Theme: The Role of Games in Teaching Pronunciation to A1 Level Learners Group: Done by: Axmadova Iroda Checked by

I. Introduction

Although corpus linguistics has become a central methodology for second language acquisition

research, relatively less work has focused on the area of second language (L2) pragmatics. In

part, this is related to the fact that there are relatively fewer corpus linguistic studies of pragmat-

ics in general (outside of L2 pragmatics) and fewer spoken than written corpora, meaning that

methodologies within corpus linguistics for investigating pragmatics are newer and less well

developed (Aijmer & Rühlemann, 2014). As Callies (2013) discusses, the relative lack of corpus-

based L2 pragmatics research may also be related to the rather narrow focus of L2 pragmatics

research on speech acts, which are difcult to identify (and may not even occur) in large corpus

data sets. To explore the current state of corpus-based L2 pragmatics research and posit

possibili-ties for future research, then, this chapter takes a broader view of pragmatic research,

including not only speech acts and the challenges faced when identifying them in corpora, but

also other aspects such as discourse organization and interactive communication (e.g.,

discourse markers) that are more commonly found in corpus-based studies, the use of

pragmatic markers such as stance features, the use of prosody and non-verbal behavior, the

use of formulas for pragmatic purposes (e.g., discourse organization and stance), and

functional approaches to corpus linguis-tics that have implications for research in

pragmatics. We begin with an overview of corpus linguistic methodology and corpus-based

approaches to pragmatics research and then move to a survey of the corpus-based research

focusing on L2 pragmatics followed by a critical reflection on this research. We end with a

discussion of future research directions and provide suggestions for further reading

Although corpus linguistics has become a central methodology for second language acquisition

research, relatively less work has focused on the area of second language (L2) pragmatics. In

part, this is related to the fact that there are relatively fewer corpus linguistic studies of pragmat-

ics in general (outside of L2 pragmatics) and fewer spoken than written corpora, meaning that

methodologies within corpus linguistics for investigating pragmatics are newer and less well

developed (Aijmer & Rühlemann, 2014). As Callies (2013) discusses, the relative lack of corpus-

based L2 pragmatics research may also be related to the rather narrow focus of L2 pragmatics

research on speech acts, which are difcult to identify (and may not even occur) in large corpus

data sets. To explore the current state of corpus-based L2 pragmatics research and posit

possibili-ties for future research, then, this chapter takes a broader view of pragmatic research,

including not only speech acts and the challenges faced when identifying them in corpora, but

also other aspects such as discourse organization and interactive communication (e.g.,

discourse markers) that are more commonly found in corpus-based studies, the use of

pragmatic markers such as stance features, the use of prosody and non-verbal behavior, the

use of formulas for pragmatic purposes (e.g., discourse organization and stance), and

functional approaches to corpus linguis-tics that have implications for research in

pragmatics. We begin with an overview of corpus linguistic methodology and corpus-based

approaches to pragmatics research and then move to a survey of the corpus-based research

focusing on L2 pragmatics followed by a critical reflection on this research. We end with a

discussion of future research directions and provide suggestions for further reading

Although corpus linguistics has become a central methodology for second language acquisition

research, relatively less work has focused on the area of second language (L2) pragmatics. In

part, this is related to the fact that there are relatively fewer corpus linguistic studies of pragmat-

ics in general (outside of L2 pragmatics) and fewer spoken than written corpora, meaning that

methodologies within corpus linguistics for investigating pragmatics are newer and less well

developed (Aijmer & Rühlemann, 2014). As Callies (2013) discusses, the relative lack of corpus-

based L2 pragmatics research may also be related to the rather narrow focus of L2 pragmatics

research on speech acts, which are difcult to identify (and may not even occur) in large corpus

data sets. To explore the current state of corpus-based L2 pragmatics research and posit

possibili-ties for future research, then, this chapter takes a broader view of pragmatic research,

including not only speech acts and the challenges faced when identifying them in corpora, but

also other aspects such as discourse organization and interactive communication (e.g.,

discourse markers) that are more commonly found in corpus-based studies, the use of

pragmatic markers such as stance features, the use of prosody and non-verbal behavior, the

use of formulas for pragmatic purposes (e.g., discourse organization and stance), and

functional approaches to corpus linguis-tics that have implications for research in

pragmatics. We begin with an overview of corpus linguistic methodology and corpus-based

approaches to pragmatics research and then move to a survey of the corpus-based research

focusing on L2 pragmatics followed by a critical reflection on this research. We end with a

discussion of future research directions and provide suggestions for further reading.

When learning a language, communication is of the utmost importance. Learners wish to not only communicate with native English-speakers, but also with non-native speakers as it is the Lingua Franca of today with many universities and careers offering opportunities in English.

Nowadays there is a general stigma around pronunciation and it is said that the prototype we should be learning is either British Received Pronunciation (RP) or General American English (GA). Obviously, it is very difficult to organise every English learner or speaker into one of these groups because of many factors, including their location, whether or not they have access to speakers with RP or GA and their linguistic and educational backgrounds. In reality, a very little percentage of people speak, for example, RP and it is said to be not based on the area from where people are from, but from the social class which they are part of.

Typically, students would like to dedicate their time improving their speaking competence but in order to do this, they must begin with the basic expertise in correct pronunciation. Bad pronunciation can cause misunderstandings and uncomfortable situations. It can also hinder a student’s learning process as he / she may not feel confident when speaking. I believe it is important to encourage correct pronunciation on a daily basis, integrate it with various skills and to start this at an early age, as to avoid future problems. Actually, games play an important role to reach the target and deep analyzing these factors serves as the topicality of the research paper.