Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the front-office trainees' pragmatic competence at Valombola VTC. The trainees were tested on their ability to formulate and implement strategies for requests, their politeness principles in the speech acts of refusal and apologetic responses, and the factors that impact their pragmatic competence. Fifteen out of thirty (2022) front-office trainees enrolled in the Hospitality Department's program were chosen for the study using a systematic random sampling method. A Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT) and a questionnaire were utilized as data collection devices. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted on the data about the students' pragmatic abilities. According to the study's results, the trainees' pragmatic competence was a dismal 30% when it came to the verbal act of refusing. It can be concluded that the trainees at the front desk lacked the pragmatic competence necessary to effectively respond to requests, offer apologies, and employ a refusal approach. Taking into account the outcomes of the three speech acts of asking, apologizing, and refusing, their pragmatic competence was found to be fairly low. This is in line with their preference for using their vernacular language when interacting with others, as shown even in the questionnaire. Furthermore, the results show that trainees employ various aggressive apologetic methods and reaction styles when asked to apologize. Finally, the results show that pragmatic competence is affected by several underlying issues, such as a lack of education, a low level of everyday activities involving English, and the misunderstanding of pragmatic implicature. Finally, the TVET sector as a whole and front-desk trainees in particular were advised to take English for Specific Purposes with an emphasis on pragmatic skills.

Keywords

Pragmatic Competence Pragmatic Reference Pragmatic Inference Speech Act of Politeness

Article Details

How to Cite
Nghilinganye, F. M., & Woldemariam, H. Z. (2024). An Investigation into the Pragmatic Competence of the Front-Office Trainees of Valombola Vocational Training Centre. FOSTER: Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(4), 244-257. https://doi.org/10.24256/foster-jelt.v4i4.143

References

  1. Allott, N. (2018) “Conversational Implicature”, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.), accessed 06 June 2022, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Akmajian, A., & Demers, R. A. (2000). Linguistics: An introduction to Language and Communication (4th ed.). New Delhi, India: Prentice – Hall.
  3. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  4. Cohen, A. (2008). Assessing speech acts in a second language. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 302-307). Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters.
  5. Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
  6. Chan, J. C.K & McDermott, Kathleen. (2006). Remembering Pragmatic Inference. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20: 633-639. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1215
  7. Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Crystal, D. (Ed). (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge.
  9. Green, B. C., Johnson, A. and Bretherton, L. (2014) “Pragmatic language difficulties in children with hyperactivity and attention problems: An integrated review,” International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49(1), 15–29.
  10. Horn, L. R. (2006). The border wars, in Klaus von Heusinger & Ken P. Turner (eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, (21–48).
  11. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Boston, MA: Blackwell.
  12. Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking Power: The Politics in language in our lives. Glasgow: Harper Collins.
  13. Larson, R., & Segal, G. (1995). Knowledge of meaning: An Introduction of semantic theory. New Delhi, India: Prentice-Hall of India.
  14. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman Publishers.
  15. Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatics. New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Mey, Jacob L. (1993). `Pragmatics-An Introduction´ (Massachusetts)
  18. Norvig, P. (2007). Inference in Text Understanding. A Conference paper. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221250738.
  19. Searle, J. R. (2005). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics and Cognition, 21(1), 139-157.
  21. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.
  22. Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153–167). Oxford/New York: Routledge.
  23. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics (Learning about Language). London and New York: Longman.
  24. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  25. Wills, C. (2017). Inferences and Human Inference Abilities. Online article.