International Journal of Pedagogics
99
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue07 2025
PAGE NO.
99-103
10.37547/ijp/Volume05Issue07-23
Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Improving Pragmatic
Competence Regarding Acquiring Global and Professional
Verbal Communication Speech Acts
Marat Urazaliyevich Yeshanov
PhD student, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 May 2025;
Accepted:
27 June 2025;
Published:
29 July 2025
Abstract:
The ability to communicate aptly in a given social situation is paramount for any global and professional
interaction. For learners of English as a Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL), acquiring pragmatic competence is
particularly difficult to master, often due to the lack of attention provided by ‘grammar
-
first’ approach’ to
language teaching. This article synthesizes findings from a broader exploration to help understand the teaching,
learning, and assessment of pragmatic competence in the context of verbal communication and speech acts. It
analyzes the common challenges learners and teachers face in typical EFL/ESL contexts, examines effective,
evidence-based instructional strategies aimed at raising pragmatic awareness, and discusses various assessment
strategies. The findings confirm the need to shift the focus from grammar to explicit teaching of pragmatics in
context, especially in the use of authentic materials. In addition, the article critiques the use of traditional
assessment tools, particularly Discourse Completion Tests (DCTs), calling for the use of more valid approaches
such as the analysis of naturally occurring data and multi-dimensional assessment frameworks. In conclusion, the
findings collectively argue for an integrated comprehensive action-oriented approach where the teaching and
assessment of pragmatics are core components of language education, preparing learners for the nuanced
demands of real-world communication.
Keywords:
Pragmatic competence, social norms, appropriateness, pedagogy of pragmatics, teaching model,
audiovisual input, naturally occurring data, discourse completion test, multi-componential assessment,
metapragmatic awareness.
Introduction:
The growing importance of boundary-
less communication in an increasingly globalized world
is underlined by the fact that it would be great to
communicate across cultures and professional
boundaries equally importantly. Such effectiveness
does not qualify only on the what is said (grammatical
competence) but rather, critically, on how it is said
(pragmatic competence). Pragmatics is the study on
language from the user's perspective as they make
choices against constraints within social settings and
the subsequent effects on others through the use of
their language (Hapsari, 2013). Its cover includes
speech acts like appropriate interpretation and
production,
e.g.
request,
apology,
refusal),
conversation principle adherence, and implied
meaning comprehending. Pragmatic competence is the
ability of the speaker to effectively use the language
within social settings, understanding speech acts
together with the social norms and contextual
appropriateness in the use of language (Taguchi, 2011).
However, pragmatic competence is hardly any less
critical as a challenge for EFL/ESL learners. There is no
guarantee that a person who knows the grammar well
will use grammar appropriately in every situation.
Historically, grammatically flawless sentences might
still be socially inappropriate and thus bring about
miscommunication or cultural misunderstandings. The
development of pragmatic competence in an EFL
situation is, however, often confronted with additional
challenges posed by the use of languages in the typical
language learning environment. These include a lack of
exposure to real use in language, an over-dependence
International Journal of Pedagogics
100
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
on textbooks that present pragmatics in a somewhat
naive or improper way, and classroom dynamics that
result in the limited opportunity for true social
interaction.
Workplace language use has been studied from many
angles in which speech acts figure prominently as a
bedrock for the description of the communicative
interaction (Koester, 2006). It is undeniable that speech
acts exist in a state of theoretical incompleteness, and
yet their application makes them practically accessible
to learners, thus demonstrating how language users
can actually reach their goals in the workplace.
The learning of speech acts, especially directives, is
imperative for the upcoming English teachers.
Directives largely exist in the workplace, and their
effective use can create a big difference in the
dynamics of organizations (Vine, 2004). Some students
may have difficulty performing or recognizing some of
the other forms of directives, which complicates the
communicative competence. This is because most
effective instructive strategies would require going
through, understanding, and practicing command
functions and mitigative ones with a possible
understanding of the use of contextual power status.
Research indicates that directives in workplaces often
manifest beyond traditional imperative forms, with
many expressed in declarative and modal constructions
(Vine, 2004). Future educators should familiarize
themselves with these varied linguistic structures to aid
students in navigating real-world professional
communication.
In addition, cultural awareness is key in understanding
speech acts. Non-native speakers may be using
directives with indirectness that may be typical within
their own culture. It is the educators' task to foster
awareness of cultural diversity and teach learning
strategies to empower students to adapt their speech
acts according to workplace context without losing
their identity (Li, 2000).
Disagreements at work can be complex and may
require extended negotiation to find a resolution. The
following shows a conversation in a form of scenario-
based communicative dialogue acts representing a
functional-communicative (discursive) speech between
an English teacher, Nuriya, and her principal, Alex, on
how two professionals can address differences in their
views over the span of a minute brief discussion.
It starts with Nuriya questioning the principal's
proposal regarding purchasing new language software.
NURIYA: "Okay, but hold on, what are our other options
here? We've also got Laura, our new teaching assistant,
who could help support the students who are
struggling."
Alex listens, allowing for about minutes of expansion in
the discussion about general staffing issues and
Nuriya's move to take advantage of the new teaching
assistant.
Alex then transitioned the conversation back gently to
the early topic of conversation, also to moderately
disapprove of Nuriya's counter-argument while
agreeing with her edge.
Nuriya: "Just seems a bit silly to me to spend that much
on software for a single semester."
NURIYA: "I just don't think it's worth it for a two-week
trial period, I mean..."
NURIYA: "I suppose it's just the extra money, but you
say that's not an issue."
ALEX: "We can afford it."
ALEX: "No. Yeah, but there's no need for you to struggle
on with oversized classes, okay?"
This is indicative of the relational work in professional
disagreement. Superior, Alex invests a lot of effort to
manage the conversation affording her employee's
input. The learners will get demonstration of how it
offers not only specific languages to disagree politely,
but also how significant culture is in an organization
regarding arrangements of these interactions.
Researchers focusing on these gaps have moved
increasingly toward effective identification of both
teaching and assessment approaches to the
improvement of students' pragmatic skills. This paper
presents important findings from the latest research to
give an overview of this field. It answers the following
research questions:
1.
What are the primary challenges in
teaching and learning pragmatic competence in
EFL/ESL contexts?
2.
What instructional strategies have been
identified as effective for enhancing learners'
pragmatic awareness and performance?
3.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of
different methods used to assess pragmatic
competence?
By examining these questions, this article aims to
consolidate the current understanding of how to
effectively teach, learn, and assess pragmatics to better
prepare learners for the complexities of global and
professional verbal communication.
METHODS
This article delivers a systematic review and thematic
analysis constituting the methodology for collecting
data of relevant papers and comparing and analyzing
International Journal of Pedagogics
101
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
instructional experiences on pragmatic competence in
EFL/ESL learners. This research primarily used empirical
studies, theoretical papers, and literature reviews that
addressed issues in the area of pedagogy of pragmatics,
assessment, and other challenges related to
pragmatics.
The analysis sought to distill major themes across the
selected articles, which were distributed into three
domains corresponding to the research questions:
1. Challenges in Pragmatic Language Acquisition
: This
theme collates findings regarding the drawing of
learners' and instructors' attention to contextual
limitations, resource inadequacies, and the very nature
of pragmatic knowledge.
2. Instructional Strategies for Pragmatic Competence
Development
: This theme brings together evidence
regarding effective teaching techniques, including
explicit teaching, use of authentic materials, and
awareness-raising task design.
3. Methods and Challenges in Assessing Pragmatic
Competence
: This theme evaluates and critiques
various assessment devices ranging from traditional
discourse completion tests (DCTs) to analyses of
naturally occurring data and innovative, multi-level
assessment frameworks.
RESULTS
The thematic analysis of the studied research reveals a
consensus on the major challenges, effective
instructional designs, and evolving assessment
practices in the field of pragmatic language learning.
Challenges in Teaching and Learning Pragmatics
Research consistently identifies several key obstacles
that hinder the development of pragmatic competence
in institutional settings.
Contextual Limitations
: In a typical EFL/ESL classroom,
the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of
pragmatics seem to be placed in a straightjacket.
Classrooms are mostly teacher-centered, following a
syllabus, and do not generally allow for any major
amount of authentic, spontaneous interaction required
for developing pragmatic fluency. In contrast to ESL
learners who are immersed in the target language
everyday, EFL learners have very minimal exposure to
English outside the classroom, severely curbing their
chances to perceive and practice real-life pragmatic
norms.
Inadequacy of Teaching Materials
: Materials for
instruction, and especially textbooks, are rather poor
sources of reliable pragmatic input. They are largely
influenced by the author's intuition rather than
empirical studies, and they often represent pragmatic
norms that are either inadequate, naive, or
inappropriate. In some cases, these may present
formulaic expressions of apology without laying down
the crucial information for the sociopragmatic
understanding of when and how to apply them
correctly.
Language education needs to become a powerful agent
in developing the intercultural communicative
competence of our students, i.e., a combination of
language skills with knowledge, skills, and attitudes
that make them “intercultural citizens” (Byram 2018),
who engage in intercultural communication, who can
think and act critically, and who negotiate the realities
of today.
Teacher Competence
: Many language instructors are
not adequately trained in pragmatics. This tends to
bizarrely overshadow grammaticality with pragmatic
appropriateness. Furthermore, "non-native teacher
talk" might have some distinctive characteristics, e.g.
an excessive use of direct strategies due to the
asymmetric power relationship in the classroom, which
would not be modeling natural language use.
Nature of Pragmatic Competence
: Pragmatic
competence is a much more complicated and
multifarious skill. It is different from linguistic
competence such that development in one does not
automatically entail development in the other. The
much articulated but unfortunately neglected
complexity renders teaching as well as assessment of
pragmatic competence through simple rule-based
methods a sheer impossibility.
Instructional Strategies for Developing Pragmatic
Competence
Research has illustrated how targeted instructional
interventions work in solving such problems. There are
well-known findings that immediate instruction,
through either implicit instruction or simple exposure,
is more effective. Role-play and simulation activities,
along with explicit instruction of speech acts, are
promoted by Fatah & Ibrahim (2020) and Yang (2015).
Successful teaching models include the following
techniques:
Explicit Instruction with Awareness-Raising: Highly
effective instruction draws students' attention to
certain pragmatic features: the ways to express them
linguistically and when they are appropriate to use. This
type of instruction allows learners to move from merely
noticing the linguistic forms to understanding their
pragmatic function and social implications.
Use of Authentic Audiovisual Input: EFL students
sometimes lack real-life exposures, and entering video
sequences from films or TV series is a helpful resource.
These audiovisual input examples provide learners with
International Journal of Pedagogics
102
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
contextualized instances of speech acts as they play out
in natural discourse, supplemented by paralinguistic
elements that are frequently absent in the dialogues
published in textbooks. Alcón Soler & Guzmán Pitarch
(2010) have used parts from the TV series Stargate to
successfully teach the speech act of refusals at the
discourse level.
Discourse and Interaction Focus: Effective instruction
should not teach speech acts in isolation but in the
sequential context in which they actually occur.
Teaching proposals now highlight how certain speech
acts, such as refusals, are often co-constructed over
multiple turns. Thus, instruction should emphasize the
interactional character of conversation and enable
learners to manage entire communicative sequences.
Sequenced Communicative Activities: It should also
guide learners from more controlled to less-controlled
forms of activities. This may be achieved through the
main three-step procedure:1) supplying input with
authentic language samples, 2) adding comprehension
and production task after the input, and 3) introducing
the pragmatics in parallel with the rest of instruction.
Assessment of Pragmatic Competence
The assessment of pragmatic competence is as
challenging as its instruction and requires methods that
can capture the complexity of language use in context.
Critique of Traditional Methods
: The most commonly
used methods, namely Discourse Completion Test
(DCT) and roleplays, have considerable drawbacks.
DCTs are written scenarios followed by a prompt for
the subjects to respond. It serves the purpose of data
collection efficiently, but very often the answers are
short, unnatural, and do not reflect a true competence
in speech act from the perspective of a learner. While
there is some interaction in roleplays, they are short in
duration and may not yield adequately rich or natural
data. The study conducted by Pan (2023) shows that
learner performance on the three methods differed
significantly; therefore, they are not equally valid in
assessing pragmatic ability.
Regarding Naturally Occurring Data (NOD):
Analyzing
naturally occurring spoken data is a more valid method
since it presents a direct and representative picture of
a learner's pragmatic use. In her study, Pan indicate
that while learners had their 'best' performance in DCT
(most probably benefiting from preparation time),
their performance in the NOD was perceived as the
most natural, exhibiting the most pragmatic
information. The crucial aspect is that a significant
correlation between grammatical competence and
pragmatic competence was found, and only through
NOD, indicating that this relationship is most salient in
a natural and unplanned discourse.
Multi-componential Assessment Frameworks
: More
novel and precise assessment tools are discourse-
based and recognize that pragmatic competences are
not simply a single ability but a cluster of related skills.
Ifantidou and Tzanne (2012) propose an assessment
tool that evaluates learners on three distinct but
interrelated levels:
Pragmatic Awareness
: The ability to correctly interpret
the overall force and implied meaning of a text or
utterance.
Metalinguistic Competence
: The ability to use correct
terminology in analyses of linguistic features.
Metapragmatic Awareness
: The ability to make
successful links between linguistic features and their
pragmatic effect.
This graded approach would allow for more fine-
grained diagnosis of a learner's capabilities since it
recognizes the fact that a learner may have the ability
to correctly interpret an intention (high pragmatic
awareness) but at the same time show an inability to
explain which linguistic cues led to that interpretation
(low metapragmatic awareness).
DISCUSSION
The findings reveal a clear trajectory in the field of
pragmatic language instruction. The data show a well-
established evolution in pragmatic language training.
The already-recognized challenges facing traditional
language instruction have stimulated a movement
towards more defensible, evidence-based pedagogical
and assessment practices. The EFL context lays bare its
limitations, especially with regards to authentic input,
thereby emphasizing the necessity of explicit
instruction
that
raises
awareness.
Pedagogic
approaches that utilize authentic audiovisual resources
and focus on interaction at the level of discourse are
not merely adjunct but rather vital in bridging the gap
between the classroom environment and the
communicative demands of the real world.
Moreover, the maturation of assessment practices also
speaks to a higher sophistication in the area. While the
criticism of various measures like DCTs and their
corresponding support for working with naturally
occurring data mark one movement toward greater
ecological validity, Pan's (2023) finding raises another
potent issue: that meaningful link between
grammatical and pragmatic competence only
materializes in real-life communication. This brings into
focus that linguistic resources may be vital, but their
effective use for pragmatic purposes is a distinct skill.
Practically, this is the skill that ought to be observed
and evaluated in the spontaneous use, thereby
advocating for the distinct status of pragmatic
International Journal of Pedagogics
103
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijp
International Journal of Pedagogics (ISSN: 2771-2281)
instruction as an avenue separate but integrated in the
curriculum, instead of being viewed as an assumed by-
product of grammar instruction.
The multi-componential assessment framework
proposed by Ifantidou and Tzanne (2012) provides a
powerful diagnostic tool in consonance with this view.
It enables educators to distinguish between pragmatic,
metalinguistic and metapragmatic awareness, enabling
them to compare specific areas of strength and
weakness in their learners and respond with targeted
instruction. It is establishing that pragmatic
competence is a scaleable ability which develops over
time, and assessment of it ought to be jogged through
these development stages instead of superficial
inclusion of a binary correct/incorrect judgement.
Findings expose a serious deficit in the training of pre-
service English language educators with respect to
pragmatic competence. Explicit instruction and
systematic assessment strategies are lacking, so that
newly trained educators may not be able to teach their
students the necessary pragmatic skills. Evidence-
based best teaching practices will promote better
understanding of the verbal part of communication,
the basis of really effective professional interaction in
English.
Training must increase attention to pragmatics,
ensuring the strategies match the communicative
needs of learners in a range of settings. This can be
achieved through reforming the curriculum with
respect to theoretical knowledge and practical skills
concerning speech acts and their application in
communication around the world.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, teaching, learning, and assessment
practices focusing on pragmatic competence are
essential in shaping effective pre-service English
language educators. By addressing the current
shortcomings in pragmatic training and developing
robust assessment methods, education systems can
better prepare future teachers and, subsequently, their
students for successful global communication. A
paradigm shift is required to effectively facilitate the
pragmatic competence of EFL/ESL learners for global
and professional communication. This shift entails
moving from a narrow focus on linguistic form toward
an integrated curriculum explicitly teaching the
functions of language in context. It includes authentic
materials that model real-world interaction and an
assessment toolkit that is valid, reliable, and able to
capture changes in pragmatic ability over time. With
these evidence-based practices in place, language
teaching can equip learners with the requisite tools to
navigate the complex social landscape of intercultural
communication.
REFERENCES
Alcón-Soler, E. A., & Pitarch, J. G. (2010). The effect of
instruction on learners' pragmatic awareness: A focus
on refusals. International Journal of English Studies, 10
(1),
65
–
80.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/113981
Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference:
Language teaching for intercultural and international
dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51 (1), 140
–
151.
https://doi.org/10.1111/FLAN.12319
Fatah, Y., & Ibrahim, N. (2020). The importance of
utilizing pragmatics in EFL/ESL context (pp. 2
–
11).
Research Square.
Hapsari, A. (2013). The role of explicit pragmatic
instruction to improve second language learners'
ideational metafunction of the target language. Journal
of
English
and
Education
(JEE),
7
(2).
https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.v7i2.4473
Ifantidou, E., & Tzanne, A. (2012). Levels of pragmatic
competence in an EFL academic context: A tool for
assessment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9 (1), 47-70.
https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0003
Pan, Z. (2023a). Examination of data collection
methods for pragmatic competence assessment of EFL
learners. International Journal of English Language and
Literature Studies, 12 (2), 159-171.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and
issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289
–
310.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Taguchi, N. (2022). Second language pragmatics: A
historical overview and future directions. In N. Halenko
& J. Wang (Eds.), Pragmatics in English language
learning (pp. 7-25). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894241.003
Yang, Q. (2015). An investigation of the non-English
majors' pragmatic competence. Journal of Language
Teaching
and
Research,
6
(6),
1289-1296.
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0606.16
Youn, S. J. (2014). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2
pragmatic production: Investigating relationships
among pragmatics, grammar, and proficiency. System,
42,
270-287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.008
