Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Intercultural Pragmatics

Editor-in-Chief: Kecskes, Istvan

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.769
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.120

CiteScore 2016: 0.72

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.286
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.827

Online
ISSN
1613-365X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 13, Issue 4 (Nov 2016)

Issues

News from the pragmatics classroom: Contrasting the inductive and the deductive approach in the teaching of pragmatic competence

Karen Glaser
Published Online: 2016-11-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0023

Abstract

While the role of pragmatic skills in a foreign or second language has been receiving increased attention both from a research and a language teaching perspective, there is still a lamentable scarcity of systematic empirical studies into the effectiveness of instructional methods in the teaching of pragmatics. Addressing this research gap, this article reports about a quasi-experimental study into possible differences between an explicit-inductive and an explicit-deductive instructional approach in the teaching of pragmatic skills in English as a Foreign Language (EFL), more specifically the teaching of offer refusals to 49 advanced adult EFL learners in Germany. The instruction consisted of three 90-minute lessons, which were spread out over the duration of a 15-week academic semester and designed according to the deductive principle and the inductive principle, respectively. While the deductive group was provided with metapragmatic rules directly at the beginning of the instruction, the inductive group only encountered such rules after engaging in language use and guided discovery. Production data was elicited by means of DCTs and role play in a pretest-posttest format. Effectiveness of instruction was operationalized by means of two indicators: Indicator 1 measured the increased usage of the strategies taught in class, while indicator 2 measured the approximation to a native speaker target. The results indicate that the gains in the inductive group surpassed those in the deductive group, suggesting that when situated within the explicit framework, inductive instruction is more effective in the teaching of pragmatic skills.

Keywords: interlanguage pragmatics; pragmatic instruction; induction; deduction; offer refusal

References

  • Abdolrezapour, Parisa & Abbass Eslami-Rasekh. 2010. A cross-cultural study of perceptions of politeness by Iranians and Americans in request forms. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 7(2). 164–169.Google Scholar

  • Abraham, Roberta G. 1985. Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly 19(4). 689–702.Google Scholar

  • Alcón-Soler, Eva. 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33(3). 417–435.Google Scholar

  • Alcón-Soler, Eva. 2007. Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In María del Pilar Garcia Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 69–90. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Alcón-Soler, Eva. 2008. Pragmatics in instructed language learning contexts. In Eva Alcón-Soler (ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context, 17–39. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Al-Kahtani, Saad Ali W. 2005. Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A speech act theoretically-based cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University 18. 35–57.Google Scholar

  • American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012. ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf (accessed 14 October 2015).

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1996. Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Lawrence F. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 7, 21–39. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 13–32. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Beebe, Leslie M., Tomoko Takahashi & Robin Uliss-Weltz. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine S. Andersen & Stephen D. Krashen (eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language, 55–73. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

  • Bouton, Lawrence F. 1992. The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically – without being explicitly taught? In Lawrence F. Bouton & Yamuna Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 3, 353–365. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, NFLRC.Google Scholar

  • Brooks, Frank B. & Richard Donato. 1994. Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77(2). 262–274.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bruner, Jerome S. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31(1). 21–32.Google Scholar

  • Carroll, Donald. 2011. Teaching preference organization: Learning how not to say “no”. In Nöel R. Houck & Donna H. Tatsuki (eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation, 105–118. Alexandria: TESOL.Google Scholar

  • Cerezo, Luis, Allison Caras & Ronald P. Leow. 2016. The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish gustar structures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(2). 265–291.Google Scholar

  • Chang, Yuh-Fang. 2009. How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences 31(4). 477–493.Google Scholar

  • Chen, Hongyin Julie. 1996. Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Chen, Xing, Lei Yea & Yanyin Zhang. 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In Gabriele Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language, 119–163. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, NFLRC.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, Andrew D. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3). 275–301.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, Andrew D. & Rachel L. Shively. 2007. Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy‐building intervention. Modern Language Journal 91(2). 189–212.Google Scholar

  • Cutrone, Pino. 2005. A case study examining backchannels between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingua 24(3). 237–274.Google Scholar

  • Decoo, Wilfried. 1996. The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 34(2). 95–118.Google Scholar

  • Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria & Helen Woodfield (eds.). 2012. Interlanguage request modification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Edmondson, Willis & Juliane House. 1981. Let’s talk and talk about it. A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar

  • Embassy English. 2013. English Levels. Embassy English – English courses in England, the USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand. http://www.embassyenglish.com/student-life/your-level-of-english#3 (last accessed 4 September 2016).

  • Erlam, Rosemary. 2003. The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal 87(2). 242–260.Google Scholar

  • Erlam, Rosemary. 2005. Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research 9(2). 147–171.Google Scholar

  • Eslami-Rasekh, Zohreh. 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal 59(3). 199–208.Google Scholar

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2004. Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning 54(4). 587–653.Google Scholar

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2005. The effects of explicit instruction on developing pragmatic competence: A longitudinal study of L2 Spanish learners. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, Indiana University, April.

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2008a. Politeness in Mexico and the United States. A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2008b. Perceptions of refusals to invitations: Exploring the minds of foreign language learners. Language Awareness 17(3). 195–211.Google Scholar

  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. César & Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig. 2010. “I’m sorry – can I think about it?” The negotiation of refusals in academic and non-academic contexts. In Donna H. Tatsuki & Nöel Houck (eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts, 163–180. Alexandria: TESOL.Google Scholar

  • Fukuya, Yoshinori J. & Martyn K. Clark. 2001. A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators. In Lawrence F. Bouton (ed.) Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 10, 111–130. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

  • Garcia, Paula. 2004. Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ 8(2). A–1.Google Scholar

  • Genc, Zubeyde Sinem & Ozlem Tekyildiz. 2009. Use of refusal strategies by Turkish EFL learners and native speakers of English in urban and rural areas. Asian EFL Journal 11(3). 299–328.Google Scholar

  • Glaser, Karen. 2013. The neglected combination: A case for explicit-inductive instruction in teaching pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal 30(7). 150–163.Google Scholar

  • Glaser, Karen. 2014. Inductive or deductive? The impact of method of instruction on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in EFL. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Golato, Andrea. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 90–121.Google Scholar

  • Haight, Carrie E., Carol Herron & Steven P. Cole. 2007. The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals 40(2). 288–310.Google Scholar

  • Hammerly, Hector. 1975. The deduction/induction controversy. The Modern Language Journal 59(1–2). 15–18.Google Scholar

  • Hartford, Beverly S. & Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig. 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In Lawrence F. Bouton & Yamuna Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series 3, 333–352. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, NFLRC.Google Scholar

  • Hellermann, John & Andrea Vergun. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics 39(1). 157–179.Google Scholar

  • Herron, Carol & Michael Tomasello. 1992. Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French Review 65(5). 708–718.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Thom. 2001. Indicators for pragmatic instruction: Some quantitative tools. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 283–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Thom, Emily Detmer & James D. Brown. 1995. Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar

  • Huth, Thorsten & Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm. 2006. How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research 10(1). 53–79.Google Scholar

  • Ishihara, Noriko. 2003. Giving and responding to compliments. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Rebecca Mahan-Taylor (eds.), Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. http://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/teaching-pragmatics#child-531 (accessed 14 October 2015).Google Scholar

  • Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and learning pragmatics. Where language and culture meet. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

  • Jeon, Eun Hee & TadayoshiKaya. 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In John M. Norris & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 165–211. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kasper, Gabriele. 2004. Speech acts in (inter) action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1). 125–133.Google Scholar

  • Kasper, Gabriele & Merete Dahl. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, NFLRC.Google Scholar

  • Kondo, Sachiko. 2003. Teaching refusals in an EFL setting. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Rebecca Mahan-Taylor (eds.), Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. http://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/teaching-pragmatics#child-531 (accessed 14 October 2015)Google Scholar

  • Kubota, Mikio. 1995. Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin 9. 35–67.Google Scholar

  • Long, Michael H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 413–468. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Martínez-Flor, Alicia. 2008. The effect of an inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners’ use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In Eva Alcón-Soler (ed.), Learning how to request in an instructed language learning context, 191–225. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Yoshinori J. Fukuya. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33(3). 463–480.Google Scholar

  • Matsumura, S. 2003. Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24(4). 465–491.Google Scholar

  • Morkus, Nader. 2009. The realization of the speech act of refusal in Egyptian Arabic by American learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language. Tampa, FL: University of Florida dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Morrow, Christopher K. 1995. The pragmatic effects of instruction on ESL learner’s production of complaint and refusal speech acts. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Nguyen, Thi Thuy Minh, Thi Hanh Pham & Minh Tam Pham. 2012. The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics 44(4). 416–434.Google Scholar

  • Niezgoda, Kimberly & Carsten Roever. 2001. Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 63–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ohta, Amy Snyder. 2005. Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System 33(3). 503–517.Google Scholar

  • Padilla-Cruz, Manuel. 2009. Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure when interpreting phatic utterances. In Reyes Gómez-Morón, Manuel Padilla-Cruz, Lucía Fernández-Amaya & María Hérnandez-López (eds.), Pragmatics applied to language teaching and learning, 87–108. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Phillips, Deborah. 2001. Longman introductory course for the TOEFL test. Student book with answer key and CD-ROM. White Plains: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Qadoury-Abed, Ahmed. 2011. Pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners’ refusals. International Journal of English Linguistics 1(2). 166–185.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, Mary Ann. 1991. Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In Gabriele Kasper (ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as a native and target language, 27–82. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, NFLRC.Google Scholar

  • Robinson, Peter. 1996. Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(1). 27–67.Google Scholar

  • Roever, Carsten. 2011. Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing 28(4). 463–481.Google Scholar

  • Rosa, Elena & Michael D. O’Neill. 1999. Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(4). 511–556.Google Scholar

  • Rose, Kenneth R. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33(3). 385–399.Google Scholar

  • Rose, Kenneth R. & Connie Kwai-fun Ng. 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 145–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ross, Steven J. & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 2013. Assessing second language pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Sadler, Randall W. & Betil Eröz. 2002. “I refuse you!” An examination of English refusals by native speakers of English, Lao, and Turkish. Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching 9. 53–80.Google Scholar

  • Schauer, Gila A. 2006. Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning 56(2). 269–318.Google Scholar

  • Schauer, Gila A. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Seliger, Herbert W. 1975. Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 13(1). 1–18.Google Scholar

  • Shaffer, Constance. 1989. A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal 73(4). 395–403.Google Scholar

  • Smart, Jonathan. 2014. The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning. ReCALL 26(2). 184–201.Google Scholar

  • Spada, Nina & Yasuyo Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 263–308.Google Scholar

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 1993. Conceptions of social relations and pragmatics research. Journal of Pragmatics 20(1). 27–47.Google Scholar

  • Stevens, Paul B. 1993. The pragmatics of “No!”: Some strategies in English and Arabic. Issues and developments in English and applied linguistics 4(6). 87–112.Google Scholar

  • Su, I-Ru. 2010. Transfer of pragmatic competences: A bi-directional perspective. Modern Language Journal 94(1). 87–102.Google Scholar

  • Swain, Merrill. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning 1, 471–483. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28(1). 113–135.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2011. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 289–310.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2013. Comprehension of conversational implicature. In Naoko Taguchi & Julie M. Sykes (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching, 19–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Taguchi, Naoko. 2015. Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching 48(1). 1–50.Google Scholar

  • Takimoto, Masahiro. 2008. The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal 92(3). 369–386.Google Scholar

  • Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in interaction. An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Trosborg, Anna. 2003. The teaching of business pragmatics. In Alicia Martínez Flor, Esther Usó-Juan & Ana Fernández-Guerra (eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching, 247–281. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar

  • Trosborg, Anna & Philip Shaw. 1998. “Sorry does not pay my bills”: The handling of complaints in everyday interaction/cross-cultural business interaction. Hermes Journal of Linguistics 21. 67–94.Google Scholar

  • Trosborg, Anna & Philip Shaw. 2008. Deductive and inductive methods in the teaching of business pragmatics: Not an ‘either/or’! In Ronald Geluykens & Bettina Kraft (eds.), Institutional discourse in cross-cultural contexts, 193–220. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar

  • Vogel, Séverine P. & George Engelhard, Jr. 2011. Using Rasch measurement theory to examine two instructional approaches for teaching and learning of French grammar. Journal of Educational Research 104(4). 267–282.Google Scholar

  • Vogel, Séverine P., CarolHerron, Steven P. Cole & Holly York. 2011. Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate‐level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals 44(2). 353–380.Google Scholar

  • Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wannaruk, Anchalee. 2008. Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals. RELC Journal 39(3). 318–337.Google Scholar

About the article

Karen Glaser

Karen Glaser is Junior Professor for TEFL/TEYL at University of Leipzig, Germany. She holds a PhD in English Linguistics from Leuphana University Lüneburg, an MA in TESL from Kent State University, Ohio/USA, and an MA in English and Applied Linguistics from TU Dresden. She has taught ESL/EFL, linguistics and teacher training courses in Germany and the USA. Her research interests include interlanguage pragmatics, classroom interaction, and Teaching Languages to Young Learners.


Published Online: 2016-11-04

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: Intercultural Pragmatics, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0023.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in