Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations

Veronika Timpe Laughlin; Jennifer Wain; Jonathan Schmidgall

doi:10.1002/ets2.12053

journal article Apr 01, 2015

Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations

Veronika Timpe Laughlin Jennifer Wain Jonathan Schmidgall

ETS Research Report Series Vol. 2015 No. 1 pp. 1-43 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/ets2.12053

Abstract

This review paper constitutes the first step within a larger research effort to develop an interactive pragmatics learning tool for second and foreign language (L2) learners and users of English. The tool will primarily endeavor to support pragmatics learning within the language use domain “workplace.” Given this superordinate objective, this paper is subdivided into 2 parts. In the first section, we provide a detailed overview of previous (empirical) research, theories, and frameworks of communicative competence to review the role of pragmatics as an essential component ofL2communicative language ability. A principled, systematic, and exhaustive literature search was conducted via key word searches, and the selected literature was categorized and coded usingNVivo10 software. Next, 12 distinct models of communicative language ability that contain components of pragmatic knowledge were identified and analyzed. The commonly identified constitutive components were then reconceptualized into a proposed construct of pragmatic competence. The challenges of operationalizing pragmatic competence in both instruction and assessment are discussed. The second part of the paper constitutes a domain analysis of pragmatics in the language use domain “workplace.” First, the literature is reviewed for communicative tasks and activities that feature prominently in different workplace settings across various English‐speaking countries. Then, we suggest and exemplify different model task types that can be employed in the context of learning and assessment materials that aim to foster pragmatic‐functional awareness in both English as a foreign language (EFL)/English as a second language (ESL) learners and first language (L1) speakers alike.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

133

[1]

Allott N. (2010)

[2]

Bachman L. F. (1990)

[3]

10.1177/026553228800500203

[4]

10.2307/3586464

[5]

Bachman L. F. (1996)

[6]

Bachman L. F. (2010)

[7]

Do Language Learners Recognize Pragmatic Violations? Pragmatic versus Grammatical Awareness in Instructed L2 Learning

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, ZOLTÁN DÖRNYEI

TESOL Quarterly 10.2307/3587583

[8]

10.1093/elt/45.1.4

[9]

Bardovi‐Harlig K. (2003)

[10]

10.1075/pbns.108

[11]

Bialystok E. (1993) 10.1093/oso/9780195066029.003.0003

[12]

10.1093/elt/49.1.44

[13]

10.1017/cbo9780511813085

[14]

Canale M. (1983)

[15]

THEORETICAL BASES OF COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES TO SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING AND TESTING

M. CANALE

Applied Linguistics 10.1093/applin/1.1.1

[16]

Candlin C. (2002)

[17]

10.5070/l462005216

[18]

Celce‐Murcia M. (2000)

[19]

10.1177/026553229701400102

[20]

10.1075/scl.16.07che

[21]

10.1093/elt/53.2.83

[22]

Clyne M. (1994)

[23]

10.1007/bf03177550

[24]

10.1093/elt/58.1.38

[25]

Crystal D. (1985)

[26]

Crystal D. (1997)

[27]

Dixon‐Woods M. Cavers D. Agarwal S. Annandale E. Arthur A. Harvey J. &Sutton A.(2006).Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. Retrieved fromhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471‐2288/6/35 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35

[28]

Donna S. (2000)

[29]

Drew P. (1992)

[30]

Drew P. (1992)

[31]

10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_211

[32]

10.1093/elt/cci039

[33]

10.1093/elt/cct013

[34]

10.1075/pbns.121

[35]

Flinspach S. L.(2001).Interpretive synthesis: A methodology for reviewing qualitative case‐study research(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago Chicago IL.

[36]

10.1017/cbo9780511667244

[37]

10.1016/j.esp.2005.03.005

[38]

10.1080/09658410408667089

[39]

Geluykens R. (1999)

[40]

Generoso A.(2013).How may I help you? Polite telephone skills for workplace communication pp. 1–37. Retrieved fromhttp://angelageneroso.myefolio.com/Uploads/Generoso_CAPSTONE‐final.pdf

[41]

10.1093/elt/58.4.363

[42]

Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research

GENE V GLASS

Educational Researcher 10.3102/0013189x005010003

[43]

Grabowski K.(2009).Investigating the construct validity of a test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge in the context of speaking(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University New York NY.

[44]

Green G. M. (2004)

[45]

Grice H. P. "Utterer's meaning, sentence meaning, and word meaning" Foundations of Language (1968)

[46]

Utterer's Meaning and Intention

H. P. Grice

The Philosophical Review 10.2307/2184179

[47]

10.1163/9789004368811_003

[48]

Grice H. P. (1989)

[49]

10.1515/9783110208375.4.453

[50]

Gunnarsson B.‐L. (2009)

Showing 50 of 133 references

Metrics

42

Citations

133

References

Details

Published: Apr 01, 2015
Vol/Issue: 2015(1)
Pages: 1-43
License: View

Authors

V

Veronika Timpe Laughlin

Educational Testing Service Princeton NJ

J

Jennifer Wain

Educational Testing Service Princeton NJ

J

Jonathan Schmidgall

Educational Testing Service Princeton NJ

Cite This Article

Veronika Timpe Laughlin, Jennifer Wain, Jonathan Schmidgall (2015). Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12053

Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations

You May Also Like