INTRODUCTION
Background to the study
Since 1986, the significance of English in Vietnam has grown, particularly in the 1990s with an influx of foreign investors attracted by the country's open-door policy This surge in investment necessitated English communication between foreign and Vietnamese partners Today, as Vietnam integrates into the global economy and becomes an appealing destination for tourism and business, there is a heightened focus on English language education Numerous seminars and workshops on teaching methods, curriculum development, and professional growth have been organized at universities and by provincial education departments across the nation.
The communicative approach, emphasizing communicative skills, has been widely adopted in foreign language classes (Ton, 2007) This method prioritizes the four macro-skills: listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing, ensuring they receive equal attention Language learning has evolved from a grammatical focus to a communicative perspective, highlighting the importance of understanding and using language effectively in various contexts Misunderstandings can arise when listeners fail to grasp the speaker's intended meaning, potentially leading to conversation breakdowns (Thomas, 1983).
Despite advancements in teaching methods, curriculum content, and professional development through seminars and workshops, a significant number of students remain unable to communicate effectively in English after seven years of formal education, as highlighted in the MOET's National Report (2011).
A pilot survey conducted with 100 university students in Ho Chi Minh City found that 50 students expressed a lack of confidence in their English competence Additionally, 79 students provided further insights into their perceptions of language proficiency.
“no” when the interviewer asked “Do you have enough confidence to use your English communication ability to talk with foreign speakers?” (HCMUP‟s report,
Despite a significant portion of the student population in the country demonstrating a strong understanding of English grammar, many struggle to apply this knowledge in real-life communication (MOET’s National Report, 2011).
Rational of the study
Recent cross-cultural research on pragmatics highlights that in intercultural communication, students must not only master linguistic forms for accuracy but also internalize sociolinguistic rules for appropriate usage To communicate effectively in the language they learn, students need to develop their pragmatic competence.
Research into the pragmatics of second language learners has proved that a student with advanced grammatical development does not necessarily have corresponding levels of pragmatic development (Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei,
Research indicates that second language learners, even at advanced levels, struggle with understanding a speaker's intention and expressing politeness in communication (Olshtain and Blum-Kulka, 1985) This highlights a significant challenge in language education: effectively teaching the culturally appropriate use of language.
Research Aims
This research aims to determine if explicit instruction on pragmatics can enhance the pragmatic competence of EFL learners in TGU Specifically, it investigates the potential improvement in EFL learners' use of apologies following such instruction.
This study investigates the speech act of apologizing, which is crucial for understanding pragmatics and is essential for developing pragmatic competence Research indicates that apologizing is a prevalent speech act across various cultures, playing a key role in politeness and pragmatic theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Holmes, 1990) For foreign and second language learners, mastering the ability to apologize and respond appropriately to apologies in the target language is a significant challenge.
Research Scope
This study investigates the impact of explicit pragmatics instructions on TGU EFL students‟ pragmatic awareness and on their ability to perceive and respond to apology in English
In this paper, the term “learners” refers to the students from course 2010-
2014 and onwards who are studying English as their non-major subject at Tien Giang University.
Research Questions
From a critical review of the relevant literature on pragmatics, pragmatic instruction, two research questions were developed:
1 Does explicit pragmatic instruction raise EFL students’ awareness of the pragmatic aspects of apologizing in English?
2 Does explicit pragmatic instruction help EFL students perceive and produce apologies in English properly?
Research Significance
This study explores the significance of explicit pragmatics instruction in second language acquisition (SLA), highlighting its practical application and benefits By focusing on effective teaching methods, the research aims to enhance English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners' pragmatic competence, particularly in the context of apologizing.
Research Organization
This present research comprises 5 chapters:
Chapter I is the introduction, which first introduces an overview of teaching and learning English in Vietnam since 1986, and then states the background, the rationale, the significance, the aims, the research questions, the scope and the organization of the research
Chapter II provides a review of the literature First, it starts with definitions of pragmatics, pragmatic awareness, and pragmatic competence Then, the differences between pragmatic competence and communicative competence are introduced clearly and interlanguage pragmatics is also provided as well Next, the theories that explain second language pragmatics competence are highlighted with special attention given to speech act theories and apology theories Finally, an overall of literature reviews is included
Chapter III presents research methodology, which includes variables, research questions, participants, instruments and research procedure
Chapter IV sates the results of the study based on data of discourse pre-tests and discourse post-test analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Science and presented in Tables and Figures
Chapter V presents discussion of the results based on the major and important findings Also, a comparison and contrast regarding the results from points of view cited in literature reviews and research hypothesis are stated Chapter
V also presents key conclusions which are generalized the whole paper It also presents the limitations of the study and states recommendations for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pragmatic competence and language teaching
2.2.1 Theories of teaching pragmatic competence
In recent years, a significant focus in second language acquisition has been on enhancing learners' communicative competence Current models indicate that effective communication in a target language necessitates not only an understanding of the language's structural features but also an awareness of its pragmatic usage rules.
Ishihara (2010) identifies three key concepts in teaching pragmatics: noticing, awareness, and attention, emphasizing that attention and awareness are closely linked (p.35) She elaborates that when learners notice pragmatic information, it has the potential to be processed into intake and subsequently stored in long-term memory.
Kondo (2001) advocates for an awareness-raising approach in pragmatic instruction, highlighting that learners can enhance their understanding of cross-cultural communication Through discussions and analysis of their speech act performances alongside textbook data, students demonstrate increased awareness of key pragmatic elements.
Pragmatic competence, as defined by Barron (2003), encompasses the understanding of linguistic resources in a language for expressing specific illocutions, the sequential dynamics of speech acts, and the appropriate contextual application of these linguistic elements.
To avoid communication misunderstandings, learners must enhance both their language proficiency and accuracy, as well as their pragmatic competence in the target language.
Linguistic experts have recommended that pragmatic instruction should be considered as a part of foreign and second language curricula (House & Kasper,
Recent empirical studies have increasingly focused on the impact of instruction on the development of pragmatic knowledge, particularly concerning instructions (House & Kasper, 1989; Tateyama, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991; House, 1996; Olshtain & Cohen, 1990; Rose & Kwai-Fun, 2001) Findings from these studies consistently indicate that pedagogical instruction has a positive effect, reinforcing the notion that teaching pragmatics can enhance learners' pragmatic competence.
Explicit instruction, as defined by Rosenshine (1987), is a structured teaching method that focuses on breaking down information into manageable steps, ensuring student comprehension, and fostering active participation from all learners This approach is not only systematic but also highly effective in helping students acquire new skills.
Explicit instruction is a clear and direct teaching method that combines instructional design and delivery procedures It involves guiding students through the learning process with clear statements about the learning objectives, straightforward explanations, and demonstrations This approach includes supported practice and feedback, ensuring students master the new skill effectively.
Numerous pragmatists, including Fukuya (1998) and Kondo (2001), have investigated the impact of explicit instruction on adult learners Their research indicates that explicit instruction is effective across various proficiency levels and language contexts Additional studies by House (1996) and Pearson (1998) further support these findings, highlighting the significance of explicit teaching methods in language acquisition.
(2001) among these studies has shown statistically significant effects for the explicit instruction on pragmatic learning over implicit instruction.
2.2.2.2 The role of explicit instruction
Research indicates that integrating pragmatic instruction into the curriculum significantly benefits learners (Kasper & Rose, 1999) While pragmatic competence cannot be directly taught, classroom instruction provides valuable opportunities for learners to enhance their awareness of pragmatic aspects (Kasper, 1997).
Numerous studies, including those by House (1996), Takahashi (2001), and Tateyama and Kasper (1997), confirm the benefits of explicit pragmatic instruction Kasper (1997) emphasizes that explicit teaching, combined with awareness-raising techniques, significantly enhances learners' pragmatic awareness This explicit scaffolding approach is recognized as an effective method for developing pragmatic competence The findings from these studies align with the objectives of the current research, which seeks to enhance learners' pragmatic awareness through targeted explicit instruction.
2.2.2.3 The stages of explicit pragmatic instruction
Following Yoshimi (2001), the following steps are taken to teach pragmatics to learners
1 Presentation of learning targets: a Learners listen to the dialogue in which segment of the speech act-here apology-is embedded b Learners answer some questions which are meaning focused
Figure 2.1 Yoshimi’s stages of explicit pragmatic instruction
The teacher explains the pragmatic aspects of language and compares them between the source and target languages (Lingli and Wannaruk, 2010) During the feedback stage, participants practice creating utterances using speech acts, after which the teacher provides essential corrections for any inappropriate statements made by the students.
Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) have grouped teaching elements into the six teaching functions outlinedas follows:
2 Explaining learning targets: a Teacher explaining explicitly about the function and use of refusal strategies b Teacher leading a discussion and comparison of Vietnamese and American English apology strategies
3 Planning sessions: a Learners planning the production non formal, extended discourse b Learners listening to the dialogues again c Learners preparing for role play based on the situation in the dialogues d Learners working in pairs e Teacher offering an explicit use in apology strategies whenever learners need
4 Communication session: a Learners having communicative practice of the target items in conjunction with extended discourse b Teacher selecting several pairs to act out the dialogue
5 Feedback: a Corrective feedback: providing feedback on the use of target items and the production of extended discourse b Teacher correcting explicitly any inappropriate use
Figure 2.2: Rosenshine and Stevens’ six teaching functions
Face and Speech acts
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), "face" refers to the public self-image that individuals strive to present They identify two types of face: "negative," which emphasizes the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition, and "positive," which focuses on the need for social approval and acceptance.
1 Review a Review homework and relevant previous learning b Review prerequisite skills and knowledge
2 Presentation a State lesson goals b Present new material in small steps c Model procedures d Provide examples and non-examples e Use clear language f Avoid digressions
3 Guided practice a Require high frequency of responses b Ensure high rates of success c Provide timely feedback, clues, and prompts d Have students continue practice until they are fluent
4 Corrections and feedback a Reteach when necessary
5 Independent practice a Monitor initial practice attempts b Have students continue practice until skills are automatic
6 Weekly and monthly reviews accepted or to be treated as a member of the same group whereas the second one needs the freedom of action and freedom from imposition
Yule (1996) identifies face-threatening acts as behaviors that jeopardize an individual's self-image expectations Negative face is compromised when actions contradict the desires of the speaker or listener, with examples including requests, apologies, warnings, promises, compliments, and emotional expressions Employing a negative politeness strategy, such as an apology or a gesture of respect, can help mitigate this threat Conversely, positive face is threatened when one party disregards the feelings or desires of the other, illustrated by acts of disapproval, criticism, complaints, accusations, contradictions, or disagreements In this context, a positive politeness strategy fosters solidarity between individuals.
Apologies are a common speech act in daily communication, often serving as a means to address and take responsibility for behaviors that may have offended others According to Brown and Levinson (1987), an apology is considered a face-threatening act, as it acknowledges the speaker's wrongdoing However, when accepted, apologies can also serve to preserve the social face of both the speaker and the listener, easing the offense and fostering reconciliation.
Austin (1962) identifies three types of acts involved in speech act performance: the locutionary act, which conveys the literal meaning; the illocutionary act, which is the execution of the utterance; and the perlocutionary act, which refers to the actual effect on the listener, such as persuading or inspiring them, regardless of the speaker's intent.
Speech acts are verbal expressions that fulfill specific functions in communication, such as making requests or providing information These acts encompass real-life interactions and necessitate not only a grasp of the language but also an understanding of its culturally appropriate usage.
Searle (1969) significantly advanced speech act theory by categorizing speech acts into five distinct types: Assertives, which assert the truth of a proposition (such as reporting or claiming); Directives, which aim to influence the actions of the hearer (including requests and orders); Commissives, which commit the speaker to future actions (like offering or refusing); Expressives, which convey the speaker's psychological state (such as apologizing or thanking); and Declarations, which create a direct link between the propositional content and reality (for example, sentencing or dismissing).
Over the last twenty years, speech act theory has served as a foundational framework for numerous cross-cultural and pragmatic studies Achiba (2003) emphasizes its significance in pragmatics, highlighting that speakers perform illocutionary acts through their utterances An illocutionary act represents a specific language function conveyed by an utterance, allowing speakers to express communicative intentions such as requests, apologies, promises, advice, compliments, offers, refusals, and expressions of gratitude Studying speech acts effectively links linguistic forms to communicative intent, enhancing our understanding of language use.
Communication is “dynamic, interactive, and irreversible contextual” (Gay,
Communication is a dynamic process involving individuals who strive to influence one another According to Samovar (1991), this process is shaped by the social and physical contexts in which it occurs, with culture serving as the guiding framework that dictates the forms, functions, and content of communication Therefore, recognizing the interplay between culture and communication is essential for enhancing intercultural interactions.
Effective communication requires mutual understanding and respectful verbal interactions Research indicates that individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds often face significant challenges in communicating effectively (Fielding, 2006) Additionally, cross-cultural communication is more prone to misunderstandings compared to interactions among people from similar cultural contexts, as culturally specific norms can lead to indirect and implicit meanings in conversations.
Allan (1986) emphasizes that in intercultural communication, utterances often embody illocutionary speech acts, but translating these into another language can lead to varied interpretations For example, the Vietnamese greeting "Where are you going?" may be perceived differently in English-speaking contexts English speakers might find this inquiry confusing or misinterpret it as an invitation, highlighting the complexities of cross-cultural communication.
Gass and Neu (1996) emphasize the significance of recognizing that various cultures, and even distinct communities within the same culture, may follow different rules for speech acts This highlights the necessity for learners of foreign languages to not only grasp the cultural differences between the source and target languages but also to acquire knowledge of speech acts and their associated formulas for effective intercultural communication (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980; Flor & Juan, 2010; Yalden, 1987).
In examining research on second language acquisition, Swain (1970) suggests a model of second language learning according to four areas of relevant research.
Input factor mentions the input of the learning process.
Learner factors refer to learner differences to the learning process such as age, motivation, aptitude, etc.
Learning factors concern strategies and processes that learners use to learn linguistic aspects of the language such as generalization, interlanguage, transfer, etc.
Learned factors refer to factors specific to the features of the language acquired by the learners such as auxiliaries, forms, negatives, etc.
Schmidt (1980) explores the theory of speech acts in relation to two key factors identified by Swain (1997): the input factor and the learning factor The input factor is crucial in the second language acquisition process, as it highlights the typical speech contexts learners encounter, along with the identification of discourse structures and conventions Coulthard (1997) outlines essential components such as opening and closing sequences, turn-taking, sequencing rules, presupposition, role-making, and speech acts Regarding the learning factor, processes like inference and transfer are significant in understanding how learners acquire the rules of speech acts in a second language (Swain).
Interference refers to the process by which learners develop hypotheses or conclusions about a target language based on available evidence This mechanism enables both speakers and listeners to extract meaningful discourse from a communication context, facilitating an interpretation that aligns the listeners' understanding with that of the speakers.
Clyne (1975) examined the concept of "pragmatic transfer," highlighting how the rules of speech acts can vary between languages, potentially resulting in communication breakdowns or misunderstandings He concluded that there are notable differences in the opening and closing formulas used in speech acts, as well as variations in the meanings of these formulas across languages, influenced by distinct social conventions related to the realization of speech acts.
The act of apologizing
Apologies are essential social acts that serve to maintain positive relationships between individuals (Holmes, 1990) They function as politeness strategies, emphasizing the importance of effective communication across cultures (Brown & Levinson, 1987) As a fundamental speech act, apologies play a crucial role in fostering harmony among interlocutors.
Goffman (1967) considers apologies as compliments primarily aimed at maintaining and supporting the addressee‟s and in some cases the apologizer‟s
“face” According to Brown and Levinson (1987), apologies are negative politeness strategies because they are face threatening to the apologizer
According to Blum-Kulka and Kasper (1993), speech acts vary in their use of conventional linguistic forms, with acts like apologizing and thanking demonstrating a higher degree of conventionalization compared to others.
One of the most influential views on the classification of apologies is Goffman‟s (1971) He distinguishes two “types of compensations: ritual and substantive”
Fraser (1981) identifies two motivations for apologies: substantive and ritualistic A substantive apology aims to address and remedy the harm caused by an offense, while a ritualistic apology often arises from habitual routines or is given when the speaker is not at fault for the offense.
Blum Kulka and Olshtain (1984) propose a classification of apology strategies that includes five performative verbs in English: regret, excuse, be sorry, forgive, and pardon, alongside the verb apologize.
An apology is a heartfelt expression of regret and a request for forgiveness, often conveyed through explicit illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDs) such as "sorry" or "forgive me." This approach, as defined by Searle (1969), highlights the importance of clear language in conveying remorse According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), IFIDs represent the most frequently utilized strategy in the context of apologies, emphasizing their significance in effective communication.
An explanation articulates the reasons behind an offense, clarifying the circumstances that led to a violation or damage Typically, this involves phrases like "I'm sorry because " or "I know but ", which convey an understanding of the situation and the speaker's perspective.
This term refers to expressions in which the apologizer admits having responsibility for the offense For example, “It‟s all my fault” or “I am truly wrong”
In this study taking on responsibility is limited to expressions in which the respondent explicitly takes responsibility for the offense.
Speakers can seek to rectify the harm caused by their actions by offering to repair the damage or compensate for it Phrases like “What can I do to make it up to you?” or “How can I make this right for you?” can effectively convey their willingness to mend the situation.
An offer of repair is typically stated clearly and is often linked to future actions; however, this study also considers statements indicating that repairs have already been completed as valid offers of repair.
In specific circumstances, a speaker may commit to not repeating an offense, often expressed through phrases like “I’ll try not to do it again.” While many studies categorize this promise of forbearance separately, Bergman and Kasper (1993) classify it alongside “concern for the hearer” as a form of verbal redress This research indicates that each strategy conveys a distinct attitude, warranting its consideration as an independent approach.
A review of relevant studies
Previous studies underscore the importance of instruction in second language pragmatics for enhancing learners' abilities Rose (2005) demonstrated that without pragmatic instruction, learners struggle to develop essential skills in this area Supporting this, Halenko and Jones (2011) found that explicit instruction significantly improved pragmatic awareness among Chinese EFL learners in the UK Norris and Ortega (2000) further confirmed the benefits of instruction on pragmatic competence, particularly in making requests Additionally, Soler (2005) highlighted that effective instruction enables learners to engage actively in analyzing and reflecting on their speech, fostering a deeper understanding of various pragmatic aspects.
Kondo's study (2001) highlights that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction for teaching English refusals in EFL contexts While implicit instruction can be beneficial, it does not match the effectiveness of explicit methods Specifically, explicit teaching proves superior in instructing refusals to invitations and requests Additionally, research by Duan Lingli Sichuan and Anchalee Wanaruk Suranaree (1992) demonstrates that participants who received explicit instruction on refusals showed a significant increase in their appropriate use of L2 refusals, unlike the control group, which received no such instruction and exhibited no improvement in their post-test responses.
Research indicates a significant need for explicit instruction in teaching pragmatics within language education Studies highlight the importance of developing pragmatic knowledge and abilities in second language learners, demonstrating that even advanced students struggle with using appropriate forms during speech acts Furthermore, the limited opportunities for learners to enhance their pragmatic competence in classroom environments underscore the necessity of integrating explicit pragmatics instruction into language learning curricula.
Summary
As this review of the literature indicates, the development of pragmatic competence plays a major role in the learning of a second or foreign language
Incorporating instruction on pragmatics is essential in language learning environments Research highlights the importance of developing pragmatic knowledge and abilities in second or foreign language acquisition, emphasizing the beneficial impact of explicit pragmatics instruction, particularly in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms.
L2 learners often struggle with using the correct forms in speech acts, highlighting the need for explicit instruction in pragmatics within language learning environments Additionally, EFL learners have limited opportunities to enhance their pragmatic competence, further emphasizing the importance of integrating pragmatic education into their studies.
METHODOLOGY
Research Questions
1 Does explicit pragmatic instruction raise EFL students’ awareness of the pragmatic aspects of apologizing in English?
2 Does explicit pragmatic instruction help EFL students perceive and produce apologies in English properly?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 Explicit pragmatics instruction helps raise EFL students’ awareness of pragmatic aspects of apologizing in English
Hypothesis 2 Explicit pragmatics instruction help improve students’ ability to use and respond to apologies in English.
Subjects
The study involved two classes of 90 students, divided into an experimental group and a control group, consisting of 40 males and 50 females aged 19 to 21, all of whom had no prior experience studying abroad Each participant had approximately 9 years of English study before enrolling at Tien Giang University Upon arrival, all students took an English placement test, which determined their assignment to the same course based on their scores.
Research Instruments
3.4.1 Pre-test and post-test
To assess the participants' pragmatic competence in making apologies in English, a pre-test and post-test were administered before and after the treatment Both assessments utilized a written discourse completion task (WDCT) designed to simulate English-speaking contexts, requiring students to formulate appropriate apologies based on the scenarios presented.
This study aimed to examine the pragmatic aspects of apologies by implementing a pre-test and post-test to evaluate participants' understanding of apologies before and after specific treatments The tests, known as WDCTs, included ten distinct scenarios where students were tasked with formulating appropriate apologies For detailed information on the tests, refer to Appendices A and B.
The textbook titled “English for effective communication” which was developed by IIG Vietnam (IIG, 2011) specifically aims to teach communication in the English classroom at Tien Giang University
The lessons addressing pragmatic issues are structured in five progressive phases: Feeling, Doing, Thinking, Understanding, and Using This organization aims to enhance students' awareness of the pragmatic elements of language by encouraging them to analyze their own language use and explore the similarities and differences in speech acts between Vietnamese and English.
(1) Raising awareness that misunderstandings between Vietnamese and English can be caused by differences in performing the act of apologizing.
(2) Making learners aware of what have they already known and encouraing them to use pragmatic knowledge when using English.
(3) Teaching the appropriate linguistic forms that are likely to be encountered in performing and responding to apologies
The experimental group underwent 10 hours of explicit instruction on apologetic strategies, while the control group received standard teaching without this focus Instruction was tailored to practical scenarios students might face in everyday communication This training on the speech act of apology occurred during the 5th to 10th weeks of the term, with each 90-minute lesson structured into three phases An overview of the activities conducted in the 5th week of the apologetic lessons is provided.
The feeling phase of the listening comprehension task aims to give students their initial impression of the act of apologizing By listening to a dialogue that exemplifies a typical American approach to this speech act, students are prompted to answer questions regarding the events and their emotional responses This activity highlights the various ways apologies can be expressed, enhancing students' understanding of the nuances involved in this social interaction.
In the doing phase, students encounter apologetic scenarios where they must respond similarly to the dialogues presented This phase aims to assess each student's current understanding and ability to navigate cultural differences and linguistic expressions before any formal instruction is provided.
In the thinking phase, students engage in self-analysis of their apologizing performances by comparing and contrasting the speech act in their native language, Vietnamese, with English This process enhances their understanding of cultural nuances and language differences in expressing apologies.
Data Collection and Analysis
Before instruction, both groups participated in a WDCT pre-test that focused on various daily life apology scenarios, reflecting different social distances and statuses (see Appendix A for an example) After six weeks of information delivery, a post-test was administered to assess the participants' retention of the material To prevent memorization of responses, the apology strategies involved varying interlocutor roles and situations in each WDCT item while maintaining consistent patterns of social distance and status (see Appendix B for an example).
The experimental group was given detailed explanations of target-structure forms, functions, and strategies from the textbook, along with cultural insights through authentic conversations that included apology strategies In contrast, the control group engaged with the same conversations but did not receive explicit instructional guidance from the instructor.
The sequence of data collection was as follows:
1 A pre-test written completion discourse was given to measure the participants‟ pragmatic competence in apologetic knowledge and production before the treatment
2 Instructional treatment (one and a half hour sessions over a period of 3 weeks)
3 A post-test written completion discourse was given to measure the participants‟ pragmatic competence in apologetic knowledge and production after the treatment
4 All of these scenarios and tasks were double-checked by 2 native speakers of English as language teachers at TGU
5 The researcher scored students‟ written tests on attention paid to proper usage of the act of apology before and after receiving instruction on apology
The analysis is based on the assumption that the response given closely approximates what the respondents would say in a similar situation The procedures for the analysis are as follows
The study categorizes classifications into five stimulus types: expressions of apology, explanations or accounts, acknowledgments of responsibility, offers of repair, and promises for forbearance, aligning with the learning targets outlined These formats and examples, discussed in the "strategies of an apology" section of the literature review, highlight the focus on apology strategies as the primary learning patterns in the current research.
The comparison of apology strategies identified in both pre- and post-WDCT assessments revealed insights into students' learning patterns, as outlined in the "strategies of an apology." This analysis aimed to evaluate the extent to which students achieved their learning targets.
The researcher identified and classified the apology strategies used by respondents, following the frameworks of Blum Kulka (1984), Trosborg (1987), and Holmes (1990) By tabulating the strategies employed by participants, the study aimed to determine the specific apology strategies utilized and assess the applicability of Blum Kulka et al.'s (1989) findings to the current respondents.
Findings and Discussion
The Results of WDCT
To assess the initial pragmatic awareness levels of the two groups prior to the experiment, a comparison was made between the mean scores of the Written Discourse Completion Tests (WDCTs) for the pre-test of the Intervention Group (IG) and the Experimental Group (EG) using two independent pre-tests, as illustrated in Table 1.
Group N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean
Table 4.1 A Comparison of the Mean Scores between the IG and EG in the Pre-
The mean scores for the two groups, 14.87 and 14.73, indicate that there is minimal difference in their understanding of the speech act of apologizing This suggests that the learners in both groups possess nearly equivalent prior knowledge of this communicative act.
In the pre-test, both groups exhibited similar strategy choices, with the most common being expressions of apology (e.g., "I am sorry ") and explanations (e.g., "I am sorry because ") Other strategies, such as acknowledging responsibility, offering repair, and promising forbearance, were utilized infrequently.
Apologies were the most frequently used strategy in conflicts between friends, while offers of repair were notably less common in situations 6 and 8 of the Pre-Test WDCT among participants.
Figure 4.1: Strategies of apology were listed by participants in
Pre-test WDCT (values in the chart were analyzed by percentage)
Post-test
The post-test served to measure the effects of pragmatic instructions on the participants‟ pragmatic awareness and also on competence when they are both
A n e x p re s s io n o f a p o lo g y A n e x p la n a ti o n o r a c c o u n t An a c k n o w le d g e m e n t o f re s p o n s ib ili ty A n o ff e r o f re p a ir P ro m is e f o r fo rb e a ra n c e
P a rt ic ipa nt s ' re s po ns e s
To evaluate the effectiveness of the two types of instruction, a comparison was made between the mean scores of the post-test Written Discourse Completion Tests (WDCTs) for both groups and their pre-test scores The results are detailed in Table 4.2.
A detailed analysis of the mean scores in Table 4.2 reveals a notable difference between the pre-test and post-test results Participants in the intervention group (IG) exhibited an increase in their mean scores following the treatment (Pre-test = 14.87, Post-test = 15.84), while participants in the control group (EG) also showed improvement (Pre-test = 14.73, Post-test = 17.90) This suggests that both implicit and explicit instruction effectively enhanced the participants' pragmatic knowledge of apologies However, it is important to note that the mean score for the EG was higher than that of the IG, indicating that the explicit pragmatics instruction provided to the EG led to superior performance outcomes.
Group Mean N Std Deviation Std Error Mean
Table 4.2 A Comparison of the Mean Scores between the IG and EG in the Post- test WDCT
A study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of explicit pragmatics instruction on students' ability to use and respond to apologies in English The comparison of post-test responses from the intervention group (IG) and the control group (EG) revealed a significant difference following two instructional interventions While implicit instruction influenced learners' choice of apology strategies, they predominantly favored expressions of apology along with explanations In contrast, the explicit instruction group exhibited a more deliberate selection of strategies, although no significant differences were found in the choice of favorable strategies Overall, the findings suggest that explicit instruction is more effective in enhancing EFL learners' pragmatic competence in using apologies.
Figure 2: Strategies of apology were listed by participants in Post-test WDCT
(values in the chart were analyzed by percentage)
4.2.2 Results of Post-Test WDCT of the implicit Group
The study revealed that both the Intervention Group (IG) and the Control Group (EG) showed progress in producing apologies, as evidenced by their post-test Written Discourse Completion Tasks (WDCTs), though the levels of improvement varied Notably, the IG exhibited significant gains in language accuracy, with most learners opting to utilize provided formulas in various situations.
Most participants in the IG continued to rely on their familiar approach, often defaulting to the common phrase "I am sorry " This tendency was observed even among the instructor, indicating a preference for expressing apologies without adequately considering the recipient or the context of the apology.
4.3.2 Results of post-test WDCT of the explicit group
The explicit group demonstrated a notable improvement in their post-test WDCTs compared to the pre-test results, as illustrated in Table 3 A thorough analysis of their post-test WDCT responses revealed significant advancements in their ability to realize apologies.
An e x p re s s io n o f a p o lo g y An e x p la n a ti o n o r a c c o u n t An a c k n o w le d g e m e n t o f re s p o n s ib ili ty An o ff e r o f re p a ir Pro m is e f o r fo re a ra n c e
Post-test results revealed a significant enhancement in the variety of syntactic patterns utilized by the experimental group (EG) The phrase "I am sorry " was replaced by numerous other suitable expressions In contrast to the control group (IG), the EG demonstrated superior proficiency in using apologetic forms.
Participants in the experimental group (EG) showed enhanced awareness of form-function mapping, successfully selecting appropriate formulas and strategies for various situations This suggests that explicit instruction, which emphasized both apologetic formulas and metapragmatic knowledge, was more effective than implicit instruction in helping learners acquire pragmatic knowledge.
The experimental instruction group demonstrated significant improvement in their post-test scores on the discourse completion test compared to pre-test results across most scenarios As illustrated in Figure 4.3, these learners showed marked enhancement in the speech act rating component, particularly in recognizing the use of apologies during various language function tasks Additionally, there was a moderate increase in the quality of expressions, the amount of information conveyed, and levels of politeness following the treatment.
Table 4.3 A comparison of strategies of apology were used by participants in 10 given situations.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
The current study reinforces previous research indicating that pragmatic competence is essential for effective communication and cannot be developed without proper instruction Many EFL learners at TGU demonstrate a lack of pragmatic skills due to insufficient formal training in this area Consequently, this paper advocates for the integration of pragmatic knowledge instruction in EFL classrooms at TGU to enhance learners' pragmatic competence.
Research indicates that explicit instruction in pragmatic knowledge significantly enhances learners' ability to effectively apologize compared to implicit methods By teaching pragmatic knowledge, learners develop greater awareness and improve their skills in selecting suitable pragmatic forms and strategies for various social contexts The key advantage of explicit instruction lies in its ability to promote noticing and raise awareness of English pragmatic knowledge, aiding in the conversion of input into usable knowledge Additionally, the study emphasizes the need for increased practice opportunities to help learners achieve pragmatic familiarity and fluency.
Limitations
Despite receiving valuable guidance from my experienced supervisor and English Department instructors during workshops, this paper has notable limitations Firstly, the research is constrained by a small participant pool; it only includes 90 students from two majors—accounting and literature education—making it difficult to achieve reliable statistical results, such as a high Cronbach's Alpha Secondly, time restrictions hinder the ability to implement comprehensive research methods, including the collection of students' English tests, classroom observations, and the development of targeted solutions for the identified factors.
The lesson plans and activity materials utilized in this study were specifically created and implemented by the researcher Variations in material design and instructional quality may occur in different contexts Furthermore, the reliance on written Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) for data collection, along with the emphasis on a single speech act, could present limitations in the study's findings.
Pedagogical Implications
This study emphasizes the necessity of explicit instruction in pragmatics within language learning environments, as learners typically do not independently acquire the appropriate use of the target language In foreign-language classrooms, the role of pragmatics instruction is crucial, as it serves as the primary means for learners to engage with the target language Additionally, learning English in an EFL setting presents more challenges than in an ESL context, primarily because EFL learners lack opportunities for interaction with native speakers, which is more readily available to ESL learners.
The role of language educators is essential in helping learners acquire pragmatics in the target language Educators must emphasize that language proficiency involves more than just grammatical knowledge; it requires understanding and applying linguistic rules within the context of the target culture Additionally, explicit instruction on pragmatics is necessary, enabling learners to recognize and integrate pragmatic features, thereby enhancing their existing knowledge and progressing towards fluency in a second language.
This study reinforces existing research highlighting the beneficial impact of instruction on the development of pragmatic competence in second and foreign language acquisition Therefore, it is essential for language teachers to integrate pragmatic issues into their ESL/EFL curricula Additionally, pedagogy scholars and syllabus designers should prioritize the inclusion of pragmatic knowledge in their course frameworks.
The main pedagogical implication of this study is that learners need to be given multiple opportunities, through a variety of instructional techniques, to develop awareness of features of the pragmatics
Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are suggested:
1 The data analysis was based heavily on answers to a WDCT listed different situations The WDCT format is constructed for one-side response, so multiple turns of interaction cannot be examined As research has suggested, studying speech act communication in more than one conversational turn can provide researchers with additional information about how the speaker and hearer negotiate meaning Hence, further research might use some other different methods to collect data such as observation or role-play
2 In the research, there was only the speech act of “apology” and it focused primarily on learners‟ ability to appropriately perform “apology” in communicative contexts Additional studies need to be done to examine different speech acts to obtain further insights into the behavioral patterns governing these other acts
3 Additional studies involving the teaching of pragmatics to learners at various language proficiency levels could be conducted These studies may help instructors know about learners at various levels and figure out what pragmatics instruction would be most beneficial
Austin, J (1962) How to do things with words Oxford: Oxford University
Bachman, L (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z (1997) Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana; House, Juliane & Kasper, Gabriele (1989) The
CCSARP coding manual In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp 273-294) Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Bialystok, E (1993) Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence In Kasper, Gabriele & Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp 43-57) Oxford: Oxford University Press
Brown, P., & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Brown, P and Levinson, B (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language usage Cambridge University Press, London
Canale, M & Swain, M (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing Applied Linguistics
Crystal, D.(1987) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics 4 th edition
Fukuya, Y., Clark, M., (2001) A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction of mitigators In: Bouton, L (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language
Learning, Monograph Series, vol 10 Division of English as an
International Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, pp 111–130
Goffman, Ewing, (1967) International ritual: Essays on face-to-face
Behaviour New York: Double day Anchor Books
Hoang, V V (Ed.) (2006) Đổi mới phương pháp dạy tiếng Anh ở trung học phổ thông Việt Nam Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục
Holmes, Janet (1990) Apologies in New Zealand English Language in Society
House, Juliane & Kasper, Gabriele (1981) On the role of cognition in communication The New Speeches, 80, 42-55
Hymes, Dell (1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life In
John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp 35-71) New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Kasper, G (1997) explores the teachability of pragmatic competence in the context of second language acquisition The article, found in NetWork 6, discusses methods and implications for teaching pragmatic skills This resource is available as an HTML document from the University of Hawaii.
Teaching & Curriculum Center Accessed October 1, 2003
Kasper, G and S Blum-Kulka (eds.) (1997) Interlanguage pragmatics
Kasper, G., Rose, K.R (2002) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language Blackwell, Mahwah, NJ (Also Language Learning: Supplement 1, 52)
Kasper, G., Rose, K (1999) Pragmatics and second language acquisition
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 215e247
Kondo, Sachiko (2001) Instructional effects on pragmatic development: refusal by Japanese EFL learners Publications of Akenohoshi Women‟s junior College, 19, 33-51
Le, T H (2008) Một số suy nghĩ về việc dạy tiếng Anh chuyên ngành hiện nay
Retrieved May 15, 2008 fromwww.agu.edu.vn/dspace/bitstream/123456789/
875/1/Le_Thai_Hung-Khoa_Su_Pham.pdf
Levinson, S (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University
Olshtain, Elite, (1989) “Apologies Across Languages.” IN: Shoshana Blum-
Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriel Kasper (Eds) 1989, Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp.155-173), Norwood, NJ Albex
Olshtain, E., & Bllum-kulka, S (1985) Degree of approximation non-native reactions to native speech act behavior In Susan Gass & Carolyn G
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 303-325),
Morris, C (1983) Foundations of the theory of signs In O Neuratin., R
Carnao., & C Morris (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science, Vol 2, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rose, K.R., Kasper, G (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching Cambridge:
Rose, K R (2005) On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics System, 33, 385–399
Schmidt, R (1993) Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics In Kasper, G., Blum-Kulka, S (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics Oxford
Schmidt, Richard (1993) Awareness and second language acquisition Annual
Takahashi, S., (2005a) Pragmalinguistic awareness: is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics 26, 90–120
Tateyama, Y (2001) Explicit instruction and JFL learner‟s use of interactional discourse markers In Kenneth R Rose and Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp 200-222) Cambridge:
Thomas, J (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-109
Ton, N X P (2007) An Investigation into the Difficulties in Teaching Listening
Comprehension Skill to Non-Major English Learners Da Nang University
Trinh, Q L (2005) Stimulating learner autonomy in English language education:
A curriculum innovation study in a Vietnamese context Amsterdam:
Wolfson, N (1983) An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American
English In Nessa Wolfson & Elliot Judd (eds), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp 82-95) Rowley, MA: Newsbury House
First, please fill in the following form about yourself:
1 Now, please read the following question Think of what you might say in response Write your response in the space
What different structures do you use to make apology in English?
2 Please read the following short descriptions of situations in which you may find yourself Think of what you might say in response Write your response in the space provided Respond as if you were in a real situation
Situation 1: You came to class late for 15 minutes
Situation 2: You were in class You made so much noise while your teaching was delivering the lesson It really bothered and our teacher asked you to stop
Situation 3: You promised to return your friend‟s book that day but did not finish reading it
Situation 4: You kept your friends waiting for an hour at the restaurant
Situation 5: You were in a hurry to catch the bus but unfortunately you bumped into a woman and she fell down
Situation 6: You were in a coffee shop with some friends You received a phone call and rose from the chair to answer it At the moment, you accidentally dirtied your friend‟s new shirt with some coffee stains
Situation 7: Your mother asked you to buy some soap for a relaxing bath but you chose a wrong kind
Situation 8: You borrowed your friend‟s motorbike to go to school but you had an accident and the motorbike got some scratches
Situation 9: You forgot to turn off the water tap in the bathroom when going out for a walk Your mother discovered that the bathroom was flooded with water You: _
Situation 10: You stepped on an old man‟s foot when jostling into a theater
1 Please list structures people can use to make apology in English?
2 Please read the following short descriptions of situations in which you may find yourself Think of what you might say in response Write your response in the space provided Respond as if you were in a real situation
Situation 1: You had an important appointment with a customer but came 20 minutes late
Situation 2: You were at the party You told an unsuitable joke
Situation 3: You promised to return you friend‟s book that day but did not finish reading it
Situation 4: You lost your temper with your brother and made an inappropriate statement at the moment
Situation 5: You sent an email to your partner but forgot some important attachments
Situation 6: Your group had a discussion for a class presentation tomorrow but you come without any preparation
Situation 7: You lost your friend‟s book that he/she love most
Situation 8: You borrowed your friend‟s motorbike to go to school but you had an accident and the motorbike got some scratches on it
Situation 9: You posted some ugly photos of your friends on Facebook He/she felt really angry when seeing them appear on the site
Situation 10: You were so caught up in your own life that you did not reply to a message from a close friend who told you that her laptop has been stolen
Tôi là Đoàn Thị Thúy Hằng, giảng viên tiếng Anh tại Trường ĐHTG, hiện đang thực hiện nghiên cứu khoa học cho luận văn thạc sĩ, dự kiến hoàn thành vào tháng 12 năm nay Thông tin trong bảng câu hỏi này chỉ phục vụ cho nghiên cứu của tôi và sẽ được giữ kín Để đạt được kết quả tốt nhất, sự chính xác trong thông tin mà các bạn cung cấp là rất quan trọng Vì vậy, tôi mong các bạn hợp tác một cách khách quan và suy nghĩ kỹ để trả lời các câu hỏi một cách chính xác và phù hợp.
Thông tin cá nhân tham gia (vui lòng điền đầy đủ thông tin)
1 Vui lòng liệt kê những cấu trúc hoặc mẫu câu các bạn thường dùng để thực hiện hành động xin lỗi trong tiếng Anh
2 Vui lòng đọc những tình huống khác nhau mà bạn thấy là có thể gần gũi trong cuộc sống hàng ngày Hãy nghĩ những câu trả lời thích hợp nhất cho những tình huống này Viết câu trả lời vào chỗ trống đã chừa sẵn bên dưới Trả lời như thể các bạn đang ở trong những tình huống thật sự
Tình huống 1: Bạn đến lớp trễ mười lăm phút
Tình huống 2: Bạn ở trong lớp và bạn làm ồn trong khi giáo viên đang giảng bài
Việc làm ồn của bạn thực sự gây phiền toái cho lớp học cho nên giáo viên yêu cầu bạn phải ngừng ngay hành động làm ồn
Tình huống 3: Bạn hứa trả cho bạn của bạn quyển sách vào một ngày cụ thể nhưng đến ngày đó bạn vẫn chưa trả vì bạn đọc chưa xong
Tình huống 4: Bạn để bạn của bạn phải đợi một giờ liền trong nhà hàng
Tình huống 5: Bạn vội vàng lên xe buýt và không mai bạn đụng vào một người phụ nữ và cô ấy làm cô ấy ngã
Trong tình huống tại quán cà phê, khi bạn nhận được cuộc gọi và đứng dậy để trả lời, một sự cố bất ngờ xảy ra khiến bạn làm đổ cà phê lên áo của một người bạn khác.
Tình huống 7: Mẹ của bạn yêu cần bạn mua xà bông tắm nhưng bạn lại chọn sai loại
Tình huống 8: Bạn mượn chiếc xe máy của một người bạn để đi đến trường, bạn có một tai nạn và chiếc xe bị trầy
Tình huống 9: Bạn quên tắt vòi nước trong phòng tắm trong khi đi ra ngoài chơi
Mẹ bạn phát hiện là bạn đã nước đã làm ngập phòng tắm
Tình huống 10: Bạn chen lấn trong rạp hát và lúc đó bạn đã giẫm phải chân của một phụ nữ lớn tuối
Cảm ơn sự hợp tác của các bạn!
Tôi là Đoàn Thị Thúy Hằng, giảng viên tiếng Anh tại Trường ĐHTG, hiện đang thực hiện một nghiên cứu khoa học phục vụ cho luận văn thạc sĩ, dự kiến hoàn thành vào tháng 12 năm nay Thông tin trong bảng câu hỏi này chỉ được sử dụng cho nghiên cứu của tôi và sẽ được giữ kín Để đạt kết quả tốt nhất cho nghiên cứu, sự chính xác trong thông tin mà các bạn cung cấp là rất quan trọng Vì vậy, tôi mong các bạn hợp tác một cách khách quan và cẩn thận khi trả lời các câu hỏi.
Thông tin cá nhân tham gia (vui lòng điền đầy đủ thông tin)
1 Vui lòng liệt kê những cấu trúc hoặc mẫu câu các bạn thường dùng để thực hiện hành động xin lỗi trong tiếng Anh