1.3 Significance of the study

Since Hymes' communicative competence was first introduced into second or foreign language education in 1980,the concept has developed into one of the most influential theories in the research of linguistics and applied linguistics.Particularly in EFL（English as a Foreign Language）teaching in China,the concept,though still not so well clarified,has become very popular in the past two decades（Hu Zhuanglin ＆ Jiang Wangqi,2002:33）.Specifically,what the concept of communicative competence serves as in second or foreign language education includes:A.theoretical grounds and guidelines; B.the instructional goal,and the content of teaching and learning; C.research objectives; and D.the motivation of course curriculum,and methods for teaching and learning（Kasper＆Rose,2001; Yu Liming＆Yuan Pinghua,2004; Lee,2006）.Along with its theoretical development in second or foreign language education,there appear a variety of models for interpreting and recognizing communicative competence and language proficiency.These various models reveal not only the controversies over the concept of communicative competence,but also the inadequacies of its interpretation and realization in practical language teaching and learning to some extent.Swender ＆ Duncan（1999）,Swaffar,Kramsch,Schulz,et al.（2006）observe that the meaning,the content and the components that communicative competence takes on in the current communicative language teaching are inadequate and misleading,which greatly affects the improvement of target language teaching and learning.Schulz（2006）proposes that：

A foreign language collegiate student“must gain insight into（a）language as rule-governed behavior,（b）the systematicity of language,（c）language as a living‘organism' that changes over time,（d）sociolinguistic variation of language use,（e）rules of pragmatic use,（f）how language reflects culture,（g）how culture affects language and language use,and（h）the language learning process and strategies useful for language learning”.

Scholars and researchers（Judd,1999; Bardovi-Harlig ＆ Dörnyei,1998; Kasper ＆ Rose,2001,2002; Soler ＆ Martinez-Flor 2008; Zhang Shaojie,2003; Liu Runqin ＆ Liu Si,2005; Hwang,2009）at home and abroad admit that,to a greater degree,second or foreign language education neglects cultivation of pragmatic competence which,compared with linguistic competence,is difficult and slow to learn or acquire,but affects the eventual success of target language learning.The opinion that“English language teaching is a complex system in which the key issue is to make a specific and operative teaching object”（Kuang Fangtao,2010）is ascribed to the conceptualization of pragmatic competence according to our study,so the research on pragmatic competence and a valid model of its construct for EFL teaching would be realistically significant for not only making some contribution to a description and identification of communicative competence in the theoretical development,but also providing some insights into L2/FL language learning and teaching,particularly offering some perceptions into the innovation and improvement of Chinese EFL teaching.To be more specific,this research might provide the following implications：

（1）The proposal of communicative competence,in fact,shifts the study of linguistic theory from“competence”to“performance”（Leech，1983:4）and focuses on actual language use in context,which could be thought of as the source from which various models of communicative competence are introduced,and that the controversies over interpreting or recognizing the definitions and components of communicative competence have existed for many years in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics.Centering on pragmatic competence,the present study may be a supplement and a way of enlightenment for constructing a sound valid model of communicative competence in linguistic theory so that a better understanding and description of communicative competence and language proficiency would be achieved.

（2）Although we have not found out the reason for consuming more time and producing less effect in Chinese EFL education fully,it is undoubtedly related to training and developing learners' pragmatic competence as we have mentioned above.Therefore,the exploration and practice of pragmatic competence in this research will offer some evidence of the existing problems in EFL teaching in China,or shed some light on constructing some effective approaches to raising and cultivating EFL learners' communicative competence.

（3）Interlanguage pragmatics（ILP）,as a second-generation hybrid（a branch of SLA and a subset of pragmatics）（Kasper＆Blum-Kulka,1993）,is a very young field of studying second language pragmatic teaching and learning,for it was formally established in the 1990s and introduced into our country a little more than a decade ago.ILP generally refers to the study of second or foreign language learners' comprehension and production of pragmatic competence.Although ILP study is demonstrating a rapid development with plenty of research achievements,it mostly concentrates on oral communication,and the study in SL/ESL context.The systematic effective model or approach to cultivating and raising learners' pragmatic competence,especially in FL/EFL context is rather limited.As a result,this research may clarify our insights into the inadequacies of pragmatic competence study in ILP,and give some inspiration to construct the model or approach to training L2 pragmatic competence in ILP.The discussion of communicative competence and pragmatic components in FL/EFL settings in the study may provide some implications for further understanding of L2 pragmatic competence because the majority of ILP or pragmatic acquisition research focuses on speech acts,conversational implicature,and mostly oral activities.

（4）Many scholars（Kasper ＆Schmidt,1996; Hardovi-Harlig＆Hartford,1996; Bardovi-Harlig ＆ Dörnyei,1998; Kasper,2001; Barron,2003; Schulz,2006; Liu Runqin ＆ Liu Si,2007; Hwang,2009; Cheng Guohua,2010; et al.）believe that since a second language environment is more likely to provide learners with the diverse and frequent input they need for pragmatic development than a foreign language learning context,EFL instruction is more difficult than ESL instruction in pragmatics.Apparently,the study of pragmatic competence will contribute to perceiving the differences between SL/ESL instruction and FL/EFL instruction because it could help instructors and practitioners effectively carry out EFL instruction theoretically and methodologically,which tells us what and how and when we adopt the theories and approaches and methods used in applied linguistics and SLA.

（5）EFL learners who lack real-life English media and culture are severely deficient in L2 schema and are hence at a great disadvantage when trying to construct L2 contextual meaning（Hwang,2009:115）.They have the urgent need for enhancing their pragmatic competence,and the problems of test-driven English teaching and rigid adherence to outmoded concepts in Chinese EFL education require EFL researchers and instructors to reshape the way we perceive EFL education,to look ahead to developing effective classroom strategies,and to modify and adjust language curriculum,teaching methods and criteria for assessing language profiency.It is for all these reasons that we attempt to do this research and hope it may provide some provi sional specifications for EFL teaching in the Chinese setting.

The significance of the inquiry into the issue of pragmatic competence can find its underpinnings from what Brown（1994）discusses about the goal of language teaching and learning,which is described below：

Sure if the second language learner is being asked to be successful in acquiring a system of communication of such vast complexity,it is only reasonable that the teacher have awareness of what the components of that system are.Your understanding of the components of language will determine to a large extent how you teach a language.……［About language］truth is multifaceted and is usually surrounded by undecipherable gray areas.（1994:6）

We intend to redefine and reconstruct pragmatic competence from the perspective of cognitive linguistics because an array of literature has seen it as the cornerstone of controversies over language or communicative competence for more than 30 years.We think that if the new interpretation of pragmatic competence can shed light on a better understanding of language or communicative competence,it might be greatly conducive to the redefinition and reestablishment of the goal,the content,the materials,and the methods for the Chinese EFL teaching,in particular for the university level or advanced level of Chinese EFL learners.

Just as researchers at home and abroad claim that pragmatic competence is relatively difficult to describe compared to linguistic competence,it is not an easy job to construct a comprehensive model of pragmatic competence that satisfies second or foreign language teaching and research.We attempt to do this research inspired and encouraged by other researchers' discoveries and achievements in linguistics and applied linguistics.We think there is an absolute need for reevaluating the construct of pragmatic competence as it takes a decisive role in interpreting communicative competence and L2 language proficiency.The need also reflects that the issue is one of the major concerns at the recent 16th World Applied Linguistics Conference held in Beijing in July,2011,and the 11th and 12th National Pragmatics Conference held respectively in Wuhan University and Shanxi University in July,2009 and 2011.This might further demonstrate the realistic significance and practical value of the research.