Concept-based pragmatics instruction
Teaching German address pronouns to New Zealand tertiary students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.37359Keywords:
Sociocultural theory, CBPI, sociopragmatic capacity, second language pragmatics, German address pronounsAbstract
This article presents parts of a replication study on the development of sociopragmatic capacity in beginner and intermediate university students' understanding of German singular address pronouns (du/Sie) through concept-based pragmatics instruction (CBPI). The CBPI intervention consisted of six group sessions with a pre-test - instruction - post-test design. While minor inter-level differences exist, all participants in the intervention exhibited enhanced sociopragmatic capacity. Participants demonstrated a shift from rule-of-thumb-based thinking to a focus on the meaning potential of utterances. By appropriating sociopragmatic concepts through CBPI, learners also gained an understanding of their own agency in the meaning design of address pronouns as well as the consequences of creating particular meanings.
References
Alcón Soler, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). Pragmatics in foreign language contexts. In E. Alcón Soler and A. Martínez-Flor (Eds), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing, 3–21. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690869-003
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63 (suppl. 1): 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
Barron, A. (2006). Learning to say ‘you’ in German: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. In M. A. Dufon and E. Churchill (Eds), Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts, 59–88. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598531-007
Bayer, K. (1997). Die Anredepronomina Du und Sie: Thesen zu einem semantischen Konflikt im Hochschulbereich. Deutsche Sprache 7: 212–219.
Belz, J. A. and Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 59: 189–214. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.2.189
Belz, J. A. and Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning 53: 591–647. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x
Besch, W. (1998). Duzen, siezen, titulieren: Zur Anrede im Deutschen heute und gestern (2. ergänzte Auflage). Mit Zeichnungen von Markus Eidt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language, 253–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clyne, M. (1984). Language and Society in the German-speaking Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CERF). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd ed), 94–112. New York: Routledge.
Dewaele, J-M. (2004). Vous or tu? Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL) 42: 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2004.42.4.383
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge, and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, H. Reinders, R. Erlam, and J. Philp (Eds), Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching, 3–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-003
Engel, U. (1988). Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
Gal’perin, P. Ia. (1992a). The problem of activity in Soviet psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30 (4): 37–59. (Original work published 1977). https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405300437
Gal’perin, P. Ia. (1992b). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30 (4): 60–80. (Original work published 1978). https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405300460
Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching–learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Instruction 11: 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00020-7
Hickey, R. (2003). The German address system: Binary and scalar at once. In I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (Eds), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Terms Systems, 401–425. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107.16hic
Ishihara, N. (2010). Instructional pragmatics: Bridging teaching, research, and teacher education. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 938–953. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00242.x
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8: 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839200800303
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. R. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds), Pragmatics in Language Teaching, 1–9. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.003
Kretzenbacher, H. L., Clyne, M., and Schüpbach, D. (2006). Pronominal address in German: Rules, anarchy and embarrassment potential. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29: 17.1–17.18. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.29.2.02kre
Kuepper, M. (2017). Sie or du? Developing Sociopragmatic Capacity in German through Concept-based Pragmatics Instruction. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand).
Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Liebscher, G., Dailey-O’Cain, J., Müller, M., and Reichert, T. (2010). Negotiating identities through pronouns of address in an immigrant country. Pragmatics 20: 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.3.04lie
Norrby, C. and Warren, J. (2012). Address practices and social relationships in European languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.331
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.40
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33: 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003
Scriven, R. (Ed.). (2011). Easy Learning German Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23: 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2
Suzuki, Y. and DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning 67: 747–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12241
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108. London: Continuum.
Taguchi, N. (2010). A research synthesis of longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 333–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taguchi, N. (2015). ‘Contextually’ speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System 48: 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001
Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martínez-Flor and E. Usó-Juan (Eds), Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, 127–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.08tak
van Compernolle, R. A. (2011b). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3267–3283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091409
van Compernolle, R. A. (2018). Learning the sociopragmatics of an artificial language: Comparing rule-based and concept-based instruction. Language and Sociocultural Theory 5 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.33770
van Compernolle, R. A. and Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning 64: 549–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12054
van Compernolle, R. A., Weber, A., and Gomez-Laich, M. P. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal 100: 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12318
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (trans. A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wales, K. (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
