The treatment tasks

4.3.3.7 Teacher interviews

All five teachers were interviewed separately after the treatment in order to explore their impressions about the experiment and their opinion about teaching pragmatic competence (see Appendix F for the interview protocol). The interview was a semi-structured one: the protocol comprised a list of questions, yet allowed for digressions. The treatment group teachers were asked about the most successful task and any problems, questions, or suggestions they had concerning the treatment. The control group teachers received their package of all the treatment task materials and were given a short description of the experiment. They, too, were invited to share their reactions to the tasks as well as the role-plays that their students participated in. We also investigated all five teachers’ attitude towards teaching communicative and pragmatic competence.

Two interview questions overlapped with the students’ questionnaires: teachers were asked about what contexts their students use English outside the classroom and what problems they struggle with. In the data analysis, I will compare the responses of the students and the teachers in these areas. The interviews were conducted in Hungarian in order to avoid any self-consciousness and to provide free expression. Each interview lasted for approximately 20-30 minutes and, with the interviewees’ permission, was tape-recorded and transcribed.

purposes of this study with the aim to provide students with explicit input concerning openings and closings. We wanted to give students first-hand experience in issues of pragmatic competence and to deepen their understanding by letting them discover the rules themselves (cf. Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991; Rose, 2000). Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) definition of pragmatic knowledge was taken into account at this stage, as the activities contained elements with the purpose of enhancing students’ lexical, functional, and sociocultural knowledge as well. Each activity provided room not only for the explicit teaching of openings and closings in various real-life situations, but also for student-centered interaction (see Kasper, 1997a). They also contained group discussions about the pragmatic information and any problems that came up while completing the activities (see Appendix G).

Before the treatment we asked a teacher who was not participating in the project to pilot the activities. Based on her suggestions some modifications were made and one of the original activities was omitted, as she considered it too complicated both for teachers and students. After the pilot phase, each treatment group teacher received a package of the activities; containing detailed instructions, the discussion questions, and the photocopied worksheets for the students. Individually, we walked them through the activities and answered their questions. They were asked to set apart a 35-45-minute block in their regular lessons each week to dedicate to implementing the training materials. Teachers were given a five-week period to cover all four activities. The extra week was provided in order to ensure that all classes could finish the treatment in due time. The control group teachers received their package after the experiment, so that they could also utilize the activities in their classrooms if they wished.

The next sections describe the main points and procedures of the activities (see also Appendix G). In addition to this, the teachers were also given the photocopied worksheets and visual aids needed for the activities. As was mentioned above, we conducted observations in order to see how the activities were actually implemented in each treatment group class. I give an account of the insights gained through the observation in sections 7.1.1 and 7.2.1.

4.3.4.1 How would it sound abroad?

The first activity was designed to raise students’ awareness in the pragmatic differences between Hungarian and English, especially pertaining to greetings and forms of politeness. It was based on a short dialogue that students had to translate from Hungarian to English. The conversation did not contain difficult grammar or vocabulary, but was completely Hungarian in nature, comprising elements that can not be directly translated into English (such as the formal and informal forms and some greetings). The dialogue provided a very good opportunity for a discussion concerning the pragmatic differences between the two languages. In the lead-in phase teachers encourage students to brainstorm pragmatic differences between English and Hungarian (the lack of formal and informal forms in English, etc). After the translations are completed, the teacher facilitates a discussion in which the following issues are brought up:

1. In English How are you? is usually considered a greeting, and not a genuine question. In Hungarian, this phrase (Hogy vagy? or Hogy van?) may communicate genuine interest in the other speaker’s well-being, and the EFL

student might be surprised or worse yet, insulted when not given adequate time or attention to describe his or her stomach problems.

2. Topics of financial state, health, and politics are normally considered “taboo” in English unless close friends are involved. Bringing up these topics, a Hungarian speaker may seem rude to an English native speaker, though the fact is that they speak English with English grammatical rules and vocabulary, but Hungarian pragmatic rules.

3. English greetings, when “imported” into other languages, may take on a different role. In Hungarian, for instance, Helló! has a different usage than the English Hello. As well as being a greeting, it is a leave-taking. I have seen many astonished English native speakers’ faces when Hungarian acquaintances say goodbye to them using Helló.

4. English reserves the forms Aunt/Uncle for children and family members. In Hungarian a similar form (néni and bácsi), as well as the greeting Csókolom! is used by children and adults alike, addressing older adults outside their family as a form of respect.

5. English closings have an elaborate structure, involving shutting down the topic and pre-closing elements. In contrast, speakers of other languages finish a conversation “more abruptly”, which may make the EFL student appear impolite in English.

The piloting phase revealed an interesting observation about this activity. When a group of teacher trainees at Pázmány Péter University completed the translation, one interesting remark the trainees had was that although there were no grammatical mistakes

in the translated dialogue, it still “wasn’t English.” This observation points to the fact that language proficiency cannot be complete without applying the appropriate pragmatic rules of the target language.

4.3.4.2 We can’t say goodbye!

The aim of this activity was to teach and practice the structure of English closings.

In the first part the teacher elicits and teaches some phrases for closing a conversation, such as I’ve got to go now, I’d better let you go, or Take care. In the next part, the students work on reconstructing an elaborate and jumbled dialogue ending (taken from Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991, p. 12). In the discussion phase, the students talk about who is trying to end the conversation and who wants to chat, how the speakers signal their intention to end the conversation, and how they confirm their arrangement (based on the discussion questions in Headway Upper-Intermediate, 1998, p. 57). The follow-up activity is to write a soap opera dialogue where two people in love cannot say goodbye to each other and are trying to maintain the conversation for as long as possible (idea taken from Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1992, p. 39).

4.3.4.3 What are they saying?

This activity is geared towards discussing formal and informal greeting forms. In the warm-up exercise the teacher sticks post-it notes on the students’ backs with a different role on each (such as Mr. Thomas, your new boss; your uncle; your favorite TV-personality, etc). The students’ task is to find out their roles by listening to other people greeting them. The class then discusses the different greeting forms (formal and informal)

and how they were able to express politeness in English. In the second part of the activity students write conversations corresponding to different pictures (taken from Jones, 1981, pp. 5-18). They have to decide whether the situation is a formal or an informal encounter and choose the phrases accordingly.

4.3.4.4 Complete the dialogue!

The goal of this activity is to practice complete openings and closings as well as other conversational elements that make textbook exchanges “come to life”. A very short conversation is given to the students, which they expand by adding a complete opening, closing, and other elements. In the procedures, the teacher is to elicit phrases the students can use to expand the dialogue. These include greetings (Good morning/Hello), post-openings (How are you? – Fine, thanks.), extending the body of the conversation (Do you like living here? Have you heard that they’re building a new store in the neighborhood?), shutting down the topic (It was great to talk to you.), pre-closings (I’ve got to go now. / I’d better let you go.), and terminal exchanges (Bye. / See you later). Students are encouraged to come up with their own ideas based on the previous activities of the pragmatic program. After the students are finished working on the dialogues, they discuss the differences between the original and the new conversation, in regards to openings and closings and how the original dialogue became more life-like.