Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: A Portrait of Adolescent Writing in Multiple Languages

1 Tasks, Pragmatics and Multilingualism in the Classroom: An Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Education programmes have always been in a constant process of adaptation in order to prepare future generations to meet the demands of a challenging world. One of these demands is the ability to learn and communicate in multiple languages. In particular, the European context presents complex linguistic patterns that have been influenced by history, geographical factors and mobility. At the same time, respect for linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the EU’s major values, as stated in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted by EU leaders in 2000 (European Parliament et al., 2000). It concerns not only the 24 official languages of the Union but also the many regional and minority languages spoken by segments of its population. This context also entails challenges in trying to foster foreign language learning while preserving and promoting regional languages in language education nowadays.

On the one hand, learners are expected to develop full competence in a foreign language. Given its hegemony as the lingua franca of international communication, English has become the most frequently taught foreign language in the world, and also in the EU, with the exception of French in the Flemish and German communities of Belgium (European Commission, 2012). During the last three decades, researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) have emphasised the importance of successfully developing the ability to communicate, and have suggested models of communicative competence (Alcón-Soler, 2000; Bachman, 1990; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995, revised in Celce-Murcia, 2007; Savignon, 1983, 2001; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006). In addition to grammatical, discourse and strategic competences, these models have placed pragmatic competence as an essential component. Crystal (1997: 301) defines pragmatics as ‘the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication’. In short, pragmatics is concerned with language use in a social context. Failure to convey and understand intended meaning in communication may lead to what Thomas (1983) calls pragmatic failure. In foreign language learning contexts, dealing with pragmatics in the classroom becomes paramount given the lack of opportunities for learners to interact in the foreign language outside the classroom. Research on interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has therefore increasingly focused on instruction and acquisition of pragmatic competence since the 1990s, with a recent shift into a broader scope of contexts of learning and interaction in the last decade (see Taguchi, 2015a; Taguchi & Roever, 2017).

On the other hand, another challenge in current language education is related to the promotion and protection of the use of regional and minority languages to preserve them as part of the EU’s cultural heritage. With this aim in mind, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was adopted in 1992 (Council of Europe, 1992). It obliges States Parties to actively promote the use of these languages in virtually all domains of public life: education, the courts, administration, media, culture, and economic and social life. Some EU member states have taken a variety of steps to implement education and language policies to meet these demands, which has led to the emergence of multilingual educational contexts. This new learning context brings particular characteristics in which the learning of several languages coexists, which is a dimension in which pragmatics research is still incipient.

Related to the above, scholars have emphasised what has been referred to as ‘the centrality of context in language development’ (Taguchi, 2015a: 3). Traditionally, the idea of the language learning context has been viewed and researched as the classroom or the programme where learning takes place, such as English as a second language (ESL) versus English as a foreign language (EFL), or study abroad versus immersion. In this regard, Bardovi-Harlig (2013) suggests the need to conduct research on pragmatics across different learning environments. One such context that has emerged is the multilingual classroom. Besides, recent research seems to highlight a wider approach to the notion of context in language learning. Taguchi (2015a: 16) has noted that a paradigm shift on research on language learning is taking place, moving ‘to a more ecologically-oriented approach’ in which the relationships between the context, the individuals and learning over time are emphasised. Because the research context may exert an influence on the results of the study (Li, 2010), and we are interested in determining what happens in the real situation in multilingual secondary schools, the present project is carried out in an authentic classroom context, using tasks that are commonly performed in the classroom to elicit the use of pragmatic markers.

The aforementioned ecologically-oriented approach has been largely influenced by a new epistemological trend seeing language learning as a dynamic, non-linear, adaptive and context-dependent process, inspired by the application of dynamic systems theory (De Bot, 2008; De Bot et al., 2007; Verspoor et al., 2011) and chaos/complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) to language learning.¹ Taking into consideration the centrality of context, the current research is based on the idea that the instructional learning context, i.e. the multilingual classroom in this study, and personal experiences may influence the process of pragmatic learning.

Since this book investigates pragmatic learning in a multilingual context, it has also been motivated by the so-called multilingual turn (Ortega, 2014).² Thus, in the present research, learners are seen as having valuable resources in their language background, which may contribute to additional language development, knowledge which may be transferred between languages and contribute to positive outcomes (House, 2010). For this reason, we will take into account the languages in which the learners participating in this study receive instruction.

The book reports on a one-year longitudinal study of multilingual pragmatic transfer in 313 Catalan–Spanish bilingual learners of English as a third language (L3)³ during task performance in intact secondary-school classrooms. In particular, two research questions are addressed: (i) Is pragmatic ability to use pragmatic markers transferred between the languages in which multilingual learners receive instruction in the school context? In particular, how does multilingual pragmatic transfer change over time?; and (ii) Does proficiency level in L3 English influence multilingual pragmatic transfer? This research emphasises the value of being multilingual in the process of pragmatic learning.

The participants in this study completed argumentative writing tasks in order to measure their ability to produce pragmatic markers (textual and interpersonal) in the three languages in which they receive instruction at school (English, Catalan and Spanish). The tasks were administered three times over one academic year in each language (i.e. three times in English, three in Catalan and three in Spanish). A longitudinal design allowed us to capture changes in the interaction between languages, and adopting a mixed method approach provided a more comprehensive picture of this process. Thus, qualitative data were collected from learners’ guided diaries and supplemented with data from lesson observations, field notes and informal conversations with the teachers and the students.

1.2 Contributions of this Book for Classroom Pragmatics Research

This book makes some important contributions to the area of classroom pragmatics research that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, we set out a classroom-based study that would guarantee ecological validity, meaning that the study’s methods, materials and setting approximate the real world under investigation. Moving away from the traditional environments examined, one instructional context that has received little attention in pragmatics is the multilingual classroom. In particular, the few studies that have analysed this setting have mainly investigated infant, primary and tertiary education (Alcón-Soler, 2012; Cenoz, 2003a; Portolés, 2015; Safont, 2005; Safont & Alcón-Soler, 2012; Safont & Portolés, 2015), but we noticed a gap at the secondary-education stage, which the present study intends to fill (see Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018).

Secondly, in line with Alcón-Soler (2015), in this project we examine how pragmatics is learnt in a multilingual classroom, looking both at the product and the process of pragmatic learning. This ‘centrality of context’ (Taguchi, 2015a: 16) pointed out above in the process of pragmatic learning entails understanding its dynamics and complexity (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Mixed method research on pragmatic learning trajectories to date has focused on only one language in a variety of instructional contexts (Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2017; Martín-Laguna, 2019; Sánchez-Hernández & Alcón-Soler, 2019; Taguchi, 2011a, 2012), but little attention has been paid to multilingual classrooms to date in order to explore developmental trajectories (Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2018). From this perspective, this project can be described as a non-interventional longitudinal descriptive study, conducted in intact secondary-school classrooms, where the participants’ points of view are used to trace pragmatic changes following a mixed method approach. Another contribution related to context is the use of authentic tasks to explore pragmatics in the language classroom. In spite of the growing interest in the connection between pragmatics and task-based language teaching (TBLT) nowadays (see González-Lloret, 2019; Taguchi & Kim, 2018a), research on the intersection between TBLT, pragmatics and multilingualism is still incipient (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018).

Thirdly, in contrast to studies that have focused on speech acts, the present book examines a pragmatic target that has not yet been explored in classroom pragmatics research in a multilingual instructional context, that of pragmatic markers. The only exceptions are the studies by Martín-Laguna and her colleagues (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015, 2018). The use of pragmatic markers is an important component in students’ preparation for university entrance exams in the Valencian Community in English, Catalan and Spanish, and, as a result, it receives attention when the focus is on written performance. Tavakoli et al. (2012: 130) have pointed out that ‘writing is, thus, more than just communication of ideas and presentation of ideational meaning; rather, it is viewed as a social engagement which involves writers and readers [sic] interaction’. Traditionally, the use of pragmatic markers has been related to coherence relations and discourse competence. However, this view is rather limited. In line with other scholars (Blakemore, 2002; Carter & McCarthy, 2006; Crismore et al., 1993; Cuenca, 2001; Fraser, 1990; Hyland, 2005, 2010, 2015; Rieber, 1997; Vande Kopple, 1985), we argue that the function of pragmatic markers is not simply text-organising or discursive, but also the result of the writer’s assumptions about the reader and writer’s relationship. In other words, they primarily involve a pragmatic dimension, since there is common ground in all types of pragmatic markers that conveys interpersonal meaning (Hyland, 2005). Taking into account that there is a strong interrelation between pragmatics and discourse both as disciplines (Van Dijk, 2011) and in terms of communicative abilities (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000), in the current monograph we understand that pragmatic markers can be placed in a discourse–pragmatics continuum, and they are analysed from this perspective (see Section 4.4).

Fourthly, the need to take into account the language background of the learners is another aspect that has been considered. Bringing together recent trends in SLA, third language acquisition and multilingualism research, in the multilingual turn learners are thought to possess valuable resources for additional language development (Cenoz, 2013a, 2013b; Cenoz & Gorter, 2011a, 2013, 2014; Cook, 1991, 1992, 2013a, 2013b; House, 2010; Ortega, 2014). In fact, the coexistence of three languages in the school curriculum offers scholars the opportunity to conduct studies on relationships between languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014). This provides new insights into how to exploit the potential of pragmatic multicompetence, to paraphrase Cook (2003), for pedagogical purposes in multilingual instructional settings. As far as we know, the only studies that have addressed transfer of pragmatic markers in a multilingual classroom context are cross-sectional (Martín-Laguna, 2016, 2018; Martín-Laguna & Alcón-Soler, 2015). From this perspective, the current monograph examines multilingual pragmatic transfer over time.

Finally, there seems to be no consensus regarding whether a threshold proficiency level in the target language (TL)⁴ is necessary for the transfer of pragmatic skills (Blum-Kulka, 1982; Bu, 2012; Chang, 2009; Cohen, 1997; Hashemian, 2012; Hill, 1997; Keshavarz et al., 2006; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2003; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Rossiter & Kondoh, 2001; Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Wannaruk, 2008; and Safont, 2011, 2012, 2013; Safont & Portolés, 2015 in multilingual learners). As a result, this study tries to shed light on this issue to determine the role of L3 proficiency on pragmatic transfer.

In summary, the current volume presents a longitudinal classroom-based study on pragmatic transfer in an intact multilingual instructional setting. The analysis combines ecologically valid quantitative and qualitative data sources to account for changes in the relationship between languages over time. The above-mentioned gaps, i.e. (i) the need to examine the secondary-education stage in studies in multilingual instructional settings; (ii) the importance of considering the context in the process of pragmatic learning using context-authentic tasks for collecting data to trace the underlying reasons for changes in longitudinal research; (iii) the possibility of investigating pragmatic aspects beyond speech acts; (iv) the crucial point of taking into account the learners’ language background and the potential benefits of transfer; and (v) the role of proficiency level in multilingual pragmatic transfer, are covered in the classroom pragmatics research included in this book. In order to provide a comprehensive view to understand this project, the section that follows presents the sociolinguistic and educational setting of the Valencian Community within the context of Spain as a multilingual country.

1.3 Context of the Study: Multilingualism in the Valencian Community

Spain is a multilingual country in which Spanish coexists with many languages in the different regions or autonomous communities (see Figure 1.1).

While Spanish is official throughout the country, the rest of the languages may or may not have co-official status in their respective communities. Some minority languages, such as Aragonese in Aragon, Asturian in Asturias and Leonese in Castile-Leon, are recognised but not granted official status. Some others, such as Extremaduran and Fala, are sometimes regarded as Spanish dialects. The languages that have been recognised as co-official in the territories where they are spoken are Aranese, Basque, Galician and Catalan. With the exception of Basque, whose filiation is unclear, all of the languages present in mainland Spain are Indo-European languages, belonging to the Romance language family. We will briefly refer to each of them, focusing mainly on Catalan because of its connection to the present study. Aranese is a variety of Gascon, which in turn is a variety of Occitan. It has been co-official in Catalonia since 2010 (Law 35/2010), in particular in the area where it is spoken, the Pyrenean region of the Aran Valley (Val d’Aran), in north-western Catalonia. Basque is co-official in the Basque Country and northern Navarre. Galician is co-official in Galicia. Catalan is co-official in Catalonia, the Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community. It is recognised, but not official, in Aragon (La Franja), and also spoken in Carche (Murcia) (see Figure 1.2). Outside Spain, Catalan is also spoken in a city on the Italian island of Sardinia, Alghero, in Andorra, where it is the only official language, and in the former Roussillon, an area in the department of Pyrénées-Orientales in Southern France.

Catalan dialects are divided into two blocks, Eastern and Western, differing mostly in pronunciation (see Figure 1.3). Catalan is known by the name of its Balearic and Valencian varieties in the Balearic Islands and the Valencian Community respectively. In this monograph, we will use the term Catalan to refer to Valencian, the variety of the Catalan language spoken in the Valencian community. We will only name it as Valencian when reporting official data from the regional government.

Figure 1.1 Spanish dialects and other languages in Spain. © Martorell. Translation: Stephen Shaw. Used under a Creative Commons licence. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13182360

Description

The map illustrates the distribution of Spanish dialects and co-official languages across Spain, highlighting linguistic diversity. Regions are labeled with the names of languages or dialects spoken there. Northern Spain includes areas where Galician, Asturian, Basque, and Aragonese are spoken. Catalan is shown in the northeastern region, including Valencia, where it is referred to as Valencian. The map also identifies areas where Castilian (standard Spanish) is spoken, with distinctions between northern and southern variants. Andalusian dialects are marked in southern Spain, with Eastern Andalusian and Andalusian regions indicated. The Canary Islands are also included, showing the use of Castilian with southern variants. A legend explains the linguistic features, such as the pronunciation of the letter c before e or i as either /s/ or /θ/, and bilingual areas are shaded.

Spanish regions that have a co-official language have adapted their education systems to their sociolinguistic situation. Given the focus of this study, it is first necessary to describe the sociolinguistic context of the Valencian Community (Section 1.3.1) and, related to it, its education system (Section 1.3.2).

Figure 1.2 Catalan-speaking territories (in dark grey). Dialects. © Mutxamel. Used under a Creative Commons licence. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Paisos_catalans.svg

Description

The map depicts Catalan-speaking territories shaded in dark grey, covering parts of Spain, France, and Italy. The main regions include Catalonia, the Valencian Community, the Balearic Islands, and Northern Catalonia in France. Smaller areas such as La Franja in Aragon, Carche in Murcia, and Alghero in Sardinia (Italy) are also highlighted. Surrounding areas, such as Aragon and Murcia in Spain, are shown in light shade. The map includes labels for major regions and countries, such as France, Andorra, and Italy. An inset map in the bottom right corner provides a broader geographical context, showing the location of the Catalan-speaking territories within Europe. A compass rose indicates cardinal directions, and a scale bar is included for reference.

1.3.1 The sociolinguistic context of the present study

The population of the Valencian Community constitutes 10.8% of the Spanish population with 5,129,266 inhabitants (Generalitat Valenciana, 2012). Two linguistic areas may be distinguished in the context of the Valencian Community (see areas in light grey in Figure 1.2): a monolingual Spanish-speaking area (13% of the population) and a bilingual Spanish- and Valencian-speaking area (87% of the population). The current research was carried out in the latter area.

According to the latest sociolinguistic survey in the Valencian Community in 2015 (Conselleria d’Educació, 2015), Catalan was used usually by 28% of respondents in the Spanish- and Valencian-speaking area, quite frequently by 21%, a lot by 5%, never by 5%, and a little by 40%, while 1% did not answer, did not know or refused to answer the survey. The same survey reports that, in the Valencian Community, 44.1% of the population perfectly understands Catalan, while 33.0% can speak it perfectly, 28.0% can read it perfectly, and 20.2% can write it perfectly (see Table 1.1).

Figure 1.3 Catalan dialects. © Ebrenc. Used under a Creative Commons licence Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3731611

Description

The map illustrates the geographical distribution of Catalan dialects in parts of Spain and Sardinia. The regions are labeled with their respective dialects: Northern Catalan, Central Catalan, and North-Western Catalan in Catalonia; Valencian in Valencia; Balearic in the Balearic Islands; and Algherese in a small area of Sardinia. A dashed vertical line separates the mainland from the Balearic Islands. The inset map highlights the Algherese-speaking region in Sardinia.

The Catalan language was not officially recognised during the 40 years under Franco’s rule. After his death in 1975, Spain went through a process of transition to democracy, which involved a revitalisation of Catalan. In 1978, the Spanish Constitution was approved and Catalan gained national government recognition. Article 3 of the Constitution states that Castilian, i.e. the variety of Spanish spoken in Spain, is the official language of the state, and that the other Spanish languages shall also be official in their respective Autonomous Communities according to their own statutes. It adds that this linguistic richness in Spain is a cultural heritage that should be specially respected and protected.