Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T02:34:18.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing Pragmatic Fluency in English as a Foreign Language: Routines and Metapragmatic Awareness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Juliane House
Juliane House
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study explores whether pragmatic fluency can best be acquired in the classroom by provision of input and opportunity for communicative practice alone, or whether learners profit more when additional explicit instruction in the use of conversational routines is provided. It is hypothesized that such instruction raises learners' awareness of the functions and contextual distributions of routines, enabling them to become more pragmatically fluent.

Two versions of a communication course taught to advanced German learners of English for 14 weeks are examined, one version providing explicit metapragmatic information, the other withholding it. Samples of tape-recorded conversations at various stages of the courses are used to assess how students' pragmatic fluency developed and whether and how the development of fluency benefits from metapragmatic awareness.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 225 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abelson, R. P. (1976). A script theory of understanding attitude and behavior. In Carroll, J. & Payne, T. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 33–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–57). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, O. (1986). Formulas, frame structures, and stereotypes in early syntactic development: Some new evidence from L2 acquisition. Linguistics, 24, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. (1983). How a story is done in a second language. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies of interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. (1982). A communication course for German teachers of English. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J. (1989). Discourse production, routines, and second language learning. In Kettemann, B. et al. (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache (pp. 287–302). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J., & House, J. (1981). Let's talk and talk about it: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W. J., & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In Phillipson, R. et al. (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 273–287). Clevedon: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64–81). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). “Ja und-og hva' sa?” A contrastive discourse analysis of gambits in German and Danish. In Fisiak, J. (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics (pp. 69–105. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1979). On fluency. In Fillmore, C. et al. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanania, E., & Gradman, H. (1977). Acquisition of English structures: A case study of an adult native speaker of Arabic in an English-speaking environment. Language Learning, 27, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (1980). Discourse as self-expression on the reduced personality of the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 1, 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkinen, H., & Valo, M. (1985). Slips in interaction: The psychopathology of everyday discourse. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 213–228). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (1979). Interaktionsnormen in deutschen und englischen Alltagsdialogen. Linguistische Berichte, 59, 76–90.Google Scholar
House, J. (1982a). Conversational strategies in English and German dialogues. In Nickel, G. & Nehls, D. (Eds.), Error analysis, contrastive linguistics and second language learning (pp. 135–152). Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
House, J. (1982b). Opening and closing phases in English and German dialogues. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 16, 52–83.Google Scholar
House, J. (1982c). Gambits in deutschen und englischen Alltagsdialogen. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 17/18, 110–132.Google Scholar
House, J. (1984). Some methodological problems and perspectives in contrastive discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (1986). Cross-cultural pragmatics and foreign language teaching. In Sprachlehrforschung, Seminar für (Ed.), Probleme und Perspektiven der Sprachlehrforschung (pp. 281–295). Frankfurt: Scriptor.Google Scholar
House, J. (1989a). Oh excuse me please: Apologizing in a foreign language. In Kettemann, B. et al. (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache (pp. 303–328). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (1989b). Politeness in English and German: The functions of “please” and “bitte.” In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 96–122). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
House, J. (1993). Toward a model for the analysis of inappropriate responses in native/nonnative interactions. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 161–183). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (in press). Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding: The case of German and English. In Hellinger, M. & Ammon, U. (Eds.), Contrastive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Zur Rolle der Kognition in Kommunikationskursen. Die Neueren Sprachen, 80, 42–55.Google Scholar
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In Lörscher, W. & Schultze, R. (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance (pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic comprehension in learner-native speaker discourse. Language Learning, 34, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (1989). Interactive procedures in interlanguage discourse. In Oleksy, W. (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 189–229). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203–231.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (in press). Routines and indirection in interlanguage pragmatics. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 5). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in second language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Langer, E., & Abelson, R. P. (1972). The semantics of asking a favor: How to succeed in getting help without really trying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Möhle, D. (1994). Deklaratives and prozedurales Wissen in der Repräsentation des mentalen Lexikons. In Börner, W. & Vogel, K. (Eds.), Kognitive Linguistik und Fremdsprachenerwerb (pp. 39–50). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–227). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language speech production. In Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Second language production (pp. 114–137). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. (1987a). On fluency in second language speech. In Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 97–106). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. (1987b). Multiple formulae. Aspects of Turkish migrant workers' German in intercultural communication. In Knapp, K. et al. (Eds.), Analyzing intercultural communication (pp. 215–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, L., & Okuda, S. (1987). Modular patterns in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 282–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversation. Discourse Processes, 14, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, P. (1989). “Well don't blame me!” On the interpretation of pragmatic errors. In Oleksy, W. (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1987). Second language speech production: Factors affecting fluency. In Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 45–66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237–336). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1988). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. In Rutherford, W. & Smith, M. Sharwood (Eds.), Grammar and second language teaching (pp. 51–60). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Stemmer, B. (1981). Kohäsion im gesprochenen Diskurs deutscher Lerner des Englischen. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Öztek, P. C. (1981). “Health to our mouths.” Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 37–54). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildner-Bassett, M. (1984). Improving pragmatic aspects of learners' interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar