Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
110
sensitivity, emphasizing the importance of maintaining ethical standards in cross-
cultural communication.
6. Future Trends: Consider discussing future trends and potential developments
in the field of secondary interpretation in light of increasing language contact and
globalization. Explore how interpreters can adapt to evolving linguistic landscapes and
technological advancements to meet the demands of a rapidly changing global
communication environment.
In conclusion, language contact in the context of globalization has a profound
impact on the process of secondary interpretation. While it can enrich interpreters
’
linguistic skills and broaden their cultural horizons, it also presents challenges in terms
of stylistic, lexical, and syntactic differences between languages. To navigate these
challenges effectively, interpreters must develop a deep understanding of both source
and target languages, as well as the cultural contexts in which they operate. By
embracing linguistic diversity and adapting to the evolving landscape of global
communication, interpreters can enhance their ability to facilitate cross-cultural
understanding and promote effective communication in an interconnected world.
References
1.
Baker, Mona.
“
In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation.
”
Routledge, 2018.
2.
Grosjean, François. “
Bilingual: Life and Reality.
”
Harvard University Press, 2010.
3.
Holmes, James S.
“
The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.
”
John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1988.
4.
Poplack, Shana.
“
Code-Switching (Linguistic).
”
The International Encyclopedia of Language
and Social Interaction, 2015.
5.
Sánchez, Rosina Márquez. “
Translation and Language Contact in the Digital Age.
”
Multilingual Matters, 2017.
LINGUODIDACTIC ISSUES IN ENHANCING STUDENTS
’
PRAGMATIC
COMPETENCE
Eshchanov (Yeshanov) Marat Urazaliyevich
PhD Student
Uzbekistan State World Languages University
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
111
Abstract
The aim of the article is to discuss the linguodidactic issues of incorporating pragmatic
competence into English language education. It also highlights innovative trends in the instruction
of pragmatic competence in English language classrooms and their reflection in international
communication and English teacher professional development context.
Key words:
English language training, English as an international language, communication,
approach, pragmatic, pragmatic competence, teaching, curriculum, learner, task, fluency, discourse,
method, strategies, context, instruction
Learning and mastering English for international communication and various
specific purposes in both educational and professional contexts play a pivotal role in
the current globalized world. Being tensely connected with 21 century skills,
comprehensive English language training allows advanced and pragmatic mutual and
global cooperation between groups of educators and stakeholders and diverse
communities right across the world and boosts social and personal developments in
communications as well as in job industry.
English language teaching has become a popular educational training and
significant component of instructional policy in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Over the
last ten years, a number of projects and official documents have been released in order
to expand advancements in effective training and mastery of foreign languages. One of
the key documents in foreign language education promotion, the resolution of the
Cabinet of Ministers adopted in May 2013 on “Endorsing state educational standard
on foreign langua
ge in continuous education” allowed important scientific and applied
practices in the use and design of approaches to the teaching and training of foreign
languages at all stages of education. This official document highlighted communicative
competence
–
linguistic competence, pragmatic competence, sociolinguistic
competence as the core components of foreign language instruction and proficiency.
As a result, the current practices in foreign language education, especially English
education in the country have benefited a broad set of CEFR-based and innovative
curriculum using Communicative Approach.
Pragmatic competence is viewed as vital for effective communication in English
as an international language (EIL), necessitating its thorough integration into EIL-
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
112
aware pedagogy. However, despite this close association, the recognition and empirical
application of EIL within second language (L2) pragmatics are relatively recent
developments. This status quo is influenced by historical trends spanning both non-EIL
and EIL-aware periods. Bachman (1990) states that the integration of pragmatics into
English language teaching was delayed despite earlier acknowledgment of its
significance within communicative competence frameworks. In the same way, while
the importance of pragmatics in various conceptualizations of EIL is acknowledged,
its explicit incorporation into pedagogy is only now gaining traction. Current attention
in pragmatics pedagogy primarily revolves around exploring teachers
’
and learners
’
beliefs about EIL pragmatics rather than implementing concrete EIL-based pragmatic
teaching methods. This chapter aims to elucidate the historical evolution of the
interface between EIL and pragmatics pedagogy during both non-EIL and EIL-aware
eras.
The term
“
non-EIL era
”
refers to a period when pragmatics pedagogy was not
influenced by the relevant concepts and insights from English as an international
language theory. During this time, pragmatics pedagogy primarily involved descriptive
and acquisitional studies of second language pragmatics, reflecting distinct historical
phases outlined by Tajeddin and Alemi (2020). According to their classification, the
historical trajectory of second language pragmatics can be categorized into three
periods: Descriptive Pragmatic Awareness, Acquisitional Pragmatic Awareness, and
(Critical) Pragmatic Awakening. Building on this framework, we discuss an expanded
classification. In the initial period, primarily dominant in the 1980s, there was limited
emphasis on pragmatics pedagogy. Studies mainly focused on speech acts within a
single language or across cultural domains, exploring speech act realization strategies
in the first language and second language or two native languages. However,
pragmatics pedagogy began to gain momentum in the early 1990s, marking the second
period of L2 pragmatics history, characterized by a focus on acquisitional pragmatics.
During this phase, research centered on the pragmatic acquisition of L2 learners,
addressing topics such as the teachability of pragmatics, effective instructional tasks,
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
113
and the relationship between L2 pragmatics and second language acquisition theories
(Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2010; Barron, 2003; Cohen, 1996, 2010; Cohen & Tarone,
1994; Kasper, 1997; Kasper & Rose, 1999; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Rose & Kasper,
2001, 2020). The descriptive and acquisitional phases of pragmatic awareness largely
align with what is meant by the non-EIL era of pragmatics pedagogy.
While second language pragmatics researchers began consistently addressing
English as an international language (EIL) in pragmatics pedagogy in the 2010s, the
integration of pragmatics into mainstream EIL studies dates back to the 1990s,
particularly evident in conceptual papers and book chapters from the 2000s. Cogo
(2009) advocated for recognizing differences in EIL conversations and the employment
of pragmatic strategies. Murray (2012) stressed the importance of enhancing L2
learners
’
pragmatic competence to prepare them for EIL communication. However, it
has only been in recent years that L2 pragmatics has seriously considered EIL-related
concepts in pedagogy. Pioneering researchers like House (2010) argued for the
development of pragmatic fluency among EIL users, while House (2013) focused on
the development of pragmatic competence in EIL, particularly regarding discourse
markers for expressing subjectivity and connectivity. LoCastro (2012) briefly
addressed the interface between EIL and classroom pragmatic development,
highlighting the dilemma faced by EIL teachers regarding what to prioritize in
language instruction. Ishihara (2012) was among the first to emphasize the
incorporation of EIL in L2 pragmatics pedagogy, emphasizing the need for EIL users
to acquire and practice pragmatic competence in today
’
s globalized world. Taguchi
and Ishihara (2018) reviewed EIL pragmatic studies, advocating for a broader
definition of EIL pragmatic competence centered on speakers
’
creativity and
adaptability in interaction, which includes shaping illocutionary force, co-constructing
norms, navigating communicative demands, and displaying alignment with
interlocutors. This definition underscores the range of abilities necessary for effective
communication in EIL settings.
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
114
Conclusion:
In conclusion, in the light of the importance of pragmatics in English as
an international language, it becomes evident that the strand of pragmatics pedagogy
oriented towards EIL holds significant potential in shaping an EIL-aware approach to
second language (L2) pragmatics instruction. However, in contrast to researchers
focusing on EIL, scholars in pragmatics have only recently begun to engage with the
concept of EIL from a conceptual standpoint. Consequently, there is a lack of research
exploring the perspectives of learners, teachers, and policymakers regarding
pragmatics pedagogy shaped by EIL principles. Furthermore, the actual
implementation of pragmatics instruction informed by EIL-related concepts remains
largely unexplored.
The nascent yet limited intersection between pragmatics pedagogy and EIL
points toward future directions for both instruction and research in pragmatics. In terms
of instruction, EIL should inform the development of teaching materials, instructional
tasks, and assessment methods for learners
’
pragmatic skills. These materials should
encompass examples from both native and non-native English speakers, reflecting
various forms of world Englishes and illustrating variations in pragmatic norms and
conventions. Teaching activities should also focus on developing learners
’
intercultural
negotiation strategies for navigating pragmatic challenges in EIL contexts.
Given the crucial role of teachers in pragmatics instruction, there is a pressing
need for teacher education courses aimed at enhancing teachers
’
knowledge and
practice in pragmatics, with a specific focus on EIL-informed instruction. Additionally,
efforts should be made to integrate pragmatic assessment within the context of EIL,
thereby promoting positive feedback for pragmatics teaching and learning.
The interface between EIL and pragmatics pedagogy presents numerous avenues
for promising research. One essential area is to explore stakeholders
’
perspectives on
pragmatics pedagogy aligned with EIL characteristics. These stakeholders, including
learners, teachers, and educational supervisors, play a pivotal role in shaping and
implementing EIL-based pragmatics pedagogy and should be actively involved and
informed about its developments.
Topical issues of language training
in the globalized world
115
References
1.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2.
Bardovi Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda
for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677 713.
3.
Barron, A. (2019). Pragmatic development and stay abroad. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 43
53.
4.
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic
strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and
Findings (pp. 254 273). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
5.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18(2), 253 267.
6.
García, C. (1999). The three stages of
Venezuelan invitations and responses. Multi lingua:
Journal of Cross Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 18(4), 391 433.
7.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines
and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 225 252.
8.
Ishihara, N. (2012). Incorporating a critical approach into teaching pragmatics: A story based
approach. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 29 36.
9.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 81 104.
10.
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. New
York, NY: Routledge.
11.
McKay, S. L. (2009). Pragmatics and EIL pedagogy. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an
International Language (pp. 227 234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
12.
Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research
and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Lin guistics, 38, 80 101.
13.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and
Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14.
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M. (2020). Pragmatics and good language teachers. In C. Grif fiths & Z.
Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from Good Language Teachers (pp. 189 202). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
15.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development
of language learners
’
pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369 386.
16.
Рахмонов, А. Б. (2022, February). КРЕАТИВНАЯ КОМПЕТЕНЦИЯ КАК ОДНА ИЗ
КЛЮЧЕВЫХ КОМПЕТЕНЦИЙ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛЯ.
In
The 7 th International scientific
and practical conference “Science, innovations and education: problems and
prospects”(February 9
-11, 2022) CPN Publishing Group, Tokyo, Japan. 2022. 842 p.
(p.
469).
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF
INCREASING THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE OF
PHILOLOGY STUDENTS
Farxodova Dilnoza
O‘
zbekiston davlat jahon tillari universiteti
13.00.02
–
Ta
’
lim va tarbiya nazaryasi
