In recent years, a considerable scholarly literature has accumulated regarding the most effective techniques for EFL students to develop what is termed, 'pragmatic linguistic competency'. Because the concept of ‘pragmatic linguistic competency’ represents a notion that is somewhat obscurely defined as ‘the capacity to use English language appropriately in spontaneous speaking contexts', the latitude for ambivalent interpretation is more common than we believe it should be. Part of our purpose in this paper is to relieve at least some of the resultant ambiguity surrounding this definition by reconceptualising it in the context of the current pedagogic debate which differentiates two EFL approaches to pragmatic linguistic competency. Both heuristic approaches have come to feature prominently within this framework.
These techniques or approaches have become known as ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ instructional pedagogies. We argue that the explicit pragmatic language acquisition process signifies learning environments in which the learner is introduced to a range of explicitly relevant rules. These rules are reckoned to be interpretively foundational to the form of linguistic constructions required, in the sense that these rules function as a coherent combinatory set. On the other hand, the heuristic of implicit pedagogy “makes no overt reference to rules or forms” (Doughty, 2007, p.265), but only to forms of speech that depend upon rule-governed pragmatics, whose logical structures are to be discovered as students manipulate them, more or less skillfully, during their actual participatory contributions to the conversational exchange. Our objective in this paper will be concerned to diminish the ambivalence which characterises the interpretation of pragmatic linguistic competency by providing a more comprehensive and coherent conceptual scheme for its linguistic deployment.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Pragmatic Competence
3. Why teach pragmatics
4. Pragmatic Failure in Vietnam Context
5. Explicit and Implicit Instruction
6. The Exclusive Disjunctional Debate in Explicit/Implicit Studies
7. Summary and Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of explicit versus implicit instructional approaches in developing the pragmatic competence of Vietnamese EFL university students, while critiquing the current "exclusive disjunction" framework that often polarizes these two methods.
- The conceptualization of 'pragmatic linguistic competency' in EFL settings.
- Distinctions between explicit and implicit instructional pedagogies.
- The prevalence and causes of 'pragmatic failure' among Vietnamese learners.
- Evaluation of the current debate regarding instructional effectiveness.
- Application of 'presuppositional analysis' to broaden the scope of the pedagogical debate.
Excerpt from the Book
Pragmatic Failure in Vietnam Context
Pragmatic failure, or pragmatic transfer occurs when learners transfer first language pragmatic rules into foreign/second language domains. In other words, Thomas mentioned pragmatic failure as “...the inability to understand ‘what is meant by what is said’ ” (Thomas, 1983, p.91; see also Yuan, 2012 for a review). The term ‘failure” is somehow different from “error” because ‘what is said’ may not be incorrect, but cannot reach the speaker’s communicative intention. For that reason, even if an EFL learner is enable to speak fluently, inappropriate speech may cause him or her to appear unintentionally rude, uncultured or awkward (Amaya, 2008).
This seems to be the case for Vietnamese EFL learners in general and the English majors in particular. After years of learning English, they are still lack of pragmatic competence, whichencompasses speech acts, conversational structure, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use such as choice of address forms, and is generallyunderstood as “knowledge of the sequential aspects of speech acts,…the appropriate contextual use of the particular language's linguistic resources” (Barron, 2003, p.10). Due to the lack of pragmatic competence, not many Vietnamese major EFL learners have the ability to realize the nuance of speech act strategies in English (Huong, 2012). In her study, Huong (2012) concludes that 63% major EFL Vietnamese students fail to perform English pragmatics (request) appropriately, even though they use a polite request strategy in their native language. This leads to the misinterpretation of the message conveyed. She also illustrates pragmatic failure of Vietnamese major EFL learners in her situation that a group leader asks members in the group to meet for a rehearsal of the oral presentation:
Can you go to Nhung’s to have a rehearsal at 2 pm tomorrow?
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the definition of pragmatics and the problem of pragmatic failure, highlighting the debate surrounding the effectiveness of different instructional interventions.
2. Pragmatic Competence: This section defines pragmatic competence as the knowledge required to perform speech acts successfully, emphasizing its necessity in social situations.
3. Why teach pragmatics: This chapter argues that formal instruction is essential for EFL learners because pragmatic competence does not always develop naturally alongside linguistic proficiency.
4. Pragmatic Failure in Vietnam Context: This chapter examines the specific challenges faced by Vietnamese EFL students, detailing how native language transfer leads to pragmatic failures in English.
5. Explicit and Implicit Instruction: This section provides a detailed comparison between explicit and implicit teaching methods, outlining their respective characteristics and pedagogical differences.
6. The Exclusive Disjunctional Debate in Explicit/Implicit Studies: This chapter reviews previous research and challenges the binary view that pits explicit against implicit instruction, proposing a more holistic approach.
7. Summary and Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the study's findings and suggests that formal instruction can bridge the gap between linguistic and pragmatic competence in Vietnam.
Keywords
pragmatics, pragmatic competence, refusal, explicit, implicit, EFL, linguistic failure, instructional intervention, speech acts, pedagogical debate, second language acquisition, Vietnam, communicative intention, pragmatic transfer, sociolinguistic awareness
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper investigates the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on the development of pragmatic competence among Vietnamese university students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL).
What are the central themes discussed in the study?
The key themes include the nature of pragmatic competence, the phenomenon of pragmatic failure, the instructional debate between explicit and implicit teaching, and the necessity of incorporating pragmatics into the EFL classroom.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The main objective is to critically evaluate the existing debate that separates explicit and implicit instruction as an "exclusive disjunction" and to argue for a more comprehensive, integrated pedagogical approach.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The study employs a literature-based review and a critical philosophical framework known as 'presuppositional analysis' to re-examine the relationship between different instructional approaches.
What topics are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers theoretical definitions of pragmatic competence, an analysis of why pragmatics should be taught, case studies on pragmatic failure in Vietnam, and a review of research concerning instructional effectiveness.
Which keywords best characterize this academic work?
Key terms include pragmatics, pragmatic competence, explicit vs. implicit instruction, EFL, communicative intention, and pragmatic failure.
How does "pragmatic failure" differ from a simple language error?
Pragmatic failure occurs when a speaker's intended meaning is not understood due to inappropriate language use, even if the grammatical structure of the sentence itself is correct.
Why is the "exclusive disjunction" argument criticized in this paper?
The author argues that treating explicit and implicit instruction as mutually exclusive limits pedagogical possibilities and fails to acknowledge that both may have roles in a holistic language learning environment.
- Quote paper
- Chien Duong (Author), 2018, The Implications regarding the Effects of explicit an implicit Instruction on linguistic pragmatic Development for vietnamese EFL Students, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/426458
