AN EXPLORATION OF LINGUISTIC PRAGMATICS DESCRIBING AN EXEMPLARY MODEL FOR COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE WITH PRAGMATICS AS CONTENT

This study examines linguistic pragmatic theory, studying the terminology and organizing the concepts into a coherent whole. The study then analyzes both the development and pilot testing of a computer assisted language learning (CALL) module for teaching pragmatics in English as a second language (ESL). Passive voice in discourse is selected as content. Thus, this study clarifies pragmatic theory, and creates an examplary model of computer assisted instruction with pragmatics as content.; This study builds upon and extends Levinson's 1983 survey of linguistic pragmatics. The review of the linguistic theory covers interactions of syntax and pragmatics, complementing Levinson's focus on distinguishing pragmatics from semantics. Pedagogical applications of syntactic/pragmatic theory are reviewed, with both the relevant literature on applied pragmatics and the limited ESL computer assisted instruction in syntax and pragmatics summarized.; The study finds pragmatics warrants a modified systems approach for the design and development of computer assisted instruction (CAI). The traditional, linear systems procedure requires writing performance objectives prior to developing an instructional strategy. Here, the objectives are developed concomitantly with the instructional strategy. The objectives and strategy are modified to match the lesson script and frames.; The examination of program construction focuses upon choice of computer language. The lesson reveals no special programming problems attributable to pragmatics as content. The discussion consequently applies generally to computer assisted language instruction. The passive voice in discourse lesson is implemented in four parts in Microsoft{dollar}spcircler{dollar} BASIC Version 2.0 for the Macintosh{dollar}sp{lcub}rm TM{rcub}{dollar}. The four parts are variants of the same program. Part one is translated into Macintosh{dollar}sp{lcub}rm TM{rcub}{dollar} Pascal. MS-BASIC 2.0 and Macintosh Pascal are compared in string processing capability, support for simple and clear interaction between the student and the computer, definition (syntax), and usage (support for structured programming and ease or difficulty of learning). Criteria for choosing a computer language are derived from the comparison. Neither language shows clear superiority to the other in usage. Macintosh Pascal offers easier string processing and clearer syntax, but MS-BASIC 2.0 is the better language because it supports simpler interactions of student and computer.