Pragmatics, as discussed in the previous chapters, is the study of language

use in its sociocultural context. Since sociocultural norms governing pragmatic

language use may vary greatly across cultural and linguistic communities,
learners may encounter considerable difficulty when crossing diverse cultural
boundaries. To navigate intercultural encounters in an ELF context smoothly,
learners need to be made aware not only of a range of pragmatic norms in
native speaker (NS) varieties of English, but should also be encouraged to
embrace other English norms and equip themselves with the necessary skills to
negotiate cross-cultural differences. Systematic instruction of pragmatics can
help increase learners’ awareness of pragmatic norms that are too subtle for
learners to notice on their own, and heighten their intercultural sensitivity.
Pragmatics instruction is of particular importance in foreign-language learning
environments where English is not used in the wider society, and hence the
classroom is the only place where learners get the chance to hear and use the
language on a regular basis.

In this chapter, we offer guidance to teachers who wish to incorporate

pragmatics into their classroom teaching by drawing together a set of six general
teaching principles. These principles are based on insights from theories of
instructed L2 acquisition and discussions of L2 pragmatics in ELT literature.

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 26

 a
Teacher Development Series

Principle #1: Developing awareness of form, function,

and form-function-context connections
Language forms are the types of sentences that we produce (e.g.,
imperatives, declaratives, or interrogatives), whereas language functions are
what we do with the sentences in communication (e.g., making a request,
lodging a complaint, or expressing an opinion). When an imperative is used to
express a directive (e.g., “Pass the salt”), we say there is a match between the
form and the function. However, there is not always a one-to-one
correspondence between language forms (syntactical structures) and
communicative functions (intended meaning). A speaker may make a request
not by using an imperative, but by using an interrogative (e.g., “Can you pass the
salt?”) or declarative structure (e.g., “There is no salt.”). In such cases, the forms
do not match the functions.

Possible communicative
Language form
function
Pass the salt please. Imperative Request
Can you pass the salt? Interrogative Request
There is no salt. Declarative Request

Without understanding the pragmatic function of an utterance or the

speaker’s intended meaning, we are likely to respond inappropriately. For
example, it would not be appropriate to respond to the request, “Can you pass
the salt?” by saying “Yes, I can” without following it up with the action of passing
the salt.
In real-world communication, a single sentence can carry a variety of
functions, according to when it is said, who says it, who the person is talking to,
and where the conversation takes place. The sentence “It’s going to rain,”
depending on the context in which it is stated, could function as a general
statement about the weather, a request for someone to bring in the clothes off
the line in the backyard, or a rejection of someone’s suggestion to go out for a
walk.
To be considered pragmatically competent, learners need to know not only
the language form but also understand its functional meaning, know the social
relationships and contexts of communication in which it can or cannot be used,
and apply this knowledge to real-life communication.

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 27

 a
Teacher Development Series

For example, when learning how to make requests in English, learners need
to know that a request can be expressed by means of an imperative (e.g., “Move
your car, please”), an interrogative (e.g., “Can/could/will you move your car?”),
or a two-clause sentence (e.g., “I wonder if you could move your car a bit?”).
Learners also need to understand that while saying “Can you move your car?” to
a stranger whose car blocks the way in the carpark is appropriate while saying
“Can you lend me $1000?” to a new acquaintance is not. In other words, they
need to know how to use a particular language form to express an idea
appropriately. This ability requires two kinds of knowledge:

• knowledge of the sociocultural norms of language use, that is, knowing what
to say, not to say, and to whom in the given context and culture
(sociopragmatic knowledge); and
• knowledge of the linguistic resources required for expressing one’s social
meaning accurately and appropriately (pragmalinguistic knowledge).

Effective instruction of pragmatic norms, hence, should aim to develop both

kinds of knowledge in learners. Teaching form in isolation from its functional
meaning and context of use is counter-productive and can lead to the
production of grammatically perfect but pragmatically inappropriate sentences,
thus potentially offending the interlocutor and breaking down communication.
For example, EFL students who are not taught the functional meaning and
context of use of the construction “You must” may inadvertently offend their
international fellow students by giving peer feedback such as “You must discuss
both sides of the issue.” Similarly, using a direct expression of disagreement such
as “I disagree with you” in group discussion may cause friction. This often
happens to students who are taught the lexical meaning of the verb “disagree”
without being taught when, where, and with whom its usage is possible or
impossible.

Principle #2: Developing the ability to use language

not only accurately and appropriately, but also fluently
Before learning an L2, adult learners have already developed pragmatic
ability in their L1. This prior knowledge can be beneficial or detrimental to
learners. On the one hand, learners can readily transfer available knowledge
that is appropriate to the TL. On the other hand, they should be aware that what

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 28

 a
Teacher Development Series

is pragmatically acceptable in their L1 may not always be acceptable in the L2 or

to people of other speech communities. For example, in some cultures, the
question, “Why haven’t you got married yet?” may be acceptable, but such
directness may be considered rude in other cultures.

Two aspects of pragmatic ability are pragmatic accuracy and pragmatic

fluency. Pragmatic accuracy refers to the ability to recognize intentions
accurately and produce meaning in a grammatically and socially acceptable
manner, whereas pragmatic fluency refers to the ability to apply this knowledge
smoothly and efficiently in real-life communication (Taguchi, 2015).

It is believed that the accuracy of pragmatic performance can be developed

effectively through input-based activities, such as teacher’s explanations and
guided self-discovery of pragmatic rules, as well as controlled input and output
practice, such as recognition of indirect meaning in given situations, filling in
gaps in dialogues, or constructing dialogues based on given scripts. On the other
hand, the fluency of pragmatic performance can be developed through
communicative activities that allow students to focus on meaning, especially
when the same or similar activities are repeated several times.

Although pragmatic accuracy can take a relatively short amount of time (i.e.,
5 hours or more of intensive instruction) to develop, pragmatic fluency requires
a much longer time (i.e., at least twice the amount of practice required for
accuracy development) (Taguchi, 2015). Research has also shown that accuracy
can be transferred across skill domains, but fluency cannot (Taguchi, 2015). That
is to say, for example, accuracy practice in pragmatic comprehension can lead to
not only accurate pragmatic comprehension, but also accurate pragmatic
production. However, fluency practice in pragmatic comprehension will lead to
fluent pragmatic comprehension but not fluent pragmatic production. While
pragmatic fluency should be the end goal of instruction, teachers should also
devote an equal amount of time to developing students’ pragmatic accuracy.
After understanding the different conditions for accuracy and fluency
development, teachers can then design learning tasks to provide their students
with optimal learning opportunities.

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 29

 a
Teacher Development Series

Principle #3: Providing exposure to language input,

opportunities for input noticing, and sustained
practice of the target form
Much work in pragmatics instruction has drawn on the Noticing Hypothesis,
the Interaction Hypothesis, and the Output Hypothesis. The Noticing Hypothesis
states that to learn a pragmatic feature (such as strategies for making requests
or closing conversations), learners need to receive relevant input, notice the
target form in the input, and understand its function in social contexts (Schmidt,
2001). For example, when learners hear someone say “Can I have a cappuccino
to go please?” to a barista at a coffee shop, they need to be able to notice the
question “Can I?” They also need to develop an understanding that the function
of this question is to make a request, especially when the request is relatively
small, like ordering a coffee, and addressed to someone who is supposed to
comply with the request (the barista). While noticing involves awareness of the
surface linguistic structure, understanding involves recognition and
generalization of the rule of use underlying the structure, thus representing a
higher level of awareness and deeper level of learning. Therefore, to enhance
students’ pragmatic awareness, classroom instruction should aim at not only
making them notice language forms but also enabling them to understand why
particular forms are used in relation to the context or situation. To this end,
input-based approaches such as teachers’ explanations, guided self-discovery,
and structured-input activities have proved useful. These approaches will be
presented in the next chapter.
In addition to the input-based approaches outlined above, output-based
options, particularly production tasks that allow students to focus on meaning
such as discussion and role playing, can also help increase their pragmatic
awareness. These approaches will be introduced in the next chapter. The
Interaction Hypothesis states that when learners interact with one another, or
with teachers, they receive opportunities to clarify what they say and hear,
which is beneficial to their language learning (Long, 1985). In particular, when
one participant in a conversation says something that the other does not
understand, both participants will try various ways to make communication
work. They may paraphrase or correct what they say, check whether they make
sense or understand the other person correctly, ask the other person to repeat,

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 30

 a
Teacher Development Series

recast what the other person says, and so on. In so doing, learners become
more aware of what they say that works or does not work and learn to adjust
their language use accordingly. According to the Output Hypothesis, the
opportunities to try out alternative ways of saying things help learners process
language forms at a more in-depth level and thus develop a higher level of
awareness of how and why particular forms are used (Swain, 1985).

However, recall that even if learners develop a high level of awareness of

pragmatic rules, it does not mean this will lead to fluent pragmatic performance.
Fluency development requires sustained, repeated practice of the target form in
both comprehension as well as production tasks. Therefore, to facilitate learners
to communicate appropriately and effortlessly in real life contexts, class
instruction should aim at providing learners with opportunities for not only
noticing and processing pragmatic input but also intensive output practice.

Principle #4: Providing systematically planned and

sustained instruction
Although pragmatics has increasingly become accepted as an important part
of L2 teaching, systematic pragmatics instruction rarely happens in the actual
classroom. Pragmatic content may be discussed incidentally in meaning-based
lessons. For example, when a learner says something inappropriate during a
class discussion, the teacher may decide to interfere and correct him or her on
the spot. Other than that, pragmatics is not addressed methodically as part of
the designated syllabus or curriculum.
While opportunistic teaching can help draw students’ immediate attention to
the targeted form, the impact may not last long. Students may walk out of the
classroom forgetting what they learn if the learning is not reinforced over time.
To ensure that students can use a wide range of pragmatic features in real-life
communication, a pragmatics-focused curriculum must be carefully planned and
implemented. In chapters 4, 5, and 6, we will discuss how such a curriculum can
be planned and implemented.

Regarding the amount of instruction, there is evidence to suggest that

pragmatic knowledge benefits from prolonged instruction. The optimal amount
of instruction depends on particular pragmatic features. For example, opaque
pragmatic rules may require more extensive practice to be acquired than

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 31

 a
Teacher Development Series

concrete and systematic rules. However, generally speaking, instruction that

lasts at least five hours can lead to greater improvement in learners’
performance than instruction that lasts less than five hours (Taguchi, 2015).

Principle #5: Developing intercultural awareness and

negotiation skills as well as cultivating tolerance of
cultural differences
Traditionally, scholars and teachers tended to believe that the goal of
pragmatics instruction was for L2 learners to imitate NS interactional norms.
However, what we know from recent scholarship is that this may not be the goal
of language learning for many L2 learners. While learners may elect to emulate
certain NS norms, they may less readily embrace the norms that clash with their
system of cultural beliefs and values. Take forms of address in higher education
as an example. In the Australian academic culture, it is considered appropriate
for students to address their lecturers by their first name when this form of
address is endorsed by the lecturers. However, for international students from
an Asian cultural background, such as China, Vietnam, Korea, and Indonesia, this
may violate the social norms of their cultures, where teachers are typically
addressed formally and respectfully. Thus, as much as they may respect
Australian culture, Asian students may still hesitate to adopt an informal way of
addressing their professors.

It is important to note that the learning of pragmatics is different from that of

grammar and vocabulary. While grammatical and lexical errors are often caused
by the learners’ lack of knowledge of the TL, pragmatic variation may be related
to the language users’ culture or the expression of their cultural identity. Thus,
the current view on pragmatics instruction is that as long as learners’ pragmatic
choices do not break down communication, their choices should be respected.
In other words, pragmatics instruction should not impose NS norms on learners
at the expense of their own cultural values. Instead, it should enable learners to
develop awareness of the intercultural differences between their own pragmatic
system and that of the TL, and draw on this knowledge to negotiate the
differences.

The above goal will make a lot of sense if we consider the context of English
as an international language, where interaction typically happens between two

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 32

 a
Teacher Development Series

or more non-native speakers (NNSs). For example, when a Chinese person and a
Korean communicate with each other using English as a lingua franca, British or
American cultural norms will become irrelevant, and interactional norms will be
negotiated by the NNS participants themselves to achieve mutual
understanding.

The global spread of the English language means fewer intercultural

interactions will involve a NS and more will take place between people who use
English as an additional language. Obviously, in this context, dependence on NS
norms will not help learners to accommodate effectively to the diversity of
cultural perspectives and discourse communities that they will encounter. To
help learners communicate successfully across cultural boundaries without
stereotyping other cultures or losing their own cultural identity, pragmatics
instruction should aim to develop learners’ intercultural sensitivity and
negotiation skills as well as cultivate their tolerance of cultural differences.

Principle #6: Cultivating learner autonomy and self-

directed learning
While the immediate goals of classroom pragmatics instruction (i.e., what
can be achieved within particular lessons and curricula) are to improve students’
intercultural awareness and enable them to develop fluency in using various
pragmatic features in the TL, the learning of pragmatics does not take place only
inside the classroom. Learning is a life-long process, and hence it is important
that pragmatics instruction aims to help learners develop a repertoire of
pragmatics learning strategies so that they can take charge of their own learning
and enhance their use of the TL beyond the classroom. By pragmatics learning
strategies, we mean goal-oriented actions taken intentionally by learners to
make their learning more effective and enjoyable (Oxford, 2011). Some
examples include making conscious efforts to interact with speakers from other
cultures, observing pragmatic norms in different varieties of English, comparing
the way particular pragmatic features are used in the native language and in
English, and reflecting on and evaluating one’s own intercultural communication
experience.

Why does strategy-based pragmatics learning matter? No matter how much

content we as teachers want to teach, our teaching content is always

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 33

 a
Teacher Development Series

constrained by contextual factors beyond our control, such as a lack of suitable

teaching material or a limited curricular timeframe. Due to those constraints,
classroom instruction may not be able to cover all pragmatic skills that learners
need for real-life communication. Thus, strategy training is needed to provide
learners with techniques for obtaining further learning opportunities outside of
the classroom for their own benefits (Taguchi, 2018). We will discuss pragmatic
learning strategies in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Reflective Break
• This chapter has presented six general principles of pragmatics instruction.
Choose one of them to discuss further with your colleagues. To what extent do
you agree with it and why?

• What pragmatic difficulties have your students experienced? Have they felt
resistant to any TL pragmatic norms? In what situations and why?

• To what extent do you think learners’ pragmatic variations should be addressed

by teachers? What can teachers do to help their learners acquire the TL
pragmatics systems without compromising the learners’ own cultural values?

Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classrooms 34