Module 4 Assignment 4.2: Write a Annotated Bibliography

600module4.24.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Module 4 Assignment 4.2: Write a Annotated Bibliography

From classroom to workplace: tracking socio-pragmatic development

Janet Holmes and Nicky Riddiford

Socio-pragmatic skills have been identified as important components of communicative competence in the workplace, yet relatively few studies have undertaken an evaluation of the effects of classroom-based support in developing both cognitive control and social competence in these areas of language proficiency. This paper reports on a collaborative study that tracks the development of skilled migrants’ socio-pragmatic performance over a period of 12 weeks, from their entry into the classroom, through six weeks of instruction and then into the workplace context. Using a detailed case study, this paper examines the effects of conscious learning, as well as opportunities for social interaction, in the acquisition of appropriate ways of negotiating workplace requests.

Introduction People seeking work in a country where the dominant language is not their mother tongue are undoubtedly at some disadvantage. In such contexts, even well-educated skilled migrants may experience the effects of the social inequalities and power disadvantages resulting from their cultural and linguistic difference from the dominant group. Developing proficiency in the second language, including the ability to interact easily with others, is consequently a priority for new migrants who wish not only to contribute to the workforce in their new country, but also to have their professional skills and expertise acknowledged and respected.

Employers are equally concerned that the skilled migrants they employ should develop sophisticated language skills, primarily to enable them to undertake the task-oriented aspects of their jobs effectively, and also to ensure that they integrate smoothly into the workplace. For somewhat different reasons, then, both learners and employers agree that socio- pragmatic skills are crucial to success in the workplace, contributing to the construction of a satisfying professional identity for the migrant workers, improving the efficiency with which employees achieve workplace objectives, and assisting migrants to develop and maintain effective and satisfying relationships with co-workers. In this paper, we present evidence that both explicit instruction and opportunities for engaging in appropriate social interaction are necessary for learners to develop adequate socio- pragmatic competence in their second language.

We define socio-pragmatic competence as the ability to accurately interpret and appropriately express social meaning in interaction. In the research described below, we focus in particular on the speech functions of requests, tracking the development of one particular language learner from her entry into the second language learning classroom to her engagement with colleagues in a New Zealand workplace. Developing the empowering ability to analyse the sociocultural dimensions of social interaction in order to select appropriate forms is crucial to satisfactory participation in workplace interaction, requiring both conscious learning and opportunities for practice.

Previous research Acquiring a second language in adulthood generallybenefits from attention to structure and pattern, along with other features of the target language. Input alone is not enough; learners’ attention must be specifically drawn to distinctive elements that differ from those in their mother tongue (Schmidt 1995; Mackey 2006). The same is true of the development of an understanding of sociocultural differences and of socio-pragmatic proficiency (Liddicoat, Scarino, Papedemetre and Kohler 2003). Conscious attention to areas where the norms of the mother tongue differ from the target language is beneficial to adult learners, since they may otherwise remain unaware, or unconsciously resist acquiring norms that are unfamiliar or uncomfortable. For example, using hedges and modal mitigation in expressing a request may, without explicit discussion, seem unacceptably indecisive or even demeaning to a learner whose native culture favours direct and unattenuated request forms.

In addition, Liddicoat et al., (ibid.: 20) argues that, if their eventual output is to be modified in the direction of the second language norms, learners also need to ‘reflect on the nature of the difference and to decide how to respond to that difference . . . to accommodate this new input’. The learners’ output then provides opportunities for further noticing that may lead to further modifications. In other words, the process is cyclical with increasingly accurate approximations to the target culture as the goal.

A number of applied linguists have identified effective ways of providing opportunities for learners to notice crucial aspects ofthe second language in the classroom. These include explicit instruction drawing attention to the target features, practice, repetition, stimulated self-reflection, reflective interviews, and focused feedback (for example Ohta 2001; Mackey op.cit.), as well as guided observation to assist learners to notice these features in their experiences outside the classroom (for example Ellis, Basturkman, and Loewen 2001). Arguing the benefits of direct instruction, Kasper and Rose note that:

Teachers can explicitly model and guide students in their use of target practices, engage students in awareness-raising activities of L2 pragmatics, and provide feedback on students’ productions. (2002: 233)

Thisapproach,theypointout,producesresultsthatclearlyexceedtheeffects of exposure alone. Similarly, learners provided with metapragmatic information outperform those without this information (Kasper and Rose op.cit.: 268). And there is also considerable evidence for the value of

From classroom to workplace 377

reflection during the second language acquisition process (for example Hassall 2008).

Another important factor contributing to the acquisition of proficiency in a second language is the opportunity for social interaction. Classroom learning is a social activity, and teachers can exploit this to assist in developing learner’ssocio-pragmaticproficiency.Liddicoatetal., (op.cit.:50) suggests a range of interactional classroom activities that foster the development of awareness of differences between cultures in ways of communicating. These include questioning that encourages attention to contrasting strategies for achieving social goals in different contexts as well as more obvious activities, such as role plays and dramatizations. Riddiford (2007) describes ways in which invited outside experts and volunteers can contribute to opportunities for social interaction, and in the course described below a wide variety of additional extra-curricular events provide further authentic social contexts to assist learners in developing their socio- pragmatic proficiency. The focus in this paper, however, is on evidence that classroom-based activities involving social interaction can contribute to the development of socio-pragmatic competence and sociocultural awareness.

In terms of methodology, most previous research assessing the effects of instruction on the acquisition and development of socio-pragmatic proficiency has adopted controlled elicitation techniques, such as discourse completion tasks (DCTs), questionnaires, and various kinds of role plays (for example Matsumura 2007). While DCTs have been criticized for eliciting only what participants think they would say (i.e. pragmatic knowledge)ratherthanwhattheywouldactuallysayinanaturallyoccurring situation (Turnbull 2001), they are useful in identifying what respondents know about the socio-pragmatic norms of the target culture (Beebe and Cummings 1996: 81). In addition, DCTs and role plays provide opportunities for reflection, though this has not often been exploited. Indeed, there has been relatively little consideration of the role of noticing and reflection in developing the ability to take account of relevant aspects of the social context in selecting appropriate linguistic forms (but see Matsumura op.cit.). Our research instruments and data collection methods were designed with this in mind.

Finally, earlier studies in the area of socio-pragmatic instruction that have focusedonrequests havetypicallyinvolvedshortinterventionsconductedin EFL contexts withlittleinputbeyondtheclassroom(for exampleRose2005; Takahashi 2005). The inclusion in our research of input from a range of external sources, as well as recordings of the participants in genuine workplace interaction, thus considerably extends the methods used in previous studies.

Methodology Our research investigates the extent to which classroom activities can promote the development of cognitive understanding of the socio- pragmatic dimensions ofinteraction, while also providing opportunities for practice aimed at enhancing proficiency in socio-pragmatic aspects of interaction. For this purpose, we devised methods of tracking the development of skilled migrants’ socio-pragmatic performance over a 12-week period, from their entry into the classroom, through six weeks of

378 Janet Holmes and Nicky Riddiford

instruction, and into the workplace context. The migrants had a minimum English language proficiency of IELTS 6.0 and they had come to New Zealand from China, Taiwan, Russia, and the Philippines. Their professional backgrounds include accounting, insurance, public relations, office management, mechanical engineering, and information systems. The data reported in this paper focus in depth on just one case study, Helena, and comprise recorded interactions targeting three points during the classroom instruction period, followed by recordings of interaction between Helena and her co-workers in her assigned workplace, a government department.1

Structure of data collection

The research employed multiple methods of data collection (see Figure 1) over the period of the course and internship. Preliminary interviews, DCTs, role plays, and retrospective interviews were carried out in week 1, prior to instruction in socio-pragmatics. The preliminary and retrospective interviews were intended both to investigate and promote the development of insight and understanding of the socio-pragmatic dimensions of interaction, while the open-ended role plays provided an opportunity for social interaction. In order to encourage more elaborate and more personalized responses, the language of the interlocutors was not scripted; they were simply presented with a scenario to role play.

At the mid-point and at the end of the course, the participants were again recorded engaging in role plays, followed by retrospective interviews, providing further opportunities for interaction and reflection. Learners viewed the role plays, commented on any communicative issues observed, and provided their thoughts on the language choices that they had made. In the later interviews, participants also had the opportunity to discuss

figure 1

Summary of methods of data collection

From classroom to workplace 379

comments they had made in earlier interviews and noted any changes compared to their current awareness of the relevant socio-pragmatic dimensions of interaction.

The final component ofthe data collection involved recordings of about four hours of the migrants’ daily face-to-face interactions in their assigned workplaces, during the first two weeks and the last two weeks of their internship.2 The rich data set generated by this multilayered methodology made it possible to systematically track the progress of participants during the course and internship period, as well as providing information concerning the processes involved in developing socio-pragmatic competence in a second language.3

The case study The case study described in this section focuses on the development of socio-pragmatic competence by one ESL learner in the area of making requests. Helena is an accountant who was born in Hong Kong and brought up with Cantonese as her mother tongue. She learnt English at school and her IELTS score was 6.5. She had been in New Zealand for two years when she enrolled in the workplace communication skills course and she was highly motivated to obtain work. We focus on the development of Helena’s socio-pragmatic proficiency in making requests in a way considered appropriate to the New Zealand sociocultural context. In particular, we illustrate her developing awareness of the effectiveness of certain relatively indirect request strategies in many New Zealand social contexts.

Stage 1 At the beginning of the programme, students were presented with a number of scenarios which included requirements that they refuse, request, or produce small talk; they were asked to role play one of the two participants. The scenarios systematically varied social factors, such as relative status, degree of familiarity, or social distance, and the size of the imposition of the speech act. The request scenario which is our focus was presented as follows:

In this scenario, the student is allocated a managerial role, making a high stakes demand of a subordinate with whom she has worked for some time. Note that the scenario does not explicitly ask participants to use a request, rather they are instructed to ‘discuss’ the issue with their secretary. This allows the possibility of choosing speech acts of different degrees of illocutionary force ranging from directive through request to hint.

In her first rendition of her role in this scenario, Helena produced the following.

Staying late tonight

An unexpected and urgent request from the CEO means that you would like your secretary, Mrs Jenny Smith, to stay late tonight to help you prepare a report. You have worked with your secretary for three years. Discuss with your secretary if she can stay on at work for two extra hours.

380 Janet Holmes and Nicky Riddiford

Excerpt from role play

Helena: Do you have plans tonight?

Secretary: Yes I do actually

Helena: Oh okay, so do you think you can work a little bit late tonight?

Helena’s approach is not as direct as that of some other students in that she does not baldly make the request for the secretary to work late in her first turn. She begins with a pre-request, ‘Do you have plans tonight?’, which is an appropriate lead-in to the planned request. However, she then gives no indicationthatshe hasprocessedthesecretary’s response,‘YesIdoactually’, which serves as a pre-refusal. Rather, Helena ignores the signal that the secretary is not available and goes ahead with the request in a relatively direct form. She uses two appropriate mitigating phrases, namely the hedges ‘do you think . . . ’ and ‘a little bit’, indicating some degree of awareness that the request needs attenuation in the New Zealand context. Nevertheless, overall, her rendition of the request would be regarded as inappropriately authoritarian in most New Zealand workplaces.

Stage 2 During the course, the teacher explicitly drew students’ attention to the relevance of social features, such as social status, degree of familiarity, and the size of the imposition in deciding on the appropriate form of a request. The students were presented with many exercises based on examples taken from the authentic interactions recorded in the Wellington Language in the Workplace project (www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/). This gave them an opportunity to consider the differences between their own experience and the evidence of how New Zealanders responded in particular situations. They were explicitly asked to consider the differences between the ways in which they worded requests, for example, and the ways in which requests were expressed in the authentic workplace data. Their attention was drawn to features such as hedges, (‘just’, ‘a little’, ‘perhaps’), hesitations, pauses, positioning of the request, surrounding small talk, etc., and they were also asked ‘Would the conversation happen in the same way in your country?’

There was considerable discussion in class, particularly of the difference between different cultures in the relative weighting of the different social dimensions. Many participants, including Helena, commented, for example, that they were shocked when the secretary in the scenario (played by another course teacher) responded with a refusal, citing family commitments as the reason. Some reported they were bewildered and did not know what to say next, as the refusal was so unexpected. Bardovi-Harlig (2001: 20) cites several studies that show a mismatch of this kind between native speaker and non-native speaker perceptions of the context variables in a range of situations and speech acts. Retrospective interviews provide insights into these perceptions.

In her retrospective interview when she was explicitly invited to view the videotaped interaction and reflect on her contribution, Helena commented that inher previousexperienceinHong Kong,there was noroom for refusal in such a situation: in Hong Kong the manager’s higher status was paramount. She also said that she considered she had not put enough

From classroom to workplace 381

www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/lwp/

pressure on the secretary: ‘I didn’t put my tongue up’ was the way she expressed this sentiment.

In the course of subsequent discussions, both in class and on a one-to-one basis with native-speaking New Zealand volunteers, Helena learnt that degree of familiarity generally trumped status in the New Zealand context. Rather than teaching a range of appropriate utterances for all social contexts (an impossible task), the course explicitly aims to empower the students to undertake the analysis of relevant social dimensions for themselves. On the basis of carefully devised exercises, guided discussions, and spoken interactions with a range of New Zealanders, course participants gradually learn how to identify the important variables in a variety of social contexts. They become aware, for example, of relevant sociocultural values which often differ from those of their own cultural group: for example status differences are played down in many New Zealand workplaces where an ideology of egalitarianism tends to prevail.

Stage 3 When Helena was asked to role play the same scenario at the end of the 12- week course, her contributions showed considerable development of socio- pragmatic awareness.

Excerpt from role play

Helena: HiJenny.Areyoubusyatthemoment?CanIhaveaquickword?

Secretary: Sure.

Helena: I got a document from CEO and it is very urgent report. I was wondering ifyou canstay a littlebitlatetonight tohelpto finish the report.

This time Helena greets the secretary and expresses her awareness that she is interrupting,‘Areyoubusy atthemoment?’.Shealsoprovides a preamble indicating indirectly that a request is coming and that its source is the CEO, thus adding authority to the request while alsoaddressing both participants’ face needs, ‘I got a document from CEO and it is very urgent report’. Finally, she expresses the request using a construction that she has noticed and explicitlycommented on when undertaking analysisof authentic workplace interactions during the course, namely ‘I was wondering if . . . ’. Moreover, Helena sounds much more confident and comfortable during this interaction than she did at earlier points in the course.

In her reflective interview, Helena again overtly commented on the fact that she had noticed the value of phrases including the word ‘wonder’.

Excerpt from retrospective interview

That is what I learned in the class. Magic word! This word gives people a choice to accept, take the request or not . . . much better than say ‘please stay’ or even ‘would you like to stay’ . . . so no matter how busy the work, don’t give the hard feeling to people. So ‘I wonder if you could’—that is the great wording—I use it all the time.

Helena notes the value of a strategy that gives her interlocutor options, as opposed to the moredirectformofrequest thatshehadusedpreviously,and that would be perfectly appropriate in Hong Kong.

382 Janet Holmes and Nicky Riddiford

Stage 4 Finally, we followed Helena into the organization which had agreed to employ her as an intern. She worked in the financial accounting team of a government department. Like all the course participants, Helena returned to class one half day per week during her six-week internship to report on progress, to discuss her observations, to raise any problems or issues for discussion, and to describe any critical incidents experienced.

It was reassuring to hear from many of the participants that their experiences in the world of work generally confirmed their classroom learning. Helena commented, for example, that she often heard her manager asking people to stay late, using structures that she recognized as polite and appropriate on the basis of her ability to analyse relevant social dimensions, such as status and social distance.

In the final weeks of her internship, Helena was recorded skilfully varying the form of her requests from relatively direct to much more indirect according to her relationship with her addressee and what she had learnt about appropriate behaviour in her workplace. There was also evidence of hermonitoringherownoutput,suggestingthatshewasusingtheanalytical skills she had developed to assess the socio-pragmatic demands of the context. The following example is taken from her interaction with her workplace mentor in the organization.

Excerpt from workplace interaction

Um, could you either . . ., I was wondering if you could you know forward this start list to me so I can see the details of those items. And then I can enter into the C system cos I can’t see what they are.

Helena here changes the form of her request from the more direct ‘could you’ to the more indirect and less face-threatening form ‘I was wondering if you could’ indicating her responsiveness to the situation with someone she now knows reasonably well, but who is none the less a considerably more experienced person than her in the organization.

Discussion Following Helena’s progress in expressing requests from her first week in the Workplace Communication Skills course through to the last week of her internshipinaNewZealandorganizationprovidesasnapshotofthewaysin which socio-pragmatic awareness can develop, even over a short period, and moreover can be successfully transferred from the classroom to the workplace. Crucial to this process is explicit attention to both cognitive and social dimensions of language development. Learners need to notice and attend to new information and to consciously reflect on socio-pragmatic dimensions of analysis, as well as to observe and engage in social interactions where the new learning can be used and practised.

At the beginning ofthe course, the professional migrantstendedto focus on meaning and getting their message across, with little attention to socio- pragmatic aspects of communication. In reflective interviews, learners noted thattheyappreciatedthe attentionpaidduringthecoursetoanalysing social dimensions ofinteraction and features ofthe social context in orderto select socio-pragmatically appropriate ways of expressing meaning. Their attention had been drawn to points such as the relevance of the dimensions of socialstatus and solidarity and the influence ofthe social setting,and they

From classroom to workplace 383

had devoted considerable time to considering how these dimensions influenced interaction in a range of New Zealand workplace contexts and to reflecting on similarities and differences in the ways they were instantiated in their own cultures. They were encouraged to explicitly notice such features and to develop analytical skills in this area to enable them to respond in ways which they considered appropriate and found comfortable. They had also been given regular opportunities to reflect on their progress, to identify areas of difficulty, and to discuss situations that they found challenging.

From the point of view of social interaction, one of the distinctive strengths ofthecourse was the provisionofopportunities forstudents topractise what had been learnt in a range of social contexts, including the classroom. The classroom is a genuine context for social interaction, but it is also a place where the teacher has an explicit warrant to provide guided opportunities as well as direct feedback to help students develop socio-pragmatic knowledge (Ohta 2001). In addition, the learners were able to interact with high-status volunteers and to experience social interaction in New Zealand workplaces with supportive job mentors and workplace consultants. Thus, they were given many opportunities to practise, reflect, observe, and obtain feedback. Overall, this attention to both cognitive and social aspects of developing socio-pragmaticcompetenceresultedinaverycyclicalprocess,summarized in Figure 2.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the course was always respectful of learners’ right to decide how to present themselves in any interaction (Byram 2006). Bardovi-Harlig (2001: 20) points out that the selection of an inappropriate responsemay notbethe result of lackof awareness of suitable forms and style, but of a difference in perception ofthe type of response that the situation requires. In such cases, reflective interviews along with

figure 2

A cyclical model of the learning process

Noticing (cognitive)

Input Comparing (cognitive)

Reflecting (cognitive)

Interacting (social-interactional)

Feedback (social-interactional)

Output improved performance

Further reflecting

(cognitive)

384 Janet Holmes and Nicky Riddiford

feedback and discussion can help identify mismatches between cultures and highlight the different ways in which New Zealanders might analyse the social dimensions of a particular situation compared to other cultures. But having provided opportunities for learners to become aware of such differences, the final decision of how to respond in a particular situation is alwaystheirs.Peoplealwayshavetherighttofloutthenorms.Thegoalofthe course was to provide information on local interactional norms, to develop skills in socio-pragmatic analysis, and to provide opportunities for practice in asmany kinds of social context aspossible, but finally, wewereconcerned with empowerment, rather than conformity.

Conclusions This paper has provided some evidence of the importance of attention to both cognitive and social dimensions of language development by focusing on the progress of one learner in acquiring appropriate ways of making requestsduring a 12-week communication skills course.The discussion has highlighted the role of instruction in developing conscious learning, as well as the role that opportunities for social interaction play in the acquisition of socio-pragmatic proficiency in a second language.

Requests are high-stakes speech acts. They occur relatively frequently in interaction and, when used inappropriately, can impact negatively on workplace relationships. Learning how to analyse the complexities of different social dimensions in a new sociocultural context is a demanding task; a range of strategies is required to assist learners to analyse these factors in order to select appropriate forms which are consistent with their transactional and relational goals, as well as with the presentation of a professional identity consistent with their aspirations.

Final revised version received June 2010

Notes 1 Names of student participants are pseudonyms. 2 The most distinctive feature of the methodology is that the participants themselves record their everyday workplace talk with as little interference from the research team as possible.

3 See Riddiford and Joe (2010) for more detailed discussion of the data collection instruments.

References Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. ‘Empirical evidence of the need for instruction in pragmatics’ in K. R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Beebe, L. and M. Cummings. 1996. ‘Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: how data collection method affects speech act performance’ in S. Gass and J. Neu (eds.). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Byram, M. 2006. ‘Developing a concept of intercultural citizenship’ in G. Alred, M. Byram, and M. Fleming (eds.). Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Concepts and Comparisons. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R., H. Basturkman, and S. Loewen. 2001. ‘Pre- emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom’. TESOL Quarterly 35/3: 407–32. Hassall, T. 2008. ‘Pragmatic performance: what are learners thinking?’ in E. Alcón Soler and A. Martinez-Flor (eds.). Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Liddicoat, A. J., A. Scarino, L. Papedemetre, and M. Kohler. 2003. Report on Intercultural Language Learning. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.

From classroom to workplace 385

Mackey, A. 2006. ‘Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning’. Applied Linguistics 27/3: 405–30. Matsumura, S. 2007. ‘Exploring the after-effects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development’. Intercultural Pragmatics 4/2: 167–92. Ohta, A. S. 2001. Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Riddiford, N. 2007. ‘Making requests appropriately in a second language: does instruction help to develop pragmatic proficiency’. TESOLANZ Journal 15: 88–102. Riddiford, N. and A. Joe. 2010. ‘Tracking the development of sociopragmatic skills’. TESOL Quarterly 44/1: 195–205. Rose, K. R. 2005. ‘On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics’. System 33/3: 385–99. Schmidt, R. 1995. ‘Consciousness and foreign language learning’ in R. Schmidt (ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Takahashi, S. 2005. ‘Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: a qualitative analysis of

instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics’. System 33/3: 437–61. Turnbull, W. 2001. ‘An appraisal of pragmatic elicitation techniques for the social psychological study of talk: the case of request refusals’. Pragmatics 11/1: 31–61.

The authors Janet Holmes is Professor of Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington where she directs the Language in the Workplace Project and teaches sociolinguistics at every level. Her most recent books are the third edition of the Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Pearson 2008) and Gendered Talk at Work (Blackwell 2006).

Nicky Riddiford is a member of the Language in the Workplace Project research team at Victoria University. She is a course coordinator of the Workplace Communication for Skilled Migrants programme with over 23 years’ experience teaching ESOL and EAP in many contexts. She has been the primary data collector throughout this project.

386 Janet Holmes and Nicky Riddiford

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.