Home » Home » Newsletters » June 2010 » The Job Interview

A growing body of research (Campbell & Roberts 2007; Kerekes 2007; Li 2001) has investigated how pragmatic competence (knowing what is culturally and contextually appropriate to say in a given situation) determines a second language (L2) learner’s success in communicating with native speakers. Koester (2006) states that there is a practical application for this kind of research: “With the current emphasis on ‘soft skills’, i.e., on effective communication in the workplace, insights gained from a close analysis of workplace interactions are certainly of practical relevance to the practitioners themselves” (p. 162). Crandall and Basturkmen (2004) and Bardovi-Harlig (2001) emphasize that it is necessary for learners to notice these pragmatic factors first, enabling them to begin to improve their competence. However, there is a shortage of accurate and authentic material available to inform newcomers about what is appropriate in the workplace.

Pragmatic competence relates to an L2 speaker’s success in communicating in the workplace. (Campbell & Roberts, 2007; Kerekes, 2007; Li, 2000; Derwing & Munro, in press)  Misunderstandings are due in part to a lack of interpersonal learning opportunities provided to second language speakers.  (Gumperz, 1999) Learners benefit from explicit instruction on pragmatic features of a language, such as making requests or apologizing. (Li, 2000) It is imperative that newcomer employees understand how they will be interpreted by a member of the host culture, if they are to be successful in the workplace. (Laroche & Rutherford, 2007)

 

The purpose of this study is to explore and document one approach to developing and evaluating a pragmatic resource based on the high-stakes discourse occurring in a job interview. It has an applied research focus which may interest English second language (ESL) practitioners on several levels: it concentrates on the field of pragmatics, what English as another language (EAL) learners need to know to succeed in a job interview (pragmatic competence for successful communication), how practitioners can use this research, and the need for developing authentic pragmatic-focused materials.

The study involved filming an English L1 candidate in a job interview and three English L2 candidates in pre- and post-job interviews.  The procedure included conducting and videotaping initial job interviews; collecting post-interview responses from interviewers and job candidates; examining pragmatic difficulties, developing and using training materials; conducting and videotaping follow-up job interviews; collecting post- interview responses from interviewers, job candidates & expert ESL instructors; and analyzing expert ESL instructors’ ratings for job candidates’ progress and patterns of pragmatic difficulties. 

 

Comparisons of job interviewers’ interpretations of the EL1 and EL2 speaker’s responses were documented. For example, when reviewing the first asked question, Why did you choose engineering as a career?, interviewers commented that the EL1 candidate replied accurately, elaborated specifically and briefly, and created a good first impression, however, the EL2 candidates were unable to answer the first question as expected, did not say why they personally chose their careers and lost the opportunity to create a good first impression.

 

Information from EL2 job candidates, interviewers and ESL expert-teachers is also documented. For example, when commenting on the request to, Describe a time when you worked on a project as part of a team, one EL2 candidate mentioned that usually in China they are expected to  work together and that he didn’t know how to talk about this situation, how to describe it and so he just went round and round.  On the same candidate’s response the job interviewers commented that the candidate over-talked and seemed nervous or lacking in understanding and that he seemed to go off on tangents. They had wanted to know if he could fit in as a strong team member but weren’t convinced because his answer tended to be vague. The expert instructors stated that this candidate’s answer was inappropriately long and that he didn’t answer the question specifically and failed to recognize the markers provided by the interviewers to stop talking.  Transcribing, analyzing and documenting these different interpretations of communicative interactions provide a rich resource that emphasizes the need for pragmatic competence.

 

Instructional material was developed and used in four 1.5 hour training sessions over a ten day period.  In the first session EL2 speakers watched the EL1 speaker’s interview for input and then compared it to their own interview. The second lesson provided explicit instructions on pragmatic language skills including answering directly, handling hard questions and sounding assertive.  The third addressed the contextual meaning and expectations behind interview questions and in the last, learners prepared and practiced some appropriate responses.

 

The outcomes of the training clearly demonstrate that second language speakers improve as   result of pedagogical intervention. To facilitate pragmatic competence instructors need to understand “the secret rules of language” (Yates, 2004), and introduce learners to a wide range of realistic situations and when possible provide authentic samples of discourse, and then give explicit instruction about context and culture.  An implication of the study is that although developing pragmatic competence is an ongoing process and complex and difficult to both teach and learn, if both ESL instructors and EL1 individuals within the workplace have an understanding of the communication challenges faced by EAL newcomers, greater intercultural communication will result.