in the EFL Classroom
Andrew D. Cohen
University of Minnesota, USA
adcohen@umn.edu
‘Andrew D. Cohen taught in the ESL Section at UCLA, was a
professor of language education for 17 years at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, and since 1991 has been in the
ESL Program at the University of Minnesota, where he was
awarded Scholar of the College in the College of Liberal Arts
(2002 to 2005). Hes currently Chair of the MA in ESL Program
and Director of Undergraduate Studies. Cohen was a Fulbright
Lecturer/Researcher to Brazil (1986-1987) and a Visiting Professor at the
University of Auckland, New Zealand (2004-2005). Cohen was the recipient
of the 2006 American Association for Applied Linguistics Distinguished
‘Scholarship and Service Award. Cohen was Secretary Treasurer of the
‘American Association for Applied Linguistics (1993-1997) and also Secretary
General of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (IAAL)
(1996-2002). He has published numerous research articles on language
teaching, language learning, language testing, and research methods, as
well as books on bilingual education, on language learning strategies, and
on language assessment and research methods. He co-edited a volume
eh Dit Okt tuo aid Speed coca Soout. ante caret]
(Muttiingual Matters, 2004), and has a new co-edited volume with Emesto
Macaro, Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years of Research and Practice
(Oxford University Press, 2007). In addition, he recently produced an online
course on assessing language.2__The Teaching of Pragmatics in the EFL Classroom
This article focuses on facilitating the development of second language
(L2) pragmatics, especially with regard to one aspect of pragmatics,
namely, speech acts. Speech acts constitute an engaging aspect of
pragmatics because of the possible misfit between what is said or
written in a language in the given speech act and what is meant by
it. The concer is with helping L2 leamers avoid pragmatic failure in
high-stakes situations where they must interact with native speakers of
the L2 and where approximating the sociocultural norms for the given
context norms is a priority. All too frequently, nonnatives learn forms.
inaccurately or incompletely, and then attempt to use them in ways that
are not appropriate for the given context, Hence, there appears to be an
important role for the explicit teaching of L2 pragmatics. The article
discusses issues relevant to L2 pragmatics instruction, such as selection
cof material for instruction, teacher preparation, the role of teachers in
facilitating the learning of pragmatics, the assessment of pragmatics, and
the role of technology in making L2 pragmatics accessible to learners.
Keywords: pragmatics, speech acts, L2 pragmatics instruction,
assessment of pragmatics
Introduction
I first learned about pragmatics from my colleague at the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, and then from the late
1970s pursued a research agenda with my colleague Elite Olshtain,
focusing primarily on the speech act of apologizing. So my personal and
professional interest in pragmatics has spanned perhaps thirty years. I
become fascinated with the challenges associated with collecting data
on both the comprehension and production of pragmatically complex L2
messages, since the intentions, assumptions, and actions performed by
such messages may well be in need of interpretation (Yule, 1996: 3-4).
The reason is that sociocultural norms for a given speech community
predictably put constraints on how messages are communicated. For
example, a given speech community may prefer that certain messages
be delivered indirectly (e.g. “Good afternoon. I was wondering if you
might have the time.”), while another speech community would prefer
more direct communication (e.g. “Hey, what time is it?”). Members
ILI Language Teaching Journal‘Andrew D.Cohen 3
of the speech community tend to adapt to these patterns (for survival
sake) but the average learner of the language, especially those who are
learning the language as a foreign rather than a second language, may
find it a challenge to accommodate.
T have formally and informally studied eleven languages beyond
my native English over the course of my life, and while I have achieved
relative pragmatic control in, say, four of these, I can easily produce
pragmatic failure in other languages such as Japanese (see Cohen, 1997,
2001). It is probably more my pragmatic failures than my successes
which have made me acutely aware that pragmatic performance benefits
from explicit instruction—that learners do not necessarily just get it
through osmosis.
My concern as an applied linguist is to provide for learners of
a second language (L2) a means for developing pragmatic ability
more readily in that language, especially with regard to one aspect of
pragmatics, namely, speech acts. Speech acts are often, but not always,
the patterned, routinized language that natives and pragmatically
competent nonnative speakers and writers in a given speech community
(with its dialect variations) use to perform functions such as thanking,
complimenting, requesting, refusing, apologizing, and complaining
(See Olshtain and Cohen, 1983: 19-21; Cohen, 1996: 384-385). For the
purposes of this paper, L2 will serve as a generic label, including both
the context where the language is spoken widely and the context where
itis not. In principle, pragmatic development in an L2 will be faster in
the former context than in the latter, but it depends largely on how the
learner makes use of the available resources. So, the focus is both on
speech acts as performed by members of the dominant language group
(e.g. Persian speakers performing speech acts in Persian in Iran) and
by members of minority language groups as well (e.g. the pragmatics
in Arabic of Arabic-speaking immigrants to Iran, where the speakers
may be increasingly drawing on the pragmatic norms for speakers of
Persian in Iranian culture).
Speech acts constitute an engaging aspect of pragmatics because
of the possible misfit between what you do or do not say or write in
a language in the given speech act and what is meant by it. Speech
act theory, in fact, provides a reliable and valid basis for examining
Volume 3, No. 2, 2007