Effects of explicit instruction on efl learners' pragmatic competence development by Yurong Zhao, Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology, China.

1. 明示教学对提高外语学习者语用能力的作用及局限性
研究
Effects of Explicit Instruction on EFL learners’ Pragmatic
Competence Development
By: Zhao Yurong
From: Hebei Normal University
of Science and Technology
On: May,18th, 2007

2. Outline
 Background
 Questions and hypotheses
 Methodological issues
 Design
 Findings
 Conclusion

3. I. Background of the present study
 1. Pragmatic competence and interlanguage competence
 Pragmatic competence ---one of the essential elements of
communicative competence.
 In Bachman’s (1990) model, communicative competence is
composed of organizational competence (which refers to
knowledge of linguistic units and textual rules) and pragmatic
competence (which refers to knowledge and ability to interpret and
perform illocutionary acts corresponding to the social and contextual
factors)
 Interlanguage pragmatic competence---the developing state
of an L2/FL learners’ pragmatic competence.

4. Importance of TL pragmatic competence
 A big number of researches, such as Thomas (1983), Tannen (1984),
Wolfson (1989), Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford (1993), Scollon &
Scollon (2000), etc., have demonstrated the importance of TL
pragmatic competence in intercultural communication. In fact, to
some extent, it is even more important than the TL organizational
competence.
 The fact is simply that while native speakers often forgive syntactic
and lexical errors, they typically interpret pragmatic failure as
arrogance, impatience, rudeness, and so on.
 Therefore, in order to prevent missteps in intercultural
communication, L2 learners have to develop the TL pragmatic
competence on the basis of improving their overall TL proficiency
and accuracy.
 Accordingly, researchers and teachers need to explore
how nonnative learners acquire and develop this type of
competence.

5. 
Solution?

6. 3.Rational of explicit teaching
Divergence in L2
learners’ REMEDY:
pragmatic competence Explicit instruction
Potential danger for of pragmatics
intercultural communication
Inefficient development Noticing The role of focused
under the normal teaching instruction in L1
hypothesis
condition pragmatics acquisition
(Ellis, 1992;Hill,1997)
“Noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input
to intake” (Schmidt, 1990: 129), or “The attentional threshold for noticing
is the same as the threshold for learning” (Schmidt, 1993:35). And simple
exposure to the TL pragmatics was insufficient for learners’ noticing of
L2 pragmatic features (Schmidt, 1993).

7. 4. Previous experimental studies
Experimental studies on the effects of explicit instruction
of pragmatics--incongruent results
A bigger part of studies support the effectiveness of the explicit approach
(e.g. Billmyer, 1990; Olshtain & Cohen, 1990; Morrow, 1995; Takahashi, 2001;
Bouton, 1994, 2001; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2001; Wishnoff, 2000; etc.)
But other studies reported that no significant effects of the explicit
instruction could be found
(e.g.Locastro,1997; Kubota,1995; Overfield,1996;Pearson,2001; etc.) .

8.  Compare and contrast:
1) Takahashi, 2001 (intermediate/advanced learners; bi-clausal requests;
detailed metapragmatic information given in the handouts)
vs. Pearson, 2001(low proficiency; gratitude, apology, directive;
metapragmatic discussion)
2) Morrow, 1995 (prescribed speech act formulas; various types of
performance activities; learner factors are controlled )
vs. Overfield, 1996 (extralinguistic features discussion; role-play; uncontrolled
learner factors, especially, the experience of traveling abroad)
 Tentative interpretation:
Differences in teaching designs; Influences of learner factors
 Investigations into the relationship between individual factors and
pragmatic competence development associate the possible
intervention of learner factors in the the instructional process of
pragmatics
Integrative Motivation: Schmidt, 1983; Niezgoda and Rover, 2001
Sociocultural Identity: Locastro, 1998, 2001; Siegal, 1996
Grammatical competence: Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei,1998; Koike, 1996

9. II. Research questions and hypotheses (1)
This study investigates in the context of explicit teaching IF and To What
Extent nonnative learners can improve their pragmatic performance; and
meanwhile, IF and TO What Extent learner factors can exert some
influences on the outcome of the explicit teaching.
Make difference in learners’ pre- and
post-treatment performance?
Bring more benefits for learners’
Research Questions improvement in TL pragmatic
competence than normal teaching?
Learners’ individual differences have
effects on learners’ progress under the
same explicit teaching condition?

10. II. Research questions and hypotheses (2)
(i) Explicit instruction of pragmatics does make difference in
nonnative learners’ pragmatic performance;
H
Y (ii) Explicit instruction can better facilitate nonnative learners’
P pragmatic competence development than normal teaching
approach;
O
T (iii) FL learners’ lower integrative motivation and lower-leveled
identity for TL sociocultural norm may impede learners’
H investment in pragmatics learning, and thus shadow the effects
E of pragmatics teaching;
S (iv) Grammatical competence is a necessary, though not a
E sufficient condition for learners’ pragmatic competence
S development. Learners’ lower grammatical competence might
hinder learners from getting benefits of pragmatics instruction.

11. III. Explicit Teaching of Requests and Refusals:
Methodological Issues
Principles for explicit teaching of pragmatics
A Pilot Investigation
Modified taxonomy Findings—possible
of requests and refusals learning obstacles

12. 1. Principles for explicit teaching of Pragmatics
two-dimensional
Theoretical Noticing hypothesis output hypothesis
model hypothesis
underpinnings
Principle of consciousness-raising
Principles
for explicit Principle of explicit input
teaching
of Principle of activating acquired knowledge
pragmatics
Principle of practice
Principle of teaching data’s authenticity

13. 2. Pilot Investigation (1)
General Introduction: a comparative study
Time: July, 2004
Participants: 49 undergraduates in Tsinghua university
19 native English speakers.
Data collection: DCT questionnaires, an English version, and a Chinese version
Elicited data: 17 copies of effective NE data
30 copies of effective interlanguage data
19 copies of effective NC data
Modified taxonomy of requests and refusals
A: Realization strategies of the head act
Classical scheme: three macro categories, nine micro categories
(Blum-Kulka et al, 1989: 277-280)
Modified scheme: three macro categories, eleven micro categories+opting out
preparatory strategy –>WP, AP, PEP, POP
strong hints, mild hints-- > hints)
B. Mitigation devices (Blum-Kulka et al, 1989: 281-288)
Group the categories of mitigators into two macro categories:
NF mitigators and PF mitigators

14. 2. Pilot Investigation (2)
C. Re-categorization of refusal semantic formulas
Classical scheme: thirteen categories of refusal semantic formulas
(Beebe et al,1990: 72)
Modified scheme: nine categories of semantic formulas
Direct refusals Direct denials; Negative ability/willingness
Non-substantive acceptance Subjunctive supposition of acceptance
(wish); and Acceptance that function as a refusal
Future acceptance: Promise of future acceptance; Set condition for future
acceptance
Attempts to dissuade the interlocutors: Statement of principle or
philosophy

15. 2. Pilot Investigation (3)
 Based on the pilot investigation, the problematic areas for Chinese university-
level EFL learners to learn English requests and refusals may involve the
following items:
1) Contextual appropriateness in making direct requests; preparatory strategies
to make CID requests; CID request perspectives; syntactic downgraders (mainly
conditional clause); and internal mitigation devices, especially those addressing
negative face.
2) Direct refusals; certain indirect refusals (reason, alternative, avoidance, non-
substantial acceptance.); adjuncts (pause fillers, gratitude, and positive
opinion).
 As to the possible causes, the influence of Chinese pragmatic conventions are
responsible for a bigger part of differences, except the usage of WP, PF
mitigators, reason, alternative, avoidance.
 The difficult points listed in the above were to be taken as the treatment focuses,
and the aspects in which the L1 norms exert influences were to be included in
the the discussions of the differences between L1 and L2 pragmatic norms
during the treatment.

17. IV. Design of the Major Experiment (2)
* Background information of the participant groups
Group Age Male Female Length of Traveling Artistic Artistic
English study abroad design history
(major) (major)
EXP 19.0 15 17 6.5 years none 15 17
CON 19.1 10 13 7.3 years none 23 0
* A Cochran-Cox test on the experimental group (EXP) and the control group (CON) learners’
achievements (Mean: EXP 99.93, CON 102.6; SD: EXP, 17.6, CON, 10.4) in the entrance
examination of English showed that there was no significant difference in English proficiency
between the two groups (t’=2.67<t’0.01/2, 3.009).
Treatment design [Time span: three months; eleven 20-minute periods]
Experimental teaching material
*Film segments from Brave Heart, A Few Good Men, American President, and Raising Helen.
*Model dialogues recorded by native speakers based on the depicted contextual information (20
request model dialogues and 24 refusal model dialogues).
* Multiple-choice exercise and metapragmatic judgment exercise devised on the basis of Chinese
researchers’ studies on pragmatic errors (He & Yan, 1986; Jia, 1997; Cai, 2003; Chen, 2003;
Zhang, 2000, etc. )

22.  DS direct strategy
 CID conventionally indirect strategy
 NCID non-conventionally indirect strategy
 DCT discourse completion task
 EXP group experimental group
 CON group control group
 AP ability preparatory
 WP willingness preparatory
 PEP permission preparatory
 POP possibility preparatory
 NF mitigator negative face preserving mitigator
 PF mitigator positive face preserving mitigator
 DRF direct refusal
 DN direct denial
 NA negative ability/willingness statement

23. V. Findings
Learners’ performance of requests
Learners’ performance of refusals
Written self-report and structured interview
Influence of learners’ integrative motivation
Influence of learners’ sociocultural identity
Influence of learners’ grammatical competence

24. Learners’ performance of requests
A. Situational distribution of DSs (1)
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
Safe Sit.
40.00%
Risky Sit.
20.00%
0.00%
e
CO re
NE e
EX st
st
CO st
pr
pr
po
p
po
po
NE
P
N
EX
P
N

25. Learners’ performance of requests
A. Situational distribution of DSs (2)
Moreover, the results of the independent samples t-tests of the cross-group differences in the
employment of DSs over ‘risky’ situations also suggest the greater progress made by the EXP
group learners.
Pretest Posttest
EXP vs.CON EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE EXP vs. CON EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE
t=-1.748 t= 3.015 t= 4.746 t= -2.010 t= 1.041 t=3.012
df= 53 df= 46 df=37
p= .049 p=0.303 p=.005
df=53 df= 43.369 df=29.475
Finding: Theses facts suggestp= .000
P=.086 p=0.004 that although the normal teaching (if the course
book is a well-designed one) can bring certain benefits to learners, the explicit
teaching can be significantly more effective.

26. B. Employment of preparatory strategies (1)
70.00%
60.00% WP
50.00%
40.00% AP
30.00% PEP
20.00%
10.00% POP
0.00%
EX e
NE e
EX ost
CO e
CO ost
st
pr
pr
pr
po
p
p
NE
N
P
P
N
Findings: 1) Remarkable overtime difference in the EXP group learners’ pre-and post-
treatment employment of the preparatory strategies;
2) Greater progress made by the EXP group than the CON group.

27. B. Employment of preparatory strategies (2)
Independent samples t-tests
EXP vs. CON EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
AP, p=.022 AP, p=.517 AP, p=.001 AP, p=.661 AP, p=.672 AP, p=.882
WP, p=.233 WP, p=.035 WP, p=.005 WP, p=.144 WP, p=.001 WP, p=.006
PEP, p=.625 PEP, p=.028 PEP, p=.000 PEP, p=.536 PEP, p=.000 PEP, p=.236
POP, p=.402 POP, p=.020 POP, p=.000 POP, p=.637 POP, p=.000 POP, p=.027
Results of the paired samples t-test of the EXP group learners’ employment cases of the
preparatory strategies
AP1-AP2 p=.000 ; WP1-WP2 p=.039; PEP1-PEP2 p=.004 ; POP1-POP2 p=.020
Findings: Significant improvement; significantly more benefits

28. C. Employment proportion of request perspectives (1)
Perspec- H1 S1 IM1 H&S1 H2 S2 IM2 H&S2
-tives
NE 58.2% 35.3% 4.7% 1.8% 59.6% 21.3% 10.6% 8.5%
EXP 94% 6% 0 0 67.8% 27.1% 5.1% 0
CON 92.3% 7.7% 0 0 86.8% 13.2% 0 0
 Analysis: 1) Before the treatment both learner groups highly depend on hearer-oriented requests and
employ drastically less speaker- oriented requests and both learner groups didn't make any requests from
inclusive or impersonal perspectives.
 2) In the posttest, however, the EXP group’s employment of hearer-oriented requests and speaker oriented
requests were at a proportion similar to the NE norms, and the employment of impersonal oriented requests
can be found in the learners’ posttest performance, though no presence of inclusive- oriented requests can
be detected.
 3) In contrast, the CON group’s progress towards the NE norm is not so remarkable. Their employment of
hearer-oriented requests in the posttest remains at a very big proportion, and their employment of speaker-
oriented requests remains much less than the NE norm. And they still fail to use impersonal oriented
requests and inclusive oriented requests.

29. C. Employment of request perspectives (2)
Results of the independent samples t-tests of the differences in the aspect of
the average employment cases
EXP vs. NE CON vs. NE
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
H, p=. 000 H, p=. 088 H, p=. 000 H, p=. 015
S, p=. 000 S, p=. 171 S,p=.000 S,p=.299
IM,p=.020 IM,p=.434 IM,p=.020 IM,p=.020
H&S,p=.163 H&S,p=.041 H&S,p=.163 H&S,p=.041
Results of the paired samples t-tests of the differences in the EXP group
learners’ pre-and post- treatment employments of request perspectives
H1-H2, p=.042; S1-S2, p=.000; IM1-IM2, p=.002
Findings: Significant improvement; significantly more
benefits

30. D.Employment of bi-clausal requests and NF mitigators
Bi-clausal requests NF mitigators
Mean Pretest Posttest Mean Pretest Posttest
NE 1.0000 .8750 NE 1.2353 .6875
EXP .2188 1.4688 EXP .7500 1.0625
CON 8.696E-02 .3043
CON .5217 .2174
Paired samples t-test Paired samples t-test
BIC1-BIC2 p=.000 NF1-NF2 p=.056
Independent samples t-tests Independent samples t-tests
EXP pre vs. CON pre p=.255 EXP pre vs. CON pre p=.177
EXP post vs. CON post p=.000 EXP post vs. CON post p=.004
EXP post vs. NE post p=.106 EXP pre vs. NE pre p=.038
CON post vs. NE post p=.043 EXP post vs. NE post p=.356

31. Learners’ performance of refusals
A. Average employment of direct refusals and t-tests of the means
Group DRF1 DN1 NA1 DRF2 DN2 NA2
NE 2.8235 1.4706 1.3529 1.6875 .8750 .8125
EXP 1.7188 .2188 1.5000 2.0938 .1563 1.9375
CON 1.8261 .5217 1.3043 2.3043 8.696E-02 2.2174
EXP pre vs. NE pre EXP post vs. NE post EXP post vs. CON post
DRF, p=.014 DRF, p=.236 DRF, p=.516
DN, p= .000 DN, p=.000 DN, p=.456
NA, p= .671 NA, p=.001 NA, p=.396

32. B. Employment of indirect refusals and the results of t-tests
Group Alt1 Avoid1 Non-A1 Alt2 Avoid2 Non-A2
NE 9.2% 8.2% 3.1% 33% 5.3% 4.3%
EXP 4% 1.1% 0 31% 4.3% 4.8%
CON 3.8% 2.3% 0 24.3% 1.5% 0
Formulas EXP pre EXP post CON pre CON post
vs. NE pre vs. NE post vs. NE pre vs. NE post
Alternative p=.080 p= .764 p=.143 p=.503
Avoidance p= .002 p=.800 p= .054 p=.074
Non- p=.014 p=.869 p= .037 p=.010
substantive
acceptance

33. C.Usage of semantic formula of reason
Means Results of t-tests
Mean Pretest Posttest Independent samples t-tests
NE 3.5294 3.8125 EXP pre vs. NE pre p=.151
EXP 3.9688 4.4375 EXP post vs. NE post p=.067
CON 3.3913 4.9565 CON pre vs. NE pre p=.675
CON post vs. NE post p=.003
Paired samples t-tests
EXP pre vs. EXP post p=.053
CON pre vs. CON post p=.000

34. D. Usage of adjuncts
Gratitude Positive opinion
Overall distribution Overall distribution
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
NE 23.7% 23.4% NE 19.4% 16%
EXP 28.2% 40.1% EXP 31.6% 32.6%
CON 16.7% 39.7% CON 26.7% 29.4%
Results of t-tests Results of t-tests
EXP pre vs. NE pre p=.550 EXP pre vs. NE pre p=.215
EXP post vs. NE post p=.009 EXP post vs. NE post p=.013
EXP post vs. CON Post p=.685 EXP post vs. CON Post p=.888

35. Written Self-report and Structured interview
 Self -report
1) Some learners have a wrong belief in the indirectness encoded in want statement
expressions, which is possibly due to the influence of Chinese culture.
2) The learners are somewhat reluctant to follow the native norm of using the direct
denials in ‘safe’ cases because they are afraid that the direct denial would hurt their
friends’ feelings; some learners could intentionally choose an ‘inter-norm’ between L1
culture and L2 culture.
3) Learners seem to have a tendency of using adjuncts to modify the refusals when
they feel unsure of the necessity. They argued for the Chinese traditional belief in “no
one will blame a person who is excessively polite”.
 Structured Interview
The interview reveals that most learners have a preference for Chinese cultural
norm, but meanwhile, they are willing to follow English cultural norm when
communicating with others in English. So, perhaps, in performing speech acts, they
just consciously or unconsciously follow an inter-norm.

36. Influence of learners’ integrative motivation
‘Safe’ Non-H Bi-clausal Direct
Test & Group DSs request
perspective refusal
Pretest LM (15) 40.5% 10.9% 2.7% 26.7%
HM (15) 48.6% 7.1% 0.8% 32.2%
Posttest LM (15) 65.8% (+25.3%) 20.2% (+9.8%) 23.4% (+20.7%) 32.2%
HM (15) 77% (+28.4%) 23.3% 28.6% (+27.8%) 37.8%
(+16.2%)
Results of paired samples t-tests
HM pre vs. HM post LM pre vs. LM post
DSA1-DSA2 p=.003 DSA1-DSA2 p=.000
NONH1-NONH2 p=.036 NONH1-NONH2 p=.105
BIC1-BIC2 p=.001 BIC1-BIC2 p=.010
DRF1-DRF2 p=.597 DRF1-DRF2 p=.229

37. Influence of learners’ sociocultural identity
Subgroup DN1 NA1 DRF1 DN2 NA2 DRF2
LI 3.5% 24.1% 27.6% 2.2% 26.9% 29%
HI 4.9% 32.1% 37% 4.6% 38.6% 43.2%
 Findings:
1) On the one hand, the HI subgroup learners are more ready to accept the NE norm in
employing direct refusals;
2) On the other hand, the HI subgroup learners also show reluctance to choose direct
denials from the two available choices and depend predominantly on the alternative,
negative ability or willingness to perform direct refusals.
Interpretation: Possibly, the underlying cause is that the HI subgroup learners can be
still subject to the influence of L1 culture, and thus, to solve the conflicts of two
cultural conventions, they would prefer an ‘inter-norm’.

38. Influence of learners’ grammatical competence
Subgroup AP& WP1 PEP&POP1 BIC1 AP& WP2 PEP&POP2 BIC2
LG .7500 6.618E-02 . .4216 .1667 .2157
2.206E-0
2
HG .7583 .1000 3.333E-0 .2750 .2889 .2778
2
 Results of paired samples t-test
HG pre vs. HG post LG pre vs. LG post
AP&WP1 vs. AP&WP2 p=.000 p=.000
PEP & POP1 vs. PEP&POP2 p=.002 p=.060
BIC1vs.BIC2 p=.000 p=.006

39. VI Conclusion and implications (1)
 Answers to the research questions
The approach of explicit teaching does bring significant benefits for learner’s
progress towards the NE norm, but its effectiveness seems to be restricted in
teaching pragmatic features related with sociopragmatics.
The experimental treatment can bring more benefits to learners than the normal
teaching condition despite the fact the explicit treatment cannot bring all the
expected effects in the EXP group learners’ performance.
Learners’ lower integrative motivation and their L1 cultural beliefs can have certain
constraints over learner’ progress towards the native speakers’ pragmatic norm and
accordingly affect the outcome of explicit teaching to a certain degree; learners with
lower grammatical competence are likely to get less benefits from
the explicit teaching of pragmatics.

40. VI Conclusion and implications (2)
Tentative conclusions:
The present experiment of explicit teaching approach designed on the basis
of the teaching principles is successful for a bigger part but not in every aspect
in facilitating learners’ TL pragmatic competence development.
1) Regarding the increase of pragmalinguistic means to achieve higher
degreed indirectness and politeness, the explicit approach brought remarkable
benefits for learners’ pragmatic progress.
2) Explicit teaching of sociopragmatics seem to be effective in teaching
‘politeness’, but not so effective in teaching appropriateness, or, native-like
usage.
3) It seems that the limitations of the explicit approach revealed in this
experiment were more often caused by the intervening factors than the
approach itself.

41. VI Conclusion and implications (3)
Implications A consolidated theoretical construct
Modified taxonomy of requests and refusals
Interlanguage pragmatics
researches
Native speakers’ norm?
Influences of learner factors
Integration of pragmatics instruction into normal teaching
L2 instruction Explicit teaching principles
Goal of L2 pragmatics instruction

42. VII.Limitations and suggestions
 Limitations
1) The population size is rather small.
2) There are some drawbacks in the design of the DCT questionnaires and the employment of two
sets of baseline data.
3) Due to the restriction of time, less sufficient practice was administered of some TL pragmatic
usage in subtle aspects.
4) Because of the failure in finding a native speaker as a co-rater, the comprehensive evaluation of
learners’ pragmatic performance was not done.
 Suggestions
1) To get a clear picture of the role of instruction or individual factors in the process of pragmatic
competence development, investigations of a big population of versified background and different
proficiency are expected.
2) The present study strongly recommends Chinese interlanguage pragmatics researchers to go
beyond the model of comparative study and conduct experimental studies to investigate the
developmental process of Chinese EFL learners’ pragmatic competence.

43. Thank you for your attendance and
precious advice!