Pragmatics instruction with young learners

When it comes to pragmatics instruction with young learners (aged 5-13), there is still a limited pool of research. For instance, recent meta-analyses (Plonsky & Zhuang, 2019; Taguchi, 2015) have found that explicit instruction is more favourable, but this claim is largely based on findings from studies with (young) adults (e.g. Alcón Soler, 2005; Halenko & Jones, 2011). The following review departed from the findings in Plonsky and Zhuang’s (2019, p. 291) meta-analysis, which provided a rigorous and exhaustive literature search, comprising “four library-housed databases (ERIC, LLBA, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) and two non-library databases (Google and Google Scholar)”. In these databases, Plonsky and Zhuang used various string searches to explore both broad terms, such as ‘pragmalinguistics’ and ‘teaching’, and narrow terms, such as ‘request’ and ‘refusal’. In addition, they used ancestry searches through investigating references from previous reviews, and forward searches, through exploring articles that had cited “seminal review papers and existing meta-analyses on pragmatics instruction” (2019, p. 291). Importantly, in open science attempts to ensure transparency, the authors provided the references retrieved and the coding schemes

available for download³¹. Consequently, this provided a rigorous point of departure for reviewing relevant literature for the current doctoral research project. Following this review, the author conducted searches to further explore relevant literature published after 2016, the year Plonsky and Zhuang’s review was conducted. This process employed string searches combining Boolean operators, e.g. “AND” or “OR”, truncation, e.g. “learner*”, and categories of search terms. The overarching categories of the search terms were: 1) young language learners, 2) pragmatics instruction, and 3) target language (English). Combined, these categories generated the following search:

1) child* OR "young learner*" OR "young language learner*"

AND

2) "pragmatic* instruction" OR (pragmalinguistic* AND instruction) OR (sociopragmatic* AND instruction)

AND

3) English OR ESL OR EFL OR EAL OR "English as a second language" OR

"English as a foreign language” OR “English as an additional language”

Whereas the search confirmed that instructional pragmatic studies focusing on young learners are extremely sparse, some studies investigating the teachability of pragmatics with these age groups have been identified, thus providing insights into both the approaches and targets of instruction (see Table 2.3 for an overview). These studies are discussed in this section³².

31 Available at https://www.iris-database.org/ (Accessed, 19.04.2021)

32 Whilst the current study focused on requests, due to the paucity of research with young learners, studies focusing on other pragmatic targets are included. Furthermore, some studies focused on groups of participants where only some were within the age group defined herein as young language learners. These have also been included. The review is limited to those that focused on L2 English as target. Consequently, studies such as Lyster (1994), which explored French, have been excluded.

Table 2.3: Pragmatics instruction studies with young language learners

Methods Pictorial DCTa Pre-post FJT, DCT, SVDCTb FJT, DCT, SVDCT DCT Pre-post DCT Think- alouds Pre-post- delayed a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) b Formality Judgment Task (FJT), Student-generated Visual DCT (SVDCT).

Instruction Short Dialogic (constructivism) Very short Dialogic (SCT) Short Dialogic (SCT) Half-semester (5 weeks) Explicit Very short Explicit Collaborative vs individual + control

Participants N= 38 3-6 years N= 3 (all male), 9 years N= 5 7-12 years n=24 ( all male), 12-18 n=74 (all female), 13-14 years

Target Requests, Thanking Formality: Requests, greetings Formality: Requests, greetings Refusals Requests

Context Iran, EFL Japan, EFL China, Hong Kong, EFL (Japanese learners) Iran, EFL South Korea, EFL

Author Alemi and Haeri (2020) Ishihara (2013) Ishihara and Chiba (2014) Sa'd and Gholami (2017) Taguchi and Kim (2016)

As displayed in Table 2.3, very few studies have investigated the teachability of pragmatics with young learners. The majority of the studies included requests as a pragmatic target, with Sa’d and Gholami (2017) being the only study focusing on a different target (refusals). With regard to the instructional approach, following Bardovi-Harlig (2015), the length of the studies ranged from very short (Ishihara, 2013; Taguchi

& Kim, 2016), short (Alemi & Haeri, 2020; Ishihara & Chiba, 2014), to half-semester long (Sa'd & Gholami, 2017). There are variations in materials used in the various studies, and the studies seem to align with two paradigms of pragmatics research

(McConachy & Spencer-Oatey, 2020): interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) (Sa’d &

Gholami, 2017; Taguchi & Kim, 2016) of explicit and implicit instruction (in line with Kasper's (2001) definitions), and dialogic approaches rooted in SCT (Ishihara, 2013;

Ishihara & Chiba, 2014)³³, in which the learners co-constructed knowledge through dialogue with the teacher as mediator.

All the studies report on the benefits of pragmatics instruction, albeit to a lesser or greater extent. Although the studies focused on different age groups and pragmatic targets for instruction, some trends in the testing approaches can be found within the different studies. All the studies used a written discourse completion task (DCT) as a technique for testing the learners' language production. In addition, most studies employed a form of oral response, through think-alouds (Taguchi & Kim, 2016), and classroom interaction (Ishihara, 2013; Ishihara & Chiba, 2014). Furthermore, a formality judgment task was employed in two studies (Ishihara, 2013; Ishihara &

Chiba, 2014).

Although all the studies report on language production through a DCT, they vary considerably in both how the data were analysed and their results. In pre-post designs, Taguchi and Kim (2016) and Sa'd and Gholami (2017) analysed the responses based on the frequencies of use of linguistic resources. However, only Taguchi and Kim (2016) tested the long-term effect of instruction, concluding that the retention was only apparent in some linguistic categories. Their study revealed a short-term effect on head act scores, with both treatment groups (individual and collaborative) outperforming a control group in the post-test. In addition, the frequencies of internal (amplifiers and hedges) and external (grounders and preparators) modifications revealed "a mixed picture" (p. 429). Amplifiers and hedges were used to a limited extent, though still revealing an instructional effect with both treatment groups. However, this effect was not long-lasting and disappeared in the delayed post-test. For external modification, the test revealed a high use of grounders in all groups, suggesting that the learners were

33 Alemi and Haeri (2020) focus on the learners’ ability to produce utterances relevant for a specific situation, e.g. asking to go to the bathroom, and through linking an action with an utterance, e.g. waving for goodbye. The authors attribute their approach to discovery learning and learning through experience. They explored development through Robot-Assisted Language Learning (RALL), in which a humanoid robot served as a teaching assistant with half the group of learners. In the RALL group, the robot engaged in conversations and performed actions together with the teacher, and the learners practised with the robot. The learners in the non-RALL group received the same treatment, without the robot. Both groups were tested with a pictorial DCT, i.e. provided with a pictured and asked to produce the correct speech act. Not being able to produce the correct speech act was viewed as the child having acquired “neither comprehension nor production”. The learners in the RALL-group outperformed the learners in the non-RALL group. Considering, the differences in age from the present study, and the way in which the learners were tested, this study will not be presented beyond this.

already familiar with this strategy. Preparators, on the other hand, were used more frequently following the instruction, and were the only modification that showed signs of longer-term retention, with both groups outperforming the control in the delayed post-test. Consequently, the study revealed some positive effects of instruction with no significant differences between individual and collaborative learning in terms of production, but the length of the instruction most likely did not provide "enough time to boost their robust learning" (Taguchi & Kim, 2016, p. 434).

Focusing specifically on SCT-informed pragmatics instruction, Ishihara (2013) and Ishihara and Chiba (2014), whose samples comprised fewer learners, three and five participants respectively (see Table 2.3), report on the learners’ production through the DCTs and observations. In these two studies, there seem to be conflicting results. In Ishihara’s (2013) study the learners were able to produce pragmatic formulas, although they relied on external scaffolding from the teacher to do so. Ishihara argues that this could indicate that the learners had not yet internalised the formulas, which were thus not readily available in production. In Ishihara and Chiba (2014, p. 97), on the other hand, the oldest learners were able to produce and vary between the pragmatic targets (“Can you pass the X, please?; Could you pass the X, please?; Can I have the X, please?;

and May I have the X, please?”). Considering that these studies were similar in the teaching approaches, the reported differences could be related to the learners’ age (9 vs 12 years), duration of instruction (120 vs 180 minutes), or individual learner differences³⁴. However, the small samples render it impossible to reach firm conclusions or generalisations.

When it comes to sociopragmatic aspects, Ishihara (2013) and Ishihara and Chiba (2014) used visual aids as support. For instance, to facilitate the learners making evaluations about politeness, the terms ‘polite’ and ‘impolite’ were presented on a continuum on which learners could indicate their perceptions through pointing or marking. Thus, this could be interpreted in such a way that the instruction facilitated evaluations through valency (e.g. Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Spencer-Oatey & Kádár, 2021). In the study, politeness was linked to the pragmatic target, e.g. “the levels of politeness and formality of the target expressions introduced in the instruction were often closely intertwined” (Ishihara & Chiba, 2014, p. 91). However, in the two studies, less emphasis was placed on theoretical constructs related to politeness, suggesting that the instruction focused on learners relying on lived experiences, i.e. their own perceptions, and (co-)constructing understandings with their peers and the teacher through dialogue. In Ishihara’s study, the learners became increasingly attuned to sociopragmatic dimensions, such as making evaluative judgments about

34 Ishihara (2013) argues that the learners’ difficulties in producing target formulas could be related to limited exposure to the language.

appropriateness and situational formality, and visual cues. Comments related to the latter appeared both spontaneously and directed by the teacher. Thus, the development occurred through collaboration between the teacher and the learners. Ishihara and Chiba (2014, p. 15) also observed such “interactive and collaborative meaning-making”, in which peers co-constructed their ideas. Furthermore, non-verbal responses through drawings in the SVDCT revealed understandings about sociopragmatic features, such as age, gender, and physical distance. Thus, the two studies revealed both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic development to various extents. Furthermore, these studies seems to align with instruction favouring the development of agency (e.g.

Morollón Martí, Forthcoming), in which learners developed their own understandings, as opposed to teaching rules of thumb.

As revealed through the review, pragmatics instruction with young learners is an under-explored area of research. Previous research suggests that there is potential for teaching pragmatics with YLLs. However, due to the discrepancies in instructional approaches, pragmatic targets, length, and design, more studies are necessary. Consequently, the field of pragmatics still needs to “determine what type of instruction may be more compatible with how they generally learn and what aspects of pragmatics may be beneficial to teach them” (Ishihara, 2010, p. 946). Studies investigating young learners’

pragmatic development (Achiba, 2003; Ellis, 1992; Rose, 2000; Savić, 2015; Savić et al., 2021) and the pragmatics-related content in EFL language textbooks (Jakupčević

& Portolan Ćavar, 2021; Limberg, 2016; Schauer, 2019) give reason to believe that young language learners receive some form of pragmatics input, implicitly or explicitly.

At the same time, pragmatic phenomena are still largely overlooked or disregarded in the YLL language classroom (Glaser, 2018). There are thus vast knowledge gaps concerning effective ways of teaching pragmatics, as well as the pragmatic targets that should be taught with these age groups.