View Content #24605

By Zach Patrick-Riley, CASLS Fellow

Learners need to be able to navigate a myriad of sociocultural contexts and transcend geopolitical boundaries (Bachman,1990; Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia 2008; Sykes, 2016; Taguchi & Sykes, 2012). Often cited in discussions of sociocultural awareness is Byram’s (1997) Intercultural Competence Model which articulates the importance of specifically training students to interact in intercultural contexts. Of related importance is interlanguage pragmatics, a field that can be summarized as the place where language and culture intersect. Sykes (2016) illuminates the central crux of this field writing, “Meaning is not always linguistically encoded and is often understood through implicature, background knowledge, and cultural factors.” To summarize, pragmatic competence is the ability to communicate and interpret what was intended, keeping all dynamic sociocultural factors in mind.  

Sykes (ibid.) and other researchers (Brown & Adler, 2008; Kessler, 2013; Sykes, Oskoz, & Thorne, 2008; Thorne, 2008) point to the utility of online media in promoting the acquisition of pragmatic competence. An underlying foundation for this assertion is the social context provided by the media. There are consequences for communicating what was intended and for understanding the illocutionary force (speaker’s intent) of utterances. For example, Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMORPG’s) require players to work together to achieve a common goal. In a very real way, success rests upon pragmatic competence (Sykes, ibid.) in the target language. Consequently, learners engaging in these gaming spaces are likely to be motivated to increase their knowledge and awareness in this domain.

Other CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication) media promote improved pragmatic competence as well. For example, in the language exchange app Tandem, learners communicate with expert speakers of the target language currently living in a country of their choosing. These exchanges, along with exchanges in other CMC media (e.g., social media platforms, telecollaboration, and SMS tools), prime users to discuss and reflect on various discourse patterns, contexts, experiences, and distinct worldviews. Such work primes learners to be more socio-culturally conscious going forward (Kasper, 2000; Sykes, 2016). The potential impact of CMC media on improving pragmatic competence is multiplied upon consideration of increasing access to digital technologies in the domestic sphere. Simply put, learners who want extra practice in the L2 may engage in it autonomously.   

To sum up, to promote learner interactions in a multitude of social contexts, it is necessary to include meaningful material which goes beyond ‘traditional’ language learning and prepares students to be 21^st century communicators (Brown & Adler, 2008). In the end, the goal is not to disregard linguistic competence, rather it is to have a more holistic curriculum which facilitates cross-cultural and cross-situational communication and pragmatic awareness.

This week’s Activity of the Week uses the new mobile application called LingroToGo, which has explicit pragmatic training. You can download the app at http://www.lingrolearning.com/ .

References

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, J., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-20.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In Soler, E. & Safont Jorda, M. (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Kasper, L. (2000). New technologies, new literacies: Focus discipline research and ESL learning communities. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 105-128.

Kessler, G. (2013). Teaching ESL/EFL in a world of social media, mash‐ups, and hyper‐collaboration. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 615-632.

Seely Brown, J., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16-20.

Sykes, J. M. (2017) Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics. In C. A. Chapelle and S. Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118914069.ch9/summary

Sykes, J. M., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546.

Thorne, S. L. (2008). Mediating technologies and second language learning. In Coiro, J. (Ed.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 417-449). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.