Introduction

The importance of pragmatic competence in communication has been widely acknowledged in various models of language ability (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980). The controversy concerns whether 'pragmatics' can be taught in the language classroom. As pragmatic competence has a close relationship with the sociocultural values and beliefs of the country or the community where the target language is spoken, English as a Second Language (ESL) learners or those learners who live in the target community certainly have an advantage in acquiring this knowledge (Kondo, 1997). They have a better chance of exposure to adequate and abundant input than English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. Does this mean that second/foreign (L2) pragmatics cannot be taught in the EFL classroom? Kasper (1997) and Rose and Kasper (2001) extensively discuss results of previous studies on pragmatic instruction and conclude that 'pragmatics' can indeed be taught. Tateyama et al. (1997) and Wildner-Bassett (1994) demonstrate that pragmatic routines are teachable even to beginning foreign language learners.

Teaching target norms, which learners are then forced to use, does not seem to be an appropriate way to teach pragmatics, as learners' pragmatic choices are connected with their cultural identities. In her list of the goals that instruction in pragmatics should aim for, Kasper (1997) points out, quoting Siegal (1996), that 'Second language learners do not merely model native speakers with a desire to emulate, but rather actively create both a new interlanguage and an accompanying identity in the learning process'. Kasper further comments that 'Successful communication is a matter of optimal rather than total convergence.