Integrating pragmatic competence to english language classes

Аннотация

In the pedagogy of language education, the importance of teaching Eng- lish pragmatic competence has received considerable attention lately. As an attempt to contribute to the literature in this field, this study investigated the importance of teaching pragmatic competence in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. It explored the extent to which Uzbek EFL teachers implement pragmatic competence features in their daily classroom practice. It also identified the difficulties they encounter during classroom procedures and practices. In order to achieve the study objectives, a mixed pragmatic competence and other types of competence. Keywords: pragmatic competence, pragmatics teaching, EFL, interlanguage, pragma- tic failure, L1, L2 Pragmatic competence is a broad concept that has been looked at different- ly according to the perspective of various researchers as shown in the preceding models. One of the earliest and widely cited definitions of pragmatic competence is that of Thomas (1983). She defines pragmatic competence as: “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and understand langua- ge in context” (Thomas, 1983: 92). This ability is reflected in two aspects: pragma- linguistic and sociopragmatic. The former is related to the knowledge of the prag- matic force of linguistic items, and the latter refers to appropriate use of language in different social contexts. Leech (1983: 10-11) describes sociopragmatics as ‘socio- logical interface of pragmatics’ and pragmalinguistics as being related to ‘the more linguistic end of pragmatics’. These two aspects are mirrored in Barron’s (2003: 10) definition of pragmatic competence as: “knowledge of linguistic resources available in a given language for realizing particular illocutions, knowledge of the sequential aspects of speech acts and finally, knowledge of the appropriate contextual use of particular languages’ linguistic resources”. A similar definition is provided by Murray (2009: 239): “Pragmatic competence can be defined as an understanding of the relationship between form and context that enables us, accurately and appropria- tely, to express and interpret intended meaning”. Likewise, Fraser (2010: 15) defines pragmatic competence as “the ability to communicate your intended message with all its nuances in any society”. Global dunyoda ilm-fan va ta‘limdagi innovatsion rivojlanishning zamonaviy trendlari 15 dekabr, 2022 yil. 276 SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNERS AND PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE Research clearly shows that cultural differences lead to pragmatic differences among learners from different language backgrounds (Olshtain and Weinbach 1993; Murphy and Neu 1996). Even advanced learners tend to transfer pragmati- cs from their first language and culture to their L2. For example, when comparing the complaints of native and non-native speakers of Hebrew, Olshtain and Wein- bach (1993) found that non-native learners tended to give longer and less severe complaints, while native speakers’ complaints were shorter, more direct, and more severe. Although pragmatic differences can result in positive transfer if the speech act is similar in the first and second languages, it can also result in negative trans- fer if there are cultural and pragmatic differences between the two languages. For example, when Russians and Moroccans were asked to react to the idea of someone stealing their parking space in a parking lot, the Russians responded with warnings and threats, while the Moroccans either opted not to complain or used much softer strategies. The Russians felt that people should “play fair” in a parking lot, while the Moroccans felt that it was not serious. THE SPEECH ACT OF COMPLAINING Speech acts are the most basic unit of communication, with each speech act accomplishing a different communicative function. This article focuses on deve- loping L2 students’ pragmatic competence for the speech act of complaining, which is used to express the speaker’s dissatisfaction. Speech acts can be bro- ken down into smaller components, or strategies, that speakers use to accomplish the communicative function. For example, Murphy and Neu (1996, 199–203) iden- tify four strategies that can be used in the speech act of complaining. The spea- ker first initiates the conversation and explains the purpose, then makes a comp- laint. This is followed by a justification or explanation for complaint and request to rectify the situation, as shown in Strategy Example 1. Initiation and explanation of purpose “Excuse me, professor, but I wanted to talk to you about my grade.” 2. A complaint “My grade’s too low.” 3. A justification “I come to every class, and I study hard. I just didn’t do well on one test.” 4. A request “Can I do an extra credit assignment to improve my grade?” Table 1. Four strategies for complaining (adap- ted from Murphy and Neu 1996, 199–203) ESL STUDENTS’ PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE FOR COMPLAINTS To determine the pragmatic competence of my