ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MODERN
SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 6 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
1024
DEVELOPING PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN EFL: A FOCUS ON SPEECH ACTS
AND SOCIAL MEANING
Axmedova Miyassar
Teacher. Fergana state university.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15707697
Annotation.
This article examines the role of speech acts in the development of
pragmatic competence among EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners, with a specific
focus on how language conveys social meaning. It explores how explicit instruction in requests,
refusals, apologies, and other speech acts can improve learners' ability to communicate
appropriately across cultural and situational contexts. The study argues for the inclusion of
pragmatic elements in language teaching as a means of promoting authentic, socially aware
communication.
Keywords:
Pragmatic competence, Speech acts, Social meaning, EFL teaching,
Intercultural communication, Politeness strategies, Pragmatic instruction, Real-life
communication, Language use in context, Communicative competence.
Introduction
In recent years, the concept of pragmatic competence has gained increasing attention in
the field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching. As communication becomes more
global and intercultural, learners need more than grammatical knowledge to interact
effectively
—
they need to understand how language is used to convey social meaning. One of the
most critical aspects of pragmatic competence involves speech acts, such as requests, refusals,
compliments, and apologies, which reflect the speaker’s intentions and the social relationship
between interlocutors.
In EFL contexts, where learners have limited exposure to authentic social interactions in
English, mastering the appropriate use of speech acts becomes a challenge. Misunderstanding or
misusing these acts can lead to communication breakdowns or unintended offense. Thus,
teaching learners how to use language not just accurately, but also appropriately, is essential for
developing communicative competence.
This article focuses on how speech act instruction can support the development of
pragmatic competence by highlighting the connection between linguistic form and social
meaning. It argues for a more conscious integration of pragmatics into EFL curricula and
presents practical strategies that can be used to teach speech acts effectively in classroom
settings.
Literature Review
The theoretical foundations of pragmatic competence can be traced back to Hymes
(1972), who introduced the notion of communicative competence, extending the scope of
language learning beyond grammar to include sociocultural and pragmatic aspects. Later models
by Canale and Swain (1980) further articulated this framework by identifying components such
as sociolinguistic and strategic competence, both of which are relevant to pragmatic use.
Speech act theory, developed by Austin (1962) and expanded by Searle (1969), provides
a foundation for understanding how language performs actions in social contexts.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MODERN
SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 6 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
1025
Speech acts are often culture-bound and context-sensitive, making their instruction
particularly important in foreign language settings. Learners must understand not only what to
say but how to say it appropriately depending on the situation and relationship between speakers.
Empirical studies have consistently shown that EFL learners benefit from explicit
instruction in speech acts. According to Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993), pragmatic competence
does not automatically develop alongside grammatical competence. Therefore, instruction that
includes examples, awareness-raising, and practice activities is essential. Taguchi (2009)
emphasizes that pragmatics can and should be taught, especially in EFL settings where learners
have limited real-life exposure to the language.
Despite this, speech acts remain underrepresented in many language teaching materials.
Traditional syllabi prioritize structural components of language, leaving out pragmatic
elements that are critical to real-life communication. Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor (2003)
argue that textbooks must be supplemented with tasks that develop learners’ ability to interpret
and produce socially appropriate language.
Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative research approach to explore how speech act instruction
contributes to the development of pragmatic competence in EFL learners. The focus is on
identifying effective teaching strategies, classroom practices, and learners’ responses to
pragmatic instruction.
Participants: The study involved six EFL teachers from three secondary schools and two
universities in Uzbekistan, each with over five years of teaching experience. In addition, 30
intermediate-level EFL learners participated in classroom observation sessions and follow-up
surveys.
Data Collection: Data were collected using three main instruments: semi-structured
interviews with teachers to understand their methods and attitudes toward teaching pragmatics;
classroom observations to examine how speech acts are taught in real-time classroom settings;
and learner feedback surveys to capture student perceptions of pragmatic instruction and its
impact.
Data Analysis: The collected qualitative data were analyzed through thematic analysis.
Recurring themes were identified across interviews, observations, and surveys.
Categories included the types of speech acts taught, teaching techniques (e.g., role-play,
DCTs, discussion), and student engagement and reflection. Ethical approval was obtained from
participating institutions, and informed consent was collected from all participants.
Results
The analysis of data from teacher interviews, classroom observations, and learner surveys
revealed several key findings:
1.
Increased Awareness of Social Meaning
: Learners demonstrated a deeper
understanding of how speech acts such as requests, refusals, and apologies vary depending on
context, social distance, and cultural norms. Students began adjusting their tone, formality, and
indirectness based on situational cues.
2.
Positive Learner Engagement
: Activities such as role-plays, discourse completion tasks
(DCTs), and guided discussions led to high levels of student participation.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MODERN
SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 6 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
1026
Learners reported that these tasks were both enjoyable and useful in helping them
understand “how to say things politely.”
3.
Teaching Practices
: Teachers used a range of techniques including explicit explanation,
contrastive analysis, and contextual modeling. Most relied on authentic or semi-authentic
materials to demonstrate pragmatic usage.
4.
Challenges
: Common obstacles included lack of textbook support for pragmatic
instruction, limited class time, and teachers’ uncertainty about cross
-cultural differences in
politeness norms.
Some students also found it difficult to transfer pragmatic knowledge to spontaneous
speech.
Discussion
These findings reinforce previous research (e.g., Rose & Kasper, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig,
2013) that supports the teachability of pragmatic competence. The positive learner responses and
observable improvement in awareness suggest that
explicit instruction in speech acts
effectively enhances students’ communicative abilities in EFL settings.
The study also highlights the critical role of
contextualization
. When learners are
exposed to speech acts in realistic, meaningful scenarios, they become more capable of
navigating social interactions. This aligns with Taguchi’s (2009) emphasis on meaningful input
and practice for pragmatic development.
However, the lack of institutional support for pragmatics, as well as insufficient training
for teachers, continues to hinder broader implementation. As Kasper and Roever (2005) argue,
pragmatic competence is often overlooked in curricula despite its importance for communicative
success. More comprehensive professional development and curricular reform are needed to
integrate pragmatic elements into standard EFL programs.
The study also revealed a cultural dimension
—
learners initially relied heavily on L1
politeness norms. This confirms the need for
intercultural pragmatic awareness
, helping
students recognize how politeness varies across cultures and languages.
Conclusion
This study confirms that
speech act instruction
plays a significant role in the
development of
pragmatic competence
in EFL learners. Through guided exposure to real-world
language use, students can move beyond grammatical accuracy to achieve effective and socially
appropriate communication.
Teachers who integrate speech acts into their lessons using contextualized and interactive
techniques help bridge the gap between form and function in language use. However, for
pragmatic instruction to be sustainable and widespread, support is needed in the form of
curriculum design, teacher training, and resource development.
Ultimately, teaching language learners not only what to say, but how and when to say it,
is fundamental for fostering meaningful communication in a globalized world. Future studies
might explore longitudinal effects of pragmatic instruction or evaluate its impact in online and
hybrid learning environments.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2025
International scientific journal
«MODERN
SCIENCE
АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 4 / ISSUE 6 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
1027
References
1.
Austin, J. L. (1962).
How to do things with words
. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013).
Developing L2 pragmatic competence: Theoretical and
instructional perspectives
. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.),
The encyclopedia of applied linguistics
(pp. 1
–
6). Wiley-Blackwell.
3.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003).
Teaching pragmatics
. Washington, DC:
Office of English Language Programs, U.S. Department of State.
4.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing.
Applied Linguistics
, 1(1), 1
–
47.
5.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics
(pp. 269
–
293). Penguin.
6.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993).
Interlanguage pragmatics
. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
7.
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005).
Pragmatics in second language learning
. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning
(pp. 317
–
334).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001).
Pragmatics in language teaching
. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
9.
Searle, J. R. (1969).
Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language
. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
10.
Taguchi, N. (2009). Pragmatic competence. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.),
Continuum
companion to research methods in applied linguistics
(pp. 255
–
269). London: Continuum.
11.
Yusupova, S. (2025). Gender-based comparative analysis of respect in linguistic
expression: a study of Uzbek, Japanese, English, and German.
Cogent Arts &
Humanities
,
12
(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2025.2512789.
12.
Yusupova, S. (2025). ECHOES OF DEFERENCE: PARALINGUISTIC CUES OF
RESPECT IN SPOKEN INTERACTIONS AMONG UZBEK, JAPANESE, AND
AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKERS.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(5), 766
–
776.
13.
Yusupova, S. (2025). CROSS-CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS OF RESPECT IN
LANGUAGE.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(5), 126
–
128.
14.
A’zamjonovna, Y. S. (2025). PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF RESPECT IN ENGLISH AND
RUSSIAN COMMUNICATION CONTEXTS.
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES AND
TEACHING METHODS
,
4
(41), 86-90.
