INTEGRATING INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE INTO UNIVERSITY BUSINESS ENGLISH TEACHING: CHALLENGES AND PEDAGOGICAL DIRECTIONS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
In today’s globalized business environment, linguistic accuracy alone no longer suffices for professional success. University Business English instruction must also cultivate intercultural pragmatic competence – the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately across diverse cultural contexts. Despite this necessity, current curricula often neglect this dimension. This article investigates the extent to which Business English instruction at Ukrainian universities incorporates intercultural pragmatics. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, the study combines textbook analysis and instructor interviews to evaluate the treatment of pragmatic elements. Results reveal a consistent lack of explicit instruction, underprepared educators, and an overreliance on supplementary materials. Teachers recognize the importance of pragmatic competence but lack adequate training and institutional support. The study analyzed 45 tasks across three commonly used textbooks and interviewed ten instructors at public and private universities in Ukraine. The article concludes with pedagogical recommendations including pragmatic task integration, use of authentic discourse, and teacher development programs.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Intercultural pragmatic competence, Business English instruction, university language education, textbook analysis, language teacher perceptions, communicative competence, pragmatics in language pedagogy
2. Braun and Clarke (2006). Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. (Retrieved: May 28, 2025).
3. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9–34. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/40264509. (Retrieved: May 22, 2025).
4. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. Continuum.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
6. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
7. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
8. House, J. (2008). Beyond intervention: What a discourse approach can tell us about pragmatic failures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3), 353–376. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.017. (Retrieved: November 20, 2024).
9. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.
10. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.
11. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
12. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press.
13. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum.
14. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
15. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748. (Retrieved May 25, 2025).