the mixing of qualitative and quantitative methods, would address two critical disadvantages by making an emphasis on developing real actions and integrating data at necessary stages of inquiry, respectively (Goldkuhl, 2012).
Finally, the correlation of action research pragmatism and mixed methods in the framework of this study should be stated. According to Wiśniewska (2011, p. 65), “The most common reason for applying the mixed methods approach in both action research and mixed methods studies is the need for complementarity of data and triangulation.” In this regard, it was important to appeal to the founding paradigms of both action research and pragmatism so that concise actions for EFL students and teachers could be given, grounding on evidence-based studies.
It should also be noted that many academicians applied similar research designs in studying pragmatic competences (Elham, 2017; Keshani and Heidari-Shahreza, 2017; Yan, 2016; Borovina, 2017; Deveci, 2015). They state that action research is an appropriate option to give a concise further direction of practical implementation of their findings for EFL learners. Given the rationale regarding the research design, it seems reasonable to turn to the discussion.
Discussion
A plethora of proficient educators in EFL emphasizes the fact teaching of pragmatic competence is vital, founding their assumptions on specific monitoring and experience in the framework of their personal practice (Koran, 2015; Borovina, 2017; Deveci, 2015). Nevertheless, the doctrine of pragmatic competence remains overlooked within the scope of language learning. Among reasons for this may be a variety of factors – starting from teachers’ overload and ending with time constrain. Still, the scholarly dimension tends to pay attention to the notion of pragmatic competence for EFL learners to an adequate extent.
Teaching pragmatic competence is a complex phenomenon that has been discussed in a plethora of reliable studies. Reuda (2006) claims that this teaching is to involve the preparation of appropriate input for instructions, utilization of expedient and authentic actions for teaching pragmatic competence, as well as raising awareness of students about it. The closely related concept is a politeness strategy that provides a number of visible benefits in this regard. The notion was firstly created by Brown and Levinson in 1987, and it has gained a widespread use among academicians. Brown and Levinson (1987) define four major politeness strategies that will be explored below.
First, it is a bald on-record strategy, which is utilized to directly appeal to an interlocutor in order to express one’s necessities, improving the awareness of students. The use of imperative phrases such as “go and tell the class that the lesson is starting in five minutes” or “I want to talk to you about a serious issue” may be considered good examples in this regard.
Second, it is a positive politeness strategy, which is utilized to show the recognition of an interlocutor’s need to be respected, as well as demonstrate that the relationships are friendly and reciprocal. Among notable examples may be the following; for instance, one can notice and express empathy to a hearer’s problems. Then, it may be the avoidance of disagreements and aspiration to an agreement. Finally, it could be the formulation of friendly jokes and the establishment of a friendly atmosphere.
Third, it is a negative politeness strategy, which is used in order to avoid the imposition of an interlocutor, giving respect to their autonomy, as well as recognizing their wish to remain respected in any situation, often by expressing apologizes for imposition, hesitation, and by requesting permissions to ask questions. The examples might be the impersonalization of both the speaker and the interlocutor by non-expressing the addressee or being continuously pessimistic on the topic of the conversation.
Fourth, it is an off-record (indirect) strategy, which implies the utilization of indirect linguistic forms to minimize the pressure of an interlocutor, as well as to make this interlocutor deduce the indirect requests for themselves. Significant examples of this strategy are the use of hints, irony, and metaphor, the provision of a clue via an association, and the expression of various generalizations without mentioning the interlocutor directly. It might be assumed that educating and using politeness strategies is essential as they are substantially intersected with cultural aspects of the language.
Here, it should be noted that teaching pragmatic competence is closely related to the concept of speech acts. The latter has a considerable variety of classifications provided by noticeable scholars. The most common and widespread taxonomy seems to be the one given by Searle in 1969. According to Searle (1969), there are four primary types of speech acts – representative, directive, commissive, expressive, and declarative.
Representatives may be defined as the general assumptions about life as a speaker believes in and is confident about them. Commissives involve promises or threats that are utilized to obligate oneself to act in a particular way in the future. Then, directives refer to the speech acts of what one wants an interlocutor to do – for instance, a request, invitation, or piece of advice. Expressives may be defined as the claims of how a speaker feels – apologies, refusals, etc. Finally, declarations refer to the statements that will change the world after they are uttered – for example, “I am buying this house and ready to sign the related documents.”
A crucial issue in the framework of teaching pragmatic competence is making this teaching comprehensive and efficient. Generally, associated techniques may be split into explicit and implicit instruction. In accordance with a number of investigations on the topic, both mentioned approaches are expedient, with slightly better outcomes that were got with the former (Xiao-le, 2011; Salemi and Mitra Rabiee, 2012). The explicit approach implies unambiguous teaching of numerous linguistic structures and patterns for EFL learners. Then, the implicit approach suggests that a teacher does not express the goals or ideas in a clear way but leaves it to students so that they could figure these out on their own. It should be noted that the rational combination of explicit and implicit approaches results in significant pragmatic competence teaching.
Conclusion
To conclude, the above content discusses the issue of teaching pragmatic competence to EFL students. Rationale regarding the correlation of action research, pragmatism, and pragmatic competence is provided. It was found that the implication of appropriate politeness strategies, speech acts, and both explicit and implicit techniques of teaching contribute to a notable improvement in EFL students’ understanding and learning of pragmatic competence, which is evidenced from reliable scholarly studies.
Reference List
Barron, A. (2003) Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Borovina, D. (2017) Croatian EFL learners’ interlanguage requests: A focus on request modification. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 14(1), pp. 75–93.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deveci, T. (2015) The complaint speech act set produced by university students speaking English as a foreign language. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 4(1), pp. 2161–2171.
Elham, A. (2017) An investigation of apology strategies employed by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 6(3), pp. 27–37.
Goldkuhl, G. (2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), pp. 135–146.
Hothersall, J. (2019) Epistemology and social work: enhancing the integration of theory, practice and research through philosophical pragmatism. European Journal of Social Work, 22(5), pp. 860–870.
Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. (2019) Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), pp. 1–17.
Keshani, K. and Heidari-Shahreza, M. (2017) A comparative study of apology strategy use by Iranian and German EFL learners: Gender differences in focus. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(1), pp. 199–212.
Koran, E. (2015) Awareness of Importance of Communicative Competence in TEFL among EFL teachers in Iraq. 6th International Visible Conference on Educational Studies and Applied Linguistics (pp. 159-171). Erbil: Ishik University.
Ranganathan, P. and Aggarwal, R. (2018) Study designs: Part 1 – An overview and classification. Perspectives in clinical research, 9(4), pp. 184–186.
Salemi, A. and Mitra Rabiee, S. K. (2012) The effects of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback on the development of persian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence in suggestion structures. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), pp. 188–199.
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiśniewska, D. (2011). Mixed Methods and Action Research: similar or different? Glottodidactica XXXVII, pp. 59–72.
Xiao-le, G. (2011) The effect of explicit and implicit instructions of request strategies. Intercultural Communication Studies, XX(1), pp. 104–123.
Yan, C. (2016) A contrastive pragmatic study of politeness strategies in disagreement between native speakers of English and Chinese EFL learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(2), pp. 231–245.