Learning the sociopragmatics of an artificial language: Comparing rule-based and concept-based instruction
Issue: Vol 5 No. 1 (2018)
Journal: Language and Sociocultural Theory
This article reports findings from an experimental study of adults (n = 103) learning the sociopragmatics of an artificial language, ‘Ravenese’. The main purpose of the study was to compare the effects of: (a) rule-based instruction; versus (b) conceptbased instruction. No statistical differences were found between the two instructional conditions on an appropriateness judgment task (pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest). However, differences were observed in participants’ understanding of the meaning and significance of the target pragmatic forms as revealed through qualitative data. The data suggest that rule-based instruction reinforces previously acquired everyday knowledge, whereas concept-based instruction supports learners’ development of new ways of understanding language and social relationships. The discussion centers on implications for teaching pragmatics in second/foreign language classrooms.
Author: Rémi A. van Compernolle
Ager, D. E. (1990). Sociolinguistics and Contemporary French. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620768
Belz, J., and Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review 59: 189–214. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.2.189
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewaeal, M. and Li, W. (2013). Is multilingualism linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16: 231–240.
Gal’perin, P. I. (1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology 27: 65–82. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405270365
Gal’perin, P. I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30: 60–80. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405300460
Heilenman, C., Kaplan, L., and Tournier, I. (2006). Voila! An Introduction to French. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Henery, A. (2015). On the development of metapragmatic awareness abroad: Two case studies exploring the role of expert-mediation. Language Awareness 24: 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1113982
Kasper, G. (2004). Speech acts in (inter)action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1: 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.002
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal 92 (1): 1–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00821.x
Martínez-Flor, A., and Usó-Juan, E. (2006). A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6Rs approach. Applied Language Learning 16 (2): 39–64.
Negueruela, E. (2003). A Sociocultural Approach to Teaching and Researching Second Language: Systemic–Theoretical Instruction and Second Language Development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Plonsky, L., and Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64: 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going in interlanguage pragmatics. Language Teaching 48: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Native and nonnative perceptions of appropriateness in the French second-person pronoun system. Journal of French Language Studies 25 (1): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269513000471
van Compernolle, R. A. (2016). Are multilingualism, tolerance of ambiguity, and attitudes toward linguistic variation related? International Journal of Multilingualism 13: 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2015.1071821
van Compernolle, R. A. (2017). Preferences for (in)formal language: Correlations with multilingualism, attitudes toward linguistic variation, tolerance of ambiguity, and residence abroad. International Journal of Multilingualism 14: 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1165229
van Compernolle, R. A., Gomez-Laich, M. P., and Weber, A. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal 100 (1): 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12318
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., Williams, L., and McCourt, C. (2011). A corpus-driven study of second-person pronoun variation in L2 French synchronous computer-mediated communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (1): 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.003
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, and J. Wertsch (Eds), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky, 178–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521831040.008