investigating english home language and l2 learner‟s ability to access pragmatic and contextual ...

255 Pages·2013·4.92 MB·English

INVESTIGATING ENGLISH HOME
LANGUAGE AND L2 LEARNER‟S ABILITY
TO ACCESS PRAGMATIC AND
CONTEXTUAL ASPECTS OF A LITERARY
TEXT

by
Bernice Badal
Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
M(Phil) in Second Language Studies at the University of Stellenbosch
Supervisor: Taryn Bernard
Co-supervisor: Dr R. Richards
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Department of General Linguistics
March 2013

i
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
DECLARATION

By submitting this Dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work
contained therein is my own original work, and that I am the sole author, unless where
otherwise explicitly acknowledged or stated. I hereby attest that I have not previously, in its
entirety or in part, submitted it for obtaining any qualification, at any other academic or
learning institution.

Bernice Badal
February 2013
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:3)
(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:83)(cid:92)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:139)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:69)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:92)
(cid:36)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:71)
ii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this body of work to my father Mr Mark Ponsamy who passed away
this year. I thank him for the passion and love for English that he inculcated in me through
the use of stories, idioms and proverbs.

iii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank you Lord Jesus for Your Grace over me this year.

I am eternally grateful to the following people:
Taryn Bernard, my supervisor for her invaluable advice, support and contribution to
this thesis. (We made it!)
Dr Rose Richards my co-supervisor who provided the calm amidst the storm and for
her contribution to this thesis
Rowan Phillips (my friend and sometimes enemy) for being there with love, support,
and advice, along with standing in the gap when it was sorely needed. I value your
opinion and honesty; “We learnt a lot indeed!”
I thank the participants who volunteered to be a part of this study at such a crucial
time of their lives;
Oliver Saunders, for always being a phone call away, midnight raids and chocolate
overdoses;
Mandy for support from afar
Everyone who in the littlest way tried to make my life more comfortable

My husband, Arn, for copious cups of coffee, love and support (your cooking will be
missed…) and my daughters, Andy and Kerry, for all the hugs and kisses, support and
unwavering belief.

iv
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ABSTRACT
This study investigates differences in L1 and L2 Grade 12 learners‟ interpretation of an
English literary text. In particular, the research focuses on pragmatic features of the text, or
features which require knowledge of the cultural and situational context in order to be
understood. It is hypothesised from the outset that L1 learners will be more adept at
interpreting the pragmatic features of the text since L2 learners may lack the necessary
linguistic and cultural knowledge needed to derive meaning from an English literary text.
The research takes the form of a qualitative study in which data was derived from ten
participants in the form of a standardised test and semi-structured interviews. The test was
based on F. Scott Fitzgerald‟s The Great Gatsby and aimed to determine learners‟ textual and
pragmatic competence through a series of questions. Semi-structured interviews then
followed in order to investigate the students‟ own reasons for shortcomings in the test. In
addition, the research draws on theories put forth by Brown and Levinson (1978) and Sperber
and Wilson (2005) regarding “pragmatic competence”, Hymes‟ (1972) notion of
„communicative competence‟, as well as research into how narratives are embedded into
cultural mores, customs and norms. These concepts and ideas were incorporated into the
research so far as they could assist in articulating the reasons for shortcomings in the literacy
test.
The two methods of data collection and subsequent analysis generated significant information
which was then correlated. First, the L1 learners outperformed their L2 peers in the literary
test, both in terms of understanding the literary elements and in terms of understanding the
cultural and contextual elements of the text. Second, the semi-structured interviews revealed
two contrasting methods of language socialisation pertaining to the learners: while the L1
learners acquired English through direct methods and were found to engage more with
English literary texts in the home, the L2 learners generally revealed that English was not
practised outside of the classroom and engagement with English or English texts was not
explicitly encouraged in the home. The study reveals that inadequate exposure to a language
not only affects text-comprehension on a grammatical level, but prevents the learner from
engaging with and understanding critical pragmatic elements of the literary text such as
idioms, metaphors and other cultural references.

v
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... v
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction to the research problem ..................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background to the study .......................................................................................... 1
1.2. Situational context ................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1. Research question ............................................................................................ 3
1.3.2. Research hypotheses ........................................................................................ 4
1.3.2.1. Hypothesis One: Pragmatic knowledge is essential to the comprehension
and production of a text. ............................................................................................ 4
1.3.2.2. Hypothesis Two: Pragmatic knowledge differs amongst L1 and L2
speakers. 5
1.5. Chapter outline ........................................................................................................ 7
1.6.1. Core terminology ................................................................................................. 8
1.6.1. Illocutionary and Sociolinguistic competence ................................................. 8
1.6.2. Native Speaker ................................................................................................. 8
1.6.3. Linguistic competence ..................................................................................... 9
1.6.4. Target language ................................................................................................ 9
1.6.5. L1 Speaker ....................................................................................................... 9
1.6.6. L2 Speaker ....................................................................................................... 9
1.6.7. Pragmatics ........................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 10
Literature Review................................................................................................................. 10
2.1. The L1 speaker ...................................................................................................... 10
2.2. The complexities of the “home language” English classroom in South Africa .... 11
vi
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3. The concepts of „language proficiency‟ and „communicative competence‟ ......... 13
2.4. Linguistic competence: Linguistic barriers to the interpretation of literary texts . 14
2.5. Pragmatic competence and the interpretation of literary texts .............................. 17
2.6. Influence of culture on pragmatic interpretation ................................................... 20
2.7. Cultural embeddedness of narratives ..................................................................... 24
2.8. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................. 26
Research Methodology ........................................................................................................ 26
3.1. Qualitative research ............................................................................................... 26
3.1.1. Selection of participants ................................................................................. 27
3.1.2. Ethical precautions ......................................................................................... 27
3.2. Language profile of respondents ........................................................................... 28
3.2.1. AA .................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.2. BB .................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.3. CC .................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.4. DD .................................................................................................................. 29
3.2.5. EE ................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.6. FF ................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.7. GG .................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.8. HH .................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.9. II ..................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.10. JJ .................................................................................................................... 31
3.3. Method of data collection ...................................................................................... 31
3.3.1. Literature contextual test................................................................................ 31
3.3.2. The Great Gatsby ........................................................................................... 32
3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................ 35
3.4. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 37
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 37
4.1. Approach to data analysis ...................................................................................... 37
vii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
4.1.1. The research test ............................................................................................ 37
4.1.2. Description of LCT ........................................................................................ 38
4.1.3. Data obtained from LCT and Interviews ....................................................... 39
4.1.4. Group results .................................................................................................. 40
4.1.5. Observations .................................................................................................. 40
4.2. Interviews ....................................................................................................... 41
4.2.1. Early language socialisation .............................................................................. 42
4.2.2. Cultural identity ................................................................................................. 42
4.2.3. Prior knowledge ................................................................................................. 48
4.2.4. Challenges in L1 class and in studying literature .............................................. 52
4.3. Questionnaire and interview data based on responses to pragmatic questions ..... 59
4.3.1. L1 participants ............................................................................................... 59
4.3.2. L2 participants ............................................................................................... 61
4.4. Concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 64
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 64
5.1. Research hypotheses .............................................................................................. 64
5.1.1. Hypothesis One: Pragmatic knowledge is essential to the comprehension and
production of a literary text.......................................................................................... 64
5.1.2. Hypothesis Two: Pragmatic knowledge differs between L1 and L2 learners66
5.2. Research aim .......................................................................................................... 69
5.4. Strengths and weaknesses of the study .................................................................. 70
5.5. Recommendations ................................................................................................. 71
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 72
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX E .......................................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX F......................................................................................................................... 246
viii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ABBREVIATIONS

CAPS Curriculum Assessment Policy
DoE Department of Education
FAL Further Additional Language
GDE Gauteng Department of Education
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
LCT Literature Contextual Test
LoLT Language of Learning and Teaching
NS Native Speaker
NNS Non Native Speaker

ix
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction to the research problem

1.1. Background to the study
While many contemporary societies are multilingual, South Africa has a distinctive linguistic
landscape which developed from unique historical and political circumstances. After the fall
of apartheid and the first democratic elections in 1994, the new South African dispensation
made an attempt to create unity between different cultures, and thus officially recognised
eleven languages in the new legislation. In practice, these languages are not spoken
everywhere and all the time but, as with many multilingual societies, English is used as a
lingua franca in many social contexts (Titlestad 1996; Alexander 2001). Furthermore, many
non-native English speakers perceive English to be a “global language” and the language of
economic prosperity and thus forgo the use of their mother tongues in an effort to gain access
to economic sectors of society and to increase personal wealth (Wright 2002; De Klerk and
Gough 2002). This language shift is particularly evident among young South Africans, and
has a tremendous impact on, and consequences for, educational contexts in South African
society (see, for example, Murray and Nhlapo 2001; Manyike and Lemmer 2008; Prinsloo
and Janks, 2002; Barry 2003).
Given the diversity of cultures in South Africa, the South African classroom is typically a
multicultural one. The school curriculum is structured in such a way that students are
required to take two languages: one language as a “home language” (that is, language
learning that takes place on a first-language (L1) level, where students are assumed to be
mother-tongue speakers of that language), and a second language (L2), or “Further
Additional Language” (FAL). A general trend is that many children who claim L1 English
status at school actually come from homes where parents are from mixed cultural
backgrounds, and often their L1 is not English. Some learners, who claim English as their
main language, are not native speakers (NS) in the sense that their parents are not English
speaking, and neither is their extended family. In some families where the parents are from
different cultural origins, a decision is often made in respect of choosing English as the
language of communication.
1