{"id":19993,"date":"2023-04-15T16:05:26","date_gmt":"2023-04-16T00:05:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/?page_id=19993"},"modified":"2023-07-22T20:48:47","modified_gmt":"2023-07-23T04:48:47","slug":"ej105a2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/issues\/volume27\/ej105\/ej105a2\/","title":{"rendered":"Formulaic Language in the Acquisition of L2 Pragmatic Competence in a Community-based Classroom"},"content":{"rendered":"

May 2023 – Volume 27, Number 1<\/h2>\n

https:\/\/doi.org\/10.55593\/ej.27105a2<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alisa Zavialova<\/strong>
\nCarleton University, Canada
\n<alisazavialova\"atmark\"cunet.carleton.ca><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Pragmatic formulas have been recognized as linguistic building blocks necessary for successful speech act performance. Current approaches to speech act teaching overlook pragmatic formulas, promoting an incomplete view of pragmatics instruction. This paper reports on the results of a classroom-based study in which a formula-enhanced treatment focusing on both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic components of pragmatic ability was tested. Seven students from the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program participated in four lessons involving pre-, post- and delayed post-test measures. During the treatment, the students were exposed to target formulas from four interaction contexts. A qualitative utterance analysis was conducted to determine how pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic abilities of the students evolved after the teaching intervention. Additionally, three expert judges evaluated students\u2019 pragmatic performance. The results indicate that improvements in both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic abilities of the students were associated with the use of target-like formulas in their speech acts.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: pragmatic competence, speech acts, instructional pragmatics, formulaic language<\/p>\n

Pragmatic competence<\/em> is an integral component of linguistic ability in a second language (L2) (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Celce-Murcia, 2007), and the relationship between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge is fundamental to defining and assessing L2 pragmatic competence. Pragmalinguistic<\/em> knowledge<\/em> is knowledge of linguistic resources (i.e., language forms) for performing communicative functions (i.e., speech acts), whereas sociopragmatic<\/em> knowledge<\/em> is knowledge of rules and conventions guiding contextual use, an ability to adequately assess the context in which linguistic resources are implemented and adjust language accordingly (Leech, 1983; Bardovi-Harlig, 2017). Taguchi\u2019s (2016) integrated model of pragmatic competence is the most comprehensive, including three components: knowledge of linguistic forms and their functional meanings; sociocultural knowledge; ability to use this knowledge to create a communicative act in interaction.<\/p>\n

Acquiring pragmatic competence is time-consuming and after many years in a target language environment, certain pragmatic features remain non-native-like (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986). Nevertheless, research suggests that it is possible to enhance L2 learners\u2019 pragmatic competence through explicit instruction of pragmatics, which appears to be more effective than implicit instruction (Taguchi, 2015). It is clear that successful communication in L2 requires facility with formulaic language<\/em> or formulaic sequences<\/em> (Wray, 2000; Weinert, 2010). The value of formulas for both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic development in L2 lies in their capacity to serve as linguistic \u2018building blocks\u2019 necessary for successful speech act performance (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012); formulas equip learners with socioculturally-appropriate utterances and facilitate pragmatic fluency during interaction (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2008; House, 1996). Because researchers have studied formulas from different fields (Kecskes, 2010), various labels have been employed, including situation and stylistic formulas (Yorio, 1980), routine formulae (Cowie, 1998), situation-bound utterances (Kecskes, 2000), conventional expressions and pragmatic routines (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012, 2014). In the present study, the term pragmatic formula <\/em>is used. A pragmatic formula (hereafter, PF) is a recurrent multiword combination whose occurrence, discourse function, and use are bound to a given communicative situation (i.e., speech event).<\/p>\n

Research on interlanguage pragmatics has revealed that native and non-native speakers have different speech act realization patterns, which may cause pragmatic failures (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Cohen & Olshtain, 1993). This is because native speakers within a speech community share sociocultural knowledge which non-native speakers may not (Cohen, 2005). L2 learners\u2019 communicative performance and interpretation of target language implicatures may suffer due to negative transfer from their first language (L1), on both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels (Kasper, 1992). Insufficient control over pragmalinguistic knowledge may cause learners to struggle with target-like lexical-grammatical structures when performing speech acts in a second language (L2) (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). Since PFs are widely shared and accepted by members of a speech community when performing speech acts, placing PFs at the center of instruction would seem to be a logical way of enhancing L2 pragmatic production.<\/p>\n

Review of Classroom-based Research<\/h3>\n

Despite wide recognition of the importance of formulaic language for successful L2 comprehension and production, \u201csurprisingly little effort has been put into investigating how to teach it, particularly to second language learners\u201d (Wood, 2015, p. 139). In formulaic language pedagogy, awareness-raising teaching methods such as the Lexical Approach (Lewis, 2008), primarily based on the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990), are most commonly researched (e.g., Boers et al., 2006; Webb & Kagimoto, 2010; Peters, 2012). While such methods may help raise awareness of formulaic language by directing attention to lexical items, forming durable mental representations in long-term memory should involve deep cognitive engagement with both meaning and form (Wood, 2015). Deep cognitive processing [2] is based on semantic or structural elaboration which requires engagement in mental activity related to target lexical item(s) and stimulates cognitive processing mechanisms beyond noticing. This is likely more effective for long-term retention of formulaic language (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2009). Classroom-based studies on deep cognitive engagement have targeted collocations and idioms (e.g., Eyckmans et al., 2016; Bui et al., 2020). Unlike collocations (e.g., garage sale<\/em>) or idioms (e.g., make<\/em> both ends meet<\/em>, kick the bucket<\/em>), the use of PFs is determined by a particular social interaction context, especially in everyday spoken language (e.g., Can you look into it?<\/em>; I wish I could help; Thanks for your understanding<\/em>). Moreover, most PFs have a sentence-like (Pawley, 2007), discontinuous or semi-fixed composition (Wray, 2002), which makes their acquisition and processing challenging. To ensure better acquisition of such formulas, teachers are encouraged to use such techniques as ethnography and speech act analysis (Cohen, 2005), contextualized input tasks (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012), metapragmatic discussions (Kasper, 2001), and pragmalinguistic recasts (Fukuya & Zhang, 2002) in combination with awareness-raising methods.<\/p>\n

Most classroom-based studies on acquisition of PFs have targeted factors like the role of language proficiency (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & D\u00f6rnyei, 1998; Xu et al., 2009) and the role of study abroad experience and\/or length of residence in a target language community (e.g., Taguchi, 2013; Roever, 2012; Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2012) in the production of pragmatic formulas. PFs have also gained significant attention from research on cross-cultural pragmatics (e.g., Olshtain & Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, 1993; Cohen et al., 1986; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; Beebe et al.,1990). However, little has been done to investigate PFs from the perspective of interlanguage <\/em>pragmatics. Studies investigating interlanguage PFs show that L2 learners seem to creatively construct such formulas at initial stages of acquisition and tend to first use PFs accurately in an unanalysed form (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012). Later, as grammatical competence increases, learners start to analyse the constituent elements of formulas, which results in inaccurate and non-nativelike forms. Finally, they are acquired in target-like form, usually after pedagogical treatments and\/or long-term exposure to and active participation in the target language environment (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2016). For example, Taguchi et al. (2013) showed that L2 learners go through stages of development, or \u2018patterns of change\u2019 (i.e., change toward target formula; change toward target-like slot-and-frame pattern; change toward non-target formula; stabilized non-target formula use). Clearly, more longitudinal studies are needed on interlanguage development patterns in the acquisition of pragmatic competence and tracking the emergence of target formulas in L2 speech (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 2006; 2009).<\/p>\n

Few classroom-based studies have merged key principles of formulaic language and pragmatics pedagogy in instructional sequence to test the efficacy of teaching PFs for enhancing L2 pragmatic competence. Most such studies were conducted in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) settings (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2008; Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011; Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015). Just a few classroom-based studies (e.g., Zavialova, 2016, 2017; Zeldenrust, 2017) have focused on L2 pragmatic competence through focused instruction of PFs in a community-based setting for immigrants, such as Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC). Unlike EAP programs which attract students with relatively high levels of proficiency and strong educational backgrounds, the LINC student population consists mostly of students with basic levels of education and L2 proficiency (Dempsey et al., 2009). While finding employment in Canada is not the primary goal of EAP students, it is of vital importance for most LINC students. Therefore, pragmatic competence is crucial for newcomers\u2019 social and economic integration into Canadian society. Unfortunately, non-EAP programs such as LINC rarely receive attention from researchers of instructional pragmatics. The LINC curriculum lacks a comprehensive research-informed model of speech act teaching.  Although the CLB Support Kit (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2012) provides a list of resources to help instructors incorporate pragmatics, they draw on models for university level programs, such as the 6R approach of Mart\u00ednez-Flor and Us\u00f3-Juan (2006) which are often too academic-oriented for non-EAP learners. Furthermore, major approaches to speech act teaching (e.g., Cohen, 2005; Mart\u00ednez-Flor & Us\u00f3-Juan, 2006, 2010) employ explicit meta-pragmatic explanations aimed at drawing learners\u2019 attention to sociopragmatic factors, such as degrees of power, distance, and imposition. This places a stronger emphasis on sociopragmatics, while overlooking the pragmalinguistic value of PFs as linguistic building blocks of speech acts.<\/p>\n

To address gaps in classroom-based research, the present study has two main objectives. First, it makes a case for a more refined, formula-enhanced approach to teaching L2 pragmatic competence with a pedagogical treatment that places equal emphasis on pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic components of L2 pragmatics. The second objective is to implement this treatment program in a LINC classroom and investigate its effectiveness for enhancing L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic abilities. The paper hopes to fulfill these goals while answering the following research questions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. How will the formula-enhanced treatment contribute to students\u2019 interlanguage development?<\/li>\n
  2. Will the formula-enhanced treatment help mitigate both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic violations in student-produced speech acts? If yes, in what way?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    A Description of the Study<\/h3>\n

    This exploratory mixed-methods study was a quasi-experiment with an intervention and pre-, post- and delayed post-test measures (Creswell, 2015). The collected data were qualitative in nature and underwent an interpretative analysis (Grotjahn, 1987). Moreover, for the purposes of credibility and transferability of the qualitative data analysis, the researcher used a combination of thick description methods and quantification of qualitative data to illustrate emerging trends when reporting the results (Mackey & Gass, 2005). The study received ethics clearance from the author\u2019s university research ethics board.
    \n<\/a><\/p>\n

    Formulae Elicitation Procedures<\/h4>\n

    To develop a formula-enhanced treatment program, a Corpus of Pragmatic Formulas (CPF) was collected from 35 native speakers of Canadian English who responded to 12 written Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs). The DCTs scenarios covered social, workplace, and customer service interaction contexts and were adapted from LINC 5-7 Curriculum Guidelines document (Hajer et al., 2007). Analyzing the responses for target PFs was done in two cycles. During the first elicitation cycle, the researchers compiled selection criteria and applied them to the utterances in the CPF to identify PFs. These criteria were adapted from those suggested in literature on formulaic language identification, with an emphasis on PF identification (Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig, 2009, 2012; Wray & Namba, 2003; Kecskes, 2010). During the second elicitation cycle, five trained applied linguists were designated as expert judges and analyzed the formulas selected from the 12 scenarios in the first cycle to confirm or refute the researchers\u2019 own intuitive judgement. The judges used a checklist (see Appendix A<\/a>) containing seven diagnostic criteria primarily based on Wray and Namba\u2019s (2003) diagnostic list, and others (i.e., Pawley, 2007, 2009; Kecskes, 2010). The target PFs were selected from four target speech events (see Appendix B<\/a> for DCTs scenarios):<\/p>\n