L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Teaching 1138279935, 9781138279933

Citation preview

L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS

L2 Spanish Pragmatics is a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of current research into pragmatics and Spanish language teaching. It presents the research on the teaching of pragmatics and Spanish language as a multifaceted discipline. Written by an international cohort of scholars, the breadth of topics includes innovative topics in the teaching of Spanish, such as genre analysis, discourse markers, politeness and impoliteness, nonverbal communication, irony, and humor, as well as web-based pragmatics resources. Key features: • • • • • •

An overview of new trends in Spanish pragmatics research and the growing need for instruction in intercultural communication; Insights derived from important theoretical and empirical works that may contribute towards integrating pragmatics in the teaching of the language; Explanations with great clarity, plenty of examples and references, as well as connections to language teaching and learning; Tasks and activities that can help teachers move from a traditional curricular approach to a more innovative and engaging one; Descriptions of numerous activities or guidelines for the classroom, supplemented with additional materials; A bilingual glossary of terms in pragmatics that will help teachers in their implementation of activities to teach L2 Spanish pragmatics.

L2 Spanish Pragmatics constitutes a reference book on current research on learning and teaching Spanish pragmatics. It will be of interest to university lecturers, researchers, and graduate students. It will also be an excellent resource for language educators and K–16 teachers willing to expand their knowledge and apply the teaching of pragmatics as an integral component in the teaching of the Spanish language. Domnita Dumitrescu is Professor Emerita of Spanish at California State University, Los Angeles, and a full member of the North American Academy of the Spanish Language (ANLE), USA. Patricia Lorena Andueza is Associate Professor of Spanish at the University of Evansville, Indiana, USA.

PRAISE FOR THIS EDITION

This pioneering volume does a superb job of bringing together a set of research and practical works on different areas of pragmatics and on how to apply the research to the L2 Spanish classroom. The studies give an up-to-date view of a variety of topics, including non-verbal communication, conversational implicatures, discourse management, sociolinguistic aspects of language use, interethnic communication, humor, and politeness. There are highly useful chapters on the writing of curricula for the teaching of pragmatics, and specific guidelines on how to promote the development of pragmatic competence. The wide range of issues discussed by experienced scholars points to the vibrancy and innovative potential of the field of L2 Spanish pragmatics, properly underscored in this excellent anthology. It is a significant contribution to the teaching and assessing of L2 Spanish pragmatics, an essential book for every L2 Spanish teacher, important to professors of linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA), pragmatics, and applied linguistics. Professor Carmen Silva-Corvalán, University of Southern California L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Practice, superbly edited by Professors Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza, contains twelve groundbreaking studies on the application of pragmatic theory to the teaching of Spanish and its implementation in the Spanish curriculum. All of the authors enjoy well-deserved international reputations in research on pragmatics. This revolutionary volume will have a profound impact on the teaching of Spanish by showing how to incorporate and embed pragmatics into L2 textbooks and class activities in a systematic and meaningful fashion. Moreover, it will provide students with the tools to employ the language in appropriate situational interactions with native speakers of Spanish and to avoid the common language blunders. It is now time to move to the next level of linguistic proficiency through the inclusion of pragmatics in the core curriculum. This volume provides a much-needed roadmap on how to introduce pragmatic competence into syllabus. Professor Frank Nuessel, University of Louisville This splendid collection of studies is an immensely valuable contribution to applied pragmatics, specifically to second and foreign language pragmatics. The volume edited by Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza fills the gap between theoretical and applied pragmatics, a gap that has been too large for too long in specialized literature. It is true that no one can be a specialist in the whole of pragmatics, but it is equally true that it is not possible to apply pragmatics without knowing its fundamentals. Teachers of second and foreign languages will enjoy the benefits of these inspiring and illuminating pages. Professor Francisco Moreno-Fernández, Universidad de Alcalá and Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University

Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching

The Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching series provides a showcase for the latest research on the teaching and learning of Spanish. It publishes high-quality authored books, research monographs and edited volumes on innovative methods and theories. The series takes a multiple-perspective approach, with titles focusing on core topics in the areas of applied linguistics, Spanish language and grammar, second language skills, sociolinguistic and cultural aspects of language acquisition and Spanish for academic purposes. Through a discussion of problems, issues and possible solutions, books in the series combine theoretical and practical aspects, which readers can apply in the teaching of the language. Series editor: Javier Muñoz-Basols, University of Oxford. L2 Spanish Pragmatics From Research to Practice Edited by Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza Aprender a aprender en la era digital Tecnopedagogía crítica para la enseñanza del español LE/L2 Esperanza Román-Mendoza La formación de palabras y enseñanza del español como LE/L2 David Serrano-Dolader For more information about this series please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ languages/series/RASLT

L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS From Research to Teaching

Edited by Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dumitrescu, Domnita, editor. | Andueza, Patricia Lorena. Title: L2 Spanish pragmatics : from research to teaching / edited by Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza. Description: First edition. | New York : Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017045949 | ISBN 9781138279933 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781138279940 (softcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315276182 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Spanish language—Discourse analysis. | Spanish language—Spoken Spanish. | Second language acquisition— Research | Pragmatics—Research. Classification: LCC PC4434 .L18 2018 | DDC 460.1/41—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045949 ISBN: 978-1-138-27993-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-27994-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-27618-2 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

To the memory of Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ohio State University, USA), whose groundbreaking work as a linguist, and endless generosity as a friend and as an advisor, will always be remembered.

CONTENTS

List of Contributors Acknowledgments Introduction: Taking pragmatics to the L2 Spanish classroom Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

xi xiv 1

PART I

L2 Spanish pragmatics research

13

1

The pragmatics toolbox Victoria Escandell-Vidal

15

2

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics: What research says, what textbooks offer, what teachers must do Montserrat Mir

3

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks: Perspectives from Spain Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

4

When to speak Spanish and when not to: Interethnic communication and US students of L2 Spanish Laura Callahan

5

Nonverbal communication in L2 Spanish teaching Ana M. Cestero Mancera

33 53

74 90

x

Contents

6 Teaching L2 Spanish discourse markers and pragmatic markers Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

108

PART II

L2 Spanish pragmatics instruction

129

7 Teaching sociopragmatics: Face-work, politeness and impoliteness in L2 Spanish colloquial conversations María Bernal

131

8 Developing L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability in a persuasive genre at an intermediate level Cecilia Sessarego

151

9 The pragmatics of irony in the L2 Spanish classroom M. Belén Alvarado Ortega 10 Teaching with and about humor in the L2 Spanish classroom Susana de los Heros 11 L2 Spanish pragmatics instruction at the novice level: Creating meaningful contexts for the acquisition of grammatical forms Lynn Pearson

169 191

214

12 Web-based pragmatics resources: Techniques and strategies for teaching L2 Spanish pragmatics to English speakers Victoria Russell

232

Glossary Index

253 272

CONTRIBUTORS

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega is Professor of Spanish at the University of Alicante (Spain). She was a Visiting Professor at Rutgers University (USA) and at other institutions. She is a member of the research group GRIALE (Grupo de Investigación para la Pragmática y la Ironía en Español). Her current research focuses on the pragmatics of irony. She is the co-editor (with Leonor Ruiz Gurillo) of Irony and Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse. Patricia Lorena Andueza is Associate Professor at the University of Evansville (USA). She teaches Spanish and Hispanic Linguistics courses in the Department of Foreign Languages and Cultures, as well courses in language acquisition and methodology in the Department of Education. She has a PhD in Hispanic Linguistics from The Ohio State University. Her research centers on Hispanic pragmatics, semantics, and syntax. María Bernal is Associate Professor and Lecturer of Spanish Linguistics at Stockholm University (Sweden), and a member of the EDICE Program, which focuses on the study of linguistic (im)politeness. Her research interests are interactional pragmatics, conversation, and discourse analysis, mainly from a sociopragmatic perspective and through oral corpora (Spanish colloquial conversations, courtroom interactions, political discourse, etc.). Laura Callahan, formerly Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at The City College and Graduate Center-CUNY, is currently Visiting Professor of Spanish in the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures at Santa Clara University (USA). Her areas of interest are: code switching; language, race, and identity; intercultural

xii

Contributors

communication; heritage language maintenance; and linguistic landscapes. Her current research centers on language maintenance and linguistic landscapes. Ana M. Cestero Mancera is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Alcalá (Spain). Her main areas of research are nonverbal communication, conversation analysis, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. She is currently technical coordinator of the “Project for the Sociolinguistic Study of Spanish in Spain and America” (PRESEEA) and co-director of the team of the University of Alcalá, which collaborates in the creation of the “Spanish Corpus of the 21st Century” of the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE). Domnita Dumitrescu is Professor of Spanish Linguistics (Emerita) at California State University, Los Angeles (USA). She has published extensively on the pragmatics of Spanish, Spanish in the United States, and comparative topics in Spanish and Romanian linguistics. As a member of the North American Academy of the Spanish Language, she is currently involved in several inter-academic projects related to the elaboration of the 24th edition of the Diccionario de la lengua española (DLE) and the Glosario de términos gramaticales. Victoria Escandell-Vidal is Professor of Linguistics at the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) (Spain). She has worked on the interfaces between grammar, semantics, and pragmatics from a cognitive perspective, and also on pragmatics in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). She is currently engaged in a project investigating how feature mismatches are resolved during the course of utterance interpretation. Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez is Professor of Spanish Language at the University of Sevilla (Spain), specializing in discourse syntax and pragmatics. She is the author of several research projects including the study of discourse markers, modality, metadiscourse, (im)politeness, media discourse, and political discourse. She is currently engaged in a research venture entitled “Macrosyntax of Current Syntax: Sentence Structure and Sentence Combining.” Susana de los Heros is Professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Rhode Island (USA). Her main areas of interest are Spanish sociolinguistics and pragmatics. Her publications include Lengua y género en el castellano peruano, Utopía y realidad, and Fundamentos y modelos del estudio pragmático y sociopragmático del español (co-edited with Mercedes Niño-Murcia). She is currently working on the social and gender co-construction of identity. Montserrat Mir is Associate Professor of Spanish and Applied Linguistics, and the Language Coordinator at Illinois State University (USA). Her area of research and publication includes Spanish L1/L2 Pragmatics and Language Teaching and

Contributors

xiii

Learning. She is the author of Qué me dices: A Task-Based Approach to Spanish Conversation. Carlos De Pablos-Ortega is Associate Professor in Spanish, Linguistics and Audiovisual Translation at the University of East Anglia (United Kingdom). His areas of interest include contrastive pragmatics, language attitudes and perceptions, cultural representations, and audience reception in subtitling. He is currently engaged in a project in which undergraduate students provide subtitles for audiovisual materials to charitable and non-profit organizations. Lynn Pearson is Associate Professor of Spanish at Bowling Green State University (USA). She has authored work in interlanguage pragmatics, discourse analysis, and world language teacher education. Her current projects include developing materials to teach pragmatics and studying discourse by Spanish L2 learners who reside in a university dormitory designed for Spanish immersion. Victoria Russell is Associate Professor of Spanish and Foreign Language Education at Valdosta State University (USA). She earned a PhD in Second Language Acquisition and Instructional Technology (University of South Florida), and her research interests include online language pedagogy, pragmatics, and foreign language teacher preparation. Her work has appeared in journals such as Foreign Language Annals, The Internet and Higher Education, and Dimension. Cecilia Sessarego is Associate Professor of Spanish at Mount Royal University (Calgary, Canada). She is the author of studies in applied linguistics, including pragmatic language learning, discourse-pragmatics, and genre analysis; as well as undergraduate program design, second language teaching methodology, and professional translation. She is currently working on discourse pragmatic contrasts between English and Spanish and their impact on the instruction of translation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book could not have been published without the help of many people, to whom we are deeply indebted. The words that follow are intended to show our warm appreciation to those who assisted and supported us during the editorial process, and who made this book better. In the first place, we would like to thank the contributors to this volume, for their expertise, their hard work, and their infinite patience in preparing their chapters according to two successive sets of guidelines—as the manuscript of this book, due to unforeseen circumstances, migrated from a former publisher to the current one, and transformed itself into what the readers have before them today. Secondly, we are eternally grateful for the encouragement, support, and wise guidance we constantly received from Javier Muñoz-Basols (University of Oxford, UK), the series editor of Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching, without whom nothing of what we achieved here would have been possible. And, of course, we are also very grateful for the valuable suggestions made by the anonymous readers of the publishing house before the proposal was approved and during the final evaluation of the manuscript. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to the fellow linguists who so selflessly took time from their busy academic schedules to read various chapters of this book and provide helpful suggestions for improvement. They are, in alphabetical order, the following: Aoife Ahern (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain); Diana Bravo (University of Stockholm, Sweden); Carmen Curcó (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico); Carmen García (Arizona State University, USA); Paula Garrett-Rucks (Georgia State University, USA); Nieves Hernández-Flores (University of Copenhagen, Denmark); Derrin Pinto (University of Saint Thomas, USA); and Lidia Rodríguez-Alfano (Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico).

Acknowledgments

xv

In addition, we want to express our greatest appreciation to Frank Nuessel (University of Louisville, USA), who not only carefully read the final manuscript and wrote an insightful and detailed report for Routledge, but also made very valuable suggestions regarding the style and the content of each chapter, all with the gracious and unassuming demeanor that is typical of truly great scholars like him. Last but not least, we deeply appreciate the continuous support we received from the Routledge staff, in particular from Samantha Vale Noya, Camille Burns, Louise Peterken, and Laura Sandford, who guided us with a steady hand through the maze of the publishing process itself. To all of them, our most sincere thanks. We hope not to have disappointed you, or our readers, in the end. Domnita Dumitrescu, Los Angeles, CA, and Patricia Lorena Andueza, Evansville, IN

INTRODUCTION Taking pragmatics to the L2 Spanish classroom Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

Pragmatics is the study of the conditions of human language uses as these are determined by the context of society. (Iacob Mey 1993, p. 42)

1.

Rationale for this book

We are pleased to present this new volume on L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Practice in the series Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching, the writing of which was prompted by the mismatch that we perceived between what research in Spanish pragmatics has found and how L21 Spanish is taught today. In our view, L2 language teachers need to have specific guidance in how to teach and assess pragmatics in order to know how to incorporate it into their classrooms. Not only do many available textbooks lack examples of activities to teach or assess pragmatic skills, but also guidelines on how to promote the development of pragmatic competence are practically non-existent.2 In addition to this, as Gironzetti and Koike (2016) point out, with the exception of few contributions,3 the vast majority of Spanish pragmatic research has adopted a theoretical approach. Therefore, the lack of pedagogical guidelines for teachers to integrate pragmatics in the Spanish language classroom is evident and noteworthy. As De Pablos-Ortega (2016) writes, “[q]ue la pragmática se convierta en un componente esencial dentro de los programas de formación del profesorado es todavía una asignatura pendiente” (p. 184). We believe that presenting empirically validated studies on pragmatics in L2 Spanish can be useful for teaching this important component of speakers’ linguistic competence. This book is primarily focused on teaching practices with special attention to instructional approaches and classroom methods. Our goal is to identify the issues that need to be explored and analyzed by researchers, and to point out the important resources that teachers need for them to be successful in their practice.

2

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

In this volume, we address different areas of pragmatics, such as nonverbal communication, conversational implicatures, conversational structure, discourse organization, discourse management, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use. We are also concerned with curriculum writing and the incorporation of online pragmatics material. To this aim, we provide specific proposals that can help to move from a traditional curriculum to a more innovative one.

2.

Language and culture intertwine

Different words signal a different mentality—a different way of looking at things, which explains why there are differences in how meaning is conveyed in different languages, and how underlying cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions influence native speakers’ behavior. In other words, when we learn a language, we learn not only the ability to produce and understand grammatical sentences in that target language, but also how to use our linguistic knowledge when communicating with other people, in other places, with different purposes, and using other modes of communication. Hymes (1996) emphasizes that learning culture should be an integral part of language learning and education, because culture refers to socio-cultural norms, worldviews, beliefs, assumptions, and value systems that find their way into practically all facets of language use. As Byram and Morgan (1994, p. 43) point out, “[l]earners cannot simply shake off their own culture and step into another, their culture is a part of themselves and created them as social beings.” Learners’ awareness of socio-cultural frameworks and the concepts they acquire as part of their socialization into beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors remain predominantly firstculture bound even for advanced and proficient learners (Hinkel 1999). If no formal pragmatics instruction is provided, Ishihara and Cohen (2010) claim that it would take at least ten years in a second language context to be able to use the language in a pragmatically native-like manner. The majority of learners apparently do not acquire the pragmatics of the target language on their own, even if they are immersed in the L2 environment (Bouton 1988, 1990, 1992), because they may still not have enough language exposure. Therefore, language instruction must integrate cultural and cross-cultural instruction. Research has extensively demonstrated that learners appreciate the pragmatic behavior of native speakers to a greater degree once they are aware of their system of cultural beliefs, values, and norms. Students need to be trained to reflect on the world and on themselves through the lens of another language and culture, comprehend speakers of the target language as members of foreign societies, and understand that they can also be perceived as members of a society that is foreign to others. Learning pragmatics also requires L2 learners to construct and negotiate their identities as members of a community where they have to interact with native speakers. However, learners decide whether they want to be pragmatically appropriate or simply learn to accommodate to L2 norms. If they choose to avoid cross-cultural misunderstanding, they need to understand the social factors in the target language

Introduction

3

and the cultural reasoning. For instance, if it is appropriate to express a compliment to a complete stranger or if it is appropriate to accept an invitation immediately. In other words, the acquisition of communicative competence involves the ability to manage a complex system that is comprised of language, language users, and the context of interaction. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them according to the contextual features of the situation. In sum, using the language appropriately involves taking into account the norms of behavior relevant to the given situation in a given speech community. For that reason, we intend to highlight, in each chapter, the social and cultural aspects in the learning of Spanish L2 pragmatics and invite teachers and readers to consider why learners need to be aware of these aspects regardless of their level of proficiency.

3.

Pragmatics is teachable

The main focus of instruction in the vast majority of L2 programs both in Europe and the Americas is still on the development of grammatical competence, or, at best, the development of grammar and vocabulary. However, grammatical (or lexical) errors are easily identified and “forgiven” by native speakers while pragmatic ones are interpreted on a social and personal level, and may result in misunderstandings and communication breakdowns. Indeed, the field of pragmatics has grown exponentially in the last few decades, and has branched out in a series of subfields. As Márquez-Reiter and Placencia (2005, p. 2) observed: Present-day pragmatics is an interdisciplinary endeavor, at the intersection of different fields, including, among others, linguistics, discourse analysis, philosophy, sociology, cultural/linguistic anthropology, and cognitive and cross-cultural psychology. As such, there cannot be one all-embracing pragmatics theory with a unified methodology, since a number of diverse theories have developed out of different research interests and programs. According to several studies (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1996; Bardovi-Harlig 1999; Kasper and Schmidt 1996; Kasper and Rose 1999; Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor 2003), L2 learners show significant differences from native speakers in the area of language use, in the execution and comprehension of certain speech acts, in conversation functions, and in conversational management such as back channeling and short responses. Even learners at the higher levels of grammatical proficiency will not necessarily show equivalent pragmatic competence, and the classroom can be considered a safe space where the students can use the language and experiment with new forms and patterns of communication by participating in conversations and engaging in different types of discourse (for discussion, see Chapters 8 and 11). Research into the pragmatic competence of L2 learners has convincingly demonstrated that most aspects of L2 pragmatics are teachable, and that the teaching

4

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

of pragmatics could be beneficial to the process of learning a second language. Several researchers (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Betancourt Romero 2012; Bouton 1994; House 1996; Kasper and Rose 2002; LoCastro 1997; Schmidt 1993) have shown not only that the teaching of pragmatics could be beneficial to the process of learning a second language, but also that instruction is more beneficial than simple exposure (Billmyer 1990; Bouton 1994; Lyster 1994; Wishnoff 2000; Yoshimi 2001). As Schmidt (1993) pointed out, pragmatic functions and relevant contextual factors are often not salient to learners and unlikely to be noticed despite prolonged exposure. Therefore, the curricular materials should seek to raise learners’ awareness of the pragmatic use of language in order to enable them to take the initiative in developing their own pragmatic ability over time. In the last ten years, different organizations, such as the European Council, the Instituto Cervantes, and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, have recognized the need to develop pragmatic competence when acquiring a foreign language, and have incorporated guidelines and rubrics to assess it. In our view, the main goal of L2 teaching should be to facilitate the process of raising awareness in order to enable L2 learners to acquire intercultural abilities and be more conscious of the various factors involved in interpersonal communicative interaction. Teachers should focus on exposing the students to input, and guide them so they can recognize the pragmatic functions of grammar for communicative purposes. Teaching L2 pragmatics should also stimulate reflection on the sociopragmatic values associated with language forms within specific contexts and cultural norms, and incorporate other pragmatic features into the curriculum besides speech acts, such as politeness, implicatures, conversational turns, humor, and indirectness, etc. A corpus4 can also be a very useful tool to develop analytic tasks in order to offer learners the opportunity to notice, analyze, and interpret the use of natural language. Teachers may encourage students to not only pay careful attention to the way language is used (such as politeness routines, expressions, and phrases) by speakers or hearers, but also identify the reasons for the use of these language devices in order to develop their own repertoire of strategies. In sum, we believe that the teaching of pragmatics should aim to facilitate the learner’s sense of being able to find socially and culturally appropriate language for the situations that they might encounter. Research can help L2 textbook writers and instructors develop teaching material to raise students’ pragmatic awareness, but learners also need to be offered opportunities for reflection on their pragmatic knowledge of the target language, and practice in hands-on communicative activities to develop their pragmatic competence.

4.

How to teach pragmatics

Research on the instruction in second languages has undergone a significant shift from the early studies influenced by pedagogical theory and practice to a field in which the focus of second language acquisition (SLA) research is in psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology. The latter approach is based on three interrelated hypotheses. Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1993, 1995) holds that in

Introduction

5

order for input to become intake, it needs to be registered through awareness. On the other hand, Swain’s output hypothesis (Swain 1996) suggests that during output production, learners may notice gaps in their interlanguage knowledge, and it also requires that learners reflect on and analyze their knowledge. Finally, Long’s interaction hypothesis (Long 1996) integrates these two theories and proposes that the type of negotiation that takes place in communicative interactions facilitates acquisition. Interactional opportunities promote learners’ retrieval and retention of information, and automaticity in recalling this information can be enhanced, thus resulting in improved fluency. These types of tasks also require learners to attend not only to their own utterances, but also to those of their interactional partners; they must respond appropriately in a specific context, often in real time. Therefore, they may learn to modify and restructure the immediate interaction in terms of linguistic form, conversational structure, or the content of the message. For instance, the interpretation of a speech act depends on the context, which includes the situation as well as social and cultural knowledge. As a result, using speech acts as data allows the teacher to describe language structures and a range of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic norms in the communities where the target language is used. The linguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of specific speech acts (such as the social status of the speaker and the hearer; social distance between them; their ages, genders; and the situation where the interaction takes place) can be easily manipulated in the classroom to focus on routine and conventionalized uses of language in context. Activities that provide opportunities to practice, such as role-plays, simulation, or drama, engage students in different social roles and speech events, which help them develop their pragmatic and sociolinguistic skills. Language classrooms should also provide opportunities to analyze and interpret authentic input and highlight specific features of language use. Speech acts have been thoroughly studied, and research findings have been readily applicable to instruction. That being said, speech acts are only one component of the pragmatic knowledge that students need to acquire. As Kasper and Rose (2002) claim, most studies have concentrated on the production of pragmatics strategies or their use in interaction. However, instruction specifically aimed at improving learners’ pragmatic comprehension has received far less attention. Implicatures and presuppositions are a more complex pragmatic phenomenon, since in order to be taught and understood the learners require knowledge and experience with the target language and the cultural norms. They demand inductive learning that takes time to develop. We believe that addressing the process of conversational implicatures can also shed light on the ability of non-native speakers to derive the same message from conversational implicatures. Bouton (1990, 1992, 1994) points out that, with regard to American English implicature, none of the ESL texts make any direct attempt to develop the skills necessary to interpret implicatures, and instances in which the attention of the students was focused on a particular implicature as a source of indirectly conveyed information were relatively rare. This is also true for Spanish. Shively et al. (2008), Ruiz Gurillo (2008), and Bell and Pomerantz (2016) point out that textbooks, at least in Spanish and English, barely address how to teach

6

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

irony or humor. Therefore, it is not surprising to find out that the progress made by non-native speakers (NNS) in learning to interpret implicatures successfully has been slow. Some implicatures are more difficult than others, and irony and humor are among them (for discussion, see Chapters 9 and 10). Because of the wide variety of factors that conform the pragmatics of a language, in this volume we wanted to cover other pragmatic aspects besides speech acts that we thought might be useful to understand and teach Spanish pragmatics, such as nonverbal communication, conversational structure, discourse markers, online resources, and identity factors.

5.

About this volume

In the first part of this book (Chapter 1–6), we begin by situating our review of research on the teaching of pragmatics within the larger research domain of this complex and multifaceted discipline. In Chapter 1, Victoria Escandell-Vidal explains how pragmatics can help teachers and learners understand all of the social and cognitive factors involved in communication. Like other scholars before her, she reinforces the claim that learning and teaching a second language are associated with gaining awareness in understanding how linguistic and non-linguistic information affect the way we handle social interactions, and how complex systems of assumptions and expectations that are culturally based guide the way we make inferences and process information. In her view, L2 teachers are expected to have an extensive knowledge of the structure of the language, and the cultural and social differences that can affect the expectations, the identification of communicative intentions, and the perception of politeness. In the following two chapters, Montserrat Mir and Carlos De Pablos-Ortega explore the issue on how L2 Spanish textbooks currently used on the market address the teaching of pragmatics through specific exercises and other pedagogical activities. Even though both authors examine Spanish textbooks, their approaches and conclusions are slightly different. Mir focuses more on providing detailed pedagogical guidelines for different proficiency levels in an attempt to minimize what she considers a palpable lack of material addressing pragmatic information in textbooks used in the US. According to her, language teachers should focus not only on developing pragmatic awareness, but also motivate metapragmatic discussions on pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues. On the other hand, Carlos De PablosOrtega, after analyzing five Spanish textbooks and the corresponding teachers’ editions that belong to the Aula Internacional series edited by Difusión, concludes that pragmatic information comprises one-third of the content of the books, and this information is homogeneous and presented evenly throughout levels A1 to B2. However, the author concludes that metapragmatic information is only comprised of speech acts and politeness (basically concentrated in level A2), and therefore further work needs to be done. Speakers’ use of particular linguistic and pragmatic features and the language they use are symbolic of their group standards. Sometimes they may choose to

Introduction

7

diverge in order to maintain their distinctive in-group identities and accentuate their linguistic differences with the intention of isolating themselves from other language groups. In Chapter 4, Laura Callahan takes into account this factor of human communication, and the importance of addressing the perception of the Spanish language and the Hispanic population in the United States in L2 Spanish classes. She analyzes the negative reactions that some US Spanish native speakers show when non-native speakers talk to them in Spanish. She ends the chapter by proposing several suggestions to help students be aware and cope with this reality that they might encounter in their interactions with Spanish native speakers. In Chapter 5, Ana M. Cestero Mancera discusses research in the field of nonverbal communication, in order to draw attention to the importance of this type of communication in human interaction as a whole. The author claims that the early acquisition of nonverbal communication systems can solve communication problems since this is a way of overcoming verbal shortcomings. In addition to this aspect, she presents some guidelines not only to create different types of activities for different levels of proficiency, but also to show how to collect natural data from nonverbal communication signs, and ways to present them in the classroom. In Chapter 6, Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez offers an analysis and classification of discourse and pragmatic markers, along with teaching guidelines and exercises for classroom practice. After she thoroughly reviews the vast literature on the topic under discussion, she offers an original analysis of these markers, subdividing them in two large functional categories: connectors and operators, with numerous subcategories, which she illustrates with authentic data from several online corpora and for which she provides pedagogical activities. The second part of the book focuses on the learning, teaching, and assessing of L2 Spanish pragmatics. This part of the volume includes a variety of teaching styles and approaches that share some pedagogical practices, such as awareness activities, input processing activities, and output activities. The purpose of Chapter 7, by María Bernal, is to study the sociocultural aspects of communication in connection with face management, politeness, and impoliteness in the specific situation of complaints in L2 Spanish. The author claims that the use of tests of social habits followed by a whole class discussion of the responses is a useful instrument not only to gather natural information, but also to direct attention to how language users operate spontaneously. In addition, Bernal proposes guidelines to make the students develop their own questionnaires, which can help them reflect on the theoretical and methodological topics covered during a course in pragmatics at an advanced level. Cecilia Sessarego shows, in Chapter 8, that the integration of vocabulary and grammar, with communicative functions and pragmatics, is possible if grammar is no longer conceptualized in terms of discrete items in stand-alone sentences, but instead is used to serve the speaker’s intentions and meaning in context of language use. She argues that a discursive pragmatic instructional approach can be implemented in most L2 Spanish courses at an intermediate level, which will necessarily involve a shift in perspective from the current linguistic view on texts.

8

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

Namely, traditional categorizations of narration, argumentation, or exposition can be employed in communicative events for real-life purposes, without the need to “add” more components to the syllabus. Chapter 9, by M. Belén Alvarado Ortega, has as its aim to study effective ways to work with the pragmatic concept of irony in L2 Spanish classes. Since irony can only be learned in conversational interactions, the author adopts a communicative and functional approach to design activities conducive to such learning. Alvarado Ortega claims that there are several linguistic indicators and markers that give rise to ironic interpretations. Based on these markers and indicators, she presents a complete didactic unit (two 60-minute class sessions) to bring irony as a pragmatic phenomenon into the L2 classroom. The unit includes cards for both the teacher and the student, accompanied by an answer key and a self-assessment section. Susana de los Heros, in Chapter 10, claims that humor, although a universal phenomenon, is rooted in speakers’ ethnic and cultural heritage, and therefore is a part of their communicative competence. Its functions vary; namely, it can serve as a social lubricant, show alignments and bonding, and mitigate conflict between participants of different status. The goal of this chapter is to provide teachers with specific teaching strategies and different types of activities (raising language and cultural awareness, structured output, and social interaction exercises) to integrate humor in the classroom, both as a teaching strategy and a subject matter. In Chapter 11, Lynn Pearson takes a pragmalinguistic approach in an attempt to map forms and meaning in meaningful interactions. The author details pedagogical activities to teach Spanish directives in beginning level courses with the additional objective of aiding acquisition of grammatical forms and vocabulary (specifically verbal morphology and indirect object pronouns). The varieties of activities proposed have different purposes: to raise consciousness, analyze the pragmatics aspects of directives, and provide short practice activities of role-plays with guidelines for learners. Finally, in Chapter 12, Victoria Russell focuses on teaching speech acts, and describes an open access web-based tutorial (WBT) that was designed and developed for instructing Spanish pragmatics to learners whose first language is English. The WBT offers both video and audio input, and provides a unique and highly interactive user interface where learners can record video responses to the discourse completion tasks. In addition to this, the WBT includes an overview of the main pragmatic theories (Speech Act Theory, Noticing Hypothesis, and Politeness Theory), and suggestions to address learners who have different levels of proficiency. This chapter also includes a very useful appendix, listing a number of websites where one can find ideas and activities to teach pragmatics not only in Spanish, but also in other languages. This book is intended for a wide audience, including language teachers, teacher educators, researchers, college professors, and linguists. We hope that it will stimulate further discussions and works on the application of research to the teaching of pragmatics in the Spanish as a Second Language (L2) classroom. After all, as

Introduction

9

Márquez-Reiter and Placencia (2005, p. 2) have pointed out, “pragmatic is . . . best broadly understood as a perspective on communication; more specifically, as the cognitive, social and cultural study of communication.” This means that, as we already claimed in this introduction, if we really want our students to communicate in the target language and to thrive in the environment where that language is spoken, teaching them L2 pragmatics is a sine qua non. We hope this book will provide the inspiration needed in this regard.

Notes 1 Shrum and Glisan (2010, p. 12) make a distinction between foreign and L2 learning based on whether the language is acquired via “formal classroom instruction outside of the geographical region where it is commonly spoken” or “within one of the regions where the language is commonly spoken,” instead or in addition to formal instruction (see also Callahan’s comments in this volume). In this book, however, we use the term L2 learning in a broad, all encompassing sense, to refer to any type of learning of the language by a non-native speaker, in this case, by non-native speakers of Spanish. 2 However, to be fair, we must acknowledge that some newly created scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Spanish Language Teaching—which appears to be at the forefront of this trend—are showing an increased interest in exploring such topics. Articles such as Koike and Lacorte (2014), Hernández (2015) and Hernández Muñoz (2016), for example, appear to make promising overtures toward the application of pragmatic concepts to the teaching of L2 Spanish, as do all the articles in the recent monographic issue of this journal (3.2, 2016), entirely dedicated to “bridging the gap in Spanish instructional pragmatics: from theory to practice” (guest editors: Elisa Gironzetti and Dale Koike). On the other hand, books on Spanish applied linguistics that have appeared in the recent years include, unlike older books of the same kind, explicit sections on the beneficial effect of instruction on the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence. Positive examples in this regard are Blake and Zyzick (2016, pp. 155–160), and Muñoz-Basols et al. (2017, pp. 246–276). And, of, course, we should not forget the book by Pinto and De Pablos-Ortega (2014), which is the first comprehensive approach to L2 Spanish pragmatics from a didactic perspective. 3 Even though most of the publications are theoretical, it is important to recognize the contributions of several projects and journals, such as the CARLA project, GRIALE, and the already mentioned Journal of Spanish Language Teaching. 4 These are some corpora in Spanish that can be incorporated in Spanish classes: the Corpus Oral de Referencia del Español Contemporáneo (1992), the Corpus Oral del Lenguaje Adolescente (2001), the Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA) (1995), the Corpus del Español Mexicano Contemporáneo (1974), the Corpus del Proyecto para el Estudio del Español de España y de América (PRESEEA) (2014), the Corpus de Valencia Español Coloquial (Val.Es.Co) (1990), the Corpus de Alicante-Corpus Oral del Español (COVJA) (Azorín and Jiménez 1997), the Corpus de Alicante-Corpus Oral del Español (ALCORE) (Azorín, 2002), the Macrocorpus de la Norma Lingüística Culta de las Principales Ciudades del Mundo Hispanico (Samper Padilla, Hernández Cabrera, and Troya Déniz 1998), and the Corpus Monterrey-PRESEEA (Rodríguez Alfano, Flores Treviño, and Pérez Aguirre, 2010).

References ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 2012. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-profi ciency-guidelines-2012.

10

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

Azorín, D., coord. 2002. Corpus de Alicante-Corpus Oral del Español (ALCORE). CD-ROM. Azorín, D. and J. L. Jiménez, coords. 1997. Corpus oral de la variedad juvenil universitaria del español hablado en Alicante (COVJA). Alicante: Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. “Exploring the Interlanguage of Interlanguage Pragmatics: A Research Agenda for Acquisitional Pragmatics.” Language Learning 49(4): 677–713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Empirical Evidence of the Need for Instruction in Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and B. S. Hartford. 1996. “Input in an Institutional Setting.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 171–188. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State. Bell, N. D. and A. Pomerantz. 2016. Humor in the Classroom: A Guide for Language Teachers and Educational Research. London and New York: Routledge. Betancourt Romero, M. V. 2012. “Adquisición de pragmática en segunda lengua: Un modelo didáctico para la enseñanza de la pragmática.” MA diss., Indiana University. http:// scholarworks.iupu.edu/handle/1805/2968. Billmyer, K. 1990. “The Effect of Formal Instruction on the Development of Sociolinguistic Competence: The Performance of Compliments.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Blake, R. J. and E.C. Zyzick. 2016. El español y la lingüística aplicada. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bouton, L. 1988. “A Cross-Cultural Study of Ability to Interpret Implicatures in English.” World Englishes 7(2): 183–196. Bouton, L. 1990. “The Effective Use of Implicature in English: Why and How It Should Be Taught in the ESL Classroom?” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, eds. L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, Vol. 1: 43–52. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bouton, L. 1992. “Culture, Pragmatics and Implicature.” AFinLa Yearbook 1992: 35–61. Bouton, L. 1994. “Can NNS Skill in Interpreting Implicatures in American English be Improved through Explicit Instruction? A Pilot Study.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, eds. L. F. Bouton and Y. Kachru, Vol. 5: 88–109. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Byram, M. and C. Morgan. 1994. Teaching and Learning Language and Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). 2015. “Pragmatics and Speech Acts.” www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/. Corpus Oral de Referencia del Español Contemporáneo (CORLEC). 1992. http://www.lllf. uam.es/ESP/Corlec.html. Corpus Oral del Lenguaje Adolescente (COLA). 2001. http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/cola/. Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA). 1995. www.rae.es/recursos/banco-de-datos/ crea. Corpus del Español Mexicano Contemporáneo. 1974. http://www.corpus.unam.mx:8080/ unificado/index.jsp?c=cemc#. Corpus del Proyecto para el Estudio del Español de España y de América (PRESEEA). 2014. http://preseea.linguas.net/Corpus.aspx. Corpus de Valencia Español Coloquial (Val.Es.Co). 1990. www.valesco.es/. De Pablos-Ortega, C. 2016. “Pragmática en la formación de profesores de segunda lengua.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(2): 171–188.

Introduction

11

European Council. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/ linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf. Gironzetti, E. and D. Koike. 2016. “Bridging the Gap in Spanish Instructional Pragmatics: From Theory to Practice.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(2): 89–98. Grupo de Investigación Sobre Ironía y Humor (GRIALE). 2002. https://dfelg.ua.es/griale/. Hernández, J. 2015. “General Extender Use in Spoken Peninsular Spanish: Metapragmatic Awareness and Pedagogical Implications.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 2(1): 1–17. Hernández Muñoz, N. 2016. “Adquisición de la competencia intercultural y metodologías de aprendizaje activo: un estudio sobre la formación de profesores de español.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(1): 1–14. Hinkel, E. 1999. “Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data.” Applied Linguistics 18(1): 1–26. House, J. 1996. “Developing Pragmatic Fluency in English as a Foreign Language: Routines and Metapragmatic Awareness.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 225–252. Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes: Niveles de referencia para el español. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. http://cvc.cervantes.es/Ensenanza/Biblioteca_Ele/plan_ curricular/default.htm. Ishihara, N. and A. D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow: Pearson. Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 1999. “Pragmatics and SLA.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 81–104. Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Koike, D. and M. Lacorte. 2014. “Toward Intercultural Competence: From Questions to Perspectives.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(1): 15–30. LoCastro, V. 1997. “Pedagogical Intervention and Pragmatic Competence Development.” Applied Language Learning 8(1): 75–109. Long, M. H. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lyster, R. 1994. “The Effect of Functional-Analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immersion Students’ Sociolinguistic Competence.” Applied Linguistics 15(3): 263–287. Márquez-Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Muñoz-Basols, J., N. Moreno, I. Taboada and M. Lacorte. 2017. Introducción a la lingüística hispánica actual: Teoría y práctica. London and New York: Routledge. Pinto, D. and C. De Pablos-Ortega. 2014. Seamos pragmáticos: Introducción a la pragmática española. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Rodríguez Alfano, L., M. E. Flores Treviño and T. Pérez Aguirre, coords. 2010. Corpus Monterrey–PRESEEA. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. CD-ROM. Ruiz Gurillo, L. 2008. “El lugar de la ironía en la clase de español como lengua extranjera: Más allá del Marco y del Plan Curricular.” RedELE 14: 1–8.

12

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

Samper Padilla, J. A., C. E. Hernández Cabrera and M. Troya Déniz, coords. 1998. Macrocorpus de la norma lingüística culta de las principales ciudades del mundo hispánico. Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria. CD-ROM. Schmidt, R. 1993. “Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Interlanguage Pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 21–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, ed. R. Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Shively, R. 2008. “Perception of Irony by L2 Learners.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(2): 101–132. Shrum, J. L. and E. W. Glisan. 2010. Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning. Swain, M. 1996. “Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning.” In Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, eds. G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer, 245–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wishnoff, J. 2000. “Hedging your Bets: L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse.” Second Language Studies: Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies 19(1): 119–157. Yoshimi, D. R. 2001. “Explicit Instruction and JFL Learners’ Use of Interactional Discourse Markers.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 223–244. New York: Cambridge University Press.

PART I

L2 Spanish pragmatics research

1 THE PRAGMATICS TOOLBOX1 Victoria Escandell-Vidal

1.

Introduction

Understanding how languages work in communication is a matter of unravelling a complex tangle of factors, including structural rules and restrictions, cognitive abilities, social and cultural preferences, and individual features. Just like any other human institution, language is extremely sensitive to its environment, so despite the universality of our mental architecture, there is a wide range of variation in communication practices, among both different languages and different varieties of the same language. Pragmatics can help teachers and learners by providing a general frame of reference for establishing the relative weight and contribution of each of the various aspects involved in language use, as well as the tools necessary to describe and explain the principles underlying this complexity.

2.

Communication: Beyond words and grammar

A quick search for the word pragmatics in the literature will produce a relatively high number of definitions, with partial overlaps, but also with significant differences. The object of pragmatics as a discipline has been identified as meaning in use, speaker’s meaning, cognitive abilities involved in utterance interpretation, or meaning in a social context. (For an overview, see among others Leech 1983; Levinson 1983, 2000; Green 1989; Kerbrat-Orecchioni [1990] 1994; Mey 1993; Reyes 1994; Grundy 1995; Thomas 1995; Escandell-Vidal [1996] 2006, 2014; Yule 1996; Verschueren, Östman, and Blommaert 1995; Verschueren 1999; Horn and Ward 2004; LoCastro 2003; Márquez-Reiter and Placencia 2005; Chapelle 2012; Huang 2012).

16

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

But what is special about language in interaction? Consider the following WhatsApp dialogue between an adolescent (J) and his mother (M). After having had lunch at his friend’s house, he writes: (1) J: Me quedo un rato más, que vamos a ver una peli. M: ¿Y los exámenes? J: Tengo mañana y pasado. M: Tú mismo. For both the mother and the son it is clear what they mean by their utterances and how they fit together, considering the whole conversational setting and the shared knowledge they have. The interpretation of this conversation can be clear for other people as well, to the extent that they know (or can imagine) the situation. The dialogue in (1) can be reported as follows: the son is informing his mother that he intends to stay at his friend’s home to watch a movie. Both of them know that the date for the son’s exams is approaching, so the mother reminds him of this fact to suggest that he should come home and study some more. The son then rejects this suggestion on the basis that he has two more days before the exams, ample time to study. The mother, rather reluctantly, leaves the responsibility on her son and ends the conversation. It is evident that what we understand in (1) goes well beyond what has been put into words. For example, the boy does not specify where he wants to stay, but nevertheless we recover this information; the mother only mentions the exams, without stating how they are relevant, but we can easily add this information; the boy says he has two days, though he does not say what for, and we can recover the missing details. In addition, we also understand that the boy’s opening utterance is not a way of asking for permission, that the mother’s reply is a hint not to stay and that the mother is not happy with her son’s decision. There are, thus, various kinds and levels of information recovered that are not directly encoded by the linguistic form. The crucial question, then, is how all this extra information has been obtained. The obvious answer is, of course, it comes from the context. But then new questions arise: What is “the context”? How do we know what can count as context? How can participants anticipate what others will understand? How do they recognize each other’s intentions and emotions? The main problems that pragmatic theories aim to explain are brought to light in questions like these. Several facts emerge from this simple example. First and foremost—and contrary to what is sometimes assumed—there is much more to communication than encoding and decoding messages. Human communication is not a mechanical activity of exchanging linguistic signals, in which participants merely wrap up all they wanted to convey; rather, speakers communicate by providing clues (both linguistic and non-linguistic) of their intended message, and hearers are able to use such clues, together with their knowledge of the situation, to infer additional content and reconstruct the communicative intention (Grice 1957, [1967] 1975). This is, in fact, exactly what we have in (1): each participant gives partial indications to guide the addressee toward the representations they want to convey. Thus, when

The pragmatics toolbox

17

used in communication, linguistic expressions actually work as pointers to information, rather than as packages containing all the information. In other words, in our interactions, symbols are used as indexes. This feature is unique to human communication. A second fact that emerges is that linguistic expressions are very sensitive to the environment in which they occur. It is very easy to find that the same words have different communicative imports depending on the surrounding words and the situational setting. Consider the excerpt in (2), an exchange between two faculty colleagues (A and B): (2) A: Hoy he tenido la última comisión para juzgar trabajos de fin de curso. B: ¿Y los exámenes? A: Tengo mañana y pasado. B: Ah, entonces terminas enseguida. The segments in italics in (2) are identical to the question/answer pair in (1); however, here their import is quite different, as can be seen in (3): (3) A: Hoy he tenido la última comisión para juzgar trabajos de fin de curso. B: ¿Y [cuándo tienes] los exámenes? A: Tengo [mis exámenes] mañana y pasado. B: Ah, entonces terminas enseguida. The answer contains the same words, but their interpretation radically changes: here the predicate tener is enriched, invoking a different conceptual (and syntactic) frame, taking a non-overt argument, mis exámenes, as its object with mañana y pasado as adverbial modifiers, whereas in the previous case the object was mañana y pasado. Besides, in (3) tener [un examen] is interpreted from the point of view of the teacher, thus meaning “giving an exam to the students,” not “doing an exam,” as when the situation is seen from the perspective of the student. Furthermore, in (3) the question asks for unknown information, and the answer provides the new information required, while this was not the case in (1). All these cases show that the situation (including previous context, prior general and specific knowledge, situational expectations, etc.) contributes to modelling the interpretation in a way that if the situation is changed, the very same segment can receive a different interpretation. This is why taking someone’s words out of context can be a strategy for changing the intended import of their message. The role of the context is not thus merely that of a fixed scenario where the plot develops. The extralinguistic information has a leading role at least at two different levels. On the one hand, it completes what has been linguistically encoded by providing further details for vague expressions or unspecified constituents. For instance, we understand “Me quedo un rato más” as meaning “I’m staying here (at my friend’s) for a while,” so we conceptually add the indication of a particular location to the event of staying, and we do so on the basis of the information we have about

18

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

the place where the speaker is. The inferential processes that enrich the encoded content and develop it into a more detailed proposition, even by adding “missing” arguments and predicates when needed, are known as “primary processes” (Recanati 2004, p. 17); the resulting level has been called “explicature” (Sperber and Wilson [1986] 1995, p. 182; Wilson and Sperber 2012; see also Carston and Hall 2012 for a general overview). On the other hand, the interpretation also includes several representations that are formally independent: These are added pieces of general knowledge invoked for the occasion to make sense of what has been said by relating it to the intentions or the attitudes of the users. For example, when we interpret that the mother’s question is a reminder and that she would prefer that her son come home earlier to prepare his exams, in order to relate her words to her intentions we are resting on unspoken assumptions about preparing exams and parents’ preferences. The new assumptions added in the interpretation are known as “implicatures” (Grice [1967] 1975, pp. 49–50; see also Carston and Hall 2012) and the inferential operations by which we retrieve, build, and integrate them with the encoded content are “secondary processes” (Recanati 2004, p. 17). Finally, and again contrary to what is usually assumed, exchanging information is not necessarily the major goal of all instances of linguistic communication. If the first utterance of the dialogue in (1) is excluded, the rest of the exchange does not consist of information new to any of the participants: neither the mother’s question asks for unknown information, nor does her son’s answer offer new data. Actually, both of them know that he has to study for his exams, when these exams will take place, and that it is the son’s responsibility to do his best. The relevance of these ideas to the ongoing exchange comes not from their novelty, but from the impact they will have on the shared context: it is precisely because its content is shared that we will understand the question as a reminder with an implicit suggestion, and the answer will count as a refusal. The interaction in (1) is thus not an exchange of information, but rather a power game, where each contender struggles to keep his or her position.

3.

The arena of pragmatics

The aim of pragmatic theories is explaining the regularities found in human communication: once it is established that words and grammar rules fall short of accounting for its complexity, the next step is understanding how the various factors involved relate to each other. The interaction between the external factors and the structural properties of language cannot be random and inconsistent. Actually, though not completely fail-proof, human communication is mostly predictable, at least when some previous background is shared, which suggests that it must be governed by some kind of regularities. It is the task of pragmatics to uncover the source for such regularities. Different theories focus on different aspects of the problem, depending on what facet of language and communication they prioritize: some of them bring

The pragmatics toolbox

19

interpretive abilities to the foreground and search for rationality principles and heuristics (Grice 1957, [1967] 1975; Horn 1984, 2004; Levinson 2000); others focus on the cognitive mechanisms that make it possible to manage the variety of information sources, anticipate interpretive hypotheses, and attribute mental states and intentions (Grice 1957, [1967] 1975, 1989; Sperber and Wilson [1986] 1995; Blakemore 1992; Carston 2002, 2004); finally, others concentrate on social practices and on the way in which communication contributes to creating, maintaining, enhancing, or cutting off social relations among individuals (Mey 1993; Thomas 1995; Verschueren 1999). A major divide has usually been established between cognitive and social pragmatics. Cognitive approaches analyze communication and its regularities as a product of the design of the human brain as it has been shaped by evolution: our mental architecture determines the possibilities and limitations of human processing capacities, including the mechanisms that allow us to acquire, retrieve, store, and combine information, and the principles governing the operation of these abilities. Social pragmatics, on the other hand, aims at identifying social conventions on the use of the language in different social groups; to this end, the communicative behavior of large population samples is analyzed to extract statistical generalizations. The approach taken here is intended to go beyond this divide and to identify the basic concepts and distinctions. Cognitive and social notions are intrinsically interwoven and cannot be understood without each other (Escandell-Vidal 2004, 2009, 2014; Kecskés 2014; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-Vidal 2018). The next three sections are devoted to presenting an overview of the main tools needed to understand the various factors involved in linguistic communication, with special attention to their implications for teaching and learning.2

4.

Language, knowledge, and mental representations

The relation between linguistic meaning, on the one hand, and world knowledge, on the other, is intuitively the key to understanding our ability to communicate in such an efficient way, with encoded content working as a convenient hint for the more complex set of assumptions that are actually conveyed. The crucial point is then how linguistic and non-linguistic information interact. Linguistic information can be seen as a set of propositions, but what about non-linguistic knowledge? The factors that can be relevant for utterance interpretation come in different forms and from different sources: the identity of the people we are talking to and our relationship with them, our goals and intentions, the situational setting where the exchange takes places, the nature and the amount of shared knowledge . . . Of course, the list is not exhaustive, but can give an idea of the complexity of the factors involved. It is easy to see that these factors are not all of one kind (i.e., there are individuals, relations, mental states, situations, knowledge . . .), so it is not easy to figure out how they can interact with each other and with linguistic representations: the challenge is, then, dealing with the heterogeneity of all these factors.

20

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

This problem can be solved by employing the same strategy that speakers actually use, i.e., by treating these factors not as external pieces of reality, but as internal representations that individuals have about the surrounding world. For us speakers, the whole set of data from the extra-linguistic situation (including the relationship among the participants, their knowledge, and their intentions) have the same status in our minds: they are all internal representations (Kosslyn and Pomerantz 1977; Fodor 1981; Johnson-Laird 1983; Chalmers 2004). In fact, if any of the external factors determine our behavior at all, they do so not on the basis of their intrinsic, objective properties, but rather in the way they have been perceived and conceptualized. Individuals have their own way of seeing situations, other individuals, objects, and beliefs: it is not the world as it is that counts, but the world as we see it. Thus, even if our cognitive systems are designed to yield accurate representations of the world, this is not always the case, so we can be driven by misconceptions and inaccurate representations. This has been largely exploited in fiction. For example, the interaction between Oedipus and Jocasta in the well-known Greek myth is based on several wrong assumptions, particularly on the misjudgment of both characters about their relationship to each other. Neither of them knows that they are mother and son, so their behavior is driven by false assumptions about the actual state of affairs. Human behavior, then, is determined by the way in which we see the world and by the internal representations we entertain about it. By resorting to the notion of mental representation, we can give a common format to all the external factors that can be brought to bear on the interpretation of communicative behavior. We are no longer dealing with individuals, relationships, mental states, and knowledge, but rather with representations of individuals, relationships, mental states, facts, and so on. This uniformity of format facilitates the interplay between the representations transmitted by linguistic means (which also have a propositional form) and the representation of all the external factors mentioned before. As we will see later, combining linguistic and non-linguistic information can be modelled using well-established inferential patterns. Many of the representations we have will be individual, having to do with very situation-specific details and with our desires and preferences; this explains why behaviors and interpretations are subjective to a greater or lesser extent, and why different people can have partially different views on the same situation. A large number of representations, however, are shared with other members of the same social group, thus promoting a sense of commonality and affiliation, and also facilitating a smooth interaction among the co-members. In fact, during our process of socialization, we tend to replicate a significant part of the ways of thinking and perceiving that are characteristic of our community. The representations that we share are not simply isolated propositions; on the contrary, they form more complex knowledge structures known as scripts, frames, or schemata (Schank and Abelson 1977; Rumelhart 1980). “A script is a predetermined, stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well-known situation” (Schank and Abelson 1977, p. 41). Scripts consist of variable slots, actions, and

The pragmatics toolbox

21

scenes that make it possible to establish temporal and causal connections between events. Entering a college canteen opens up a script with a sequence of events and a set of objects and participants that is quite different from the script of a fancy restaurant: each provides its own reference framework that facilitates interaction and processing by providing ready-to-use information on how to classify situations, understand the various events and actions, and anticipate what comes next at any given point. Scripts are networks of associations in the memory that create predefined patterns of activation and routes for interpretation. A simple cue will suffice to evoke the whole chain of temporal and causal relations. Once expectations have been internalized, they automatically determine behavior, with no need for conscious access to any sort of explicit representation. The failure to use an adequate script may result in misconceptualizations and miscommunication. As it has been pointed out, “the lack of applicability of available scripts would make it harder (and take more time) for a hearer to understand” (Schank and Abelson 1977, p. 41). If two individuals have different scripts for the same situation, this can result in misunderstandings, and the participants can find themselves unable to behave as expected or to understand what is going on. Any internalized script can thus be seen as a set of expectations, internalized images of the general sequences of events and participants for each situation. Expectations can be characterized as “brain states that reflect prior information about what is possible or probable in the forthcoming sensory environment” (Summerfield and Egner 2009, p. 403). Expectations lie at the heart of what we perceive as normal, “smooth interaction.” When the participants share a similar script and act according to it, the events go almost unnoticed; if the participants do not conform to the expectations, in contrast, their behavior becomes salient and frequently results in misunderstandings and triggers an evaluation—typically, a negative one (Escandell-Vidal 2017). Expectations arise as the result of social practice, but cannot be understood without considering their cognitive foundation.

5.

Speech acts and cultural expectations

One of the most popular theoretical proposals is Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1965, 1969, 1975a, 1975b; Searle and Vanderveken 1985; Tzohatzidis 1994), a model that underlies a significant area of the teaching of communicative competence. The theory emphasizes the character of activity of linguistic utterances, which are seen as actions (i.e., speech acts). Like any other kind of action, speech acts are carried out with a certain goal, so intentionality plays a major role in characterizing linguistic activity. The felicity and success of a speech act depends on many different factors, both internal and external. For a wedding formula to take legal effect, it has to be uttered by a person with the recognized right to marry. Similarly, like other forms of action, speech acts have social consequences: promises and oaths, for instance, create a commitment for the speaker, who is bound by her own utterance to take a certain course of action in the future. Thus, requirements and consequences show that

22

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

speech acts are not merely a matter of linguistic performance, but a form of social action embedded in a social context. There are common practices that speakers of a particular community recognize as their own. Thus, what we usually call “culture” is a set of widely shared representations and expectations. The role of culture in shaping conversational styles is well known, and intercultural studies have largely benefited from the insights of linguists, sociologists, and ethnographers (Ting-Toomey 1999; Hofstede 2001; Nisbett 2003; Spencer-Oatey 2005, 2007; Samovar, Porter, and McDaniel 2006; Kecskés 2014; Wolfson 1989). Competent speakers have internalized the guidelines for dealing with different speech acts in different situations and are able to apply those guidelines in a flexible and appropriate way (see Hymes 1971; Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983; Llobera 1995; Kecskés 2000, 2006, 2010): they “are able to interpret the intended meanings of what is said or written, the assumptions, purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that are being performed” (Yule 1996, pp. 3–4). An individual can belong to different circles of various sizes, depending on the scale that we are considering. Individuals who are able to interact in various circles can count on a wider repertoire of formulas, conceptualizations, and conditions, allowing them to be at ease in many different situations. Given that scripts have a culture-specific component, interacting with members of a different culture in a different language usually involves dealing with different structures of knowledge (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989; Cohen and Olshtain 1989; Oleksy 1989; Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993; Scollon and Scollon 1995; Gass and Neu 1996; Ishihara and Cohen 2010; Cohen 2005; Samovar, Porter, and McDaniel 2006; Mey 2007; Cohen and Sykes 2013; Kecskés 2014; Escandell-Vidal 2014; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-Vidal 2018). People who learn a foreign language need to be aware of the differences existing between L1 and L2, and know the guidelines governing the new system if they want to have a smooth interaction and avoid misconceptions and misunderstandings; similarly, native speakers interacting with L2 learners should also be aware to detect possible differences (Scarcella, Andersen, and Krashen 1990; Ellis 1994; Byram 1997; Rose and Kasper 2001; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-Vidal 2018). These differences can affect a wide range of aspects, including the identification of the communicative intention, verbal and non-verbal expectations, and the perception of politeness. This is the point where cognitive aspects merge with the social side of communication. The tendency to use one’s own native social norms and cultural expectations when speaking a different language is known as “pragmatic transfer” (Kasper 1992; see also Thomas 1983; Odlin 1989; Kasper 1992; Escandell-Vidal 1996b; Bou Franch 1998). Such transfer may produce inappropriate linguistic behavior and lead to misunderstandings and miscommunication. When dealing with transfer, the first examples that come to mind are those involving the choice of linguistic formulas from L1 to L2. In some stereotyped situations, L2 learners can often be inclined to use the exact equivalent to the formulas in their L1. For example, it is not surprising that a German or an Italian learner of Spanish can

The pragmatics toolbox

23

greet someone who is eating with the expression ¡Buen apetito!, a literal translation of the formula used in their L1 (Guten Appetit!, Buon appetito!), rather than with the more idiomatic Spanish formulas ¡Buen provecho! or ¡Que aproveche!—all of which can be situationally equivalent to ‘Enjoy your meal!’ This kind of transfer has been called “pragmalinguistic” (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983): it is the direct use of the forms from L1 in L2. They are easy to recognize and usually have no serious consequences for social relations. However, learning idiomatic expressions is often not enough. The non-linguistic aspects of communicative interaction also have to be taken into account. For instance, native speakers have internalized where, how, and under which circumstances it can be felicitous to greet someone who is eating. There are sure to be cultural differences in the conceptualization of the situations, so there is the risk of having learned the right words but still using them in the wrong circumstances. In this case, a failure can arise when the expectations related to a certain situation in the culture associated to L1 are not equivalent to those governing the corresponding situation in the culture of the L2. Here, the transfer is “sociopragmatic” (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). This kind of transfer is more difficult to perceive and its consequences can be more serious because unexpected behavior tends to be assessed as if it were intentional. In L2 teaching and learning it is usual to concentrate on single sentences as the exponents of a given communicative function, rather than on whole communicative exchanges. However, in many occasions, the main speech act is expected to be carried out by means of a number of different subacts. Take, for instance, the case of apologies (Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Cohen and Olshtain 1985; Trosborg 1995). When asked about how to apologize in Spanish, L2 learners typically claim that they would say lo siento ‘I regret it’ or perdone ‘Forgive (me)’, and this is also what most teaching materials indicate. Of course, these two expressions can indeed be used to apologize, but usually saying lo siento will not suffice to offer an adequate apology: it can be enough if you have stepped on somebody’s toe, but not in many other circumstances. When the situation involves a greater risk to the social relationship, using the bare formula can even yield the opposite effect and be perceived as a further offense. In Spanish, more complex forms of apology typically include at least some of the following components: a) expression of apology (nucleus); b) acknowledgment of responsibility; c) explanation or justification; d) offer of repair; e) concern for the consequences; and f ) promise of forbearance. The greater the offense, the longer and more intense the apology is. The example in (4) can illustrate this point. This is an apology offered by a native speaker whose parked car had been blocking someone else’s car for quite a while: (4) Dios mío, disculpe, de verdad, lo siento mucho. Estaba con el ruido de la aspiradora y no oía nada . . . Además, me olvidé por completo de volver a bajar para meterlo en el garaje . . . Lo siento, de verdad, disculpe las molestias, y ¡muchísimas gracias por no avisar a la grúa! (Pragmaticks corpus)

24

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

Here the speaker resorts to accumulating different formulas, emphasizes the sincerity of the apology, provides more than one explanation and shows gratitude to the interlocutor for not having taken revenge. One of the most significant variables in the contextualization of situations and the shaping of utterances is the social relation among the participants in the interaction. Social distance is the representation that individuals have about their place in society and their relationship to each other (Brown and Gilman 1960; Brown and Levinson 1987; Spencer-Oatey 1996, 2007; Escandell-Vidal 2014). This image is determined by the way in which each group conceptualizes it. Social distance is usually analyzed in two axes of coordinates, which define a two-dimensional space: •

•

Hierarchy measures the distance between two individuals depending on their relative position in the social scale as defined by their group (power, status). It is the vertical axis. Familiarity locates the degree of prior knowledge between speakers and their degree of solidarity, empathy, or affect. It is the horizontal axis.

As for hierarchy, all societies show a certain degree of stratification of their members. The criteria to categorize individuals and the system of values behind them vary from culture to culture. In general, the relative position of two individuals can be measured according to two main categories: •

•

Inherent characteristics correspond to the physical and intrinsic properties of individuals, such as age or sex, which some groups use to establish hierarchical differences. In most cultures, elderly people occupy a position higher than youth; and still in many cultures, men occupy hierarchical positions superior to women. Other cultures, in contrast, are more egalitarian. Social characteristics are attributes that must be recognized and accepted by the rest of the members of the group. The most important come from the social roles that an individual can play, deriving from the differentiation of labor (boss/employee, doctor/patient, client/server, judge/citizen . . .). Social roles are not linked to intrinsic and visible properties of the individuals, so their social significance has to be learned explicitly. There can be external signs that make social roles visible, such as uniforms, caps, and gowns. By their very nature, social roles may vary from one situation to another: for example, someone who is a boss with respect to employees in a situation can be a patient with respect to a doctor, or a common citizen with respect to a law representative. Social roles carry expectations with respect to the rights and obligations of every individual.

The hierarchical relationships can be both symmetrical and asymmetrical, depending on whether two individuals occupy similar positions or not. As for familiarity, the distance between two individuals can be measured according to two new parameters:

The pragmatics toolbox

• •

25

Prior knowledge: two people who have known each other for a long time have a closer relationship than two strangers. Empathy: two people who sympathize with one another are closer than those who do not.

By their very nature, familiarity relations tend to be symmetrical. The reason why social distance is important for communication is that it determines the conceptualization of the situations and the appropriateness of linguistic choices; the greater the social distance, the greater the linguistic distance. Linguistic distance manifests itself in various ways, such as the choice of forms of treatment (formal vs. informal) (Brown and Gilman 1960), the selection of words (high register vs. colloquial register) and, to a lesser extent, the pronunciation (careful diction vs. relaxed pronunciation) and syntactic construction (elaborated structure vs. casual construction). Social distance is also relevant to the conceptualization of the situation. The very same communicative intention can be perceived differently depending on the relationship between the participants in the interaction. For example, a suggestion from the boss to an employee is very different than a suggestion from the employee to the boss. This difference has to do with the asymmetry in their social roles. The impact on the relationship between the two participants is different, so the linguistic resources used are also different. The content of the actions is also crucial. A promise and a threat, for example, both belong to the class of acts in which the speaker commits to carrying out a certain action; the obvious difference, of course, is that in the case of the promise, the act is presented as positive or favorable to the hearer, while in the case of the threat, the consequences are negative. Similarly, asking something always imposes an obligation on the hearer, to a greater or lesser extent, and this may have a social cost. Human interaction is thus highly sensitive to the effects and the consequences that communicative choices may have on social relations among individuals. The linguistic resources used to perform a certain speech act can be exploited to moderate this impact, either by enhancing the positive effects, mitigating possible impositions, avoiding unwanted consequences, or even stressing negative effects and breaking the relationship (Kaul de Marlangeon 2008; Clyne, Norrby, and Warren 2011). The linguistic strategies for managing social relationships are analyzed under the label of “politeness (studies)” (see Fraser 1990; Kasper 1990; Sifianou 1992; Watts, Ide, and Ehlich 1992; Ide 1993; Haverkate 1994; Escandell-Vidal 1995, 1996a, 1998; Fukushima 2000; Márquer-Reiter 2000; Placencia and Bravo 2001; Félix-Brasdefer 2008; Escandell-Vidal 2009; Amenós, Ahern, and EscandellVidal 2018). One of the most influential works in politeness theory is Brown and Levinson (1987). The authors base their theory on the notion of “face,” an individual’s self-image. Face is made up of both positive and negative sides. The positive side includes the desire that one’s self-image be appreciated and approved

26

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

of by others, whereas the negative side of the notion of face includes the desire for freedom of action and freedom from imposition (Brown and Levinson 1987, pp. 61–62). Politeness strategies are claimed to be universal. This does not mean, of course, that all languages adopt the same linguistics resources to the same ends; after all, speech acts grow from social conventions, so we can expect that they vary from culture to culture. In most cases, what is different is not the strategy itself, but rather the conceptualization of the action (and hence the degree of redress needed). The parameters by which an action is evaluated as costly or beneficial to the hearer can be different. For example, in most Western cultures, giving a present has positive implications both for the person who gives the gift and for the person who receives it. In contrast, in some Eastern cultures, the action of giving is perceived as an imposition on the recipient, to whom the need to correspond to the gift has been imposed. Therefore, it is not surprising that in these cultures linguistic resources used when giving a present usually do not have the properties and the ingredients of offers, but those of apologies instead, to compensate for the imposition, even with an overt minimization of the present. Similarly, there are different perceptions about the conditions in which gratitude has to be expressed. In the Spanish culture, thanking is compulsory when receiving a favor or a gift, but also when people do something for you as part of their job; in these latter cases, other cultures do not have the need to express gratitude. For some social groups, gratitude is expressed to strangers but not among close relatives, and this can cause misunderstandings and lead to uncomfortable situations when members of different cultures interact.

6.

Back to cognition: Inference and understanding

Cognitive approaches have shown that a principle of economy governs many aspects of interaction, including the interpretation of verbal behavior: the processing of communicative stimuli follows a path of least effort (Sperber and Wilson 2002). Thus, when we interpret a certain action, we do so by using the assumptions that are more accessible. Speakers from a social community have been exposed to certain patterns. The degree of accessibility of a set of assumptions depends, among other things, on the frequency of use: the more frequent a behavior in a given situation, the more accessible it will be when the situation arises. As a result, if an individual is used to behaving in a certain specific way in the culture of his/her L1, this pattern of action and interpretation will be highly accessible and used by default as a guide for behavior and interpretation no matter the language. Consider again the case of apologies. In Spanish culture, the greater the offense, the more complex and elaborate the apology. Now, faced with a situation that requires an apology, the first (i.e., the most accessible) schema that comes to the natives’ minds is the one they have internalized in their native language. If the interlocutors belong to the same group or culture, they all have internalized the same basic pattern, so they find each other’s behavior to be predictable to some extent. If

The pragmatics toolbox

27

one of the participants belongs to a different culture and has internalized a different schema, the schema is easily accessible for the speaker, but its content does not match the content of other participants, nor will the speaker’s behavior comply with their expectations. The result may be perceived as “deviant” and can be interpreted as insulting, arrogant, or disrespectful. Words also have an essential role in the activation and accessibility of the assumptions used in interaction. A word does not merely activate a concept; it also makes all the encyclopedic information and world knowledge associated with it accessible (Kecskés 2014). Thus, lexical units provide access to a set of experiential contents that are also highly culture-dependent. The way in which knowledge is structured in the human mind explains why a single word can open and activate entire frames and scripts for common situations. Learning the words of a language is therefore more than learning new forms to refer to the same realities; rather, it is learning new realities, resetting the contents of many seemingly equal concepts. Concepts such as “food,” “wedding,” or “work” can be very different in Spain, the USA, Japan, or Cameroon. Even when we use the correct equivalent word in another language, it is quite possible that the background assumptions we are activating are not the same, so the inferential processing will not yield the same results.

7.

Conclusion

Pragmatics can provide a theoretical basis for understanding a significant number of facts about language use in interaction—facts that cannot be accounted just from a grammatical perspective. Communication involves many other non-linguistic factors, both cognitive and social. Learning a second language is more than acquiring new grammatical rules: it crucially includes gaining awareness to understand how native speakers tend to perceive and evaluate situations and social relations. L2 teachers are expected to have a thorough knowledge of the structure of the language and cultural tendencies in order to anticipate potential difficulties and choose activities that can facilitate the acquisition of the new strategies. For L2 learners, managing the interaction in a successful way is more important than producing grammatically correct sentences; while grammatical failures can be easily amended in interpretation, pragmatic inadequacies are not detected or corrected with the same ease. Misunderstandings may arise and they usually create negative stereotypes about people from a different culture. The main goal of L2 teaching is to facilitate the process of consciousness-raising to enable L2 learners to acquire intercultural abilities and be more cognizant of the various factors involved in interaction.

Notes 1 This research has benefited from grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad to the projects “Semántica procedimental y contenido explícito III”

28

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

(SPYCE III; FFI2012–31785) and “The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface and the Resolution of Interpretive mismatches” (SPIRIM; FFI2015–63497). I am very grateful to José Amenós, Aoife Ahern, Manuel Leonetti, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and discussion on a previous version. Thanks to Aoife Ahern again for checking my English. Needless to say, any remaining shortcomings are my own. 2 For a general discussion of the development of linguistic communication, see also Richards and Schmidt 1983; Bardovi and Hartford 1997; Bardovi, Brasdefer, and Omar 2006; Kasper and Rose 2002.

References Amenós, J., A. Ahern and V. Escandell-Vidal. 2018. Comunicación y cognición en ELE: La perspectiva pragmática. Madrid: Edinumen. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and B. Hartford, eds. 1997. Beyond Methods. Components of Second Language Teacher Education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Bardovi-Harlig, K., C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. Omar, eds. 2006. Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii. Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper, eds. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. New York: Ablex. Bou Franch, P. 1998. “On Pragmatic Transfer.” Studies in English Language and Linguistics 0: 5–20. Brown, R. and A. Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Canale, M. 1983. “From Communicative Competence to Language Pedagogy.” In Language and Communication, eds. J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt, 2–27. London: Longman. Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47. Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. Carston, R. 2004. “Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. L. Horn and G. Ward, 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell. Carston, R. and A. Hall. 2012. “Implicature and Explicature.” In Cognitive Pragmatics, ed. H. J. Schmidt, 47–84. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Chalmers, D. 2004. “The Representational Character of Experience.” In The Future for Philosophy, ed. B. Leiter, 153–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapelle, C. A., ed. 2012. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 10. Oxford: Wiley. Clyne, M., C. Norrby and J. Warren. 2011. Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A.D. 2005. “Strategies for Learning and Performing L2 Speech Acts.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3): 275–301. Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1985. “Comparing Apologies across Languages.” In Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language, ed. K. R. Jankowsky, 175–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

The pragmatics toolbox

29

Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1989. “Speech Act Behavior across Languages.” In Transfer in Production, eds. H. Dechert and M. Raupach, 53–67. New York: Ablex. Cohen, A.D. and J. M. Sykes. 2013. “Strategy-Based Learning of Pragmatics for Intercultural Education.” In Linguistics for Intercultural Education, eds. F. Dervin and A. J. Liddicoat, 87–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1995. “Cortesía, fórmulas convencionales y estrategias indirectas.” Revista Española de Lingüística 25(1): 31–66. Escandell-Vidal, V. [1996] 2006. Introducción a la pragmática. Barcelona: Ariel. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1996a. “Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness.” Language Sciences 18(3–4): 621–650. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1996b. “Los fenómenos de interferencia pragmática.” In Didáctica del español como lengua extranjera, eds. M. Baralo, et. al., 95–109. Madrid: Expolingua. Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998. “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57. Escandell-Vidal, V. 2004. “Norms and Principles. Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together.” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, eds. R. Márquez-Reiter and M. E. Placencia, 347–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Escandell-Vidal, V. 2009. “Social Cognition and Intercultural Communication.” In Intercultural Business Communication and Simulations and Gaming Methodology, eds. V. GuillénNieto, C. Marimón-Llorca and C. Vargas-Sierra, 65–96. Bern: Peter Lang. Escandell-Vidal, V. 2014. La comunicación. Lengua, cognición y sociedad. Madrid: Akal. Escandell-Vidal, V. 2017. “Expectations in Interaction.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, eds. K. Allan, A. Capone and I. Kecskés, 493–503. Berlin: Springer. Escandell-Vidal, V. (forthcoming). Pragmaticks (online corpus). Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fodor, J. A. 1981. Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fraser, B. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 219–236. Fukushima, S. 2000. Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang. Gass, S. 1999. Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese-English. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Gass, S. and J. Neu, eds. 1996. Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Grice, H. P. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388. Grice, H. P. [1967] 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 43–58. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grundy, P. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Haverkate, H. 1994. La cortesía verbal. Estudio pragmalingüístico. Madrid: Gredos. Hofstede, G. 2001. Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Horn, L. 1984. “A New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT ’84), ed. D. Schiffrin, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Horn, L. 2004. “Implicature.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. L. R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell. Horn, L. and G. Ward, eds. 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. Huang, Y. 2012. The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Ide, S., ed. 1993. “Linguistic Politeness, I, II y III.” Multilingua 7 (1988), 8 (1989) and 12. Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London and New York: Routledge. Jackendoff, R. 1992. Languages of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kasper, G. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 193–218. Kasper, G. 1992. “Pragmatic Transfer.” Second Language Research 8(3): 203–231. Kasper, G. and S. Blum-Kulka, eds. 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kaul de Marlangeon, S. 2008. “Tipología del comportamiento verbal descortés en español.” In Actas del III Coloquio del Programa EDICE. Cortesía y conversación: de lo escrito a lo oral, eds. A. Briz et al., 254–266. Valencia/Stockholm: Departamento de Filología Española, Universidad de Valencia. Kecskés, I. 2000. “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach to Situation-Bound Utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(5): 605–625. Kecskés, I. 2004. “Lexical Merging, Conceptual Blending and Cultural Crossing.” Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1): 1–21. Kecskés, I. 2006. “A Dual Language Model to Explain Code-Switching: A CognitivePragmatic Approach.” Intercultural Pragmatics 3(2): 257–283. Kecskés, I. 2010. “Situation-Bound Utterances as Pragmatic Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(11): 2889–2897. Kecskés, I. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. [1990] 1994. Les interactions verbales, Vol. 3. Paris: Armand Colin. Kosslyn, S. M. and J. R. Pomerantz. 1977. “Imagery, Propositions, and the Form of Internal Representations.” Cognitive Psychology 9(1): 52–76. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Llobera, M., ed. 1995. Competencia comunicativa: Documentos básicos en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Madrid: Edelsa. LoCastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Márquez-Reiter, R. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Márquez-Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Mey, J. 2007. “Developing Pragmatics Interculturally.” In Explorations in Pragmatics, eds. I. Kecskés and L. Horn, 165–189. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently . . . and Why. New York: Free Press. Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oleksy, W., ed. 1989. Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olshtain, E. and A.D. Cohen. 1983. “Apology: A Speech Act Set.” In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, eds. N. Wolfson and E. Judd, 18–35. New York: Newbury House.

The pragmatics toolbox

31

Placencia, M. E. and D. Bravo. 2001. Actos de habla y cortesía en español. Munich: LINCOM. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reyes, G. 1994. El Abecé de la pragmática. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Richards, J. and R. Schmidt, eds. 1983. Language and Communication, London: Longman. Rose, K. and G. Kasper, eds. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rumelhart, D. E. 1980. “Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition.” In Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, eds. R. J. Spiro et al., 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter and E. R. McDaniel, eds. 2006. Intercultural Communication. A Reader. New York: Thomson Wadsworth. Scarcella, R. C., E. S. Andersen and S. D. Krashen, eds. 1990. Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. New York: Newbury House. Schank, R. C. and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J. 1965. “What is a Speech Act?” In Philosophy in America, ed. M. Black, 221–239. London: Allen and Unwin. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. 1975a. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In Language: Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. K. Gunderson, Vol. 7, 344–369. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Searle, J. 1975b. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, Vol. 3, 30–57. New York: Academic Press. Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundation of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sifianou, M. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Spencer-Oatey, H. 1996. “Reconsidering Power and Distance.” Journal of Pragmatics 26(1): 1–24. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2005. “(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(4): 639–656. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. [1986] 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 2002. “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading.” Mind and Language 17(1–2): 3–23. Summerfield, C. and T. Egner. 2009. “Expectation (and Attention) in Visual Cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(9): 403–409. Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communication across Cultures. New York: Guilford. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: MoutonDe Gruyter. Tzohatzidis, S. L., ed. 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge. Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Verschueren, J., J. O. Östman and J. Blommaert, eds. 1995. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

32

Victoria Escandell-Vidal

Watts, R. J., S. Ide and K. Ehlich, eds. 1992. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge: Newbury. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2 LEARNING L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS What research says, what textbooks offer, what teachers must do Montserrat Mir

1.

Introduction

The ability to communicate successfully and appropriately is determined by our grammatical and textual knowledge of the language as well as our understanding of how language can be used to convey the speaker’s intention in accordance with the rules of the target language or what is called pragmatic knowledge (Bachman 1990). What constitutes grammatical knowledge in a language is easily agreed upon. For example, despite regional differences, the grammatical, syntactic, phonetic, and morphological rules of the Spanish language are identifiable and accepted across different varieties of Spanish. To a certain extent, the number of rules of Spanish grammar is a finite number mostly shared by the different varieties of Spanish. Pragmatics, on the other hand, considers the negotiation of meaning between speaker and listener, the context, and the meaning of an utterance (Thomas 1995). The pragmatics of a language is widely diverse and cannot be reduced to a number of finite rules. For example, it is impossible to clearly quantify and define the rules for using the deferential pronoun system in Spanish, despite what textbook authors try to imply in their often-simplistic explanations of the use of tú and usted in Spanish. The use of these two pronouns entails more than just being aware of the intended degree of formality and, for example, within the same communicative event, one can move from using the informal tú to the formal usted just to add humor, establish distance between interlocutors, or purposely offend someone. In learning the pragmatics of a second language (L2), research has shown that an extended period of time in an uninstructed setting leads to native-like pragmatic competence (Bouton 1994; Olshtain and Blum-Kulka 1985; Wolfson 1989). However, we also have solid evidence that formal instruction facilitates the development of pragmatic instruction (Bardovi-Harlig 1996, 2002; Kasper 2001). This

34

Montserrat Mir

chapter aims to examine whether or not what research has revealed about the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions in the teaching of Spanish pragmatics has informed college Spanish textbook authors in addressing pragmatic knowledge in their instructional materials. In addition, we will also offer pedagogical guidelines for developing materials for teaching Spanish pragmatics based on what research on teaching pragmatics has shown.

2.

Teaching Spanish pragmatics: What research says

In the world of pragmatics research, we need to go back to the seminal work of Kasper and Schmidt (1996) and Cohen (1996), who called for the need to investigate the development and use of L2 pragmatics. Since then, several studies have provided empirical evidence for the existence of developmental stages of pragmatics L2 production and comprehension (see Timpe-Laughlin 2017, for review), as well as for the slow progression of pragmatic development in naturalistic settings (Taguchi 2010). It is this latter development that has ignited research in L2 pragmatics pedagogy, which in turn has provided many teaching suggestions and implications. Several review articles and edited volumes already exist focusing on effective teaching methods in pragmatics (Cohen 2008; Taguchi 2011; Takahashi 2010a, 2010b; Alcón-Soler and Martínez-Flor 2008; MartínezFlor and Alcón-Soler 2005; among others). In addition, the most recent review (Taguchi 2015) of 58 empirical studies on pragmatics instruction across six target languages found that, first, pragmatics instruction leads to pragmatic knowledge, and second, the explicit teaching of pragmatics is particularly beneficial for the development of pragmatic knowledge and use. Implicit teaching of pragmatics is equally effective but only if it involves noticing and processing activities (Taguchi 2015). In other words, research has shown that learners need to first derive the connections between target form, function, and context, and then, with the help of an informed teacher, learners need to reinforce these connections by processing them consciously through in-class activities (Cohen 2016). Simple exposure to the input will not guarantee that learners will notice how form, function, and context interconnect. The goal of pragmatics instruction is, therefore, not to insist on a set of forms but rather to raise learners’ awareness about the connection between the meaning of the utterance and the speaker’s intentions, the choices learners have when they engage in conversation, and the role of contextual and sociocultural variables in shaping the forms used in interaction. Although much of the research has focused on languages other than Spanish, the results, as seen by Taguchi’s review (2015), clearly show that pedagogical interventions positively impact learners’ pragmatic knowledge. In the case of Spanish pragmatics instruction in the second language (L2) classroom, some authors have offered pedagogical tasks for teaching Spanish deference markers (García 1989), invitations (García 1996), voseo (Shenk 2014), or grammar lessons on the Spanish imperative and conditional with pragmatics instruction (Rose 2012).

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 35

However, empirical studies on the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions in pragmatic development are very limited in number and scope. The following review of Spanish L2 research in the teaching of pragmatics is necessary to understand to what extent textbook authors incorporate what we know about pragmatics instruction into their materials. In addition, a closer look at this research will help us determine what informed teachers need to know to address pragmatic development in the Spanish L2 classroom. Taguchi’s review (2015) of the current literature followed a rigid analytical criterion leading to a major comparison and contrast of pedagogical interventions, assessment tools, and measurement outcomes. Several studies were not included because they did not fall within the selection parameters established by the author. Due to the limited number of studies in Spanish L2 pragmatics pedagogy, I decided to cover all the studies found while understanding that any conclusions derived from this review need to be taken with caution due to the disparity of research methods and measurements. The review that follows is presented chronologically to my best knowledge. Overfield (1996) observed the impact of explicit instruction in the realization of apologies, requests, and refusals among fourth-semester Spanish L2 college learners. The pedagogical intervention included exposure to video and audio-taped conversations, teacher talk, and written dialogues. Results showed no significant changes in the use of apologies and request strategies after the treatment. However, all learners used fewer direct refusals (e.g., I can’t) and more indirect strategies (e.g., reasons/explanations, alternatives, apology) after instruction. Pearson (2001, 2006) examined the effect of two pedagogical treatments on the development of Spanish expressions of gratitude, apologies, and directives among second semester Spanish L2 college learners. Pedagogical interventions included metalinguistic discussions to draw learners’ attention to the speech acts in question, and video scenes followed by role-play practice. Both treatments resulted in higher use of intensifiers in expressions of gratitude and apologies and softeners in directives in the post-tests. The effect of input enhancement and interactive video viewing on L2 pragmatics awareness was investigated by Witten (2002). Using the video series Destinos (VanPatten et al. 1992), a group of Spanish L2 college students focused on the similarities and differences between English and Spanish apologies and requests as well as the use of formal and informal forms of address. Participants performed significantly better on a written task, oral role-plays, and the use of address forms. Witten (2002) explains these results by the amount of time spent watching the video and the repetitive attention to pragmatic features such as forms of address. Also using video clips, Taylor (2002) examined whether gambits can be effectively taught in L2 Spanish. After explicit instruction of Spanish gambits, learners practiced using role-plays and engaging in a discussion task, which resulted in two groups. Taylor noted gains in the discussion group, both in terms of quantity and

36

Montserrat Mir

variety of gambits, while the role-play group did not show any improvement. Taylor defends that the transactional nature of the role-plays interfered with the presence of gambits in the conversation. During a seven-week period, Mwinyelle (2005) exposed a group of fourthsemester Spanish college students to video clips containing different advice situations. Learners also received explicit pragmatics instruction, and engaged in metapragmatic discussions. Another group watched the same videos with the transcript but did not have any pragmatics instruction or metapragmatic discussions. Statistical significance was found in the first group for all the pragmatic features studied (i.e., formality, directness, politeness, etc.), whereas the second group improved in only two areas, speech act realization and amount of speech. Mwinyelle defends that the findings of this study support the concept of consciousness-raising (SharwoodSmith 1981) and the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1993) because the group that received pragmatics instruction by directing learners’ attention to pragmatic features in the input performed better. The impact of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback was examined by Koike and Pearson (2005) in a study on Spanish suggestions with third-semester Spanish L2 college students. Learners who received explicit instruction and feedback performed better in the recognition multiple-choice sections of the test. Learners under the implicit instruction and feedback performed better during the dialogue reconstruction section of the test. Koike and Pearson (2005) conclude that explicit instruction and feedback call learners’ attention to pragmatic form, and thus, help them to understand pragmatic knowledge. On the other hand, implicit feedback in the form of recasts and implicit instruction seems to facilitate performance of appropriate pragmatic utterances. Félix-Brasdefer (2008a, 2008b) proved that input enhancement techniques in the teaching of pragmatics can improve learners’ ability to negotiate a refusal interaction with native Spanish speakers. The researcher used a Powerpoint presentation to show a variety of Spanish refusals and responses, and to draw learners’ attention to the different refusal strategies by enhancing relevant syntactic elements and lexical forms using color and capitalization. The results showed that learners decreased the number of inappropriate direct refusals and incorporated a wider variety of indirect strategies in their Spanish refusals (Félix-Brasdefer 2008a). In addition, learners improved in the use of internal modification (e.g., the use of conditional, the subjunctive, tag questions, etc.) to mitigate their refusal interactions. The use of online materials in the teaching of Spanish speech acts was explored by Langer (2011) with beginning, intermediate, and advanced Spanish L2 college learners who completed four online lessons demonstrating common uses of requests, invitations, refusals, and apologies in Spanish. All groups showed significant gains in their use of speech acts, although the intermediate level showed the greatest gains. Langer (2011) notes that the intermediate level seems to be the adequate developmental stage where pragmatic development benefits most from pragmatics instruction.

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 37

The use of technology to facilitate instruction and practice was also explored by Sykes (2009, 2013), who created a three-dimensional space in Spanish where learners engaged in tasks with computer-generated avatars and practiced request and apology. Sykes revealed only a slight gain in learners’ choice of request strategies, although learners increased the number of hearer-oriented apologies emulating target language standards. The difference in results between apologies and requests was explained by the formulaic nature of the apology head acts. Finally, Hasler-Barker (2013) showed that explicit instruction is more beneficial than implicit instruction and input alone in her study of Spanish compliments and compliment responses with intermediate fourth-semester Spanish learners. Her pedagogical treatment included audio and video-recorded dialogues, guided metapragmatic discussions, and role-play practice. In her conclusions, Hasler-Barker (2013) stresses the importance of teaching pragmatics as evidenced by the fact that all her groups showed some pragmatic development with just two 50-minute lessons. Despite the limited number of studies and the evident inconsistency of assessment tools and measurements, it is clear that as with for other foreign languages, pragmatics instruction is beneficial for the development of Spanish pragmatics competence. As indicated by the research, several teaching practices seem to be especially beneficial, at least for the development of speech act realization and recognition. Especially metapragmatic discussions, input enhancement techniques in teacher talk or embedded in instructional materials, frequent pedagogical interventions, authentic video clips that draw learners’ attention to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic rules, and/or explicit and implicit feedback in learners’ performance seem to contribute to the development of pragmatic knowledge. In addition, learners’ proficiency levels may also play a role in learning pragmatics after explicit instruction, although data on this matter are quite preliminary. The question that, therefore, arises is how this evidence is reflected in current teaching practices and materials.

3.

Teaching Spanish pragmatics: What textbooks offer

Textbooks are a fundamental tool for language practitioners and, in fact, many use textbooks as a guide to decide major curricular issues, such as what to teach, how to teach, and how to test (Angell, DuBravac, and Gonglewski 2008). In addition, not all language instructors are formally trained as such, and the textbook becomes their only exposure to foreign language pedagogy. Also, especially in large universities where lower-level Spanish classes are often taught by graduate students, for many instructors Spanish is not their native language and, thus, the textbook offers valuable information about specific grammatical features and native language usage (Orozco and Thomas 2014). For native speaking language teachers, the textbook also provides information about language and cultural variation across regional varieties of Spanish. In summary, textbooks are fundamental for language practitioners and curriculum administrators.

38

Montserrat Mir

Unfortunately, only a few studies have investigated the type of pragmatic input and practice provided in Spanish textbooks. De Pablos-Ortega (2011) identified thanking situations in 64 Spanish L2 textbooks published in Spain and compared the data with thanking responses from a written questionnaire from native Spanish speakers. The results showed that the thanking sequences provided by the native speakers included just a simple thanks/thank you formula and, less frequently, more elaborate sequences. The textbooks, on the other hand, tended to offer a greater variety of thanking strategies, especially at more advanced levels. Eisenchlas (2011) explored the speech act of advice giving by comparing the pragmalinguistic features described in 12 intermediate Spanish L2 textbooks published in the United States with natural data collected from online advice about relationship breakups. The textbooks surveyed revealed that the speech act of giving advice appears embedded under the syntactic structure of the subjunctive and/or the imperative, and often disguised under the function of commands. The textbooks also failed to explain how and why speech acts are realized and instead “adhered to a one-to-one correlation between form and function” (Eisenchlas 2011, p. 59). Eisenchlas (2011) also found a wider range of advice formulas in naturally occurring online data than what is presented in textbooks. Research in teaching Spanish pragmatics has focused on beginning and intermediate language learners. Therefore, I selected eight beginning and eight intermediate college Spanish textbooks published in the United States and analyzed the presence of explicit or implicit teaching of speech acts and/or other pragmatic features.1 All textbooks were instructor’s editions. The selection was based on the date of publication (the oldest was published in 2011) and availability for analysis. I also consulted with publishers about which textbooks were the most popular in the market and all but one (not available to the author), were included in the analysis. The distinction between beginning and intermediate textbooks was based on the authors’ description in the preface of the textbook. Speech acts were identified at the time they were cited as speech acts in the text or when they were defined by their function (e.g., requests, apologies, thanking, advice, suggestions, etc.). I examined how and where speech acts were mentioned and the type of practice offered. In addition, the presence of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information was also considered. Beginning and intermediate books differ in the variety and number of speech acts included. Beginning texts refer to speech acts (explicitly or implicitly by their function) 54 times in comparison to 21 in intermediate texts. In all texts, two common teaching approaches are observed. Speech acts are embedded in grammatical explanations or in vocabulary lists. The latter is prevalent in beginning texts. Seven of the eight beginning textbooks explain greetings in their preliminary or first chapter by offering a set of expressions often used in personal introductions. Some texts present formal and informal expressions by introducing the distinction between tú and usted, but all illustrate greetings through short simulated dialogues followed

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 39

by several practice exercises where learners select or identify pronouns in different scenarios or perform short dialogues with classmates. Four beginning textbooks also rely on vocabulary lists to explicitly introduce the speech acts of invitations and requests, Vistas (Blanco and Donley 2016); farewells and suggestions, Arriba (Zayas-Bazán, Bacon, and Nibert 2012); invitations, Mosaicos (Olivella de Castells et al. 2015); and advice, warnings, suggestions, and requests, Gente (De la Fuente et al. 2015). Only one intermediate text uses vocabulary lists to introduce reprimands and apologies (Gente). In all cases, the speech acts appear as headings for the lists and sociolinguistic and/or pragmatic information are not included to explain how and when the expressions are used. The textbook Gente (De la Fuente et al. 2015) devotes a section to conversational strategies in both its beginning and intermediate texts where lists of expressions are offered to facilitate conversation. Sometimes pragmatic knowledge is included in these sections. For example, verbal courtesy is explained and exemplified in the use of command forms (De la Fuente et al. 2015, p. 134) or in the use of the conditional to attenuate what is suggested or requested (De la Fuente et al. 2015, p. 260). In all these sections, lists of expressions are introduced without much attention to the sociopragmatics of the language. Instead, the authors encourage learners to learn these expressions as “chunks” of the language to help keep conversations going, add fluency, and focus their energy on the accuracy of other parts of the conversation (De la Fuente et al. 2015, p. 44). Similarly, in Día a Día (Nibert and Abbott 2015), an intermediate text, a section on the expressive function of speech is supplemented by a side note, with useful expressions, and on the usefulness of formulaic speech to help learners speak more fluently and efficiently. However, no specific practice exercises on how and when to use these expressions are offered (Nibert and Abbott 2015, p. 91). Vocabulary is central to knowledge and particularly critical to language learners at the beginning stages because so much meaning can be transmitted through one single word without the need for grammar. It has been argued that lexical chunks play a role in vocabulary and grammar acquisition (Schmitt 2000). This emphasis on vocabulary learning is an example of teaching pragmatics by exposing learners to the linguistic choices of the target language community and encouraging memorization of these formulas. However, the lack of sociopragmatic information about how these expressions are used can lead to breakdowns in miscommunication when social norms are violated and learners are unaware of what happened and/or how to repair the situation. The inclusion of speech acts under syntactic structures is the most frequent instructional technique used in all textbooks. Imperatives are often associated with commands, advice, and suggestions. The subjunctive and the conditional are associated with requests. However, the inclusion of pragmatic features in grammar explanations is very scarce and often reduced to the use of the conditional: Con Brío, p. 6 (Lucas Murillo and Dawson 2013), Exploraciones, p. 475 (Blitt and Casas 2012), Vistas, p. 589 (Blanco and Donley 2016); Espacio, p. 85

40

Montserrat Mir

(Sandstedt and Kite 2014), Conexiones, p. 267 (Zayas-Bazán, Bacon, and García 2014), Identidades, p. 244 (Guzmán et al. 2013) or the imperfect subjunctive: Arriba, p. 425 (Zayas-Bazán, Bacon, and Nibert 2012) to make polite requests. Overall, in comparison with beginning texts where pragmatic knowledge in grammar sections is very succinct, intermediate texts include more elaborate pragmatic explanations presenting learners with a wider array of linguistic choices to match speakers’ intentions. In example 1 below, the speech act of requesting using what the authors call “more polite forms,” is exemplified by listing different language forms commonly used to request something. (1) Commands are a very strong form of request for many occasions. In fact, they tend to be used more frequently to give instructions: recipes, directions, medical advice, and so on. There are other more polite forms of requesting in Spanish. They are preferably accompanied by por favor. - Question in present indicative (very familiar) ¿Me prestas la pluma? ‘Can/Will you lend me the pen?’ ¿Me pasas el libro, por favor? ‘Can you pass me the book, please?’ - Questions with poder in the conditional or imperfect subjunctive. ¿Podría/Pudiera (ud) ayudarme con este fax? ‘Can you help me with this fax?’ - Suggestions with deber in the conditional or imperfect subjunctive. Creo que deberías/debieras comprarte un escáner nuevo. ‘I think you should buy a new scanner.’ (Pérez-Gironés and Adan-Lifante 2014, p. 127) Intermediate textbooks have a greater emphasis on cultural texts and knowledge than beginning texts, where culture is often relegated to one big section or small boxes within the chapter. It is in the cultural notes where intermediate textbooks sometimes introduce relevant pragmatic information, although often in the form of generalizations, thus a lot is missing or lost. For example, Punto y Aparte includes a cultural note explaining that speakers in Spain are more direct than in the United States, where people tend to use euphemisms or soften their statements (Foerster and Lambright 2011, p. 24). Similarly, Día a Día also has a side note about the use of reprimands and criticisms in conversation and how in certain Spanish cultures reprimands are performed indirectly or in a soft manner such as in the case of Mexican culture (Nibert and Abbott 2015, p. 160). However, no explicit linguistic information to students or instructors appears in these cultural notes, so learners are left without a clear sense of how language manifests these pragmatic functions.

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 41

An implicit approach to Spanish pragmatics instruction is also present in several texts, although no specific pattern is apparent. This implicit pedagogical perspective appears in the form of instructions in activities by including items such as giving suggestions or advice in certain situations. In other cases, a note embedded in a grammatical explanation refers to pragmatic information: (2) . . . when the English will refers not to future time but willingness of someone to do something, Spanish does not use the future tense but rather the verbs querer or poder, or simply the present tense of any verb. In contrast, querer has almost the force of a command: ¿Quieres /puedes cerrar la puerta por favor? ‘Will/could you please close the door?’ (Dorwick et al. 2012, p. 503) All textbooks examined share similar practice activities. Some include input-based exercises before productive activities, but overall, activities revolve around contextual cues prompting learners to produce one-sentence responses or engage in scripted or partially scripted dialogues. Very few activities motivate learners to engage in openended conversations. In all, exercises aim at practicing a specific grammatical form and/or vocabulary list. In fact, when pragmatic information appears as a separate point or in a side note, no follow-up practice is offered, which reinforces the idea that only grammar and/or vocabulary practice is at the core of all textbooks tasks and activities. For example, a common practice exercise is to place learners in a situation and ask them to respond using a grammatical structure and/or vocabulary item, as seen in (3) below. (3) Unos pedidos (requests). Imagínense que van de vacaciones a distintos lugares. Túrnense para expresar lo que quieren o no quieren que haga su compañero/a durante sus vacaciones. Usen ´quiero´ o ´no quiero´ y el subjuntivo. Modelo: sacar muchas fotos E1: Quiero que saques muchas fotos. E2: !Claro que sí! (No puedo. No tengo cámara) 1 2

Visitar museos Conocer gente interesante, etc. . . . (Zayas-Bazán et al. 2012, p. 305)

Although the number of textbooks included in this analysis is very limited, the evidence strongly suggests that the teaching of Spanish pragmatics is at the service of grammatical and/or vocabulary instruction. Pragmatics is merely used as a background or an incidental detail attached to grammatical and cultural explanations. In addition, the emphasis on one single response and/or scripted short dialogues overemphasizes the role of the speaker to the detriment of the listener.

42

Montserrat Mir

Focus on communication in current textbooks is clearly reflected on the numerous oral activities triggering learners’ personal meaning. However, this emphasis in “speaking” has resulted in lack of attention to the listener and his/her role in the communicative act itself where interlocutors react to what is being said and to how language is used. None of the practice exercises examined in this study consider the listener’s interpretation of speaker’s intentions. When exercises call for a semi-structured conversation using a specific target form, no instructions are given about the sociocultural factors determining either language choices or the force that different linguistic strategies carry in expressing speakers’ intentions. In fact, instructions are geared toward the speakers’ choices and not to the listeners’ reactions. Finally, the lack of sociopragmatic instruction in presenting speech acts and other pragmatic features shows a limited approach to the sociocultural characteristics of communication. Given the very small number of textbooks analyzed, and the fact that neither input source nor ancillary materials, such as online resources and/or workbooks, were included, any final conclusions and implications are tentative. However, this analysis is in accordance with what other research has revealed. Pragmatics instructional materials are rarely grounded in research and they lack representativeness, contextual information, and sometimes offer inaccurate information (Ishihara and Cohen 2010). In addition, despite advancements in communicative approaches in teaching foreign languages, pragmatics instruction is not considered in the development of instructional materials, which translates into leaving Spanish instructors with the task of finding alternatives to present and practice Spanish pragmatics in the classroom.

4.

Teaching Spanish pragmatics: What teachers must do

L2 teachers face two main challenges in teaching Spanish pragmatics. First, they may know very little about Spanish pragmatics and language variation and, secondly, they may lack pedagogical training in how to present, practice, and assess pragmatic competence in the classroom. In a recent survey of US teacher education programs, Vásquez and Sharpless (2009) found that even though some academic programs integrate pragmatics instruction into their curriculum, the emphasis is on theory of speech acts and politeness and not on practical application. The ACTFL Program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers (2013) require teacher candidates to demonstrate knowledge of the linguistic elements of the TL and their changes as well as compare language systems. Specifically, teachers need to understand the “pragmatic features of target language discourse” (ACTFL 2013, p. 10). Therefore, it is safe to say that many foreign language teacher education programs prepare their students to understand the different linguistic components of the TL, including pragmatics. However, qualifications to teach L2 pragmatics effectively should not only cover awareness of pragmatics norms and variations in the target language, but also an ability to offer metapragmatic information through pragmatic-form focused instruction and assessment considering learners’ culture and individual differences (Ishihara 2010).

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 43

The interest in pedagogical approaches to L2 pragmatics has resulted in several articles and publications promoting specific teaching techniques and perspectives (for an overview, see Ishihara 2010). In all pedagogical approaches, we see a clear preference for an explicit approach to teaching. Given that the goal in teaching pragmatics is to raise learners’ pragmatics awareness and give them language choices (Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor 2003), opportunities for metapragmatic discussions led by the teacher or initiated by the learner through reflection and/or reasoning (Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2010) should lead to a better understanding of the dynamic relationship between linguistic forms and utterance meaning in interaction. In addition, the use of real examples in eliciting, presenting, and practicing conversation in the classroom to develop pragmatic competence is crucially relevant (Bardovi-Harlig 2015). The research studies in the teaching of Spanish pragmatics outlined in this paper as well as other pedagogical approaches proposed in recent literature suggest pedagogical treatments on one speech act that last over two or three 50-minute classroom periods. Unfortunately, in beginning and intermediate college Spanish classrooms, contact hours and curriculum requirements do not allow for that lengthy instruction on one single pragmatic feature. Therefore, pragmatics instruction needs to be addressed from a practical viewpoint. It is widely accepted that comprehensible and meaningful input (Krashen 1981) and comprehensible output in interaction (Swain 1985) are necessary ingredients for second language acquisition. In the early stages of learning, exposure to input offers the data necessary for learners to develop their own interlanguage. Therefore, pragmatics instruction at the beginning level should also focus on exposure to input, recognition, and controlled practice. Since, as seen in the analysis of the textbooks examined here, some speech acts are mentioned in grammatical explanations and vocabulary lists, language teachers should use these presentations to explicitly instruct learners in speech act performance. In presenting vocabulary, teachers can extend vocabulary usage to speech act production, as in the examples below, and encourage learners to think of similar contexts where isolated words could be used to perform different language functions. (4) Buenos días, un café, por favor (in a service encounter situation) Oye, ¿la sal? (request among close friends/intimates at dinner table) ¿Un vino? (invitation among close friends/intimates) In teaching the present tense in Spanish, requests and invitations can be explicitly introduced. Sample dialogues contrasting the function of questions using the present tense, as shown below, can help learners see how the same language forms can be used to perform different speech acts. (5) Dialogue A A: ¿Tienes muchas clases este semestre? B: Cuatro, ¿y tú?

44

Montserrat Mir

Dialogue B A: ¿Tienes los apuntes de ayer? B: Sí, ¿los quieres? A: Pues, si no te importa, me harías un gran favor. Dialogue C A: ¿Salimos el viernes? B: Vale, ¿qué hacemos?. A: No sé, ¿vamos al cine? Dialogue D A: ¿Me llevas a la universidad? B: Sí, claro. Te paso a recoger a las 3 p.m. Teachers could guide learners in matching forms with functions and in establishing cross-linguistic comparisons, especially in cases where forms and functions do not transfer from Spanish to English. Questions in the present tense fail to make an invitation in English (Dialogue C) and cannot always be used to make a request (Dialogue D). Failure to recognize the speech act represented in these conversations can result in misunderstandings and inappropriate reactions. In introducing the imperative, the subjunctive and/or the conditional, requests and invitations can again be introduced. The se constructions for unplanned circumstances (i.e., se me rompió la computadora) can be used in apologies. Constructions like gustar are often included in compliments (i.e., me encanta tu suéter). Given that current textbooks are grammar driven, teachers need to “direct learners’ attention to the pragmatic functions of grammar for communicative purposes” (Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012, p. 665). However, beginning language learners may see all these forms as chunks of the language without understanding how they are used in communication. Therefore, learners need to be instructed on the sociopragmatics of the different linguistic choices available. Due to the difficulty of finding a variety of samples across different social variables in naturalistic data, recorded role-plays between native speakers can be used to show learners how the social characteristics of the environment determine which choices to use. Beginning learners have great difficulty engaging in spontaneous role-plays because they are still at early stages of second language acquisition where speech is just emerging (Krashen and Terrell 1983). However, as adult learners, activities that focus on recognition and reflection of language forms within specific contexts and cultural norms can be very beneficial. The teaching technique of dictogloss offers learners and teachers an excellent opportunity to practice and discuss pragmatic features. Using transcripts from role-plays performed by native speakers and/or using the role-plays themselves as video and/or audioclips, learners first listen and/or see a short communicative event that contains one or two

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 45

speech acts and then, working in pairs, they reconstruct the dialogue. In selecting the input, teachers should manipulate the social variables under which the role-plays will be performed and draw learners’ attention to these social variables in recreating the dialogue. Dictogloss engages learners in metalinguistic and metapragmatic discussions that force them to test their own hypothesis about language, pragmatics, and language use. The goal at beginning levels of instruction is to open learners’ minds to how language has a performative function and how speaker’s intentions and context determine language use. However, at this level, learners may not fully understand how politeness, indirectness, or other pragmatic elements work. Recycling speech acts throughout the curriculum as new grammar is introduced provides learners with repetitive attention to pragmatic features, which has proven to facilitate pragmatic development (Witten 2002). In addition, learners can build up a list of choices as they move on in the development of grammatical competence, which will help them see grammar as a communicative resource (Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012). At the intermediate level, emphasis could be placed on sociopragmatic knowledge, language variation and other pragmatic features besides speech acts. Based on research (Félix-Brasdefer 2008a, 2008b; Koike and Pearson 2005; Mwinyelle 2005), intermediate learners are attentive to pragmatic features in the language and able to incorporate them into their speech. Explicit teaching of speech acts and other pragmatic features such as mitigation, politeness, implicature, conversation turns, humor, and indirectness, among others, need to be incorporated into the curriculum. For example, in introducing mitigation, teachers should inform learners about the importance of mitigation in communication and the types of mitigating devices common in speech. Mitigation is a communicative strategy of softening an utterance to reduce its impact or limit the face loss associated with a message (e.g., Fraser 1990; Brown and Levinson 1987). Several classifications of mitigating resources exist depending on the focus of study. However, in order to facilitate metapragmatic discovery in the language classroom, a simple three way classification could be shared: syntactic mitigation such as the use of imperfect or conditional in Spanish, the use of embedded verbal phrases such as pensaba que . . ., no creo que . . .; propositional mitigation which includes the use of extra propositions that soften the utterance such as sé que estás muy ocupada estos días pero . . . in introducing a complaint/reprimand; and lexical mitigation which adds lexical choices such as diminutives, discourse markers, hedges, adverbs, etc. Authentic input should be used to show how mitigation works in Spanish. Literary texts, TV shows, radio programs, social networks, etc. offer an array of contexts in which mitigation can be analyzed. In addition, language variation can be explored by contrasting similar conversations from different Spanish-speaking regions. For example, in the cooking shows La cocina de Yolo from México and Cocina con Sergio from Spain, the chefs prepare a dish with the help of a TV host. The conversation between both participants can

46

Montserrat Mir

be used to explore language variation and pragmatic features such as mitigation and politeness, as the transcripts below show. (6) La cocina de Yolo Pincho: Ay, Ay, Ay. Qué bonito, señores, bienvenidos ahora a nuestro nuevo lugar aquí tienen a la bella y la bestia de la cocina de la cocina de Yolo. Yolo: Señores, muy buenos días, bienvenidos a la cocina de Yolo y su pinchito el señor Barcelata. ..... Yolo: . . . y ahora hay que añadir la masa y aquí me ayuda usted por favor. Pincho: La masa que ya está disuelta. Yolo: Que ya está disuelta pero que hay que colarla. Pincho: ¿Puedo? (Checking whether he can pour the mix.) Yolo: Por favor. ..... Yolo: Ayúdeme, por favor, señor . . . a poner la licuadora. Pincho: Con todo gusto. (La Cocina de Yolo 2013) (7) Cocina con Sergio Sergio: Marchando para hoy una de vieiras a la plancha sobre una sopa de ajo, romero y patata. Colores, textura, sabores, aroma todo en un solo plato. Pepa: Ingredientes muy sofisticados sobre una base muy sencilla. ..... Sergio: Pues, Pepa, estas las vigilas tú. (Placing fish pieces on the grill.) Pepa: Vale. ..... Pepa: Y yo estas ¿las miro a ver qué pinta tienen? Sergio: Déjalas un poquito más. Pepa: ¿Un poquito más? Sergio: Incluso por subir un poco más no pasa nada. Pepa: Vale. Sergio: Que dore un poquitín y ya fuera del fuego una pizca de sal y de pimienta y recuerda cuando vayas a dar la vuelta, rascamos. Pepa: Exacto, para que no se nos queme. Sergio: Para que no se nos queme. Pepa: Cuando tú me digas, maestro. Ya sabes que yo soy una mandada. Sergio: Prueba esas ya, prueba esas ya. Pepa: Venga. Sergio: Les das la vuelta . . . muy bien . . . veis qué bonitas que nos han quedado. (Cocina con Sergio 2015)

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 47

In these two transcripts, teachers can guide learners in identifying and analyzing the speech acts of requesting and greeting; the use of politeness markers such as por favor, and mitigating devices as in the use of diminutives and conditionals; and make comparisons between both language varieties. The Internet offers an impressive collection of sources for spontaneous language use. As teachers incorporate these types of exercises in their lessons, learners are also being trained in identifying pragmatic features in speech so they can eventually, under the teacher’s guidance, research their own authentic input by being directed to specific sites or TV shows online where they can transcribe conversations, analyze pragmatic features, and explore language variation. In addition, with some guidance, language learners could collect pragmatic data by interviewing native speakers about their conversational style and specific use of pragmatic features. For example, in teaching compliments and compliment responses, besides using naturalistic data to analyze, learners can create a DCT-type questionnaire with scenarios that differ on social variables, and interview native speakers from different countries using online chatting sites such as WeSpeke.com. By researching speech acts and pragmatic features in the language, learners gain not only understanding of pragmatics but experience language from a different perspective, not just as a speaker, but as an informed explorer and user. The type of practice at the intermediate level should involve role-plays where learners are encouraged to negotiate and collaborate in the communicative act. To that end, roles should also include descriptions where failure in communication is present. For example, in receiving a compliment, the response could be inappropriate or non-existent; in a requesting situation, the listener may deny the request or feel offended by the request itself; in an apologetic scenario, the participant may question the sincerity of the apology. Often in role-play situations in the classroom, learners are “too nice” to each other, which results in lack of negotiation and attention to language choices. The inclusion of pragmatic failure will cause participants to pay attention to the forms chosen so they can save face and recover mutual understanding. As learners become familiar with role-playing different types of scenarios, language teachers can use popular culture to contextualize role-plays such as the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway? Teachers can give “lines” or language forms that can be used to perform a speech act and ask participants to spontaneously incorporate them into a short dialogue. The “host” (teacher) can ask them to use the line appropriately or inappropriately. Role-plays can be recorded and used for metapragmatic discussion later.

5.

Conclusion

Teaching Spanish pragmatics at the college level is the responsibility of teachers. The instructional materials analyzed here do not offer any consistent pedagogy in pragmatics instruction. Based on research evidence, language teachers should focus on developing pragmatic awareness by using authentic input and motivating

48

Montserrat Mir

metapragmatic discussions on pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues. The language proficiency of the learners and the academic context of college Spanish in the US are factors that cannot be ignored. Consequently, teachers need to actively seek opportunities within the curriculum to incorporate pragmatics instruction. Especially, the beginning learner can benefit from repeated mention of speech acts along the curriculum, building up a collection of linguistic devices to perform several speech acts. Intermediate learners, on the other hand, can explore other pragmatic features besides speech acts by collecting, analyzing, and comparing authentic samples of language use under teachers’ guidance. It is possible to train intermediate learners to become amateur researchers of Spanish pragmatics. Finally, new technological applications for teaching pragmatics are on the rise (Taguchi and Sykes 2013) at the same time as college textbooks keep adding innovative applications for self-instruction and assessment. Therefore, considering the curriculum and timing constraints of teaching college Spanish in the US, textbook authors should incorporate pragmatics instruction in their online components, such as the self-access website developed by Sykes and Cohen (2006) to teach pragmatic strategies in order to identify and perform different Spanish speech acts. Pragmatics awareness develops over time. Consequently, the possibility of having online lessons on Spanish pragmatics associated with textbooks would offer the repeated practice that language learners need to incorporate pragmatic features in their L2 speech.

Note 1 All the textbooks analyzed are listed in the references, even if some of them are not explicitly cited in the chapter.

References ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. 2013. https://www. actfl.org/sites/default/files/CAEP/ACTFLCAEPStandards2013_v2015.pdf. Alcón-Soler, E. A. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Andrade, M., J. Egasse, E. Miguel Muñoz and M. J. Cabrera Puche. 2014. Tu Mundo: Español sin Fronteras. New York: McGraw-Hill. Angell, J., S. Du Bravac and M. Gonglewski. 2008. “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Selecting Textbooks for College-Level Language Programs.” Foreign Language Annals 41(3): 562–572. Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1996. “Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and Pedagogy Together.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, ed. L. F. Bouton, 21–39. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 49

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2002. “Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition.” In The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. R. B. Kaplan, 182–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2015. “Operationalizing Conversation in Studies of Instructional Effect in L2 Pragmatics.” System 48, 21–34. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor, eds. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: Office of English Programs, US Department of State. Blanco, J. A. and P. R. Donley. 2016. Vistas: Introducción a la lengua española. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Vista Higher Learning. Blitt, M. A. and M. Casas. 2012. Exploraciones. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Bouton, L. F. 1994. “Conversational Implicature in a Second Language: Learned Slowly When Not Deliberately Taught.” Journal of Pragmatics 22(2): 157–167. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness Usage: Some Universals in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cocina con Sergio, October 10, 2015. www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/cocina-con-sergio/cocinasergio-vieiras-patatas/3318620/. Cohen, A.D. 1996. “Developing the Ability to Perform Speech Acts.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 253–267. Cohen, A.D. 2008. “Teaching and Assessing L2 Pragmatics: What Can We Expect from Learners?” Language Teaching 41(2): 213–235. Cohen, A.D. 2016. “The Teaching of Pragmatics by Native and Nonnative Language Teachers: What They Know and What They Report Doing.” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6(4): 561–585. De la Fuente, M. J., E. Martín Peris and N. Sans Baulenas. 2015. Gente: Nivel Básico. Boston, MA: Pearson. De Pablos-Ortega, C. 2011. “The Pragmatics of Thanking Reflected in the Textbooks for Teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2411–2433. Dorwick, T., A.M. Pérez-Gironés, A. Becher and C. A. Isabelli. 2012. Puntos de Partida. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Eisenchlas, S. A. 2011. “On-line Interactions as a Resource to Raise Pragmatic Awareness.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 51–61. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008a. “Pedagogical Intervention and the Development of Pragmatic Competence in Learning Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(1): 49–84. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008b. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Classroom: Instruction of Mitigation in Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Hispania 91(2): 479–494. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669. Foerster, S. and A. Lambright. 2011. Punto y Aparte: Spanish Review. Moving toward Fluency. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fraser, B. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 219–236. García, C. 1989. “Development of Sociolinguistic Skills in Spanish, Sample Activities.” Foreign Language Annals 22(4): 357–366. García, C. 1996. “Teaching Speech Act Performance: Declining an Invitation.” Hispania 79(2): 267–279. Guzmán, E., P. Lapuerta, J. E. Liskin-Gasparro and M. Olivella de Castells. 2013. Identidades: Exploraciones e interacciones. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

50

Montserrat Mir

Hasler-Barker, M. 2013. “Effects of Pedagogical Intervention on the Production of the Compliment-Compliment Response Sequence by Second Language Learners of Spanish.” PhD diss., Indiana University. Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research and Teacher Education.” Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10): 938–953. Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Kasper, G. 2001. “Classroom Research on Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K.R. Rose and G. Kasper, 33–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Koike, D. A. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Development of Pragmatic Competence.” System 33(3): 481–501. Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. and T. D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press. La Cocina de Yolo. January 13, 2013. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AZTiYjnOBY. Langer, B. D. 2011. “The Effects of Pragmatic Instruction in the Spanish Language Classroom.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis. Leeser, M. J., B. VanPatten and G. D. Keating. 2011. Así lo veo. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lucas Murillo, M. C. and L. M. Dawson. 2013. ¡Con brío! Beginning Spanish. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Martínez-Flor, A. and E. Alcón-Soler. 2005. ¨Special Issue: Pragmatics in Instructed Language Learning.” System 33(3), 381–546. Martínez-Flor, A. and E. Usó-Juan. 2010. “The Teaching of Speech Acts in Second and Foreign Language Instructional Contexts.” In Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures, ed. A. Trosborg, 423–442. New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Munné, J., L. Paredes, E. Martín Peris, N. Sánchez Quintana and N. Sans Baulenas. 2013. Gente: Nivel Intermedio. Boston, MA: Pearson. Mwinyelle, J. B. 2005. “The Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence in an L2 Classroom: Giving Advice in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin. Nibert, H. J. and A. R. Abbott. 2015. Día a día: De lo personal a lo profesional. Boston, MA: Pearson. Olivella de Castells, M., E. E. Guzmán, P. LaPuerta and J. E. Liskin-Gasparro. 2015. Mosaicos: Spanish as a World Language. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson. Olshtain, E. and S. Blum-Kulka. 1985. “Degree of Approximation: Nonnative Reactions to Native Speech Act Behavior.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds. S. Gass and C. Madden, 303–325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Orozco, R. and J. J. Thomas. 2014. “The Future Tense in Spanish L2 Textbooks.” Spanish in Context 11(1): 27–49. Overfield, D. M. 1996. “Teaching Pragmatic Competence: Input, Interaction and Consciousness Raising.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh. Pearson, L. 2001. “Pragmatics in Foreign Language Teaching: The Effects of Instruction on L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Spanish Expressions of Gratitude, Apologies and Directives.” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin. Pearson, L. 2006. “Patterns of Development in Spanish L2 Pragmatic Acquisition: An Analysis of Novice Learners’ Production of Directives.” Modern Language Journal 90(4): 473–495.

Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 51

Perez-Gironés, A.M. and V. M. Adan-Lifante. 2014. Más: Español intermedio. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rose, M. 2012. “Grammar in the Real World: Enhancing Grammar Lessons with Pragmatics.” Hispania 95(4): 670–680. Sandstedt, L. A. and R. Kite. 2014. Espacio. Boston, MA: Heinle. Schmidt, R. 1993. “Awareness and Second Language Acquisition.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 206–226. Schmitt, N. 2000. “Key Concepts in ELT.” ELT Journal 54(4): 400–401. Sharwood-Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.” Applied Linguistics 2: 159–168. Shenk, E. M. 2014. “Teaching Sociolinguistic Variation in the Intermediate Language Classroom: ‘Voseo’ in Latin America.” Hispania 97(3): 368–381. Swain, M. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds. S. Gass and C. Madden, 303–325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sykes, J. 2009. “Learner Request in Spanish: Examining the Potential of Multiuser Virtual Environments for L2 Pragmatics Acquisition.” In The Second Generation: Online Collaboration and Social Networking in CALL, eds. L. Lomika and G. Lord, 199–234. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Monograph. Sykes, J. 2013. “Multiuser Virtual Environments: Learner Apologies in Spanish.” In Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching, eds. N. Taguchi and J. Sykes, 71–100. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Sykes, J. and A.D. Cohen. 2006. Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics in Spanish. Minneapolis, MN: Regents of the University of Minnesota. www.carla.umn.edu/ speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html. Taguchi, N. 2010. “Longitudinal Studies in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics. Vol.7: Pragmatics Across Languages and Culture, ed. A. Trosborg, 333–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289–310. Taguchi, N. 2015. “Instructed Pragmatics at a Glance: Where Instructional Studies Were, Are, and Should Be Going.” Language Teaching 48(1): 1–50. Taguchi, N. and J. M. Sykes, eds., 2013. Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Takahashi, S. 2010a. “Assessing Learnability in Second Language Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics Across Languages and Cultures, ed. A. Trosborg, 391–421. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takahashi, S. 2010b. “The Effect of Pragmatic Instruction on Speech Act Performance.” In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, eds. A. Martínez-Flor and E. Usó-Juan, 127–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Taylor, G. 2002. “Teaching Gambits: The Effect of Instruction and Task Variation on the Use of Conversation Strategies by Intermediate Spanish Students.” Foreign Language Annals 35(2): 171−189. Thomas, J. A. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Timpe-Laughlin, V. 2017. “Adult Learners’ Acquisitional Patterns in L2 Pragmatics: What Do We Know?” Applied Linguistics Review 8(1): 101–129. VanPatten, B., M. Alford Marks, R. V. Teschner and T. Dorwick. 1992. Destinos: An Introduction to Spanish (Videotape). New York: The Annenberg/CPB Collection. Vásquez, C. and D. Sharpless. 2009. “The Role of Pragmatics in the Master´s TESOL Curriculum: Findings from a Nationwide Survey.” TESOL Quaterly 43(1): 5–28.

52

Montserrat Mir

Witten, C. M. 2002. “The Effects of Input Enhancement and Interactive Video Viewing on the Development of Pragmatic Awareness and Use in the Beginning Spanish L2 Classroom.” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House HarperCollins. Zayas-Bazán, E., S. M. Bacon and H. J. Nibert. 2012. Arriba: Comunicación y cultura. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson. Zayas-Bazán, E., S. M. Bacon and D.M. García. 2014. Conexiones: Comunicación y cultura. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

3 PRAGMATICS IN L2 SPANISH TEXTBOOKS Perspectives from Spain Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

1.

Introduction and objectives

It is apparent that learning a foreign language does not consist exclusively of acquiring a set of grammar rules and a wide range of vocabulary and expressions. Since the 1970s, the main aim of the communicative approach has been to create and develop meaningful strategies and tools in order to help language learners develop communicative competence. Effective communication implies the use of certain elements along with accurate grammatical structures and appropriate lexical items, which make the message as effective as possible in a particular communicative situation. Those elements refer to extralinguistic factors such as the individual characteristics of the interlocutors, their relationships, and the contextual information, which are connected with the pragmatic aspects of a language. It might be presumed that the use of language in context, i.e., pragmatics, is something already implicit when using a language and, consequently, it is not something that needs to be taught explicitly. For example, knowing how to make a request in a foreign language is a basic functional aspect that can be performed easily. However, non-native speakers of a language might use the pragmatic patterns of their first language (L1) when communicating in their foreign language (FL) or second language (L2) and these two patterns might not necessarily be the same in both languages. This is what is known as pragmatic transfer. The main aim of the study summarized in this chapter is to explore and analyze how pragmatic content is portrayed in the textbooks targeted at Teaching Spanish L2 (TSL2). The analysis aims at answering the following questions: 1)

How much pragmatic information, both implicit and explicit, is included in recently published TSL2 textbooks?

54

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

2) 3)

Which specific pragmatic aspects are covered? Is the amount and type of pragmatic information given similar weighting at each linguistic proficiency level?

The ultimate outcome of the research and this chapter is twofold: first, the intention is to ascertain how much pragmatic related content is included in the textbooks of Spanish L2; the second is to create an awareness of the need to include pragmatic related information when designing teaching materials. The present chapter begins with a review of the work and research carried out in the areas of pragmatics and language learning and the theoretical elements that sustain the investigation, namely the foreign language-learning frameworks. This is followed by a section detailing the methodology of the study and the corpus used for the analysis. A further section presents the results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses. The chapter concludes with a discussion and conclusion section, where the research questions are answered and suggestions for further studies are included.

2.

Pragmatics and Spanish language learning

This section presents a summary of the research carried out in connection with three areas: firstly, pragmatics and language learning, both in the classroom and in immersion contexts; secondly, the teaching of pragmatics explicitly; and thirdly, the analysis of textbooks from a pragmatic perspective. The final part of this section is devoted to how pragmatic components are reflected in two reference documents that set up the guidelines for language learning. Research in the areas of pragmatics and foreign language learning has focussed on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in the classroom (Alcón-Soler 2005; Bardovi-Harlig 2015; Félix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker 2015; Jeon and Tadayoshi 2006; Pinto and De Pablos-Ortega 2014; Rose 2005; Taguchi 2011 and 2015; Takahashi 2010; Usó-Juan 2013) and in language immersion contexts or during study abroad programs (Alcón-Soler 2015; Cohen and Shively 2007; Shively 2010 and 2011; Winkie and Chunhong 2010). Eva Alcón-Soler has carried out extensive research connected to the areas of language use and language learning in TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language). In her edited volume (with Alicia Martínez-Flor) Investigating Pragmatic Language Learning in Foreign Language Classrooms (2008), she presents a review of the theoretical perspectives on pragmatic learning and its use in interlanguage pragmatic research. In this work, she states that research from an acquisitional perspective has provided the key elements that influence the development of learners’ pragmatic competence: the availability of input, learners’ L2 proficiency, the length of exposure to the L1, and pragmatic transfer and instruction. Therefore, the exposure to materials addressing pragmatic content, from both the metapragmatic and use of language perspectives, proves to be a critical factor for the development of pragmatic competence in L2/FL learners.

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

55

Teaching pragmatics explicitly is another aspect to bear in mind in the process of pragmatic competence acquisition. Langer’s (2011) study examines the benefits of the explicit instruction of speech acts at three different levels of proficiency in L2 learners of Spanish. The outcome of the investigation reveals that students who are exposed to explicit pragmatic teaching improve their pragmatic competence when compared to those who were not exposed to such instruction. Given the importance of teaching materials as rich sources of pragmatic information, it is essential that pragmatic awareness be reflected in the material design processes. Ishihara (2010) claims that most of the published textbooks for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) are usually written on the writers’ intuition, and dialogues included in these textbooks may sound contrived. The author questions the authenticity of the materials, suggesting the need for presenting natural language and for introducing pragmatic issues when teaching materials are created. In the area of textbook analysis, specifically for TSL2, Cubillo’s (2014) exploration deals with textbooks from a diachronic and general perspective, not focusing on pragmatic content. More specifically from a TEFL pragmatic perspective, Vellenga (2004) studies eight English textbooks, which contrasts using English as a Second Language (ESL) with English as a Foreign Language (EFL) materials. The analysis, carried out both qualitatively and quantitatively, covers three main aspects: the type of pragmatic information included in the textbooks, how the amount of information differs between ESL and EFL materials, and the strategies used by teachers to incorporate and supplement information in terms of pragmatic information. Vellenga’s pragmatic analysis covers four main areas: general pragmatic information, metalanguage style, speech acts, and metapragmatic directives. The first area, general pragmatic information, includes a wide range of pragmatically related elements: politeness, appropriacy, formality, register, and culture. Her study reaches the conclusion that a pragmatically friendly textbook should include: activities, which raise awareness about pragmatics; extralinguistic and contextual information for the language samples to provide pragmalinguistic choices; and cultural information to identify sociopragmatic elements. Following Vellenga’s study, Peiying (2007) carried out a similar investigation that confirmed the shortage of pragmatic information in the textbooks analyzed. Two important official reference documents that set up the guidelines for foreign language learning are: the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL), and El Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes (Curricular Plan of Cervantes Institute, henceforth PCIC). The first document provides the guidelines and basis for the development of language syllabi, curriculum guidelines, textbooks, etc. following all levels of language proficiency. In section 5.4.3 of Chapter 5 of the document, there is a detailed description explaining the content and inventory of pragmatic competence for language learners. The PCIC, based on CEFRL, was created specifically to cater to the needs of a framework of reference for TSL2. The document includes a comprehensive analysis, description, and inventory of the

56

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

different linguistic levels of proficiency in Spanish. It covers grammar, pronunciation, spelling, linguistic functions, pragmatic strategies, discourse genres and textual products, cultural models, and sociocultural knowledge and behaviour. Since the establishment of this framework of reference in 2006, textbooks for TSL2, which are published in Spain, have aimed at following and including the guidelines from PCIC in their content design, activities, tasks, and resources.

2.1.

Pragmatic information in PCIC

This section presents a detailed description of the pragmatic components of PCIC, namely the inventory of Tácticas y estrategias pragmáticas from levels A1 to C2. However, only the description of levels A1 to B2 is presented, given that the materials for analysis cover those levels exclusively. The inventory is divided into two sets: one comprising levels A1 and A2 and another for levels B1 and B2. In both cases, three sections are included: 1) construcción e interpretación del discurso, 2) modalización, and 3) conducta interaccional. The first section, entitled Construcción e interpretación del discurso, contains eight subsections: 1.1 Mantenimiento del referente y del hilo discursivo, 1.2 Marcadores del discurso, 1.3 La deixis, 1.4 Desplazamiento en el orden de los elementos oracionales, 1.5 Procedimientos de cita, 1.6 Valores ilocutivos de los enunciados interrogativos, 1.7 La expresión de la negación, and 1.8 Significados interpretados. The second section, entitled Modalización, has five subsections: 2.1 Intensificación y refuerzo, 2.2 Atenuación y minimización, 2.3 Focalización, 2.4 Los valores modales de la entonación y de otros elementos suprasegmentales, and 2.5 Desplazamiento de la perspectiva temporal. The final section, Conducta interaccional, includes politeness aspects and is divided into two categories: mitigating politeness and enhancing politeness. The inventory for each of the previous sections contains comprehensive lists of examples of these pragmatic resources, which are often connected to grammatical and lexical-semantic resources. It is worth highlighting two significant aspects of pragmatic features from the inventory, which are connected with the illocutionary value of questions and issues of politeness (mitigation and enhancement). In the case of illocutionary force, the examples refer, amongst others, to the performance of speech acts: greetings (level A1), asking for permission and offerings (level A2), requests and offers (level B1), and offers and expressing doubt (level B2). This subsection also presents features on the use of interactional strategies: phatic value and the use of questions to confirm information and rhetorical questions. Another subsection connected to verbal politeness shows key aspects which should be taken into consideration when designing teaching tasks and activities. In level A2, there are structures used to express impersonality and others referring to indirect speech acts. The pragmatic patterns for level B1 are: verb tenses used to attenuate a request, a suggestion, or a wish (imperfect and conditional tenses); indirect speech acts; performative verbs to attenuate opinion, beliefs, and positive statements; and a list of structures used to repair face-threatening acts. A final section on how to express

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

57

compliments is also included at the end of the inventory. The inventory for level B2 displays a more thorough account of mitigating resources, namely strategies to show impersonality, the inclusion of the imperfect subjunctive as a politeness strategy with two specific verbs (deber and querer—‘must’ and ‘want’), performative verbs to mitigate requests and preliminary statements to introduce a speech act that threatens the receiver’s negative face. This rich and valuable amount of pragmatic information from the PCIC serves as a solid framework for the inclusion of pragmatic content and information at each level of language proficiency, and will be used to confirm whether these pragmatic components are taken into consideration when designing teaching materials.

3. 3.1.

Methodology Description of corpus

For the purpose of this investigation, five TSL2 textbooks with their corresponding teacher’s editions were chosen for analysis. The criteria for the selection of these books a twofold: firstly, their recent years of publication (2013, 2014, and 2015), as one of the main objectives of this investigation is to explore recently published materials, and secondly, the pedagogical principle used for their design, i.e., the communicative approach. The selected textbooks were published by Difusión, one of the most well-known publishers specialising in TSL2 for more than 25 years. The books belong to the Aula Internacional series and cover levels A1 to B2 following the CEFRL. Additionally, the teachers’ books were also analyzed in order to ascertain the amount of pragmatic information included for the instructors. The Aula Internacional series (2010, 2014, and 2015) claims “to take to the classroom the most advanced communicative approaches” and the new edition takes into account suggestions made by users of the book, renewing the graphic language, layout, and the inclusion of new information technology. Each unit of the book is divided into five different sections: Empezar, Comprender, Explorar y Reflexionar, Practicar y Comunicar, and Viajar. The first section, Empezar, anticipates the tasks that the students will encounter, and all of the communicative, grammatical, and lexical resources covered in the unit. This section helps students activate any previous knowledge and prepares them for the content. The second section, Comprender, helps contextualize the linguistic and communicative content using various types of texts in varied formats (web pages, email messages, adverts, etc.). The aim of this section is to facilitate the development of reading comprehension activities. The third section, Explorar y Reflexionar, is devoted to showing how the language works at different levels (morphological, lexical, functional, discursive, etc.) and is intended to help students reinforce their explicit knowledge about grammar. This section contains charts detailing functional grammatical elements. Practicar y Comunicar offers a wide range of tasks for linguistic and communicative practice. These are based on the students’ experiences and their observations and perceptions

58

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

from an intercultural perspective. These tasks are intended to trigger communicative interaction in the classroom and, as a conclusive point, students are encouraged to complete a final task (writing an article, carrying out a debate, organising an advertising campaign, etc.) using their speaking and writing skills. The final section of every unit is entitled Viajar, and its aim is to expose learners to various cultural and everyday aspects of life in different Spanish-speaking countries. In the last part of each book, additional exercises and a more detailed breakdown of grammar explanations is found in order to reinforce what is learned in each unit. The Aula Internacional is a popular series of textbooks, aimed at audiences studying Spanish at higher education institutions and language schools internationally, in places such as the UK, Australia, or Spain. For the purpose of this investigation, the current study employs a methodology for analysis, inspired by Vellenga’s (2004) analytical model. Two pragmatic areas are explored: general pragmatic information (including speech acts, politeness, and sociopragmatic information) and metapragmatic description. Speech acts refer to linguistic forms and structures which are used to perform different acts (requesting, apologizing, thanking, etc.). The area of politeness looks at explanations in relation to politeness markers and other elements, such as the use of forms of address or specific grammatical structures in relation to the social distance and power between interlocutors. Sociopragmatic information refers to the social elements surrounding the language, how to behave in specific social situations, for example. Metapragmatic description refers to the inclusion of explicit explanations in the textbooks (both students’ and teacher’s books), which is connected to the use of language. The analysis of these aspects is done using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The qualitative analysis for the description of the different types of pragmatic information is obtained by performing a page-by-page analysis of the textbooks. For the quantitative analysis, the total number of pages of each book is taken into account and compared with the number of pages in which general pragmatic information is included. It is important to note that many elements in the book might be regarded as pragmatic in nature, for example, verb forms to express likes or dislikes, which lead students toward a specific use of the language. However, for the specific purpose of this investigation, only the content concerning the specific use of language, such as the use of interactional linguistic patterns and the metapragmatic information were used for analysis.

3.2.

Elements for the analysis

This series of books is divided into four different levels, one for each language proficiency stage from A1 to B2. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis and presentation of results, CEFRL levels will be used, e.g., A1, A2, B1, and B2, and the textbooks will be referred to using the language proficiency levels: A1 for Aula Internacional 1, A2 for Aula Internacional 2, B1 for Aula Internacional 3, B2 for both Aula Internacional 4 and Aula Internacional 5. Table 3.1 displays the number of pages and units of study for both the student’s and teacher’s books.

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

59

TABLE 3.1 Number of pages and units for each level in the books

Student’s book (number of pages) Teacher’s book (number of pages) Student’s book (number of units)

A1

A2

B1

B2

Total

190 160 9

215 192 10

246 215 12

314 264 12

965 831 43

All levels (A1 to B2) include specific sections containing valuable pragmatic information, and have been divided into five different categories: (1) Speech bubbles: These are interspersed throughout the textbooks and are used in many activities in which students are asked to interact with their peers. The speech bubbles present samples of conversational patterns and serve as model answers of what students are expected to produce (Figure 3.1). Their primary

FIGURE 3.1

Speech bubble (Aula Internacional 2, p. 66)

60

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

function is to exemplify the use of grammatical structures studied in the units and to promote conversation and oral production. They, therefore, help develop students’ communicative competence and can be regarded as key elements for language use. The contextual information in these speech bubbles is limited as it does not always present details, such as settings or the characteristics of the interlocutors. (2) Communication boxes: These boxes summarize and show samples of linguistic constructions (grammatical and lexical); and their main aim is to act as structural models and reminders to be used in the activities and tasks. These samples do not contain grammatical explanations as such, but they display linguistic patterns connected to language functions. For example, the box presented in Figure 3.2 includes a series of constructions which are intended for students to use when role-playing the interaction between a waiter and a client in a restaurant. In the box, the key structures and vocabulary are displayed in bold, highlighting the most important content. (3) Comic strips and cartoons: Occasionally, comic strips are found throughout all levels and their main objective is to contextualize interactions and dialogues. Cartoons are usually included on pages that cover grammatical explanations (Figure 3.3). They are intended to exemplify the use of structures and constructions in a given context. These two visual elements provide valuable contextual information in language use, which is one of the essential elements in the field of pragmatics.

FIGURE 3.2

Communication box (Aula Internacional 1, p. 91)

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

FIGURE 3.3

61

Cartoon image (Aula Internacional 5, p. 87)

(4) Dialogues: These are included throughout all levels and are mainly used in two different ways: as introductory tools of language samples and as contextualization devices for the grammatical content being studied in the unit (Figure 3.4), in the same way comic strips and cartoons are used. (5) Metapragmatic information: This refers to explicit explanations regarding the use of language and other pragmatic features of the Spanish language (Figure 3.5). This information appears in different sections of the textbooks for each level, for instance in grammar content pages, embedded in tasks and activities.

4.

Analysis of pragmatic-related content in Aula Internacional textbook series

It is apparent that the textbooks contain many elements that help contextualize the linguistic content they present from grammatical, lexical, and cultural perspectives. The materials used for the textbook analysis include visual aids which support this contextualization: photos, images, and drawings. In addition, all levels contain listening comprehension activities, some of which present different types of interactions, occasionally built from prefabricated dialogues. These can be regarded as abstractions of real conversations. This section presents the analysis of the materials from both quantitative and qualitative angles. From the quantitative perspective, the total number of pages of each textbook is compared with the number of pages that include pragmaticrelated information (PRI), showing percentages. The qualitative analysis gathers

FIGURE 3.4

Dialogue (Aula Internacional 1, p. 26)

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

FIGURE 3.5

63

Metapragmatic information (Aula Internacional 2, p. 53)

general PRI from all textbooks, followed by a more detailed analysis by level. The findings based on the exploration of metapragmatic content are examined meticulously by level. Table 3.2 presents a breakdown of the distribution of pragmatic information by level. The analysis of the complete set of books covers a total number of 965 pages distributed in 190 pages for level A1, 215 pages for level A2, 246 pages for level B1, and 314 pages for level B2. The textbooks with the largest number of pages correspond to higher levels (B1 and B2), which is due to the nature of the activities and tasks they present and, as a consequence, larger texts are included as examples. The total number of pages displaying PRI for all levels is 328, which is equivalent to 33 percent of the content of the book series. The percentages of PRI by level are distributed as follows: 37 percent for level A1, 33 percent for level A2, 39 percent for level B1, and 28 percent for level B2. These results indicate that the distribution of PRI is even throughout all levels, although there is a slight increase in levels A1 and B1 in comparison with levels A2 and B2. However, the space devoted to metapragmatic information is higher in level A2 (11 pages) compared with the rest of the levels A1 and B1 (1 page) and B2 (2 pages).

64

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

TABLE 3.2 Number of pages and percentages of pragmatic-related content by level

Pragmatic-related content

Speech bubbles Communication boxes Comic strips and cartoons Dialogues Metapragmatic information Total number (PRI) Percentages (PRI)

Number of pages including PRI Level A1

Level A2

Level B1

Level B2

51 10 4

47 8 2

74 17 4

61 10 15

6 1

2 11

2 1

0 2

97 39%

88 28%

72 37%

71 33%

In general, levels A1 and A2 provide more pages including metapragmatic information than levels B1 and B2. Conversely, levels B1 and B2 include more speech bubbles used as language samples. The fact that the percentages of PRI are even throughout all levels is evidence of the rigorous pedagogical principles underlying the design of these teaching materials. All textbooks include, at the beginning of every unit, a summary of grammatical, lexical, and communicative resources, thus fulfilling the recommendations of PCIC. This initial section, entitled Recursos comunicativos (communicative resources), is comprised of a set of bullet points stating the communicative functions of the language being dealt with in each specific unit and, therefore, exemplifies the importance of the communicative functions of the language.

4.1. 4.1.1.

Analysis by level Level A1

As happens in all levels, the most frequent amount of PRI is displayed in the speech bubbles and mainly includes samples of language for oral tasks. Due to students’ basic linguistic proficiency at this level, structures included in these bubbles show simple constructions, which are intended to promote and facilitate oral practice. The communication boxes provide information about basic grammatical structures with the aim of signposting the most significant structures. One example, found on pages 20 and 21 of Aula Internacional A1, shows a comic strip introducing different ways of addressing someone in Spanish (using formal or more colloquial formulae) depending on the context and the person taking part in the interaction. Students are shown different scenarios in which the character’s name (Francisco) is used in various forms of address (Señor Martínez, Paco,

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

65

Paquito, etc.) according to the situations where the character is found. Two other examples of dialogues, found on pages 26 and 64, come in the format of Internet chats. The first is used to introduce the present tense and the second, based on a conversation about the description of someone’s family, is used to present possessive adjectives. The rest of the dialogues are connected with the use of language in a shop (p. 52), a restaurant (p. 86), and in conversations employed to ask and provide directions (p. 99). Another set of three short dialogues, referring to the ways in which drinks are drunk or bought, is used to present the use of direct object pronouns (p. 88). Therefore, the main aim of the dialogues for level A1 is to introduce grammatical components, rather than specifically focusing on pragmatic issues. The only example of metapragmatic information (p. 89) refers to an explanation on registers and the use of second person pronouns, both singular (tú and usted) and plural (vosotros and ustedes). The information recommends the use of polite forms, usted and ustedes, in public places. No information about the use of these pronouns in Latin American countries is included. In every unit of level A1, there is a specific section entitled Consultar displayed in yellow-colored pages and devoted to the summary of grammatical and lexical elements studied in the unit. It is worth noting that some subsections in these pages present linguistic functions. In connection with these, the number and use of various speech acts are significant, namely expressing likes and dislikes and preferences, giving opinions and requesting. The latter is used in connection with scenarios when shopping, ordering food in a restaurant, or asking for directions in the street. In Unit 5 (p. 55), students are asked to role-play a situation in a market where transactions (buying and selling) are taking place. Interestingly, the communication box, including the language samples, presents the imperfect tense as the only choice for requesting (quería). This verb form is used to request more politely than, for example, the simple present tense (quiero), which is also employed for this speech act. Unfortunately, no further explanation on this request formula is included, which would have been a useful way of highlighting how polite structures are used when requesting in Spanish.

4.1.2.

Level A2

This level includes the largest amount of PRI in comparison with the rest, but displays metapragmatic information more prominently. The number of language samples for oral activities and tasks presented in the speech bubbles is similar to the previous level: 47 in level A2 compared with 51 in level A1. Given the higher level of linguistic competency, the samples display more sophisticated structures and, unlike level A1, patterns for the exchange of information with their peers or for the presentation of information to each other are often used. The number of pages with communication boxes in comparison with level A1 remains similar (8 for level A2 and 10 for level A1).

66

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

Most of the pages including metapragmatic information are concentrated in Unit 4. The content included in the communicative resources at the beginning of the unit covers the following four areas: 1) 2) 3) 4)

How to manage codified situations: invitations, introductions, greetings and farewells. Asking for something (an action and a favor). Asking and granting permission. Giving excuses and justifying.

The unit starts with an activity in which students are presented with four short dialogues that need to be matched with four photographs in which interlocutors greet each other or say goodbye. Students are asked about greeting and farewell rituals in their own countries, thus establishing contrasting elements with the L1 culture. They are also asked about any specific gestures used when greeting someone, so offering an opportunity to demonstrate and understand sociopragmatic elements contrastively in both cultures. This task is followed by a listening activity connected to requests. Students are presented with six cartoonlike images and, after listening to six short recordings, are asked to decide which specific actions are being performed in each given situation. They are asked to choose from a list of seven: asking for a favor, asking permission, justifying, thanking, introducing someone, being interested in someone’s life, and asking a waiter for something. Another example connected to the use of metapragmatic information is found on page 51 and is related to making requests. In this case, the aim of the activity is to establish the differences between questions used to ask for permission and questions to ask for a favor. In the second part of the activity, two questions are asked: the first connected to the level of directness of the request (more or less direct), and the second related to the factors or elements that influence the decision on the level of (in)directness of each question. This activity is followed by another (p. 52) in which the lexical uses of the verb dejar and dar are explored in different situations. Students are given two cartoon-like drawings where these two verbs are used for requesting (one with the meaning of giving and the second one for lending). This activity is followed by another which is related to the use of the construction es que, as a way of introducing an excuse. However, there is no further explanation in the textbook about the use of this expression. Unit 4 includes further activities connected to metapragmatic components. In the first, students are asked to write a question or a phrase given six situations. The idea of this task is to elicit different speech acts according to each particular situation. In the second activity, students need to relate each of the two answers of a given question to two characters, each labelled as “polite” and “impolite.” In the second part of this activity students are asked to produce two negative responses to a given question, one showing politeness, the other impoliteness. Later on, their peers

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

67

are asked to identify which responses are meant to be polite or impolite. The third and final activity of Unit 4 is entitled ¿Cómo lo dices? ‘How do you say that?’ and begins with a listening comprehension task presenting an interaction where there is a request. Students are asked to associate the dialogue with one of the four situations given as choices. In the second part of this task, students are encouraged to role-play one of four given situations. Unit 4, unlike other units in the book, includes an interesting task in the Further Activities section at the back of the book. There is a text entitled La cortesía ‘Politeness’, which includes information on contrastive politeness elements between Spain and other countries, such as Holland and the United States, but more specifically with regard to the use of thanking. After reading the text, students are asked to mark whether thanking is usually performed in five given situations. This qualitative analysis of level A2 shows a significant amount of metapragmatic information, placing considerable emphasis on the reflection of linguistic elements and covering the performance of different speech acts: requesting, granting permission, and giving excuses and justifying. As included in the previous level, the yellow-colored pages in each unit cover functional linguistic aspects when referring to grammatical constructions and verb forms.

4.1.3.

Level B1

The textbook for level B1 contains a larger number of pages than books for levels A1 and A2, and this is also reflected in the percentage of pages that include PRI (39 percent). However, the increase in the percentage of PRI does not differ much from level A1 (37 percent). Generally speaking, the textbook includes more speech bubbles with language samples and these are also more elaborate, due to the higher level of linguistic proficiency. The number of “Communication boxes” is also larger (17) than in previous levels (A1, 10 and A2, 8). Conversely, the number of yellow-colored pages included in each unit, which convey information regarding language functions, is slightly lower when compared to previous levels. The same pages present three cartoon-like drawings that are found in units 2, 7, and 12 and help contextualize the linguistic functions. In Unit 9 (pp. 106 and 107), there is a comic strip used to introduce the content of the unit in a specific sociocultural context; a family Christmas lunch. In the same unit, there are a couple of tasks including two contextualized dialogues. The first activity (p. 111) presents a character showing her disagreement and annoyance in five different situations. The second task (p. 112) displays two conversations on two mobile phones and students are asked to find the expression used to introduce the arguments. The only instance where metapragmatic information is found is on pages 36 and 37. This includes an activity focusing on sociopragmatic elements and is related to social behavior in Spain. The task heading is ¿Qué sabes de los españoles? and it presents a questionnaire entitled Cómo relacionarse en España y no morir en el intento. Students are presented with eight different scenarios with multiple-choice questions

68

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

about how to behave or react in different social situations. Once the questions are answered, the students are requested to read a short text entitled Cosas que debes tener en cuenta en España so that they can check their answers from the questionnaire. This task is followed by a listening comprehension exercise in which three people who live in Spain discuss the most surprising aspects and habits when they first arrived in the country. This is another significant activity which exemplifies essential sociopragmatic aspects that students might not be aware of, helping them to reflect on cultural differences.

4.1.4.

Level B2

This level corresponds to two textbooks (Aula Internacional 4 and Aula Internacional 5). The percentage of PRI included in this level is the lowest (28 percent) when compared with previous levels (A1= 37 percent, A2= 33 percent, and B1= 39 percent). The number of pages with speech bubbles, including language samples for the oral practice, is lower than in level B1. This is due to the nature of the activities, which are less focused on oral production. The content in the speech bubbles displays more sophisticated language, in line with the language proficiency expected in level B2. This finding is commensurate with what happens in the pages containing communication boxes, which are lower in number than in previous levels, as fewer linguistic and lexical patterns are being presented in each unit. A remarkable finding in this level worth highlighting is the frequent use of a wide range of cartoon-like images in the yellow-colored pages, labelled in this level as Para consultar. Unlike in previous levels, this section now appears displayed on two pages due to the increased number of grammatical structures. The cartoon-like images help to exemplify and contextualize the explanations, and appear much more frequently than in other levels. As in previous levels, these pages display a wide range of grammatical elements and examples of functional language. The only metapragmatic information found in level B2 that is included in Aula Internacional 4 (Unit 2, p. 30) is related to conversational analysis. This small section presents a list of expressions used to start, give, and take conversational turns, and a brief explanation indicating how these expressions are meant to be used with a determined tone and how to use gestures to signal and initiate turn taking in the conversation. It is noted that in Spanish it is common to take the interlocutor’s conversational turn, i.e., interrupt him/her before s/he has finished talking. The explanation concludes stating that, in general, this conversational feature is not impolite.

4.2.

Analysis of teacher’s books

It is assumed that the teacher’s books can provide further PRI, probably embedded in the suggestions given for planning the lessons and the exploitation of the

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

69

individual activities and tasks. Nevertheless, the analysis performed in the teacher’s books for all levels does not reveal a significant amount of such information, since this is mainly found in the explanations of the activities and tasks that include PRI. In level A1, information about registers, specifically the use of formal and informal forms of address, is found in Unit 4 (p. 67), Unit 7 (p. 104), and Unit 8 (p. 116). The explanation for the teachers indicates that the uses of the informal you (tú) and the formal one (usted) depend on the age of the interlocutors and other factors, such as the physical appearance, the social level, etc. In the same activities, one of the suggestions is to discuss with the students whether these forms of address exist in their languages and cultures. Another pragmatic-related piece of information is found in Unit 5 (p. 71) about the use of ¿no? (isn’t it? /doesn’t it? etc.) to ask for confirmation and as a communication strategy to ask indirectly. The analysis of the teacher’s book for level A2 concentrates all the PRI in Unit 4. On page 54, there is an explanation of the way in which men and women usually greet each other and a suggestion to discuss this issue contrastively, using the students’ cultural backgrounds. Extra-linguistic information about requesting and asking for favors is included on page 58: the degree of formality when performing these speech acts depends on the social position, age, and hierarchy of the interlocutor as well as on the context and the difficulties involved in carrying out the actual request. A comment in relation to politeness and requesting is found on page 60: “politeness norms in Spanish indicate that a request should be accompanied by a justification when asking someone to stop doing something that is bothering them. In some cases, the justification substitutes the actual request.” On the same page, but in relation to a different activity, teachers are asked to remind the students that politeness norms vary in each culture and, consequently, there are also differences in what is acceptable as correct or incorrect. It is also stated that the aim of the activity is to learn to decode what is incorrect in the characters’ behavior according to Spanish politeness norms. The teacher’s books for levels B1 and B2 do not include any PRI as a result of the scarce amount of metapragmatic information found in these levels.

5.

Discussion of results and conclusion

The analysis of the books for levels A1 to B2 reveals interesting findings with regards to PRI. In foreign language teaching, one of the main aims is to promote the use of language in communicative situations and interaction, and this is an aspect that is reflected extensively in the materials these books provide for this study. This consistency in the use of communicative elements of the language is clearly displayed at the beginning of each unit in Recursos comunicativos. This section appears in levels A1 to B2 and contains an average of two to five bullet points listing the communicative functions that will be achieved in each specific unit of the textbook. These are presented along with grammatical and lexical resources, which are also displayed in the same front pages.

70

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

From a pragmatic perspective, many of the activities and tasks whose main aim is to promote and reinforce oral practice, and subsequently communicative competence, are found in each language level, covering a third of the books analysed. This is evidence, once again, of the significance given to the interplay between the use, context, and communication aspects of a language. The textbooks display numerous linguistic samples in the speech bubbles, which are intended to serve as language patterns and models to generate conversation in the oral tasks. Together with these, the communication boxes are used to signal which grammatical structures, sentence patterns, and lexical items need to be remembered in each unit. However, both speech bubbles and communication boxes would have benefited from the inclusion of specific contextual information regarding the characteristics of the interlocutors or the settings where the interactions take place. The frequent use of dialogue helps present contextualized samples of language in interactions that consequently serve as rich sources and examples of language in use. Unsurprisingly, these dialogues are mainly found in lower proficiency levels (A1 and A2) where more basic communicative patterns are needed. Regardless of the linguistic proficiency, the textbook series demonstrates remarkable consistency in the pedagogical treatment of the content and in the design of activities and tasks. These are clearly linked to the grammatical and lexical content and various structures reflecting the importance of functional language. This is not something new in the area of foreign language teaching. However, the homogeneity presented at all levels is significant and shows evidence of pedagogical awareness with regards to the pragmatic competence of the writers and coordinator of the textbook series. The findings reveal that the metapragmatic information is concentrated in Unit 4 (level A2). As mentioned in the detailed analysis by level, this information focuses on three speech acts: greetings and farewells, requests and (giving) advice, and some politeness aspects. The activities and tasks are designed to encourage reflection, explicitly on pragmatic uses, therefore showing the pragmatic awareness of the textbook writers. Given the quality of the material used in this unit, it is surprising to find that these kinds of activities and tasks have not been included in more units throughout the rest of the series. Although the analysed materials present enough evidence of pragmatic awareness by both textbook writers and pedagogical coordinators, the inconsistencies in the use of metapragmatic-related tasks and activities at each level may be due to the fact that, unlike grammatical competence, pragmatic competence is not yet a key element borne in mind in the design of teaching materials. Throughout the textbooks, there are many grammar points and explanations which could have been exploited pragmatically, thus providing learners with an opportunity to reflect on the use of language. Given the emphasis placed on pragmatics by the PCIC inventory, entitled “Pragmatic Tactics and Strategies,” it is advisable for TSL2 textbook writers to give more consideration to the inclusion of activities and tasks covering

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

71

pragmatic content. For example, the sections from the inventory, which are related to the illocutionary values of questions and enhancing and mitigating elements of verbal politeness, provide a rich source of information which can be used in tasks and activities to promote pragmatic awareness. Given the results of the analyses, it is now possible to answer the research questions posed at the beginning of this study: 1) How much PRI, both implicitly and explicitly, is included in TSL2 textbooks? The amount of PRI covers approximately one-third of the content in the books for each level. Therefore, it can be confirmed that textbook writers and pedagogical coordinators are pragmatically aware when designing teaching materials. 2) Which specific pragmatic aspects are covered? Most of the pragmatic information included implicitly covers a wide range of functional language and is found in various sections of the books, throughout all levels. The explicit information (metapragmatic) comprises two main elements: speech acts and politeness. 3) Is the amount and type of pragmatic information given similar weighting at each linguistic proficiency level? Although the type of general pragmatic information is homogeneous and presented evenly throughout all levels, the metapragmatic information is only concentrated in level A2. This research has shown that publishers are increasingly aware of the need to include pragmatic issues in the design of language teaching materials. This study has explored a complete series of textbooks and, although the corpus comprises a relatively small sample, the findings make a significant contribution, given the absence of this type of investigation in current literature and opens an exciting area in need of further investigation. Therefore, more research needs to be carried out in order to ascertain the extent to which pragmatic content is included in other teaching materials from Spain or other countries, such as the US.

References Alcón-Soler, E. 2005. “Does Instruction Work for Pragmatic Learning in EFL Contexts?” System 33(3): 417–435. Alcón-Soler, E. 2015. “Pragmatic Learning and Study Abroad: Effects of Instruction and Length of Stay.” System 48(1): 62–74. Alcón-Soler, E. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (Second Language Acquisition). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2015. “Operationalizing Conversation in Studies of Instructional Effect in L2 Pragmatics.” System 48(1): 21–34. Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García and I. Ginés. 2013. Aula Internacional 1, Libro del profesor. Barcelona: Difusión. Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García and I. Ginés. 2014. Aula Internacional 2, Libro del profesor. Barcelona: Difusión.

72

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega

Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García, P. Garrido and I. Ginés. 2014. Aula Internacional 3, Libro del profesor. Barcelona: Difusión. Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García, P. Garrido and I. Ginés. 2014. Aula Internacional 4, Libro del profesor. Barcelona: Difusión. Cohen, A. and R. Shively. 2007. “Acquisition of Requests and Apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of Study Abroad and Strategy-Building Intervention.” Modern Language Journal 91(2): 189–212. Corpas, J., E. García and A. Garmendia. 2013. Aula Internacional 1. Barcelona: Difusión. Corpas, J., A. Garmendia and C. Soriano. 2013. Aula Internacional 2. Barcelona: Difusión. Corpas, J., A. Garmendia and C. Soriano. 2014. Aula Internacional 3. Barcelona: Difusión. Corpas, J., A. Garmendia, N. Sánchez and C. Soriano. 2014. Aula Internacional 4. Barcelona: Difusión. Corpas, J., A. Garmendia, N. Sánchez and C. Soriano. 2015. Aula Internacional 4. Barcelona: Difusión. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.coe.int/t/ dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf. Cubillos, J. 2014. “Spanish Textbooks in the US: Enduring Traditions and Emerging Trends.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(2): 205–225. Félix-Brasdefer, C. and M. Hasler-Barker. 2015. “Complimenting in Spanish in a ShortTerm Study Abroad Context.” System 48(1): 75–85. Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Niveles de referencia para el español: Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Madrid:Biblioteca Nueva. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/plan_ curricular/default.htm. Ishihara, N. 2010. “Adapting Books for Teaching Pragmatics.” In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics, eds. N. Ishihara and A. Cohen, 145–165. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Jeon, E. H. and K. Tadayoshi. 2006. “Effects of L2 Instruction on Interlanguage Pragmatic Development.” In Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, eds. J. M. Norris and L. Ortega, 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Langer, B. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatic Forms in Spanish.” Segundas lenguas e inmigración 1(5): 5–34. Pinto, D. and C. De Pablos-Ortega. 2014. Seamos pragmáticos: Introducción a la pragmática española. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Peiying, J. 2007. “Exploring Pragmatic Knowledge.” CELEA Journal 30(5): 109–119. Rose, K. 2005. “On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics.” System 33(3): 385–399. Shively, R. 2010. “From the Virtual World to the Real World: A Model of Pragmatics Instruction for Study Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 43(1): 105–137. Shively, R. 2011. “L2 Pragmatic Development in Study Abroad: A Longitudinal Study of Spanish Service Encounters.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1818–1835. Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289–310. Taguchi, N. 2015. “Contextually Speaking: A Survey of Pragmatic Learning Abroad, in Class, and Online.” System 48(1): 3–20. Takahashi, S. 2010. “Assessing Learnability in Second Language Pragmatics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics VII, eds. A. Trosborg, 391–421. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks

73

Usó-Juan, E. 2013. “Effects of Metapragmatic Instruction on EFL Learners’ Production of Refusals.” In Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond, eds. O. Martí-Arnándiz and P. Salazar-Campillo, 65–100. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Vellenga, H. 2004. “Learning Pragmatics from ESL and EFL Textbooks: How Likely?” Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language-Electronic Journal 8(2): 1–18. Winkie, P. and T. Chunhong. 2010. “Using Task-Based Pragmatics Tutorials while Studying Abroad in China.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7(2): 363–399.

4 WHEN TO SPEAK SPANISH AND WHEN NOT TO Interethnic communication and US students of L2 Spanish1 Laura Callahan

1.

Introduction

Spanish is the language with the highest enrollments in US high schools and colleges (Flaherty 2015), and it is also that nation’s most-spoken language besides English (Ryan 2011). This would seem to make for the perfect situation for learners who wish to practice speaking Spanish outside the classroom. Conversation with native speakers is often touted as all but essential for successful L2 acquisition, and students are urged to seek opportunities to engage in such exchanges to improve their pronunciation and other skills. However, not every native speaker wishes to indulge the learner’s desire to use the language (e.g., Woolard 1989; Norton 2000; Callahan 2009). And since in the United States the majority of Spanish-speakers are also proficient in English (National Council of La Raza 2010), if for whatever reason a Spanish-speaker does not wish to speak or be spoken to in Spanish, a switch to English is probable. Research and experience suggest that the use of Spanish by non-Latino speakers may produce a negative reaction in native speakers of that language, ranging from a refusal to answer in Spanish to a hostile tone regardless of the language of response. In this chapter, we will review this phenomenon and examine the implications for language learners and teachers. The questions guiding this exposition are: What is the role of the native speaker in L2 acquisition? Does the learning of Spanish in the United States equate to cultural appropriation? How can we teach respectful communication in Spanish? Using one language instead of another, when both are available, conveys a message about the speaker’s intentions. Language choice in such contexts is therefore a fundamentally pragmatic matter, and therefore concerns US teachers of L2 Spanish who hope to incorporate issues of pragmatics into their instruction.

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 75

2.

The role of the native speaker in language teaching and learning

As mentioned above, interaction with native speakers is frequently seen as a sine qua non for learners’ successful acquisition of the target language. First, a few words about the notion of native speakerhood. As Kramsch (1998, p. 80) writes, “[i]t is not clear whether one is a native speaker by birth, or by education, or by virtue of being recognized and accepted as a member of a like-minded cultural group.” An operational definition that has been used elsewhere assumes a certain level of linguistic skill for both native and non-native speakers, with the difference in labels stemming from how and from what age those skills were acquired (Callahan 2006, p. 26).

2.1.

Native speaker language teachers

Despite a long-standing problematization of the construct of the native speaker as the ideal speaker,2 its use as the gold standard by which to evaluate linguistic abilities remains in full force. Although the strengths and weaknesses of both native and non-native speakers as language teachers have been examined in many academic publications (the bulk of which concern the teaching of English as an L2/foreign language)—many people, both inside and outside the profession, accept the assumption that native speakers are superior teachers. The two areas most often cited as those for which native speaker teachers are crucial are pronunciation and cultural knowledge. Pronunciation is seen as a vital component of successful language acquisition, and native speakers are seen as an essential element in the attainment of good pronunciation. Despite the reality that, as McBride (2015, p. 28) notes, “L2 learners are not, [. . .] and cannot become monolingual native speakers of their target language,” popular notions abide, according to which the language learners’ ultimate objective should be to sound almost like a native speaker if not actually pass for one (Piller 2002). And students not infrequently believe that this can only be achieved with native speaker teachers. Students quoted in Callahan (2006, p. 21), for example, expressed the opinion that “a native speaker should be teaching this class” and “[the instructor’s] accent didn’t sound authentic” and “native speakers would help more.” Yager (1988, p. 115) reports that “[s]trategies such as actively listening to native speakers [. . .] and imitating native speakers are associated with more native-like language scores.” He goes on to state that “providing study abroad opportunities may indeed facilitate the acquisition of native-like Spanish” (Yager 1988, p. 142). We will discuss study abroad further in Section 2.2. For now, let it suffice to note that while a sojourn in another country to acquire, practice, or perfect an L2 may seem logical and indeed the only real choice for some languages, one

76

Laura Callahan

might wonder why this should be necessary in the case of Spanish. The presence of Spanish in the United States has grown exponentially since Yager’s investigation.3 More importantly, so has its prestige, although US Spanish still suffers a stigma in comparison to other varieties.4 However, despite the number of native Spanish speakers in the US then or now, there are other obstacles to be considered. Namely, two factors would appear to be in an inherent conflict. On the one hand, there are adult learners whose best hope for reaching native-like oral production lies in having positive attitudes toward and opportunities for integrative interaction with native speakers. And on the other hand, there are native speakers who may have little interest in—if not an active antipathy for—such interaction. Not all investigations refer to a direct role for native speakers in the acquisition of L2 pronunciation, but most do make reference to native speakers, more often than not as some type of benchmark for comparison. Native speakers are also often seen as the ideal candidates to impart cultural knowledge (Lederer 1981; Callahan 2006). What exactly constitutes culture is questioned from time to time, but a distinction is usually made between “high” and “anthropological” culture. According to Scollon and Scollon (2001, pp. 126–127), “anthropological [. . .] culture is any of the customs, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set that group apart as a distinctive group.” Professional language organizations package cultures as discrete entities, the understanding of which is nevertheless given to be an essential companion to linguistic knowledge of a language. Culture is an integral part of what are known as the five C’s, the National Standards for Foreign Language Education. According to these rubrics, students are supposed to “gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures,” “acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language and its cultures,” and “demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own” (National Standards for Foreign Language Education 2006). Notwithstanding pedagogic conventions, the construct of cultural knowledge has been problematized in recent years. One aspect in particular that has been questioned is the assumption that culture consists of pre-existing and enduring sets of values and practices that individuals automatically reproduce and subscribe to (e.g., Godley 2012; Piller 2012). In popular conceptions, though, culture is still considered to be all but innate. In the words of one informant in Callahan (2006, p. 31), “[. . .] native Spanish-speaking instructors have the added advantage of knowing Spanish culture, since they were born into it [. . .].” The fact that a speaker was born into a group with a certain cultural background implies long exposure to that culture; therefore, length of time can be used to rank an individual’s cultural experience. Although most non-native speakers—virtually by definition—fall short on such a measure, exposure to a culture might be obtained by living in a target language country as part of a study abroad program (to be discussed further below), or as the child of missionaries or of members of the

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 77

military or foreign service. Just as native speaker status can be an advantage for job candidates, so can certain life experiences. Moreover, this is not seen as something that can be acquired by just anyone: witness job announcements and candidates’ vitae that list the quality “bicultural,” in a way that equates to code for racial/ ethnic group membership.

2.2.

Interactions with native speakers outside the classroom

References to native and non-native speech and speakers are sprinkled throughout the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Most to the point for the present chapter, these guidelines reflect an assumption that one of the goals of language learners is to converse with native speakers, although such interactions may not necessarily prove successful until students reach the advanced level, at which point they will “have sufficient control of basic structures and generic vocabulary to be understood by native speakers of the language, including those unaccustomed to non-native speech” (ACTFL 2012). This reference to native speakers who are “unaccustomed to non-native speech” suggests conversations that take place outside the classroom, since the teacher would be accustomed to non-native speech and (most) classmates would not be native speakers. The question is, then, where will such interactions take place? Norton (2000) studied language learners in Canada, who journaled their struggles to acquire English. Her interviewees were immigrant women whose socioeconomic status and, especially, their gender limited their opportunities for interaction with target language speakers. Smith (2013) notes a similar dynamic for Senegalese women in Rome, whose efforts to acquire Italian were hindered not only by racist attitudes from host country citizens but also by ingroup censure that cast aspersions on the morals of Senegalese women who interacted with Italian men. These cases involve immigrants learning the dominant language of their host country. The situation of the language learners addressed in the title of this chapter—students of L2 Spanish—differs from that of immigrants. US students of Spanish are learning Spanish by choice—even if it is to fulfill a university language requirement—whereas immigrants, in contrast, are under enormous pressure to learn the majority tongue of their host country. In general, the immigrants’ success or failure in the acquisition of their L2 will have a greater effect on their everyday life and long-term prospects than the results of US students’ efforts to learn Spanish will have on theirs. Nevertheless, and assuming we go along with the belief that interaction with native speakers is beneficial if not downright crucial in such a quest, both types of learner may encounter certain obstacles in obtaining such interaction. Study abroad has been and continues to be one of the principal means recommended for students learning a foreign language to speed their progress and aid in their acquisition of both linguistic and cultural knowledge. Living in a country where the target language is the majority code can equate to an immersion

78

Laura Callahan

experience that translates to gains in a learner’s skills and confidence. However, study abroad is neither the sine qua non nor the panacea it is sometimes made out to be. While students who participate in a study abroad program may indeed increase both their linguistic and sociolinguistic competence, research conducted over the past couple of decades indicates that gains can be tempered by factors ranging from gender to motivation to living arrangements to length of stay in-country. Students who lack access to social networks—such as those provided by a host family, for example—are much less able to find native speakers willing to engage in conversation with them (e.g., Farrell Whitworth 2006; Kinginger 2009). Thus, simply being in the presence of native speakers of the target language does not guarantee opportunities to use the language. A similar situation exists in the United States, where speaking practice outside the Spanish language classroom is not an automatic advantage of living in a country with a large population of Spanish speakers. As earlier work on the public use of Spanish by non-native speakers and language choice in US service encounters has shown, Spanish is an in-group language and learners’ overtures initiated in Spanish are often answered in English. As Callahan (2009, p. 77) argues, “[t]he position of Spanish as a minority language in the United States contributes to its status as an ingroup mode of communication, which in turn imposes restrictions on its employment. These restrictions include to whom Spanish is available for use.” This brings us to the topic of the next section, cultural appropriation.

3.

Spanish as a foreign language and cultural appropriation

The term cultural appropriation bears a negative valence, and is often both uttered and heard as an accusation. In popular usage, cultural appropriation refers to practices considered to be faintly—or frankly—exploitative. Are US students of Spanish as a foreign language guilty of cultural appropriation by definition? When the definition centers on the learner rather than on the native speakers of the language in question, cultural appropriation as understood by at least some scholars of language acquisition and education can be seen as something more neutral. Kramsch (1998, p. 81) discusses the concept of appropriation, whereby learners make a foreign language and culture their own by adopting and adapting it to their own needs and interests. The ability to acquire another person’s language and understand someone else’s culture while retaining one’s own is one aspect of a more general ability to mediate between several languages and cultures [. . .]. When the language being learned is English, what Kramsch proposes is unproblematic. As she notes, it is undesirable to impose “on learners a concept of authenticity that might devalue their own authentic selves as learners” (1998, p. 86; emphasis in

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 79

the original). In this same vein, Block examines McMahill’s (1997) Japanese Englishas-a-foreign-language learners’ “engagement with English as an international language (and not as the patrimony of native speakers)” (Block 2009, p. 113). What if learners of Spanish were to engage with that language as an international one, and not, to borrow Block’s phrase, as the patrimony of native speakers? This seems to be what the commercial language learning program Rosetta Stone encourages. Casillas (2014) maintains that this product promotes an image of Spanish “divorced from the brown body.” Rosetta Stone for Spanish comes in two versions— Spanish (Spain) and Spanish (Latin America)—and the faces and situations that are shown in both versions distance Spanish from the local, US context. At first glance, such an approach might seem to empower US populations of Spanish speakers—after all, to be a user of an international code must surely bring advantages. However, those who raise alarm over the commodification of Spanish argue that its end result is not to empower but rather to dispossess a minority group of a unique asset (García 1993). One reason for this is that native speakers of US varieties of Spanish are not always accepted as wholly legitimate users of that language by Spanish speakers in other nations, and US Latinos have internalized language ideologies that forever hold some variety other than their own to be “the best Spanish” (e.g., Villa 1996, 2002; Callahan 2010a). As Ochoa (2014) observes, Spanish has historically been a marginal language in the academy. Departments of Comparative Literature did not recognize Spanish as a major European language until the 1970s. As Leeman ([2006] 2007, p. 35) notes, even after interest in offering Spanish language as a subject in school began to grow in the second decade of the twentieth century, Peninsular Spanish was privileged over Latin American, let alone US, varieties. While US varieties of Spanish are often still disparaged, the language has nevertheless risen in status, due in large part to the increase in numbers and hence acquisitive power of the Hispanic population. Sellers wish to market their products and services to a sector that was as of 2014 over 50 million strong and projected to reach 29 percent of the country’s population by 2050 (Passel and Cohn 2008). So now the Spanish language is seen as a commodity, a product (Leeman [2006] 2007; Leeman and Martínez 2007; Lynch 2012; González Támara 2014), to be acquired by Latinos and non-Latinos alike, often with more emphasis on the latter (García 1993). Ethnic commodification results when the minority language itself or items inscribed with the language are marketed to outgroup members (Przymus 2015; Vandenbroucke 2015). Even as the Spanish language comes to be seen more and more as a thing of value, US Latinos—due to their positioning as somehow less than real Spanish speakers—do not participate in the benefits. This is because they are not seen as full speakers of the best Spanish (Leeman 2014; Schwartz 2014; Magro 2016). Furthermore, their hold on Spanish as an ingroup resource and positive symbol of group identification suffers erosion as, to paraphrase García (1993), its connection to Latinos becomes diffuse as it turns into a resource available for exploitation by outgroup members.

80

Laura Callahan

But let us return to the case of our foreign language learners. When the language involved is a minority one, and the learners are elite bilinguals—those who acquire an L2 by their own election, often in a classroom, as opposed to by economic compulsion, often in non-academic settings—there is less imposition and more choice involved. There is much more choice, in fact, than the native speakers of the language have at their disposal. For example, subjects in Schneider (2014) adopted a language that gave them access to certain positive characteristics associated with a culture, without assuming liabilities borne by its native speakers: Schneider studies the performance of multiple identities by socioeconomically mobile Australians, who speak Spanish as a second language and take salsa lessons taught by Latin Americans in dance schools owned by Australians of Anglo descent. [. . .] Similar to Hall-Lew’s [2014] [. . .] young white San Franciscans, these Australian salsa aficionados are able to access another ethnic group’s authenticity from a transnational perspective, while the nonmainstream group that makes it possible for them to achieve this has no such opportunity to assume and divest themselves of their authenticity at will. (Callahan 2015) These non-Hispanic Australians’ Spanish skills let them identify themselves with the positive cultural stereotypes of warmth and openness without experiencing the hardships suffered by actual minority group members. Of course, not all US students of Spanish are of high socioeconomic status, although it would be safe to suppose that most of those who can attend university enjoy certain advantages many recent immigrants lack. Furthermore, majority group members, even those from less affluent sectors, receive certain linguistic concessions not afforded to minority group members. This dynamic is illustrated in a popular animated television program, King of the Hill, in which the character of Peggy Hill, a white woman and a native speaker of English whose Spanish skills would be rated at the novice level on the ACTFL scale, works as a substitute junior high school Spanish teacher. Betts (2006, pp. 185–186) describes the character of Peggy thus: “[a]lthough she represented a person from the dominant cultural group in society who made a conscious decision to learn Spanish, an elite bilingual, she didn’t learn to speak her new tongue accurately. [. . .] At the same time, she was recognized by offical channels of society for speaking the language, and rewarded with a job that she clearly could not perform.” King of the Hill is a comedy that presents a parodic view, and it often makes use of exaggeration as a comedic device. Yet its representation of an underprepared Spanish teacher is not without a kernel of truth—some US high school Spanish teachers’ proficiency in the language they teach does not surpass the ACTFL level of intermediate-mid (Gutiérrez-Candelaria 2000, cited in Callahan 2006, p. 22). Contrast this with minority group members who are penalized for imperfect oral production of English; see, for example, Urciuoli (1996), Hill (1998), and Zentella (2003).

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 81

Ethnicity and race are topics of ongoing contention. In a 2015 opinion piece, conservative syndicated columnist Victor Davis Hanson echoes what postmodernists have affirmed for decades—that race and ethnicity are social constructs. However, this does not stop racial or ethnic attributions from having real social consequences, as a letter in response to Hanson’s column points out (Mitchler 2015). Hanson cites cases of individuals who have been accused of claiming minority status to gain educational or professional advantage. For example, former Florida governor and one-time US presidential candidate Jeb Bush once classified himself as Hispanic on a voter registration form. Hanson (2015, p. A13) asks whether “[p]erhaps Jeb Bush could be called transracial. By virtue of his marriage [to a Mexican American woman], his Spanish fluency and his years of residence in Spanish-speaking countries, is he more Latino than are third-generation Americans with names like Nicole Lopez or Juanita Brown who speak no Spanish and have never visited Latin America?” A letter to the editor retorts that notwithstanding cases such as those Hanson cites, assignation to minority (read “non-white”) status far too often causes real disadvantage to those so identified. It is a classification from which, unlike members of more privileged groups, they cannot escape no matter how much they achieve. Most relevant to the present chapter is the observation that “[c]hoosing to be a minority when you aren’t is quite different from being born a minority. How many minorities can become ‘white’ based on their ability to speak fluent English? How many minorities enjoy all of the privileges of being ‘white’ simply because they are married to one?” (Mitchler 2015, p. A11).5

4.

Respectful communication in Spanish

Concerns over cultural appropriation will not—and should not—halt the teaching and learning of Spanish in the United States. And while non-native speakers by definition can never become native speakers, continued practice of the target language is their best hope of achieving whatever fluency level may be possible. Support for the belief that oral practice is most beneficial if conversation partners are native speakers can be found in various studies, such as Yager, cited above, and others too numerous to include here.6 It is clear that students of Spanish have to speak the language with someone, even if their interlocutors are other non-native speakers. And one might wonder why that should present a problem. Let learners go ahead and attempt to speak Spanish, whenever, wherever, and to whomever they can. However, it isn’t that simple. Speaking Spanish in the United States can have consequences. This has been well documented in the case of Latinos using Spanish in such public settings as schools and the workplace. Speaking Spanish in school in past decades could result in sanctions including corporal punishment (Shockley 1974; Sánchez 1983; Bernal-Enríquez 2000). And Latinos who speak Spanish in the workplace continue to this day to be at risk of firing or other disciplinary action (Zentella 2003; Callahan 2005; Wells Fargo 2014).

82

Laura Callahan

And as we have seen in Section 3, non-Latinos speaking Spanish—or attempting to do so—can also be a source of friction. Casillas (2014) calls learning Spanish “a badge of liberalism,” a label that offers its own brand of ironic stigma, depending on who utters it and whom it is meant to describe. It might call to mind the non-Latino politicians who take private lessons to learn just enough Spanish to sprinkle a few sentences into their speeches. Latino reactions to this practice range from praise to censure. Sometimes the reaction is tempered by the L2 speaker’s skill, with those politicians who are barely able to utter a few lines the most ridiculed, but other times the act itself regardless of the speaker’s proficiency—and sometimes also regardless of his/her ethnicity—is seen as cynical (Callahan 2004). Another use of Spanish, not normally even quite as polished as that which some politicians have been heard to use, is the subject of a large body of literature, beginning with anthropologist Jane Hill’s work on Mock Spanish.7 Mock Spanish has been defined as “a special register in which Spanish words or phrases are used to evoke humor, often indexing an unflattering and stereotypical image of Spanish speakers” (Callahan 2014, p. 203). Mock Spanish may involve Anglicized pronunciations of Spanish words, Spanish suffixes appended to English words, and the use of Spanish words in place of English ones to reference undesirable qualities. What does Mock Spanish have to do with L2 learners? L2 learners’ efforts have sometimes been mischaracterized as resembling or even constituting Mock Spanish. So, when L2 learners of Spanish practice speak, they may incite perceptions that they are taking unlicensed liberties with the language, that they are not according it the deference it is due, and by extension, that they disrespect the group considered to be its rightful owners, Latinos. Callahan (2014, pp. 216–217) maintains: Non-Latino, non-heritage learners and users of Spanish are admonished by U.S. Latinos to approach the second language with respect and diligence, lest their use of Spanish be perceived as mocking or cynical and self-serving (e.g., Callahan 2004, 2010; Mendoza-Denton 2008). As to the question of whether non-native speakers of Spanish or those in the process of learning Spanish should refrain from using Spanish in a humorous way, my answer to those who are interested in avoiding offensive speech is yes. How to sensitize learners is a more complex issue. [. . .] [T]eachers can teach by example, showing their disapproval of Mock Spanish when it occurs in the classroom. This can be done by ignoring a student’s clowning bid for attention and making a point of attending to his or her peers’ serious attempts at communication. Another recommendation would be to forego the class trip to the Mexican restaurant during which students are supposed to practice their Spanish on the dining room workers.

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 83

Notwithstanding this recommendation concerning “the class trip to the Mexican restaurant” (Callahan 2014, pp. 216–217), teachers should indeed encourage their students to use Spanish outside the classroom. As Pellettieri (2011) demonstrates, students need their instructor’s support to overcome a reluctance to use their L2 outside the classroom, due to fears stemming from their “socialization within a multicultural society that is often insensitive to nonnative speakers” (Pellettieri 2011, p. 295). It is important to note that participants in Pellettieri’s investigation were enrolled in an intermediate level Spanish course with a reflective communitybased learning component. It is, rather, the unreflective assumption that restaurant staff or other Spanish-speaking community members are there for students’ convenience that should be avoided.

5.

Implications for students and teachers

In this chapter, we have considered the dilemma students may encounter while learning an ingroup language as outgroup members. Although Spanish is the de facto L2 of the United States, a country which may by 2050 be first in the world in the number of Spanish-speakers within its borders (Instituto Cervantes 2012), this does not translate to unfettered access to conversation partners in that language for nonnative speakers. Students will find this out on their own; some will take it in stride. Others will be surprised to discover that their attempts to speak Spanish are not welcome in all encounters with classmates, friends, and acquaintances, and much less with strangers. Some will become disillusioned; the degree of acceptance from target language speakers has been shown to affect the degree of language acquisition (albeit this has been studied more in cases of immigrant acquisition of the host country’s language; see, for example, Baker 2011).8 Other students will persist in speaking Spanish in ways that perpetuate the image—deserved or undeserved—of the insensitive majority group member, who enjoys the privilege of speaking an L2 badly, heedless of any social sanctions and blissfully unaware of—or unconcerned by—an interlocutor’s cues. We as educators can offer some solutions. First, we can inform students of the fact that some native speakers may reject their efforts, especially in situations in which an outgroup member’s use of Spanish may be perceived as an insinuation that an interlocutor is unable to speak English. As has been discussed in Section 3 of this chapter, due to inequalities in US society, not all speakers are subject to the same social sanctions for having less than perfect English ability. Students should first of all be asked to reflect on the question of why such a perception— i.e., that one is unable to speak English—could be damaging to someone, and whether it would be equally damaging to members of all social groups. Students could be asked to think of in what types of situations this perception might arise, and to engage in their own ethnographic observations of everyday encounters in which languages other than English are used. Who are the interlocutors? Does

84

Laura Callahan

the encounter begin in English and transition into the other language? If so, how does this seem to happen? Coupling language study with community involvement, whether within the context of an experiential learning course (aka service learning or community-based learning) or a domestic immersion program (Miano, Bernhardt, and Brates 2016) has been shown to be a very promising means of helping students acquire both linguistic proficiency and sociocultural sensitivity. However, as has been observed (see endnote 3), such programs typically enroll students at the intermediate or advanced levels of language study. And since many US college students will stop after just one year (or less) of instruction, they will not have the opportunity to develop the insights that community engagement may offer. An alternative may lie in explicit, in-class instruction about language and social dynamics. In other words, teach sociolinguistics side-by-side with language from the introductory level, so that students can appreciate the nuances of respectful communication and understand more about the complex situation of Spanish in the US (Magro 2016; Pellettieri et al. 2016). Finally, we can incentivize students to continue their acquisition of Spanish to more advanced levels. Although outgroup members fluent in an ingroup language may still encounter situations in which their use of the language is not welcome, these will be fewer for skilled users and they will not run the risk of being mistaken for speaking Mock Spanish.

Notes 1 A distinction between foreign and L2 learning has been made based on whether the language is acquired via “formal classroom instruction outside of the geographical region where it is commonly spoken” or “within one of the regions where the language is commonly spoken” (Shrum and Glisan 2010, p. 12). So-called L2 learning may or may not include formal classroom instruction. The idea is that L2 learners have access to interactions with native speakers of their target language everywhere, such as in the workplace, stores, and other community venues. Since this is not the case for non-Latino US students of Spanish, I will refer to Spanish as a foreign language in the context of this chapter, even though it is not a foreign language by other criteria. 2 See, for example: Paikeday (1985); Cook (1995, 1999); Kramsch (1997); Valdés (1998). Otheguy (2015) also problematizes the notion of the native speaker, in particular its validity as a psycholinguistic concept. 3 Another area new since that time is service learning, also known as community-based or community-engaged learning. While more and more tertiary institutions are incorporating service learning, in language instruction this tends to be most common in intermediate or advanced courses, which are beyond the level of L2 study required at most US universities and hence involve far fewer students. 4 A discussion of the prestige of US varieties of Spanish is beyond the scope of this chapter. See, for example: Valdés et al. (2003); Leeman ([2006] 2007); Callahan (2010a); Ochoa (2014); Beaudrie (2015); Bruzos Moro (2016). 5 See Winfrey Harris (2015) for one of numerous opinion pieces on another muchpublicized case of a majority group member claiming minority group membership— Rachel Dolezal, who headed a chapter of the NAACP, was forced to step down from that role after it was discovered that both her parents were white, and that she lacked African American ancestors. Winfrey Harris makes the same point as Mitchler:

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 85

Being able to shift one’s race is a privilege. Ms. Dolezal’s masquerade illustrates that however much she may empathize with African-Americans, she is not one, because black people in America cannot shed their race. We cannot proclaim the black race a nebulous concept, while strictly policing whiteness and the privileges of that identity. (Winfrey Harris 2015; see also Blow 2015) 6 See Bowles (2011, p. 30) for more references. 7 For more on Mock Spanish, see: Hill (1995, 1998, 2008); Zentella (2003); Barrett (2006); Breidenbach (2006); Mendoza-Denton (2008); Schwartz (2008); Callahan (2010b, 2014); Potowski (2011). 8 In turn, a positive attitude toward the target language community—as manifested in a desire to interact with its members—has been shown by Gardner (e.g., 2001) to be a factor in successful L2 acquisition.

References ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 2012. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-pro ficiency-guidelines-2012. Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barrett, R. 2006. “Language Ideology and Racial Inequality: Competing Functions of Spanish in an Anglo-Owned Mexican Restaurant.” Language in Society 35(2): 163–204. Beaudrie, S. M. 2015. “Approaches to Language Variation: Goals and Objectives of the Spanish Heritage Language Syllabus.” Heritage Language Journal 12(1): 1–21. Bernal-Enríquez, Y. 2000. “Factores socio-históricos en la pérdida del español del suroeste de los Estados Unidos y sus implicaciones para la revitalización.” In Research on Spanish in the United States, ed. A Roca, 121–136. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Betts, G. F. 2006. “Making a Run for the (Linguistic) Border: The Cultural Power of Language and Dialect-Mixing on Television.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico. Block, D. 2009. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum. Blow, C. M. 2015. “The Delusions of Rachel Dolezal.” New York Times. June 17, 2015. Bowles, M. A. 2011. “Exploring the Role of Modality: L2-Heritage Learner Interactions in the Spanish Language Classroom.” Heritage Language Journal 8(1): 30–65. Breidenbach, C. M. 2006. “Deconstructing Mock Spanish: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of Mock Spanish as Racism, Humor, or Insult.” PhD diss., University of South Carolina. Bruzos Moro, A. 2016. “El capital cultural del español y su enseñanza como lengua extranjera en Estados Unidos.” Hispania 99(1): 5–16. Callahan, L. 2004. “Native Speakers’ Attitudes Toward the Public Use of Spanish by NonNative Speakers: From George W. to J. Lo.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23(1): 1–28. Callahan, L. 2005. “‘Talking Both Languages’: 20 Perspectives on the Use of Spanish and English Inside and Outside the Workplace.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26(4): 275–295. Callahan, L. 2006. “Student Perceptions of Native and Non-Native Speaker Language Instructors: A Comparison of ESL and Spanish.” Sintagma: Revista de Lingüística 18: 19–49. Callahan, L. 2009. Spanish and English in U.S. Service Encounters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Callahan, L. 2010a. “U.S. Latinos’ Use of Written Spanish: Realities and Aspirations.” Heritage Language Journal 7(1): 1–27. Callahan, L. 2010b. “Speaking with (Dis)Respect: A Study of Reactions to Mock Spanish.” Language and Intercultural Communication 10(4): 299–317.

86

Laura Callahan

Callahan, L. 2014. “The Importance of Being Earnest: Mock Spanish, Mass Media, and the Implications for Language Learners.” Spanish in Context 11(2): 202–220. Callahan, L. 2015. Review of Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, eds. V. Lacoste, J. R. E. Leimgruber and T. Breyer. Linguist List 26 (3008). June 23, 2015. Casillas, D. I. 2014. “Sin Barreras, Rosetta Stone, and the Politics of Language Learning.” Paper presented at Imagining Latina/o Studies: Past, Present, and Future: An International Latina/o Studies Conference. Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL. July 18, 2014. Cook, V. 1995. “Multi-Competence and the Learning of Many Languages.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 8(2): 93–98. Cook, V. 1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly 33(2): 185–209. Farrell Whitworth, K. 2006. “Access to Language Learning during Study Abroad: The Roles of Identity and Subject Positioning.” PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University. Flaherty, C. 2015. “Not a Small World After All.” Inside Higher Education. February 11, 2015. García, O. 1993. “From Goya Portraits to Goya Beans: Elite Traditions and Popular Streams in U.S. Spanish Language Policy.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 12(1–2): 69–86. Gardner, R. C. 2001. “Integrative Motivation and Second-Language Acquisition.” In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, eds. Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt, 1–20. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Godley, A. J. 2012. “Intercultural Discourse and Communication in Education.” In The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, eds. C. Bratt Paulston, S. F. Kiesling and E. S. Rangel, 449–481. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. González Támara, A. I. 2014. “Tratamiento de la variación del español en textos para estudiantes bilingües en Estados Unidos.” Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Graduate Students’ Conference. PhD Program in Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages. The Graduate Center, City University of New York. April 4, 2014. Gutiérrez-Candelaria, J. R. 2000. “Attitudes of Teachers toward Varieties of Spoken Spanish.” Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. San Juan, Puerto Rico. August 2–6, 2000. Hall-Lew, L. 2014. “Chinese Social Practice and San Franciscan Authenticity.” In Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, eds. V. Lacoste, J. R. E. Leimgruber and T. Breyer, 55–77. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hanson, V. D. 2015. “It May Be Time to Stop Racial Labeling.” San Jose Mercury News. April 17, 2015. A13. Hill, J. H. 1995. “Junk Spanish, Covert Racism, and the (Leaky) Boundary between Public and Private Spheres.” Pragmatics 5(2): 197–212. Hill, J. H. 1998. “Language, Race, and White Public Space.” American Anthropologist 100(3): 680–689. Hill, J. H. 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Instituto Cervantes. 2012. “El español y sus hablantes en cifras.” El español en el mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2012. King of the Hill. USA. Fox. 1997–2010. Television. Kinginger, C. 2009. Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kramsch, C. 1997. “The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker.” PMLA 112(3): 359–369. Kramsch, C. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lederer, H. 1981. “The Native Speaker Issue: Problem or Pretext?” ADFL Bulletin 12(4): 1–4.

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 87

Leeman, J. [2006] 2007. “The Value of Spanish: Shifting Ideologies in United States Language Teaching.” ADFL Bulletin 38(1–2): 32–39. Leeman, J. 2014. “Critical Approaches to the Teaching of Spanish as a Local-Foreign Language.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte, 275–292. New York: Routledge. Leeman, J. and G. Martínez. 2007. “From Identity to Commodity. Ideologies of Spanish in Heritage Language Textbooks.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 4(1): 35–65. Lynch, A. 2012. “Brain, Language, Commodity: Locating Bilingualism in the 21st Century.” Guest lecture, Cultural and Ethical Issues in Language and Communication. The City College of New York. April 2, 2012. Magro, J. 2016. “Lengua y racismo: Motivación, competencia y conciencia lingüística en la clase de español como segunda lengua: integración de contenidos relacionados con la dimensión socio-política del lenguaje en un acercamiento content-based.” PhD diss., City University of New York. McBride, K. 2015. “Which Features of Spanish Learners’ Pronunciation Most Impact Listener Evaluations?” Hispania 98(1): 14–30. McMahill, C. 1997. “Communities of Resistance: A Case Study of Two Feminist English Classes in Japan.” TESOL Quarterly 31(4): 612–622. Mendoza-Denton, N. 2008. Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina Youth Gangs. London: Blackwell. Miano, A. A., E. B. Bernhardt and V. Brates. 2016. “Exploring the Effects of a Short-Term Spanish Immersion Program in a Postsecondary Setting.” Foreign Language Annals 49(2): 287–301. Mitchler, C. R. 2015. “Don’t Confuse Cultural Pride with Ethnicity.” San Jose Mercury News. April 20, 2015. A11. National Council of La Raza. 2010. “Twenty of the Most Frequently Asked Questions about Hispanics in the U.S.” http://publications.nclr.org/handle/123456789/78. National Standards for Foreign Language Education, 3rd ed. 2006. ACTFL. www.actfl.org. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. London: Longman. Ochoa, J. 2014. “¿Latino Studies en español? Teaching and Researching in Latina/o Literature in a Spanish Department.” Paper presented at Imagining Latina/o Studies: Past, Present, and Future: An International Latina/o Studies Conference. Palmer House Hilton, Chicago. July 19, 2014. Otheguy, R. 2015. “Linguistic Ideology, Linguistic Theory and Spanishes in the U.S.” Keynote speech at the 25th Conference on Spanish in the United States/10th Conference on Spanish in Contact with Other Languages. The City College of New York. March 26, 2015. Paikeday, T. M. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto: Paikeday Pub. Passel, J. S. and D. Cohn. 2008. “U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050.” Pew Research Center. www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005–20. Pellettieri, J. 2011. “Measuring Language-Related Outcomes of Community-Based Learning in Intermediate Spanish Courses.” Hispania 94(2): 285–302. Pellettieri, J., L. Callahan, R. Ramírez, A. Sampaio and A. Schindewolf. 2016. “Spanglish, Mock Spanish, and the Prestige of Spanish in the United States.” Panel discussion, Language Matters! Department of Modern Languages and Literatures. Santa Clara University. May 11, 2016. Piller, I. 2002. “Passing for a Native Speaker: Identity and Success in Second Language Learning.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(2): 179–206.

88

Laura Callahan

Piller, I. 2012. “Intercultural Communication: An Overview.” In The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, eds. C. Bratt Paulston, S. F. Kiesling and E. S. Rangel, 3–18. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Potowski, K. 2011. “Linguistic and Cultural Authenticity of ‘Spanglish’ Greeting Cards.” International Journal of Multilingualism 8(4): 324–344. Przymus, S. 2015. “A Tale of Two Tucsons: The Language of Street Signs and Classroom Instruction.” Paper presented at the 7th International Linguistic Landscape Workshop. University of California, Berkeley. May 7, 2015. Ryan, C. 2011. “Language Use in the United States: 2011.” American Community Survey Reports. US Census Bureau. www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf. Sánchez, R. 1983. Chicano Discourse: Socio-Historic Perspectives. Houston, TX: Arte Público Press. Schneider, B. 2014. “‘Oh Boy, ¿hablas español?’—Salsa and the Multiple Value of Authenticity in Late Capitalism.” In Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, eds. V. Lacoste, J. R. E. Leimgruber and T. Breyer, 113–135. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schwartz, A. 2008. “Their Language, our Spanish: Introducing Public Discourses of ‘Gringoism’ as Racializing Linguistic and Cultural Reappropriation.” Spanish in Context 5(2): 224–245. Schwartz, A. 2014. “Third Border Talk: Intersubjectivity, Power Negotiation and the Making of Race in Spanish Language Classrooms.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 227: 157–173. Scollon, R. and S. Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Shockley, J. S. 1974. Chicano Revolt in a Texas Town. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Shrum, J. L. and E. W. Glisan. 2010. Teacher’s Handbook. Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning. Smith, M. A. 2013. “Multilingual Practices of Senegalese Immigrants in Paris and Rome: A Comparative Study of Language Use and Identity Construction.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. Urciuoli, B. 1996. Exposing Prejudice. Boulder, CO: Westview. Valdés, G. 1998. “The Construct of Near-Native Speaker in the Foreign Language Profession: Perspectives on Ideologies about Language.” ADFL Bulletin 29(3): 4–8. Valdés, G., S. V. González, D. López García and P. Márquez. 2003. “Language Ideology: The Case of Spanish in Departments of Foreign Languages.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 34(1): 3–26. Vandenbroucke, M. 2015. “Displacing Gentrification: A Diachronic Case-Study of Language and Multilingualism in Brussels’ Quartier Dansaert.” Paper presented at the 7th International Linguistic Landscape Workshop. University of California, Berkeley. May 7, 2015. Villa, D. J. 1996. “Choosing a ‘Standard’ Variety of Spanish for the Instruction of Native Spanish Speakers in the U.S.” Foreign Language Annals 29(2): 191–200. Villa, D. J. 2002. “The Sanitizing of U.S. Spanish in Academia.” Foreign Language Annals 35(2): 222–230. “Wells Fargo to pay $295K after firing Spanish speaking worker.” 2014. Fox9.com. October 1, 2014. Winfrey Harris, T. 2015. “Black Like Who? Rachel Dolezal’s Harmful Masquerade.” New York Times. June 16, 2015.

Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 89

Woolard, K. A. 1989. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Yager, K. D. 1988. “Second Language Acquisition: Spanish Grammar and Pronunciation in Adult Native Speakers of English.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico. Zentella, A. C. 2003. “‘José, Can You See?’ Latin@ Responses to Racist Discourse.” In Bilingual Aesthetics, ed. D. Sommer, 51–66. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

5 NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN L2 SPANISH TEACHING Ana M. Cestero Mancera

1.

Introduction

Didactic methods in second language teaching (henceforth L2) have undergone an important change over the past decades; the development of linguistic disciplines such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics, dialectology, conversation analysis, and discourse analysis, whose object of study is speech, interaction, and communication, together with the development of linguistics applied to language teaching, have brought about changes in theory and methodology which have resulted in the emergence of a new general focus on a systematic use of a methodological approach that is very different from the traditional one. Currently, the general aim is to teach and learn to communicate and interact in the target language and, to this end, it is necessary to pay special attention to communicative competence. In order to communicate effectively and appropriately, it is not enough to simply acquire the linguistic system of the target language, no matter how thorough and complete it may be. We must also be communicatively competent, with all that that implies: in the first place, the knowledge and correct use of the verbal communication system and, in the second place, the knowledge and use of pragmatic, social, situational, and geographical information, together with the signs of nonverbal communication. Thus, communication is not to be conceived purely and simply as the use of the elements of the linguistic system, but as the combined use of all the signs, systems, and aspects that are naturally carried out in any act of human communication. This chapter deals with the signs and systems of nonverbal communication, with the aim of offering a clear theoretical and methodological base that enables the incorporation of nonverbal signs into L2 Spanish teaching. We believe that the use of these elements constitutes a substantial and basic part of communication and of the means of human communication. Nevertheless, they are the communicative elements that have received the least attention in L2 curriculum design, due in part to the longstanding

Nonverbal communication

91

and prevalent focus on the teaching of the verbal system and its use, and partly to the fact that our knowledge of nonverbal communication is scant and fragmented.1

2.

Nonverbal communication

The expression nonverbal communication has an extraordinarily broad meaning, since it refers to all the nonlinguistic signs and systems of signs that communicate or inform. Therefore, these include cultural habits and customs in the broadest sense and the so-called nonverbal communication systems. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with interrelated aspects and elements, we propose the following definition, which enables us, for practical reasons, to establish two different types of elements that constitute what is commonly called nonverbal communication: cultural signs and systems, and nonverbal communication systems. On the one hand, cultural signs and systems are the set of behavioral and environmental habits and beliefs of a community that communicate both in the widest and the strictest senses of the word. On the other hand, nonverbal communication systems represent the set of signs that constitutes the basic nonverbal communication systems, both the paralinguistic and the kinesic, as well as the two secondary or cultural ones, the proxemic and chronemic systems. Both of these types contain universal elements along with those that are particular to each language and culture and, therefore, require specific study and teaching. However, in this case, we are going to focus only on the second type, namely, nonverbal communication systems because the cultural aspect, with its signs and systems, is an area worthy of independent study, which is carried out in the field of what is now known as the culture component or interculturality.

2.1.

Nonverbal communication systems

Paralanguage, kinesics, proxemics, and chronemics are the four currently recognized nonverbal communication systems. Of these, the first two, one phonic and the other corporal, are considered basic or primary due to their direct impact in any act of human communication, as they are activated at the same time as the verbal system in order to produce any communicative act. The other two, the proxemic and chronemic systems, are considered to be secondary or cultural systems, since they generally act by modifying or reinforcing the meaning of the elements of the basic systems (language, paralanguage, and kinesics) or independently, providing social or cultural information. Let us now make a more detailed examination of the systems that concern this topic.

2.1.1.

The paralinguistic system

The paralinguistic system is formed by phonic qualities and modifiers, acoustic indicators of physiological and emotional reactions, quasi-lexical elements, and

92

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

the pauses and silences which, with their meaning or their inferred components, communicate, specify, or nuance the sense of signs belonging to other systems in communicative acts (Poyatos 1993, 1994b). The physical qualities of sound, such as tone, pitch, quantity, and loudness, and the phonic modifiers or voice types can provide any linguistic or paralinguistic expression with inferential components which, traditionally, may determine the information that the speaker wishes to give or nuance the content of the utterance or act of communication. Thus, for example, an expression like “Ven aquí” may convey joy or contempt, happiness or anger, depending on the tone and volume at which it is produced and the length of some of its sounds, or it can have a different meaning if it is whispered, shouted, produced with lip stretching, and so on. Some physiological or emotional reactions, like laughter, crying, sighing, coughing, throat clearing, yawning, panting, spitting, belching, hiccupping, sneezing, flatulence, and chattering of teeth produce sounds containing certain inferential communicative components that may vary from one culture to another. These are acoustic signals, emitted consciously or unconsciously, which have great functional value. For example, laughter is an emotional reaction normally expressing joy, but it can also express sadness or fear; furthermore, it is used to qualify utterances, whether they proceed from others (showing agreement, disagreement, understanding, recognition, or following) or are our own (denoting anecdotes and amusing events, or minimizing errors, faux pas, or embarrassing utterances). Finally, it can function as a sign of conversational action (marking the beginning and end of turns or continuation or active participation in an interaction) (Bolaños 2010, 2015; Bravo 1997, 2000; Cestero 2014). The yawn is another physiological reaction that can be perceived and interpreted by the Spanish in different ways; for example, it conveys boredom or weariness and, therefore, attempts are made to avoid it, giving rise to the appearance of concealment strategies, such as lowering the head or covering the mouth, whereas for North Americans from the US it conveys tiredness, normally associated with a great effort. Quasi-lexical elements are conventional “vocalizations” and “consonantizations” with little lexical content, but great functional value (Bernardi 2014; Edeso 2007; Poyatos 1994b; Real Academia Española 2010; Torres 2004). Most interjections (¡Ah!,¡Oh!), are considered to belong to this group, as are the onomatopoeias (Glu-glu, Miau), acoustic emissions having names of their own (chistar, sisear, lamer, gemir . . .) and many other sounds (Uff, Hm, Iaj, Ojj, Puaf, Tch . . .) which, despite not having established names or spellings, are normally used with a similar communicative value to that of certain linguistic or kinesic signals, which leads to their being considered paralinguistic alternants (Poyatos 1994b). Although they are very productive elements, due to the difficulty involved in identifying and transcribing them, there are, as of yet, no complete and detailed inventories that facilitate their inclusion in language teaching programs. This is clearly necessary as these signals show a great intercultural variation, as can be seen from the fact that a quasi-lexical signal widely used in Spain, like hm, used to show agreement with a speaker, has a different form in other cultures (Mm, Ha, Mha . . .) or that a

Nonverbal communication

93

lingual click (ts, tz) ‘tsk’, ‘tut’, which is used to decline or refuse in Spain, conveys incredulity in Taiwan. Finally, it must be remembered that the absence of sound also communicates (Poyatos 1994b; Méndez Guerrero 2014a, 2014b). The primary function of pauses is to regulate turn-taking, marking the end of one turn and the possible beginning of the next, but they can also be used to present different types of verbal communication, such as questions, narrations, or requests for support, and, furthermore, they can be reflexive or physiological. Regarding silence, which is infrequent in Spanish, it can be used to confirm previous utterances or be caused by a failure in interactive mechanisms, such as a change of speaker, a correction or a response to a question, or a communication breakdown as in the cases of hesitation, doubt, reflection, and so on. Furthermore, it can serve to present communicative acts, like questions or narrations, or to emphasize the content of previously emitted utterances or those that are soon to be emitted. The general functions of absences of sound, whether long or short, vary from one culture to another, for which reason they must also be dealt with in L2 teaching curricula and, above all, in teaching Spanish, a language and culture “without empty spaces,” where the pause is used as a secondary marker in conversation, which means that it does not normally occur between turns. This differentiates Spanish from Spain from many other languages and cultures, in which these nonverbal signs (pauses and silence) constitute a basic marker of the end of a turn and are therefore obligatory before the intervention of the interlocutor. This means that when students of Spanish try to converse with a native of Spain, they will expect a pause before starting to speak, but the native will not stop, meaning that, following the turn-taking mechanism, s/he will go on speaking, taking for granted that the foreign interlocutor does not wish to speak. This difference, however simple it may appear, makes it incredibly difficult for a foreign interlocutor to begin to speak spontaneously and naturally (Cestero 2005).

2.1.2.

The kinesics system

The kinesics system, also basic or primary, is comprised of the bodily movements and postures which communicate, specify, and nuance the meaning of communicative signs or acts of communication, including such relevant aspects as eye behavior or bodily contact, which have on occasions been treated as independent systems, as they are situated half-way between kinesics and proxemics (Poyatos 1994b). In general, there are three basic categories of kinesic signs: facial and bodily gestures and movements, conventional ways of performing actions, and movements or static communicative positions (Adam and Nelson 2016, Cartmill and Goldin-Meadow 2016, Hwang and Matsumoto 2016). Gestures are psychomuscular movements of conventional communicative value; that is, they are used in accordance with socio-cultural conventions to produce an act of communication. The human body offers a huge number of possibilities of movement; however, they can be simplified to differentiate two basic types of gesture that are generally interrelated, although they can be specified according to

94

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

function: facial gestures/expressions (made using the eyes, eyebrows, space between the eyebrows, forehead, cheeks, nose, lips, mouth, and chin), and bodily gestures (made using the head, shoulders, arms, hands, fingers, hips, legs, and feet). This is the most widely studied nonverbal category in the field of cultural interaction and the one that receives the most attention in L2 teaching, since the variations in the repertoires of gestures of different cultures are quickly and easily observed and there are few teachers and students who are not aware of some of these. We could give a long list of bodily signs that differ from culture to culture, but let us take for example the nodding of the head, meaning agreement, consent, or affirmation which, in most cultures, is carried out with a direct up and down movement, whereas in others it is horizontal or even a sideways movement, which may lead to confusion between the functions of affirmation, negation, or doubt. Manners, as the name indicates, are the ways of making movements, adopting postures, and, generally, carrying out nonverbal acts of communication. Therefore, on one hand, they refer to the ways we normally produce gestures and postures, and on the other, to certain habits of cultural behavior. This definition enables us to distinguish two basic types of manners that should be studied and taught in different ways. First, gestural and postural manners should be identified and described together with the corresponding gesture or posture (since this is part of their production). Second, the ways of carrying out habits of cultural behavior (for example, the way in which one sits or stands in public transportation or the way of eating in a bar). Postures are static positions that the human body adopts or is able to adopt and communicate actively or passively. As in the case of manners, they are nonverbal signs which, on one hand, are part of a gesture, since the meaning can vary depending on the final posture adopted by the organs involved, and on the other hand, they function as independent communicative signals, as in the case of a cross-legged sitting posture, or a posture where the legs are slightly bent and the hands are folded in the lap.

2.1.3.

The proxemic system

The proxemic system, which is secondary or cultural, is made up of behavioral and cultural habits and a community’s beliefs regarding the human being’s concept of space and its use and distribution (Poyatos 1975, 1976; Knapp 1980; Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank 2016). Currently, three categories of proxemics can be identified. Conceptual proxemics concerns the study and didactic treatment of topics such as behavioral and environmental habits and beliefs pertaining to the concept of space of a certain community or culture (if it is considered to be concrete or abstract, material and tangible, or intangible and why), continuing with the distribution of space (the layout of cities, towns, homes and furniture, parks, different types of premises, and so on), and finishing with the influence of all this on human behavior (order or disorder in arranging objects, waiting in line, or respect for prohibited or private spaces). Moreover, the category of conceptual space deals with the values of concepts like near/far, approach/leave, arrive/depart, here/there, or come/go, which have to do with the

Nonverbal communication

95

concept of proxemics and show great cultural variation. The category of social proxemics includes cultural signs relative to the use of space in social relations (the use of public or private exterior and interior space for social interaction), as well as people’s actions when faced with invasions of their territory. Finally, interactional proxemics, which is of special interest to L2 teaching, has to do with the establishment of the distances at which people carry out different communicative interactions (consoling, advising, chiding, conversing, carrying out job interviews, teaching). These show cross-cultural variations, being much closer in Mediterranean, Arab, and African cultures, known as contact cultures because they favor body contact as a regulator of interaction, especially in conversation, and a wider variety of signals used to contact other people. Furthermore, interactional proxemics is concerned with the functions performed by a series of nonverbal signals in a co-construction with signs belonging to other communication systems or alternating with those signs (moving closer to a person to indicate the intention of going with them or to show agreement).

2.1.4.

The chronemic system

Time also communicates, both passively offering cultural information and actively modifying or reinforcing the meaning of the elements of the other systems of human communication. The study of time is known as chronemics, which is defined as a human being’s concept of time and how it is structured and used (Poyatos 1972, 1975, 1976; Bruneau 1980). Similar to that which occurs in the proxemic system, there are three categories of chronemics: conceptual time, social time, and interactive time. Conceptual time is formed by the behavior and beliefs of different cultures relative to their concept of time, such as whether or not they value it or consider it to be concrete or abstract, material and tangible, or intangible and why. It also refers to those beliefs concerning the distribution of time in different communities and its influence on human behavior, like planning time and regularly carrying out several activities at once. Likewise, this category deals with the cultural value of concepts like punctuality or lack of it, earliness and lateness, a moment, a while, a long time and an eternity, and activity and inactivity, all of which are chronemic concepts directly reflected in signs of the linguistic system which show cross-cultural variation. Social time, which depends directly on conceptual time, is constituted by the cultural signs that show how time is managed in social relations and deals with the length of social encounters such as meetings, job interviews, or visits; the structuring of daily activities such as having breakfast, lunch, tea, and supper; or the choice of the right time of day for certain social activities. Finally, interactive time refers to the duration of signs from other communication systems. This has an informative value, either because it serves to reinforce the meaning of its elements or because it specifies or changes the meaning; thus, the greater or lesser the length of the sounds in some words, of some gestures or pauses, and their corresponding connotations are chronemic signs, along with increased speed in emitting an utterance, which can intensify or diminish its critical or corrective effect.

96

2.2.

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

Characteristics of nonverbal signs

As we have just explained, the systems of nonverbal communication are paralinguistic, kinesic, proxemics, and chronemics. Each of these has its own specific characteristics, but we can highlight five fundamental aspects that are generally considered to be basic features of nonverbal signs, which provide us with information about their functions and use. 1) Nonverbal signs can communicate actively or passively. That is, they can be used to communicate, but they can also communicate unintentionally. Most cultural signs communicate passively and the majority of signs from nonverbal systems communicate actively. This also concerns the conscious or unconscious use of nonverbal signs. It is possible and even usual to use nonverbal signs unconsciously in acts of communication that are imperceptible to the sender but not to the receiver, who will give them more credit for the very fact that they are involuntary. Examples of this include lingual clicks, intakes of breath, and changes of posture made when a person wishes to speak, which are usually involuntary or so spontaneous that the emitter is not aware of their production, but which, for the interlocutor, constitute an unmistakable sign of the desire to speak; the same occurs with hand gestures made when a person is nervous or the aversion of the eyes when one is not interested in a subject, with moving closer to a person that we find pleasant and with the rigid posture adopted when we are tense. 2) Nonverbal signs can be used in combination or alternating with verbal signs or even among them, or independently, using a single system or several. 3) The communication that is produced through nonverbal signs is basically functional. It is used to carry out acts of communication related to social interaction, such as greeting, introducing, congratulating, thanking, promising, and so on; in relation to the structuring and control of communication itself, such as asking permission to speak, taking one’s turn to speak, finishing that turn, or relating parts and elements of speech, or concerning usual practices in human interactive communication such as identifying, describing, asking, opining, advising, and expressing (experiences, sensations, feelings, and wishes). Its inclusion in the current language teaching curricula, designed around notions and functions is, therefore, relatively simple. 4) Nonverbal signs, like verbal ones, can vary according to the social characterization of the person and the situations in which they are used. 5) Finally, the signs of nonverbal communication systems are multifunctional; that is, at any moment of an interaction, they can carry out one or more functions. They can add information to the content or meaning of a verbal or nonverbal communication act or they can nuance it. When paralinguistic, kinesic, proxemics, or chronemic signs are used in this way, they can fulfil various sub-functions: (1) to specify the content or meaning of a verbal utterance; the tone in which we say “Of course” or “By all means” defines whether it is an

Nonverbal communication

97

utterance of agreement, assent, or even of disagreement; (2) to confirm the content or the meaning of a verbal utterance; for example, a gesture of negation or refutation accompanying the words “I don’t like it” or a broad smile that confirms the meaning of “I like it”; (3) to reinforce the content or meaning of a verbal utterance; thus, a loud tone or a shouting voice accompanying “That’s wrong” reinforces the meaning of the verbal expression, as do the increase in speed when saying “I don’t understand” or an effusive embrace accompanying “I’m pleased to see you”; (4) to soften the content or the meaning of a verbal utterance, as occurs when an utterance like “It could have been better” is pronounced with a smile; (5) to contradict the content or meaning of a verbal utterance; thus, when a phrase like “You’ve done really well” is expressed very loudly, practically shouting, what is really communicated is that we believe that the person has done something very badly and even that we are annoyed or angry about it; and, (6) to camouflage the real meaning of a verbal utterance; for example, when an utterance like “I don’t mind if you don’t come to my birthday party” is pronounced very slowly in a low voice, we may be trying to hide our real feelings. Bearing in mind the range of these uses of nonverbal signs, it is easy to accept without question the existence of the basic triple structure mentioned by Poyatos (1994a, 1994b) on countless occasions and, conceiving accordingly the process of human communication, one might ask if it is correct to speak of L2 learning (focusing on the linguistic system) or if, on the contrary, we must aim for the development of complete communicative competence, both verbal and nonverbal, since both systems, verbal and nonverbal, are put into action simultaneously in any act of communication. Besides adding to or nuancing information of a verbal communication act, the signs of nonverbal communication systems can substitute verbal language. As we have argued above, the elements of the verbal system must, out of necessity, be accompanied by elements of paralinguistic and kinesics systems in order for communication to take place. However, the same is not true of nonverbal signs, as some of them can alternate with verbal signs or take their place, often being more meaningful. Thus, the wish for someone to keep quiet or stop talking can be communicated in several ways: with verbal/nonverbal co-structuring (“Be quiet,” “Wait,” “Stop”), or with an utterance in which verbal and nonverbal signs are used alternately (Please + gesture requesting silence or gesture meaning stop) or by producing a nonverbal paralinguistic sign (Shh) or a nonverbal kinesic sign (gesture meaning silence or stop) or a co-structure formed by a paralinguistic and a kinesic sign used simultaneously (Shh + gestures for silence or stop). Also, there are many elements in the nonverbal systems that can be used to regulate, organize, or structure interactions. What is more, any interactive activity is generally regulated and structured in this way. This is a very important function, since a lack of regulation usually leads to a breakdown in communication. Examples of paralinguistic or kinesic elements habitually used in this way include: lowering the voice, pausing or lengthening final sounds in order to organize turn-taking in

98

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

speech, smiling, or quasi-lexical elements like hm, aha, ah to express support (as signs of agreement and with a phatic function). Certain signs from the systems of nonverbal communication are often used to avoid gaps in a conversation and speech produced by momentary verbal deficiencies or a lack of knowledge of the corresponding elements of the linguistic system. Paralinguistic signs like (e:) or (m:) are regulators that fill the gaps caused by hesitation or doubt and an illustrative hand gesture can substitute a lexical element that is unknown to us or that does not come to mind at a certain juncture of communication. The early acquisition of nonverbal communication systems is especially helpful in L2 learning in order to solve communication problems since this is a way of overcoming verbal deficiencies that could block or interrupt any act of interactive or non-interactive communication. Thus, when a learner does not recall a word or is incapable of constructing certain expressions in the language being studied, he makes natural use of kinesics and paralanguage in order to make himself understood, achieving his aim only if the nonverbal elements are those used in the target culture. The acquisition of nonverbal signs also enables students at intermediate or advanced levels to correct their verbal deficiencies, but the main function is to help them acquire interactive fluency, which, in turn, favors the development of oral expression and, in general, the acquisition of linguistic fluency. Finally, thanks to systems of nonverbal communication, we can hold several conversations at the same time and produce more than one utterance simultaneously. This can be seen in the conversations held with those around us at the same time as we are speaking on the telephone or when we are in two conversations at the same time, listening to the person who is speaking while, at the same time, commenting on what is said to the other interlocutors using signs made by the hands, feet, or eyes.

2.3.

Nonverbal communication and intercultural interaction

Thus far, we have explained what nonverbal communication is, the signs and systems that it comprises, and how they work, attempting to highlight their relevance in the process of human communication. Its importance in communication should be reason enough to justify its inclusion in L2 teaching, but there are still more reasons to support this idea. As mentioned above, when verbal communication takes place, it is necessary to put into action elements from three systems at the same time: the linguistic, paralinguistic, and kinesic systems. This is known as the basic triple structure of communication (Poyatos 1994a, Chapter 4), and the signs through which most information is transmitted are nonverbal ones. Furthermore, it is possible to communicate using only nonverbal signs, whereas this is not possible only verbally. Moreover, the development of communicative competence goes hand in hand with the acquisition of verbal fluency. In this regard, nonverbal signs are a very useful tool developing students’ linguistic fluency as well as favoring the acquisition of cultural fluency, encouraging its systematic use and facilitating the achievement of verbal/nonverbal/cultural competence.

Nonverbal communication

99

The emission of nonverbal signs is occasionally unconscious, so interlocutors usually pay more attention to the information received through these than to that of verbal signs, producing what are known as “information leaks”: information that is produced without being aware of it. Nonverbal signs perform many communicative functions, either replacing verbal signs or being used in combination with them. But, in addition, there are interactive actions which generally take place using only nonverbal signs, such as expressing the wish to speak, indicating the end of someone’s turn, and showing attention, agreement, or comprehension in conversation, all of which underlines the importance of nonverbal communication shown by its role in natural conversation. Finally, we have stated that some nonverbal signs are shared by several cultures, but most are specific to each culture or community. Unfamiliarity with specific nonverbal signs is usually an important cause of errors in communication in intercultural interactions, which, in turn, often causes communication breakdowns and, apart from amusing or embarrassing situations, stoppages and setbacks in the learning of a second language. These problematic situations underline the importance of the knowledge and correct use of nonverbal signs in intercultural interaction, and therefore strengthen our conviction that they should form part of the L2 curriculum. Moreover, like the signs of the linguistic system, they require specific, programmed teaching, as their acquisition is neither spontaneous nor natural. It is a well-known fact that the acquisition process of second languages, in this case of nonverbal signs of different cultural origin, does not take place in the same way as that of the first language, since learners do not start from zero, but rather have previously acquired the nonverbal repertoire of their mother tongue, which, if not corrected by teaching, will be transferred to the target language and culture. If the nonverbal signs of the mother culture are used systematically in the target language, they will become fossilized and, once this has occurred, it will be virtually impossible for students to acquire the nonverbal elements of the second language, which means they will never communicate correctly and effectively in that second language. Bearing in mind the functions and characteristics mentioned here, we can therefore affirm that if our aim as teaching professionals is to enable our students to communicate and interact in another language and culture, it is preferable to provide them with as many tools as possible from the very beginning of their learning process. This means that it is essential to pay attention not only to the verbal system, but also, at the same time, to nonverbal systems. This proven fact accentuates the need for the study and teaching of these elements, and so we will dedicate the rest of the chapter to this topic.

3.

Nonverbal communication and L2 teaching

In spite of the fact that studies on nonverbal communication are still at the stage of identification, description, and classification of signs and systems, our current knowledge of this topic is sufficient to make us aware of the necessity of including it in

100

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

teaching and learning. In order to do this, it is first necessary to make inventories of nonverbal signs and to carry out comparative intercultural or intercommunity studies in order to select the elements that are particular to each culture (Cestero 1999a, 2017; Poyatos 1994b, 2017). Once this is achieved, it is possible to begin to progressively teach nonverbal communication in the classroom, integrating the elements from different cultures into the curriculum, as it occurs with the linguistic system.

3.1.

The study of nonverbal communication in the area of second languages: Compiling comparative inventories

We have already dealt, on several occasions, with the study of nonverbal signs for their application in the L2 teaching-learning process. In this context, which basically concerns signs that communicate in substitution of verbal language, regulating interactions, or correcting verbal deficiencies, it is necessary to make inventories of nonverbal signs and to carry out comparative intercultural or intercommunity studies in order to select those elements that are particular to each culture (Poyatos 1994b; Cestero 2016). The inventories must be similar, and must therefore be compiled with the systematic use of a specific methodology, thus facilitating their combined and complementary use, as explained below.

3.1.1.

Selection and statement of the object of study

On beginning a research on nonverbal communication with a view to compiling an inventory, it is first necessary to have a clear idea of our object of study, that is the nonverbal communication system that is going to be dealt with and, within it, the categories with which we are going to work. When specific inventories are compiled for second language teaching, as is the case here with L2 Spanish, it is preferable to work with the different nonverbal systems at the same time so that the inclusion of these signs in teaching syllabi can be obtained. The most useful type of classification, bearing in mind current curricular design, is notional functional, and it will be carried out starting from the basic functions of the signs, which will be distributed, first, according to their main uses: nonverbal signs with social uses, nonverbal signs used to structure discourse, and nonverbal signs with communicative uses; and, second, according to their value or the meaning of their verbal equivalent (Cestero 2007, 2017).

3.1.2.

Collection of material

The provisional classification of the basic functional uses that we wish to include in our inventory acts as a guide to collect material in order to obtain an extensive corpus for analysis. Given that the perception and collection of nonverbal signs can be extremely difficult, we recommend four different collection procedures that should be used successively: (1) Introspection. The researcher should be the first source of nonverbal material to be analyzed. The first inventory of nonverbal signs and the

Nonverbal communication

101

description of each one can be obtained from personal reflection. (2) Direct observation. Next, the researcher will actively observe the way in which other members of the community use the signs collected in the repertoire formed from his own introspection. (3) Conducting surveys. The signs of nonverbal communication systems, like those of verbal systems, vary according to the social characteristics and geographical origin of the person using them as well as the situations in which they are used. The most appropriate way to verify the variations of a sign, while at the same time discovering its generalization, is to conduct sociolinguistic or dialectal surveys, controlling factors such as sex, age, level of education, origin of the person, and context of use. These surveys should be fully recorded using audiovisual media. And, (4) Television programs, press, literature, and the media in general. The final phase of the collection of material should consist of a revision of the use of the signs that we are studying in popular television shows, illustrations or journalistic interviews, in parenthesis or author’s notes in works of literature, and so on, since these are different media in which we can find a large variety of uses and different people who will be of use to bear out, once more, the data collected previously.

3.1.3.

Analysis of material

The qualitative analysis of the material collected, as we have seen, is carried out progressively and simultaneously with the different phases of data collection. Its aim should be to make a definitive classification of the elements studied and their most habitual uses, as well as the social, geographical, and situational variations that systematically appear. It is advisable to carry out a quantitative analysis of nonverbal signs in order to verify their generalized use and to select the most representative variants.

3.1.4.

Presentation of results

The results of the study should be presented in the form of inventories in which all the elements studied should be included clearly and systematically, and pertinent relationships should be established between them. In inventories aimed at second language teaching, paralinguistic, kinesic, proxemics, and chronemic nonverbal signs should appear together, since they should be taught together, classified, as explained, according to their basic communicative functions, and furthermore, they are to be used in combination with the verbal signs or groups of signs, which have the same function. Using this methodology as a starting point, numerous comparative studies have already been carried out at the university level, in Spain, and other countries, and presented as final-year degree projects, providing us with interesting information regarding the differences in nonverbal communication among Spain and other cultures and, once more, showing the necessity of working on nonverbal communication in the L2 classroom. The first of these studies focused on subgroups of signs, but the most recent ones work with complete basic repertoires of nonverbal

102

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

signs within the framework of teaching L2 Spanish and offer relevant data regarding differences in use, form, and function of basic nonverbal signs (Cestero 2016, 2017; Nascimento 2012; Rogero 2015; Murias 2016).

3.2.

Teaching nonverbal communication in the second language classroom

The studies on nonverbal communication are still at the stage of identification, description, and classification of signs and systems; however, our current knowledge of this field is sufficient to make us aware of the necessity of including it in the second language teaching-learning process. In this regard, it can be stated that the incorporation of elements from the paralinguistic, kinesic systems (as well as of some from the proxemic and chronemic systems) in the curricula of some languages and cultures, such as L2 Spanish, could be immediate, since there are already inventories of paralinguistic signs (Poyatos 1993, 1994b), several of Spanish and Hispanic kinesic signs (Coll, Gelabert, and Martinell 1990; Green 1968; Meo-Zilio and Mejía 1980–1983; Saitz and Cervenka 1962, 1972; Takagaki et al 1998) as well as at least one that includes, in integrated form, signs from the four systems of nonverbal communication (Cestero 1999b).

3.2.1.

Ranking

The existing inventories of nonverbal signs and those that are due to appear in the near future will serve as a base for the inclusion of nonverbal communication in the L2 curriculum. However, unless it has already been carried out in the inventories, before beginning to teach, it will be necessary to rank the nonverbal elements according to their level, always following the syllabus with which we are working. In the first place, the signs will be ordered according to their greater or lesser functionality; second, according to their greater or lesser frequency; and, finally, according to the level of difficulty involved in producing them (Cestero 2007, 2017; Forment 1997; Poyatos 2017). At elementary levels (A1 and A2), we should include only paralinguistic, proxemics, and chronemic signs that can be used with lexical signs or instead of certain frequently used, simple linguistic constructions, as well as those corresponding to nonverbal constructions of some deictic expressions and connectors, and those with certain physiological or emotional sounds, such as laughter, crying, coughing, and clearing the throat. At intermediate levels (B1 and B2), the repertoire of basic nonverbal signs will be enlarged in order to work with those corresponding to certain commonly-used set phrases and with frequent prepositional and conjunctional markers, also introducing phonic qualities and modifiers and more physiological and emotional sounds. Finally, at higher levels (C1 and C2), the basic inventory of nonverbal signs will be further widened and the repertoires of set phrases, markers, qualities, phonic modifiers, and physiological sounds will be completed.

Nonverbal communication

3.2.2.

103

Integration

Bearing all this in mind, the presentation of nonverbal signs in the classroom should not be problematic since it can be carried out at the same time as the corresponding linguistic equivalents, be they phonetic, grammatical, pragmatic, or conversational. In this way, when teaching the first verbal signs with social use, such as verbal formulas for greeting or leave-taking, the gestures and quasi-lexical elements used to perform the same function can be taught simultaneously. These include a kiss on both cheeks in informal contexts, handshakes in more formal ones, and different gestures involving raising the hand or the paralinguistic signs Ey, Eeh, Chss . . ., which can be used to greet or say goodbye in passing. Similarly, along with the teaching of verbal elements related to discourse organization, we will teach the corresponding gestures or those that can perform the same function in structuring discourse, such as raising the fingers (starting with the thumb) to enumerate the points to be explained, accompanying or replacing “First/In the first place . . .”. “Next/In the second place . . .”, “Finally/In the third place . . .”. Lastly on teaching and practicing ways to situate objects and describe people, we will work simultaneously on verbal, paralinguistic, and kinesic expression (along with the relevant proxemic and chronemic information). It must be remembered that only through the joint development of verbal and nonverbal expression can we favor the acquisition of communicative competence.

3.2.3.

Teaching methodology

The experience of teaching nonverbal communication in the classroom is scant, thus far, but it would seem sufficient to determine that the most effective methodology is the communicative one. Therefore, the following steps should be followed: (1) Presentation, either explicit or implicit, of nonverbal signs. Teachers should show the nonverbal elements they wish to work with clearly and accurately, paying special attention to the way they are produced and their communicative function. This phase should not be considered to be finished until it is absolutely clear that the students have understood their usefulness and are able to reproduce them. (2) Carrying out activities aimed at learning nonverbal signs. Once these signs have been presented, a number of activities should be undertaken, directed by the teacher and closed in nature, in which the signs are used individually or in small groups. (3) Activities designed to reinforce the learning of nonverbal signs. These are also directed by the teacher and are semi-closed, aiming to practice the use of nonverbal signs in interactions in pairs or small groups. (4) Activities for the acquisition of nonverbal signs. Finally, the teacher will loosely direct certain open activities, with the intention that the students should use the signs learned in more or less natural and spontaneous interactions. In the most up-to-date methodologies with integrated content, the first two steps can be carried out independently, suggesting activities to show and learn grammatical, lexical, and nonverbal content, or in an integrated manner, using exercises that

104

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

favor the learning of lexical, grammatical, and nonverbal content. However, the third and fourth steps, aimed at developing oral and nonverbal expression, as well as the acquisition of the other content, should be carried out in an integrated fashion, devising activities in which the student has to put into action, at the same time, the verbal and nonverbal signs that are being studied. The most difficult task for the teacher at this final stage is to make sure that the pupils use the verbal and nonverbal signs in a natural and spontaneous manner at all times. The most useful way to demonstrate nonverbal signs is for the teacher to perform them (in the case of kinesic signs) or produce them (when they are paralinguistic signs); however, it may be more advantageous to use audiovisual material, such as realistic films or comics, in which the elements are contextualized, or photographs, drawings, or advertising artwork. The standard activities that work best to teach and learn paralinguistic and kinesic elements are acting or role playing, nonverbal conversation and speeches, creating texts or inventing stories for illustrations or series of illustrations, and participative observation. With these basic tools and different supporting materials (videos, photographs, flash cards with drawings or quasi-lexical elements, cartoons with or without sound representations, and so on), many varied exercises can be devised. Moreover, more conventional, structured exercises can be used, such as filling in or completing utterances with nonverbal signs, reacting nonverbally to stimuli, or communicating without using verbal signs or combining elements from different systems. It is also possible to adapt or create games to practice certain nonverbal signs in isolation or combined with their corresponding verbal equivalents (Cestero 2017).

4.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have made a brief presentation of a simple theoretical base to be used to increase awareness of nonverbal communication, the signs and systems comprising it, and how they work, as well as a methodological base to facilitate the study of nonverbal communication and to enable it to be incorporated into current L2 teaching curricula, with special attention to the Spanish language. We have been motivated to do this by our belief that nonverbal communication is of special importance in the learning and acquisition of second languages. This is shown by various facts: in every act of human communication, linguistic signs are co-structured with paralinguistic and kinesic signs, and, furthermore, all of these can be modified or nuanced through the use of proxemic or chronemic signs; the role played by nonverbal signs in the acquisition of communicative fluency and everything related to it, and the importance of nonverbal communication in intercultural communication, permitting the correction of verbal deficiencies and communicative errors and, thus, avoiding setbacks in the learning process and communication breakdowns. With this brief review, our intention is to simply draw attention to the importance of nonverbal communication in language teaching and, for this reason, we will be fully satisfied if the ideas and suggestions offered here serve as motivation

Nonverbal communication

105

or assistance for research in the field from an applied perspective and for its systematic integration in current language teaching curricula.

Note 1 In this chapter we present a general introduction to nonverbal communication and its study and teaching within the frame of linguistics applied to language teaching, starting from the ideas expressed in Cestero (1999a, 1999b, 2016, 2017), and those offered in Poyatos (1972, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2017), as well as on our own research experience in conversation analysis. See also Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd (2016), Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank (2016a, 2016b), McNeill (2005), and the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior (Claremont, California) https://link.springer.com/journal/10919.

References Adam, R. B. and A. J. Nelson. 2016. “Eye Behavior and Gaze.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 335–362. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bernardi, L. 2014. “Interjecciones, onomatopeyas y ¿sonidos inarticulados? Una reflexión desde la perspectiva de categorización cognitiva.” SCRIPTA (Belo Horizonte) 18(34): 41–61. Bolaños Carpio, A. 2010. “La risa: Elemento regulador del flujo conversacional.” InterSedes: Revista de las Sedes Regionales 11(20): 22–34. Bolaños Carpio, A. 2015. “La risa y los actos amenazantes de imagen.” Revista de Filología y Lingüística de la Universidad de Costa Rica 41(2): 149–160. Bravo, D. 1997. “¿Reírse juntos?: Un estudio de las imágenes sociales de hablantes españoles, mexicanos y suecos.” Diálogos Hispánicos 22: 315–364. Bravo, D. 2000. “Risas y contrastes en los estilos comunicativos de negociadores españoles y mexicanos.” Signo y Seña: Revista del Instituto de Lingüística de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras 11: 133–165. Bruneau, T. J. 1980. “Cronemics and the Verbal-Nonverbal Interface.” In The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, ed. M. R. Key, 101–118. The Hague: Mouton. Burgoon, J. K., L. K. Guerrero and K. Floyd. 2016. Nonverbal Communication. New York: Routledge. Cartmill, E. A. and S. Goldin-Meadow. 2016. “Gesture.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 307–333. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cestero, A.M. 1999a. Comunicación no verbal y enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Madrid: Arco/ Libros. Cestero, A.M. 1999b. Repertorio básico de signos no verbales del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Cestero, A.M. 2005. Conversación y enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Cestero, A.M. 2007. “La comunicación no verbal en el Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes: apuntes para su enseñanza.” Frecuencia L. Revista de Didáctica de Español Lengua Extranjera 34: 15–21. Cestero, A.M. 2014. “Comunicación no verbal y comunicación eficaz.” Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante 28: 125–150. Cestero, A.M. 2016. “La comunicación no verbal: propuestas metodológicas para su estudio.” Lingüística en la Red. Monographic Issue 14(1): 1–25.

106

Ana M. Cestero Mancera

Cestero A.M. 2017. “La comunicación no verbal.” In Manual del Profesor de ELE, eds. A.M. Cestero and I. Penadés, 1051–1122. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá. Coll, J., M. J. Gelabert and E. Martinell. 1990. Diccionario de gestos con sus giros más usuales. Madrid: Edelsa. Edeso, V. 2007. “Las interjecciones en la enseñanza de ELE: significados expresivos de la interjección ‘oh’.” In Las Destrezas Orales en la Enseñanza del Español L2-LE. Actas del XVII Congreso Internacional de ASELE, ed. E. Balmaseda Maestu, 495–508. Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja. Forment, M. M. 1997. “La verbalización de la gestualidad en el aprendizaje de E/LE.” Frecuencia-L 5: 27–31. Green, J. R. 1968. A Gesture Inventory for the Teaching of Spanish. Philadelphia, PA: Chilton Books Educational Division. Hwang, H. C. and D. Matsumoto. 2016. “Facial Expressions.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 257–287. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Knapp, M. L. 1980. Essentials of Nonverbal Communication. New York: Rinehart and Winston. Matsumoto, D., H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank. 2016a. “The Body: Postures, Gait, Proxemics and Haptics.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 387–400. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Matsumoto, D., H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, eds. 2016b. APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Méndez, B. 2014a. “Los actos silenciosos en la conversación en español. Estudio pragmático y sociolingüístico.” PhD diss., Universitàt de les Illes Balears. Méndez, B. 2014b. “¡Mira quién calla! La didáctica del silencio en el aula de ELE.” Revista Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras 3 (supl.): 1–131. Meo-Zilio, G. and S. Mejía. 1980–1983. Diccionario de Gestos: España e Hispanoamérica. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Murias, R. 2016. “Signos no verbales españoles y turcos: estudio comparativo para su aplicación a la enseñanza de ELE.” PhD diss., Universidad de Alcalá. Nascimento, N. 2012. La comunicación sin palabras: estudio comparativo de gestos usados en España y Brasil. Alcalá de Henares, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá. Poyatos, F. 1972. “The Communication System of the Speaker-Actor and His Culture: A Preliminary Investigation.” Linguistics 10(83): 64–86. Poyatos, F. 1975. “Cultura, comunicación e interacción: hacia el contexto total del lenguaje y el hombre hispánicos, III.” Yelmo 22: 14–16. Poyatos, F. 1976. Man beyond Words: Theory and Methodology of Nonverbal Communication. New York: New York State English Council. Poyatos, F. 1983. “Language and Nonverbal Systems in the Structure of Face-to-Face Interaction.” Language and Communication 3(2): 129–140. Poyatos, F. 1993. Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and Sounds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poyatos, F. 1994a. La comunicación no verbal: Cultura, lenguaje y conversación. Madrid: Istmo. Poyatos, F. 1994b. La comunicación no verbal: Paralenguaje, kinésica e interacción. Madrid: Istmo. Poyatos, F. 1996. “La comunicación no verbal en el discurso y en el texto.” Analecta Malacitana 19(1): 67–85.

Nonverbal communication

107

Poyatos, F. 2000. “New Perspectives on Intercultural Interaction through Nonverbal Communication Studies.” Intercultural Communication Studies 12: 1–41. Poyatos, F. 2002. Nonverbal Communication across Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poyatos, F. 2006. “La enseñanza del español a extranjeros a través de los estudios de comunicación no verbal.” In Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Español como Lengua Extranjera: Desarrollos Recientes, ed. A.M. Cestero, 27–46. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá. Poyatos, F. 2017. La comunicación no verbal en la enseñanza integral del Español como Lengua Extranjera: E-eleando. ELE en Red 1. www.e-eleando.es. Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2010. “La interjección: sus grupos sintácticos.” In Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española II, 2479–2523. Madrid: Espasa. Rogero, A. 2015. “Introduction des gestes-emblèmes dans les programmes de français langue étrangère: Ressources didactiques et pilotage au sein des ‘escuelas oficiales de idiomas’ espagnoles.” PhD diss., Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Saitz, R. L. and E. J. Cervenka. 1962. Colombian and North American Gestures: A Contrastive Inventory. Bogotá: Centro Colombo-Americano. Saitz, R. L. and E. J. Cervenka. 1972. Handbook of Gestures: Columbia and the United States. The Hague: Mouton. Takagaki, T., H. Ueda, E. Martinell and M. J. Gelabert. 1998. Pequeño diccionario de gestos hispánicos. Tokyo: Hakusuisya. Torres Álvarez, M. D. 2004. “De interjecciones, onomatopeyas y paralingüismo en La Celestina.” Celestinesca 28(1–2): 117–140.

6 TEACHING L2 SPANISH DISCOURSE MARKERS AND PRAGMATIC MARKERS Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

1.

Introduction

Discourse markers (DMs) have become an important topic in pragmatics, after the well-known work of Schiffrin (1987), Fraser (1990, 1996, 2006, 2009), Abraham (1991), Jucker and Ziv (eds.1998), Aijmer (2002), Bazzanella (2006), Fischer (ed. 2006) among others. Discourse markers are perhaps the most developed area of linguistic pragmatics, with numerous publications and conferences dedicated to them (the 2015 Heidelberg Symposium on markers in Romance languages, to cite just one example), and they expand the study of Spanish linguistic research to pragmatics. DMs have been analyzed from a variety of methodological perspectives, and this has created some confusion regarding what should be understood by the term. Such confusion is most clearly seen in the context of teaching, where no systematic treatment of discourse markers appears in textbooks. Discourse marker (DM) is a flexible term, which includes elements that are functionally and distributionally distinct and which pertain to different levels. In this way, unless functions are adequately distinguished, progress in the study of discourse is unlikely. Some of them are connectors, free units, independent of the verb in the sentence, whose discourse function is to establish the relationship between two clauses or minor segments. Others are operators, sentential adjuncts whose meaning is procedural and intersubjective: argumentative, informative, enunciative, or modal. The aim of the present chapter is to offer teaching strategies of the discursive markers, starting from a definition and classification of the elements included in this category. This chapter is organized as follows. After this introduction (Section 1), Section 2 presents studies about DMs (background). A definition and description of markers will be provided in Section 3, differentiating two functional classes (Section 4). In Section 5, a classification of DMs will be presented, followed by an

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

109

explanation of their paradigms in Spanish. Guidance for teaching will be included in both sections.

2.

Studies on discourse markers

The emergence of discourse studies, transcending the sentence boundaries, was one of the landmarks in the history of linguistics.1 For the topic under discussion, 1987 was a key year, which saw the publication of Schiffrin’s Discourse Markers. She presented a series of units above the sentence level (with no function in relation to the main verb) that have a cohesive function or refer to the speaker. These units had not been discussed in previous literature. Schiffrin incorporated into discourse markers elements from a range of categories: discourse connectives such as and, but, or and markers of cause and result (because, so)2 together with interjections or fillers such as oh, well, temporal adverbs such as now, then, and markers such as y’know and I mean. These are treated as information and participation markers. For instance, oh is a marker of information management as well as a marker of response. Schiffrin’s work marks the beginning of real interest in these discourse units but falls short of establishing categories or connecting them with recent research in grammar. In Spanish linguistics, traditionally associated with grammatical description, Fuentes Rodríguez’s Enlaces extraoracionales was also published in 1987. In 1993, Briz published articles on pragmatic connectors and metadiscursive connectors (see Briz 1998). Other authors have also set out to analyze these “particles,” “relational elements,” and “adverbials.” In 1991, Cortés published his study “Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en el español hablado,” and others followed, such as Portolés (1998) and Pons (1998). Martín Zorraquino and Portolés presented their approach in Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Martín Zorraquino and Portolés 1999), which represents a point of departure for many. Their definition points to an inferential theory: “unidades lingüísticas invariables, no ejercen una función sintáctica en el marco de la predicación oracional—son, pues, elementos marginales—y poseen un cometido coincidente en el discurso: el de guiar, de acuerdo con sus distintas propiedades morfosintácticas, semánticas y pragmáticas, las inferencias que se realizan en la comunicación” (Martín Zorraquino and Portolés (1999, p. 4057). In the research on markers different approaches have been used: pragmatic and grammatical. The debate on grammatical aspects has centered on the various functions carried out by the adverbials and the need to establish some sort of order among them. Works such as Greenbaum (1969) and the grammar of Quirk et al. (1972) are central to a broad perspective of analysis. It was a question of defining a paradigm of units, which participated in the discourse but could not fit into the traditional grammatical categories. As mentioned previously, DMs mark the expansion of pragmatics in the area of Spanish linguistics. At the same time, with the emergence of different methodologies

110

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

in pragmatics and discourse analysis, approaches expanded and became more varied: relevance theory, adopted by authorities such as Blakemore ([1988] 1992), Montolío (1997) and Briz, Portolés, and Pons (2008); argumentation theory (Anscombre and Ducrot 1983), which is evident in the work of Ducrot (1995), García Negroni (1998) and Fuentes Rodríguez (1994, 1997); or studies on modality or enunciation (Rossari 1994; Fuentes Rodríguez 1995, 2002, 2004; González Ruiz 2000; Garcés Gómez 2005). For this reason, Martín Zorraquino and Montolío edited Los marcadores del discurso (1998), which brought together all of these perspectives along with specific studies in which they are applied (es más, más aún, máxime, vamos, no obstante, oye, en cambio, por el contrario). This made for a broad and fruitful study, whose methodological diversity, far from being a disadvantage, testifies, on the contrary, to the complexity of the topic. Markers are also described from the point of view of interaction in conversation analysis. It is this point of view that underpins the Val.Es.Co group approach, consonant with their model of discourse segmentation (Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2003). This study is related to the application of a variational perspective in the oral/written dimension. Furthermore, the historical evolution of discourse markers (grammaticalization) is explored. Traugott (1995) and Company (2004) set out to apply the approach to the study of markers, and other authorities speak of “pragmaticization” (Dostie 2004) or “discursivization” (Diewald 2011) to express the specificity of the process these units undergo: from elements syntactically integrated in the sentence to marking discourse relationships. A number of studies, for example, Landone (2009), relate markers to politeness. There are also studies from the variational pragmatics perspective (in terms of region, situation, and gender) such as Fuentes, Placencia, and Palma (2016). In other cases, the focus is on ideological or discourse-type variation. Studies of professional (Montolío 2000), parliamentary, or media discourse, can be situated within this framework (see Fuentes Rodríguez and Álvarez Benito, eds. 2016, and Fuentes Rodríguez ed. 2016). The result of all this is that the plethora of perspectives, not all of which are pragmatic or discursive, has been accompanied by an excessive number of studies on the individual elements. There is clearly a lack of consensus about delimiting the units and consequently analyzing their functions and classifying them accordingly. This has an immediate effect on teaching DMs: students wishing to learn a second language or translators who, on encountering these units, generally translate them inappropriately or not at all, or researchers who are new to the field, do not know where to begin. The topic initially seems appealing and accessible, because it is reducible to paradigms, but quickly the picture becomes confused and the limits fuzzy. Every author sets out his or her own system but not always with a clear justification. Thus, it is very necessary to establish strategies to teach these elements, generally absent from textbooks. In this chapter, I try to answer some questions: What are DMs? (see Section 3); What are their characteristics and functions?

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

111

(Section 4); How many types are there and what pattern is involved? (Section 5); How can they be taught? What strategies can be adopted for teaching them in the classroom? (Sections 4 and 5 include the answers to both questions, integrating teaching techniques with theory).

3.

Definition and delimitation

The terminology is manifestly ambiguous. The term “discourse marker” can be used for all of the elements which can be moved around within the discourse, whatever their function. It may be applied to: a) the structuring of the discourse, whether it be establishing its constituents (ordering elements), interactive markers, or argument relations: causative, addition, or counter-argumentation markers; b) the expression of speaker intention or subjectivity, and c) the interactive relation with the hearer and his/her interpretation. This is Schiffrin’s perspective and the one widely adopted in the Spanish literature. She defines DMs as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin 1987, p. 31). Later she goes on to discuss their contribution to the textual cohesiveness and their double anaphoric (reference to something mentioned early in the discourse) and cataphoric functions (reference to something mentioned later in the discourse). Fraser, an authority in the field, who has written extensively on DMs (1990, 1996, 2006), voices his disagreement (Fraser 2006, p. 190). For Fraser, DMs are a subset of pragmatic markers. As a canonic definition of “pragmatic markers” he offers this: Lexical members of this class typically have the following properties: they are free morphemes, they are proposition-initial, they signal a specific message either about or in addition to the basic message, and they are classified as pragmatic markers by virtue of their semantic/pragmatic functions. Many PMs have homophonous lexical counterparts which are classified by virtue of their syntactic function, e.g., however, clearly, allegedly, so, etc. (Fraser 2009, p. 295) Martín Zorraquino and Portolés (1999, p. 4057), as I have already mentioned, highlight their degree of fixation (“unidades lingüísticas invariables”), extrapropositionality (“no ejercen una función sintáctica en el marco de la predicación oracional—son, pues, elementos marginales”), and their discourse function (“poseen un cometido coincidente en el discurso: el de guiar, de acuerdo con sus distintas propiedades morfosintácticas, semánticas y pragmáticas, las inferencias que se realizan en la comunicación”). Loureda and Acín (2010, p. 22) define them as “unidades que actúan en la esfera del discurso, en concreto, en la estructural (informativa), en la formulativa o en la argumentativa, como los estructuradores de la información, los operadores, los conectores y los reformuladores,” and include every kind of category, allowing it to be inferred that the reformulators and structuring elements of the information are different from

112

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

connectors and operators.3 Following such an approach implies that the reformulators and the elements structuring the information do not connect, and that the connection is solely argumentative. The authority most widely followed in the field is Fraser (1990, 2006, 2009), who considers DMs a subset of pragmatic markers (see Figure 6.1). His classification (2009) is: 1)

2)

3)

4)

Basic pragmatic markers (please, I promise) “signal the type of message (the illocutionary force [. . .]) the speaker intends to convey in the utterance of the segment” (Fraser 2009, p. 295). Commentary pragmatic markers “signal a comment on the basis message”: assessment (fortunately), manner-of-speaking (frankly), evidential markers (certainly), hearsay markers (reportedly, allegedly) and (non)deference markers (sir)4 (Fraser 2009, p. 296). DMs “which signal a relation between the discourse segment which hosts them, and the prior discourse segment” (Fraser 2009, p. 296): contrastive (but, on the contrary), elaborative (and, anyway), inferential DM (so, as a result). Discourse structure markers (DSMs) “signal an aspect of the organization of the ongoing discourse” (Fraser 2009, p. 297): discourse management (in summary), topic-orientation (returning to my previous topic), and attention markers (look) (Fraser 2009, p. 297).

discourse markers

basic pragmatic markers

pragmatic markers

commentary pragmatic markers

Figure 6.1 Fraser’s classification of pragmatic markers

discourse structure markers

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

113

This author includes conjunctions together with the markers. Fraser (2009, p. 297) formulates the definition of DMs as follows: “For an expression to be a discourse marker it must be acceptable in the sequence S1 – DM + S2, where S1 and S2 are discourse segments,each representing an illocutionary act,although elision may have occurred.”These DMs in English “naturally fall into three functional classes: contrastive markers (. . .), elaborative markers (. . .), inferential markers” (Fraser 2009, pp. 300–301). Martín Zorraquino and Portolés (1999) include, among the DMs connectors, reformulators, contact control operators, and conversational operators. All are included under the definition of “discourse marking,” but not all are at the same level. The behavior of claro ‘of course’ is not the same as that of sin embargo ‘however’, either distributionally or in terms of its discourse function. These elements are connected with other parts of the grammar. Dehé and Kavalová (2007), among others, related DMs to parentheticals on the basis of their distribution (medial position) and tonal structure (isolated). Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva (2011) included them in a thetical grammar (separated from the sentence grammar) because they express subjectivity or reference to the speaker. The differences with the rest of the elements that have designative content (nouns, verbs), their distribution and function in anchoring the discourse, and, above all, in marking communicative agents, are arguments for their inclusion: “Rather than being determined by the morphosyntactic structure of the sentence, the meaning of theticals is shaped by a network of conceptual components that we referred to (. . .) as the situation of discourse” (Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011, p. 882). Properties of theticals are: “a. They are syntactically independent; b. They are set off prosodically from the rest of an utterance; c. Their meaning is “non-restrictive”; d. They tend to be positionally mobile; e. Their internal structure is built on principles of SG [sentence grammar] but can be elliptic” (Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011, p. 857).

4.

A mixed bag: Two functional classes

This diversity makes it necessary to differentiate types, functions, and spheres or levels of reference prior to offering any definition. Given the sheer volume of research at present, it is easy to detect two large functional classes: operators and connectors (Fuentes Rodríguez 2003, 2009). It is fundamental to make this distinction so that students understand how these units function pragmatically. Its utility has also been demonstrated in practice in Masters courses for teaching Spanish as a second language. It is similar to the distinction drawn by Fraser and therefore easier for English-speaking students to assimilate. The fact that connectors and operators involve different processing instructions and differing domains of communication allows the instructor to separate the two classes more easily. For example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment includes these elements in different sections. Elements such as sin embargo and además have a connective function and involve a type of pragmatic competence called discursive competence: “la capacidad que posee el usuario o alumno de ordenar oraciones en secuencias para producir fragmentos coherentes

114

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

de lengua” (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte 2002, p. 120). The teaching of elements such as claro, vale, por desgracia, etc. (operators) would include functional competence, referring to the performance of communicative functions, such as expressing attitudes or persuading (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte 2002, pp. 122–127). My teaching proposal, which has arisen from experience in the classroom, consists of three steps: 1) the instructor explains how the two sets of markers differ, in regard to functions and distribution; 2) practical observation of their characteristics and behavior in real texts, and 3) a set of exercises to practice use, distribution, and functions. Instructors should work with dialogues and texts in order to practice both oral and written skills. They are complex units, which require training in order to be able to appropriately use the inferences they generate.

4.1.

Proposal: Definition and classification

Discourse and pragmatic markers are grammaticalizations of adverbial, verbal elements or nominal constructions. They operate in the field of discourse since they depend on the context, and their functions consist of establishing the architecture of the discourse (what I will call connectors) or the interpersonal or intersubjective relationships (the operators). They should be described from a contextual perspective, since many of these units signal their contextual relationships (see Table 6.1). These two groups differ syntactically and belong to different categories. Connectors are free units, independent of the verb in the sentence, whose discourse function is to establish the relationship between two clauses or minor segments. They are elements with a dual relationship (< >). They are mobile, occur between pauses (see example 1), and combine with each other or with a conjunction, as we can see in the example (2) below. (1) Este chico tiene un currículo excelente. Ha trabajado, además, en el extranjero y en empresas de prestigio. (2) Generalmente voy a comer a casa, pero hoy, sin embargo, me apetece tomarme un sándwich. TABLE 6.1 Functional classification of DMs

Category5

Level

Discursive function

Connector

Structural cohesion

Inter-sentential

Operator

Interpersonal level

connection Argumentative (even) Enunciative ( frankly) Modal (unfortunately) Informative ( just)6

(Fuentes Rodríguez 2016, p. 82).

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

115

Operators act within the sphere of the utterance. They affect the whole sentence. They usually occur marginally, between pauses, and their sphere of reference is argumentation (example 3), information (example 4), formulation (example 5), and modality (example 6). They do not require any previous utterance. They can combine with any connector or conjunction, as in the example (7) below. An element of the sentence sometimes falls within its scope (“el miércoles 15,” example (8)): (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Esta pareja tiene, al menos, tres coches. Él suele llegar a esta hora, precisamente. Francamente, Marisa y Elena no son tan amigas como parece. Ya ha llegado Susana con sus amigos franceses, afortunadamente. Está visto que el problema tiene que ver con fallas mecánicas y señalización. Es decir, evidentemente esto es peligroso, pero por otro lado también se está dando coordinación con representantes para mejorar las condiciones. (8) Elena se marcha justamente el miércoles 15. (CREA, [Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual: corpus.rae.es/ creanet.html], La Prensa Libre 2003, pp. 1–7) They have some features in common and others which differentiate them, as reflected in Table 6.2 below:

TABLE 6.2 Characteristics of connectors and operators

Characteristics

Connectors

Syntactic-semantic characteristics: Micro-structure

• Parentheticals

Macro-structure: Discursive/pragmatic functions

Discourse structure:

Operators

• Mobility: sentence initial, medial and final • Procedural meaning

• Order the discourse • Initiation of interaction • Continuation • Closure of the interaction • Reformulation • Argumentative structure: • Additive • Counter-argumentative (opposition, concessive) • Causative (conditional, concessive, final, consecutive, conclusive)

Speaker or listener oriented Subjectivity or intersubjectivity: • Modality • Formulation • Evidentiality • Argumentation: scalar operators . . . • Focus and thematic structure

116

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

However, as almost everyone now accepts, the inventories cannot be closed ones; what is required is an open approach, one that admits gradation and the flexible application of criteria, which is suggestive of a prototype approach. These markers are multifunctional and this needs to be reflected in how they are taught.

4.2.

Teaching strategies

The distinction made between connectors and operators is a fundamental one, which students must be aware of and practice if they are to master the use of DMs. The instructor in the L2 classroom must convey to students how they function: connectors relate segments to each other while pragmatic markers express subjectivity. The teaching strategies are designed to allow students to differentiate these markers from others that relate to the main verb (exercises 1 and 2 below) and familiarize students with the characteristics that separate connectors (exercise 1) from operators (exercise 2): Exercise 1. Identify which element of the sentence is used to connect segments and describe its characteristics (position, occurrence between pauses, relationship to the main verb . . .): (9)

No existía Internet . . . en fin . . . eso fue hace poco, el siglo pasado. (CREA, Minniti, Javier; Graf, Hans, La Vinotinto 2004)

Exercise 2. In the following sentences, indicate whether there are any elements that meet these criteria: a) suggests the subjectivity of the speaker, b) is invariable, c) occurs between pauses (see the following examples): (10) Lo siento, se cayeron los dientes del peine. Bueno, ya estaban torcidos. (CORPES [Corpus del Español del siglo XXI: www.rae.es/recursos/ banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi], Aridjis, Homero, La zona del silencio 2005) (11) ¡Cuánto tiempo, por favor! (CREA, Caiga quien caiga, Tele 5 1996) Exercise 3. The following excerpt contains connectors and operators. Identify them and indicate their difference in behavior. Complete the following table (Table 6.3): (12)

Los periodistas han acudido al pueblo donde se ha producido el incidente. Lamentablemente, ha habido muchas víctimas y la gente está muy afectada. Por lo tanto, nadie quiere hablar con ellos. Es lógico, sobre todo porque hay menores. El pueblo, evidentemente, está de luto oficial. La investigación, sin embargo, tiene que continuar. Una tragedia, vamos.

TABLE 6.3

Connectors/Operators

Function

Position: initial, medial or final

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

117

Exercise 4. Create spoken or written texts which contain the following markers: sin embargo, encima, al menos, sorprendentemente, incluso, por otra parte, eso sí, por cierto, o sea, hombre, claro. Distinguish those that serve to connect phrases (connectors) from operators, which refer to the speaker. Exercise 5. Formulate correct and incorrect sentences which include the following elements: vamos, es decir, en pocas palabras, menos mal, encima, como mucho, simplemente, francamente, por así decir. Exercise 6. Of the following phrases, explain which are correct and which incorrect: (13) Voy menos mal a ir. (14a) Francamente, el piso está muy bien. (14b) El piso está, por así decir, muy bien. (14c) El piso está, como mucho, muy bien. (14d) El piso está, es decir, muy bien. Exercise 7. Present students with a text in which they must introduce operators and connectors in their correct position. The instructor will provide a list of markers.

5.

Classification: Types and behavior

Teaching strategies include the following two stages: 1)

2)

Explanation of syntactic features (distribution) and pragmatic instructions concerning usage so that students may acquire practical knowledge of their use (see Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.2.1.). Consolidation of learning with a series of activities (see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.2.2.).

5.1. 5.1.1.

Connectors Syntactic and pragmatic description

Connectors, as I have mentioned, require the presence of two parts. Generally, they connect sentences, as in example (1) above, repeated here for convenience as (1’), but they may appear with smaller units (clauses in example (15), and phrases in example (16)): (1’)

Este chico tiene un currículo excelente. Ha trabajado, además, en el extranjero y en empresas de prestigio. (15) El ordenador suele ir bien, aunque, eso sí, a última hora va más lento. (16) Su novio es serio y, además, de trato agradable. The connector is positioned between the two clauses, although it may be mobile in the second utterance and may appear medially, or finally, followed by a pause

118

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

(Fuentes Rodríguez 1996, p. 2003). It generally occurs between commas and may combine with conjunctions. It always presupposes a previous segment, and for this reason cannot appear in initial position: (17)

Sentí una mano fría en la espalda y pegué un grito. La vieja que me había tocado pegó otro, y encima tuve que acompañarla hasta la puerta de su casa en el cuarto piso. (CORPES, López, Alejandro, La asesina de Lady Di. 2001)

Encima is a connector that indicates the addition of an utterance. It combines with y and carries an argumentative-type instruction (what it introduces is considered higher in the scale by the speaker) and a subjective meaning (the information of the construction or element that is its scope is often considered excessive or undesirable). In this case, having to accompany the old lady comes after the shock of the cold hand on the back followed by the shout. Connectors can occur in other positions. Thus, por otra parte appears initially and por lo demás is inserted medially in example (18) below. Sin ir más lejos occurs in final position in example (19): (18) El actual tamaño del Congreso, con 120 congresistas, es el mismo que tenía el país en 1859, cuando la población era de 2,48 millones casi la décima parte de la actual y el derecho a voto estaba reservado solamente a varones, alfabetos y poseedores de un bien inmueble, capital rentista o profesión, industria u oficio. Por otra parte, la vigencia desde 1995 del sistema electoral único coloca al país al nivel de Gabón, Israel, Senegal y Macedonia, cuya población sumada es, por lo demás, menor a la del Perú. (CREA, Caretas 22–9–2000) (19) Yo también podría decir cosas de toda la familia. Del tío Celso, el primero. Sin ir más lejos. (CREA, A. Gala, Los invitados al jardín 2002) The types of connectors can be organized, as I have shown, as additives, counterargumentatives, causatives, organizers of the discourse, reformulators, and elements which structure initiation, continuation, and closure in a monologic or dialogic text. I will go on to describe each category (with examples), citing its most frequently used and grammaticalized members, as well as the general and specific pragmatic instructions for use, so that speakers are able to bring into line what they say with their communicative intentions.

5.1.2.

Classification

Additive connectors. All additive connectors express the same instruction to the listener: “The two segments of information are considered to be on the same level.”

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

119

They are two arguments, which lead to the same conclusion.7 (Examples 1, 16, 17, and 18). The most frequent connectors are: además aparte, asimismo, encima (high position on the scale), es más, más aún (formal), igualmente, por otra parte por cierto and a propósito (digression markers). Structuring information and ordering of the discourse connectors. These markers order the information sequentially. They may indicate: • • •

• (20)

discourse initiation: para empezar, para comenzar, de entrada discourse closing: bien, bueno, pues nada, (dialogue), en fin, para terminar, por último, y nada (más), y para de contar enumeration: de un lado . . . de otro (lado), de una parte . . . de otra (parte), por un lado . . . por otro (lado), por una parte . . . por otra (parte), en primer lugar . . . en segundo lugar . . . primero, segundo, tercero filler: bien, bueno, como digo, pues, ya digo . . . ¿Quieren privarme de la vida? ¡Pues tengan, hijos de la chingada! (CORPES, H. Aridjis, La zona del silencio 2005)

Interactive connectors. In dialogue, various elements are employed to: a) initiate an interaction and reply to the interlocutor (bien, bueno, verá(s) (the first two are very frequent in Spanish), b) call the other’s attention (mira, mire [usted], oye, venga, or nominal address forms as chico, hijo, hombre, mujer, tío), c) ensure the interlocutor is listening (¿comprendes?, ¿entiendes?, ¿no?, ¿sabes?, ¿verdad?, ¿ya me entiendes?, ¿ya ve(s)?). An example is (21). (21)

¿Qué escritores españoles lees? Bueno, a muchos, pero entre mis preferidos están Pérez-Reverte, Vázquez Montalbán, Rosa Montero, entre muchos otros. (CORPES, Entrevista a L. Esquivel 2001)

Conclusion connectors. These markers introduce a conclusion, which brings the foregoing to a close: en conclusión, en definitiva, en suma, entonces, total. The last marker is the most colloquial. Al fin y al cabo and pues bien combine closure and conclusion: (22)

El Supremo indica que, al no dar el Tribunal respuesta lógica al recurso de amparo, “los magistrados demandados actuaron con una negligencia profesional grave, (. . .) ya que la ilicitud tiene como base la violación de unas normas absolutamente imperativas.” “En conclusión -dice Sierra-, nos encontramos ante una conducta judicial absolutamente rechazable.” (CREA, Diario de Jérez Digital 27/01/2004)

Consecutive connectors. Consecutive connectors or markers are employed to introduce the result of an action. Examples are por (lo) tanto, entonces, por eso, por ende, and en consecuencia. The first two are the most frequent.

120

(23)

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

Es preferible disminuir el consumo de té y café porque alteran el sueño y son diuréticos, por lo tanto, contribuyen a la deshidratación. (CREA, Revista de Nutrición XXI, nº 11, 01–02/2004)

Counter-argument connectors. These connectors, as examples (2) and (15) show, relate opposing elements, by indicating counter-possibility, contraposition, and concession. A counter-possibility, equivalent of “if not” (conditionals) is expressed by de lo contrario, de otra forma, de otra manera, de otro modo. To simply oppose two statements, it is possible to use ahora bien, ahora, (que, in oral language), al contrario. If there is a parallel between them, the appropriate forms are en cambio, por el contrario, and to introduce an objection it is necessary to use eso sí, solo que. Concessive connectors: The connectors introduce a result contrary to what would be expected to follow from the cause. The earlier argument is an obstacle to the fulfillment of the principal argument, but the speaker does not take it into consideration. These markers are en cualquier caso, no obstante, aun así, con todo, de cualquier forma (manera, modo). Of all these, the most frequently used are de todas formas, (maneras, modos). Reformulation connectors. These elements introduce a new utterance, which modifies the foregoing formulation (see example (7)). This new formulation may be an explanation if the marker is a saber, dicho de otra forma (manera, modo), en otras palabras, en una palabra, es decir, esto es, o sea, vamos, vaya (in oral register). Correction or rectification is the instruction of bueno, mejor dicho, perdón, que diga. The speaker can reformulate a statement by introducing a specific case which illustrates it (specificity-particularization). In this case, the Spanish markers are concretamente, en particular, sin ir más lejos. The connector in colloquial Spanish for this function is o sea and vamos. Exemplification connectors. Connectors or markers of exemplification in Spanish are pongamos por caso, por ejemplo, as in the following example. (24)

Pero faltan algunas cosas: el perro ya no está, por ejemplo. (CORPES: R. Bolaño, Últimos atardeceres en la tierra 2001)

Temporal markers. The paradigm of connectors used to order events chronologically includes a continuación, después, luego, entonces, entretanto, finalmente mientras, por fin por último. (25)

Bajan. Raquel prácticamente es empujada por David. Mientras tanto alguien ha dejado un sobre por debajo de la puerta. (CORPES: Lillo, Daniella, Con flores amarillas 2001)

5.1.3.

Teaching strategies

After the instructor’s explanation on the distribution and contents of the markers, students should practice their use. Exercises below may serve as guidance:

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

121

Exercise 1. Group work: create a narrative among all members of the group, for example, on the first moon landing or a voyage to an uninhabited island. The instructor will begin with a phrase and ask each student in the group to continue and choose an element that connects the discourse. Exercise 2. Students should construct an application form and state the reasons that underpin their choice of university: “He elegido la Universidad X, por varias razones: En primer lugar . . ., en segundo lugar, además, . . .” And conclude: “Por tanto . . . .” Exercise 3. Make up a dialogue with a classmate. Use interactive elements (pues mira, eh . . .). Exercise 4. Create a debate in the class between two groups concerning a topic of current social or political interest. Each group of three students will adopt a position and defend it in the debate. Three students will form the judging panel and will award points for the correct usage of each connector. At the end, the points won by each group will be added up and the winner declared.

5.2. 5.2.1.

Operators Syntactic and pragmatic description

Operators are units situated within the utterance despite having no syntactic function with respect to the main verb of the clause. They affect a segment of the sentence, but without any referential function. They may signal enunciation, modality, focus, and argumentation. Enunciative operators mark the way to speak, to enunciate (sincerely, honestly, frankly); or they indicate who the speaker is and how s/he is responsible for the act of speaking, as in the examples (5), above, or (26). (26)

Sinceramente, no sé qué partido votar en las próximas elecciones.

With these markers, speakers express their commitment to the assertion. If there is a lesser degree of commitment, approximation markers may be used. These indicate that the term used is inexact, is a metaphor, a generic term, or something approximating to the speaker’s communicative intention. This is the content of como aquel que dice, como quien dice, como si dijéramos, digamos, diríamos, por así decir(lo). Likewise, with reservation markers the speaker does not wish to take responsibility for what is said; s/he relates it on the basis of the evidence available. These elements are por lo visto, presumiblemente, presuntamente, que yo sepa. Qualifiers of the discourse (regarding its relevance, clarity, length, apropriateness) are represented by de hombre a hombre, en el fondo en general generalmente, lisa y llanamente, normalmente, sencillamente, simplemente.

122

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

Modal operators express the speaker’s modality or subjective attitude, as in example (27). As Greenbaum (1969) stated, these elements can constitute a reply by themselves or accompanied by sí or no, as in example (28): (27) (28)

Lucía será la nueva directora, claro. Q: ¿Pero cree que el dopaje nace sólo de la falta de educación o de información de los implicados? A: Evidentemente, no. No somos ingenuos. (CREA, El País 23–2–2004)

Another characteristic of the modal operators is the potential for linking them with the clause by means of the conjunction que. Thus example (27) may be taken as Claro que Lucía será la nueva directora. Some markers express doubt, possibility or a non-committal stance, or nonassertion. The speaker does not take responsibility for what is said, or attributes it to others. This content is expressed by a lo mejor, a lo peor, por lo visto, depende, según, en teoría, posiblemente, quizá, probablemente, seguramente. Reaffirmative markers strengthen an assertion: claro, por supuesto, desde luego, cómo no, efectivamente, evidentemente, indudablemente, lógicamente, naturalmente. Markers of agreement are bien, bueno, de acuerdo, vale. If, on the contrary, the speaker wishes to express disagreement or rejection s/he may use de ningún modo, en absoluto, ni hablar, para nada, qué va. Confidence is conveyed by the operators seguro, sin duda. Markers of positive emotion are afortunadamente, gracias a Dios, menos mal, por fin, and markers of negative emotion are indicated by lamentablemente, desgraciadamente, por desgracia. Surprise may be expressed by no me digas, sorprendentemente, and wishes by Dios quiera. Another dimension of modality is necessity (necesariamente). Epistemic modals are ciertamente, de hecho, en realidad, realmente, which indicate certainty, reality, and fact. Finally, an appeal to the listener can be made by the use of anda, por favor, disculpa, perdona, hombre, oye, oiga. The function of informative operators is to express the informational status of a segment. These operators differentiate given and new information, expected and non-expected argument, or emphasize a segment of the utterance: (29)

La impresora llegó justamente ayer.

Finally, argumentative operators add content relating to the argumentation: orientation, force, or argumentative adequacy. Incluso in example (30) presupposes that the show is very popular and that the speaker’s mother was not expected to like it. In example (31), by using por lo menos, the speaker seeks to communicate the minimal adequacy of the gesture of crossing the square to greet the individual concerned. (30) Incluso a mi madre le gusta ese programa. (31) Hubiera sido preferible que, por lo menos, cruzara la plaza para saludarlo. (CREA, ACAS Caretas 7–9–2000)

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

123

Argumentative operators can indicate a) high position on the scale (a lo sumo, bastante, como máximo, como mínimo, demasiado, hasta, incluso, para colmo); b) low position on the scale (si acaso), and c) preference (en especial, especialmente, preferiblemente, principalmente, sobre todo). These preference operators indicate elements selected by the speaker as the most appropriate in the scale. Sufficiency markers are al fin y al cabo, al menos, por lo menos, siquiera and insufficiency markers are apenas, meramente, ni siquiera, poco, solamente, solo, únicamente. Finally, attenuation and intensification are two pragmatic dimensions habitually expressed by argumentative markers. Mitigators are aproximadamente, casi, en principio, and intensifiers are esencialmente, fundamentalmente, nada más y nada menos, sumamente. To these should be added quantifiers such as más, menos, mucho, tanto, totalmente . . . and others that add an evaluative comment to the intensification: abrumadoramente, extraordinariamente, terriblemente, tremendamente. Among these argumentative markers may be included quantifying operators such as mucho, completamente, eminentemente, etc. (32)

Tengo menos tiempo, porque la Facultad te absorbe mucho.

More than one operator can be used in the same utterance. For example, two forms appear in example (33): más bien, an enunciative operator, and demasiado, an argumentative operator here integrated in a noun phrase. Moreover, these elements behave in a multidimensional way, operating on various levels at the same time. This is actually the most decisive characteristic of the elements operating in the discourse. (33)

La selección es más bien caprichosa y sin demasiado rigor estilístico, pero Ella y Louis todo lo resisten. (CREA, El Clarín 22–1–2002)

Más bien indicates that the adjective “caprichosa” comes closest to the speaker’s intention, the most suitable in his or her opinion for describing the reality. It can be used with an argumentative force. In order to persuade the interlocutor, the speaker may mitigate his/her speech by using approximative terms. S/he seeks to avoid violating politeness principles and thus achieve the desired result. It is common to find operators and connectors combined. Let us look at the following example (34): (34)

Es lo que te iba a decir, Margarita: ¿Que no somos sujetos de crédito, que no nos creen a las mujeres? Exactamente. Y, sin embargo, por ejemplo, una de las propuestas de Vicente Fox que se anunció hace poco, en un encuentro con algunas mujeres, es justamente un Fondo de Apoyo en cuestión de microcréditos, empresas productivas, etcétera. (CREA, Fox en vivo, Fox contigo, Radio ACIR 28–10–2000)

124

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

Connectors can combine with conjunctions (y) but they also appear with other connectors: sin embargo, por ejemplo. In this case, markers of addition, opposition, and exemplification are combined. There is also a closure connector (etcétera), a modal operator (exactamente, a reply marker), and another informative marker, justamente, which brings the adjective into focus. The best way to classify these elements and facilitate their teaching and acquisition is to relate them to the communicative functions they express (Fuentes Rodríguez 2009).8

5.2.2.

Teaching strategies

The aim of these exercises is to learn how to use markers that express the speaker’s subjectivity. For a full list, see Fuentes Rodríguez (2009). This dictionary also offers specific values for each marker. The following are some suggestions for use in teaching: Exercise 1. Markers expressing subjectivity are usually found in spoken discourse. The instructor will ask students to form pairs and create a dialogue. The starting point will be a question such as: ¿Vienes al teatro? Students should respond by expressing: a) b) c) d) e) h)

acceptance rejection doubt certainty approximation reaffirmation

Exercise 2. Express your opinion concerning your friends’ house: a) appreciation b) strong dislike. Exercise 3. Express your agreement with this opinion. Exercise 4. Enunciative operators. In conversation, the speaker frequently reinforces an utterance by using a marker expressing commitment: honradamente, francamente . . . Invent sentences of the sort and note the position of the marker. Exercise 5. Argumentative operators. In order to teach argumentative operators, it is essential to teach the concept of scale. As an exercise, we propose the following: “Estáis en una agencia de viajes tus amigos y tú, hablando sobre lugares de vacaciones. Os ofrecen diversas opciones, pero no estáis convencidos.” The dialogue may take this form: A: Este apartamento es muy caro. Nos exige incluso entregar una fianza. Marbella es una buena opción: tiene playa y como mucho nos costará 1000 euros entre todos. B: ¿Solo mil euros?

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

125

C: ¿Nada menos que mil euros? Encima hay que pagarlos por adelantado. D: Bueno, al menos nos divertiremos. Tasks: Task 1. Students should identify the argumentative operators. Task 2. They should also answer the following questions: a) Which of the friends considers the place acceptable or inexpensive? Who is not in favor? Which operator makes this clear? b) Regarding the argument employed, money, what is A’s position? Is it a lot of money? What does como mucho mean? c) What is intended by solo in B’s reply? d) Why does C use nada menos? What does he mean by this? e) What relationship is there between the thousand euros and the payment in advance? Which instruction includes encima? f) What does D mean by al menos? Task 3. A clue: the values of these operators are: insufficiency, sufficiency, upper limit of the scale, higher position on the scale, excess. Match the values with the appropriate operator (Table 6.4). TABLE.6.4

Function

Marker

Sufficiency Insufficiency Upper limit of the scale Higher position on the scale Excess

Task 4. Generate conversational texts. Students must work in pairs. Situation a: Your friend has a new car. You have to express surprise when you see it (color, style, price . . .). Situation b: Your friend tells you about the possibility of travelling to Paris this summer. You have to accept or reject his/her proposition. State how much you can afford for the trip. Situation c: You are talking with your mother about this trip. Please, highlight a particular element in this sentence: “Nos vamos a Paris este verano.” Situation d: You are talking with your father about the result of your football team’s next match. Please, express uncertainty or doubt. We recommend accessing the learning library at the Centro Virtual Cervantes (http://cvc.cervantes.es/aula/didactired/didactiteca/), where a key to the exercises may be found. Also of interest is the webpage of Fundación Sierra Pambley (www.sierrapambley.org/alumnos/).

126

6.

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

Conclusion

The topic of discourse markers is fundamental for language teaching. For this reason, a clear description of their syntactic functions and semantic-pragmatic properties is required. I consider connectors and operators to be different since they enact different strategies. Connectors establish the architecture of discourse and operators mark interpersonal or intersubjective relationships. All of them should be described from a contextual perspective since their meaning is procedural. This distinction allows discourse markers to be taught more appropriately and it is of great help for the instructor. I listed a series of suggestions for teaching that can be used in the classroom. In this way, we wish to confirm that teaching and learning a second language involves awareness of syntactic and pragmatic instructions of linguistic elements. This separation of levels and syntactic functions in discourse represents a significant contribution to the construction of a discourse grammar.

Notes 1 This study has been carried out within the framework of the project I+D+I FFI2013– 43205-P, of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness: Macrosyntax of Current Spanish. I would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this chapter. I am grateful to C. Langmuir for his help. 2 All of them are classified as conjunctions. 3 The explanation is that following Portolés (1998), only operators and argumentative connectors are admitted. Unlike Fuentes Rodríguez (2003), they do not contemplate a syntactic-discursive classification. 4 (Non)deference markers in Fraser (2006) are considered “parallel pragmatic markers.” 5 I prefer to speak of two distinct categories: operators and connectors, because functionally and distributionally, and in terms of their semantic-pragmatic behavior, that is what they are. Relating them to the wider terminology of DMs and pragmatic markers is a way of connecting with a broader tradition. 6 These levels arise from the relationship with the speaker (modal, enunciative) or with the hearer (informative, argumentative). They were proposed in Fuentes Rodríguez ([2000] 2015), in a pragmalinguistic approach and in 2013, as a model of analysis for the study of discourse. Studies in this field are numerous. 7 The classification which follows comes from Fuentes Rodríguez (2009, pp. 377–381). It is meant for teaching purposes, since it includes instructions for use and is not merely a list. For complete information on each element, see Fuentes Rodríguez (2009). 8 See also Briz, Portolés, and Pons (2008–today).

References Abraham, W., ed. 1991. Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anscombre, J. C. and O. Ducrot. 1983. L´argumentation dans la langue. Liège: Pierre Mardaga. Bazzanella, C. 2006. “Discourse Markers in Italian: Towards a ‘Compositional’ Meaning.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. K. Fischer, 449–464, Amsterdam: Elsevier. Blakemore, D. [1988] 1992. “La organización del discurso.” In Panorama de la lingüística moderna de la Universidad de Cambridge, Vol. 4, ed. F. J. Newmeyer, 275–298. Madrid: Visor.

Discourse markers and pragmatic markers

127

Briz, A. 1998. El español coloquial en la conversación. Barcelona: Ariel. Briz, A., J. Portolés and S. Pons. 2008–today. Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español (DPDE). www.dpde.es. Briz, A. and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2003. “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial.” Oralia 6: 7–61. Centro Virtual Cervantes. http://cvc.cervantes.es/aula/didactired/didactiteca/. Company, C. 2004. “¿Gramaticalización o desgramaticalización? Reanálisis y subjetivización de verbos como marcadores discursivos en la historia del español.” Revista de Filología Española 84(1): 29–66. CORPES (Corpus del español del siglo XXI). www.rae.es/recursos/banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi. CREA (Corpus de referencia del español actual). http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html. Cortés, L. 1991. Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en el español hablado. Málaga: Ágora. Dehé, N. and Y. Kavalová. eds. 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Diewald, G. 2011. “Pragmaticalization (Defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Functions.” Linguistics 49(2): 365–390. Dostie, G. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot. Ducrot, O. 1995. “Les modificateurs déréalisants.” Journal of Pragmatics 24(1–2): 145–165. Fischer, K., ed. 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fraser, B. 1990. “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(3): 383–395. Fraser, B. 1996. “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190. Fraser, B. 2006. “Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. K. Fischer, 189–204, Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fraser, B. 2009. “An Account of Discourse Markers.” International Review of Pragmatics 1(2): 293–320. Fuentes, C., M. E. Placencia and M. Palma. 2016. “Regional Pragmatic Variation in the Use of the Discourse Marker Pues in Informal Talk among University Students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain).” Journal of Pragmatics 97: 74–92. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1987. Enlaces extraoracionales. Seville: Alfar Universidad. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1994. “Usos discursivos y función argumentativa: De hecho, en efecto, efectivamente.” Español Actual 62: 5–18. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1995. “Polifonía y argumentación: Los adverbios de verdad, certeza, seguridad y evidencia en español.” Lexis 19(1): 59–83. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1996. La sintaxis de los relacionantes supraoracionales. Madrid: Arco Libros. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1997. “Los conectores en la lengua oral: Es que como introductor de enunciado.” Verba 24: 237–263. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2002. “Simplemente Feliz Navidad: Los marcadores de adecuación o relevancia enunciativa.” Oralia 5: 29–51. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2003. “Operador/ conector, un criterio para la sintaxis discursiva.” Rilce 19(1): 61–85. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2004. “Enunciación, modalidad y aserción, tres clásicos.” Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 27: 121–145. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2009. Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco Libros. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. [2000] 2015. Lingüística pragmática y análisis del discurso. 2nd ed. Madrid: Arco Libros. Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2016. “Para colmo, Scalar Operator and Additive Connector. Keys to an Evolving Process.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1): 79–106. Fuentes Rodríguez, C., ed. 2016. Estructuras argumentativas y discurso político. Madrid: Arco Libros.

128

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez

Fuentes Rodríguez, C. and G. Álvarez Benito, G., eds. 2016. A Gender-Based Approach to Parliamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fundación Sierra Pambley. www.sierrapambley.org/alumnos/. Garcés Gómez, P. 2005. “Reformulación y marcadores de reformulación.” In Estudios sobre lo metalingüístico en español, ed. M. Casado, R. González and O. Loureda, 47–66. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. García Negroni, M. M. 1998. “Cuando la excepción refuerza la argumentación: A propósito del uso exceptivo de même e incluso.” Thélème: Revista complutense de estudios franceses 13: 207–218. González Ruiz, R. 2000. “Felicidades, sinceramente, don Antonio: A propósito de los adverbios de enunciación.” Rilce 16(2): 289–324. Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman. Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv, eds. 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kaltenböck, G., B. Heine and T. Kuteva. 2011. “On Thetical Grammar.” Studies in Language 35(4): 852–897. Landone, E. 2009. Los marcadores del discurso y cortesía verbal en español. Bern: Peter Lang. Loureda, O. and E. Acín, eds. 2010. Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy. Madrid: Arco Libros. Martín Zorraquino, M. A. and E. Montolío. 1998. Marcadores del discurso: Teoría y análisis. Madrid: Arco Libros. Martín Zorraquino, M. A. and J. Portolés. 1999. “Los marcadores del discurso.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, eds. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2002. Marco Común Europeo de referencia para las lenguas: Aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/marco. Montolío, E. 1997. “La Teoría de la Relevancia y el estudio de los conectores discursivos.” In Introducción a la pragmática lingüística, ed. C. Fuentes Rodríguez, 27–39. Seville: Kronos. Montolío, E. 2000. “La conexión en el texto escrito académico. Los conectores.” In Manual práctico de escritura académica, ed. E. Montolío, 105–164. Barcelona: Ariel. Pons, S. 1998. Conexión y conectores. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia. Portolés, J. 1998. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1972. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. 2nd ed. London: Longman. Rossari, C. 1994. Les opérations de reformulation. Bern: Peter Lang. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, E C. 1995. “The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization.” Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester. http://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=B0B6BD357B86026A44112807057949C4?doi=10. 1.1.89.2536&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

PART II

L2 Spanish pragmatics instruction

7 TEACHING SOCIOPRAGMATICS Face-work, politeness and impoliteness in L2 Spanish colloquial conversations María Bernal

1.

Introduction

This work presents selected theoretical and methodological lines of research developed within EDICE Program (Studies on the Discourse of Politeness in Spanish) for the teaching of Spanish sociopragmatics from a sociocultural perspective. It focuses on the concepts of face management, politeness, and impoliteness in natural colloquial conversations to reveal their implications for the classroom of L2 Spanish. Both the use of authentic materials and the use of certain methodological instruments (such as tests of social habits, see sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) will prove to be a productive teaching approach. Such an approach falls within the field known as “interlanguage pragmatics” (Alcón Soler and Martínez-Flor 2008, p. 3), adopting a sociopragmatically oriented line of research and teaching to examine how pragmatic action is subject to social and cultural conditions (Blum-Kulka [1997] 2002, pp. 89–90) and how to transpose such action in a classroom context. Within the field of the teaching and learning of L2 Spanish, there are several studies centering on the teaching of pragmatic contents and competences from a pragmalinguistic perspective. For example, Félix-Brasdefer (2004) discusses the use of mitigating refusals, while Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen (2012, p. 651) use the term grammar “to refer to a focus on grammatical forms in their role as pragmalinguistic resources (such as conditionals, imperfect tenses, adjectives, and adverbials) that are used to express pragmatic intent, such as respect or politeness, in socially appropriate situations.” Since the goal of this chapter is to present a sociopragmatic perspective that takes into account valid sociocultural aspects for the situation in which communicative exchanges take place, Bravo’s approach to “sociocultural pragmatics” is key to the understanding of language as an object of study embedded in its social

132

María Bernal

context (Bravo 2005, p. 24). This definition pays attention to the language users’ own sociocultural contexts, which includes interpersonal information, the communicative interaction, the speech community, and other possible social, economic, and cultural factors. Sociocultural contents are not, therefore, universal, but they are “filled” accordingly. Following this approach, many studies have used a “consultation” methodology through inter-subjective tests to assess their own interpretations centered on the language user under study and for different Spanish-speaking communities (cf. Bernal 2007; Hernández Flores 2002, 2006; Murillo Medrano 2005, among others). This chapter is divided in three main sections. First, the chapter will discuss the concept of face with a focus on two of its variants, autonomy and affiliation proposed by Bravo in different works (Section 2), followed by an approach to the phenomena of politeness and impoliteness, based on the analysis of natural Spanish data extracted from corpora of colloquial conversations (Section 3). Then the chapter wraps up with some pedagogical implications and suggestions for the teaching of L2 Spanish sociopragmatics (Section 4). The teaching strategies proposed highlight the importance of the analysis of authentic conversations in combination with questionnaires or tests of social habits to study the sociopragmatic contents in a given sociocultural context; finally, the chapter closes with a section of conclusions and recommendations (Section 5).

2.

Face: Autonomy and affiliation

The concept of face as defined by Goffman (1967) has been widely used for decades in studies of communicative interaction: “The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes [. . .]” (Goffman 1967, p. 5). Brown and Levinson ([1978] 1987) further elaborated this concept by including two components: a positive face or “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others” and a negative one or “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” (Brown and Levinson 1987, p. 62). Thus, social interaction is based on the balance of meeting the needs of a positive face and those of a negative one for all the interlocutors involved in a communicative exchange. The strategies of positive or negative politeness arise with the need of safeguarding those faces from the inherent threats of certain acts; for example, directive acts that constrain the listener’s freedom of action, as they relate to their negative face. However, many researchers (Bravo 1999, 2003; Hernández Flores 2002; Matsumoto 1988) have criticized this dichotomy based on either theoretical or empirical evidence; for example, by considering that threats to the negative face can be subsumed in the positive one (Meier 1995, p. 385). These authors call for a greater cultural relativism to avoid falling into ethnocentrism. Bravo’s work is of particular interest. This author considers that the positive-negative division of face is not valid for all cultures; instead, she presents an elaboration of

Teaching sociopragmatics

133

face that correlates with the concepts of autonomy and affiliation, two comprehensive categories of supposedly human principles and, from there, supposedly universal. Bravo has defined these concepts in different studies (Bravo 1999, 2003, 2012): autonomy refers to the perceptions that an individual has of him or herself and the perceptions that others have of him or her as someone with a contour of its own within a group, while affiliation consists on behaviors that signal how a person wishes to see him or herself and to be seen by others with features that identify him or her with the group (Bravo 2003, p. 106). In a conversation, autonomy is manifested through everything an interlocutor does to display a differentiating feature from the group, and affiliation everything that promotes identification with it. In the Spanish society, for example, some autonomy contents configuring its basic face would involve the expression of autoafirmación (self-assertion) and autoestima (self-esteem): “being original and aware of the good qualities owned [by the speaker]” (Bravo 1999, p. 168, my translation); while some affiliation contents would have its ideal in showing afecto (affection) and confianza (trust). The ideals of trust and the want of strengthening friendship and vicinity bonds have also been identified by Hernández Flores (2002), Contreras Fernández (2004) and Bernal (2007) in colloquial Spanish conversations between participants from different regions of Spain. Trust is understood as familiarity and intimacy: speaking trustfully supposes for Spanish individuals speaking unreservedly and without the fear of offending the interlocutor. Some other examples include the following (cf. Bernal 2007, p. 51): having both valued qualities and valid opinions, performing tasks positively recognized and performing properly the tasks dictated by the role performed (autonomy face), and receiving and showing appreciation and consideration, being supportive and engaging with others (affiliation face).

3.

Politeness and impoliteness

3.1.

Politeness categories

The definitions of politeness have proliferated since the publication of Brown and Levinson’s work (1987). The sociopragmatic classification presented in this chapter comes from Bernal (2007), and it is based on empirical analysis of authentic materials (colloquial conversations in the area of Valencia, Spain) gathered by Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co. (2002) (cf. Section 4). From this analysis, the author develops categories for studying (im)politeness that sometimes are not entirely independent of each other and may overlap.

3.1.1.

Strategic politeness

This type of politeness refers to acts intended to avoid face-threatening risks. The aim is to alleviate the tension that those threats may cause during interaction. The threats are likely to damage the interlocutor’s face, its social or professional roles,

134

María Bernal

and its competence as a speaker, among others. These acts can attenuate the differences of opinion, the issues known to cause conflict, and utterances that are too imposing and may be considered threatening. An example of strategic politeness follows: (1) [L.14.A.2] (120–126) Luisa estaba hablando de unos muebles que había visto en un escaparate cuando la interrumpe su amiga Elena. 1. Luisa: = y queda superguay ese dibujo [mola cantidad 2. Elena: [mira que (( ))] // perdona perdona↓ perdona que te corte↓ sigue hablando§ 3. Luisa: § no§ 4. Elena: § noo/ digo que a ver dónde lo esperamos/ que está en Alacuás// en Mislata1/ que ya viene para acá In this exchange, the interruption is mitigated though the polite excuses Elena proffers in her first intervention (number 2 in the above example).

3.1.2.

Valorizing politeness

This type of politeness, identified in different studies about Spanish-speaking communities (Albelda Marco 2008; Barros García 2011; Bernal 2007; Kaul de Marlangeon 2005), aims at enhancing the interlocutor’s face, something that can be achieved through acts such as direct flattering (addressing, for example, a high intellectual level or a graceful physique), praising property (that is nice and desirable), or praising somebody from the family or circles of friends for their good qualities. (2) [IH.340.A.1] (12–14) Ana muestra unas lámparas a su hermana Victoria. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Victoria: ¿cómo la has encendido↑?§ Ana: § tocando (3”) Victoria: ¡ay! pues sí/ sí que [ilumina=] Ana: [es un mue(ble)] Victoria: = ¡qué cosa más bonita! ¿eh?¡qué original!§

The interaction above occurs between two sisters and inside Anna’s apartment, newly married. Ana is showing the lamps to Victoria, who repeatedly makes compliments during the conversation to praise her sister’s good taste.

3.1.3.

Group politeness

The communicative activities identified as group politeness aim at promoting the relations between the members of a group. There are acts directed at, for example,

Teaching sociopragmatics

135

joint activities (see example (3)), defending the group against negative comments of others, and remembering shared experiences. (3) [J.82.A.1] (559–567) Sergio invita a Jaime a jugar al frontón. 1) Sergio: ((ahora)) VENTE ahora a- a jugar al fronTÓN Jaime// los jueVEES/ por la mañana 2) Jaime: cuando se me cure el constipao 3) Sergio: de once a UNA/ jugamos ahíi/ ((pero)) unas palizas/ pero de muerte ¿eh?// y después la cervecitaa↑ Bernal (2007) postulated a type of inauthentic impoliteness for apparently impolite acts2 (use of insults, denigrating nicknames, among others) that are aimed at the interlocutor but without an interpretation favoring impoliteness or impacting the situation with a negative effect. Such acts form part of a playful style that favors the affinity and the solidarity between participants. Its use is based on a relation of trust and a high degree of interpersonal closeness. (4) [J.82.A.1] (479–489) Juan cuenta a sus amigos que ha empezado a construir una bodega en su casa de campo. 1) Juan: Me estoy haciendo una bodega en Cirat, macho me estoy haciendo una bodega 2) Vicente: ¡calla cabrito! que te vas y no me dices ni pío/ tú 3) Sergio: pero si fue pensao y hecho/ mira era- era un sábado a las ocho de la noche/ y dig(o) ¡hostia!/ yo tengo que (( )) When interpreting the above, from a broad perspective, the term cabrito ‘cocky bastard’ is not considered insulting because there is closeness and familiarity between friends. Indeed, if we restrict the analysis to the form of the utterance, the term is embedded in a directive act, an appeal to silence the interlocutor. However, if we include in the analysis sociopragmatic considerations on how Vicente treats Juan’s face, what is said in line 2 would constitute, firstly, a rebuke to Juan for going to town without Vicente (so that the affiliative face among them may be threatened), while at the same time, Juan’s autonomy face is also enhanced by presenting himself as a person with interesting plans and projects to share somehow. Consulting with other language users may provide support to the analyst’s interpretation and give new perspectives. In this sense, and as presented in Section 4.1.2, informants provided their views on this particular example in a questionnaire about impoliteness. Some of the answers obtained were: it is the typical rebuke among friends, they do not seem to be angry; it is almost a manner of talking to each other; Juan is more impolite for his attitude than Vicente for the expression he uses. Thus, calla cabrito ‘shut up cocky bastard’ is not interpreted as an insult with an effect of

136

María Bernal

impoliteness. Additionally, not fulfilling Juan’s invitation is considered as socially worse than Vicente’s rebuke.

3.1.4.

Ritual politeness

This category results from empirical evidence in everyday meeting situations and home visits. In authentic materials of conversations among Spanish participants, the acts produced by the host are, for example, making offers of food and drink, insisting on the offers, preventing possible failures in making such offers, ensuring the guests’ comfort, showing interest in their issues, health, or family members and significant others. Among the acts produced by the guest are, for example, praising the offers received, praising the host’s belongings or other related aspects, showing interest for their issues and health, their family and significant others, not wanting to cause discomfort, and, finally, interceding on behalf of their children. An example would be the following: in a home visit between relatives and friends, having a guest ask for one more piece of cake before it has been offered is most likely played in the Spanish context as a compliment to the host, as it is a positive confirmation of the offer or even of the host’s ability as a chef (which would enhance its autonomy face in terms of their value as such). Another example of ritual politeness can be found in the following exchange: (5) [L.15.A.2] (1090–1092) Elena le ofrece una bebida a Luis. 1. Elena: ¿Quieres un Jotabé? 2. Luisa: Un Jotabé nada menos↓ que tiene aquí ¿tienes Jotabé? 3. Elena: Sí. In this example, the affirmative response that the guest gives to her host is achieved through praising the quality of the offer.

3.1.5.

Discursive politeness

This type of politeness also emerged as a result of the empirical analysis of authentic conversations among Spanish participants (Bernal 2007). It refers to aspects of discursive and thematic progress, as well as interlocutors’ active participation in conversation. Discursive politeness utilizes the social function of showing interest for the interlocutors as competent speakers and of showing commitment with their discourses, ratifying them as valid narrators. It includes conventional discursive politeness (paying attention, backchannelling, or providing positive feedback) and thematic discursive politeness. In the latter, one can identify acts such as collaborating with the interlocutor by supplying a word that is lacking, confirming, or correcting a term that has been used, sharing similar experiences to those of the interlocutor’s, bringing up issues of concern to the

Teaching sociopragmatics

137

interlocutor, and finally following maintaining or resuming the interlocutor’s conversational topics. Here is an example: (6) [RB.37.B.1] (1–10) Belinda y Claudia (estudiantes) hablan con Aurelia, la señora de la limpieza. 1) Belinda: ¿QUE cuándo iréis al pueblo por fin? 2) Aurelia: ¿al pueblo? ((a ver mañana/ sábado/// pero ¿cómo quiés decir↓ de vaca [ciones↑?] 3) Claudia: [((¡ayy!))]§ 4) Belinda: § sí↓de vacaciones 5) Aurelia: en agosto 6) Belinda: QUE tu marido las tiene en agosto ↓, ¿no?

3.2.

Impoliteness

Impoliteness has been frequently defined as absence of politeness. The interdependence between politeness and impoliteness is found in the theoretical and methodological frameworks based on Brown and Levinson’s ([1978] 1987) seminal work. For example, Culpeper (2005) inverts the set of strategies for politeness and orients them toward the production of impoliteness in the following way (Culpeper 2005, pp. 41–44): (1) bald on record impoliteness: refers to the intention of provoking harm on the interlocutor’s face; (2) positive impoliteness: used to attack a positive face; (2) negative politeness: used to attack a negative face; (4) sarcasm or mock politeness: use of an insincere politeness; (5) withhold politeness: lack of politeness where a polite behavior is expected; (6) off-record impoliteness: produced through indirect forms and implicatures. According to Bernal (2007, p. 73), a critique of Culpeper’s model (2005) is that, on the one hand, strategies identified may correspond to different levels at the same time: what the author proposes as a positive impoliteness (2) and a negative one (3) may be produced directly in (1), concealed in (4), or through implicatures in (6). On the other hand, the clear intention of damaging the interlocutor’s face might be present in more than one strategy. When analyzing impoliteness, it is very important to observe the effects of the interlocutors’ behavior during the interaction; that is to say, the social effect— positive or negative—that the acts have on the interpersonal relationship (Bravo 2003, p. 146), so as to interpret whether impoliteness has been produced. The effect of impoliteness is crucial, for example, to interpret the impact of an insult, an act commonly codified as impolite, but interpreted otherwise depending on situational and contextual factors such as, for example, the use of the expression cabrón (bastard) among friends and with a sense of camaraderie (cf. Section 3.1). The analysis of everyday conversations between Spanish interlocutors enables the identification of different types of impoliteness, which are valid just for the

138

María Bernal

communicative situations analyzed and the sociocultural community under study (cf. Bernal 2007, 2008).

3.2.1.

“Normative” impoliteness

This type of impoliteness meets the expectations of a quarrel between related interlocutors in which the threatening acts (such as blaming and criticizing, among others) do not directly involve a negative interpersonal effect, but on the contrary, help to vent emotions and positively contribute to a settlement. (7) [VC.117.A.1](40–56) Pilar (madre), Carlos (padre) y Mónica (hija) hablan de poner la televisión y grabar un programa. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Pilar: ¡AY AY AY! oye Mónica/ ponme el vídeo Carlos: YA ESTÁ PUESTO Pilar: ¡mira que es!/ ¿eh? Carlos: YA (E)HTÁ PUESTOO Mónica: (A Pilar) °ponn el vídeo que no te lo ha puesto° Pilar: mira que tiene maal ¿eh? yogur/ tiene mal yogur grande§ 7) Carlos: § (alcahueta) 8) Pilar: ¡cállate ya!/// (2´´) no hace más que hablar/ (sandeces) The daughter, Mónica, tells her mother that, contrary to her father’s claims, the recorder is not turned on, hence the discomfort of the mother, Pilar, who, in line 6, makes a negative comment about Carlos with an euphemistic expression (changes the expression “having bad blood” tener mala leche to “having bad yogurt”); Carlos responds with “snitch,” an insult that is actually received by Pilar and answered in line 8. When presenting the above example with a brief description of the situation and the participants (cf. Section 4.1.2), the informants commented as follows below: I find that it is impolite because of the close relationship between family members. Respect is lost when it comes to your own family. He is disrespectful to Pilar, and he even insults her constantly. Carlos is not polite to his wife and daughter, and the daughter with her father. They may be considered too impolite by raising their voices and using imperatives, but it is quite difficult to assert this because the conversation may have a humorous overtone that is not reflected in the transcript. This shows how the analyst’s interpretation and the consultation with the language user can come together to reinforce the interpretation in relation to prevailing sociocultural contents.

3.2.2.

Impoliteness produced by threats that are not attenuated or repaired

This type of impoliteness is oriented as an attack toward the interlocutor’s face, either toward his/her personal worth, social or professional roles, or group face regarding family, friends, or another group membership.

Teaching sociopragmatics

139

(8) [S.65.A.1] (445–450) 1) Ana: ¿yy usted qué le hace a su chiquita/ ee- que le hace rabiar?/ [la pobreta=] 2) Marisa: [(( ))] 3) Ana: =siempre está gri- [siempre está=] 4) Marisa: [(( ))] 5) Ana: = mamá déjame déjame§ 6) Marisa: §sí déjame porque (es que es demasiao↓ ¡hija mía! es que es demasiao) ayer a las diez me llamó por teléfono↑/ mamá prepárame el (( ))/ oye↓ pero bueno pero ese estrés ¿¡para qué!? no↓ no↓ In the consultation conducted (cf. Section 4.1.2), informants’ perception of the situation in example (8) is as follows: Yes, it is offensive, it is very direct. Ana is impolite when invading Marisa’s privacy (but that depends on the degree of trust). It is impolite to meddle and ask about a private situation between mother and daughter (but this depends on the relationship). The informant’s comments, regardless of whether they perceive impoliteness or not, agree on the importance of the relation and the trust between the participants involved in the situation.

3.2.3.

Impoliteness produced by breach of politeness norms

This type of impoliteness refers to acts that break the expectations in the rituals of politeness for certain situations; for example, within encounter situations, not greeting the participants or, in the ritualized situation of a visit, not accepting offers or referring to certain taboo topics, among many others. This also includes self-denigrating acts that are consented by the interlocutor instead of expressing a disagreement. In the following example, Marina, rather than positively value the fact that her friend Felisa has lost two kilos she had previously gained, makes a comment that goes in the opposite direction, pointing out the kilos that she has yet to lose: Well, you still got twenty to go, which can be very threatening for Felisa. In the consultation process, this has been considered impolite by informants, since it seems that Marina, instead of supporting her friend, is laughing at her. (9) [PG.119. A.1] (302–318) Felisa, Marina y Paco son amigos; hablan del peso de Felisa. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Felisa: había engordao dos/ pesaba ochenta y dos (RISAS) Marina: (RISAS) Felisa: ya sabes que me- que me zurzan§ Paco: § va a estar ciento sesenta y tantos↑ Marina: ¡jo(d)er!/// ¿y ahora cuántos? ¿ya los has adelgazao? Felisa: ahora he bajao dos// ahora estoy en ochenta Marina: bueno/ pues aún te sobran veinte

140

4.

María Bernal

Pedagogical implications

Based on the above considerations, the need to use authentic materials for the analysis of (im)politeness phenomena becomes apparent; these materials are also necessary for analyzing the performance of speech acts and the description of sociocultural contents. When presenting authentic colloquial conversations to learners of L2 Spanish, the pedagogical sequence should focus on how language users behave spontaneously. The teacher’s role is that of a facilitator who uses natural communicative situations during the learning process, instead of using made-up examples. As for the purely cultural contents, Koike and Lacorte (2014, p. 27) point out that the objective is “for learners to discuss their own cultural expectations regarding cultural norms, and to compare them to those of the different Hispanic groups, so that they might see their own behaviors and values in light of those of Hispanic cultures.” As Alcón Soler and Martínez-Flor (2008, p. 8) mention, “following a conversation analysis (CA) approach, research has provided information about how learner’s interactional competencies are both resources and objects of learning.” Ishihara (2010) has also drawn attention to the usefulness of naturally occurring data in instructional pragmatics,3 as “the results from empirical work in CA can be directly applicable to the teaching of L2 pragmatics and discourse” (Ishihara 2010, p. 943), something that is in line with Félix-Brasdefer’s (2006) research, who shows the potential of conversational analysis for teaching and learning the pragmatics of a language. Following this, learners of Spanish are able to work with natural Spanish language interactions extracted from corpora gathered by academics and published for the community or accessible through the Internet, as the ones described below. The examples presented so far were extracted from the general corpus of spoken Spanish developed by the research group Val.Es.Co. (Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002). This corpus contains data from the Spanish spoken in the metropolitan area of Valencia (Spain) and is widely used within corpus analysis, pragmalinguistics, and sociopragmatics for the Spanish language. The aim of this research group is to characterize colloquial register (including intonation, word order, and connectors) and study the structure of conversation and its units. The corpus has also provided a language basis for studying politeness phenomena (Albelda Marco 2008; Barros García 2011; Contreras Fernández 2004; Zimmermann 2003). The following section presents methodological instruments that have been developed for the analysis of different sociopragmatic and cultural contents, and that may be applied in the teaching of L2 Spanish in order to expose students to authentic materials and promote their analytical perspectives on this content.

4.1.

Tests of social habits

The study of politeness conducted by researchers in the EDICE Program has been enriched by the use of tests and questionnaires for different varieties of Spanish: e.g., Spain (cf. Hernández Flores 2002, 2006; Contreras Fernández 2004; Bernal 2007), Argentina (Boretti 2003), or Costa Rica (Murillo Medrano 2005). In these tests,

Teaching sociopragmatics

141

interlocutors themselves define and interpret certain communicative behaviors, presented in general or in particular through research materials. Knowing what the “everyman’s interpretation” is enriches the analyst’s interpretation. Boretti (2003) draws attention to the fact that the use of tests of social habits is fruitful as supporting material to comprehend the interlocutors’ sociocultural context and perceptions of what is socially valid in their community. Such metapragmatic information and knowledge on the sociocultural context is crucial in sociopragmatic research to interpret whether a behavior is polite or not in a given situation (Bravo 2003, pp. 103–104). Accordingly, a test of this kind helps the analyst get closer to the perceptions interlocutors have about what is polite or impolite. Within the EDICE Program, the project COSOPRAG—Corpus of Sociopragmatic Information (www.edice.org)—included a discourse completion test for eliciting certain communicative acts in given situations, using the following two general questions: 1) What are the prototypical communicative acts for this situation? and 2) What are the social habits related to these acts? Other questions are used to gather both linguistic and sociocultural information on the prototypical communicative activities under study. Teachers may replicate this type of questionnaire by providing students with language sequences in which they can assess the interlocutors’ behaviors. In this way, learners get an approximation on what language users consider valid and pertinent for a given situation (Bernal and Hernández Flores 2016). Contrastive studies have shown the efficient use of this methodology to deepen the understanding of cultural contents as in, for example, Contreras Fernández (2004) for German-Spanish. Below we present three instruments used in different studies with the aim of researching communicative activities related to face, politeness, and impoliteness, in connection with the socio-cultural contexts relevant to each situation.

4.1.1.

Test of social habits for politeness

Hernández Flores (2002) used this type of questionnaire to gather information on the interlocutors’ representations and evaluations of politeness behavior among family and friends in Spain. The test was a two-part questionnaire: in the first part, participants wrote down what they would say in nine different situations (including asking for something, giving advice, or inviting); in the second one, participants gave their own definitions or views on politeness phenomena. The information obtained had an indicative value, since the interlocutors’ definitions of polite behavior did not necessarily correlate with the ones produced during the interaction (Hernández Flores 2002, p. 45). From her analysis, Hernández Flores (2002) concludes that interlocutors are not concerned with their negative face, contrary to what would be expected in these types of situations according to Brown and Levinson’s theory (cf. Section 2). Also, the author remarks that politeness is considered a manifestation of affection within the family; for instance, participants referred to politeness as the action to help, a purely affiliative behavior. Contreras Fernández (2004) also used this type of test to conduct a contrastive study between Spanish and German. When

142

María Bernal

comparing definitions, in both studies politeness is predominantly considered as an attitude, with a focus on the forms used, the interlocutors’ behaviors and the way of addressing one another, and respect and education are the values most commonly associated with politeness. Offering the seat, greeting, or helping someone are examples of activities that reflect polite behavior. However, cues referring to politeness as a social norm are not comparable in number (22 and 3 respectively). Also, it is interesting to note that informants refer in eleven occasions to the utilitarian and strategic features of politeness; for instance, politeness as a condition to achieve different purposes (Hernández Flores 2002).

4.1.2.

Test of social habits for impoliteness

Regarding impoliteness, Bernal (2007) presented a questionnaire similar to the ones discussed above, but focused on eliciting representations of impolite behavior (the questionnaire is accessible at the following website: www.edice.org). The author used this tool as a supporting analytical instrument to provide evidence on behaviors and values prevailing in the sociocultural group under study, as well as to shed some light on the phenomenon of impoliteness being analyzed in other areas, such as in political discourse (Bolívar 2005) and talk shows (Culpeper 2005). The collected responses came from informants from the metropolitan area of Valencia, since it was considered relevant to access informants’ opinions and perceptions of impoliteness in the same area of the corpus. This methodological decision is to take into account the peculiarities that may exist in a particular cultural community, but also, to enable a valid contrastive analysis with other data, so as to establish similarities and differences with informants from other areas or communities. Specifically, the questionnaire asked participants to: a) Give a definition of impoliteness. b) Narrate an impolite situation experienced or witnessed, and provide more examples where they would observe impoliteness in everyday life. c) Give their opinions about interruptions or overlaps during conversations (with the aim of capturing some aspects of cultural variability). d) Indicate how often they would use offensive expressions, such as tacos (‘taboo words’) and insults when talking to certain people (different family members or friends). e) Indicate whether they use such expressions in the same way with people other than their own gender. f) Indicate whether they would use certain expressions found in the materials analyzed when addressing certain people (including spouse, children, and friends). The previous sections (Section 3, Section 4.1.2) already contain some extracts from the results obtained from the questionnaire. To briefly summarize the results from the questionnaire, impoliteness in informal, colloquial conversations is defined as:

Teaching sociopragmatics

143

a)

A breach of politeness rules (for example, to start eating without all the guests at the table). b) A lack of respect and education (for example, to put a person in a humiliating situation by not showing the deserved respect). c) A behavior aimed at hurting other person’s feelings (that is, not having consideration and offending the other individual).

4.2.

An example of a questionnaire applied in the classroom: Complaints

In general, pragmatic and sociopragmatic contents are not systematically or rigorously presented in textbooks for learning L2 Spanish, at least in the very first stages. It is often left to the discretion of the teacher and their own personal motivation and concern to introduce such language contents in the classroom (cf. Morales Ruiz 2015). In most cases, pedagogical materials do not accurately reflect the sociocultural reality of the Spanish language and its culture with regard to, for example, the speech act of thanking, as De Pablos-Ortega (2011, p. 2424) points out. In a Swedish context, De Matos Lundström (2013) reaches the same conclusion in reviewing secondary-school textbooks most commonly used for teaching L2 Spanish: “Usually the metapragmatic information is not combined with any activities, and the activities that aim to develop communicative skills are not combined with further metapragmatic information” (p. 2). This section briefly presents an application of the above critique. In this case, Swedish students of L2 Spanish designed and answered a questionnaire on the speech act identified as complaint (see Appendix 2). Students had previously enrolled in a course on Pragmatics and Sociopragmatics at a Swedish university, as part of the third (out of four) semester of studies leading to a degree in Spanish. During the course, one of the central topics was the analysis of speech acts related to face management and (im)politeness. They analyzed examples from studies of different varieties of Spanish, trying not to focus on one in particular. The group of 15 students was quite heterogeneous: there were Swedish students (with Swedish as their native language), students from Spanish-speaking countries studying Spanish to complete their teacher-training program for secondary schools, and second-generation students who have Spanish as a heritage language. The last two subgroups were speakers of Peruvian, Spanish Peninsular, Venezuelan, Cuban, and Chilean varieties. Swedish students had experiences with stays in different Spanish-speaking countries. All this led to a rich discussion regarding sociocultural norms and values in different Spanish-speaking communities, as well as many sociocultural hypotheses (cf. Bravo 2003) that were made for the Swedish community in order to make comparisons and contrasts. Students analyzed in great depth rejections, compliments, offers, and complaints, all of these in relation to the notions of face and the social effects of (im)politeness. Students reviewed, among others, the works of Bravo (2012), Félix-Brasdefer (2004), Placencia and Fuentes (2013) and, more specifically for complaints or claims, Bolívar

144

María Bernal

(2002) for Venezuelan Spanish. Having read and analyzed the specialized literature, students were then asked to think of situations that could elicit the use of complaints, handing them out in writing for one given class. The teacher would then proceed to discuss the situations into small groups, asking them to select twelve situations that would take place in very different contexts and with different degrees of formality (in a restaurant, in a shop, among friends, among others). These situations shaped the basic design for the questionnaire (see Appendix 2). During the same class, students proceeded to edit the questionnaire using a computer and projector. The next activity was to administer the questionnaire to a few people who knew Spanish (coworkers who attended other classes, family and friends, among others). The answers obtained were brought to class and discussed in small groups. After the questionnaire, as a pilot study, students themselves realized that some situations should have been formulated differently because of their opaqueness or ambiguity; for example, in a situation where a girlfriend cheats with a best friend (“What would you tell your partner?”), it would have been best to elicit answers from different parties and not just focusing on a single one (“What would you say to your partner and to your best friend?”). Students also commented that they could have included the “Do not say anything” option because, due to a given situation included in the questionnaire (“You’re on the subway and a woman hits you in the face with her elbow”), there may be a tendency not to say a word, as is the case found for the Swedish group, while for the Spanish-speaking group virtually all students would produce a complaint. The classroom activities, both to develop the questionnaire and to review the answers gathered, led to a discussion of the theoretical and methodological topics covered during the course, with thoughts on some of the following questions: 1) 2) 3) 4)

How is face configured in the situations? Is the speech act of complaining produced politely or impolitely? If produced politely, what strategies are being used? What type of politeness best represents the strategy in question? If produced impolitely, what elements are expressing this communicative behavior? Would it be impolite because it is threatening the interlocutor’s face, because it is breaching any norm, or both?

The answers obtained from the ensuing discussion related to the course contents, operating methodologically with a research instrument that was collaboratively created by native and non-native speakers of Spanish and that served the purpose of gathering natural information from participants. The results did not provide widereaching conclusions, but they were valid for the purpose intended. On the one hand, students could specify some differences and similarities between the Swedish sociocultural groups and Spanish-speaking ones, while on the other hand students could engage in a very productive exchange where the importance of taking into account sociocultural contexts was a key for understanding conversational interactions in different Spanish varieties.

Teaching sociopragmatics

5.

145

Conclusion

This chapter introduced the lines of research carried out within the international network EDICE Program (Studies on the Discourse of Politeness in Spanish), in terms of communication strategies for managing face, as discussed by Bravo (1999, 2003, 2005, 2012) and Hernández Flores (2002, 2013), with special attention to activities related to politeness and impoliteness, as referred by Bernal (2007, 2008) for colloquial conversations in Spanish. In addition to authentic materials for the teaching and learning of L2 Spanish or Spanish as a foreign language, the use of tests of social habits is considered a crucial instrument for gathering valuable support material when researching language use. It is one instrument that may enable access to language users’ sociocultural contexts, the way they relate to each other, and their perceptions about what communicative behaviors are socially valid. In the classroom, when teaching sociopragmatic contents, the implications of following these theoretical and methodological frameworks are: a) using authentic materials is needed for showing how the phenomena under study are achieved naturally; b) the tests of social habits can be adapted for specific needs; for example, focusing on a specific speech act, identifying potential face-threatening acts, or analyzing what social effects produce (im)polite communicative behavior on the interaction. Both implications need a close reading of previous studies in the specialized literature, adopting instruments for approaching sociocultural contexts, as well as designing those instruments in the classroom itself. An illustration of the above has been given with the class activity in a Swedish university-level course on Pragmatics and Sociopragmatics. Students analyzed complaints by referring to specialized literature, designing a questionnaire focused on that speech act, submitting the questionnaire to selected informants, and later on discussing the results obtained. The whole process was accompanied by a productive, ongoing discussion on the course contents, particularly on face management, (im)politeness phenomena, and the role of sociocultural context when interpreting language data and analyzing a specific communicative behavior. The heterogeneity of this group of students in terms of their origin from different Spanish-speaking countries, some students’ background as speakers of Spanish as a heritage language, as well as the community membership of the native speakers of Swedish, contributed to a greater awareness of the importance of referring to sociocultural contents when analyzing a specific communicative behavior.

Notes 1 Villages situated in the vicinity of Valencia. 2 A phenomenon identified as “antipoliteness” (anticortesía) by Zimmermann (2003) for teen language. 3 Instructional pragmatics is a term that refers to the educational component of interlanguage pragmatics, aiming to promote the acquisition of sociopragmatic competence (Ishihara 2010, p. 938).

146

María Bernal

References Albelda Marco, M. 2008. “Codificación de la descortesía y variación de su interpretación dependiendo de factores sociales y situacionales.” Pragmatics 18(4): 751–774. Alcón Soler, E. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2008. “Pragmatics in Foreign Language Contexts.” In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, eds. E. Alcón Soler and A. Martínez-Flor, 3–21. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Barros García, M. J. 2011. La cortesía valorizadora en la conversación coloquial española: estudio pragmalingüístico. Granada: University of Granada. Bernal, M. 2007. “Categorización sociopragmática de la cortesía y de la descortesía: Un estudio de la conversación coloquial española.” PhD diss., Stockholm University. http:// urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-6758. Bernal, M. 2008. “Do Insults Always Insult? Genuine Impoliteness versus Non-Genuine Impoliteness in Colloquial Spanish.” Pragmatics 18(4): 775–802. Bernal, M. and N. Hernández Flores. 2016. “Variación sociopragmática en la enseñanza de español: Aplicación didáctica de un cuestionario de hábitos sociales.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(2): 114–126. Bolívar, A. 2002. “Los reclamos como actos de habla en el español de Venezuela.” In Actos de habla y cortesía en español, eds. M. E. Placencia and D. Bravo, 37–54. Munich: Lincom Europa. Bolívar, A. 2005. “La descortesía en la dinámica social y política.” In Actas del Segundo Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. J. Murillo Medrano, 137–164. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica—Programa EDICE. Blum-Kulka, S. [1997] 2002. “Pragmática del discurso.” In El discurso como interacción social, ed. T. A. van Dijk, 67–99. Barcelona: Gedisa. Boretti, S. 2003. “Test de hábitos sociales y la investigación de la cortesía.” In Actas del Primer Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. D. Bravo, 109–120. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Bravo, D. 1999. “¿Imagen ‘positiva’ vs. imagen ‘negativa’? Pragmática sociocultural y componentes de face.” Oralia.:Análisis del Discurso Oral 2: 155–184. Bravo, D. 2003. “Actividades de cortesía, imagen social y contextos socioculturales: Una introducción.” In Actas del Primer Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. D. Bravo, 98–108. Stockholm: Stockholm University. Bravo, D. 2005. “Categorías, tipologías y aplicaciones: Hacia una redefinición de la ‘cortesía comunicativa’.” In Estudios de la (des)cortesía en español: Categorías conceptuales y aplicaciones a corpora orales y escritos, ed. D. Bravo, 21–52. Buenos Aires: Dunken. Bravo, D. 2012. “Cortesía lingüística y comunicativa en español.” In Fundamentos y modelos del estudio pragmático y sociopragmático del español, eds. S. de los Heros and M. Niño-Murcia, 83–115. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Briz, A. and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002. Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Anejo de la Revista Oralia. Madrid: Arco-Libros. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. [1978] 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Contreras Fernández, J. 2004. El uso de la cortesía y las sobreposiciones en las conversaciones: Un análisis contrastivo alemán-español. PhD diss., Universitat de València. Culpeper, J. 2005. “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 35–72. De Matos Lundström, A. 2013. Los aspectos pragmáticos en manuales suecos de español como lengua extranjera: Su contribución al desarrollo de la competencia pragmática en el bachillerato. MA diss., Stockholm University.

Teaching sociopragmatics

147

De Pablos-Ortega, C. 2011. “The Pragmatics of Thanking Reflected in the Textbooks for Teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2411–2433. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2004. “La mitigación en el discurso oral de mexicanos y aprendices de español como lengua extranjera.” In Pragmática sociocultural: estudios sobre el discurso de cortesía en español, eds. D. Bravo and A. Briz, 285–299. Barcelona: Ariel. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. “Teaching the Negotiation of Multi-Turn Speech Acts: Using Conversation-Analytic Tools to Teach Pragmatics in the FL Classroom.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. S. Omar, 165–198. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A.D. Cohen (2012). “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Hernández Flores, N. 2002. “La cortesía en la conversación española de familiares y amigos: La búsqueda de equilibrio entre la imagen del hablante y la imagen del destinatario.” PhD diss., Aalborg University. Hernández Flores, N. 2006. “Actividades de autoimagen, cortesía y descortesía: Tipos de actividades de imagen en un debate televisivo.” In Discurso y sociedad: Contribuciones al estudio de la lengua en contexto social, ed. J. L. Blas Arroyo, 637–648. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I. Hernández Flores, N. 2013. “Actividad de imagen: Caracterización y tipología en la interacción comunicativa.” Sociocultural Pragmatics: International Journal of Spanish Linguistics 1(2): 175–198. Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Education.” Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10): 938–953. Kaul de Marlangeon, S. 2005. “Descortesía intragrupal-crónica en la interacción coloquial de clase media-baja del español rioplatense.” In Actas del Segundo Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. J. Murillo Medrano, 165–179. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica—Programa EDICE. Koike, D. and M. Lacorte. 2014. “Toward Intercultural Competence: From Questions to Perspectives and Practices of the Target Culture.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(1): 15–30. Matsumoto, Y. 1988. “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 12(4): 403–426. Meier, A. J. 1995. “Passages of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 24(4): 381–392. Morales Ruiz, J. 2015. Competencia sociopragmática en aprendientes de ELE: Un estudio cualitativo sobre factores incidentes en el aula de bachillerato. MA diss., Stockholm University. Murillo Medrano, J. 2005. “Significados de la cortesía lingüística a partir de la aplicación de un test de hábitos sociales en Costa Rica.” In Actas del Segundo Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. J. Murillo Medrano, 115–136. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica—Programa EDICE. Placencia, M. E. and C. Fuentes. 2013. “Cumplidos de mujeres universitarias en Quito y Sevilla: Un estudio de variación pragmática regional”. Sociocultural Pragmatics: International Journal of Spanish Linguistics 1(1): 100–134. Zimmermann, K. 2003. “Constitución de la identidad y anticortesía verbal entre jóvenes masculinos hablantes de español.” In Actas del Primer Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. D. Bravo, 47–59. Stockholm: Stockholm University.

148

María Bernal

Appendix 1. Transcription conventions (adapted from Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co, 2002) 1., 2., 3. §

Each of the interventions of a speaker. Immediate succession, without noticeable pause between two emissions of different speakers. = Maintenance of turn of a participant in an overlap. [ Place where an overlap or superposition begins. ] End of simultaneous talk. Restarts and self-interruptions without a pause. / Short pause, less than half a second. // Pause between half of a second and second. /// Pause of a second or more. (5 “) Silence (lapse or interval) of five seconds; the number of seconds is indicated in the pauses of more than one second, where it is especially significant. ↑ Rising intonation. ↓ Falling intonation. → Maintained or suspended intonation. HEAVY Marked or emphatic pronunciation (two or more uppercase letters). (( )) Indecipherable fragment. ((Always)) Doubtful transcription. (hea) vy Reconstruction of a lexical unit that was pronounced incomplete, when understanding is needed. h Aspiration of implosive “s”. (LAUGHTER, COUGHING) Comments that appear outside the utterances. aa Lengthening of vowels. nn Lengthening of consonants. ¿¡ !? Exclamatory questions. ¿? Interrogations. Also for tags such as “right?, uh?, you know?” ! Exclamations. Italics: Reproduction and imitation of utterances. Direct style, characteristic of the so-called conversational narration. Bold: Fragment the analyst wants to highlight in the analysis.

Appendix 2. Questionnaire on complaints made by students of L2 Spanish in the classroom. DATOS DE LOS INFORMANTES. Marca con una X y rellena los espacios donde sea apropiado. Sexo: (M) (F) Edad: (15–25) (26–55) (más de 56) Nivel/curso: (1) (2) (3) (4) Otros ____________ Idioma:

Teaching sociopragmatics

149

Español como lengua materna (nativo) ( ) País de origen ______________ Español como lengua de herencia (2a generación) ( ) País de origen Sueco ( ) Otro ( ) ____________ Cantidad de años como estudiante de español ____________________ Estancias en países de habla hispana (duración y lugar) 1.

SITUACIONES. Escribe del modo más espontáneo posible lo que dirías tú/ diría la persona en cuestión en estas situaciones. Situación 1 Has comprado un sofá muy caro. Después de solo un mes de uso, se rompe. Llamas a la tienda donde lo compraste y dices: Situación 2 En el restaurante pides una arepa rellena de huevos de codorniz y cuando te la estás comiendo te percatas que el relleno no es con huevos de esa ave sino con huevos de gallina, te diriges hacia el mesero y le dices: Situación 3 Estás en un restaurante con la familia cenando. El camarero no está haciendo su trabajo bien, tarda en servirles, se le cae la coca-cola encima de tu plato y no es nada agradable. ¿Qué haces/dices? Situación 4 Al llegar al aeropuerto y recoger tu equipaje enviado de forma especial y de costo adicional, sientes, al mover el paquete, que el contenido se ha roto. Te acercas a información y dices: Situación 5 El cajero de un restaurante usualmente se queda dormido sentado en su silla frente al mostrador, su jefe lo ha pillado 3 días seguidos en una misma semana. ¿Qué le dice? Situación 6 Estás en el metro yendo al trabajo, estás tranquilo escuchando música y leyendo el periódico. De repente, una señora te pasa y te pega con su codo en la cara. ¿Qué le dices? Situación 7 Es tu cumpleaños y a tu hermano se le olvida. No te llama, no te manda ninguna carta. Cuando sí te llama una semana más tarde, le dices:

150

María Bernal

Situación 8 Has quedado para tomar un café con un amigo íntimo. Un día, hace tiempo, le prestaste 100 coronas, todavía te acuerdas de este momento y todavía te molesta no haber recibido el dinero de vuelta, ahora se van a ver de nuevo. ¿Qué haces/ dices? Situación 9 Cada vez que el novio se queda a dormir en casa de la novia, le deja el asiento del inodoro subido; también le deja la ropa tirada el suelo. ¿Qué le dice ella al novio? Situación 10 Es domingo y son las 10 de la noche. Te preparas para irte a dormir, cuando tu vecino del piso superior enciende el aparato de sonido a todo volumen. Asomas la cabeza por el balcón. ¿Qué le gritas? Situación 11 Recibes una prueba corregida por tu profesor y ves que ha corregido mal y que te faltan varios puntos. ¿Qué le dices? Situación 12 Tu novia te engaña con tu mejor amigo. ¿Qué le dices?

8 DEVELOPING L2 SPANISH DISCURSIVE-PRAGMATIC ABILITY IN A PERSUASIVE GENRE AT AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL Cecilia Sessarego

1.

Introduction

There seems to be general agreement among L2 Spanish practitioners that the goal of language programs should be to help learners acquire functional language ability for them to navigate a wide range of texts and fields (MLA 2007, my emphasis). In order to meet curricular outcomes, L2 Spanish teachers are therefore faced with the challenge of articulating lexis, grammar, communicative functions, and pragmatics in classroom pedagogical activities. If we look at L2 Spanish instructional materials, for instance, intermediate level textbooks, they include dialogues (e.g., planning a trip, job interviews, and invitations) in which some speech acts are addressed (e.g., requests, suggestions, etc.), and composition activities (e.g., a biography, essays about art) for the production of descriptive, narrative, argumentative, or expository texts. Written work focuses on the right or wrong application of a good number of grammatical rules in mainly stand-alone sentences, semantic meaning, informative or descriptive content, and some basic organizational features of texts. Written activities rarely address a “real” writer and reader, have a communicative purpose, or specific situated context. The roles and context are educational, student (writer)-teacher (reader) and the purpose is to demonstrate linguistic ability in an assignment. The overall aim is to start building learners’ writing skills as academic preparation to write literary essays in literature courses. If instruction is to aim at integrating lexis, grammar, communicative functions, and pragmatics of authentic culturally produced texts, a shift in perspective is needed from the current syllabus focus on the accumulation of discrete lexical and grammatical items. Grammar should be re-conceptualized as serving the speaker’s intentions and meaning in contexts of language use. In this respect, Koike (2008, p. 33) proposes focusing on a “usage-based, contextualized approach to the structure of the language” and “to conceive grammar as

152

Cecilia Sessarego

connected discourse.” From this point of view, there is a growing body of research on L2 Spanish pragmatic competence and discourse that can inform instruction (e.g., Koike and Pearson 2005; Félix-Brasdefer 2008; Koike 2010). The focus of instructional models has been on the grammar-pragmatics connections for the expression of speech acts (e.g., requests, refusals, suggestions, etc.) in oral interaction by means of short dialogues and role-plays of mini scenarios (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer 2006; Koike 2008; Sessarego 2009; Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012). Given that the prevalent goal of L2 Spanish instruction is to help learners become linguistically and culturally functional in a wide range of texts and fields, we can gather that pragmatic competence in a greater scope of communicative events and texts (oral, written, hybrid, and digital) should also be the subject of research and be addressed in pedagogical models. The theoretical and pedagogical framework presented in this chapter addresses L2 Spanish pragmatics on the basis of genre and communicative purpose (Askehave and Swales 2001). The concept of genre broadens the spectrum of texts from the target culture that can be used in the classroom to develop learners’ communicative competence. As Bhatia (2002) puts it, genre analysis can provide insights into the complex and dynamic world of texts, as it relates textual products to the discursive conventionalized practices of a cultural community. Texts are assigned to genres on the basis of their shared contexts, schematic structure, content, and communicative purposes (i.e., speeches, application letters, promotional brochures, business reports, etc.). Surface level properties of texts (lexico-grammatical, semantic, organizational, etc.), are dependent on communicative purpose and the roles of interactants and context. Therefore, an approach focused on pragmatics and genre brings to the fore the aspects of genre as social constructs that are mostly ignored in the L2 Spanish classroom: speaker/writer, communicative purpose, specific context, schematic structure, and hearer/reader. The pedagogical model presented in this chapter uses the concept of genre as a macrolevel term to offer learners access to social ways of communicating in various contexts in the target culture, and to teach students how to act in a purposeful, meaningful way in such contexts. First, the aim is to provide students with metapragmatic resources that assist them in developing awareness of the pragmatic features of genres. Second, the focus is on the acquisition of linguistic and text-based strategies for the expression of communicative purposes in their own production of generic texts. As an example, I will specifically address the discourse structure and pragmatics of the speech genre (an address to an audience) in Spanish as a persuasive communicative event. Naturally, a focus on developing learners’ L2 pragmatic competence through genres necessarily involves the social communication/interaction aspects of learning. Unlike prevalent cognitive approaches to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) that view cognition as an all in the mind, rule-governed process, the proposed perspective on the development of pragmatic language ability draws on sociocognitive (Atkinson 2011) and complex systems (Larsen-Freeman 2011) theoretical approaches to SLA. These perspectives are aligned with the notion of genres, in that L2 learning is viewed as the acquisition of the discursive conventionalized

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

153

practices of a cultural community. In situated contexts, learners acquire an L2 from “meaningful participation in the environment” (Atkinson 2011, p. 150). Additionally, a concept-based learning approach can help raise learners’ awareness of how full texts are created by the L2 target culture and belong to “families” of similar texts. Learners analyze and make use of generic concepts (communicative purpose, context, interactants, schematic structure, and linguistic items to achieve such purpose) for their own production of purposeful texts. Moreover, following a constructivist approach, students are active agents in acquisition processing, as they explore and use the new concepts of real-life genres. The sample task presented is based on a hybrid oral and written text of the speech genre. Intermediate level L2 Spanish learners analyze the genre and then construct their own discourse, integrating lexis, grammar, and pragmatic purposes of the genre.

2.

Genre

In the field of genre analysis, the concept of genre has for some time been defined, as Ifantidou (2011, p. 331) puts it, in terms of “formulaic prototypes.” Texts belonging to a genre show certain obligatory linguistic characteristics (Reyes 1998) and are classified into genres according to type, such as literary, poetic, scientific, descriptive, argumentative, etc. This kind of analysis is classificatory of the formal aspects of texts and generally leaves aside the dynamism of social action, such as the contextual and pragmatic aspects of genres. On the other hand, a conception of genres as “social constructs” has become more prevalent lately across various areas of study. Communicative purpose has been considered a central criterion for deciding whether a particular discourse falls within a particular generic category (i.e., speech, advertising, letter of application) (Askehave and Swales 2001). Swales (1990, p. 58) states in his definition of genre: A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. However, similar properties of texts such as communicative purpose or linguistic features are frequently not sufficient to assign texts to particular genres. For instance, some texts of a genre can have multiple social purposes or not share similar linguistic components. Bhatia (1997) notes that we all manage to identify individual generic artifacts, yet in the real world they are often seen in hybrid, mixed, and embedded forms. Notwithstanding the fluid nature of generic texts and the complexities of assigning texts to specific genres, Bawarshi and Reiff (2010) observe that the conception of genres as typified rhetorical ways of interacting within recurring situations has greatly influenced the study and teaching of writing.

154

2.1.

Cecilia Sessarego

Written, spoken and new genres: Pedagogical applications

How to address genre knowledge in educational contexts has varied across approaches (e.g., genres in literary, sociological traditions, professional contexts) and their specific pedagogical conditions (Bawarshi and Reiff 2010). Sociological traditions view genres as complex social actions involving social roles and relationships, and stress that learners should gain deeper understandings of the values and expectations underlying genres. On the other hand, Swales’s (1990) perspective focuses on conventionalized linguistic and rhetorical actions to carry out communicative purposes in situated communicative events in discourse communities. Researchers and teachers in North America, Australia, Brazil, France, and Switzerland, in a variety of disciplines (e.g., applied linguistics, TESOL, literary theory), have analyzed genres and created pedagogical applications with a marked focus on communicative purpose and linguistic/schematic features. Specifically, in the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Swales’s (1990), and later Swales and Feak’s (1994) work has been very effective in helping nonnative speakers of English gain access and participate in various academic contexts. Bawarshi and Reiff (2010) provide the instructional steps showing how such a genre analysis approach has been implemented in ESP: a) identification of a genre within a discourse community and definition of the communicative purpose the genre is expected to achieve, b) examination of the genre’s schematic structure—often characterized by rhetorical “moves,” and c) examination of the textual and linguistic features (style, grammar, syntax, tone) that realize the rhetorical moves. The process is not linear or static, and the focus on lexico-grammatical features attends to the genre’s communicative purpose and the discourse community. Analysis goes from context to text. In terms of spoken discourse, Crystal (1997) offers a description of the differences between speech and writing, as well as an analysis of mixed-medium texts (written/ oral). During speech, participants are usually present, the speaker has a particular addressee or several in mind, speech is spontaneous, and typically face-to-face. Production is immediately revisable and prosodically rich. Mixed-medium texts (e.g., speeches, telephone messages written down, police statements) share features of oral discourse, such as a particular addressee and almost immediate production, but in terms of written discourse, mixed-medium texts can allow for repeated reading and compact expression. Furthermore, other types of genres as texts in new media contexts are constantly changing. Crystal (2010) states that texts can vary greatly, from webpages to chat groups. These media genres are not totally new in that they show features of traditional written and oral texts, although with additional features (i.e., webpages with hyperlinks). Askehave and Nielsen (2005) indicate that new genres born with the Internet can share several features with already existing genres and discourses from printed and oral media. In their analysis of a number of commercial homepages on websites, they find that these homepages’ main characteristics replicate promotional and news texts, such as the exordium (that goes back to Aristotle and classical

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

155

rhetoric) as the introductory part of an oral speech that indicates the content and structure of the presentation that follows. Clearly, there is a great variety of written, spoken, and new digital text genres— with their own specific pragmatic features—that could be addressed in educational contexts. No matter the medium, genre analysis can help identify communicative purposes and rhetorical actions in situated events of a cultural community. Results of pedagogical applications in the field of ESP in academic contexts lend support to the implementation of a generic perspective in L2 Spanish contexts.

2.2.

Genres in the Spanish-speaking world

Swales’s (1990) work on analyzing genres has also played a central role in the Spanishspeaking world, as his text-based theory influenced studies directed at genres in the academy and the professions. Bolívar and Parodi (2014) state that investigation of Academic Discourse (AD) in Spanish as a mother tongue began in some universities following ESP’s principles, and has focused particularly on research genres such as the article and its sub-genres. Examples of genre analysis of Professional Discourse (PD) include the sales promotional letter (Bosch 1997) and commercial correspondence (Hsu 2008). Moreover, a focus on Spanish for specific purposes to address the occupational needs of learners has resulted in university courses such as Business Spanish or Spanish for Medicine. However, Bolívar and Parodi (2014) point out that genre analysis has a relatively short history in the Spanish-speaking context, and they emphasize the need for researchers interested in applying linguistics to the teaching of Spanish and specialized languages for specific purposes. With respect to spoken genres, specifically L2 Spanish Pragmatics research and pedagogical models, the focus has been on face-to-face, spontaneous oral interaction between L2 learners and native speakers. These studies have led the way in paying attention to the communicative purposes of texts, a key criterion of a Swalesian view of genre analysis. Speech acts (i.e., requests, invitations, refusals, suggestions, etc.) to carry out such functions have been studied in learners’ participation in roleplays and written open-ended dialogues mainly at a high-beginner/intermediate level. Further discussion and greater detail will be provided in Section 4 below. These research studies have yielded unique understanding about learners’ development of pragmatic competence in spoken genres, which, together with research on AD and PD genre analysis in Spanish, provide insights for this chapter’s proposed pedagogical plan.

3.

A socio-cognitive perspective of SLA

To frame an L2 instructional approach it is necessary to take into consideration the insights on acquisition from SLA research, which, as Van Patten and Benati (2010, pp. 29–36) pointed out, “cannot speak to the day-to-day issues confronted by teachers” but “might lead to a better set of expectations regarding the interface

156

Cecilia Sessarego

between teaching and acquisition.” In this sense, the proposed pedagogical approach is based on insights from cognitive and social approaches to SLA. For the prevalent traditional cognitive conception of acquisition, learning consists of an all-in-the-mind, rule-governed process of accretion of grammatical structures. On the other hand, a socially situated perspective conceives of grammar as emergent (Hopper 1998, p. 118) and as “a vaguely defined set of sedimented . . ., recurrent partials whose status is constantly being renegotiated” in use. For Atkinson (2011, p. 146) grammar is “a reflex of discourse—the always-in-process result of real time language use . . . Apparent grammatical stabilities are the result of the sedimentation of repeated language-situation correspondences in personal and social memory.” Nonetheless, by adopting a social view on grammar, there is an important role for cognition, though in its revised form as conceived by a socio-cognitive approach to SLA. Instead of considering it as an abstract, all-in-the-mind psychological process, cognition is viewed as situated cognition, “an open biological system designed by evolution and experience to align sensitively with the ambient environment (Atkinson 2011, p. 144)”. Larsen-Freeman’s (2011, p. 49) considers language to be a “complex adaptive system, which emerges bottom-up from interactions of multiple agents in speech communities. The system is adaptive because it changes to fit new circumstances, which are also themselves continually changing.” Clearly, a socio-cognitive approach to SLA supports the idea that the acquisition of grammar takes place in situated communicative events where participants achieve their pragmatic goals. Classes of communicative events, or genres, recur in a target culture, so by repeatedly participating in them, learners get opportunities to make the language-situation relationships needed for acquisition. Moreover, a socio-cognitive perspective is aligned with the notion of genre that frames the proposed discursive-pragmatic instructional approach. Bawarshi and Reiff (2010, p. 79) view genres as forms of situated cognition, as “for genres to perform actions, they must be connected to cognition, since how we know and how we act are related to one another.” On the premise that, for language learning to occur, learners need to negotiate their intentions in relation to genres’ social expectations, genres can be considered appropriate communicative texts to help develop learners’ functional language ability. By engaging in the analysis and production of specific genres, learners can acquire not only the textual linguistic regularities, but also “the cultural knowledge that conceptually frames and mediates how we understand and typically act within various situations” (Bawarshi and Reiff 2010, p. 4). Research on L2 Spanish pragmatic learning of some spoken genres seems to indicate that instruction is effective in helping students make language-situation relationships needed for acquisition.

4.

L2 Spanish pragmatic pedagogy of spoken genres

Most L2 Spanish pragmatic pedagogical models focused on speech acts have explored Swales’s main features of genres in the specific oral texts that were addressed: a) communicative purpose, b) pragmatic features of speaker/hearer and other contextual

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

157

aspects, c) conversational sequences, and d) the linguistic features that realize the speech acts in question. With regard to communicative purposes, instruction has addressed requests, apologies, compliments, compliment responses, expressions of gratitude, directives, suggestions, advice, invitations, refusals, and reprimands. For the situated context, interlocutors generally included Spanish L2 learners and Native Speakers, peers, service agents, and faculty in everyday transactional contexts. Importantly, particular attention was paid to formal or informal politeness conceptions and sociocultural variations (Koike and Pearson 2005). Additionally, several studies on Spanish Pragmatics (e.g., Curcó and De Fina 2002; Márquez-Reiter and Placencia 2004) have provided a deep understanding of many regional linguistic and politeness differences. Martínez-Flor (2006) proposes a model that addresses both pragmatic and intercultural competence, by making comparisons of how cultural beliefs inform speech behavior. Félix-Brasdefer’s (2006) model to be taught at an intermediate level addresses refusal responses to an invitation or offer. Differences in refusal responses by native speakers of Spanish and English, regional varieties of Spanish, and gender perceptions are analyzed through conversation analysis. Concerning the schematic structure of the oral texts, some studies have examined speech act sequences in discourse. For example, for transactions in several service encounters (i.e., at a store, hotel, market, travel agency) generic sequences included greeting, request, providing information, asking for information, negotiating, payment, and farewell (Sessarego 2009). In generic invitations, the sequence involves a greeting, invitation-refusal, insistence-response, and farewell (Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012). From a conversation analysis and speech act theory standpoint, the pragmatic aspects of oral communication addressed were the organization of turns, speech act sequences, and mitigation in refusals (Félix-Brasdefer 2008). As to the linguistic indexes, all studies have focused on the grammar-functions mappings learners need to make when expressing prototypical speech acts. In terms of tasks, instructional models have generally used mini-scenarios as trigger texts, and, in broad terms, included the following instructional steps: a) an input stage, b) an awareness-analysis-discussion stage (pragmalinguistic, sociocultural, regional variation), c) a practice stage, and d) a final discussion/review of performance. Tasks consist of mainly role-plays and discourse completion texts in written form or online, where the pragmatic targets are speech acts at the discourse level in oral interaction. All in all, the pedagogical models focused on speech acts address the most important generic features of the oral conversation texts that were analyzed. As to the socio-cognitive aspects of acquisition, the input provided is a natural context where native speakers’ typified ways of interacting are present. Learners participate actively in real interactions where they co-construct meaning with the native speaker interlocutors. As to cognitive processing, most instructional models explicitly address pragmalinguistic awareness and provide learners with metapragmatic resources for their own production. Learners make the grammar-functions connections to express their specific purposes.

158

Cecilia Sessarego

Indeed, the focus on speech acts and the most common functions in every day conversational oral interaction has found its way into Spanish textbooks and materials. However, since pragmatics is embedded and manifested in a culture’s wide scope of discourse genres through a variety of media (oral, written, digital texts, etc.), pragmatic competence is also needed to effectively understand and produce texts of such genres. Unlike the spoken genre described above, in other kinds of genres, there is a more compact structure, communication may not be face-to-face, the hearer/reader may not provide an immediate spoken response. The speaker/writer’s audience may be composed of not only one individual who participates in the communicative event, but of many hearers/readers who may have different responses. Thus, the challenge for L2 Spanish pragmatic instruction is to further develop pragmatic competence through a wide range of texts and fields. To this purpose, this chapter presents a pedagogical model based on a Swalesian view of genre.

5.

A discursive-pragmatic teaching-learning framework based on genre

The purpose of using the notion of genre for L2 pragmatic instruction does not simply consist of providing models of genre analysis and classification of texts for learners to replicate. Bhatia (2002, p. 5) points out the two most recurring myths in language pedagogy: a) Genre theory encourages simple reproductions of discourse forms, and hence represents a rather simplified view of the world, b) Genre-based descriptions are static and hence their pedagogical and other applied linguistic applications discourage understanding and use of creativity and transfer of skills across other discourse forms. Paltridge (1995) also states that genre analysis in language pedagogy should be seen as versatile and dynamic, and with a natural propensity for innovation. In this regard, Swales’s (1990) first step of his task-based genre approach addresses the issue. For the particular genre of request letters, students are provided with not one but several samples of the genre for them to analyze similarities and differences. Learners then examine the sentence and word choice and appropriateness to the situation and afterwards compose their own letters. By analyzing the variability of communicative purposes of the request letter samples and the linguistic forms, students become aware that request letters do not follow only one prototype. In fact, the notion of generic categories of texts as an analytical tool is useful for instructors and students to conceive texts as part of “families” (i.e., speeches, letters of application, advertisements, and reports). The texts share some common features in terms of their discourse structure, pragmatic purpose, context, and participants, though not necessarily in terms of all these aspects. This “macro” concept comprises similar texts that can show some variability. For instance, within the genre of “speeches,” a speech can be delivered by the president of a

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

159

university to students or a student can make a speech to fellow students to run for president of the Students’ Association. These speeches share some discourse features (rhetorical moves) and an inherent communicative purpose of persuasion, but the content, several linguistic features, and relationships between interactants will certainly vary. To summarize, on the basis of the discussion so far, the following main concepts and understandings will guide the design of generic tasks: a)

Genres are classes of communicative events which show typified ways of interacting to achieve social goals within discourse communities (i.e., academia, business, scientific, legal). b) Generic texts are of many types and occur through spoken, written, hybrid (oral/written), virtual, and new media. c) Genres of texts have communicative purposes and are made up of rhetorical moves or functional units (Swales 1990), which are meant to achieve the overall communicative goal of the genre. Texts are created within a situated context with specific interactants. d) L2 Pragmatics and genre learning are based on a socio-cognitive approach to SLA: attention is paid to both the cognitive and social processes involved in planning social action, and adapting grammar/pragmatics to the specific features of situated communicative events. e) Combined genre and L2 pragmatics pedagogical frameworks mostly consist of these steps: a) provision of authentic samples of generic texts, b) pragmatic awareness raising by examining communicative purpose, context, and interactants, c) analysis of schematic structure, d) learners’ practice in social interaction, and e) discussion/evaluation of pragmatic performance. f) Instruction based on a constructivist task-based view (Nunan 2004) appears to have worked well to address L2 Spanish pragmatics in classroom contexts (mainly role-plays). g) Current research indicates that learners can make grammar-function connections to express speech acts in oral interaction at high-beginner and intermediate levels of proficiency. As noted, L2 Spanish research studies and pedagogical models on the development of pragmatic competence have so far only examined speech acts in oral conversation of a transactional kind. The proposed pedagogical frame based on genre draws useful insights from these studies, but adopting the construct of genre as a unit of analysis will involve a new set of challenges. In the case of current SFL pragmatic models, spoken texts have one communicative purpose, which is associated with the speech act in question. Pragmatic competence is assessed on the basis of the successful expression of such speech acts and effectively carrying out the dialogic sequence in mini scenarios. On the other hand, the proposed generic approach can use a great variety of full-length texts of specific genres (i.e., reports, e-mail messages, etc.), which may include a number of different functional moves

160

Cecilia Sessarego

to achieve their overall communicative purpose. The schematic structure can be more complex than a short sequence of transactional exchanges among interlocutors. Unlike spoken discourse that is loosely structured, a mix of linguistic features of oral and written language may be needed to build a coherent and cohesive discourse toward the overall purpose. With a generic approach, pragmatic competence will need to be assessed more broadly than in terms of the pragmalinguistics of specific speech acts and the completion of a short dialogic sequence. Nevertheless, the challenge must be undertaken, as a genre approach to teaching L2 pragmatics opens the door to other kinds of dynamics of communicative events within discourse communities of the target culture. The purpose is to make learners aware that a target culture has typified ways of interacting to achieve its social functions, and that genres’ “flexible scripts” can help them communicate effectively in the L2 in similar situations. For example, for the topic of university life, students can explore and produce the genre of invitations. The communicative purpose is to invite/encourage fellow students to join a Hispanic students’ club or association, or to participate in a particular cultural event. As a sample for analysis, the following site of the International Exchange Erasmus Student Network invites students to become tutors in the Erasmus program in Europe: http://www.esn-uah.org/programatutor-erasmus. Other genres and texts with various communicative purposes may be appropriate on the topics of intermediate level syllabi. Most importantly, the learning of a topic, lexis, and grammar should not be an end in itself, this knowledge should be applied to the creation of an actual text with a real communicative purpose.

5.1.

Integrative tasks based on genre at an intermediate level of proficiency: A focus on speeches as a genre of persuasive texts

Classical rhetoric can be considered an important precedent of current linguistic/ pragmatic models of texts. Burton (2007) includes Quintilian’s rhetorical terms for the discourse structure of speeches, which Bosch (1997) utilized when examining a request letter. I have adapted these rhetorical features for the specific case of student speeches (written to be read aloud) addressed in this chapter. The functional components of a speech are as follows: a)

Introduction (exordium): the speaker announces the subject and purpose and also uses persuasive appeal to create credibility with the audience. b) Topic (narratio): the speaker provides a narrative account or explains the case. c) Purpose (partitio/propositio): the speaker outlines what follows in terms of the issue and the purpose of the speech. d) Appeal to action (peroratio): the speaker summarizes the information and tries to obtain a favorable attitude in the audience. These elements show that speeches are mainly persuasive texts as their communicative purpose is to influence the audience to agree with the speaker’s position or

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

161

to take some action. In the proposed pedagogical approach, the object of analysis is a persuasive text as it intends to influence the receiver to act in a certain way. As a sample for analysis and production, I have chosen the speech genre for several reasons. First, its pragmatic features can be quite clearly identified. There is a clear communicative purpose to persuade hearers/readers to take action. Learners are speakers/writers, fellow students of Spanish or native speakers are hearers/readers. The context is the Spanish-speaking community of students in an Anglophone university who are familiar with the topic (e.g., the environment, work/volunteering, politics, and university life) and also engage in social activities related to such topics. For the schematic structure, or sequential moves (Swales 1990), there exists a clear rhetorical sequence for speeches. As to the linguistic items to carry out those moves, several speeches related to the specific topic can be used as samples for analysis. Moreover, it is possible within this specific university context to get to know the pragmatic impact or interpretation of the interlocutors or readers through surveys or oral feedback. Second, in terms of addressing communication outcomes of an intermediate level course, the speech genre can be used to integrate lexis, grammar, and pragmatics related to a specific topic in the syllabus, in that it addresses the choice of lexis and grammar needed for its specific communicative purpose. It is assumed that, from instruction in the previous semesters, learners will be familiar with present indicative, some uses of the present subjunctive mood, informal and formal imperative, simple future, preterite and imperfect tenses. Vocabulary related with the topic at hand will have been addressed through a variety of pre-task practice activities. Speech samples for analysis can be found on the Internet or in some instructional materials. One example of a speech related to the topic of university life and politics is Una candidata a representante estudiantil, which can be found in Fuentes, the Lab Manual, by Rusch et al. (2011, p. 38). This sample speech text was explored in two L2 Spanish intermediate (4th semester) classes in a university context. Rhetorical features of the genre of speeches were addressed in a holistic way, as the focus of instruction was on the indicative-subjunctive mood contrast, in particular the cohesive discursive function performed by the present subjunctive in speakers’ comments (Sessarego 2016). The instructional model presented in this chapter adopts the concept of genre to examine speeches in more detail in terms of communicative purpose and other pragmatic features.

5.2 Instructional plan Step 1: Analysis of the generic text’s pragmatic features and schematic structure (by the instructor). The particular speech intent is to persuade young people to become volunteers for a cause, at an agency, etc. • •

Discourse genre: speech. Communicative purpose: persuade students in Spanish classes to become volunteers for a cause.

162

• • • •

•

•

Cecilia Sessarego

Speaker/writer: students in an intermediate level class (4th semester) who deliver the speeches. Listener/reader: peers in Spanish classes and/or native speaker students in other programs. Context: Volunteering is a commonly practiced activity within the university community. Topics: Volunteer causes can be related to the topics of the course, such as protecting nature, work experience teaching abroad, participating in a political party, etc. Schematic structure: rhetorical moves: a) introduction: the subject is announced and there is appeal to the audience, b) topic: the speaker describes the case, c) purpose and issues of the case, and d) appeal to action. Outcomes: Pragmatic awareness of how speech texts are constructed in terms of purpose, moves, and linguistic features (grammar-pragmatic mappings), pragmatic production of a speech, integrating grammar, lexis, and pragmatics in a persuasive text related to the topic at hand.

Step 2: Activating relevant schemata and prior knowledge. Students in small groups discuss and jot down activities they do as volunteers or would like to do at their university or their community. They talk about what they do at their volunteer jobs. A great variety of activities can come up. For example: Soy voluntaria en una asociación de ayuda a los sin techo. Hago trabajo voluntario en una escuela. Ayudo a los niños que tienen dificultades para leer. Me gustaría trabajar para una organización ONG que protege el medio ambiente. The whole class discusses the variety of activities and the instructor helps with the expression of some ideas. The activities are written on the board or typed and shown on a screen. Step 3: Real-life input. Learners read a minimum of two speeches that try to persuade young people to become volunteers or participate in programs. Webpages of organizations seeking volunteers are a great resource, since they share features of spoken and written discourse. The following samples exemplify the schematic structure of speeches, with the same communicative purpose of persuasion, and they are addressed to a similar audience. The texts in the links below are offered as possible samples of the genre: Sample “a” is about becoming a volunteer in Madrid for a variety of causes: http://trabajarporelmundo.org/buscando-un-voluntariado-en-madrid/. Sample “b” is about becoming a volunteer in Honduras and teaching English: http://trabajarporelmundo.org/voluntariado-en-honduras-para-ensenar-ingles/. Step 4: Reading comprehension and identification of discourse setting. Learners identify: • • •

The writer/agency: the agency that requires volunteers. The audience-reader: young people who would do volunteering. The purposes of the webpage speech: persuade young people do be a volunteer for their causes.

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

163

The focus is on a general comprehension of the information in the text. The instructor and students go over the script and work on the specific vocabulary and grammar (not new) to achieve a semantic understanding of the information in the text. Learners are exposed to authentic texts and the language they will come across in similar real-life situations. Step 5: Deeper understanding of the text and identification of discourse schematic structure. The teacher asks students to work in small groups and identify the sentences/ paragraphs that correspond to the following functional moves of the text: • • • •

Introduction: the speaker/writer announces the subject and uses persuasive appeal to create credibility with the audience. Topic: the speaker/writer describes the organization. Purpose: the speaker/writer explains the purpose of volunteering for the organization and its benefits. Appeal to action: the speaker summarizes the information and tries to obtain a favorable attitude in the readers of the webpage.

There is a class discussion on which sections of the speech text address each functional component. Step 6: Analysis and consciousness-raising of pragmatic functions and corresponding linguistic items at a discourse level. Students in groups are asked to read the whole text again, then discuss together and as a whole class: • •

Which sentences and linguistic items (phrases, vocabulary, and grammar) or speech acts are key to express the ideas of each component in Step 5. Other linguistic items that can be used to express the same ideas and produce a persuasive impact on the reader.

Functional move 1: Persuasive appeal. Grammar structures that are generally used in Spanish to create persuasive appeal are questions in the simple present (i.e., ¿Buscas aventura? ¿Quieres enseñar inglés en un país hispano?), conditional sentences (Si quieres conocer el mundo, sé voluntario . . . or Si eres entusiasta y atento a la diversidad cultural y eres estudiante de la universidad . . ., puedes presentarte . . .). Vocabulary: buscar, encontrar, poder, querer. Functional move 2: Provide information on the topic, description of the organization. Grammar: simple present tense. Vocabulary: existir, crear, realizar, promover. Functional move 3: Purpose and benefits. Explanation of purpose (simple present) and benefits of volunteering (simple future, simple present of poder). Vocabulary: fomentar, participar, facilitar, dedicar, aprender.

164

Cecilia Sessarego

Functional move 4: Appeal to action. Grammar: informal imperative (tú), conditional sentences that express probability. Other common syntactic structures are phrases that require the subjunctive mood (Es importante que te registres . . .). Vocabulary: contactar, buscar, acceder, encontrar, conocer, poder. Step 7: Expansion through tasks. At this stage learners have the opportunity to express their own meanings and purposes within the complete discourse of the genre. Based on the brainstorming in Step 2, they can choose to prepare speeches to encourage classmates to become volunteers in the particular programs they are already involved in. To plan their speeches, students write an analysis chart of the pragmatic components analyzed in Steps 4, 5, and 6. They work on communicative purpose, hearer/reader, context, rhetorical moves, and choice of linguistic items. The preparatory analysis chart aims at gauging learners’ awareness and understanding of the pragmatic features of their speeches. Below is the chart (Table 8.1) with possible answers; linguistic options can vary: The instructor collects the students’ analysis charts and actual speeches so as to provide feedback regarding learners’ application of pragmatic features of the speech genre. In class, students can first practice aloud their versions with a classmate. Through interaction, students negotiate meaning and try to produce a speech that has a clear persuasive communicative purpose. The speech is a hybrid oral/written text to be read aloud. Step 8: Delivery of speeches and self-peer assessment. Each student delivers his/her speech to fellow classmates in his class, other Spanish classes, or to native speaker students in the Spanish Students’ Club if there is one at the particular university. Speeches should be between three and five minutes. Then, listeners can provide oral or written feedback with the following guideline (see Table 8.2): After the delivery of each speech, there will be a variety of opinions from the audience on how informative and persuasive the speeches are. Students can ask questions about the cause, make comments about some of the language used, speaker’s tone, passion, etc., or only respond to the questionnaire. The purpose is not so

TABLE 8.1 Students’ analysis chart

Tu audiencia y contexto Objetivo principal de tu discurso Propósito de la introducción de tu discurso Propósito de la segunda parte Propósito de la tercera parte Propósito del cierre del discurso

Compañeros de la universidad Persuadirlos a que participen como voluntarios en el programa XXX Llamar la atención, crear interés Dar información sobre el programa Explicar los beneficios de participar Entusiasmar a los compañeros a que se decidan a participar

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

165

TABLE 8. 2 Peer assessment chart

Candidato 1 El comienzo del discurso atrae mi atención a participar Explica claramente el tipo de causa para la cual se necesitan voluntarios y en qué consiste el trabajo Su discurso es convincente para persuadirme a ser voluntario para su causa (aunque no me interese el tema)

• totalmente • un poco • poco Sí, claramente No hay muchos detalles Falta información Sí Poco convincente Necesita utilizar un lenguaje más convincente

much to get students to give a thorough evaluation of the speech (this can be done by the instructor), but to make learners participate in a communicative event where they have a communicative purpose to achieve and they try hard to produce the intended effect on their interlocutors using the appropriate language. The audience also interacts with the speaker to negotiate meaning related to the specific volunteer work. In terms of assessment, the instructor will need to create rubrics to address the various components of the task, clarity of communicative purpose, discourse schemata-rhetorical moves, appropriateness of linguistic choices to carry out the intended effect. The speech genre to persuade fellow students to become volunteers for a cause can also be addressed through a written message sent by e-mail. The advantage of the hybrid oral/written form is that students can actually deliver their speeches by reading them aloud and then interact with the audience regarding the effects of the delivery.

6.

Conclusion

A discursive pragmatic instructional approach that draws on genre analysis research necessarily involves a shift in perspective from the current linguistic view on texts in most SFL classrooms. While lexis, grammar, and text organization are considered significant components, they should be dealt with so that they carry out the communicative purposes of texts, rather than with a restricted focus on linguistic form and semantic meaning. From a pragmatic perspective, traditional categorizations of narration, argumentation, exposition, etc. can be put to use in communicative events for real-life purposes, without the need to “add” more components to the syllabus. For instance, learners can explore how a particular text, such as a narration of events, can fulfill a variety of communicative purposes based on who the addressees are and the specific contexts (i.e., narration of a personal experience to request a project extension from an instructor vs. a narration of the same personal experience to a friend on social media).

166

Cecilia Sessarego

The purpose of this chapter is primarily pedagogical: to advance ways of engaging learners with L2 Spanish pragmatics, and to that effect, the notion of genres is presented as a frame for learners to participate in the conventionalized communicative practices of the target society. Current L2 Spanish syllabi focus on learners demonstrating linguistic ability and content knowledge to complete academic assignments on topic after topic, but there is basically no further instructional step to guide learners in the functional/social application of such knowledge. The proposed pedagogical approach addresses that step by using genres as a means for instructors to design tasks, and for learners to participate in target culture communicative events. A focus on a target culture’s genres is better aligned with curricular objectives to develop learners’ communicative abilities in a wide range of texts and fields. Indeed, although current L2 Spanish pragmatics research has yielded valuable understandings on the development of L2 Spanish functional ability, it has mostly focused on speech acts in interactional oral situations. Most pedagogical materials have addressed certain speech acts in oral scenarios and their corresponding grammatical structures (pragmalinguistics). A genre approach to teaching pragmatics conceives of all language as texts (genres), and analyzes not only speech acts but also the macro-structures of such texts (e.g., rhetorical moves and coherence). Additionally, a genre perspective provides a broader scope of language and modes of communication (e.g., written, hybrid, virtual) for pragmatic language use to be analyzed and produced. An L2 Spanish program can be organized around sets of genres at each level of instruction, at increasing levels of structural, semantic, and pragmatic complexity, which can be addressed through a concept and task-based approach. Some research has been done on genre analysis of AD and PD in Spanish, but mostly at advanced levels of proficiency. This chapter proposes a model of analysis and instruction for the speech genre that can be implemented at an intermediate level of proficiency. Finally, there is a great need for research studies on L2 learners’ pragmatic language use and development in a broad scope of real-life genres. In the L2 Spanish learning context, Spanish for Specific Purposes instructional models, though geared at higher levels of proficiency, have been focusing on developing pragmatic language ability in their particular genres. As Spanish programs evolve and offer courses to prepare students to function in a broad spectrum of the target culture’s social contexts, L2 Spanish pragmatics and genre analysis will certainly become central research fields for the design of such courses.

References Askehave, I. and A. E. Nielsen. 2005. “Digital Genres: A Challenge to Traditional Genre Theory.” Information, Technology and People 18(2): 120–141. Askehave, I. and J. Swales. 2001. “Genre Identification and Communicative Purpose: A Problem and a Possible Solution.” Applied Linguistics 22(2): 195–212. Atkinson, D. 2011. “A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition: How Mind, Body, and World Work Together in Learning Additional Languages.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson, 143–166. New York: Routledge.

L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability

167

Bawarshi, A. and M. J. Reiff. 2010. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Bhatia, V. K. 1997. “Genre-Mixing in Academic Introductions.” English for Specific Purposes, 16(3): 181–196. Bhatia, V. K. 2002. “Applied Genre Analysis: A Multi-Perspective Model.” Iberica 4: 3–19. Bolívar, A. and G. Parodi. 2014. “Academic and Professional Discourse.” In Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte, 459–476. New York: Routledge. Bosch, E. 1997. “Análisis de un texto persuasivo desde los principios de la pragmática y de la retórica.” ACELE Actas VIII. 181–186. Centro Virtual Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes. es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/asele_viii.htm. Burton, G. 2007. The Forest of Rhetoric: Silva Rhetoricae. Salt Lake City, UT: Brigham Young University. Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. 2010. “The Changing Nature of Text: A Linguistic Perspective.” In Scholarly Communication, Volume 1: Text Comparison and Digital Creativity: The Production of Presence and Meaning in Digital Text Scholarship, ed. W. Van Peursen and E. Thoutenhoofd. Leiden: BRILL. Curcó, C. and A. De Fina. 2002. “Modo imperativo, negación y diminutivos en la expresión de la cortesía en español: el contraste entre México y España.” In Actos de Habla y Cortesía en Español, ed. M. E. Placencia and D. Bravo: 107–140. Munich: Lincolm. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. “Teaching the Negotiation of Multi-Turn Speech Acts. Using Conversation-Analytic Tools to Teach Pragmatics in the Classroom.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning 11, eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. Omar, 165–197. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. “Sociopragmatic Variation: Dispreferred Responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish.” Journal of Politeness Research 4(1): 81–110. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669. Hopper, P. J. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. M. Tomassello, 155–176. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hsu., T. W. 2008. “La aplicación del análisis de género a la enseñanza del español con fines específicos: El caso de la correspondencia comercial.” Actas del XLIII Congreso. Centro Virtual Cervantes. Madrid. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/aepe/congreso_43.htm. Ifantidou, E. 2011. “Genres and Pragmatic Competence.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1): 327–346. International Exchange Erasmus Student Network. 2015. “Programa Tutor Erasmus.” http:// www.esn-uah.org/programa-tutor-erasmus. Koike, D. A. 2008. “A Grammar of L2 Pragmatics: Issues in Learning and Teaching.” In Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom, ed. S. Katz and J. Watzinger-Tharp, 35–52. Boston, MA: Heinle. Koike, D. A. 2010. “Behind L2 Pragmatics: The Role of Expectations.” In Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in Functions and Contexts, ed. D. A. Koike and L. Rodríguez-Alfano, 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koike, D. A. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Development of Pragmatic Competence.” System, 33(3): 381–546. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2011. “A Complexity Approach to Second Language Development/ Acquisition.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson, 48–72. Abingdon: Routledge.

168

Cecilia Sessarego

Márquez- Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2004. “The Pragmatics of Spanish beyond Spain.” In Current Trends in Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. R. Márquez-Reiter and M. Placencia, 15–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. “A Comprehensive Pedagogical Framework to Develop Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: The 6Rs Approach.” Applied Language Learning 16(2): 39–64. Modern Language Association (MLA). 2007. Foreign Language and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World. New York: Modern Language Association. Nunan, D. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paltridge, B. 1995. “Working with Genre: A Pragmatic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 24(4): 393–406. Reyes, G. 1998. Cómo escribir bien en español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Rusch, D., M. Domínguez and L. Caycedo Garner. 2011. Fuentes: Conversación y Gramática. Lab Manual, 38. Boston, MA: Heinle. Sessarego, C. 2009. “Pragmatic Language Instruction and Beginner Learners of Spanish: A Discourse Approach to Pragmalinguistics.” Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 27(49): 97–120. Sessarego, C. 2016. “A Discourse-Pragmatic Approach to Teaching Indicative/Subjunctive Mood Selection in the Intermediate Spanish Language Class: New Information vs. Reformulation.” Hispania 99(3): 392–406. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. and C. Feak. 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Trabajar por el mundo. 2015a. “¿Estás buscando un voluntariado en Madrid?” http://traba jarporelmundo.org/buscando-un-voluntariado-en-madrid/. Trabajar por el mundo. 2015b. “Voluntariado en Honduras para enseñar inglés.” http:// trabajarporelmundo.org/voluntariado-en-honduras-para-ensenar-ingles/. VanPatten, B. and A. Benati. 2010. Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

9 THE PRAGMATICS OF IRONY IN THE L2 SPANISH CLASSROOM1 M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

1.

Introduction

This chapter aims to study possible ways to work with the pragmatic conception of irony in the L2 Spanish classroom; hence our proposal for an analysis of this phenomenon and an L2 Spanish classroom-oriented application with specific activities. The analysis carried out by the Grupo de estudio para la pragmática y la ironía del español (GRIALE) (Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García 2009) will serve as the basis to achieve this goal. GRIALE is a University of Alicante research group on verbal irony and verbal humor in Spanish (Alvarado Ortega 2009; Alvarado Ortega and Ruiz Gurillo 2013a, 2013b.) Irony is one of the hardest pragmatic phenomena to investigate. Contrary to the rhetorical explanation, which states that irony consists of a figure of speech in which one says the opposite of what is really meant, pragmatics brings situational contexts into play, along with the speaker’s intentions and the listener’s interpretations. The stance adopted in this chapter is rooted in neo-Gricean theories (Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García 2009) because irony has an inferred conversational meaning, insofar as the communication transmitted through an ironic statement is possible thanks to an inversion of the conversational maxims that Levinson (2000) takes up and modifies from Grice ([1975] 1991). Some considerations about the pragmatic functioning of irony are offered below.

2.

Verbal irony from a pragmatics perspective

The conception of traditional rhetoric, wherein irony entailed saying the opposite of what is really meant, has been abandoned by authors such as Haverkate (1985), who argues that contradiction does not suffice to unify all the ironic phenomena, or Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García (2009), who deal with irony from a pragmatic point of view, since it is the context and the interlocutors that will determine an ironic

170

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

utterance. Furthermore, the existence of a contradiction does not characterize utterances as ironic because there may be utterances with irony and a marked figurative sense that lack an implicit contradiction even with humor. What reveals the presence of irony is very often not an opposite meaning but rather a different one. This approach justifies the decision to study irony as a pragmatic phenomenon and to propose an analytical theory that arises from neo-Gricean theories when speakers have an explicit intention to communicate something when they use an ironic utterance. They consequently want their listener to infer what they have not said so that the complete meaning of their utterance is specified. Relevance Theory has taken a position in this regard, suggesting an explanation for irony based on the concept of echo. According to Wilson and Sperber (1992, p. 272), “relevance theory claims that it is ironical because it is echoic: verbal irony consists in echoing a tacitly attributed thought or utterance with a tacitly dissociative attitude.” Therefore, irony is studied as a process of distancing oneself from a thought or an utterance attributed to someone, and it will always entail a context that can be understood as a mocking echo. Hence, the goal of this chapter is to prove that not all ironic utterances contain that mocking echo; in fact, irony can actually lack the mocking component altogether. The most important explanations about irony refer to several theories, among which there are those that state that irony is an indirect speech act (Searle [1969] 1986); a transgression of the maxim of quality (Grice [1975] 1991); a phenomenon which entails an interpretive use of language, which is explained as an echo or as a pretense (Wilson and Sperber 1992, p. 274); or even as an argumentative resource or polyphony (Anscombre and Ducrot [1983] 1994.) Neo-Gricean theories are the starting point for this study, in which the notion of echo proposed by Relevance Theory is not entirely abandoned. This requires explaning two pragmatic approaches that have endeavored to solve the problems posed by ironic utterances: Gricean and polyphonic theories. The former relates irony to Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975). Every time irony appears, it does so because a maxim has been violated and said principle is violated. Let’s see an example where María boasts to her friends about her great sense of direction when she arrives in an unknown city, but then they get lost that evening and Antonio makes the following comment: (1) A: María, I can see you are a walking compass. In this example, it is absolutely untrue that María can be described as a walking compass; she does not seem to have a good sense of direction. María must definitely understand a different message; in this case, that she was unable to find the right location. Antonio has violated the maxim of quality, thus leading to the inference of the implicatures that give rise to irony, since the facts are incorrect, and he does not say what he really means. On the other hand, polyphonic theories, with Ducrot (1986) as the best-known proponent, consider that two meanings co-exist in every ironic utterance, and that

The pragmatics of irony

171

they are seen as an echoic phenomenon, since a reference is made to a meaning that does not form part of the utterance and is retrieved as an echo of something said before. See the example below in which a mother and her daughter talk about her poor grades in school. The daughter had been planning her end-of-year trip, but when the mother sees the grades, she makes the following utterance: (2) M: Now you are (indeed) going on a trip, yes (you are) . . . Two points of view exist in this example: the mother’s and the daughter’s. This utterance shows the speaker (the mother) picking up the daughter’s point of view and ridiculing it by means of irony. From this approach, the speaker takes up again a proposition that appears as an echo of something said previously in another context, and which underlies the utterance (a first perspective, you are going on a trip) to reject it ironically (a second perspective, now you are (indeed) going on a trip, which is equivalent to you are not going on a trip). Consequently, all ironic utterances have two possible interpretations. One of them is present and the other is retrieved as an echo of what had been said before. The approaches above show that understanding irony requires us to take into account the linguistic context or co-text, the situational context or external circumstances, and the socio-cultural context or knowledge, shared life experiences, etc. The listener has to infer the utterance’s meaning, taking into account the context. Furthermore, the speaker inserts markers (linguistic elements that help to identify irony, such as indeed) or indicators (ironic linguistics elements per se that contribute to irony because they contain irony in themselves, such as ironic intonation in yes you are . . .) in his/her utterance so that the listener can interpret it as an ironic mode (Alvarado Ortega 2009). As explained previously, the stance adopted in this chapter stems from neoGricean theories, i.e., the research approach of the GRIALE Group. I will focus on the GRIALE group to explain irony, because it offers a systematic explanation of verbal irony and is supported by the theory of S. C. Levinson (Rodríguez Rosique 2009). While not denying the particular nature of irony, it is considered essential to resort to those generalizable inferences that imply that certain indicators and markers identify an utterance as ironic. The reason for this is our belief that irony has an inferred conversational meaning. What is being communicated in an ironic utterance comes about by an inversion of the Gricean (1975) maxims, which are revisited by Levinson (2000). Levinson reduces Grice’s four maxims (quantity, quality, pertinence, and manner) to three principles (informativity, manner, and quantity) and presumes the maxim of quality as a prerequisite for communication that is assumed by the speaker and the listener. Rodríguez Rosique (2009) states that the pre-condition of quality is infringed in ironic utterances, which entails a systematic inversion of the conversational principles understood as the Principle of Inversion. That means that the speaker violates the sincerity requirement and imposes the following instruction upon the listener: Interpret the utterance from the systematic inversion of conversational principles. The speaker has inverted the maxim of quality, and the conversational principles operate in an

172

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

opposite fashion. This pragmatic theory, which has the Inversion Principle as its starting point, allows a greater number of ironic examples to be explained with an inferred meaning. For GRIALE, the inversion of different principles in ironic contexts gives rise to different types of irony (prototypical, which means a denial of what is said, or non-prototypical, which implies another linguistic mechanism). Thus, when the Principle of Quantity (Q)—the one suggesting that one gives exact information—is violated in an ironic utterance, one obtains prototypical irony (saying the opposite), as inferences are conveyed through denial. Here is an example: (3) A: Excuse me, what do you think of Donald Trump? B: Donald Trump? Well, as far as I know he is a very empathetic president. The utterance above can be interpreted literally; that is, that Donald Trump is an empathetic and caring president, or figuratively, that Donald Trump is a mean and uncaring person when it comes to immigrants, for example. For this reason, the word “empathetic” should be interpreted in its opposite sense (prototypical irony). The utterances consequently offer a figurative meaning where marked expressions are utilized to refer to reality, but they are not prototypical irony. In other words, the theory put forward by GRIALE finds its primary impetus in inversion, that is, the particularized conversational implicatures generated by the utterance would be inverted and, therefore, the conversational principles are in turn inverted (gradual prototypical irony). This fact prevails over other conversational principles that might appear in the same utterance, such as the Manner or Quality Principles. This explanation allows to find certain recurrent patterns in the behavior of irony— beyond what is essentially contextual—in utterances. Furthermore, the markers and indicators appearing in the utterance help to create an ironic context that the listener understands as such. GRIALE understands markers to refer to gestures that are helpful in ironic interpretation, such as a smile or a wink, whereas indicators are ironic structures in themselves, for example, a joke. In this way, irony is conceived of as a pragmatic phenomenon based on indicators and markers, which is why it is possible to offer an explanation that goes beyond the particular contexts in which irony arises. Therefore, GRIALE’s model explains a greater number of humorous ironic examples with an inferred meaning (Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García 2009). Irony as a pragmatic phenomenon shows that a speaker has a clear intention to communicate something opposite of what s/he means when s/he uses an ironic utterance. Thus, s/he wants the listener to infer what has not been said—from the aforementioned Inversion Principle—so that the whole meaning of his/her utterance can be understood. Therefore, when an utterance is ironic, it may have a negative or a positive effect. What distinguishes these two types of effects is the presence or absence of mockery. In other words, if mockery is being produced through irony, that is irony with a negative effect; the absence of mockery, on the other hand, indicates irony with a positive effect. I propose, in Alvarado Ortega (2009), the following scheme for both types of irony:

The pragmatics of irony

•

Irony with a negative effect: • • •

•

173

Towards the listener Towards an absent person Towards a situation

Irony with a positive effect: • • • • • •

Negative-image irony Self-irony Positive-image irony Towards the listener Towards an absent person Towards a situation

It is understood that irony has a negative effect when the presence of mockery toward the listener, toward an absent person, or toward a situation becomes apparent. The absence of mockery in the ironic utterance implies that irony has a positive effect. This latter type may, in turn, convey a negative or positive image. In the case of irony entailing a negative image, there is self-irony in which the speaker seeks to maintain his/her image and wants the other conversational partners to appreciate his/her personality and behavior. When irony is associated with a positive image, the speaker uses irony as a conversational strategy, and irony will most likely be targeted toward the listener, an absent person, or a situation, as we can see in the example (4). In this example, there are two female friends talking about a third friend and her husband, who are not participating in the verbal exchange. (4) E: e- el- el otro día ha- hablé con- con Carmen y Ricardo↑/ porque me van a poner- dice cuando quieras me bajas lo que te tengo que engarzar digo bien/ dice ¡AY! me han dicho que tu amiga se ha ido→ digo sí dice pero ¿adónde? digo al centro de Valencia/ digo a un piso digoo muy majo diciendoo esto dice ¡pos hala! a ver si me invita un día digo pues yo se lo diré que te invite un día y te vienes un día con nosotros digo tiene un piso precioso y ya lo tiene casi to(do) terminao↑/ di- y Ricardo dice ¿QUÉ son muchos de familia? digo noo/ dice pero→se han ido a vivir dice pues me alegro mucho↓ yo se lo diré que te invite un día y te vienes con nosotras dice ¡me alegro mucho! e- se fue e-§ R: § yo no- no- no sé nada de ella/ no sé si se habrá traído a su maadre o-§ E: § en principio se iba a traer a su madre (Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002, p. 261) This example contains an instance of irony that affects the image of the two people absent from the conversation, Carmen and Ricardo. The irony has a positive effect because it helps strengthen the bonds among the interlocutors, that is to say, it does not damage the positive image of the participants in the interaction, but rather it

174

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

reinforces solidarity within the group. This passage contains an apparent attack directed at the negative image of Ricardo, Carmen’s husband, who, during his meeting with E, pretends to be interested in R’s life. However, this utterance actually does not harm Ricardo’s public image, given the fact that R continues the dialogue without stressing this potential damage (yo no sé nada de ella, no sé si se habrá traído a su madre). For more information regarding this way of analyzing irony, consult Alvarado Ortega (2009).

3.

Irony in the L2 Spanish class

The theoretical foundations set out in the previous section will serve as the basis to apply teaching irony in the L2 Spanish classes (Shively et al. 2008). Ruiz Gurillo (2008) reflected on the place of irony within the Common European Framework of Reference (CERF 2002) and the Cervantes Institute’s Curricular Plan (PCIC, its initials in Spanish) (PCIC 2007) and verified that, although both publications aim to unite Spanish teaching-learning models, irony is left out or receives very little treatment at advanced levels (C1, C2). An effort has been made by our GRIALE Group (Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García 2009) to carry out the broadest possible classification of the linguistic indicators and markers that give rise to irony, some of which are: punctuation, trigger words, anomalous adverb placement, repetitions, juxtapositions, quotation markers, evidentials—which are, according to Alvarado Ortega (2016, p. 327), linguistic elements that encode the different ways in which knowledge is acquired or the source of information, like indeed in example 2—re-interpretation of phraseological units, litotes, hyperbole, and oxymoron. On the basis of these markers and indicators, the GRIALE Group (2010) devised irony activities for advanced levels (B2, C1, and C2), which were intended to help their students practice a wide variety of linguistic, communicative, and intercultural competencies. These were activities for one or two class sessions lasting 50 minutes each, designed for young or adult students, which included various skills such as oral, audiovisual, or written comprehension; oral and written expression; or oral and written interaction. Each activity focused on one of the indicators that appear in the above list, and attention was paid to its relationship with other indicators. In accordance with the model previously developed by the GRIALE Group, the next step will consist in proposing a complete teaching unit, with its corresponding justification and exercise cards both for the teacher and for the student, in addition to an answer key and a self-assessment section, which aims to introduce irony as a pragmatic event in the classroom.

4. 4.1.

Practical activity: Irony at Sight Justification for the activity

The Irony at Sight teaching unit sought to integrate irony into the L2 Spanish classroom, because it has been neglected in textbooks due to the difficulty involved in

The pragmatics of irony

175

defining it linguistically. This occurred because irony is expressed through several linguistic and non-linguistic indicators and, in turn, it deals with different competencies, including linguistic, intercultural, and communicative ones; and it shows the need to incorporate this phenomenon into classroom activities, because it is ubiquitous in everyday life and deeply rooted in the culture. The teaching unit was conceived from a communicative and functional framework, since irony must be learned from the perspective of its function in the utterance. Work should simultaneously focus on basic language skills (listening comprehension, oral expression, written comprehension, and written expression and oral interaction) with a wide range of components: communicative, lexical, grammatical, phonological, and socio-cultural, as I will show in the section entitled Unit Development. Seeking to make knowledge acquisition easier, cards were designed using straightforward, clear, and direct language. Furthermore, a decision was made not to use video, CDs, or the Internet, so that the unit could be implemented in a classroom situation and avoid limitations associated with this material or technological problems.

4.2.

Materials

The materials to be used are reproducible cards for the unit and writing instruments (pens, pencils, erasers, etc.).

4.3.

Target learners

The unit was aimed at teenagers and adults who have reached at least level B2 defined by the Common European Framework of Reference, within a formal education context.

4.4.

Previous knowledge

An L2 Spanish teacher must have some previous knowledge of irony, understood as a pragmatic process that is expressed in the language through various indicators. In case readers wish to extend their knowledge, Ruiz Gurillo (2008) contains a list of ironic indicators. Students need not have any previous knowledge about the procedures to shape ironic utterances, because those ironic mechanisms constitute the starting point for this unit. Therefore, the students are not supposed to know anything about irony creation and interpretation processes in Spanish.

4.5.

Number of sessions

The estimated time for the whole unit is two class sessions lasting 60 minutes each. Nevertheless, the unit’s distribution into six individual cards gives the teacher freedom when it comes to choosing the time dedicated to this unit. Below are some

176

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega TABLE 9.1 Time required for each activity

Length

Activities

10 minutes 30 minutes 50 minutes 60 minutes

Exercise 1 (Card 1) and Exercise 1 (Card 2) Exercises 1 and 2 (Card 1) and Card 3 Card 1 and Card 2 Exercises 1 and 2 (Card 1), Cards 2, 3 and 4

guiding principles to put it into practice in the actual classroom depending on the time available (Table 9.1).

4.6.

Motivation activities

The teacher can start the unit by proposing an imaginary ironic situation, for instance: A mí no me gusta nada cocinar. Un día hice macarrones y se quedaron pegados a la olla. Desde entonces Sergio, mi novio, me dice que soy una gran cocinera. ‘I don’t like cooking at all. One day I made macaroni and it ended up getting stuck to the pot. Since then, Sergio, my boyfriend, tells me (that) I am a great cook.’ After this situation, the teacher asks students to reflect on what s/he has just said and to highlight “the lie” (that will later be called irony): → una gran cocinera ‘a great cook’. Then s/he tells them to think of something that they are really bad at, using the same structure soy un gran . . . ‘I am a great . . .’ to stress something that they do not do well. This pre-activity allows the teacher to introduce the topic of this teaching unit: irony. Students are then encouraged to participate in class.

5.

Development of the unit in cards for the teacher

An explanation will subsequently be given to the teacher about how to develop the unit through cards, showing the content and how much time students must dedicate to each exercise. The reproducible cards for students are supplied at the end of Section 5.

5.1.

Instructions for the teacher

Card 1 (Total time: 35 minutes) Procedure: Work with the whole class or in pairs.

Exercise 1 (5 minutes) The teacher briefly explains a situation to the whole class where irony arises; for example, the one proposed in “Motivation activities.” Based on this example, a

The pragmatics of irony

177

brainstorming activity can be written on the board to find out what irony means and whether it appears in other languages, as well as to check if students know some procedures to create ironic utterances. The topic is thus introduced during the class.

Exercises 2 (10 minutes) and 3 (10 minutes) The teacher asks students to form pairs and carry out Written Comprehension Exercises 2 and 3. In Exercise 2, the pairs have to role-play the dialogue; this way, the teacher can correct any pronunciation mistakes that gradually appear in the classroom. As for Exercise 3, it involves students reflecting on the ironic utterances that they have identified in the text. Moreover, they are given a table that students should fill in at the end of the exercise that will help them understand irony.

Exercise 4 (10 minutes) Before carrying out the exercise, the teacher must review the concept of polysemous words (i.e., words with several meanings). After doing this, they are in a position to carry out the activity in pairs. This activity will be shared with their other classmates once it is completed.

Card 2 (Total time: 15 minutes) Procedure: Work with the whole class or in pairs.

Exercise 1 (5 minutes) The teacher highlights the importance of intonation in the Spanish language, and particularly in ironic utterances. Seeking to help students understand the role of intonation, s/he reads Exercise 1 out loud for the whole class and tells students to repeat with him or her. After doing this, s/he asks them to sit in pairs and do the exercise again on their own.

Exercise 2 (10 minutes) The teacher tells students to do the exercise in pairs and then to compare the intonation required by these utterances with those of the previous exercise. If they are unable to do the exercise by themselves, the teacher will have to provide guidance so that they can use the correct intonation. The Notice box will help them reflect.

Card 3 (Total time: 15 minutes) Procedure: Work with the whole class or in pairs.

178

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

Exercise 1 (7 minutes) The teacher explains that irony may imply an attack against the listener’s public image or that of a person who is not present. Students have to interpret the exercise’s utterances in pairs.

Exercise 2 (8 minutes) The teacher points out that irony does not always imply an attack; it is also used to create closer ties with the listener, to have complicity, to joke about a specific situation, etc. After doing this, the teacher asks students to do the exercise in pairs and interpret the utterances. To complete the task, the teacher makes a final reflection that exemplifies the most important ideas, as seen in the box Notice.

Card 4 (Total time: 15 minutes) Procedure: Work with the whole class, in pairs, or individually.

Exercise 1 (3 minutes) The teacher writes all the students’ ideas about the procedures seen on Cards 2 and 3, which served to create ironic utterances on the board. This procedure facilitates oral interaction.

Exercise 2 (7 minutes) The teacher guides students to carry out Exercise 2 in pairs. Once that has been done, s/he will select a few pairs to read the utterances aloud.

Exercise 3 (5 minutes) The teacher briefly reviews Spanish verb tenses and suggests that students do Exercise 1 about the revision of grammatical contents individually. The final table can prove useful to reflect on the concepts seen on the card.

Card 5 (Total time: 10 minutes) Procedure: Work with the whole class or with individuals.

Exercise 1 (5 minutes) The teacher asks students to do the self-assessment exercise and asks them to determine what they have learned in the unit.

The pragmatics of irony

179

Exercise 2 (5 minutes) The teacher asks how many questions had “yes” as answers and how many had “no”. S/he tries to find out what was not understood and why. S/he will clarify doubts using this information.

5.2.

Assessment

An assessment of the teaching unit will be carried out at the end of the class period. Students will complete Card 5 for this purpose, which in turn will enable the instructor to check the extent to which students have learned the concepts about irony in Spanish explained in class. There will be an analysis based on the information obtained from Card 5. Together with the remarks concerning the activities carried out in the classroom during the development of the unit, this will offer information about the goals achieved (with regard to initial expectations), the difficulties found in the acquisition of certain contents, the pace at which students learn, etc.

5.3.

Answer key for each card

Card 1 Exercise 1 Free response

Exercise 2 Reading the text carefully

Exercise 3 a) No, no sabe inglés. ‘No, he doesn’t know any English.’ b) Noo, ¡qué va!, es un hacha con los idiomas.‘No, not at all! He is a genius for languages.’ c) Yes, one has a straightforward meaning and the other has an ironic meaning.

Exercise 4 The Spanish polysemous words—those with several meanings—which appear in the text in Exercise 2 are: banco ‘seat/office/school of fish’, hacha ‘tool/a genius’, relámpago ‘meteorological phenomenon/fast’, golpe ‘sudden movement/extraordinary event’, cola ‘hairstyle/end of the spine’, plantar ‘to fix a plant/to arrive quickly’, carrera ‘studies/race’, mosquear ‘to swat flies/to get angry’; and aurora ‘proper name/ sunlight’.

180

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

Card 2 Exercise 1 Reading with appropriate intonation.

Exercise 2 The utterances in this exercise are not ironic, insofar as the routine formulas present have a literal meaning; in other words, they are used to show what they really mean.

Card 3 Exercise 1 Irony appears in the phrase ¡vaya cochecito! ‘What a car!’ of the first utterance. This time, the diminutive does not convey the idea of coche pequeño ‘small car’—which would be the literal meaning. Instead, the speaker is speaking ironically about the fact that the interlocutor has quite an expensive car and, therefore, should stop complaining about not having any money. A’s public image is consequently attacked. In the second utterance, irony is present in ¡qué diversión! ‘What fun!’, since its meaning differs from the literal sense that it originally has. This happens because B attacks A’s image knowing that A did not have a good time with María. The third utterance contains A’s ironic words (tú tranquilo/a, no te vayas a estresar ‘Keep calm, don’t you get stressed, please’) which damage B’s public image, insofar as s/he is clearly shown as some lazybones before his/her interlocutor. Therefore, irony is utilized negatively in this exercise because it attacks the interlocutor’s public image and shows him up before the other interlocutors. This implies an effort by the speaker, who needs to produce another utterance to protect his/her image.

Exercise 2 B utilizes an ironic structure (¡menudo sueldazo! ‘What a super salary!’) to create closer ties with his/her interlocutor, since s/he thinks that A should be paid more money by his/her boss. In the second utterance, B seeks complicity with his/her female interlocutor through the use of repetition (sí, sí [Yes, yes]), because she thinks that what the boyfriend does is not right. The third utterance shows several friends remembering what they had done on the previous Saturday. The attack is not aimed at their own image; instead, what they do is build closer links and speak ironically about the experience that they had with the girls that Saturday (espero que estén sentadas ‘(I) hope they are sitting down’).

The pragmatics of irony

181

Therefore, irony is used in a positive way because it does not attack the listener’s image. Irony actually creates stronger links between interlocutors and favors their mutual complicity.

Card 4 Exercise 1 These are the structures that help to identify irony: desde luego ‘of course’, ¡menudo negocio! ‘what a [big] business’, ¡no me digas! ‘You don’t say!?’, listísimo ‘extremely clever’, ¡vaya cochecito! ‘What a car!’, ¡qué diversión! ‘What fun!’; tú tranquilo ‘keep calm’, ¡menudo sueldazo! ‘what a super salary’, sí, sí ‘yes, yes’, espero que estén sentadas ‘(I) hope they are sitting down’.

Exercise 2 Possible answer: Luis: Oye Alba, ¡qué bien que nos haya tocado juntos! Alba: Sí, no sabes las ganas que tenía yo también. Luis: Lo estabas deseando, ¿verdad? Alba: Claaaaro, se lo he pedido yo y todo . . . Luis: Y será verdad . . . Luis: Hey, Alba; it’s so good that we have ended up together! Alba: Yes, you don’t know how I wished that too. Luis: You couldn’t wait, could you? Alba: Suuuure, I even asked him actually . . . Luis: And it must be true . . .

Exercise 3 Visitamos; tenía; fuimos; estuvimos; timaron; digas; creer; sabes; sacaron ‘we visited; I had; we went; we were; they swindled, you say; to believe; you know; they took out’.

Card 5 Exercise 1 Free response.

Exercise 2 The teacher must solve the problems as they arise in the classroom, providing references if necessary.

182

6.

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

Development of the unit in cards for the student

--------------------------------------------------------------

Card 1 Exercise 1 Warm-up activities: a) Do you know what irony is? b) Is being ironic well regarded in your culture? Why? c) Do you know any procedure to create ironic utterances?

Exercise 2 Read aloud with the help of a classmate the following dialogue, in which two ‘female’ friends talk about their weekend. Pay attention to the use of the phrase qué va ‘not at all!’: Aurora: Este fin de semana mi marido y yo hemos hecho un viaje relámpago a Londres. Marga: ¡Ah! ¿sí?, ¡qué bien! Pues no sé por qué, pero pensaba que estabais en casa. Aurora: ¡Qué va! Resulta que le llamaron el viernes por la noche del banco, y le dijeron si podía visitar al representante que tienen en Londres. Y yo en pijama . . . Así es que me vestí, me hice una cola, cogimos las maletas y nos plantamos allí en tres horas. Marga: Menudo golpe de suerte que ha tenido Antonio, me alegro mucho. Además, habrá sido buenísimo para ti practicar inglés estos días. Aurora: Ya ves, estuve practicando todo el tiempo con el representante. Me ha venido muy bien para la carrera. Además, me he traído un libro de fonética inglesa que va muy bien para practicar la pronunciación. Marga: Me lo tienes que dejar . . . Y Antonio ¿qué? ¿Se mosqueaba porque hablaras en inglés con el representante? Aurora: Nooo ¡qué va! él dice que me entendía, es un hacha con los idiomas . . . Marga: Jajaja, pero si Antonio no sabe inglés. Aurora: No, pero sí que me entendía . . . no ves que no es un inglés muy académico el que hablo yo. Marga: No me hagas reír, Aurora, ¡por Dios!

Exercise 3 Questions: 1) 2)

Taking into account Marga’s last statement, do you think Antonio knows any English? In which utterances do you perceive irony? What leads you to interpret those utterances as ironic ones?

The pragmatics of irony

3)

183

Can you see any differences between the uses of qué va? There are some utterances with literal usage and others with an ironic usage. List a few of them:

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

NOTE: These speakers have used structures such as ¡qué bien! ‘How good!’, ¡qué va! ‘Not at all!’ and ¡por Dios! ‘For God’s sake!’, which help to express the speaker’s attitude.

Exercise 4 The previous text contains a number of polysemous words. Do you remember what they are? Could you highlight any polysemous word in the text and give their meanings? Below are some clues for you: 1)___________

184

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

2)____________

3)____________

______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

The pragmatics of irony

185

Try doing it with another one? Draw it and explain it: _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card 2 Exercise 1: Intonation becomes essential to understanding ironic utterances. Read these four examples out loud and check your intonation: (A lleva puesto un cinturón horrible) A: Mira qué cinturón tan bonito. B: Desde luego. A: Le he dado a Ana mi pulsera de oro a cambio de su pañuelo. B: ¡Menudo negocio! (A y B viven juntos) A: El niño no ha parado de llorar en toda la noche. B: ¡No me digas! A: Tu nieto es listísimo. Ha repetido curso 4 veces.

Exercise 2 Now read on; can you distinguish the previous utterances from these other ones? (A lleva puesto un cinturón precioso) A: Mira qué cinturón tan bonito. B: Desde luego . . . A: Le he dado a Ana mi pulsera de oro a cambio de su coche. B: ¡Menudo negocio!

186

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

(A y B son compañeras de trabajo y no viven juntas) A: Mi niño no ha parado de llorar en toda la noche. B: ¡No me digas! A: Mi nieta es listísima. Ha aprobado a la primera.

NOTE: Apart from intonation, situational contexts are essential to understand irony. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card 3 Exercise 1 Irony sometimes implies an attack against the listener. Do you think the notion of “attack” is present in these cases? Explain it to the class: (A se ha quejado varias veces de no tener dinero) A: Mira lo que me he comprado, un Mercedes. B: ¡Vaya cochecito! ¿No decías que no tenías dinero? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ (A y B saben que María es muy aburrida) A: Anoche salí a dar una vuelta con María. B: Uy, ¡qué diversión! Lo pasarías de muerte . . . ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (B ha repetido curso 3 veces) A: ¿Cómo llevas el año? ¿Estás sacando buenas notas? B: La verdad es que no estoy yendo a clase. A: Eso, tú tranquilo, no te vayas a estresar. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

The pragmatics of irony

187

Exercise 2: Can you find any differences between the previous utterances and these other ones? Explain it to your classmates: (A y B hablan del jefe de una de ellas) A: Mi jefe dice que el año que viene nos sube el sueldo 10 euros. B: ¡Menudo sueldazo! Con el dinero que tiene, ya podría pagarte mejor. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ (A está harta de su novio mentiroso y se lo comenta a B, su amiga) A: Anoche me dijo que no lo haría más y yo le miraba . . . B: Sí, sí, somos tontas. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ (A y B se ríen de unas chicas que conocieron el sábado) A: Me decía: ¿Me vas a llamar mañana?, y yo: sí, sí B: Espero que estén sentadas, jajajaja. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Irony is not always used to attack the other person’s image; it also proves useful when it comes to creating closer ties with the listener.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card 4 Exercise 1 List the structures that helped you identify irony in Cards 2 and 3. For example: Vaya cochecito ‘What a car!’.

188

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

Exercise 2 Write an ironic dialogue for the following context: Luis y Alba son compañeros de clase, se llevan mal y les ha tocado hacer juntos un trabajo sobre el medio ambiente

Exercise 3 First, review verb tenses, and then fill in the blanks using the right verb form: Sacar ‘to take out’ saber ‘to know’ tener ‘to have’ timar ‘to swindle’ decir ‘to tell’ visitar ‘to visit’ ir ‘to go’ estar ‘to be’ creer ‘to believe’ (Miguel y Andrea son pareja y le cuentan a Alba su viaje.) Andrea: Este fin de semana mi marido y yo hemos hecho un viaje relámpago a Londres. ____________ el museo de la capital, además yo _______ muchas ganas de ver el Big Ben, así es que ______ a verlo, ¡qué bonito era! Por la noche ___________ visitando Trafalgar Square y London Eye. La verdad es que ha sido un viaje espectacular. Alba: ¡Qué bien! Miguel: Sí, sobre todo, si tenemos en cuenta que nos __________. Alba: ¡Ah! ¿Sí?, ¡no me ________! ¡No me lo puedo ________! Con lo cosmopolitas que sois vosotros . . . Andrea: No fue nada, ya _______ cómo es él de exagerado . . . Miguel: ¿Exagerado? ¡Madre mía! Si nos _________ una navaja y todo.

NOTE: Routine formulas (qué bien, qué bonito, qué va, etc.) may have a straightforward meaning or an ironic one.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card 5: SELF-ASSESSMENT Exercise 1 Answer the following questions: 1. 2.

I know what irony is. □ Yes □ No I know several techniques to build ironic utterances. □ Yes □ No

The pragmatics of irony

189

3. I am aware of the fact that some expressions may have a straight meaning or an ironic one. □ Yes □ No 4. I recognize polysemous words. □ Yes □ No 5. I can use the right intonation for ironic utterances. □ Yes □ No 6. I have the ability to recognize ironic utterances. □ Yes □ No 7. I can use irony to create closer ties with the listener. □ Yes □ No 8. The context becomes essential for the interpretation of an ironic utterance. □ Yes □ No 9. I am familiar with the different verb tenses used in routine formulas. □ Yes □ No 10. I know the significance of irony. □ Yes □ No

Exercise 2 Discuss the answers with your teacher.

Note 1 This chapter has received support from Project GRE 12–01 “Lengua y Sexo: Uso del humor en hombres y mujeres” [Language and Sex: Use of Humor in Men and Women], and Project GV/2015/106: “La variable género en textos humorísticos del español y del inglés” [Gender Variable in Spanish and English Humorous Texts].

References Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2009. “Ironía y cortesía.” In Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres: una aproximación pragmática a la ironía, eds. L. Ruiz Gurillo and X. Padilla García, 333–345. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2016. “Enunciación y percepción: La evidencialidad en los textos turísticos del español.” Onomazein 33: 327–342. Alvarado Ortega, M. B. and L. Ruiz Gurillo, eds. 2013a. Humor, ironía y géneros textuales. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Alvarado Ortega, M. B. and L. Ruiz Gurillo, eds. 2013b. Irony and Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anscombre, J. C. and O. Ducrot. [1983] 1994. La argumentación en la lengua. Madrid: Gredos. Briz, A. and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002. Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Madrid: Arco Libros. CERF. 2002. Common European Reference Framework (Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: Aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación). Madrid: Anaya. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ense nanza/biblioteca_ele/marco/. Ducrot, O. 1986. El decir y lo dicho: Polifonía de la enunciación. Barcelona: Paidós.

190

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega

Grice, H. P. [1975] 1991. “Lógica y conversación.” In La búsqueda del significado, ed. L. Valdés, 511–530. Murcia: Tecnos. GRIALE Group, ed. 2010. Actividades para la enseñanza de la ironía en la clase de ELE. Madrid: Edinumen. Haverkate, H. 1985. “La ironía verbal: análisis pragmalingüístico.” Revista española de lingüística 15(2): 343–391. Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. PCIC. 2007. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblio teca_ele/plan_curricular/default.htm. Rodríguez Rosique, S. 2009. “Una propuesta neogriceana.” In Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres: Una aproximación pragmática a la ironía, eds. L. Ruiz Gurillo and X. Padilla García, 109–133. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Ruiz Gurillo, L. 2008. “El lugar de la ironía en clase de ELE: Más allá del Marco y del Plan Curricular.” Redele 14: 1–8. www.mepsyd.es/redele/Revista14/index.shtml. Ruiz Gurillo, L. and X. Padilla García, eds. 2009. Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres: Una aproximación pragmática a la ironía. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Searle, J. [1969] 1986. Actos de habla: Ensayo de filosofía del lenguaje. Madrid: Cátedra. Shively, R. L., M. R. Menke and S. M. Manzón-Omundson. 2008. “Perception of Irony by L2 Learners of Spanish.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(2): 101–132. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber.1992. “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua 87: 53–76.

10 TEACHING WITH AND ABOUT HUMOR IN THE L2 SPANISH CLASSROOM Susana de los Heros

1.

Introduction1

Humor is a universal phenomenon that enables people across cultures to manifest “experienced ambiguities, dilemmas, and paradoxes” common to all human beings (Driessen 2015, p. 418). Likewise, humor serves many important social functions. For example, humor can help to establish and build rapport between people (Boxer and Conde 1997; Coates 1996; de los Heros 2001; Straehle 1993), to show intimacy, and to mitigate conflict (Holmes, Marra, and Burns 2001; Norrick and Spitz 2008). Still, humor may also have negative effects. Ironic and sarcastic comments and jokes may be offensive and damaging to people, and serve to exert control over an individual or a social group (Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Billig 2005). Humor is believed to be an innate human capability that, according to Vrticka, Black, and Reiss (2013, p. 860), has served “important evolutionary socio-emotional processes.” Furthermore, these authors emphasize the fact that the regions and networks in the brain “underlying humor appreciation” evolved to function as such once humor became a prominent tool “in processing social information” (Vrticka, Black, and Reiss 2013, p. 866). Humor is definitely rooted in speakers’ ethnic and cultural heritage; thus, it is a part of their communicative competence (Shively 2013). In addition, some scholars posit that there is a joke and/or humor competence (Attardo 2002, p. 161; Bell and Attardo 2010; Carrel 1997, as quoted in Gironzetti 2013, p. 191).2 In view of such competence and its prominent role in social life, the teaching and learning of humor in foreign or second language pragmatics should be central; however, humor has been inadequately studied compared to other areas of L2 pragmatics (Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Shively 2013).3 Similarly, in most curricula in schools, the teaching of Spanish as a second language (hereafter L2 Spanish) does not include the teaching of pragmatic skills to understand and produce humor. Still, humor in the L2 classroom may be used as a strategy to

192

Susana de los Heros

lower anxiety, rather than as a pragmatic skill that needs be developed and included as a content area. In addition, the textbooks used in class usually lack pedagogical explanations on humor in general, humor strategies, or conversational humor mechanisms in the L2.4 Furthermore, when humor is included, it is only presented in the form of illustrated comic strips. In this chapter, I discuss some of the sociocultural functions of humor and the reasons for which it should be considered a part of speakers’ L1 communicative competence, making a case for its inclusion as a content area in L2 teaching. In order to do that, first, I briefly examine the functions of humour in society and the different models for its interpretation. Then, I make a distinction between the use of humor as a strategy to entertain and to lower students’ anxiety in the L2 classroom, and the teaching of humor as a pragmatic communicative skill. Subsequently, I explore L2 Spanish instructors’ ideas about the role of humor in the classroom and whether they think that the development of humorous skills is part of their current instructional practices. Finally, due to the fact that there are no guidelines regarding the skills to use humor in L2 Spanish, I present some helpful tips for teaching about humor and how to use it in Spanish. These pedagogical practices are drawn from experiences in the teaching of L2 English (Bell 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2011; Bell and Attardo 2010; Bell and Pomerantz 2016), from other scholars in Spanish pedagogy (Díez Domínguez 2008; Gironzetti 2013; Padilla García 2010; Shively 2013), and from instructors of L2 Spanish, including the author herself.

2.

Definition and functions of humor in society

Humor is a rhetorical element that can only be understood in relation to the linguistic and extra-linguistic context in which it occurs. Intonation, syntax or writing style, discursive metaphors, theme, type of event, and contextual features are used by recipients or the audience to interpret humorous texts (Robinson and Smith-Lovin 2001). Additionally, its functions vary. For example, it can serve as a social lubricant between strangers, while teasing among participants of the same status can show alignments and bonding (Boxer and Conde 1997; Coates 1996; de los Heros 2001; Straehle 1993), and mitigate conflict between participants of different status (Norrick and Spitz 2008). Nonetheless, speakers of higher status can employ humor for bonding within their group to exclude other members from fully participating in the main discussions (Rogerson-Revell 2007). Humor can also be used to exert power over minority groups (Billig 2005).

2.1.

Theoretical approaches to humor

There are many theories that interpret and explain how humor functions in society. The most influential are the Superiority Theory (Billig 2005), the Theory of Relief (Freud 1963; Lefcourt and Martin [1986] 2011), and the Incongruity Theory (Meyer 2000; Torres Sánchez 1999). Within the Superiority Theory,

Teaching with and about humor

193

humor is seen as a mechanism used by social elites to assert their power over minority or “inferior” groups (Billig 2005). The Theory of Relief, on the other hand, posits humor as a tool to diffuse tension (Freud 1963; Lefcourt and Martin [1986] 2011). Finally, the Incongruity Theory maintains that humor emerges when people experience an unexpected event or see something illogical or absurd that makes the situation laughable (Meyer 2000, p. 316; Torres Sánchez 1999). Additionally, there are recent theoretical developments such as the Dual Process Theory with Computational Considerations (Boyang 2016, p. 71) which builds on current “advances on cognitive science and consider(s) findings on the neurological and cognitive processes involved in humor interpretation” with the intention of developing a unified theory of humor. For example, the brain’s processing of humor has been found to take different forms, but it “is reliably associated with (residual) incongruity detection and resolution” (Boyang 2016, p. 861). This means that all forms of humor are processed similarly in the brain. Therefore, an integrated theory of humor could be useful. Nonetheless, for the purposes here, this new cognitive theory will not be employed, due to its technical and complex nature, which does not work well for educational purposes. Therefore, in this chapter, only the General Theory of Verbal Humor, hereafter GTVH (Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 2001, 2008; Attardo, Hempelmann, and Maio 2002) will be addressed. This theory is the only one that describes the linguistic mechanisms of humorous texts that teachers will be able to both follow and use to develop students’ pragmatic skills in the L2.

2.2.

The general theory of verbal humor

The GTVH has six knowledge resources, which are ordered hierarchically. These resources correspond to different parameters or levels of the joke and include the following concepts: (1) opposition of schemes, (2) logical mechanism, (3) situation, (4) narrative strategy, (5) language, and (6) text of the joke (Attardo, Hempelmann, and Maio 2002, p. 4). The hierarchical order does not reflect production; it is dependent on relationships between the parameters (Attardo and Raskin 1991, p. 294). At the center of this theory is the opposition of scripts. A script refers to a cultural understanding of the world that is shared between producers and their respective audiences. For example, the script of a common scenario germane to a restaurant includes that food will be served, waiters will serve it, and clients will pay for service. It is generally observed that these scripts relate to different contexts, situations, or stereotypes of people, and are also often associated with specific words in a language. According to this theory, a comical event takes place when two scripts or schemas, which are incompatible, occur in a given situation at the same time, or one immediately after another, provoking an inconsistency with the reality that people need to resolve. Humor, then, arises as a solution of incompatibility.

194

3.

Susana de los Heros

Humor in the L2 classroom as a pedagogical strategy and a content area

Humor has multiple functions in the L2 classroom. It can be used as an L2 pedagogical strategy to lower language students’ anxiety, and also for entertainment. As a component of speakers’ communicative practice, the development of skills to understand and use humor can be set as an objective in the L2 curriculum. Its value as an L2 instructional strategy has been emphasized by many authors (Bell 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Bell and Attardo 2010; Deneire 1995; Gironzetti 2013, 2017; Neuliep 1991; Schmitz 2002; Shively 2013; Wagner and Urios-Aparisi 2007, 2011). I argue here that humor mechanisms need to be explicitly taught in L2 Spanish courses so that students can learn both how to interpret humor and how to create humorous utterances/texts in Spanish. In L2 classes, students may feel nervous and threatened when they cannot express themselves well in the language, so lowering their anxiety is important. Humor can also relax and entertain students making them more attentive to what is being taught (Torok, McMorris, and Lin 2004; Wagner and Urios-Aparisi 2007, 2011). Furthermore, Wagner and Urios-Aparisi (2007, 2011) provide examples in which L2 teachers’ humor makes face-threatening situations less intimidating to students, aiding them in memorizing difficult grammatical structures. However, humor is not always “recognized, understood, and appreciated,” as at times people may take offense. Instructors and students need to take this into consideration (Bell and Pomerantz 2016, p. 31). Indeed, instructors need to be careful in their use of humor, and also avoid ironic and dark humor (Bell and Pomerantz 2016).

3.1.

Humor as a content area

The development of pragmatic skills to enable students to understand and employ humor is usually not viewed as content matter per se in L2 Spanish, thus it is generally not included in the curriculum. However, for more than two decades there have been advocates in favor of incorporating humor as an L2 content area and more specifically as a pragmatic competence skill. For example, Deneire (1995, p. 295) considers that “well-developed communicative competence implies humor and vice-versa.” As this author indicates, humor skills can be taught within many different frameworks. Within contrastive analysis, instructors can “use humor as a technique to make students aware of the mechanisms underlying verbal humor such as polysemy, homonymy, etc.” (Deneire 1995, p. 291). Following a more communicative approach, instructors can concentrate on the different schemata that underlie humorous expressions such as puns. More recently, other scholars such as Cook (1997), Pomerantz and Bell (2007), Bell and Pomerantz (2016), and Shardakova (2013), among others, have emphasized the centrality of language play, including humor, for L2 acquisition. As language play embodies “the continual push and pull between creativity and formulaicity” (Bell and Pomerantz 2016, p. 34), the teaching of humorous mechanisms allows students to understand that learning an L2 involves more than rote memorization, because it

Teaching with and about humor

195

includes creativity within the boundaries of L2’s rules. It also lets students manipulate L2’s sounds, words, patterns, and rules. Furthermore, humor may aid students in constructing and negotiating their L2 identity with native speakers of the language (Shardakova 2013). L2 learners need both linguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge for comprehension and production of L2 humor; however, these two modes involve different skills. To understand humor, people should be able to deal with semantic ambiguities, which may lead to multiple interpretations that are solved in relation to inferences and contextual cues. Thus, humor in language teaching can help students develop an awareness of language as “dynamic and dialogic” (Bell and Pomerantz 2016). Instructors can analyze humor in conversation or in texts in the target language to highlight inferential processes in communication. In general, the comprehension of humor has three levels: (1) recognition, (2) understanding of the frame of humor or knowledge of the scripts, and (3) its appreciation. In other words, the listener/reader/audience needs to recognize the humorous intention, then understand the mechanisms of humor at work, and lastly, appreciate it (or reject it) (Bell and Attardo 2010; Hay 2001). Therefore, to teach humor teachers can incorporate exercises where they include these three stages. For example, a picture of a humorous wall tile, as the one provided below in Figure 10.1, can serve teachers for this purpose. I will delineate the different steps here. In this particular case, the instructor should read the text and review some structures that are used in the text, such as the se impersonal and comparisons. At the same time, the scripts about buying something on credit should be discussed briefly in class. The instructor should comment on traditional transactions in small towns in Spain and Latin America where people sometimes buy on credit, but with more informal restrictions. The text should be read again, this time looking at the constraints that the seller details before selling things on credit. Contrast this statement to usual credit restrictions in the United States. Finally, contrast the two scripts and explain how humor emerges. In brief, there are many linguistic and sociopragmatic skills involved in humor comprehension. These may include familiarity with joke scripts and cultural stereotypes. In addition, for the production of humor, L2 speakers need be able to recognize where jokes can be expected and where they can occur in an interaction. They also need to know the types of jokes that are culturally appropriate, as well as knowledge of what is funny in a particular culture (Attardo and Bell 2010; Hay 2001). It should be noted that in L2 language play, students would be able to increase metalinguistic awareness of communication processes that entail interpreting inferences using contextual cues. In that way, the teacher can help language learners develop further, while at the same time “expand their communicative repertoires” (Bell and Pomerantz 2016, p. 34). Of course, incorporating humor as a pragmatic skill and as a content element in the L2 classroom does not entail removing the grammatical structures from the lesson. Instructors should and can do both. Furthermore, if instructors decide to include humor in their classroom, learners can gradually become intercultural language users aware of how the target language works.

196

Susana de los Heros

FIGURE 10.1

3.2.

Wall tile

Challenges when including humor in the classroom

Despite its advantages, the inclusion of the pragmatics of humor in the L2 classroom presents many challenges. For instance, language learners need to have some linguistic and cultural knowledge to understand certain kinds of humor. To avoid misunderstandings, instructors should introduce students to all of the cultural and structural elements used in any joke or humorous text before presenting it in class (Deneire 1995). Additionally, humor should never be used as a technique to teach new information “but rather as an illustration and reinforcement of acquired knowledge” (Deneire 1995, p. 294). Schmitz (2002) proposes dividing humorous forms for L2 teaching into: (1) universal or “reality-based joke,” (2) cultural jokes which are based on cultural stereotypes, and (3) linguistic-based jokes, which are built around specific features in a language’s phonology, morphology, and syntactical structures. This author is aware that students of different proficiency levels cannot equally process linguistic

Teaching with and about humor

197

structures or culturally complex jokes. However, he asserts that teaching humor can start with beginners, provided that instructors “plan ahead and make sure that students learn the vocabulary, linguistic or cultural traits on which the oral or written joke or humorous text is based” (Schmitz 2002, p. 93). He also recommends using jokes that do not require understanding complex words or structures at lower levels, and introducing more culturally specific humor at the intermediate level. Bell (2009a, p. 244) indicates that lower proficiency students may use language creatively, as she has found novice learners to be able to do it. Davies (2003) also noticed that non-native English learners of various proficiency levels can collaborate and co-construct conversational joking with native speakers outside the classroom. The L2 English learners in Davies’ study engaged in conversations with native speakers who were also “tutors.” Thus, Davies shows how of all these ESL students exploited their “limited sociolinguistic resources” to create a “joking episode” between them (Davies 2003, p. 1381). Lower proficiency L2 students can, in some instances, play with language and use humorous utterances, but they are not always successful in doing so. Unsuccessful humorous attempts are cases of failed humor, which can also occur in someone’s first language (Bell 2009b; Bell and Attardo 2010). There are two main types of failed humor. There are cases in which humor is not recognized, or where the audience is aware of the attempt but does not find it funny. Bell and Attardo (2010, p. 430) provide seven different (not mutually exclusive) categories for L2 speakers’ failure to understand and/or produce humor. These are: (1) speakers’ failure to process language at the locutionary level (i.e., when speakers do not understand the utterance); (2) speakers’ failure to understand the meanings of words and/or connotation of words; (3) speakers’ failure to understand the pragmatics of utterances, including irony; (4) speakers’ failure to recognize the frame of the joke, either by presuming a false negative, (i.e., they miss a joke) or by perceiving a false positive (i.e., they see a joke when in reality there is no humorous intention); (5) speakers’ failure to understand the incongruity of the joke (i.e., they cannot recognize the different scripts at play); (6) speakers’ failure to appreciate a joke (i.e., it is not perceived as funny); and (7) speakers’ failure to join in the joking as active speakers (Bell and Attardo 2010, p. 430). Students of an L2 may feel uncomfortable using humor and may not know how to react to it when it is directed towards them. In addition, their humorous statements may be misinterpreted. For instance, an outcome of their jokes may be viewed by native speakers as a mistake rather than as a good-humored utterance (Shardakova 2013). However, the objective of teaching should not be to make students express themselves as native speakers, but to present “learners with specific formulas for appropriateness, [such that] language is taught as a set of choices, and learners are allowed to choose those that allow them to feel most at ease in the L2” (Bell 2011, p. 150). Learning about the skills needed to produce humorous utterances in an L2 in the protected environment of the L2 classroom, in which instructors guide students by modeling speech, provides them with a safe space for experimentation. Teaching

198

Susana de los Heros

pragmatic skills to employ humor will also help students learn more about cultural norms (Bell 2011), thus preparing them to use the L2 appropriately in the real world. Finally, it is important to mention that research on pragmatics and ESL has found that explicit instruction has positive effects on SLA (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002; Gironzetti 2013; Spada and Tomita 2010; Tammenga-Helmantel et al. 2016). For example, Spada and Tomita (2010, p. 290) compared the results of 41 studies that measured the different effects that implicit and explicit instruction have on the acquisition of L2 English structures, and found that explicit instruction not only helped “learners’ explicit knowledge of complex and simple forms” but it also “contributed to their ability to use these features in un-analyzed and spontaneous ways.” Explicit teaching is also important in the case of learning about social patterns and behaviors in a different culture, even when there may be similarities in both (Escandell-Vidal 2009). Escandell-Vidal indicates that L2 students find difficulties in learning new social patterns from another culture, and they will also have drawbacks because: a student will continue to use his/her cultural values, which can be very different from those of the target language and culture. This can cause interferences and misunderstandings. To avoid these, a student will need to create a second self-regulation process in order to inhibit the automatic response every time that it is inadequate for the norms of the new culture. ( Escandell-Vidal 2009, p. 18, my translation) In other words, instructors need to explicitly describe different cultural norms and patterns and make students practice these forms. Therefore, Escandell-Vidal (2009, p. 18) recommends explicitly reconstructing “the social situation with all relevant details; then inhibiting their automatic responses; and, finally, substituting all of these by other consciously monitored reactions” (my translation). In this line of thought, Bell endorses an overt instruction of the mechanics and functions of humor. She argues that to enable this, different types of humor and their production patterns should be incorporated in L2 textbooks in an organized and systematic fashion, as other pragmatic elements (e.g., speech acts) are introduced. In that way, students will be aware of “the forms and functions of L2 humor, and possibly increas[e] their comprehension and, if they so choose, engage in the production of playful L2 interactions” (Bell 2011, p. 136). The inclusion of jokes or comic strips in textbooks is risky, because “humorous texts can become outdated in a matter of months” (Schmitz 2002, p. 94). Still, there are longstanding jokes that are still considered funny. Additionally, if humor is presented in a conversational way—which is not necessarily conventionalized—it can easily be interpreted in relation to context, especially if a synthetic and simplified theory of humor such as the GTVH is presented along the way. Considering the centrality of the role of the teachers in L2 learning process, it is essential to assess their ideas about humor and also explore their own teaching practices.

Teaching with and about humor

4.

199

Instructors’ ideas about teaching humor

Language teachers are very influential in the learning process since they determine, among other things, the scope of the class, the methodology, as well as the supplementary materials used for instructional purposes. In order to learn what teachers think about the role of humor in the classroom, I developed an online questionnaire using SurveyMonkey.5 This survey was sent to colleagues at several American universities and language institutes in Spain. The following questions guided my research for this section: a)

Do instructors believe that the skills for the production and interpretation of humor in Spanish are important components of the language that need to be introduced in the classroom? b) Do instructors include the teaching of skills to produce and interpret humor in Spanish in their class by bringing in activities to develop them? c) Do instructors intuitively teach skills for the interpretation and production of humor in Spanish or have they devised techniques to do it? d) Do any of the instructors’ background characteristics, such as native language, educational background, gender, and study abroad in a Spanish-speaking country, affect their ideas about teaching skills to use and interpret humor in the classroom?

4.1.

The survey

The survey consisted of 28 items. It was later discovered that the interpretation of four of the 28 items was very ambiguous, so they were discarded from the final count rendering a total of 24 items in the survey. The first nine items elicited respondents’ demographic information, including their social, educational, and teaching background. All of the remaining items inquired about instructors’ views on L2 teaching and their ideas about the role of humor in the classroom. Participants were asked to either agree or disagree with statements. In addition, there were two open-ended questions. Due to space restrictions, I will limit my discussion to the responses given to the two open-ended questions and to four items. These specifically requested respondents’ ideas about the role of humor in L2 Spanish and their instructional practices in relation to the teaching of the production and use of humor. The four items are: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Humor is an important element of communicative competence and should be taught in class (Question 13 in the survey; hereafter Question=Q).6 I bring activities to class so that students learn Spanish about conversational humor in Spanish (Q18). Humor is an important element in the teaching of Spanish, and I teach it using comic strips and providing cultural explanations (Q24). I would like to teach students how to use humor in Spanish, but I don’t know how to do it (Q25).

200

Susana de los Heros

There were also two optional items that requested teachers to share their instructional techniques on the use of humor in Spanish as a part of their teaching plan, or to make comments on the topic of teaching humor.7

4.2.

The respondents

The survey was aimed at Spanish instructors in the US and Spain. One hundred sixty-two Spanish instructors responded, but not all answered all the questions in the survey. Each survey item was answered by approximately 156–160 respondents. Eighty percent of the participants were women ages 20 to 75. The great majority (48.9 percent) worked in an American university 29.9 percent in an American middle or high school, 11.7 percent worked at a Spanish language institute, and only 9.5 percent at a Spanish university. Many respondents (60.6 percent) had earned a Spanish master’s degree; 21.2 percent had a PhD, and 4.4 percent had only attained a high school diploma. Many of them (59.9 percent) were native Spanish speakers. Most non-native speakers of Spanish had studied in a Spanish-speaking country, although 8.45 percent indicated that they had never studied in Latin America or Spain.

4.3.

Discussion

In this section, I briefly summarize and interpret the survey responses on those items that specify instructors’ thoughts on the use of humor in the classroom. I intended to learn about instructors’ ideas and practices regarding teaching humor and to determine whether or not social factors affected participants’ responses.8 Figure 10.2 shows participants’ responses about the importance of humor in the L2 classroom. Most respondents, regardless of their social and educational background, consider humor as an important component of Spanish communicative competence that should be taught in class. However, only a few of the participants left comments in the two open-ended items. In general, participants stated that humor was an important component in teaching. For example, one participant stated that humor “is part of language expression and that is why it should be taught.” Overall, their comments reveal that many instructors thought humor was related to speakers’ communicative competence. Additionally, some respondents felt that humor was an instructional strategy, and a few of them indicated that teaching humor did not have any kind of value. Teachers were also asked whether or not they included activities specifically designed to teach Spanish conversational humor. Results are shown in Figure 10.3. If one contrasts results from Figure 10.2—where 85.17 percent of the participants agreed that humor was an important content area of instruction—with Figure 10.3— where approximately 50 percent reported bringing activities to teach humor in class—there is evidently an obvious discrepancy.9 This inconsistency can be explained by two factors resulting from the comments in the open-ended section of the survey: lack of time to cover the material in the syllabus, and not knowing how to properly incorporate humor in their lessons.

Teaching with and about humor

FIGURE 10.2

The importance of humor in L2 classes (Q13)

FIGURE 10.3

Use of activities or videos to learn conversational humor (Q18)

201

Figure 10.4 shows responses to the question of whether instructors include comic strips and cultural explanations to teach humor. More than half of the respondents claim that they do so, utilizing sources not found in their textbooks. These are tebeos10 or comic books and chistes ‘jokes’. In addition, some instructors reported employing well-known Argentine and Spanish comic strips such as Mafalda (Quino) and El Roto (Rábago). When comparing Figures 10.3 and 10.4, it is evident that more instructors use comic strips than other sources. This may be due to familiarity with this type of resource. Comic strips are frequently included in Spanish conversation textbooks, so instructors may be more accustomed to these. Also, respondents may perceive conversational humor as too difficult for learners to understand. Indeed, some instructors indicated that finding good videos for teaching and devising ways to incorporate videos into the classroom were problematic issues.11

202

Susana de los Heros

Use of comic strips or cultural explanations to learn conversational humor (Q24)

FIGURE 10.4

Figure 10.5, below, shows either respondents’ agreement or disagreement with the statement that they would like to teach humor, but do not know exactly how to teach it in the classroom. Results show that 45 percent of the instructors claim that they do not know how to teach humor. The results can partially be interpreted by their training. Instructors with an MA or PhD in Spanish in the US usually take one or more classes on teaching methodology where they learn how to develop class materials. Nonetheless, in such classes, the focus is on reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills, with an emphasis on grammar and vocabulary. There is seldom a focus on developing skills to employ and understand humor, and rarely on L2 pragmatics. Of course, in these courses they comment on some cultural aspects of Latin America and Spain, but not specifically in relation to humor. Moreover, as Bell and Pomerantz (2016) remark, in L2 education, language play is hardly included as a topic of instruction. In the open-ended section of the survey, some participants expressed their lack of knowledge on the subject of teaching humor (see Figure 10.5). A noteworthy quote from a respondent supporting this point was that “humor is a culture-sensitive phenomenon” that is “difficult to teach in Spanish.” Lastly, another interesting comment from one of the participants is: “There are guidelines on how to teach grammar and vocabulary. I ask myself, how can humor be taught?” This question points to the fact that ACTFL does not have guidelines about the use of pragmatic skills to understand and use humor in an L2. However, as I have argued previously, there are explicit ways to develop communicative competence skills that can be incorporated in the L2 classroom. I will present more detailed suggestions in Section 5.1. Additionally, some respondents indicated that they have too much to cover in their curriculum, and nothing else could be added. In sum, although many instructors feel humor is a key cultural element in L2, many do not know how to approach it, while others say they do not have enough time to include it in the

Teaching with and about humor

FIGURE 10.5

203

No systematic knowledge on how to teach humor in the classroom

curriculum. Most of the instructors who reported that they teach about humor in Spanish said they used comics, rather than videos, which address conversational humor. Another objective of this chapter was to find out whether or not participants’ social factors affected their responses. A Pearson chi-square test was employed to determine if there is a significant relation between the responses of teaching humor in the classroom and any of the demographic variables of respondents. It was found that only teachers’ place of work and their native language had a significant correlation (at 90 percent or p > 0.1) on the survey item: I bring activities to class so students can learn Spanish conversational humor. It was observed in the data that L2 Spanish instructors from American universities were more likely to bring activities to class to teach humor than (university) instructors in Spain. The same data also revealed that American university instructors employed humor more than their counterparts in the American secondary education classroom. Interestingly, the respondents in this section were mostly native speakers of Spanish.12

5.

Strategies for the integration of humor in L2 teaching

The results of the survey about teaching humor revealed that many instructors were willing to include humor in class but were not sure how to do it. To bridge this gap, in the next section, I discuss some strategies and instructional practices, which can be employed for that purpose. I base this discussion on Bell and Pomerantz’s (2016) Chapter 8 (pp. 166–183). Then, I provide some sample activities that can be incorporated in the Spanish L2 classroom based on my literature review and research. These have been adapted from ESL literature (Bell 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Bell and Pomerantz 2016), from other scholars like Díez Domínguez (2008), Gironzetti (2013, 2017), Padilla García (2010), and Shively (2013), from the respondents of the questionnaire, and from the author herself.

204

5.1.

Susana de los Heros

Explicit instruction of mechanisms and functions of humor

It is evident that humor is pervasive in the social life of any linguistic community. Even though humor varies culturally and linguistically, there are some common elements that make people laugh across cultures, and then again, there are instances of humor that are not intentional (i.e., clumsiness, unexpected incongruities in a situation that seem odd). Others are, on the other hand, culturally bound. To be able to teach students on the use of humor strategies instructors need to plan and organize their material. Bell and Pomerantz (2016, p. 170) suggest four types of activities related to the understanding and production of humor to be considered in L2 language planning: (1) activities which help students identify humorous forms, (2) activities to analyze and understand how humor works in language, (3) activities that aid students in producing humorous forms, and (4) activities that teach students how to respond to humor. Instructors should be aware that there are micro-skills that need to be developed in any kind of humor-based activity. A good example of such planning is found in Gironzetti (2013, 2017). This author proposes three stages for the analysis of a joke: (1) textual exploration and recognition, (2) humorous incongruity and resolution (Hay 2001, understanding), and (3) social and/or political critique (Hay 2001, appreciation and agreement). The objective in the classroom should be to teach students ways of recognizing instances of intentional humor. It has been shown that explicit instruction in pragmatics helps SLA acquisition. Thus, in L2 courses, there should be an overt discussion of humor mechanisms, their functions and the topics of cultural jokes. Instructors should choose a theoretical framework that is easy to understand and explain, such as the GTVH (Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 2001, 2008; Attardo, Hempelmann, and Maio 2002). This theory is explained in layman’s terms and details the mechanisms of jokes based on both the incongruency of scripts (cultural knowledge of situations and things to expect in them) and the components of language (i.e., words, intonation, formulaic phrases). Instructors should also mention to their students that there are some recurrent topics that usually serve as the bases for jokes in English and Spanish, such as the things that “deal with the boundaries between nature and culture, in particular with sex, food, health, and death, as well as with social boundaries (us and them, strangers and lunatics)” (Driessen 2015, p. 417). Additionally, Bell and Pomerantz (2016, pp. 180–181) also present a chart with a scale of appropriate activities—based on proficiency level of students—that were successful in an ESL classroom. These types of activities can be adapted for L2 Spanish or other languages classes. For example, for beginning students, activities will range from the identification of puns to the recognition of how humor can be co-constructed in a conversation. More advanced speakers could also analyze and produce ironic and sarcastic humor.

5.2.

Students’ language and cultural awareness about the use of humor in the L2 Spanish class

Explicit language instruction positively affects L2 acquisition (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002; Gironzetti 2013; Spada and Tomita 2010; Tammenga-

Teaching with and about humor

205

Helmantel et al. 2016). Therefore, it is important to focus on form and discuss the different functions and forms of humor. Overtly, this can be accomplished in many different ways.

5.2.1.

Analysis of humor using Spanish video clips

Students should be asked to think of the most important ways they use humor and the reasons behind it (i.e., for bonding with people, saving face in embarrassing situations, sarcasm, to make fun of others, etc.). They should also be asked if they think that humor varies depending on language register and context (i.e., in an informal conversation, class discussion, lecture, TV show, etc.). After discussing their answers, instructors can show clips demonstrating humor in a variety of contexts. By doing this, students can learn to recognize some of the similarities and differences in how humor is portrayed in their L1 and L2. The videos should be followed by carefully planned instructor discussions to ascertain whether or not they can spot those similarities and differences. Students will be presented with categories of different kinds of humor (e.g., sarcastic humor, joke, language play). As they listen to the clips, they can match them to a category. To make this experience less challenging, as one of my informants indicated, the transcription of the clips could be included to provide understanding of the audio.

5.2.2.

Request students to gather funny texts/conversations from L2 magazines and/or TV programs

The Internet offers access to TV programs and magazines from many Spanish and Hispanic communities. L2 Spanish learners can be assigned to gather humorous texts/conversations or jokes from TV programs, sitcoms, or magazines in Spanish found on the Internet. In class, students can work in groups to analyze the samples, examine the techniques utilized, and find cultural elements that are tied to them. In humorous programs, students may benefit from hearing laugh tracks to clue them into what is viewed as funny. In class, ambiguous and/or complex segments can be analyzed and discussed. The classroom can be a rich environment for students when instructors make a communicative interaction possible. In this kind of atmosphere, instructors can use contextual cues as well as available verbal resources, and associate them to relevant topics being treated in class to help students and to incorporate verbal play and humor into language. Díez Domínguez (2008) suggests a sample activity called the “Caza del Tesoro,” or Treasure Hunt, to learn about humor in the L2. In this task, teachers propose a query in the form of a treasure hunt about a cultural item in the L2, which can be solved using the Internet and following a set of detailed instructions in a handout created by the instructor. This activity needs to be organized ahead of time. First, the teacher guides students through a set of sub-questions, defining the steps that they need to take in order to solve the mystery or treasure hunt. All these questions are related to the query to be solved after the student has solved all previous sub-questions. To be able to solve the last

206

Susana de los Heros

task, students have to understand and reflect on the contents of the previous tasks. Teachers provide links that students will use to respond to all the questions. It is recommended that the teacher include an assessment rubric at the end.

5.3.

Teachers as models of Spanish humor production

As mentioned before, some topics are commonly used for humorous purposes in many cultures. Additionally, humor mechanisms are universal (i.e., the contrast of two scripts which are incompatible but emerge in a particular situation). Spanish instructors can make students aware of similarities and differences in implementing these mechanisms in English and Spanish, as well as in topics that are usually used for jokes. Activities incorporating humor can be used to target the vocabulary that students know or are learning. For example, in my elementary Spanish class when I describe myself I jokingly use the adjective joven “young” (even though I am not) and describe one of my young students in the class as viejo “old” (even though that person is not). I use an emphatic intonation and make faces so they know I am using a play mode. I know it is successful if students laugh. My experience is that this kind of activity makes students feel more relaxed and at the same time aware of the fact that there are similar joking strategies in Spanish and English. However, it should be noted that teachers should be very careful with humor in reference to age in the media.13

5.4.

Play with language, making students aware of dynamism

Since language communication depends heavily on context and speakers’ intentions, Bell and Pomerantz (2014) recommend that instructors help students play with language, even when the manipulation is not necessarily humorous. An example provided by these authors is to experiment with a formulaic expression such as “I got up on the wrong side of the bed today,” and change some words so that it means the opposite, contextualizing it: I feel great + I got up on the right side of bed. A similar activity in Spanish can also be done using popular proverbs, or sayings. A phrase like ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente ‘eyes which do not see, heart which does not feel’ or ‘out of sight, out of mind’ can be used alongside pictures of food, and changing the proverb to ojos que ven, corazón que siente, to show that they can be creative with language and make people laugh because it is something that people do not expect (they are expecting the negative form of the verbs ven and sienten). Gironzetti (2017) suggests first teaching humor by raising students’ awareness of different types of humor, humor expressions, and formulae. She also adds that students should be guided in their analysis of humorous text by teaching them to focus on key features of verbal elements such as phrases and non-verbal behavior (i.e., people reactions and the context). In terms of helping students’ production of humor for interactional purposes, Gironzetti (2017) recommends the training of students. In these exercises, students are asked to choose topics and ideas, then to select humorous scripts and figure out how these can overlap. Teachers should

Teaching with and about humor

207

be able to provide them with some strategies used for these purposes such as exaggeration (e.g., Era tan alto que se caía el lunes y se levantaba el sábado), irony (to say the opposite of what you mean, e.g., Me encanta la clase que me deja tanta tarea que no tengo tiempo libre), and word play with homonyms (e.g., MARINERO: -¡Almirante, quince carabelas aproximándose!; ALMIRANTE:-¿Una flota?; MARINERO: ¡-No, flotan las quince, where flotar is a verb and flota, a noun), among others.

5.5.

Provide space for creativity

Students can be given time to interact with each other and to be creative with language in a less structured way. Language manipulation in the form of role-plays or games sometimes is not deemed as important as other language practices, but when students work in groups doing role-plays or games, they interact in more spontaneous and meaningful ways, and “bec[o]me deeply invested in their utterances and rich uses of language [occur]” (Pomerantz and Bell 2007, p. 571). Additionally, students can be given resources such as http://zachary-jones.com/zambombazo/tag/ lolcats/ or http://profe-de-espanol.de/2016/06/04/los-memes-en-clase-de-ele/ where they find materials they can utilize to interact in a meaningful and humorous way in Spanish (Marcos Miguel, personal communication). An example of bilingual word play that students can be given in class to promote their creativity is presented in Figure 10.6 (shared by Veronica Flaherty): After receiving a couple of comic strips like this one, they will be instructed to use them to create an original Spanish assignment to be shared with their classmates, noting that their product can be but does not need to be, bilingual.

5.6.

Structured practice with trained native speakers of the target language outside the classroom

Many schools and universities offer a Tertulia, or Spanish conversation hour, as an extracurricular activity for students to practice the L2 they are learning. In one of these meetings, humor can be discussed using the prompt “tell us stories where something funny happened to you while you were using Spanish.” In those circumstances,

FIGURE 10.6

Comic strip

208

Susana de los Heros

trained Spanish native speakers or teachers can guide and collaborate with students, as in Davies (2003), to engage in conversation and help create joking episodes.

5.7.

Use of comic strips

One of the most obvious and traditional ways to teach humor is through comic strips. They are often included in textbooks, as they have a cultural component. In addition, many of the participants of this study indicated that comic strips are one of the main types of materials they bring to class to help students develop pragmatic skills to use and understand L2 humor. A comic strip can be utilized in different ways in the L2 classroom (Bongaerts 2010; del Rey Cabero 2013). As del Rey Cabero (2013) points out, comic strips are visual and include a contextual background or characters where there is a communicative event going on. Sometimes this includes playful interactions between the characters. The instructor can also exploit the images including pictures and gestures, as well as the language used and the social/cultural meaning in different ways. Del Rey Cabero (2013) suggests a series of activities that can be done with comics, including the comprehension of the text and images, the manipulation of the comic, the creation of their own comic, and the use of their cultural background to make sense of the comic. Additionally, Bongaerts (2010) mentions teaching culture as one of the main uses of the comics, as humor is closely related to culture. Furthermore, Padilla García (2010), for example, describes how comic strips enable students not only to learn about recent social events but also to develop intercultural awareness and improve reading skills. Gironzetti’s dissertation (2013) provides many examples on how to use the Internet along with comic strips to analyze humor in relation to cultural stereotypes, and politics in Spanish. This author (2017) proposes teaching humor comprehension by contrasting similar political cartoons in the students’ first language (and cultural context) and in Spanish. For example, for an American student with English as an L1, use and contrast a similar cartoon about the US president Donald Trump and Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto. This process allows Spanish L2 learners to “reconstruct the sociocultural presuppositions to which the [L2] cartoon refers” (Gironzetti 2017). Furthermore, Gironzetti (2017) recommends skimming and scanning the context so students can anticipate the purpose of the caricature and its content. Students will be guided so they can recognize the main characters/ caricatures. Afterwards, they can analyze the verbal and visual elements in more detail and examine the differences between the cartoon and the “reality” which will activate the pseudo logic mechanism. The recommendation, therefore, is to discuss the stereotypes and factual knowledge of the cartoon and then critique it.

5.8.

Socialization with natives during study abroad programs

Shively (2013) reports how socialization with native speakers in study abroad programs can help students develop their ability to play with language and be funny. This is not an activity that can be translated into the classroom, but it should be

Teaching with and about humor

209

considered when instructors take students abroad. It is important to help students “find opportunities to build relationships with members of the host culture, since it is in those relationships that students will have the greatest opportunities to engage in and develop L2 humor” (Shively 2013, p. 943).

5.9.

Additional exercises

Here are some additional exercises, to stimulate reflections about humor, as presented in the previous sections of this chapter. Exercise 1: Think of forms of humor in your speech community that may be common to other cultures. Explain why you think this is the case. Exercise 2: Find a popular Spanish canned joke and analyze it using the GTVH theory. Exercise 3: Find a couple of jokes, cartoons or other forms of humor that would only be funny in your own socio-cultural group and in your language. What are the similarities and differences between these forms of humor and those shared with other communities? Exercise 4: Reflect on the kinds of contextual cues and on the type of word play people use in conversation when one of the participants wants to diffuse tension, entertain others, or make a point without embarrassing someone (e.g., saying “good evening,” when someone gets to class very late). Consider using some of these examples in class to help students develop awareness about the inferential nature of language interpretation. Organize an activity in the form of role-play. Exercise 5: Look for a humorous political cartoon of a current situation in a Spanish-speaking country newspaper or website (e.g., Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, or Spain). Before presenting it to the class, prepare a review of the vocabulary and grammar forms that are needed to interpret the language in the cartoon. Write as many questions as needed to help students decode the elements that make it funny.

6.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed how to incorporate skills to help students in the understanding and production of humor in L2 Spanish. I have argued that humor is an important part of the L2 communicative competence, and, in this way, I have made a case for its inclusion in L2 Spanish classes. I have also explored whether or not instructors believed humor was an important pragmatic mechanism to incorporate in Spanish L2 teaching, and whether or not they knew how to incorporate it in their lessons. Most of them indicated that they thought humor was an important element of Spanish, and they were willing to include humor in class but were not sure how to do it. To bridge this gap, in the next section, I discuss some strategies and instructional practices. Finally, since the results of the surveys indicated that a large number of instructors did not know how to teach skills for developing humor competence, I have also presented examples of activities that could be adapted to be used in an L2 classroom.

210

Susana de los Heros

The discussion of the literature shows that many scholars have considered including humor in teaching foreign languages. However, as Deneire (1995) and Schmitz (2002) indicate, there are some difficulties with low-proficiency students because humor involves cultural knowledge that such students do not have. Thus, Schmitz (2002) posits that only some forms of humor are appropriate for students. There is no doubt that there are challenges in the process, and that it is harder for students with low L2 proficiency to understand and employ humor in their interactions with others in the L2, but it is not impossible. More recent studies on the teaching of humor, which use native speakers’ interactional data, suggest that even students with low proficiency can, given the appropriate environment, use contextual conversational cues to be funny (Bell 2005; Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Davies 2003). Obviously, L2 speakers with advanced or superior proficiency will be able to manipulate linguistic resources to be funny and display some creativity (Bell 2005, p. 212). While it seems that speakers of all levels can exploit humor, there are types of activities that may be more appropriate for different types of students. Bell and Pomerantz (2016, pp. 180–181) provide a very suitable table with a scale of activities divided into L2 proficiency based on research. In regard to instructors’ ideologies on teaching skills to develop humor competence, it was found that most Spanish teachers who responded to the survey agreed that humor was an important component of communicative competence that should be taught in the L2 classroom. Many, particularly native Spanish speakers with a university degree, said that they incorporated video clips in the class to practice conversational humor. However 45 percent of the respondents indicated that they did not know how to teach humor. In response to this gap, I have provided some activities that can be employed by those L2 Spanish teachers who would like to include activities that explicitly describe techniques and develop skills to use humor in the L2. Nonetheless, more research needs to be done in this area particularly in assessing the kinds of activities that can be used to develop good pragmatic skills at different proficiency levels.

Notes 1 I would like to thank Laura Lenardon, Melanie Magidow, Nausica Marcos Miguel, Angela Pitassi, and Clement White, as well as the various anonymous reviewers for all of their comments and suggestions to this chapter. I would also like to thank Juan Azula for his help with the statistics. Moreover, my gratitude goes to Elisa Gironzetti for facilitating me an article I was not able to get while in Spain, and for sending me her presentation at the July 2017 Annual Conference of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese in Chicago. 2 Attardo (2002, p. 161) defines humor competence as “the capacity of a speaker to process semantically a given text and to locate a set of relationships among its components, such that he/she would identify the text (or part of it) as humorous in an ideal situation.” 3 Some L2 researchers distinguish between the teaching and learning of a foreign and a second language (Longcope 2009). It is considered a foreign language when the language is taught/studied in a place where it is not commonly found in the public domain. In contrast, it is referred as an L2 when the language is widely available in the place where it is taught/studied. Here I use L2 in reference to both contexts.

Teaching with and about humor

211

4 The only textbook that I have found that includes some explicit teaching of humor production is ¡A Debate! Estrategias para la Interacción oral, Nivel C, and has been published in Spain (Muñoz-Basols et al. 2013). 5 The University of Rhode Island IRB for this study (HU1415–159) was approved on June 10, 2015. 6 As one of the anonymous reviewers points out, questions (1) and (3) may be ambiguous to respondents. While respondents agreeing or disagreeing with these statements— consisting of two clauses connected with “and”—should be agreeing or disagreeing with both clauses, this may not always the case. 7 I also included another category of items, which explored instructors’ views on L2 teaching. Due to space limitations, I will not discuss the results here. 8 I also wanted to ascertain whether there was a connection between instructors’ ideas on communicative teaching methods and their ideas on the teaching of humor. Due to space limitations, I will not be discussing those results here. 9 As one of reviewers points out, it seems a very optimistic number given that there are not many materials to teach about humor. It is possible that teachers may have reported teaching humor while in reality only including humorous materials in their lessons, but without focusing on the humor. 10 In peninsular Spanish, a tebeo is a comic book for children. 11 I want to thank Melanie Magidow for pointing this out to me. 12 There were fewer respondents from Spain. 13 Teachers should be careful with the topic of age. Please refer to Nuessel’s (1992) work on how the media portray older people.

References Attardo, S. 2001. Linguistics Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Attardo, S. 2002. “Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of Detection.” In Say Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication, eds. L. Anolli, R. Ciceri and G. Riva, 159–180. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Attardo, S. 2008. “Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor.” Language and Linguistics Compass 2(6): 1203–1215. Attardo, S. and V. Raskin. 1991. “Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model.” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 4(3–4): 293–347. Attardo, S., C. Hempelmann and S. Maio. 2002. “Script Oppositions and Logical Mechanisms: Modeling Incongruities and their Resolutions.” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 15(1): 3–46. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Evaluating the Empirical Evidence: Grounds for Instruction in Pragmatics?” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bell, N. D. 2005. “Exploring L2 Language Play as an Aid to SLL: A Case Study of Humor in NS—NNS Interaction.” Applied Linguistics 26(2): 192–218. Bell, N. D. 2007. “Humor Comprehension: Lessons Learned from Cross-Cultural Communication.” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 20(4): 367–387. Bell, N. D. 2009a. “Learning about and through Humor in the Second Language Classroom.” Language Teaching Research 13(3): 241–258. Bell, N. D. 2009b. “Responses to Failed Humor.” Journal of Pragmatics 41(9): 1825–1836. Bell, N. D. 2011. “Humor Scholarship and TESOL: Applying Findings and Establishing a Research Agenda.” TESOL Quarterly 45(1): 134–159. Bell, N. D. 2012a. “Formulaic Language, Creativity, and Language Play in a Second Language.” Linguist Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 189–205.

212

Susana de los Heros

Bell, N. D. 2012b. “Comparing Playful and Nonplayful Incidental Attention to Form.” Language Learning 62(1): 236–265. Bell, N. D. and S. Attardo. 2010. “Failed Humor: Issues in Nonnative Speakers’ Appreciation and Understanding of Humor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7(3): 423–447. Bell, N. D. and A. Pomerantz. 2014. “Reconsidering Language Teaching through the Focus on Humor.” EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 1(1): 31–47. Bell, N. D. and A. Pomerantz. 2016. Humor in the Classroom: A Guide for Language Teachers and Educational Researchers. New York: Routledge. Billig, M. 2005. Laughter and Ridicule. London: SAGE. Bongaerts, H. 2010. “El uso de historietas para tratar la cultura argentina en la clase de ELE.” ASELE 21: 225–237. http://cvc.Cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/ pdf/21/21_0225.Pdf. Boxer, D. and F. Conde. 1997. “From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display.” Journal of Pragmatics 27(3): 275–294. Boyang, L. 2016. “Humor: A Dynamic and Dual-Process Theory with Computational Considerations.” Advances in Cognitive Systems 4: 57–74. Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Cook, G. 1997. “Language Play, Language Learning.” ELT Journal 51(3): 224–231. Davies, C. E. 2003. “How English-Learners Joke with Native Speakers: An Interactional Sociolinguistic Perspective on Humor as Collaborative Discourse across Cultures.” Journal of Pragmatics 35(9): 1361–1385. De los Heros, S. 2001. Lengua, identidad y género en el castellano peruano. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Del Rey Cabero, E. 2013. “El comic como material en el aula de E/LE: Justificación de su uso y recomendaciones para una correcta explotación.” RESLA—Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 26: 177–195. Deneire, M. 1995. “Humor and Foreign Language Teaching.” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 8(30): 285–298. Díez Domínguez, P. 2008. “Intercultura en el aula de ELE: Cazas del tesoro y humor. Una propuesta didáctica.” V Encuentro Práctico de ELE. Instituto Cervantes de Nápoles. 125–136. Driessen, H. 2015. “Anthropology of Humor.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., ed. J. D. Wright, 416–419. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Escandell Vidal, M. V. 2009. “La comunicación intercultural: aspectos cognitivos y sociales.” Jornadas de Formación del Profesorado en la Enseñanza de L2-ELE: Actas. 7–24 Madrid: REDINED. Freud, S. 1963. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Norton. Gironzetti, E. 2013. “Estudio pragmático experimental del humor gráfico en español e italiano y sus aplicaciones para la enseñanza de una LE/L2.” PhD diss., Universidad de Alicante. https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/35847/1/tesis_elisagironzetti.pdf. Gironzetti, E. 2017. “Developing Spanish L2 Pragmatic Competence through Humor.” Paper presented at the 99th Annual AATSP Conference, Chicago, IL, July 6–9. Hay, J. 2001. “The Pragmatics of Humor Support.” Humor 14(1): 55–82. Holmes, J., M. Marra and L. Burns. 2001. “Women’s Humour in the Workplace: A Quantitative Analysis.” Australian Journal of Communication 28(1): 83–108. Kasper G. and Rose, K. 2002. “The Role of Instruction in Learning Second Language Pragmatics.” Language Learning 52(1): 237–273. Lefcourt, H. and R. Martin. [1986] 2011. Humor and Life Stress: Antidote to Adversity. New York: Springer.

Teaching with and about humor

213

Longcope, P. 2009. Differences between the EFL and the ESL Language Learning Contexts. Studies in Language and Culture 30(2): 303–320. Meyer, J. 2000. “Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication.” Communication Theory 10(3): 310–331. Neuliep, J. W. 1991. “An Examination of the Content of High School Teachers’ Humor in the Classroom and the Development of an Inductively Derived Taxonomy of Classroom Humor.” Communication Education 40(4): 343–355. Norrick, N. R. and A. Spitz. 2008. “Humor as a Resource for Mitigating Conflict in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(10): 1661–1686. Nuessel, F. 1992. The Image of Older Adults in the Media: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Muñoz-Basols, J., E. Gironzetti and Y. Pérez. 2013. ¡A Debate! Estrategias para la interacción oral, Nivel C. Madrid: Edelsa Grupo Didascalia, S.A. Padilla García, X. 2010. “Las viñetas cómicas como recurso en la enseñanza de ELE.” Español con humor 1: 16–33. Pomerantz, A. and N. D. Bell. 2007. “Learning to Play, Playing to Learn: FL Learners as Multicompetent Language Users.” Applied Linguistics 28(4): 556–578. Robinson, D. T. and L. Smith-Lovin. 2001. “Getting a Laugh: Gender, Status, and Humor in Task Discussions.” Social Forces 80(1): 123–158. Rogerson-Revell, P. 2007. “Humor in Business: A Double-Edged Sword: A Study of Humour and Style Shifting in Intercultural Business Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(1): 4–28. Shardakova, M. 2013. “‘I Joke You Don’t’: Second Language Humor.” In Social and Cultural Aspects of Cross-Border Language Learning in Study Abroad, ed. C. Kinginger, 207–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shively, R. L. 2013. “Learning to Be Funny in Spanish During Study Abroad: L2 Humor Development.” Modern Language Journal 97(4): 930–946. Schmitz, J. R. 2002. “Humor as a Pedagogical Tool in Foreign Language and Translation Courses.” International Journal of Humor Research 15(1): 89–113. Spada, N. and Y. Tomita. 2010. “Interactions between Type of Instruction and Type of Language Feature: A Meta-Analysis.” Language Learning 60(2): 263–308. Straehle, C. 1993. ‘‘‘Samuel?’ ‘Yes, dear?’ Teasing and Conversational Rapport.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. Deborah Tannen, 210–230. New York: Oxford University Press. Tammenga-Helmantel, M., I. Bazhutkina, S. Steringa, I. Hummel and C. Suhre. 2016. “Comparing Inductive and Deductive Grammatical Instruction in Teaching German As a Foreign Language in Dutch Classrooms.” System 63: 101–114. Torok, S. E., R. F. McMorris and W. C. Lin. 2004. “Is Humor an Appreciated Teaching Tool? Perceptions of Professors’ Teaching Styles and Use of Humor.” College Teaching 52(1): 14. Torres Sánchez, M. A. 1999. Estudio pragmático del humor verbal. Cádiz: Universidad Varela Bravo. Vrticka, P., J. M. Black and A. L. Reiss. 2013. “The Neural Basis of Humour Processing.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(12): 860–868. Wagner, M. and E. Urios-Aparisi. 2007. “Pragmatics of Humor in the Foreign Language Classroom: Learning (with) Humor.” In Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, eds. M. Pütz and J. A. Neff-Van Aertselae, 206 –224. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wagner, M. and E. Urios-Aparisi. 2011. “The Use of Humor in the Foreign Language Classroom: Funny and Effective?” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 24(4): 399–434.

11 L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS INSTRUCTION AT THE NOVICE LEVEL Creating meaningful contexts for the acquisition of grammatical forms Lynn Pearson 1.

Introduction

Studies in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have documented learners’ inappropriate realizations of speech acts (SAs) in target languages (TLs) (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 2005; Barron 2003; Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989a; Félix-Brasdefer and Koike 2014; Kasper and Rose 1999, 2002; Koike, Pearson, and Witten 2003). One explanation for the gaps in pragmatic competence is the limited grammatical resources in the second language (L2), especially for learners at lower proficiency levels (Koike 1989; Pearson 2006a; Wildner-Bassett 1994). Although research and pedagogical materials for L2 pragmatics have expanded (Alcón Soler and Martínez-Flor 2008; Cohen 2008; Félix-Brasdefer and Koike 2014; Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2010; Rose 2005; Taguchi 2011), many language courses still focus on grammar and vocabulary instead of teaching learners to use the TL appropriately in various contexts and with different listeners (De Pablos-Ortega 2011; Sykes 2010; Vellenga 2004). This emphasis ignores the rich potential of pragmatics instruction to provide meaningful contexts for acquiring linguistic items (Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012; Rose 2012). This chapter details pedagogical activities to teach Spanish directives in beginning L2 level courses with the additional objective of aiding acquisition of difficult grammatical forms for English-speaking learners; namely, verbal morphology and indirect object pronouns. The proposed instruction is an effort to demonstrate the value of pragmatics to facilitate the acquisition of grammar, a traditional goal of language teaching along with fostering pragmatic awareness in the first stages of L2 learning. The directive strategies presented reflect the grammatical syllabus of first year courses at the university level. The chapter also reviews the existing research about speech acts (SAs) and pragmatics, the current lack of pragmatics instruction in language courses, the acquisition of L2 pragmatics from a developmental

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

215

perspective, interaction of pragmatic and grammatical competences in interlanguage, and models for pragmatics instruction.

2.

Pragmatic competence

Research in interlanguage pragmatics has been based primarily on the framework of SA theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1979). Speakers use different strategies to carry out various functions—request, apologize, disagree, etc. Another influential model is that of Politeness Theory (Brown and Levinson 1987), which analyzes interactions based on the speakers’ needs and wants and those of their hearers. Speakers use language to reduce infringement on the “face” (the public self-image of an individual). In SAs, speakers employ two types of knowledge: 1) pragmalinguistic competence, which is composed of the linguistic resources in a particular language for communicating the specific meaning, and 2) sociopragmatic competence, which comprises the cultural norms about performing the SA (Thomas 1983). To perform an appropriate apology in Spanish, speakers have to access the necessary pragmalinguistic items such as perdón ‘pardon’ (noun), imperative forms of the verbs perdonar and disculpar ‘to excuse’, and statements of regret with the verbs lamentar ‘to regret’ and sentir ‘to feel’ as in Lo siento ‘I’m sorry’. Speakers need to evaluate the context of their communication to the hearer using knowledge of the sociopragmatic rules: Is it necessary to apologize in this situation? What strategy is appropriate? Are additional strategies required (e.g., explanation about the offense, proposing a remedy, etc.)? How do I address the hearer? In other words, realizing an apology SA can be complex, even for native speakers (NSs), who may disagree about what is appropriate in a given situation. For L2 learners, using TL SAs is more complicated due to their gaps in linguistic competence and incomplete knowledge about target culture norms. Production that diverges from the norms can produce “pragmalinguistic” or “sociopragmatic failure” (Thomas 1983), which may result in minor misunderstandings as well more serious consequences for non-native speakers (NNSs) because they are perceived as rude, unassertive, or having other negative characteristics. Pragmatic competence is a component of communicative competence. Hymes (1972) introduced communicative competence to describe the “rules of use” of language for creative and social use functions. Several frameworks of communicative competence have been proposed (Canale 1983; Canale and Swain 1980; Larsen-Freeman 1982), which include both grammatical and semantic knowledge, but also areas of knowledge needed for using language appropriately in interactions, such as sociolinguistic competence and discourse competence. Pragmatics plays a prominent role in Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model of “communicative language ability,” which has two components: organizational knowledge and pragmatic knowledge. Grammatical knowledge is part of organizational knowledge, while pragmatic knowledge is composed of functional knowledge (i.e., the ability to use and understand various functions in a language) and sociolinguistic knowledge (i.e., to use language appropriately for the context, dialectal variation, register, etc.). In this model, performing a linguistic act involves some or all of these components.

216

Lynn Pearson

For example, formulating a request requires accessing the linguistic materials from organizational competence, (e.g., specific vocabulary and verb forms). The components of pragmatic competence imbue the forms with specific functions and social meanings to convey the linguistic action.

3.

Teaching L2 pragmatics

Given the complexity of speaking appropriately in the TL, many learners require pedagogical intervention to develop pragmatic competence. In the ILP field, there now exists a substantial body of research on the effectiveness of teaching pragmatics in L2 courses (Taguchi 2015). Despite the evidence that it can be taught, pragmatics instruction remains limited or absent in many courses. Various researchers have explained the possible reasons for the lack of pragmatics in TL instruction. Sykes (2010) observes that the information gathered by researchers about the feasibility of teaching pragmatics may not be readily accessible to instructors. Wyner and Cohen (2015) note that teacher training often does not include pragmatics. Even when instructors learn about pragmatics in their course work, the knowledge may be too theoretical to easily put into practice in the classroom (Ishihara 2010). Teachers may feel insecure about their abilities to teach this area of language and evaluate students’ learning. In response, ILP researchers have produced materials for teaching pragmatics that are on the Internet for both instructors and learners (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor 2003; Félix-Brasdefer 2011; Sykes and Cohen 2008). There are also several print resources to help instructors prepare lessons for developing pragmatic competence in their classes (e.g., Ishihara and Cohen 2010; Martínez-Flor 2006; Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2010). Another factor limiting the teaching of pragmatics is the view that it should only be included in more advanced courses when learners have sufficient command of the TL grammar and vocabulary or for study abroad, so that learners can effectively interact in immersion contexts. The reality of foreign languages as an academic subject in the United States is that most students will only take a few required courses, such as two years in high school (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages 2012) or at university (Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin 2015). Statistics from the 2013–2014 academic year show that only 9.9 percent of US undergraduates participated in study abroad and most (62.1 percent) chose short-term programs (Institute of International Education 2015). Therefore, pragmatics instruction needs to begin during the first courses, because most learners will not take advanced courses and very few study abroad. In addition, the current status of Spanish in the United States makes it likely that learners in lower level courses will encounter NSs through service-learning courses, volunteer work, or personal contacts. After graduation, students may need to use and comprehend basic Spanish in their professions. It is necessary for world language curriculum and instructors to teach pragmatic rules in beginning courses. Due to the low proficiency levels, the expectations for acquisition of TL pragmatics will be modest. However, this instruction will supply learners with skills for interacting in the TL as well as give meaningful contexts

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

217

for grammatical items that are typically presented in the first-year syllabus. Some learners believe that their academic L2 courses lack “real-world” expressions, and teaching pragmatic functions can provide the authenticity that they desire (Magnan et al. 2012; Magnan, Murphy, and Sahakyan 2014; Pearson 2006b).

4.

L2 pragmatic development

To date, there is no order of acquisition for ILP as has been proposed for other areas of language (e.g., morphology or syntax) (Kasper and Schmidt 1996). Studies indicate some patterns in the initial development with routines and unanalyzed chunks. With growth of linguistic proficiency, learners are able to deconstruct and access the linguistic items in order to carry more complex strategies. Later stages of acquisition show that learners will have more options in their routines and conventionalized strategies to realize TL SAs. Increased proficiency may lead to changes, such as formulating more indirect strategies to replace the more direct ones, characteristic of early patterns (Bardovi-Harlig 2008). More advanced learners can draw on more varied resources to modify their production such as intensifiers (e.g., Muchas gracias, ‘Thank you very much’). and greater sensitivity to contextual variables for using their linguistic resources will develop. With regard to L2 requests, Kasper and Rose (2002) propose five stages of development, illustrated with examples from Pearson (2006a): 1) 2) 3)

4)

Pre-basic (dependent on context, with no syntax or relational goals): ¿La mochila? ‘The backpack?’ (request to move object) Formulaic (analyzed formulas and imperatives): Quiero las aspirinas, por favor. ‘I want the aspirin, please.’ (want statement) Unpacking (formulas in productive language use and shift to conventional indirectness): ¿Me puedes dar la revista Time? ‘Can you [informal] give me the Time magazine?’ Pragmatic expansion (addition of new forms to pragmalinguistic repertoire, increased mitigation, more complex syntax): Necesito que limpies la cocina. Es (< Está) sucia. ‘I need you [informal] to clean the kitchen. It’s dirty.’ (complex sentence with explanation)

Stage 5 is “Fine-Tuning” to regulate requestive force according to participants, goals, and contexts. Novice learners will begin to express their pragmatic acts in the prebasic and formulaic stages, and instruction may help them develop strategies from more advanced stages (3 and 4). There may also be elements of fine-tuning as learners take into account factors such as hearers and context with vocatives and verb forms. Adults learning the pragmatics of an L2 contend with a multi-faceted process of learning linguistic items and sociocultural rules. As Bialystok (1993, 1994) observes, adult learners have to acquire linguistic material, such as grammar and vocabulary, to produce and comprehend various structures in the L2 used to carry out linguistic actions. These learners enter the acquisition process with an L1 pragmatic system formed through years of training and observation (Koike 1989). Without explicit

218

Lynn Pearson

instruction in classes or through feedback in interactions, they may not notice possible differences in SA realizations in the TL.

5.

Grammar and pragmatic competence

Several researchers have examined the relationship between pragmatic competence and grammatical competence. Some indicate that learners acquire pragmatic concepts in the L2 before the grammatical system catches up (Dietrich, Klein, and Noyeau 1995; Eisenstein and Bodman 1986; Ellis 1992; Koike 1989; Schmidt 1983; Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Walters 1980). This means that SA realizations in the TL will reflect learners’ proficiency levels to convey the pragmatic information. Other investigations have produced evidence that grammar precedes pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1991; Bodman and Eisenstein 1988; Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Robinson 1992; Rose 2000; Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Takahashi 2001). This phenomenon has been observed when the L2 competence shows the acquisition of certain grammatical structures; however, the learners do not incorporate them into their pragmatic production. Learners may also utilize their grammatical competence to undertake pragmatic functions that deviate from the TL norms. The instructional approach detailed in this chapter assumes the primacy of pragmatics over grammar. When beginning their L2 acquisition, adults have already developed their L1 pragmatic competence. Koike (1989) observes that adult learners link L1 structures to parallel options in L2 as they acquire the TL in a process of restructuring to advance through developmental stages. The Spanish directive lessons will facilitate these connections between L1 and L2 by teaching learners about the pragmatic uses of grammatical forms.

6.

Spanish directives

Directive SAs were selected because they will be useful to learners in numerous contexts: formal classes, travel abroad, job, volunteer work, etc. These SAs are potential threats to the hearer’s needs and wants as speakers express their desires about the former’s actions. Orders and requests are “impositive” (Haverkate 1984), meaning that the hearer’s actions primarily fulfill the goals of the speakers, as opposed to “non-impositive” directives, such as suggestions that imply potential benefits to the hearers if they perform the action proposed by the speakers. Spanish directives have been extensively researched (see summaries in Félix-Brasdefer 2010; Márquez Reiter and Placencia 2005; Pearson 2006a) and there are some general tendencies. First, considerable variation exists with regard to the head act strategies (e.g., ¿Me das el libro? ‘Will you give me the book?’), which is the main strategy to realize the SA independent of other possible components, such as alerters (e.g., ¡Oye! ‘Hey!’) or softeners (e.g., por favor ‘please’) (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989b). Some dialects (e.g., Argentinean, Cuban, Ecuadorean, Peninsular, Uruguayan) show preference for direct strategies, in particular imperative forms (e.g., Limpia la cocina, ‘Clean the kitchen’). However, other Spanish varieties (e.g., Costa Rican, Mexican, Peruvian, Valencian) favor indirect strategies (e.g., ¿Podrías limpiar la cocina? ‘Could you

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

219

[informal] clean the kitchen?’). Speakers can select a particular verb form to convey a different directness level in a request (e.g., present indicative ¿Me puedes ayudar? ‘Can you help me?’ or conditional ¿Me podrías ayudar? ‘Could you help me?’). Regarding the differences between English and Spanish, there are certain preferences about the head act strategies. Speaker-oriented strategies in requests (e.g., ¿Puedo tener unas aspirinas? ‘Can I have some aspirin?’) employ the first-person verb form and represent requests for permission so that speakers can carry out the action themselves with the hearers’ approval (Márquez Reiter and Placencia 2005). In hearer-oriented strategies (e.g., ¿Me puede dar unas aspirinas? ‘Can you [formal] give me some aspirin?’), a speaker names the hearer in the directive act with the secondperson form of the verb so that the latter performs the action. Research about Spanish requests has shown that hearer-oriented strategies are favored (Blum-Kulka 1989; Ruzickova 1998). However, English requests employ both options (BlumKulka 1989). This contrast between the two languages illustrates a potential transfer of the L1 pragmatics system for English NSs, and instruction can guide them to choose more appropriate strategies in Spanish. Other strategies outside of the head act seen in directive SAs include lexical softeners, such as por favor ‘please’ and other courtesy expressions. Directives strategies may also utilize diminutives (e.g., Hazme un favorcito, ‘Do me a little favor’), alerters to preview the directive (e.g., Necesito tu ayuda, ‘I need your [informal] help’), and grounders or explanations (e.g., Se me olvidó la cartera, ‘I forgot my wallet’ in a request for money).

7.

Pedagogical models for L2 pragmatics

With the growth of studies about pragmatics instruction, several models have been proposed in order to apply the research findings in pedagogy. These proposals reflect various theoretical frameworks in L2 acquisition. The Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1995) holds that learners must notice elements in the TL input as a first step in acquisition. Another cognitive model for L2 pragmatic acquisition is by Bialystok (1993, 1994) who proposes a framework with two components: 1) the fully formed representation of pragmatic knowledge that L2 adult learners possess as they undertake acquiring pragmatic competence in a TL; and 2) the need for the learners to develop control over attentional resources in order to select appropriate knowledge. Given the fact that pragmatics is used primarily to create and comprehend meanings in communication, pedagogy is also based on theories about language use in interactions and social and cultural contexts. The Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1996) stresses the importance of conversation for learners to negotiate meanings and receive feedback as a way of developing their linguistic proficiency. Sociocultural theories view learning as a product of meaningful interpersonal activities and collaboration with fellow learners and members of speech communities (Lantolf 2006; Lantolf and Thorne 2007). The lessons to teach L2 Spanish directives in this chapter incorporate the following activities seen in various pedagogical proposals: consciousness raising, input, analysis of input, and practice. Usó-Juan (2010) presents activities to teach requests in English in order to develop sociopragmatic knowledge for using this SA with learners’ exploration of L1 and L2 strategies and the various factors that affect

220

Lynn Pearson

speakers’ choices. In addition, learners produce request strategies in oral and written modes and receive feedback from peers about the appropriateness of their requests. Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen (2012) provide examples of various activities to teach SAs at the beginning and intermediate levels, which utilize resources in L2 Spanish textbooks along with research about the Spanish of native speakers. They focus on the role of grammar as a communicative resource for SAs and detail a fourstep model to teach L2 Spanish refusals with the following components: 1) raise awareness about L1 pragmatics; 2) written and oral input of refusal strategies; 3) instruction about pragmatic functions of grammatical forms (e.g., verbal morphology) and discursive elements for mitigation (e.g., tag questions, subordination); and 4) role-play activities for students to practice the refusals. Sessarego (2007) proposes a model to teach L2 Spanish pragmatics for beginning learners and provides guidelines for creating activities with input, which reflects authentic contexts, but is also accessible for the learners’ lower proficiency level, cultural knowledge, and experiences. The SA strategies should be similar to the learners’ L1 and reflect their limited competence with less complex morphological forms and syntax. Learners analyze the functions found in conversations in commercial contexts (e.g., a travel agency) and instructors guide the discussions to examine other elements (e.g., sociocultural differences and discourse markers). Learners not only practice role-plays with classmates, but also with NSs or advanced NNSs to acquire language used in commercial transactions. Koike (2008) describes an L2 pragmatic “grammar” (i.e., knowledge of pragmatic expressions and their use) to teach language forms in a “situated context that illustrates the social dynamics of talk” (p. 47). Instead of a list of strategies, input is presented in contextualized dialogues in video and written transcripts, with a list of questions to guide learners’ analysis of pragmatic and linguistic features. Learners see how choices of grammatical forms conform with various factors (e.g., participants’ relationships, context, linguistic and sociocultural expectations, etc.). They are made aware of possible dialectal differences for strategy choice (e.g., an imperative or a question as a request). The practice begins with controlled dialogues in which learners choose responses or fill in blanks before moving to full role-plays based on situations. Like Sessarego (2007), Koike recommends interactions with NSs and suggests use of Internet tools to facilitate practice.

8. 8.1.

Sample lessons Overview

The following activities provide instruction about L2 Spanish directives that utilize the grammatical forms typically included in the first-year university curriculum and reflect models of pragmatic instruction by presenting input, facilitating analysis by learners, and later practice in interactions. The input of Spanish directive forms is presented in short written dialogues.1 The activities are designed to accompany units that teach specific verb forms (e.g., modal verb poder and imperative mood) and indirect objects. Following Koike (2008), the learners analyze the dialogues using

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

221

questions to focus their attention on the content so that they can identify the SA strategies, levels of directness, formality distinctions, modifications to directive acts, and effects of speaker-hearer relationship and contexts. Learners will also receive information about sociocultural norms for using directives in the Spanish-speaking world and the preference for hearer-oriented strategies. Due to the lower linguistic proficiency of the learners, the dialogues are shorter and the focus of the pragmatic analysis is limited. For example, NSs may include humor and cultural allusions, which are difficult for novice learners to understand. Therefore, the overall goal is to provide a model for teaching pragmatics in beginning level courses, most especially for learners who are studying Spanish in a foreign language context without opportunities to interact with NSs. By doing so, the learners can start linking grammatical forms to pragmatic functions from the earliest stages of their TL learning, which will aid their acquisition of Spanish grammar as well as develop their pragmatic competence. The activities also represent an effort to recycle the information about Spanish directives throughout the first-year curriculum, so that learners acquire a repertoire of forms with some guidelines about their applications in interactions. The series of lessons begins with an introduction to pragmatics, in order to make learners aware of how language is used to carry out different functions and address hearers. The following two lessons present directive acts realized with specific grammatical forms: the modal verb poder, use of the indirect object me ‘to me’, and formal commands.2 The lesson outline is as follows: 1) a sample dialogue with a brief introduction to explain the context and the relationship between the participants; 2) questions for analysis to help notice the directives and other pragmatic aspects, such as expression of formality or informality (each lesson has a guide for instructors about the questions’ objectives); and 3) short practice activities of roleplays with guidelines for learners to formulate their talk (e.g., select their directive forms and possible strategies to support their SAs, such as explanation, and decide about formality distinctions). Instructors may also add optional activities to use directives in writing (e.g., email messages to professors and other addressees). Alternatively, instructors can have learners practice the SAs with native Spanish speakers or advanced NNSs in face-to-face conversations or with Internet tools, such as chat or Skype. Instructors wishing to use these lessons in the class can do so as a unit on a particular day, if scheduling allows, or by using the components over a series of days.

8.2. 8.2.1.

Lesson 1: Introduction to pragmatics Input

In the first few days of any language course, students learn about ways to greet different people and introduce themselves. Below are two dialogues featuring introductions from the first-year textbook Mosaicos (Castells et al. 2015, p. 5): Antonio: Me llamo Antonio Mendoza. Y tú, ¿cómo te llamas? Benito: Me llamo Benito Sánchez. Antonio: Mucho gusto.

222

Lynn Pearson

Benito: Profesor: Isabel: Profesor:

Igualmente. ¿Cómo se llama usted? Me llamo Isabel Contreras. Mucho gusto.

These interactions are accompanied by the information about the use of tú and usted; namely that tú should be used with someone with whom you are on a first-name basis (children, close friends, relatives) and that usted is employed to show respect or formality, with titles (doctor/a, profesor/a, señor/a) and for people whom you do not know well. Instructors can use these conversations and those used to present greetings to address how language is used in interactions pending on the participants and context as a first step in consciousness raising about pragmatics in L1 and in L2 Spanish. Some questions for students to analyze pragmatics in their L1 are listed below to guide the discussion, which will have to be done in English due to the learners’ level and the complexity of the subject.

8.2.2.

Questions for analysis

The following questions help learners to notice pragmatic features in the two dialogues: 1

2

Spanish, unlike English, has more than one word for “you.” What do you say to someone when you want to speak in a formal or respectful way? What do you say when you want to talk to a friend or family member? Do you notice other ways that speakers use language in English depending on the situation? Compare how you talk to the people in these situations. •

•

8.2.3.

You arrive at your apartment and your roommate left trash from his party all over the kitchen, again. You talk to your roommate about cleaning the kitchen. You had an emergency and cannot finish the paper that is due in a course. You talk to the professor to ask for an extension.

Guide for instructors

The analysis by the students using the questions in 8.2.2 should elicit the following points: 1 2

Speakers use titles instead of first names, more formal expressions versus informal expressions. Students’ responses will likely include information about using titles/address terms (professor versus dude), direct strategies (e.g., commands “Clean the kitchen!”) vs. indirect strategies (e.g., polite requests “Would it possible to get an extension?”), explanations about the requests/commands (e.g., “I had a family emergency”; “This is the third time you have left a big mess in here!”), differences in the speakers’ tone of voice (yelling, deferential tone).

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

223

The instructor can explain that during the first semester/year of study, students will learn various ways to use Spanish to address different hearers and to speak appropriately in the different situations; specifically, the focus will be on using directives (SAs in which one person tells another person to do something—such as requesting, issuing commands, suggesting, etc.). Many people believe that learning a language consists of knowing grammatical rules, memorizing vocabulary, and pronouncing correctly, but there is another area of language called pragmatics, which guides us to make decisions about our communication. Students will remember that their parents, teachers, and others taught them to say “please” and “thank you” in order to be polite. Also, they can think of situations (e.g., writing to request a recommendation letter or apologizing to someone) when they may have thought about how to word their writing or speech. Pragmatics is the knowledge that helps users of the language to be courteous and communicate successfully. To emphasize this idea, students can think of how the hearers would react if the speaker switched the strategies for the two situations, in effect to use the informal and direct language to ask a professor for an extension (e.g., “Hey dude, give me more time for my paper!”) and to talk more respectfully with indirect requests to a roommate (e.g., “I wondered if it would be possible for you to clean up a little bit. I know that you are very busy.”).3 This change should be funny to the students, but it underscores the importance of language use for appropriate communication.

8.3.

Lesson 2: Polite requests with poder and indirect object pronoun

The request forms in this lesson consist of the verb poder + infinitive with the indirect object pronoun, which specifically indicates the benefit of the hearer’s actions to the speaker. This particular structure is often realized in English with a speakeroriented strategy in the head act (e.g., “Can I have your book?”); however, in Spanish, the preference is to use a hearer-oriented strategy (e.g., “¿Me puedes dar tu libro?”). Also, the request structure provides practice of the object pronoun, which is placed before the conjugated verb, unlike in English where it follows the verb (e.g., “Can you give me the book?”).4

8.3.1.

Input

Situation: A conversation between two students in the library who are taking the same class. Next week, there will be a test in the class. One student missed a lecture and needs notes. The student talks to her classmate about the problem. Maribel: Hola, Jorge. ¿Cómo estás? Jorge: Bien. ¿Y tú? Maribel: Bien. Sabes que perdí la clase de química el lunes pasado y vamos a tomar el examen 2 esta semana. ¿Me puedes prestar tus apuntes? Jorge: ¿Mis apuntes?

224

Lynn Pearson

Maribel: Jorge: Maribel: Jorge:

Sí, puedo hacer las copias inmediatamente aquí en la biblioteca. Bueno, aquí tienes mi carpeta. Muchas gracias. Te la devuelvo enseguida. Tranquila, no hay prisa. Voy a estar aquí hasta las 9.

8.3.2.

Questions for analysis

The following questions provide guidance to identify the request and other pragmatic features in the dialogue. 1 2

What is Maribel asking Jorge? Is this . . . ? a) a command b) a suggestion c) a request

3 4 5 6 7

Is Maribel speaking in a direct way or indirect way? How would you ask for your classmate’s notes in English? How is that strategy different than the Spanish request? Is Maribel addressing Jorge formally (usted) or informally (tú)? Why is she using this treatment? How does Jorge address Maribel and why? What other information does Maribel include when talking to Jorge? What does Jorge say to Maribel’s question?

8.3.3.

Guide for instructors

The questions help learners to do the following: • •

•

• •

•

Identify and recognize the SA in the conversation (questions 1 and 2). Consider the conventionally indirect strategy that is also used in the L1 and the addition of the indirect object pronoun to connect the hearer’s action to benefit the speaker (question 3). Compare the strategies in English, which uses both speaker-orientation (e.g., “Can I borrow your notes?”) and hearer-orientation (e.g., “Can you lend me your notes?”) more or less equally, with the preference for hearer-orientation in Spanish (e.g., Me puedes prestar tus apuntes). Recognize the use of informal treatment with the tú forms (puedes), which is appropriate for two classmates (question 4). Identify other strategies used by the speaker, such as an alerter about a request (Sabes que perdí la clase de química la semana pasada) and an assurance about copying the notes right away (question 5). Notice Jorge’s initial response—questioning tone about the notes—which initiates Maribel’s assurance that she will make copies right away (question 6).

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

8.3.4.

225

Practice

Students can perform a similar conversation in which they ask a friend to lend something or request more time for an assignment from a professor.

8.4.

Lesson 3: Formal commands

Commands as direct strategies are syntactically less complex than the requests practiced in Lesson 2. However, the imperative forms of the verbs can be challenging because it is likely the first encounter that learners have with a change in the theme vowel of verbs (e.g., -AR > e, -ER/-IR > a). The command forms for Ud. and Uds. are usually presented in the first semester and the informal commands are taught in a later unit.5 Because of this sequence, the dialogue and practice feature a context in which the speaker and hearer address each other formally.

8.4.1.

Input

Situation: Conversation between a waiter and a customer at a restaurant adapted from Gente (De la Fuente, Martín, and Sans 2012, p. 134). Cliente: Mesero: Cliente: Mesero: Cliente:

Buenas tardes. Disculpe, ¿tienen mesas libres? Sí, pase, pase. Siéntese aquí, por favor. ¿Qué va a pedir? ¿Me puede traer primero una ensalada? Cómo no. ¿Y después? Tráigame por favor un bistec con papas fritas.

8.4.2.

Questions for analysis

The following questions facilitate the students’ discussions about the directive acts in the restaurant context. 1 2

Describe the content of the conversation between a waiter and the customer. When the waiter guides the customer to the table, does he use . . . a) commands b) requests c) suggestions

3 4 5 6

These strategies are very direct. How do the speakers make them sound politer? Is there a request in the conversation? Does the speaker provide any explanation? Why or why not? Are the speakers addressing each other formally (usted) or informally (tú)? Why are they using this treatment? What is the function of “disculpe”?

226

Lynn Pearson

8.4.3.

Guide for instructors

The questions help learners to do the following: • • • •

• •

Comprehend a situation: a customer asks for a table at a restaurant, is seated by the waiter, and orders food (question 1). Identify the strategies formulated with imperative forms (pase, siéntese, tráigame) (question 2). Notice the use of the lexical softener por favor (question 3). Identify the use of the request ¿Me puede traer? presented in Lesson 2 and think about why an explanation is not being used in the restaurant conversation (i.e., compliance with customers’ requests is part of the waiter’s job) versus a personal conversation, in which there is potential imposition on the hearer (question 4). Identify the use of usted for the restaurant context to participate in a commercial transaction (question 5). Recognize disculpe, a command, as a way of getting the waiter’s attention (question 6).

Learners should also be made aware that there is variation of directive forms in the Spanish-speaking world as seen above due to politeness norms. They may observe the use of direct strategies, like commands, without any lexical softener. In addition, they may hear the informal command forms (usually presented in a later unit). Likewise, in some contexts, more indirect strategies, such as questions with poder presented in Lesson 2, will be used. The dialogue also shows how different strategies (commands, polite requests) may occur in the same conversation.

8.4.4.

Practice

Students can perform similar conversations to order in restaurants, shop in stores, or other contexts where services are provided to customers.

9.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented activities to teach Spanish directives, which can be used in conjunction with an existing curriculum focusing primarily on acquisition of grammatical forms and vocabulary. The lessons proposed in this chapter will provide learners with the opportunities to gain awareness of Spanish pragmatics and comprehend the meanings of linguistic items in the TL (e.g., morphemes for person-number and mood) in communication. The materials represent a first step for learners to begin developing their TL pragmatic competence and establish a foundation to acquire more speech functions with a variety of strategies. As learners advance in their acquisition, the materials used to teach TL pragmatics can present more complex interactions and learners can undertake their own investigations about how NSs use language in different contexts (Rose 2012; Shively 2010). Rather than taking time away from the “important” stuff, like grammar and

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

227

vocabulary, teaching pragmatics adds input and practice in the TL to contribute to the acquisition of communicative competence. Because many lower-division language programs utilize textbooks, the syllabi of first- and second-year courses at the university is largely determined by the content of these materials. Basic L2 courses are often taught by graduate students and parttime instructors, who may feel uncomfortable about adding to the standardized curricula in their departments or find that there is not enough time to do extra activities along with the required units. Although ILP researchers have supplied numerous resources, instruction of pragmatics must be included in more textbooks to reach the majority of L2 learners at US universities in order to help them acquire the linguistic and cultural knowledge to participate successfully in interactions with speakers of the TL in their future professional and personal lives.

Notes 1 The dialogues in this chapter are written, but instructors can make their own recordings or model the conversations. Two dialogues are from first-year textbooks and the other is invented by the author. While some researchers have recommended the use of authentic language in pedagogy used to teach pragmatics (Rose and Kasper 2001), the sample dialogues provide input about Spanish directives, which will be comprehensible for novice learners and readily accessible for instructors. Following the model of the lessons presented here, instructors can adapt first-year textbooks and other supplementary materials to highlight target language pragmatics. 2 Other verb forms employed in indirect requests are the conditional (e.g, ¿Me podría dar la revista? ‘Could you [formal] give me the magazine?’) and the subjunctive (e.g., Quiero que termines el proyecto, ‘I want you [informal] to finish the project’). They are not included here due to length considerations and because these structures may not be covered in some first-year courses. However, instructors can develop similar lessons for these forms using the format of the sample lessons. 3 A similar consciousness-raising technique can be seen in Rose (1994), where it is asked to have students focus on changing pragmatic strategies in the L1 to observe the resulting inappropriateness. 4 For constructions with infinitives, speakers also have the option of attaching the clitic pronouns to the unconjugated form of the verb (e.g., ¿Puedes decirme?). 5 A sample dialogue with informal commands can be found in Koike (2008), which includes the use of humor and family discourse in Hispanic cultures.

References American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). 2012. Performance Descriptors for Language Learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. https://www.actfl.org/publications/ guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012. Alcón Soler, E. and A. Martínez-Flor, eds. 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bachman, L. and A. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2008. “Recognition and Production of Formulas in L2 Pragmatics.” In Understanding Second Language Process, eds. Z. Han and E. Park, 205–222. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

228

Lynn Pearson

Bardovi-Harling, K. and B. Hartford. 1991. “Saying ‘No’ in English: Native and Nonnative Rejections.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Monograph Series Vol. 2), eds. L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, 41–57. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Bardovi-Harling, K. and B. Hartford, eds. 2005. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: United States Department of State. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bialystok, E. 1993. “Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence.” In Interlanguage Pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 43–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. 1994. “Analysis and Control in the Development of Second Language Proficiency.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(2): 157–168. Blum-Kulka, S. 1989. “Playing It Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness.” In CrossCultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, eds. S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, 37–70. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper, eds. 1989a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper. 1989b. “Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An Introductory Overview.” In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, eds. S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, 1–34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bodman, J. and M. Eisenstein. 1988. “May God Increase Your Bounty: The Expression of Gratitude in English by Native and Non-native Speakers.” Cross Currents 15 (Summer): 1–21. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canale, M. 1983. “On Some Dimensions of Language Proficiency.” In Issues in Testing Research, ed. John W. Oller, 333–342. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47. Castells, M., E. Guzmán, P. Lapuerta and J. Liskin-Gasparro. 2015. Mosaicos: Spanish as a World Language. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall. Cohen, A. 2008. “Teaching and Assessing L2 Pragmatics: What Can We Expect from Learners?” Language Teaching 41(2): 215–237. De la Fuente, M., E. Martín and N. Sans. 2012. Gente: Nivel básico. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall. De Pablos-Ortega, C. 2011. “The Pragmatics of Thanking Reflected in the Textbooks for Teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2411–2433. Dietrich, R., W. Klein and C. Noyeau. 1995. The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Eisenstein, M. and J. Bodman. 1986. “’I Very Appreciate’: Expressions of Gratitude by Native and Non-Native Speakers of American English.” Applied Linguistics 7(2): 167–185. Ellis, R. 1992. “Learning to Communicate in the Classroom.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(1): 1–23. Félix-Brasdefer, J. 2007. “Pragmatic Development in the Spanish as a FL Classroom: A Cross-sectional Study of Learner Requests.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 253–286. Félix-Brasdefer, J. 2010. “Intra-Lingual Pragmatic Variation in Mexico City and San José, Costa Rica: A Focus on Regional Differences in Female Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(11): 2992–3011.

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

229

Félix-Brasdefer, J. 2011. “Indiana University Pragmatics Website [Refusals].” https://prag matics.indiana.edu. Félix-Brasdefer, J. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669. Félix-Brasdefer, J. and D. Koike. 2014. “Perspectives on Spanish SLA from Pragmatics and Discourse.” In The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte, 25–43. New York and London: Routledge. Goldberg, D., D. Looney and N. Lusin. 2015. Enrollments in Languages Other than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education. New York: Modern Language Association. Haverkate, H. 1984. Speech Acts, Speakers, and Hearers: Reference and Referential Strategies in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hymes, D. 1972. “On Communicative Competence.” In Sociolinguistics, eds. J. Pride and J. Holmes, 269–293. Harmonsworth: Penguin. Institute of International Education. 2015. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. New York: Institute of International Exchange. Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research and Teacher Education.” Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10): 938–950. Ishihara, N. and A. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education. Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 1999. “Pragmatics and SLA.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 81–104. Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Koike, D. 1989. “Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlanguage.” Modern Language Journal 73(3): 279–289. Koike, D. 2008. “A Grammar of L2 Pragmatics: Issues in Learning and Teaching.” In Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom, eds. S. Katz and J. Watzinger-Tharp, 35–52. Boston, MA: Heinle. Koike, D., L. Pearson and C. Witten. 2003. “Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis in Spanish Second Language Acquisition Research and Pedagogy.” In Spanish Second Language Acquisition: State of the Science, eds. B. Lafford and R. Salaberry, 160–185. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lantolf, J. 2006. “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning: State of the Art.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(1): 67–109. Lantolf, J. and S. Thorne. 2007. “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.” In Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, eds. B. VanPatten and J. Williams, 201–224. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1982. “The ‘What’ of Second Language Acquisition.” In On TESOL ’ 81, eds. M. Hines and W. Rutherford, 107–128. Washington, DC: TESOL. Long, M. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Magnan, S., D. Murphy and N. Sahakyan. 2014. “Goals of Collegiate Learners and the Standards for Foreign Language Learning.” Modern Language Journal Monograph Series 98(S1): 1–11. Magnan, S., D. Murphy, N. Sahakyan and S. Kim. 2012. “Student Goals, Expectations, and the Standards for Foreign Language Learning.” Foreign Language Annals 45(2): 170–192. Márquez Reiter, R. and M. Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

230

Lynn Pearson

Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. “A Comprehensive Pedagogical Framework to Develop Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: The 6Rs Approach.” Applied Language Learning 16(2): 39–63. Martínez-Flor, A. and E. Usó-Juan, eds. 2010. Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pearson, L. 2006a. “Patterns of Development in Spanish L2 Pragmatic Acquisition: An Analysis of Novice Learners’ Production of Directives.” Modern Language Journal 90(4): 473–495. Pearson, L. 2006b. “Teaching Pragmatics in Foreign Language Classes: What Do Learners Think?” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 11), eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. FélixBrasdefer and A. Omar, 109–132. Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center University of Hawaii. Robinson, M. 1992. “Introspective Methodology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research.” In Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language (Technical Report No. 3), ed. G. Kasper, 27–82. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Rose, K. 1994. “Pragmatic Consciousness-Raising in an EFL Context.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 5), eds. L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, 52–63. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Rose, K. 2000. “An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study of Interlanguage Pragmatic Development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1): 27–67. Rose, K. 2005. “On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics.” System 33(3): 385–399. Rose, M. 2012. “Grammar in the Real World: Enhancing Grammar Lessons with Pragmatics.” Hispania 95(4): 670–680. Rose, K. and G. Kasper, eds. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruzickova, E. 1998. “Face, Face-threatening Acts and Politeness in Cuban Spanish.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh. Salsbury, T. and K. Bardovi-Harlig. 2001. “I Know What You Mean, But I Don’t Think So: Disagreements in L2 English.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 10), ed. L. Bouton, 131–151. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois. Schmidt, R. 1983. “Interaction, Acculturation and the Acquisition of Communicative Competence.” In Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition, eds. N. Wolfson and E. Judd, 137–174. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report #9), ed. R. Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. Searle, J. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sessarego, C. 2007. “La enseñanza de la pragmática: Principios de un enfoque didáctico para nivel principiante en un entorno universitario anglófono.” Hispania 90(2): 316–327. Shively, R. 2010. “From the Virtual World to the Real World: A Model of Pragmatics Instruction for Study Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 43(1): 105–137. Sykes, J. 2010. “(In)commensurable Discourse: Researchers and Practitioners Bring Pragmatics to Language Learning.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3(1): 253–263. Sykes, J. and A. Cohen. 2008. “Observed Learner Behavior, Reported Use, and Evaluation of a Website for Learning Spanish Pragmatics.” In Second Language Acquisition and Research:

Pragmatics instruction at the novice level

231

Focus on Form and Function. Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum, eds. M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán and R. Bhatt, 144–157. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289–310. Taguchi, N. 2015. “Instructed Pragmatics at a Glance: Where Instructional Studies Were, Are, and Should Be Going.” Language Teaching 48(1): 1–50. Takahashi, S. 2001. “The Role of Input Enhancement in Developing Pragmatic Competence.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 171–199. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–122. Usó-Juan, E. 2010. “Requests: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues, eds. A. Martínez-Flor and E. Usó-Juan, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vellenga, H. 2004. “Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely?” TESLEJ 8(2): 1–18. Walters, J. 1980. “Grammar, Meaning, Sociological Appropriateness in Second Language Acquisition.” Canadian Journal of Psychology—Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 34(4): 337–345. Wildner-Bassett, M. 1994. “Intercultural Pragmatics and Proficiency: ‘Polite’ Noises for Cultural Appropriateness.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 32(1): 3–17. Wyner, L. and A. Cohen. 2015. “Second Language Pragmatic Ability: Individual Differences According to Environment.” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5(4): 519–556.

12 WEB-BASED PRAGMATICS RESOURCES Techniques and strategies for teaching L2 Spanish pragmatics to English speakers Victoria Russell

1.

Introduction

This chapter describes a web-based tutorial (WBT) that was designed and developed for teaching Spanish pragmatics to learners whose first language (L1) is English. The WBT may be used as a self-access instructional resource or it may be incorporated into classroom-based instruction. In addition, it may be adapted for every level of Spanish language learner. The purpose of the WBT is to raise learners’ awareness of their pragmatic strategy use in English and to help them become aware of the similarities and differences between pragmatic strategy use in English and Spanish during complaint scenarios. All of the content in the WBT is based on available research findings about complaints and requests at the time of development (Giddens 1981; Cohen and Olshtain 1981, 1993; Brown and Levinson 1987; Olshtain and Cohen 1989; Pinto 2002; Cohen 2005; Sykes and Cohen 2006). Multimedia tools and applications are particularly effective for pragmatics instruction because learners are able to observe native speakers, realizing speech acts with both video and audio input (Hoven 1999; Kramsch and Anderson 1999; LeLoup and Ponterio 2000; Russell and Vásquez 2011; Taguchi 2011). In addition to listening to the language that the native speakers use to perform the speech acts, the inclusion of video input allows learners to view the speakers’ facial expressions, gestures, and gesticulation. According to Taguchi (2011), the key features of a multimedia environment, such as input, interaction, and simulation, are also key conditions for learning pragmatics. The chapter begins with an overview of speech acts and politeness theory, which serve as the theoretical framework for the present WBT. Following this, materials that are currently available online for teaching pragmatics across a variety of languages and contexts are examined. The WBT presented in this chapter built upon current and extended previous work in the field by maximizing the capabilities of the web-based learning environment to help learners notice the gap between their

Web-based pragmatics resources

233

production and native speaker norms (Schmidt 2001; Schmidt and Frota 1986). Following an overview of the design of the WBT, the chapter concludes with practical applications, strategies, and instructional techniques for implementing the tutorial with learners who have varying levels of proficiency in Spanish.

2.

Speech acts

One way to help language learners acquire pragmatic competence is to instruct them on speech acts (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002). Searle (1969) described speech acts as language users’ attempts to perform specific actions or interpersonal functions. Some examples of speech acts include apologizing, complaining, complimenting, refusing, requesting, and thanking. According to Searle (1969), these types of functions are typically universal across languages. In order to communicate appropriately given specific contexts and speakers, language learners need to understand the intended (or illocutionary) meaning communicated by speech acts, and they must also be able to produce speech acts using appropriate language and manner. Therefore, understanding and producing speech acts according to the surrounding social and cultural context can be a complex task, even for advanced language learners. Furthermore, Cohen (1998) suggested that in order to successfully produce speech acts in the target language, learners need to have sufficient sociolinguistic and sociocultural abilities. Sociolinguistic ability refers to the learner’s ability to manipulate the appropriate forms and structures as well as the ability to use the correct register to realize a speech act. Register refers to the style or variety of language that is used for a particular social setting, audience, and/or purpose. Cohen (1998) classified errors due to a learner’s lack of sociolinguistic ability as pragmalinguistic. In other words, learners are aware of which speech act to use for a given situation; however, they do not know the appropriate forms, structures, vocabulary items, and/or register in order to formulate a linguistically appropriate speech act. According to Cohen (1998), acquiring sociocultural ability is a much more complex issue because it involves knowledge of the social and cultural norms of the target language, including the personal and situational factors that can affect how speech acts are realized. Cohen described errors of this type as sociopragmatic, because the learners do not know which speech act to use for a given situation or when to use speech acts appropriately. Cohen (2010) asserted that among members of a given community, many speech acts follow regular and predicable patterns. However, language learners’ pragmatic behavior does not always adhere to the expected patterns, especially if they have not had any instruction on pragmatics. Ishihara and Cohen (2010) stated that without pragmatics instruction, a learner would need to be fully immersed in the second language context for at least ten years in order to develop native-like pragmatic competence. However, even total immersion for extended periods of time does not guarantee that a learner’s pragmatic ability will become native-like (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Ishihara and Cohen 2010). Moreover, some studies indicate that pragmatics

234

Victoria Russell

instruction is more beneficial than exposure to the target language culture (Billmyer 1990; Bouton 1994; Lyster 1994; Wishnoff 2000; Yoshimi 2001). With respect to the instruction of speech acts, several studies support providing instruction on strategies for learning and performing speech acts (Cohen, Weaver, and Li 1998; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004; Cohen 2005; Cohen and Ishihara 2005; Cohen et al. 2005). Based on the research cited above, Cohen (2010) set forth a taxonomy of strategies for learning speech acts, which includes strategies for learning speech acts initially, strategies for producing speech acts, and metacognitive strategies for learning and producing speech acts. Cohen’s taxomony will be revisited in greater detail during the discussion of classroom applications of the WBT.

3.

Awareness-raising approach to pragmatics instruction

The WBT described in the present chapter takes an awareness-raising approach to pragmatics instruction; namely, the instructional design of the WBT is based on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt and Frota 1986; Schmidt 1990, 1993, 2001). Within this framework, attention and awareness play a key role in learning; therefore, pragmatic information must be consciously noticed and attended to in order for pragmatics learning to take place (Kasper and Schmidt 1996). According to Schmidt (2001), noticing, by itself, is not the only necessary ingredient for second language acquisition (SLA); he states, “SLA is largely driven by what learners pay attention to and notice in target language input and what they understand the significance of noticed input to be” (p. 4). Moreover, attention to input is essential for storage into short-term memory and it is a critical precursor to hypothesis formation and testing (Schmidt 2001). Schmidt claimed that learners must notice the gap or the mismatch between their interlanguage production and the appropriate target language form for acquisition to take place (Schmidt and Frota 1986). In the present WBT, the user interface design provides the most optimal environment for learners to “notice the gap” between their production and native speaker norms because they are continually prompted to compare their written and/or video responses to discourse completion tasks with those of native speakers. DCTs are open-ended questionnaires that require learners to respond to a particular scenario. In addition, appropriate and inappropriate pragmatic strategy use is explicitly pointed out to learners throughout the WBT, and technology is used to enhance the input in order to facilitate noticing. This is achieved through text bubbles that appear outside of the video frame that point out the native speakers’ pragmatic strategy use in real time. While Sharwood Smith (1981, 1991) proposed that input enhancement should be used to make specific features of the written input more salient for language learners, the technology employed in the present WBT makes pragmatic features of the spoken input more salient for language learners. Therefore, technology has enabled the notion of input enhancement to be extended in the web-based learning environment through the use of computer technology to enhance the input. By drawing learners’ attention to features of the spoken language, they are more likely to notice

Web-based pragmatics resources

235

the pragmatic strategies that the native speakers use to realize speech acts in Spanish within the video-based lessons.

4.

Politeness theory

Politeness theory also provides a theoretical framework for the WBT described in this chapter because all complaints—and the requests that result from them— are potentially face-threatening acts (FTAs). Haverkate (1987, 1994) and Márquez Reiter (2000) asserted that politeness refers to the linguistic strategies that interlocutors employ in order to maintain the equilibrium of interpersonal relationships. Communicative acts are deemed polite or impolite based upon the social standards of a given community (Werkhofer 1992). Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) proposed a framework of politeness that emphasized the concept of face, which is the self-image that individuals present to others. This framework includes the notions of saving and losing face as well as the assumption that all competent adult members of a community are concerned about their face while recognizing that others have similar face concerns. Losing face refers to being humiliated or embarrassed, and it is closely related to the culturally accepted norms of linguistic politeness that may vary from one community to another. During conversations, speakers strive to save their own face, but it is considered polite to protect the face of the hearer as well. Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) framework includes both positive and negative face. Positive face refers to an individual’s desire to seek approval and acceptance from at least one other person while negative face refers to an individual’s desire to be unobstructed by others. In other words, negative face is the desire to act while being free of any impositions by others. Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are those that are contrary to the speaker and/or the hearer’s positive or negative face. Brown and Levinson asserted that negative face is a more powerful force than positive face; they also suggested that some speech acts, such as requests and complaints, automatically pose a threat to the face needs of the hearer and/or speaker. According to their framework, the level of politeness or face-work required is dependent upon three factors: (1) the social distance between the speaker and the hearer, (2) the power difference between the speaker and the hearer, and (3) the degree of imposition on the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1987). Given that the WBT focuses on speech acts that can be perceived as FTAs by speakers and/or hearers, it was important to include instruction on politeness theory within the tutorial. One of the instructional goals of the WBT described in this chapter is to help learners save their own face while protecting the face of their hearer during complaint scenarios in Spanish.

5.

Online resources for teaching pragmatics

Resources that are currently available on the Internet for pragmatics instruction fall into four main categories: (1) websites that provide information on how to teach pragmatics (for instructors, researchers, and graduate students), (2) lessons

236

Victoria Russell

and resources for English language learners, (3) lessons and materials for Japanese language learners, and (4) lessons and resources for Spanish language learners. A current list of pragmatics websites and an overview of the materials and resources that each website provides are presented in Appendix A. Three websites provide general information on the field of pragmatics as well as specific information on techniques, strategies, activities, and/or lessons for teaching pragmatics. These websites are generally intended for instructors, researchers, and/or graduate students, and they provide many helpful resources for instructors to design their own pragmatics-focused lessons for the language(s) that they teach. With respect to pragmatics-focused materials for English language learners, there are open access resources available for both children and adults on the Internet. Of the few pragmatics-focused materials that are available on the Internet for Japanese and Spanish language learners, they all appear to target adult language learners. There are three open access websites currently available for the instruction of Spanish pragmatics. The Dancing with Words website is the most comprehensive, as it includes modules for the instruction of numerous speech acts in Spanish, including compliment sequences, expressing gratitude, leave taking, requests, apologies, invitation sequences, service encounters, advice, suggestions, disagreements, complaints, and reprimands. It also provides an introduction to the field of pragmatics and additional resources for approximating more native-like performance of speech acts in Spanish. The Discourse Pragmatics website provides information on pragmatic variation that occurs between ten different Spanish-speaking countries, including the United States. It also offers information on linguistic politeness and instruction on apologies, complaints, compliments, refusals, requests, and suggestions. The Discourse Pragmatics website also includes exercises, resources, and lesson plans for teaching Spanish pragmatics; however, it does not include video-based lessons. The Pragmatics en español website complements the present body of materials that are currently available on the Internet for instruction on Spanish pragmatics; namely, it provides video-based instruction on complaint scenarios, which is a context that is not represented on the Dancing with Words website. In addition, its user interface and innovative use of technology differ considerably from the other websites that offer Spanish pragmatics instruction. The Dancing with Words website only allows text responses to DCTs, while both text and video responses are possible on the Pragmatics en español website. Therefore, the multimedia environment is optimized by offering a unique and highly interactive user interface where learners may record a video response (using their web cams) to the two DCTs that are presented in the tutorial. Furthermore, the Pragmatics en español website makes use of computerized visual input enhancement to point out native speaker pragmatic strategy use in real time to learners. Although there are some materials available on the Internet for pragmatics instruction at present, a review of the websites listed in Appendix A demonstrates that—of the few resources that are available—the majority focus on either English or Spanish as a foreign language. Given that web-based environments may provide the most optimal environment for learning pragmatics (Taguchi 2011), many more

Web-based pragmatics resources

237

resources need to be developed for teaching pragmatics across a variety of languages and proficiency levels.

6.

Components of the WBT

The WBT described in this chapter may serve as a model for others to design and develop their own pragmatics tutorials for the languages and levels that they teach. Therefore, a brief overview of the components that were included in the present WBT is provided here. The first element to consider is the layout; it was designed to be circular rather than linear in nature (see Figure 12.1). In other words, learners do not have to move in a lock-step fashion through the tutorial; rather, they are able to begin anywhere that they like, which encourages them to navigate to areas of the website that capture their attention. The WBT has four main components as follows: (1) an introduction to pragmatics, (2) two self-contained video-based lessons, (3) an interactive assessment, and (4) resources for developing pragmatic competence.

6.1.

Homepage

After learners enter the WBT through a splash page that lists the technical requirements for using the tutorial, they land on the homepage that introduces them to the field of pragmatics. On the homepage, an animation is used to illustrate the

Introduction to Pragmatics

Lesson 1 or Lesson 2

Resources

Interactive Assessment FIGURE 12.1

Circular design of the WBT

238

Victoria Russell

need for foreign and second language learners to study pragmatics. The animation demonstrates the sociocultural differences between American and Mexican cultures with respect to the amount of personal space that is considered to be appropriate and how these differences can lead to misunderstandings between cultures. Since this is a sociocultural difference of which many learners are already aware, it builds on learners’ prior knowledge and provides a starting point for them to understand the importance of acquiring pragmatic competence in Spanish. Visit www.slai tresearch.com to view the homepage of the WBT. The homepage also contains two navigation areas, one across the top of the page and one on the left-hand side of the page. The navigation bar across the top remains static throughout the WBT and has links in the shape of talk bubbles that contain the following headings: (1) Pragmatics, (2) Lessons, (3) Assessment, and (4) Resources. The navigation area on the left-hand side of the page has a link to the pragmatics lessons, a link to the introduction to the field of pragmatics, and a link to the interactive assessment. The left-hand navigation bar provides a more detailed description of each area of the tutorial than the navigation bar located across the top, which only contains headings.

6.2.

Introduction to pragmatics page

When learners navigate to the introduction page, they have two options: (1) they may view a mini tutorial that takes approximately five minutes to play or (2) they may read a text-based version of the pragmatics introduction. The mini tutorial contains both audio and visual support; while learners listen to an audio presentation, a slideshow with bulleted points of the most salient information plays automatically. The text-based presentation contains the same information as the mini tutorial, but there is no audio and the text is static on the page. These options provide learners with the autonomy to select the modality in which they prefer to access information. Both versions of the introduction to pragmatics provide information on speech acts, face or politeness systems, and pragmatic error types. The introduction also provides examples of speech acts as well as examples of pragmatic errors in English. However, if learners do not wish to spend time on the introduction, they may learn about pragmatics experientially while they work through the video-based lessons.

6.3.

Video-based lessons

From the main lessons page of the WBT, learners are able to select from two standalone video-based lessons: one that presents a familiar complaint scenario and another that presents a formal complaint scenario. Because both lessons contain DCTs that require learners to make requests and because all requests are potentially FTAs, information on FTAs is presented at the top of the page for students. The main lessons page also contains the following list of four learning objectives that students should master by working through the video-based lessons. At the end of each lesson you will be able to:

Web-based pragmatics resources

1) 2) 3) 4)

239

Notice the strategies that you use to complain in English. Recognize how you transfer your pragmatic knowledge of English into Spanish, either appropriately or inappropriately. Identify the strategies that native speakers of Spanish use to complain in both public and private settings. Understand the various social factors and language strategies that are important when complaining in Spanish.

Lesson 1 places learners in an informal complaint scenario (speaking with a roommate) and Lesson 2 situates them in a formal complaint scenario (speaking with a hotel employee). For each of these lessons, learners complete a DCT—which is a complaint scenario—that requires them to make a request in Spanish. Research has shown that among native speakers of Spanish from a wide variety of Spanishspeaking countries, over 90 percent of complaints result in a request for an action to repair the grievance, and requests of this nature are typically perceived as FTAs (Giddens 1981; Pinto 2002). When making their requests, learners are prompted to take into account factors such as the social distance and power difference between the speaker and the hearer, and the degree of imposition on the hearer. They are also given background information on the native speakers in the video-based lessons; namely, they are provided with social factors such as their age, relationship with each other, country of origin, and, for the native Spanish speakers, the number of years spent living in the United States. Learners are informed that these and other factors contribute to pragmatic variation among native speakers from different backgrounds. At the beginning of each lesson, learners view a short video that introduces the complaint scenario between two interlocutors in English. At the end of the video introduction in English, the DCT for the complaint scenario appears in text format and learners are then prompted to complete the DCT in their L1 using a text box to capture their written responses. After learners submit their responses, they are prompted to compare them with the most common strategies that are used in English for the speech acts required by the DCT. After viewing the list of common strategies used in English for making requests—which appears to the left of students’ responses on the web page—learners are then prompted to view the conclusion of the video where the native English speakers complete the DCT. By first completing the DCT in their L1 followed by learning about pragmatic strategy use in English, learners’ awareness is raised as they listen for the pragmatic strategies that the native English speakers use during the conclusion of the complaint scenario in English. The English portion of the lesson then concludes with a page that provides the full written transcript of the conversation in English, and learners are asked to compare their production with that of the native English speakers in the video. Following the lesson in English, learners are provided with the same scenario, but they must complete the DCT in Spanish. They have the option of either recording a video response or typing their responses in a text box in Spanish. After students create their response, they are taken to a page that displays explicit information

240

Victoria Russell

regarding appropriate versus inappropriate pragmatic transfer from English to Spanish. Visit www.slaitresearch.com (Lessons 1 and 2) to view the instructions that students receive on appropriate versus inappropriate pragmatic transfer. Each lesson concludes with the full complaint scenario in Spanish with text bubbles that point out pragmatic strategy use in real time beside the video frame. While it is difficult for language learners to recognize pragmatic strategy use during real-time conversations (Kasper 1996; Kasper and Schmidt 1996), the user interface design of the WBT is able to make these strategies more salient for learners through computerized visual input enhancement. Visit www.slaitresearch.com (Lessons 1 and 2) to view the text bubbles that indicate the native speakers’ pragmatic strategy use during real-time conversations. At the end of the lesson, learners are also provided with the full transcript of the conversation in Spanish and they are encouraged to download it and to compare it with their own production.

6.4.

Game-based assessment

The WBT’s assessment was designed as an interactive game in order to motivate learners to attempt it multiple times. On the assessment page, two black talk bubbles appear in the middle of the page, one for “native speaker” responses and another for “non-native speaker” responses. A DCT appears at the top of the page, and learners are prompted to determine which responses were made by Spanish language learners and which were made by native Spanish speakers. Four responses appear on each page, and learners must drag and drop the letter that appears next to each response into the appropriate black talk bubble (native speaker or non-native speaker). The instructions indicate that there may be multiple native or non-native speaker responses on each page. The goal of the assessment is for learners to recognize both appropriate and inappropriate pragmatic strategy use in Spanish. After learners drag and drop all of the responses into the black talk bubbles, they are then prompted to check their answers before moving on to the next item in the game. However, learners may click “Reset” if they wish to change their responses. When they click “Check Answer,” they are only told if their answers are correct or incorrect. Once they complete all items in the game, they are given the number of items that were correct, the number that were incorrect, and their total score. After viewing their total score, learners are prompted to “Play Again.” Since the game-based assessment contains the same two DCTs that appear in the video-based lessons, the instructional content of the WBT is reinforced during the assessment. Visit www. slaitrsearch.com to explore the assessment portion of the WBT. Data for the assessment were elicited from ten native speakers of Spanish who were working as Spanish teaching assistants (TAs) at a large urban university in the southeastern US, and from two classes of second-semester university students of Spanish. The native and non-native speakers of Spanish completed the two DCTs from the WBT, and their responses were examined. Eight pragmatically appropriate native speaker responses and eight pragmatically inappropriate non-native speaker responses were incorporated into the game-based assessment.

Web-based pragmatics resources

6.5.

241

Resource pages

The top navigation bar includes a main resource page that contains all of the transcripts from both video lessons (both in English and in Spanish). Ishihara (2010b) suggested that providing transcripts for videos is beneficial for supporting learners with lower levels of proficiency when implementing technology-based pragmatics instruction. The main resource page also includes links to the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) website; specifically, there are links for their “Introduction to Pragmatics” page and for their “Dancing with Words” homepage. There are also links for students to learn and/or review the specific vocabulary items that are needed to realize the speech acts that are presented in the two videobased lessons. In addition, there are links that provide information on the Spanish language and culture as they relate to the content that is presented in the WBT. There are two additional resource pages that appear at the end of each lesson with web-based resources that are specific to each lesson. Each of these pages includes external links for learners to further explore the linguistic and cultural information that will help them achieve more native-like production in Spanish when requesting and complaining in public and private settings. In addition, a brief explanation of the content and purpose of each link is provided for learners. Walters (1979) and Rodríguez (1997) asserted that Spanish language learners must master a wide range of verbal morphology, such as the present indicative tense, the imperative mood, the conditional mood, and the past subjunctive mood, in order to realize requests in a manner that is comparable to native speaker norms. In addition to mastery of the various tenses and moods listed above, learners must also be able to distinguish when to use formal and familiar language appropriately. The resource pages at the end of each lesson were designed to support learners with additional details on the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information that is needed to request and complain in Spanish with appropriate language and manner.

7. 7.1.

Classroom applications Learner proficiency level

This WBT could be used to support language learners who have various levels of proficiency in Spanish. Novice learners of Spanish receive sufficient scaffolding to be able to complete the tutorial because the WBT presents the DCTs first in English prior to presenting the content in Spanish. In addition, English translations are available for all of the video content that is in Spanish. Furthermore, novice learners receive an introduction to the field of pragmatics, which could help them understand the importance of building pragmatic competence from the early stages of language learning. The WBT could also accompany instruction on the conditional and past subjunctive moods for intermediate level learners, and it could reinforce these grammatical structures for advanced level learners. With respect to the lexical items that are employed within the WBT, they are appropriate for both

242

Victoria Russell

intermediate and advanced Spanish language learners. Moreover, the content of the WBT would be suitable for both secondary (grades 6–12) and post-secondary students of Spanish, and the game-based assessment may be appealing to learners of all levels.

7.2.

Instructional context

The WBT may also be implemented in a variety of instructional contexts. In traditional face-to-face classrooms where there is no access to computer laboratory facilities, instructors could print the DCTs and students could fill in their responses as the instructor walks the class through the WBT using a single computer with a projector or a smart board to display the content for the class. For instructional settings with adequate computer laboratory facilities, students could work through the WBT over several class sessions. Conversely, the WBT may be assigned as a self-access resource for students to complete independently outside of class time. Ishihara (2007) suggested using a WBT as an extracurricular activity to support classroom instruction on apologies and compliments in Japanese. This WBT could be used in a similar fashion to support classroom instruction of Spanish pragmatics. Furthermore, the WBT could be incorporated into online Spanish courses either to supplement existing lessons or to infuse pragmatics instruction into the online Spanish curriculum. The WBT is an open educational resource; therefore, the URL may be embedded in online modules without infringing on any copyrighted materials. Finally, the WBT could be used for pragmatics instruction prior to study abroad experiences in Spanish-speaking countries. This may be an especially meaningful context because study abroad participants may be particularly motivated to approximate target language norms in their language production.

7.3.

The WBT and Cohen’s (2010) taxonomy of learner strategies

The WBT may also be implemented in conjunction with Cohen’s (2010) taxonomy of strategies for the initial learning of speech acts. Although the taxonomy is a hypothesized list of strategies that may promote pragmatic development among language learners, Cohen created it based on the results of several research studies that investigated strategy use for the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge (Cohen, Weaver, and Li 1998; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004; Cohen 2005; Cohen et al. 2005; Cohen and Ishihara 2005). At the initial stages of learning speech acts, Cohen recommends employing four instructional strategies, the first of which is for students to gather data through interviews and observations about how specific speech acts are realized within a given community while paying close attention to what speakers say and how they say it. He also recommends that students closely observe the speakers’ non-verbal behavior, such as gestures and facial expressions (Cohen 2010). The video clips from the WBT described in this chapter could be used for students to collect observational

Web-based pragmatics resources

243

data about how native speakers of English and Spanish perform speech acts during complaint scenarios. For this purpose, instructors and/or students would only need to play the video clips from the tutorial while students take notes on what speakers say, how they say it, and other paralinguistic cues, such as gesture, gesticulation, and facial expression. Students could then share and compare their notes prior to viewing the final video clip from each lesson where the native speakers’ pragmatic strategy use is pointed out in real time through the text bubbles that appear outside of the video frame. Students could use this portion of the WBT to check their work. The second strategy that Cohen (2010) recommends for the initial learning of speech acts is for students to conduct a lay cross-cultural analysis, the purpose of which is to compare and contrast the language used as well as the cultural norms associated with a particular speech act in both the students’ first and second languages. The present WBT could be used to support the completion of a lay cross-cultural analysis as suggested by Cohen (2010). Given that the first part of the WBT already prompts learners to complete DCTs in their L1 in both public and private settings, instructors could assign the first part of each video-based lesson for students to complete either on their own or during class. Students could then research how native Spanish speakers in the field complete the two DCTs from the WBT, noting the particular language forms and pragmatic strategies that are used. After completing their research, students could compare their notes from the field with the linguistic forms and pragmatic strategies that are used by the native speakers in the WBT. Students could then check their research findings from the field against the information provided in the WBT with respect to positive and negative pragmatic transfer. If students do not have access to native speakers for field research, then the instructor could invite a native speaker to class in order to provide data to compare with the WBT. Cohen (2010) also recommends asking native or near native speakers to model the performance of a speech act under differing conditions. For example, the social factors that Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) described as impacting the level of politeness necessary between speakers and hearers should be modeled for students. In other words, learners should be exposed to the same speech act with speakers and hearers who vary in status, age, and roles; furthermore, the relative magnitude of the speech act (the degree of imposition) should also vary in order for learners to observe the differences in language and manner that occur when the same speech act is performed under varying conditions. The WBT may be employed to show how the speech acts of requesting and complaining may occur in public (formal) and private (informal) settings, and with interlocutors who are friends versus those who do not know each other. It should be noted that the relative degree of imposition is not very great for either scenario presented in the WBT. Therefore, instructors could expand upon this by asking native speaker guests to model the two DCTs from the WBT while increasing the magnitude of the request (e.g., asking for a refund of an entire hotel bill rather than only for the room service breakfast that was delivered late). These and other changes could be made to the DCTs from the WBT in order to model speech acts under varying conditions for students. The

244

Victoria Russell

language and manner used by the guest native speakers could then be compared to those of the native speakers from the WBT. The final strategy that Cohen (2010) lists in his taxonomy for the initial learning of speech acts is for students to access print and web-based materials that focus on speech acts. He suggested that students consult self-access websites, second language textbooks, and research articles to learn how to perform speech acts appropriately in the target language. The WBT presented in this chapter could serve as a starting point for students to learn about requests and complaints in Spanish. Spanish language learners could also access other web-based resources for learning about speech acts such CARLA’s Dancing with Words website as well as other links and resources for learning about pragmatics and speech acts that are provided by the WBT.

8.

Conclusion

While there are a number of research studies whose findings indicate that pragmaticsfocused instruction is beneficial for language learners’ acquisition of pragmatic abilities (Bouton 1994; House 1996; LoCastro 1997; Cohen, Weaver, and Li 1998; Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004; Cohen 2005; Cohen and Ishihara 2005; Cohen et al. 2005; Koike and Pearson 2005; Jeon and Kaya 2006; Ishihara 2007), the majority of foreign language textbooks fail to include any formal instruction on pragmatics (Pinto 2002). Similarly, Ishihara (2010a) claimed that of the ESL textbooks that do include pragmatics instruction, many are insufficient in their treatment of pragmatics and in the quality of pragmatics instruction that they provide. While there are some web-based materials available for instruction on pragmatics for English and Spanish language learners, there are very few pragmatics-focused materials available on the Internet for learners of other languages. The WBT presented in this chapter helps fill an important gap and may provide a model for teaching speech acts in a manner that takes full advantage of the capabilities of the web-based learning environment. The design of the WBT and the pedagogical rationale for including specific content was described in detail so that others may replicate the WBT for their own instructional needs and contexts. Furthermore, the chapter provided a number of practical instructional techniques for using the tutorial with learners who have varying levels of proficiency in Spanish. The WBT presented in this chapter is open and available for instructors, students, and researchers alike at: www.slaitresearch.com.

References Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Empirical Evidence of the Need for Instruction in Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Billmyer, K. 1990. “I Really Like Your Lifestyle: ESL Learners Learning How to Compliment.” Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6(2): 31–48.

Web-based pragmatics resources

245

Bouton, L. 1994. “Can NNS Skill in Interpreting Implicature in American English be Improved through Explicit Instruction? A Pilot Study.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, eds. L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, Vol. 5, 88–109. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois. Brown, C., C. O’Brien, V. Russell, P. Wahlgren and G. Worley. 2008. “Pragmatics en español.” www.slaitresearch.com. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions in Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. Ester N. Goody, 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. 2015. “Pragmatics and Speech Acts.” www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/. Cohen, A.D. 1998. “Contrastive Analysis of Speech Acts: What Do We Do with the Research Findings?” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies 12: 81–90. Cohen, A.D. 2005. “Strategies for Learning and Performing L2 Speech Acts.” Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3): 275–301. Cohen, A.D. 2010. “Strategies for Learning and Performing Speech Acts.” In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and A. D Cohen, 227–243. New York: Routledge. Cohen, A.D. and N. Ishihara. 2005. A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20speech%20act%20report%20 rev.%20june05.pdf. Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1981. “Developing a Measure of Sociolinguistic Competence: The Case of Apology.” Language Learning 31(1): 112–134. Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1993. “The Production of Speech Acts by EFL Learners.” TESOL Quarterly 27(1): 33–56. Cohen, A.D., M. R. Paige, R. L. Shively, H. Emert and J. Hoff. 2005. “Maximizing Study Abroad through Language and Culture Strategies: Research on Students, Study Abroad Program Professionals, and Language Instructors.” Final Report to the International Research and Studies Program, Office of International Education, DOE. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. www.carla.umn. edu/maxsa/documents/maxsaresearchreport.pdf. Cohen, A.D., S. J. Weaver and T. Li. 1998. “The Impact of Strategies-Based Instruction on Speaking a Foreign Language.” In Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language, ed. Andrew D. Cohen, 107–156. Harlow: Longman. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2011. “Discourse Pragmatics: Language and Culture Resources for Instructors, Students, and Researchers of Spanish Linguistics.” Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. www.indiana.edu/~discprag/index.html. Giddens, D. 1981. “An Analysis of the Syntax and Discourse of Oral Complaints in Spanish.” MA diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Haverkate, H., ed. 1987. La Semiótica del diálogo. (Diálogos Hispánicos de Amsterdam No. 6). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Haverkate, H. 1994. La cortesía verbal: Estudio pragmalingüístico. Madrid: Editorial Gredos. Hoven, D. 1999. “A Model for Listening and Viewing Comprehension in Multimedia Environments.” Language Learning and Technology 3(1): 88–103. House, J. 1996. “Developing Pragmatic Fluency in English as a Foreign Language: Routines and Metapragmatic Awareness.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 225–252.

246

Victoria Russell

Ishihara, N. 2007. “Web-Based Curriculum for Pragmatics Instruction in Japanese as a Foreign Language: An Explicit Awareness-Raising Approach.” Language Awareness 16(1): 21–40. Ishihara, N. 2010a. “Adapting Textbooks for Teaching Pragmatics.” In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and A.D. Cohen, 145–165. New York: Routledge. Ishihara, N. 2010b. “Incorporating Technology into Pragmatics-Focused Instruction.” In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and A.D. Cohen, 244–263. New York: Routledge. Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen. 2006. “Strategies for Learning Speech Acts in Japanese.” Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. University of Minnesota. www. carla.umn.edu/speechacts/japanese/introtospeechacts/index.htm. Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen. 2010. “Learners’ Pragmatics: Potential Causes of Divergence.” In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and A.D. Cohen, 75–96. New York: Routledge. Jeon, E.H. and T. Kaya. 2006. “Effects of L2 Instruction on Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: A Meta-Analysis.” In Synthesizing Research on Language Teaching and Learning, eds. John M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega, 165–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kasper, G. 1996. “Introduction: Pragmatics in SLA.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 145–148. Kasper, G. 1997. “Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught?” (NetWork #6). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. www.nflrc. hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/. Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Koike, D. 2010. “Pragmatics.” In Foreign Language Teaching Methods, eds. C. Blyth and H. Kang. Austin: Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERRLL), The University of Texas. https://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/ pragmatics/. Koike, D. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Development of Pragmatic Competence.” System 33(3): 481–501. Kramsch, C. and R. W. Anderson. 1999. “Teaching Text and Context through Multimedia.” Language Learning and Technology 2(2): 31–42. LeLoup, J. and R. Ponterio. 2000. “Enhancing Authentic Language Learning Experiences through Internet Technology.” Report No. EDO-FL-OO-O2. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. LoCastro, V. 1997. “Pedagogical Intervention and Pragmatic Competence Development.” Applied Language Learning 8(1): 75–109. Lyster, R. 1994. “The Effect of Functional-Analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immersion Students’ Sociolinguistic Competence.” Applied Linguistics 15(3): 263–287. Márquez Reiter, R. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olshtain, E. and A.D. Cohen. 1989. “Speech Act Behavior across Languages.” In Transfer in Language Production, eds. Hans Dechert and Manfred Raupach, 53–67. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Paige, M. R., A.D. Cohen and R. L. Shively. 2004. “Assessing the Impact of a Strategies-Based Curriculum on Language and Culture Learning Abroad.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10: 253–276.

Web-based pragmatics resources

247

Pinterest. (n.d.). “Pragmatic / Social Language.” www.pinterest.com/sostherapy/pragmaticsocial-language/. Pinto, D. 2002. “Perdóname, ¿Llevas mucho esperando? Conventionalized Language in L1 and L2 Spanish.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis. Quiñones, C. 2013. “Teaching and Assessing English Pragmatics Knowledge with Web Resources.” http://cjq208.wix.com/teachingpragmatics#!websites/c46. Rodríguez, S. 1997. “Appropriate Requests and the Card Sorting Judgment Task.” Manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington. Russell, V. and C. Vásquez. 2011. “A Web-Based Tutorial for the Instruction of Spanish Pragmatics.” International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT) Journal 41(2): 27–55. Schmidt, R. 1990. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.” Applied Linguistics 11(2): 206–226. Schmidt, R. 1993. “Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Interlanguage Pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 43–57. New York: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. 2001. “Attention.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. and S. N. Frota. 1986. “Developing Basic Conversational Ability in a Second Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese.” In Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, ed. Richard R. Day, 237–326. Rowley, MA: Newberry. Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.” Applied Linguistics 2(2): 159–168. Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. “Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types of Language Information for the L2 learner.” Second Language Research 7(2): 118–132. Sykes, J. and A.D. Cohen. 2006. “Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics in Spanish.” Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, The University of Minnesota. www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html. Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289–310. United States Department of State (n.d.). “American English: A Website for Teachers and Learners of English as a Foreign Language Abroad.” http://americanenglish.state.gov/ resources/teaching-pragmatics. Walters, J. 1979. “The Perception of Politeness in English and Spanish.” In On TESOL ’79, eds. C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins and J. Schachter, 288–296. Washington, DC: TESOL. Werkhofer, K. 1992. “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and the Power of Politeness.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory, and Practice, eds. R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 155–197. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wishnoff, J. 2000. “Hedging your Bets: L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse.” Second Language Studies, Working Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii 19(1): 119–157. Yoshimi, D. 2001. “Explicit Instruction and JFL Learner’s Use of Interactional Discourse Markers.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 233–244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIX A Online resources for teaching pragmatics

Resources for teachers, researchers, and graduate students 1) https://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/pragmatics/ Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning, University of Texas at Austin, Foreign Language Teaching Methods: Pragmatics, Author: Dale Koike; Editor: Carl Blyth. This website contains four web-based lessons that are taught by Dr. Dale Koike, who is a Professor of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Texas at Austin. The first lesson provides an introduction to the field of pragmatics and the topics include sociocultural norms, speech acts, and face-threatening acts. The second lesson focuses on language and culture, and Dr. Koike covers language functions, appropriateness, and L2 sociocultural norms. The third lesson provides examples of how teachers may incorporate pragmatics instruction in the L2 classroom. This lesson includes dialogues, formulas, metapragmatic discussions, and information for building awareness of sociocultural norms. The fourth and final lesson focuses on the teachability of pragmatics, learner proficiency level, and the evaluation of language production. All of the lessons conclude with opportunities for learners to reflect and review. This is a powerful resource for all language teachers who which to incorporate pragmatics instruction in their L2 classrooms. 2) www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/ Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota, Pragmatics and Speech Acts, Author: Unknown. CARLA’s website provides a wealth of information and resources for teaching pragmatics. There are links and resources on the following topics: background information on pragmatics instruction and the second and foreign language curriculum, descriptions of speech acts, a bibliography on pragmatics and speech acts, a wiki for second and foreign language teachers, strategy training on the development of

Web-based pragmatics resources

249

pragmatic ability, information on CARLA summer institutes for language teachers, and links to the Dancing with Words and Strategies for Learning Speech Acts in Japanese websites. There are also examples of speech acts in American English, Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese, and Spanish. Furthermore, the wiki provides a space for language teachers to share their resources, lesson plans, and videos for the instruction of L2 pragmatics with others. This feature may be of particular interest to teachers who are new or less experienced in teaching L2 pragmatics. 3) www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/ National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Can Pragmatic Competence be Taught? (NetWork #6), Author: Dr. Gabriele Kasper. This was one of the first websites to provide information and resources on pragmatics instruction. While the website was authored in 1997, most of the research articles that are cited are seminal articles in the field, and they are still relevant for language teachers today. The author, Dr. Gabriele Kasper, provides information on how pragmatic competence figures into the broader construct of communicative competence. She also provides a clear rationale for the need to include pragmatics instruction in the second or foreign language curriculum. The studies that are cited on the website are broken down by the pragmatic topic that is taught, learners’ proficiency level, the L2, the research goal, and the assessment procedure or instrument. This information is especially useful for graduate students and researchers who are interested in conducting research on the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence. The author also provides research-based suggestions and resources for learners to practice L2 pragmatic abilities in the second or foreign language classroom.

Resources for English-language learners (adults and adolescents) 1) http://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/teaching-pragmatics United States Department of State, American English: A Website for Teachers and Learners of English as a Foreign Language Abroad, Author: Unknown. This website contains 30 separate open-access pragmatics lessons that can be downloaded and implemented in English as a second or foreign language classroom. Each lesson plans describes the level of learner that is targeted as well as the pedagogical rationale for each activity. Some of the lesson titles include: “Greetings with a Difference,” “Are you Listening (Backchannel Behaviors),” “Using the Telephone to Teach Pragmatics,” “Giving and Responding to Compliments,” “The Rules of the Queue,” and many more. This is an outstanding resource for teachers who are new or less experienced in providing instruction on L2 pragmatics. 2) http://cjq208.wix.com/teachingpragmatics#!websites/c46c Open Access Website, Teaching and Assessing English Pragmatics Knowledge with Web Resources, Author: Candice Quiñones. The author of this website compiled a number of links and resources for the instruction of L2 pragmatics to English language learners. The materials include

250

Victoria Russell

audio, visual, and text-based resources. There are also brief tips and suggestions for incorporating the materials into classroom instruction.

Resources for English-language learners (children) 1) www.pinterest.com/sostherapy/pragmatic-social language/ Pinterest, Pragmatic/Social Language, Author: Unknown. This open-access website allows teachers to post and share pragmatics materials for young children. While most of the materials are geared to native speakers of English, these materials are also appropriate for young English language learners. Some of the topics include learning social skills, norms regarding personal space, appropriate ways to express being upset, and working in groups to name a few. There are lesson plans, resource folders, and editable classroom activities available on this website.

Resources for Japanese language learners 1) www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/japanese/introtospeechacts/index.htm Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, Strategies for Learning Speech Acts in Japanese, Authors: Dr. Noriko Ishihara and Dr. Andrew D. Cohen. This website was authored by Dr. Noriko Ishihara and Dr. Andrew D. Cohen, and it contains seven modules for instructing speech acts for intermediate- to advanced-level learners of Japanese as an L2. The first module provides an introduction to speech acts and it places learners in eight different situations or vignettes where they have to respond to a scenario in English. These vignettes were designed to raise students’ linguistic and cultural awareness prior to completing the web-based pragmatics lessons. The module titles are: “Apologies,” “Compliments/Responses to Compliments,” “Refusals,” “Requests,” and “Thanks.” There is also a module on strategies for avoiding negative pragmatic transfer from the L1 (English), as well as tips and strategies for using appropriate communication strategies in Japanese.

Resources for Spanish language learners 1) www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota, Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics in Spanish, Authors: Julie Sykes and Andrew D. Cohen. The Dancing with Words website is the most comprehensive website that is currently available for learning speech acts in Spanish. The learning modules focus on strategy training for the acquisition of pragmatic competence in Spanish. Students are encouraged to complete the “Introduction to Pragmatics” module prior to completing the learning modules that focus on specific speech acts. The following

Web-based pragmatics resources

251

speech acts are presented on this website: “Compliment Sequences,” “Gratitude and Leave Taking,” “Requests,” “Apologies,” “Invitation Sequences,” and “Service Encounters.” The lessons are video-based and are geared for intermediate/ low through advanced/high students of Spanish as a foreign language. Students are provided with a chart so that they can match their ability level to specific modules. Furthermore, resources and materials are available for students, teachers, and researchers. 2) www.indiana.edu/~discprag/index.html Indiana University at Bloomington, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Discourse Pragmatics, Author: J. César Félix-Brasdefer. The Discourse Pragmatics website provides materials and resources for students, teachers, and researchers. This website is unique because it highlights the differences in cultural and pragmatic norms across the Spanish-speaking world, which enables learners to recognize that Spanish speakers from different regions and countries will vary in their speech act production and interactional patterns. The countries that are represented on this website include: Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Spain, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In addition to information on politeness and speech acts, this website also provides audio recordings from native Spanish speakers, exercises, and additional resources that teachers may download and use in their classrooms to teach Spanish pragmatics to English speakers. 3) www.slaitresearch.com Pragmatics en español, Authors: Christine Brown, Coby O’Brien, Victoria Russell, Patrik Wahlgren and Gordon Worley. This website provides two video-based pragmatics lessons that were designed for teaching complaints and requests to L2 Spanish learners. The first lesson prompts learners to complain and request in a familiar setting, and the second lesson provides instruction on a formal complaint setting. Students may respond to discourse completion tasks using their web cams, and learners are continually prompted to compare their production with native speaker norms. The website also contains a module that provides an introduction to the field of pragmatics, a game-based assessment, as well as additional resources for learning Spanish pragmatics.

GLOSSARY1

ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). A professional organization of foreign languages instructor in the US, which has developed several instruments for measuring the L2 proficiency of students, among them, the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. www.actfl.org. additive connectors (conectores aditivos). Discourse markers that connect two informative segments situated at the same level, or two arguments that lead to the same conclusion. Examples in Spanish are: aparte, asimismo, es más, etc. advanced NNSs (hablantes no nativos de nivel avanzado). This term refers to Spanish L2 learners with greater proficiency than novice learners in their first year of study. Although these terms (novice and advanced) reflect the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, the “advanced NNSs” described here have not necessarily been evaluated as having “advanced proficiency” on the ACTFL scale (see ACTFL). affiliation (afiliación). Affiliation face is a term formulated by Fant (1989, p. 255). It refers to “inner representation of Self as an accepted member of the group to which one has an idea of belonging.” Bravo (1999) develops a new approach to Spanish politeness, claiming that affiliation is related to the individual’s and the others’ perception of him/herself as part of the group. anaphoric (anafórico). A linguistic item that refers to something mentioned early in the discourse, giving rise to a relation of coreference, as in María se está duchando, where the reflexive se is coreferential with María (i.e., refers to the same person in the real world), or as in Se lo ofrecí a Juan, pero el tonto no aceptó, where se Juan and el tonto are coreferential. Juan is anaphoric to el tonto.

1 Please note that the citation references for the glossary are listed at the end of the glossary.

254

Glossary

anthropological culture (cultura antropológica). “Customs, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set that group apart as a distinctive group” (Scollon and Scollon 2001, p. 126–127). argumentative operators (operadores argumentativos). They add content relating to the argumentation: orientation, force, or argumentative adequacy. Examples in Spanish are: incluso, por lo menos, preferiblemente, etc. autonomy (autonomía). Autonomy face is a term formulated first by Fant (1989). It refers to the inner representation of self as an independent, autonomous person with an inviolable territory. Bravo (1999) develops a new approach to Spanish politeness, claiming that autonomy is related to the image that an individual has of him/herself and to the perception that the others have of the individual as different from the rest of the group. cataphoric (catafórico): A linguistic element that refers to something mentioned later in the discourse, establishing with it a relation of coreference, as in “Los chocolates belgas les encantan a mis hijos,” where les and a mis hijos are coreferential. The cataphoric element here is les. CEFRL (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment) (Marco Común Europeo de Referencia para las Lenguas: Aprendizaje, Enseñanza, Evaluación (MCER)). Guidelines used primarily in the European countries to measure the development and the proficiency of L2 learners. For Spanish, see https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/ biblioteca_ele/marco/default.htm. chronemics (cronémica). A community’s concept of time and how it is structured and used. cognitive pragmatics (pragmática cognitiva). A subfield of pragmatics that puts the focus on the mental systems and processes that underlie the way in which meaning is built by considering both the content encoded in sentences and the set of contextual assumptions (including situation, world knowledge, cultural norms, etc.). cognitivism (cognitivismo). Cognitivism is the study in psychology that focuses on mental processes, including how people perceive, think, remember, learn, solve problems, and direct their attention to one stimulus rather than another. commentary pragmatic markers (comentadores). Term used by Fraser (2009) for a subtype of pragmatic markers which “signal a comment on the basic message: assessment ( fortunately), manner-of-speaking ( frankly), evidential markers (certainly), hearsay markers (reportedly, allegedly) and (non)deference markers (sir)” (p. 297). Examples in Spanish are: afortunadamente, por cierto, supuestamente, etc. communicative approach (enfoque comunicativo). A language learning methodology in which the communication of real meaning takes precedence over the grammatical accuracy. Its main objective is for the learner to acquire enough competence in L2 as to sustain a meaningful exchange with an interlocutor of

Glossary

255

L1 (see below L1). Basically, when learners get involved in real communication, their strategies for their first language acquisition are used in order to learn the new language. Also known as communicative language teaching, notional-functional approach, or functional approach (enseñanza comunicativa de la lengua, el enfoque nocional-funcional o el enfoque funcional). communicative competence (competencia comunicativa). Communicative competence refers to a learner’s ability to use language to communicate successfully. Canale and Swain (1980) defined it as being composed of competence in four areas: words and rules, appropriateness, cohesion and coherence, and use of communication strategies. communicative event (evento comunicativo). A meaningful communication activity where participants use a set of utterances to perform a linguistic action or function. communicative language ability (habilidad lingüística comunicativa). A model of communicative competence, which separates linguistic knowledge (various language systems) and skills to use (functional knowledge). See Bachman and Palmer (1996). complexity theory (teoría de la complejidad). The study of complex and chaotic systems and how order, pattern, and structure can arise from them. conceptual proxemics ( proxémica conceptual). Conceptual proxemics deals with the habits and beliefs pertaining to the concept of space of a certain community or culture (if it is considered to be concrete or abstract, material and tangible or intangible, and why), to the distribution of space (the layout of cities, towns, homes and furniture, parks, different types of premises, and so on), and to the influence of all this on human behavior (order or disorder in arranging objects, waiting in line, or respect for prohibited or private spaces). conceptual time (tiempo conceptual). Conceptual time is formed by the behavior and beliefs of different cultures relative to their concept of time, such as whether or not they value it or consider it to be concrete or abstract, material and tangible or intangible, and why. It also refers to those beliefs concerning the distribution of time in different communities and its influence on human behavior, like planning time and regularly carrying out several activities at once. concessives connectors (conectores concesivos). Concessive connectors introduce a result contrary to that which would be expected to follow from the cause. The earlier argument is an obstacle to the fulfillment of the principal argument, but the speaker does not take it into consideration. Examples in Spanish are: aun así, con todo, de cualquier forma, etc. conclusion connectors (conectores conclusivos): Markers that introduce a conclusion which brings the foregoing arguments to a close. Examples in Spanish are: en suma, total, al fin y al cabo, etc. connectors (conectores). Connectors are free units, independent of the verb in the sentence, whose discourse function is to establish the relationship between

256

Glossary

two clauses or minor segments. Examples in Spanish are: por otra parte, además, encima, etc. consciousness-raising (estímulo de la conciencia). It is a teaching approach or technique intended to help learners notice something about the language using their intellectual and cognitive capacities to become aware of language structure and use (Sharwood Smith 1983). consecutive connectors (conectores consecutivos). These connectors introduce the result of an action. Examples in Spanish are: por (lo) tanto, en consecuencia, por ende, etc. context (contexto). Context is usually understood as: (1) the physical context that encompasses what is physically present around the speakers/hearers at the time of communication; (2) the linguistic context, namely what has been said in the conversation; (3) the social context, which is the social relationship of the people involved in communication; and (4) the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the hearer (epistemic knowledge). The linguistic context is also sometimes referred to as co-text. COSOPRAG (COSOPRAG). It is a research project aimed at creating a model for registering socio-pragmatic forms of conduct that will allow to formulate general categories suitable for the study of the linguistic production from different varieties of Spanish. http://edice.org/cosprag. co-text (co-texto). See context. counter-argument connectors (conectores contra-argumentativos). Connectors that indicate counter-possibility, contraposition, and concession. Examples in Spanish are: por el contrario, ahora bien, eso sí, etc. cultural appropriation (apropiación cultural ). A process in which practices or products associated with members of a minority group are adopted and adapted for use or consumption by members of the dominant group. cultural signs and systems (signos y sistemas culturales). The set of behavioral and environmental habits and beliefs of a community that communicate both in the widest and the strictest senses of the word. culture (cultura). The whole set formed by knowledge, beliefs, customs and common practices, etc. that is largely distributed among the members of a social group, who see it as their own. deixis (deíxis). Indicate the way in which the reference of certain elements in a sentence is determined in relation to a specific speaker and addressee, and a specific time and place of utterance. For instance, in “Usted llegó aquí ayer,” the reference of usted is the interlocutor of the speaker, the reference of aquí is the place where the exchange occurs, and the reference of ayer is the day before the one in which the exchange takes place. Discourse deixis (la deixis discursiva) refers to anaphoric and cataphoric elements (see entries for these terms). Discourse Completion Test/Task (DCT) (Prueba/tarea de finalización del discurso o cuestionario/tarea de producción). An open-ended questionnaire that require learners to respond to a particular scenario either orally or in writing.

Glossary

257

It is a linguistic tool designed, in particular, to elicit particular speech acts where participants provide responses to a situational prompt. discourse markers (marcadores del discurso). These are linguistic terms that lack referential content, and, instead, have a procedural role, generally parenthetical. They guide the inferences of the listener or reader when interpreting a message, and they perform macrostructural functions, such as connecting and/or structuring information. Examples in Spanish are: es más, en cambio, vamos, etc. discourse structure markers (marcadores que estructuran el discurso). Term used by Fraser (2009) for a subtype of pragmatic markers that “signal an aspect of the organization of the ongoing discourse”: discourse management (in summary), topic-orientation (returning to my previous topic) and attention markers (look) (p. 297). Examples in Spanish are: volviendo al tema, mira, en resumen, etc. discursive competence (competencia discursiva). The user’s capacity to organize sentences in sequences in order to produce coherent messages. discursive politeness (cortesía discursiva). Discursive politeness has the social function of showing listeners’ interest in the interlocutor as a competent speaker and involvement in their conversation. See also politeness. Dual Process Theory (teoría del proceso dual). Dual Process Theory builds on current “advances on cognitive science and consider(s) findings on the neurological and cognitive processes involved in humor interpretation” with the intention of developing a unified theory of humor (Boyang 2016, p. 861). EDICE Program (Programa EDICE ). EDICE stands for Estudios sobre el Discurso de la Cortesía en Español (Studies on the Discourse of Politeness in Spanish), an international research network based in Sweden about linguistic, social, and cultural aspects of Spanish and all its variants, focusing particularly on (im)politeness phenomena and related sociopragmatic notions (such as identity and face). See www.edice.org. elite bilinguals (bilingüe de élite, o por privilegio). Those learners who acquire a second language by their own choice, often in a classroom, as opposed to those who learn it for economic reasons, often in non-academic settings. enunciative operators (operadores enunciativos). Enunciative operators mark the way to speak, to enunciate (sincerely, honestly, frankly); or they indicate who the speaker is and how he/she is responsible for the act of speaking. Examples in Spanish are: sinceramente, presumiblemente, que yo sepa, etc. ethnic commodification (mercantilización de la etnicidad). A process in which practices or products associated with an ethnic group—such as language, festivals, or cuisine—are commercialized and marketed to outgroup members. evidentials (marcadores de evidencialidad). Linguistic elements that encode the different ways in which knowledge is acquired or the source of information (Alvarado Ortega 2016). An example in Spanish is: dizque. exemplification connectors (conectores de ejemplificación). Markers that introduce an example whose role is to justify the conclusion being reached. Examples in Spanish are: por ejemplo, pongamos por caso, etc.

258

Glossary

expectations (expectativas). Predictions made about a future course of events based on frequency and previous knowledge. explicature (explicatura). The truth-conditional, propositional content of an utterance that derives directly from the encoded meaning plus the result of the pragmatic processes needed for reference assignment, disambiguation, and enrichment of vague expressions. The term is used in the framework of Relevance Theory (see Relevance Theory). explicit and implicit feedback (retroalimentación explícita e implícita). In explicit feedback, the instructor points to the language error in a learner’s production by offering the corrected form or making a metalinguistic comment or clarification question eliciting self-correction. In implicit feedback, the instructor provides a corrected reformulation of a learner’s utterance hoping the learner will pick up on the correction. explicit and implicit instruction (instrucción explícita e implícita). Explicit instruction requires the instructor to clearly outline learning goals by offering well-defined explanations of language rules, skills, and structures. Implicit instruction requires the instructor to present information or problems to learners so they can make their own conclusions about language rules, skills, and structures. face (imagen pública). Term postulated by Brown and Levinson (1978), based on Goffman (1967), who considered face to be an image of self, delineated in terms of approved social attributes, as a universal psychological feature addressed by politeness. Face is defined as the image that a person has as a member of society and is two-sided: a person’s sense of self-esteem (positive face) and desire to determine their own course of action (negative face). face-management (gestión de la imagen). Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2002) has suggested that linguistic politeness should be seen as one of the many resources available for managing relations. She claims that the force behind the management of relations comprises two components: the management of face and the management of sociality rights. Management of face refers to the desire to be evaluated positively in terms of personal qualities, and it is in this sense that face is related to personal self-esteem, in other words, to Brown’s and Levinson’s positive face. See also face. face-wants vs. face threats (deseos de imagen vs. amenazas a la imagen). Need to have face respected vs. threat to self-esteem or to freedom of action. See also face. face-work (actividades de imagen). According to Goffman (1967), these are the activities that a person performs in order to save both his /her face and that of his/her interlocutor, preventing possible threats to either. See also face. frames and schemata (marcos y esquemas mentales). Frames and schemata are structures of organized world knowledge. functional competence (competencia funcional). It refers to the performance of communicative functions, such as conveying attitudes or persuading. General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) (Teoría General del Humor Verbal). This theory is a variant of the incongruity theory, developed by Attardo

Glossary

259

and Raskin (1991). The GTVH proposes six knowledge resources which are ordered hierarchically and correspond to different parameters or levels of the joke. These include the: (1) opposition of schemes, (2) logical mechanism, (3) situation, (4) narrative strategy, (5) language, and (6) text of the joke (Attardo, Hempelmann, and Maio 2002, p. 4). The hierarchical order does not reflect production; it is dependent on relationships between the parameters and kinds of knowledge (Attardo and Raskin 1991, p. 294). genre ( género). Genre is the term used for any form of communication (written, spoken, digital, artistic, etc.) shaped by socio-cultural conventions. Texts of a genre tend to share linguistic characteristics as well as stylistic, aesthetic, rhetorical, communicative, or functional features. gestures ( gestos). Psychomuscular movements of conventional communicative value; that is, used, consciously or unconsciously, in accordance with sociocultural conventions to produce an act of communication. Grice’s Cooperative Principle (el Principio de Cooperación de Grice). Pragmatic principle based on the theory of H.P. Grice ([1967] 1975), according to which participants in a conversation must cooperate in order for their utterances to make sense. GRIALE (Grupo de Investigación para la Pragmática y la Ironía en Español del Área de Lengua Española). A research group on pragmatics and irony, located at the University of Alicante, Spain. See http://griale.dfelg.ua.es/. group politeness (cortesía grupal). The principal objective of group politeness is to encourage unity and solidarity between the members of a group. heritage learner (estudiante de herencia). According to Guadalupe Valdés (2000, p. 1), this is a student “who is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speak[s] or at least understand[s] the language, and who, up to a certain point, [is] bilingual in both English and that heritage language.” humor (humor). From a pragmatic perspective, humor is considered an act intended to be comical and cause laughter. It is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon difficult to define because humor varies across cultures and is context dependent. humor competence (competencia del humor). Humor competence is defined by Attardo (2002, p. 1) as “the capacity of a speaker to process semantically a given text and to locate a set of relationships among its components, such that he/ she would identify the text (or part of it) as humorous in an ideal situation.” hyperbole (hipérbole). The term for “exaggeration” in the ancient doctrine of figures of speech (Matthews 1997, p. 166). illocutionary force (fuerza ilocutiva). Applied in the theory of speech acts, this term refers to the force (i.e., the communicative intention) that an expression of some specific forms will have when it is uttered. For example, stopping somebody and saying: Por favor, me puede ayudar? would have the illocutionary force of a polite request for assistance, by virtue of its interrogative form preceded by por favor. implicature (implicatura). Each one of the propositional representations that an utterance can convey without encoding them; implicatures are recovered by

260

Glossary

inference. This definition can vary according to the theoretical framework of each author. impoliteness (descortesía). Culpeper (1996) has proposed a model to account for the expression of impoliteness that has a parallel structure to Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness model. This model consists of five super strategies: (1) “bald on record impoliteness, deployed when there is much face at stake,” (2) “positive impoliteness,” (3) “negative impoliteness,” (4) “sarcasm or mock politeness,” and (5) “withhold politeness.” Impoliteness is geared toward harming the interlocutor’s face, based on social codes allegedly shared, and has a negative interpersonal effect. impoliteness produced by threats or by breach of politeness norms (descortesía provocada por actos amenazantes o por ruptura de las normas de cortesía). These are two types of impoliteness: one produced by threats to the face of the speaker (whether to the face of personal value, the face of his role, or the face of his group image in respect to his family, friends, or others) which are neither diminished nor amended, and the other caused by a break from the normal rules of politeness. This includes such things as breaking with what is considered polite when meeting someone, during a visit, and in adjacency pairs (concretely in those of self-criticism followed by an affirmation of the criticism by the speaker). inauthentic politeness/non-genuine politeness (cortesía inauténtica/atípica). According to Bernal (2007), these are apparently impolite acts (use of insults, denigrating nicknames, among others) that are aimed at the interlocutor but without an interpretation favoring impoliteness or impacting the situation with a negative effect. Such acts form part of a playful style that favors the affinity and the solidarity between participants. Their use is based on a relation of trust and a high degree of interpersonal closeness. incongruity theory (teoría de la incongruencia). This theory claims that humor emerges when people experience an unexpected event or see something illogical or absurd that makes the situation laughable (Meyer 2000, p. 316; Torres Sánchez 1999). informative operators (operadores informativos). These operators differentiate given and new information, expected and non-expected argument, or emphasize a segment of the utterance. An example in Spanish is justamente. input enhancement (realce o revalorización del input). Input enhancement is any technique used to make specific features of the written input more salient for language learners (Sharwood Smith 1981, 1991). Examples of input enhancement include highlighting and/or changing the font style, size, or color. instructional pragmatics (pragmática enfocada a la instrucción). According to Ishihara (2010), this term refers to the educational component of interlanguage pragmatics, aiming to promote the acquisition of sociopragmatic competence. In L2 settings, it may focus on the acquisition of pragmalinguistic elements, of sociopragmatic elements, or a combination of both. (in)sufficiency markers (marcadores de (in)suficiencia). Markers that indicate if an argument is sufficient or insufficient to support the conclusion being presented.

Glossary

261

Examples in Spanish are: al menos, por lo menos (sufficiency), ni siquiera, meramente (insufficiency). Interaction Hypothesis (Hipótesis Interaccionista). Interaction hypothesis is a model of second language acquisition proposed by Long (1996), who believes that language acquisition occurs when learners participate in interactions to negotiate meaning. interactional proxemics (proxémica interaccional). Interactional proxemics studies the establishment of the distances at which people carry out different communicative interactions (consoling, advising, chiding, conversing, carrying out job interviews, teaching). These show cross-cultural variation. It also refers to the functions performed by a series of non-verbal signals in co-structuration with signs belonging to other communication systems or alternating with those signs (moving closer to a person to indicate the intention of going with them or to show agreement). See also proxemics, social proxemics. interactive connectors (conectores interactivos). Connectors used in interaction in order to establish the relationship with the listener. Examples in Spanish are: bueno, verás, mira, etc. interactive time (tiempo interactivo). Interactive time has to do with the duration of signs from other communication systems. This has an informative value, either because it serves to reinforce the meaning of its elements or because it specifies or changes the meaning; thus, the greater or lesser the length of the sounds in some words, of some gestures or pauses, and their corresponding connotations are chronemic signs, along with increased speed in emitting an utterance, which can intensify or diminish its critical or corrective effect. interlanguage (interlengua o interlenguaje). Concept created by Selinker (1972) to refer to the individual linguistic system of L2 learners at different stages of the acquisition process; basically, this system is intermediate between that of their native language and that of the one being learned. Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) (pragmática de la interlengua). Interlanguage pragmatics is a subfield of second language acquisition which investigates the acquisition, comprehension, and production of pragmatics by second language learners. internal/mental representations (representaciones internas/mentales) These are assumptions that an individual has stored or can entertain as reflecting his/her perception of the world, either actual or imaginary. irony (prototypical and non-prototypical) (ironía prototípica y no prototípica). Irony is conceived of as a pragmatic phenomenon based on indicators and marks, which is why it is possible to offer an explanation that goes beyond the particular contexts where irony arises: prototypical irony (ironía prototípica). This is the one that arises from the negation of the utterance; non-prototypical (ironía no prototípica) irony is produced through different phenomena which do not involve contradiction. kinesics (cinésica o kinésica). The kinesic system is comprised of the bodily movements and postures which communicate, specify, and nuance the meaning of

262

Glossary

communicative signs or acts of communication, including such relevant aspects as eye behavior or bodily contact. L1 (first language) (primera lengua). The acronym L1 is shorthand for referring to the language that someone learns to speak first. This is generally used in contrast to L2 (second language). See also L2. L2 (second language) (segunda lengua). In a broad sense, the term L2 (second language) refers to the language learned by a non-native speaker, in this case, by non-native speakers of Spanish (See also L1). L2 learning vs. FL learning (aprendizaje de una segunda lengua vs. aprendizaje de una lengua extranjera). Shrum and Glisan (2010, p. 12) make a distinction between foreign and L2 learning based on whether the language is acquired via “formal classroom instruction outside of the geographical region where it is commonly spoken” or “within one of the regions where the language is commonly spoken,” instead of or in addition to formal instruction. In Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries, it is usual to refer to ELE (“español como lengua extranjera”). language socialization (socialización lingüística). According to Ochs and Schieffelin (2014, p. 1), the study of language socialization “examine[s] how children and other novices apprehend and enact ‘the context of situation’ in relation to the ‘context of culture’. In so doing, language socialization research integrates discourse and ethnographic methods to capture the social structuring and cultural interpretations of semiotic forms, practices, and ideologies that inform novices’ practical engagements with others.” Levinson’s theory (la teoría de Levinson). Theory presented by Levinson in Presumptive Meanings (2000), in which it is claimed that in order to account for generalized conversational implicatures (GCI) (and other types of presumptive meanings, or preferred interpretations), it is necessary to distinguish a new level of utterance-type meaning from sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning: “This level is to capture the suggestions that the use of an expression of a certain type generally or normally carries, by default” (p. 71). linguistic, situational, and sociocultural context (contexto lingüístico, situacional o sociocultural). Understanding irony requires taking into account the linguistic context or co-text, the situational context or external circumstances, and the socio-cultural context or knowledge, shared life experiences and beliefs, etc. linguistic information (información lingüística). The content transmitted by linguistic encoding. linguistic/or verbal politeness (cortesía verbal). A branch of pragmatics that studies how speakers mitigate face threats by saving their own face or the face of their interlocutor(s). litotes (lítote). Term in rhetoric for understatement, especially by ironic use of a negative, as in: “That wasn’t at all a bad dinner,” meaning “It was a very good dinner.” manners (modales). This term refers to making movements, adopting postures, and, generally, carrying out non-verbal acts of communication. Therefore, on

Glossary

263

one hand, they refer to the ways we normally produce gestures and postures, and on the other, to certain habits of cultural behavior. markers and indicators (marcas e indicadores). The markers and indicators appearing in the utterance help to create an ironic context that the addressee must understand as such. The GRIALE team of researchers (http://rua.ua.es/ dspace/handle/10045/2484) understand by markers those elements which are helpful in the ironic interpretation, whereas indicators are ironic structures as such (see also GRIALE). mockery (burla). According to the Merriam-Webster Learning Dictionary, it is a behavior or speech that makes fun of someone or something in a hurtful way: mocking behavior or speech. Mock Spanish (español empleado como recurso para burlarse). “Mock Spanish” (term coined by Hill (2008)) is a special register in which Spanish words or phrases are used to evoke humor, often indexing an unflattering and stereotypical image of Spanish speakers. modal operators (operadores modales). Modal operators express the speaker’s modality or subjective attitude. Examples of modal operators in Spanish are: a lo mejor, en teoría, evidentemente, etc. native speaker (NS) (hablante nativo). A proficient user of a language for whom it has been the language of instruction from elementary school onward and/or the language consistently spoken at home by the user with at least one family member (Callahan 2006, p. 26). non-linguistic knowledge (conocimiento no lingüístico). This term refers to the set of representations an individual considers to be a faithful description of the factual world. non-native speaker (NNS) (hablante no-nativo). Non-native speaker is a term used to refer to someone who has learned a particular language as a child or adult rather than as a baby. See also native speaker. non-verbal communication (comunicación no verbal). Non-verbal communication comprises all the nonlinguistic signs and systems of signs that communicate or inform. These include cultural habits and customs in the broadest sense and the so-called non-verbal communication systems. non-verbal communication systems (sistemas de comunicación no verbal). Nonverbal communication systems are the set of signs that constitute the basic non-verbal communication systems, both paralinguistic and the kinesic, as well as the two secondary or cultural ones, the proxemic and chronemic systems. normative impoliteness (descortesía normativa). Normative impoliteness occurs during arguments, when threatening acts (reproaches, criticism, etc.) do not imply directly, per se, a negative personal effect. This is because they help to show emotions and to positively contribute to a solution of the conflict. Noticing Hypothesis (la hipótesis de fijar la atención). The Noticing Hypothesis is a model of second language acquisition proposed by Schmidt (1995), which holds that learners must notice items in a target language as a first step in acquisition.

264

Glossary

operators (operadores). Operators are linguistic elements that act within the utterance, have no propositional content and do not depend on the verb of the sentence. They indicate interpersonal or intersubjective relationships: references to the speaker (modality, enunciative activity) or to the listener (focalization or argumentation). Examples of operators in Spanish are: sinceramente (enunciative), claro (modal), incluso (argumentative), etc. oxymoron (oxímoron). Term in rhetoric for the deliberate coupling of words that are strictly contradictory, to create new meanings. An example in Spanish would be: silencio atronador. paralanguage (paralenguaje). The paralinguistic system is formed by phonic qualities and modifiers, acoustic indicators of physiological and emotional reactions, quasi-lexical elements and the pauses and silences which, with their meaning or their inferred components, communicate, specify, or nuance the sense of signs belonging to other systems in communicative acts (Poyatos 1993, 1994b). politeness (positive and negative) (cortesía positiva y negativa). In Brown and Levinson’s model (1978)—still the most influential approach to politeness in pragmatics—politeness in language use is governed by the need to preserve “face,” and computed as a function of speaker-hearer power-distance differential and degree of imposition. Politeness is divided into positive politeness (the expression of solidarity), and negative politeness (the expression of restraint). Polyphonic Theory (teoría de la polifonía). Ducrot (1986), as its most important representative, considers that two meanings exist in every ironic utterance, and they are seen as an echoic phenomenon, since a reference is made to a meaning that does not form part of the utterance and is retrieved as an echo of something said before. positive vs. negative face (imagen positiva vs. negativa). Positive face refers to the desire of affiliation (i.e., to be accepted as a member of the social group). Negative face refers to the desire of freedom (i.e., of not receiving impositions from others). See also face. postures (posturas). Postures are static positions that the human body adopts or is able to adopt and communicate actively or passively. As in the case of manners, they are non-verbal signs which, on one hand, are part of a gesture, since the meaning can vary depending on the final posture adopted by the organs involved, and on the other hand, they function as independent communicative signals, as in the case of a cross-legged sitting posture, for example. pragmalinguistic error (error pragmalingüístico). Cohen (1998) classified errors due to a learner’s lack of sociolinguistic ability as pragmalinguistic. In other words, learners are aware of which speech act to use for a given situation; however, they do not know the appropriate forms, structures, vocabulary items, and/or register in order to formulate a linguistically appropriate speech act. Before him, Thomas (1983, p. 94) defined this type of error as due to the students “knowing the correct thing to day, but not knowing how to say it correctly.” pragmalinguistic transfer (transferencia pragmalingüística). This is a subtype of pragmatic transfer in which the words standardly used in one language for a

Glossary

265

given speech act are used in another language in which they do not have the same interpretation. See also pragmalinguistic error. pragmatic knowledge (conocimiento pragmático o competencia pragmática). Pragmatic knowledge is the ability to use language effectively in a contextually appropriate manner. Often used as a synonym of pragmatic competence (Thomas 1983). pragmatic markers (marcadores pragmáticos). Fraser (2006, p. 190) defines this group as follows: “Lexical markers of this class typically have the following properties: they are free morphemes, they are proposition-initial, they signal a specific message either about or in addition to the basic message, and they are classified as pragmatic markers by virtue of their semantic/pragmatic functions.” pragmatic transfer (transferencia pragmática). The use in a language of the forms and/or conceptualizations of a speech act or situation that correspond to the way in which the speech act or situation is conceived of in a different language. See also pragmalinguistic transfer. pragmatics (pragmática). Pragmatics is the study of how meaning in communication goes far beyond what is literally encoded in words and is rather determined by the context of situation. Among the main topics traditionally studied by pragmatics are verbal acts, activities, turns, sequences, stances, style, intentionality, agency, and the flow of information. pragmaticization (pragmaticización) (Dostie 2004) or discursivization (discursivización) (Diewald 2011). Terms that express the specificity of the process discourse markers undergo: from elements syntactically integrated in the sentence to marking discourse relationships. principle of inversion (principio de la inversión). The principle of inversion refers to situations in which a speaker violates the sincerity requirement and imposes the following instruction upon the listener: “Interpret the utterance from the systematic inversion of conversational principles.” proxemics (proxémica). Proxemics is the sum of behavioral and cultural habits, and a community’s beliefs regarding the human being’s concept of space, and its use and distribution, including the cultural distances people maintain during activities they carry with the interlocutors (Poyatos 1975, 1976). see also interactional proxemics, social proxemics. quasi-lexical elements (elementos cuasi-lexicales). Quasi-lexical elements are conventional vocalizations and consonantizations with little lexical content, but great functional value. Most interjections (¡Ah!, ¡Oh!), are considered to belong to this group, as are the onomatopoeias (Glu-glu, Miau), acoustic emissions having names of their own (chistar, sisear, lamer, gemir . . .), and many other sounds (Uff, Hm, Iaj, Ojj, Puaf, Tch . . .) which, despite not having established names or spellings, are normally used with a similar communicative value to that of certain linguistic or kinesic signals, which leads to their being considered as paralinguistic alternants (Poyatos 1994a, 1994b). reformulation connectors (conectores reformulativos). These markers introduce new information that may be an explanation or a correction. Examples in Spanish are: en otras palabras, a saber, dicho de otro modo, etc.

266

Glossary

register (registro lingüístico). Register refers to the style or variety of language that is used for a particular social setting, audience, and/or purpose. For example, formal, informal, vulgar, etc. Relevance Theory (Teoría de la relevancia). Theory of pragmatics developed by Sperber and Wilson (1986), based on relevant inferences that the listener must make upon hearing an utterance. Relevance is defined as a property that any utterance must necessarily have and is relative to a set of existing assumptions that constitute the context in which an act of speech takes place. ritual politeness (cortesía ritual). Ritual politeness occurs in meeting situations (which include the acts of greeting at their initiation and of saying goodbye at the end), and visit situations, including several acts that are performed by the host or the guest, according to their situational role in the encounter. script (guión). Script is a term that originates in psychology (Shank and Abelson 1977). It refers to people’s cultural understanding of the world that is shared between producers and their respective audiences. Furthermore, it points to the fact that people have preconceived ideas of what to expect in different contextual situations, such as eating at a restaurant, going to the movies, etc. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Adquisición de una Segunda Lengua). Second Language Acquisition theory attempts to understand and explain the complex and multifaceted phenomenon of learning an additional language. Some of the approaches include cognitivism, sociocultural theory, language socialization, complexity theory, and socio-cognitivism (See these terms). secondary processes (procesos secundarios). These are inferential processes that combine the proposition expressed by an utterance with other contextual, nonlinguistic assumptions, in order to yield an interpretation of the utterance in context. semantic ambiguity (ambigüedad semántica). Semantic ambiguity “occurs when a word corresponds to more than one meaning (. . .) Such words are called interlingual homographs or false friends” (Degani and Tokowicz 2010). An example would be: embarassed and embarazado/a, since the latter means in Spanish “pregnant,” not “embarrassed.” So, when a male student, who is a beginner, says that está embarazado, people laugh. social distance: hierarchy vs. familiarity (distancia social: jerarquía vs. familiaridad). Social distance is a measure for the relationship between two individuals or two social groups. Hierarchy measures the relationship based on power. Familiarity is based on the degree of acquaintance and empathy. social pragmatics (pragmática social). Social pragmatics is a subfield of pragmatics that puts the focus on the societal systems and processes that determine the way in which language is used (produced and understood) in communication. (See also sociopragmatics). social proxemics (proxémica social). Social proxemics includes cultural signs relative to the use of space in social relations (the use of public or private exterior and interior space for social interaction), as well as people’s actions when faced with invasions of their territory. See also interactional proxemics, proxemics.

Glossary

267

social time (tiempo social). The social time includes the cultural signs that show how time is managed in social relations and deals with the length of social encounters such as meetings, job interviews or visits, the structuring of daily activities, such as having breakfast, lunch, tea, and supper, or the choice of the right time of day for certain social activities. See also chronemics. sociocultural theory (teoría sociocultural). Sociocultural theory grew from the work of seminal psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1930), who believed that parents, caregivers, peers, and the culture at large were responsible for developing higher order functions. Vygotsky describes learning as a social process and the origination of human intelligence in society and culture. According to him, learning has its basis in interacting with other people. sociopragmatic error (error sociopragmático). Acquiring sociocultural ability is a much more complex issue because it involves knowledge of the social and cultural norms of the target language, including the personal and situational factors that can affect how speech acts are realized. Cohen (1998) described errors of this type as sociopragmatic because the learners do not know which speech act to use for a given situation or when to use speech acts appropriately. Before him, Thomas (1983, p. 94) defined the sociopragmatic error as due to students “not knowing what to say, or not saying the appropriate thing as a result of transferring the incongruent social rules, values and belief systems from their native languages and cultures.” sociopragmatic transfer (transferencia sociopragmática). Sociopragmatic transfer is a subtype of pragmatic transfer in which the standard conceptualization that a situation receives in a given language/culture is used in another language/ culture in which the situation is normally conceived in a different way. Sociopragmatics (sociopragmática). This term was coined by Leech (1983) to describe the study of the ways in which pragmatic meanings reflect “specific local, social and cultural conditions on language use.” It is a subfield of pragmatics that he distinguished from the study of more “general” pragmatic meaning. See also social pragmatics. speech acts (actos de habla). Searle (1969) described speech acts as language users’ attempts to perform specific actions or interpersonal functions. Some examples of speech acts include apologizing, complaining, complimenting, refusing, requesting, and thanking. According to Searle (1969), these types of functions are typically universal across languages. strategic politeness (cortesía estratégica o atenuadora). According to Bernal (2007), strategic politeness consists of acts directed at mitigating a possible threat to the face of the speaker, relieving the tension that this could cause in the interaction. Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlighting friendliness. Negative politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing deference. A subtype is reparatory politeness (cortesía reparadora,), which occurs retrospectively after the threat has occurred. structuring information and ordering of the discourse connectors (conectores que estructuran y ordenan la información). These are connectors that order the

268

Glossary

information sequentially: discourse initiation, discourse closing. Examples in Spanish are: para empezar, para terminar, de entrada, etc. Superiority Theory (teoría de la superioridad del humor). Within this theory, humor is seen as a mechanism employed by the social elites to assert their superiority from other groups and draw boundaries between them (Billig 2005). SurveyMonkey. It is a commercially available online survey that can be used to collect data. Its website is surveymonkey.com. symbol vs. index (símbolo vs. índice). These are two subtypes of signs (i.e., of form-meaning associations): the association between form and meaning is conventional in symbols, and is natural in indexes. The distinction is borrowed from the theory of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1940) who is considered to be, with Saussure, the founder of a general theory of signs. (See Buchler (1955), in the reference section, for Peirce’s edited works). target language (TL) (la lengua meta). The language being taught or which one is acquiring. For example, Spanish is a target language for students whose mother tongue is English, or French, or Chinese. temporal markers (marcadores temporales). These are connectors that order events chronologically. Examples in Spanish are: a continuación, por fin, mientras, etc. tests of social habits (tests/ pruebas de hábitos sociales). Questionnaire used to provide support to the analysts’ interpretations and to show how language users define politeness/impoliteness etc. These opinions help the analyst to understand the socio-cultural context in which communication is immersed. the 5 C’s: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, communities (Las 5 Ces de ACTFL: comunicación, culturas, conexiones, comparaciones, comunidades). These are subcategories of ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/stand ards/World-ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf. See also ACTFL. Theory of Relief (teoría del alivio de tensiones del humor). This theory conceives humor as a tool to diffuse tension (Freud 1963, Lefcourt and Martin [1986] 2011). thetical gramar (gramática “tética”- abreviación de paren(tética)). For Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva (2011), it is a part of grammar, which complements the sentence grammar, and deals with all the units referred to the contextual information, especially regarding the speaker. Theticals do not contribute to the propositional meaning of the utterance and play an important role in the organization of linguistic discourse. valorizing politeness (cortesía valorizante o valorizadora). The objective of this type of politeness is to enhance the face of the interlocutors, which can be achieved through acts such as directly complimenting them (their intelligence, their physical appearance) or things that belong to them. Acts that perform valorizing politeness are sometimes called face-enhancing (or face-flattering) acts: (actos de habla valorizantes) (cf. Kerbrath-Orecchioni 1997), and they are the opposite of the face-threatening acts (actos de habla amenazantes). web-based tutorial (WBT) (Tutoría en la red/internet). An interactive software program that serves as a learning tool.

Glossary

269

References Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2016. “Enunciación y percepción: La evidencialidad en los textos turísticos del español.” Onomazein 33: 327–342. Attardo, S. 2002. “Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of Detection.” In Say Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication, eds. L. Anolli, R. Ciceri and G. Riva, 159–180. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Attardo, S. and V. Raskin. 1991. “Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model.” Humor–International Journal of Humor Research 4(3–4): 293–347. Attardo, S., C. Hempelmann and S. Maio. 2002. “Script Oppositions and Logical Mechanisms: Modeling Incongruities and their Resolutions.” Humor–International Journal of Humor Research 15(1): 3–46. Bachman, L. and A. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bernal, M. 2007. “Categorización sociopragmática de la cortesía y de la descortesía. Un estudio de la conversación coloquial española.” PhD diss., Stockholm University. http:// urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-6758. Billig, M. 2005. Laughter and Ridicule. London: SAGE. Boyang, L. 2016. “Humor: A Dynamic and Dual-Process Theory with Computational Considerations.” Advances in Cognitive Systems 4: 57–74. Bravo, D. 1999. “¿Imagen ‘positiva’ v. imagen ‘negativa’?: Pragmática sociocultural y componentes de face.” Oralia 2: 155–184. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. E. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buchler, J., ed. 1955. The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover. Callahan, L. 2006. “Student Perceptions of Native and Non-Native Speaker Language Instructors: A Comparison of ESL and Spanish.” Sintagma. Revista de Lingüística 18: 19–49. Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47. Cohen, A.D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow: Longman. Culpeper, J. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 349–367. Degani, T. and N. Tokowicz. 2010. “Semantic Ambiguity within and across Languages: An Integrative Review.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(7): 126–303. Diewald, G. 2011. “Pragmaticalization (Defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Functions.” Linguistics 49(2): 365–390. Dostie, G. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot. Ducrot, O. 1986. “Esbozo de una teoría polifónica de la enunciación.” In El decir y lo dicho. Polifonía de la enunciación, 175–238. Barcelona: Paidós. Fant, L. 1989. “Cultural Mismatch in Conversation: Spanish and Scandinavian Communicative Behaviour in Negotiation Settings.” Hermes Journal of Linguistics 3: 247–265. Fraser, B. 2006. “Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. K. Fischer, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fraser, B. 2009. “An Account of Discourse Marker.” International Review of Pragmatics 1(2): 293–320. Freud, S. 1963. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Norton. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

270

Glossary

Grice, H. P. 1 [1967] 1975. “Logic in Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Hill, J., 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Education.” Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10): 938–953. Kaltenböck, G., B. Heine and T. Kuteva. 2011. “On Thetical Grammar.” Studies in Language 35(4): 852–897. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. “A Multilevel Approach to the Study of Talk-in-Interaction.” Pragmatics 7(1): 1–18. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Lefcourt, H. and R. Martin. [1986] 2011. Humor and Life Stress: Antidote to Adversity. New York: Springer. Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Long, M. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Matthews, P. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer, J. 2000. “Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication.” Communication Theory 10(3): 310–331. Ochs, E. and B. Schieffelin. 2014. “The Theory of Language Socialization.” In The Handbook of Language Socialization, eds. A. Duranti, E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin, 1–21. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Poyatos, F. 1975. “Cultura, comunicación e interacción: hacia el contexto total del lenguaje y el hombre hispánicos, III.” Yelmo 22: 14–16. Poyatos, F. 1976. Man beyond Words: Theory and Methodology of Nonverbal Communication. New York: New York State English Council. Poyatos, F. 1993. Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and Sounds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poyatos, F. 1994a. La comunicación no verbal. Cultura, lenguaje y conversación. Madrid: Istmo. Poyatos, F. 1994b. La comunicación no verbal. Paralenguaje, kinésica e interacción. Madrid: Istmo. Schank, R. C. and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (Technical Report #9), ed. R. Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Scollon, R. and S. Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(1–4): 209–231. Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.” Applied Linguistics 2(2): 159–168. Sharwood Smith, M. 1983. “Crosslinguistic Aspects of Second Language Acquisition.” Applied Linguistics 4(3): 192–199. Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. “Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types of Language Information for the L2 Learner.” Second Language Research 7(2): 118–132. Shrum, J. L. and E. W. Glisan. 2010. Teacher’s Handbook. Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Glossary

271

Spencer-Oatey, H. 2000. “Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis.” In Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, ed. H. Spencer-Oatey. London: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2002. “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34(5): 529–545. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112. Torres Sánchez, M. A. 1999. Estudio pragmático del humor verbal. Cádiz: Universidad Varela Bravo. Valdés, G. 2000. Spanish for Native Speakers. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. Vygotsky, L. 1930. Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

INDEX

Abbott, A.R. 39, 40 Abelson, R.P. 20, 21, 266 Academic Discourse (AD) 155 Acín, E. 111 additive connectors 115, 118, 253 advice-giving 36, 38, 39–41, 70, 141, 157, 236 affection 133, 141 affiliation 141, 253, 264 affiliation face 253 Ahern, A. 19, 22, 25, 28n1 Alcón-Soler, E. 34, 54, 131, 140, 214 Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 8, 169–190, 257 Amenós, J. 19, 22, 25, 28n1 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 42, 77, 80, 202, 223 anaphoric 111, 253, 254, 256 Anscombre, J.C. 110, 170 Angell, J. 37 anthropological culture 76, 254 apologies 23, 24, 26, 35–39, 44, 47, 58, 157, 215, 223, 233, 236, 242, 250, 251, 267 appropriacy 55 Argumentation Theory 110 argumentative operator 122–125, 254 Askehave, I. 152–154 asking permission 16, 56, 66, 67, 96, 219 Atkinson, D. 152, 153, 156 Attardo, S. 191–195, 197, 204, 210n2 Aula Internacional series 6, 57–64, 68 Autonomy 132, 133, 135, 136, 238, 254 autonomy face 133, 135, 136, 254

Bachman, L. 33, 215, 255 Baker, C. 83 Bardovi-Harlig, K.C. 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 198, 204, 214, 216–218, 233, 244 Bawarshi, A. 153, 154, 156 Bell, N.D. 5, 20, 191–192, 194–195, 202–204, 206–207, 210 Benati, A. 155 Bernal, M. 7, 131–150, 260 Betts 80 Bhatia, V.K. 152, 153, 158 Bialystock, E. 217, 219 Billig, M. 191–193, 268 Black, J.M. 191 Block, D. 79 Blum-Kulka, S. 22, 33, 131, 214, 218, 219 Bolívar, A. 142, 143, 155 Bongaerts, H. 208 Boretti, S. 140, 141 Bosch, E. 155, 160 Bou Franch, P. 22 Bouton, L. 2, 4, 5, 33, 234, 244 Boyang, L. 193, 257 Bravo, D. 131–133, 137, 141, 143, 145, 253, 254 Briz, A. 109, 110, 126n8, 140, 148 Brown, C. 251 Brown, P. 24–26, 45, 81, 132–133, 137, 141, 215, 232, 235, 243, 258, 260, 264 Brown, R. 24, 25 Burton, G. 160 Bush, J. 81 Byram, M. 2

Index

Callahan, L. 7, 9n1, 74–89, 263 Canale, M. 215, 255 cartoons and comic strips 60, 61, 64, 66–68, 104, 192, 198–199, 201–202, 207–209 Casillas, D. 79, 82 cataphoric 111, 254, 256 Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) 9n3, 241, 244, 248–249 Centre for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning 248 Centro Virtual Cervantes 125 Cervantes Institute Curricular Plan (PCIC) 55–57, 64, 70, 174 Cestero Mancera, A.M. 7, 90–107 chronemics 31, 35–36, 101–104, 254, 261, 263 cognitive pragmatics 254 cognitive psychology 4 cognitivism 254, 266 Cohen, A. D. 2, 22, 23, 34, 42, 44, 45, 48, 54, 131, 152, 157, 214, 216, 220, 232–234, 242–244, 250, 264, 267 commands 38–41, 221–226, 227n5 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) 55, 57, 58, 174, 254 communication boxes 60, 64–68, 70 communicative approach 42, 53, 57, 194, 254 community-based learning 84, 84n3 Company, C. 110 complaints 7, 45, 143–145, 148, 232–244, 251 complexity theory 255 compliments 3, 37, 44, 47, 57, 134, 136, 143, 157, 233, 236, 242, 249, 250, 251, 267, 268 conceptual proxemics 94, 255 conceptual time 95, 255 conjunctions 102, 113–115, 118, 122, 124, 126n2 connectors 7, 102, 108, 109, 112–120, 123, 124, 126, 126n3, 126n5, 140, 255–256 Contreras Fernández, J. 133, 141 conversation analysis 90, 105n1, 110, 140, 157 conversational turns 4, 68 Cooperative Principle 170 Corpus of Sociopragmatic Information (COSOPRAG) 141, 256 Cortés, L. 109 co-text 171, 256, 262 courtesy 39, 219, 223 Crystal, D. 154

273

Cubillo, J. 55 Culpeper, J. 137, 142, 260 cultural appropriation 74 Dancing with Words (website) 236, 241, 244, 249, 250 Davies, C.E. 197, 208, 210 Davis Hanson, V. 8, 81 DCT see Discourse Completion Test (DCT) De los Heros, S. 191–213 De Matos Lundstrom, A. 143 De Pablos-Ortega, C. 1, 6, 8, 9n2, 38, 53–73, 143, 214 Degani, T. 266 Dehe, N. 113 deixis 102, 256 Del Rey Cabero, E. 208 Deneire, M. 194, 196, 210 Destinos (video series) 35 dialectology 90 dialogue 16, 18, 35–47, 55, 60–62, 64–67, 70, 114, 119, 121, 124, 151–152, 155, 174, 177, 182, 188, 220, 221, 224–226, 277, 248 dictogloss 44–45 Diewald, G. 110, 265 Díez Domínguez, P. 205 direct observation 101 discourse analysis 3, 90, 110 Discourse Completion Test (DCT) 47, 234, 236, 238–243, 256–7 discourse connectors 119, 267 discourse markers 6, 45, 108–128, 220, 253, 257, 265 Discourse Pragmatics (website) 236, 251 discursivization 110, 265 Dolezal, R. 84n5 Dorwick, T. 41 Dostie, G. 110, 265 Driessen, H. 191, 204 Dual Process Theory with Computational Considerations 193, 257 DuBravac, S. 37 Ducrot, O. 110, 170, 264 Echo 170, 171, 264 EDICE program 131, 140, 141, 142, 145, 257 Egner, T. 21 Eisenchlas, S.A. 38 El Roto (comic strip) 201 elite bilinguals 80, 257 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 54, 55 English as a Second Language (ESL) 5, 55, 197, 198, 203, 204, 244

274

Index

English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 154, 155 Erasmus program 160 Escandell-Vidal, V. 15–32 ethnic commodification 257 European Council 4 evidentials 174, 257 explicature 18, 258 face 7, 25, 26, 45, 47, 56, 57, 79, 131–150, 194, 205, 215, 235, 238, 248, 254, 258, 260, 262, 264, 267, 268; negative face 25, 57, 132, 137, 141, 235, 264; positive face 25, 137, 235, 264 face work 131–150 face-threatening acts (FTAs) 133, 145, 194, 235, 239, 248 familiarity 24, 25, 99, 133, 195, 201, 266 Fant, L. 253, 254 Feak, C. 154 feedback: explicit 258; implicit 36, 37, 258 Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 36, 44, 45, 54, 132, 140, 143, 152, 157, 214, 216, 218, 220, 251 Five ‘C’s see National Standards for Foreign Language Education Flaherty, C. 74 Flaherty, V. 207 flattery 134, 268 fluency 81, 104 Foerster, S. 40 formality 25, 33, 35–38, 55, 64, 69, 103, 144, 157, 161, 221–226, 238–239, 241, 243, 266 forms of address 33, 58, 64, 69 frames 17, 20, 27, 195, 197, 258 Fraser, B. 45, 108, 111–113, 126n4, 254, 257, 265 Freud, S. 192, 193, 268 Fundación Sierra Pambley 125 Fuentes-Rodríguez, C. 7, 108–128 functional competence 114, 258 García, O. 79 Gardner, R.C. 85n8 General Theory of Verbal Humour (GTVH) 193, 198, 204, 209, 258 genre 56, 152–166, 259 gestures 66, 68, 93–98, 103, 172, 208, 232, 242, 243, 259, 261 gift-giving / present-giving 9n2, 26, 204, 206, 208 Gilman, A. 24, 25 Gironzetti, E. 1, 9, 191–194, 198, 203, 204, 206, 208, 210n1

Glisan, E.W. 9n1, 84n1, 262 Goffman, E. 132, 258 Gonglewski, M. 37 grammar 2–4, 7–8, 18, 27, 33–34, 37–41, 43–45, 53, 56–58, 60–61, 64–65, 67–70, 103–104, 109–110, 113–114, 118, 126, 131, 151–154, 156–157, 159–166, 175, 178, 194, 195, 202, 209, 214–218, 220, 221, 223, 226, 241, 255, 268 Greenbaum, S. 109, 122 greetings 38, 47, 56, 66, 70, 96, 103, 139, 142, 157, 222, 249, 266 GRIALE 9n3, 169, 171, 172, 174, 259, 263 Grice, H.P. 16, 18, 19, 169, 170, 171, 259 group politeness 134, 259 Grupo Val.Es.Co. 110, 133, 140, 148, 173 Gutiérrez-Candelaria, J.R. 80 Hall-Lew, L. 80 handshakes 103 Hartford, B.S. 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 198, 204, 214, 216–218, 233, 244 Hasler-Barker, M. 37, 54 Haverkate, H. 169, 218, 235 Hay, J. 195, 204 head nodding 94 Heidelberg Symposium on markers in Romance languages 108 Heine, B. 113, 268 Hempelmann, C. 193, 204, 259 heritage learner 82, 143, 145, 259 hesitation 93, 98 hierarchy 24, 69, 193, 259, 266 Hill, J. 80, 82 Hinkel, E. 2 home visits 136 Hopper, P.J. 156 Hsu, T.W. 155 humor 4, 6, 8, 33, 82, 169–170, 172, 191–213, 221, 227n5, 257–260, 263, 268; failed humor 197 Hymes, D. 2, 22, 215 hyperbole 174, 259 Ifantidou, E. 153 illocutionary force 56, 112, 259 immersion 54, 77, 84, 216, 233 implicatures 2, 4, 5, 6, 18, 45, 137, 170, 172, 259, 262 impoliteness 7, 66, 131–151, 260, 263, 268 Incongruity Theory 192, 193, 258, 260 indirect objects 8, 214, 220, 221, 223, 224 indirectness 4, 45, 217 information leaks 99

Index

input enhancement 35–37, 234, 236, 240, 260 Instituto Cervantes 4, 55, 83 instruction: explicit 35–37, 55, 198, 204, 258; implicit 36, 37, 258 Interaction Hypothesis 5, 219, 267 interactional proxemics 95, 261 interactive time 95, 261 interculturality 4, 22, 27, 58, 91, 92, 99, 100, 104, 157, 174, 175, 195, 208 interjections 92, 109, 265 Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) 214, 216, 217, 227, 261, 131, 145n3, 214, 215, 260 Introspection 100, 101 Inversion Principle 172 irony 2, 6, 8, 42, 43, 55, 82, 140, 145n3, 169–190, 191, 194, 197, 198, 204, 216, 233, 234, 241, 242, 244, 250, 259–264 Ishihara, N. 2, 22, 42, 43, 55, 140, 145n3, 216, 233, 234, 241, 242, 244, 250, 260 Japanese 79, 236, 242249, 250 jokes 172, 178, 191, 193, 195–198, 201, 204–206, 209, 259 Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 9n2 Kaltenbock, G. 113, 268 Kasper, G. 5, 22, 34, 217, 227n1, 233, 234, 249 Kavalova, Y. 113 Kecskes, I. 27 Kerbrath-Orecchioni, C. 268 kinesics 91–93, 96–98, 101–104, 261, 263, 265 Koike, D. 1, 9n2, 36, 45, 140, 151, 152, 147, 217, 218, 220, 227n5, 248 Kramsch, C. 75, 78 Krashen, S. 43, 44 Kuteva, T. 113, 268 Lambright, A. 40 Landone, E. 110 Langer, B. 36, 55 Langmuir, C. 126n language play 194, 195, 202, 205 language socialization 262, 266 Larsen-Freeman, D. 152, 156, 215 Latinos 74, 79, 81, 82, 84n1 laughter 92, 102, 139, 148, 204, 205, 206 Leech, G. 23, 267 Leeman, J. 79 Leonetti, M. 28n1

275

Levinson, S. 15, 19, 24–26, 45, 132, 133, 137, 141, 169, 171, 215, 232, 235, 243, 258, 260, 262, 264 lexical chunks 39 litotes 174, 262 Long, M. 5, 219, 261 Longcope, P. 210n3 Loureda, O. 111 McBride, K. 75 McMahill, C. 79 Mahan-Taylor, R. 3, 43, 216 Maio, S. 193, 204, 259 Maio, S. 193, 204, 259 manners 94, 262, 264 Márquez-Reiter, R. 3, 9, 15, 157 Martínez-Flor, A. 54 Meier, A.J. 132 metalanguage 35, 45, 55, 195, 258 metapragmatic 6, 36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63–71, 141, 143, 152, 157, 248 Mexico / Mexican culture 40, 45, 82, 83, 208, 238 Mir, M. 6, 33–52 Mitchler, C.R. 81, 84n5 mitigation 8, 25, 36, 45–47, 56–57, 71, 123, 131, 134, 157, 191, 192, 217, 220, 262, 267 Mock Spanish 82, 84, 85n7, 263 mocking 82, 137, 170, 172, 173, 263 Montolío, E. 110 Morgan, C. 2 Muñoz-Basols, J. 9n2, 211n4 Mwinyelle, J.B. 36 NAACP 84n5 narrations 8, 93, 121, 136, 142, 148, 151, 165 National Foreign Language Resource Center 249 National Standards for Foreign Language Education (Five ‘C’s) 76 Nibert, H.J 39, 40 non-verbal communication 263 normative impoliteness 138, 263 Norrick, N.R. 192 Norton, B. 77 Noticing Hypothesis 4, 8, 36, 219, 234, 263 Nuessel, F. 211n13 Nunan, D. 159 O’Brien, C. 251 Ochoa, J. 79

276

Index

Ochs, E. 262 offers 23, 26, 56, 136, 139, 142, 143, 157 onomatopoeia 92, 265 operators 7, 108, 112–117, 121–126, 254, 257, 260, 263, 264 Orozco, R. 37 Otheguy, R. 84n2 output hypothesis 5 Overfield, D.M. 35 Padilla García, X. 169, 172, 203, 208 Palmer, A. 215, 255 Paltridge, B. 158 paralanguage 91, 98, 264, 92, 96–98, 101–104, 243, 263–265 parentheticals 113, 115, 257 Parodi, G. 155 pauses 92, 93, 95, 114–117, 148, 261, 264 PCIC see Cervantes Institute Curricular Plan Pearson, L. 8, 35, 36, 45, 157, 214–231 Peiying, J. 55 Pellettieri, J. 83 phatic value 56, 98 Piller, I. 75–76 Pinto, D. 9n2, 239, 244 Pitch 92 Placencia, E. 3, 9, 15, 157 politeness 4, 6, 7, 8, 22, 25, 26, 36, 40, 42, 45–47, 55–58, 65–71, 110, 123, 131–150, 157, 215, 222, 223, 226, 232, 235, 236, 238, 243, 251, 253, 254, 257–260, 262–264, 266, 267, 268; negative politeness 132, 137, 264, 267; positive politeness 264, 267; ritual politeness 136, 266 see also group politeness, impoliteness Politeness Theory 8, 25, 215, 232, 235 Polyphonic Theory 170, 264 Pomerantz, A. 5, 20, 191, 192, 194, 195, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210 Portolés, J. 109–111, 113, 126n3, 126n8 postures 93, 94, 96, 261–264 Poyatos, F. 92–95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 105n1, 264, 265 pragmalinguistic error 264 pragmalinguistic transfer 264 pragmatic markers 7, 108–128, 254, 257, 265 pragmatic transfer 22, 53, 54, 240, 243, 250, 264, 265 pragmaticization 110, 265 Pragmatics en Español (website) 236, 251 praise 82, 134, 136

Principle of Inversion see Inversion Principle Principle of Quality 172 pronunciation 25, 56, 74–76, 82, 148, 177 proxemics 91, 93–96, 101–104, 255, 261, 263, 265, 266 psycholinguistics 3, 84n2 puns 194, 204 questionnaires 7, 38, 47, 67, 68, 132, 135, 140–145, 148, 164, 199, 203, 234, 256, 268; see also Discourse Completion Test (DCT) Quiñones, C. 249 Quirk, R. 109 Raskin, V. 193, 204, 259 Recanati, F. 18 refusals 18, 35, 36, 93, 131, 152, 155, 157, 220, 233, 236, 250, 267 register 25, 55, 65, 69, 82, 120, 140, 205, 215, 233, 263, 266 Reiff, M.J. 153, 154, 156 Reiss, A.L. 191 Relevance Theory 110, 170, 258, 266 requests 35–44, 47, 53, 56–58, 65–70, 93, 97, 151–152, 155, 157–158, 160, 165, 215–226, 227n2, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 239, 241, 243, 244, 250, 251 Reyes, G. 153 rhetoric 153–155, 159, 160–166, 169, 192, 259, 262, 264 Robinson, M. 192 Rodríguez Rosique, S. 171 Rogerson-Revell, P. 192 role-plays 5, 8, 35–37, 44, 45, 46, 60, 65, 67, 152, 157, 159, 177, 207, 209, 220 Rose, K. 5, 34, 198, 217, 226, 227n1, 227n3 Rosetta Stone (software) 79 Ruiz Gurillo, L. 5, 169, 172, 174, 175 Russell, V. 232–252 Ryan, C. 74 Schank, R.C. 20, 21, 266 schemata 20, 162, 165, 194, 258 Schieffelin, B. 262 Schiffrin, D. 108, 109, 111 Schmidt, R. 4, 28n2, 34, 36, 217, 219, 233, 234, 240 Schmitz, J.K. 196–198, 210 Schneider, B. 80 Scollon, R. 22, 76, 254 Scollon, S.W. 22, 76, 254 scripts 20, 21, 27, 160, 163, 193, 195, 197, 204, 206, 266

Index

Searle, J. 21, 170, 215, 233, 267 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) 4, 152, 155, 156, 159, 198, 204, 234, 266 secondary processes 18, 266 self-assertion 133 self-esteem 133, 258 semantic ambiguity 266 service learning 84, 84n3, 215 Sessarego, C. 7, 151–168, 220 Shardakova, M. 194, 195, 197 Sharpless, D. 42 Sharwood-Smith, M. 36 Shenk, E.M. 34 Shively, R. 5, 174, 191, 203, 208, 209, 226 Shrum, J.L. 9n1, 84n1, 262 silence 92, 93, 97, 148, 264 Smith-Lovin, L. 192 social distance 5, 24, 25, 235, 239, 266 social pragmatics 19, 266 social proxemics 95, 266 social time 95, 267 sociocultural theory 267 sociopragmatics 4–6, 23, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 48, 55, 58, 66, 67, 68, 131–150, 195, 215, 219, 233, 241, 257, 260, 266, 267 Spada, N. 198 Spanish for Specific Purposes 155 Speech Act Theory 8, 21, 157, 215 speech acts (SA) 3, 5, 6, 8, 21–26, 35–40, 42–45, 47–48, 55–58, 65–67, 69–71, 140, 143–145, 151–152, 155–160, 163, 166, 170, 198, 214–215, 218–221, 224, 232–236, 238–239, 241–244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 257, 259, 264, 265, 267 speech bubbles 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70 Spencer-Oatey, H. 258 Sperber, D. 18, 19, 26, 170, 266 Spitz, A. 192 study abroad programs 54, 75–78, 199, 208, 216, 242 sufficiency markers 260 Summerfield, C. 21 Superiority Theory 192, 268 surveys 42, 101, 161, 199, 202–210, 268 Swain, M. 5, 43, 215, 255 Swales, J. 152–161 Sykes, J. 37, 48, 216, 250 syntax 17, 25, 33, 36, 38, 39, 45, 110, 111, 113–115, 117, 121, 126, 154, 164, 192, 196, 217, 220, 225, 265

277

Taguchi, N. 34, 35, 48, 216, 232, 236 Taylor, G. 35, 36 Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) 54, 55 temporal markers 120, 268 Terrell, T.D. 44 TESOL 154 textbooks 1, 4, 5, 6, 33–73, 108, 110, 143, 151, 158, 174, 192, 198, 201, 208, 211n4, 220, 221, 227, 227n1, 244 Theory of Relief 192, 268 thetical grammar 113, 268 Thomas, J. 23, 33, 37, 215, 264, 265, 267 Tokowicz, N. 266 Tomita, Y. 198 tone 68, 74, 92, 96, 97, 154, 164, 222, 224 transcription 47, 92, 148 Traugott, E.C. 110 trust 133, 135, 139, 260 Uso-Juan, E. 43, 54, 214, 216, 219 Valdés, G. 259 Valencia 133, 140, 142, 145n1 Van Patten, B. 155 Vásquez, C. 42 Vellenga, H. 55, 58, 214 verbal morphology 8, 214, 220, 241 Vrticka, P. 191 Vygotsky, L. 267 Wahlgren, P. 251 Walters, J. 241 web-based tutorial (WBT) 8, 232–244, 268 Werkhofer, K. 235 WeSpeke.com (website) 47 WhatsApp (software) 16 Wilson, D. 18, 19, 26, 170, 266 Winfrey Harris, T. 84n5 Witten, C. 35, 45 Worley, G. 251 Wyner, L. 216 Yager, K.D. 75, 76, 81 Yule, G. 22 Zimmerman, K. 145n2 Zorraquino Martín, V. 109–111, 113