1. RAQUEL GÓMEZ JÚLIA BARÓN XXXIII AESLA CONFERENCE, 16TH-18TH APRIL 2015 ‘I’m afraid I can’t agree with you’. Interrupting and disagreeing in English as a foreign language

2. Objective The objective of this study is to examine the effects of pragmatic instruction in the EFL classroom  Formulaic language  Speech acts of interrupting and disagreeing

3. ILP and speech acts Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)  The acquisition of the L2 pragmatics Some of the areas studied in the field have been › The relationship between grammar and pragmatics › Speech acts › Pragmatic fluency › Social distance › Politeness › Pragmatic awareness › …

4. ILP and Speech Acts Many studies have focused on the acquisition and development of speech acts  assertions, requests, orders, promises, apologies, complaints, suggestions, compliment, compliment responses, offers, refusals, giving advice, … (Trosborg 1987; Takahashi & Dufon 1992; Hill 1997; Hassall 2003; Achiba 2003; Barron 2003; Schauer 2007; Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Economidou-Kogetsidis 2011; Gilabert & Barón, 2013 Alcón 2014; Celaya & Barón 2015, among many others) Even if speech acts have been widely analyzed, some of them, such as interrupting and disagreeing, still need to be more examined in the field (Kasper 2013)

5. The effects of pragmatic instruction Other studies in ILP have shown the positive effects of pragmatic instruction Most of such studies have generally focused on the acquisition of speech acts Fewer studies have shown negative effects of instruction. In these cases, the short period of instruction seems to be an important aspect to consider Alcón 2002; Martínez-Flor 2004; Koike & Pearson 2005; Alcón et al. 2005; Koike 2006; Alcón 2008a, 2008b; Eslami-Rasekh & Mardani 2010; Alcón 2012; Safont & Alcón 2012; Salazar-Campillo 2013; among others

6. The effects of pragmatic instruction Recent research has claimed the need to provide further evidence of the benefits of instruction in a wider variety of tests and in the long run (Alcón 2014)  Use of delayed post tests  Use of post delayed post tests  Triangulation of data

7. Formulaic language The acquisition of formulaic language has been considered as an important aspect both in first and second language development As Concklin and Schmitt (2008) claimed, around one third of the language consists of formulaic sequences and they are constantly used in every day language

8. Formulaic language Since L1 and L2 formulas are sometimes different, learning the TL sequences might benefit learners (Barron 2003; Traverso 2006; Bardovi-Harlig 2010, 2012; Bardovi- Harlig & Vellenga 2012)  Avoiding pragmatic transfer  ‘Successful’ communication

9. Research Question Does teaching formulaic language have a positive effect when learning how to interrupt and disagree in English as a foreign language?

10. Methodology (1) Participants  21 Catalan/Spanish bilinguals learners of English  B2 proficiency level  Teenagers and adults  Middle upper socioeconomic status  15 received pragmatic instruction vs. 6 who served as a control group  Preparatory lessons for First Cambridge Exam (Ready for First book)  Extracurricular 3-hour a week language course (once a week in instructed groups and twice a week in control group)

11. Methodology (2) Pre-test Role-play on current issues in which opinions where confronted

12. Methodology (3) Instructed period 7 SESSIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES ON A WEEKLY BASIS WITHIN THE CLASSES SESSION 1: Activate students schemata and raise awareness on interrupting and disagreeing pragmatics by using some questions on different situations. They went over it in pairs and we corrected open- class.

13. Methodology (4) SESSION 1

14. Methodology (5) SESSION 2: Fill in the gaps exercise to check understanding and acquisition through controlled practice in groups and correction open- class

15. Methodology (6) SESSION 3: Work on stress and intonation and self correction in groups

16. Methodology (7) SESSION 4: Practice in pairs with some controversial issues; they have to use as many expressions as possible

17. Methodology (8) SESSION 5: They choose their favorite 7 sentences (personalization and identity in L2) and they need to use them during different oral activities in class accurately; eventually, they need to “discover” each others’ sentences to promote active listening and interaction. SESSION 6: Watch a video to introduce some interrupting formulae and softeners (appeal to different intelligences and different learners) and work on a dialogue from which softeners have been removed; they complete it and practice orally in pairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUGxPcfPzxQ

18. Methodology (9) SESSION 7: Further practice using First Speaking Paper material (real-life task which promotes critical thinking). Example

19. Methodology (10) Post-test Same role-play as in the pre-test

20. Methodology (11) DisagreeingInterrupting I think/ I don’t thinkBut + … I agree/ I don’t agreeYes but More elaborate expressions like: I understand your point but… I will not go as far as to say that… … More elaborate expressions like: Well… Erm Excuse me Ok but …

21. Results (1)

22. Results (2)

23. Results (3)

24. Results (4)

25. Results (5) Pre-test L1: and what are you going to do with the money. L2: well I don't know I I don't know. L3: I don't think that this card I think that this card is not right because I think that it can it can be a bad influence about the people because maybe they are going to do whatever they want so I think that having this card is not right. L1: ok but I am the bank manager and you both made me win a lot of money and I want to give this present to you so it is good there's no problem you can do it it's not wrong it's the enterprise the business politics policy so you can do whatever you want there's no need to worry about the social implications and all that things. L2:thank you. L1: and there's no that's all I think.

26. Results (6) Post-test L2: well I think that if repatriating an ill citizen from America xxx. L1: ok but it's not for you can't you can't do that only for your interest you have to think in all the people you risk for this decision because it's really really dangerous to repatriate somebody who have an illness that it's unknown and can be really dangerous for everybody. L2: yeah but I'm doing for humanitarian reasons so I'm not doing for my interest I think that if I do this all the citizens are will be really xxx. L1: yes but / I understand your point but / I don't agree because you are still doing something bad for the society in general it's you are if you if you are you are you put the interest of one person in front of all the other people that it's a risk for all the other people and… L2: but why you think this I will not go as far as to say that. L1: yes but the risk is always there and you really don't know the

27. Discussion and conclusion (1) Does teaching formulaic language have a positive effect when learning how to interrupt and disagree in English as a foreign language?  Some positive changes can be traced in the experimental group between the pre and the post test in most of the variables analyzed  Very few changes can be found between the pre and the post test in the control group

28. Discussion and conclusion (2) Does teaching formulaic language have a positive effect when learning how to interrupt and disagree in English as a foreign language?  I think/ I don’t think  The decrease of this sequence, in the experimental group, can be due to the fact that they know other expressions which can be used as an alternative  Since the control group has not been exposed to new sequences they do not incorporate new expressions to their linguistic repertoire, so no changes can be found

29. Discussion and conclusion (3) Does teaching formulaic language have a positive effect when learning how to interrupt and disagree in English as a foreign language?  I agree/ I don’t agree  Both groups tend to overuse this strategy probably because it is an expression which is taught at early stages of language learning  Negative transfer, though, leads to an ungrammatical structure I am not agree  In the case of the experimental group there is an increase of such sequence, probably due to pragmatic awareness

30. Discussion and conclusion (4) Does teaching formulaic language have a positive effect when learning how to interrupt and disagree in English as a foreign language?  But + something  There is a decrease in the experimental group, probably due to the effects of instruction  The increase in the control group might be explained by the fact that they do not have a wide variety of formulaic sequences as in the case of the experimental group

31. Discussion and conclusion (5) Does teaching formulaic language have a positive effect when learning how to interrupt and disagree in English as a foreign language?  More elaborate utterances  Only the instructed group shows an increase of this type of utterances  The expressions the students use are those which they have been exposed to in class and which they have been using during the instruction period

32. Discussion and conclusion (6) In line with previous studies, the teaching of pragmatics seems to have positive effects on the students’ acquisition of the L2 pragmatics (Alcón 2002; Martínez-Flor 2004; Koike & Pearson 2005; Alcón et al. 2005; Alcón 2008a, 2008b; Eslami-Rasekh & Mardani 2010; Alcón 2012; Safont & Alcón 2012; Salazar-Campillo 2013) The fact that some features do not show much improvement after the treatment period might be explained by the short length of instruction (Koike 2006)

33. Discussion and conclusion (7) Even if the instruction period was short, the students were presented with a wide variety of formulaic sequences  If students had been presented with less sequences, they might have retained more Not only L1 formulas might have an effect in the overuse of some sequences (as claimed by Bardovi- Harlig 2012), age is an important aspect which should be considered  Teenagers might not be familiar with some expressions even in their L1, since they are not common in their every day language (relevancy of the task)

34. Discussion and conclusion (8) Limitations  Low number of participants  The design of the pre and post tests  Triangulation of data is needed  The amount of expressions taught per session

35. Discussion and conclusion (9) Further research  Use of a delayed post test  More sessions devoted to instruction and less expressions  Comparing teenagers and adults  Collecting English NSs data (non-verbal communication)  Video record interactions between learners (non-verbal communication)  Students’ perception of usefulness of pragmatic instruction (questionnaires)

36. Thank you Acknowledgments: ICCIC Jordi Ribolleda raquelgomezmendez@ub.edu juliabaron@ub.edu