You are on page 1of 31

http://aatseel.org/program/1998/abstracts/Victor_Frank.

html Acquisition of Second Language Pragmatic Competence during Study Abroad Victor Frank, Bryn Mawr College/NFLC The proposed paper, incorporating data collected by the presenter in Moscow during the 19971998 academic year, focuses on the pragmatic aspects of second language learning processes during study abroad. The theoretical framework of this paper rests on three interrelated areas of linguistic research: Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP), and the ethnocultural basis of linguistic consciousness. The key concept of SLA that guides the proposed project as a study of language learning is that of interlanguage, the learner's dynamic system of target language knowledge. The interlanguage system is continuously evolving, although not necessarily in the direction of the target language. The bulk of SLA interlanguage studies have focused on domains of learner production at or below sentence-level speech. Yet examining learner production above the sentence-level opens up possibilities for examining the interrelationships in interlanguage between sentence-level phenomena and larger units of speech: textual cohesion and coherence, speech acts, and other areas of discourse analysis. The proposed paper describes the processes of language learning above sentence-level speech from the perspective of interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) brings together the disciplines of SLA and linguistic pragmatics. This area of linguistic inquiry examines the relationships between form, function, and intention in learner production and comprehension of target language at different levels of linguistic proficiency. In this context, the learner's pragmatic knowledge of the target language and target culture manifests itself in all domains of interlanguage. The data discussed in the paper examines learner interlanguage in the speech act of request. Most ILP studies have used a contrastive approach to focus on language learner and native speaker differences in speech act production and comprehension. The study discussed in the paper broadens the perspectives of ILP studies by exploring the longitudinal processes of language learning in its pragmatic aspects; by exploring the ethnocultural origins of speech act realization; and finally, by exploring why pragmatic differences are significant in the context of intercultural communication (communication between representatives of different ethnocultural communities). The work of Russian linguists on intercultural communication from the viewpoint of the ethnocultural bases of linguistic consciousness offers wide possibilities for placing the results of ILP studies in context. Karaulov defines linguistic consciousness as those images of consciousness that are externalized by linguistic signs. In this view any text created by a speaker is an external manifestation, although an imperfect and distorted one, of the linguistic consciousness of that speaker. Thus the ultimate cause of pragmatic failure in intercultural communication is differences in the ethnoculturally-based linguistic consciousnesses of the speaker and hearer. The speech act formulae themselves are only reflections of those linguistic consciousnesses. The proposed paper presents the analysis of data collected through open-ended role-plays conducted with language learners and native speakers; retrospective interviews; and introspective language learning journals. The paper also discusses SLA models that incorporate linguistic consciousness, as well as implications for foreign language pedagogy.

Re: [ITB] Language or reasoning skill? or both? (was: Memasa Elwin RACHMAT Tue, 15 Feb 2000 02:26:38 -0800 Saya melihat adanya kelemahan baik dari reasoning dan bahasa kita. Kelemahan reasoning dimulai dengan kurangnya rasa ingin tahu (kebiasaan menggampangkan sesuatu) sehingga kurang teliti dalam pengamatan, engggan mengumpulkan data dari sumber lain (kebiasaan segan bertanya, kurang membaca) serta kurangnya kegigihan atau mudah menyerah (kebiasaan menerima keadaan). Hal diatas termasuk unsur yang mengakibatkan lemahnya "premise". Kelemahan "inference" bisa jadi diakibatkan oleh kebiasaan monopoli interpretasi oleh yang memiliki kekuasaan / kekuatan sehingga tidak jelas hubungan suatu masalah dengan masalah lainnya. Kelemahan menarik kesimpulan bisa ditimbulkan oleh kebiasaan menyudutkan masyarakat pada pilihan yang terbatas atau dibatasi tanpa penjelasan keterbatasan yang terdapat pada ruang, waktu atau parameter lainnya. Kelemahan ini diperparah dengan adanya kelatahan yang hanya memilih yang ditawarkan untuk menghindarkan kepusingan mencari pilihan lain. Kadang-kadang kita memang harus pragmatis empiris untuk mendapatkan hasil yang cepat. Tetapi kebiasaan pragmatis bisa mengurangi kreatifitas dalam mencari solusi baru. Untuk jangka panjang kita harus berani berkreasi berimaginasi. Yang menjadi masalah apakah kita mampu menjadi pragmatis - empiris untuk hari ini dan sekaligus kreatif -imaginatif untuk masa depan. Dalam hal ini hendaknya pendidikan tidak menjerat murid menjadi pragmatis - empiris dengan hanya memberikan pertanyaan pilihan berganda, tetapi juga memberikan kebebasan berpikir dengan pertanyaan aktif yang merangsang kreatifitas dan imaginasi. Sayangnya penilaian kreatifitas dan imaginasi sulit diukur apalagi bila ada pengajar yang masih berpendapat nilai sembilan hanya untuk saya dan nilai sepuluh hanya untuk Tuhan, sedang nilai lebih dari sepuluh adalah hal yang mustahil. Menurut saya pendidikan yang berhasil akan menghasilkan lulusan yang berpotensi untuk lebih pandai dari gurunya, bila tidak masyarakat kita akan mengalami kemunduran. Kelemahan bahasa terletak pada kegemaran bersopan santun yang berlebihan sehingga menutupi keadaan yang sebenarnya (contoh: harga naik = harga disesuaikan, tidak = nanti, dari = daripada, dll.). Banyak orang bicara seolah-olah tahu akan kesimpulan (beropini) tetapi kurang didukung oleh kejujuran (baca: data dan logika). Masyarakat awam miskin akan daya kritis (harus menerima suatu istilah yang memiliki banyak arti atau arti lain daripada kamus). Penggunaan serta pemilihan kata dalam berbahasa tidak boleh dikacaukan untuk alasan apapun. Sudah waktunya diadakan kongres bahasa untuk meluruskan kerancuan dalam bahasa. Bahasa kita haruslah lebih tajam sehingga bisa dijelaskan secara matematis dan ilmiah demi kejelasan serta kepastian untuk mencapai tingkat komunikasi yang lebih efektif dan efisien. Dengan demikian bahasa kita bisa menjadi bahasa ilmiah, bahasa hukum dan lain-lain. Tabik, Elwin Rachmat

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14/02/2000 3:29 PM Bisa jadi "premise" nya sendiri memang sudah lemah, jadi argumennya sudah jatuh duluan di tingkat premise (misalnya tentang "mahasiswa FK banyak belajar organ lidah" atau "wanita itu pekerjannya masak", dsb). Memang "inference" nya juga kelihatan meloncat-loncat, hubungan causal-effect sangat kabur atau tidak ada sama sekali (misalnya antara "belajar organ lidah" dengan "ketrampilan memasak"). Soal bahasa? Dulu saya juga menduga seperti itu --bahwa bahasa Indonesia miskin kosa kata-tetapi setelah menekuni masalahnya, dugaan awal tersebut harus saya koreksi. Ternyata "the crux

of the problem" (inti masalahnya) bukan terletak pada bahasanya sendiri, tetapi pada kemampuan *reasoning* (penalaran) yang lemah, yang kemudian tercermin pada penggunaan kosakata yang terbatas dalam ekspresinya. Hidup itu sekedar serentetan problem ... begitu pepatah mengatakan. Karena itu problem solving merupakan pekerjaan utama manusia. Penalaran adalah bagian paling esensial dari problem solving ini. Ketika menghadapi problem, manusia yang rational menalar dari apa yang sudah mereka ketahui atau percayai menuju satu pengetahuan atau kepercayaan baru untuk memecahkan problem yang dihadapinya. Masalahnya kemudian adalah, bagaimana melakukan penalaran yang baik itu. Umumnya, penalaran yang logis (logic reasoning) ini mengikuti suatu proses atau mekanik 'deductive argument': premises --> inference --> conclusion. Dalam praktek, mana yang menjadi premise mana yang merupakan konklusi seringkali tidak dinayatakan secara eksplisit, tetapi orang sering memakai kata-kata yang bisa dijadikan 'clue' (tanda). Misalnya (dalam bahasa Ingris) kata 'because', 'since', dan 'for' biasanya mengawali sebuah premise, sedangkan jata-kata seperti 'therefore', 'hence', 'consequently', dan 'so' biasanya menunjukkan sebuah konklusi. Begitu pula frase yang mengawali premise seperti 'It has been observed that ...', 'In support of this ...', 'The relevant data ...' dan frase yang mengawali konklusi seperti 'The result is ...', 'The point of all this is ...', The implication is ...' Tanpa kesulitan yang berarrti kita bisa argue, bahwa bahasa Indonesia sudah punya kosakata yang cukup lengkap untuk menterjemahkan kata-kata atau frase-frase diatas secara akurat -- yang menimbulkan konklusi bahwa masalahnya tidak berasa di bahasanya, tetapi di penguasaan bahasa dan/atau kemampuan penalarannya. Kemampuan reasoning ini sebetulnya merupakan 'common sense' yang built-in dalam gene kita, species homo sapiens alias manusia bijak. Ini merupakan hasil evolusi/survival selama jutaan tahun. Jadi sebetulnya orang tidak usah sekolah atau melalui pendidikan formal apapun, untuk bisa berpikir bijak seperti layaknya seorang anggota species homo sapiens. Namun "pendidikan" itu sendiri punya dua sisi seperti mata uang, disatu pihak pendidikan bisa mencerahkan dan selanjutnya mengembangkan 'common sense' manusia, tetapi dilain pihak pendidikan juga bisa secara sistimatis menyeragamkan cara pikir dan sekaligus memasung kreativitas pikir dan secara bertahap mematikan common sense mereka. Di Amerika, kebiasaan 'logical reasoning' ini sudah dimulai sejak sekolah dasar, dan kemudian direinforce secara formal di SMA, paling tidak melalui dua semester pelajaran civics (The American Experience). Di sini keahlian bernalar benar-benar diasah melalui melalui exercise dalam penulisan essay, public debate yang dilakukan bersadasrkan evaluasi issue-issue kontemporer yang aktual di masyarakat. Buat mereka yang "kurang 'menyimak" di SMA pun masih ada remedial course yang bisa diambil, sejenis kelas "Rhetoric-101." Disamping itu banyak buku-buku yang khusus ditulis untuk level sekolah menngah sehubungan dengan "jurus-jurus berpikir lurus" ini. Sebagai conoth di public library saya temukan beberapa buku dibawah judul "Opposing Viewpoints Juniors Book" -semacam serial, dimana masing-masing volume membahas issue/topik yang spesifik, seperti masalah smoking (pros & cons smoking regulation), drinking age, religious right/freedom, dsb. Objektip dari buku ini adalah membantu orang (murid/pembaca) untuk belajar dan mempraktekkan ketrampilannya dalam membaca, secara KRITIS, pendapat-pendapat yang bersilangan dalam satu issue, membiasakan diri dengan 'teknik-teknik' yang dipakai penulis untuk meyakinkan orang lain, dan belajar memisahkan antara fakta dan pendapat si penulis sendiri. Di level college, ada kuliah 'rhetoric' yang biasanya merupakan requirement untuk mahasiswa jurusan political science, logic, english, dan communication. Buat mahasiswa jurusan lain, atau yang sudah lepas college, membaca text dalam subject ini juga sangat membantu "meluruskan pikiran" dalam mengambil keputusan sehari-hari. Salah satu buku yang bagus misalnya karangan Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life." Yang saya pakai edisi ke-5, sedangkan edisi yang lebih baru lagi digarap bersama co-authornya, Nancy Cavender. Sayangnya buku harga textbook

sekarang mahal (di amazon.com, paperbacknya saja $50.95), karena itu saya lebih suka cari yang sudah loakan. Kalau mau baca yang berbahasa Indonesia (biasanya terjemahan dari bahasa asing) saya rasa sudah banyak dijual di toko buku lokal seperti Gramedia (pernah saya baca reviewnya di Kompas). Saya kurang tahu kualitas buku terjemahan ini, tetapi ada baiknya dilihat sendiri mengingat pentingnya kemampuan bernalar yang baik, apapun profesi kita. Secara keseluruhan, kebiasaan bernalar yang logis akan menghasilkan kebiasaan berpikir kritis, yang selanjutnya mengingkatkan kecerdasan, baik secara individu maupun kolektip (sebagai masyarakat/bangsa) Moko/ http://members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/spld.htm Semantic and Pragmatic Difficulties AND SEMANTIC PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE DISORDER Copyright 2001 Caroline Bowen Semantics Semantics is the aspect of language function that relates to understanding the meanings of words, phrases and sentences, and using words appropriately when we speak. Children with semantic difficulties have a very hard time understanding the meaning of words and sentences. This is sometimes apparent from their unusual responses when they are told to do something, and sometimes it is revealed by the questions they ask, and the things they say about words. There is an example here of 12 year old Nerida's interpretation of the word "acquire". In the example, she was unable to detect from the context that she was being asked what "acquire", rather than "a choir" meant. People with semantic processing difficulties have particular trouble with abstract words like 'curious' or 'vague', words that relate to feelings and emotions such as 'embarrassed' and 'anxious', and words that refer to status (for instance 'expert' or 'authority') or degree (for example, 'essential' or 'approximate'). They have difficulty with idioms, sayings and slang expressions, often taking them literally or interpreting them oddly. For example, when asked if he enjoyed spending time with his friends, a 14 year old with semantic processing problems replied, "I don't see how you can spend time, and I certainly don't see how you could enjoy it because spending time is not something you can do. You can only actually spend money". Another difficulty children with semantic problems experience is that they may not be able to identify the key point or topic in a sentence, and because of this may suddenly change the subject, very obscurely, apparently thinking they are on the same subject. Here is another real example from a girl aged eleven. Question: "Could you get the book off the shelf and give it to me?" Reply: "The Gulf Stream warms the coast-line" NOTE: CLOSE QUESTIONING REVEALED THAT THE OBSCURE CONNECTION HERE WAS THE CONTINENTAL SHELF, AND THE GULF STREAM. HER RESPONSE WAS RELATED TO HER DEEP INTEREST IN MARINE BIOLOGY AND OCEAN CURRENTS. Pragmatics Pragmatics is the area of language function that embraces the use of language in social contexts (knowing what to say, how to say it, and when to say it - and how to "be" with other people). Children with pragmatic difficulties have great trouble using language socially in ways that are appropriate or typical of children of their age. They often do not understand that we take turns to talk, and they will "talk over the top of you" at times, or, at other times respond to what you say with inappropriate silences, or in a voice that is too quiet. They may interrupt excessively and talk

irrelevantly or about things the listener shows no interest in. Their communicative behaviour often appears rude and inconsiderate. They often do not assume prior knowledge. So for example, one boy explained to me in minute detail how to wash a car, wrongly assuming that I needed (and wanted) the information and that I had never washed a car. On the other hand, they may assume prior knowledge that the listener could not possibly have, and launch into a long disquisition without describing in sufficient detail the participants, location and general background of their story. They can go on far too long telling stories, and include so much detail that the listener becomes disinterested. Pragmatics skills include: 1. knowing that you have to answer when a question has been asked; 2. being able to participate in a conversation by taking it in turns with the other speaker; 3. the ability to notice and respond to the non-verbal aspects of language (reacting appropriately to the other person's body language and 'mood', as well as their words); 4. awareness that you have to introduce a topic of conversation in order for the listener to fully understand; 5. knowing which words or what sort of sentence-type to use when initiating a conversation or responding to something someone has said; 6. the ability to maintain a topic (or change topic appropriately, or 'interrupt' politely); 7. the ability to maintain appropriate eye-contact (not too much staring, and not too much looking away) during a conversation; and the ability to distinguish how to talk and behave towards different communicative partners (formal with some, informal with others). Go here to see how pragmatic skills fit with other aspects of language development. Semantic-Pragmatic Language Disorder Children with SPLD (called semantic-pragmatic disorder (SPD) in some literature) have a language disorder that affects both semantic processing and the pragmatics of language use. Some authorities see SPLD as part of the autism spectrum of disorders while others see it purely as a language disorder. I once said to a twelve year old with semantic and pragmatic difficulties "Tell me all about yourself." He responded, perfectly seriously, with "It will take a very long time", and made an immediate start! Although isolated examples like the ones here can appear quite amusing and even endearing, these difficulties with word comprehension and social aptitude can be extremely embarrassing, upsetting, confusing and frustrating for the child with SPLD, and can give rise to teasing and criticism of the child. Family, peers, teachers and other adults need to apply great sensitivity to guiding the young person with SPLD. Understanding the nature of the disorder is helpful in this regard.

Assessment Speech-Language Pathology treatment is planned on the basis of a formal language assessment, interviews with the client and their caregivers and clinical observations. It is always necessary to determine whether the client has: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. isolated semantic processing difficulties OR isolated difficulties with the pragmatics of language use OR a combination of the two OR semantic pragmatic language disorder (SPLD) OR SPLD in combination with another communication disorder that is NOT in the autism spectrum, for example, developmental apraxia of speech OR 6. SPLD in combination with another disorder in the autism spectrum, for example, Asperger's Syndrome OR 7. SPLD in combination with another disorder that is NOT in the autism spectrum, e.g., Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The diagnosis of isolated semantic difficulties, isolated pragmatic difficulties and combinations of the two is "routine" for many paediatric SLPs. The diagnosis of SPLD can be difficult, lengthy and indeterminate, often involving several professionals in addition to the speech-language pathologist (family physician, paediatrician, audiologist, clinical psychologist, occupational therapist, etc). There are many children with semantic and pragmatic difficulties who don't quite "fit" into a definite diagnostic category. Intervention Clinical management of any communication disorder is geared to the unique needs and capacities of the particular client in their particular setting. Children with semantic difficulties, or pragmatic difficulties, or a combination of the two, or SPLD are no exception. Tips and tricks There are no "tips and tricks". There is no "therapy cookbook". Rather, there are evidence-based therapy procedures and techniques that must be geared to the individual needs of the particular client. Having said that, Working with Pragmatics ISBN 0 86388 168 8 is recommended. http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/Pragmatic-Language-Tips.htm Pragmatic Language Tips There are several ways parents and teachers can help children use language appropriately in social situations. Social language use is known as pragmatics. Some general suggestions are provided to help children develop skills in three major pragmatic areas. Although suggestions are geared primarily for preschool children, they can be modified for use with other children as well. Use of Different Language Functions

Ask questions or make suggestions to help a child use language for different purposes:

Desired Language Function

Suggested Question or Comment

Comment

"What did you do?" "Tell me about..."

Request

"Tell your friend..." "What do you want?"

Question

"Ask me"

Respond to a child's intended message rather than correcting the pronunciation or grammar; but provide an appropriate model in your own speech. For example, if a child says, "That's how it doesn't go," respond, "You're right. That's not how it goes."

Take advantage of naturally occurring interactions to increase use of different language functions. For example, practice greetings at the beginning of a day; have children ask peers what they want to eat for snacks; have children request necessary materials to complete an art project.

Adaptive Language Use

Role play conversations that might occur with different people in different situations. For example, set up a situation (or use one that occurs during the course of a day) in which a child has to explain the same thing to different people. For instance, a child might be asked to teach the rules of a new game to a younger child and to an adult. If the child's explanations are the same for each listener, model different language patterns for an adult and a child listener.

Encourage use of effective persuasion. Ask children what they would say, for example, to convince their parents to let them do something. Discuss different ways to present a message:

Polite ("Please may I go to the party?) vs. impolite ("You better let me go."); Indirect ("That music is loud.") vs. direct ("Turn off the radio."). Discuss why some requests would be more persuasive then others. Conversation and Narration Skills

Comment on a child's topic of conversation before introducing a new topic. Add related information. This will help a child say more about a particular topic.

Provide visual prompts such as pictures, objects, or a story outline to help a child tell a story in sequence.

Encourage a child to rephrase or revise an unclear word or sentence. Provide an appropriate revision by asking "Did you mean .... ?"

Show how nonverbal signals are important to communication. For example, talk about what happens when a facial expression does not match the emotion expressed in a verbal message, e.g., using angry words while smiling.

Pragmatics, Socially Speaking You have invited your old college roommate for dinner. She has never met your family. Your child sees your friend reach for some potatoes and says, "Better not take those, or you'll get even bigger." Your embarrassment makes it difficult for you to believe that your child did not intend to be rude. Rather, your child may have a problem knowing how to use language appropriately in social situations. A child may pronounce words clearly, have a large vocabulary, use long, complex sentences and correct grammar, and still have a communication problem -- if he or she has not mastered the rules for appropriate social language known as pragmatics. Adults may also have difficulty with pragmatic aspects of language, for example, as a result of a brain injury or stroke. However, this article will focus only on pragmatic disorders in children. Pragmatics involves three major communication skills:

Using language for different purposes -- such as greeting, informing, demanding, promising, and requesting; Adapting or changing language according to the needs or expectations of a listener or situation -- such as talking differently to a baby than to an adult, giving enough background information to an unfamiliar listener, talking differently in a classroom than on a playground.

Following rules for conversations and narrative (e.g., telling stories, giving book reports, recounting events of the day); there are rules for taking turns in conversation, introducing topics of conversation, staying on the topic, rephrasing when misunderstood, and telling a story. There are also rules for appropriate use of nonverbal signals in conversation: distance between speaker and listener, facial expressions, and eye contact. Rules may vary depending on language and culture.

In the dinner table example, the child made a suggestion and gave a reason. The child also followed conversational rules of taking turns and not interrupting. However, the child did not adapt language to the speaking situation. Perhaps the child did not know that certain topics are socially inappropriate and that it is usually improper for children to tell adults or guests what to do. A child with pragmatic problems may also have little variety in language use, may say inappropriate or unrelated things during conversations, or may tell stories in a disorganized way. For example, parents know how frustrating it can be to ask a child, "What did you do today?" and

hear the response, "Nothing." Maybe the child can make demands, ask questions, and greet people, but has trouble organizing language to talk about what happened in the past. During conversation, this same child may appear to pull topics out of the air and may not use statements that signal a change in topic, such as "That reminds me." Peers may avoid having conversations with such a child. Pragmatic problems can thus lower social acceptance. It is not unusual for children to have pragmatic problems occasionally or in a few situations. However, if problems in social language use occur often and seem inappropriate considering the child's age, a pragmatic disorder may exist. Frequently, pragmatic disorders coexist with other language problems such as vocabulary/concept development or grammar. If you have concerns, contact a speech-language pathologist certified by the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association. Find one near you.

Pragmatic manuscripts click on the thumbnails to see (then click on the 'back' button to return to this page) the images in greater detail

Bede Writings on the Calendar, etc England, Durham: twelfth century (second quarter) MS Hunter 85 (T.4.2) Written at the monastery of Durham by a number of scribes during the second quarter of the twelfth century, this manuscript is a compilation of several works mainly concerning the use of the Calendar, by the Venerable Bede, Abbo of Fleury, Hyginus, and others. It is closely related to, and in part probably copied from, another manuscript still at Durham (Hunter 100). Although its early ownership inscription has been excised, it still bears the Durham Cathedral pressmark 2a. 3i. T. dating from the period 1416-1446 when the books were placed in a new library. The second item in the manuscript is a copy of Bedes 19 Year Cycles, covering the period 1-1253 A.D. The main interest of this text lies in the accompanying annals, added until the year 1209; one opening displayed below (folios 24v-25r) includes the entry for 1066. One of the scribes of the annals has been identified by David Rollason as that of the historian and chronicler Symeon of Durham (d. after 1129). Symeons hand has been recognised in some thirty manuscripts, mostly from Durham, suggesting that he was responsible for supervising the production of manuscripts as well as for writing texts. The major work of the volume is Bede's treatise of 725 On the Reckoning of Time. Amplifying his earlier work On Times, the book was intended to provide Bede's students with a theoretical outline to increase their understanding of computation and the calendar. The text is introduced by an initial 'D' in red, green, blue, yellow and purple (folio 35r). It contains a seated representation of the author, identified by the inscription 'S. BEDA. P[resbiter]'; the opening words of the preface De natura rerum et ratione temporum... appear on the scroll he holds. See also the January 2001 'book of the month' feature on this manuscript with further information and images.

folio 19v

folios 24v-25r

folio 35r

folio 92r

Alexander of Tralles Practice of Medicine, and other texts England: mid twelfth century MS Hunter 435 (V.5.5) The chief work of this medical compendium is the handbook of the Greek physician Alexander of Tralles, who practised pharmacy in Rome in the mid sixth century, prescribing remedies like iron

10

for anaemia and rhubarb for liver weakness and dysentery. The other works include a pharmacopoeia, an explanation of medical terms, and a treatise on the diseases of women. Major coloured initials introduce each book of the Practice, as shown below (folios 2r and 45r). These swirling arabesque designs in red, blue and green incorporate trilobe leaf shapes that suggest that this manuscript was produced in the West Country. As well as being decorative, these initials act as mnemonic cues and perform a useful navigational function in this pragmatic text. The incorporation of indexing tools and apparatus was still in its infancy in the twelfth century, and readers would rely on the layout of text to access information quickly and easily. Although each book is prefaced by a rudimentary listing of contents (as seen on 1v and 44v), there is no reference to pagination or chapter numbering to aid quick reference. There are, however, also vellum place holders to aid finding the main sections in lieu of pagination or foliation; these are now folded down, but would originally have stuck out of the text block effectively marking the start of each new book. One is visible in the top left hand corner of folio 44v.

folios 1v-2r folio 11r Statutes of England: fourteenth century (first half) MS Gen 336 folio 44v the folio 45r Realm

This pocket copy of the laws of England was doubtless written for an itinerant lawyer. The collection is prefaced by two illuminated pages (folios 9v-10r) depicting a Crucifixion and an image of an enthroned king the conjunction of Church and state. Although the manuscript was probably produced in England, the style of the Crucifixion is close to a type found in a group of Fenland psalters of the early fourteenth century. The text opens with the Magna Carta; this copies the third re-issue of the charter by Henry III, made in 1225. Written in a mixture of Latin and French, the last statute entered (as an addition) dates from the early 1350s, some ten years before Edward III ordered that the use of French in the courts should be discontinued.

11

folio 9v

folio 10r

folio 26r

folios 194v-195r

John of Arderne Mirror of Phlebotomy & Practice of Surgery England: late fourteenth/early fifteenth century MS Hunter 112 (T.5.14) Arderne, of Newark in Nottinghamshire, was surgeon to the royal household and to the army for much of the middle years of the Fourteenth Century, and may have developed his skills on active service with the armies during the Hundred Years' War. He was born in 1307 and died some time after issuing, in 1376, this treatise on the cure of anal fistula, one of the deadliest operations in medieval surgery. Thought to have lost only half of his fistula patients, he was considered a remarkably successful surgeon; his great advance at the time was to avoid the corrosive after-care treatment used by other practitioners. In other respects, Arderne was more traditional, practising astrology for the prevention of ailments, diagnosis, treatment and prognostication of the outcome. The 'zodiac man' illustrated on folio 48v shows which parts of the body were influenced by which astrological sign, thus indicating the most auspicious times for performing operations. The need for navigational apparatus in practical texts such as this had become fairly well established by the Fourteenth Century. This manuscript is foliated and boasts a comprehensive index that refers to both texts. Although the alphabetical order of the index is only rudimentary (strict alphabetical order not being adhered to beyond grouping each topic under its appropriate letter), a combination of rubrication and underlining of keywords makes finding specific subjects easy, while access to the precise location of each topic in the text is facilitated by the citation of both a folio number and a letter (flagged up in red in the margin of the folio). Thus, in the examples shown below, the entry for 'Agrippa' is found on the index page (folio 97r) at the top of the 'A' section with the reference 'folio vi a'; upon turning to folio 6v, the section dealing with 'Agrippa' will indeed be found opposite the initial 'a' in the margin (it is flagged up by a red paraph marker). This treatise also contains some of the best examples from the Middle Ages of diagrams of instruments and of treatments to be effected, closely co-ordinated with the text. The illustrations performed a practical function in demonstrating visually techniques and examples of plants and herbs to be used in making up curative recipes; they were vital in the transmission of the text, and were faithfully copied from manuscript to manuscript. They would also have helped to give each page an individual layout, making pages memorable and thereby aiding reader in find information mnemonically. This manuscript has obviously been well used, and there are extensive annotations by early readers, including additions of medical recipes.

12

folios 6v-7r

folio 44r

folio 48v Trinity,

folio 97r Aldgate

Cartulary of the Holy England, London: 1425-1427 MS Hunter 215 (U.2.6)

Queen Matilda founded the Augustinian priory of the Holy Trinity in Aldgate in 1108. An important monastic house from its inception, it enjoyed royal patrons and the support of many of the citizens of London. This volume of its charters was put together by Brother Thomas de Axbridge between 1425 and 1427. In the introduction he explains that one of the reasons he made it was in order to facilitate the collection of rents, for, he says, the world has progressed to such evil and contradicts ancient facts unless copies of charters are everywhere produced in evidence. He tells us that he made use of ancient books in its compilation, and arranged his work according to parishes. With its detailed record of leases, agreements, rentals and the like, the Cartulary provides a wealth of information, not only on the social and economic life of medieval London, but also on its topography and changing land use. A professional production, the decoration of the Aldgate Cartulary is rich when it is compared with other books of its type. Richly gilt and flourishing initials adorn many pages, and the openings of the main sections are particularly ornamental. An opening at the beginning of the section relating to the Soca extra Algate is displayed below (folio 150r); as well being enhanced by painted initials and floral sprays, there is a tinted drawing of a mitred ecclesiastic: this is probably purely decorative and cannot be regarded as representing anybody. The manuscript fell into private hands after the dissolution of the priory in 1532. In the sixteenth century it belonged for a time to the Elizabethan antiquary, Stephen Batman, and was used by John Stow in his Survey of London (1598). See also the August 2002 'book of the month' feature on this manuscript with further information and images.

13

folio 1r

folio 2r

folio 5r

folio 150r patent

Letters Westminster: 1589 MS Gen 762

The term 'letters patent' refers to an open letter or document, usually from a sovereign or person in authority. They could be issued for various administrative purposes - such as recording a contract or agreement, to confer a privilege or office, or to authorize or command something to be done. They were delivered open with a seal attached and designed to be read as a proclamation; hence they were open (or 'patent') for all to read, as opposed to the type of document referred to as 'letters close', which were sealed closed in order that only the recipient could read them. They were similar to charters in administrative function, but tended to be more wide ranging in nature and less formally composed. This document is dated 8 February 1589. It is written in a chancery script on a single side of vellum, and its authority is conferred by the seal of Queen Elizabeth I. It relates to the purchase in 1587 of Hertford Priory (formerly a Benedictine Priory) by one Martin Stott.

vellum text in greater detail

whole document Return to top of page

back of seal

14

Vol. 8. No. 2

A-1

September 2004 Return to Main Page

Return to Table of Contents

Pragmatic Comprehension of High and Low Level Language Learners Paula Garcia Northern Arizona University <Paula.garcia nau.edu> abstract This study compares the performances of 16 advanced and 19 beginning English language learners on a listening comprehension task that focused on linguistic and pragmatic processing. Processing pragmatic meaning differs from processing linguistic meaning because pragmatic meaning requires the listener to understand not only linguistic information, such as vocabulary and syntax, but also contextual information, such as the role and status of the interlocutor (Rost, 2002). The study used a theoretical framework of pragmatic processing (Thomas, 1995) that included the comprehension of speech acts, in which the speaker tries to do something or get the hearer to do something (Searle, 1969), and conversational implicatures, in which the speaker expresses attitudes and feelings using indirect utterances that must be inferred by the hearer (Grice, 1975). Ttest results indicate developmental differences in comprehension of pragmatic meaning. Pearson correlation results support construct differences between linguistic and pragmatic comprehension, and between the comprehension of speech acts and the comprehension of implicatures. Pragmatic Comprehension of High and Low Level Language Learners: Differences in Construct Pragmatic ability, which is an important part of the language proficiency construct (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale and Swain, 1980), is the ability to use language appropriately according to the communicative situation. The importance of the pragmatic dimension in the language ability construct is not disputed, yet its role in interlanguage development has only recently begun to be researched empirically, particularly within the aspect of comprehension (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Kasper & Rose, 1999). Pragmatic comprehension refers to the comprehension of oral language in terms of pragmatic meaning. English language learners need to be able to comprehend meaning pragmatically in order to: [-1-]

understand a speaker's intentions; interpret a speaker's feelings and attitudes; differentiate speech act meaning, such as the difference between a directive and a commissive; evaluate the intensity of a speaker's meaning, such as the difference between a suggestion and a warning; recognize sarcasm, joking, and other facetious behavior; and be able to respond appropriately.

In one model of pragmatic ability, pragmatic comprehension can be characterized as comprehension of speech acts and conversational implicatures (Thomas, 1995). In speech acts,

15

the speaker is trying to do something or trying to get the hearer to do something (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969). In conversational implicatures, the speaker expresses attitudes and feelings using indirect utterances that must be inferred by the hearer (Grice, 1975; Sperber & Wilson, 1995). The comprehension of pragmatic meaning can be differentiated from linguistic comprehension because it requires the listener to understand not only linguistic information, such as vocabulary and syntax, but also contextual information, such as the role and status of the interlocutor, the physical setting of the conversation, and the types of communicative acts that would likely occur in that context (Rost, 2002; Van Dijk, 1977). Questions related to the pragmatic comprehension of second language (L2) learners include: Are there developmental differences in the comprehension of pragmatic meaning? Is pragmatic comprehension different from linguistic comprehension? Is the ability to comprehend speech acts different from the ability to comprehend conversational implicatures? In order to investigate these questions, this study analyzed the performances of high-level and low-level English language learners on a listening comprehension task that focused on linguistic and pragmatic comprehension. Pragmatic Comprehension: Speech Acts and Conversational Implicatures Comprehension of speech acts and conversational implicatures involves the integration of information from a wide range of linguistic sources (i.e., phonetic, syntactic, and semantic) to comprehend a contextually appropriate utterance that reveals a speaker's intentions and attitude. In the comprehension of speech acts, the hearer recognizes what the speaker is doing with an utterance; in other words, the hearer must be able to understand the illocutionary force and respond to it. In everyday language use, people use speech acts to do things such as make requests, give advice, and extend offers and invitations. In much of the research on L2 pragmatic competence, linguists have studied how L2 learners produce speech acts (e.g., Cohen & Olshtain, 1993; Takahashi, 1996); and, there is a smaller, but growing, body of research on how L2 learners comprehend these utterances (e.g., Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Kasper, 1984; Koike, 1996; Takahashi & Roitblat, 1994). [-2-] In the comprehension of conversational implicatures, the hearer recognizes what the speaker thinks; in other words, the hearer infers the speaker's attitudes or feelings. Interpretations are based on the assumption that the speaker is communicating co-operatively (Grice, 1975; Levinson, 1983) guided by Grice's four maxims of the Co-operative Principle. These maxims were unified into a single theory that Sperber and Wilson (1995) called Relevance Theory. Under Relevance Theory, hearers use a process of hypothesis formation and confirmation in order to arrive at the correct interpretation of an utterance. The hearer assumes that the speaker's utterance is relevant to the previous discourse and seeks the most relevant and accessible interpretation of the intended meaning, usually deriving meaning from the context of the talk. Take for example the following exchange between two roommates: A: Are the neighbors on vacation? B: I haven't seen their car all week. In this exchange, speaker B provides an answer that requires speaker A to infer that the neighbors are on vacation because speaker B does not explicitly say, "Yes, they are," or "Yes, I think they are." Although speaker B's answer appears to be a violation of relevance theory, it is, in fact, entirely relevant. The seeming violation becomes a signal to the hearer that more is being said than what is on the surface level; that is, speaker B hasn't seen the car, and therefore, he thinks the neighbors are indeed on vacation. Levinson (1983) explained that speakers do not always "adhere to these maxims on a superficial level, but rather that, wherever possible people will interpret what we say as conforming to [Grice's] maxims on at least some level" (p. 103).

16

Correctly interpreting conversational implicatures requires the listener to form hypotheses about what the speaker thinks and feels based on the combination of propositional content of the utterance and the context in which it was uttered. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations, for native (NS) and nonnative speakers (NNS) alike, are always possible (Leech, 1983; Mey, 1993, Thomas, 1983). As with speech acts, few studies have focused on how L2 learners comprehend implicatures (e.g., Bouton, 1988, 1992; Roever, 2001, Taguchi, 2003). Pragmatic Comprehension vs. Linguistic Comprehension Van Dijk (1977) proposed a theory of pragmatic comprehension made up of two main processes: context analysis and utterance analysis. In context analysis, language users analyze the meaning of an utterance based on the context in which it was uttered by using background knowledge, past experiences, and knowledge of social rules. They also apply their own expectations of plausible goals of the speaker and expectation of the kinds of utterances that are likely to take place in that particular context. They decide which information to focus attention on, for example, the location of an interaction rather than the hair color of the speaker. This attention to relevant elements has been referred to as "salience" by Verschueren (1999). Context analysis provides only a part of the information used to comprehend pragmatically; comprehension must finally be based on an analysis of the utterance itself. In utterance analysis, language users analyze semantic (e.g., speech parts, modality), syntactic (e.g., sentence forms, word order), lexical (e.g., word choice, fixed phrases), phonological (e.g., intonation, stress), and paralinguistic (e.g., gesticulation, facial expressions) information to interpret the meaning of an utterance. [-3-] These same linguistic and paralinguistic elements can be applied to linguistic comprehension (Flowerdew, 1994; Lynch, 1998; Rost, 2002), which leads to the question: What is the difference between linguistic comprehension and pragmatic comprehension? The difference lies in the application of context analysis, following Van Dijk's (1977) model. Pragmatic comprehension includes linguistic comprehension, but it also involves sociolinguistic knowledge and context analysis. In other words, the two types of comprehension involve the same linguistic elements, but pragmatic comprehension involves an added dimension, namely context analysis. Empirical evidence supports the separation of pragmatic processing skills from linguistic comprehension skills for native English speakers (e.g., Clark, 1991; Colombo, 1993; Gibbs, 1999; Gibbs & Moise, 1997; Holtgraves, 1999; Leinonen, Ryder, Ellis, & Hammond, 2003). In a recent study of native English-speaking children, Leinonen, et al. (2003) found that 17 language-impaired children (5 to 10 year-olds) comprehended implicatures at a success rate similar to 4 to 5 year-old children of normal cognitive ability, but had less success than the older children of normal functioning (7 to 9 year-olds). Furthermore, the language tests used to assess the children's linguistic comprehension did not indicate their success on the pragmatic comprehension task. These findings led the researchers to conclude that there are differences in the processing of pragmatic meaning compared to linguistic meaning. The present study attempts to explore differences in pragmatic comprehension and linguistic comprehension in the case of L2 learners by comparing two groups of learners at different proficiency levels. Pragmatic Comprehension and Second Language Learners Investigations of L2 learner's pragmatic comprehension have focused on how participants interpret speech acts and conversational implicatures. Several studies have found strong evidence for developmental differences among L2 learners in the comprehension of speech acts (e.g., Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Hoffman-Hicks, 1992; Kasper, 1984; Koike, 1996). In addition, there has been some evidence of construct differences between linguistic comprehension and pragmatic comprehension of speech acts. In a study of 14 university-level French learners, Hoffman-Hicks (1992), found differences between students' ability to select pragmatically and linguistically

17

appropriate responses in a variety of contexts. Hoffman-Hicks interpreted the results as evidence that there are two kinds of competence: linguistic and pragmatic. For L2 learners, who may not have sufficient linguistic skills to fully interpret an utterance at the surface level, the ability to comprehend pragmatic meaning can be problematic (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). Unfamiliar communicative situations and over-reliance on linguistic cues may contribute to L2 learners' difficulty in matching the utterance to a familiar context, thus hindering comprehension. In their study of 50 high-proficiency and 50 low-proficiency English learners, Cook and Liddicoat (2002) concluded that higher-proficiency L2 learners could process both contextual knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the comprehension of speech acts because they have achieved higher levels of language processing automaticity. The lower-proficiency learners, however, had not achieved such automated processing, and therefore relied only on bottom-up processing of linguistic information, resulting in miscomprehension of the speech acts. [-4-] There have been fewer investigations of L2 learner's comprehension of conversational implicatures (e.g., Bouton, 1988, 1992; Roever, 2001; Taguchi, 2003). Research studies conducted by Bouton (1988, 1992), in which participants had to select responses with similar meanings to specific implicatures, resulted in developmental differences in the comprehension of implicatures. Roever (2001) analyzed comprehension of implicatures and speech acts through a web-based task in which participants selected one of four answer choices that accurately conveyed the meaning of the implied utterance. Participants included 181 German high school students, 25 Japanese college students in Japan, 94 ESL students at an American university, and 14 native speakers. Apart from significant differences in ability-level, Roever also found that conversational implicatures and speech acts demonstrated a moderate correlation (r2=0.59). The problem of breaking down the pragmatic comprehension construct into speech acts and conversational implicatures has not been explored sufficiently in the L2 pragmatic comprehension literature. This aspect needs to be worked out so that we can approach the various dimensions of pragmatic comprehension in language teaching, materials development, and language testing. This study attempts to shed light on the construct of pragmatic comprehension by comparing the performances of two groups of English language learners. The Present Study The current study explored two main subproblems. The first subproblem was to determine if there were developmental differences in the comprehension of pragmatic meaning. Such differences could lend support to the existing research showing that high-level learners have better comprehension of speech acts and conversational implicatures (e.g., Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Roever, 2001). The second subproblem explored the relationship between comprehension of pragmatic meaning and linguistic meaning. It has been theorized that language learners use both pragmatic knowledge and linguistic knowledge to comprehend meaning, but they apply either knowledge with varying success depending on their ability levels. By targeting two types of comprehension constructs, linguistic and pragmatic, differences between these two abilities might become apparent. Furthermore, the pragmatic comprehension construct could be further explored by separating comprehension of speech acts from comprehension of conversational implicatures. In order to explore these two subproblems, five research questions (RQs) were addressed. Subproblem 1: Developmental differences in pragmatic comprehension 1. Do the two groups, high and low, perform differently from each other on the linguistic comprehension (LC) sub-task? 2. Do the two groups perform differently from each other on the pragmatic comprehension (PC) sub-task? 3. Do the two groups perform differently on speech acts and implicature subsections? [-5-] Subproblem 2: Relationships between task subparts

18

4. To what degree do the high group's scores on LC and PC subparts correlate? To what degree do the low group's scores correlate? 5. To what degree do the high group's scores on speech act and implicature subsections correlate? To what degree do the low group's scores correlate? RQs 1, 2, and 3 investigated the developmental differences in pragmatic comprehension of English language learners by comparing the performances of two groups of learners, high and low, on a pragmatic listening comprehension task and matching those differences to scores on the linguistic sub-task. RQs 4 and 5 sought to find out if linguistic comprehension and pragmatic comprehension required different abilities, and if pragmatic comprehension could be further broken down into the ability to comprehend speech acts and the ability to comprehend conversational implicatures. It was hypothesized that in answer to RQs 1, 2, and 3, the high-level participants would outperform the low-level group on all sub-sections of the task. This hypothesis was motivated by the need to determine if the pragmatic comprehension task differentiated learners of different abilities. Addressing RQs 4 and 5, it was hypothesized that results would yield moderate correlations, indicating that the subtests assess related, yet not identical abilities. This hypothesis was motivated by Roever's (2001) finding of a moderate correlation between speech act and conversational implicature sub-sections. Methodology Participants The 35 participants ranged in age from 18 to 42 and represented two groups: nonnative English speakers of high ability (High), and nonnative English speakers of low ability (Low). The High group (n=16) comprised graduate-level MA-TESL and Applied Linguistics PhD students. They had an average of 20 months, or 1 and three-quarters years in the United States. The Low group (n=19) comprised undergraduate-level students in an intensive English program. They had an average of 5 months in the United States. Participants spoke a variety of language backgrounds: 9 spoke Japanese, 7 spoke Korean, 5 spoke Arabic, 4 spoke Spanish, 3 spoke Chinese, 2 spoke Russian, and one each spoke Dutch, Portuguese, Hungarian, Haitian Creole, and Turkish. These two groups differ greatly in terms of their exposure to English in the United States (i.e., 5 vs. 20 months) and in terms of their exposure to pragmatics as a field of study. Some of the graduatelevel MA and PhD students had studied pragmatics and therefore, their results may have been influenced by background knowledge. This influence may limit the generalizability of the findings of this study. [-6-] Instrument The pragmatic listening comprehension task was a multiple-choice task made up of 48 items. The listening prompts (see Appendix A) used in the task consisted of six tape-recorded dialogues extracted from a corpus of academic spoken language that was collected at Northern Arizona University in the late 1990s. Two of the dialogues were service encounters between a university student and an office worker. Three dialogues were conversations between a professor and a student during office hours. And one dialogue was a conversation between two university students. These conversations were selected because they represent the kinds of conversations English language learners would likely encounter when studying at an American university. A set of listening comprehension items was written for each dialogue by the researcher and piloted with a group of 5 nonnative English speakers. Each set of items consisted of a linguistic comprehension (LC) questions and pragmatic comprehension (PC) questions (see Appendix B).The LC task involved the processing of the listening text on a literal semantic level, and did not involve pragmatic comprehension such as interpretation of speech acts and inferencing of implicatures. LC questions required participants to: understand the main idea of the listening text,

19

be able to predict what an interlocutor would do next by drawing conclusions from the overall meaning of the conversation, and locate details such as names, dates, numbers, and isolated facts from the listening text. These item types represent the typical items used to assess language learners' ability to comprehend meaning at the linguistic level (Buck, 2001; Shohamy & Inbar, 1991). PC was comprised of comprehension of speech acts and comprehension of conversational implicatures. Speech act comprehension involved understanding what the speaker wanted the hearer to do as in requesting, or what the speaker wanted the hearer to know as in correcting. The speech acts subsection included four types of speech acts delivered in an indirect manner, all of which have been investigated in previous second language research. The speech act types were requesting (Niki & Tajika, 1994), suggesting (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Hernandez-Flores, 1999), correcting (Takahashi & Beebe, 1993), and offering (Fukushima, 1991). Below is an example of an indirect request and the task item that focused on the comprehension of this part of the conversation, which takes place in an office where students pay their housing bills. Note that this is a short excerpt; participants heard more of the conversation that is presented below. See Appendix A for the whole conversation. Excerpt from Conversation 1: Service provider: OK because they're charging you for a double I mean for a single. They're charging for a . . . the whole room . . . um Student: Oh OK that's not right. I got to get that fixed. [-7-] 7. The man says, "Oh OK that's not right. I got to get that fixed." [PC, Speech Act-Request] What is another way for the man to say this? a. b. c. d. You have to change my housing bill. My room needs to be fixed. Please help me fix this problem.* I will fix my housing bill myself.

This item and others like it seem to have more than one correct answer but only one answer was correct and pragmatically appropriate. Participants who had a high level of knowledge about pragmatic appropriacy given the contexts of the conversations were able to answer correctly. Comprehension of conversational implicatures involved understanding the attitude of the speaker and what the speaker intended to convey. This subsection consisted of two types of implicatures: general and specific. General implicatures involved using expectations of the context in order to calculate a speaker's attitude or intention from the interaction overall, not just a single utterance. Specific implicatures were single utterances that required the hearer to infer the speaker's meaning. Whereas specific conversational implicatures have been previously researched (Bouton, 1988; Roever, 2001), general implicatures have not. They represent a novel type of implicature developed to target comprehension of interlocutor's attitudes and intentions over a cohesive sequence of utterances, a research area that has been called for by theorists ( Levinson, 1983; Van Dijk, 1977). Table 1 shows the number of items per comprehension type included in the task. Table 1 Table of Specifications for Pragmatic Listening Comprehension Task

20

Comprehension Domain Linguistic Comprehension (24 items)


Pragmatic Comprehension

main idea details prediction

Speech Acts (12 items) Implicatures (12 items) requests (4 items) general (7 items) offers (4 items) suggestions (2 items) specific (5 items)

corrections (2 items)

[-8-] In order to assess the internal validity of the pragmatic listening comprehension task, agreement between the researcher and three applied linguists was calculated. The applied linguists judged task items by identifying the types of speech acts and implicatures used in the items. Kappa coefficient was used to calculate agreement instead of percent agreement because Kappa takes chance into account, and therefore, does not overestimate the agreement (Hayes & Hatch, 1999). Agreement coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.83 based on the 24 speech act and implicature items rated. These are moderate levels of agreement, and are sufficient given the brief training session in which the coding rubric was normalized. (See Appendix C for the definitions of speech acts and implicatures used by the raters.) Procedures The task was administered in groups of up to 15 participants in sessions that lasted from 45 minutes to an hour. After responding to a short questionnaire and signing the informed consent form, participants were given brief instructions on how to fill out the answer sheet (see Appendix A for instructions and materials). Then, they were instructed to read the first set of items before listening to the first dialogue. After hearing the dialogue the first time, participants were given 30 seconds to 1 minute to answer the first set of items, usually about three to five items. Then they heard the dialogue a second time. After the second playing of the dialogue, participants were given as much time as they needed to finish answering the items related to that dialogue. The amount of time needed to complete the items in a set ranged from 3 to 5 minutes and did not vary greatly from group to group. The remainder of the task was administered in the same manner. Results Results were tabulated by marking each item correct or incorrect for each participant and entered onto a spreadsheet for carrying out statistical analysis (i.e., SPSS). Reliability of the pragmatic listening comprehension task was calculated using Cronbach's Alpha. Based on the 48 items and 35 participants, Alpha was 0.85, reflecting a sufficient level of internal reliability. Mean scores and standard deviations for the two groups were determined and are presented in Table 2. These results show that there were differences in linguistic and pragmatic listening comprehension abilities between high and low-level learners, with the High group scoring consistently higher on all parts of the task. [-9-] Table 2 Descriptive Statistics on the Whole Task and Subsections

Mean

Standard SEM

21

Deviation Whole Task (k = 48) High (n=16) Low (n=19) Linguistic Comprehension (k = 24)

39.2 27.0

3.5 4.9

0.9 1.1

High 21.1 14.8 1.5 3.1 0.4 0.7

Low Pragmatic Comprehension (k = 24)


High 18.1 12.2 2.5 2.8 0.6 0.6

Low Speech Acts Subsection (k = 12)


High 9.0 6.1 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.4

Low Implicatures Subsection (k = 12)


High Low 9.1 6.1 1.9 2.0 0.5 0.4

Note: k = number of items In order to determine if the differences in scores were significant, independent samples T-tests were run. The T-tests resulted in significant differences between the High and Low groups (see Table 3). Table 3 Independent T-Tests Between High and Low Ability Learners on Whole Task and Subsections

t Whole Task Linguistic comprehension Pragmatic Comprehension 8.3* 7.8*

df 33 33

Sig. 0.00 0.00

6.5*

33

0.00

Speech Acts Subsection 5.7*

33

0.00

22

Implicatures Subsection 4.6* * p < 0.01 [-10-]

33

0.00

The relationships between the comprehension of linguistic and pragmatic subparts, and between the speech acts and conversational implicatures subsections were determined by Pearson correlation. Correlations were calculated for each group separately in order to meet the assumption of equal variances. If correlations were calculated for both groups combined, the assumption of equal variances would be violated due to the significant differences between the high and low-level groups' means. Results yielded low correlations between linguistic and pragmatic subparts, and between speech act and conversational implicatures subsections (see Table 4). Table 4 Pearson r and r 2 between Task Subsections for Both Groups, High , and Low

Linguistic vs. Comprehension r High (n = 16) Low (n = 19) * p < 0.01 Discussion 0.45 0.39 r

PragmaticSpeech Acts Implicatures r 0.15 0.24 r 0.02 0.06

vs.

0.20 0.15

In answer to the first subproblem seeking developmental differences in the comprehension of linguistic and pragmatic meaning, T-test results showed that there were significant differences between high and low-level learners' abilities. The High group significantly outperformed the Low group on linguistic comprehension, pragmatic comprehension, comprehension of speech acts, and comprehension of conversational implicatures. These results concur with the previous research on pragmatic comprehension ability (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Kasper, 1984; Koike, 1996). These results also substantiate the usefulness of the task in reliably differentiating between groups based on ability level. [-11-] The second subproblem explored the relationships between linguistic and pragmatic comprehension, and between comprehension of speech acts and comprehension of conversational implicatures. The results showed that there were low correlations between the two sets of subparts. In the case of linguistic versus pragmatic comprehension (r 2 = .20), there was a 20% overlap of ability for the High learners, and a 15% overlap for Low learners (r 2 = .15). These results support L2 English (Hoffman-Hicks, 1992) and first language English (Leinonen, et al., 2003) research showing that linguistic competence is distinct from pragmatic competence. Another outcome was that the High group demonstrated a slightly higher correlation between linguistic comprehension and pragmatic comprehension (see Table 4) than the Low group, representing a degree of difference. This 5% difference in degree, although not a large difference, may be explained by the possibility that as language learners acquire greater proficiency, the

23

ability to process contextual knowledge simultaneously with linguistic knowledge becomes automatized, as concluded by Cook and Liddicoat (2002). The Low group, not having achieved the high level of automaticity required to comprehend pragmatic meaning, relied more on bottom-up linguistic processing. Therefore, the comprehension of pragmatic meaning represents a different set of skills to a greater degree for the Low group than for the High group due to the Low group's lower level of language proficiency. In the comprehension of speech acts compared to the comprehension of conversational implicatures, there was a mere 2% overlap of ability for high-level learners, and only a 6% overlap for low level learners, reflecting a lack of relationship for these two constructs. These results indicate that comprehension of speech acts can be differentiated from comprehension of conversational implicatures. This finding contrasts slightly with those of Roever (2001), who found a moderate, but statistically significant, correlation between performances on speech acts and implicatures. This difference in findings may be due to the nature of Roever's speech act and implicature items: they may not have sufficiently distinguished between the two pragmatic ability types. Therefore, it can be concluded that task questions need to specifically target comprehension of speech acts and comprehension of conversational implicatures in order to tease out the differences between these two abilities. The way this was addressed in the current study was to use two types of implicature items, general and specific, and to utilize authentic conversations from a corpus as the listening task prompt. These findings point out several implications for language teachers. Firstly, the supported distinction between linguistic competence and pragmatic competence means that L2 English learners can benefit from targeted focus on pragmatic comprehension. This can be done by using authentic language samples to provide practice with how native English speakers express themselves pragmatically, not just linguistically. A dual focus on pragmatic and linguistic meaning will provide learners, particularly low-level learners, with a fuller picture of English language use. Secondly, the distinction between speech act comprehension and conversational implicatures comprehension points out different areas of language use that ESL and EFL teachers can focus on when teaching pragmatic ability. Lessons can be designed around different speech act types, such as requests, offers, suggestions, etc. They can also focus on different conversational implicatures types, such as the general attitude of the speaker and the specific underlying meaning of utterances. It is beyond the scope of this study to describe teaching methods; a good source for seeking out methods for teaching pragmatics is Rose and Kasper (2001). [-12-] The study presented here contributes to the literature on pragmatic comprehension and its difference from linguistic comprehension. The findings could have been enhanced if recall protocols had been conducted with the participants. Such follow-up interviews could have helped to uncover some of the cognitive processes and decision-making skills the participants used to complete task items. Another shortcoming of the study was the small n-size; the results of this study should be interpreted keeping this in mind. Nevertheless, in addition to answering questions about proficiency differences between learner groups and construct differences between pragmatic comprehension and linguistic comprehension, this study has also contributed a model of pragmatic comprehension that distinguishes between comprehension of speech acts and comprehension of conversational implicatures. And finally, this study has demonstrated how authentic, context-rich listening prompts can provide comprehension tasks that target pragmatic processing skills. Conclusion Pragmatic listening comprehension is an area of language ability that has not been investigated sufficiently considering its importance in the communicative competence models. The findings from this study distinguish pragmatic comprehension as a separate language skill from linguistic comprehension. They also show how pragmatic comprehension can be further classified into comprehension of speech acts and comprehension of conversational implicatures. These findings contribute to our understanding of the pragmatic comprehension construct. Language learning methodologists and researchers would be interested in investigating further this multi-faceted construct for use in language learning materials and assessments.

24

Another important observation is that the use of naturally-occurring language samples from authentic contexts, such as those found in a corpus, provide listening prompts that tap pragmatic comprehension abilities better than contrived examples can. Still, much more research on the construct of pragmatic comprehension needs to be done to fully understand this important component of communicative competence. About the Author Paula Garcia recently graduated from Northern Arizona University with her PhD in Applied Linguistics. Her dissertation was a corpus-based study of pragmatic meaning titled Meaning in Academic Contexts. She currently researches and analyzes assessment practices of online courses at NAU. [-13-] References Austin, J. L. (1962, rep. 1975). How to do things with words . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304. Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7, 183-196. Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically -- without being explicitly taught? In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 3 (pp. 53-65). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canale, M. (1983a). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 333-342). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. Clark, H. H. (1991). Responding to indirect speech acts. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 199-231). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 33-56. Colombo, L. (1993). The comprehension of ambiguous idioms in context. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 163-200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25

Cook, M. & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19-39. Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension An overview. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 7-29). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fukushima, S. (1991). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes, 9, 317-325. Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Interpreting what speakers say and implicate. Brain and Language, 68, 466485. Gibbs, R. W., & Moise, J. F. (1997). Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition, 62, 5174. Grice, H. P. (1975, rep. 1991). Logic and conversation. In S. Davies, Pragmatics, pp. 305-315. New York: Oxford. Hayes, J. & Hatch, J. (1999). Issues in measuring reliability: Correlation versus percentage of agreement. Written Communication, 16, 354-367. [-14-] Hernandez-Flores, N. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of advice. Pragmatics, 9, 37-49. Hoffman-Hicks, S. (1992). Linguistic and pragmatic competence: Their relationship in the overall competence of the language learner. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 3, 66-80. Holtgraves, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 519-540. Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic comprehension in learner-native speaker discourse. Language Learning, 4, 34, 1-20. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81104. Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures, pp. 257-281. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Leinonen, E., Ryder, N., Ellis, M., & Hammond, C. (2003). The use of context in pragmatic comprehension by specifically language-impaired and control children. Linguistics, 41, 407-423. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 1-19. Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

26

Niki, H., & Tajika, H. (1994). Asking for permission vs. making requests: Strategies chosen by Japanese speakers of English. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Vol. 5 (pp. 110-124). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. Roever, C. (2001). A web-based test of interlanguage pragmalinguistic knowledge: Speech acts, routines, and implicatures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 8, 23-40. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Taguchi, N. (2003). Pragmatic performance in comprehension and production of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189223. Takahashi, S., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 138-157). New York: Oxford University Press. Takahashi, S., & Roitblat, H. (1994). Comprehension processes of second language indirect requests. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 475-506. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman. Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 211-232. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Oxford: Arnold. Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor's Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page for purposes of citation.. Return to Table of Contents Return to Top Return to Main Page

27

PERSUASIVE SPEECH http://www.lessontutor.com/dppersuasive.html

You are HERE >> Language Arts > Public Speaking > Grade 7- 12 Delivering a Persuasive Speech Douglas A. Parker August 13, 2001 Subject(s): Language Arts/Reading and Public Speaking Overview: Students need to understand that how they say something and how they physically present themselves are just as important as what they say. By understanding the dynamics involved in effective persuasive speaking, students will improve their overall confidence in communicating. Purpose: The purpose of this lesson is to improve students oral persuasion techniques by understanding the appropriate speaking skills. The lesson is presented in second person, making it more meaningful as a resource for the students, and easier for the teacher to use as a handout. Objectives: Students will be able to: 1) Demonstrate the appropriate classroom public speaking and listening skills (e.g., body language, articulation, listening to be able to identify specific examples of the speaker's coordination of talking and action) that would be necessary to influence or change someone's mind or way of thinking about a topic. 2) Define the elements of persuasion. 3) Recognize the elements of personal credibility. 4) Develop methods to analyze other students speeches. 5) Understand outlining main ideas. 6) Create a persuasive speech. Resources/Materials: Teacher-prepared topics for persuasive speeches. Assessments: The Class will assess each speaker's performance in terms of voice and body coordination, and in terms of persuasiveness. Each class can develop performance assessments such as rubrics to facilitate this process. Teacher's Anticipatory Set: During class discussion, define and explain how people make decisions based on what they see and hear. Explain that sometimes we have to use skills to convince others about our positions. Have the students recall and list their own experiences trying to convince their friends about something, and then ask them to share these with the class. Activities and Procedures: Delivering a Persuasive Speech

28

The Procedure Pick a proposition that not everyone would agree with such as: "nuclear power plants are superior energy sources." Write a 6 to 8 - minute speech in outline form to persuade the group. The Lesson: Your Voice and Body are Your Best Tools You are a natural persuader! You have done it all your life. Every time you enter a conversation, you engage in elementary persuasion techniques. It is true, that any time you make a statement of fact, you are asserting its validity and assuming that your listener agrees. This speech goes further than a normal conversational assertion: now you have to assume that not everyone will agree with you from the start, and it is your job to make them see things your way. The goal of this speech is to change someone's mind or way of thinking about a topic. This is not a speech to sell, as you do not ask that the listener do anything except to agree with you or to begin to listen to your way of thinking. Your message is, of course, very important in this speech, but your voice and body language are even more important. Here you will see how your delivery can help. There are several important aspects of presentation to keep in mind: 1) Body language - make sure that you have a proper posture. If your shoulders are sagging and your legs are crossed, you will not appear as being sincere and people just will not accept your message. 2) Articulation - articulation means how your total vocal process works. There are several steps to this entire process. First, you need air from the lungs, your vocal cords in your larynx must be working, your mouth and tongue must be in sync, and you have to make sure that you have got some saliva in your mouth to keep things oiled. You should be aware of your physical makeup to be able to understand how you speak. 3) Pronunciation - pronounce each word. Avoid slang, except to make a point, and do not slur your words. Avoid saying, "you know." 4) Pitch - pitch refers to the highs and lows of your voice. Whatever you do, avoid a monotone! 5) Speed - your speed, or pace, is an important variable to control. Between 140-160 words per minute is the normal pace for a persuasive speech. Any faster and you may appear to be glib; any slower and you sound like you are lecturing. If you are not sure about your speed, tape yourself for one minute and then replay it and count the number of words you used in the minute! The human ear and brain can compile and decode over 400 spoken words per minute, so if you are going too slow your listeners' minds are going to start to wander as the brains finds other ways to keep themselves occupied. 6) Pauses - the pause, or caesura, is a critical persuasive tool. When you want to emphasize a certain word, just pause for one second before; this highlights the word. If you really want to punch it, pause before and after the word! 7) Volume - volume is another good tool for persuasive speech, but you should use it with caution. If you scream all the way through your speech, people will become accustomed to it and it will lose its effectiveness. On the other hand, a few well-timed shouts can liven up the old speech! Try to "project" or throw your voice out over the entire group - speak to the last

29

row. 8) Quality - quality of voice is gauged by the overall impact that your voice has on your listeners. Quality of voice is the net caliber of your voice, its character and attributes. Try to keep your vocal quality high; it is what separates your voice from everyone else's. 9) Variance - variance of vocal elements is your most important consideration of all! One of the most persuasive speakers in modern history was Winston Churchill. One of his most remarkable qualities was his ability to vary the elements of his voice. He would start with a slow, laconic voice and then switch gears to a more rapid pace. People were light-headed after listening to him! Even if you have no desire to run for political office, you can still use the tools of variance. Change your pitch, volume, and speed at least once every 30 seconds, if only for just one word. Never go more than one paragraph without a vocal variance. This keeps your group locked into your speech, if for no other reason than it sounds interesting! Let the words speak for themselves; reflect their nature through your voice. If you use the word "strangle," say it with a hint of menace in your voice. If you say the word "heave," let the group feel the onomatopoeic force behind it. If you say the word "bulldozer," make it sound like a titan earthmover, not like a baby with a shovel. The Strategy: Appear Rational When you are trying to convince someone of something, you must first establish your credibility, or in other words, you must sell yourself before you sell your message. If people feel that you are not being reasonable or rational, you do not stand a chance. You must be committed to the ideals and goals of your speech and what you are saying. Do not use words such as "maybe" or "might"- use positive words such as "will" and "must." You are the authority figure in this speech, so you had better supply enough information to prove your points so that you can seem knowledgeable, and you had better know your material cold. People can usually spot someone who is trying to "wing" a speech. You should also appear to be truthful -even when you are really stretching a point. If you do not appear to be earnest, even if your message is the 100% truth, people will doubt your word and tune out your speech. Lastly, do not be afraid to show a little emotion - this is not a sterile or static speech. Your body and voice must match the tone of your words. If your language is strong, you must present a physical force to go along with your delivery. The Comments and Goals Self-control? You cannot sit back and let your words do all of the talking. You must use your total self to deliver your message, and this means that you will have to expose a little of your personality to the group. Your group will be supportive. The Group Reaction The group has two major criteria to consider after each member's speech. First, the delivery. Were the speaker's body, words, and actions in synchronization and harmony? Did one support the other or was there tension between the body and the voice? Secondly, were you persuaded? Why or why not? Discuss what makes a persuasive speech work and how the intangibles effect a positive outcome.

30

More Information? For more information and help with public speaking, contact: http://capital.net/~bps2/ Submitted by: Douglas A. Parker Presently, in his role as curriculum coordinator and English teacher at a prestigious New England college-preparatory school, Mr. Parker is called upon very often to make presentations to groups of all sizes and compositions. A former collegiate individuals speech champion himself, Mr. Parker presents several of the topics included in his textbook at major national educational conferences, including the NAIS and ASCD international conferences this year. As a final point, Mr. Parker holds dual Master's degrees in Child Counseling and in Education, and is New York State certified in English and Educational Administration. Visit his website at Basic Public Speaking, 2nd Edition- The Roadmap to Confident Communications

31