Эксплицитный vs имплицитный подход в преподавании английского языка для академических целей аспирантам

Целью настоящей статьи является сопоставительный анализ эксплицитного и имплицитного подходов в развитии прагматической компетенции у аспирантов инженерных специальностей в рамках академической дисциплины «Иностранный язык». Для достижения поставленной цели 32 обучающихся были разделены на две группы, в которых использовались разные подходы (эксплицитный vs имплицитный) к формированию фокусной прагматической компетенции. Проекты исследований, составленные аспирантами после шестинедельного обучения, были изучены с использованием методов количественного и интерпретативного анализа с целью выявления языковых средств выражения авторской позиции и определения частотности их употребления. В результате проведённого анализа были обнаружены существенные различия количественного и качественного характера в использовании данных языковых ресурсов. С точки зрения соблюдения норм письма, принятых в англоязычном академическом сообществе, эксплицитный подход оказался более эффективным, чем имплицитный. Было обнаружено, что аспиранты группы, в которой использовался эксплицитный метод обучения, чаще стремились смягчать категоричность высказываний и скрывать следы авторского присутствия, в то время как тексты участников первой группы отличались большей категоричностью и субъективностью. Полученные данные дополняют предыдущие исследования, посвящённые подходам, используемым при формировании прагматической компетенции в процессе обучения иностранному языку в высшей школе. Результаты исследования могут быть использованы как преподавателями английского языка для академических целей, так и исследователями научного дискурса.

1. Alcon Soler, E. (2005). Does Instruction Work for Learning Pragmatics in the EFL Context? System. Vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 417-435, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005

2. Zashikhina, I.M. (2021). Academic Writing: A Discipline or Disciplines? Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 134-143, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-2-134-143 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

3. Korotkina, I.B. (2018). Academic Writing in Russia: The Urge for Interdisciplinary Studies. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 10, no. 27, pp. 64-74, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-10-64-74 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

4. Smirnova, N.V. (2015). Fostering Academic Literacy and Academic Writing in University: From Theory to Practice. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 6, pp. 58- 64. Available at: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/viewFile/220/170.pdf (accessed 04.01.2024) (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

5. Smirnova, N.V., Shchemeleva, I.Yu. (2020). “It’s Not That I Am Researching It, It’s Just That I Am Interested in It”: Writing a Research Proposal in English as a Social Practice. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. Vol. 63, pp. 115-131, doi: 10.17223/19986645/63/7 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

6. El-Dakhs, D.A.S., Yahya N., Pawlak M. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on the Use of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers. Asian Journal of Second. Foreign Language Education. Vol. 7, no. 44, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0

7. Smirnova, N.V., Shchemeleva, I.Yu. (2015). Writing at the University Level: American, European and Russian Perspectives. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Journal of Saint Petersburg State University. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 185-197. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

8. Boginskaya, O. (2023). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in English Research Article Abstracts Written by Non-Native Authors: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Нkala Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura. Vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 139-154, doi: 10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a08

9. Korotkina, I.B. (2015). Akademicheskoe pis’mo: protsess, produkt i praktika: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Academic Writing: Process, Product, and Practice: Workbook]. Moscow: Urait Publ. 295 p. ISBN: 978-5-534-00415-1. (In Russ.).

10. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and Implicit Teaching of Pragmatic Routines: Japanese Sumimasen. In: Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 200-222, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.015

11. Takimoto, M. (2006). The Effects of Explicit Feedback on the Development of Pragmatic Proficiency. Language Teaching Research. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 393-417, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.441

12. Takimoto, M. (2015). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95-105, doi: 10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836

13. Martínez-Flor, A. (2004). The Effect of Instruction on the Development of Pragmatic Competence in the English as a Foreign Language Context: A Study Based on Suggestions. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I. Available at: https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/10438/martinez2.pdf?...1 (accessed 04.01.2024).

14. Yaghoubi, A., Ardestani, S. (2014). Explicit or Implicit Instruction of Metadiscourse Markers and Writing Skill Improvement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 14-22, doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.14

15. Nunan, D. (1994). Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. In: Linguistic Theory and Pedagogic Practice. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 253-270, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524605.012

16. Farrokhi, F., Atashian, S. (2012). The Role of Refusal Instruction in Pragmatic Development. World Journal of Education. Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 85-93, doi: 10.5430/wje.v2n4p85

17. Altun, L., Dincer, R. (2019). A Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Teaching in Terms of Grammar and Writing Skills of Intermediate Learners. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 96-105, doi: 10.14686/buefad.601184

18. Kapranov, O. (2018). The Impact of Implicit Instruction on the Use of English Discourse Markers in Written Tasks at the Advanced Beginners’ Level Of EFL Proficiency. Baltic Journal of English Language Literature & Culture. Vol. 8, pp. 56-73, doi: 10.22364/BJELLC.08.2018.04

19. Ziafar, M. (2020). The Influence of Explicit, Implicit and Contrastive Lexical Approaches on Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Iranian EFL Learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 103-131, doi: 10.1515/iral-2016-0018

20. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 173-192, doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365

21. Fukuya, Y.J., Clark, M.K. (2001). A Comparison of Input Enhancement and Explicit Instruction of Mitigators. Pragmatics and Language Learning. Division of English as an International Language Intensive English Institute. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 111-130. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503649.pdf (accessed 04.01.2024).

22. Boginskaya, O. (2022). Russian Lexical and Syntactic Hedges in Dissertation Reviews. Russian Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 18-32, doi: 10.22363/2618-8163-2023-21-1-18-32

23. Fatahipoura, M., Tahmasbib, M., Salehi, M. (2020). Ecology of Teaching Academic Writing: A case study of the Effect of Metadiscourse Markers Instruction on Intermediate EFL Learners’ Narrative vs. Descriptive Writing. Başkent University Journal of Education. Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 70-80. Available at: https://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/235/161 (accessed 04.01.2024).

24. Sarani, A., Talati-Baghsiahi, A. (2017). Explicit Instruction of Pragmatic Features: Its Impact On EFL Learners’ Knowledge of Hedging Devices in Academic Writing. Issues in Language Teaching. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 29-53, doi: 10.22054/ILT.2017.8418

25. Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman. Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Pearson Education Press. 4th ed. 656 p. ISBN: 9781408204603.

26. Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

27. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum. 230 p. ISBN: 0-8264-7610-4; 0-8264-7611-2.

28. Glaser, K. (2013). The Neglected Combination: A Case for Explicit-Inductive Instruction in Teaching Pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada. Vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 150-163, doi: 10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1158

29. Norris, J.M., Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Language Learning. Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 417-528, doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00136

30. Rose, K.R., Ng Kwai-fun, C. (2001). Inductive and Deductive Teaching of Compliments and Compliment Responses. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 145- 170, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.013

31. Fordyce, K. (2014). The Differential Effects of Explicit and Implicit Instruction on EFL Learners’ Use of Epistemic Stance. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 6-28, doi: 10.1093/applin/ams076

32. Safont, M.P. (2004). An Analysis on EAP Learners’ Pragmatic Production: A Focus on Request Forms. Ibérica. Vol. 8, pp. 23-39. Available at: https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/jltr/vol01/06/jltr0106.pdf (accessed 04.01.2024).

33. Dastjerdi, H.V. (2010). The Impact of Instruction on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ production of Requests in English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 782-790, doi: 10.4304/jltr.1.6.782-790

34. Nguyen, T.T.M., Pham, T.H., Pham, M.T. (2012). The Relative Effects of Explicit and Implicit Form-Focused Instruction on the Development of L2 Pragmatic Competence. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 416-434, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003

35. Biber, D., Finegan, E. (1998). Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Processes. Vol. 11, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.1080/01638538809544689

36. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 97-116, doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001

37. Gray, B., Biber, D. (2012). Current Conceptions of Stance. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave McMillan, pp. 15-33.

38. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 43-57.

39. Bhatia, V.K. (1997). The Power and Politics of Genre. World Englishes. Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 359- 371, doi: 10.1111/1467-971x.00070

40. Gass, S. (1998). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 9, pp. 198-217, doi: 10.1093/APPLIN/9.2.198