Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
The place of pragmatic competence in a teaching foreign
language
Dilnoza YULDASHEVA
1
Bukhara State Pedagogical Institute
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received April 2025
Received in revised form
10 April 2025
Accepted 2 May 2025
Available online
25 June 2025
Pragmatic competence has become, especially in the last few
decades, one of the issues that attracted attention in the field as
an essential part of language competence. The realization that
having a good command of linguistic knowledge in target
language would not be enough to master the language has
created the need to investigate the value and effect of pragmatic
competence in language education. This review is intended to
provide a brief overview of pragmatics and pragmatic
competence, the pedagogic significance of pragmatic competence
highlighting the relevant theoretical components of pragmatics.
For the purposes of this review, relevant literature covering
definitions of pragmatics and pragmatic competence and
research carried out on pragmatic competence is presented.
2181-3701
/©
2025 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol3-iss6
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
pragmatic competence,
foreign language education,
communicative competence,
pragmatics instruction.
Chet tilini o‘qitishda pragmatik kompetensiyaning o‘rni
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
pragmatik kompetensiya,
chet tili ta
’
limi,
kommunikativ
kompetensiya,
pragmatik ta
’
lim.
Pragmatik kompetensiya, ayniqsa, so‘nggi bir necha o‘n
yilliklarda til kompetensiyasining muhim qismi sifatida ushbu
sohada e’tiborni tortadigan masalalardan biriga aylandi.
O‘rganilayotgan tilda lingvistik bilimlarga ega bo‘lish tilni
o‘zlashtirish uchun etarli emasligini anglash til ta’limida
pragmatik kompetensiyaning ahamiyati va ta’sirini o‘rganish
za
ruriyatini tug‘dirdi. Ushbu sharh pragmatika va pragmatik
kompetensiya haqida qisqacha ma’lumot berish, pragmatik
kompetensiyaning pedagogik ahamiyatini pragmatikaning
tegishli nazariy komponentlarini yoritib berish uchun
mo‘ljallangan. Ushbu sharhning maq
sadlari uchun pragmatik va
pragmatik kompetensiya ta’riflarini o‘z ichiga olgan tegishli
adabiyotlar va pragmatik kompetensiya bo‘yicha olib borilgan
tadqiqotlar taqdim etiladi.
1
Doctoral Student, Bukhara State Pedagogical Institute. E-mail: yuldashevadilnoza433@gmail.com
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
279
Место прагматической компетенции в обучении
иностранному языку
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
прагматическая
компетентность,
иноязычное образование,
коммуникативная
компетентность,
обучение прагматике.
Прагматическая компетентность в последние десятилетия
стала одним из ключевых объектов внимания в данной сфере
и рассматривается как неотъемлемая составляющая
языковой компетенции. Осознание того, что одного лишь
хорошего владения «языком перевода» недостаточно для
овладения языком, обусловило необходимость изучения
значения и влияния прагматической компетентности на
языковое образование. Цель настоящей работы –
дать
краткий
обзор
прагматики
и
прагматической
компетентности, показать её педагогическое значение и
выделить соответствующие теоретические компоненты
прагматики.
Представлен
обзор
литературы
с
определениями
прагматики
и
прагматической
компетентности, а также исследований, посвящённых
прагматической компетентности.
INTRODUCTION
Communication is an indispensable part of any community life in which people feel
the need to interact with each other for certain reasons. It is through the concept of
language that people can communicate with a number of interlocutors in a variety of
settings. However, while interacting, people need to follow things beyond words. They
need to know how to say something as well as when, where and to whom to say it.
Therefore, communication is much more than putting some words in a linear order to
form a set of items. Language users are supposed to follow some conventions according
to which their conversation will be not only meaningful but also appropriate. This
analysis of how to say things in appropriate ways and places is basically called
pragmatics.
Pragmatics deals mainly with what is beyond the dictionary meanings of
statements; in other words, it is about what is actually meant with an utterance based on
the norms and conventions of a particular society, or context, in which conversation
takes place. Therefore, having a good command of the conventions enables the speaker to
establish and maintain effective and appropriate communication as well as
understanding each other clearly and this ability is generally referred as pragmatic
competence.
Following the shift in which the emphasis in language pedagogy changed from the
linguistic-based to communicative-based purposes, the impact and status of pragmatic
competence has gradually increased in educational circles. Considering pragmatic
competence as a crucial component of language education, this study is intended to be a
review on the value and place of pragmatic competence in general language competence
and language education. For the purposes of this review, some core definitions proposed
by prominent researchers about the term are presented followed by some studies,
especially recent ones, investigating different factors affecting pragmatic competence and
the significance of pragmatic competence in language education.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
280
LITERATURE REVIEW
Before focusing on the significance of pragmatic competence, it would be better to
provide some definitions of the term and its related concepts. Pragmatics generally
underlines the connection between language use and the underlying factors like
interpersonal or social dynamics that can possibly affect the usage of language. One of the
earlier definitions of the term is suggested by Morris who regarded pragmatics as the
analysis of how an interlocutor interprets the sign that the other interlocutor proposes.
Another frequently cited definition belongs to Crystal. He describes pragmatics as the study
of language based on the perspectives of its users regarding their preferences, the impact of
the interactional context and how utterances can influence other participants during or after
the communication. Leech and Levinson also emphasize the influential nature of the context
considering meaning making while proposing definitions of pragmatics.
Context is a crucial component in understanding the meanings and intentions of
other interlocutors. That is why; pragmatic knowledge is essential in getting the intended
meanings and maintaining conversations accordingly. Rose and Kasper comment that
during any interaction, interlocutors “do not just need to get things done but must attend
to their interpersonal relationships with other participants at the same time” provides a
comprehensive comment considering pragmatics as a discipline taking into account “the
full complexity of social and individual human factors, latent psychological competencies,
and linguistic features, expressions, and grammatical structures, while maintaining
language within the context in which it was used”. From these definitions, it can be
concluded that communication is not just about using words after one another. Instead, a
healthy and efficient interaction is based on a variety of factors ranging from the
participants of the conversation to the context in which the interaction goes on as well as
the social and cultural norms and conventions of the society and its language.
Considering language knowledge and production, Chomsky coins the terms
competence and performance. The former refers to the mental capacity of a person
considering language. Competence which mainly involves such linguistic knowledge as
phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntax enables a person to understand and
produce the language. Performance, on the other hand, is the actual production of a
language user. While competence is the linguistic input, performance can be considered
as the linguistic output. In other words, competence is about knowing the language and
performance is producing the language. Considering these two terms, however, Chomsky
comments that performance is subject to certain external factors such as the language
user and the interactional context. Therefore, he concludes that performance does not
always reflect the full nature of competence and he favors competence over performance.
There has been; however, a shift in language teaching pedagogy from linguistic to
communicative competence starting from the introduction and development of
communicative language teaching methods. This shift has required a through and in-
depth analysis of the communicative and pragmatic aspects of the language. Therefore,
communicative functions of the language naturally gained momentum. Differentmodels
of communicative competence and different criteria for efficient communication have
been proposed Hymes (1972); Canale and Swain (1980); Grice (1975); Bachman (1990);
CelceMurcia, Dörnyei and Thur
rell (1995). These models of communicative competence
have been proposed partly as criticisms and reactions to the emphasis on linguistic
competence in language education.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
281
One of the first criticisms towards the dominance of linguistic competence over
comm
unicative one came from Hymes. Hymes disapproves Chomsky’s perspective of
competence and performance by conducting an ethnographic examination of
interactional competence known as ethnography of communication. Hymes comments
that though linguistic knowledge is significant, communicative dimension of language use
should not be undermined and to support his point of view, he maintains that “[t]here are
rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless”. Therefore, it can be
stated that based on
Hymes’ critical view, there has been a crucial shift from the focus on
grammar to the communicative aspects in language studies.
While making a review on pragmatic competence, it is important to refer to Canale
and Swain’s model of communicative competen
ce. This communicative competence
model, which is later built on by Canale, consists of four main areas of knowledge and
skills to possess for effective communication: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic
competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. The first is related to such
general linguistic knowledge as the phonology, morphology and syntax of the language
and it resembles Chomsky’s term of language competence. Sociolinguistic competence
enables interlocutors to use contextually appropriate language based on their
grammatical knowledge. It, in a way, combines linguistic knowledge with contextual
rules. Discourse competence is about the ability of the language user to follow cohesion
and coherence in language production to maintain flow and unity. The last item, strategic
competence, is related to both verbal and non-verbal hints that can make interaction
more effective and hinder possible communication breakdowns. Hence, based on these
brief definitions, one can infer that effective communication with little or no
misunderstanding requires a successful combination of these four competencies.
However, it is also significant that all the interlocutors maintaining interaction should
possess these skills.
There has been a certain degree of c
riticism towards Chomsky’s reliance on
language competence undermining the value of language performance. Hymes and Canale
and Swain, with their notion of communicative competence, were among the pioneers
considering the significance of appropriate language production. It was Bachman who
proposed pragmatic competence as a separate unit of communicative competence.
Bachman suggests that general language competence consists of two main parts:
organizational competence and pragmatic competence. The first category, organizational
competence, includes a language user’s linguistic knowledge such as vocabulary,
morphology and syntax and this is called grammatical competence, which is similar to
Chomsky’s term of language competence and Canale and Swain’s grammatica
l competence.
Besides grammatical ability, organizational competence also includes textual competence
which is about cohesion and coherence in interaction. The second category, pragmatic
competence, consists of illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence.
The first component, illocutionary competence, involves four main functions:
ideational function helps language users express their thoughts and feelings;
manipulative function enables people to obtain what they want; heuristic function
creates opportunities to learn new things and use language as a problem-solving tool;
and imaginative function improves people’s creativity. These four functions proposed by
Bachman resemble Halliday’s seven functions (instrumental, regulatory, interactional,
personal, heuristic, imaginative and representational functions).
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
282
The second component of pragmatic competence, which is sociolinguistic
competence, is related to the level of sensitivity which is necessary for taking the
variations in diverse communicative situations. Sociolinguistic competence entails
sensitivity towards language variations based on social or regional diversities between
interlocutors. It is natural that these variations influence the conventions of how the
language is used. Therefore, it can be maintained that while illocutionary competence
directs language users to perform certain language functions, sociolinguistic competence
enables them to choose the appropriate conventions or strategies based on the nature of
the context.
After referring to a brief history of the concept of pragmatic competence including
the shift in language teaching pedagogy, it would be appropriate to present some research
on pragmatic competence to offer a clearer picture of the place of pragmatic competence
and particularly its relation to different factors in language education. Relevant literature
displays studies conducted on the effects of different factors on pragmatic competence.
Some of those have focused on the impact of language proficiency on pragmatic
competence; some on the effects of learning environment; and some on the impacts of
length of residence. Presenting the results of some of these studies would be helpful.
One of the issues of investigation has been whether language proficiency affects
pragmatic competence. Based on this perspective, one of the seminal studies examined
the effects of language proficiency on pragmatic competence. Bardovi-
Harlig and Dörnyei
(carried out a study with 173 ESL and 370 EFL learners who were asked to do a
Discourse Completion Task in order to identify the grammatical and pragmatic infelicities
in the given scenarios. The results of this study revealed that those participants with
higher levels of language proficiency were more successful in identifying the mistakes
compared to their peers. The results of this study were also supported by its replications
(Schauer, 2006). Another study investigating the impact of language proficiency as well
as the study abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension was conducted by Taguchi.
The results of the cross-sectional study including 25 native English speakers and
64 Japanese collage learners showed that those participants with higher language
proficiency and with longer experiences of study abroad were quicker and better in
comprehending the audios recorded in the target language. However, relevant literature
also includes some studies presenting counter-argument to the positive impact of
language proficiency on pragmatic competence. For example, Schmidt’s famous Wes’s
study revealed that although the participant did not have enough level of general
language competence, he could maintain effective communication. Conducting a study
with Japanese learners of English, Matsumura found that proficiency levels did not
directly affect their sensitivity to pragmatic infelicities and the results of another study
by Shardakova also supported that of Matsumura revealing a discrepancy between
language proficiency and apology productions.
The impact of learning environment has also been one of the points of attention in
the studies of pragmatic competence. The studies conducted on learning environment
have generally focused on a comparison of ESL and EFL contexts for language learning.
Most of these studies, though there are some presenting counter-evidences, have pointed
at the positive effects of learning a target language in ESL contexts compared to EFL ones
particularly in terms of the development of pragmatic competence. For example, the two
studies mentioned in the previous paragraph and its replication by Schauer, point at the
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
283
contributory nature of conducting language studies in ESL settings compared to EFL
ones. The results of these studies revealed that the participants in the ESL context were
better at identifying pragmatic infelicities as they were exposed to the appropriate
usages of target forms in its natural setting. Referring to a personal experience of
learning a target language in an EFL context, Cohen also reports that his level of
pragmatic competence did not reach the desired levels due to the limitations stemming
from the EFL setting.
Considering the context of language learning, the length of residence in the target
language context has been another concern in the investigations of pragmatic
development. Most of the studies aiming to investigate the impact of the length of
residence showed the positive effects of staying in the target culture on the development
of pragmatic competence. For instance, working with 31 non-native speakers of Spanish
who stayed in Spain for a period of four months, Bataller found that there is a positive
correlation between the length of residence and the development of some aspects of
request strategies. The positive contribution of long periods of staying in the target
culture is also supported by Ren who worked with 20 Chinese learners of English with
study abroad experiences of over an academic year. The researcher found that this
experience not only contributed to the development of the pragmatic performances but
also raised the level of pragmatic awareness. The results of these studies are also
maintained by Taguchi who found that studying abroad for a semester improved cross-
cultural adaptability as well as developing appropriate language production.
Taking the different models of pragmatic competence and some studies on the
issue into consideration, it can be stated that pragmatic competence is an essential
component of general language competence if the aim of language is to communicate.
Pragmatic competence enables language users to establish and maintain appropriate and
effective interaction besides understanding and giving meaning to the messages based on
contextual information. Without pragmatic competence, communication would
eventually breakdown.
WHY TO TEACH PRAGMATICS
Pragmatic competence is crucial for healthy communication because the lack of it
can result in communication breakdowns which can even have severe consequences in
some cases The situation in which a language user cannot maintain effective
communication because of the inability to appropriately use the language and the
incapability to understand the intended meanings is described as pragmatic failure. That
is why; ESL and particularly EFL curriculum should cover teaching pragmatics if the main
purpose of language learning is to communicate.
However, although there has been a great interest concerning the value of
pragmatic competence, there is still some deficiencies in terms of including pragmatics
instruction in language education. What is commonly stated by these researchers is that
language instruction still focuses on teaching the linguistic and lexical features of the
target language while ignoring the pragmatic aspects. Despite the introduction of and
growing awareness towards communicative competence and approaches to develop it,
there have not been enough attempts to teach and especially assess pragmatic
competence. The possible reasons for the lack of pragmatic instruction are proposed as
follows: instructional materials, limited instructional time, artificiality of the activities,
teachers’ inadequacies in terms of language competences or instructional skills and the
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
284
attitudes towards teaching pragmatics. Whatever the probable reasons are, it is stated by
different researchers that pragmatic instruction does not get the necessary attention it
deserves.
Considering the inadequacy of pragmatic instruction, some researchers also
explain that the heavy emphasis on teaching linguistic features may result in a good
command of grammatical competence. However, having a high level of linguistic
competence does not guarantee a high level of pragmatic competence. It is commonly
stated that even advanced learners experience pragmatic failures regardless of their
levels of linguistic competence. It is also possible that learners who are not well
developed in terms of pragmatic skills may adopt transfers between L1 and L2 as a
strategy to deal with communicative cases. However, the transfers at pragmatic levels
may not be as healthy as those at other levels. This naturally results in problems in
communicative situations and can negatively affect the language development of the
learner as well as the self-confidence in language learning.
Regarding the frequency of experiencing communicative situations, it is essential
to develop pragmatic competence; thus, including pragmatic competence as a significant
part of language instruction is crucial. In order to highlight the significant nature of
teaching pragmatics, Kasper maintains that what should be discussed should not be
whether to teach pragmatics, the focus of attention should be how to teach it in language
classes. Providing learners with instruction means providing them with the necessary
input they can utilize. Accordingly, language input offers learners not only the linguistic
knowledge but also the knowledge of appropriate ways of using the language to promote
effective interaction and to advance pragmatic abilities. Input provided through
instruction can be considered as a stimulating factor in language learning. In order to
underline the significance of providing instruction for the development of pragmatic
competence, presenting some studies would be more helpful.
A great percentage of the studies on the effects of, either explicit or implicit,
instruction revealed the positive impacts of instruction on pragmatic development. For
example, in three studies conducted successively one year after the other, Takimoto
found that providing learners with instruction and input in different sorts would yield
positive contributions in the learning process. Takimoto aimed to examine the
effectiveness of structured input tasks accompanied by explicit information, structured
input tasks without explicit information and problem-solving tasks. The results revealed
that the group that received structured input tasks accompanied by explicit information
performed better than the group without explicit information. Based on these results,
Takimoto conducted another study to investigate the impact of deductive and inductive
instruction on the development of pragmatic competence. In this experimental study
with 60 Japanese learners of English, there were three treatment groups receiving
deductive and inductive instruction with problem solving tasks and one control group.
The results of the pre-test, post-test and follow-up tests pointed at the positive
contributions of any treatment types compared to no instruction. The results of these two
studies were also supported by another study by Takimoto (2009). Examining the
effectiveness of structured input instruction, comprehension-based instruction and
structured input instruction, Takimoto found that, though there are some differences
between the treatment groups, those receiving instruction outperformed the others in
the control group.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
285
In a recently-conducted experimental study with 26 Chinese learners of English,
Halenko and Jones found that explicit instruction helped the participants improve their
pragmatic abilities in terms of identifying and producing pragmatically appropriate
language forms. In another experimental research which differed from the previous one
in that it also included implicit instruction in the study, Nguyen, et al. aimed to investigate
the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on pragmatic development. 69 Vietnamese
participants were divided into explicit, implicit and control groups. The results of the
study revealed that, though the group receiving explicit treatment was better than the
implicit one, both explicit and implicit groups were more successful than the control
group with the help of the positive effects of instruction. A different type of instruction
was provided by Rajabi and Farahian with the aim of identifying the effectiveness of
instruction on pragmatic competence. 34 Persian learners of English were divided into
experimental and control groups the experimental one was provided with awareness-
raising instruction. The results showed that pragmatic productions of the group receiving
treatment were significantly better than the control group. The results of these studies
are also in line with those of Fordyce (2014). Both the explicit and implicit groups were
better at pragmatic performances than the control group. On the other hand, the group
receiving explicit instruction outperformed the implicit group considering immediate
and long-term productions. Another recently conducted experimental study belongs to
Farshi and Baghbani. The results of the study revealed that those groups that received
instruction outperformed the control group. The researchers concluded that instruction
has positive contributions on pragmatic production in foreign language settings.
Based on the above-mentioned studies, one can infer that instruction, implicit or
explicit, in pragmatics is beneficial. Most of the studies in the relevant literature revealed
that pragmatic instruction is much more contributory in nature than no instruction as it
provides learners with the necessary input they can utilize in the process of developing
their language abilities. However, presenting mere instruction out of appropriate and
meaningful context would also not yield the desired and expected results. As pragmatic
instruction has an undeniable significance in language development, it is essential to
provide learners the type of instruction which is integrated with other language activities
to raise learners’ awareness and attention towards the appropriate ways of using the
language. It is clear that mere exposure to a huge amount of input is not effective for
pragmatic development. Instead, language input should be incorporated with other
activities in different contexts increasing the meaningfulness of the learning process. In
order to highlight the significance of designing and planning lessons, Solak and Bayar
suggest that language lessons should be organized according to a practice-based
orientation instead of a traditional theory-based orientation. In such meaningful and
practical contexts, learners can have the chance of practicing language beyond
memorizing or mastering the linguistic forms without the ability to apply them in
interactional contexts.
Integrating pragmatic features in language instruction is especially vital in EFL
contexts as learners in these educational settings do not have much chance of learning
and practicing the target language outside the classroom environment. The learners have
limited opportunities for interaction in and exposure to the target language in
communicative contexts. Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor suggest the integration of
pragmatic instruction in language curriculum explaining that exposure to pragmatics
promotes learners’ perceptions of the target language and its speakers.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
286
CONCLUSION
Pragmatic competence should be considered as an inseparable component of
language competence. Therefore, pragmatic features of the target languag
е
should be
incorporated in language instruction as well as linguistic features. In order to equip
learners with the essential pragmatic knowledge, it can be suggested that, first of all, the
importance of pragmatic competence should be internalized. Then the perspectives
should be re-shaped with the purpose of providing learners with the best opportunities
to expose to the pragmatic features and practice them in a variety of contexts. In addition,
language teachers should possess a good command of the target language including a
satisfactory level of pragmatic knowledge so that they can convey what they know to
their learners. In order to teach their learners these pragmatic aspects, teachers should
also have the necessary teaching skills enabling them to adopt different teaching
strategies during their instruction.
To sum up, pragmatic competence is one of the building blocks of language
instruction. If the aim of language education is to teach learners how a language should be
appropriately and effectively used in different interactional settings, it is important to raise
learners’ pragmatic awareness as well as fu
rnishing them with some beneficial strategies
they can utilize to sustain successful communication in diverse settings with different
interlocutors. Therefore, pragmatic competence should be an integral part of language
curriculum. In order to accomplish this, however, there is still some need for further
research aiming to raise much more awareness considering the significance of pragmatic
competence and to come up with better and more productive suggestions and solutions.
REFERENCES:
1.
Allami, H. &Naeimi. A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of
pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics,
43,385-406.
2.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
3.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing
pragmatics and pedagogy together. In: Bouton, L.F. (Ed.), Pragmatics and language
learning, vol. 7.
4.
University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, Urbana, IL, pp. 21
–
39.
5.
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in
requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical base of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. Retrieved from
10.1093/applin/I.l.l
7.
Canale, M. (1983). Language and Communication. In J. C. Ricards & R. W. Schmidt
(Eds.), From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy (pp. 2-
27). New York: Longman.
8.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nded.). Oxford:
Backwell. Kasper, G. (1996). Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition,18, 145-148.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
6 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
287
10.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage
pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
11.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
12.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of
requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning. 62 (2), p. 403-438.
14.
Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationship among interlanguage pragmatic
development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24, 465-91.
15.
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap &
C. W.Morries (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 2, pp. 77-138).
16.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
17.
Nguyen, T., Pham, T., & Pham, M. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and
implicit form focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence.
Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 416-434.
