Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 17 (2026) Issue 2
Pragmatic Awareness as a Catalyst for Multilingualism, Reflective Competence, and Intercultural Growth in Language Education: A Case Study
Brikena Xhaferi & Gezim Xhaferi (South East European University, North Macedonia)
Abstract
In multilingual educational settings, pragmatic competence is essential for navigating diverse communicative situations. This study investigates how explicit pragmatics instruction supports the development of multilingual abilities, reflective learning, and intercultural awareness among English and German majors at South East European University. Utilising a mixed-methods design consisting of a Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire and Reflective Learning Journals, this research examines two constructs: pragmatic sensitivity – the ability to interpret contextual cues – and pragmatic adaptability – the capacity to adjust language use strategically. The results indicate that students effectively identify appropriate speech acts, interpret indirect meanings, and apply politeness strategies, demonstrating a strong attunement to contextual and cultural norms. Overall, the findings suggest that integrating explicit pragmatics instruction with reflective learning significantly enhances learners' pragmatic sensitivity and intercultural competence, equipping them to communicate effectively in diverse social and academic environments.
Keywords: Pragmatic Awareness, Multilingual Competence, Politeness Strategies, Reflective Learning, Intercultural Communication
1 Introduction
Language operates beyond grammar and vocabulary as a social tool shaped by culture, context, and speaker intent. The way individuals communicate, particularly in multilingual and multicultural environments, reflects both linguistic competence and pragmatic awareness. Pragmatics, as a field of linguistic study, examines how speakers convey meaning beyond the literal content of words, including intentions, social norms, politeness strategies, and context-dependent interpretations (Yule, 1996). Understanding pragmatic variation – the differences in language use across social and cultural contexts – is increasingly important in a globalised world where cross-cultural communication is commonplace. For students of English and German at South East European University (SEEU), pragmatic competence plays a crucial role in academic, professional, and social interactions, enabling them to navigate subtle variations in politeness, requests, refusals, and other speech acts across languages.
In general, Pragmatic awareness refers to learners’ ability to recognise and interpret these variations and to adjust their language use according to contextual and cultural norms (Taguchi, 2015). Research has demonstrated that even proficient language learners often encounter challenges in interpreting indirect requests, understanding culturally bound expressions, or producing appropriate speech acts (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993). For instance, English speakers frequently employ indirectness, hedging, and mitigated expressions to maintain politeness and minimise face-threatening acts, whereas German speakers may prefer more direct forms in similar contexts. Such differences, if not properly understood, can lead to miscommunication or unintended impoliteness, particularly in academic and professional settings where students are expected to collaborate, negotiate, and interact across cultures.
In the context of SEEU, students majoring in English and German are exposed to both languages as foreign or additional languages, each embedded in distinct cultural norms. English, often regarded as an international lingua franca, carries pragmatic conventions influenced by Anglophone cultures, where indirectness, politeness markers, and euphemistic expressions are prevalent. German, conversely, is characterised by directness, explicitness, and formalised politeness distinctions, especially in professional and educational settings (Koike & Pearson, 2005). Awareness of these differences is essential for learners not only to achieve linguistic accuracy but also to demonstrate social competence and intercultural sensitivity. By examining students’ observations of pragmatic variation and cultural influences on communication, educators can better understand learners’ difficulties and design pedagogical interventions that enhance pragmatic competence.
Previous studies on pragmatics have highlighted the importance of classroom-based reflective activities, such as journals, role plays, and scenario analysis, in fostering learners’ awareness of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). Reflective learning journals, in particular, provide students with opportunities to document and analyse real-life interactions, notice patterns of variation, and compare pragmatic norms across languages. This reflective process supports the development of metapragmatic knowledge, allowing learners to critically evaluate their own communication strategies and to adapt their language use in intercultural interactions. Such exercises are especially valuable in multilingual contexts like North Macedonia, where exposure to multiple languages and cultures creates complex communicative demands.
This study seeks to explore how English and German majors at SEEU perceive and reflect on pragmatic variation and cultural influences in communication. It investigates learners’ awareness of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning through reflective journals, aiming to uncover patterns of pragmatic development and cross-linguistic differences. The research also considers the pedagogical implications of these findings, highlighting the role of reflective practices in enhancing learners’ pragmatic competence and intercultural communication skills. By focusing on pragmatic awareness, this study contributes to the broader understanding of language learning as a socially and culturally embedded process, emphasising that effective communication requires not only linguistic knowledge but also an understanding of the social and cultural dimensions of language use. Also, Investigating pragmatic awareness through reflective learning journals offers valuable insights into the ways learners navigate these challenges and develop competence in both languages. The findings of this study are expected to inform language teaching practices at SEEU, providing strategies to enhance students’ sensitivity to cultural norms, speech acts, and politeness conventions, ultimately fostering more effective and nuanced cross-cultural communication.
2 Literature Review
Research in pragmatics emphasises that effective communication extends beyond grammatical proficiency; it requires pragmatic competence – the ability to use language appropriately in social contexts (Kecskes, 2023). Pragmatic competence consists of pragmalinguistic knowledge (how to formulate speech acts) and sociopragmatic knowledge (how context and cultural norms shape interpretation) (Taguchi, 2015; Harlow, 1990, as cited in Rose, 2000). Learners often struggle with both components because cultural norms influence how speech acts like requests, refusals, and apologies are realised (Beck, 2019; Schauer, 2024). In addition, pragmatic variation refers to systematic differences in how speakers of different languages use and interpret language according to cultural values, social norms, and communicative conventions. Variation can occur between speech communities but also within languages across contexts, genders, and social groups (Smith & Lee, 2024). Pragmatic norms are not universal: what counts as polite in one culture may be perceived as rude or unusual in another (Kecskes, 2023; Schauer, 2024). For example, English often employs indirect strategies, such as hedging or mitigators, to maintain face and politeness, especially in hierarchical relationships, whereas German can tolerate more direct forms without threatening politeness (Schauer, 2024; Beck, 2019).
When it comes to speech acts and cross cultural variation, from Austin and Searle’s foundational work on speech act theory, speech acts are recognised as pivotal to pragmatic research. Searle (1969) defined speech acts as actions performed through utterances, such as requesting, apologising, or refusing. Modern pragmatics research investigates how learners’ second language (L2) use of speech acts diverges from native speaker norms due to differing cultural schemas or insufficient pragmatic input. Studies involving German learners of English show that learners frequently misinterpret or misproduce pragmatically appropriate forms. Schauer’s (2024) comparative study revealed that German EFL learners were less aware of pragmatic infelicities (e.g., inappropriate directness or missing politeness markers) than peer groups immersed in English speaking contexts, particularly in how speech acts like requests and refusals were executed. Prolonged exposure to the target culture enhanced learners’ pragmatic awareness significantly, highlighting the role of sociocultural immersion (Schauer, 2024). Similarly, politeness research shows that learners’ use of politeness strategies is strongly influenced by their L1 norms. In a study of Cypriot Greek learners of English, participants preferred conventionally indirect request forms even in contexts that did not require hedging, suggesting that their L1 cultural norms influenced their pragmatic choices in English (Petrou & Michail, 2023). Such results support the view that learners transfer sociopragmatic norms from their first language to the L2 unless explicit instruction or cultural exposure intervenes. Furthermore, politeness is deeply embedded in cultural expectations. In English speaking contexts, indirectness and hedging (e.g., Could you possibly…?) are often interpreted as polite strategies mitigating face threatening acts. In contrast, German norms allow direct forms (e.g., Bitte hilf mir…) without incurring negative pragmatic judgements, highlighting interlanguage variation in politeness strategies (Beck, 2019). Research also shows that explicit instruction in politeness norms and speech act realisation improves L2 pragmatic performance more than grammar focused teaching alone (Wijayanto, 2023).
Overall, pragmatic awareness, i.e. the conscious understanding of how language use varies with context, is crucial for learners to negotiate meaning in intercultural communication. Several studies demonstrate that pragmatic instruction (e.g., role plays, discourse completion tasks, reflective journals) increases learners’ sensitivity to context dependent meaning and appropriate use of speech acts (Taguchi, 2015; Wijayanto, 2023). For example, learners exposed to pragmatic input (authentic dialogues, explicit explanations of politeness norms) outperformed control groups on measures of speech act appropriateness and politeness recognition (Wijayanto, 2023). Methods such as discourse completion tasks (DCTs) have been used widely to measure L2 pragmatic competence because they elicit contextually bound speech acts in controlled scenarios (Blum Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989). These instruments allow researchers to compare learners’ responses against native speaker norms and identify areas where pragmatic knowledge is lacking.
Furthermore, Intercultural pragmatics emphasises that communication is co constructed and influenced by norms from multiple cultures (Kecskes, 2023). In multilingual settings, such as English and German majors at SEEU, learners bring varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds that shape their pragmatic choices. Learners reflect not only on form (what is said) but on function (what is meant), demonstrating that context significantly influences interpretation (Schauer, 2024; Petrou & Michail, 2023). Recent research also shows that pragmatic variation is dynamic within languages and shaped by sociocultural factors beyond mere grammatical rules. For instance, pragmatic patterns can vary regionally or socially within a single language, complicating the assumption that a single set of norms defines ‘correct’ pragmatic behaviour (Smith & Lee, 2024). Therefore, learners must navigate not only cross linguistic differences (English vs. German) but also intralinguistic variations shaped by groups and contexts.
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
The present study is guided by the following research questions:
How do English and German majors differ in their pragmatic awareness across speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning?
In what ways do learners perceive and mobilize politeness strategies and cultural norms within their real-life communication in English and German?
How does reflective learning contribute to learners’ metapragmatic awareness and ability to adapt language use across different cultural and linguistic contexts?
3.2 Participants
This study involved a total of 95 undergraduate students majoring in English and German at South East European University (SEEU), North Macedonia. Participants were enrolled across all years of study and represented a predominantly female cohort – 70 female as compared to 25 male students –, including Albanian, Macedonian, Turkish, and Roma students at the SEEU. The sample included 56 English majors and 39 German majors, providing insights into learners’ pragmatic competence across two target languages:
Table 1: Demographic Information
Participants were drawn from all four years of study, with minor variations in representation across academic levels. Most students reported Albanian as their native language, followed by Macedonian, while fewer participants indicated Turkish or other languages. Overall, the sample reflects a predominantly female, Albanian-speaking population with representation across study years and both language programmes, providing relevant context for interpreting students’ pragmatic awareness.
3.3 Research Methods
The study used two research methods i.e. student questionnaire and reflective journals. The Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire (Appendix 1) was employed as a quantitative instrument to assess learners’ knowledge and understanding of pragmatic features in English and German. Specifically, the questionnaire targeted three key domains of pragmatic competence: speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning, and it follows the frameworks proposed by Searle (1969) and Taguchi (2015).
Reflective learning journals were utilised as a qualitative instrument of data collection to examine students’ pragmatic awareness and the impact of cultural norms on communication in English and German. This method involved 12 participants and it enabled them to systematically record observations of authentic language use and to provide reflective accounts of the social and contextual factors influencing communication. The reflective journals were integrated into an elective Pragmatics course offered to students enrolled in both the English Language and Literature, and German Language and Literature programmes. The course aimed to develop students’ understanding of how language is used in context and how sociocultural factors influence meaning construction and interpretation. A particular emphasis was placed on pragmatic competence, intercultural communication, and the ways in which speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds employ communication strategies. Furthermore, the reflective journals were based on the main themes explored throughout the course, including indirectness, politeness strategies, hedging, speech acts, contextual meaning, and cross-linguistic differences in communication. Students engaged with a range of course materials, and these materials provided the foundation for students’ observations and reflections on pragmatic features in English and German.
The reflective journals followed a semi-structured format, combining guiding prompts with students’ own reflections. Students were encouraged to reflect on pragmatic differences between English/German and their own language(s), the influence of cultural norms on communication practices, experiences of intercultural misunderstandings, and strategies for achieving more effective cross-cultural communication.
4 Results
4.1 Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire Results
This section presents the findings from the Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire administered to English and German majors at SEEU. The questionnaire assessed learners’ understanding of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning in both languages. Data are reported for multiple-choice items, scenario-based questions, Likert-scale statements, and self-assessment measures, providing a comprehensive overview of students’ pragmatic awareness, sensitivity to social and cultural context, and perceived competence.
Table 2 presents students’ performance on selected speech acts in English and German, focusing on the identification of pragmatically appropriate responses:
Table 2: Speech Acts in English and German
Item 5 regarding polite requests evaluated a scenario in which a peer asks: Can you lend me your notes for tomorrow's lecture? Participants were instructed to select the most appropriate request form in English. Conversely, the item assessing formal apologies (Item 6) examined students' ability to identify suitable pragmatic expressions within German contexts. Participants demonstrated stronger overall performance on the English item, indicating a higher level of pragmatic awareness in routine English interactions. This heightened sensitivity may stem from greater exposure to English through formal instruction, media, and everyday practice.
Also, performance on the German formal apology item (Item 6) was a bit lower, although a considerable number of students were still able to identify the appropriate expression. This difference may reflect variations in students’ pragmatic competence across languages, influenced by factors such as instructional emphasis, frequency of language use, and familiarity with specific sociocultural conventions. Overall, the findings revealed differences in students’ pragmatic awareness across speech acts and target languages, highlighting the importance of explicit and contextualised pragmatics instruction, particularly in languages that students have fewer opportunities to use extensively outside the classroom, such as German in the current study.
Table 3 presents students’ performance on scenario-based items assessing the use of politeness strategies in English and German:
Table 3: Politeness Strategies: Scenario-based Multiple Choice
Item 8 involved an academic interaction in which a professor makes a request, and students were asked to select the most appropriate response in English. The scenario required students to identify a polite and respectful way of responding to an authority figure in a university context. A large majority of English majors (44 out of 56, or 78.6%) selected the pragmatically appropriate response (I’d be happy to stay…), compared to 18 out of 39 German majors (46.2%). This indicates a strong awareness among English majors of formal politeness conventions in academic English interactions, suggesting familiarity with indirectness, willingness expressions, and deference strategies commonly used when communicating with professors or other academic figures.
Item 9 focused on a written communication context in German, in which students were asked to choose the most polite opening for an email requesting an extension. A substantial proportion of German majors (29 out of 39, or 74.4%) selected the correct option (Könnten Sie mir bitte…), demonstrating clear awareness of formal request conventions in written German. In contrast, only 13 out of 56 English majors (23.2%) selected the appropriate response. Overall, these findings highlight program-specific strengths in pragmatic competence, while indicating that cross-language formal written communication – particularly in German – may benefit from explicit instruction and targeted practice to help all students master context-specific conventions.
Table 4 summarises students’ self-reported awareness and their use of politeness strategies in English and German:
Table 4: Politeness Strategies: Likert-Scale Items (Mean ± SD)
The mean scores across all items are relatively high, indicating that students perceived themselves as sensitive to contextual and interpersonal factors when using a certain language.
The highest mean score relates to adjusting language according to the interlocutor, suggesting strong pragmatic awareness of social roles and situational appropriateness in both languages.
Preference for indirect forms when interacting with unfamiliar people also received high mean values, reflecting students’ recognition of indirectness as a key politeness strategy.
Slightly lower, though still positive, mean scores were observed for noticing differences between English and German politeness strategies, which may indicate that, while students are generally aware of cross-linguistic pragmatic variation, this awareness is less developed than their general use of politeness strategies.
Across all items, English mean scores are marginally higher than those for German, pointing to greater confidence or familiarity with politeness conventions in English. The standard deviations suggest moderate variability in responses, indicating individual differences in pragmatic awareness. Overall, the findings reflect a solid level of pragmatic sensitivity, with scope for further instruction focused on cross-linguistic contrasts between English and German politeness norms.
Table 5 shows students’ ability to interpret context-dependent meaning in English and German:
Table 5: Context-dependent Meaning: Multiple-Choice
Item 10 focused on an English pragmatic inference task in which students were asked to interpret the implied meaning of the statement It’s a bit chilly in here. In this context, the speaker may not simply be commenting on the temperature but may indirectly be requesting that someone close the window or adjust the room temperature. A clear majority of English majors – 39 out of 56 (69.6%), representing 41.1% of the total sample of 95 participants – correctly identified the implied meaning of the indirect statement (option b, Want the window closed), indicating a relatively strong ability to interpret pragmatic intent beyond literal meaning. This suggests that students are generally proficient in understanding indirectness and implied requests in familiar English contexts.
Item 10 also examined students’ interpretation of the German expression Das ist ja interessant. Rather than expressing genuine interest in all contexts, this phrase may also convey meanings such as mild surprise, reservation, or doubt depending on the situation and intonation. Specifically, 24 out of 39 German majors (61.5%), representing 25.3% of the total sample of 95 participants, correctly interpreted the pragmatic meaning of the expression as mild surprise or doubt, indicating a developing awareness of contextual meaning and speaker attitude in German. When viewed across the total sample, the results reveal differences in pragmatic inferencing abilities between the two languages. These findings suggest stronger pragmatic interpretation skills in English than in German, highlighting the need for more explicit instruction and practice in recognising context-dependent meanings and implied intentions in German communication.
In the open-ended item 11, students were asked to provide an example from their own experience where a literal translation between English and German would not convey the same meaning and to explain how they decide which level of formality or politeness to use in different contexts in English or German. Students identified literal vs. pragmatic mismatches and reported using context, relationship, and formality to decide language use. Their responses revealed that decisions about formality and politeness are guided by context, relationship, and social norms. Most noted that formal situations (e.g., with professors or unfamiliar adults) require indirectness, hedging, or honorifics, while informal settings allow casual language. Many highlighted literal vs. pragmatic mismatches between English and German, emphasising that direct translation often fails to convey the intended tone. The responses also showed metapragmatic awareness, with students consciously adapting language based on observations and cultural norms. Overall, English majors expressed more confidence in applying these strategies, while German majors were more cautious, reflecting the greater complexity of German pragmatics.
Table 6 presents students’ self-rated pragmatic competence in English and German:
Table 6: Self-Assessment of Pragmatic Competence
Table 6 presents the findings from the last two questions (Items 12 and 13) which asked the students to assess and rate their pragmatic competence in both English and German. Overall, students assessed their English competence more highly than their German proficiency. Regarding English, the majority of participants evaluated their skills as high or moderate, indicating confidence in their ability to use the language appropriately in social and academic contexts. Very few individuals categorised their abilities as low or very low, suggesting that English majors felt relatively secure in their pragmatic skills.
To conclude with, the analysis of the Pragmatic Awareness Questionnaire revealed that SEEU English and German majors generally demonstrate moderated to high pragmatic awareness, with stronger performance in English than in German. Students showed a good understanding of speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning, although formal registers and subtle expressions in German posed some challenges. They were aware of strategies such as mitigation, indirectness, and adapting language to context, and their responses indicated sensitivity to cross-linguistic differences. Self-assessments aligned with these findings, showing higher confidence in English than in German. Overall, the results highlight the importance of explicit and contrastive pragmatics instruction to support mastery of indirectness, formal registers, and contextual nuances, thereby enhancing communicative competence in both languages.
4.2 Reflective Journal Analysis
To examine students' pragmatic awareness and intercultural communication experiences, reflective journals were collected from twelve participants. To ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were assigned to all participants. The group consisted of seven female and five male students aged between 19 and 23 years. Eight participants were Albanian, three were Macedonian, and one was Turkish. Six were enrolled in the English Language and Literature programme and six in the German Language and Literature programme. The journals provided valuable evidence of students' growing awareness of pragmatic differences between English and German and revealed several recurring themes The themes were identified through qualitative thematic analysis. The researchers coded the reflective journal entries, identified recurring patterns in students’ reflections, and grouped related codes into broader themes concerning pragmatic awareness, intercultural communication, and differences between English and German language use.
4.2.1 Indirectness and Politeness Strategies
Participants frequently noted contrasts in indirectness and politeness between the two languages. Many observed that English speakers rely on indirect requests and mitigated expressions, whereas German communication is often perceived as more direct.
For example, Arta (a 21-year-old Albanian female English major) noted that English speakers commonly use expressions such as “Could you possibly help me?”, while German speakers may prefer more straightforward formulations like: ”Kannst du mir helfen?“ Although the German expression is not impolite, it sounds more direct because the speaker clearly states the request without additional softening strategies.
Leon (a 22-year-old Macedonian male German major) reflected on differences in expressing criticism: “When giving feedback, English speakers often try to make criticism sound softer by saying something like ‘‘I think we could improve this part’’. In German, people are usually more direct and may simply say ‘‘Das ist nicht richtig’’. This direct style does not necessarily mean that the speaker is impolite, but it reflects a different communication style.
Our respondents generally recognised the fact that these differences require careful adaptation to avoid unintended impoliteness or misunderstandings during intercultural interactions.
4.2.2 Context-Dependent Meaning and Pragmatic Interpretation
A second major theme involved the interpretation of implied meanings and indirect messages. Several participants demonstrated awareness that literal interpretation alone is often insufficient for successful communication.
Elira, a 20-year-old Albanian female English major, described a situation in which the statement “It's a bit chilly here” functioned as an indirect request to close a window rather than a simple comment about temperature. Likewise, Denis, a 22-year-old Albanian male German major, emphasised that understanding speaker intention requires attention to contextual clues rather than relying solely on direct translation.
These reflections indicate that the respondents recognised the importance of pragmatic inference in understanding communicative intent.
4.2.3 Formality and Professional Communication
Another recurring theme concerned language use in formal and professional contexts, particularly in emails and institutional communication.
Mira, a 21-year-old Turkish female German major, observed that English emails typically contain greetings, closings, and various politeness markers designed to soften requests. In contrast, she perceived German email communication as more concise and task-oriented.
Similarly, Sara, a 20-year-old Albanian female English major, reflected on differences in apology strategies, noting that English speakers often use more elaborate expressions of regret, while German speakers may prefer shorter and more direct apologies.
These observations suggest that our respondents were aware of how pragmatic conventions vary across professional and academic settings.
4.2.4 Managing Disagreement and Feedback
Several journal entries focused on disagreement, criticism, and feedback. Students frequently noted that English speakers tend to mitigate disagreement through hedging devices and modal verbs.
For instance, Arben, a 23-year-old Albanian male English major, observed that English speakers often use expressions such as “Well, maybe…” to soften disagreement, whereas German speakers are generally more comfortable expressing opposing views directly, for example through expressions such as “Ich bin anderer Meinung”. He noted that these expressions communicate disagreement clearly and directly, while English speakers often use additional mitigating phrases to make disagreement sound less confrontational.
Similarly, Julia, a 19-year-old Macedonian female German major, highlighted the frequent use of modal verbs such as “might” and “could” when making suggestions in English discussions. She contrasted this with German, where suggestions are often expressed more directly through forms such as “Wir könnten…” “Du solltest…”, which may sound more explicit and less tentative compared to the English equivalents.
These reflections exemplify the respondents’ awareness of how linguistic choices contribute to maintaining interpersonal harmony.
4.2.5 Cultural Influences on Communication
In view of the broader role of culture in shaping communication styles, students noted differences in humor, conversational topics, compliments, and conflict avoidance strategies.
Besnik, a 22-year-old Albanian male German major, observed that English humour often relies on irony and understatement, which may be difficult for German speakers to interpret.
Lina, a 20-year-old Albanian female English major, reflected on differences in complimenting behaviour, while Marko, a 21-year-old Macedonian male German major, highlighted variations in small-talk practices, noting that English speakers frequently engage in casual conversation before addressing the main topic.
These observations indicate that the respondents viewed communication not merely as a linguistic process but as a culturally embedded practice shaped by social norms and expectations.
Overall, our respondents’ reflective journals reveal a developing level of metapragmatic awareness. Students demonstrated their sensitivity to indirectness, politeness strategies, contextual meaning, formality conventions, and culturally influenced communication patterns. Across the journals, English majors generally expressed greater confidence in interpreting and applying pragmatic strategies, while German majors often reported being more cautious and analytical when confronted with pragmatic differences. The findings suggest that reflective activities can play an important role in fostering learners' intercultural communicative competence and pragmatic awareness in foreign language education.
5 Conclusion
This study investigated the pragmatic awareness, application of politeness strategies, and reflective learning of English and German majors at SEEU. In response to the first research question of how English and German majors differed in their pragmatic awareness across speech acts, politeness strategies, and context-dependent meaning, the findings show that learners demonstrated moderate to high pragmatic awareness overall, with stronger performance in English. Students were generally able to identify appropriate speech acts, infer indirect meanings, and apply politeness strategies, while formal registers and subtle expressions in German presented more challenges, reflecting differences in exposure, familiarity, and instructional emphasis. This pattern of development is consistent with (Taguchi, 2015; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
Regarding the second research question of how learners perceived and applied politeness strategies and cultural norms in real-life communication across English and German, the analysis revealed that learners were sensitive to contextual and cultural factors, adjusting their language according to interlocutor, formality, and social norms. Observations of indirect requests, hedging, email conventions, and disagreement showed that students actively applied pragmatic strategies to maintain appropriateness and effectiveness in communication.
For the third research question of how reflective learning contributed to learners’ metapragmatic awareness and their ability to adapt language use across different cultural and linguistic contexts?, the respondents’ journal entries demonstrated that reflection played a critical role in developing metapragmatic awareness and pragmatic adaptability. Students consciously noticed cross-linguistic differences, interpreted context-dependent meaning, and adjusted their language strategically, enhancing both intercultural competence and multilingual communication skills (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Rose, 2005).
Integrating explicit pragmatics instruction with reflective learning strengthens learners' pragmatic sensitivity and intercultural competence, better equipping them for diverse social and academic environments.
Although this study is limited by its relatively small sample size and focus on English and German majors at a single institution (SEEU in Tetovo), which may restrict the generalisability of the findings, it provides some significant pedagogical insights. Consequently, we recommend that future language courses integrate structured, contrastive, and context-based pragmatics instruction alongside reflective exercises, thereby enabling learners to practise and internalise pragmatic strategies in both English and German.
Appendices
Target
Group:
English and German Majors, SEEU, North Macedonia
Purpose:
To assess students’ understanding of speech acts, politeness
strategies, and context-dependent meaning in English and German.
Instructions:
Read each question carefully.
Answer honestly; there are no right or wrong answers.
For multiple-choice items, select the best option.
For open-ended items, write complete responses.
The questionnaire should take approximately 15–20 minutes.
Thank you for your participation!
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001212X
Beck, B. (2019). Pragmatic competences of German students in English content and CLIL contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing.
Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say? Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328–351.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Pearson Education.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell Publishing.
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, I. (2023). The socio-cognitive approach to communication and pragmatics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30160-5
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The assessment of pragmatic competence in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 481–490.
Petrou, A., & Michail, A. (2023). The effect of L1 linguistic and cultural background on L2 pragmatic awareness. Languages, 10(5), Article 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10050112
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100001027
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003
Schauer, G. (2024). Pragmatic development in L2 English: The role of instruction and immersion. Journal of Pragmatics, 210, 104–118.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, J., & Lee, M. (2024). Pragmatic variation and cultural norms in global communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 21(1), 45–62.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Wijayanto, A. (2023). The effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic routines in L2 learning. Journal of Second Language Pragmatics, 15(2), 112–128.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Authors:
Prof Brikena Xhaferi
Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communications
South East European University
Tetovo
Republic of North Macedonia
Email: b.xhaferi@seeu.edu.mk
ORCID: 0000-0003-2218-3349
Prof Gezim Xhaferi
Faculty of Languages, Cultures and Communications
South East European University
Tetovo
Republic of North Macedonia
Email: g.xhaferi@seeu.edu.mk
ORCID: 0000-0001-5563-6670
