Why Teachers Don’t Use Their Pragmatic Awareness
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
While researchers have studied the effects of corrective feedback in the formal aspects of language, little is known about how CF can benefit the learning of Pragmatics.i Since there is some evidence that certain consciousness-raising techniques proven beneficial for the learning of formal aspects of language may indeed be facilitative of the development of interlanguage pragmatics as well (House, 1996: 250), I felt justified in carrying out this study on the premises that CF can be helpful in the development of pragmatic ability.
Even though the bulk of research into pragmatic competence does not yet warrant many conclusions to be drawn, especially if compared to the vast bulk of research done into the acquisition of grammatical competence, the existing studies on the effects of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic competence point to instruction as an effective means of helping learners improve their pragmatic knowledge (C.f. Kasper, 1997). Research by House (1996) also points to consciousness-raising techniques as a way to improve the acquisition of pragmatic fluency.
Although little research to date has looked into the instructional effects of CF at the pragmatic level, there are reasons to believe it should benefit learners. While investigating input in academic advising sessions, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1996: 179) assert that exchanges “in which advisors reply to the intent rather than to the form of the utterance, may provide little incentive for non-native speakers (NNSs) to modify their output”. Thus, if no CF is provided to learners as to how inappropriate their utterances have been and how to make them more appropriate, it is likely they will not realize the need to modify their production (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1996). Moreover, the fact that first language (L1) acquisition of pragmatic competence takes place through a great deal of CF (C.f. Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1996: 187) suggests the possible facilitating character of CF in the learning of interlanguage pragmatics.
To my knowledge no research to date has investigated how teachers relate to and feel about the provision of CF in Pragmatics. This area needs studying since the more we know about it, the more successful the teaching of Pragmatics may become.
i To my knowledge the only study to focus on the effect of CF at the pragmatic level is that of Lyster (1994). Having said that, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1996: 19), while examining input in academic settings, suggest that lack of CF at the pragmatic level in academic advising sessions could place students at a disadvantage, since they are misled to believe that their contributions are perfectly appropriate. Besides, research into the acquisition of L1 pragmatic competence has shown that children receive such feedback from parents (C.f. Gleason & Perlmann, 1985, cited in Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1996: 187); Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, cited in Kasper and Schmidt (1996: 160)).
