Effects of explicit instruction on efl learners' pragmatic competence development
by Yurong Zhao, Hebei Normal University of Science and Technology, China.
3. I. Background of the present study
ļ® 1. Pragmatic competence and interlanguage competence
ļ® Pragmatic competence ---one of the essential elements of
communicative competence.
ļ® In Bachmanās (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)
ļ® Interlanguage pragmatic competence---the developing state
of an L2/FL learnersā pragmatic competence.
4. Importance of TL pragmatic competence
ļ® 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.
ļ® 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.
ļ® 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.
ļ® Accordingly, researchers and teachers need to explore
how nonnative learners acquire and develop this type of
competence.
6. 3.Rational of explicit teaching
Divergence in L2
learnersā 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)
āNoticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input
to intakeā (Schmidt, 1990: 129), or āThe attentional threshold for noticing
is the same as the threshold for learningā (Schmidt, 1993:35). And simple
exposure to the TL pragmatics was insufficient for learnersā 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. ļ® 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)
ļ® Tentative interpretation:
Differences in teaching designs; Influences of learner factors
ļ® 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 learnersā pre- and
post-treatment performance?
Bring more benefits for learnersā
Research Questions improvement in TL pragmatic
competence than normal teaching?
Learnersā individual differences have
effects on learnersā progress under the
same explicit teaching condition?
10. II. Research questions and hypotheses (2)
(i) Explicit instruction of pragmatics does make difference in
nonnative learnersā pragmatic performance;
H
Y (ii) Explicit instruction can better facilitate nonnative learnersā
P pragmatic competence development than normal teaching
approach;
O
T (iii) FL learnersā lower integrative motivation and lower-leveled
identity for TL sociocultural norm may impede learnersā
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 learnersā pragmatic competence
S development. Learnersā 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 Findingsāpossible
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 dataās 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 ā>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 refusalsļ Direct denials; Negative ability/willingness
Non-substantive acceptanceļ 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)
ļ® 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).
ļ® 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.
ļ® 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.
16.
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) learnersā
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 (tā=2.67<tā0.01/2, 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
researchersā studies on pragmatic errors (He & Yan, 1986; Jia, 1997; Cai, 2003; Chen, 2003;
Zhang, 2000, etc. )
18.
19.
20.
21.
22. ļ® DS direct strategy
ļ® CID conventionally indirect strategy
ļ® NCID non-conventionally indirect strategy
ļ® DCT discourse completion task
ļ® EXP group experimental group
ļ® CON group control group
ļ® AP ability preparatory
ļ® WP willingness preparatory
ļ® PEP permission preparatory
ļ® POP possibility preparatory
ļ® NF mitigator negative face preserving mitigator
ļ® PF mitigator positive face preserving mitigator
ļ® DRF direct refusal
ļ® DN direct denial
ļ® NA negative ability/willingness statement
23. V. Findings
Learnersā performance of requests
Learnersā performance of refusals
Written self-report and structured interview
Influence of learnersā integrative motivation
Influence of learnersā sociocultural identity
Influence of learnersā grammatical competence
24. Learnersā 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. Learnersā 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 āriskyā 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 learnersā 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 learnersā 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
ļ® 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.
ļ® 2) In the posttest, however, the EXP groupās 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 learnersā posttest performance, though no presence of inclusive- oriented requests can
be detected.
ļ® 3) In contrast, the CON groupās 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
learnersā 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. Learnersā 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
ļ® 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 āsafeā cases because they are afraid that the direct denial would hurt their
friendsā feelings; some learners could intentionally choose an āinter-normā 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 āno
one will blame a person who is excessively politeā.
ļ® 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 learnersā integrative motivation
āSafeā 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 learnersā 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%
ļ® 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 āinter-normā.
38. Influence of learnersā 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
ļ® 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)
ļ® Answers to the research questions
The approach of explicit teaching does bring significant benefits for learnerās
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 learnersā performance.
Learnersā lower integrative motivation and their L1 cultural beliefs can have certain
constraints over learnerā progress towards the native speakersā 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 learnersā 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 learnersā pragmatic progress.
2) Explicit teaching of sociopragmatics seem to be effective in teaching
āpolitenessā, 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 speakersā 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
ļ® 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
learnersā pragmatic performance was not done.
ļ® 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 learnersā pragmatic competence.
Although the divergence itself is not definitely problematic, āthere is abundant evidence that divergence can cause pragmatic failureā¦ā (Kasper, 1998:197), and pragmatic failure constitutes great threat to intercultural communication (Thomas,1983;Tannen,1984;Wolfson, 1989;Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford,1993;Scollon & Scollon,2000;etc.) A number of studies have proved that āchildren are taught interactional skills in their L1 and do not simply āabsorbā their knowledge on the basis of exposure alone.ā (Overfield, 1996: 14).
Individual differences in integrative motivation, sociocultural identity, or grammatical competence
As noticing and attention are the initial condition for input to become intake (Schmidt, 1990), measures need to be taken to raise learnersā sensitivity to pragmatic rules. To facilitate learnersā noticing of pragmatic rules, which are by themselves not salient, explicit presentation of pragmatic rules is necessary. Based on the control processing hypothesis (Bialystok, 1993), L2 pragmatics instruction should begin with activating learnersā repertoire of pragmatic knowledge. Thus, it can be a better choice for the metapragmatic discussion to start with L1 pragmatics, and explicit presentation of L2 pragmatic rules to start with comparison and contrast of L1 and L2 pragmatics. As output can trigger noticing and offer opportunities for hypothesis testing and automatization of pragmatic rules, classroom teaching of speech acts is supposed to include ample practice of target pragmatic features. Role-plays, communicative tasks, or written tasks (e.g. e-mail writing) might be available choices. TL data must be authentic, representative and applicable in real communication. Transcripts of authentic conversation, audiocassettes, videocassettes or television might be wise choices.
The EXP group learnersā employment proportion of DSs over āsafeāsituations in the pretest is 43.5% less than that of the NE group, but in the posttest the gap is just 14.39%. That is, the gap has shrunk by 29.11%.The CON group learnersā posttest employment of requests also became more concentrated over āsafeā situations than that in the pretest. The gap of their performance from the NE norm in the posttest is 20.89% smaller than the gap in the pretest. That is, the EXP group learners has made great progress towards the NE usage pattern of direct strategies over situations, and their progress is larger than that achieved by the CON group.
In contrast to the great gaps between the EXP groupās and the NE groupās employment proportion of AP and PEP in the pretest (21.27% and 24.39% respectively), the two groupsā employments of these two strategies in the posttest show no deviance, with the EXP group learnersā employment proportion of AP and PEP being 36.44% and 27.12% respectively, and the NE groupsā employment proportion of AP and PEP being 38.30% and 27.66% respectively. The gap between the EXP groupās and the NE groupās employment proportion of WP has shrunk from 13.75% to 8.82%, and the gap between the two groupsā employment of POP has shrunk from 10.64% to 5.57%. As to the CON group, despite certain progress towards the NE norm in the employment of the PEP strategy, the CON groupās employments of the other three strategies show no remarkable changes towards the NE norm.
In the pretest, the EXP and the CON group learners show no significant difference in employing the WP PEP and POP strategies, however, in the posttest, the two groupsā performances demonstrate significant difference in the employment of these three strategies. Considering that the two groups have similar backgrounds and got exposed to the same English normal teaching treatment, the significant changes were most probably caused by the additional experimental treatment on the EXP group learners. In the pretest, the EXP group learnersā employment of all the four preparatory strategies were significantly deviant from the NE norm, whereas the EXP group and the NE groupās posttest responses show insignificant difference in all the four examined items. As to the CON group, its pretest employment of the four types of questions were significantly deviant from the NE norm in the usage of WP, PEP and POP; in the posttest, their usage of WP and POP remain significantly different from the NE norm despite the progress in the usage of PEP. The results of paired samples t-tests give a strong support the effectiveness of explicit instruction.
1.Result of the paired samples t-test supports the significant difference in EXP groupās pretest and posttest usage of bi-clausal requests. Moreover, the independent samples t-tests support the significant difference between the EXP and the CON groupās employment of the bi-clausal requests in the posttest. Since there is no significant difference between the two learner groupsā pretest performance,it seems reasonable to conclude that the difference is caused by the treatment; and as the comparison of the EXP groupās and the NE groupās posttest performance shows no significant difference, it seems safe to assume that the changes in the EXP groupās pretest and posttest performance is what has been expected. 2.Learnersā usage of PF mitigators didn'tāt show significant deviance from the NE norm, so that part of statistics are not listed here. 3. The difference in the EXP group learners' pre- and post treatment usage of mitigators is close to the significance level. But the independent samples t-tests offer stronger evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment.In the pretest, the EXP groupās employments of NF mitigators are insignificantly different from those of the CON groupās, but in the posttest, the two learner groups' employments of the NF mitigators are very significantly different from each other. It seems to suggest that the explicit teaching treatment brought some effects. Moreover, in the pretest, the EXP groupās usage of NF mitigators is significantly different from the NE norm, but their posttest employments show insignificant difference from the NE norm.
The results reflected in the tables suggest very limited effectiveness of experimental teaching in encouraging the EXP group learners to follow the NE norm in using DRFs. The EXP group learnersā pretest employment of DRFs is significantly less than that of the NE group. Their posttest employments of DRFs appears to show some changes towards the NE norm and becomes slightly higher (at an insignificant level) than that of the NE group. However, their employment of DN is significantly less than that of the NE group in both the pretest and the posttest, and their employment of NA, which is just slightly higher than that of NE group in the pretest, becomes significantly higher in the posttest. It associates that learners are somewhat reluctant to use DNs even in āsafeā cases; thus,to solve the conflicts of their awareness of increasing the use of DRFs and their psychological resistance to saying ānoā directly, the EXP group learners have found their way out by increasing the usage of NAs. Moreover, the comparison of the EXP groupās and the CON groupās posttest usage of direct refusals show insignificant difference, which also suggests the lack of effects of the treatment in the aspect of encouraging the usage of direct refusals.
The results show that in the pretest, the EXP groupās average usage of avoidance and non-substantive acceptance are significantly different from the employment of the NE group, and the difference between the EXP groupās and the NE groupās usage of alternative is close to the significance level, but in the posttest, the significance values of the differences in these two groupsā employment of all the three items are much higher than the significance level. By contrast, comparison of the CON groupās and the NE groupās pretest and posttest performance show fewer changes. The difference between the two groupsā pretest and posttest usage of non-substantive acceptance are both significant, and the difference between the groupsā employment of avoidance are both close to the significance level.
In the pretest the EXP group learnersā average usage of reason is higher than the NE groupās mean by about 0.4 point, but the t-test suggests the difference is not significant; in the posttest, the EXP groupās usage of reason remain higher than the NE groupās by about 0.6 point. The value of the significance of difference, though still lower than the significance level, is already close to the significance level. It seems that the teaching efforts to guide learners to reduce the usage of reason did not bring about the expected effects. 2. But comparison with the CON groupās pretest and posttest usage of reason offers a weak evidence for the effectiveness of the teaching treatment. Paired samples t-tests suggest that the increase of the usage of reason by the CON group is at a very significant level, while the increase of the usage of reason by the EXP group is not at a significant level. Assuming the rationale of some researchersā (e.g. Cenoz and Valencia, 1996; Yu,1999) argument that the āwaffleā phenomenon is a typical feature of interlanguage, then the approach of explicit teaching seems to have soften the tendency, though not have been successful in precluding the tendency.
In the pretest, the EXP group learnersā average employment of gratitude and positive opinion appear to be higher than those of NE group, but at an insignificant level. In the posttest, the usage of these two adjuncts by the EXP group are significantly higher than those of the NE group. It seems that the explicit teaching treatment have few effects on learnersā reduction of cases of unnecessary employment. Moreover, the comparison of the EXP groupās and the CON groupās posttest employment of these two adjuncts show insignificant difference. That is, the EXP groupās performance in this aspect is not significantly better.
Comparison of the two subgroupsā pretest and posttest performance suggests that the increase size of the HM subgroupās employment of āSafeā DSs, Non-H perspective requests, bi-clausal requests is more or less larger than that achieved by the LM subgroup. And the HM subgroupās employments of DRFs are both more frequent than the LM subgroups choices. The paired samples t-tests of the two subgroupās overtime changes suggest that w hile the overtime changes towards the NE norm made by the HM subgroup are significant in three aspects, the changes towards the NE norm made by the LM subgroup are significant in two aspects. Such results seem to learners with lower integrative motivation are likely to make less progress under the same explicit teaching condition.
The goal of L2 pragmatics instruction is not to impose TL cultural values and beliefs on learners, but make them equipped with TL sociopragmatic knowledge and make them competent to obey the TL norm if they choose to. Learners should be allowed for certain slight cases of violation on the condition that they are aware of the TL expression but feel the TL usage somewhat offensive and intentionally choose to use a more indirect representation formula. The point is that the incongruent usage is unlikely to cause any miscommunication.