Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet [2 ed.] 2021012829, 2021012830, 9780367767068, 9780367767082, 9781003168188

Citation preview

i

Teaching and Learning Pragmatics

An understanding of sociocultural context is crucial in second language learning—yet developing this awareness often poses a real challenge to the typical language learner. This book is a language teachers’ guide that focuses on how to teach socially and culturally preferred language for effective intercultural communication. Moving beyond a purely theoretical approach to pragmatics, the volume offers practical advice to teachers, with hands-​on classroom tasks included in every chapter. Readers will be able to:

• • • • • •

Understand the link between language use, linguacultural diversity, and multilingual identity Identify possible causes of learner errors and choices in intercultural communication Understand applied linguistics theories that support culturally sensitive classroom practices Develop a pragmatics-​focused instructional component, classroom-​based assessments, and curricula Help learners to become more strategic about their learning and performance of speech acts Incorporate technology into their approach to teaching pragmatics

This book aims to help close the gap between what research in pragmatics has found and how language is generally taught today. It will be of interest to all language teachers, graduate students in language teaching and linguistics, teacher educators, and developers of materials for teaching language. Noriko Ishihara, Ph.D., is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Hosei University in Tokyo and facilitates language teachers’ professional development courses in Japan, online, and elsewhere, with a special focus on L2 pragmatics and intercultural communication. She serves as a researcher in applied linguistics, teacher of English as an additional language, and language teacher educator while working to bridge peace linguistics and critical awareness of equity and diversity in language learning/​teaching. Andrew D. Cohen (contributor) was a Peace Corps Volunteer in rural community development with the Aymara Indians on the High Plains of Bolivia (1965–​1967); Professor of ESL at UCLA (1972–​1975); Professor of Language Education at the Hebrew University (1975–​1991) with a year as Fulbright Lecturer and Researcher at the PUC in São Paulo, Brazil (1986–​1987); and Professor of Second Language Studies at the University of Minnesota (1991–​2013) with a year as a visiting professor at Auckland University, NZ (2004–​2005).

ii

iii

Teaching and Learning Pragmatics Where Language and Culture Meet Second Edition Noriko Ishihara with Andrew D. Cohen

iv

Second edition published 2022 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Taylor and Francis The right of Noriko Ishihara and Andrew D. Cohen to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them 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. First edition published by Routledge 2010 Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Ishihara, Noriko, author. | Cohen, Andrew D., author. Title: Teaching and learning pragmatics: where language and culture meet / Noriko Ishihara with Andrew D. Cohen. Description: Second edition. | New York, NY: Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021012829 (print) | LCCN 2021012830 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367767068 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367767082 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003168188 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Pragmatics–Study and teaching. | Language and culture–Study and teaching. | Second language acquisition. | Intercultural communication. Classification: LCC P99.4.P72 I84 2021 (print) | LCC P99.4.P72 (ebook) | DDC 306.44–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021012829 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021012830 ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​76706-​8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​0-​367-​76708-​2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​16818-​8 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003168188 Typeset in Bembo and Comic Sans by Newgen Publishing UK

v

Contents

Preface  Acknowledgments 

vii xi

1 Terms and Concepts in Pragmatics for Language Educators  1 2 Teachers’ Professional Development in Instructional Pragmatics 

19

3 Collecting Data Reflecting the Pragmatic Use of Language 

36

4 Describing Pragmatic Use of Language: Linking Research and Pedagogy 

61

5 Learners’ Pragmatics: Potential Causes of Divergence 

96

6 Theories of Second Language Acquisition and the Teaching of Pragmatics 

116

7 Class Observation and Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics 

140

8 Adapting Textbooks for Teaching Pragmatics 

170

9 Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics: Principles and Practice in the Teaching of L2 Pragmatics 

195

10 Strategies for Learning and Performing Speech Acts 

219

AN D RE W D. C O HE N

vi

vi Contents

11 Incorporating Technology into Pragmatics-​focused Instruction 

240

12 Assessment of L2 Pragmatics in the Classroom 

259

Conclusion 

297

References  Index 

301 332

vi

Preface

The theme of acquisitional pragmatics and, in particular, the link between language and culture has gained wide appeal internationally and has enjoyed attention in the field of language education for the last 40 years at least. This has resulted in a growing number of applied linguistics books with pragmatics in the title and various international journals which encompass this field. It is fair to say that pragmatics has become increasingly mainstream in second and foreign language (L2) research with the aim of enhancing intercultural understanding and interaction. Today, the importance of pragmatic competence is widely recognized in the applied linguistics research community, especially in the globalized context of intercultural communication that has become an indispensable part of our lives. The writing of the first edition of this book was prompted by a perceived gap between what research in pragmatics had uncovered and how language was generally taught until the 2000s. Ten years later, this gap may have narrowed somewhat, but language educators and researchers still have a great deal of work to do. Research in cross-​cultural, intercultural, and acquisitional pragmatics has delved into various topics with direct relevance to language instruction. Numerous studies are now available for a number of languages or language varieties investigating, for instance, how pragmatic markers are used in certain genres, how online discourses unfold in different social media, how speech act sequences develop, how L2 learners interpret implicature, and how various communication strategies are used in intercultural encounters. However, much of this empirical work has not yet been systematically or sufficiently applied to the L2 classroom, and few commercially available textbooks offer research-​informed instruction. In addition, teacher education programs rarely deal with the practical application of pragmatics theories. In the second edition of this book, I have continued to help fill this gap by illustrating a number of ways in which empirically validated pragmatics material can become an integral part of teacher development and assume a more prominent place in L2 instruction. Accordingly, this bridging work in support of instructional pragmatics constitutes a key theme of the book. The bridge was also introduced to Saudi Arabia and Japan, where the first edition was translated into Arabic and updated in Japanese, both in 2015. The Japanese edition was then translated into Korean in 2018.

vi

viii Preface The second edition continues to be a guidebook for teachers, with various practical ideas and hands-​on activities. Although I direct interested readers to many outstanding research resources, it is not my intention to provide a comprehensive survey of existing studies in L2 pragmatics. The book may therefore be of interest to pre-​and in-​service language teachers and graduate students as well as teacher educators. My primary concern is to show how pragmatics interfaces with culture and to underscore this link in L2 teaching. The book is thus primarily focused on classroom practice, especially as this research-​informed, pedagogically-​oriented approach to pragmatics is still a relatively rare contribution to the field. The book also pays special attention to classroom-​based assessment, strategy-​focused instruction, and curriculum writing. In this second edition, I have attempted to include the development of research conducted over the past decade, which I see as having direct relevance to pedagogy. Our understanding of interaction and discourse has expanded exponentially thanks to investigations into naturally occurring data, especially through conversation analysis and language corpora. Although their application to pedagogy may be limited at present, I have included relevant information across chapters with the intention of stimulating readers’ creativity for future pragmatics-​focused instruction. At the same time, the second edition inevitably reflects my own views of language learning and teaching. Readers may notice that this edition has gained a stronger inclination to a multilingual approach to L2 pragmatics. The shift reflects my conceptual evolution over the past decade toward a more social and critical view of language learning and teaching. For example, I see the learning of pragmatics not only as a cognitive process but also as a social phenomenon, in which L2 speakers construct and negotiate their multicultural being. In this perspective, pragmatic competence is characterized as contextually constructed in interaction and negotiated hand-​in-​hand with interactants’ enactment of identities. In today’s globalization characterized by (super)diversity, the demarcation between so-​called native and non-​native speakers is becoming increasingly blurred, and L2 speakers draw on their multilingual resources creatively in a holistic integration, a theme discussed recurrently throughout the book, especially in Chapters 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12. At the time of writing, when our physical mobility has been highly constrained by the COVID-​19 pandemic, globalization in the sense of international interdependence and intercultural conversation has not stopped developing worldwide. We should thus aim at language expertise and competence, rather than at idealized or monolingual nativeness as the instructional goal, seeing pragmatically competent speakers or expert language users as models for learners. Pragmatically competent L1 speakers can certainly provide models especially when learners wish to be integrated into the community practices as in second-​language contexts, and so can expert multilingual speakers, particularly for learners aiming to negotiate their hybrid identities in globalized contexts.

ix

Preface  ix Yet, this inclusive approach presents new challenges in identifying diversified pedagogical models for pragmatics that are empirically-​established and in using them in pragmatics-​focused instruction in relevant contexts. I have illustrated this approach as much as space has allowed in this edition, highlighting the social and cultural aspects of the learning of L2 pragmatics and illuminating the awareness of pragmatic variation and cultural diversity manifested in language use. I invite readers to (re)consider the role of intercultural understanding in our curricula and to creatively and recurrently reflect on how our views of learners’ multiculturalism can translate into our instructional and assessment practices. We as language teachers need specific guidance in how to teach and assess pragmatics systematically as well as exposure to its successful practice, if we are to feel comfortable incorporating empirically-​based pragmatics into our teaching. We can also benefit from ongoing collaborative discussions among teachers, teacher educators, researchers, and learners in the process of musing and exploring answers to increasingly complex questions surrounding language learning and intercultural understanding. With this in mind, the book provides perspectives, principles, practical steps, and examples for classroom practice, along with hands-​on activities intended to support teachers’ as well as students’ pragmatic awareness and reflective teaching and learning. Even though teachers reading this book may not conduct formal research, suggestions are included for how teachers and their students can conduct informal investigations by gathering data on pragmatics. Such data-​driven analysis or classroom-​based research can contribute to students’ language learning as well as to teachers’ professional development. I see classroom teachers as primarily engaged in instruction while at the same time exploring student learning in authentic classrooms, and extrapolating on their language use outside of the classroom. In this sense, practitioners have direct access to knowledge about real language classrooms that are not available to researchers in experimental laboratories. I would welcome any contributions of practitioners’ own insights into the teaching and assessing of pragmatic competence to future volumes of this kind in order to further inform theory and research in this domain. The following is a brief description of the book. First chapters offer some grounding in the teaching and learning of L2 pragmatics. Chapter 1 discusses terms and concepts in L2 pragmatics and related fields, including a consideration of what we mean by “culture” and how that interfaces with pragmatics. Chapter 2 deals with teachers’ own reflections on language learning and teaching, especially with regard to how they experience pragmatic development in the L1 and L2 (and L3) and how that, together with their professional development, influences their knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Chapter 3 looks at various methods for obtaining language samples we can use for pragmatics-​focused instruction and considers the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Chapter 4 describes and promotes the development of a link between classroom practice and empirically-​established

x

x Preface information by introducing some research findings in L2 pragmatics. Chapter 5 identifies potential sources of learners’ pragmatic divergence. We explore various examples of divergences for possible explanations and related instruction. The book then presents the “nuts and bolts” of pragmatics-​ focused instruction. The common thread that weaves through this section is the idea that pragmatic norms vary across languages, cultures, and various other social contexts as well as across individuals. This is why pragmatics is best taught in a contextualized manner. Chapter 6 presents theoretical underpinnings for current instructional approaches to L2 pragmatics from cognitive, psychological, social, and emotional perspectives and considers their implications for classroom practices. Chapter 7 offers focal points for observing instruction centered on a pragmatics component as well as simulated demonstrations of pragmatics-​focused units. Chapter 8 deals with the assessment of textbook materials and possible ways to adapt these materials or to design instruction for teaching pragmatics in a contextualized manner to supplement existing materials. Finally, Chapter 9 discusses the development of a pragmatics-​ focused curriculum. Some curricular principles are shared, along with examples illustrating these principles drawn from online, classroom-​based, and blended curricula for the pragmatics of L2 English, Spanish, and Japanese. The final part of the book considers further issues in the learning, teaching, and assessing of L2 pragmatics. Chapter 10 looks at what might constitute successful strategies in speech act performance and offers a proposed taxonomy of learner strategies for acquiring pragmatics. Chapter 11 deals with the application of instructional technology to the teaching and learning of pragmatics. Chapter 12 engages readers in how to approach the assessment of learners’ pragmatic competence in the classroom and provides samples of assessment materials, learner language, and teacher feedback. The conclusion to the book first reviews key issues covered in the book before asking readers to reflect on these and to set or review goals for pragmatics-​infused classrooms. The chapters are written accessible not only to academics but also and particularly to teachers as readers. Each chapter includes hands-​on activities designed to provide an experiential connection with the material in the chapter and to offer models for activities teachers can use with their own students. Because interaction among participants enhances teacher learning, all activities are written for a group audience. Most of the activities have been field-​tested in the Summer Institute on teaching L2 pragmatics I have offered since the summer of 2006 through CARLA (the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition) of the University of Minnesota, face-​to-​ face until 2014 and then online thereafter. My hope is that this book will become an ongoing resource for pedagogical and assessment practices that support enhanced intercultural communication.

xi

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the participants of my professional development courses in instructional pragmatics for their invaluable contributions. They attended the summer institute on linguistic politeness offered by the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) at the University of Minnesota, for which the original materials were written, as well as my other graduate courses at the Columbia Teachers College Japan Campus, Kanda University of International Studies, and Temple University Tokyo. The linguistically-​and culturally-​diverse teachers in these courses studied and discussed earlier versions of this book and directly or indirectly provided thought-​provoking feedback. Their ideas have no doubt greatly enriched the second edition—​in fact, some of their innovative pragmatic-​focused lessons are occasionally cited in this edition. Although I am unable to name them all individually, I would also like to send my heartfelt thanks to my colleagues in L2 pragmatics worldwide who have offered insightful feedback and support since the first edition was published, including (but not limited to): Rachel Shively, Naoko Taguchi, Heidi Vellenga, Camilla Vásquez, Kathleen Bardovi-​Harlig, Mayumi Fujioka, Yumi Takamiya, Zia Tajeddin,Yumiko Tateyama, and Troy McConachy. I especially appreciate the in-​depth comments anonymous reviewers provided on my revision plans for the second edition. I also thank the authors of the published reviews of the first edition, including Zohreh Eslami, Jim Ronald, and Peter Grundy. The contributions of Andrew D. Cohen, who is the co-​author of the first edition, still remain in this edition, albeit in a revised form, especially in Chapters 3, 4, and 8. Chapter 10, an updated chapter of his own, is a gift to this edition shedding another important spotlight on learners. I am truly grateful for our fruitful collaboration over the past two decades. In Chapter 12, we are given a unique opportunity to study Soo Jung Youn’s rubric as well as audio samples drawn from her research thanks to her kindness. The second edition would not have been possible without the invaluable input generously shared by these inspirational colleagues. Finally, not being a writer as skillful as I wish I were, I am grateful to the editorial team in Routledge as well as Paul Bruthiaux and Wyman Keyes, who assisted me at different stages of the editing process. I thank Mayuko

xi

newgenprepdf

xii Acknowledgments Onda for her illuminating original illustrations and Han Eul Lee for carefully coordinating references. This edition was funded by Grant-​in-​Aid for Scientific Research (C) offered by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (#15K02802). Last but not least, special thanks go to my family, especially Tsuyoshi Ishihara, for being so patient and encouraging throughout the entire process. Noriko Ishihara July 2021

1

1  Terms and Concepts in Pragmatics for Language Educators

Introduction In communication, we may confuse, mislead, misunderstand, or offend others inadvertently even in our first or dominant language (L1). Understandably, the task becomes even more challenging in intercultural communication, where all interactants may not rely on the same cultural literacy. This means that when interactants are not interpreting social practices in an identical way, some kind of negotiation may be in order. Learning a new language can be compared to joining a new community physically or metaphorically, and can be viewed not just as acquiring language form but also understanding social norms and cultural practices commonly shared in the second language (L2) community, which are not always explicitly stated or obvious to novice members or outsiders. Having pragmatic competence1 is therefore at least partially similar to having cultural literacy, being able to “read between the lines,” or making inferences beyond the literal meaning of what is said or written, what is not said or written, how it was said or written, and why. At the same time, because many world languages today are used by multilingual2 speakers beyond national or cultural boundaries, intercultural interactants need to be open to new possibilities if they are to negotiate meanings, assumptions, and goals in interaction. This chapter will introduce some of the key terms and concepts that are crucial in discussing the learning and teaching of L2 pragmatics.3 As you read

1 The terms competence and knowledge used in this book encompass declarative knowledge or awareness as well as procedural knowledge, ability, skills, or performance applying that knowledge. 2  In this book, being multilingual means using two or more languages or language varieties regularly. 3  From a pedagogical perspective, L2 pragmatics can be understood as “learning how to say what to whom when in the second language and culture” (Bardovi-​Harlig 2020: 45). Although the term L2 pragmatics is sometimes equated with interlanguage pragmatics (e.g., Taguchi and Roever 2017), I see interlanguage pragmatics as founded on the conventional native-​speaker model and therefore prefer to use the term L2 pragmatics or acquisitional pragmatics, which I feel critically reflects today’s global contexts, thus allowing for more diversified language models beyond the (idealized) native-​speaker norms (see the Introduction to this edition).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-1

2

2  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics on, these can form a new lens through which you will encounter or rediscover alternative ways of rethinking language education.

Pragmatic Competence Pragmatic competence can be viewed as being able to jointly construct meaning through linguistic as well as non-​ linguistic means within the ongoing interactive context.4 In a successful meaning-​making activity, we understand one another’s messages and express ourselves in a socially and contextually preferred manner in order to achieve a particular purpose. For example, expert communicators know just how politely, casually, directly, or indirectly they can best create nuances given the cultural context and its social constraints. Within a culture or community, there is socially acquired and jointly constructed knowledge of more or less acceptable behavior (pragmatic norms) that is negotiated in the local interaction as it unfolds. Rather than being absolutely “right” or “wrong,” pragmatic norms are about a range of tendencies or social practices in which certain behaviors are viewed as more or less preferred, suitable, or desirable within the given context. In addition, pragmatic norms vary across languages and cultures or even within a single language, language variety, or culture and can dynamically change over time and across contexts (see pragmatic variation below). In communication, meaning is not necessarily spelled out directly, and interpretation can rely heavily on context. Can you pass me the salt? can be answered with Here you go at a dinner table, where the question is interpreted as a request. However, in a rather special context, the same question can be intended and interpreted as being about the mobility of an aching finger if an occupational therapist asks the same question of a patient in a treatment session. In this case, Yes, I can is a suitable response. Similarly, This soup is cold is probably intended as a complaint in a café on an icy winter day but could be intended as purely informational or an expression of admiration or thanks on a sweltering summer day. In other words, we cannot overemphasize the importance of context in creating and interpreting meaning. In today’s globalized context characterized by (super)diversity, many languages are used in combination beyond national or cultural boarders.The traditional deficiency model of non-​native speakers learning the idealized norms of native speakers has been problematized,5 especially for English being used as an international language (EIL) but also for users of other languages. For example, English is increasingly being used as a lingua franca in a wide range of domains where the language is the only option as a shared medium of communication.6 Current estimates suggest that 1.5 billion people communicate in English, with over two-​thirds of them speaking it as 4  LoCastro (2003: 15). 5  Cook (1999); Firth and Wagner (1997); Kasper (2010). 6  Seidlhofer (2011:7).

3

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  3 their L2; approximately half of the world’s population is multilingual.7 Thus, monolingual native-​speaker norms (if they can ever be identified) may not necessarily be the goal, especially where non-​native English speakers communicate with one another. In a 2008 Position Statement, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), a large and active international organization dedicated to English language teaching (ELT), designates diversified English as a global language, stating that “a singular or monolithic approach to the modeling of English is no longer tenable.”8 In fact, a large body of research in the area of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) has found that intercultural interactions may largely be message-​focused and consensus-​ oriented, drawing heavily on communication strategies9 (see Chapters 2 and 9). Intercultural interactants can be viewed as co-​constructing and negotiating meaning in order to meet common goals as the communication unfolds on a moment-​by-​moment basis. Similarly, the Council of Europe has recently re-​ conceptualized the notion of language expertise. Since its first publication in 2001, the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) has encompassed pragmatic competence as an essential element of communicative competence and incorporated various pragmatics and discourse features into the curriculum and assessment at a range of proficiency levels. In 2018, the Council of Europe released its Companion Volume, which provides updates in alignment with advances in applied linguistics. One revision consists of replacing each mention of native speaker with proficient speaker, reflecting the Council’s plurilingual approach to language education. This update also aligns with the term pragmatically competent speakers or expert speakers used in this book. It can be also argued that the new terminology is more consistent with a current understanding of language expertise, ownership, and legitimacy. Rather than (non)nativeness, which is determined merely by one’s arbitrary heritage or place of birth, the notion of competence can better serve as a suitable goal in language learning, where L2 (or L3)10 pragmatic acquisition is interconnected with and bolstered by L1 (and L2) competence. Given the additional understanding that nativeness and non-​nativeness are highly elusive constructs that often defy clear-​cut definitions, the focus on the dichotomy between the two is becoming increasingly obsolete in a pluralistic approach to language learning and teaching. 7 MacKenzie (2014); Statista (2016); Taguchi and Roever (2017). 8 TESOL (2008). 9 Cogo and House (2017); Seidlhofer (2011). However, it should be noted that ELF research largely draws on data from highly proficient and educated multilingual speakers primarily in higher education and international business engaged in the practices of the discourse communities. Therefore, the consensus-​oriented, cooperative nature of communication, which is often claimed as features of ELF interactions may not necessarily be applicable to other intercultural speakers in wider contexts (Ishihara and Prado in press; MacKenzie 2014). 10  Following the convention in the field, the acronym L2 in this book includes L3 (third language) and more. For the learning of L3 pragmatics specifically, see, for example, Koike and Palmiere (2011).

4

4  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics Accordingly, the globalized context of language use complicates our teaching of L2s in general and of L2 pragmatics in particular because multiple versions and ranges of pragmatic norms and community practices may all be relevant in our instructional contexts. Throughout this book, let us remember to keep this complex reality in mind and explore the teaching of pragmatics as embracing multilingual resources.11 This is not to deny the use of Inner-​circle12 norms in pragmatics instruction, especially when learners see them as relevant; not teaching such norms in this context does disservice to the learners if adherence to the community norms are expected or viewed as desirable such as in some professional job interviews or academic publications. Rather, diversifying pragmatic models means incorporating pragmatic variation whenever possible to varying degrees for the purpose of intercultural awareness-​raising. Although it is unrealistic to aim to teach the pragmatics of all language varieties in all conceivable contexts, it is possible to draw on varied examples of pragmatic uses to the degree that teachers see suitable for their classrooms in order to aim for greater awareness of pragmatic variation and appreciation of such diverse global resources. Finding out how and when this is possible is challenging, but it is important to ask these questions and to attempt to answer them in each of our instructional contexts.13 With this in mind, this book aims to consider pragmatics-​focused instruction with a number of relevant social, political, and affective issues in mind, including identity, agency, affiliation, membership, emotion, the ownership of language, legitimacy, and language socialization (see Chapter 6). In brief, the focus on multilingual resources can be understood as translingual, which allows us to situate ourselves in-​ between and switch back and forth between two or more languages and cultures (also known as translanguaging).14 Many language users today–​–​perhaps most readers of this book–​–​are multilingual, and even if you identify as native or non-​native speakers of the languages you speak, the various aspects of your language expertise are like two sides of the same coin, with the boundary being rather blurry.The languages we use are interdependent and together shape our fluid identities as well as the dynamic community practices we negotiate across cultures and contexts. In this book, we will explore ways for language users to be not only tolerant but also appreciative of linguistic and cultural hybridity, which can serve as a powerful resource in a third space15 beyond any L1–​L2 divide (Chapter 6). Along these lines, the pedagogy demonstrated in this book will be relevant to educating or enlightening learners as well as self-​identified

11 See Cook (1999) for the relevant notion of multicompetence. 12  Inner–​circle countries include the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, where English is typically used as a native language by the majority (Kachru, 1990) (see Chapter 6). 13  As in ELF-​aware pedagogy and assessment promoted in Sifakis and Tsantila (2019). 14  Canagarajah (2013); García and Li (2013), Hawkins and Mori (2018); Li (2018). 15  Bhabha (1994); Kramsch and Uryu (2012) (see Chapter 6).

5

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  5 native speakers of a language to enhance their awareness of current demands in intercultural communication. In this sense, learning the pragmatics of a language can be considered a life-​long process of socialization.16 Just imagine how extensive and exciting an enterprise it can be to polish our intercultural awareness and learn to negotiate meaning with diverse language users in various cultural contexts! With regard to more linguistic dimensions of pragmatics, pragmatic competence is mobilized through four main channels of communication: listening, reading, speaking, and writing:17

• As listeners, we need to understand what is said as well as what is

not said and what is communicated implicitly. Information can be communicated not only through words but also via paralinguistic and extralinguistic18 means (e.g., tone,19 intonation, pitch, body language) or any combinations of these. In some cultures, an invitation to “stay for dinner” following a lingering chat in someone’s doorway can be a ritual invitation, in which the real intention is to politely signal that it is about time you left. • As readers, we need to comprehend messages by identifying the rhetorical structure of written texts and recovering intended meaning and sometimes subtle indications of tone, nuances, or attitude in the communication. If a professor writes in the evaluation of a course paper, “You may wish to re-​read the assigned chapters and re-​submit,” socially adept students will know that it is a request for re-​submission rather than an option if they are to pass the course. • As speakers, we need to know how to convey messages with suitable (in)directness, (in)formality, and (im)politeness. As in the above cases, we also need to know what not to say as well as what to communicate tacitly, in other words, the potential consequences of what we say and how we say it. A Spanish equivalent of “Give me a coffee” (Ponme un café) may be a perfectly acceptable request in a service encounter in Madrid, whereas a greater degree of politeness will tend to be preferred in California.20 16  Li (2013). 17 Adapted from Chapter 1 of the first edition of this book (Ishihara and Cohen 2010/​ 2014: 3–​4). 18 The paralinguistic mode of communication comes primarily through voice qualities (e.g., pitch and rate) and vocalization (e.g., laughter and crying); extralinguistic communication is perceived through the five bodily senses (e.g., gaze and gestures) (Ephratt 2011). 19  Beebe and Waring (2004) define pragmatic tone as “the affect indirectly conveyed by linguistic and/​or nonlinguistic means” and metaphorically characterize it as the “ ‘color’ of emotion and attitude on language” (p. 2).” As they point out, pragmatic appropriateness is determined not only through word choice, grammar, and semantic formulas but also by way of tone.The same verbal message can take on different meanings depending on the tone, since emotion is encoded in the tone through intonation, certain linguistic structures (e.g., use of adverbials), non-​verbal cues (e.g., gesture, facial expressions, posture, and pause) and the like. 20  Morris (2017).

6

6  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics

• As writers, we need to know how to write our messages according to

the context, again paying attention to levels of (in)directness, (in)formality, and (im)politeness as well as considering the consequences of the choices we make in writing. While a formal business letter in Japanese often starts with a brief discussion of the weather, such an opening may throw American readers off as this discourse structure is not part of their cultural script. In addition, hybrid genres of written language such as email, instant messages, or tweets may contain elements of both oral and written language.

Scope of Pragmatics The scope of pragmatics is wide and deep. Detailed discussions of key concepts and relevant research can be found in a number of existing publications. Since comprehensive coverage would not fit in this chapter, let us review just a few core concepts considered particularly useful as we discuss instructional pragmatics, or the practical application of pragmatics to L2 teaching and classroom assessment. The Cooperative Principle, Reference, Inference, and Deixis The following example from everyday life illustrates some of the key concepts in formal pragmatics. Tofu, a type of soybean curd originating in East Asia, has become a popular food item among health-​conscious consumers around the world.Tofu packaging sold in a supermarket in Northern California says, “To store, keep tofu in a covered container, immersed in water. Change the water daily” to explain how to store the leftover portion once the package is opened. As far as I know, this type of informational note is not found on tofu packaging in typical stores in Japan. Grice’s Cooperative Principle can explain this difference. For Grice, “effective communicators are supposed to provide truthful information in just the right level of relevant detail in a clear manner” (maxims of quality, quantity, relevance, and manner).21 While how to store leftover tofu is considered common knowledge in Japan, it is less likely to be so in California. The note in California—​and the lack of it in Japan—​both aim to observe the maxims in their individual contexts. Interestingly, another package from the same Californian supplier only says, “Perishable. Keep refrigerated.” This particular product uses sealed packaging with two smaller pieces instead of one large cake, with each piece likely to be used up with no leftover portion. Again, this example aligns with the Cooperative Principle as the information about storage now appears unnecessary. If we focus on the maxims of manner and quantity (or about making meaning clear and saying just enough, not too much or too little), we

21  Grice (1975).

7

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  7 notice that the language on the tofu packaging is brief and fragmented. Does this still enable us to fill in all necessary information and make an unambiguous inference? The answer to this question may vary according to the status of our background knowledge. To make the statement crystal clear, we might say: “To store [leftover tofu], keep [it, namely, the leftover tofu] immersed in water in a covered container. Change the water [in which the leftover tofu is immersed in the covered container] daily.” In practice, spelling out all of the references indicated in [square brackets] above would make the message largely redundant and less efficient. In fact, much of the meaning is entailed in the structure and becomes clear through presupposition.22 The brisk discourse style on the packaging is entirely suitable, especially given the limited space available. Yet, some of my colleagues unfamiliar with the treatment of tofu have pointed out to me that it is unclear that the instructions refer to the leftover portion. In fact, we could argue that the instructions violate the maxims of quantity and manner. Understanding an inferable reference23 is a key part of pragmatic competence.

Face, (Im)politeness, Identity, and Context The notions of face and (im)politeness are also core ingredients in pragmatics. Face is the positive social value or public self-​image we strive to maintain for both ourselves and others in interaction,24 a concept similar to respect or dignity. Despite our general wish that face be respected, it is always at risk and may be offended or threatened, deliberately or inadvertently. To protect, defend, and save face, continual attention and cooperation (i.e., facework) from all interactants is called for.25 Facework can be achieved through various politeness or indirectness strategies, which are introduced throughout this book. Through these strategies, we express our integrity, dignity, and place in a given social space as we interact with others.26 Notably, face can be viewed as not static or stable but constantly negotiated dynamically in interaction, being linked with the identities we wish to construct in particular settings.27

22  Entailment is meaning that can logically be inferred from a literal statement. Presupposition is a basic assumption we have prior to making an actual statement (see Yule 1996: 25–​34). 23  Reference is also made through indexing terms about a specific person, space, or time (e.g., she as person deixis, here as place or spatial deixis, and then as time or temporal deixis) (Archer, Aijmer, and Wichmann 2012). 24  Goffman (1967). 25  Locher (2011). Facework is also termed relational work, rapport management, and so forth; however, all these labels refer to the negotiation of identities and relations (Locher and Watts 2008: 533; see also Ishihara 2016a). 26  Goffman (1967). 27  Stated differently, face is simultaneously social and individual and is constantly negotiated. Like identities, face is intersubjectively constructed and interactionally emergent (Locher 2011).

8

8  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics Politeness can be considered from the perspective of positive and negative politeness, a notion unrelated to value judgments (e.g., good or bad). Our negative face wants refer to our need for independence and freedom. To satisfy our negative face wants, we use negative politeness strategies such as showing deference or respect, emphasizing the importance of the other’s time and freedom or apologizing for an imposition or interruption.28 For instance, we may say from a pessimistic (or negative) standpoint,“Ms. Stone, would it be too much trouble perhaps if I stayed with you for a few days in July?” Here, indications of negative politeness include a) the use of a formal term of address; b) the subjunctive mood (would … if I stayed), c) a pessimistic and courteous outlook (would it be too much trouble); d) hedging (perhaps), and e) an interrogative construction. In contrast, positive face wants consists of the need to belong, to be connected, to share a common goal. We show solidarity, emphasize that we are close, and stress that we have a common goal, all of which count as positive politeness strategies.29 This type of language is often optimistic (or positive) in the sense of inclusive and forward-​looking, as in: “Robin, I’ll come stay with you in July and we’ll have a lot of fun!” Here, positive politeness is manifested in the use of a) an informal term of address; b) an optimistic outlook (a lot of fun); c) an affirmative construction (not an interrogative asking for permission); d) inclusive we to stress the shared goal; and e) a friendly tone created by informal word choices and contractions (I’ll, we’ll). Misinterpretations may occur where there are intercultural differences in (im)politeness orientations. Unfortunately, these differences can readily be attributed to personality flaws rather than to culturally-​tinted interactional styles and may possibly lead to stereotypes and even animosity. Positive politeness strategies intended as amicable, friendly, and pleasant may be misunderstood as intrusive, overly informal, or simply rude. Conversely, well-​intended negative politeness strategies could create the misguided impression of being overly distant, alienating, or unfriendly. In fact, preferences and acceptability over the choice of positive or negative politeness strategies vary across cultures and communities as well as individuals and each interactive context. For example, Spanish and Greek cultures are believed to be generally oriented toward positive politeness, whereas British culture tends to carry a largely negative politeness orientation.30 However, these tendencies are contextually and individually dependent rather than fixed or pre-​determined, and positive and negative strategies are often used in combination in discourse.31 In learning and teaching pragmatics, an awareness of face and (im) 28  Goffman (1967). 29  Goffman (1967). 30  Johnson (2006). Preferred politeness strategies can also vary between varieties of the same language spoken within a country. In Johnson’s study, English used in London’s British West African community tended to emphasize positive politeness through interpersonal involvement while English used in the mainstream community displayed a stronger concern for negative face favoring non-​imposition. 31  Sifianou and Garcés-​Conejos Blitvich (2017). Also see this paper for criticisms and debates over the politeness theory discussed in this chapter.

9

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  9 politeness orientations may be helpful in encouraging learners to remain open, respectful, and compassionate toward others who may prefer different linguistic and social conventions in particular contexts or simply know no others. The concept of impoliteness, used as a blanket term to include relevant concepts such as rudeness, has been gaining ground in recent pragmatics research. Politeness research primarily focuses on face-​enhancing or face-​ maintaining acts. Yet, we may not fully understand politeness without studying impoliteness because language can also be used in a face-​ threatening or face-​damaging manner. However, there seems to be general agreement in the field that impoliteness is neither a mirror image of politeness nor synonymous with rudeness.32 Although definitions of impoliteness abound, it can be understood as a “negative attitude toward specific behaviors occurring in specific contexts … sustained by expectations, desires, and/​ or beliefs about social organization.”33 In this vein, relevant topics such as irony, sarcasm, humor, swearing, lying and deception, euphemism, and taboos have been studied in depth. A topic that is highly relevant to instructional pragmatics may be rudeness, especially because L2 learners may be subjected to it in their lives as they speak the L2. Learners may have a pressing need to learn to make appropriate interpretations of rudeness directed at them and consider possible ways to respond to it as well as the potential consequences of their pragmatic choices. Teachers wishing to consider how to deal with this topic in the classroom34 may find relevant discussion in Chapter 9 useful. While indirectness (e.g., mitigation and hedging) is generally associated with politeness, it is important to note that no language is inherently polite or impolite, formal or informal, or direct or indirect in itself.35 As we discursively co-​construct meaning, what seems acceptable and tactful in one context may be interpreted as excessively formal or informal in another. Moreover, an utterance seemingly impolite by default (e.g., You idiot!) may in fact be an expression of jest, intimacy, or even affection depending on the tone, body language, and relational context (i.e., mock impoliteness). Conversely, an expression conventionally associated with politeness by default (e.g., Thank you very much) may indirectly convey the opposite meaning of annoyance, frustration, or insult (i.e., mock politeness).36 The local context shapes and constrains language, meaning, and functions while the language itself and its delivery fashion the context simultaneously. As noted earlier, we cannot overemphasize the importance of context in meaning-​making.

32  Culpeper and Hardaker (2017). 33  Culpeper (2011: 23). 34  Beebe and Waring (2005); Mugford (2019). 35  Locher (2011). 36  Culpeper (2011).

10

10  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics Power (P)

low

high

Distance (D)

close

distant

Intensity (I)

minor

major

Figure 1.1 Visualization of major contextual factors.

The interactional context can be analyzed mainly from the perspectives of power, distance, and intensity of the act, as shown in Figure 1.1.37 Power refers to the relative social status of each interactant from the perspective of the speaker or writer (Is your interactant of higher or lower status than you or equal to you?). Distance reflects perceived level of acquaintance socially and psychologically constructed between the interactants (How close or distant are the interactants?). Distance may be influenced by actual social distance (e.g., stranger or intimate family member) along with the perceived sense of familiarity (e.g., psychological distance perceived to be closer or greater due to different personalities). Intensity of the act refers broadly to the stakes involved, such as the magnitude of the imposition, the seriousness, significance, or gravity of the situation, and the outcome of the interaction (How large is the imposition and what other stakes are involved in the given situation and its purpose?). For example, we can ask ourselves: How big a request is being made (“Are you just borrowing a dollar or are you asking for $300?”); what stakes are involved in the interaction (Are you just turning down a good friend’s casual invitation to lunch today or are you refusing a boss’s request to work overtime?”); and how serious or consequential is the outcome of the interaction likely to be? Using the visual representation of the three extralinguistic contextual factors shown in Figure 1.1, we can readily analyze the demands of the situation and its interaction with the language. If the situation falls relatively to the left of the continuum of Power, Distance, and Intensity (PDI) (e.g., telling your dog to sit), the language is likely to be informal, direct, and impolite (on record). Conversely, the level of politeness, formality, and directness increases for a face-​threatening act (FTA), where the situation is assessed more to the right of the PDI continuum (e.g., asking a new boss for an advance on salary). Contextual factors interact dynamically with each other in determining our language choices. As noted earlier, language use helps shape the context, while the context simultaneously influences our language choices and their consequences. (Im)politeness and face are interconnected and negotiated fluidly in the social practices we engage in, and the negotiated

37 Adapted from power, distance, and imposition in Brown and Levinson (1987) based on Goffman (1967). Other contextual factors include physical setting, interactional goals, and necessity and urgency involved in the situation (Hymes 1972; McConachy 2009).

1

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  11 norms and expectations are acquired, shared, and challenged in our process of socialization (see Chapter 5).

Speech Acts Analysis of the context is interconnected with the realization of speech acts along with other aspects of face and (im)politeness. Within the realm of pragmatics, speech acts refer to functions performed through language,38 or “doing things with words.”39 Unlike some functions performed through individual actions (e.g., dancing, walking), speech acts are carried out via language, spoken or written. Examples of speech acts include greeting, inviting, requesting, refusing, apologizing, complaining, complimenting, and thanking. Speech acts are sometimes classified into categories such as directives (e.g., “Don’t say that”), expressives (e.g., “Nice shoes”), commissives (e.g., “I’ll keep you posted”), declaratives (e.g., “I now pronounce you husband and wife”) and representatives (e.g., “The earth is round”).40 While speech acts are sometimes performed through a single word, phrase, or a sentence (e.g., “Thanks”), in other contexts, they can involve an extended sequence of turns. The realization of speech acts, especially FTAs, often contains a sequence of moves (also termed semantic formulas, pragmatic strategies, or speech act strategies).41 Realizations of speech acts are often routinized, usually consisting of predictable patterns influenced by shared cultural knowledge. For example, a speaker of American English may say, “Let’s get together sometime” as a friendly ritual to signal the end of the conversation without necessarily intending to do so. If a listener comes from another culture where such a statement may be taken as a genuine invitation to schedule a get-​together, the interactants may engage in a negotiation of meaning. Because as a result each party may develop (often negative) judgments or stereotypes of the other, it is important that intercultural communicators become aware of potentially different scripts and cultivate an open mind for negotiation. In co-​constructing meaning for mutual understanding, pragmatic analysis in terms of locution, illocution, and perlocution42 may be useful. The locutionary (i.e., literal) meaning of “Do you have the time?” is “Do you have a watch (or phone) with you?” But most likely, the illocutionary (e.g., intended) meaning as conceived by the speaker will be “Tell me what time it is” (see Figure 1.2). The related perlocutionary act, or the consequence or uptake of the utterance and the listener’s response to this utterance,

38 Yule (1996). Speech acts have other labels, such as communicative acts, perhaps in an attempt to avoid a potential misconception whereby speech acts necessarily concern spoken discourse. 39  Austin (1962). 40  Searle (1979). 41 A series of these moves is sometimes called speech act sets (Bardovi-​Harlig 2017; Olshtain and Cohen 1983; see also the first edition of this book). 42  Austin (1962).

12

12  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics

Figure 1.2 Asking for the time.

would be the actual telling of the time. When indirectness is employed, the illocutionary meaning diverges from the literal expression. This can create a gap in communication and bring about an unexpected outcome in interaction until the interactants successfully co-​construct a mutual understanding. For this reason, this book will often discuss research-​based information about several speech acts in order to introduce conventional moves commonly found in speech act sequences. Although speech acts are discussed in many L2-​related textbooks, they are rarely taught in a systematic, explicit, or empirical manner (see Chapter 8). Yet, speech acts are among the most rigorously researched topics in pragmatics, and even beginning-​level learners can reap benefits from explicit instruction based on empirical information. Advanced learners can also take advantage of research-​based information about the sequential development of speech acts revealed through interaction-​focused microanalysis, which I turn to in the next section.

Sequential Analysis of Talk-​in-​interaction Pragmatic use of language, including the realization of speech acts and face and (im)politeness, is increasingly studied in its ecological (i.e., authentic), sequential organization, often through discourse analysis or conversation analysis (CA). The microanalysis of conversations through CA attempts to reveal, for example, how discourse is structured, how turns are sequentially organized, how conversations are opened, developed, and closed, how turns are taken, maintained, or stolen, and how listeners show engagement in the talk. CA also scrutinizes and describes paralinguistic and extralinguistic features such as pauses, laughter, change in voice quality, gaze, and gestures. Accumulations

13

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  13 of these descriptions help us understand the mechanisms of interaction, or how exactly conversational partners make meaning and achieve shared understanding (intersubjectivity). Through critical microanalyses of interactions and their verification based on a mass of data, the pioneers of CA uncovered the orderliness of mundane talk-​in-​interaction through fine-​grained descriptions of the organization of sequences, turn-​taking, repair, and preferences.43 CA researchers regard these overall organizational patterns as applicable to wider interactional settings. At the same time, because any contributions to an interaction are part of the sequential context, researchers examine how participants renew and orient to this new environment in a context-​specific and contingent manner.44 Having interactional competence therefore means being able to co-​construct meaning with conversational partners in dynamic discourse, for example, by interpreting others in the ongoing interaction, generating a response in a timely and relevant manner, repairing trouble in talk, and managing the floor.45 CA research often focuses on the mechanics of adjacency pairs (i.e., sequence of paired turns such as A: Hi. B: Hello), pragmatic markers (i.e., discourse markers or words and phrases foreshadowing the nature of upcoming discourse such as: so, but, you know), repairs (i.e., how problems with communication are fixed and by whom), sequential development of speech acts and other aspects of discourse, conversation management (e.g., conversational opening and closing), preference structure, listenership (e.g., listener feedback such as backchannels and assessments), and other aspects relevant to the organization of talk-​in-​interaction.46 Moment-​by-​moment analysis through CA reveals the workings of interaction in great detail, providing us with a refined awareness of the interactional architecture of how our everyday interactions are accomplished. We will consider some of the findings of CA research for classroom application throughout this book, especially in Chapters 3, 4, 8, and 12.

Pragmatic Variation In addition to different tendencies in linguistic patterns across cultures, we should note that meaning depends largely on the context and can differ even within a single language (pragmatic variation). As discussed earlier, socially preferred language use depends on situational factors such as relative power and distance between the interactants and the stakes involved (microsocial variation); acceptable behavior or socially preferred expressions also depends on the region, age, gender, ethnicity, and social class of the interactants 43  Mori and Nguyen (2019). 44  Mori and Nguyen (2019); Seedhouse (2004). 45  Greer, Ishida, and Tateyama (2017). Interactional competence can also be conceptualized more broadly, encompassing intercultural competence (see Young 2019). 46  Kasper and Wagner (2014); Schegloff (2007); Wong and Waring (2010).

14

14  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics (macrosocial variation).47 For example, teenagers speaking your language in your culture–​–​even in your family–​–​may use (sometimes gender-​related) slang for solidarity-​building within their peer groups, which may be incomprehensible to you. Taking pragmatics broadly to include extralinguistic modes of communication, perception and use of time may be different in rural California and New York City. Request discourse written by Chinese speakers of English is often rich in background explanations with the actual request coming toward the end, while a request is likely to be made more directly up-​front in American English.48 As these examples show, pragmatic variation is often connected with regional, generational, gender, and other social identities and affiliations.49 Although homogeneous native-​speaker norms are typically assumed in interlanguage pragmatics research and used as a pedagogical model in instructional pragmatics,50 sociolinguistic research (e.g., in variational pragmatics and World Englishes) has uncovered intralingual variation and made it more prominent.51 Even when speaking the same language or language variety, different social and regional groups may use, for example, small talk, terms of address, speech acts, or conversational closings distinctively and organize discourse differently.52 The point is that we cannot assume that meaning is interpreted in the same way across languages and even within a language. An incident may be a serious infraction in one context and a source of mirth in another, thus inviting different reactions and consequences. This shows how the interpretation of the situational context, the choice and use of linguistic, paralinguistic, and extralinguistic strategies, and the (sub)cultural or institutional knowledge of community practices all contribute to pragmatic competence (see Chapter 2).

Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics As language and culture intersect in pragmatics, it may be useful to consider pragmatic language use distinctly from respective standpoints. The linguistic side of pragmatics, pragmalinguistics, deals primarily with language forms used to represent meaning, while the cultural aspect of pragmatics, sociopragmatics, reflects interactants’ assumptions of what constitutes socially preferred behavior.53 For instance, in addition to the linguistic form for how to say “How are you?” in Italian (“Come sta/​stai?”), we would need to know to whom and on 47  Barron and Schneider (2009). See Félix-​Brasdefer and Koike (2012) for pragmatic variation in the L1 and L2 revealed through different research methods. 48  Kirkpatrick (2015). 49  Barron (2019). 50  Kasper (2010). 51 See Barron (2019) as well as Chapter 2 for more on pedagogical implications. 52  Félix-​Brasdefer and Koike (2012); Schneider and Barron (2008); Staley (2018). 53  Leech (1983); Thomas (1983).

15

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  15 what occasions we should use each expression. To share my own experience from 2013 in Siena, as I checked into a hotel, I said “Buon giorno” to the hotel receptionist, relying on my survival Italian. After he said “Buon giorno” back to me, I continued with “Come sta?” Knowing that the expression used the rather formal “sta” as opposed to more informal “stai” or “Come va,” I meant to align with local norms and come across as polite and friendly, just I would, say, in California. However, his reaction was “Come? [Excuse me?].” I repeated my greeting, wondering if my pronunciation was unclear. The receptionist laughed and responded “Bene, bene (Good, good),” leaving me with no clue as to what exactly went wrong. In fact, unlike in English, how are you greetings are hardly used in service encounters in some European languages such as German and Italian.54 Rather, such greetings are typically used to take time to listen genuinely to how things are going with someone you care about. Apparently, my lack of sociopragmatic knowledge, rather than my handling of the pragmalinguistics, caused confusion and feelings of dismay and embarrassment. Although the concepts of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics are interrelated and not necessarily clear-​cut, the distinction is sometimes drawn upon in research in L2 pragmatics and language teaching.

Subjective Culture and Explanatory Pragmatics As part of an effort to enhance learners’ sociopragmatic competence, let us consider an explanatory approach, starting with two different aspects of culture, particularly the distinction between objective and subjective culture.55 Objective culture refers to the institutional and material aspects of culture such as political, legal, and economic systems, history, the arts, dress, or cuisine. Subjective culture is more psychological and philosophical in nature, including commonly the shared values, beliefs, assumptions, morals, and behaviors that generally characterize the members of that culture. In an explanatory approach to L2 pragmatics, pragmatic language use can be discussed in terms of subjective culture.56 A sample of language use is not just demonstrated and practiced; rather, cultural reasoning behind that language use is also analyzed so that learners can understand how members of that culture tend to think, act, and use language and why they do it that way (explanatory pragmatics).57 If learners are simply exposed to language forms alone without analysis of their cultural meaning, they may not notice

54  Ishihara and Menard-​Warwick (2018); Rings (1994). 55  Berger and Luckmann (1967), also known as big-​C (Culture) and small-​c (culture) (Bennett 1998). 56  A similar instructional approach includes the 3Ps (perspective, process, and product) approach advocated by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) (see Cutshall 2012). 57  Richards and Schmidt (1983).

16

16  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics the underlying subjective structure that can shape the pragmatic behaviors, values, assumptions, and ethics generally shared among the members of that culture (i.e., an emic or insider perspective).58 However, caution is in order so that stereotypical views of cultures are discouraged and learners are advised not to form over generalizations.59 It is also important that teachers characterize culture as diverse, dynamic, and in flux, not as a monolithic, homogeneous, or static entity.60

Metapragmatic Awareness Finally, beyond pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic features is the overarching notion of metapragmatic awareness. In L2 pragmatics, this term is sometimes used inconsistently or interchangeably with pragmatic awareness as these concepts at least partially overlap. Some researchers have defined metapragmatic awareness as the acknowledgment of the social meaning of language forms and how these forms mark different aspects of social contexts.61 However, this understanding can be enhanced by adding a more recent perspective, which values learners’ existing cultural knowledge and thereby empowers them with agency beyond the constraints of monolingual native-​speaker norms. This view considers metapragmatic awareness a higher-​order (umbrella-​like) awareness that includes the ability “to reflect on the rationales for interpretations of pragmatic phenomena … to bring into awareness the particular cultural frames or assumptions which are at work in the interpretive process” (see the preceding section on explanatory pragmatics), and to negotiate meaning in a reflexive manner through multilingual resources and intercultural identities.62 In short, metapragmatic awareness allows us not only to articulate the general principle of how language form works hand-​in-​hand with the context but also to make informed pragmatic choices while noting an insider understanding of pragmatic workings within the L2 community. Equipped with overarching metapragmatic awareness that serves an executive function, learners may thus decide to participate in a community of practice and show alignment with that community, or they may opt to negotiate their multilingual identities in a unique, creative manner (see Chapters 5 and 6 for more discussion and examples). It is this explicit, orchestrating awareness that both teachers and learners of L2 pragmatic should strive for in order to use pragmatic language in an agentic manner (see Chapters 2 and 6). 58  Meier (2003). 59 Taguchi and Ishihara (2018). 60  McKay (2002). 61  Kinginger and Farrell (2004: 20). 62  McConachy (2013: 102; 2018b: 23–​29).

17

Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics  17

Discussion This chapter opened by defining pragmatic competence as a meaning-​making activity in which interactants co-​construct meaning in various modalities in the given sociocultural context. Having pragmatic competence means being able to read between the lines and negotiating meaning beyond the literal meaning of what is said or written in order to reach a shared goal in interaction. To do so successfully, learners need to develop and exercise cultural literacy in interpreting and shaping the context. Context can be understood from the perspectives of relative power and distance between the interactants as well as the stakes involved in that situation. The chapter also discussed today’s globalization, in which multilingual speakers draw on hybrid pragmatic and discursive resources to communicate interculturally. The second half of the chapter discussed some of the key terms and concepts in pragmatics. As we saw, the field of pragmatics is broad and encompasses issues of reference, inference, relevance, (in)directness, (in) formality, (im)politeness, pragmatic formulas, terms of address, speech acts, speech events, conversation management, discourse structure, and implicature, among others. Irony, sarcasm, humor, and impoliteness are areas of pragmatics that are being increasingly researched today. Because theoretical discussions of these concepts can be found elsewhere, this book specifically aims to develop and refine a pragmatics lens, that is, an enhanced awareness of the relevance of pragmatics concepts to the mechanics of our everyday interactions we might take directly to our language classrooms. The activity below is designed to provide a hands-​on opportunity to see day-​to-​day interactions through this newly polished pragmatics lens.

ACTIVITY 1.1  Collecting Data for Pragmatics-​focused Analysis Objectives 1 You will be able to identify (authentic) language samples suitable for pragmatics-​focused analysis. 2 You will be able to analyze selected language sample(s) from pragmatics-​focused points of view. Suggested time: 30 minutesa Materials • •

Access to emails, notes, letters, or social media A (digital) voice recording device, phone, or camcorder (optional)

18

18  Terms and Concepts in L2 Pragmatics Directions 1 Browse through the emails, notes, letters, or social media you use and identify one or two language samples that demonstrate interesting pragmatic features. If you prefer to analyze spoken discourse rather than written text, you can also use an audio-​or video-​recorder (with prior permission from the speakers) to capture natural conversation, or ask expert speakers to role-​play an everyday situation. In this case, you may need to transcribe the dialogue or at least an excerpt from it for close analysis. 2 Analyze the selected language sample(s) from the perspectives of, for example, face, positive and negative politeness, (im)politeness, (in)directness, (in)formality, context (power, distance, intensity or stakes involved), deixis, discourse structure, adjacency pairs, turn-​taking, repair, speech acts, the Cooperative Principle, or pragmatic variation. (Steps 1 and 2 could be assigned as individual work.) 3 Share your analysis in a small group of about four. If you can offer new interpretations of others’ language samples, please share them. 4 Get back to the whole class and report the highlights of your small-​group discussion. Wrap-​up Work to develop the habit of conducting this type of pragmatic language analysis beyond this activity. You will then notice how pragmatics resides in your everyday interactions. Our pragmatics lens can also make it easier for us to pinpoint the areas of pragmatics our students need instruction in as well as to identify language samples to be used for instruction (see Chapter 3). Also, teachers may wish to have students conduct a similar pragmatics-​focused analysis for the purpose of awareness-​raising. Even though data collected by students may fall short in terms of accuracy, the activity is likely to equip them with a tool for pragmatic language analysis. In other words, teachers and learners can work together in obtaining and interpreting language data using their pragmatic lenses and polish them in collaboration. (See also Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 for ways to have learners take an active “ethnographer” role in pragmatics learning.) a

 Suggested times in activities in this book are only estimates. In-​depth treatment of topics can take longer, with enhanced results.

19

2  Teachers’ Professional Development in Instructional Pragmatics

Introduction Following Chapter 1, which dealt with basic terms in L2 pragmatics, Chapter 2 shifts our attention to teachers and consider issues related to professional development in the realm of instructional pragmatics. This chapter may therefore be of particular interest to both in-​service and prospective teachers as well as to teacher educators. First, we will review constituents of teacher knowledge as well as emerging efforts in L2 pragmatics to incorporate instructional pragmatics into teacher development courses. We will identify both accomplishments and remaining challenges in encouraging teachers to teach pragmatics and then discuss how this endeavor can be further enhanced. Only teachers themselves can decide how the information included in this book may be used in their own respective classrooms in their institutional contexts. It is for this reason that readers are encouraged to reflect critically, for example, on how they learn and use language themselves, how they draw on multiple linguistic, cultural, and relational resources in using language pragmatically, what they learned from their initial teacher preparation or further professional development, and what they believe are effective instructional strategies in general and for the teaching of pragmatics in particular.

Professional Development in Instructional Pragmatics How Are Teachers Prepared to Teach Pragmatics? A nationwide survey in the U.S. found that pragmatics is included in the majority of the MA TESOL programs, although the treatment of pragmatics centers on theory (such as linguistic politeness and speech act theories) rather than on practical applications. Among the 94 graduate TESOL programs surveyed in the U.S., only 20% reported including a course specifically focused on pragmatics while approximately half integrated pragmatics into other relevant courses.1 Much as students are expected to “pick up” 1 Vásquez and Sharpless (2009).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-2

20

20  Teachers’ Professional Development pragmatics naturally on their own, language teachers are often believed to just know how to teach pragmatics by extrapolating from other knowledge related to pedagogy. Of the 20% of the programs that had a course dedicated to pragmatics, more (56%) reported having a theoretical rather than an applied orientation (44%). It seems to be assumed that if given an appropriate theoretical framework, teachers can readily devise instructional strategies on their own.2 However, theoretical knowledge acquired in teacher education programs alone is not enough to improve pedagogical practices. As indicated in the Preface to this volume, teachers are viewed as creators of knowledge rather than as mere recipients. Teachers’ pedagogical insights gained through real classroom experience are valuable and can inform further research and knowledge in the field. The knowledge and skills required to effectively teach L2 pragmatics is unlikely to come automatically to language teachers, and specific preparation focused on instructional pragmatics has been shown to benefit them in their professional development.3 In fact, researchers recommend “a shift away from theoretical course material to an approach that is more relevant to classroom teachers”4 for language teacher education. Below we will first discuss constituents of teacher knowledge as background and then briefly review how instructional pragmatics has begun to be taught in some professional development courses and workshops worldwide. Teacher Knowledge Let us first discuss general components of teachers’ knowledge and how these components are applied to instructional pragmatics. Although this type of information is often made available to teacher educators rather than teachers themselves, this awareness can help teachers develop an analytic eye as to the nature and process of professional development. Teacher’s knowledge is acquired, refined, modified, reinforced, revised, and reshaped through teacher education, classroom practice, and experiences inside and outside of the classroom. Here, teacher knowledge not only means something teachers know implicitly but also includes explicit knowledge or metapragmatic awareness (see Chapter 1) they have access to and are able to mobilize when necessary. So in order for teachers to effectively teach language in general and pragmatics in particular, what exactly do they need to know? As can be seen in the left column of Table 2.1, the components of language teacher knowledge in general include: a) subject matter knowledge (e.g., knowledge about the L2); b) pedagogical content knowledge (e.g.,

2  Cohen (2018);Vásquez and Sharpless (2009). 3  Denny and Basturkmen (2011); Eslami (2011); Ishihara (2011); Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011);Vellenga (2011);Yates and Wigglesworth (2005). 4  Stapleton and Shao (2016: 4).

21

Teachers’ Professional Development  21 Table 2.1 Components of teacher knowledge General components of teacher knowledge for teaching L2 in general

Components of teacher knowledge specifically required for the teaching of L2 pragmatics

a) Subject matter knowledge

Knowledge of a range of pragmatic norms in the L2 Knowledge of pragmatic variation Metapragmatic awareness Knowledge of how to teach L2 pragmatics Knowledge of how to assess pragmatic competence Knowledge of learners’ identities, cultures, proficiency, and other characteristics Knowledge of the (pragmatics-​focused) curriculum Knowledge of the role of L2 pragmatics in educational contexts

b) Pedagogical content knowledge c) Knowledge of the learners and of the local, curricular, and educational contexts

knowledge about how to teach and assess); and c) knowledge of the learners and of the local, curricular, and educational contexts.5 Let us attempt to apply these categories to the teaching of L2 pragmatics in particular in the right column.6 First, a) subject matter knowledge translates into knowing how the L2 is typically used pragmatically (i.e., knowledge of general principles about how sociopragmatics contexts are related to a range of pragmalinguistic forms) as well as knowing that pragmatic norms vary depending on, for example, the regional, generational, gender, or ethnic background of the speakers as well as various contextual factors (i.e., pragmatic variation; see Chapter 1). Beyond this, teachers need overarching metapragmatic awareness that serves an executive function enabling teachers to orchestrate or mobilize their pragmatic knowledge at their disposal. As for pragmatic variation, in addition to knowing how, for example, American and Australian Englishes may differ pragmatically, it will help teachers be aware of how these variations are connected with the speakers’ identities and how L2 speakers’ alignment with a local variety may support the construction and performance of the local identity.7 Second, in order to teach L2 pragmatics, teachers will need to have b) pedagogical content knowledge, that is, knowing instructional and assessment strategies specifically as they relate to pragmatics. It should be a teacher’s immediate concern, for instance, to know how to communicate to their students the importance of having pragmatic competence in the L2, how to direct learners’ attention to features of the sociocultural context, how to explain the form-​function-​context mapping in the way that learners can 5 Adapted from Borg (2006); Freeman and Johnson (1998); Johnston and Goettsch (2000); Shulman (1987). 6 Adapted from Bardovi-​Harlig (1992, 2020); Ishihara (2011); Kasper (1997); Meier (2003); Yates and Wigglesworth (2005). 7  Barron (2019).

2

22  Teachers’ Professional Development relate to, how to guide their understanding of the cultural meaning underlying a pragmatic phenomenon, how to elicit and assess learners’ pragmatic awareness and use, and how to provide feedback, all in order to support learners in making their own pragmatic choices through newly-​acquired pragmatic competence and (meta)pragmatic awareness. Let me illustrate with the case of pragmatic development during study abroad. Although pragmatic learning may not be automatic, extensive exposure to the language and to community practices during study abroad can work to learners’ advantage when combined with explicit pragmatic instruction.To prepare learners, activities can be designed in a way that allows them to practice acting like researchers or ethnographers (see Chapter 6) observing, participating, and reflecting (with feedback) on various pragmatic language use and sociocultural practices.8 Internships, volunteer activities, and service learning can effectively engage learners in community practices. Teachers may also consider facilitating systematic self-​reflection or structured conversations with host community members through journals, case studies of critical incidents, and blogs, while making the best of telecollaborative opportunities (see Chapters 7 and 11).9 In addition, effective and culturally-​sensitive teachers of pragmatics would be aware of such things as c) the characteristics of the learners, including their multicultural identities and attitudes, proficiency, pragmatic features cognitively easy and difficult to learn given their knowledge of an L1 (and sometimes an L3), the scope and educational objectives of the curriculum, and the affordances and limits of the institutional contexts in which they are teaching pragmatics (e.g., the flexibility of the curriculum and the time allowed for pragmatics instruction). To continue with the examples of pragmatic variation and study abroad above, learners may hold certain preconceived notions of some language varieties and may react positively or negatively toward adopting pragmatic variation associated with them.10 Incorporation of pragmatic variation into instruction may thus foster appreciation of linguacultural diversity. Learners’ use of local norms may help their socialization into the host community, although it may be penalized in formal examinations.11 Moreover, host community members may not necessarily welcome learners’ total accommodation to local norms (“going native”), feeling that the local sense of linguistic ownership is violated by learners they position as outsiders.12 Yet, expert multilingual speakers in the host community may switch between, mix, or integrate pragmatic norms of their languages in a creative manner (see Chapter 6), who can potentially serve as learners’ models. Teachers may

8  Shively (2010). 9  Fernández (2018); Kinginger (2011); Shively (2010). 10  Davis (2007). 11  Barron (2019). 12  Kasper (2010).

23

Teachers’ Professional Development  23 consider these complex metapragmatic issues to design effective instruction tailored to the needs of their learners. Professional Development Courses and Workshops in Instructional Pragmatics Let us now turn to emerging efforts to incorporate instructional pragmatics into teacher development opportunities. In recent years, instructional pragmatics has sometimes become part of required teacher development,13 though it remains optional in many other cases. Several teacher educators have taught instructional pragmatics in their professional development and researched teacher learners’ reactions and feedback.14 In these courses, workshops, and individual consultations, teachers’ (meta)pragmatic awareness was enhanced not only through lectures, examples, and anecdotes but also by having teacher learners engage in ethnographic data collection and analysis.15 Most of these professional development curricula included teacher learners’ discussion of instructional approaches and techniques, lesson planning, and materials development. In a few cases, teachers were invited to use newly developed materials to teach pragmatics in their classrooms.16 The surveys, interviews, documents, and recordings of classroom discourse used in these studies documented ways in which teacher learners were able to enhance their subject matter knowledge, as discussed above. Moreover, teacher learners in all these studies reported viewing pragmatics as an important component of language learning that should be dealt with in L2 curricula.Various instructional approaches and techniques the teachers identified or reported using were indicative of their pedagogical content knowledge. These approaches have included: role-​plays, class discussion, jazz chants, student research, and awareness-​raising language analysis in the spirit of learners-​as-​researchers (see Chapter 6).17 Despite these positive findings, teachers have often found it difficult to teach pragmatics due to time constraints, a mandatory curriculum, a perceived curricular misfit of pragmatics, limited theoretical and instructional support, and a dearth of authentic input and pedagogy in instructional materials (Chapter 8) as well as learners’ subjective beliefs and attitudes.18 In 13  For example, Eslami (2011); Ishihara (2011);Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011). 14  Denny and Basturkmen (2011); Eslami (2011); Ishihara (2011, 2021b); Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011); Vellenga (2011); Yates and Wigglesworth (2005). Since this discussion is focused on the studies investigating the effects of instructional pragmatics, other interventional studies were excluded in which instruction was designed to enhance teachers’ (mega)pragmatic competence alone without extensive coverage of pragmatic instruction (e.g., Chavez de Castro 2005; Eslami and Eslami-​Rasekh 2008; Murray 2011; Ohno 2012). 15  Denny and Basturkmen (2011);Yates and Wigglesworth (2005). 16  Denny and Basturkmen (2011); Eslami (2011); Vellenga (2011); Yates and Wigglesworth (2005). 17 Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011). 18  Bardovi-​Harlig (2020);Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011);Vellenga (2011).

24

24  Teachers’ Professional Development order to mitigate curricular constraints, it may be necessary for teachers to “sprinkle” pragmatics throughout a variety of existing curricular materials, thus allowing pragmatics to work within current curricular frameworks.19 Moreover, a small number of teachers also indicated some degree of reluctance to deal with pragmatics due to perceived difficulty in changing their teaching styles or approaches.20 Similarly, there was a belief expressed by a student that she could learn pragmatics on her own within the L2 culture rather than in the classroom.21 Informed researchers and teachers aware of L2 pragmatics research can contest this idea through metapragmatic discussion with the learners. Consequently, students may benefit from knowledge of how they can learn pragmatics effectively in explicit instruction and why (see Chapter 6). It is also notable that teachers and learners, especially those situated outside of the second-​language setting, may perceive the classroom environment as too contrived for pragmatics instruction if they share L1-​based pragmatic norms and see the pragmatic norms of the L2 as irrelevant to their lives.22 This may be especially true if idealized native-​speaker norms alone are presented as the only target. In such a case, teachers may consider offering multiple pragmatic models while respecting learners’ subjectivities. For example, international students communicating through English in lingua franca contexts are known to employ a number of communication strategies effectively in academic discourse. In order to accomplish common goals, these speakers focus primarily on mutual understanding and rapport building. Unlike L1 speakers in interaction, they often foresee communication difficulty and deploy a number of communication strategies to preempt it.23 These strategies are relevant to the practical needs of learners in global contexts. Learners can be guided successfully to interpret signals of non-​ understanding (such as long pauses, prolonged sequences or silence, lack of uptake, or minimal feedback) and to adopt strategies that enhance explicitness in meaning as well as make accommodation to the needs of their interactants24 (see also Chapter 9). In sum, let me underscore the point once again that is made repeatedly in the above-​mentioned studies. Just as language learners can benefit from pragmatics instruction, professional development in instructional pragmatics can support teachers in refining their pragmatic competence as well as in developing their metapragmatic awareness and instructional strategies. However, knowing the pragmatics of the L2 (subject matter knowledge) alone is unlikely to guarantee the ability to teach it (pedagogical content

19 Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011). 20 Vellenga (2011). 21 Vásquez and Fioramonte (2011); also in Takamiya and Ishihara (2013). 22  Chavez de Castro (2005). See also Tajeddin, Alemi, and Pashmforoosh (2018) for Iranian teachers’ perceptions of idealized native-​speaker norms. 23  Cogo and Dewey (2012); Nguyen (2020);Vettorel (2019). 24  Cogo and Pitzl (2016); Ishihara and Prado (in press).

25

Teachers’ Professional Development  25 knowledge). Several current teacher development programs in L2 pragmatics involve teachers in hands-​on pedagogical activities such as: materials design, development of a lesson plan and assessment, teaching demonstrations, peer teaching, action research, and reflective practices.25 Such practically-​oriented preparation beyond mere awareness-​raising is valuable if our true intention is to promote systematic teaching of L2 pragmatics. Moreover, it will be crucial to integrate L2 pragmatics into a wider context of language teacher education. For example, methodology textbooks should include L2 pragmatics as an important component in language teacher education,26 and pragmatics-​focused instruction can be implemented as part of the language teaching practicum. Pragmatics can also be viewed as content comprising continuing professional development, in which a long-​term and collaborative approach is taken to materials development, instructional design, and assessment.27 Such mediational means embedded in collaborative teacher dialogues would lead teachers to internalize their learning and eventually enact agency in their pedagogy,28 which takes us back to a focus on individual teachers below.

Teachers’ Reflections In this section, we shift gear back to teachers and discuss the relationship between teacher knowledge, beliefs, and practice. As background to the teacher-​centered activities proposed at the end of the chapter, we will discuss the areas in which these beliefs and knowledge are generated, potential sources of these knowledge and beliefs, and their relation to what teachers do in the classroom. Teacher Beliefs and Knowledge29 Teachers usually have certain ideas about what they know or believe to be true about learning and teaching in general. Teacher beliefs and knowledge may encompass their (sometimes implicit) theory of, for example, learning in general, the subject matter, the nature of knowledge, the process of learning, learners and their characteristics, (language) teaching, self and learners’ identities and experiences, the teacher’s role, the curriculum, and teaching contexts.30 Teacher beliefs may be below the level of consciousness, but revisiting these issues can stimulate readers’ reflection and help 25  Based on a preliminary study analyzing 13 syllabi in L2 pragmatics taught in the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Egypt (Vellenga and Ishihara 2016). 26  Cohen, 2018; Eslami and Eslami-​Rasekh, 2008. 27  Denny and Basturkmen (2011),Vellenga (2011);Yates and Wigglesworth (2005). 28  Johnson (2009). 29 Teacher beliefs and knowledge are inextricably intertwined; it is sometimes seen as rather unproductive to attempt to draw a clear line between these concepts (Borg 2006; Meijer, Verloop, and Beijaard 1999). 30  Calderhead (1996); Pajares (1992).

26

26  Teachers’ Professional Development make their tacit knowledge more explicit and thus more readily accessible in decision-​making. Research has found that the teacher beliefs that were formed early tend to self-​perpetuate and may be difficult to change and that teacher beliefs tend to be largely influenced by experience from their own learning, professional training, and previous teaching experiences.31 Teacher beliefs are also likely to affect teachers’ perceptions, thinking processes, and decision-​making in the classroom. In the next section, we briefly review the potential link between teacher beliefs and practice. Teacher Beliefs and Practice In many cases teachers draw on their knowledge base in ways that influence or determine their instructional, evaluative, and curricular decisions. For example, how teachers view the nature of language or that of learning may translate into how they believe language can best be learned. If a teacher believes that there is a “correct” prescriptive way to use language that everyone should follow, she may rely only on a standard variety (and teach an expression, for instance, Do you want to come with me? in teaching how to issue an invitation) and focus on accurate production of it by her students rather than exposing them to local pragmatic variation (such as a U.S. Midwestern vernacular, Do you wanna come with?) even when teaching in that region.32 What another teacher believes about how children and adults learn through corrective feedback can also affect the choice of his instructional strategies for young learners and college students (e.g., using smiley face icons or narrative comments for constructive feedback). Still another teacher may believe in the use of naturally occurring conversation and multimodality for pragmatic learning. In an attempt to brush up on her advanced learners’ powers of observation, she may decide to expose them to video-​recorded natural conversations in order to get them to transcribe and analyze verbal and non-​verbal features that are key in the interactions. On the other hand, if other language teachers believe that students learn language through repetition and memorization, they may select simple drills of a request phrase, “Can you …?” as their preferred activity for lower-​level learners to learn to make a request. Teacher beliefs reflect their personal, cultural, educational, and sociopolitical values and identities and are known to influence and be influenced by a range of experiences inside and outside of the classroom. Teachers’ investigation of the sources of their own beliefs is likely to promote critical reflection of their experiences, which can trigger a deeper understanding of their teaching. For instance, in the above case of teaching the pragmatics of requests through rote memorization, what is the basis of this particular belief? Is it based on the instruction in some language textbook the teachers have been exposed to, or is it perhaps traceable to their past language learning 31  Pajares (1992). 32 See Fernández (2018) for the learning and teaching of vernacular during study abroad.

27

Teachers’ Professional Development  27 experience in the classroom? If another teacher believes that a feature film is a rich source of pragmatics instruction, is it because she has read a paper written by a pragmatics expert about its positive effects? Or is it because she learned a great deal of L2 pragmatics from watching films herself? Or if teacher learners read about the benefits of computer-​assisted language learning in their teacher preparation course, does it tend to influence their method of teaching pragmatics (see Chapter 11)? Teacher beliefs and practices are not necessarily consistent with each other because they are most likely affected in complex ways by a combination of (but not limited to) the following:33

• Experiences as a (language) learner in the classroom • Experiences outside the classroom (e.g., as a multilingual speaker • • • •

belonging to various cultural communities) Established instructional practices, curriculum, and language policies in the educational community Theories, approaches, methods, or techniques informed through teacher preparation and other professional development opportunities Personality traits (e.g., being extroverted or introverted) Classroom teaching experiences

In other words, teaching practices are typically influenced by teacher cognition in an intricate manner; moreover, this relationship may not be a linear cause and effect. Even if teachers believe in one way of doing things, it does not simply follow that they act accordingly across the board precisely because various other factors (such as those noted above) may intervene. Classroom practice and teachers’ knowledge construction are also constrained by the social structure (e.g., time available, number of students, local educational policies). While classroom practice may often be guided by teacher agency, teachers have various instructional or structural constraints beyond their control, and a mismatch between a stated belief and actual practice has sometimes been found in studies investigating this link.34 Because teachers’ knowledge and beliefs are linked to multiple layers of experiences in complex ways, readers are encouraged to better understand their own beliefs and practices by asking why they decide to teach what they teach and why they teach it the way that they do. Teachers may also wish to reflect on affordances and constraints of their agency and structure surrounding them. For example, teachers can engage in recurrent collaborative reflections on their own linguistic, cultural, or social identities and experiences to consider how these can be best exploited in their pedagogy supporting learners’ multilingual agency. In order to make sense of their beliefs and practices, the above-​mentioned potential sources of teacher 33  Borg (2006); Calderhead (1996); Pajares (1992); Shulman and Shulman (2004). 34 See for example, Kayi-​Aydar (2015) and the special issue on teacher agency in System 79(4), 2018.

28

28  Teachers’ Professional Development beliefs and practices may be useful in prompting thoughts about various factors associated with teaching and learning. For example, imagine that we have a teacher who knows that speakers vary in the way that they greet people in different languages or even within the same culture depending on who the conversational partner is and what the occasions are. Let us say, however, that she teaches her beginning-​level students only the one formal greeting routine that appears in the textbook. Here, we see a gap between her knowledge and practice. Does she teach that way because it is an established practice in the institution or in the textbook? Is it because when she learned another language, she was taught only one example of greeting routines herself? Is it because she believes that mastering one routine is a sufficient start for beginning learners? Was it because she did not have much time to spend on the first chapter and did not wish to overload her learners with too many forms? Why does she teach the way she does? It is important to ask this question because if she does not teach according to what she believes in and is uncomfortable with this inconsistency, she may consider changing her practices. If readers of this book are already knowledgeable about instructional pragmatics and see the value of enhancing learners’ L2 pragmatic competence, then it is recommended that they attempt to align their practice as much as possible with their knowledge and beliefs (“teaching by principles”35), or if there are inconsistencies, try to identify the reasons. If their exposure to instructional pragmatics has been somewhat limited until now, then reading and working through this book may help them become more familiar with current thinking in this field. If they feel that pragmatics is important to teach in the L2 classroom, this opportunity in turn could contribute to the further development of their beliefs and to classroom practices that are consistent with these beliefs. Let us now go back to the case of the teacher mentioned above. If her way of teaching greetings is based on mere habit, then identifying the discrepancy between her knowledge, beliefs, and practice may offer an opportunity for this teacher to rethink and perhaps introduce the notion of pragmatic variation into classroom practice. This could be done, for example, by exposing learners to just another, more informal greeting routine and incorporating minimal pragmatic analysis, possibly in the learner’s L1, thereby introducing the notion of meaning in context (see Chapter 8 for a concrete example). But if her decision to limit instruction to one standard greeting was based on a lack of instructional time, it helps to have that explicit realization as she may be more likely to incorporate variation when more instructional time is available. If this teacher were to participate in a professional development workshop on instructional pragmatics and came to believe that pragmatics can be incorporated in a manner that beginners can benefit from it, she might change her future curriculum to allow more time for pragmatics. Of

35  Brown (2007).

29

Teachers’ Professional Development  29 course, if the teacher thought that while teaching pragmatic variation might be important, beginning learners benefit most from attaining accuracy in one greeting routine, her beliefs would in fact be consistent with her classroom practice, and there would not be a need for action. While knowledge and beliefs that teachers have may escape conscious analysis and can shift with time and experience, focused critical reflection can help make knowledge and beliefs accessible to the teachers themselves. This explicit knowledge and metapragmatic awareness can be beneficial, allowing a connection between what teachers know and believe and what they do in the classroom. When there is this connection, teachers are more likely to make conscious and informed decisions in their instructional contexts. On various occasions during the instruction, teachers also send consistent messages to their students about how language can be learned effectively.

Discussion Teacher knowledge and beliefs are recognized as a dynamic system that is subject to change in relation to, for instance, teachers’ professional development and experience. Because various events at multiple levels happen simultaneously in the classroom, much of teachers’ knowledge of their own instruction may remain below the level of consciousness. Their beliefs may be an outgrowth of this implicit knowledge or may be traceable to experiences they had in their own learning or teaching decades ago. Because teachers’ experience may have occurred unconsciously or subconsciously or may be buried deep in the past, their knowledge and beliefs may not be easily articulated. For this reason, the present chapter has encouraged readers to take a close look at their current knowledge and beliefs about L2 pragmatics, monitor how they may develop while reading this book, and examine how the knowledge and beliefs relate to their classroom practice by engaging in reflections (see Activity 2.1). An explicit awareness of teachers’ own identities, experiences, beliefs, values, and practices makes what is tacit in their knowledge base more accessible to them and facilitates its appropriation through analysis, modification, or refinement. Teachers may wish to routinely engage in reflective practice for further reasoning about their own teaching.Teachers’ reasoning refers to the complex ways in which they understand, explain, and respond to their experience in and outside of the classroom.36 Because learning through reflection can be mediated by interacting with colleagues or other resources, teachers are encouraged to use written reflections and collaborative dialogues as much as possible. While working with this book, readers can independently and collaboratively revisit the prompts in Activity 2.1 to think through their own multilingual experience learning and using language and discuss how they interpret available instructional resources and how they adapt or refine these resources to support the learning of L2 pragmatics. 36  Johnson (2009).

30

30  Teachers’ Professional Development In the area of language teacher education, teachers’ reflective practice has been promoted through various means such as reflective journal writing, narrative inquiry,37 action research,38 and exploratory practice.39 These reflective tools can empower teachers when knowledge of their own identities, beliefs, values, and practices becomes more accessible to them. With this explicit knowledge, teachers can be more powerful agents who teach by principles and can change their courses when they deem necessary. Along these lines, Activity 2.2 will provide an opportunity for readers to engage in exploratory practice for their selected inquiries more extensively. Teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practice can shift dynamically throughout their career as their understanding of language learning and teaching develops. Teachers can explore these developments and contemplate how their knowledge and beliefs relate to the principles that govern their classroom practice, especially in the area of L2 pragmatics.

ACTIVITY 2.1  Reflecting on Knowledge and Beliefs about the Learning and Teaching of L2 Pragmatics Objectives 1 You will have an enhanced awareness of how your beliefs relate to your experiences in learning and teaching L2 pragmatics. 2 You will be able to identify specific issues in instructional pragmatics that are important to you and critically reflect on your own beliefs and potential sources of such beliefs. Suggested time: 30 minutes (or more as needed) Materials •

Task Sheet: “Reflection” (below)

Directions 1 Use prompts meant to stimulate reflection as listed in Part I of the Task entitled “Reflection.” Work individually to choose one or more of the prompts and write down your ideas. 2 Break into small groups of approximately three according to the choice of the prompts. Share your beliefs and experiences related

37  Johnson and Golombek (2002, 2011). 38 In action research, teachers engage in reflective practice and implement an action for change for enhanced instruction and professional development (Burns 2010;Wallace 1998). 39  Exploratory practice is action for understanding, which primarily aims at gaining a better understanding of the classroom practice in the teacher’s local context (Allwright 2003; Allwright and Hanks 2009; for more information, see Activity 2.2).

31

Teachers’ Professional Development  31 to the teaching and learning of pragmatics, and then with the whole class. • While other teachers share their views in this activity, try to stay as open-​minded as possible to different ideas and beliefs that they might disclose. Facilitate others’ ideas and growth in a nurturing manner rather than being overly critical. 3 Use the Part II prompts and repeat Steps 1–​2 above. Alternatively, use these prompts as you read through the chapters. Gain an awareness of your implicit beliefs or critically reflect on what you now believe. There is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions, but you can use them as a guide to stimulate your thoughts as you read the upcoming chapters, which are designed to help you shape, modify, or refine your knowledge and beliefs about instructional pragmatics. Wrap-​up Explicit knowledge and the monitoring of developments in teacher beliefs can assist principled teaching, allowing us to make informed decisions and to communicate consistent messages to learners about the effective learning of pragmatics. As you look back at the chapters in this book, you can reflect on your thoughts and see if any of your beliefs have undergone scrutiny, have become explicit, have been reinforced or refined, or have been challenged and changed. What are some implications this may have for classroom practice? For example, could new insights (such as awareness of the ways you best learned pragmatics) lead to any change in your teaching? Or if you already teach pragmatics, this focused reflection and articulation of your beliefs may enable you to better justify the way you teach it and gain an enhanced awareness of the sources of your beliefs and actual practice. Task Sheet: Reflection Part I  Exploring Experiences Related to the Learning and Teaching of Pragmatics 1 Describe your interest in the learning or teaching of pragmatics. What brought you to this book? 2 Describe your experience learning L1, L2, or L3 pragmatics.What aspects of pragmatics do you remember learning? How did you learn them? How do you switch between, mix, or integrate L1, L2, and L3 pragmatic norms? Does your own intercultural experience affect the way you teach pragmatics? If so, how? 3 What surprised you in the learning of L2 pragmatics? Any joys or plights involved in learning pragmatics that way? Can you think

32

32  Teachers’ Professional Development of a cultural blunder you experienced? How might this possibly traumatic experience have affected the way you teach pragmatics? 4 Describe your experience teaching pragmatics even if you may not have called it pragmatics at that point. How does pragmatics come up in your teaching? How do your students usually react? Why do you teach pragmatics that way? Part II  Exploring Beliefs About Specific Issues in Instructional Pragmatics 1 How important is it to teach pragmatic language use for you? Why? 2 What pragmatic features are important for you to teach? Do they vary for different groups of learners you teach? If so, how? 3 What learner factors are important for you to consider in designing pragmatics instruction (e.g., age, proficiency, goal, identities, motivation)? 4 What is the value of learners’ and teachers’ knowledge of their L1 (and L3) in the learning of L2 pragmatics? What are some limitations? 5 What would be good sources of pragmatic input for your learners (e.g., textbook dialogues, films, TV dramas, Facebook posts, recorded natural conversations, corpus entries)? What are their strengths and weaknesses? 6 How is the learning or teaching of pragmatics and discourse similar to or different from the learning or teaching of grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary? 7 What instructional approaches, principles, or activities appeal to you and your students? Why? 8 Whose pragmatic norms are available to teach? How should teachers choose? 9 What might culturally-​ sensitive pragmatics instruction and assessment look like in your classroom? 10 What teacher traits and qualifications are important in the teaching of pragmatics? Why? How do teachers’ identities affect their pedagogy?

ACTIVITY 2.2  Engaging in Exploratory Practice for Teaching L2 Pragmatics Objectives 1 You will be able to identify an issue to be investigated in your teaching of L2 pragmatics. 2 You will be able to independently and collaboratively engage in your selected inquiry extensively by collecting classroom-​based data and critically reflecting on them.

3

Teachers’ Professional Development  33 3 You will be able to gain greater understanding of the selected issue, possibly identify areas for modification, and then take action to introduce a change in your teaching if necessary. Suggested time: Initially 30 minutes (or more as needed) Materials • •

Information: “Example of exploratory practice” Record-​keeping device of your choice

Directions Exploratory practice is a sustainable “action for understanding” intended to help teachers to gain a better understanding of some aspect of their instructional behavior without placing a heavy burden on busy teachers’ shoulders.a It deals with a real issue (a puzzle, rather than a problem) in the teacher’s local context. Although improvements to instruction through change may result from the newly gained understanding, action for change is neither required nor promoted. After your initial reflection on your beliefs and practice in Activity 2.1 above, try the procedureb below. 1 First, observe and contemplate your current teaching independently or collaboratively with a colleague. Identify an area of inquiry you wish to further explore based on this reflection. 2 Design a manageable study you can conduct in your classroom, involving collection and analysis of some data. Depending on the nature of your inquiry, your data may be drawn from just one portion of a lesson, or they may be collected from a series of sessions over time. That will depend on what you choose to explore and how much time you have available. You may wish to collaborate with your colleague in this process and also to involve your students if appropriate. An example of exploratory practice can be found in the Information section. 3 If your newly gained understanding of your classroom practice warrants any change in practice, make an action plan for change, and implement it in your classroom. Observe any positive or negative consequences the change may bring about in your classroom (e.g., impact on student learning, attitude, or motivation). 4 Reflect on this new knowledge about your teaching or on the change brought to your practice. Then revisit your initial beliefs and practice in light of this deepened understanding.

34

34  Teachers’ Professional Development 5 Discuss your inquiry and findings with your colleagues. If possible, present at a conference or write about your exploratory practice for wider dissemination. 6 You are invited to repeat this recursive cycle of processes 1–​5 as a means of professional development. Wrap-​up Because the information about exploratory practice provided below is rather brief, interested teachers are invited to read more about exploratory practice and action researchc and see actual examples in the literature. Exploratory practice is a reflective tool with which teachers can gain a more explicit and often more sophisticated understanding of their beliefs and practice. Teachers’ knowledge and expertise are likely to expand as they engage in the recursive cycle of reflection promoted through exploratory practice. Information: Example of Exploratory Practiced 1 A teacher’s initial reflection. How can my students best learn pragmatics? Should I teach them pragmatic norms directly (deductively) or lead them to self-​discover them (inductively) (see Chapter 6)? Selected inquiry: Which approach to L2 pragmatics do my students prefer for learning about how to make requests? 2 Study designed and implemented by the instructor. Find two comparable segments in the teaching of requests; one to be taught deductively, the other to be taught inductively. Teach these two sections with the different approaches and conduct an informal learner interview in order to discover their preferences. Possible teacher’s findings: it was more time-​consuming to teach inductively, but most learners found it more enjoyable and memorable. 3 Action plan for the teacher. Try incorporating inductive learning into the teaching of pragmatics to the extent you deem appropriate. Observe students’ reactions and reflect on their motivation and development. 4 Reflections on the findings from this classroom-​ based exploratory study. Reflect on the newly gained knowledge that for this particular group of learners, an inductive approach may be more viable in teaching requests. Proceed with inductive teaching and continue to observe the learning outcomes as well as learner reactions. 5 Demonstration of newly gained knowledge. Make a presentation about this learning in a professional development course or conference. Receive feedback and reflect further.

35

Teachers’ Professional Development  35 6 Further professional development. Identify another area for inquiry in the future exploration of ways to improve classroom practice.   Allwright (2003); Allwright and Hanks (2009).   Allwright (2003). c  Examples of action research in L2 pragmatics include Couper, Denny, and Watkins (2016) and Sachtleben and Denny (2012). Other examples of action research in general can be found in the Practitioner Research section in the journal Language Teaching Research. d   Adapted from exploratory practice conducted by an anonymous teacher learner. a

b

36

3  Collecting Data Reflecting the Pragmatic Use of Language*

Introduction In teaching L2 pragmatics in either spoken or written discourse, teachers need language data (e.g., dialogues or samples of writing) to be used as learners’ input. How can we obtain authentic data that are reasonably natural and appropriate for classroom purposes? In this chapter, we will consider several means of obtaining or identifying data samples reflecting pragmatic use of language, or language use from pragmatically competent speakers to be used as models. We will also discuss who could best provide such language data and how we might balance language authenticity and pedagogy. In Activity 3.1, we will examine samples of data obtained by various means, and finally discuss some pros and cons of different types of language data. The language models to be shared with learners in pragmatics-​focused instruction can be obtained through means such as the following:

• Intuition and introspection • Language elicitation, such as discourse completion tasks (DCTs) and role-​plays • Recording natural interactions, either oral or written, for example through field observation or identifying natural(istic) samples in language corpora or online materials • Identifying natural(istic) language in films, dramas, and other media

We will now look briefly at each of these data sources along with some examples of data collection instruments.

Intuition and Introspection If we create a dialogue based on what we think people tend to say or how they speak, the data will be an example of the use of intuition and introspection. In fact, many L2 textbooks are written based on the curriculum writers’ intuitions. In Chapter 8, we will have a chance to take a closer look at language use in currently available textbooks as compared to naturally occurring * Andrew D. Cohen has contributed as a co-author to this chapter with permission.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-3

37

Collecting Pragmatics Data  37 conversations. For now, let us more broadly discuss the use of intuition in L2 pragmatics instruction. Here is an example of how introspective data drawn from the teacher’s intuitions may be used: Imagine that a student of yours comes to you and asks how to compliment someone in the language you teach. You think of what you would say and respond to this student. We often find textbook language unnatural, stilted, and contrived. Given that many textbooks are written based on the writer’s intuitions, introspection is rarely an effective means for producing pragmatic language data.What we believe we say is not necessarily consistent with what we actually say. Even native or fluent speakers’ intuitions about their own pragmatic use of language is not always accurate because much of that language use is unconscious and automatic.1 In fact, the use of intuition has been characterized by sociolinguists as “notoriously unreliable;” even though we think we are aware of societal norms, we are “under the mistaken impression that these norms represent the actual speech patterns of the community.”2 Pragmatic language use is highly complex, with a number of contextual factors influencing actual language use. For example, most speakers would likely have difficulty providing a thorough description of how they express (im)politeness through intonation, tone, pauses, hedges, word choice, grammar, discourse structures, and non-​verbal language. A full picture of how pragmatics works cannot be obtained through introspection of our own language behavior. For this reason, we should strongly refrain from sole reliance on intuitions, even if we are pragmatically competent speakers of the language we teach. Simply being a competent speaker does not qualify someone to be an effective teacher of pragmatics. Rather, it is pragmatic awareness, knowledge about pragmatics (meta-​pragmatic awareness), intercultural experience and sensitivity, and a repertoire of teaching and assessment strategies in this area that qualify us as effective teachers of pragmatics (Chapter 2). Research literature is a fruitful source of information for learning about pragmatics-​focused aspects of language across various (inter)cultural contexts. Given that research articles are not always accessible to practicing teachers, the following online resource may be useful.The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA)3 at the University of Minnesota has compiled descriptions of speech acts on its website.4 This site carries

1  Judd (1999); Kasper (1997). 2  Manes and Wolfson (1981: 16). 3  www.carla.umn.edu/​index.html, accessed on October 16, 2020. 4  www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​descriptions.html, accessed on October 16, 2020.

38

38  Collecting Pragmatics Data research-​based information on how eight speech acts are performed in multiple languages, which we will take a closer look in Chapter 4. In addition, teachers and students alike can collect pragmatics data in their own communities through procedures such as those described below (see Activity 1.1, Chapter 1 for a possible way to facilitate this process).

Language Elicitation: Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) and Role-​plays One way to collect samples of pragmatic language is to elicit language use from pragmatically competent or expert language users. They can be introduced to a scenario describing a situation possibly with various other forms of audio-​visual support to facilitate this process, and then asked to write down or role-​play what they would say in that situation. Examples of DCT Scenario:You are enrolled in a large class at a major university in the U.S. A week before one of your course papers is due, you notice that you have three more major papers due the same week. You realize that it is not possible to finish them all by their respective due dates and decide to go to one of the instructors, Professor Johnson, to ask for an extension on the paper for her course. She is a professor in her 50s teaching a large lecture course, and this is your first time talking to her in private. You approach her after the class session is over and say:

Figure 3.1 Asking for an extension.

Single-​turn DCT You:

39

Collecting Pragmatics Data  39 Multiple-​turn DCT You: Prof. Johnson: But the deadline was made clear in the syllabus. You: Prof. Johnson: Well, OK, but only two extra days. You: While the single-​turn DCT may elicit a shorter response with minimal language, the multiple-​turn DCT most likely prompts speakers to engage in more extended dialogue.5 Speakers are also required to attend to what their imaginary conversational partner is to say in the DCT and make their response fit the context. A DCT is often written but can be conducted orally (an “oral DCT”). Free DCT is an alternative format where a speaker or writer provides both turns. The description of the scenario can be enhanced with detailed information about the context or with audio-​visual aids (e.g., picture-​or cartoon-​enhanced DCT6 such as Figure 3.1, and video-​enhanced multimedia DCT).7 Example of Role-​play

Role A: Employee You have a part-​time job at a local convenience store. One day, your boss and the store owner, who is about 20 years older than you, invites all employees to a staff appreciation party.You know it would be fun to go, especially since everyone else will be there.The problem is that you have dinner planned and theater tickets that evening with an old friend just in town for the day. So while there is a sense of obligation to your boss, you are going to need to skip the party.You feel you need to tell your boss. Role B: Boss You are a store owner of a local convenience store. One day, you send out an invitation to all your employees about a staff appreciation party

5  Cohen and Shively (2003). 6  Rose (2000). 7  Bardovi-​Harlig and Dörnyei (1998); Schauer (2009). Another creative use of DCT in the classroom is the student-​generated DCT (McLean, 2005), in which learners instead of teachers develop DCT scenarios based on their needs and past experiences of communication difficulty. Audio-​visually enhanced procedures open up the possibility of eliciting pragmatic language use from young learners (e.g., though the use of cartoons, puppets, and student-​generated visual DCT; see Chapter 12).

40

40  Collecting Pragmatics Data requesting RSVP. While you are in the process of spreading the word, one of your part-​time employees, about 20 years younger than you, comes up to you to ask you about something else. Since s/​he has not responded to your invitation yet, you decide to ask him/​her personally. Since you value this employee’s work highly, you especially want him/​ her to attend so you can express your appreciation: Boss: Employee: Boss: Employee: (Role-​play continues to its logical conclusion, however many conversational turns it takes.) When we speak or write, we adjust our language use according to the situation, for example, whom we are speaking to and what we are discussing. Language use is influenced by a number of contextual factors.The following three are known to be major elements (see also Chapter 1): a. Power (P). Relative social status of the speaker/​writer and the listener/​ reader. b. Distance (D). Relative social distance and psychological distance (how distant or close the speaker/​writer and listener/​reader feel to each other). c. Intensity (I). Intensity of the act (e.g., the magnitude of the imposition in a request, the severity of the infraction in an apology, or stakes involved in the situation in general).8 A primary advantage of a language elicitation procedure is that we can manipulate these contextual factors across items and analyze how they affect language use–​–​for instance, in terms of the level of (in)directness, (im)politeness, and (in) formality.To give a more specific example, let us compare a small request from a student to a new teacher with the same request by the student when directed at a close friend.This task allows us to focus on the impact that two contextual factors–​–​Power (P) and Distance (D)–​–​have on language use. In Figure 3.2, below, if the Xs are marked more to the left, the language is expected to be less polite, less formal, and more direct; when they are more to the right, the language is anticipated to be more polite, formal, and indirect. The language of requesting also varies depending on the magnitude of the imposition involved in the request (e.g., borrowing a close friend’s pen for a minute vs. asking the same friend to use his/​her car for a day). In this 8  Adapted from Brown and Levinson (1987).

41

Collecting Pragmatics Data  41

Figure 3.2 Visualization of contextual factors—​1.

Figure 3.3 Visualization of contextual factors—​2.

case, we can observe how the intensity of the act (I) (here, the magnitude of the imposition) may affect how the request is crafted (see Figure 3.3). Data elicitation, such as through DCTs and role-​play, tends to be a quick and convenient way to collect a relatively large amount of language data. We can also manipulate the contextual factors–​–​Power (P), Distance (D), and Intensity (I)–​–​conveniently to obtain comparable language data. At the same time, pragmatics researchers have pointed out repeatedly that elicited data, particularly written DCTs, do not accurately reflect the way we actually speak9 even though DCTs are presumably the most prevalent data collection tool in research on pragmatics.10 For example, the speakers providing language data may not be familiar with the situations described in the scenarios. Or even if they are, real-​life consequences (consequentiality)11 lack in such imagined contexts, and we may be testing their acting skills along with their pragmatic competence. In fact, a number of studies that researched effects of the DCT have questioned the validity of DCT-​ elicited data and have recommended 9  Kasper and Dahl (1991); Kasper and Rose (2002). 10  Leech (2014). 11  Bardovi-​Harlig and Hartford (2005).

42

42  Collecting Pragmatics Data caution in using these data.12 Data collected from DCTs may reflect the speakers’ pragmalinguistic knowledge rather than their online productive competence.13 Speakers providing pragmatic language use might consider the social desirability of what should be said and how it should be said and demonstrate what they perceive as appropriate behavior rather than what they would actually say in interactive contexts. In addition, while DCTs may be a somewhat valid source of pragmalinguistic data, they may not be reflective of the sociopragmatic aspects of the speech act.14 Furthermore, some have argued that the effects of DCTs may differ depending on the language or the culture of the speakers.15 Compared to written DCTs, open-​ ended role-​plays tend to be more interactive and spontaneous and thus likely to yield more naturalistic discourse.16 For the purpose of language teaching, we would benefit from an awareness of the potential pros and cons of elicitation instruments (see Activity 3.1). Having this knowledge would allow us to select suitable procedures from a range of data collection instruments, including recording or field observation of naturally occurring conversations, which we now turn to.

Natural Interactions, Both Oral and Written Because elicited data often lack spontaneity and may come across as contrived, it may be argued that natural speech serves as the best source of pragmatic language models for classroom use. We could start data collection simply by taking verbatim field notes of the language we use or overhear in our surroundings as part of the field observation. Although this method does not require prior permission and thus may capture natural language most ecologically in its own habitat, a trade-​off may be limited accuracy as the procedure relies on the record-​keepers’ memory and powers of observation. The audio-​or video-​recording of natural conversation and linguistic corpora yields more accurate data. A number of current studies adopt natural discourse to run fine-​grained CA (conversation analysis, see Chapter 1) to examine the organization of interactions or corpus analysis to discover patterns in usage. A downside of these approaches is that we need permission in advance if we are recording conversations involving others. This process can make the speakers self-​conscious, which can alter their behavior. We could try to normalize the presence of the recorder, hoping that the speakers talk reasonably naturally without being overly self-aware.17 Moreover, micro​ analytic data transcription requires specific training and a great deal of time

12 See, for example, Beebe and Cummings (1996); Golato (2003); Hartford and Bardovi-​ Harlig (1992). 13  Golato (2003). 14  Nelson, Carson, Al-​Batal, and El-​Bakary (2002). 15  Hinkel (1997); Rose (1994); Rose and Ono (1995). 16  Kasper and Dahl (1991);Youn (2020) (see Chapter 12). 17  A dilemma known as the “observer’s paradox” and a potential solution (Labov, 1972).

43

Collecting Pragmatics Data  43 to ensure precision, while in-​depth corpus annotation can also be highly technical. Another possibility is the use of already-​recorded and -​transcribed language corpora for studying authentic language use, which is becoming increasingly common for pragmatics-​related investigations. In contrast, analysis of written language may be more straightforward. Emails, social networking services (SNSs), and various other online services offer an immeasurable amount of authentic language readily available for analysis. Although natural language data rarely allows for the type of comparative analysis that is often possible with elicited data, the authenticity of natural data has a strong appeal in language learning and teaching. Field Observation of Natural Conversation By making use of field observation techniques, we can rigorously record natural conversations we overhear or engage in. We can take notes on what people say and their tone of voice, use of gaze, posture, space, and facial expressions. Of course, the choice of factors to observe and record depends on the purpose of the observation, the learners’ pragmatic awareness, their level of proficiency and cognitive maturity, and so forth. We may also try to record relevant contextual factors such as those appearing below to the extent that they can be known or guessed from the context:

• • • •

Physical location or situation Relative age and gender of speakers Speakers’ relative social power or status Relative distance between them

A format as in Figure 3.4 may be useful for taking field notes on natural language data. Using these field observation techniques, a research team collected over 1,200 naturally occurring compliments in the 1980s.18 The data can still serve today as a foundation of pragmatics-​focused instruction on how to give and respond to compliments in English (see Chapters 4 and 7). As field notes are typically based on the observer’s memory, this method is suitable for relatively brief exchanges and grammatically less-​complex structures such as compliments. Teachers may also decide to have learners collect their own data on how expert speakers use the L2 pragmatically. Learners may even decide what sort of data they are going to collect. For example, they might want to know how to invite someone on a date and how to accept or refuse such an invitation. Authentic language use in such situations may not be in their language textbooks and warrant collection of naturally occurring or at least reasonably naturalistic data. Although learner-​collected data 18 See Manes and Wolfson (1981).

4

44  Collecting Pragmatics Data

Figure 3.4  Format for field-​note taking (adapted from Kakiuchi, 2005b).

may not accurately reflect the details of language use, the collected samples can still serve the purpose of awareness-​raising in pragmatics instruction. Audio-​or Video-​Recordings of Natural Conversation Recorded natural conversation can be transcribed and studied through discourse or conversation analytic techniques. As introduced in Chapter 1, CA is a systematic approach to performing detailed analysis of both the linguistic, paralinguistic, and extralinguistic behavior of people engaged in social interaction. Building on an ethnomethodological foundation,19 CA has demonstrated how what may appear as ordinary interactive talk is in fact achieved through the application of methodical and complex practices on the part of the participants.20 Using transcripts of naturally occurring talk (or at least naturalistic interaction), conversation analysts have described interactions in detail for how talk is sequentially structured and managed across multiple turns.21 CA has examined, for example, how people take turns in conversation, how these turns overlap, get interrupted, and how conversational repair takes place.22 19  Garfinkel (1967). 20  Kasper (2007). 21  Firth (1996). 22  Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, and Olsher (2002).

45

Collecting Pragmatics Data  45 As we can see in natural or simulated dialogues transcribed (e.g., Chapters 3, 4, 7, 8, and 12), meaning is often negotiated in multiple turns, and a fine-​ g rained analysis of discourse (literally, line-​ by-​ line, word-​for-​word, and second-​by-​second) can reveal how complexly natural conversations are structured. Many experts use CA in the study of L2 pragmatics since pragmatic meanings emerge from participants’ efforts at interpreting each other’s interactive contributions to a conversation. By adopting a discursive approach, CA experts treat meaning as the understandings conversational participants show each other in the sequential organization of their talk. For example, through their response, speakers indicate how they understand the meaning of their conversational partners, and this in turn provides an occasion for previous speakers to confirm or repair that understanding. In this way, meaning is constructed socially and interactively.23 Now let us look at an example of a language sample audio-​and video-​ recorded and transcribed with CA conventions. In the excerpt below, [brackets] indicate overlapping speech, with the left bracket marking the point at which overlap starts. A question mark (?) represents rising intonation. ˚Degree marks˚ show where speech is softer than surrounding speech. ((Double parentheses)) mark nonlinguistic occurrences such as gesture, gaze, or laughter. Colons (:) mark the stretching of a sound or syllable. An upward arrow (↑) indicates shift in intonation into especially high pitch. Numbers within parentheses (0.6) show the length of lapsed time in seconds.24

1  Tess: [strat [egies, 2  Tak: [mhm [mhm 3  (0.6) 4  Tess: general skill [learning? 5  Tak: [˚yes˚ 6   (0.8) 7  Tess: ˚it’s true:? ˚ ((looks at Takako)) 8    (0.3) ((Takako looking at paper)) 9  Tess: don’t we? 10  Tak: mm:: 11 (0.7) 12  Tak: it depends, 13  (1.3) ((Takako looking at Tess)) 14  Tak: but do we? ((nods)) 15  (1.0) 16 Tess: ↑no I think s[o: ((looks at Takako))

23  Kasper (2006: 294). 24  Houck and Fujii (2013, p. 131)

46

46  Collecting Pragmatics Data In this academic interaction, which took place in a graduate school, Tess proposes the idea that people learning a general skill use different strategies (Lines 1 through 9). Her rising intonation (Lines 4, 7, 9), clarification request (Line 7), and tag question (Line 9) invite agreement from her interactant, Takako (Tak). Her response, which spans multiple turns, indicates disagreement. Her hesitation and delay in responding (Lines 8, 10, 11, 13), partial agreement (“it depends,” Line 12), disagreement marker (“but,” Line 14), and expression of direct questioning (“do we?” Line 14) all convey disagreement. Although Takako ends up withdrawing from disagreement in the continued interaction, this short segment presents her employment of various strategies of disagreement.25 In preparing to use an interactional sample as learner input, the teacher may decide to adjust CA transcription conventions for readability to varying degrees depending on the learners’ needs.26 Learners can be guided to notice how expert speakers of English (in this case, a Japanese graduate student speaking English) uses pauses, hesitation, and gaze to indicate disagreement indirectly. Her preface for disagreement, partial agreement, and more direct expression also help her negotiate disagreement across multiple turns. Language Corpora An alternative to the audio-​and video-​recording of natural conversation is the use of language corpora. A language corpus is a large, purposively-​ assembled electronic collection of textual or discoursal texts in spoken or written form available for search and analysis using corpus software.27 An increasing number of spoken and written language corpora of various sizes has been compiled in numerous locations for an array of language varieties. Some, including the British National Corpus (BNC) www.natcorp.ox.ac. uk, the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) http://​ lw.lsa.umich.edu/​eli/​micase/​index.htm, and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) www.english-​corpora.org/​coca have been made available for free-​of-​charge online searches. Corpora have been valued because they reflect the way language is actually used. As one leading corpus linguist put it, “(l)anguage cannot be invented: it can only be captured” and trying to construct naturally-​sounding text results in usage that is “often embarrassing and never reliable.”28 The 25  Houck and Fujii (2013). For another example of how L2 users’ interactional competence can offer effective pedagogical models, see Mori and Matsunaga (2017) on successful topic management practices revealed through CA. 26  For example, in teaching interactional competence to learners of lower to intermediate levels, Barraja-​Rohan (2011: 488) adapted the CA transcriptions to retain only the conventions considered relevant to her instruction, such as conventions noting overlaps, intonation contour, sentence stress, softer talk, and silence. 27  Biber, Conrad, and Reppen (1998: 4); Leech (2014: 256). 28  Sinclair (1997: 31).

47

Collecting Pragmatics Data  47 argument is that while intuition can be an important asset, it is preferable to search through a database for instructional input than to think up something that sounds natural. Advantages of language corpora include automatic searching and sorting through concordances as well as the potential to promote an open-​ended discovery approach and learner-​centered learning process.29 Various studies have taken advantage of such benefits to examine various pragmatic aspects of authentic language use, including the investigation of:

• (In)directness and (im)politeness expressed through speech acts and

politeness markers • Pragmatic markers (e.g., discourse markers such as I think, you know, (epistemic) stance markers such as obviously, it seems, it is likely, and interjections such as oh, yeah, boy) • Deixis (e.g., personal pronouns) and vagueness (e.g., things like that, about) • Turn-​taking, listener feedback (e.g., mm, yeah), and fillers (e.g., uh, um)30

Along with the benefits of using corpora, experts in corpus pragmatics admit that even large corpora may not contain readily accessible examples of what is being sought due to the lack of one-​to-​one correspondence between language form and pragmatic function.31 For example, if you are working with electronic corpora for the analysis of pragmatics, you would search for words or language structures that have been tagged, such as performative verbs (compliment, apologize, disagree), discourse markers (first, but, so), or conventionally (in)direct expressions (why don’t you, why not, how about for suggestions).32 Say, you go to MICASE (see above) to find instances of sorry as used in spoken expressions of apology in academic contexts. Fortunately, after performing a search for that word, you can access the larger context in which sorry appeared and examine it further. In MICASE, we can narrow down the search by specifying speaker and transcript attributes. Let us say we set as speaker attributes: both genders, 17–​23 years old, any academic positions or roles, native and nonnative speakers of English, any first language, and for transcript attributes: study group, social sciences and education, all academic disciplines, all participant levels, and highly interactive discourse. The search yields 16 matches from two transcripts, with all of the utterances coming from native speakers of American English. The following are slightly edited versions of three of the cases where sorry was used in an expression of an apology: 29  Leech (2013). 30  For reviews of individual studies, see Aijmer and Rühlemann (2015); Clancy and O’Keeffe (2012, 2015), McEnery, Baker, Cheepen (2001); O’Keeffe, McCarthy, and Carter (2007); Romero-​Trillo (2013); Rühlemann (2010, 2019); Rühlemann and Clancy (2018). 31  Clancy and O’Keeffe (2015); Adolphs (2006); Rühlemann (2019); Rühlemann and Aijmer (2015). 32  Adolphs (2006).

48

48  Collecting Pragmatics Data • • •

I feel bad that I haven’t gotten to get my thoughts out because I’ve had so many thoughts about it but, sorry, I just, I had two really full crazy days… I just, I didn’t get into like explaining my reasoning in my movies cuz, I just didn’t, I’m sorry. I have to leave. I’m sorry.

The following are slightly edited versions of the three of the instances where the pragmalinguistic function of sorry was not as an expression of apology but rather one of sympathy or regret: • • •

I’m sorry that she’s not cut out for customer service. She doesn’t want to go. I’m sorry, you’ll have a great time together. And like I’m sorry that like every job has like its pros and cons.

A user of a corpus therefore needs to do some manual screening to be sure that the samples are actually samples of the desired pragmatic material. This is why experts caution corpus users to carefully study the meaning of the expressions within their interactional context.33 With regard to using corpora in the teaching of L2 pragmatics, it helps if the desired material is readily and comprehensively available in a given corpus. However, pragmatic meaning is often not detected and retrieved automatically, and if that is the case, we need to start by manually annotating or interpreting the chosen functional categories.34 For example, finding apologies may be difficult since, as illustrated above, words such as “sorry” may be used in a non-​apologetic context. Likewise, the speech act of apology can be realized with indirect linguistic strategies that do not involve conventionalized expressions of apology such as I’m sorry. Corpus material representing other strategies in the apology speech act (such as acknowledging responsibility, offering repair, providing an explanation, promise of non-​recurrence, and other non-​conventional expressions) therefore need to be tagged in order to have the corpus represent a wider range of apology strategies. As mentioned earlier, the frequent lack of direct correspondence between language form and pragmatic meaning makes the pragmatics-​focused application of linguistic corpora quite challenging. Although large corpora tend to miss out the level of contextual annotations necessary for pragmatics research, small corpora collected in a specific context may serve as a valuable source of information, enabling in-​depth investigation in context with 33  Sinclair (1997: 34). 34  Adolphs (2006); Clancy and O’Keeffe (2015); McEnery, Xiao, and Tono (2006).

49

Collecting Pragmatics Data  49 rich background data.35 In fact, many spoken corpora now contain detailed speaker information, including age, gender, place of origin, religion, and level of education.36 Moreover, there have been innovative developments of pragmatic annotations for speech acts, pragmatic markers, prosodic features, politeness and so on,37 including the automatic tagging of speech acts using, for example, the Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool (DART).38 A small number of multi-​modal corpora enable investigation of the interplay between verbal, non-​verbal, and prosodic features.39 Some experts in corpus pragmatics argue that the potential of corpus pragmatics depends largely on practicality in the development of (semi-​) automatic annotation.40 Others believe that as elaborate and sophisticated pragmatic tagging progresses, corpora can be an indispensable or at least a complementary research tool in the studies of pragmatics and (critical) discourse analysis in the future.41 In fact, language corpora have been used for researching not only L1 but also L2 pragmatics. For example, one study compared the use of personal pronouns referring to the authors themselves (e.g., I vs. the researcher) in corpora of undergraduate theses written by L2 writers of English in Hong Kong and of published academic research articles. Because the use of the first-​person pronoun I can index authority, subjectivity, individualism, and commitment to the ideas presented in the paper, many of the student writers avoided its use without claiming authorial identity.42 Such studies can help teachers understand complex factors behind learners’ rhetorical choices and design instruction to guide novice writers in their journey of negotiating academic identity. With an increasing number of studies based on learner corpora, further pedagogical applications of corpus pragmatics studies may soon be available. In fact, there already are a few impressive examples of corpus-​based pedagogy for L2 pragmatics, which will be introduced in Chapters 7, 8, and 9. In using corpus-​based data for language teaching, teachers and curriculum writers are advised to compare and contrast the target features across corpora, choose authentic language carefully from a corpus, contextualize the input, and support learners in understanding the nature of the interaction.43 To fully contextualize the input, learners may need information about the excerpt, such as the location and sociocultural context of the data, including who the participants are in terms of age, gender, social status, and

35  Ishihara and Prado (in press); Rühlemann and Clancy (2018);Vaughan and Clancy, 2013. 36  Rühlemann and Clancy (2018). 37  Clancy and O’Keeffe (2015); Rühlemann and Aijmer (2015). 38 Weisser (2018). 39  Rühlemann (2010). 40  Rühlemann and Aijmer (2015). 41  Clancy and O’Keeffe (2015). 42  Hyland (2002). 43  O’Keeffe, McCarthy, and Carter (2007).

50

50  Collecting Pragmatics Data role in the conversation.44 This type of background information can help learners understand the pragmatic functions of the language in context. Depending on learners’ level of proficiency, teachers may consider editing the language found in corpora before using it for instructional purposes. Naturally occurring discourse often includes numerous restarts, repetitions, ellipsis, and other features that can be challenging, particularly for beginning-​ level learners. Transcription conventions used in some language corpora can also be unfriendly, and learners are often exposed to long incomplete sentences in concordance lines.45 However, a possible disadvantage of editing corpus data is that while target features may be preserved, other features of naturally occurring conversation could be lost, which defeats the purpose of exposing learners to such data.46 Online Materials With the advent of advanced digital technology, today’s language learners are often exposed to online language, often written but sometimes spoken, such as language used in the media of emails, texting, videos (e.g., YouTube), SNSs (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter), and various other services. Each of these online media uses a specific register, or a type of language specifically shaped and re-​shaped dynamically in that community to serve particular purposes. Some researchers examined (im)politeness in social media platforms in-​depth, such as Facebook,47 online consumer reviews (e.g., book reviews in Amazon and hotel reviews in TripAdvisor),48 and online forum discussions49 (see Chapter 11 for technology-​assisted language learning). To give an example, here is a post from a restaurant owner in an online review program in response to a critical customer review that included a complaint about the level of noise in the restaurant:50 While it’s great the ice cream and flatbread pesto impressed you, I’m sorry if your experience could’ve been better. If you had any preferences with the seating, we would’ve been happy to accommodate if something else had been available. We are a Tavern but we do have an upstairs available for dining that is a little better on the ear. I hope you’ll give us another chance so you can get the kind of excellent experience we’re known for. –​[Karen]

44  Mishan (2004). 45  Clancy and O’Keeffe (2012). See also Carter and McCarthy (2004). 46  Adolphs (2006). 47 Tagg, Seargeant, and Brown (2017); Theodoropoulou (2015). 48 Vásquez (2014). 49  Kleinke and Bös (2015); Locher (2011). 50  ReviewTrackers       www.reviewtrackers.com/​ g uides/ ​ e xamples- ​ responding- ​ reviews (Accessed on October 16, 2020).

51

Collecting Pragmatics Data  51 In this response, we see a series of face-​saving strategies used carefully by the writer, which may soothe the customer’s feelings, justify the customer service received, suggest an alternative solution for a future visit, and reinforce the positive reputation of the restaurant. Depending on learners’ needs and goals, teachers may decide to take language samples such as this one from online communities for awareness-​ raising, language analysis, or production practice. Although teenagers may skillfully use various emojis (emoticons) in SNS posts on a daily basis and may not need instruction in that, business associates may benefit from the analysis of online language for practical application to their workplace needs.

Natural(istic) Language in Films, Dramas, and Other Media As we saw above, appealing as they are, recordings of natural language are often difficult to obtain and not necessarily suitable for instructional purposes depending on learners’ levels of proficiency. Given this, language in media, such as YouTube videos, podcasts, movies, dramas, situation comedies (sitcoms), interviews, and talk shows, may offer a convenient alternative.The situational context, appealing content, and the rich visual imagery combine to provide learners with multi-​sensory input that tends to be reasonably close to what we find in authentic interaction.51 Although the language in these materials is scripted and often delivered with exaggerated gestures and actions, the dialogues in these sources are not written for instructional purposes (i.e., not written to match the grammar-​focused syllabus, for example) and thus can provide a relatively authentic model for pragmatic language use in particular (sub)cultures of the L2 community. If selected carefully, video clips or full-​length films can be a suitable source of pragmatic models, especially in foreign-​language contexts where authentic learner input may be limited.52 As the teaching of pragmatics gains greater popularity, it is now possible to find innovative ideas for using media-​based materials at professional conferences and in practically oriented publications. Some of these are introduced in Table 3.1, and relevant video clips are often available on YouTube or other media. Readers are invited to add to this list of sources for the language they teach and for more areas of pragmatics. Experts generally approve of the use of feature films in L2 pragmatics instruction, albeit with caution. For example, a study using a feature film with beginning learners of German showed their enhanced awareness of the social context portrayed in the film. Using their limited linguistic resource, they were better able to adjust their language use according to the context and purpose of the exchange than their peers who did not receive explicit pragmatics instruction.53 Yet we should bear in mind that natural pragmatic uses are not always reflected in these materials. For example, 51  Martínez-​Flor (2008a). 52  Abrams (2014); Martínez-​Flor (2008a). 53  Abrams (2014).

52

52  Collecting Pragmatics Data Table 3.1 Media-​based material for teaching pragmatics Areas of pragmatics taught

Materials used

Brief description

Apologies and requests in Englisha

Annie Hall (film)

Requests in Englishb

A Few Good Men (film)

Requests in Spanishc

La flor de mi secreto [The Flower of My Secret], La ardilla roja [The Red Squirrel] (films) Tootsie (film)

Analysis of request forms and strategies; discussion on the appropriateness of forms in relation to context Analysis of the forms of polite and impolite requests; follow-​up discussion on style-​shifting Analysis of a range of requests in Spanish in relation to various social contexts

Terms of address in Englishd Self-​introduction routine in Englishe

Seinfeld (sitcom)

Requests in Englishf

Seinfeld (sitcom)

Requests in Englishg

Stargate (TV series)

Implicature in Englishh

Desperate Housewives (TV series)

a b c d e f g h

Identification of terms of address; discussion on the social and interactional meaning behind those terms Analysis of limits and boundaries of speech routines; analysis of pragmatic violations and reactions invoked Analysis of indirect requests (hints); follow-​up discussion on how requests can be made differently across cultures Identification and analysis of direct and indirect requests; dialogue-​ writing; analysis of excerpts and awareness-​raising; discourse completion tasks Identification of implied meanings through facial expressions and contexts

Rose (1999: 178–​180). Fujioka (2003: 13–​14). Mir (2001) offers a specific technique for teaching pragmatics with film in Spanish. Fujioka (2004: 17–​19). Washburn (2001: 22–​24). Rose (1997: 9–​10). Alcón (2005: 422–​423). Armstrong (2008: 4–​7). Other shows such as Friends, Big Bang Theory, and the Monty Python series have also been identified as potentially rich sources of pragmatics-​relevant material (see Locher and Jucher 2017; Quiñones-​Marshall 2016; available at: https://​cjq208.wixsite.com/​ teachingpragmatics/​articles, accessed on October 16, 2020).

53

Collecting Pragmatics Data  53 studies comparing naturally occurring compliments with those in films and TV interviews found both similarities and differences. While, for instance, the grammatical structures of compliments were similar in films and natural data, compliments in the media tended to more noticeably employ “inflated” adjectives (e.g., stunning or fabulous instead of beautiful or nice).54 This suggests that teachers should use their best judgment in selecting material to introduce to learners. Generally, it would be best to ensure that learners’ input is reasonably authentic; pragmatic behavior that is exaggerated or odd just to be entertaining is less likely to mirror authentic language use. Another strategy is to demonstrate pragmatic failure through media-​ based materials such as in sitcoms. Even though pragmatic violations may be exaggerated and may not necessarily reflect naturally occurring conversation, obvious pragmatic blunders and the reactions of studio audiences help learners identify the limits of pragmatic norms in the L2 and provide them with an opportunity to analyze the consequences of pragmatic violations.55 In addition, teachers and learners can engage in critical reflection on how media-​based materials may differ from real life, why that might be the case, and how potential disadvantages of media-​based input might be compensated for in the learning of pragmatics.

Discussion This chapter has stressed the value of using authentic or natural(istic) data in L2 pragmatics instruction as much as possible instead of relying solely on introspection or intuition. Some would argue that language elicited through measures such as DCTs and role-​plays, and scripted language drawn from the media cannot be considered authentic.Yet just because material is authentic does not make it learner-​friendly. For example, simply providing learners with a series of concordance lines may not work very well. Truly authentic material may be confusing, especially without context relevant to the given learners. The fact that pragmatics in natural data can show up in ways that are imperceptible to L2 learners56 justifies editing the natural data when such efforts are likely to make it more efficient for students to learn the material. While elicited and scripted data may at times sacrifice authenticity, many language educators would agree that language samples from role-​ plays, written or oral DCTs, or film clips can serve as indispensable instructional resources. Currently, numerous lesson plans for teaching L2 pragmatics make use of such data, partly due to the lack of natural language that is readily comparable and analyzable. Nonetheless, with an increasing amount of research on natural language through CA, corpus analysis, and (social) media-​based instruction, the teaching of L2 pragmatics is expected to be better informed.

54  Rose (2001); Tatsuki and Nishizawa (2005). 55  Mansfield (2014); Washburn (2001). 56  Belz (2007).

54

54  Collecting Pragmatics Data In the meantime, teachers should not completely rule out the use of elicited or scripted data in pedagogy; instead, we need our discretion in the use of such language samples. Who would then best provide such language data? Expert users may provide a suitable model in the second-​language context (e.g., early teens in the community serving as model speakers for middle-​school learners wishing to fit in with the peer community or expert diplomats for novice diplomats in training). For learners aiming to engage in global communication, users of different varieties of English can offer varied models (e.g., Indian, Danish, and Peruvian entrepreneurs speaking their varieties of English). If included in the curriculum, some such samples may be useful for enhancing awareness for pragmatic variation (Chapters 1 and 2). Thus we should carefully consider who to turn to as a source of such language data, given who our students are and what goals they have set for themselves. Every data collection procedure has its advantages and disadvantages. Teachers can weigh the pros and cons of different types of data in order to select the most suitable procedure(s) for their purpose. Examining various types of data in Activity 3.1 can help us determine how we might collect pragmatic language samples for a particular class. For the purpose of awareness-​raising, teachers may also consider having students collect pragmatic data themselves from expert language users or the media.

ACTIVITY 3.1  Evaluating Language Samples for Pragmatics Instruction Objectives 1 You will be able to evaluate the authenticity of different types of language data collected through different means: a) intuition and introspection, b) DCTs, c) role-​plays, d) recordings of natural conversation, e) field observation. 2 You will be able to compare pros and cons of different types of data and select suitable data collection procedures for your instructional purposes and contexts. Suggested time: 30 minutes Materials • • •

Information: “Samples of language data” Task Sheet: “Pros and cons associated with different types of data” Internet access to websites offering audio files and transcripts of sample data

5

Collecting Pragmatics Data  55 Directions 1 In a group of about four, familiarize yourself with selected samples of data in the information and discuss the authenticity (e.g., naturalness and spontaneity of the speech). 2 As a group, fill in the Task Sheet “Pros and cons associated with different types of data.” Consider the following points for each data sample. • Interactivity: Are the data interactive or limited in turn-​taking? • Consequentiality: Is there a real-​world outcome for the speakers? (i.e., natural conversation with real-​life consequences or an imagined situation?) • Comparability: Are these language samples comparable? (Are these samples useful for teaching students the influence of contextual factors on language form?)a • Convenience: How easy and convenient is it to collect data in this way? 3 Share your discussion with the whole class. Wrap-​up To conclude, discuss what type(s) of data you would use for teaching pragmatics in your instructional context and why. Considering your students’ needs and what features of your data are important to you. How would you compensate for any drawbacks associated with the type(s) of data you have chosen? Information: Samples of Language Data 1  Intuition-​and Introspection-​based Data Sampleb A: B: A: B: A: B: A: B: A: B: A: B:

What can I get for you? Hello, may I have a double cheeseburger? With everything on it? That sounds great. Did you want fries with your order? May I get a large order of curly fries? Did you want something to drink? Get me a medium Pepsi. Would you like anything else? No, thank you. That’s it. No problem. That’ll be $9.48. Thanks a lot. Keep the change.

56

56  Collecting Pragmatics Data 2  DCT Datac Sample 1 (Written Single-​turn DCT) You: Good morning, Professor Johnson, these last weeks have been very busy and I have many papers to submit. Since I like to submit well done papers, I would like to know if I can have an extension to complete the paper. It would be very nice of you and it would give me the opportunity to work well. Thank you! Sample 2 (Written Multiple-​turn DCT) You-​1: Excuse me, Professor Johnson. I’d like to talk to you about the writing assignment due next week. Is it possible to get an extension to submit the paper later than the due date? For a couple of days? Prof. Johnson: But the deadline was made clear in the syllabus. You-​2: I definitely understand your hesitation. I don’t normally ask for extensions, especially for large assignments like this one. But with four major papers due in the same week, I’m a bit worried I won’t be able to turn in a quality product for you, which is why I thought I’ve come talk to you about this situation. Prof. Johnson: Well, OK, but only two extra days. You-​3: Ah, thank you so much! I really appreciate your flexibility and will make sure to turn in a quality paper. 3  Role-​play Data Sample 1d Alex:  Hey, Keith! Are you excited about the big tennis match coming up? Keith: Ah, you know, I was wondering if there’s room in your car for me to hop in and ride with you guys? Alex: Oh, well, uh, I already got four people. I don’t know. It may be too tight. Keith: Oh, geez, well, the thing is, I talked to everybody else and nobody else seems to be able to do it, and you live, you’re closer to me. I just can’t miss this match. Alex: Oh, well, I don’t know. I, I guess it might be all right. Keith: I could, I could ride in the trunk here. Alex: Yeah, man, that’d be cool. Ah, I tell you what. Uh, give me a call, and if one of these people cancels or something, uh, we’ll try to work something out. Keith: Great, cool. Sounds good! I’ll see you then.

57

Collecting Pragmatics Data  57 Sample 2e Listen to the audio-​recording of complaints in English or Spanish at the end of this page: https://​pragmatics.indiana.edu/​speechacts/​ complaints.html Sample 3 Listen to the audio-​recording of compliments in English or Spanish at the end of this page: https://​pragmatics.indiana.edu/​speechacts/​ compliments.html 4 Transcribed Data of Recorded Natural Conversationf The spelling in the samples is phonetic following some of the transcription conventions commonly used in CA. Some other conventions were removed or adapted for readability. Teachers may wish to consider modifying the spelling or other CA conventions for classroom use or incorporating more of the features of natural conversation such as pauses and overlaps. Sample 1 A: Hi Carol. B: Hi. C: (overlapping with B) Carol, Hi. A: You didn’t get an ice cream sandwich. B: I know, hh I decided that my body didn’t need it. A: Yes but ours did. hh heh-​heh-​heh heh-heh-heh hhih B: (overlapping with A) heh-​heh-​heh A: hh Awright gimme some money en you c’n treat me one an I’ll buy you all some too. B: (overlapping with A) I’m kidding, I don’t need it. A: (in an emphatic tone) I want one. C: ehh heh-​hu h A: (overlapping with C) hheh-​uh hhh No, they didn’t even have any Tab. C: (overlapping with A) hheh B: This is all I c’d find. Sample 2 A: Where were we? B: I dunno. ’ve you been studying lately? A: No, not et aw –​not et all. I hafta study this whole week. Every night. hhhh en then I got s’mthing planned on Sunday with Laura. She, she wen –​she ’n I are gonna go out ’n get drunk et four o’clock in the afternoon.

58

58  Collecting Pragmatics Data B: huh-​huh hhhh A: (overlapping with B) It’s a religious thing we’re gonna have. I d’know why, b’t. Uhm. No, her ex-​boyfriend’s getting married en she’s gunnuh be depressed so. B: She wasn’t invited d’the wedding? A: (overlapping with B) I’m g’nuh take ’er out. 5  Data Collected through Field Observationg Sample 1 Have a productive evening. Get lots of homework graded. Sample 2 Good luck with everything. Sample 3 [To the listener’s dog] Tillie, take care of her. Sample 4 Have a good weekend. Don’t work it away. Sample 5 Well, have safe travels, then. Sample 6 You go, girl! Sample 7 I’m not going to wish you luck because you’re not going to need it. Sample 8 Have a good trip and summer and everything. Sample 9 If I don’t talk to you before Monday, have a wonderful trip. Sample 10 Have a good day. I may see you at noon and I may not.

59

Collecting Pragmatics Data  59 Task Sheet: Pros and Cons Associated with Different Types of Data Pros

Cons

Intuition and introspection

Written DCT

Role-​play

Recordings of natural conversation

Field observation of natural conversation

  Interactivity, consequentiality, and comparability from Bardovi-​Harlig and Hartford (2005). b  Adapted from ESL Fast available at: www.eslfast.com/​robot/​topics/​restaurant/​ restaurant16.htm (accessed on October 16, 2020). c  Samples 1 and 2 produced by participants in Ishihara’s CARLA summer institute offered in 2018. d   Samples 1 from the data collected for Ishihara and Tarone (2009). e  Samples 2 and 3 from Félix-​Brasdefer (2019). To listen, go to the window at the bottom of the page. Click on + to listen to the audio at: https://​pragmatics. indiana.edu/​speechacts/​complaints.html and https://​pragmatics.indiana.edu/​ speechacts/​compliments.html respectively (accessed on October 16, 2020). a

60

60  Collecting Pragmatics Data  Samples 1 and 2 from Schegloff (2001: 1948, 1951) on the use of discourse marker no that marks a transition from non-​serious to serious talk (p. 1948). Audio-​recording of Samples 1 and 2 are accessible at: www.sscnet.ucla. edu/​soc/​faculty/​schegloff/​ RealSoundFiles/​papersounds.php?directory=Getting_​Serious (accessed on October 16, 2020). g   Samples 1–​10 from Burt (2001: 4–​9) on blessings. f

61

4  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language* Linking Research and Pedagogy

Introduction This chapter is intended to serve as a guide to some well-​researched features of pragmatics: speech acts, terms of address, implicature, pragmatic formulas, and pragmatic markers. One current view holds that if we truly wish to develop learners’ communicative competence, we should rely on naturally occurring data alone. However, as we saw in Chapter 3, an often-​mentioned shortcoming of such data is the difficulty involved in collecting comparable data (see Chapter 8). Moreover, the pragmatic use of language found in natural discourse reminds us that spontaneous conversations often fail to consist of neatly packaged interchanges, which may not necessarily be productive for beginners. In addition to natural data, empirical research in pragmatics thus far has also utilized various means of eliciting data (Chapter 3). Although not all these language samples provide a minor image of authentic language use, dismissing this massive body of collective knowledge may be like “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” Many language educators feel that depending on the learners’ needs, even elicited language samples can supplement natural data and provide valuable research-​based information applicable to L2 pragmatics instruction. The good news is that current research reveals the workings of natural discourse, and we can apply this knowledge to pragmatics instruction to complement the insights gleaned from elicited data. Moreover, many studies document how speakers/​writers of different language varieties communicate pragmatically, which enables us to diversify pragmatic models as we work to raise learners’ awareness for global communication. These insights into linguistic diversity and natural discourse are included in this chapter along with elicited language data as valuable information describing pragmatic language use. Speech acts are among the most researched areas of pragmatics, an area highly applicable to L2 pragmatics instruction at all levels. This chapter reports on thanks and responses to thanks, advice-​giving, compliments and responses to compliments, requests, refusals, apologies, disagreements, and criticisms. Additional information on some of them can be found on the *Andrew D. Cohen has contributed as a co-author to this chapter with permission.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-4

62

62  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language CARLA Speech Act website1 (see Chapters 3 and 7). This database was originally developed with the intention of supporting teachers and curriculum writers in their efforts to share this information with learners. Although speech act research is often associated with DCT data, this chapter reports on natural data on speech acts as well. We will also look at information on terms of address, implicature, pragmatic formulas, and pragmatic markers with an eye to its application to language instruction. While there is no fixed sequence of topics recommended for a pragmatics-​focused curriculum (see Chapter 9), the topics in this chapter flow loosely from relatively simple (linguistically though not pragmatically) to more complex. The descriptions are only illustrative of what language teachers may find useful and should not therefore be viewed as an exhaustive review of current literature. This chapter ends with an activity intended to provide readers with an opportunity to explore online resources for certain pragmatic features they may choose to teach.

Terms of Address Via terms of address, or names we use to call our conversational partners, we can express our affection, familiarity, respect, disapproval, or even insults for them, which in turn helps us (re)shape the relationship. Address terms are part of social deixis (Chapter 1) and can be classified into seven categories:2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Endearments (e.g., darling, sweetheart) Family terms (Mommy, Dad, Son) Familiarizers (buddy, ladies, folks) First names familiarized (Olly, Abby) Full first names (William, Isabella) Title and last names (Mr. Brown, Professor Thompson) Honorifics (Sir, Ma’am,Your Highness)

These strategies can generally be placed on a scale of formality and positive-​ negative politeness (Chapter 1), with endearments most informal using positive politeness, and honorifics most formal using negative politeness. Our choice of address terms relies largely on the relative power and distance between the interactants as well as the nature of the social context. Some European 1 Available at www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​descriptions.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). Due to the convention in interlanguage pragmatics to collect baseline data from native speakers, much of the data shared on this site derives from such speakers. However, pragmatically competent speakers can provide suitable models for learners, and such data samples are included in this chapter, albeit on a small scale. 2  Leech (1999). Terms of address are also referred to as (relational) vocatives.

63

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  63 languages also use different second-​person pronouns–​–​different versions of singular and plural “you”–​–​to index different shades of relationship (e.g., tú and usted in Spanish, tu and vous in French, du and Sie in German, see Chapter 11). Accordingly, the choice of terms can shift dynamically across time and occasions. Moreover, these terms are subject to regional and generational varieties. For instance, mate is known as a common familiarizer in Australian or British English, whereas the North American endearment tootsie has long been obsolete. In 2010 in Hanoi, I was introduced in a formal lecture as Doctor Ishihara but on a personal basis called Dr. Noriko by the Vietnamese host I had met for the first time, who thus tactfully expressed both respect and familiarity simultaneously. Published lessons dealing with terms of address in British and American English3 include the following practices, which may not be obvious to learners: • •

•

•

First names only are typically used between equals or in the case where conversational partners do not need or wish to stress the differences in their social status, gender, or age. The use of last names only to address a peer usually conveys distance rather than friendship. In professional relationships, typically between men, last names only can also index respect and formality in addition to distance. When addressees’ professional status is known, the title is typically used with the last name on formal occasions. Especially if the gender of the addressee is unknown, titles are useful as they are gender-​free. However, terms can be negotiated, especially if speakers/​writers are invited to call addressees by a certain name. Teachers often call students by their first names but may choose to use titles and last names to indicate respect and formality depending on the institutional context. Teachers can use students’ last names only to show power or anger (Don’t forget your homework, Benson!). Bare first and last names can be used to reprimand a student or child (e.g., Thomas Sawyer!).4

Address terms can stand alone or occur in initial, medial, or final position in an utterance to serve the functions of attracting attention, identifying the addressee, and maintaining or reinforcing a social relationship.5 A corpus study of terms of address in British radio phone-​in calls offers a nuanced framework of six functional categories, demonstrating the multiple functions 3  Fordyce (2012); Takenoya (2003). See also Chapter 7 for a lesson on addressivity for young learners. 4  Last names only and bare first and last names are not included in Leech’s (1999) address term categories cited above. 5  Leech (1999: 116). See also Staley (2018).

64

64  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language of address terms in extended natural data. The functional categories include relational (e.g., Thank you, Johnny), mitigation (Don’t do that, Katie), topic management, turn management, summons, and badinage (humor, irony, and banter).6

Thanks In thanking, speakers/​ writers recognize a favor done by addressees (benefactors) and express gratitude to acknowledge it. Our sense of gratitude is conveyed in a variety of manners depending on the context. While casual thanks are often communicated orally or written briefly, a more elaborate sense of gratitude may be conveyed through a thank-​you card, carefully written email, or message on social media accompanied by emoticons or cartoons. Expressing thanks in writing may require knowledge of how to select a card or social media suitable for both addressee and occasion. Similarly, communicating a deep sense of gratitude or a strong feeling of indebtedness will require suitable paralinguistic and extralinguistic features (e.g., tone, intonation, eye contact, posture, and body language). In some cultures, elaborate expressions of thanks may also be accompanied by a formal or informal gift. In brief, navigating these complex social practices requires cultural literacy.7 Functions and Strategies for Thanking In addition to expressing gratitude, the speech act of thanking can be used to reinforce a compliment (e.g., Thanks for the wonderful meal) or conclude a turn (e.g., That’s all, thank you).8 Expressions of thanks, whether oral or written, are also used as a pre-​or post-​sequence to requests, refusals, compliments, promises, offers, invitations, congratulations, and irony and can serve as a positive politeness strategy to help develop and maintain rapport.9 Thus thanking serves multiple purposes despite the myth that it is a straightforward linguistic behavior learners do not need instruction in. The following are strategies that can precede or follow an expression of thanks:10

6 See McCarthy and O’Keeffe (2003); Clancy and O’Keeffe (2015) for more examples and details. 7  Hinkel (2014). 8  Eisenstein and Bodman (1986). 9  Hinkel (2014). 10  Eisenstein and Bodman (1986: 168–​172). For examples of thanking, see the CARLA database: https://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​thanks/​american.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). See also Ishihara (2016b) for instruction on elaborate written thanks in English using these strategies.

65

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  65 • • • • • • •

Complimenting (Thank you.You’re wonderful) Expressing affection (I really appreciate this.You’re a sweetheart) Reassuring the listener (I can’t thank you enough. This is just what I wanted. Blue is my favorite color) Promising to repay (I don’t know how to thank you. I’ll pay you back as soon as I can) Expressing surprise and delight (Oh, wow! Thank you!) Expressing a lack of necessity or obligation (I don’t know how to thank you. You didn’t have to do this for me) Exaggerating to emphasize the depth of the gratitude (I really appreciate this.You’re a lifesaver)

While the act of thanking may appear universal, its sociocultural norms vary across cultures. In some languages such as Chinese, Hindi, and Marathi, verbal expressions of gratitude may occur less frequently among family members, close friends, or business partners. This is because each community member is seen as merely fulfilling their obligations or because mutual benefits are recognized.11 In other languages such as Japanese, the sense of indebtedness in thanks is strong and can be conveyed through expressions such as sumimasen [literally: I’m sorry], in which the sense of both apology and thanks are expressed.12 Depending on the context, speakers with these language backgrounds may express thanks in the L2 in ways colored by their respective cultural practices. Responses to Thanks Responses to thanks can serve the following functions:13 • • • • •

Recognizing the gratitude or expressing appreciation while relieving speakers of the indebtedness (You’re welcome, sure, of course, you got it) Indicating pleasure that the act was done gladly (That’s quite all right, my pleasure, absolutely) Denying or minimizing the existence of the need to thank (Not at all, no problem, don’t mention it, no worries) Acknowledging thanks (Okay, yeah, alright, mhm, non-​verbal nods) Returning thanks (Thanks, thank you very much)

11  Apte (1974); Kasper and Zhang (1995). 12  Coulmas (1981); Kotani (2002). 13  Coulmas (1981: 77); Staley (2018).

6

66  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language Thanks and apologies can be responded to in similar terms (see below) due to the shared concept of indebtedness. Thanks, which is based on the perceived imbalance between speakers/​writers and listeners/​readers due to the favor done to the former, resembles apologies where speakers actually express this indebtedness to addressees.14 A: Thank you for all your help. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it. B:  That’s all right. It’s really nothing.

A:  I’m terribly sorry I did this to you. B:  That’s all right. It’s really nothing. In German and Cameroonian English, responses to thanks can be yes, for nothing, mm, no response, or response with a gesture.15 In a study on responses to thanks in Cameroonian English,16 expressions often considered “typical” in other varieties of English (e.g., you are welcome, not at all, no problem) did not appear in the data. The author explains that the most frequent response, yes, reflected a convention found in thanking routines in many local languages. Moreover, while an adjacency pair in thanking typically comprises thanking and response in many varieties of English, in Cameroonian English, an offer of a gift by the benefactor for instance, can constitute the first pair part followed by thanking as the second pair part, with the thanking response only an option.The author characterizes Cameroonian thanking responses as indigenized conversational routines tinted by local multicultural values and identities. Thanking Interactions Revealed Through a Language Corpus Chapter 3 discussed how certain forms can be searched in a language corpus to investigate their use in natural discourse. Focusing on formulaic expressions of gratitude in British English, a study compared corpus data on thanking from the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE) to data from a DCT.17 The authors found that the use of a corpus revealed some features of natural discourse. For example, cheers was typically used as a response to thanks rather than as an expression of thanks itself (A: Thanks for that. B: Cheers!). Moreover, the corpus data showed the use of thanks over several turns during a service encounter, as below:18 14  Coulmas’ examples (1981: 72–​73). 15  Ouafeu (2009); Schneider and Barron (2008); Staley (2018). 16  Ouafeu (2009). 17  Schauer and Adolphs (2006). 18  Schauer and Adolphs (2006: 130).

67

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  67 Speaker 1: Yeah. (Laughs) Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. S1: That’s lovely. S2: All right. And your balance is sixty-​nine thirty-​six then. S1: Right. (Pause) Thank you. Sixty-​nine? S2: Er, thirty-​six. S1: Thirty-​six. Right. S2: Thank you. The researchers concluded that the use of a corpus uncovered a broad picture of how gratitude was expressed that elicited data did not. The corpus data also showed a process of collaborative negotiation the speakers frequently engaged in over extended discourse involving gratitude.

Advice-​giving In advice-​giving, addressees may be constructed as less knowledgeable than speakers/​writers, and the actual advice may be beneficial to the addressees. Because advice-​giving risks potential loss of face, it is usually characterized among FTAs.19 If the advice is solicited (e.g., What should I wear to the party?), the face threat may be lower given that the language is selected carefully. However, giving unsolicited advice requires extra layers of politeness as below, if speakers/​writers decide to perform this speech act. The Pragmalinguistics of Advice-​giving (In)directness used in the language of advice-​giving can be classified as follows: • • •

Direct (e.g., You should buy a train pass/​Try…/​Keep in mind…) Softened: (e.g., Maybe you should buy a train pass) Indirect: (e.g., I bought a train pass last year, and it really made life easier)20

In direct advice, modals (e.g., should, had better, ought to, have to, need to) are used without mitigation. Some verbs that are inherently indirect may be used in bare imperatives (e.g., try, keep in mind, be honest/​nice) especially in response to advice-​seeking letters or columns in the media.21 In softened 19  Brown and Levinson (1987); Tanaka (2015). 20  Hinkel (1997); Houck and Fujimori (2010). 21  DeCapua and Dunham (2007).

68

68  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language advice, some “cushions” are employed to mitigate the face threat (e.g., maybe, probably, may want to, might wish to, why not, you could, I think). Indirect advice is even more implicit, often using hints through a first-​person pronoun or subjunctive (e.g., I would…, I might…, I did X [in a similar situation]). Below are some of the language forms deemed suitable based on empirical information for making suggestions to status-​equals or someone of higher status.22 Largely direct or softened advice for status-​equals include: • • • • • •

Why don’t you…? (direct) You can just… (softened) You might want to… (softened) Perhaps you should… (softened) I think you need… (softened) Have you tried…? (indirect)

While these expressions include various mitigators, even more indirectness and mitigation may be necessary for higher-​status addressees: • • • •

Personally, I may recommend… It would be helpful if you… I think it might be better to… I’m not sure, but I think a good idea would be…

It is important to assess the suitability of these expressions in light of the content of the advice. For example, these forms can be used to provide a possible solution or alternative and may be accompanied by rationales, elaborations, even expressions of empathy, or moral support.23 It is also crucial to consider the addressees’ cultural backgrounds, which we now turn to. The Sociopragmatics of Advice-​giving The authors of a lesson plan on advising contend that advice-​giving in Anglo-​American English is often associated with criticism.24 They explain that personal space is often valued in American culture, and as a result, advice, especially unsolicited advice, is often avoided. Alternatively, in cases where speakers/​writers dare to offer advice, extensive facework (i.e., indirectness and hedges) is expected because advice may be perceived as intrusive

22  Martínez-​Flor and Fukuya (2005: 466). 23  DeCapua and Dunham (2007). 24  Houck and Fujimori (2010). See also Chapter 8 for a relevant lesson.

69

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  69 or pretentious. In other languages such as Chinese and Japanese, although unsolicited advice can be interpreted as an imposition in some contexts, it can also emphasize involvement and serve as a solidarity-​building strategy showing benevolence and “warm interest in the other’s well-​being”.25 In this context, advice is not necessarily seen as interference or a face threat but can communicate kindness, consideration, connectedness, and even a sense of care and affection as part of positive politeness. The authors contend that unsolicited advice can facilitate rapport and group membership that derive from the Confucian and Taoist precept of interdependence.26 With this in mind, let us take a look at the advice Chinese speakers of English in a study provided in response to DCTs:27 • • • •

Don’t you think it’s better to rent a car? It’s dangerous to drive this car. I feel that driving downtown is not necessary for you. Professor, don’t you need a rest? It’s too late to work now. Looks like you’ve had a long day.

Rather than characterizing their direct and softened advice as non-​nativelike pragmatic failure, we might consider potential intentions and cultural values underlying these language forms and their possible suitability for addresses with different cultural backgrounds (see Chapter 8 for instruction on advice-​giving).

Compliments and Responses to Compliments In many languages and language varieties, compliments express admiration or social approval, often functioning as a “social lubricant” establishing and maintaining rapport.28 In such cases, compliments can serve as a positive politeness strategy addressing our needs for solidarity. Simultaneously, compliments and responses to compliments reflect different cultural values and social practices and can be a potential source of misunderstanding in intercultural communication.29 Thus the function of compliments as “social lubricant” may not necessarily hold true in some contexts, as in British, German, or Scandinavian cultures, in which compliments are often understated; You’re not a bad driver or That wasn’t the worst meal you’ve cooked can be offered as a compliment even though they may not be interpreted as such in North America.30 25  Hinkel (1997); Houck and Fujimori (2010: 91); Ishihara (2017). 26  Hinkel (1997). 27  Hinkel (1997: 11–​12). 28  Billmyer (1990); Wolfson and Judd (1983). 29  Herbert and Straight (1989). 30  Kasper (1990: 199); Schneider and Barron (2008: 9).

70

70  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language Functions and Strategies for Complimenting According to research,31 compliments in English are often used to: • • • • • •

Express admiration or approval of someone’s work, appearance, or taste Establish, confirm, or maintain solidarity Serve as an alternative to greetings, gratitude, apologies, or congratulations Soften FTAs such as apologies, requests, and criticism Open and sustain conversation (conversation strategy) Reinforce desired behavior

Topics of Compliments The major referents of compliments include attributes of the conversational partner, such as:32 • • •

Appearance or possessions (e.g., You look absolutely beautiful!) Performance, skills, or abilities (e.g., Your presentation was excellent!) Personality traits (e.g., You are so sweet!)

Topics of compliments reflect social norms of behavior in the given culture or community. For example, you’ve lost some weight may be interpreted as praise, concern for health, or a taboo depending on factors such as gender, relationship, and socioeconomic status.33 Grammatical Structures and Word Choice for Compliments In the 1980s, researchers found that 97 percent of naturally occurring compliments in American English used one of the nine structures listed below.34 Later studies investigating compliments appearing in the U.S. media also found a roughly comparable distribution of these grammatical structures.35

31  Billmyer (1990); Brown and Levinson (1987); Herbert (1990); Manes and Wolfson (1981). 32  Ishihara (2004, 2010b). 33 Wolfson and Judd (1983). See also Chapter 7 for instruction on this point. 34  Manes and Wolfson (1981). 35  Rose (2001); Tatsuki and Nishizawa (2005).

71

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  71

Figure 4.1 Compliments on a baby.

Your blouse is/​looks (really) beautiful. (NP is/​looks (really) ADJ). I (really) like/​love your car. (I (really) like/​love NP). That’s a (really) nice wall hanging. (PRO is (really) a ADJ NP). You did a (really) good job. (You V a (really) ADV NP). You really handled that situation well. (You V (NP) (really) ADV). You have such beautiful hair! (You have (a) ADJ NP!). What a lovely baby you have! (What (a) ADJ NP!) (See Figure 4.1 above). 8 Nice game! (ADJ NP!). 9 Isn’t your ring beautiful! (Isn’t NP ADJ!). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The most commonly used adjectives in compliments were nice, good, pretty, great, and beautiful,36 although the list undoubtedly varies in other varieties of English, (sub-​)cultures, and times. Responses to Compliments Semantically, common responses to compliments can be categorized into acceptance, mitigation, and rejection, with sub-​categories within each:

36  Manes and Wolfson (1981).

72

72  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language

• Acceptance:

Token of appreciation (Thanks/​Thank you.) Acceptance by means of a comment (Yeah, it’s my favorite, too.) Upgrading the compliment through self-​praise (Yeah, I can play other sports well too.) Mitigation: • ○ Comment about history (I bought it for the trip to Arizona.) ○ Shifting the credit (My brother gave it to me.) ○ Questioning or requesting reassurance or repetition (Do you really like them?) ○ Reciprocating (So’s yours.) ○ Scaling down or downgrading (It’s really quite old.) ○ Request interpretation (Addressee interprets the compliment as a request: You wanna borrow this one too?) Rejection: • ○ Disagreeing (A:You look good and healthy. B: I feel fat.) ○ No response37 ○ ○ ○

In some cultures, compliments can be interpreted as an implicit request (request interpretation above), so a response to a compliment on someone’s possession of an item in Syrian Arabic may be: (literary) It’s presented to you [You can have it].38 In other cultures, a flat rejection of compliments is often preferred as a strategy of self-​praise avoidance. A response to a compliment on one’s appearance may be: No, I look like an old woman in Korean English, No, I don’t [look great]. Don’t make fun of me. I know I’m just plain-​looking in Chinese English, or No, that is not true in Japanese English.39 One researcher, who analyzed naturally occurring compliments in Japanese, observed that Japanese speakers sometimes praise others’ abilities not so much to build solidarity as Western speakers might but rather to widen the gap between the interactants by placing listeners higher on the interactional scale than speakers themselves. Thus for Japanese (and possibly other East Asian language) speakers, a greater need arises for the recipient of the compliment to reject it in order to close the gap and reestablish rapport. Yet a risk involved in the cultural characterizations of behavior associated with compliments is that such characterizations can lead to simplistic and dichotomous stereotypes, for example, that compliments are rejected in East

37  Adapted from Herbert and Straight (1989); Nelson et al. (1996). For further information on giving and responding to compliments in Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish, visit the above-​mentioned CARLA site. See Chapter 7 for instruction on giving and responding to compliments. 38  Nelson, Al-​Batal, and Echols (1996: 425). Arabic and Turkish speakers often use this and other formulas and routines both in giving and responding to compliments. 39 The Korean, Chinese, Japanese examples are from Han (1992: 24); Yu (2008: 42); Daikuhara (1986: 120) respectively.

73

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  73

Figure 4.2 Tea at breakfast.

Asian languages but accepted in (American) English (see Chapters 7 and 8). In fact, American English speakers frequently rely on mitigation strategies to balance graceful acceptance of compliments and tactful avoidance of self-​praise; East Asian language users can accept compliments, especially in extended discourse.40 In some languages, an equally positive compliment may appear in a response in a way that is atypical in American English.41 For example, in the excerpt below, an American English speaker, David, and two German speakers of English, Christiane and Annette are having breakfast. 1  David: That’s the best tea-​I’ve –​I think I’ve ever had. 2  Christiane: Great, right? [David gazes at Christiane with puzzled look.] 3  (Pause) 4  David: Uh-​that lemonny kinda, yeah. It’s quite nice. 5  Christiane: [With a smile] Yeah, we like it too. 6  (Pause) 7  Annette: What was the-​exact name of it. It’s just called-​orange tea? 8  Christiane: Lemon tea. It’s zitronentee.42

40  Pomerantz (1978). 41  Golato (2002, 2005); Huth and Taleghani-​Nikazm (2006). 42 Transcription conventions adjusted to focus on semantic strategies. For the original transcription, see Golato (2002: 566).

74

74  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language The researcher explains that after David pays Christiane a compliment for making great tea (Line 1), she responds to the compliment by giving a response that works in German, namely a same-​strength second assessment (Great) followed by a response pursuit marker (right?, Line 2). The researcher notes that because this is a compliment response uncommon in American English, David finds it unusual. One of several indicators of this gap is that while Christiane agrees with the compliment and produces a response pursuit, David looks at her with a puzzled expression on his face. When American English speakers give second assessments, they usually downgrade.43 Moreover, following Christiane’s response pursuit marker, there is a brief pause (Line 3). Then David continues with a hesitation marker (“uh”) and explanation of what he likes about the tea. David then produces a second assessment, or a downgraded compliment (“it’s quite nice”) American English speakers may have used for Christiane’s response in Line 2. The researcher interprets Christiane’s delivery of a second assessment (“Yeah, we like it too”) with a smile (Line 5), showing that she also noticed a typical routine in American English and diverged from the expected German ja (“yes”) response. Next, there is a short pause in which neither David nor Christiane speaks (Line 6), after which Annette continues the conversation (Line 7). Rather than characterizing Christiane’s response in Line 2 as a trouble source or potential pragmatic failure in English, we can see how multilingual speakers often switch pragmatically between their hybrid resources, how they accommodate to their conversational partner’s discourse, restore and maintain mutual face, and strive to build rapport over turns. (See Chapter 7 for a sample instruction on giving and responding to compliments.)

Requests By making a request, speakers/​writers infringe on listeners’ freedom from imposition. Addressees may feel that the request is an intrusion on their freedom of action or even a power play. Speakers/​writers may hesitate to make a request for fear of exposing a need or possibly making the recipient lose face.44 In this sense, requesting is an FTA and a dispreferred45 action for both requesters and addressees (see also Chapter 7). Functions and Strategies for Making Requests Because requests have the potential to be intrusive and demanding, there often is a need for requesters to minimize the imposition involved in requests.46 One way for requesters to minimize the imposition is by employing indirect strategies rather than direct ones. Yet, the more direct the 43  Golato (2002: 566–​567). 44  Blum-​Kulka et al. (1989: 11). 45  See the section on refusals in this chapter. 46  See also Brown and Levinson (1987).

75

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  75 request, the more transparent and the less of a burden that addressees bear in interpreting the request.The scale of directness in the head act (or the core of the request sequence, the request proper) can be characterized according to the following three strategies:47

• Direct strategies (marked explicitly as requests):

Clean up the kitchen. I’m asking you to clean up the kitchen. I’d like to ask you to clean the kitchen. You’ll have to clean up the kitchen. Conventionally indirect strategies (conventionalized language • serving as requests in context): How about cleaning up? Could you clean up the kitchen, please? Non-​ conventionally indirect strategies (requestive hints) (non-​ • formulaic language intended or interpreted as requests in context): You have left the kitchen in a total mess. Are you finished with the book? There may be universal patterns in the choice of requesting strategies across cultures. For example, a big favor usually comes with more indirect or polite strategies than a low-​imposition request. Friends use more casual requests than acquaintances provided the content of the request is the same. However, the specific directness levels appropriate for given situations might differ interculturally. Certain languages (such as German) may use relatively more direct requests than other languages (such as Japanese) in an equally appropriate manner within the culture. Conventional indirectness is generally the most commonly employed level of directness.48 Request Perspectives Requests usually include reference to the requester, recipient of the request, or action to be performed. Speakers/​ writers can choose from several perspectives in making requests:49 • •

Listener-​oriented (emphasis on listeners): Could you clean up the kitchen, please? Speaker-​oriented (emphasis on speakers): Can I borrow your notes from yesterday?

47  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 201–​202). 48  Blum-​Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989). 49  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 203).

76

76  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language • •

Speaker-​and listener-​oriented (inclusive strategy): So, could we tidy up the kitchen soon? Impersonal: So it might not be a bad idea to get it cleaned up.

Request Mitigators/​Upgraders Mitigating the FTA of requesting can be achieved internally by using downgraders within the head act.50 Requesters may display hesitation about requesting (e.g., via interrogatives and modal usage such as might or would) or pessimism with regard to the outcome. The past tense, subjunctive mood, or an embedded if-​clause also serve as a distancing element adding a layer of politeness, as below: • • •

Look, um… I wonder if you wouldn’t mind dropping me off at home? I wanted to ask for a postponement. I would appreciate it if you left me alone.

Some examples of other softening downgraders are: • • • • •

Do you think I could borrow your lecture notes from yesterday? Could you tidy up a bit before I start? It would really help if you did something about the kitchen. Will you be able to perhaps drive me? Can I use your pen for a minute, please?

On the other hand, speakers/​writers may wish to increase the compelling force of the request. This function of aggravating requests can be achieved through upgraders. • •

Clean up this mess, it’s disgusting. You still haven’t cleaned up that bloody mess!

Non-​conventionally Indirect Strategies (Hints) In making requestive hints, speakers/​writers use a lack of clarity as a way of getting listeners/​readers to carry out the act.51 There is a gap between requesters’ intended meaning and the literal meaning, and addresses are 50  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 204). 51  Blum-​Kulka et al. (1989).

7

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  77 not expected to process requesters’ utterance word-​for-​word but rather to infer the intended message. The ambiguity leaves the addressees uncertain as to the requesters’ intentions and at the same time leaves the requesters with the option of denying the addressees’ interpretation of the request. The addressees also have the option of rejecting the interpretation that the requesters in fact made a request. Some examples of hints are:52 • • •

Do you have any money on you? (intended as a request for a loan) You must have had a beautiful party. (used as a request to clean up the kitchen the morning after) Do you know where my phone is? (intended as request to get it)

Supportive Moves A supportive move appears either before or after the head act and thus externally modifies the request.53 Some examples: • • • • • •

Are you going in the direction of town? And if so, is it possible for me to join you? (checking on availability) Will you do me a favor? Could you perhaps lend me your notes for a few days? (getting a pre-​commitment) Excuse me, I’ve just missed my bus and you live on the same road. I wonder if I could trouble you for a lift? (grounder) You have the most beautiful handwriting I’ve ever seen! Would it be possible to borrow your notes for a few days? (sweetener) Excuse me, I hope you don’t think I’m being forward, but is there any chance of a lift home? (disarmer) Pardon me, but could you give a lift, if you’re going my way? I just missed the bus and there isn’t another one for an hour. (cost minimizer)

Typical Request Sequence The request sequence has been categorized into three segments:54 • • •

Attention getter or alerter (e.g., address terms such as first names, e.g., Danny) Head act (e.g., can you remind me later to bring the book for you on Monday?) Supportive move(s) (occurring before or after the head act; e.g., otherwise, I’m sure to forget)

52  Blum-​Kulka et al. (1989: 73). 53  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984: 204–​205). 54  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984).

78

78  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language Requests in Natural Discourse The research on requests introduced above is seminal work still serving as a foundation for speech act studies and instruction on requests conducted today. However, as it relied exclusively on written DCT data, it is also important to investigate requests constructed in extended discourse rather than in isolated utterances. Meaning is often indirectly negotiated across turns within a conversational sequence, and this can be revealed through CA. Alternatively, a language corpus can be used in pragmatics work via electronic searches for a phrase and its contextualized examples.The following are sample concordance lines from British and international students directed to other students in the classroom making “can you…?” requests taken from the Limerick-​ Belfast Corpus of Academic Spoken English (LIBEL CASE):55 Can you 21  don’t catch what you say   can you give a little more detail 22  why? Sunshine       can you give me some reason 25  like this song very much…  can you sing a few words for 26  your sentence?       can you speak out your sentence? This shows how it can be helpful to access such examples to observe how can you requests occur in casual conversations in the classroom, specifically in collaborative work with students working independently of the teacher. Making learners aware of classroom requests such as these can be a means for facilitating classroom interaction, especially task completion.56 Requests have also been studied in different varieties of English. In written discourse by Chinese, Indonesian, and Japanese speakers, abundant background information is often given initially as facework preceding the request head act, whereas in other varieties such as American and British Englishes the head act is more likely to be provided up-​front.57 In addition, levels of directness in requests can vary across English varieties. While conventionally indirect interrogative forms (e.g., would/​could you) are common in many varieties, Black South African English (BSAE) prefers the use of explicit performatives (e.g., I’m asking for …), a shared feature of African languages spoken in South Africa.58 In English used by Palestinian-​Arabic speakers, indirectness and politeness expressed through mitigation and silence was found to be relatively scarce.59 55 From Walsh and O’Keeffe (2007: 129), with some of the concordance conventions removed. 56 Walsh and O’Keeffe (2007). 57  Kirkpatrick (2015); Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002). 58  Kasanga (2006). 59  Atawneh and Sridhar (1993). See Chapter 7 and Taguchi and Ishihara (2018) for incorporating awareness of global English varieties into instruction on requests.

79

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  79 Requests are among the most researched speech acts, and the empirical information in six languages in earlier studies can be found in the CARLA database.60 (See Chapter 7 for instruction on requests.)

Refusals In making a refusal, speakers/​writers typically communicate a potentially undesirable message as far as listeners/​readers are concerned. Accordingly, a variety of linguistic, paralinguistic, or extralinguistic resources are often used to mitigate refusals. Functions and Strategies for Refusing Refusals are typically made in response to requests, invitations, offers, or suggestions. The direct and indirect strategies of refusals can be described as follows:61 I Direct  •  Using performative verbs (I refuse) •  Non-​performative statement ○ “No” ○  Negative willingness or ability (I can’t) II Indirect •  Statement of regret (I’m sorry) • Wish (I wish I could help you) •  Excuse, reason, or explanation (I have a headache) •  Statement of alternative: ○  I can do X instead of Y (I’d rather…) ○   Why don’t you do X instead of Y? (Why don’t you ask someone else?) • Setting condition for future or past acceptance (If you had asked me earlier, I would have…) •  Promise of future acceptance (I’ll do it next time) •  Statement of principle (I never do business with friends) •  Attempt to dissuade the listener: ○ Threat or statement of negative consequences to the requester (I won’t be any fun tonight) ○ Guilt trip (server to customers who want to sit a while: I can’t make a living off people who just order coffee) ○ Criticism of request or requester (statement of negative feeling, opinion, or insult or attack: Who do you think you are?)

60  http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​requests/​index.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). 61  Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-​Weltz (1990: 72-​73).

80

80  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language ○ Request for help, empathy, or assistance by dropping or holding the request (Imagine the situation I’m in) ○  Letting the listener off the hook (Don’t worry about it) ○  Self-​defense (I’m trying my best) •  Acceptance functioning as refusal: ○  Unspecific or indefinite reply ○  Lack of enthusiasm • Avoidance ○  Non-​verbal ◊ Silence ◊ Hesitation ◊  Doing nothing ◊  Physical departure ○ Verbal ◊ Topic switch ◊ Joke ◊  Repetition of part of request, etc. (Monday?) ◊  Postponement (I’ll think about it) ◊  Hedge (Gee, I don’t know)

Adjuncts to Refusals Other elements may accompany the refusal as external modifiers:62 • • • •

Statement of positive opinion or feeling or agreement (I’d love to come) Statement of empathy (I realize you are in a difficult situation) Pause fillers (um, well) Gratitude or appreciation (Thanks so much for the invite)

While acceptance of invitations or requests is a preferred linguistic action and is typically accompanied by an immediate response, refusal is dispreferred and marked by hesitation or pauses (e.g., well… um…), causing speakers to distance themselves from the preceding utterance.63 Such a delaying device signals upcoming undesirable news and can psychologically prepare the addressee for upcoming face threats and minimize the potential offense. Fine-​tuned analysis of naturalistic role-​play of a refusal sequence can reveal the various discourse features that emerge in multiple turns. For example, an extended discourse of invitation-​refusal (transcript and audio accessible 62  Beebe et al. (1990:73). 63  Pomerantz (1984); Schegloff (2007).

81

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  81 online)64 consists of four sequences: 1) opening via greeting; 2) invitation-​ refusal; 3) offering an alternative; and 4) closing. Closer analysis of each of these sequence can disclose, for example: a) how the boundaries of the sequence are constructed; b) how each turn contributes to the sequence (e.g., what the interactants are doing in each turn); c) what expressions of (in)directness, (in)formality, (im)politeness, dispreferred response, and mitigation are used; d) how turns are organized (e.g., who takes the first turn to initiate the sequence and who ends it, how the turns evolve across the sequence); and e) what interactional outcome the actions bring about and what roles and identities are constructed.65 For other aspects of refusals, such as the sociopragmatic acceptability of telling a white lie in Japanese (see Chapter 9) and ritual refusals for face-​ saving in Chinese, refusals in Arabic, British English, German, and Spanish, visit the CARLA database.66

Apologies In apologizing, speakers/​writers recognize the infraction or offense caused through their own fault and attempt to repair the relationship with listeners/​ readers.The situation may be particularly face-threatening if the infraction is substantial or if addressees are in a more powerful position on the social scale than apologizers. Here are some routinized strategies in apologies intended to repair and maintain a sound relationship with addressees. Functions for the Speech act of Apologizing Functions of apologies include:67 • • •

To say they are sorry To explain why the offense happened To make a repair for the offense and maintain good rapport with addressees

64  Félix-​Brasdefer (2006). The transcript is available at: https://​pragmatics.indiana.edu/​ speechacts/​refusals.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). 65  Adapted from Félix-​Brasdefer (2006). A sequence of classroom activities demonstrates CA-​ informed instruction in a foreign-​language context in three pedagogical units: a) enhancing awareness of communicative functions and cross-cultural similarities and differences; b) analyzing extended discourse through CA; and c) communicative practice and feedback (see Félix-​Brasdefer 2006: 179–​188). 66  www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​refusals/​index.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). See also Shishavan and Sharifian (2013) on how Persian speakers of English used refusals in a way influenced by Persian cultural norms and linguistic practices; see also Schnurr and Zayts (2013) on how multicultural employees in Hong Kong coordinated a variety of refusal strategies embedded in a sequential organization. 67  Cohen and Olshtain (1981).

82

82  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language Strategies for Apologizing Complex and face-​threatening speech acts such as apologies consist of a set of strategies used with some regularity:68 • •

• •

•

Expression of apology. An actual statement of apology often containing an expression such as sorry, excuse, forgive, or apologize. Acknowledgment of responsibility. Recognition of fault, ranging from accepting the blame (It’s my fault), expressing self-​ deficiency (I was confused), and stating a lack of intent (I didn’t mean to) to not accepting the blame or denying responsibility (It was through no fault of my own). Explanation or account. Reasons for causing the offense used as an indirect way of apologizing. Offer of repair.The apologizer makes a bid to carry out an action or provide payment for some kind of damage resulting from the infraction (e.g., Let me pick those up for you; I’ll be there in half an hour).This strategy is situation-​specific and is only applicable when actual damage has occurred. Promise of non-​ recurrence. Apologizers commit themselves to not having the offense happen again (e.g., I promise I’ll never do that again), which is situation-​specific and less frequent than the other strategies.

The five major strategies above making up the apology are highly common in many languages. Nonetheless, preference for any one or more of these strategies depends on the specific contexts apologizers are in. For example, the guest contributor and co-​author of the first edition of this book, Andrew D. Cohen, lived in Israel for 16 years, and from that experience noted that in making a formal apology at work in Hebrew, apologizers would tend to explain the reason for the offense in detail and avoid the strategy of offering repair for the offense (e.g., I’ll work overtime to make it up). Cohen explained that in Israeli culture, addressees are often viewed as being entitled to determining the next step. For apologizers to suggest what should come next would be equivalent to committing a second infraction.69 In a similar situation in Japan, offering a boss an unsolicited explanation for the offense may be considered inappropriate. Apologizers would typically offer an expression of apology repeatedly and profusely especially in a formal situation, and not volunteer to give a detailed explanation unless it is called for.

68  Cohen and Olshtain (1981: 119–​125). 69  Cohen and Olshtain (1981).

83

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  83 From the addressees’ perspective, providing an excuse may be an equivalent to requesting forgiveness, which may be considered undeserved.70 Additional Strategies for Apologizing71 • • •

Expression of trait of self-​deficiency (e.g., I’m so forgetful.You know me, I’m never on time.) Explicit self-​blame (e.g., What an idiot I am!) Denial of fault (rejecting the need for apologies) (e.g., It’s not my fault that it fell down.)

Interjections and Intensifiers Not only intensifiers but even interjections such as Oh! can play important roles. In fact, there may be times when a well-​placed Oh! and an offer of repair can take the place of a direct expression of apology in American English (e.g., Oh! Here, let me help get something on that burn and clean up the mess as opposed to I’m very sorry I spilled the coffee all over you). Other ways of intensifying apologies include expressing explicit concern for listeners and using multiple intensifying strategies, as in the following examples:72 •

• •

Intensifying the expression of apology (e.g., I’m really sorry) ○ Use of adverbials (e.g., really, very, terribly, awfully) ○ Use of repetition or multiple intensifiers (e.g., I’m really very sorry): In American English, there may be a difference between very and really, with really implying more regret and very more etiquette.73 Expressing explicit concern for the listener (e.g., Have you been waiting long?) Using multiple intensifying strategies (e.g., I’m so sorry. Are you all right? I’m terribly sorry)

More information about apologies in American English and Hebrew can be found in the CARLA database.74

70  Kondo (1997). 71  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984). 72  Blum-​Kulka and Olshtain (1984). 73  Cohen, Olshtain, and Rosenstein (1986: 66–​67). 74  http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​apologies/​index.html (accessed on October 16, 2020).

84

84  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language

Oppositional Talk Oppositional talk involves an expression of negative stance against others’ ideas and thus includes FTAs such as disagreeing, denying, refusing, challenging, blaming, threatening, and insulting.75 In contrast to the preferred response of agreement, disagreements are part of dispreferred responses and are often accompanied by delays or hedges (e.g., well…, um…) that indirectly signal an upcoming opposition (see the earlier section on refusal).76 For instance, a response to How about a walk in the afternoon? can be an immediate acceptance Sure without a delay (a preferred response). Agreement occupying an entire turn emphasizes alignment, and its immediacy serves to maximize its effect. In contrast, a hedged response, Well, you know alerts addressees to the fact that speakers are taking time to prepare a dispreferred rejection of the invitation or at least a lack of enthusiasm. Thus, a dispreferred turn tends to be structurally more complex and elaborate in order to downplay the intensity of the FTA. Disagreements Because disagreement essentially suggests disapproval, it is likely to threaten addressees’ positive face needs. Thus, even while expressing oppositional stance, speakers/​writers often stress commonality of opinion and inclusiveness. Attempts to address face wants by way of positive politeness strategies include partial agreement, jokes, and the use of inclusive pronouns such as we and us.77 Below are disagreement strategies from pragmatically competent speakers of English, demonstrating a series of mitigation devices that serve to soften the blow of the disagreement and help maintain mutual face:78 • • •

Direct disagreements ○ Disagreements with no delays or mitigations (e.g., no, we can’t) Upgraders ○ Disagreements with upgraders (e.g., absolutely, not at all, really, so, such, quite) Mitigating devices ○ Delay through: ◊ A pause or silence ◊ Hedging (um, uh, er) ◊ Discourse marker (well, but, and, or)

75  Bardovi-​Harlig and Salsbury (2004). 76  Schegloff (2007). 77  Holtgraves (1997); Malamed (2010). 78 Adapted from Bjørge (2012); Fujimoto (2012); Maíz-​Arévalo (2014); Schnurr and Chan (2011). See Ishihara (2016a) for further information and examples.

85

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  85 ○ Understaters and downtoners (maybe, perhaps, just, possibly, seem, a little, kind of, sort of) ○ Modal verbs (I may have to admit, it could be that…, there might be some…) ○ Partial or conditional agreement often followed by “but” (Yeah, but) ○ An initial expression of appreciation (Thanks for that, but., nice try, but…) or apology or regret (e.g., I’m sorry, I’m afraid) often followed by “but” ○ An explanation, justification, or elaboration serving as added support ○ Indirect (off-​record) disagreement ◊ Joking ◊ Metaphors, irony, and rhetorical questions ◊ Laughter ◊ Gaze avoidance and posture Note that these mitigating devices are selected in context according to the relative social status and distance between the interactants as well as the nature of the discourse. Mitigation devices can also be used in combination. Moreover, disagreements are often structured carefully over extended discourse and dispersed beyond one speaking turn or written sentence (Chapter 3). We may also note that agreement and disagreement are not necessarily dichotomous opposites but that they can be better placed on a continuum (e.g., disagreement with partial or conditional agreement).79 In some, perhaps rather exceptional cases, disagreements can be expressed with minimal mitigation. In a study of disagreements by British English speakers in authentic business contexts,80 speakers familiar with each other were sometimes found to be quite blunt in informal meetings (e.g., no, no, it’s… or but… without prefacing their disagreement through partial or tentative agreement, as in yes, but). Similarly, employees in an international consulting corporation in Hong Kong sometimes disagreed quite explicitly in English, using little mitigation with each other or even the CEO.81 The authors of this study contend that while disagreeing directly, these speakers actively co-​constructed their expert identities and dynamically negotiated co-​leadership. However, in general, interactants seem to recognize the face threat involved in disagreement and thus frequently used mitigation strategies to minimize the risk of communication breakdown.82 Other studies of disagreement 79  Mori (1999). See also Chapter 9. 80 Williams (1988). 81  Schnurr and Chan (2011). 82  Bardovi-​Harlig and Salsbury (2004); Bjørge (2012).

86

86  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language sequences involving speakers of different English varieties have revealed how disagreement may be communicated, expanded upon, and abandoned in extended discourse. After disagreement is expressed, the response may be a concession through a revision of the original claim, a reassertion or expansion of the original assertion, a topic shift abandoning the argument altogether, or a use of ambiguous language to restore harmonious rapport.83 Disagreement can also elicit collaboratively constructed elaboration on the original idea and can be followed by co-​constructed alignment between cooperative conversation partners.84 Constructive Critical Feedback Oppositional talk includes criticizing or offering constructive feedback on others’ work or ideas. As is the case of disagreements, criticizing is an FTA despite the potential usefulness of the feedback. Researchers investigating the speech act of criticizing point out that even fluent speakers often plan out how to perform this challenging act in advance.85 Below are the range of mitigators speakers used in one study to alleviate the impact of the critical feedback.86 •

Internal modifiers (mitigating the head act)

Hedges (sort of, kind of) Understaters (quite, a little bit) Downtoners (maybe, possibly, probably) Subjectivizers (I think, I feel, in my opinion) Consultative (Do you think? Do you agree?) Cajolers (I mean, you see, you know) Appealers (Okay? Right? Yeah?) Past tense (I thought you missed out something) Interrogative (Should we change a little for…) Categories 1–​7 are lexical while 8–​9 are syntactic. As shown above, mitigation devices can be used within the head act or scattered in wider discourse before or after the head act. •

External modifiers (mitigating strategies used before or after the head act) ○ Steers (I have some comments about your writing) ○ Sweeteners (There are quite good relevant ideas…)

83  Cheng and Tsui (2009); Houck and Fujii, 2013 (see Chapter 3). 84  Houck and Fujii (2013). 85  Nguyen (2008). 86  Identified through a peer-​feedback task and questionnaire by Nguyen (2008: 50).

87

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  87 ○ Disarmers (You had some spelling mistakes but I think that’s because you’re writing too quickly. Nothing major.) ○ Grounders (I think “is” is better than “are” there because “traffic” is singular) You may notice similarity between these mitigators and those used for disagreements introduced above despite some differences in terminology and categorizations.While expressing oppositional stance, mitigation devices contribute to the interactants’ effort to maintain mutual face by showing their respect for the addressees’ position and emphasizing common ground. (See Chapter 9 for instruction on oppositional talk.)

(Conversational) Implicature (Conversational) implicature is an inferential message, or the process through which speakers/​writers and listeners/​readers derive meaning. The meaning is understood through inference in terms of the context rather than through direct reference (e.g., coffee meaning a cup of coffee in a café and coffee beans in a grocery store).87 While our utterances are generally expected to be truthful, informative, relevant, and clear,88 at times we diverge from these Gricean Maxims on the surface and convey meaning indirectly (see Chapter 1). In such cases, listeners/readers look for non-​literal interpretations that fit the context.89 Below are several classifications and examples of conversational implicature:90

• Irony Bill is referring to his best friend Peter who danced with Bill’s wife while Bill was away: Bill: Peter knows how to be a really good friend. (implying that Peter is not acting the way a good friend should)

• Relevance maxim

This is based on the principle that the intended message must be relevant to the ongoing conversation despite its literal meaning.

87  Bouton (1994a: 88). 88  Grice (1975). 89  Bouton (1994a, 1994b). 90 The classification and examples from Bouton (1994a; 1994b); Roever (2013).

8

88  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language Frank talks to his wife, Helen: Frank: What time is it, Helen? Helen: The mail carrier has been here. (telling Frank the approximate time based on the regularity of the mail carrier’s deliveries) Frank: Okay. Thanks. • Minimum requirement rule Mr. Brown is applying for a loan at the bank to build a new barn: Banker: Do you have 50 cows, Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: Yes, I do. (implying that he has at least 50 cows, which is the minimum he needs to apply for a loan) • Indirect criticism through implicature Teachers A and B are discussing a student’s paper: A: Have you finished with Mark’s term paper yet? B: Yeah, I read it last night. A: What did you think of it? B: Well, I thought it was well typed. (implying that he did not like the paper) • The POPE Q implicature The name is based on the prototype, Is the Pope Catholic? Two roommates are discussing their plans for the summer: Fran: My mother wants me to stay home for a while, so I can be there when our relatives come to visit us at the beach. Joan: Do you have a lot of relatives? Fran: Are there flies in the summertime? (implying that she has a lot of relatives) While conversational implicature is part of everyday interaction, understanding implied meaning requires cultural knowledge, and its interpretation can be difficult for L2 learners even if they have lived in the

89

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  89 second-​language context for several years (see Chapters 8 and 12 for instruction and assessment).91

Formulaic Language in Pragmatics Formulaic language (also called conventional expressions, (pragmatic) routines, and (pragmatic) formulas/​formulae) has been investigated from the perspective of L2 pragmatic development. Pragmatic formulas consist of multiple words that may not be used literally but have unambiguous meaning conventionalized in the context and community in which they are used (e.g., Nice to meet you and Would you mind…).92 Pragmatically competent speakers not only have a pragmalinguistic command of such formulas but also know the functional meaning and sociopragmatic context in which to use them. It has been pointed out that researchers’ and teachers’ intuition on conventionality is unreliable in identifying pragmatic formulas (see Chapter 8) and that they should be selected from data sources, such as field notes, media-​ based material (e.g., dramas and sit-​coms), DCTs, and language corpora.93 In a series of studies on this topic, conventional expressions have been identified by recording the expressions repeatedly used in the L2 community, noting their authentic contexts of use and then awarding conventionality when the expressions were used by 50% or more of the expert speakers tested.94 Below are some examples of the conventionalized expressions following descriptions of the scenarios:95 • • • •

After class you’re walking to the library with a friend. It’s been raining all morning, and you notice that your friend is about to step into a big puddle.You say: Watch out! You stop by your teacher’s office to ask a question about an assignment. She takes time to answer your question.You know she is very busy, so before you say good-​bye, you say: Thanks for your time. You are at the bus stop. While waiting, you are talking with your friend on your mobile phone. The bus arrives and you need to hang up.You say: I gotta go. You’re talking outside with your longtime neighbor and she tells you about her dog’s accident. She says, “Last Sunday my dog got hit by a truck.”You say: I’m sorry.

91  Bouton (1994a, 1994b). 92  Bardovi-​Harlig (2019a). 93  Bardovi-​Harlig (2009, 2019a). 94  Bardovi-​Harlig (2009). In this and other studies, conventional expressions were identified from native speaker data via these speakers’ judgment. See also Pitzl (2009) and Seidlhofer (2009) for creative co-​and re-​construction of conventionalized language as part of collaborative accommodation among English speakers in lingua franca contexts. 95  Bardovi-​Harlig (2009: 792–​795).

90

9

90  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language •

You are waiting in line at the movie theater and the person in front of you says, “Could you hold my place in line? I’ll be right back.”You say: No problem.

Pragmatic routines can include formulas that are more loosely conventionalized and be identified by their frequency of use in language corpora. Below are some multi-​word sequences of agreeing, disagreeing, and clarifying routines that occurred ten or more times per million words in MICASE (Chapter 3) along with the original discourses.96 • • •

Agreeing: That’s right, You’re right, That’s true, I agree (with), Good point Disagreeing: Yeah but, Okay, but, I agree but, I don’t think so Clarifying: What I mean (is/​by),You’re saying, Do you mean

Original discourse for I agree…but A: I saw this being a poem very much between, the narrator and the eyes of the poor, and not the narrator and this woman. I just saw that Baudelaire needed a situation for the narrator to be in so he could have this experience. But I didn’t really see it as a central part of the text. B: So, on the one hand I agree that, it’s the relationship between him and these people he sees that brings out the conflict in him, but you know the woman there is used to be kind of this other half of him. Although the command of pragmatic formulas represents only limited aspects of pragmatic competence often in association with certain language varieties, learners may find these pragmatic formulas useful, and their acquisition may facilitate the learning of L2 in general as well as cultural integration. Pragmatic formulas have also been identified and researched in other languages such as German, French, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. (See Chapters 6 and 8 for the learning and teaching of pragmatic formulas.)

Pragmatic Markers With various functions and categorizations, expert researchers claim that there is no fixed definition of pragmatic markers. Here, the term is used to 96 Examples of routines and original discourses are from Bardovi-​Harlig, Mossman, and Vellenga (2015: 330–​331). See this paper for sample scenarios eliciting agreement, disagreement, and clarification.

91

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  91 cover a wide range of linguistic devices, including discourse or interactional markers (e.g., well, you know, I mean), (epistemic) stance markers (I think, appear, probably), and particles (e.g., sentence-​final particles ne, desho in Japanese, modal particles ja, mal in German). Some corpus linguists characterize pragmatic markers as lexical “inserts” occurring at various positions in utterances or turns and guiding the process of interpretation.97 Among the many and ever-​growing functions of pragmatic markers are those that are interpersonal and textual in nature.The interpersonal function (of the um hedge, for example) includes mitigating face threats as speakers express attitudes and feelings in a way that can affect addressees’ behavior. The textual function (as in the coherence marker therefore) enables speakers/​ writers to signal a boundary in the discourse.98 Although pragmatic markers can signal the relationship between the message and preceding discourse, their functions can be modified by the demands of the context. Let us look at two examples provided by corpus linguists.99 In informal conversation, well can index a dispreferred response and typically mitigate the impact of the upcoming message or signal the speaker’s needs to buy some thinking time. In court, however, it can be used by lawyers in cross-​examinations to intensify a challenge. The other example is the use of I think in British English across different text types found in the British Component of the International Corpus of English. In private conversation, I think is often used to share unplanned spontaneous opinions, mitigate them politely, search for words, or initiate self-​repair. In contrast, I think is associated with authority and objectivity in a broadcast discussion where speakers are assigned a role as moderators or discussants. In this context, speakers frequently use I think strategically with more pre-​planning to communicate their perspectives effectively to the audience. Another study on the use of I think conducted through three New Zealand (NZ) corpora provides further interesting findings. I think occurs much less frequently in NZ English, especially in the speech of Maori speakers. Moreover, I think used in the workplace indicates informality, as in private conversation. The author of the study associates these findings with the inclination in Maori and wider NZ cultures, in which egalitarian values and cooperative speech prevails, leading to the avoidance of the speaker-​ oriented marker I think. I think is among a set of pragmatic markers also called epistemic stance markers, or expressions showing speakers’/​writers’ stance, opinions, beliefs, and attitude about the content being discussed (e.g., maybe, seem, tend to, and of course). These markers can index “certainty (or doubt), actuality, precision, or limitation” or “indicate the source of knowledge or the perspective from

97  Biber et al. (1999); Aijmer (2015). 98  Aijmer (2015). 99  Aijmer (2015); Vine (2016).

92

92  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language which the information is given.”100 Such stance can be expressed through the following lexical and grammatical devices:101 • •

•

•

•

Cognitive verbs ○ I think you are right. ○ I guess I’ll just stay in school. Evidential verbs ○ They seem to be affected in different ways. ○ It doesn’t seem as though something is happening in my head. ○ It would appear that they were hitting on me or something. Modal adverbs ○ Oh well, maybe she’ll come back later. ○ Maybe we’ll give them a small bonus. ○ Perhaps I hadn’t made that sufficiently clear. ○ Well, it’s probably real. Modal verbs ○ It may have evolved from viruses. ○ What kind of problems might happen? ○ Some of these things will aid survival, so if you’re… Modal expressions ○ It is clear that the Bible is only used to back up ideas that were already formed. ○ Then things will in my opinion run much more smoothly and much more quickly.

As researchers point out, some modal verbs can have dual meanings. To take must as an example, it can denote moral obligations or necessity in one context and epistemic inference in another. Similarly, may can indicate permission on the one hand and perceived possibility on the other. These markers can be used alone or in combinations requiring multi-​level interpretation at the levels of grammar, vocabulary, meaning, pragmatics, and discourse.102 In academic discourse, hedges such as seem to, suggest, or may are frequently employed to avoid assertion. Authors’ intention can include reducing committing to the truthfulness of the argument, indicating uncertainty or hesitation, displaying politeness or indirectness, or deferring to the readers’ point of view.103 100  Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999: 972); Fordyce (2014); Grundy (2008). 101  Fordyce (2014:8). Sample sentences are from the MICASE corpus (see Chapter 3), with some transcription conventions adjusted. 102  Fordyce (2014). 103  O’Keeffe, Clancy, and Adolphs (2011: 148).

93

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  93 Functions of Anyway—​The MICASE Corpus Let us now focus on how corpus linguistics research on pragmatic markers can facilitate our explicit understanding of two examples of anyway and I mean. From the MICASE corpus, we can see the following two examples for two of the functions of anyway. Example 1 …if you go all the way up here, that these are the older fishes, these two groups of fish down here, um, are going to be, probably two separate spawnings… probably two separate spawnings. i’m not entirely certain. anyway i’ve taken the average of these fish here, and if you look at it on a graph, you can see a fa-​an effect which is quite common…

Example 2 … i don’t talk to most of those that’s people though. that’s a good thing. anyway, back to the topic at hand. so, so then, our nucleophile hits one side or the other, and… Example 1 shows the function of anyway in moving to a new part of a story; Example 2 illustrates the function of returning to an earlier topic following an interruption or digression.104 Further examples of other functions of anyway can be readily available through this online corpus. Functions of I mean—​Limerick Corpus of Irish English (LCIE) Example 3 A:  Have you ever come across a book by General Tom McEoin? B:  I might have yeah. A:  Ah I mean he is well he’s more or less a poet.

Example 4 A:  …Why are they so untouchable these people? B:  Well, I mean the judges are judges you know.They sit up on benches. C:  They’re like Gods. 104 The two functions of anyway from O’Keeffe et al. (2020: 222–​223).

94

94  Describing Pragmatic Use of Language Example 5 A:  She’s gone to Geneva. I mean Zurich. I always confuse Geneva and Zurich. In these examples, I mean serves the functions of making something clearer (Example 3), expanding on a point (Example 4), or correcting what has been said (Example 5).105 For the use of pragmatic markers in different varieties of English such Hong Kong and Singapore Englishes and linkage between nativized discursive norms and local linguacultural identities, see the journal World Englishes. (See also Chapter 8 for relevant instructional examples.)

Discussion This chapter has summarized pragmatic uses of several speech acts and other areas of pragmatics that may be applicable to L2 instruction in a wide range of contexts. Although some insights derive from elicited data, special effort was made to report as much naturally occurring language as possible in the hope that the information will contribute to the development of explicit awareness of how pragmatic language works in its social context. The following activity will provide readers with an opportunity to explore in greater detail the pragmatic feature of their choice using a database housed on the CARLA website. The idea is that if we have explicit knowledge of the “anatomy” of pragmatic language uses, we will more effectively share that information with learners.

ACTIVITY 4.1  Exploring Research-​based Information in Pragmatics Objectives 1 You will be able to identify pragmalinguistic descriptions of some pragmatic features derived from research. 2 You will be able to gain explicit awareness of some sociopragmatic similarities and differences regarding the languages and cultures you are familiar with and beyond. Suggested time: 40 minutes

105 The three examples and functions of I mean from O’Keeffe et al. (2011: 159).

95

Describing Pragmatic Use of Language  95 Materials • •

Access to the internet Optionally, research articles or internet resources on speech acts or other pragmatic features that you wish to investigate

Directions 1 Work individually or form small groups of about three. Ideally, your group have speakers of different languages. 2 Read the portion of this chapter that contains information about the speech act(s) of your choice. This serves as an introduction to the CARLA database. 3 Go online and explore the speech act(s) listed in: https://​carla.umn. edu/​speechacts/​descriptions.html. Be sure to click on “research notes” links for more details. For other pragmatic features, explore your own resource or the bibliography on the page: http://​carla. umn.edu/​speechacts/​bibliography/​index.php 4 Feel free to save the link or save the cultural and linguistic information you think will be beneficial. At some later point, you may decide to use this information to build pragmatics-​focused activities or lessons. 5 If applicable, share what you have found in your small group. Be sure to discuss both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of multiple languages. If working individually, look for information on the languages your students speak. Evaluate how credible or current the information seems to be. If the information does not appear to reflect authentic language use, consider how you would adapt the information. 6 Report to the whole class what your small group discussed or reflect on newly discovered information. Wrap-​up Consider the utility of research-​ based information in pragmatics-​ focused instruction. What are the pros and cons of the information you found? Start considering how you might use the information in teaching L2 pragmatics.

96

5  Learners’ Pragmatics Potential Causes of Divergence1

Introduction When interacting with language learners, we may notice that their pragmatic behavior does not necessarily follow expected patterns even when they are relatively advanced in proficiency. There could be a number of reasons for this phenomenon, and we will explore five of them in this chapter. Take, for example, the relatively sensitive interaction between an experienced advisor, an expert member of academia, and an international graduate student new to that community. Imagine that the student is in her advisor’s office and she does not like the advisor’s suggestions regarding the line-​up of classes she should take in the upcoming semester. Refusing the advisor’s recommendation could be a frightening proposition. In this face-​threatening situation, the advisee’s pragmatic competence becomes crucial for her academic success and for maintaining good rapport with her advisor. Research has shown that the language use of even advanced L2 speakers can diverge from community norms in ways that could be misleading to an advisor.2 We may wonder if learners—​ especially those living in the L2 community—​are able to take advantage of their exposure to authentic language. Even without explicit instruction in pragmatics in the classroom, they may eventually improve their pragmatic competence. However, if no formal instruction is provided, it is said to generally take over ten years in a second-​ language context (as opposed to a foreign-​language context) to understand pragmatic language use in a way commonly understood in the community.3 Even if learners are immersed in the L2 environment, they may not be sufficiently exposed to appropriate or relevant models. For instance, advising sessions are usually kept private, and even if a student happened to overhear the same advisor with another student on a similar issue, that conversation might not provide the best language model due to differences in the two relationships. In addition, learners may rarely receive constructive feedback 1 The term, divergence, to diverge, or divergent as used in this book is descriptive in nature. No pejorative connotation of deficiency is attached to this term, as in Barron (2003). 2  Bardovi-​Harlig and Hartford (2005). 3  Olshtain and Blum-​Kulka (1985); Wolfson (1989).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-5

97

Learners’ Pragmatics  97 about their pragmatic language use from interactants in authentic contexts. Moreover, they are not necessarily required or even expected to conform to local norms of behavior.4 Indeed, pragmatic competence is a complex and challenging aspect of communicative competence. Another important point is that L2 speakers may not necessarily strive for so-​called nativelike pragmatic use. Research indicates that multilingual speakers’ hybrid identities are intertwined with their pragmatic language uses, and for this reason they sometimes choose to behave in a unique fashion.5 It is interesting to note that divergent pragmatic use is not always seen as negative; it can be considered innovative, creative, or even desirable by others as well as speakers themselves. This is especially true if community members are familiar with or tolerant of diverse linguistic practices and cultural values. The issue of who our learners are—​namely, their multilingual identities and hybrid resources (Chapter 1)—​need to be taken into account in our teaching of pragmatics (see especially Chapters 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12 for further discussion of this issue). Even so, there are cases in which divergent pragmatic use may be misinterpreted and lead to unwanted consequences that could have been avoided, which is why it is important to focus on teaching L2 pragmatics explicitly. Language teachers can support learners in their efforts to interpret intended meaning and express themselves as they choose in the L2 community. What keeps learners from understanding cultural norms as they are commonly interpreted in the community? What prevents learners from negotiating their meaning successfully? In this chapter we will look at five major causes of learners’ divergent pragmatic language use. The first four reasons for pragmatic divergence are related primarily to limitations in cognitive functioning in pragmatic use and development. In other words, these factors are at work when learners’ pragmatic competence is still in the making. However, these factors may overlap, and learners sometimes have difficulties in multiple areas. The fifth category is different in essence from the first four in that it is related to learners’ sociocultural being as well as their multilingual identities. At times, learners are aware of the L2 norms and linguistically capable of producing the forms commonly used in the community but make a deliberate choice not to use them for identity assertion. They may also draw from multiple sociocultural resources to react in a unique way differently from monolingual speakers. Furthermore, L2 community members may view learners as outsiders and may not necessarily expect them to act in the local manner. With these complexities in mind, let us look at each of these five factors in order to identify a potential cause—​or combination of causes—​of pragmatic divergence.This review may assist readers in making an educated guess as to why students fail to express themselves or why they deliberately diverge 4  Barron (2003); Kasper and Rose (2002). 5  Ishihara (2019a, b); Ishihara and Tarone (2009); Nogami (2020); Shishavan and Sharifian (2013); Siegal (1996).

98

98  Learners’ Pragmatics from the perceived L2 norms. Explicit awareness of the sources of pragmatic divergence is one of the first steps to be taken toward identifying learners’ needs and designing effective pragmatics instruction for them.

Five Common Causes of Learners’ Divergence from Pragmatic Norms Pragmatic divergence due to underdeveloped pragmatic competence: 1 2 3 4

Crosslinguistic influence Limited grammatical competence in the L26 Overgeneralization of perceived L2 pragmatic norms Effect of instruction or instructional materials

Pragmatic divergence due to learners’ identities: 5 Resistance to using perceived L2 pragmatic norms

Divergence Due to Underdeveloped Pragmatic Competence Sometimes learners may simply not know what is typically said on certain occasions and as a result inadvertently produce divergent language forms. At other times, because their pragmatic awareness has gaps, they decide to take a guess according to what they think most speakers would mean, which turns out to be quite atypical in that particular context. On other occasions, they may rely on the sociocultural norms and language behavior associated with the L1 (or L3) community they are familiar with. Learners may also obtain material from the teacher or from language textbooks, which may mislead them, resulting in a cultural faux pas when they use such forms in authentic interaction. Thus partial lapses in pragmatic awareness, insensitivity to the pragmatic norms of the L2, or still emerging linguistic competence may often be the reason for pragmatic divergence. 1  Crosslinguistic Influence When learners do not know L2 pragmatic norms or when they assume that their own pragmatic norms apply in the given situation in the L2 community, they may—​consciously or unconsciously—​depend on the norms that apply for that situation when using their L1 or L3. This influence of the

6  Grammar refers broadly to formal linguistic knowledge that includes not only syntax and morphosyntax but also lexis and phonology (Canale and Swain 1980; Kasper and Rose 2002).

9

Learners’ Pragmatics  99 learners’ knowledge of other languages and cultures on their L2 pragmatic use is referred to as crosslinguistic influence, or more traditionally, pragmatic transfer.7 Although crosslinguistic influence can produce positive results when learners’ pragmatic norms are similar and applicable to the L2 (referred to as positive transfer), intercultural misunderstanding or nonunderstanding may occur if expected behavior differs between the L1 and L2. Let us take the case of a Korean learner of Japanese who receives a compliment on her class presentation from a classmate. Although she is not sure of what to say in response in Japanese, she depends on her L1-​based intuition and says the equivalent of “No, that’s not true” in Japanese. This is likely to be perceived as appropriately humble in the L2 culture, where the pragmatic norm is often similar to that in the learner’s L1. However, in a community where the L2 norms are quite different, the transfer of behavior consistent with L1 norms may cause awkwardness, misunderstanding, or even a communication breakdown. This is especially the case when the conversational partner is not familiar with the learners’ languages or cultures. Let us suppose that the above-​mentioned Korean learner, speaking English this time, responds to another classmate’s compliment saying “No, that’s not true” in English. This language behavior may make it sound as if she were flatly rejecting or questioning the peer’s evaluation, hence creating a somewhat awkward situation or even sound insulting. Anyone with knowledge of Korean pragmatics would most likely understand the source of this response to the compliment, but others may be mystified or offended. The following are some more examples of crosslinguistic pragmatic influence in a spoken or written interaction with members of the L2 community:

• When invited to a birthday party of a friend in Mexico, an American

turns it down by explaining precisely why he cannot make it rather than saying he will make an effort to be there, which is a typical refusal in Mexico.8 • A Japanese learner of English opens a work email written in English by discussing the weather following a common convention in her culture. Her audience is a group of other Asian speakers and a Midwesterner in

7 See Kasper (1992) for an extensive discussion of pragmatic transfer. Although an underlying assumption in mainstream SLA or interlanguage pragmatics may be to descriptively identify pragmatic transfer, the assumption is too often translated into a deficit view of L2 development and native-​speakerism. This ideology holds that native speakers essentially offer models of correct and appropriate language use, that (idealized) native-​speaker language is the optimal model for L2 learners, and that native speakers are likely to demonstrate the most effective and updated methodological approaches (Ishihara 2021a; Kasper 2010; Swan, Aboshaha, and Holliday 2015). Moreover, the term crosslinguistic influence is viewed as more inclusive and non-​pejorative than pragmatic transfer, encompassing effects of the L2 on the L1 and influence across more than two languages (Ishihara 2018). 8 This example comes from Félix-​Brasdefer (2003).

10

100  Learners’ Pragmatics the U.S., who all happen to share similar discourse patterns. Thus, the email is read as entirely personable and polite. • A Danish learner of English uses a modal verb with negative interrogative to make a request (e.g., Can’t you clean the kitchen?) because this construction mitigates the request in Danish. This learner is unaware that in English, the negation can insinuate nuances of exasperation.9 It can be argued that crosslinguistic influence is a natural consequence of being multilingual–​–​a phenomenon indicative of creative language use and agency. Crosslinguistic influence should not be viewed in a negative light just because learners’ output diverges from the community practices of monolingual L1 speakers. I agree wholeheartedly and detail this multilingual hybridity under the fifth category of pragmatic resistance below. For now, we focus on cases in which the divergence is unintended due to underdeveloped pragmatic competence, which is why learners can benefit from pragmatics instruction addressing the gap. If the cause of potential pragmatic divergence is crosslinguistic influence, teachers may wish to incorporate awareness-​raising tasks in their pragmatics instruction. The message to be given to students in such tasks would be that what is appropriate in one culture may or may not be so in another. For example, in teaching culturally diverse learners how to give and respond to compliments, learners’ L1 knowledge can be used as a resource: What do people say in your country when they give and receive compliments on a nice-​looking possession or a presentation that was well done? Provide a literal translation of some examples. This discussion is likely to help make similarities and differences across the learners’ cultures more apparent, effectively demonstrating the risk involved in inadvertently relying on familiar pragmatic norms. After this activity was used in an ESL class, an Arabic-​speaking student commented; “Even if I know it [how to give compliments] in my native language, if I translate it, it won’t work.”10 It is this pragmatic awareness that will most likely prevent undesirable crosslinguistic influence. 2  Limited L2 Grammatical Competence Learners’ grammatical competence and pragmatic control are not necessarily on a par with one another. Even if they have flawless control of grammar, they may fail to understand the listener’s intended meaning or to use language in a culturally preferred manner. Conversely, learners who demonstrate 9  Kasper (2010: 147). 10  Ishihara (2004: 54).

10

Learners’ Pragmatics  101 Table 5.1 Form, meaning, and use of requests (e.g., Would you mind if …) Form: Meaning: Use:

Verbs in the subjunctive and modals in if-​and main clauses Meaning of verbs (e.g., mind and wonder), illocutionary meaning of request these formulaic structures convey Level of (im)politeness, (in)formality, and (in)directness of the structures; the reason why these expressions were used in relation to the speaker-​listener relationship and other contextual factors

very little grammatical accuracy may still be able to behave pragmatically appropriately.11 Nonetheless, learners’ grammatical competence has an impact on their pragmatic language use. They may be able to comprehend others’ messages better when these messages use the grammar they best understand. Likewise, they are most likely to produce structures that are within their grammatical control. For example, learners whose grammatical competence is limited to simple sentences may understand single-​clause requests such as Can I use your pen for a second? But if they are yet to master compound sentences, they may not be able to comprehend accurately or produce bi-​clausal requests (e.g. Would you mind if … or I was wondering if…). Thus if learners’ underdeveloped grammatical competence is a cause of pragmatic divergence, teachers might decide to include some pragmalinguistic activities. In teaching bi-​clausal requests, for example, it would be important to direct learners’ attention to the form through either learner discovery or more directive teaching.The verb in the subjunctive and the modal in the if-​ clause, for instance, Would you mind if I borrowed your notes? or I was wondering if I could possibly use your phone for a couple of minutes, would need to be explicitly addressed. At the same time, it is important to link learners’ knowledge of the linguistic form and functional meaning of these constructions, as well as their contextualized use, as Table 5.1.12 (See Chapter 7 for sample grammar-​ focused activities that have bearings on pragmatics.) 3  Overgeneralization of Perceived L2 Pragmatic Norms When L2 speakers develop a hypothesis about L2 grammar, they are known to sometimes overgeneralize a certain rule to other language situations where the rule does not apply.13 For instance, the general rule of forming past tense verbs by adding -​ed is often incorrectly applied to irregular verbs (e.g., eated, taked, or telled) due to overgeneralization. We can draw a parallel here with the realm of pragmatics. When learners have only a rudimentary understanding of the L2 culture, they may depend on their preconceived notions about L2 norms and unfittingly apply them 11  See Wes’ case in Schmidt (1983). 12  Larsen-​Freeman (2014). 13  Selinker (1972).

102

102  Learners’ Pragmatics to different contexts. Pragmatic failure may occur as a result. In such a case, learners’ overgeneralization of pragmatic norms of the L2 may draw on preconceived cultural stereotypes, neglecting social, geographical, and other situational variability in the L2. For example, apologizing by simply saying I’m sorry or Excuse me works in some situations but not in others, especially when the magnitude of the offense is great. In another example, learners may induce from their own intercultural experiences that Asian-​language speakers tend to be more indirect compared to English speakers and may apply this stereotypical notion unsuitably to another situation in which Asian-​language speakers would in fact speak rather directly. Misconceptions can occur at a more linguistic level as well. Learners may improperly associate linguistic forms with a given level of politeness or formality. For example, they might look at a range of request expressions and generate a hypothesis that the longer an expression is, the more polite or formal the expression must be. So since the expression, May I…? is relatively short, they may associate the structure with extreme informality, when it in fact implies greater formality.14 One way to support learners in avoiding such overgeneralizations would be to present a general pragmatic norm and then a few counterexamples. Here is an example of an activity on refusals in Japanese from a web-​based curriculum.15 Scenario: Your roommate is a good friend of yours, but she sometimes asks you to loan her some money and does not necessarily pay it back promptly. Today again, she asks for 3,000 yen (about US$28). Because she has not yet paid you back from the last few times you loaned her money, you want to decline her request this time. Besides, you don’t really have extra money you can lend her at this point. Here is a sample dialogue between two female friends as it was presented to learners in the web-​based unit. This dialogue was elicited through a role-​ play but reflected authentic language use fairly closely. By attending to the refusal strategies in bold below, you may notice how indirect and hesitant B’s utterances sound in general. She never uses the word no and shares A’s problem trying to collaboratively come up with a solution. She even apologizes for not being able to help. Given that learners are likely to have generalized that refusals in Japanese are usually more indirect than in English, this example would be consistent with that generalization.

14  Matsuura (1998). 15 The entire activity, including audio files and transcripts for both dialogues, is available at: http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​refusals/​ex2.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). See also Chapter 9 for more about this curriculum.

103

Learners’ Pragmatics  103 A:  ね え、みか、ちょっとお金貸してもらえないかな、今 日。“Hey, Mika, can you loan me some money today?” B:  えー、いくら？ “Um, how much?” えー、いくら？ A:  あの、3000円なんだけど。“Well, 3,000 yen.” B:  う ー ん 、 今 月 は ね 、 私 も ち ょ っ と 厳 し い の 。 “Well, my budget is a little tight this month, too.” A:  うーん、そこをなんとかならないかな。 “Well, can you help me at all somehow?” B:  えー、でも先月の えー、でも先月の2000円もまだ返してくれてないじゃな 円もまだ返してくれてないじゃな い。 “Well, but you haven’t paid back the 2,000 from last month either.” A:  うん、そうだったね。来週、ほら、あの、お給料入るか ら、全部一緒に払えるから。だめかな。 “You are right. Well, I’ll get paid next week, so I can pay everything back then. Please!” B:  うーん、ともこさんには聞いてみた？ “Well, have you うーん、ともこさんには聞いてみた？ asked Tomoko?” A:  あー、そうだね、聞いてみるよ。 “Ah, that’s right. I’ll ask her.” B:  うん、その方が嬉しいな。 “Yeah, I’d be happier that way.” うん、その方が嬉しいな。 A:  うん、わかった。じゃあ。 “All right. See you, then.” B:  ごめんね。 “I’m sorry,” ごめんね。 A:  いいよ、いいよ、気にしないで。 “That’s OK. Never mind.” The activity goes on to present another sample dialogue, this time between two male speakers. Although this sample was also obtained through a role-​ play, the exchange reflects authentic language use relatively closely. Note how the refusals are presented in direct fashion (in bold). A:  あ、けんじ、ちょっと頼みがあるんだけどさ。 “Hey, Kenji, I have a favor to ask you.” B:  えー、何、何？ “Oh, what is it?” えー、何、何？ A:  あの、3000円貸してくれない？ “Um, can you loan me 3,000 yen?” B:  え、また？だってさ、この間貸したけどさ、返ってきて え、また？だってさ、この間貸したけどさ、返ってきて ないよ。 “What, again? I loaned you some the other day, but you haven’t paid me back yet.”

104

104  Learners’ Pragmatics A:  うん、返すからさ、月末には。 “Yeah, I’ll pay you back at the end of the month.” B:  いやー、そんなこと言っておまえ、いつも返してくれな いやー、そんなこと言っておまえ、いつも返してくれな いじゃん。 “No way, you say that, but you never pay back.” A:  いやー、返すよ、ほらこの間返したじゃん、一回。 “Oh, no, I will pay you back. See, I paid you back once the other day.” A:  いや、うそ、うそ。ちょっとだめだよ。だって全然返し いや、うそ、うそ。ちょっとだめだよ。だって全然返し てくれないんだもん。 “No, way, that’s a lie, a lie! Well, I can’t. You never pay back.” A:  いやー、困ってるんだよ。頼むからさ、今回だけ。 “Well, I’m in trouble. Please. Just this time.” B:  だめ、だめ、もう癖になるからね。だめ、だめ。 “No, だめ、だめ、もう癖になるからね。だめ、だめ。 no. It would give you a bad habit. No, no!” You may have noticed that speaker B repeatedly uses the flat rejection no and even characterizes his friend’s utterance as a lie, although doing so tends to have less of a shock value in Japanese than in English. B draws on fairly competitive discourse and acts as if he were assuming a parental or teacherly role. This particular sample could work as a counterexample to the learners’ overgeneralization that Japanese speakers are indirect. Learners could be asked to compare these two dialogues and consider what factors may have led to any differences. They may notice the impact of gender and perhaps also personal speech styles. Thus although we need to be wary of gender stereotypes in relation to these particular dialogues, showing contrastive examples helps illustrate the variation found in authentic discourse and why learners’ over-​ dependence on generalizations may be risky, however convenient it is to be able to simplify pragmatic patterns. 4  Effect of Instruction or Instructional Materials16 Learners’ pragmatic divergence can sometimes be attributed to the effect of instruction or instructional materials rather than being a result of insufficient pragmatic awareness or incomplete pragmatic control on the learners’ part. In fact, this factor can be viewed as a sub-​category of the previous one, overgenralization of perceived L2 pragmatic norms. However, it is listed as an independent factor in order to highlight the responsibility that lies with the instruction or instructor rather than with the learner. For example, classroom instruction may place emphasis on having learners produce complete sentences. However, when learners apply this pattern to 16  Selinker (1972) referred to teacher-​or materials-​induced errors as transfer of training.

105

Learners’ Pragmatics  105 real-​life conversations, the communication may be viewed as inefficient, even irritating or lacking in tact, in part because it violates the principle of economy, where repetitive information tends to be omitted in natural conversation.17 For example, when asked, “Have you had a chance to go canoeing on the beautiful lake this summer?” a learner may reply, “Yes. I have had a chance to go canoeing on the beautiful lake this summer.” However, such a response would come across as overly redundant in spoken discourse as depending on the tone, repetition can inadvertently convey annoyance or displeasure. Similarly, generalizations found in instructional materials may be misleading. For instance, a cultural note in a language textbook saying that English tends to be spoken directly may induce learners’ overgeneralization of this tendency. Learners may assume that there are few indirect or polite expressions in English. Such a misconception neglects the complexity of pragmatic language use and disregards how much language can vary across situations. Thus a learner who remembers this misleading piece of information may ask too direct a question, for example when getting to know a colleague at work, such as “What is your religion?” In such a case, the listener’s interpretation may well be that the learner is being too direct and personal. One way for teachers to avoid negative consequences of instruction would be to check how well what is taught reflects the reality found in different situations. While the instructional materials may not be “wrong,” they might be purposefully simplified to accommodate learners’ perceived levels of proficiency or intercultural competence. Teachers may therefore wish to make sure that the information presented is not misleading. If it is, it may need to be avoided or adapted accordingly. It will also be beneficial to consider with learners how textbooks may at times include language that is somewhat inconsistent with the pragmatic norms of the L2 community. In the preceding example, we discussed a case of learners instructed to produce complete sentences for the sake of structural practice. In pragmatics-​focused instruction, teachers may wish to use transcripts of naturally occurring exchanges in both formal and informal contexts and have learners analyze how frequently complete and incomplete responses occur. The class could also discuss what pragmatic effects both types of responses have in those particular contexts. Complete sentences could be interpreted as anywhere from appropriately formal or well-​articulated to inefficient, repetitive, tactless, or even rude or sarcastic. Similarly, incomplete sentences may sound fittingly informal or efficient, uncooperative, or overly informal depending on the context. Learners can be encouraged to consider these pragmatic effects in interpreting and using both complete and incomplete responses.This awareness-​raising task can help guard against the misuse of instructional content by allowing learners to grasp pragmatic meaning more precisely and make more informed decisions as to how they choose to express themselves. 17 Thomas (1983).

106

106  Learners’ Pragmatics Pragmatic Divergence Due to the Learners’ Identities Thus far we have looked at cognitive reasons for pragmatic divergence that are the result of gaps in basic language proficiency or knowledge about L2 pragmatics. What these factors behind divergence have in common is that they are unintended or unwanted on the part of the learner. But what about instances where learners deliberately choose to resist what they see as pragmatic norms of the L2 community or when multilingual learners draw from their hybrid identities and multiple repertoires of resources? 5  Resistance to Using Perceived L2 Pragmatic Norms As discussed above, another possible cause for pragmatic divergence may be a sense of resistance, or intentional divergence from the perceived pragmatic norms of the L2. As you may well imagine, learners are not a blank slate free from preconceptions of the world. Rather, they are social beings replete with their own cultural values, beliefs, and worldviews. Their multicultural subjectivity—​identities, attitudes, personal beliefs, and principles—​is likely to influence how they present themselves through the L2. On the one hand, they may emulate L2 norms in order to communicate effectively or attain social approval in the community. On the other, they may at times deliberately diverge from L2 norms to negotiate their linguistic or cultural uniqueness, even when they have sufficient pragmalinguistic control and are capable of producing commonly used structures or discourses. This can be viewed as a case of pragmatic resistance.18 Learners may even elect to maintain an optimal distance from the L2 community to preserve their subjective dispositions, including values, personal principles, identities, and integrity if these are in conflict with perceived L2 norms.19 Alternatively, learners may—​naturally and subconsciously—​draw from their translingual resources to negotiate their cultural hybridity in a way monolingual community members have no access to.They may blend and operate in-​between the multiple repertoires of social practices, performing a type of pragmatic translanguaging (see Chapter 1). Thus pragmatic resistance can be understood as a normal or inherent process of negotiation in intercultural interactions (see Chapters 1 and 6). The phenomenon of pragmatic resistance has important pedagogical implications for language teaching. Culturally sensitive teachers would make sure not to impose L2 norms on learners as this could be interpreted as a type of cultural imposition or exercise of power.20 It is the prerogative of 18  Ishihara (2019a, b). Examples of such learner behavior can be found in many studies, including Ishihara and Tarone (2009); Siegal (1996). 19  Learners may sometimes refuse to acquire certain language forms that conflict with their own subjective position, in which case the cause of their pragmatic divergence would be insufficient pragmatic competence. 20  Kasper and Rose (2002).

107

Learners’ Pragmatics  107 the learners to decide when they will accommodate to a perceived range of pragmatic norms and to what extent they will do so under each circumstance. Rather than attempting to eliminate pragmatic resistance, teachers could use culturally sensitive instructional strategies. For example, a learner of Japanese in a study chose to use a combination of higher level of keigo (exalted and humble forms of honorifics) while casually conversing with a much younger employee even when he knew that he was not expected to do so. His rationale was that he believed in equality among all human beings and that he did not want to seem discourteous to anyone by using a less respectful speech style.21 Thus his personal beliefs contradicted what he knew as an L2 pragmatic norm. This conflict caused him to deliberately diverge from the perceived community practice. While this learner’s pragmatic choice deserves to be respected, teachers may wish to ensure that the learner has receptive pragmatic competence, meaning that he shares common interpretations of L2 norms used in, for example, the workplace community and that he is making an informed pragmatic choice in full knowledge of the potential consequences of his pragmatic choice. With this learner, teachers may use the following metapragmatic discussion designed to refine such awareness: What impression might your employees have of you and your speech style? How might they define their relationship with you as a result? What are some consequences—​the potential pros and cons—​of your developing this type of relationship with them? To ensure that learners are able to produce L2 honorific forms in the Japanese language classroom, teachers could ask learners: What would most people in Japan say in this situation? What would be a typical response in this situation? rather than: What would you say in Japanese in this situation? While the difference may strike you as subtle, this would enable teachers to evade the issue of how learners personally choose to express themselves while learning pragmalinguistic form. Similarly, learners’ pragmatic choices can be assessed in light of their intention rather than how nativelike it is (see Chapter 12). 21  Ishihara and Tarone (2009).

108

108  Learners’ Pragmatics In any case, teachers can play an important role in supporting learners in interpreting others and expressing themselves as they please in context. Whether learners choose to conform to perceived community norms or diverge from them, it is important for language teachers to ensure that learners recognize the commonly-​ shared pragmatic interpretations and potential consequences of their pragmatic behavior. In the above example, pragmatically competent speakers of Japanese rarely use a combination of higher level of keigo honorifics in addressing a much younger employee for the purpose of rapport building in informal contexts. In fact, consistent use of multiple honorifics may sound as if the employer is being overly polite and perhaps somewhat distancing, even sarcastic or playful. However, if the employer is perceived as an L2 speaker not fully competent in the L2, the relationship may not be affected at all. Alternatively, the learner may be seen as trying to be respectful in his own way, as intended by the particular learner in this example. While accommodation to L2 norms may open doors to cultural integration, resisting L2 norms in a given situation can have positive as well as negative repercussions, leading to undesirable alienation from the community but also to the creative negotiation of community norms (see second language socialization, Chapter 6), which can be followed by a sense of self-​fulfillment on the part of multilingual speakers themselves. Especially in today’s global context, in which details of interactants’ cultural backgrounds may be unknown, relatively straightforward expressions may be preferred. In such a context, interactants tend to avoid elaborate politeness or indirectness, idioms, and cultural innuendos. The pragmatic norms of monolingual speakers may therefore be irrelevant to multicultural speakers.22 Instead, in a goal-​ oriented approach, multilingual speakers may focus on negotiating the main message by deploying various communication strategies so as to enhance explicitness in meaning and preempting potential problems in interaction. In the L2 classroom, learners can practice using these communication strategies (see Chapters 2, 8, and 9).23

Discussion In this chapter, we have explored potential causes of learners’ pragmatic behavior distinct from L2 community norms. When teachers of L2 pragmatics encounter such pragmatic uses in the classroom, they may first wish to differentiate between what is likely to be problematic and what is not. “Unproblematic” behavior may not correspond exactly to what most community members say, but it may be sufficient to communicate the 22  Kasper (2010). 23  Ishihara and Prado (in press); Taguchi and Ishihara (2018).

109

Learners’ Pragmatics  109 learners’ intentions. Perhaps it is safe to leave this type of learners’ pragmatic use alone. For example, although “I am Ken” when answering the phone is not exactly standard, it is unlikely to cause offense for the listener, especially if the speaker is viewed as a beginning language learner. In contrast, potentially “problematic” language behavior can potentially cause pragmatic failure and therefore most likely warrants instruction. If the same learner on the phone goes on to say, “Who are you?” in a sharp tone of voice, the likelihood that this may sound unpleasant to the listener increases. This may be when a teacher decides to intervene to teach more socioculturally preferred pragmatic use. In summary, learners’ unintended pragmatic divergence deriving from cognitive limitations can stem from pragmatic or grammatical competence in the making and can be attributed to several factors (#1–​4 above):

• Influence of other languages on the learner’s L2 • Limited grammatical competence, precluding their understanding or

producing preferred pragmalinguistic forms • Learners’ misapplication of what they think is an L2 pragmatic norm to an inappropriate context • Misleading information from the teacher or instructional materials about L2 pragmatic norms Another cause of divergence is a different sociocultural issue that stems from learners’ multilingual identities rather than cognitive limitations (#5 above):

• Learners’ pragmatic resistance, in which learners intentionally avoid pragmatic norms in the L2 community or when they creatively and agenticly blend their multilingual resources in order to negotiate their hybrid identities

Some of these factors are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can occur in combination. The causes of pragmatic divergence are not always crystal clear, and the teacher may need to observe learners further or ask them why they behaved in a particular way. In any case, teachers conducting this needs assessment would have a head start in effectively teaching and assessing learners’ pragmatic development. For instance, when a cause of pragmatic divergence is limited grammatical control, reinforcement of necessary structures will meet learners’ needs more efficiently than reviewing pragmatic awareness learners have already demonstrated. Teachers sensitive to learners’ pragmatic choices may wish to make their assessments based on how well learners’ intended meaning is expressed rather than how nativelike they sound (see Chapter 12).The following activity will provide readers with an opportunity to analyze potential causes of learners’ pragmatic divergence and to brainstorm on effective teaching strategies.

10

110  Learners’ Pragmatics

ACTIVITY 5.1  Determining the Potential Sources of Pragmatic Divergence Objectives 1 You will be able to identify the potential source or combination of sources for pragmatic divergence. 2 You will be able to brainstorm on instruction that can successfully support learners in their effort to comprehend others and negotiate their message. Suggested time: 40 minutes Materials • • •

Information: “Sources of pragmatic divergence” with five potential sources for learners’ divergent pragmatic behavior Task Sheet: “Examples of pragmatic divergence” Possible answers

Directions Part I 1 Form groups of about four participants and briefly review the Information containing the list of potential sources of pragmatic divergence. 2 Look at each example of learners’ pragmatic L2 use included in the Task Sheet “Examples of pragmatic divergence.” Determine the factors that may have contributed to that particular pragmatic behavior. Match each example with possible sources. Note that there could be more than one source for a given pragmatic behavior and that it may be difficult or impossible to identify only one. 3 After matching all examples with potential reasons, refer to “Possible Answers,” comparing them with the results obtained by your group. Discuss any inconsistencies and new interpretations. 4 As a whole class, share the highlights of your small-​ g roup discussion. Part II 1 Get back into your group and brainstorm the instructional tasks you would design to help learners overcome each type of pragmatic divergence due to underdeveloped pragmatic competence. Observation alone may not tell you how aware learners are of the L2 norms or of the potential consequences resulting from their

1

Learners’ Pragmatics  111 resistance. In such a case, discuss possible questions you will ask the learners. 2 In case of pragmatic resistance, consider questions you might use with your students in order to probe the level of their (meta)pragmatic awareness. If they are well aware of typical behavior and of possible consequence of their language choice, do your best to remain respectful of their agency and pragmatic choices. If they are unaware of such behaviors, consider a classroom task or activity that would trigger their awareness. 3 As a whole class, share some of the instructional examples and highlights of your discussion. Wrap-​up This activity serves as a simulation for needs assessment. In addition, the discussion may have prompted you to reflect on your own previous experiences learning and using an L2, particularly with regard to cases of pragmatic failure and pragmatic resistance. What pragmatic challenges or failure did you experience? How did your conversational partner react to you in those cases? You may wish to share your experiences to collaboratively analyze what factors may have contributed to any communicative difficulties and sense of resistance so as to let this awareness inform your future pragmatic instruction. Information: Sources of Pragmatic Divergence Crosslinguistic influence (#1)

CI

Limited L2 grammatical competence (#2)

G

Overgeneralization of perceived L2 pragmatic norms (#3)

O

Effect of instruction or instructional materials (#4)

I

Resistance to using perceived L2 pragmatic norms (#5)

R

Task Sheet: Examples of Pragmatic Divergence 1 An American learner of Spanish has a sense that Spanish speakers are more direct in their requests. Still, she wants to play it safe and ask in a more polite way while studying abroad in Toledo, Spain. She decides to use what she thinks is an equivalent of the English request “Could I have some coffee, please” when ordering in a café. Her server finds her request unnatural since Spanish speakers typically say “Un café, por favor” or “Ponme un café,” the equivalent of “Coffee, please” or “Give me coffee.”a Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​

12

112  Learners’ Pragmatics 2 An L2 speaker of Japanese starts teaching English in a Japanese junior high school. A Japanese colleague approaches him and asks in Japanese if he wants to clean the school with the students, a customary community-​building routine in most schools in Japan. Even though he knows that a Japanese teacher would probably say yes, he chooses to decline because he believes that he did not go to college to clean a school.b Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 3 A learner of English who reads in an ESL textbook: Americans say “Thank you” to a compliment receivedc starts responding that way to all compliments she receives and expects all fluent English speakers to react that way. Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 4 A Japanese learner of English is invited to a concert over the weekend but wants to decline because he would rather spend the night with his children at home. He translates what he would say in Japanese into English literally and says, “I have something to take care of at home.”d Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 5 An English-​speaking learner of Indonesian hears the expression Did you eat yet? as a regular greeting used among local Indonesians but avoids using it herself because it does not really seem like a greeting to her.e Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 6 A Western learner of Japanese hears a female Japanese speaker use a combination of higher-​level honorifics (humble and polite forms) to an elderly male and says to herself: “I’ll play it safe with the polite form. She sounds too humble for me.”f Although she gets a perfect score on a quiz on humble forms in her Japanese language class, she decides not to use it in speaking to the elderly male. Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 7 A beginning learner of English asks a good friend to help him with a course paper written in English. The friend says: “If you’d told me earlier, I could’ve helped you.” The learner catches the “… I could … help” portions of the message and is somewhat confused about what the friend means: Can she help or not? Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​

13

Learners’ Pragmatics  113 8 A Japanese salesperson briefs an Australian staff member in English on the procedure for meeting with clients the preceding afternoon. At the end of the explanation, the Japanese salesperson says: “Let’s cooperate” as he feels this is the closest equivalent of (gokyoryoku) yorosiku ongetai shimasu, which people would typically say to close the conversation in Japanese. The Australian counterpart was mystified as she thought she was cooperating with him. She wondered if she had done something to suggest she wasn’t willing to work with him.g Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 9 A beginning learner of English asks a clerk in a repair shop to fix an item with “Do this for me now” because the learner has not yet learned how to be more indirect and consequently sound more polite (e.g., “I was wondering how soon you might be able to repair this for me”). Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 10  A  Korean visitor to the U.S. heard that Americans tend to be friendly, so she is surprised when that middle-​aged man next to her on the bus seems unwilling to have a conversation with her. In response to her question, “What can I see in this town?” he just responds with, “Oh, lots of things” and goes back to reading his book. The visitor is put off by this response. Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 11 An American learner of Italian heard that Italians talk with their hands a lot, so he makes an effort to use a lot of hand gestures to make his points in Italian while studying in Rome. An Italian friend takes him aside and tells him that he gestures too much and also that some of his gestures mean something different from what he intends. Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 12 A male Spanish learner of English gives an inappropriate compliment (piropo) to a female English speaker (e.g., “My god! So many curves and me without brakes!”—​a literal translation from the Spanish: ¡Dios mio, tantas curvas y yo sin frenos!h) This Spanish speaker is not aware that referring to piropos, which are likely to be socially acceptable in certain Spanish subcultures, are less so in English-​speaking cultures. In this case, the female English speaker interprets his utterance as rude and chauvinistic. Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​

14

114  Learners’ Pragmatics 13 A Japanese woman in her early 20s is visiting her boyfriend’s family in England during Christmas. A large number of the boyfriend’s family has come to the family home and are sitting down to a Christmas dinner. The boyfriend’s mother asks his Japanese girlfriend how she finds the traditional English Christmas dinner. She replies: “It’s f-​-​-​ing lovely.” She knows that is foul language but since her boyfriend always uses the phrase, it just slipped out.i Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ 14 While studying abroad, a learner of English joins a dinner-​time conversation in her university dormitory and shares her perspective on culture shock. Then a friend who has also studied abroad says “I couldn’t agree with you more.” The learner thinks that this friend doesn’t agree and continues to explain her ideas further. Potential reason(s) for pragmatic divergence: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Possible Answers As noted above, the causes of divergence may result from multiple sources that are intertwined with each other, so below are only some possibilities. It may also be difficult to pinpoint the exact source(s) of an instance of pragmatic divergence by just observing surface manifestations. Teachers may consider asking learners themselves for their explanations since they may be the best judges. In addition, teachers and learners can make it a joint goal to avoid unintended pragmatic divergence and deal with deliberate divergence in an informed manner. 1 Crosslinguistic influence; possibly limited grammatical competence if this learner has no or little exposure to the expected forms 2 Resistance 3 Instruction or instructional materials; overgeneralization (as instruction or instructional material is seen as a sub-​category of overgeneralization) 4 Crosslinguistic influence 5 Resistance; possibly crosslinguistic influence if learners are not fully aware of the cultural meaning of this greeting expression 6 Resistance 7 Limited grammatical competence 8 Crosslinguistic influence; possibly instruction or instructional materials if the learner was misguided by literal translation through instruction; overgeneralization (as instruction or instructional material is seen as a sub-​category of overgeneralization)

15

Learners’ Pragmatics  115 9 Limited grammatical competence; possibly crosslinguistic influence if the learner’s L1 allows this type of direct request in a service encounter 10 Overgeneralization; possibly instruction or instructional materials if the generalization was misguided through instruction 11 Overgeneralization and limited grammatical competence (the wrong use of some of the gestures); possibly instruction or instructional materials if the source of his information is instruction or instructional materials; possibly crosslinguistic influence if the speaker uses many hand gestures in the L1 12 Crosslinguistic influence 13 Instruction (or boyfriend-​induced(!) divergence); overgeneralization if the occasion of family Christmas dinner is confused with an everyday situation between young intimates 14 Limited grammatical competence   Adapted from Shively (2010).   Example from Ishihara (2006). c  Textbook commentary reported in Coulmas (1981). d   Example from Beebe et al. (1990). e   Example from DuFon (1999). f   Example reported in Siegal (1996). g   Adapted from Bridges (2010). h  Example from Campo and Zuluaga (2000). The acceptability and interpretation of piropos depends on various factors such as the listener’s variety of Spanish, age, occupation, and education. A more socially acceptable example of a piropo is: La flor por ser flor no necesita mil colores; un hombre para ser hombre no necesita mil amores “A flower, to be a flower, doesn’t need a thousand colors; a man, to be a man, doesn’t need a thousand lovers.” See Block (2007) for piropos and sexual harassment. i   Adapted from Bridges (2010). a

b

16

6  Theories of Second Language Acquisition and the Teaching of Pragmatics

Introduction Although the bulk of this book is practical in orientation, this chapter takes a look at theoretical underpinnings of L2 pragmatic development and instruction. Because teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practice are interconnected, (re)viewing current understanding of pragmatics-​focused language learning and teaching can reinforce this link and facilitate principled teaching (see Chapter 2). Since pragmatic development is a complex phenomenon, it is a challenge to explain or predict the multiple layers of factors involved along with their interactions. Here, an Indian fable about nine blind men1 may be relevant. Once there were nine inquisitive blind men who did not know what an elephant was. They went to learn about this animal to understand what it was like. Each one touched only one part of the elephant and on that basis made an observation. The blind man who touched only the ears thought that an elephant was like a large, thin fan. The man who touched the tail thought that an elephant was like a rope. Another man who touched the trunk associated an elephant with a snake. The one who touched the legs likened the elephant to a tree trunk. The man who touched the elephant’s side thought the animal was like a tall wall … This fable illustrates the relationship between the parts and the whole (Figure 6.1). Observation of just one component part—​or spotlighting only one part of a complex phenomenon—​may not tell the whole story and may in fact be misleading. We need to group together observations for each component in order to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon in question. As language teachers, we generally do not have access to what is going on inside our students’ heads and do not follow them around to examine how they actually use the L2 in their social networks. In some ways, we are like 1  Adapted from Patton (2002: 62).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-6

17

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  117

Figure 6.1  Elephant in the spotlights.

the blind men when it comes to understanding the phenomenon of pragmatic learning. While probing to better understand cognitive processing can be of value, at best it provides only a limited picture of this multi-​faceted phenomenon. A more holistic approach to understanding pragmatic development in learners’ cognitive, sociopsychological, social, or affective (emotional) domains would entail shining a spotlight on multiple aspects involved in pragmatic learning and consider, among other things, how learners’ sociocultural being is linked to their pragmatic use as a whole. Researchers in SLA have offered theoretical frameworks that facilitate our understanding of how language learning works. Let us first look at the basic tenets of one of them, the noticing hypothesis. This hypothesis helps us explain an important cognitive learning of L2 pragmatics and suggests how teachers can assist in this process. In addition, given the social nature of language learning and use, we will discuss other interdisciplinary considerations, particularly those related to sociocultural theory, identity and agency, second-language socialization, and translingual frameworks. These conceptual frameworks are useful in attempting to account for multiple domains that dynamically interact with L2 pragmatic learning and use. This chapter sets out to do exactly this by introducing a range of relevant studies, including those conducted in study abroad, immersion, heritage language learning, and workplace contexts.

18

118  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics

Cognitive Frameworks Relating to L2 Pragmatic Development Among the most prominent theoretical frameworks underlying L2 language development is the noticing hypothesis.2 This framework helps us justify the awareness-​raising approach often drawn upon in L2 pragmatics instruction. Noticing, Awareness, and Attention The noticing hypothesis discussed in SLA has been extended to its sub-​ discipline, the realm of L2 pragmatics learning. According to this framework, attention and awareness can be viewed as inseparable, like two sides of the same coin. Attention is seen as a variety of mechanisms or subsystems that control access to awareness. Attention is limited and selective in nature, managing access to consciousness and leading to the control of action and learning.3 According to this framework, pragmatic information must be consciously attended to for the learning of pragmatics to take place. When pragmatic information is noticed, whether attended to deliberately or inadvertently, the input has the potential to become intake and may be stored in long-​term memory.4 Then what pragmatic aspects should learners attend to? Does each of the specific attributes need to be attended to in processing, or is global attention sufficient? Proponents of this hypothesis argue that attention must be directed not only to global attributes but also to specific, focused aspects of the L2. With regard to the learning of pragmatics, this means that learners need to attend to language form, functional meaning, and relevant contextual factors that interact with one another (or form-​function-​context mapping). This framework posits that merely exposing learners to contextualized input is unlikely to lead to the learning of pragmatics; although attention does not guarantee intake, it is a necessary condition for learning. Classroom tasks will therefore be more effective if this form-​function-​context mapping is highlighted and if the relationships within it are explored explicitly. To illustrate this point, let us remember a format for analyzing language data (see Chapters 3, Figure 3.4). Note how the language in the interaction and contextual factors for the dialogue are juxtaposed in the chart to facilitate the analysis of the form-​function-​context relationship. Another question about the learning of pragmatics concerns the necessary level of awareness of linguistic form and contextual factors. This framework distinguishes between at least two levels of awareness: noticing and understanding. Noticing refers to “registering the simple occurrence of some event,” or identifying surface linguistic forms. On the other hand, understanding entails “recognition of a general principle, rule, or pattern.”5 2  Schmidt (1993, 2001). 3  Schmidt (2001). 4  Kasper and Schmidt (1996); Schmidt (1993, 2001). 5  Schmidt (1993: 26).

19

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  119 Noticing includes registering, for example, of a particular term of address on a certain occasion (e.g., Cynthia Hawkins versus Professor Hawkins). Understanding implies that learners comprehend the meaning of the choice of that particular form in the given context. As a result, learners realize that the address terms Cynthia or Cindy are predictably used by her friends, colleagues, or family members, and that Professor Howkins would be the term most likely used by her students, along with the knowledge of when each term is used and why different terms are selected. When understanding occurs, learners also realize the consequences of the language choice, namely, how it shapes the relationship. Proponents of this framework contend that noticing is concerned with the question of “what linguistic and non-​verbal material is stored in memory,” whereas understanding is related to questions regarding “how that material is organized into the language system”.6 In this framework, learners need to notice the surface features and to understand the principle, rule, or pattern involved for the learning of pragmatics.7 Current research in L2 pragmatics generally appears to support the noticing-​ understanding framework. Experimental studies have found that explicit teaching of pragmatics, namely, instruction that includes metapragmatic information, seems more effective by and large than an implicit approach.8 Metapragmatic information includes a contextualized explanation of the target pragmatic feature. Mere exposure to authentic language (as in implicit teaching) may not lead to learners’ pragmatic development, and pragmatic learning in natural settings without formal instruction may emerge very slowly. Generally speaking, explicit teaching appears to heighten learners’ attention to specific linguistic features and support their understanding of how these features relate to contextual factors, both in terms of how the context affects the choice of language and how the use of certain language forms shapes the relationship (see the “Implications for teaching” section below). In addition to formal instruction, study abroad and immersion contexts may also facilitate learners’ pragmatic development. One study compared the pragmatic production and perceptions of Chinese graduate students studying abroad and their counterparts at home receiving English-​medium instruction.9 Both groups of learners showed advanced pragmatic perceptions of speech acts and significantly expanded their pragmalinguistic repertoire of refusal strategies (i.e., direct and indirect strategies, adjuncts, and internal 6  Adapted from Schmidt (2001: 26). 7  Further discussion of this issue can be found elsewhere, including with regard to the control of processing (Bialystok 1993) and the varying levels, types, and effectiveness of attention (Kasper and Schmidt 1996; Schmidt 2001; Taguchi and Roever 2017). 8 See Taguchi (2015c) and Takahashi (2010) for comprehensive reviews of individual studies. See also Jeon and Kaya (2006) for meta-​analysis of quantitative studies and Bardovi-​Harlig (2015) for an in-​depth look at the instructional designs used in existing interventional studies. 9  Ren (2015). Also see Schauer (2009) for the learning of requests in English by study-​abroad and at-​home German students.

120

120  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics modifiers, see Chapter 4), showing little disadvantage for the foreign-​language context when these at-​home students had an equivalent amount of L2 input. Yet, the study abroad students alone developed sociopragmatics sensitivity to the relative social status over one academic year and more often opted out of making refusals in interacting with higher-​status interactants. The author explained that study abroad students were more likely to encounter critical incidents in their daily lives while attempting to establish rapport in the L2 community, which may have prompted them to notice particular pragmatic strategies and understand the sociopragmatic mechanisms at-​home students did not10 (see also the section “Second-​Language Socialization Theory” and Chapter 11). Yet, the effects of study abroad on cognitive pragmatic development appears somewhat mixed. To take the learning of pragmatic formulas for example, study abroad students’ comprehension of pragmatic routines often develops significantly compared with that of at-​ home students due to exposure to salient forms, while their production is related to other factors such as proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction.11 In brief, exposure alone does not by itself facilitate the production of a range of formulas, which points to the importance of explicit instruction.12

Other Cognitive and Sociopsychological Frameworks for L2 Pragmatics Even if learners have heightened pragmatic awareness, we cannot simply assume that they are able to produce these forms in spontaneous interactions. In addition to metapragmatic analysis of input, ample output, and interactional opportunities are necessary. In the learning of grammar, collaborative dialogue is known to assist the process of deep learning when learners attend to the target structure and jointly question and solve linguistic problems.13 This approach has been applied to the learning of pragmatics, and the metapragmatic discussion is termed pragmatic-​related episodes.14 When learners engage in collaborative dialogue while working on an authentic task, they are prompted to routinely analyze pragmalinguistic form within the sociopragmatic context. As learners verbalize their pragmatic awareness in the interaction, their pragmatic knowledge is likely to be consolidated and become readily accessible for later retrieval15 (see the section below on “Metapragmatic discussion”).

10  Ren (2015: 213). 11  Learners with high proficiency may be more likely to achieve pragmalinguistic sophistication in the production of routines than learners with lower proficiency (Bardovi-​Harlig 2019b; Taguchi and Roever 2017). 12  Osuka (2017). 13  Language-​related episodes (Swain and Lapkin 1995). 14 Taguchi and Kim (2016). 15  Alcón-​Soler (2018); Taguchi and Kim (2016).

12

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  121 The interactional nature of communicative tasks, even of simulations such as role-​play, requires learners to attend not only to their own utterances but also to those of their interactional partners in order to negotiate meaning in context, often in real time. Learners modify and restructure the immediate interaction in terms of linguistic form, conversational structure, or the content of the message for the purpose of negotiating meaning.16 Interactional opportunities may also promote learner’s retrieval and retention of information and increase automaticity in recalling this information, resulting in enhanced pragmatic fluency. The role of interaction can also be analyzed through a sociocultural framework, particularly by means of the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). In this sociopsychological framework, which bridges cognitive and social domains of learning, interaction is viewed as a medium of thinking and learning as well as a means of communication.17 The notion of the ZPD tells us that cognitive development occurs not in isolation but in interaction with others who have more advanced cognitive abilities (such as a teacher or more capable peer). In the classroom, teachers’ or peers’ scaffolding is typically mediated by language or cultural artifacts and can facilitate learners’ cognitive development. Moreover, such scaffolding is woven into dialogic interaction in which learning occurs, and through interaction learners eventually internalize the newly-​gained knowledge or skills. Learners then become self-​regulated when they no longer need to rely on outside resources to carry out the task or access specific awareness because the new learning has now become part of their cognitive repertoire.18 Viewing learners as social beings, this framework focuses on how learning occurs interactionally and can provide a rationale for the use of discussion and group work in the classroom that engage learners in interaction.19 Although cognitive and sociopsychological frameworks help us explain student learning in the L2 pragmatics classroom, the “spotlights on the elephant” metaphor (Figure 6.1) reminds us that there also are social, cultural, and emotional lenses through which to view language learning. Just as the Vygotskian sociocultural framework underscores social interaction as the locus of learning, other domains are likely to come into play when L2 speakers determine how they represent themselves through their pragmatic choices. We now turn to further interdisciplinary understanding of pragmatic development.

16  See the interaction hypothesis, e.g., Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998). 17  Kasper and Rose (2002). 18 Vygotsky (1978). 19  See elsewhere for much more on sociocultural theory, e.g., Lantolf and Thorne (2006). More specific discussion on L2 pragmatics and the sociocultural theory can be found in Ohta (2005); van Compernolle (2014, 2015).

12

122  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics

Interdisciplinary Understanding of L2 Pragmatic Development From a cognitive perspective, learners whose language use diverges from the expected range of pragmatic norms may be viewed as lacking in pragmatic competence (see Chapter 5). It may seem that success at L2 pragmatics means adhering fully to local norms. Mainstream SLA research and instructional practices typically reflect native-​speaker models, and consequently the role of learner identity is largely neglected in areas such as interlanguage pragmatics.20 Yet, a social view of language learning has gained ground as part of a social turn21 in SLA; socially-​oriented researchers and thinkers within the field have questioned native-​speakerism in the context of globalization and linguacultural diversity. The basic stance taken is that language learning is a social activity and that learners do not exist in a social vacuum. L2 speakers may not depart so readily from their own values and switch completely to those of the L2 community.22 Just as with an L1, the use of an L2 involves the negotiation of one’s subjectivity, and we therefore need to take learners’ expressive needs into account in their L2 use and development. In the teaching of pragmatics, the question of whose norms are to be used as the pedagogical model is often asked, since monolingual L2 norms may not necessarily be relevant, especially in diversified contexts of language use outside Inner-​circle settings. Let us take English as an international language (EIL) for example. The global use and nativized varieties of English were brought to light through the concepts and visual representations of Inner-​, Outer-​, and Expanding-​circle countries from the 1980s on.23 Since then in EIL and wider ELT research and practice, sole reliance on idealized native-​speaker model has often been interrogated. English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), World Englishes (WEs) and relevant fields have supported diversifying pedagogical models beyond Inner-​circle Englishes, emphasizing the importance of tailoring instruction to learners’ cognitive, social, cultural, and affective needs.24 Accordingly, some language educators and researchers in applied linguistics have begun to shift focus from the structuralist notion of communicative competence to notions such as intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural awareness. These constructs underscore reflexivity, or the ability that activates one’s critical and explicit meta-​awareness of cultural 20  House (2008); Kasper (2010). 21  Block (2003). 22  Dewaele (2005). 23  Inner-​circle countries include the U.S., U.K., and Australia where English is typically used as a native language by the majority. Outer-​circle countries are former British or U.S. colonies, such as India, Nigeria, Singapore, or the Philippines, where English is used as an official language along with local languages. In expanding-​circle countries such as China, Brazil, and Poland, English is usually learned as an academic subject and its use tends to be limited to communication across national and cultural borders (Kachru, 1990). 24 e.g., Matsuda (2017).

123

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  123 integration.25 Furthermore, researchers advocating a critical turn in applied linguistics emphasize the development of learners’ reflexivity and criticality, supporting them in exercising agency in their L2 uses while attempting to redress linguistic and social inequalities and marginalization.26 In the next section, we begin with the discussion of identity and agency, two basic tenets of a social view of L2 use and development.

Identity and Agency in Language Learning In a social view of language learning, our identity (or subjectivity)27 is seen as multi-​faceted and in flux. Subjectivity refers to one’s views, emotions, and perceptions of the world as well as one’s self-​concept in dynamic relation to others28 (e.g., identities, values, beliefs, and morals). Individuals are likely to have a repertoire of subjectivities (i.e., multiple identities) that are socially and culturally constructed, negotiated, and jointly enacted with others in the interaction. For example, we possess a range of identities in our various relationships to others such as:

• National, racial, ethnic, generational, and gender identities (e.g.,

American, female, middle-​aged, Latino) • Relational identities (e.g., wife, brother, mother) class, teacher, • Socioeconomic, occupational identities (e.g., middle-​ employee, student) • Ideological identities (e.g., peace activist, ecologist) Certain aspects of our identities may be highlighted or become salient in specific contexts depending on the social constraints. That is, we wear different “hats” depending on the situational and relational context. Our identities are constructed relative to how others position themselves, us, and others and therefore can dynamically shift according to the given relational, social, historical, or political context, featuring the following characteristics:

• Multiple, dynamic, and non-​unitary • A site of struggle and sometimes contradiction • Changing over time and space29 25  Blommaert and Rampton (2011); Díaz and Dasli (2017). Also see relevant constructs of symbolic competence (Kramsch 2009) and interactional competence (Young 2019) (see Chapter 1). 26  Díaz and Dasli (2017). 27 The construct of subjectivity is largely synonymous with that of (social) identity, and many researchers seem to equate the two without clear demarcation between them. In this book, subjectivity and identity are used largely interchangeably. See Ishihara (2006) for further discussion. 28  Norton (2000); Weedon (1997: 32). 29  Norton (2000).

124

124  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics For example, a person (let us call her Jane) may start a day in the family being a wife and mother, but her subjectivity is reconstructed as a teacher at her workplace. She puts on a collegial hat when her colleague John walks into the office. John may exchange a greeting with Jane as a friendly senior colleague, but as they discuss his area of expertise, he may reposition himself as Jane’s superior. However, their subjective positions may overturn when they discuss Jane’s area of expertise. Or they may begin to position themselves as equals as they work together for decades. Notably, subjectivity and social positioning are mutually constitutive under contextual circumstances. In the example above, when John imposes a less knowledgeable and more powerless positioning on Jane, she may simply accept the lower status, being non-​confrontational and courteous in nature, which may be related to her gender or cultural identity.Then, she would tend to use rather polite and respectful language with John to index this positioning; in turn, John interprets their relationship as somewhat asymmetrical. Alternatively, Jane may draw on her membership in a progressive academic community and attempt to construct more egalitarian values promoted in the institution. Jane may experience inner conflicts as to how to represent herself, feeling obliged to conform to assigned positioning on the one hand but wanting to contest the positioning on the other. If her language becomes generally informal and egalitarian, then John may presumably construct their relationship on roughly equal terms. In sum, individuals create meaning jointly in the social context where their identities play a pivotal role. Notably, identity embodies particular social norms and conventions created and maintained over time by group members sharing similar identities. This process contributes to the development of certain linguistic features, social values, shared beliefs, and cultural practices. The use of particular features in discourse is symbolic of one’s group solidarity, consolidating in-​group belonging. This interconnectedness speaks to the interface between culture, identity, and pragmatics discussed in Chapter 1. As noted earlier, within a sociocultural framework, language use is viewed as participation in the community.Through participation in particular cultural practices, individuals become socialized into the community and serve as a competent member of that community.30 Another prominent characteristic of identity has been recognized as its agency-​giving nature in its relation to power and institution. Agency can be understood as the capacity to act, assume new identities, or resist certain positionings actively and purposefully in negotiation with the sociocultural structure.31 While facilitated or constrained by the institutional structure, individuals are not always passive recipients of local practices but can sometimes “contest a particular way in which they have been positioned in a social site, seeking to create a new social position for themselves.”32 In asymmetrical 30  See below for a more detailed discussion of second-​language socialization. 31  Ahearn (2001); Duff (2012); Ishihara (2019a); van Compernolle (2014). 32  LoCastro (2003: 198).

125

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  125 power relationships with someone overpowering or domineering, undesirable identity may be non-​negotiable and simply imposed. Sometimes identities might be comfortably assumed and accepted without negotiation. On other occasions, individuals may exercise agency to contest and resist unwanted identities in a dynamic interplay to negotiate a more desirable standing (“imposed, assumed, and negotiable identities”).33 In summary, individuals can enact active agency in constructing their identities through language use. The negotiation of identity is closely related to the surrounding structure and is constantly under the influence of power in the relationship. Individuals can exercise agency to varying degrees depending on the circumstances. They may be capable of making pragmatic choices by electing to contest the positioning imposed upon them in interaction as part of their self-​assertion. Likewise, L2 learners’ pragmatic choice is also dictated or affected by their social affiliation and the sense of who they are under the circumstances. In the next section, another socially-​oriented framework is introduced, which further helps explain this connection between identity and language.

Second-​language Socialization Theory Language socialization theory has been borrowed from anthropology, viewing language learning as socially situated in communities of practice.34 Language learners and children are considered novice community members who gradually learn the knowledge, orientations, and social practices of the community. As part of this socialization, novice members learn to use language through exposure to and participation in local practices. Such knowledge of local practices in turn brings them closer to the center to become full-​fledged participants in the community.35 For example, new international students can gradually socialize into the academic discourse of the host university as they participate and engage actively in local institutional practices. With exposure and time in the community, Japanese graduate students in Canada were found to increasingly acquire discourse strategies, for instance, to engage the audience in their oral academic presentations. Although their socialization process was neither linear nor uniform, the students gradually learned to negotiate with instructors over their expectations and to prepare for, perform, and review their presentations.36 It was when these students were able to fully participate in local norms and practices that they were given central membership in the community. Much work in language socialization centers on novice members’ socialization into community practices, which leads to the maintenance or reproduction of existing practices. 33  Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004: 21). 34  Lave and Wenger (1991); Wenger (1998). 35  Schieffelin and Ochs (1986). 36  Morita (2004).

126

126  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics Simultaneously, socialization can be bi-​or multi-​directional; that is, resistance to community norms and a resultant change in local practices can also be explained by language socialization. Novice members are not necessarily passive recipients of sociocultural practices, but through negotiation, they can actively and selectively co-​construct existing norms in the community and the outcome of the interaction.37 For example, coming in as the new leader of a volleyball team, a Japanese Director of Operations in a US university team became generally well socialized into the community. Yet, one community practice she resisted was an egalitarian, informal discourse students attempted to negotiate with her. Due to her identity constructed in a hierarchical athletic community in Japan, she responded to the students in a unique manner, flatly or humorously rejecting the casual rapport. Being in the position of power over the years, she succeeded in re-​socializing American students into a “respectful” way of speaking in this community.38 As this example shows, L2 speakers’ creative and agentic language use that is divergent from community practices fulfills their expressive needs and can potentially contribute to a minor shift or a greater transformation in the preexisting community practice.39 The dynamic and multi-​directional interpretation of language socialization theory is particularly valuable in studying linguistically and culturally diverse communities in which social standards themselves may be largely in flux and negotiable in interaction. Particularly in such communities, the process of language socialization can span a lifetime and change over time as multilingual identities shift in fluid social and interactional contexts.40 Pragmatic development of learners in the study abroad context can be explained through the framework of second-​language socialization. During study abroad, learners may interact with host family members, roommates, or apartment community members on a daily basis. Learners may become part of study groups or collaborative groupwork while interacting with peers, professors, and advisers. Learners may also attend extracurricular or work-​related activities, socialize with friends, bosses, and colleagues, or have dates,41 while routinely receiving services or purchasing products in service encounters. In any case, learners are exposed to multiple sets of community practices and have rich authentic opportunities to negotiate meaning in the L2 with expert members of the local communities. Due to authentic exposure to the L2, participation in local practices, and real-​life consequences of the pragmatic behavior, the study abroad context can be facilitative of pragmatic development. Learners can observe the use of, 37  Garrett and Baquedano-​López (2002); Schieffelin and Ochs (1986). 38  Ishihara (2010c). 39  Garrett and Baquedano-​López (2002). 40  Bayley and Schecter (2003). 41 Although the pragmatics of dating may be much desired knowledge for learners, little research has been done perhaps due to its private nature and considerable variability reflecting individuality and culture. See Block (2007) for relevant gender-​related issues during study abroad (see also Chapters 5 and 7).

127

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  127 for example, formulaic language, terms of address, speech acts, conversation management practices, and various registers on a daily basis.42 However, the impact of study abroad on pragmatic development varies greatly depending on a range of factors in learners themselves, including proficiency, gender, identities, motivation, anxiety, learning styles and strategies, willingness to communicate, and perceptions of the host culture. Factors present in host communities, such as attitude and openness to newcomers and availability of social networks and academic support, can also play a role, as do the quantity and quality of L2 input and interactions the communities have to offer.43 In-​depth analysis of learners’ pragmatic competence during study abroad has revealed this complexity. For example, individual differences surfaced in studies investigating how learners came to style-​shift in L2 Japanese to index their fluid positions,44 how study abroad students from American and Australian universities were partially socialized into the use of address terms and dinner table discourse in Indonesian contexts,45 how U.S. university students learned and sometimes resisted local pragmatic norms in service encounters in Spain,46 and how U.S. university learners followed different developmental paths using humor with their host families and age peers in Spain.47 Language socialization theory can also account for learners’ pragmatic development in academic immersion and workplace settings. Learners—​ even kindergartners—​can be socialized into academic or workplace routines, especially with explicit instruction and exposure.48 One study documented how extroverted learners in a bilingual university context successfully expanded their networks but were unable to develop sophisticated pragmatic strategies desirable for use with higher-​status conversational partners. In contrast, another student experienced a critical incident in which her professor provided corrective feedback and modeling warning against her excessively casual language in email. This experience appeared crucial in her L2 socialization and outstanding pragmatic development thereafter.49 Focusing on the workplace context, language socialization can play a pivotal role in novices’ participation in the community and enacting of agency. For example, as a result of ineffective exchanges using indirect hints, a Chinese immigrant woman in the U.S. workplace came to understand the value of direct communication and gradually internalized local practices by more directly requesting her boss and co-​workers to provide better work 42  DuFon and Churchill (2006); Kinginger (2013); Pérez Vidal and Shively (2019). 43  Block (2007); DuFon and Churchill (2006); Pérez Vidal and Shively (2019). 44  Cook (2008); Taguchi (2015b). 45  DuFon (2006): Hassall (2015). 46  Shively (2011). 47  Shively (2018). 48  Li (2000); Taguchi (2012). See Cekaite (2007) and Kanagy (1999) for first-​graders’ and kindergarteners’ socialization to classroom discourse and interactional routines in Swedish and Japanese immersion contexts respectively. 49 Taguchi (2012).

128

128  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics environment and respectful treatment. Her “double” socialization into the workplace on the one hand and the new language and culture on the other most likely occurred through exposure to and participation in routine social interactions along with scaffolding from a pragmatically competent peer.50 In the following section, we will take a look at these issues of identity, socialization, and agency in the context of globalization.

A Translingual Framework While international interdependence and intercultural conversations continue to unfold in today’s globalization, many languages are used in combination across national or regional boarders, allowing individuals’ access to an L2 and L3.51 Individuals can identify themselves as expert speakers of multiple languages or claim ownership of several languages based on their competence and expertise without necessarily being native to them in the conventional sense. In a translingual framework, languages and language varieties are viewed as an interconnected communicative resource rather than discrete, independent, or separate systems and structures.52 Considering dynamic linguistic diversity within a language and its diversified functions and practices in various social domains, we may go so far as to say no one knows a single language comprehensively. Rather, multilingual speakers can be viewed as having partial knowledge of multiple languages, language varieties, or even registers.53 Researchers holding this view contend that “one-​language-​only or one-​language-​at-​a-​time” policies represent a narrow concept of language and are rooted in a monolingual ideology and linguistic purism, leading to fear and stigma attached to language mixing and code-​switching, even though “switching and mixing between and across languages is a defining behavior of being bilingual”.54 Thus languages can be viewed as mutually complementing rather than competing or interfering with one another while making interactions creative, fluid, and open to new possibilities.55 The translingual framework opens up an integrative understanding that language users create meaning by drawing upon a variety of social, cultural, pragmatic, and discursive resources from more than one language or language variety. Multilingual speakers can be viewed as meshing these resources, performing their multiple repertoires, or orchestrating those resources across multiple domains through holistic integration without separating (or compartmentalizing) individual languages as independent systems.56 Access to multiple 50  Li (2000). 51 One-​to-​one correspondence between a language and a community (as in concepts of nation state or speech community) is no longer tenable (Blommaert and Rampton, 2011). 52  Canagarajah (2013); García and Li (2014). 53  Li (2018). 54  Li and Ho 2018: 38 (emphasis theirs). 55  Canagarajah (2013). 56  Canagarajah (2013); García and Li (2014).

129

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  129 resources allows interactants to discursively engage in subtle and nuanced negotiations of meaning while constructing complex multiple identities. Such linguistic hybridity can be seen as the potential for creative innovation, as the creativity and criticality that derive from this meaning-​making goes beyond the meaning attainable within one language. In a translingual framework, nativeness is neither an achievable nor a desirable goal. Although a translingual framework has rarely been incorporated into the literature in interlanguage pragmatics, it has been drawn upon to explain pragmatic competence with a social or post-​normative orientation in the wider applied linguistics. For example, one study documented how ethnic Chinese students drew on their knowledge of Chinese and English by switching between the two languages and incorporating a bilingual pun. A Chinese equivalent of “white-​collar dog” is pronounced similarly to “bilingual,” and the dual meaning fits creatively into the context of future career aspirations, achieving the meaning that cannot be conveyed in either of the languages alone in an innovative and critical way.57 This can be regarded as part of these students’ pragmatic and symbolic competence as the irony negotiated by the translanguaging act does the relational work, emotionally binding the interactants together. Another example can be found in a literacy autobiography written by a multilingual graduate student in the U.S. Throughout her English essay, she weaved Arabic proverbs, verses, emoticons, and idiosyncratic spelling for visual-​auditory effect. Her translanguaging strategies were deliberately employed and the rhetorical implications were conveyed quite successfully even to some of her non-​Arabic-​speaking peers. While the monolingual ideologies privilege native speakers or native-​speaker language, a translingual orientation regards hybridity and multiplicity as part of the valuable expressive repertoire that enables pragmatic expressions of subtle nuances.58 Heritage learner pragmatics provides a futile ground for translingual practice. Heritage language speakers typically have early exposure to an informal, colloquial register of an ancestral minority language used at home. Later, their dominant language may switch to a societal language, or they may maintain simultaneous access to both home and societal languages. Particularly in the latter case, they often switch back and forth between (or mesh) the multiple systems in creative ways to negotiate their dynamic and hybrid identities.59 Although many heritage language speakers identify themselves as native speakers of that language, the extent of their language expertise and socialization varies greatly. Such innovative hybridity is exemplified in a study of Burmese heritage speakers (generation 1.5 adolescents) in the U.S. They combined hierarchical and age-​based address terms in Burmese and more egalitarian ones in 57  Li (2018): 26. 58  Canagarajah (2013). 59 Taguchi and Roever, 2017; Xiao-​Desai, 2019.

130

130  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics English in order to grapple with the two competing ideologies involved in both languages. Through uniquely crafted terms, these adolescents expressed both polite respect and casual familiarity, negotiating their multiple identities dynamically according to the ongoing relationship.60 As seen in these examples, translingual practice is transformative in that interactants enact their agency in a creative and critical manner in trans-​spaces61 or third spaces.62 This means that multilingual speakers’ repertoires dynamically interact with each other and are drawn upon through cohesive integration beyond individual languages. Going beyond the deficit view of L2 learners, the translingual or translanguaging framework has the potential to further advance our understanding of today’s globalized contexts underlying the fields of intercultural and acquisitional pragmatics.63 In summary, we first discussed cognitive and sociopsychological frameworks of relevance to the learning of L2 pragmatics, primarily the noticing hypothesis and sociocultural theory along with passing mention of several others. We then considered the social, cultural, and affective aspects of pragmatic language learning and use, drawing on the perspectives of identity, agency, second-​ language socialization in a translingual framework. Now let us shift gears to consider the role that these theoretical understandings could play in the teachers’ classroom practice.

Implications for Teaching Explicit and Implicit Instruction in Pragmatics As discussed above, the noticing hypothesis calls for conscious attention to pragmatics-​related information in the L2 classroom rather than learners’ mere exposure to pragmatics-​rich input. In the language classroom, this would translate into explicit teaching of pragmatics with a provision of metapragmatic explanation, such as conscious attention to pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatics analysis of the relationship between language, function, and context. Extensive reviews and meta-​analysis of experimental studies in L2 pragmatics have shown that an explicit approach tends to be generally more effective than implicit teaching in adulthood.64 Notably, some implicit teaching techniques (e.g., input enhancement and recasts) can also be effective, presumably due to elements of an explicit orientation

60  Manosuthikit and De Costa (2016). See also Pinto and Raschio (2007) for a more cognitive investigation of Spanish heritage learners’ requests. 61  García and Li (2014). 62  Bhabha (1994); Kramsch and Uryu (2012). Although the spatial metaphor of third space or third place is sometimes criticized for reflecting a view of languages as static or discreet entities, it can be interpreted as a metaphoric zone where multilingual agents dynamically exercise their symbolic competence by activating hybrid perspectives (Kramsch 2009). 63 See Ishihara (2021a) for further discussion. 64  Jeon and Kaya (2006); Taguchi (2015c); Takahashi (2010).

13

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  131

Figure 6.2  Deductive and inductive approaches to teaching L2 pragmatics.

(e.g., the potential to trigger learners’ pragmatic awareness).65 However, implicit teaching without a trigger for pragmatic attention is less likely to lead to substantial pragmatic development, especially in adult learners’ real-​ time production of cognitively demanding pragmatic features.66 In fact, the explicit teaching of pragmatics is in line with an awareness-​raising approach (see below), which has been widely used in the current teaching of L2 pragmatics. Deductive/​Inductive Teaching and Metapragmatic Discussion Although awareness-​ raising instruction is often designed inductively, L2 pragmatics can also be taught deductively. Instruction is deductive when outside sources, such as teacher or materials, provide learners with explicit metapragmatic information before learners study examples themselves. In inductive teaching, learners analyze pragmatic data to discover L2 pragmatic norms that govern various language uses (see Figure 6.2).67 An inductive approach to language learning in general is often believed to promote higher-​ order thinking and therefore to be more effective than a deductive approach. However, research in L2 pragmatics has shown contradicting results.68 On the one hand, a study investigating the deductive and inductive teaching of compliments and responses to compliments in English indicated that although learners’ inductive self-​discovery can contribute to pragmatic learning, it may be difficult to “get it right,” especially

65  Nguyen, Pham, and Pham (2012). Moreover, the implicit teaching of L2 pragmatics can be effective particularly for young or adolescent learners (see Li 2012). 66  For further discussion, see Taguchi and Roever (2017: 220). 67 Deductive and inductive instruction as used here correspond to “actual deduction” (Modality A) and “conscious induction as guided discovery” (Modality B) in Decoo (1996: 97). 68  Jeon and Kaya (2006); Qi and Lai (2017).

132

132  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics when conducted implicitly.69 Even if inductive language learning is an effective means of developing pragmatic control, learners may take differential advantage. Effective inductive teaching may also require a degree of expertise on the part of the teachers, especially if their professional preparation centered on a more teacher-​fronted approach. On the other hand, another study comparing the effects of these approaches in the explicit teaching of requests in English found promising results for both inductive and deductive instruction. However, the pragmatic knowledge gained through induction were established more strongly and thus may be longer-​lasting and more easily accessible in real time than pragmatic knowledge acquired through deduction.70 In reality, instruction in the language classroom may reflect a combination of inductive and deductive approaches.71 When learners discover pragmatic norms in an inductive approach and share them with their peers, the learning may take a deductive turn for those who have not discovered them yet. If teachers guide learners in the discovery process, the learning of pragmatic norms can be viewed as being co-​constructed rather than purely inductive or deductive. Accordingly, current insights appear to emphasize the value of explicit metapragmatic discussion itself, thus underscoring the engagement it requires of learners. Examples of metapragmatic discussion include feedback or collaborative dialogue analyzing the form-​function-​context connection in pairs, groups, or with the teacher.72 One study comparing the effects of instruction with and without metapragmatic discussion revealed that learners who participated in metapragmatic discussion in pairs were inclined to engage in pragmatic analysis more intensively, allowing the learning to be more firmly established. Consequently, these learners’ newly-​ gained pragmatic knowledge was more readily and rapidly retrieved in recognizing and producing the target features.73 Metapragmatic discussion is also a core medium in concept-​based pragmatic instruction, for example, in second-​person tu and vous pronouns in French.74 Grounded in Vygotskian sociocultural psychology, the instruction opens with a theoretical understanding of concepts (such as social distance and power) followed by the analysis of how the theoretical concepts apply to contexts of use. Through this rather deductive approach, learners’ internalization of the pragmatic knowledge is also scaffolded by

69  Rose and Ng (2001). 70 Takimoto (2008). See also Glaser (2016); Qi and Lai (2017) for advantages of inductive teaching. 71  As in Martínez-​Flor (2008b). 72  Hasall (2015); McConachy (2018a); Takimoto (2012); See also Taguchi and Kim (2016) for pragmatic-​related episodes reported above. 73 Takimoto (2012). See Alcón-​Soler (2018) and Taguchi and Kim (2016) for the qualitative analysis of the metapragmatic discussion. 74  van Compernolle and Henery (2014). See also collaborative metapragmatic dialogue in McConachy (2018a) reported in Chapter 12.

13

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  133 visual materializations and verbalization of the learned pragmatic concepts along with communicative practice. In any case, in designing instruction teachers may wish to give careful consideration to various factors to maximize pragmatic development. For example, learners’ age, proficiency, learning styles, motivation, and investment in learning L2 pragmatics need to be considered in conjunction with the frequency, complexity, and salience of the target structure in order to determine what activities to use and how to sequence them to boost engagement with the pragmatic features. The organizational sequences researchers recommended include three stages: (a) learner exploration; (b) learner production; and (c) feedback from peers and the teacher,75 representing the combination of explicit and inductive teaching and metapragmatic discussion. However, the sequence of classroom exercises largely depends on each instructional context and should be determined locally rather than uncritically complying with a particular model. Awareness-​raising Approach for Teaching L2 Pragmatics An awareness-​ raising approach, often called learners-​as-​ethnographers,76 is grounded in the noticing hypothesis and designed to facilitate learners’ noticing and understanding of the form-​ function-​ context connection. In this learner-​centered approach with explicit instruction of pragmatics provided in largely inductive terms, learners act like researchers, collecting authentic language samples from expert speakers or conducting surveys or interviews regarding particular L2 use. Learners then analyze the linguistic features, functional meaning, and contextual factors that interact with one another. This can be done by comparing L1 and L2 (and possibly L3) pragmatic norms or learners’ preexisting assumptions about L2 pragmatic use with their discoveries. In a second-​language setting where the L2 is commonly used outside of the classroom, pragmatics instruction may best capitalize on activities that encourage learners to study naturally occurring language used in the community. In a foreign-​language context, learners can analyze natural(istic) language in the media, films, or on the Internet (Chapter 3) or collect and analyze L1 samples first and then study L2 samples collected by teachers, researchers, or themselves. In addition to this explicit awareness of L2 input, learners also benefit from interactional practice, feedback, modified performance, and opportunities for reflection as part of the learners-​as-​researchers approach.77 The Skilled Immigrant Program at the Victoria University of Wellington provides such comprehensive opportunities for unemployed or underemployed 75  Usó-​Juan and Martínez-​Flor (2008: 352–​355). Also see Martínez-​Flor and Usó-​Juan’s (2006) six Rs: researching, reflecting, receiving, reasoning, rehearsing, and revising. 76  Bardovi-​Harlig (1996). See also Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan, and Street (2001) for how an ethnographic approach can be incorporated into language and culture learning. 77  Nguyen et al. (2012); Riddiford and Holmes (2015).

134

134  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics migrant workers in New Zealand. The instruction is designed based on the corpus of authentic workplace interactions (see Chapter 7). To give a snapshot of learners’ pragmatic development, the high-​stakes requests and refusals of migrant workers became increasingly appropriate in New Zealand workplace as revealed through DCTs, role-​plays, and recorded authentic workplace interactions, which learners were able to reflect upon with enhanced pragmatic awareness.78 The sequence of activities serves as a type of guided simulation for future independent learning in which learners analyze and adopt some of the pragmatic features they encounter. The learners can be encouraged to create and test hypotheses about L2 pragmatic uses and revise them when necessary on the basis of the feedback they receive.The learners-​ as-​ethnographers approach can facilitate this cycle of learner-​centered process of pragmatic development. An Explanatory Approach to Pragmatics Instruction and Learner Agency Revisited Thus far, we have discussed the pedagogical implications of drawing on the cognitive perspective of learning. We have also seen that language learning occurs at sociopsychological, social, and affective domains in connection with learners’ identities and cultural hybridity. If readers subscribe to this social view of language learning, they may also consider its implications, or how this view can shape their teaching practices. The social orientation in language learning serves to remind us of the importance of being sensitive to learners’ identities and cultures. Knowing grammatical structures alone does not guarantee an understanding of what would constitute socially preferred pragmatic behavior and why that would be the case in that culture. If this cultural literacy appears to be lacking, an explanatory approach79 to the teaching of pragmatics (see Chapters 1 and 9) may serve to provide an emic view (i.e., an insider perspective) of the L2 community.

78  Riddiford and Holmes (2015); Riddiford and Joe (2010). Useful resources about workplace talk include a BBC documentary Crosstalk (Gumperz, Jupp, and Roberts, 1979) designed to raise public awareness of cross-​cultural differences and gate-​keeping structures in job interviews along with the series of intercultural training materials from the Center for Intercultural Development (www.diversityworks.co.uk, accessed on October 16, 2020). Based on an analysis in interactional sociolinguistics (e.g., contextualization cues), Gumperz and colleagues revealed how South Asian speakers’ prosody, pragmatics, and discourse were misunderstood by dominant British employers and how the intercultural differences and ensuing interactional discomfort could lead to negative judgments, cultural stereotypes, and institutionalized prejudice (Heller 2014). Moreover, simulated job interview training in Louw, Derwing, and Abbott (2010) provides practical assessment of pragmatic behavior, such as rapport management and expressions of enthusiasm, made by human resources experts. See also Riddiford and Newton’s (2010) textbook (Chapters 7 and 9). 79 Richards and Schmidt (1983). See also Spencer-​Oatey (2000) for various explanatory examples relating language and culture.

135

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  135 For example, even with advanced levels of English proficiency, transnational immigrant employees often encounter dual challenges dealing with new pragmalinguistic expressions on the one hand and different sociopragmatic values on the other. To illustrate, authentic workplace language data showed that in childcare in the Australian context, the values of mutual respect, attention to others, inclusion, and interactivity translate into the language of indirectness, questions, suggestions, and other syntactic and lexical mitigation and non-​verbal means of communication.80 It is argued that not only evidence-​based pragmatic instruction but also explicit discussion of cultural underpinnings of communication must be offered to enhance learners’ understanding of both how and why community members speak and behave the way they do in a variety of contexts.81 This can lead to the empowerment of the L2 speakers as they make informed pragmatic choices in light of their own values and subjectivities. Given their multicultural identities, learners can hold various reasons for their L2 pragmatic choices both for choosing to emulate community norms or for resisting them. When culturally sensitive pedagogy is being practiced, learners’ choices are respected and not penalized in the language classroom (see also Chapters 5, 7, 9, and 12). Knowing the pragmatic variability in L2 norms and cultural reasoning behind pragmatic language use (i.e., having sophisticated receptive pragmatic competence) can be of benefit to learners. However, the pragmatics of language production should be each learner’s own prerogative. This distinction between learners’ receptive and productive pragmatic competence is highly important for everyday practice. Facilitating the negotiation of L2 speakers’ voice that reflects their hybrid identities empowers them and assists them in exercising agency and legitimatizing their voices in their local contexts. Such efforts can lead to recognizing and interrogating the unequal distribution of power that often exists in established hierarchies such as between genders, racial or ethnic groups, and L1 and L2 speakers. A number of researchers have documented learners’ critical reflection on observed pragmatic norms as well as their awareness of—​or resistance to—​sociopolitical positioning and uneven power distribution indexed through language.82 This transformative perspective (which may be called critical pragmatics in the sense of critical sociolinguistics or critical applied linguistics) has been incorporated into some L2 pragmatic instruction (see Chapters 7, 8, and 12 for activities and assessment grounded in this critical orientation). In sum, how does the discussion in this chapter translate into classroom activities? Below are some possibilities that can be used alone or in combination: 80 Yates (2015). 81  Ishihara (2017); Yates (2015). Given diverse workplace contexts, there should also be research-​based learning opportunities for employers in the host community on immigrant employees’ values and cultural perspectives. 82  For example, Brown (2013); Iwasaki (2011); Ohara, Saft, and Crookes (2001).

136

136  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics

• Collecting L2 data in the L2 community, the media, films, or on the • • • • • •

•

• • •

Internet and analyzing them for pragmatic features, discourse organization, or communication strategies (see Chapters 3, 8, and 9 for examples) Comparing learners’ L1–​L2(–​L3) form and sociopragmatic norms and discussing learners’ pragmatic choices (Chapters 5, 7, and 9) Comparing felicitous and infelicitous L2 pragmatic uses (e.g., comparing successful and awkward interactions, see Chapter 3), followed by a discussion of their potential consequences Analyzing a story or case about intercultural faux pas or similar or different pragmatic norms across languages/​language varieties (Chapter 7) Reconstructing discourse by attending to cohesion and coherence (e.g., recreating dialogues and sequencing of turns from a dialogue by noting deixis, references, and pragmatic markers) Observing or participating in an interaction with a guest speaker83 followed by feedback and reflection Output practice with the focus on pragmatics and discourse followed by reflection and feedback (e.g., dictogloss for analyzing sequential organization of discourse and reproducing the interaction,84 games requiring output and peer assessment,85 and academic writing and peer review) Interactional practice followed by feedback and reflection (e.g., role-​ plays with specific game-​like conditions, such as one person attempting to maintain the turn and the other intending to steal the floor followed by self-​or peer assessment of the recorded role-​play performance, pair-​ discussion on ambiguous pictures guessing the objects using target features, such as agreeing and disagreeing86 and epistemic stance markers, Chapters 4, 7, 8, 9, and 12) Keeping a reflective journal or interaction log (Chapters 11 and 12) Interviewing L2-​ speaking informants about norms for pragmatic behavior (Chapter 10) or underlining cultural reasoning (Chapters 1, 4, 6, and 9) Experimenting with specific pragmatic behavior in the L2 community (Chapter 10), followed by feedback and reflection

This is only a suggested list of potential instructional activities; you are invited to select, adapt, and expand it as you see fit for your goals and contexts.

Discussion In this chapter, we have discussed some theoretical frameworks for understanding L2 pragmatic use and development. We opened with cognitive and sociopsychological frameworks related to L2 pragmatics that are 83 Tateyama and Kasper (2008). 84  Ikeda and Tateyama (2012). 85  Bardovi-​Harlig, Mossman, and Vellenga (2015). 86  Bardovi-​Harlig et al. (2015).

137

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  137 prominent in the field. At the cognitive level, research has suggested that explicit teaching—​namely, attention to linguistic form, functional meaning, and their relationship to relevant contextual factors—​will facilitate adult learners’ pragmatic development more than simply exposing learners to such material. In line with both the noticing hypothesis and sociocultural theory, explicit metapragmatic discussion is likely to facilitate the learning of both norms of social behavior and the language to use in specific situations. We have also looked at interdisciplinary frameworks from social, cultural, and affective perspectives, which have been receiving increasing attention in applied linguistics. These frameworks allow us to see how language use and development are intertwined with learners’ participation in the local communities, multicultural identities, and enactment of agency especially in today’s globalization. This chapter has attempted to make this connection by introducing a range of studies in L2 pragmatics, including those conducted in study abroad, immersion, heritage language learning, and workplace contexts. In addition, explanatory and culturally sensitive approaches to teaching L2 pragmatics have been revisited from a translingual standpoint. Finally, with an eye to the practical application of these theoretical frameworks, sample classroom activities have been listed for the explicit teaching of pragmatics. The discussion presented in this chapter can assist language teachers in bridging their conceptual and practical understanding of pragmatic development, leading to more informed instructional decisions. Activity 6.1 is intended to facilitate this bridge.

ACTIVITY 6.1  Linking Theoretical Frameworks with Your Experience of L2 Pragmatics Objectives 1 You will be able to explain in your own words some key theoretical frameworks related to L2 pragmatic use and development. 2 You will be able to connect those frameworks with your experience of learning or teaching L2 or L2 pragmatics. Time: 40 minutes Materials •

Task Sheet: “Theoretical frameworks and key terms for pragmatic development”

Directions 1 Get into groups of about four. Using the Task Sheet, identify key terms and concepts for: 1) noticing, attention, and awareness, 2) sociocultural theory, 3) second-​ language socialization, and (if

138

138  Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics time permits), 4) another framework of your choice. Review this chapter if desired in this process. (Some terms and key concepts are already given as examples.) 2 Explain these frameworks to each other in your own words. 3 Take a moment to think of your own experiences of learning or teaching an L2 or L3 pragmatics. Which framework(s) might best explain your experiences? Use the space in the Task Sheet to take notes. Take turns describing your experiences and interpreting them theoretically. 4 Share your discussion with the whole class. Wrap-​up To conclude, you may wish to comment on the following: • • •

Which theoretical framework(s) are most useful to you? Which framework(s), if any, do you wish to understand better? What would help you deepen your understanding? Which domain(s), cognitive, sociopsychological, social, cultural, or affective, would you focus on in learning and teaching the L2 and why?

This activity is designed to help deepen your learning through dialogue and interaction. You are invited to continue to explore the link between the frameworks presented in this chapter and your first-​hand experience of learning or teaching pragmatics. An awareness of this connection can help you teach by principles according to your current knowledge and beliefs (see Chapter 2). Task Sheet: Theoretical Frameworks and Key Terms for Pragmatic Development Theoretical framework

Key terms

Noticing/​ understanding, awareness, and attention

• Conscious attention

to form, function, and context (leading to explicit teaching of L2 pragmatics) • Noticing (registering) form • Understanding when and why the form is selected (metapragmatic awareness)

Your experience

139

Theories in SLA and L2 Pragmatics  139 Theoretical framework Sociocultural theory

Second-​language socialization

(Another theme of your choice)

Key terms

Your experience

140

7  Class Observation and Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics

Introduction Thus far in this book, we have discussed foundational concepts in pragmatics, teachers’ beliefs and practice, examples of pragmatic language use, and sources of language data to be drawn upon in pragmatics-​focused instruction (Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4). We have also worked on our own metapragmatic awareness by analyzing potential sources of learners’ pragmatic divergences and exploring theoretical frameworks underlying pragmatics development (Chapters 5 and 6). This chapter deals more directly with classroom practice focusing on how pragmatic language use can be taught. In planning, implementing, and assessing pragmatics-​ focused instruction, teachers may find it helpful to observe how their colleagues teach L2 pragmatics. Seeing an actual pragmatics lesson may help us expand our repertoire of teaching strategies and ideas about assessment. In addition, it is likely to stimulate reflection on effective approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. If you have colleagues who teach pragmatics in your area or online, you might wish to make arrangements to observe their class. Teachers taking a course in instructional pragmatics will most likely have occasions to view their instructor or an invited guest speaker demonstrating effective teaching practices. In case any of these resources are unavailable, this chapter provides practical ideas for teaching several pragmatic features as well as unit-​based demonstrations of pragmatics-​focused instruction. (Also see Chapters 8, 9, and 11 for examples of materials, activities, and curricula designed for pragmatics instruction in the classroom and online.) Let us first discuss a series of focal points, which may facilitate pragmatics-​focused observation.

Points of Observation for Pragmatics-​focused Instruction While observing others teaching pragmatics, it may be productive to place the emphasis on one or more pragmatics-​focused aspects, such as the following:

• What are the objectives that specifically target pragmatics in the context of the overall goals?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-7

14

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  141

• How does the teacher trigger learners’ noticing and understanding of the

• • • • • •

• •

target pragmatic feature(s) (see Chapter 6)? What awareness-​raising activities or tasks does the teacher use in this class? How effective do they seem to be in accomplishing the goals? What interactive or output opportunities are provided in this class? How effective do these production activities seem to be in accomplishing the objectives? How is pragmatic variation demonstrated in the instruction and assessment? How might learners’ knowledge of their first (or third) language and culture be used? What is the learners’ general proficiency level? How much cultural knowledge of the L2 do they seem to have? In what ways does the instruction scaffold learners? How motivated do the learners appear to be to learn pragmatics? What factors probably contribute to their level of interest and motivation? How does the teacher formally or informally assess learners’ (meta)pragmatic awareness and production? To what extent is the assessment of learners’ production based on how nativelike it is? How much of the assessment is made on the basis of the learners’ intentions or multilingual identities (see Chapter 12)? What do I like about this pragmatics-​focused lesson? What can I directly incorporate into my own teaching? What modifications, if any, would I need to make in order to accommodate my learners’ needs and institutional context?

Teachers may wish to discuss the insights gained from their pragmatics-​ focused observation or keep track of their own learning process in the form of a reflective journal (see Activity 2.1, Chapter 2 for sample reflective prompts).

Resources for Teaching Pragmatics Fortunately, an increasing number of resources for teaching pragmatics have become available in print and online.The following is a suggestive list of this growing repository: 1  CARLA Descriptions of Speech Acts1 This online database (see Chapter 3) currently contains descriptions of eight speech acts (apologies, complaints, compliments and responses to compliments, greetings, invitations, requests, refusals, and thanks), with examples from various languages (e.g., English, Spanish, German, Chinese, Japanese, Persian, and Hebrew). The amount and types of information on a

1  www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​descriptions.html (accessed on October 16, 2020).

142

142  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics given speech act varies greatly in the database (see Chapter 4) as they depend on the availability of research investigating each speech act. 2 Teaching Pragmatics2 This is an online teachers’ resource book with 30 chapters for teaching various pragmatic features housed under the U.S. Department of State website. The instructional targets include pragmatic awareness (e.g., politeness, address terms, and pragmatic variation), conversational management (e.g., turn-​taking, conversational openings and closings, and pragmatic markers), and speech acts (e.g., requests and compliments/​responses to compliments). 3 TESOL Publications3 Two volumes (a and b below) from TESOL Press contain lesson plans and worksheets supplemented by online audios and transcripts. The topics include indirect and responding speech acts (a, b) and pragmatics assessment (a) as well as pragmatic formulas, conversational openings and closings, turn-​ taking, and listener feedback (b). a. Pragmatics:Teaching speech acts (2010) b. Pragmatics:Teaching natural conversation (2011) 4  JALT Publications4 Several volumes from the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) Pragmatics Special Interest Section (SIG) offer lesson plans and practice-​ oriented information in addition to research studies: a. b. c. d.

Pragmatics in language learning, theory, and practice (2005) Pragtivities: Bringing pragmatics to second language classrooms (2012) Back to basics: Filling the gaps in pragmatics teaching materials (2016) Pragmatics undercover:The search for natural talk in EFL textbooks (2020)

5 Workplace Talk in Action: An ESOL Resource5 This textbook, published from Victoria University of Wellington, focuses on the pragmatics of workplace English. The seven chapters on small talk and 2  https://​americanenglish.state.gov/​resources/​teaching-​pragmatics (accessed on October 16, 2020). 3  Houck and Tatsuki (2011); Tatsuki and Houck (2010). 4 Tatsuki (2005); Ronald, Rinnert, Fordyce, and Knight (2012); Tatsuki and Fujimoto (2016), Talandis, Ronald, Fujimoto, and Ishihara (2020). 5  Riddiford and Newton (2010).

143

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  143 speech acts are based on the recordings of 1,500 naturally occurring business interactions (see Chapters 6 and 9). 6  Strategies for Learning Speech Acts in Japanese6 This website, housed under CARLA at the University of Minnesota, consists of six units on pragmatic awareness and speech acts in Japanese for learners’ self-​access (see Chapters 9 and 11). 7  Dancing with Words: Strategies of Learning Pragmatics in Spanish7 This site also belongs to CARLA at the University of Minnesota and composed of self-​ access units for learning eight communicative acts in Spanish (see Chapters 9 and 11). 8  Pragmatics and Discourse at Indiana University8 This website provides teachers and researchers with information about speech acts, deixis, implicature, discourse, and politeness and impoliteness, including audios and transcripts for dialogues in English and Spanish. 9  Second-​and Foreign-​language Pragmatics Wiki9 This website, directed by guest contributor Andrew D. Cohen, presents pragmatics-​focused lesson plans and materials contributed by experienced teachers and researchers in L2 pragmatics. Currently lessons on speech acts and conversational management are available for learners of English, French, Spanish, and Russian. The remainder of the chapter describes examples of pragmatics-​focused instruction. Section 1 presents a narrative approach to teaching pragmatic awareness and intercultural communication to younger and adult learners. Section 2 consists of two units of pragmatics instruction for teaching speech acts. Readers are invited to follow along and critically reflect on the examples with their selected observational points in mind.

6  http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​introtospeechacts/​index.htm (accessed on October 16, 2020). 7  http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​sp_​pragmatics/​home.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). 8 Félix-​Brasdefer. Pragmatics at Indiana University. https://​pragmatics.indiana.edu (accessed on October 16, 2020). 9  http://​wlpragmatics.pbworks.com/​w/​page/​99620139/​Second%20and%20Foreign%20 Language%20Pragmatics %20Wiki (accessed on October 16, 2020).

14

144  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics

Examples of Pragmatics-​focused Instruction Section 1: A Narrative Approach to Teaching Pragmatics Narratives have been used for language teaching in general as well as for language teacher development. For pragmatics, a story-​based approach may be conducive to learning for students and teachers alike. By telling stories, we can interpret and re-​interpret, tell and retell our experiences from multiple dimensions and reconstruct the meaning of the narratives (restorying).10 Narratives allow us to engage in dialogic interaction with ourselves and others while jointly creating mediational space where we re-​conceptualize our knowledge and come to a new understanding of our experiences. In (language) teacher education, narratives have been used as a means of (re) conceptualizing our personal and social knowledge (a process also known as sense-​making11 or narrative knowledging).12 In the language classroom, teachers’ stories of intercultural communication can reflect their authentic experience, which is likely to be interesting and memorable.13 Below is one way of using teachers’ experiences for enhancing (meta)pragmatics awareness and intercultural understanding with a caveat against stereotypes and overgeneralizations. If used cautiously, teachers’ stories can serve not only as an entertaining attention getter but also as an effective pedagogical tool. Teachers’ Stories of Their Own Intercultural Experiences Much as they can be interesting, stories may focus on experiences that shed light on only one aspect of a complex and dynamic cultural phenomenon. Thus, without a balanced and comprehensive understanding of culture, teachers’ anecdotes can promote sociocultural overgeneralization, stereotypes, or bias.14 Stereotypes can mislead learners into believing that culture is monolithic and static, or worse, something unfamiliar, unappealing, or incomprehensible. Thus the use of stories warrants caution in the classroom. Now let us see an example of a story-​ based approach to teaching pragmatics designed by a Filipino teacher of English in Japan. This teacher had lived in Japan for eight years at the time of telling this story. Note how his story is followed by discussion questions that address the cultural meaning of being punctual while incorporating situational variation within cultures, thus discouraging the generation of stereotypes. 10  Clandinin and Connelly (2000). 11  Johnson (2009); Johnson and Golombeck (2002). 12  Barkhuisen (2013). 13  Ishihara (2012a). See this paper for three examples of teacher narratives used for pragmatics instruction. 14  Kumaravadivelu (2003) argues that cultural stereotypes develop readily even among language educators. He contends that stereotypes may be formed as a result of our attempt to make sense of the complex web of reality in the classroom.

145

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  145

Is It Okay to Be Late?15 When I first came to Japan, I met a local person, who I began to regularly see in a weekly Christian meeting. We became really close friends after three months of constant communication. I felt that I had found a brother in him, despite our being from different cultures. For Filipinos, when we become close friends, “small faults” are generally acceptable and treated as normal. A few laughs and casual chats would let the mistakes die down and thus normally they wouldn’t become a huge interpersonal issue. One day, this friend and I made an appointment to meet up for a drink. We agreed to meet at noon at a train station in the greater Tokyo. At around 12:15, he called me on the phone and asked where I was. I answered him and said that I was “on my way.” To me, as with many Filipinos, preparing and dressing up means, in essence “on my way.” This is quite a normal practice there, as it is okay to arrive within 30 minutes of the agreed-​upon meeting time. This is called “Filipino time.” But in Japan, my friend would have appreciated my arrival at exactly 12:00 or earlier. I did not mean to be rude and inconsiderate because for Filipinos, such a scene is but a “small thing” that is often casually forgone by close friends. I somehow knew before coming to Japan that Japanese people generally value punctuality. However, I never realized the gravity or “realness” of such until I experienced this.When I finally arrived at the station, he had a poker face, but I could feel the disgust and anger. He was quiet, but noticeably upset and only talked to me after 15 minutes. It was 15 minutes of the most awkward feeling, and it felt like forever! I felt embarrassed. In a calm voice, he just said that I should not do it again. Upon reflecting on this experience, I realized that my “Filipino time” had a negative effect on my behavior in Japan. As a result, I strove to never again be late in any of our succeeding meet-​ups.” Discussion Questions 1 In many cultures, there are differences in views about punctuality. To you, what does being “on time” mean? 2 What time would you arrive for each appointment below? Compare your responses with your partner’s.What similarities and differences are there in your times of arrival? How might you explain the differences, if any?

15 The story and discussion questions were slightly adapted from Prumel Barbudo’s activity designed in the CARLA Summer Institute (University of Minnesota) facilitated online by Ishihara in 2019.

146

146  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics Appointment

Scheduled time

Job interview at a bank Lunch with a friend at a casual restaurant Dinner with your parents at their home

3:00 pm

Doctor in a large hospital

10:00 am

Time you would arrive

Time your partner would arrive

12:00 pm 7:00 pm

3 Describe how people in your culture(s) feel about someone who is late on different occasions. Give examples and explain. 4 Do you think it is important to adapt your behavior to a new culture? What behaviors would you be willing or not willing to change? Please explain. As shown above, the use of time (chronemics) is associated with the relational issues of being (im)polite and (dis)respectful and intertwined with pragmatics. Insights from the field of intercultural communication can help us understand different orientations to time through the terms monochronic and polychronic even if we have not experienced it first-​hand. In the monochronic orientation, time is considered a precious resource to be treasured just like money. Note how time is described in cultures having this orientation: spend, save, make, buy, or waste time, for example.Time can be viewed as something we can break down into measurable units (e.g., decades, years, weeks, hours, minutes, seconds, or even milliseconds), which are used to structure our daily lives and future events. People with the monochronic time orientation typically have schedules to follow such as appointments and activities that often start and end at predetermined times. In short, time is regarded as a type of manageable commodity (i.e., “time is money”). Those who do not use and value time in this way may be viewed as disrespectful, inefficient or unreliable.16 In the polychronic orientation to time, people are much less focused on keeping set schedules. In this orientation, time is perceived in large fluid sequences and can readily expand or contract as needed. Thus watching the clock weighs less than human relationships as it is considered more important to engage with people and the present moment in a spontaneous manner 16  Hall (1984).

147

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  147 (i.e., “we have all the time in the world”). Individuals with this orientation often schedule multiple appointments simultaneously and follow several things at a time. Although keeping all schedules is practically impossible, it is often perceived as socially acceptable to be late or to change schedules. People with this time orientation prefer to be in command of time rather than being controlled by it.17 Learners may also take this one step further to consider how these time orientations are not static or dichotomous cultural traits but how geographic, situational, and individual variation exist even within a culture or community (see Question 3 above). Learners can also think of how these orientations may be influenced by urbanization, capitalism, and globalization along with traditional life rooted in seasonal transitions, local festivities, or religious rituals. Other useful cultural frameworks may also be gleaned from the fields of intercultural communication (such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/​collectivism)18 and non-​ verbal communication (e.g., kinesics including gestures and postures, and proxemics or the use of space). Teachers can keep a record of their intercultural clashes, misunderstandings, or confusions and develop them into story-​based instruction such as the example above. Learners can analyze cultural characterizations portrayed in the teacher’s stories and may gradually learn to pay attention to others’ body language, use of time, space, dress, and so forth without stereotyping cultures or others’ subjectivities.19 Case Studies of Intercultural Communication While teachers’ own experiences can be a tool that is personalized and memorable for learners, others’ cases of critical incidents in intercultural communication can also be instructive in the teaching of L2 pragmatics (see Activity 5.1, Chapter 5). This case study approach may be particularly productive for the appraisal of sociopragmatic aspects of intercultural exchanges. Learners can analyze potential causes of conflicts or confusions, different values and social practices across cultures or communities, and possible solutions in specific contexts. Interculturally experienced learners can also share narratives of the critical incidents they have experienced, in which case the material is likely to be cognitively and emotionally engaging to the learners themselves. Either through a written or a spoken channel, this type of reflective and dialogic activity can promote learners’ critical thinking about various intercultural issues (e.g., how social contexts are interpreted in the L2 as opposed to in the L1, what language is used to negotiate social meaning in the local context, what cultural values, beliefs, and worldview may underlie the L1 and L2, and how differences in power may play out in the negotiation

17  Cohen (1997); Hall (1984). 18  Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (2011). 19 Taguchi and Ishihara (2018).

148

148  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics of meaning).20 Learners can be guided to contemplate these issues collaboratively for informed or multi-​faceted analysis (see Chapter 12 for assessment of such activities). As many language teachers can attest, learners’ level of motivation often soars when films, video clips, or other authentic media-​based materials are introduced. Digital narratives or online media clips can prove useful as long as the material is presented carefully so as not to stimulate the generation of cultural bias or stereotypes. For instance, an online video with Vietnamese and American students comparing their differences in the communication style21 may prompt an active discussion about the level of (in)directness generally preferred in these cultures. While the American student demonstrates an informal and egalitarian speech style in talking with his father, the Vietnamese student recalls how his parents tend to communicate their affection and concern in a much more indirect or authoritative manner. Then, the video humorously presents the “cultural translations” of what his Vietnamese parents really mean. For example, the parent’s mild reprimand, You can do better translates into Actually it’s amazing you even got an A-​considering all the hours you play video games. But I want you to be successful and education is the only way I know how to achieve that. In fact, many of my own students who have been exposed to Asian and Western cultures can relate to the points made in this video. Learners can be asked to explain the relative social power in their families and underlying cultural, religious, or philosophical values.They can come up with more examples illustrating (in)direct or less emotional speech styles as well as some counterexamples and critiques of the video. This activity can highlight situational or individual variations within the culture (intracultural differences) as well as commonalities across different cultures or communities (intercultural similarities). Another example is an activity using a humorous video clip, which is built on a stereotype of Londoners being cold and not gracious toward strangers. With the help of the audience’s laughter, learners can notice the ironic tone of the show, identify the stereotypes of Londoners and Northern Brits, and critically reflect on the extent to which the stereotypes based on geographic locations may or may not apply in real life while enjoying the humor.22 (See Chapter 3 for pragmatics instruction using media-​based materials.) Narratives and Dialogues for Young Learners In the above sections, we saw how narratives can serve as a mode of knowing and thinking.23 However, this is not unique to adult learners and teachers.

20  Shively (2010: 122) provides an example of critical incidents and a discussion guide for learners that is particularly useful for study abroad students. 21  www.youtube.com/​watch?v=Myou629Dk68andt=7s (accessed on October 16, 2020). 22  This activity was designed by Adriana Mendes Porcellato using the video by BBC2 (available at: www.youtube.com/​watch?v=PT0ay9u1gg4, accessed on October 16, 2020) in the CARLA Summer Institute at the University of Minnesota facilitated online by Ishihara in 2019. 23  Carter (1993).

149

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  149 Young children can also reap the benefits of stories in order to learn about pragmatic language uses. Children’s literature has an abundance of pictures and other visual aids that can attract learners’ attention and can mediate collaborative pragmatic development and language socialization (Chapter 6). Pictures and videos do not only draw learners’ attention but can also provide non-​verbal clues to understanding the context. Although much of the research on the effects of pragmatics instruction has been with adult learners, a few preliminary studies have explored children’s pragmatic development. Below is one example of teaching pragmatics to Japanese children aged nine and 12. One picture book, titled My dog never says please,24 can be useful to teach young learners table manners in an English-​speaking culture along with terms of address in English (Chapter 4) that may be somewhat different in the learners’ L1. In this book, a girl named Ginny misbehaves during meals, gets reprimanded by her parents, and wishes she were a dog so she would not be expected to be well-​mannered. By reading out the story and dialoguing with learners along the way, their pragmatic awareness can be enhanced. Below is a sample discussion: 1 How does Ginny eat her favorite piece of pie? (She bites the piece off without using a fork.) Why? (She says it’s her way of showing respect to the baker.) How do people usually show their respect to the baker or cook? (By saying thank you or I enjoyed it.) 2 Ginny’s brother uses a magic word at dinner to get some more potatoes. What is the magic word? (please) How is “please” used? (To make it more polite as in Can/​could you pass the potatoes, please?) Do you use words like “please” in your language? (Some languages such as Japanese do not necessarily expect close family members to use polite language equivalents to “please,” so learners can notice this intercultural difference.) 3 What does Ginny’s brother call her? (Ginny) What does a younger brother call an older sister in your language? (Sometimes by the first name or a nickname but mostly by a relational term such as Big Sister in many Asian languages. If this is the case, discuss the different conventions with address terms.) 4 What do Ginny’s parents normally call her? (Ginny) In one of the scenes in the book, her mother calls her by her full name (Ginny Mae Perkins!).Why is this the case? (To show anger and irritation.) In your language, when do your parents or teachers call you by your full name? (In reprimanding or drawing attention.)25

24 Williams (1997). 25  Ishihara (2012b: 190); see also Chapter 4 on terms of address.

150

150  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics Table 7.1 Picture books for teaching young learners L2 pragmatics Picture books

Authors

Pragmatic targets

Martha speaks

Meddaugh

What do you say, dear?

Joslin

Forget their manners

Berenstain and Berenstain

Yo! Yes?

Raschka

Excuse me!

Katz

• Linguistic (im)politeness and (in) directness • Socioculturally (in)appropriate behavior • Requests • Pragmatic formulas • Linguistic (im)politeness and (in) formality • Pragmatic formulas • Requests • Socioculturally (in)appropriate behavior • Urgency and (im)politeness • Terms of address • Greetings • Body language • Pragmatic formulas

Depending on learners’ levels of proficiency and cognitive maturity, learners can also practice specific English expressions to enhance their productive pragmatic competence. If time allows, learners can also collect samples of dinner-​table language themselves and analyze them as part of a “language spy” project (see the learners-​as-​researchers approach, Chapter 6). Table 7.1 presents several picture books that have been used for young learners for their pragmatics development as well as pragmatic learning targets. Some picture books can be useful to teach young learners L1 and L2 pragmatics such as table manners, terms of address, requests, pragmatic formulas, body language, and general awareness of (im)politeness, (in)directness, and (in)formality as well as socioculturally (in)appropriate behavior (see also Chapter 12 for assessment for young learners).26 Section 2:Teaching Speech Acts While the preceding section dealt with individual activities, this section presents two instructional units on speech acts with sequences of activities that have been field-​tested with university learners in second-​and foreign-​ language contexts.

26 See Asaba (2012); Burke (2012); Ishihara (2012b, c, 2013a); Ishihara and Chiba (2014) for more pragmatics-​focused lessons for young learners.

15

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  151 Teaching Giving and Responding to Compliments (ESL)27 LEARNERS AND THE CONTEXT

The following instruction was originally designed for high-​intermediate learners in a university ESL context in the U.S. The target audience was adult international students from various cultures who have lived in the L2 community for varying periods of time. Learners’ goals included improving English skills to better communicate in their daily lives as well as to use English more effectively for academic or business purposes in the near future. American English was most relevant to this audience but instruction can be altered to accommodate other varieties of English for other groups of learners. OBJECTIVES

Giving and responding to compliments is culturally-​ bound behavior, largely reflecting the values of the society and individuals. Due to cultural differences in norms of behavior, learners sometimes experience embarrassment or dismay, and may accidentally offend someone by the way that they give or respond to compliments.28 Multilingual classrooms, such as the one this particular lesson is designed for, are fertile grounds for collaborative learning of the linguacultural diversity students themselves represent. In American English, compliments are often used as a “social lubricant,” establishing ties of solidarity between interactants (Chapter 4).29 In academic settings, compliments from teachers and peers can boost students’ confidence, reinforce desirable behavior, and contribute to the development of a cooperative learning environment. How to compliment can be modeled and practiced even in an elementary level30 and can be used during peer editing of writing. Below are the objectives of instruction for university ESL in the U.S. context: 1 Learners will be able to identify different norms of behavior across cultures with regard to giving and responding to compliments. 2 Learners will be able to assess sincerity and appropriateness of compliments and responses to compliments, considering the relative

27 Adapted from Ishihara (2004, 2010b). Student worksheets can be accessed from: http://​ carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​compliments/​compliments_​LP_​resource.pdf (accessed on October 16, 2020). 28  Holmes and Brown (1987). 29  Billmyer (1990). 30  For example, Estrada, Gates, and Ramsland (2006) developed a lesson for an intermediate fourth-​grade ESL course in order to promote positive connections among learners with different cultural backgrounds. Although pragmatics-​focused analysis needs to be kept simple for young learners, enhanced awareness of context and language can be developed through instruction and interactional practice.

152

152  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics power and distance between interactants and suitability of the topic of compliments. 3 Learners will be able to express their intentions by producing: 1) compliments using several adjectives, topics, and grammatical structures; and 2) several acceptance, deflection, or rejection strategies in responding to compliments. SUGGESTED TIME AND MATERIALS

• Approximately 300 minutes (e.g., six class meetings for 50 minutes each) • Student worksheets31 CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES32

A  Introduction and Needs Assessment  The introduction is designed to assess

learners’ initial pragmatic awareness and ability to give and respond to compliments and to motivate them to learn the pragmatic use of language. Initially, learners are asked to discuss some of the most challenging aspects of learning English. This discussion is meant to introduce the importance of pragmatic aspects, i.e., using language appropriately (in)formally, (in) directly, (im)politely, convincingly, calmly, or assertively and the like in the given context. Examples of more or less socially acceptable compliments and responses are modeled, and concepts and vocabulary such as compliment, response, flatter, brown nose, and butter up are taught at this initial stage using an introductory worksheet. The discussion questions on this worksheet can include:

1 How often do you give, receive, or overhear compliments in English compared to in your L1 (or L3)? 2 What do people say in giving and responding to compliments in English? Write a few dialogues illustrating giving and responding to compliments. 3 What do people say in giving and responding to compliments in your L1 community? Write a few dialogues in that language and provide literal translations into English. 4 What do people compliment others on? (What are some topics of compliments?)

31 Some sample handouts and teacher resources are available at: http://​carla.umn.edu/​ speechacts/​compliments/​lessonplan.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). 32  Based on research findings from Manes and Wolfson (1981). Instructional procedures and materials were adapted from Billmyer (1990) and Holmes and Brown (1987) with Tom Fitzgerald’s insightful suggestions. See Chapter 4 for more on compliments in English and other languages.

153

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  153 5 Who is giving and responding to the following compliments? Pay attention to what they say, and imagine who they are, what culture(s) they may belong to, and what their relationship may be. (a) “Nice shirt!”—​“I just dug it out of my closet.” (b) “I like the color of your lipstick.”—​“Oh, thanks. I’ll wear it more often.” (c) “What an unusual necklace. It’s beautiful.”—​“Please take it.” (d) “Oh, so this is your new-​born. Hello, angel.”—​“Well, doesn’t she look like a monkey?”—​“Oh, no, not at all, she is beautiful.” 6 Are you comfortable and confident in giving and responding to compliments in English? What issues, if any, do you have? What do you want to know about complimenting and responding in English? Prompt 1 addresses the issue of frequency of complimenting interactions across cultures. In some cultures, compliments tend to be given much less frequently than in the U.S.,33 while in others the tendency may be reversed. Prompts 2 to 6 serve as a diagnosis of learners’ current pragmatic awareness and productive control at this initial phase. An alternative to Prompt 2 (free DCT, Chapter 3) is a few scenarios that elicit learners’ compliments or responses to compliments in more controlled settings. From learners with diverse cultural backgrounds, Prompt 3 can elicit various ways to respond to compliments uncommon in mainstream American English. These intercultural examples can raise learners’ awareness, prompting them to notice that literal translations do not always communicate the same pragmatic meaning in the L2. Simultaneously, learners can become aware that users of various English varieties may react differently to compliments in a way colored by their L1-​(or L3-​)based cultural practices. Prompts 4 and 5 direct learners’ attention to contextual factors that influence the language, such as relative power and distance between interactants and possible referents of compliments. Some cultural differences may arise in the assessment of these factors, such as Spanish piropos (flirtatious remarks) that tend to be more socially acceptable in some (sub)cultures34 (see also Activity 5.1, Chapter 5). Some research findings on gender differences in giving and responding to compliments can be shared with learners.35 Cross-​ cultural comparison of pragmatic norms can also be made. For example, the idiomatic response in 5(c) Please take it (namely, request interpretation, 33 In Barnlund and Araki’s (1985) research, American participants reported having given a compliment in the previous 1.6 days, whereas Japanese participants had only done so in the previous 13 days. 34  Campo and Zuluaga (2000). 35 See the CARLA website: www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​compliments/​american.html (accessed on October 16, 2020) for a summary of gender differences in compliment exchanges in American English.

154

154  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics

Figure 7.1 Compliment on a shirt.

see Figure 7.1 and Chapter 4) may be uncommon in English while it is often used in Samoan and Arabic cultures.36 As seen in 5(d), in East Asian languages, the demarcation between in-​group and out-​group is often clear; accepting compliments from out-​group members (e.g., friends) about an in-​group member (e.g., family) can be seen as a type of shameful self-​praise. Thus parents may portray a new-​born baby humbly or playfully as part of self-​deprecation, or compliments about the baby may be flatly rejected.37 Here, advanced learners can also be provided with samples of extended complimenting discourse and analyze the sequence of the interactants’ turns to note how such cultural orientations may be manifested in the discourse. After this discussion, the teacher can introduce multiple functions of compliments and adjectives and grammatical structures commonly appearing in compliments (see Chapter 4)38 along with some interactional practice using these adjectives and structures. Informal assessment and feedback on learners’ pragmatic awareness and production should not wait until the end of instruction but can be incorporated into the regular instructional routine. 36  Holmes and Brown (1987); Nelson, Al-​Batal, and Echols (1996). 37  See also Pomerantz (1978). In learning East Asian languages, some learners may be uncomfortable emulating the practice of rejecting compliments about their family members. Learners may see a flat-​out rejection of this type of compliment as lacking grace or overly critical of their own family, thus viewing this particular tendency in a negative light. Learners may prefer to express their love and pride for the family and accept or even upgrade the compliment (e.g., Yes, she is doing really well at school too). An explanatory approach to pragmatics (Chapters 1, 6, and 9) includes a discussion of such cultural points of view, with the intent of enhancing the learners’ cultural literacy in the L2. 38 The information can also be found on the CARLA database: http://​carla.umn.edu/​ speechacts/​compliments/​american.html (accessed on October 16, 2020).

15

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  155 B  Student Research and Analysis of Language and Contextual Factors  In this

portion of the instruction, learners observe the complimenting behavior of expert speakers of English in the community. Using the format on the handout (see below), learners record three or more authentic compliments they give, receive, or overhear and analyze the overall level of perceived sincerity and appropriateness of each interaction in consideration of the given contextual factors (e.g., relative age, social status, gender, role, and distance of the interactants and the language and the topic of complimenting). This process of data collection and analysis can be modeled using a film clip, such as a scene from Father of the Bride (see below for the transcription and analysis to be modeled to learners).Alternatively, learners can be asked to give compliments and record their own interactions. In offering a compliment, learners should be advised to be mindful of appropriate topics in relation to the recipient of the compliment and the context of each interaction. This initial learner involvement in notebook data collection can raise learners’ pragmatic awareness, provide authentic input, and create a learner-​ centered class. Since complimenting could be naturally initiated by learners, they can practice it within the natural course of conversation. Learners review these written interactions repeatedly during the subsequent stages of instruction to do the following:

• Analyze the grammatical structure and adjectives used in the compliments given • Assess the level of perceived sincerity and appropriateness of the interactions • Analyze the compliment response strategies used

If the student data contain pragmatic uses found in different varieties of English that are not typical in mainstream English, the class can take advantage of this opportunity to discuss the cultural backgrounds of the speakers, the contexts in which the expressions may cause confusion or misunderstanding, possible rewordings to make them less misleading in the local community, or use of communication strategies to provide metapragmatic explanation (see Chapter 9). C  Additional Analysis of Pragmatic Norms Related to Compliments  Short excerpts

can be introduced to facilitate discussion or reflection on different cultural norms regarding compliments or responses to compliments. For example, excerpts about positive values of mainstream Americans39 can be followed by discussion questions such as: a) Does the positive value of being slim apply to both men and women in the U.S.? In your cultures or communities? b) What possible risks can accompany a compliment on weight loss? c) What does it mean in mainstream American culture when someone’s new appearances or possessions are not complimented on? Teacher feedback can be given individually in writing or be provided orally to the whole class. 39 Wolfson and Judd (1983: 113–​114).

156

156  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics

Figure 7.2  Interactive practice.

D  Responses to Compliments  At this stage, learners are introduced to and

practice three types of strategies for responding to compliments: acceptance, deflection, and rejection (see Chapter 4). Short authentic exchanges illustrating these strategies are introduced to learners first without the labels in order to stimulate their powers of observation. Learners then come up with other examples for each strategy or look back at their own data (Stage B above) to analyze the types of response strategies found there. Learners share some of the interactions from their own data, and the class identifies the response strategies used in the interactions. Next, the giving of and responding to compliments is practiced interac­tively in a mingling activity. Learners form two concentric circles (see Figure 7.2 for this and an alternative), each one facing a partner. One compliments the other and the other responds. They then sustain conversation until they are asked to wrap up and change partners. At this point, the outer circle rotates and each takes on a new partner. This procedure is repeated, ensuring that roles are switched after learners have practiced a given role sufficiently. In this activity, the learners are advised not to always resort to a simple Thank you but to express themselves in the most comfortable manner using the newly-​ learned strategies, especially deflection when applicable. In case learner production observed in this interactional practice is awkward or not sufficiently diversified, it would be helpful to expose learners to additional authentic language data. Learners can then role-​play authentic interactional samples provided by the teacher, analyze them in terms of the word choice in the compliments and response strategies, and produce similar role-​plays to enhance their pragmalinguistic control. Feedback on learners’ role-​play can be provided not just by teachers but also by learners themselves or their classmates. Discussion can be held on, for example, how sincere or appropriate the compliments sounded, what response strategies were selected and why, how interactants tended to interpret each other’s pragmatic behavior, and what consequences there may be.

157

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  157 E  Sustaining Conversation Using Compliments  Using an authentic transcript,

a prolonged interaction is presented in which a conversation opens with a compliment. Learners are guided to notice a function of compliments such as opening and sustaining a conversation and to practice this function interactively using compliments and related topics. F  Closing  The wrap-​up stage offers opportunities to assess the learners’

further needs and development of pragmatic competence. The teacher can ask learners to role-​play what they think typical speakers of the L2 would say to assess their pragmalinguistic competence. Learners can also be invited to self-​assess their production with teacher guidance. In addition, teachers may choose to elicit and assess learners’ (meta)pragmatic awareness of the range of community norms as well as the match between their intention and listeners’ probable interpretations of their pragmatic behavior (see Chapter 12). Learners’ feedback about the instruction can also be surveyed at this stage. A student worksheet can contain several scenarios to elicit learners’ oral or written compliments and responses40 as well as other reflective questions such as: 1 What did you learn about: a) giving compliments, and b) responding to compliments in terms of language and cultural norms of behavior? Give specific examples. 2 After studying complimenting, how comfortable and confident do you feel about giving and responding to compliments in English? What questions do you still have? 3 Are you interested in learning about other communicative acts? Circle the ones you are interested in: [list of pragmatic features beneficial for learners].Why would you like to know about them? Sample handout: Student research and analysis (Stage B, above)

Giving and Responding to Compliments: Data Collection Over the coming week, pay attention to any compliments you give, receive, or overhear in English. Jot them down in a notebook or elsewhere as accurately as possible after the conversation has ended. Observe carefully the context in which these compliments were given and received in terms of age, gender, role, distance or closeness, and

40  Sample scenarios can be found in Carduner (2011); Rose and Ng (2001) among others.

158

158  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics topic. Fill out the following form and then decide how sincere and appropriate the interaction seemed to be. Power (age, gender, role)

Distance

Topic

Patterns of compliments, function(s)

Response strategies, overall success

Dad: You look all lit up inside.

Late 40s → early 20s,

Very close

Pattern 1 (You look…)

Agreeing (I feel…)

Annie: Oh, I feel all lit up inside.

M → F,

Appearance and possessions (perfume)

Pattern 1 (You smell…)

Questioning (You like it?)

Example (from the Father of the Bride film)

Mom: Maybe we should go to Rome for a few months, honey.

Father → daughter, equals

Annie: Oh, you two would love it. It’s the most romantic place on earth.

Building solidarity

Shifting credit (It was a present.)

Dad: You smell pretty good too. Annie: You like it? It was a present. Interaction 1 A: B: Interaction 2

Interaction 3

Teaching Requesting (EFL)41 LEARNERS AND THE CONTEXT

The instruction was originally designed for false beginners in a university EFL context with the learners’ scores ranging from 370 to 429 on the paper-​ based TOEFL® ITP (International Testing Program). The target audience 41 The instruction/​assessment procedures have been adapted from a research study (Ishihara 2009) that has been investigating teacher-​based assessment of L2 pragmatics in the classroom.

159

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  159 was predominantly Japanese non-​English majors taking a required first-​year English course. They had been studying English for at least six years, but most had very little exposure to authentic English and English-​speaking cultures due to traditional English education until high school. They were often unfamiliar with communicative language teaching, and their oral proficiency was typically extremely limited. The learners’ goals included scoring high on a proficiency test such as the TOEIC® (Test of English for International Communication) for better job prospects after university and improving their English skills to better communicate in that language. English-​medium instruction can motivate learners at this level if it is made comprehensible through visual aids. However, when learners largely share the L1, instruction may be more effective if selected parts are given bilingually. For example, learners’ understanding can be reinforced if imaginary scenarios and reflective prompts are accompanied by L1 translations. Learners may also be invited to use their L1 in providing reflections as they wish. For this particular foreign-​language audience, requests in Hong Kong English, Australian English, and American English were incorporated into the lesson plan (see below), but more is certainly possible for other audiences if teachers are to raise learners’ awareness of linguacultural diversity. For example, discussions of request forms commonly used in Black South African English (BSAE) and English used by Palestinian Arabs, as well as typical request discourse in English used by Chinese speakers, may serve as suitable awareness-​raising for requests in other varieties of English (see Chapter 4).42 OBJECTIVES

In making requests, speakers/​ writer are asking listeners/​ readers to take some action for the benefit of the requesters. Because such an action does not usually profit addressees, requesters use various strategies to minimize the imposition involved in the requests. These mitigation strategies soften the potential face threats and can help requesters get what they need (see Chapter 4). Below are the objectives of the instruction: 1 Learners will be able to identify different norms of behavior across cultures and contexts with regard to requests. 2 Learners will be able to assess the levels of (in)directness, (in)formality, and (im)politeness of several request forms and pre-​and post-​request strategies. 3 Learners will be able to use a range of request expressions and pre-​and post-​request strategies according to the demands of the context. 4 Learners will be able to analyze interactions in terms of speakers’ intentions and listeners’ interpretations in the given context and identify potential consequences of their own pragmatic language choices. 5 Learners will be able to negotiate their requests according to their goals and intentions in the four imaginary situations given. 42  See also Taguchi and Ishihara (2018) for more instructional details.

160

160  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics SUGGESTED TIME

Approximately 750 minutes (e.g., 15 weeks for 50 minutes each) CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

A  Initial Reactions to Language Use in Context  As an introduction to language

use in sociocultural context, episodes about commonly heard direct requests in Hong Kong English43 are enhanced with visual materials (e.g., maps and photos) and shared with learners. By responding to the following discussion questions, learners analyze the language of requests in American English, Hong Kong English, and Japanese. 1 What English requests did Rose hear from bank tellers, librarians, and store clerks in Hong Kong? How are these requests usually phrased in Japanese and in American English? 2 Why do people in Hong Kong tend to make direct requests? 3 What risks are involved in communication between American English speakers and Hong Kong English speakers? As further visual support, the request expressions produced in Question 1 are placed in a continuum of (in)directness. At this stage, learners may be shocked to see how low on the continuum the expression “Please X” is situated as many of them seem to believe the “magic word” to be a highly polite expression.44 The instruction at this stage serves as an informal assessment of learners’ awareness of pragmatic language use. B  Production of Written Request Discourse  Requests in four scenarios are

elicited from learners using multi-​turn discourse completion tasks (DCTs) (see the sample handout below). Writing is used due to learners’ weakness in oral skills. Moreover, because written materials can be analyzed later with relative ease, written dialogues can be used as a projection of their speech. However, alternatively and ideally, learners’ online (spontaneous) pragmatic competence can be assessed orally and in natural discourse as much as possible. At this point, learner language is not graded or commented on but used only for teachers’ diagnosis of their pragmatic production. Learners are then given three sets of sample responses collected from expert speakers of English, and the request expressions from these data are sequenced on the continuum of (in)directness used at Stage A.

43  Rose (1999: 172–​173). 44  Ishihara (2009); Matsuura (1998).

16

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  161 C  Learners’ Data Collection of Authentic L1/​L2 Discourses  Learners are assigned

to collect naturally occurring request dialogues in L1 Japanese or L2 English. Using a format similar to that for giving and responding to compliments above, learners receive instruction in how to notice and analyze the language of requests in relation to contextual factors (i.e., relative power, distance, and imposition of the request). As an example, learners can be exposed to a film clip from A Few Good Men representing polite and impolite requests and their consequences (see Chapter 3). D  Learners’ Reflections on Language Use in Context Request softeners (mitigators)

are introduced to learners using materials on Australian English.45 In this activity, learners match examples of short, softened requests with the contexts in which those requests occurred. Mitigators and the demands of the contexts are then discussed. In this process, learners’ attention is directed at both speakers’ intentions (e.g., how (in)directly speakers wish to make requests) and listeners’ interpretations (e.g., how (in)direct the request sounds to the listener). Finally, learners’ reflect on learning the pragmatics of requests thus far and on their preference as to how they wish to use English. The assessment criteria may be prepared bilingually and can include the following: 1 Awareness of pragmatic variation in context (e.g., relative power, distance, and imposition) 2 Awareness of pragmatic variation according to interactants’ age, gender, culture, region, ethnic affiliation, and educational background 3 Awareness of (newly-​ learned) linguistic forms (e.g., grammar, word choice) 4 Awareness of speaker’s intention and listener’s interpretation E  Learners’ Analysis of the Language–​ function–​ context Relationship Using

the data the learners collected for themselves earlier (at Stage C above), learners individually analyze the relationship between contextual factors, the language used in the request, and its functions guided by a few questions (e.g., Comparing the dialogues you collected, analyze how P [Power such as social status, age, gender], D [social/​psychological Distance], and I [level of Imposition] influence the language used in the request. Explain how P, D, and I influence both pre-​request and post-​request strategies.) (See Example 12 in Chapter 12 for an authentic learner response.)

45  The instructions and materials can be found in Yates (2003). Available at: http://​exchanges. state.gov/​media/​oelp/​teaching-​pragmatics/​short.pdf (accessed on October 16, 2020).

162

162  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics F  Language-​ focused Development and Assessment  At this stage, instruction

focuses on linguistic aspects of pragmatics. Learners go over a range of request strategies (pre-​and post-​request supportive moves) and examples for each category (see Chapter 4).46 Learners’ pragmalinguistic control of these request strategies can be assessed through a quiz. Learners can also analyze the sequence of requester and addressee turns in extended discourse samples (see sample data below). G  Learners’ Self-​ revising, Role-​ playing, and Refining Their Request Discourses  Learners receive their own responses in multi-​turn DCTs that make use of four scenarios (Stage B) and revise them as an assignment. They are free to review the expert speaker samples provided earlier. They also receive an explanation for a set of assessment criteria (see below). In class, learners practice their written dialogues orally in pairs as well as a few other peer dialogues (scaffolded role-​ plays). They are then asked to record their best responses to the same DCTs once again, this time without looking at any of the written dialogues (unscaffolded written role-​plays). These written dialogues can be assessed by the teacher using a set of criteria previously provided to the learners (see samples of learner language and teacher assessment in Example 9 in Chapter 12; for more direct assessment of role-​plays for more advanced learners, see Example 5 in Chapter 12).

Sample Assessment Rubric

(a) Overall (in)directness, (in)formality, (im) politeness of the request head act (tone of the request) (e.g., intonation, use of eye contact/​gaze, body language, if applicable) (b) Choice and use of request strategies (e.g., too much or too little information offered overall, choice and use of strategies such as: giving a reason, getting a pre-​commitment, checking availability, promising to compensate, showing consideration for the listener, expressing apology/​thanks) (c) Overall comprehensibility of the speaker’s intention in terms of appropriacy rather than accuracy (e.g., pronunciation, word choice, grammar, sequencing)

Very appropriate Somewhat appropriate Less appropriate Inappropriate Very appropriate Somewhat appropriate Less appropriate Inappropriate

Highly comprehensible Somewhat comprehensible Less comprehensible Incomprehensible

46 The information can also be found on the CARLA database: www.carla.umn.edu/​ speechacts/​requests/​research.html (accessed on October 16, 2020).

163

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  163 H  Learners’ Self-​ Evaluation of Written Request Discourses  While the teacher assesses learner language, learners can also conduct self-​evaluations of their own language production (from Stage G above) based on (bilingual) guiding criteria. Through this self-​ assessment, learners’ pragmatic awareness (*1 below) and language production (*2 below) can both be assessed. Below are some sample prompts based on Scenario d) in the sample handout below (see Example 17 in Chapter 12 for an authentic example of this self-​assessment):

1 Given the context, how appropriate was Karla’s request in terms of overall (in)directness, (in)formality, (im)politeness, and tone (e.g., intonation, gesture, eye contact)? (a) What part of Karla’s language demonstrates appropriate levels of (in)directness, (im)politeness, and (in)formality? (*1) (b) What part of her language may need improvement considering the appropriate level of (in)directness, (in)formality, and (im) politeness called for by this situation? (*1) What should she have said? Write the expressions you think she could have used. (*2) 2 Request strategies: (a) What requesting strategies did Karla use appropriately? Check the ones she used in the left column and write out the expressions she used in the right column. (*1) (List of strategies here.) (b) What other strategies could she have used? What might she have said? (*2) 3 Listener’s interpretation: How do you think Karla’s request sounds to Professor Johnson given the situation? Check the one that most likely represents Professor Johnson’s reaction. Then explain why you think that is the case. (*1) (a) Prof. Johnson would be willing to give her an extension because … (b) He would give her an extension, but may not be very happy because … (c) He may not give her an extension because …

I  Analysis of Speakers’ Intentions and Listeners’ Interpretations  Because in

foreign-​language contexts authentic L2 input tends to be limited, a feature film or YouTube video can be used to demonstrate how intentions and interpretations are negotiated in request discourse. Learners are asked about the messages conveyed, how else the message could be phrased, and how the messages are interpreted and responded to. Learners are then invited to

164

164  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics discuss how they would like to communicate their intentions and practice pragmatic L2 use as if they were in the scene themselves. J Teacher–​learner Collaborative Assessment  At this final stage of instruction,

learners’ intentions in making requests are elicited along with their language of requests. Learners and the teacher can collaboratively assess the match between the learners’ intentions as speakers and the most likely interpretations listeners would make (see Examples 14–​16 in Chapter 12 for how learners’ goals and intentions can be elicited). This assessment is intended to focus the learners’ attention on their pragmalinguistic skills and sociopragmatic awareness of community norms in order to help them to approximate their goal and intention as speakers. The teacher’s assessment can be made based on the elicited learner response, as in the following: Sample Teacher’s Assessment Based on Learner Response

1 Linguistic ability to use community norms

Excellent

Good

Fair

Needs more work

2 Awareness of most probable interpretations

Highly aware

Aware

Less aware

Unaware

3 Match between learner goals and intentions and most probable listeners’ interpretations

Excellent

Good

Fair

Needs more work

Overall assessment

Sample handout: Request scenarios for eliciting learner production and sample data47 (see Stages B, F, G, and H above) (a) Chris and Pat48 are university students and roommates in an apartment. They are very close friends. Last week, Chris was sick and missed two class sessions. Since the exam is coming up soon, Chris would like to see Pat’s class notes. Because Pat is a good student, Chris also wants to ask if they can study together.

47 Sample data collected from pragmatically competent English speakers (Ishihara 2009). Three different responses were selected to demonstrate the range of pragmatic norms. 48  Unisex names are used in Scenarios a and c so that learners are free to choose the gender.

165

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  165 Pat: Hey, how’s it going? Chris—​1: Pat: Sure, no problem, I just need my notes back in a couple of days. Chris—​2: Pat: Okay. Let’s plan on doing that then. Sample Data Chris—​1: 1 Well, not so well. You know that the exam we have next week? Well, I missed two classes and I don’t have any notes. I was wondering if I could borrow your notebook for a while and see what I missed. 2 You know that class we’re taking together, um, well, I was sick like last week. You think I can maybe borrow your notes and see if I can catch up for the exam? 3 Um, not too well. I missed class last weekend and now am not ready for the test. Do you think maybe I could borrow your notes? Chris—​2: 1 Thank you so much. Um, also, if you’re not so busy, would you mind studying together? That way we can make sure that we haven’t missed anything and we’ll be ready for the test. 2 Okay, no problem, great. And also, if you could help me study, that would be great, too. 3 Can I ask you another favor? Would you mind studying with me a little bit, so I could ask you questions? Thanks a lot, you’re a life saver. (b) John is in a large class taught by Professor Andersen. She shared a very interesting book in class last week. Since she offered to lend it to anyone who might be interested, John decides to go to her after class to borrow it. This is his first time talking to Professor Andersen in private. John—​1: Prof. Andersen: Oh, I’m sorry but I’ve already lent it out to someone else who was interested. John—​2: Prof. Andersen: Sure, no problem.

16

166  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics Sample Data John—​1: 1 Um, Professor Andersen, I was wondering if I could borrow that book you showed us last week. 2 Hi Professor Andersen, about the book that you … you told us about in class, um, do you think I can borrow it this weekend, and maybe look it over? 3 Professor Andersen, I was wondering if it would be possible to borrow that book you talked about in class last week. John—​2: 1 Oh, really? That’s okay. Um, um, maybe I’ll try to borrow it from you later. 2 Oh, okay, ah, that’s all right. But if ah, he gives back soon, I, could I borrow that afterwards? 3 Ah, okay. Um, when they give it back, do you think I can look at it, then? (c) Terry lives with a roommate, Alex, who is a very good friend. However, Alex likes to have his/​her TV on loud in the evening,49 and Terry has difficulty concentrating on the studies. Terry wants to ask that Alex not have the TV on so loud while s/​he is trying to study. Alex approaches Terry and says: Alex: So, have you finished your homework yet? Terry—1: Alex: Why not take a study break for a while and watch some TV with me? Terry—2: Sample Data Terry—​1: 1 No, not yet. Um, it’s kind of hard with the TV so loud. Do you think maybe you could turn it down?

49 DCT and role-​play scenarios should be as authentic as possible to learners’ lives and updated to reflect their reality. For example, if most of your learners no longer watch TV, this scenario should be adapted to include the use of, perhaps, social media.

167

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  167 2 Yeah, see, no, ’cause the TV is too dumb. Turn it down, Alex. Turn down your TV so I can study, please. That’s all I’m asking. 3 No, Alex, because I haven’t been able to study, because someone has a TV on so loud. Terry—​2: 1 Look, I, I can’t. I’ve got tons of work to do, okay? So, so wouldn’t you please just turn it down, okay? All right, thanks. 2 Dude, I can’t, come on! But would you just turn it down for a little bit. I’ve got to get this done. 3 Um, okay, let’s make a deal. I’ll watch some TV, and then, after that, let’s turn down the TV so I can study, okay? (d) Karla takes a large class at a university in Minneapolis. A week before a course paper is due, she notices that she has three more long papers due the same week. She realizes that it is not possible to finish them all by their respective due dates. She decides to go to one of the instructors, Professor Johnson, to ask for an extension on the paper for his course. This is her first time talking to him in private. She approaches him after class is over and says: Karla—1: Prof. Johnson:  But you knew the deadline, didn’t you? Karla—2: Sample Data Karla—​1: 1 Hi, Professor Johnson, my name is Karla Philips and I’m in one of your classes. Um, I was wondering if it might be possible to get an extension on a paper that’s due next week. 2 Um, Professor Johnson, ah, yeah, I was just wondering about the paper. Could I maybe get an extension? 3 Um, Professor Johnson, I was wondering if I could ask you for an extension on the paper that’s due next week. Um, do you think that’s possible? Karla—​2: 1 Ah, yeah, I did, but um, I, I, I didn’t realize it until I wasn’t gonna have enough time to do it. Um, so I was wondering if you could please, please extend the deadline for me. I’d really appreciate it.

168

168  Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics 2 Um, yeah, I did, I just, I’ve been really busy with a few of my other classes, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to get it down on time. Do you think it’ll be possible to get an extension? 3 I knew it, but I have three other papers that are due, and I’ve been working on them, but it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to finish them all in time. Um, is it possible to have an extension?

Discussion This chapter opened with some guidelines for observing pragmatics-​focused lesson plans. Teachers are encouraged to observe others’ instruction with particular pragmatics-​focused points in mind. We also reviewed a list of instructional resources for teaching pragmatics. Many of these resources are discussed throughout this book, and readers are invited to explore them in their own time. The bulk of this chapter is devoted to instructional examples, first of a narrative approach to teaching pragmatics for both adult and young learners and then of teaching speech acts in second-​and foreign-​ language contexts. Note that classroom-​based assessment (see Chapter 12) has been integrated into these instructional samples and that pragmatic variation representing several varieties of English has been incorporated into the lessons for awareness-​raising purposes. You were invited to take a critical look at these instructional units to consider how you might adapt such instruction for your own contexts. In conclusion to this chapter, the following activity invites readers to refer to online resources for teaching and researching pragmatics and explore some of them according to each reader’s interests and needs.

ACTIVITY 7.1  Exploring Instructional Resources for L2 Pragmatics Objectives 1 You will become familiar with the scope of research-​informed instructional resources for pragmatics. 2 You will be able to locate particular pieces of pedagogical information for teaching L2 pragmatics according to your needs. Suggested time: 30 minutes Materials • •

Access to an internet connection Section entitled “Resources for Teaching Pragmatics” in this chapter

169

Instructional Examples for L2 Pragmatics  169 Directions 1 Briefly (re)familiarize yourself with the various resources listed to determine which one(s) would be more suitable for you to explore further. Ideally, you have already determined the feature(s) of pragmatics to teach for a particular audience by this time and can now focus your research according to your needs. 2 Access resources of interest to you.Take notes or store information in a personal file if you wish to return to it later. 3 Share your findings and evaluation of the lesson plans you have read with the rest of the class. Wrap-​up If you have identified a lesson plan dealing with a topic relevant to your instruction in pragmatics or an instructional approach you wish to use in your lessons, critically examine it and assess how applicable it is for your context. Consider what is likely to work in your own classroom and what aspects need adapting or supplementing. Also, listen to other teachers to notice how they would adapt resources to achieve their goals.

170

8  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching Pragmatics*

Introduction As noted in various chapters in this volume, current views in the field underscore the importance of drawing as much as possible on empirically-​ established information in the teaching of L2 pragmatics. However, it takes time and effort for teachers to find research-​based information either in research studies or elsewhere and then design materials based on these. Given the busy lives teachers lead, this process may not always be realistic. It would be efficient to use textbooks that systematically offer well-​designed pragmatics material ready to be taught without much need for modification. Unfortunately, even with the increasing amount of pragmatics-​focused lesson plans currently available (see Chapter 7), it is likely that teachers interested in conducting pragmatics instruction will need to adapt the textbook materials they have. This is because most commercially available textbooks are still written based on writers’ intuitions and do not often reflect natural language use.1 Experts in materials development lament that insights gained through research in second language acquisition have not been adequately applied to the development of L2 materials.2 In this chapter, after a brief summary of textbook analysis studies conducted from a pragmatics perspective, we will review several examples of pragmatic language use in currently available materials, compare this language depiction with that available in studies, and then consider how we might modify or prepare supplementary materials that address pragmatics more effectively.

Textbook Analysis for Pragmatic Components As noted in Chapter 3, in commercially marketed materials, empirical information is rarely used as the source for instructional materials in L2 pragmatics. As also noted earlier, many experts in L2 pragmatics agree that *  Andrew D. Cohen has contributed as a co-author to this chapter with permission. 1  Bardovi-​Harlig (2017); Cohen and Ishihara (2013); Ishihara and Paller (2017); McConachy (2018a); Ren and Han (2016); Schegloff, Koshik, Jacob, and Olsher (2002); Tatsuki (2019); Wong (2002) among many others. 2 Tomlinson (2017).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-8

17

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  171 the majority of published textbooks are still written on the basis of the curriculum writers’ intuitions. Experience tells us that textbook dialogues can sound awkward or stilted at times. Such dialogues are inauthentic in the sense that they do not represent spontaneous pragmatic language as used in natural conversation. Instead, they may reflect idealized depictions of common pragmatic routines. Moreover, textbook writers may not necessarily take issues of pragmatics and discourse into account or only give them passing attention. L2 textbooks can be insufficient both in their sampling of pragmatics and in the quality of the treatment of pragmatics even when it is included.3 For example, a survey of pragmatics-​based and oral fluency activities in 48 ELT textbooks showed mixed results with a great variety in their treatment of pragmatic language use. Some textbook series include several speech acts and communication strategies even though they lack a clear justification for their selection. The authors of the study point out that in many of the textbooks, activities are often decontextualized and do not provide instruction as to what expressions are preferred in a given context, when, or why certain expressions are selected over others.4 Another study analyzing ten intermediate ELT textbooks published in China had some positive outcomes with the incorporation of some pragmatic information such as multiple linguistic expressions for speech acts, level of formality, issues of (im)politeness and (in)appropriateness, register, and culture.5 However, the authors stressed that overall pragmatic knowledge was still underrepresented without inclusion of metapragmatic information. This means that explicit pragmatic instruction was also missing, from which learners could analyze the relationship between language form, functional meaning, and contextual factors in the given situation. Moreover, the range of speech acts in these textbooks was limited, and pragmatic variation across different English varieties was hardly represented. Similarly, studies of high school textbooks in Vietnam found inconsistent treatment of speech acts across proficiency levels and a paucity of explicit pragmatic information.6 Two other studies on ELT textbooks used in Germany and Canada found limited coverage of the language of requests and request strategies respectively.7 In these studies, the textbooks did not contain sufficient pragmatic information regarding contextualized language use.Without such information, explicit pragmatics-​focused instruction is not

3 This is the claim made by Vellenga (2004) in one early textbook analysis study for L2 pragmatics, but it still appears largely true today, with a few notable exceptions (see Ishihara and Paller 2017). 4  Diepenbroek and Derwing (2013). Although Touchstone series (McCarthy, McCarten, and Sandiford, 2005, 2014) was highly acclaimed for their corpus-​based presentation of lexical items, the frequencies of two speech acts in the series were found to differ greatly from those in studies (Jalilian and Roohani 2016). 5  Ren and Han (2016). 6  Nguyen (2011); Ton Nu and Murray (2020). 7  Barron (2016); Petraki and Bayes (2013).

172

172  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics readily possible.8 Senior high school ELT textbooks in Japan have also been found to inadequately address communicative competence, falling short of both pragmatic information and metapragmatic instruction.9 Focusing more on the organization of the talk-​in-​interaction, a large body of CA research has revealed a number of structural features of naturally-​ occurring conversations in fine detail (Chapters 1, 3, 4, 12 and elsewhere). Although debates continue and caveats still apply regarding the contribution of CA to L2 practice and assessment,10 many experts argue that CA can provide a tool to help illuminate discursive features of natural talk by illustrating ways to evaluate, enhance, or supplement textbook materials,11 some of which are reviewed in various sections of this book. It has been argued that CA brings the social dimension of interaction to the fore, which is at the core of human activities. For this reason, learners are intrinsically interested in learning the intricate orderliness of social interaction and are capable of gaining access to the analytic process if guided effectively to notice what is sometimes called the “grammar of interaction” in the classroom.12 Let us discuss two examples of gaps in textbooks from the perspective of discourse organization. Two researchers compared authentic fast-​food ordering transactions with dialogues on that subject in ELT textbooks in Japan.This study found that the textbook dialogues did not align with natural conversations, with a substantial difference found in the sequencing of the transaction and in the manner of completing the interaction.13 The authors contend that authentic discourse should be incorporated into textbooks so that learners can be exposed to natural sequences of actions that would prepare them for real-​ life interactions. Another researcher investigating authentic language of disagreement and its textbook depiction supports this claim. Expert business associates in this study carefully built up their main points through elaboration across multiple turns in informal meetings, while the ELT textbooks investigated in this study often presented disagreement in isolation.14 Another study compared disagreement structures in business ELT textbooks with disagreements by English speakers of 16 nationalities in a simulated negotiation.15 The study revealed limited correspondence between natural disagreements and the textbook items. According to the author, the interactants in the lingua franca contexts recognized the disagreement act as being face-​threatening and therefore employed mitigation strategies in expressing disagreement.While their mitigating devices were predominantly 8  See also De Pablos-​Ortega (2018); Mir (2018) for inadequate treatment of pragmatics in Spanish-​language textbooks and suggestions for materials development. 9  Glasgow and Paller (2014); McGroarty and Taguchi (2005). 10  Huth (2006); Mori (2007); Mori and Nguyen (2019); Seedhouse (2004). 11  Félix-​Brasdefer (2006); Filipi and Barraja-​Rohan (2015); Huth (2006); Huth and Taleghani-​ Nikazm (2006); Packett (2005); Savova (2018); Wong and Waring (2010). 12  Barraja-​Rohan (2011: 480–​481). 13  Nguyen and Ishitobi (2012). 14 Williams (1988). 15  Bjørge (2012).

173

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  173 used in the textbooks (e.g., partial agreement followed by but and modal verbs), these were presented in an implicit manner without contextual information. While most textbooks recommended mitigating devices such as I’m afraid and under the circumstances, the international speakers hardly used these phrases but mitigated their language through delays and additional support for their arguments. Other researchers have focused on how the pragmatics of gendered language is taught in Japanese-​language textbooks. Japanese norms of behavior and language use are often considered highly gendered. For example, some pragmatic markers (i.e., sentence-​final particles and honorific particles) and personal pronouns require an obligatory choice often associated with the nuances of femininity or masculinity (e.g., the first-​person pronoun watashi ‘I’ [formal and/​or feminine], boku ‘I’ [informal masculine]). Studies of several popular Japanese-​language textbooks found that in many of these, those features were presented as representing either masculine or feminine language, sometimes in contrastive charts.16 The researchers argued that these descriptions, along with the lack of counter-​examples, disregard the existence of gender-​neutral forms, a wide range of within-​gender variability, and cross-​gender usage found in natural discourse.This stereotypical depiction of gender in language use is not only inaccurate but can lead to the reinforcement of traditional gender norms and dichotomy in the language, making Japanese culture seem more exotic and alien.17 On a positive note, although we are required to be critical consumers of commercially available textbooks, a handful of them, as well as research-​ informed resources, present a promising outlook. As discussed in Chapter 7, an increasing number of lesson plans and online databases are currently available, even though their coverage of pragmatic features remains uneven. Among the best news may be the arrival of an innovative corpus-​based textbook for workplace pragmatics published in New Zealand18 (see Chapter 9 for more information).

Recommendations for Materials Development Given the findings above, various ideas and recommendations have been made for teachers, researchers, and teacher educators in L2 pragmatics. First of all, it is important to come to a (renewed) realization of the gap between textbook representation of language and its actual use, find more authentic language data from naturally occurring interactions or media (see Chapter 3), and implement explicit (meta)pragmatic instruction focused on the form-​ function-​context mapping (Chapter 6).19 To do this, closer collaboration 16  Siegal and Okamoto (1996, 2003). 17  Siegal and Okamoto (1996, 2003). 18  Riddiford and Newton (2010). See also Ishihara and Paller (2017) for a review of this textbook as well as other materials for pragmatics instruction. 19  McConachy (2018a); McConachy and Hata (2013); Ren and Han (2016).

174

174  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics between teachers, researchers, materials developers, and publishers is in order. For example, textbook writers could offer a companion website on which researchers are invited to share their research findings.20 On the other hand, informed teachers may choose to use less-​than-​perfect materials as a resource to promote learners’ critical engagement in the classroom.21 Even though textbook representations of pragmatic language uses or description of cultures are often stereotypical, monolithic, or static, learners can be guided to develop their skills for noticing such pitfalls and incorporating multi-​ dimensional perspectives. Understandably, such instruction requires skilled teachers as well as learners who are both cognitively and linguistically well-​developed. This line of critical thinking taking advantage of imperfect materials adds another interesting potential for cultivating pragmatic competence and intercultural awareness.

Using Resources Informed by Research in Adapting Textbooks The above analyses of how pragmatics is treated in textbooks show that pragmatic language use tends to be underrepresented in these materials. Teachers of L2 pragmatics may decide not to necessarily rely on commercially marketed textbooks alone. The next section illustrates how teachers may go about adapting or developing materials to infuse research-​based pragmatic information into their teaching. We will first review some of the research-​based resources on greetings, conversational closing, suggestions and advice-​giving, implicature, and gendered language. We will then take a look at examples of classroom activities for each of these areas designed with more authentic input and explicit pragmatics-​focused activities.The purpose of these examples is twofold: to become (re)acquainted with current knowledge of L2 pragmatics and the commonly found gap in L2 materials and to demonstrate how teachers can give pragmatics a higher profile in the classroom in a way cognitively and affectively engaging to learners.22 Teaching Greetings Greetings are often taught in the very first phase of language learning, but dialogues involving greeting exchanges in textbooks are known to often misrepresent how greetings are actually used. To give one example, the following is a typical exchange of greetings modeled in an EFL textbook for junior-​high-​school students in Japan.23 In this book, the main characters are 20  Ren and Han (2016).See Ishihara and Maeda’s (2010) textbook for an example (see Chapter 9). 21  Bardovi-​Harlig (2017); McConachy (2018). 22  Cognitive and affective engagement are two of the five principles of materials development recommended by Tomlinson (2017: 7–​10) along with rich, recycled, meaningful, and comprehensive input, attention to form after focus on meaning, and ample opportunities to use the L2 for communication. 23 Takahashi et al. (2006: 2–​3).

175

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  175 Table 8.1 Greetings in American English First pair part Greetings

(%)

Questions

(%)

Hi Hey Hello (Good) morning Names only

54 24 11 9 2

How are you How (are) you/​ya doing What’s up How’s it goin’

45 36 9 9

Answers

(%)

Questions

(%)

(Pretty) good OK Literal answer

60 20 20

How are you How (are) you/​ya doing What’s up How’s it goin’

53 18 24 6

Second pair part

introduced on the first page with illustrations. There, two of the characters, Kumi Tanaka and Paul Green, appear to be classmates similar in age to the targeted students, perhaps meant to be seventh graders. Kumi can be assumed to be Japanese and Paul is introduced as an American; however, their actual ages and relationship are unknown. Kumi: How are you? Paul: Fine,* thank you. And you? Kumi: I’m fine too. Thank you. *Very well/​Not bad are also used. [note in the teacher’s book]

You may feel that natural language between two teens does not quite flow like this. Additional support can be provided by a study that investigated naturally occurring greetings exchanged by 60 university-​affiliated speakers of American English24 (Table 8.1). The first part of the adjacency pair (Chapter 1) above shows the greeting formulas and questions used by the first speaker. Approximately half the speakers used hi and how are you along with more informal counterparts such as hey, how (are) you/​ya doing, what’s up, and how’s it goin’. The second pair part consists of the answers and questions used by the second speaker. The majority of speakers used (pretty) good and how are you. Below is a sample of naturalistic dialogue role-​played by American university students: 24  Kakiuchi (2005a: 70–​72).

176

176  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics Situation: Paul and Erin are college students in the U.S. They are close friends and equal in social status.25 Erin:  Paul:  Erin:  Paul: 

Hey Paul. How’s it going? Hey Erin. How are you? I’m fantastic! I haven’t seen you in a long time. Where’ve you been?

In adapting greeting dialogues, we should note that the language-​related information above was collected from informants who range in age from upper teens to 50s. Thus the results may be of limited relevance to other populations such as younger learners. With this in mind, let us see a sample adaptation: Dialogue 1: At school Kumi: How are you, Ms. Anderson? Ms. Anderson: I’m fine, thank you. And you? Kumi: I’m fine too. Thank you.

Dialogue 2: On the street Kumi: Hi, Paul. Paul: Hey, Kumi, how’s it goin’? Kumi: Pretty good, thanks. How are you doing? Paul: I’m OK.

Discussion 1. Who is Ms. Anderson? Why do you think so? 2. Who is Paul? Why do you think so? 3. What is the level of formality reflected in Dialogue 1 and Dialogue 2? Mark an X for each dialogue on the line below. What makes you think so? informal

formal

The point of this sample adaptation is the addition of Dialogue 2, an informal version intended to integrate a pragmatics lens into instruction that may otherwise be grammar-​focused. The language in Dialogue 1 is identical to the original one in the textbook although it is now set in school as an exchange between a teacher and a student. By comparing and contrasting the language forms, situations, and conversational partners, learners are guided to notice that informal language is more socially acceptable in natural discourse between friends, such as: greeting forms (hi and hey rather than hello; how’s it goin? How are you doing? rather than How are you?), informal responses (pretty good and I’m OK rather than fine, thank you and you?), and 25  From Félix-​Brasdefer’s Discourse pragmatics website (no longer accessible).

17

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  177 casual word choices and address terms (thanks rather than thank you; Paul and Kumi rather than Mr. Green and Ms. Tanaka). If learners recognize the contextually variable nature of language, this comparing and contrasting can be an engaging authentic exercise. To reflect the local language variety and students’ age for even more affective involvement, teachers may wish to use authentic exchanges by an appropriate audience in their own contexts or use students’ L1 for awareness-​raising purposes. Teaching Conversational Closings While some languages and cultures (such as Thai and Nepali) sometimes permit exchanges to end rather abruptly with little or no closing, others (such as English and Swahili) tend to require fairly elaborate steps.26 Learners particularly from those cultures that tend to allow relatively shorter closings may be unaware that a more gradual transition to closing is preferred in other cultures. As a result, such closings may come across as hasty, awkward, or abrupt in an L2. Conversely, learners may rely on an elaborate closing in a culture in which brief exchanges are more common, giving the impression that they are “hard to get rid of.” This intercultural difference in conversation management has rarely been incorporated into L2 instruction. You may recall dialogues in textbooks in which conversations are rather hastily closed simply because that is “not the point.” Such material does disservice to learners at least in two ways: first, learners can be misled into believing that an abrupt closing is socially acceptable in the L2, and second, the dialogues do not model contextualized language use. Research has demonstrated that the act of closing conversations can be fairly elaborate and often realized in multiple turns in English. In general, conversational closings in English are highly ritualized. Even though there are many ways to say good-​bye, these closings still tend to follow an observable pattern. Below are the major components found in this pattern, which can occur in isolation or in combination:27

• Pre-​closing signals

Expressions such as well, okay, alright, so, anyway, and yes simply mark speakers’ intention to end the conversation without adding new information or opening a new topic. Each can take up the entire turn or occur in combination. • Pre-​closing sequences Interactants confirm their understanding of each other’s intentions to end the conversation, usually by summarizing the content discussed, confirming the promised arrangements, and communicating thanks or the pleasure of talking: 26  Bardovi-​Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-​Taylor, Morgan, and Reynolds (1991);Wong and Waring (2010). 27  Bardovi-​Harlig, et al. (1991); Schegloff and Sacks (1973);Wong and Waring (2010: 184–​203).

178

178  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics ○ Arrangement (e.g., I’ll see you in the morning) ○ Reason for the call or conversation (I just called to find out if you’re going) ○ Announced closing (OK, let me get back to work; OK, I’ll let you go) ○ Appreciation (Thank you)28 ○ Solicitude (Take care) Terminal exchanges • Interactants exchange actual leave-​takings, typically using formulaic expressions such as see you, bye, and OK. Let us now look at some examples from natural discourse. Example 1a A: All right. See ya. B: See you later. Example 2b A: Oh well, I’ll no doubt bump into you next week. B: Yeah. I’ll see you sometime. A: All right? B: All righty. A: Bye, Henry. B: Take care. Bye.

Pre-​closing signal + terminal exchange Terminal exchange Pre-​closing signal + pre-​closing sequence Pre-​closing sequence Pre-​closing signal Pre-​closing signal Terminal exchange Pre-​closing sequence + terminal exchange

a Example from Bardovi-​Harlig et al. (1991: 6). b Example from Wong (2011: 149) with some transcription conventions adjusted.

Example 1 is a brief everyday closing consisting of one adjacency pair while Example 2 is a more carefully closed conversation as the speakers do not foresee the next meeting taking place at least until the following week. These examples illustrate how analysis of talk-​in-​interaction can reveal the complex structure of natural conversation and provide an analytic framework with which to closely examine conversation management. Given this, if textbook materials do not appear to represent a natural closing sequence, teachers may consider using or modifying the following lesson geared to high-​intermediate adult learners in the ESL context:29 1 Guided discussion of the learners’ L1 pragmatic norms and ramifications of enacting pragmatic norms appropriately or inappropriately 28 Although thank you and its variants can be used as part of the pre-​closing sequence to convey appreciation as above, they have dual functions also serving as terminal exchanges (see Wong and Waring, 2010: 185). 29  Adapted from Bardovi-​Harlig et al. (1991: 10–​13).

179

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  179

Figure 8.1 Saying good-​bye.

2 Analysis of naturally occurring closing sequences using the transcripts (such as those used above and in Activity 8.1)30 3 Learners’ reconstruction of the interaction through role-​play 4 Comparison of complete and incomplete closings in textbook dialogues and construction of complete closings 5 Provision of one-​sentence closing lines and learners’ reconstruction of elaborate closing sequences around them 6 Variations of role-​plays, including a situation where one of the speakers tries to end the conversation politely while the other wishes to continue Another instructional resource further illustrates discussion questions for guiding learners’ discovery of norms of conversational closing that are fairly ritualized:31

• Where is the conversation happening? What is its purpose? • What is the relationship between the conversation partners? • How do the participants in the conversation let each other know that

they are ready to say good-​bye? • What conversational sequences do they use to accomplish this? • How do they avoid being rude and abrupt in closing the conversation? • How does the relationship between the conversation partners, the context of the conversation, and its purpose influence the choice of words? Learners’ pragmatic awareness and production can be further reinforced in activities such as group discussion, oral presentation, reflective journaling, skit construction, role-​plays, and peer or instructor feedback. 30  Other transcripts also available in Wong (2011); Wong and Waring (2010). 31  Adapted from Griswold (2003).

180

180  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics Teaching Listenership Another interactional aspect of pragmatic competence that is largely neglected in the L2 materials is the listenership interactants demonstrate in conversation (also called listener feedback, listener response, response tokens, backchannels, and the like), an area that has been researched through analysis of natural conversations using CA and language corpora. The ability to provide effective listener feedback (e.g., uh-​huh, yeah, and right) is an essential ingredient in pragmatic and interactional competence. Listener feedback serves multiple functions of signaling engagement, providing assessment, and showing empathy.32 Because listener behavior varies greatly across contexts, languages, language varieties, and cultures, it can be a potential source of misinterpretation in intercultural communication. Listenership broadly includes both minimal responses (e.g., backchannels or continuers such as uh-​huh) and non-​minimal responses (e.g., assessments such as That’s great).33 Backchannels are brief statements, vocal grunts, or non-​ verbal responses interjected to acknowledge receipt of the message, show alignment, and encourage the primary speaker to continue without adding new information or attempting to steal the floor (e.g., ok, oh really? and head nods). Backchannels are said to “grease the wheels of conversation” while serving a floor-​yielding function. Although non-​minimal responses such as assessments can also indicate social support, they typically provide primary speakers with listener feedback, agreement, or acquiescence, potentially serving a floor-​grabbing function.34 The following illustrate minimal and non-​minimal responses: Conversation 1: A and B are talking about their son’s travels:35 A: So I took him to the airport, but he couldn’t buy a ticket. He could only get on standby. B:  Uh-​huh. A:  And I left him there about noon. Conversation 2: A is a travel agent; B is a customer.36 A: But there is availability there. It’s just a matter of deciding where you want to go. And really how much you want to spend. But this weekend they start at a hundred ’n forty-​nine Euros. B:  Great.That’s brilliant. 32  Cutrone (2015, 2016); O’Keeffe, Clancy, and Adolphs (2020); Olsher (2011a, b). 33  McCarthy (2003); O’Keeffe et al. (2020). 34  McCarthy (2003); O’Keeffe et al. (2020: 147). 35  Olsher (2011b: 164). 36  McCarthy (2003: 37) cited in Olsher (2011a: 185).

18

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  181 Uh-​huh in Conversation 1 is an example of a minimal response or backchannel (continuer) encouraging A to keep telling a story. It can also be contrasted with a non-​responder uh-​huh, a colloquial yes (as in A: Had dinner already? B: Uh-​huh. How about you?). Conversation 2 includes assessments, showing B’s positive evaluation of A’s travel information. Researchers argue that L2 learners’ use of listener feedback may warrant instruction. To take backchannels as an example, consecutive use of the same continuer (e.g., right, right, right) can indicate impatience, and little variation in the choice of continuers can imply boredom. Yeah, right with falling intonation typically carries a sarcastic tone of disagreement, which can be interpreted as rude. Furthermore, English speakers are said to backchannel more frequently than Chinese speakers, and Japanese speakers tend to use these more frequently than English speakers in their L1. Crosslinguistic influence thus may work to learners’ disadvantage.37 To take Japanese learners speaking English as an example, they may provide frequent verbal or non-​verbal backchannels as they typically do in their L1. Speakers of L1 Japanese have been found to backchannel more frequently with a smaller repertoire of backchanneling expressions than speakers of American or British English.38 Overly frequent backchannels in English may be misinterpreted as signs of impatience, boredom, or a demand for a prompt completion of the utterance. Moreover, learners of Japanese in a study often used backchannels that typically signal comprehension, agreement, and empathy in American or British English when they did not in fact understand or even disagreed, confusing their conversational partners via mixed messages.39 Because listenership is rarely modeled adequately in L2 materials, teachers may supplement them by incorporating this aspect of interactional competence. For example, according to one published lesson, teachers can first direct learners’ attention to the prosodic features of backchannels, such as slightly rising or flat intonation and their continuer function (uh-​huh, mm-​ hm, yeah, right, all right) as well as the falling intonation expressing provisional acceptance or alignment (right, all right).40 Teachers can then expose learners to a number of samples of natural conversation while they analyze the intonation contours, gestures, postures, facial expressions, functional meanings in the context (e.g., telling a story, giving directions), and social actions the continuers carry out (e.g., indicating that the listener is following the speaker so far and inviting the speaker to continue). However, when it comes to the production of listener feedback, teachers may need to show sensitivity to learners’ subjectivities as this culturally-​ laden behavior may be perceived as indexing identities and affiliations. The 37  Olsher (2011b). 38  Cutrone (2015). 39  Cutrone (2015). 40  Olsher (2011b). See this CA-​informed lesson for a number of transcripts and audio files readily applicable to classroom use.

182

182  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics author of the above lesson plan points out that while some of his learners were emotionally engaged to produce target-​like backchannels, others were uncomfortable or resistant. For the latter, awareness and receptive pragmatic competence is sufficient to enable identification and recognition of the functional meaning of listener feedback.41 Learners can also engage in a project in which they compare backchannels in the languages they speak and analyze naturally occurring or media-​based interactions, as in the following:42 1 Comparing and contrasting backchannels across languages for awareness-​ raising, using video clips, transcripts of naturally occurring conversations, or corpus-​extracted excerpts 2 Researching conversations in the L1 and L2 (and possibly L3) obtained in authentic contexts 3 Jointly analyzing multiple examples in relation to the contexts 4 Having learners practice the use of backchannels and assessments in interactional activities and providing feedback This approach aligns with the guided self-​discovery approach of learners-​as-​ ethnographers (Chapter 6).Where appropriate,diversified models representing a range of language varieties can also be applied for awareness-​raising. In addition, an astute observation made about Japanese learners is that their backchanneling behavior is often intertwined with their perceived lack of willingness to communicate. Given this, the following strategies combine instruction on backchannels with that on communication strategies (see Chapters 2 and 9), with positive effects of explicit instruction for intermediate learners of Japanese:43

• • • •

Sending minimal backchannels less frequently Expanding the repertoire of listener feedback Initiating comprehension checks and engaging in speakership Making clarification requests to effect conversational repair

The researcher conducting this study notes that the above approach is generally valid when we intend to prepare learners for communication in English in global contexts. Teaching Suggestions and Advice-​giving Thus far in this book, we have seen a number of cases in which language corpora have been helpful in understanding the traits of natural discourse. Another corpus study was conducted investigating the speech act 41  Olsher (2011a). 42  Adapted from the instruction reported in Cutrone (2015, 2016). See also Olsher (2011a, b). 43  Cutrone (2015). See Cutrone (2016) for detail of this instruction.

183

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  183 of suggesting, which is often included in language textbooks.44 The study compared the naturally occurring language of suggestions used during office hours and study group conversations with that in frequently-​used ESL textbooks and found several discrepancies. For example:

• Although wh-​suggestions (e.g., what about, how about, why don’t you, and • •

• • •

why not) often appeared in the textbooks, their frequencies were low in a spoken and written academic corpus. In natural discourse, let’s was the most commonly used structure for making suggestions. Yet this structure can suggest a joint action or be a polite command. The most commonly used modals were have to and need in either spoken or written discourse. Should is a popular modal in textbooks but was much less frequently used in authentic data. Moreover, the levels of formality of these modals vary implying different degrees of speaker authority and urgency of the message. Hedging expressions (e.g., just, probably, really, and only) were fairly frequently used along with modals. Why don’t you …? was less frequently used in natural discourse than in textbooks.This structure may appear less polite as it implies that speakers’ knowledge or judgment is superior to that of addressees. The (phrasal) modals ought to and must were hardly used for suggestions in natural discourse.

Given these discrepancies, the researcher argues that textbook language has a negative impact of learners’ pragmatic language use and offers the following instructional suggestions:

• Textbooks should provide information about the appropriateness of the

language of suggestions and bring learners’ attention to the register and the relationship between speakers/​writers and listeners/​readers rather than simply decontextualized lists of grammar structures, drill practice, and inauthentic dialogues. • It is best to use natural conversation as the basis of instruction as much as possible. • Learners should be guided to pay attention to the impact of the language of suggestions they use. For example, compared to how about or you might want to, why don’t you has a higher risk of threatening addressees’ face as it does not imply other options. Many corpus linguists recommend a learner-​ centered approach to instruction rather than a traditional teacher-​ fronted Presentation–​Practice–​ Production approach.45 In an Illustration–​Interaction–​Induction sequence, learners 44  Jiang (2006). 45  Carter and McCarthy (1995, 2004); McEnery, Xiao, and Tono (2006).

184

184  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics first analyze language data (illustration), discuss the data (interaction), create a hypothesis, and revise that hypothesis (induction). This learner-​centered approach is in alignment with the current awareness-​raising approach to L2 pragmatics instruction (Chapter 6).Through this inductive approach, learners will be able to analyze the process of meaning construction by noticing that natural interaction constitutes a rather messy occurrence of frequent turn-​ taking, interruptions, hedges, repairs, and the like. Somewhat overlapping with the act of suggesting is advice-​giving, which also appears frequently in language textbooks. Like corpus analysts, language educators point out the different sociocultural norms of behavior associated with advice-​giving across cultures, and their insights can be incorporated into the instruction of modals in advice-​giving. As discussed in Chapter 4, advice-​ giving is often considered face-​threatening as it could infringe addressees’ freedom or privacy, for example in Anglo-​American English. For this reason, speakers often opt out of giving unsolicited advice or perform this speech act carefully with layers of mitigation, especially for higher-​status addressees. Conversely, in other languages, advice-​giving can serve as a positive politeness strategy (see Chapter 4), in which speakers express care and warm interest in the addressee’s well-​being. In fact, teenage learners of Japanese have been reported to offer (unsolicited) advice to their English-​speaking teachers in a fairly direct manner (e.g., You should cut down on your sweets,You should marry immediately), which can be deeply shocking to those teachers unaware of learners’ intentions.46 One reason for this pragmatic failure may be crosslinguistic influence, where both ends of the interaction rely on the norms of behavior in their L1s. In addition, learners may not have grammatical competence to use mitigation. Or they may fall back on the overgeneralization that directness is more socially acceptable in English (see Chapter 5 for analysis of pragmatic divergence). Given the potential communication breakdowns, a high school teacher reported implementing the following instructional activities, after which 75 percent of learners’ advice was given more indirectly:47 1 Initial assessment: eliciting learners’ pre-​instructional advice through DCTs to assess their status of knowledge and productive control 2 Awareness-​raising on the levels of (in)directness: inductively familiarizing learners with the three levels of directness (direct, softened, indirect, see Chapter 4) through examples and enhancing this explicit awareness through various activities (e.g., matching the (in)directness levels with various contexts; noticing the levels of (in)directness used in the input) 3 Production practice: eliciting learners’ language of advice through DCTs and role-​plays, assessing it, and providing feedback 4 Wrap-​up: reflection and review

46  Houck and Fujimori (2010); Ishihara (2017); Matsumura (2001);Verla (2011). 47  Houck and Fujimori (2010).

185

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  185 Another high school teacher adapted this lesson using engaging metaphors: baseball as direct advice, softball as softened advice, frisbee as indirect advice, and zipping your mouth as opting out.48 These metaphors encourage learners to consider how these sports items travel through the air and how they may impact the addressee’s feelings differently, leading learners to analyze the effect of their language choice on the receiving end. These metaphors can be accompanied by corresponding images; together they can be a powerful instructional tool to attract learners’ attention and assist in the retention of the pragmatic awareness gained (see Chapter 4). Teaching (Conversational) Implicature A characteristic of daily language interactions is that messages often have implicit elements called implicature that need to be interpreted from the context (see Chapter 4 for the definition, classifications, and examples). Research shows that implicature in an L2 is learned slowly unless it is explicitly taught and that formal instruction, especially on formulaic implicature, can accelerate the learning of most types of implicature.49 Although implicature, including irony and sarcasm, is a frequently occurring component of natural interactions, it may rarely be taught explicitly in L2 textbooks. Because implicature is often associated with extralinguistic or paralinguistic features, teachers of L2 pragmatics may start by directing learners’ attention to gaze, body language, intonation, and tone of voice, especially if learners typically resort to a flat tone of voice and little facial expression or eye-​contact. Even if textbooks lack suitable audio or video materials that would model these areas adequately, teachers can address them and engage learners affectively whenever possible in the classroom. For example, since the same linguistic content can negotiate different meaning depending on how it is delivered, beginning-​level learners can practice comprehending and producing the intended meaning of the following statements conveyed indirectly by means of, for example, tone, facial expression, and gestures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

It’s snowing today. (Say this sadly) It’s snowing today. (Say this happily) I’ve got the results of the election. (Say this excitedly) I’ve got the results of the election. (Say this disappointedly) What a nice present! Thank you! (Say this happily) What a nice day… the best day of my life. (Say this sarcastically) [date] is the last day of our class. (Say this disappointedly) [date] is the last day of our class! (Say this excitedly)

48  Minematsu (2012). 49  Bouton (1999); Roever (2013).

186

186  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics Learners can take turns in reading out the above statements or others in the textbooks and discuss the nuances and tones conveyed. Young learners may respond more effectively to visual cues expressing emotion (e.g.,   ), as in the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Good morning, Olivia.  Good morning, Olivia.  It’s snowing today.  It’s snowing today.  We have apples for a snack today.  We have apples for a snack today.  We have apples for a snack today.  These cookies are cute and sweet.  These cookies are too sweet.  Come on, let’s go outside.  Come on, go outside. 

Teachers and peers can ensure that young learners are able to produce and comprehend meaning expressed indirectly as a means of informal peer assessment (Chapter 12). The learned pragmatic awareness can also be applied to the reading out and role-​playing of other materials. Advanced learners, who can conduct more sophisticated metapragmatic analysis, can take advantage of the following systematic instruction demonstrated in a study on the acquisition of implicature:50 1 Introduction to each type of implicature with label, definition, and examples for each (see Chapter 4) 2 Discussion of new examples of implicature: • Identification of implicature • Explanation of how literal meaning did not hold and how the implicature can be detected • Identification of what is actually implied in the messages • Illustration of learners’ experiences with implicature • Identification of similar implicature in learners’ L1s 3 Group work creating dialogues containing implicature 4 Analysis of new examples of implicature provided by the teacher or the learners More specifically, multiple-​choice items may be useful for teaching or assessing learners’ comprehension of implicature, as in the following example:51 50  Bouton (1994a: 102). 51 An Australian adaptation of relevance implicature (also called idiosyncratic implicature) by Roever (2013: 57) following Bouton (1999) with a. intended to be the answer.

187

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  187 At a recent party, there was a lot of singing and piano playing. At one point, Matt played the piano while Brian sang. Jill was not at the party, but her friend Linda was. Jill: How did Brian Sing? Linda: I don’t know what he thought he was singing, but Matt was playing “Yesterday.” What does Linda probably mean? (a) (b) (c) (d)

Brian sang very badly. She was only interested in Matt and didn’t listen to Brian. Brian and Matt were not doing the same song. The song that Brian sang was “Yesterday.”

Depending on the scope of instruction and the learners’ linguistic and cognitive levels, the instructional procedure above could take a few hours of class time, which can be spread over weeks. After Steps 1–​3 are implemented, Step 4 could be used as an occasional warm-​up of a regular class meeting. Learners may benefit from a recurrent discussion of who the appropriate recipients of a message with a given implicature might be, such as whether a message with a certain type of implicature tends to be more or less suitable for higher-​status or equal-​status conversational partners. Teaching Gendered Language For certain L2s, in which language use is explicitly linked to gender identity at the syntactic or semantic level, teachers face the complex issue of how to tackle gender-​associated language in the classroom. Teaching the traditional gendered norms often represented in textbooks could reinforce a stereotypical view of the language and culture; yet identifying diversity in pragmatic norms in the L2 community is no straightforward task. Furthermore, if textbook dialogues are less than authentic, what sort of additional input should teachers look for? Should learners be instructed to use gendered language according to their identified gender? Should genders be treated as homogeneous or dichotomous in the first place? If learners have doubts about social implications of gendered language regarding gender equality, how should teachers deal with them?52

52  See Activity 5.1 (Chapter 5), Brown and Cheek (2017), Ishihara (2019a, b), Ishihara and Tarone (2009), or Iwasaki (2011) for examples of learner agency resisting perceived use of gendered language.

18

188  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics A large-​scale survey taken by nearly 240 Japanese-​language students and teachers in the U.S. found that nearly 90 percent of students reported being exposed to gendered language through the media.53 While half the students considered gendered language to be part of Japanese culture and thus a suitable instructional target, others felt that gendered speech style is an outdated sexist convention that should be left to individual choice. The learners also reported relying largely on classroom discussion for the learning of the social meaning of gendered language. The author thus argues that learners should be taught gendered language forms, their within-​gender and cross-​gender variations, and their social nuances critically through the language in the media and textbooks. Such instruction can enhance learners’ pragmatic competence by cognitively and affectively engaging learners and help them construct multilingual identities. For example, drawing on insights from critical discourse analysis, teachers can encourage learners to analyze language use and its sociocultural implications critically by means of:54 1 Discussion about a reading on the social meaning of voice pitch and gender 2 Analysis of selected TV commercials using transcripts where gendered language use and norms of behavior are exhibited 3 Critical discussion and questioning of how the L2 and its culture are represented 4 Learners’ creation and performance of commercials 5 Discussion of frequently-​used grammar in the commercials 6 Paired role-​play practice and wrap-​up reflection as an assignment Following the above instruction, learners in this study were able to identify linguistic features related to gender and to critically examine gendered norms of behavior in the L2. In the creation and performance of commercials, learners experimented with gendered language and explored the gender roles performed through L2 use.

Discussion This chapter discussed currently available language textbooks for the purpose of teaching pragmatics and offered examples of how we might supplement these textbooks to teach speech acts, conversation management, listenership, implicature, and gendered language based on empirically-​established information. Because many language textbooks place minimal emphasis on pragmatics and often teach language use in inadequate ways, teachers are invited to be critical appraisers of the materials they use in their classrooms.

53  Bohn (2015). 54  Instruction given in Ohara, Saft, and Crookes’ study (2001).

189

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  189 This means ensuring that the language samples presented to learners are reasonably natural and authentic. In addition, learners’ input should also reflect a variety of pragmatic norms used in different contexts in the L2 community, and teachers should enhance learners’ explicit awareness of the form-​ function-​context relationship. In the activities below, you are invited to take an in-​depth look at the language textbooks you use in your classrooms with an eye to examining their suitability for teaching pragmatics. The research-​based information about conversational closings is used as a sample tool with which to investigate textbook materials in Activity 8.1. Activity 8.2 provides a hands-​on opportunity to examine the features of spoken and written discourse and to develop an instructional activity based on authentic data drawn from a language corpus.

ACTIVITY 8.1  Evaluating Textbooks for Closing Conversations in English Objectives 1 You will be able to evaluate language materials using research-​ based information about closing conversations. 2 You will be able to identify ways to adapt or supplement a textbook for pragmatics instruction. Suggested time: 40 minutes Materials • • •

Information under “Teaching Conversational Closings” from this chapter Task Sheets 1 and 2: “Analysis of closing components” and “Textbook analysis” A language textbook of your choice that includes sample dialogues

Directions Part I 1 Work in a group of about four. Use the information on closing conversations and (re)familiarize yourselves with the descriptions of the possible steps in conversational closings. 2 Role-​play the authentic examples on Task Sheet 1a and identify components of conversational closings involved in the dialogues in the right column. 3 Use the sample keys provided and compare your answers.

190

190  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics Part II 1 As a whole class, study Task Sheet 2 “Textbook Analysis.” The analysis of the first example is completed for you using Sample Dialogue 3 from Task Sheet 1. Try another example using Sample Dialogue 4 together before you break into groups. 2 Work in the same group to select a language textbook to examine. Ideally, this is the text you routinely use. 3 Randomly choose 5 dialogues in the textbook and analyze them in terms of how sample dialogues are closed. Record your analysis on Task Sheet 2. 4 Depending on the outcome of your analysis, evaluate the portion of the book in terms of conversational closings and consider how you would adapt or supplement the material. 5 Share your ideas with the whole class. Wrap-​up In reflecting on this activity, consider how authentic the textbook dialogues you have examined may be. To what extent are they likely to need adaptation? What are some tactics you have come up with for obtaining more natural dialogue samples, if necessary? In keeping with an awareness-​raising approach to L2 pragmatics (Chapter 6), what activities can be effective in highlighting the pragmatics of conversational closings? For example, what features of conversational closings should learners notice? How would you provide learners with an opportunity to compare closings in their L1 and L2? How can learners practice closing conversations in a cognitively and affectively engaging manner? Task Sheet 1: Analysis of Closing Components Look at the authentic examples of conversational closings below in the left column and identify the components involved in the right column. Examples of conversational closings Sample 1 A: All right. See ya. B: See ya later. Sample 2 A: All right. B: OK. A: So long. B: See you later. Sample 3 A: OK. Thank you very much. B: All right.

Components of conversational closings

19

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  191 Examples of conversational closings

Components of conversational closings

A: Now I have to go to French, which is a lot more complicated than this was. [laughs] B: All right. Good-​bye. A: Bye-​bye. Sample 4 A: Yeah, well, next time we come up, um … I’ll bring our set and … you can go through ’em and pick the ones you want. B: OK. OK. A: So … B: That’ll be fine. A: OK. B: Give my love to David. A: OK. Tell And … Uncle Andy I hope he feels better. B: I will. A: OK. Thanks a lot for calling. B: Bye-​bye. A: Bye, dear.

Sample Keys: Steps in Closing Conversation Examples of conversational closings

Components of conversational closings

Sample 1 A: All right. See ya. B: See ya later.

Pre-​closing signal, terminal exchange Terminal exchange

Sample 2 A: All right. B: OK. A: So long. B: See you later.

Pre-​closing signal Pre-​closing signal Terminal exchange Terminal exchange

Sample 3 A: OK. Thank you very much. B: All right. A: Now I have to go to French, which is a lot more complicated than this was. [laugh] B: All right. Good-​bye. A: Bye-​bye. Sample 4 A: Yeah, well, next time we come up, um … I’ll bring our set and … you can go through ’em and pick the ones you want.

Pre-​closing signal, pre-​closing sequence Pre-​closing signal/​sequence Pre-​closing sequence Pre-​closing signal, terminal exchange Terminal exchange Pre-​closing signal, pre-​closing sequence

192

192  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics Examples of conversational closings

Components of conversational closings

B: OK. OK. A: So … B: That’ll be fine. A: OK. B: Give my love to David. A: OK. Tell And … Uncle Andy I hope he feels better. B: I will. A: OK. Thanks a lot for calling.

Pre-​closing signal (and/​or sequence) Pre-​closing signal Pre-​closing signal Pre-​closing signal Pre-​closing sequence Pre-​closing sequence

B: Bye-​bye. A: Bye, dear.

Pre-​closing sequence Pre-​closing signal, pre-​closing sequence Terminal exchange Terminal exchange

Task Sheet 2: Textbook Analysis Textbook selected for analysis: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Is there a chapter or section that explicitly teaches how to close conversations? If so, go to that portion and examine the dialogues to answer the following questions. If not, go to any of the chapters and examine the dialogues there to answer the two questions below. Dialogues

Q1. How many turns are there in the dialogue for pre-​closing signal, pre-​closing sequence, and terminal exchange?

Q2. Given your analysis on the left column, does the dialogue have a complete closing, a partial closing, or no closing?

Pre-​ closing signal

Pre-​closing Terminal sequence exchange

Complete Partial closing closing

3



E.g., Sample 3 3 in the information E.g., Sample 4 in the information 1st dialogue 2nd dialogue 3rd dialogue 4th dialogue 5th dialogue

2

No closing

193

Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics  193 Discussion Questions 1 What is your overall evaluation of this portion of the textbook in terms of conversational closing? 2 How would you adapt or supplement this material?  Examples from Bardovi-​Harlig et al. (1991:6–​ 7). Interpretations in sample keys adapted from Bardovi-​Harlig et al. (1991) and based on Wong and Waring (2010).

a

ACTIVITY 8.2  Designing Pragmatics-​focused Materials Using a Language Corpus Objectives 1 You will be able to compare characteristics of spoken and written discourse and identify relevant features to teach in a speaking or writing class. 2 You will be able to develop a pragmatics-​or discourse-​focused activity for your class by obtaining authentic language samples from a corpus. Suggested time: 40 minutes (or more as needed) Materials • •

Information under “Teaching Suggestions and Advice-​ giving” from this chapter Internet access to the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE): http://​lw. lsa.umich.edu/​eli/​micase/​index. htm, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): www.english-​corpora.org/​coca (see Chapter 3), or another accessible corpus relevant to the language (variety) you teach

Directions 1 As a whole class, review the research-​based information about the language of suggestions in natural discourse and ESL textbooks in this chapter. 2 Form groups of about three. Using a computer, access one of the corpora relevant to the language (variety) you teach. (Re)familiarize yourselves with the format of the corpus. 3 Choose one speaking or writing class a group member is teaching. Collaboratively design a speaking activity for making suggestions or a peer feedback component of a writing class for this class.

194

194  Adapting Textbooks for Teaching L2 Pragmatics 4 Search the corpus for words and phrases that may be used in suggestions, advice, proposals, and recommendations (e.g., the performative verb “suggest” or its noun “suggestion”). Note that there is a gray area where suggestions border on these speech acts. Since your corpus may not be tagged for speech acts, you will probably need to search for specific words and phrases reported in the section “Teaching Suggestions and Advice-​giving” above.You may decide to include all the possible attributes in your search (e.g., status and role of the speaker and type of session the sample was drawn from) or limit your search to certain attributes. Depending on the attributes you choose, you may elicit extremely limited or else, too many hits. 5 While you are going through the language samples looking for instances of actual suggestions, keep in mind the characteristics of your corpus. For instance, MICASE is a corpus exclusively of spoken American English. Discuss ways in which this might impact your data. 6 Compile a set of expressions based on your corpus search that you could use for an activity on making suggestions in a speaking class or a peer feedback component of a writing class. You may wish to consider register differences between status-​equal talks (as in study groups) and status-​differential talks (as in office hours). For example, you could compile language samples your students could use in talking to their professors during office hours or to friends in study groups. 7 Report back to the whole class about the activity you developed. Wrap-​up Discuss possible challenges you experienced in using the corpus or constructing the activity and share the tactics you would recommend for tackling the challenges. For example, how would you provide contextual information about the original data? Would you modify the authentic data transcribed with a specialized corpus convention? If so, how would it be done, and why?

195

9  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics Principles and Practice in the Teaching of L2 Pragmatics

Introduction There may be a misconception among some curriculum writers, teachers, and language learners alike that learners will somehow “pick up” the communicative skills needed to use language according to the context as long as they are immersed in a second-​language setting where L2 input is available on a daily basis. This false impression may be partly why pragmatics has had such a low profile in the L2 curriculum. However, if no formal instruction is provided, most learners need an extended period of time to acquire sophisticated pragmatic comprehension even in the second-​language environment. Pragmatic language use is difficult to learn for many reasons, including contextually sensitive norms of behavior, regional, generational, ethnic, and generational variation, grammatical and lexical complexity, and subtleties of nuances and non-​verbal behavior. As we saw in Chapter 8, existing language textbooks often give short shrift to pragmatics-​related concerns, if they are addressed at all. In the practical world of teaching, textbooks often dictate the curriculum, and for these reasons, there is a genuine need for a research-​ based pragmatics curriculum that more accurately reflects how language is actually used in context. This chapter first discusses several possible ways in which pragmatics can be integrated into an existing curriculum. Metapragmatic information can be added or underscored in order to supplement content or activities already in the curriculum. To highlight pragmatic language use, teachers can also take advantage of incidental learning opportunities that may arise during the everyday course of instruction. In addition, pragmatics can be made prominent in special-​topic lessons. Second, we will explore how a new curriculum may be designed with pragmatics as an organizing principle as well as the implications of what such a development may mean. Several principles underlying pragmatics-​focused curriculum development will be presented that readers may find important and applicable in preparing a pragmatics-​ focused curriculum in their own instructional contexts. To illustrate each principle, examples will be drawn from existing pragmatics-​ focused (or pragmatics-inspired) curricula for learning English, Japanese, and Spanish. These examples are intended to show how the principles can be translated DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-9

196

196  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics into an actual curriculum designed for systematic pragmatics-​ focused instruction.

Integrating Pragmatics Into an Existing Curriculum There are at least two ways in which material on pragmatics instruction can be incorporated into the formal L2 curriculum: as an add-​on to an existing curriculum or as the organizing principle of a newly developed curriculum. This section focuses on the first case where the material would be added to a curriculum that teachers would continue to use in the hope to minimize gaps.We could: 1) supplement and enhance existing material with pragmatics-​focused activities; 2) take advantage of incidental opportunities to teach pragmatics; or 3) design extra activities focusing on pragmatics. Let us now look at examples of each of these approaches. Supplementing Existing Materials with Pragmatic-​focused Activities The class may already include communicative tasks or activities such as discussion or peer review of writing. Because some functions students perform as part of these activities, such as disagreeing in a discussion or giving advice or constructive feedback in a peer review, can be highly face-​threatening, learners may benefit from explicit pragmatic instruction in these areas. Let us first take disagreement as an example. Although expert speakers often use various strategies to mitigate disagreement (see Chapter 4), learners often overuse I’m sorry or no without mitigation, lack hedging at the outset, directly express disagreement when it is typically opted out of, or avoid disagreeing altogether. Explicit pragmatic instruction can highlight the importance of using these mitigation strategies when the context requires it. One teacher in a foreign-​language context started the lesson with a sociopragmatic discussion of disagreement in both the learners’ and the teacher’s cultures (Brazilian, Sri Lankan, Japanese, and British).1 The class collaboratively brainstormed on a whiteboard a range of social contexts and color-​coded each conversational partner according to whether they would disagree directly, indirectly or opt out in these contexts and if so, why (see Figure 9.1). To visually represent the concept of mitigation, the teacher wrote hedges, partial disagreements, and other mitigating expressions on separate panels bordered with bubble wrap, which showed the cushioning or softening effect. In contrast, expressions of direct agreement appeared on panels bordered with metallic foil (Figure 9.2). Thus learners were made visually aware of direct and indirect strategies often used in combination given the context. Another lesson plan on disagreements draws from authentic input from a language corpus, as in the following:2

1  Hooper (2015). 2  Malamed (2010: 209–​213). See also Caroll (2011) for instruction on delays in dispreferred responses.

197

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  197

Figure 9.1  Social contexts of disagreement.

Figure 9.2 Visual representations of direct and mitigated disagreements.

1 Assessing learners’ initial pragmatic awareness. Learners reflect on how they adjust the language of disagreement in their L1(s) in relation to various conversational partners and topics. 2 Analyzing hedging expressions that soften disagreement. Learners first notice various hedges found in authentic language data provided by the teacher

198

198  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics (e.g., disagreement sequences found in the Corpus of Contemporary American English).3 Then they find their own examples of hedging by searching key phrases in a corpus, such as well actually, well I think, well of course, or well it seems. 3 Practicing the language of mitigation. In pairs learners repeatedly practice short exchanges that require the use of pauses and hedges to delay disagreement, partial disagreement (e.g., it’s good, but), and mitigating devices (e.g., I think that, it seems that, a bit) as well as combinations of these strategies. 4 Role-​plays and discussion. Learners engage in role-​plays in which they express opinions using the language of weak agreement and mitigated disagreement over controversial topics.The debriefing discussion should stress the importance of showing respect for others’ views in disagreeing. Another lesson4 suggests the videotaping of learners’ role-​plays as they express disagreement. After awareness-​raising activities on mitigating devices and situational contexts, learners can review the video and reflect on the softeners they were unable to produce initially but can now use effectively. Although these lessons may be time-​consuming, explicit focus on the pragmatics of disagreement can better prepare learners for further academic and professional success. Likewise, a few lesson plans show how learners can be guided to tactfully and respectfully provide their peers with constructive feedback on their writing. These lessons can wholly or partially be integrated into the course as a communicative writing activity. Depending on the learners’ proficiency and cognitive maturity, their attention can be directed to:5

• Discourse structure of the peer feedback that typically flows from praise • • • • • •

to constructive criticism Hedges and delays used for a dispreferred response (e.g., well) Discourse markers for introducing criticism (but, however) Modal verb phrases (may want to), mitigating devices (just, a little), indirectness for making suggestions (see Chapter 8) Statement of problem and concrete suggestions for improvement Grounders (reasons) and disarmers (I could be wrong) Past tense (I was wondering) and stance markers for uncertainty (probably, possibly, see Chapter 8)

Learners can be guided to identify relative degrees of mitigation in the language of critical feedback and consider their relationship to contextual factors.They can practice adding appropriate modifiers, writing and acting out structured role-​plays, and giving oral feedback on peers’ writing. Learners can 3  www.english-​corpora.org/​coca (accessed on October 16, 2020). 4  Glaser (2013: 155–​177). 5  Nguyen, Pham, and Cao (2013); Nguyen and Basturkmen (2010).

19

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  199 also reflect on and self-​evaluate their production in terms of sociopragmatic use and pragmalinguistic form.6 Because discussions and peer reviews are often repeatedly adopted, the use of disagreements and constructive feedback can be recurrently practiced in authentic classroom discourse. This lesson can also be adapted for working learners so that they become able to offer some constructive feedback in a respectful manner in the workplace. In another case, the curriculum may already include some pragmatics-​ relevant content such as speech acts, (conversational) implicature, and pragmatic markers. For example, foreign-​language curricula at secondary level may include speech acts (see Chapter 8), particularly requesting, giving advice, and making suggestions in relation to the grammar of the modal verb structure. Greetings, refusing, thanking, and complimenting may also be modeled in materials without explicit attention being paid to their functional meaning and contextualized uses. In such cases, learners can benefit from systematic and explicit pragmatic instruction (see Chapter 8). Even beginning-​level learners can compare and contrast, for example, the (in)formality of thank you and thanks and the contexts in which these expressions are generally preferred. Alternatively, strategies for elaborate thanks (Chapter 4) can be modeled, analyzed, and practiced in advanced classes. Similarly, when some pragmatic markers are already in the curriculum, the instruction may be supplemented smoothly with more pragmatic contextualization. Experts recommend the use of awareness-​ raising tasks in which learners identify, color-​code, or visually organize pragmatic markers in authentic text and consider the impact of such markers on the reader’s interpretation.7 Taking Advantage of Incidental Chances In the classroom, incidental chances for pragmatic learning may arise spontaneously, and teachers may decide to take advantage of these precious opportunities.To name just a few examples, the majority of my Japanese and some international students at a university in Tokyo initially call me Teacher! and say One more to request another copy of a class handout. They even sometimes submit late assignments without a word of apology. One recent email from a learner reads: “I am so sorry for a late submission of your [sic] homework, but please review it” without a prior attempt for negotiation. These examples serve as a perfect reminder of the “benefit of the doubt”—​ that learners are often cognitively overloaded from speaking an L2 and focus on getting the main point across.They may lack the grammar through which to express mitigation or sometimes translate literally from their L1 without considering different pragmatic meanings in the L2 (see Chapter 5). Most importantly, it is unlikely that they are being intentionally impolite or offensive. Once I model a preferred apology for a late assignment, most students 6  Nguyen et al. (2013). 7  O’Keeffe, Clancy, and Adolphs (2020, pp. 208–​219).

20

200  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics feel embarrassed and learn to do so promptly, even if they may not immediately produce perfect pragmalinguistic forms. Depending on the class time available, teachers may use these opportunities to give a pragmatics lesson (e.g., teaching preferred terms of address, Chapter 4).The introduction of formulaic classroom English expressions and multiple opportunities for output practice may preempt fragmented requests. With instruction, one more often becomes We need one more handout, please and Toilet! turns into May I be excused? With more time, discussion can be held on why and in what contexts certain terms of address or request forms are likely to be socially acceptable, how the norms compare in the L1, L2, and possibly L3 or other L2 varieties. If videos, films, or other media-​based materials are used in class, learners may consider the intended meaning behind the implicature, sarcasm, or humor often contained in such materials. Learners may also enjoy analyzing colloquial expressions, slang, or elaborate politeness in relation to the interactants’ features and other contexts of use. Teachers can ask learners to consider how the interaction may be different without such language use or to come up with witty responses to humorously make the point. Alternatively, learners can also start by reading written transcripts of a dialogue or just listening to its audio without resorting to the visual information, guessing the relationship between the interactants and explaining their reasons. In another case, learners may raise questions related to pragmatics that derive directly from their daily lives. A researcher of linguistic impoliteness based in Guadalajara argues that impoliteness may be part of everyday language use in the Mexican context regardless of whether or not the offense is intended and that L2 users are sometimes subjected to rudeness or hostility outside the classroom.8 His examples include difficult and uncomfortable situations Mexican students sometimes encounter at Immigration as they attempt to enter the United States. Being in powerless positions, they are often pressured to respond tactfully on the spot. Given this, the researcher contends that learners must be better prepared for such occasions through strategic linguistic choices such as responding with excess politeness, offering justifications, or engaging in banter. Learners can also examine critical incidents where impoliteness was perceived to take place in their lives, develop their pragmatic resources to counteract the impolite remarks, and consider the potential consequences such counters are likely to invite.9 Designing Special-​topic Lessons or Workshops When there is wiggle room in the curriculum, teachers may choose to design a special lesson centering on pragmatics. For instance, for young 8  Mugford (2008, 2019). 9  See sample case studies and concrete ways to develop learners’ noticing, awareness-​raising, and stance taking through the pedagogical framework of Illustration-​Interaction-​Induction in Mugford (2019: 149–​172).

201

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  201 learners awaiting the arrival of Christmas, teachers may read a Christmas story using a picture book. In a particular book written in English, a capricious pet mouse asks his owner, a boy, for various favors as they prepare for Christmas.10 Although the book does not include the actual language of requests, teachers can speak the mouse’s role, thus exposing learners to a range of request forms. In a foreign-​language context, a local teacher can team up with another English-​speaking teacher to implement this lesson bilingually. If modals have already been instructed as in junior high school, learners may come up with some of the requests and compare and contrast them with the language data collected from expert users of English. In this process, learners can be guided to notice how the language of requests may vary depending on the magnitude of the imposition. For output practice, teachers may introduce a Reader’s Theater technique and have learners produce the mouse’s requests with emotion and highlight the consequences of the language choices speakers make. For students preparing to study abroad, a special lesson designed for intercultural communication and pragmatic competence may be fruitful. A renowned book entitled Maximizing the study abroad11 offers a series of pre-​departure, in-​country, and post-​study abroad activities to help learners develop strategies for learning and using language along with intercultural skills. These activities can be turned into independent special lessons for enhancing intercultural sensitivity. As this book was being used, a team of researchers also provided university students with some strategy training for learning and using speech acts in Spanish and French.12 Although the effects of this instruction on the learners’ use of speech acts were not statistically significant, learners’ reflective journals qualitatively showed their enhanced pragmatic and intercultural awareness.13 For professional learners, an awareness-​raising workshop could be designed for enhancing workplace communication. For example, a pragmatics-​ focused language analysis on oppositional talk, similar to what was discussed earlier on disagreeing and giving constructive feedback, may be relevant to diplomats in training. Much of the international peace-​keeping effort aimed at resolving or preempting conflicts may be made through language in the context of diplomacy. Language for diplomatic purposes needs to strike a fine balance between being direct and indirect, assertive and empathetic, forceful and graceful, and persuasive and compromising.14 In this challenging meaning-​making enterprise, verbal and non-​verbal language assumes a crucial role if negotiators are to be contextually and interculturally tactful. Diplomats must not only be professionally persuasive and constructive in agreeing and disagreeing, but they must also understand their international 10  Numeroff (2000). 11  Paige, Cohen, Kappler, and Lassegard (2006). 12  Cohen and Shively (2007). See also Chapters 6 and 10. 13  See also see Fujioka (2016) for another use of journal writing for pragmatic learning and self-​assessment by Japanese university students studying abroad. 14  Ishihara (2016a); Scott (2016).

20

202  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics counterparts’ true intentions, which may be conveyed in a non-​literal and culturally-​laden manner. As part of professional training, diplomats in training can be exposed to examples of authentic disagreement sequences to analyze and learn various strategies for mitigation that soften the blow of oppositional talk.15 In a learners-​as-​ethnographers approach (Chapter 6), novice diplomats may also observe expert diplomats in negotiation, with particular attention paid to the following:

• How expert diplomats choose to express (or not express) oppositional • • • • •

stance and why When unmitigated disagreements appear constructive or even desirable Likely consequences of mitigated, unmitigated, or avoided expression of disagreement What verbal and non-​verbal strategies of mitigation are employed, when, and how effective they seem to be How the choice of mitigation strategies may vary according to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the interactants What technological affordances expert diplomats exploit

To maintain or cultivate amicable relationships and trust in diplomatic negotiations while furthering national interest requires openness to different cultures, acceptance of different points of view, tolerance for alternative histories, and above all, the willingness to deal with various cultural and professional practices.16 Pragmatics concepts come together with the notions of openness, cultural sensitivity, and compassion promoted in peace linguistics.17 Peace linguistics is characterized as transcending the absence of violence or war to encompass human rights, linguistic diversity, and multilingualism.18 Because language can serve to either create connection and dignity or to provoke hostility and violence, learners should be conscious of the potential outcome of their language use. If promoting or at least introducing the language of respect and empathy is included in the educational agenda, this point may also be underscored as part of the “hidden curriculum” in the professional training of diplomats as well as in any other contexts of language teaching.19 The marriage of pragmatics and peace linguistics may also be applicable to interdisciplinary learning at an elementary level of education. One example can be drawn from a classroom in Japan, where peace education content was integrated with the language of empathy from the perspectives of peace linguistics and politeness theory. More specifically, the lessons were 15 See Chapter 4 for the language of disagreement. See Ishihara (2016a) for details and examples of this instruction. 16  Friedrich and Gomes de Matos (2016). 17  Friedrich (2019); Friedrich and Gomes de Matos (2016); Gomes de Matos (2014). 18  Crystal (1999). 19  Ishihara (2016a); Taguchi and Ishihara (2018).

203

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  203 designed across the curriculum for students’ understanding of local World War II history, including bilateral grassroots peace-​making effort between the U.S. and Japan as well as the development of compassion and the language of empathy. The lessons were designed and implemented collaboratively between local homeroom teachers, an American teacher of English, a district educational leader, and myself in the role of a researcher in L2 pragmatics. Learners used English for communicative purposes, in which they experienced consequences of direct and hurtful language uses. Their pragmatic awareness was further enhanced through the learning of advanced strategies of the language of empathy,20 although much of the actual language output was in their L1 Japanese due to their limited command of English. The students were generally engaged in the series of lessons, which integrated multiple school subjects, with some maintaining their use of the language of empathy several months after the instruction.21 Thus far, we have discussed various ways in which pragmatics can be integrated into an existing curriculum. Now let us switch gear to see how we may design a new curriculum with pragmatics as a core theme.

Designing a New Curriculum with Pragmatics as the Organizing Principle In developing a curriculum, the curriculum writer’s views, beliefs, and principles about language learning and teaching guide the organizational decisions at multiple levels.22 If you believe in the value of pragmatics in language teaching, you may decide to make pragmatic features serve as the organizing principle (or at least be given substantial attention). When pragmatics dictates the organization of the curriculum, the message needs to be heard loud and clear that it is not sufficient to teach language in a decontextualized manner but that functional meaning and contextual suitability also need to be accentuated through a theoretical and empirical understanding of pragmatics-​focused language learning and teaching. Principles for Curriculum Development In this section, we discuss some principles of curriculum development along with sample materials that illustrate them (see also Chapter 6).The principles include:

20 The strategies included alerting the listener to an upcoming potentially face-​threatening question (e.g., variations of Can I ask you a personal question? May I ask you about …?), apologizing in advance for such questions, and asking indirectly through non-​threatening language (e.g., Where are you from? rather than Why is your skin so fair?). 21 See Ishihara, Orihashi, and Clark (2019) and the video featuring this instruction at: https://​ youtu.be/​Kld11FuRZpU (accessed on October 16, 2020). 22  Graves (2000); Tomlinson (2003).

204

204  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics 1 Explicitly stating the primary goal and approach to L2 pragmatics 2 Utilizing empirically-​established information and natural(istic) language samples 3 Raising pragmatic awareness by guiding learners’ observations 4 Providing interactional and language-​focused practice 5 Facilitating metapragmatic discussion through self-​ assessment and feedback 6 Explaining cultural reasoning behind L2 pragmatic norms 7 Facilitating the analysis and use of communication strategies 8 Referring teachers and learners to resources on L2 pragmatics In explaining each of these principles, examples will be drawn from the following pragmatics-​focused curricula based on research-​based information:

• Workplace Talk in Action: An ESOL Resource (2010) by Riddiford and

Newton, published by the Victoria University of Wellington for intermediate to advanced learners (hereafter referred to as Workplace Talk) • Advanced Japanese: Communication in Context (2010) by Ishihara and Maeda, published by Routledge and its earlier web-​based version (see Chapter 11)23 for intermediate and advanced learners of Japanese (hereafter Communication in Context) • Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics in Spanish (2006)24 by Sykes and Cohen, a web-​based curriculum for novice high to advanced learners (hereafter Dancing with Words, Chapter 11) As discussed elsewhere in this book, Workplace Talk is a corpus-​based textbook for learning the pragmatics of workplace English. Each unit focuses on an area of pragmatics (such as small talk, requests, and disagreeing) with approximately ten naturally occurring dialogue or email samples. Explicit instruction in pragmatics proceeds inductively, with learners being guided to notice pragmatic norms in their L1 and L2 through awareness-​raising activities and interactional production practice. This inductive approach is also shared with Communication in Context and Dancing with Words. Dancing with Words and the earlier version of Communication in Context are web-​based, self-​access curriculum series developed at the University of Minnesota to support Japanese and Spanish learning of speech acts.25 23  http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​introtospeechacts/​index.htm (accessed on October 16, 2020). 24  http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​sp_​pragmatics/​for_​students.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). 25 The development of these curricular materials was financed in large part by a U.S. Department of Education Title VI National Language Resource Center grant to CARLA. The curricula were designed by Ishihara and Sykes respectively under the supervision of Cohen in 2002–​2006. There was also input regarding the curricula from language instructors at the university and several applied linguists as well as Elite Olshtain and J. César Félix-​Brasdefer, who served as curricular advisors for the Japanese and Spanish projects respectively.

205

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  205 All units were pilot-​tested, and feedback was incorporated into recurrent revisions of the curricula. In the following elaboration on the curricular principles, examples are also drawn from a commercially available textbook series for integrated skills, Wide Angle (2019) published by Oxford University Press, in which pragmatic insights are strategically integrated into each unit. 1  Explicitly Stating the Primary Goal and Approach to L2 Pragmatics The primary importance of a pragmatics-​focused curriculum is to instill in learners a sense of contextualized use of language rather than to develop grammatical accuracy or fluency in decontextualized discourse. Because there is pragmatic variation across and within cultures, a main concern for curriculum writers may not be simply to teach language (see the metaphor of feeding a fish, Figures 9.3) but also to equip learners with a tool with which to learn contextualized language behavior independently (in other words, teaching how to fish, Figure 9.3). Learners can also be encouraged to step back and synthesize metapragmatic awareness of the connection between form, function, and context (namely, reflecting on the outcome of learning, Figure 9.3). Consequently, curricular materials may aim neither to provide comprehensive coverage of pragmatic norms in all imaginable contexts not to cover the pragmatics of every possible L2 varieties. Rather, the overall curricular goal can be to raise learners’ (meta)pragmatic awareness as a whole so as to enable them to take the initiative in developing their own pragmatic competence over time. In the development of a pragmatics-​focused curriculum, it is important to communicate its primary goals as well as the curriculum writer’s approach explicitly to teachers and learners. This may be done first in the preface of

Figure 9.3 Feeding fish, teaching how to fish, and reflecting.

206

206  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics the materials written specifically for learners and teachers. For example, in Communication in Context, the preface to the curriculum explicitly states its main goals and the curriculum writers’ approach to language learning and teaching, particularly in relation to L2 pragmatics. More specifically, the initial section of a curriculum can include information about:

• The importance of learning language in a sociocultural context, a def• • • • • •

inition of concepts in pragmatics, and the reason why these are focused on in the curriculum The nature of pragmatic variation and curricular efforts to illustrate variability The pedagogical approach to learning and teaching pragmatics The variety(-​ies) of the L2 being dealt with in the curriculum The structure and content of the curriculum Information about supplementary materials The curriculum writers’ consideration of learners’ agency, or the capacity of learners to negotiate their multilingual identities (Chapters 1, 5, 6, 8, and 12)

To accommodate possibly substantial change in focus and principles, it is crucial to support teachers. A teachers’ guide can carry information about various techniques for teaching L2 pragmatics in general along with specific pointers for each activity and assessment. The teachers’ guide can also provide empirically-​ established information about learners’ L1 pragmatic norms.This approach may be particularly well received in foreign-​language settings, where the majority of learners share the same L1. Regarding the choice of curricular content, teachers may wonder what target pragmatic features should be included and in what sequence. It is unclear whether there are any universal developmental sequences for L2 pragmatics, and if so, in what order learners acquire various features of L2 pragmatics. Teachers may wish to conduct an informal needs assessment (as in Chapter 5) to determine instructional targets. Generally speaking, lower-​ proficiency learners should start with less linguistically complex targets, such as some frequent and pragmalinguistically simple formulas and speech acts; advanced implicature, longer speech-​act sequences, and extended pre-​ sequences may be reserved for intermediate levels or above.26 However, regardless of the sequence of pragmatic targets, it is important to ensure that basic pragmatic concepts, such as face, mitigation, power, distance, imposition, and some speech-​act strategies, are recycled as much as possible across chapters to support pragmatic learning.

26 Taguchi and Roever (2017).

207

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  207 2  Utilizing Empirically-​established Information and Natural(istic) Language Samples Following the current argument that instruction in pragmatics should be research-​based, curriculum writers may choose to rely largely on empirical findings from research (see Chapters 3 and 4). Since language often automatically operates below the level of the speakers’ consciousness, it is important to ensure the authenticity of the language material rather than relying exclusively on the curriculum writers’ or teachers’ intuitions (Chapters 3 and 8). Therefore, if curriculum writers are not yet familiar with the research-​ informed insights, they may first turn to available resources to identify commonly used pragmalinguistic strategies and sociopragmatic practices associated with the language being taught. Whereas curriculum writers will wish to crosscheck this information with their own intuition and knowledge of the L2, it may also be valuable to turn to other expert users of the L2. These informants can be asked to provide oral or written language samples for the materials through elicitation tasks such as role-​play. Their tone of voice, filled and unfilled pauses, pragmalinguistic strategies, discourse organization, and non-​verbal behavior can be observed and incorporated into the curricular materials. Ideally, the language of multiple pairs of speakers or users of other L2 varieties can be recorded so that some pragmatic variation could be modeled to learners for awareness-​raising. In addition, to ensure authenticity of language material, linguistic samples need to be natural(istic). Workplace Talk is based on the language corpus of 1,500 naturally occurring business interactions by approximately 500 participants in over 20 worksites in New Zealand. Each chapter draws on several interactions, one of them with an audio file made available online. Because many ELT materials rely on American or British English, this textbook offers an important resource for another variety of English. If a new curriculum is designed for learners expected to interact with users of a range of L2 varieties (e.g., Indian and Singaporean Englishes or Peninsular and Venezuelan Spanishes), diversifying language models, even partially for awareness-​raising purposes, can best cater to learner needs.27 This can be done by recording samples of different L2 varieties and incorporating activities that facilitate analysis of how pragmatic meaning is co-​constructed. Authentic interactions contain a number of features of natural discourse such as restarts, repetitions, overlaps, interruptions, and repairs. From the learners’ perspective, natural language can be overwhelmingly complex and loaded. If this is presumed to be the case, curriculum writers may consider including language-​related scaffolding. For example, audio-​or video-​ recorded samples can be accompanied by vocabulary notes, transcripts, or even translations. Some of the features not central to the learning goals may be edited for clarity and efficiency (see Chapter 3). 27  Gu, 2012; Murray (2012); Taguchi and Ishihara (2018).

208

208  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics Due to the limited availability of authentic language, Communication in Context and Dancing with Words rely on role-​played dialogues, with audios available for the former and videos for the latter. In Dancing with Words, speakers of different Spanish varieties were recorded to demonstrate different pragmatic norms within the Spanish language. In role-​plays, model speakers should perform as naturally and spontaneously as possible.Their language can be compared with the research-​based information and checked by the curriculum writers and the model speakers themselves to verify their authenticity. 3  Raising Pragmatic Awareness by Guiding Learners’ Observations In the teaching of L2 pragmatics, a situational approach—​ consisting of simulated practice with imagined scenarios and characters—​is often used for facilitating learners’ analysis of language use in context. Curriculum writers may choose to directly and explicitly provide metapragmatic information as opposed to simply assuming that students will learn it without explicit instruction (Chapter 6). Depending on the learner characteristics and instructional contexts, the choice may be a direct, teacher-​fronted style (deductive teaching) or a learner-​directed self-​discovery approach (inductive teaching, see Chapter 6). An example of the self-​discovery approach is to expose learners to language samples without revealing much of the context and to ask them to guess the identities of the interactants and their relationship by attending to the pragmalinguistic features in the samples. For example, by focusing on certain (modal) verbs or mitigations along with the content of conversation, learners may be able to infer the communicative context fairly accurately. To refine learners’ powers of observation, Workplace Talk asks a series of awareness-​raising questions. After listening to a sample interaction, learners are asked to consider, for example:

• • • • • • •

Specific phrases with which to perform a particular language function How such phrases are presented Who starts and ends the speech event along with its purpose The expressions that soften the force of the face threat Any other possible situations when less mitigation is called for Whether the speakers are cooperating and evidence for this Whether humor is employed and the reason(s) for such use

Learners are also prompted to further analyze paralinguistic features through questions about the volume of voice, stress patterns, pauses, inhaling and exhaling signs, and intonation patterns. These features are often captured by CA research, and teachers knowledgeable in the structure of talk-​in-​ interaction may also focus on additional interactional features (e.g., turn-​ taking, repair, listener feedback, adjacency pairs, or sequences of turns).28 28 See Barraja-​Rohan (2011) for details of CA-​informed instruction and how adult learners of lower to intermediate levels produced more interactionally sophisticated discourse and indicated enhanced interactional awareness after instruction.

209

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  209 Similarly, in Wide Angle, the section titled “English for Real” exposes learners to two video-​recorded role-​plays along with a list of commonly used expressions demonstrating L2 function(s) and asks awareness-​raising questions. For example, for the instruction on asking for and giving an opinion,29 beginning-​level learners are to compare and contrast two dialogues in terms of how interactants react differently and why.This prompts learners to focus on the different pragmalinguistic forms employed in the dialogues. Then learners also discuss the sociopragmatics of when they may or may not give an honest opinion. In the following activity, learners are asked to assess whether they can be frank or whether they need to soften their opinion for several situations provided. Although pragmatic input is limited, learners’ pragmatic awareness can be enhanced through the metapragmatic analysis and discussions. If the curriculum is written broadly for users of different L2 varieties, writers may decide to provide input that represents multiple varieties of the L2. With such diversified input, awareness-​raising can be implemented with regard to both similar and different pragmatic norms or discourse practices between these varieties or how similarly or differently meaning is negotiated in them. An expert in this area also recommends using an ethnographic diary or field notes, in which learners analyze the structure of intercultural interactions with teacher guidance.30 4  Providing Interactional and Language-​focused Practice Although pragmatic awareness-​raising is vital, generally, learners also need to acquire the procedural knowledge that enables them to produce the language in the interactive context.With this aim in mind, some of the activities may focus specifically on productive practice for pragmalinguistic forms. For beginning-​level learners, particularly in a foreign-​language setting, a strategic approach may be to limit the amount of contextual information in pragmalinguistically-​focused activities so as to open up more cognitive space allocated to output. To promote automaticity in output, an oral or written quiz may be effective at the initial stage. Eventually, learners will need abundant interactional practice for spontaneous and real-​time production of contextualized language. The scenarios used in this practice should reflect authentic situations learners have experienced or are likely to encounter in their future interactions in the L2. The two physical set-​ups for role-​play introduced in the instruction on compliments in Chapter 7 (Figure 7.2) are likely to be cognitively and emotionally engaging for various population of learners in the communicative classroom, especially for freer, less controlled practice. To practice producing written discourse, a written elicitation task with a particular pragmatic focus can be made more authentic if real or simulated readers are actually responding to the learners (e.g., a book reviewing task with the author replying). For a large class, multi-​turn spoken discourse 29  Carlson and Jordan (2019, Wide Angle 2 for CEFR A2 level: 60–​61). 30  House (2012).

210

210  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics can be simulated in writing, which facilitates learners’ self-​analysis at a later time (as in an initial task in Workplace Talk). In classroom-​based instruction, learners should be given sufficient opportunities to practice oral interaction through role-​plays or other interactional means. Learners’ performance can be reflected upon or assessed by teachers and learners themselves, a principle to which we turn next. 5  Facilitating Metapragmatic Discussion Through Self-​assessment and Feedback If an inductive approach is used in the curriculum, learners may not necessarily be given teacher’s feedback immediately. Rather, they may be asked to analyze their own production first, often with some guidance built into the curriculum. This reflective procedure may be promoted in the curriculum often through self-​assessment prompts so that learners gain the skill of independent learning and develop the cycle of observing others, testing it out themselves, and reflecting back on their production for improvement (again, see Figure 9.3). Workplace Talk, Communication in Context, and Dancing with words all rely heavily on self-​assessment. In Communication in Context, learners engage in detailed and concrete self-​assessment through a number of guiding questions. After performing a simulated written dialogue and listening to a sample dialogue provided, learners compare the pragmatic strategies used by themselves and the model speakers. Then learners are asked to analyze key points more precisely, for example, how many times core apology expressions are repeated, how much the apology expressions were varied, what intensifiers were used, what reasons were given, and whether the choice of reasons, along with the tone of apology, seemed suitable to the context.31 Some learners may not be quite as reflective as others and may need more fine-​tuned scaffolding to make their self-​assessment effective. In that case, teachers can ask further guiding questions such as:32 • • •

•

Did you use the strategies of refusals? If you did, what features do your strategies share with those in the sample dialogue? How are your strategies likely to be interpreted by your listener? If you didn’t use any of those strategies, consider your reason(s) for not doing so. Did you feel there was no need to use them? Were you unfamiliar with the strategies or lacked vocabulary? Did you feel uncomfortable using community norms? If so, why? If you didn’t use the strategies listed above, what other strategies did you use instead? How is your use of strategies likely to be interpreted by your conversational partner?

31  Ishihara and Maeda (2010: 147–​152). 32  Adapted from Ishihara and Maeda (2010: 122–​125).

21

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  211 In a classroom-​ based curriculum, teachers can also encourage peer-​ assessment, which can be part of the grade as the curriculum is intended to foster metapragmatic awareness. Learners should be asked to remain supportive and respectful, rather than critical and evaluative, in their reviews as they answer guiding questions such as the following: • • • •

What makes your partner’s language appropriate for the context? What makes it less appropriate, and why do you think so? What questions or suggestions do you have for your partner? What did you learn from this peer review process?

More formal pragmatic assessment by teachers should also give recognition to elements of pragmatics. Curriculum writers and teachers can choose from various forms of assessment, each focusing on different aspects of L2 pragmatics. For example, teachers can assess learners’ choice and use of pragmalinguistic strategies or sociopragmatic understanding of L2 norms or practices. Alternatively, teachers may collaborate with learners to assess the match between the speaker’s intention and the listener’s interpretation (see Chapter 12). In either case, provision of individual or group feedback is crucial for further pragmatic development as it further promotes learners’ metapragmatic awareness. In the earlier online edition of Communication in Context, learners have a choice of viewing the transcript and the L1 translation along with another dialogue, which is also accompanied by the transcript and the translation.After completing and sending dialogue responses and analyses electronically to the curriculum writers (or their teachers), learners are given pre-​programmed feedback that provides sample answers and discussion of the key pragmatic features. Because this immediate feedback is pre-​packaged and of a general nature, learners may need more individual feedback specifically about their language use. The curriculum can be written in such a way that teachers can provide individualized feedback to learners and answer any questions they may have. Such a metapragmatic discussion can further facilitate learners’ reflection, engagement, and metapragmatic awareness. While a downside of providing individual feedback is its time-​consuming nature, especially for a large class, the systematic use of rubrics may alleviate it (see Chapter 12). 6  Explaining Cultural Reasoning Behind L2 Pragmatic Norms When learners’ L1 (or L3) norms or personal values directly conflict with certain L2 norms, they may make negative value judgments,33 which in turn can lead to negative stereotypes of that culture and its members. It is therefore particularly helpful for the learner to be well-​informed as to why expert speakers often behave the way they do. Knowing the cultural reasoning 33  Di Vito (1993); Ishihara and Tarone (2009).

21

212  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics behind certain pragmatic behaviors can provide learners with an insider view of the culture, whether they like that behavior or not.This allows them to make informed pragmatic choices (see also Chapters 1 and 6). Accordingly, curriculum writers should attempt to provide as much cultural interpretation as possible,34 drawing from research literature. For example, in the unit on making refusals in Communication in Context, some research-​based explanation is provided regarding Japanese speakers’ use of social niceties or white lies. In order to speak diplomatically, it can be socially and ethically acceptable for Japanese speakers to use innocently untruthful remarks as a form of face-​saving both for themselves and for their conversational partners.35 While some learners of Japanese see this practice as dishonest,36 they may appreciate knowing the cultural value behind this particular pragmatic convention, which may be constructed differently in their L1.37 With this knowledge, learners can become familiar with generalized values in the L2 culture and able to arrive at a more informed interpretation and pragmatic choice. In fact, in 2005 after hearing my conference talk on this issue, an American in the audience approached me to say how this information opened his eyes to a new interpretation of his Japanese wife’s use of white lies, which he had felt was deceitful. The thought had not occurred to him that this was an artifact of culture; instead, he had attributed it to a personality issue on the part of his wife. As it was beginning to hurt their relationship, he even characterized me as a savior of their marriage! In the online version of Communication in Context, the following feedback is given to learners after they have performed an interactional role-​play where model speakers use white lies as a way of declining an invitation.38 A white lie is also used as a face-​saving strategy when the speaker does not want to comply with the listener’s request or invitation. It is normally considered polite and desirable to give a reason which the speaker has no control over, rather than saying that the speaker simply does not want to comply.39 However, in talking with a close friend, speaking honestly may be more appreciated depending on the personality and the relationship.40 Here, the strategy is to choose an appropriate reason for the refusal according to the situation.

34 This approach is called “explanatory pragmatics” (Richards and Schmidt 1983). 35  Moriyama (1990). 36  Ishihara (2007); Kubota (1996). 37 See Hancock (2008) for a discussion of white lies in American English. 38 Adapted from: www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​refusals/​feedbackex2.htm (accessed on October 16, 2020). 39  Moriyama (1990). 40  Moriyama (1990); Takamiya and Ishihara (2013).

213

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  213 As you can see, cultural norms for interpreting and performing speech acts are very complex. We recommend that you listen to expert Japanese speakers carefully to observe their use of speech-​act strategies along with the situation. Arrive at your own hypotheses regarding the use of Japanese and be willing to refresh them as necessary. This excerpt emphasizes the importance of selecting a socially preferred reason for telling a white lie as well as for speaking honestly in another context. Empirical explanations, such as the social acceptability of white lies, can be an effective springboard for discussion in pragmatics-​focused instruction. In fact, an advanced learner of Japanese in a study initially felt resistance to join this social practice herself. After class discussion on this topic, she elicited Japanese speakers’ refusals though DCT as well as their perspectives on this issue through her blog and repeatedly analyzed this practice in-​depth. Eventually she came to the conclusion that because “coming out and telling the truth might hurt the person’s feelings, it’s necessary to use [white] lies as a means… it seems to me that this arises from people’s concern for others.”41 7  Facilitating the Analysis and Use of Communication Strategies Let us now shift the focus from teachers and teaching to learners and learning, especially from the perspective of their needs in a globalized era. Through research on the global use of English over the past decades, we now know that common features of English used as an additional language, rather than as an L1, include a message-​oriented interactional style that is highly collaborative and accommodating to mutual needs.42 Such features may also be applicable to other languages, such as Spanish, Arabic, and French with wide geographical reach to varying degrees. Pragmatically competent interactants are generally tolerant of ambiguity and infelicities but often negotiate meaning in interaction in a dynamic, contingent, and creative manner. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2, English used by multilingual speakers in lingua-​franca contexts often employs less mitigation and more directness, a number of communication strategies, and humor for rapport building.43 Thus, intercultural communication in global contexts may be inherently different from interaction between monolingual L1 speakers. To support learners’ intercultural and interactional competence, curriculum writers may develop activities in which learners analyze and practice

41 Takamiya and Ishihara (2013: 201; see also Chapter 11). 42  Cogo and House (2017); Taguchi and Roever (2017). 43  Bjørkman (2014); Taguchi and Roever (2017).

214

214  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics communication strategies that are frequently employed by pragmatically competent speakers, such as the use of:44

• Confirmation checks • Clarification requests • Explicitness strategies (e.g., repetition, simplification, signaling importance,

and paraphrasing) • Represents (i.e., supporting conversational partners by echoing or mirroring their utterances)

In-​depth analysis of intercultural discourse reminds us that understanding is not merely a listener’s job but that interactants work collaboratively to disambiguate meaning, boost explicitness, and preempt communication difficulties while sustaining the interactional flow and maintaining rapport.45 Researchers in intercultural pragmatics contend that learners can benefit from studying and practicing these authentic communication strategies as they are used in intercultural contexts.46 To promote learners’ understanding of how these communication strategies work, curriculum writers may provide learners with excerpts of transcribed intercultural interactions along with their audio-​recordings whenever possible. Focusing on noticeable strategies, learners can be guided to discover their functions.47 In addition to this activity for enhancing metapragmatic awareness, learners can benefit from a fair amount of interactional practice using these communication strategies in context. At this point, the instructional effectiveness of communication strategies is still under-​researched. Some researchers point out that the wide range of communication strategies revealed through research conducted in lingua-​franca contexts typically derived from advanced speakers and that lower-​proficiency learners may not be ready to use them due to a lack of linguistic control. In response, the same researchers have identified the communication strategies low-​proficiency learners were able to use successfully in meaningful contexts without any prior instruction (e.g., asking for repetition, using circumlocutions).48 Such insights and perhaps more along these lines in the future can be useful in determining which communication strategies are likely to require minimal proficiency, which may be more or less effective in negotiating meaning, and which may be amenable to instruction at different levels of proficiency. Although not empirically

44  Björkman (2014); House (2012); Sato,Yujobo, Okada, and Ogane (2019). 45  Cogo and Pitzl (2016). 46  Cogo and Pitzl (2016); Shibata, Naka, and Fujiwara (2020); Lopriore and Vettorel (2019); Vettorel (2019). However, some researchers argue that learners can naturally transfer their L1 strategies and thus there is no need for instruction on communication strategies. 47  See also House (2012) for how multiple functions of code-​switching in intercultural discourse can be effectively taught. 48  Sato et al. (2019).

215

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  215 investigated, the following additional (meta)pragmatic strategies may also be helpful:

• Providing metapragmatic comments about one’s language use as a

reinforcement of the real intent (considered a type of explicitness strategies) (e.g., this is an East Asian joke when I say…) • Alerting a conversational partner to potential pragmatic failure (e.g., I mean to ask this nicely, but I’m not sure if I can) • Resorting to the L2 (or L3) for socially acceptable expressions that can communicate multilingual identities (i.e., translanguaging) (e.g., saying gesundheit [(wishing you) good health] to someone who has just sneezed to avoid the potentially religious overtones in [God] bless you)49 8  Referring Teachers and Learners to Resources on L2 Pragmatics The last principle concerns informing teachers and learners about research-​ based insights related to the target pragmatic features being taught in the curriculum. Even when teachers are fluent speakers of the language they teach, they may need explicit pragmatic knowledge (see Chapters 2 and 6). The information can be included in the student text or teachers’ guide if the curriculum is teacher-​delivered,50 or it can be placed online for teachers and learners to view. The relevant information is already included in Chapter 4 or posted on the CARLA database.51 Additional information can also be provided to interested teachers, teacher researchers, and learners alike who wish to follow up on L2 pragmatics.52 In the above discussion of principles in pragmatics-​focused curriculum development, we drew examples from classroom-​based, teacher-​delivered as well as web-​based, self-​access curricula. Both have their advantages and are not mutually exclusive; instruction can combine learners’ remote study on the Internet and face-​to-​face class meetings in blended courses. Some obvious strengths of an online curriculum include its convenience to learners as well as the independent and learner-​centered learning it can promote (see Chapter 11). On the other hand, a noteworthy benefit of a face-​to-​face curriculum is that learners can readily engage in interactive practice with their peers that simulates authentic contexts such as role-​plays with a series of situations authentic to learners. Teachers and peers can pay systematic attention to contextualized L2 use and give feedback, which can effectively instill in 49 Examples are available at: http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​introtospeechacts/​ CommunicationStrategies.htm (accessed on October 16, 2020). 50  As in Ishihara and Maeda (2010: 159–​182). 51  www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​descriptions.html (accessed on October 16, 2020, see Chapters 3–​4). 52  For an annotated bibliography of L2 pragmatics that may be useful for a broader range of interests, see: www.carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​bibliography/​index.html(accessed on October 16, 2020).

216

216  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics learners a sense of socially acceptable language behavior in context. It can therefore be valuable to include ample opportunities for feedback from the instructor in the curriculum as well as opportunities for self-​and peer-​ assessment regardless of the modality of the curriculum: face-​to-​face, remote, or blended.

Discussion There is value in systematically incorporating pragmatics into the L2 curriculum expressly because it has been a relatively neglected area in L2 learning. This chapter first discussed several possible ways in which pragmatics can be incorporated into an existing curriculum or the routine course of everyday instruction. Pragmatic language use can be focused as part of the effort to enhance communicative teaching (e.g., teaching to disagree agreeably or offer feedback constructively). Or if an existing curriculum contains pragmatic features but these are not taught explicitly in context, curriculum writers and teachers may consider ways to highlight them more systematically and empirically. Teachers may also take up incidental opportunities to emphasize pragmatic language use or design special lessons focusing on selected pragmatics features, thus sprinkling pragmatics throughout the curriculum. Second, we considered some principles that may be used in developing a pragmatics-​focused curriculum. When a curriculum is developed with pragmatics as a major focus, the issue of contextual suitability becomes a central concern for the curriculum writer, teachers, and learners alike and will receive prominence in instruction. Learners’ pragmatic competence can be heightened through the inclusion of natural(istic) language samples, empirically-​ established information, awareness-​ raising tasks, language-​focused activities, interactional practice, assessment, feedback, and metapragmatic reflection. A pragmatics-​focused curriculum can also include cultural reasoning behind certain pragmatic norms that may enhance learners’ cultural literacy as well as activities designed to promote analysis and use of communication strategies. It can also be vital to support teachers in implementing this focus throughout the curriculum with supplementary materials and resources. To illustrate how principles can be manifested in a pragmatics curriculum, examples were offered from three pragmatics-​ focused curricula as well as a commercially-​marketed textbook series. Because there are only a handful of existing curricula that are both pragmatics-​focused and research-​based, it will be helpful to see additional curricular materials emerge to cover many more pragmatics features for more varied proficiency levels and ages. L2 learners tend to respond favorably to pragmatics-​focused instruction because they often perceive pragmatics as essential to their communicative needs. The following activity is designed to facilitate such curricular efforts. Curriculum writers are encouraged to develop materials and units, field-​test them, and share their products with the community of interested teachers.

217

Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics  217

ACTIVITY 9.1  Designing a Pragmatics-​focused Curriculum Objectives 1 You will be able to brainstorm on your own principles in learning and teaching L2 pragmatics. 2 You will be able to initiate an effort to develop a pragmatics-​ focused curriculum according to your own principles. Suggested time: 40 minutes (or more as needed) Materials •

A language textbook you wish to adapt (if you plan to incorporate pragmatics into an existing curriculum)

Directions 1 In a group of approximately four, brainstorm your beliefs related to the learning and teaching of pragmatics. You may also wish to look back at your own reflections in Activity 2.1 (Chapter 2). 2 Independently or in a small group, decide how you would like to construct a pragmatics-​focused curriculum. Would you choose to design a brand-​new curriculum or to supplement an existing one by adding pragmatics-​focused components? 3 If you are to design a new curriculum, sketch out the structure of the curriculum by selecting features of pragmatics to be included and by sequencing them logically. Then, consider the components and structure of each unit. If you are supplementing a textbook, look through it carefully with an eye to identifying the pragmatics components that appear to be missing from the curriculum. 4 Report back these initial efforts to the whole class by discussing what features of pragmatics you plan to teach, in what ways, and why. Wrap-​up An advantage of collaboratively discussing curricular efforts is that you may become more keenly or explicitly aware of your own beliefs and principles as you articulate them in interaction with other teachers. For example, if you believe in equal linguistic value among varieties of English and the increasingly larger role non-​standard varieties are playing in today’s globalization, you might consider including more diversified language models than the standard variety in your curriculum. You may then create awareness-​raising activities specifically designed to compare pragmatic norms across these varieties or analyze

218

218  Curriculum Writing for L2 Pragmatics communication strategies effectively used. Alternatively, if you believe in the value of teaching sequential organization of talk-​in-​interaction, you may design a multi-​modal curriculum with abundant activities to have learners analyze in detail the mechanisms of, for example, adjacency pairs, repair, listenership, turn-​taking, and paralinguistic features. The transcripts of natural conversation and perhaps audio-​or video-​ recording of authentic interactions will be crucial in such a curriculum, as well as teacher feedback focused on interactional patterns and paralinguistic resources. It would be best if your principles permeate the curriculum and inform your curricular decisions as this sends a consistent message to the users of the curriculum as to how L2 pragmatics can be learned effectively.

219

10  Strategies for Learning and Performing Speech Acts Andrew D. Cohen

Introduction Why discuss language-​ learner strategies in a book on pragmatics for teachers? The main reason is that our ultimate goal is to have learners be more effective pragmatically in the target language (TL)—​be it a second or a foreign language, or somewhere along the continuum. Research has demonstrated the benefits of explicit strategy instruction in the classroom.1 Given the challenges associated with learning TL pragmatics, it makes sense for learners to develop their own repertoire of strategies for both learning and performing speech acts. While other chapters in the book have looked at how learners deal with pragmatics and how teachers facilitate the learning process, this chapter looks specifically at the role of the actual strategizing that learners may do, both in learning TL speech acts and also in performing what has been learned. The chapter focuses on factors that contribute to the effectiveness of strategy use, and refers to a classification of learner strategies, with an emphasis on speech acts. The chapter ends with two activities. Activity 10.1 gives you a firsthand opportunity to experience using strategies to collect information about an TL speech act. Activity 10.2 provides an opportunity to observe the strategies that you use in performing a speech act and to learn from others about the strategies that they use for the same speech act.

Defining Language Learning Strategies (LLS) Defining what constitutes a strategy has been a major concern of LLS theorists. The plethora of definitions is an indication of just how reluctant experts have been to agree on one common definition for this construct. A relatively recent effort at defining LLS was purposely intended to be comprehensive and includes the following features:

• Strategies encompass thoughts and actions that are specific to given contexts

1 See Plonsky (2019); Plonsky and Zhuang (2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-10

20

220  Strategies for Speech Acts

• They are often used in combination (i.e. in sequence, in pairs, or in clusters) • They play different cognitive, emotional, and social roles or functions depending on the individual using them • The way that individuals use them in self-​regulation is complex2

However we define strategies, we need to remember that the principal goal of the LLS effort from its earliest years has always been to improve language learning and use for the average learner.3 From the initial focus many years ago on the strategies that good language learners use,4 there has been a growing consensus that LLS can play a role in TL learning. This view led to the introduction of strategy instruction (SI) in the curriculum.5 The basic premise is that if learners have a well-​functioning strategy repertoire, then these strategies will enhance the learning of a TL, whether in teacher-​led instructional settings or in one of the alternative options, such as self-​access, web-​based instructional settings, and other forms of independent language learning. In recent years, this position has been increasingly supported by studies involving some form of SI treatment.6 Such studies have demonstrated that learners who use strategies produce better results in their language learning than students who are less strategic. Let us now take a look at strategies for pragmatics.

Definition and Functions of Strategies in Learning and Performing Speech Acts Strategies for pragmatics can be seen as falling within the broad category of communication strategies. However, whereas communication strategies are often aimed at getting messages across in a straightforward and transparent manner, strategies for the production of language in a pragmatically appropriate way may call for avoiding transparency. Pragmatics strategies deal specifically with the comprehension and production of language when the underlying sociocultural intentions are not necessarily straightforward, especially not to learners of that language. For example, learner strategies for the comprehension of pragmatics include correctly interpreting speech acts addressed to them such as requests and apologies, as well as strategies for producing such speech acts effectively. Recent research has found empirical evidence to support the notion that strategies may take on a cognitive, social, affective, or metacognitive function from one moment to the next, depending on the nature of the 2  Oxford (2017, p. 48). 3  Macaro (2010). 4  Rubin (1975); Chamot (2008). 5 For example, Chamot and Harris (2019) includes a chapter by me focusing on strategy instruction in pragmatics (Cohen, 2019b). 6 See Plonsky (2019); Plonsky and Zhuang (2019).

21

Strategies for Speech Acts  221 interaction.7 In other words, the very same strategy of, say, asking a stranger for directions in downtown Buenos Aires in Spanish (Disculpe, señor/​señora/​ señorita. Podría decirme cómo llegar a la embajada de los Estados Unidos? “Excuse me, Sir/​Ma’am/​Miss. Could you tell me how to get to the US Embassy?”) could take on a metacognitive, a cognitive, a social or an affective function, and could fluctuate back and forth from one function to another. For example, at the moment of planning, when the learner is, say, considering the age and relative status of a stranger before requesting directions in Spanish, the strategy has a metacognitive function. The same strategy takes on a cognitive function during those moments when the learner is searching for the appropriate pragmalinguistic structures given relative age and gender—​in this case using the conditional form of the verb poder. This same strategy of asking directions has a social function at the moment when the learner is actually asking a particular stranger for directions. Finally, when the stranger responds that s/​he is new to the city and unable to give directions, or gives a response that is too fast or abrupt for the learner to understand, the strategy shifts from a social to an affective function if the learner experiences frustration from this result, triggering a metacognitive function again (for example, planning how to ask someone else for directions). Adding to the possible fluctuation of a strategy functions, there can be movement from one strategy to another and back, as strategies are often used in sequences, in pairs, and in clusters.8 If the task calls for a sequence or cluster of strategies, then this fluctuation of functions could also be across strategies, which makes strategy use even more complex. In asking directions from a stranger, an initial pragmatic strategy might be to engage the person in conversation about the weather. The next strategy in the sequence might be for the learner to say s/​he is just visiting. A third lead-​up strategy could be to point out that s/​he is a learner of the language and might not make the request properly.

A Classification of Learner Strategies for Acquiring Speech Acts The strategies in this classification constitute a subset taken from a more detailed version.9 Sources for strategies in this classification scheme include the general learner strategy literature, the speech-​act literature, and insights from recent strategy research conducted to enhance college students’ learning of Japanese TL speech acts through a strategies-​based online curriculum10 (see also Chapter 9) and from a language and culture study-​abroad project.11 7  Cohen and Wang (2018a, 2018b). 8 Wang (2015), Cohen and Wang (2018a, 2018b). 9  Cohen (2005). 10  Cohen and Ishihara (2005). 11  Cohen et al. (2005).

2

222  Strategies for Speech Acts Explicit strategy instruction has been found to benefit the learning and use of speech acts.12 The classification of pragmatics strategies has continued to provide both teachers and researchers with guidance in how to think about and operationalize pragmatics strategies, as illustrated by a study where their survey was based entirely on this classification.13 It lends itself nicely to a series of suggested classroom tasks that teachers could engage in so as to give learners an opportunity to practice their use of strategies for developing their TL pragmatics skills. Strategies for the Initial Learning of Speech Acts Especially in the initial learning of pragmatics, learners need to determine the pragmatic behaviors that they would like to learn, starting by identifying, say, an important speech acts such as extending a greeting, and then noticing the particulars of performance in recurring situations. Once learners have noticed what it is that they would like to learn, they can call up one or another strategy for dealing with this pragmatic behavior. Since some pragmatic behaviors may be subtle, the learners may need to ask pragmatically-​ competent speakers of the TL to verify their observations. For example, the learner may ask something like, “Was it because the person asking for directions was younger that she was so polite in her request? Or was it just because she was asking a stranger?” Here, then, is a set of strategies for learning about speech acts in the first place.

• Gathering information (through observation and interview) on how

speech acts are actually performed in a given speech community (e.g., at the workplace: making requests to colleagues, refusing requests made by people of higher status, and thanking people in service such as cafeteria workers or custodians) • Conducting a “lay” cross-​cultural analysis by: ○ Thinking through and even writing out what the appropriate things to say would be for that speech act in the L1 speech community, depending on the situation ○ Identifying the cultural norms for performing these speech acts in the TL speech community ○ Identifying strategies that tend to be used with a given speech act (drawing on descriptions of strategies specific to individual speech acts, such as those listed in Chapter 4), and then checking to see if a particular strategy works in a given situation (e.g., whether an offer of repair is an appropriate strategy for a given apology situation) ○ Identifying the words and phrases to use, consistent with the local norms (e.g., whether to use the word “apologize” in the expression 12 See Taguchi and Roever (2017: 213–​230). 13 Tajeddin and Malmir (2015).

23

Strategies for Speech Acts  223 of apology or just “sorry”; whether to repeat “sorry” more than once, and whether to intensify with words like “really,” “awfully,” or “so”) ○ Determining the similarities and differences between the two cultures, and then making a mental note or a notebook entry regarding the difference(s) ○ Obtaining a viable interpretation for the cross-​cultural differences (e.g., by asking members of the TL speech community, such as friends or colleagues) Asking competent speakers of the TL (instructors and non-​instructors) • to model performance of the speech acts as performed under differing conditions to see if there is variation according to: ○ The magnitude or seriousness of the issue prompting the speech act (e.g., apologizing for missing a meeting vs spilling hot coffee on a friend) ○ The relative age or status of the speaker and the listener (e.g. of age: a request to an elderly supervisor at work or to a young child; e.g. of status: a request to the CEO of a company or to a custodian) ○ The relative roles of the speaker and the listener in the relationship (e.g., making a request to a State senator colleague at a public meeting vs. to a server at a local bar) ○ The distance between the speaker and the listener (e.g., making a request to a stranger about switching seats on an airplane vs. making an appeal for assistance to a friend at a coffee shop) Accessing sources dealing with speech acts: • ○ Websites and wikis with materials for the teaching and learning of speech acts14 ○ TL textbooks which have coverage of the speech acts of interest while keeping in mind the issues raised about textbooks in Chapter 8 and elaborated on ○ YouTube for both mini-​lessons dealing with a given TL speech act (e.g., making requests, offering an apology), as well as examples of successful and unsuccessful performance of that speech act Once students have identified the speech acts of interest, they need to collect and analyze their data. They will also need to strategize regarding the aspects of performance to which they will attend. For example, how much will they focus on their comprehension of the given speech act as performed by competent TL speakers (such as the sincerity of an apology or the politeness of a request), how much on the production of it (like a

14 See Ishihara and Cohen (2004); Cohen (2016), Sykes and Cohen (2018). Cohen (2018, pp. 177–​179) describes a wiki set up expressly to provide suggested instructional materials for teaching pragmatics in numerous languages: wlpragmatics.pbworks.com (retrieved on August 18, 2019).

24

224  Strategies for Speech Acts tactful compliment), and how much will they consider facial expressions and gestures in both comprehension and production? While it is undoubtedly challenging for students to collect such data on their own, it may give them more ownership of the task, and hence more motivation to do it and contribute to the learning process. They can then report back to the class as the “experts” since they are the ones with the information. A good source of basic information on key speech acts is the CARLA Description of Speech-​Acts website (see Chapter 4) and CARLA learner modules for learning Japanese and Spanish speech acts (Chapter 9). Both the Japanese and the Spanish pragmatics webpages offer users an opportunity to analyze speech-​act interactions by pragmatically-​competent users of the TL in order to come to realizations as to the appropriate language to use in the given context, as in this example: Based on what you have learned so far about communicative acts, how do you predict that your apology in, say, Spanish would change based on the severity of the offense? Give an example of an apology in Spanish for both of the offenses you listed above.15 If there is more time, students could gather information (through interviews and observation) on how these speech acts are performed by members of a given speech community.They could choose, for example, the workplace, and look at what is entailed when making requests of working associates who are the same age, refusing requests made by people of higher status, and thanking people in service—​like cafeteria workers or janitors. A key goal of learners—​using whatever strategy set they enlist—​is to compare the realization of the speech act(s) to see if there is variation according to:

• The magnitude or seriousness of the issue prompting the speech act • • • •

(such as apologizing for missing a meeting versus spilling hot coffee on a friend) The relative age of the speaker and the addressee (for example, making a request to a senior professor or to a young child) The relative status of the speaker and the addressee (for example, making a request to the senior vice president of a firm or to a custodian) The relative roles of the speaker and the addressee in the relationship (like making a request to the chair of a board meeting or to a waiter in a restaurant) The extent to which the speakers are acquainted (such as when making a request to a stranger about switching seats upon boarding an airplane as opposed to seeking advice from a longtime friend over morning tea)

15  https://carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/Apologies/apologies_home.html (retrieved July 5, 2021).

25

Strategies for Speech Acts  225 Having first raised learners’ awareness of the speech acts to focus on, teachers could make it a class project to have their students compare similarities and differences across cultures by having them think through and even write out what the appropriate things to say would be for that speech act (or other pragmatic behavior) in the given situation in: (1) their own L1 speech community (assuming they all have the same L1) as compared to (2) what is said in the TL speech community. The comparison could involve the following elements:

• Identifying the sociopragmatic norms for performance of these speech

•

•

•

•

acts in the TL communities—​namely, the circumstances under which it is socioculturally appropriate to use the speech act or not: e.g., whether to make an apology for a work-​related incident to a colleague during a social event; and whether to convey the bottom-​line message right at the start of a conversation, gradually build up to it or save it for the last possible moment Identifying the speech-​act specific strategies (conventionally referred to as semantic formulas) that tend to be used with the given speech act in that situation (such as whether the strategy of offering a repair is expected to be used in that apology situation) Verifying their interpretation for any cross-​cultural differences by asking members of the TL speech community. This could mean turning to members of a particular community of practice such as a group at the workplace, or social or friendship group (for example, asking whether it is appropriate for a college student to give an outright refusal to the department chair’s invitation to dinner and whether the refusal could include—​even in jest—​an informal phrase like “No way!”) Identifying the pragmalinguistic forms to use (e.g., whether to use the word “apologize” in the expression of apology or just “sorry”, whether to repeat “sorry” more than once, and whether to intensify with words like “really,” “awfully,” or “so”) Upon establishing similarities and differences between the two cultures, “making a mental note” or a notebook entry regarding these difference(s), such as in terms of address (e.g., referring in the TL to Dr. Stephen Blake as “Doc,” “Steve,” or “you”–​ whether tu or vous in French/​tú or usted in Spanish).

Two more issues relate to the initial learning of speech acts. The first is that of the role of grammar in pragmatics—​especially, knowing how to use grammar in support of pragmatic performance. For example, in languages that have a subjunctive mood, the subjunctive may have an important role in conveying indirectness and politeness. Pragmatic inappropriateness in Spanish could result from the use of the indicative which might sound too bossy, as opposed to the subjunctive, which sounds more mitigated (*Quiero que lo hace ahora. *”I want you to do it now” rather than Quiero que lo haga ahora “I would like you to do it now”). Becoming aware of the social

26

226  Strategies for Speech Acts appropriateness of such distinctions could make studying grammar seem more relevant for some learners. The second issue concerns ways to store what is learned in memory so that it can be accessed for the sake of performance. Just one of the numerous learning tools available is a visualization in order to retrieve the speech-​act material that has already been learned. A visualization strategy could, for example, entail viewing in the mind’s eye a continuum with pragmalinguistic options on it from the most minimal expression of apology in the TL (such as slixa “sorry” in Hebrew) to the most formally apologetic (ani mitnatzel “I apologize”). Strategies for Performing Speech Acts Here are strategies for taking what has been learned, however partially, and putting it to use. The challenge for students is to take this learned material and use it in pragmatic performance.

• Students could practice strategically those aspects of speech-​act perform-

ance that have been learned.This could involve their doing mind games, wherein they “engage in imaginary interactions,” perhaps focusing on certain pragmalinguistic aspects of the speech act (while riding their bikes somewhere or while waiting on a long line). This imaginary practice task would entail using strategies for visualizing a TL interaction, such as a request to a customer service representative to provide the customer a discount even though she forgot her discount coupon at home. The desired goal would be greater comfort using the given speech act when the actual need arose. Another sample task would be for students to engage in a role-​play with fellow learners or with pragmatically-​ competent speakers of the TL playing the other role and varying the age and status of the speakers. • Students could also engage in “real play” with competent speakers of the TL in the speech community who have agreed to perform their usual roles (e.g., sales clerk, cashier, or receptionist) for the learners’ sake,” knowing full well that the purpose of the interaction is exclusively to assist the learners in practicing given speech acts. In actual service encounters, the interactions are usually limited to a few brief exchanges. In real play, they may purposely be lengthier since the goal is to create language, not to buy a product, for example. A variation of this would be for learners to engage in interactions with pragmatically-​competent speakers of the TL without them being aware that the purpose is actually to practice speech acts. • Another approach for learners would be to ask pragmatically-​competent speakers of the TL—​who have the time and the patience—​for feedback as to the relative appropriateness of their speech-​act performance. • A less utilized task but a potentially valuable one would be to purposely cater to the learning style preferences of learners during their efforts to

27

Strategies for Speech Acts  227

Figure 10.1 Learner at work.

practice performing TL pragmatics. It would start by determining their learning style preferences (whether informally or through some style preference inventory—​such as the one available on the CARLA website)16 and then trying out an approach to the speech-​act delivery that is consistent with the results. For example, if the learners are found to be more reflective, then they might think through the elements in the speech act before performing it; if they are more impulsive, then they may prefer to “online” it and see what the response is. Learners could share with their class (if they are in one) the strategies that they used. Perhaps the students could record themselves as they deliver the speech act and then record their retrospective self-​observation as a means for collecting data on their strategy use and for learning to evaluate their performance. Likewise, pairs of students could take turns being the performer and the observer. • Students could use communication strategies to assist themselves in avoiding embarrassing pragmatic failure. For example, they could use the strategy of “alerting the addressee” before the delivery of the speech act that it may not come out right (“I want to say I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how to say it right …”). (Figure 10.1, below). Then, after it is delivered, if the students have a sense that the performance of the speech act did not work out as intended, they could use a metapragmatic strategy to try

16  For more on style preferences and strategy repertoire, see Cohen and Weaver (2006). The following is a link to the Learning Style Survey (Cohen, Oxford, and Chi, 2006) which can be self-​scored: https://carla.umn.edu/strategies/sp_grammar/pdf_files/CohenOxford Chi-StyleSurvey.pdf (retrieved July 5, 2021).

28

228  Strategies for Speech Acts

•

•

•

•

to repair the situation (such as “I have a sense that I didn’t say that right. Please help me out here. How would you make this request/​apology/​ complaint? If it is of any help, this is how I would say it in my native language …”). Again they could evaluate how successful they were in weaving the various strategies together. Likewise, after performing the speech-​ act, students could make comments about the results of their performance in order to repair the situation in the case of pragmatic divergence which could possibly lead to pragmatic failure (see Chapter 5 for more on divergence). Students could attempt to approximate what competent speakers of the TL might do in that speech act situation: ○ Weighing the assumed force and impact of several different approaches, and then on that basis selecting one ○ Going on the basis of “feel” as to what competent speakers would do based on TL knowledge that has accrued ○ Basing speech-​act performance on a sense of what seems reasonable to expect competent speakers of the language to do in that speech-​ act situation based on the learners’ perception as to how similar the TL is to their language17 Another strategic approach would be to compensate for a gap in knowledge by translating from the L1 or from another language what would be said in that language in order to perform the speech act (i.e., without any preconception that the words and phrases will be acceptable) As an expression of their self-​agency or subjectivity, students could examine the possibility of remaining true to their own inclinations in their speech-​act delivery by trying not to be overly native-​like (referred to in Chapter 5 as “resistance to using perceived TL pragmatic norms”).18 This approach is usually not promoted by classroom teachers since they may not be that aware of this behavior or perhaps not in favor of it. For example, when American learners of Japanese purposely refrain from using honorific verbs in talking about people of higher status (e.g., using taberu “to eat” instead of the honorific mesheagaru), they would use the strategy of telling their conversational partner(s) that it is because such use of honorifics feels inconsistent with their view that all people should be treated equally. How teachers relate to this very real issue for learners could be a fascinating topic for discussion in the TL classroom.

While this strategy classification scheme distinguishes strategies for learning speech acts for the first time from those for using the speech-​act material once it is learned, there actually is some overlap. In fact, it is possible that the same strategy used to learn new speech-​act behavior could also be used to perform the speech act once learned.

17  Kellerman (1983). 18 See Ishihara (2019a) for more on learner subjectivity.

29

Strategies for Speech Acts  229 The one area that has yet to be dealt with in this chapter is that of prior, ongoing, and subsequent evaluation of both the learning and performing of speech acts. That will be dealt with now. The Metapragmatic Function of Strategies for Learning and Performing Speech Acts There are often brief moments when the function of a strategy is either to plan which pragmatic strategies to use and when to use them, to check on how their use is going, or to evaluate afterwards how effectively they were used. Here are some examples of how learners may engage the metapragmatic function:

• To determine the extent to which the focus is on comprehension of the

speech act, on the production of it, or on both • To focus attention on tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures in speech-​act delivery. (Note that whereas an actor usually gets coached in such matters, language learners are invariably left to figure it out by themselves) • To determine the amount of pre-​planning of the speech act to do beforehand, the nature of the monitoring that will go on during its delivery, and the evaluation that will go on afterwards • To monitor the following elements of pragmatic performance in an effort to avoid pragmatic failure: ○ The appropriateness of the chosen level of directness or indirectness in the delivery of the speech act (e.g., finding the right level of directness with an TL-​speaking stranger on an airplane) ○ The appropriateness of the selected term of address (e.g., referring in the TL to Dr. Felicia Bloom as “Doc,” “Felicia,” or “you”) ○ The appropriateness of the timing for a speech act in the given situation (e.g., whether to attempt to apologize to a colleague for a work-​related incident during a social encounter) ○ The acceptability of how the discourse is organized (e.g., conveying the bottom-​line message right from the start of the communication, gradually building up to it, or saving it for the last possible moment) ○ The cultural appropriateness of the selected strategies and of the language structures used to represent them (e.g., whether it is appropriate for college students to request that their professor lighten the reading load in a particular course) and whether using “please” plus a directive is an acceptable means to that end (e.g., “Please, Prof. X, lighten the load. It is too much for us to read”) The reason why it is best to note the actual function of a given strategy rather than to categorically ascribe an immutable function to it is, as mentioned earlier, because the function of the given strategy is likely to fluctuate from moment to moment.

230

230  Strategies for Speech Acts

Factors Influencing Successful Use of Speech-​act Strategies The relative success that TL users have in deploying a given strategy for learning or performing speech acts may depend on various factors, such as the characteristics of the learners, the nature of the task, and the context for language use. Learner Characteristics The following are learner characteristics that may have an impact on the use of strategies for learning and performance of TL pragmatics:

• Age: A 25-​year-​old learner may have an easier time remembering the set

•

•

•

•

of strategies specific to apologizing in the TL than a 55-​or 75-​year-​old learner. It is possible for young learners to successfully apply strategies in their performance of pragmatics—​some can do so as of second grade. Others gain this awareness a bit later. The point is that a teacher could talk up pragmatics strategies with young learners, and these learners may find it fun to strategize in this area, especially if silly visuals are included in the effort—​created, if possible, by the learners themselves.19 Gender: Women may be expected to use a different set of politeness strategies from those that men use in a given society or subgroup of that society. This may be an area for discussion if gender rules are being challenged in the TL culture, or perhaps are even in flux. Language aptitude: Learners with a predisposition to noticing and dealing with inflections for, say, gender could have an easier time with Romance languages than learners who have difficulty making such distinctions. In part this could be simply a matter of language aptitude. It could also be the result of having knowledge about the pragmatics of another language related to the TL. Style preferences: Using certain strategies may be easier for those with a style preference that caters to those strategies (e.g., a more intuitive learner being willing and able to make inferences about an implicit complaint in an email message at work, as opposed to a more concrete learner who prefers having things spelled out explicitly and misses the indirect complaint in the message entirely) (see Note 16 regarding the Learning Style Survey). Personality: Among the personality traits, one that has frequently been linked to language performance is that of introversion-​extraversion.20 We could, for example, speculate that an introvert who chooses to do more listening than talking may pick up on pragmatic cues in interaction

19 Innovative work is being done by teachers/​researchers at the University of Stavanger, Norway with elementary-​ school Norwegian EFL learners—​ having the learners do metapragmatic evaluations of requests and apologies (Savić and Myrset, 2018). 20  See, for example, Ehrman (2008).

231

Strategies for Speech Acts  231 more readily than an extrovert who is engaged more in talking than in listening. So, assuming that this introvert has some familiarity for how sarcasm is signaled in the TL, we could imagine it being easier for this person to perceive a sarcastic tone in a presumed compliment than it would be for an extrovert. Obviously, individual differences among introverts and extroverts could play a key role here, which is why the point is made speculatively. The Nature of the Task Not all tasks involving pragmatics are created equal. Some are more demanding than others, depending on factors such as similarities and differences between the L1 and the TL. If the task is a complex one, such as submitting a request to an employer at the workplace regarding a workload issue, then it may call for a high level of tact and discretion. Strategies need to be fine-​tuned in order to deliver the communication responsibly, without alienating the employer and risking being let go. So the employee would probably need to be obsequious enough so as not to anger the boss, but at the same time forceful enough so that the person is clear what the request is. In English this means that the employee needs to be gracious, as in the following simulated interaction: Steve (the employee): How are you, Bethany? How’s the family? Bethany (the boss): Well, I’m OK. Still fighting that cold from last week. What can I do for you, Steve? Steve: I just wanted a few minutes of your time to go over some work-​related issues. Uh, you know, uh, that … well, I have been doing the best I can to meet your deadlines and all. I know how important this is to you. And you’ve said to me more than once that, uh, you’re pleased with how I’ve been doing it. Bethany: That’s true, Steve … Steve: Well, I wonder if we could take a look at my workload and, uh, see whether it might be possible to make, uh, some adjustments here because there are just so many hours in a day and … In this example, Steve had a difficult message to deliver to his boss—​namely, that he felt he was overworked. He starts his complaint with the strategy of providing a personal greeting, and then as his next request strategy, he uses an indirect means for broaching a touchy issue: “I just wanted a few minutes of your time. …” This strategy is referred to as one of negative politeness or

23

232  Strategies for Speech Acts a desire to give deference and minimize the imposition.21 He then uses the strategy of calling attention to his high level of performance on the job in order to justify requesting a raise. When he gets his boss’s confirmation of this, he makes the request to have his workload lightened somewhat. As a second example, let us take the case of a teenage daughter asking to borrow a car from her parents over the weekend. She could make the request as follows: Hey, Dad, can I take your old car this weekend? or in a more indirect manner: Hey, Dad. I was wondering whether you were planning on using the Mazda this weekend. I promised Caitlin and Megan I’d take them out to the outdoor arts fair in Lanesboro … Depending on the language and culture, it may be strategic for the speaker to know what it means to borrow a car in that particular context—​that is, how big an imposition it is considered to be in that culture (e.g., whether a car is a daily necessity or a luxury) and in that specific context (e.g., borrowing a new and relatively valuable car vs an older “spare” car). In some cases, it may be important to refrain from mentioning the borrowing of the car altogether, but rather just to call attention to the need for transportation and to leave it to the listener to determine whether to offer a car or not. In this example, there may also be some family history involved, such as whether the father feels that his daughter will drive the car safely. Issues of family personalities and relationships are also likely to play a part in the phrasing of the daughter’s request and in the father’s response to this request. And natural discourse retrieved through corpus data reveals that it could take a number of turns for the interaction to resolve itself, one way or the other. As was demonstrated in Chapter 1, effective speech-​acts performance entails not only having the cultural knowledge about whether it is appropriate to ask to borrow the car and if so when to ask, but also the language knowledge in order to do it appropriately in the given speech community (“Can I take…?” vs. “I was wondering if…”). Pragmatically-​competent speakers of English and in this case, a daughter, might either make a direct request or soften it through the use of the past progressive tense (e.g., “I was wondering if…”).While many learners of English may well have studied this tense of the verb, they would not necessarily have sufficient control over its

21  Brown and Levinson (1987).

23

Strategies for Speech Acts  233 use in their requests to know whether or when to use it.22 There are other ways to make a request seem less imposing, such as by using mitigators to downplay the demands: “Professor Cohen—​would it be possible for you to take just a few minutes of your time to read through my thesis and perhaps give me an idea or two about how I might prepare it as a journal article?” The Context for Language Use With regard to the context, learners may have such limited access to a particular situation that they find themselves unsure of just what pragmatically appropriate behavior in the TL language and culture would be. For example, a TL user may not know what to do or say at a funeral, and the textbooks are unlikely to have a unit on this. Saying or doing the wrong thing can be particularly upsetting both to those in mourning and to the learner! The learner may in such situations draw from cultural patterns of behavior associated with the L1 (where, for example, it might be appropriate to share how one of their own loved ones died), but may well find that they are being inappropriate in this TL culture. It is likely that learners will acquire the speech acts that they come in contact with the most, that they notice, or for which they have the most need. So, for example, they need to deal with forms of greetings and leave-​takings, and with requests immediately. Depending on the tasks they encounter, other less mainstream situations will emerge as important. For example, if TL learners wish to make small talk with locals in a language community, they may benefit from at least some minimal information as to how to make small talk with strangers. In Minnesota, for instance, people of all ages are safe with a topic like the weather. In other contexts, if small talk is welcome at all, it may be about entirely different topics and there may be certain taboo topics such as asking a male stranger how many children he has in a culture where superstition would encourage him to avoid being that specific.

Facilitating Strategies-​based Learning of Speech Acts Until the advent of COVID-​19, numerous college students were including study abroad in their program. A review of research focusing on the role of pragmatics in study abroad indicated that contrary to popular opinion, students did not just magically acquire pragmatics from their study abroad experiences. Rather, they did better if they received explicit instruction before going abroad and while engaged in their activities abroad.23 It was with this hunch in mind that some years ago colleagues and I put together a guidebook intended to be user-​friendly for study-​abroad students—​Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use (the MAXSA guidebook). The guidebook was expressly aimed at 22  For more on the role of grammar in making requests, see Wigglesworth and Yates (2007). 23  Pérez Vidal and Shively (2019).

234

234  Strategies for Speech Acts enhancing their strategies for dealing with TL pragmatics, and over the years it has been used by thousands of students in study abroad worldwide.24 This MAXSA guidebook was field-​tested in a study to determine its impact on the acquisition of requests and apologies.25 The intervention consisted of a brief face-​to-​face orientation about speech acts, familiarization with the MAXSA guidebook on language and culture strategies, and then regular email contact between the students and graduate assistants at the University of Minnesota. The university student participants, who spent a semester abroad in a Spanish-​or a French-​speaking country, were randomly assigned to an experimental group (N = 42) or to a control group (N = 44). The findings indicated that the students as a whole improved their request and apology performance over the course of the semester, as rated by Spanish and French native speakers. In addition, whereas there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in their rated speech-​act performance overall, a qualitative analysis of speech-​ act development among learners of Spanish (N = 67) helped to determine the extent to which their performance on requests and apologies resembled that of the native speakers of that language. Although fewer study-​abroad students used certain request features than the native with than the native speakers, there appeared to be some increase in the use of native-​like requesting strategies from pre-​to post-​test, especially among the experimental group students, perhaps suggesting that for some of these students awareness about how to mitigate a request was enhanced by the treatment. In making apologies, not as many study-​abroad students intensified their apologies in instances where highly competent speakers tended to do so. Likewise, the percentage of study-​abroad students who acknowledged responsibility for certain infractions tended to be lower than that of the native speakers, suggesting that these non-​native speakers were unaware of sociopragmatic norms for what might be expected in such situations. So, it would appear that explicit instruction can contribute to enhancing pragmatic development in an experience such as study abroad. Such instruction would start with awareness raising among learners as to how they, say, apologize in their L1 and then compare that with how they would do it in the TL. Then they would observe how TL speakers apologize in various contexts.Then they need to practice through role-​play, real play, or in an un-​ scaffolded environment. Presumably they would also engage in monitoring their behavior and in identifying the apology-​specific strategies that worked well and those that they need to work on more. The final step would be to identify other situations in which these strategies could be used, such as for other speech acts, such as requesting, complaining, complimenting, criticizing, or teasing.26 24  Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, and Lassegard (2006). 25  Cohen and Shively (2007). 26 See Cohen (2019b) for more extended discussion of strategy instruction aimed at pragmatic development in learners.

235

Strategies for Speech Acts  235

Discussion This chapter had as its aim to provide learners with some ideas about language learning and use strategies that potentially could enhance how they learn and perform speech acts. The aim has also been to furnish ideas to classroom teachers looking to support their students in being more strategic about learning and performing speech acts both in and outside of the classroom. The speech-​act strategy classification scheme provided here is seen as a preliminary step in this direction. In order to make the strategy classification more “real” for you, we would like you now to undertake Activities 10.1 and 10.2 (below). Activity 10.1 will give you an opportunity to do some actual gathering of TL speech-​ acts data from a competent speaker of a TL, drawing as necessary from the “Strategies for the Initial Learning of Speech Acts” section of the above classification of learner strategies for acquiring speech acts. Activity 10.2 will give you a chance to perform an interaction involving speech acts and to observe the strategies that you and your partner use.

ACTIVITY 10.1  Collecting Information on L2 Speech Acts Objectives 1 You will be able to use strategies to collect information about an L2 speech act. 2 You will be able to identify the strategies that other participants have used to gather data for learning and performing speech acts. Suggested time: 45 minutes Materials • •

Task Sheet: “Speech-​ acts data-​ gathering tasks,” with several speech-​acts situations for which to collect data The “Strategies for the Initial Learning of Speech Acts” section from the Classification of Learner Strategies for Acquiring Speech Acts in this chapter

Directions 1 Select one of the two speech-​act situations provided in the Task Sheet and think through the issues on your own. 2 Find a competent speaker of the L2 you identify as a “consultant” for an L2 speech community that you are not familiar with and gather information from that person as to how to perform the

236

236  Strategies for Speech Acts speech act tactfully. (More guidance is provided under point 1 in the Task Sheet below.) 3 If possible, make the session two-​way by having your partner collect data from you on how to perform a speech act tactfully in your L1 (say, if the person is a native speaker of Italian and you a native speaker of English). If you cannot find a competent speaker of the L2 which you are learning, you could serve as “advisors” in this data-​gathering process, making suggestions to both the data gatherer and the consultant who is providing the information. 4 While in the data collection phase, have “Strategies for the Initial Learning of Speech Acts” from the Classification of Learner Strategies handy and select strategies from it to assist you in completing the task—​such as determining what is culturally relevant for the given speech acts, as well as the words and phrases appropriate for use with the speech acts. 5 When the data collection phase is over, each group is to report back to the whole group as to insights gained from the task. Wrap-​up Looking back over the processes that you went through in this activity, consider the extent to which the exercise helped you to identify the strategies involved in performing a speech act effectively. What were the challenges associated with this type of data gathering? How might you encourage your students to use these strategies in their future language learning? Task Sheet: Speech-​Acts Data-​Gathering Tasks 1  Gathering Information about Complimenting You are by nature a friendly person and like to compliment people on how they look and on the things they do well. The following are two kinds of compliments you are likely to give to your colleagues: (a) Hey,_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​, that_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​looks really good on you! Where did you get it? (b) Hey, _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​, your talk was really good. You had a lot of interesting things to say. Notwithstanding your desire to pass on well-​deserved compliments, you have been advised that in the TL speech community, it is possible to offend people unintentionally when you mean well.You have heard, for example, that depending on your age, your status, or your gender,

237

Strategies for Speech Acts  237 an intended compliment, at worst, may be taken as an insult and, at best, may be considered inappropriate coming from you to that person. 2  Gathering Information about Refusing You are living in a TL speech community where you find people making requests of you that you want to refuse. The problem is that your TL textbook did not teach you how to refuse tactfully, and your teacher did not cover it either. The following are two of the typical situations: (a) You are invited to a friend’s outdoor party, but you don’t want to attend because despite strict social distancing there is likely to be lots of smoking, loud music, and excessive drinking. In addition, such parties usually go on too long for you (since you start working early in the morning), and you know from experience that it is difficult to cut out early. How do you decline the invitation? (b) Your colleague asks you to edit an article for him/​her in English for publication in your school’s electronic bulletin. Not only is your time very limited, but also you know s/​he is a weak writer both conceptually and in terms of language proficiency.You absolutely need to turn this one down without offending him/​her. How do you do it? Find someone who is a competent speaker of the language in that speech community and gather information from this person about refusals. Check with this informant as to some acceptable ways to perform each of the two refusals above, depending on who you are (age, status, gender, role in the relationship, and personal consequences of refusing) and who the recipient is.

ACTIVITY 10.2  Strategies for Performing Speech Acts Objectives 1 You will be able to identify the strategies that you use in performing a speech act. 2 You will be able to identify the strategies that others use for learning and performing speech acts. Suggested time: 45 minutes Materials •

Task Sheet: “Performing speech acts,” with speech acts vignettes

238

238  Strategies for Speech Acts •

The “Strategies for Performing Speech Acts” section from the Classification of Learner Strategies for Acquiring Speech Acts in this chapter

Directions 1 Select one of the compliment or refusal vignettes provided on the Task Sheet and perform it in the L2 with a competent L2 speaking partner. 2 While in the data collection phase, have the “Strategies for Performing Speech Acts” section of the Classification of Learner Strategies handy and select strategies from it to assist you in completing the task. For example, see if you are able to use one or more monitoring strategies to determine how well you performed the speech act. 3 As you perform the speech act, pay attention to the strategies that you use to select and perform the act appropriately. 4 Also pay attention to the strategies that your partner uses. 5 When the speech-​acts interaction comes to a natural conclusion, share insights with each other regarding the interaction. Pay attention to what you might have learned about the interaction which you could pass on to your students regarding their efforts to use speech-​act material. Wrap-​up Review the processes you went through in this activity. Consider the extent to which this exercise helped you to sharpen your understanding of the strategies involved in performing a speech act effectively. Also identify any challenges you encountered. How might you encourage your students to use these strategies in their future language learning? Task Sheet: Performing the Speech Act of Apologizing in a TL (a) You need to report back to a friend about a limited edition of a book on the history of jazz in New Orleans that he lent you last week. It accidentally slipped out of your bag on the bus, and when you called the Lost and Found, they said no one had turned it in. (b) You really enjoyed the outdoor meal that your colleague prepared for you and your spouse last Saturday evening. It wasn’t until the end of the next week that you remembered you hadn’t thanked her properly for the evening. You call her to apologize for that oversight.

239

Strategies for Speech Acts  239 Complaining in an L2 (a) You go to a friend’s outdoor party with social distancing, but are having difficulty staying there because there is so much smoking. The music is also a problem for you since you are sensitive to loud noise.You could just cut out but decide instead to stay because you like this friend. Nonetheless, you feel the need to complain to her about the excessive smoking and the decibel level of the music. (b) You and your date have been waiting over 45 minutes for your meal to be served on the patio at a downtown restaurant.You usually enjoy a leisurely meal, but this evening you have tickets for a new, highly-​acclaimed movie at a nearby drive-​in movie theater and the show is going to start in less than an hour.You specifically chose this restaurant because the last time that you ate there, your meal came promptly.You feel the need to complain to the waiter about the excessive delay.

240

11  Incorporating Technology into Pragmatics-​focused Instruction

Introduction As digitally mediated spaces grow exponentially today, remote learning has often become a norm or requirement rather than an option. Language education, including L2 pragmatic instruction, can also be delivered remotely, whether entirely or partially in a blended course. The use of technology can help teachers diversify their instruction in ways that can greatly benefit learners. A growing body of research underscores the role of computer-​ assisted language learning (CALL) in the area of L2 pragmatics.1 Drawing on that research as a basis, this chapter will first briefly review how technology can be employed to enhance aspects of L2 pragmatic instruction as well as how CALL materials can facilitate the individual learning of L2 pragmatics, which may either stand alone as self-​access or become part of blended instruction combining face-​to-​face and online channels. This chapter will also report on how computer-​mediated communication (CMC) can best be exploited to promote telecollaboration between learners situated remotely for meaningful intercultural communication. We will then discuss applications of instructional technologies in terms of the levels of cognitive thinking these technologies are likely to promote. In particular, teachers are encouraged to assess the availability of these technologies in their respective contexts as well as their potential benefits and drawbacks for their learners, considering, for example, their level of proficiency, learning style preferences, and technological readiness and accessibility. It is also important that when technologies are applied to the classroom, teachers and learners are comfortable with them and that there is sufficient technological support.

Enhancing Pragmatics Instruction Through Technology CALL can be applied with relative ease to instruction focused on L2 pragmatics to enhance input, metapragmatic information, and engagement with the material provided to learners. For example, audio-​and 1  See for example Belz (2007); Sykes and Reinhardt (2013); Taguchi (2015a); Taguchi and Sykes (2013); Zimmerman and McMeekin (2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-11

241

Incorporating Technology  241 video-​recordings of authentic or naturalistic language data are often used for the purpose of input enhancement. Auditory and visual features in recordings, as in podcasts and streaming videos, offer verbal and non-​verbal information, which both affect the pragmatic aspects of the interaction (e.g., intonation, pauses, hedges, gestures, facial expressions, and space). In fact, many of the currently available materials focused on pragmatics feature audio-​or video-​enhanced input. Teachers and learners can also audio-​or video-​record pragmatic language use of expert speakers to be used as models. Learners’ production can be recorded to facilitate the analysis of pragmatic language and self-​reflection (see Chapters 3, 7, and 12 for examples of what to collect and how the collected data can be analyzed). Moreover, pragmatics instruction can be enhanced through certain electronic functions technology allows us to readily apply. Earlier in this book (Chapter 6), we discussed the importance of “noticing” language form and “understanding” the form-​function-​context mapping, noting how the context influences the choice of language forms as well as how the choice of language shapes the context simultaneously. In fact, technology can be used to trigger learners’ noticing by clearly differentiating key resources from optional or extra information, for example, through the use of pictures, videos, bold text, italics, underlining, highlighting or color-​coding, or other perceptible designs such as captions or balloons.

Web-​based Learning of L2 Pragmatics Let us now take a look at a few examples of web-​based programs enhanced through CALL designed to promote pragmatic development in L2 Japanese and Spanish.The use of instructional technology often gives a greater degree of independence to learners than conventional face-​to-​face of instruction. CALL allows learners to progress at their own pace and can offer more choices, for example, as to what materials they can study, what sequence they study them in, how they practice the language, and what sections they decide to review or pursue further. When they have independent learning options, learners may be more likely to engage with what attracts their attention and interest rather than proceeding linearly through material in the order presented in the traditional curriculum. Currently available web-​based instructional platforms enable teachers to easily provide self-​study exercises, learner-​directed feedback, optional tasks, and linguistic and cultural scaffolding built into the material. Learners are then free to use or ignore such scaffolding and supplementary information. For example, a web-​based curriculum for learning speech acts in Japanese2 (see also Chapter 9) offers a number of exercises delivered through CALL. Pragmatic judgments are taught and tested through electronically-​generated

2  Strategies for learning speech acts in Japanese: http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​ introtospeechacts/​index.htm (accessed on October 16, 2020).

24

242  Incorporating Technology multiple-​choice exercises.3 Matching exercises provide practice in aligning language forms with the contexts in which they are likely to occur4 as well as identifying speech act strategies and their functions.5 Other exercise types, such as cloze (fill-​in-​the-​gap), jumbled sentences, and mind-​mapping tools are also applicable to activities designed to facilitate relatively simple (meta) pragmatic awareness. Online survey programs are also employed to have learners submit their output and make pre-​programmed feedback readily available, which is designed to direct learners’ attention to key aspects that can be either pragmalinguistic (language-​focused) or sociopragmatic (culture-​ focused).6 The curriculum also contains a number of audio-​ recorded dialogues for learners to observe and analyze with pre-​determined feedback and linguistic and cultural scaffolding. The Spanish component of the web-​based curriculum7 (see Chapter 9) is rich in video-​based input along with interactive output practice.Although the extent of learning differed among participants, a study showed that learners found these web-​based programs and their strategic instructional approach valuable. Learners’ reactions to the exercises and responses in interviews indicated that attention was paid to pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatics aspects of the L2 as well as enhanced (meta)pragmatic awareness.8 More recently, a group of Japanese-​language educators have developed a web-​based interactive program featuring video clips of a traditional rakugo oratory art performance accompanied by post-​viewing quizzes, feedback, and other scaffolding materials.9 As authors argue, understanding humor in culturally specific comedy is an important component of pragmatic competence, assisting in building rapport with other L2 speakers and expressing intent playfully and effectively.The preliminary analysis of the quiz responses, tracked learner reactions, and follow-​up interviews showed promising results for an enhanced understanding of the cultural nuances involved in rakugo performance as well as the development of linguistic competence. Although pragmatic comprehension and (meta)pragmatic awareness are  likely to be practiced and refined in pre-​ programed web-​ based materials, learners can more extensively engage in meaningful exchange 3  See for example: http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​requests/​ex5-​4.htm, (accessed on October 16, 2020). 4 See http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​thanks/​ex3-​3.htm, (accessed on October 16, 2020). 5 See http://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​japanese/​refusals/​ex7-​2.htm, (accessed on October 16, 2020). 6 For example, Google Form, Hot Potatoes (https://​hotpot.uvic.ca, accessed on October 16, 2020) and other quiz makers in various learning management systems can be used to create exercises with fixed answers as well as items allowing for narrative responses. Mind-​mapping tools allow electronic visualization of concept mapping, which may be useful for organizing word choices and pragmatic strategies. 7  Dancing with Words: Strategies for learning pragmatics in Spanish: http://​carla.umn.edu/​ speechacts/​sp_​pragmatics/​home.html (accessed on October 16, 2020). 8  Cohen and Ishihara (2005); Ishihara (2007); Sykes and Cohen (2006). 9 Yamada, Sakai, and Bushnell (2019).

243

Incorporating Technology  243 using more interactive forms of technology, which we now turn to in the following section.

CMC Platforms and Pragmatic Learning As we have seen, pragmatic aspects of language can be underscored, explicitly taught, or practiced through the use of computer mediation. CMC refers to technology-​mediated communication involving both synchronous (i.e., real-​time) and asynchronous (i.e., non-​concurrent) interaction.10 CMC has been gaining increased attention in language education in general as well as in the L2 pragmatics research literature.11 Learners’ pragmatic language use can also be observed, analyzed, or self-​assessed as they collaborate meaningfully with remotely-​situated language partners (e.g., German learners of English working with Australian learners of German or learners of Chinese in Korea and Thailand collaborating). In the interactive contexts mediated by telecollaboration, learners can be socialized into the pragmatic strategies of expert language users through exposure to and participation in their community practices.12 Learners’ pragmatic choices can bring about real-​life consequences (such as offending others) through which participants negotiate their intercultural and interpersonal relationships, albeit online. Telecollaboration through CMC can be promoted in various technological platforms such as:

• Email and mailing lists • Blogs • SNSs (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, Goodreads, • • • •

WhatsApp,TikTok) Discussion forums or communication tools often included in Learning Management Systems (e.g., Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, Slack, Wiki forums) Written and voice or video chat (e.g., Facebook Messenger,WhatsApp) Video-​conferencing (e.g., Skype, Zoom, Google Hangouts Meet, Microsoft Teams, Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx) Games and virtual environments (e.g., Second Life, World of Warcraft) (see the next section)

Apparently, this list is suggestive rather than comprehensive. The categories and functions of different platforms may overlap or quickly become obsolete. 10  Cunningham (2019); Zimmerman and McMeekin (2019). 11  See, for example, journals dedicated to digital language learning, including CALICO Journal, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Language Learning and Technology, and System as well as special issues, such as Journal of Pragmatics 73 (2014); Pragmatics 25 (2015); System 64 (2017), for a range of research in and pedagogical examples of CMC for L2 pragmatic learning. 12  Belz and Vyatkina (2005); Gonzales (2013); Kakegawa (2009); Kinginger and Belz (2005).

24

244  Incorporating Technology Email, mailing lists, blogs, SNSs, and discussion forums typically provide asynchronous online platforms. Users of these tools can create or edit content at their convenience. Continued discussion about different topics can be organized under different “threads” or subject lines and develop over multiple turns in the form of messages or online postings. Because the record of interaction can be readily saved in personal in-​boxes or online, one way of using these technologies is for learners to utilize the data as language input to analyze or employ as models. Language data in blogs or threaded discussion may contain a wealth of searchable language models (e.g., the use of the discourse marker actually). In another case, these interactive programs can be used for communication between learners and teachers where learners generate language data for teachers, peers, and themselves to be assessed later. For example, learners can be asked to send email inquiries to the teacher (preferably a genuine one), which the teacher compiles for assessment and feedback.13 In another case, the teacher can collect authentic email models, such as those from students asking for a letter of recommendation, for use as the basis of instruction.14 Even more dynamically interactive are synchronous written and oral chat and video-​conferencing programs that can engage learners in concurrent interactions. In these programs, learners are able to negotiate meaning synchronously on the Internet. If they are using a video-​based program, they can also examine the use of non-​verbal communication such as gestures. Without specific instruction to keep participants on task, much of authentic synchronous interaction may develop beyond the control of the teacher and the learners themselves as participants freely and independently interact with other participants. One way to structure the learning of pragmatics mediated by CMC platforms may be to give learners metapragmatic tasks such as the following:

• Observing and analyzing authentic pragmatic language use in commu-

nication by going through the record of the interactions (e.g., openings and closings in email messages or SNSs, the use of the discourse marker well in online chat interaction, or humor employed in SNSs) • Collecting samples of pragmatic language use from expert speakers by recording them in authentic contexts (with prior permission) or assigning a DCT or role-​play task (e.g., agreement and disagreement expressed on various topics between close friends) and analyzing the outcomes • Interviewing expert speakers regarding their use or perception of a pragmatic feature (e.g., occasions in which compliments are given or avoided, the appropriateness of complimenting on the given topic, or choice of recipient for the compliment)

13 See Mach and Ridder (2003) for more instructional details, rationale, and caveats. 14 See Akikawa and Ishihara (2010) for a lesson on this topic using peer reviews.

245

Incorporating Technology  245

• Exchanging analyses of pragmatics-​focused observations or interviews

with others (e.g., reporting examples of irony and their nuances on SNSs or blogs or exchanging analysis of how taboo topics might be dealt with differently in the L1 and L2 in discussion forums or video-​conferencing)

These tasks can also be implemented in face-​to-​face communication alone or in combination with CALL in blended classrooms, where learners can reap the benefits of both channels. Importantly, media-​specific norms or community practices also apply in CMC. Certain pragmatic or discursive conventions may be different from those in face-​to-​face interactions,15 which learners can be guided to become aware of through various observation tasks. Telecollaboration offers language learners stimulating opportunities to interact with other L2 speakers for both educational and relational purposes via the Internet. Not only does this format provide increased opportunities for input, output, and interaction for language learning in extended meaningful discourse, but it can also be an authentic vehicle for intercultural communication. Although meaningful opportunities to interact in the L2 tend to be scarce in the traditional foreign-​language classroom, technology-​mediated telecollaboration can electronically connect learners to expert speakers or peers and heighten the participants’ motivation to communicate interculturally, which can be a crucial advantage in the acquisition of pragmatic competence.16 Synchronous technologies can be used in conjunction with asynchronous means and can enable learners to engage in extended dialogues with other participants, such as expert speakers or learners of the same L2 situated in another culture or location. Language instruction using telecollaborative tools can promote engaging intercultural discussion, as shown in many existing studies, which include the following pragmatics-​focused topics:

• Terms of address (e.g., tu/​vous pronouns in French,17 and du/​Sie in

German,18 address terms in Spanish19 and Korean)20 • Particles (e.g., modal particles in German21 sentence-​final particles in Japanese)22 • Speech acts (e.g., requests in Spanish,23 English24, and German,25 refusals in Japanese)26 15  See for example, Zitzen and Stein (2004) for similarities and differences between chat and oral language. 16  Belz (2007); Kinginger and Belz (2005). 17  van Compernolle, Williams, and McCourt (2011). 18  Belz and Kinginger (2002); Kinginger and Belz (2005). 19  González-​Lloret (2008). 20  Kim and Brown (2014). 21  Belz and Vyatkina (2005). 22  Kakegawa (2009). 23  Sykes (2005). 24  Eslami, Mirzaei, and Dini (2015). 25  Cunningham (2016, 2017). 26 Takamiya and Ishihara (2013).

246

246  Incorporating Technology

• Conversational openings and closings27 • Conversation management (topic management and listenership in small

talk in English,28 discourse management in German)29 • Style-​shifting and register choice (e.g., non-​honorific and addressee-​ honorific styles, dialect use, and emoticons in Japanese)30 Let us take a few examples to discuss how CMC can be exploited to assist pragmatic learning in telecollaboration. Two researchers used a combination of technologies, including asynchronous web-​based biographies, email, and synchronous chat within a teleconferencing program to support the learning of socially-​preferred pronoun use in addressing their conversational partners in French and German.31 The authors argue that CMC interactions appeared to facilitate the majority of participants’ pragmatic development over extended periods of time because learners’ face was at stake in the CMC interaction, where their choices of address terms directly affected the social relationship. As discussed in Chapter 6, explicit metapragmatic discussion is key to effective pragmatics-​focused instruction in technology-​mediated learning as well as in face-​to-​face classrooms. An added advantage of using CMC is the opportunities it affords for repeated interactions coupled with provisions of peer assistance the technology may offer.32 In one study, ten weeks of recurrent text chat exchanges with expert speakers provided a learner with explicit feedback and metapragmatic discussions on terms of address in Spanish.33 This collaborative and extensive engagement in the analysis of the pragmatic target led to gradual pragmatic development when later combined with the series of synchronous CMC sessions over ten weeks. Similarly, another study featured a combination of explicit instruction on refusals in Japanese through face-​to-​face sessions with asynchronous blogging interactions with expert speakers.34 A learner elected to analyze the sociopragmatic aspects of refusal sequences in the L2 community through her blogging posts, in which she also elicited refusal data and metapragmatic judgment from expert speakers. These interactions and metapragmatic analysis appeared to have socialized her into the local norms of behavior, indicating this learner’s agency in choosing to appropriate the community practice as part of the language socialization (see Chapter 9).35 27  Gonzales (2013). 28  Barron and Black (2015). 29  Cunningham (2017). 30  Ishihara and Takamiya (2014). 31  Belz and Kinginger (2002); Kinginger and Belz (2005). 32  Cunningham (2019). 33  González-​Lloret (2008). 34 Takamiya and Ishihara (2013). 35 Learners’ agentive pragmatic choices were also found in studies in which learners of Korean using email and SNSs (Kim and Brown 2014), learners of German using a web-​ conferencing tool (Cunningham 2016), and learners of Japanese blogging (Ishihara and

247

Incorporating Technology  247 In some higher education contexts, SNSs—​Facebook in particular—​have been used extensively for academic learning. Although the credibility of the information and the legitimacy of the media can be questioned in light of traditional concepts of education, some researchers underscore Facebook’s potential in the collaborative learning and knowledge construction that can occur when learners connect with experts, share information, and participate in social interaction.36 A study that investigated Malaysian university students’ views of Facebook for academic purposes found that the students preferred a teachers’ presence and teacher-​led activities at least in the initial stages of Facebook integration into the English curriculum. In a later phrase, more critical and collaborative projects may be introduced with some teacher moderation. Importantly, teachers played a pivotal role in socializing learners into online community practices in this context.37 For example, as part of the socialization, teachers can guide learners to observe and analyze Facebook users’ identity construction and pragmatic strategies,38 including pragmatic code-​switching or translanguaging,39 to prepare learners for constructing their voices in the digital space. Although much of this chapter focuses on the cognitive learning of L2 pragmatic features in computer-​mediated environments, recall that virtual spaces have increasingly been shaping a reality of life, especially for those who engage in social interaction online on a regular basis. Even interactions between avatars can be viewed as constituting a social relationship within and possibly beyond the virtual environment. Accordingly, expert speakers’ and learners’ construction of identities and positioning have been studied from a social constructivist perspective (see also Chapters 3 and 6).40 L2 learners’ pragmatic use and development online can be understood as a process of pragmatic socialization into practices of L2 virtual community (Chapter 6).41

Intercultural Learning in Digital Spaces Thus far, we have discussed how explicit pragmatic instruction and meaningful interaction enabled through CMC can promote L2 pragmatic development through enhanced input, negotiation of meaning, and greater learner engagement. CMC can also stimulate learner motivation and autonomy.42 As Takamiya 2014) sometimes emulated and at other times diverged from the pragmatic uses being negotiated in immediate local contexts (see also Chapter 6). 36  Adi Kasuma (2017). 37  Adi Kasuma (2017). 38  As revealed by Bolander and Locher (2015). 39 In Eslami and Yang’s (2018) study, Persian-​English bilinguals were found to switch skillfully between the prevailing cultural patterns of language use (i.e., the “modesty principle” and “agreement principle” (13) in responding to compliments dominant in Chinese and American social media respectively). 40 See for example, the special issue on facework in Facebook and discussion boards in Pragmatics (2015), 25(1) for face, (im)politeness, identity construction, and relational work. 41  Ishihara and Takamiya (2014). 42  Freiermuth and Huang (2012); Lee (2011); Smith and Craig (2013).

248

248  Incorporating Technology opposed to the traditional view of learning that positions learners as passive recipients of knowledge, CMC can construct learners as knowledge creators in the process of social learning.43 To illustrate this point, creative knowledge construction can occur in relation to intercultural learning. In addition to providing opportunities to interact socially and meaningfully in the L2, telecollaboration can serve as a vehicle for enhanced intercultural understanding, which is highly relevant to sociopragmatics knowledge.While engaged in social interactions and participating in the practices of the L2 community online, learners can be encouraged to examine, interpret, and assess their own knowledge critically. In a study using a unique instructional arrangement, study abroad students in Spain and their peers at home in the U.S., all intermediate learners of Spanish, interacted asynchronously over the course of a semester, sharing their observations of Spanish-​speaking and U.S. cultures in their L1 and collaboratively reflecting upon them.Their blogs and responses to questionnaires demonstrated evidence of enhanced intercultural competence for both study-​abroad and at-​home students.44 A telecollaborative classroom can also promote a critical analysis of language and culture. In another study, intermediate and advanced learners of Japanese conducted individual research through interviews as well as online reading regarding cultural issues relevant to the course topics.45 The learners posted their findings on their blogs and received feedback from peers and other Japanese speakers in the wider university community. Learners demonstrated an enhanced critical pragmatic awareness in their understanding of, for example, humility in gift-​giving customs in Japan. One learner questioned the textbook explanation characterizing an expression (e.g., This is something unimportant/​trivial) as uniquely Japanese and researched gift-​ giving expressions used in other cultures. He discovered similar expressions in Korean presumably due to Confucian influence. The learner also identified a downgrading expression in American English (e.g., It wasn’t that expensive), which he believed shared the same sociopragmatic function of relieving the recipient of a sense of indebtedness. One Indonesian student responded to his blog by offering a similar expression in his language. These instances of web-​based interaction show the potential benefit of telecollaboration in promoting intercultural understanding and pragmatic development. Another possibility is that learners of the same L2 situated in different locations can work together to critically reflect on their own and others’ cultures, which can assist in intercultural identity development. One study connected learners of Japanese in the U.S. and Sweden through asynchronous blogging and synchronous online discussion.46 Learners studied advanced Japanese through materials centered on identity, such as ethnic diversity and 43  de Andrés Martínez (2012); Guarda (2012). 44  Elola and Oskoz (2008). 45 Takamiya (2008). 46 Takamiya and Aida Niendorf (2019).

249

Incorporating Technology  249 discrimination in Japan, stereotypes about Japan and its people, and multicultural celebrities and their identities. Learners’ reflections, research papers, and online discussions revealed how their identities were performed, shaped, and reshaped while they positioned themselves as they compared and contrasted Japanese, American, and Swedish cultures. The above-​mentioned studies show the potentials of various technologies to mediate the learning of pragmatics and intercultural awareness. Participants will be better prepared if they have acquired ahead of time sufficient computer literacy, knowledge of Netiquette (i.e., online-​specific manners for smooth communication), and intercultural skills training such as intercultural perspective-​taking or critical evaluation of one’s culture.47 To maximize the instructional potential of telecollaboration, researchers have also pointed out the importance of the appropriateness of task types in the instructional context, teacher’s moderation and facilitation of interactions, technological readiness among teachers and learners, and the availability of network connections and technological support.48

Gaming Another CMC space for digital language learning includes games and virtual environments, which have also been applied to the learning of L2 pragmatics. In gaming and virtual interaction, which is attracting millions of players worldwide, learners participate in an electronic three-​dimensional space by assuming (imagined) identities represented visually in the form of avatars. Participants often interact with other virtual characters verbally and non-​verbally (e.g., through hand gestures and body language) in written or spoken mode for particular goals, which may be either player-​driven, pre-​determined by the task or game design, or possibly emergent in the context.49 Researchers argue that learners can be highly motivated and self-​ directed by this contextualized participation as they practice various pragmatic strategies in interaction, enjoy immediate and individualized feedback, and possibly become socialized into the social practices shared in the digital community.50 Given that learners possess game literacy and player agency, additional advantages of this type of technologically-​supported interaction include learners participating individually at their own pace in virtual social interactions, enacting multiple roles and identities as they wish, and enjoying multimodal processing.51 The instructional effects of games and virtual environments on L2 pragmatic development have begun to be investigated. Pioneering studies showed some potential advantages of Croquelandia, the first multiuser virtual 47  Hatakeyama (2006); Schneider and von der Emde (2006). 48  Lee (2011); Swanson and Early (2009). 49  Sykes and Dubreil (2019). 50  Sykes and Reinhardt (2013); Taguchi and Roever (2017). 51  Sykes (2008); Sykes and Reinhardt (2013).

250

250  Incorporating Technology environment (MUVE) designed to explicitly teach L2 pragmatics in Spanish. In this simulated MUVE, learners are placed in a study abroad situation and perform a number of tasks that require them to make requests and apologize in home, social, and academic contexts. Research showed some gains in learners’ metapragmatic awareness, interpretation skills, and pragmatic comprehension, although pragmalinguistic learning (e.g., of request and apology strategies) did not necessarily occur.52 Another study that looked into the impact of digital scenario-​ based interactions on the learning of formulaic sequences in Chinese showed overall effectiveness for learners of elementary to advanced proficiency.The instruction featured realistic game-​like simulations where learners practiced pragmatic formulas in semi-​authentic interactions with video-​based characters and received timely feedback according to pre-​determined assessment criteria. Learner interviews revealed that while the learners enjoyed the real-​ life videos filmed in Shanghai and the simulated interactions that are not possible in traditional classrooms, the instructional style in response formats and the lack of rewards detracted from engagement, playfulness, and game re-​playability.53 Mobile technology has also been applied to language learning in general (mobile-​assisted language learning, MALL)54 including L2 pragmatics. More specifically, researchers have investigated the learning of Spanish pragmatics through a virtual mobile game called Mentira set in a local Spanish-​speaking neighborhood in the southwestern U.S.55 As learners engaged in a series of mystery-​solving tasks, they received immediate contextualized feedback such as multiple clues and progress in the game in return for preferred pragmatic choices and fewer clues or a game-​over for less appropriate pragmatic uses. According to the researchers, experience of these consequences in a virtual setting may become meaningful if they can provoke learners’ emotional responses driving them to modify their pragmatic behaviors. Because learners did not necessarily notice feedback that was not sufficiently salient, researchers underscore the importance of extensive, timely, and individualized pragmatic feedback from the game, peers, and expert speakers of the L2, which learners may rarely obtain in classroom, study abroad, or other authentic contexts.56 However, as results from this line of research are still limited, the pedagogical role of games and virtual environments needs to be further examined. In the sections above, we discussed the potential affordances, possibilities, and challenges of CMC, games, and virtual environments for the learning of L2 pragmatics and intercultural understanding along with some 52  Sykes (2008). 53 Taguchi, Li, and Tang (2017). 54  MALL focuses on a subset of CALL promoted through hand-​held computer-​based devices such as mobile phones, portable tablets, and electronic pocket dictionaries (Burston 2013). 55  Holden and Sykes (2013). 56  Holden and Sykes (2013); Sykes and Dubreil (2019); Taguchi and Roever (2017).

251

Incorporating Technology  251 creating evaluating analyzing applying understanding remembering

Figure 11.1 Revised Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning.

examples of how these have been applied to pragmatics-​focused instruction. CMC platforms can be employed alone or in combination to maximize their benefits and compensate for shortcomings. In the following section, we will turn more generally to the pedagogy of L2 pragmatics to examine how instructional technologies can help activate different levels of cognitive learning in order to stimulate learners’ higher-​order thinking.

Instructional Technologies and Learner Cognition Let us now consider a range of task types that may be more or less suitable for CMC or other forms of CALL. Although technology may facilitate the learning of pragmatics, not all tasks are equally amenable to delivery within a given technology platform. To analyze task characteristics in terms of the levels of cognitive demand, Bloom’s renowned taxonomy may be useful. A revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy provides six categories of cognitive processes: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating (see Figure 11.1).57 The lowest cognitive process, remembering, means retrieving relevant information from long-​term memory and can be exemplified by simple recall or recognition of facts.The second level, understanding, is still considered a lower-​level cognitive activity requiring learners to construct meaning and explain or interpret the material on their own, for example through exemplifying and paraphrasing. The other categories, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating, represent higher levels of cognitive learning, requiring greater cognitive demands. Applying involves using newly acquired information or skills in a new situation, while analyzing constitutes an examination of the components to determine their relationship to one another and to the overall structure through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Evaluating and creating call for higher-​order thinking at abstract levels. At the level of evaluating, learners assess and critique the value or quality of the material. In creating, learners compile elements to generate a new, coherent construction (see the “Information” section at the end of Activity 11.1 for explanations, sample tasks for pragmatics instruction, and 57  Anderson et al. (2014) based on Bloom (1956).

25

252  Incorporating Technology key words for prompting such tasks in each category). As with any area of learning, it is important to diversify tasks in terms of their cognitive demands in pragmatics-​focused instruction in order to activate various levels of cognition on the part of learners. What effective activities can be developed and what categories of cognitive process can be activated through CALL? The answer depends largely on what teachers wish learners to achieve, but learning can be boosted or constrained by the technology selected for use. For example, simple retention of vocabulary items and their meanings may be accomplished effectively through online exercises where there is one-​to-​one correspondence between a question and an answer. Learners can effectively use computerized exercises to acquire certain components of knowledge and check comprehension or retention of that knowledge at lower cognitive levels. In pragmatics-​focused instruction, this level of learning may involve the pragmalinguistic learning of routine formulas and the development of automaticity in producing them. Learning at these levels should not be neglected as they become the building blocks for higher-​order cognitive processes. Meanwhile, if available technology allows for interaction among learners (as CMC platforms do), learners can activate this basic pragmalinguistic knowledge to negotiate meaning in spontaneous conversation or employ this knowledge to engage in metapragmatic discussion, for example, of observed sociopragmatics practices of the L2 community. These activities require higher-​order cognitive processes, such as analyzing, evaluating, and creating in the revised taxonomy mentioned earlier.

Discussion In this chapter, we viewed technology broadly to discuss potential application of various electronic resources to pragmatics-​focused learning and teaching. We first looked at the use of audio and video materials as well as other forms of visual support CALL makes possible with relative ease. We then discussed web-​ based curricular materials that promote learners’ self-​ access in the learning of speech acts as well as pedagogical advantages of a range of CMC tools (e.g., SNSs, discussion forums, and video-​conferencing) and gaming and other virtual media. We also reviewed research on some instructional strategies used to teach L2 pragmatics as well as areas of L2 pragmatics that may be amenable to teaching through technological affordances. Finally, using the revised Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive process, we considered different categories of cognitive demands that can be incorporated into technology-​ mediated instruction in L2 pragmatics. Learners can not only practice and activate lower-​level cognitive thinking while working individually on online exercises but also take advantage of various CMC platforms, games, and virtual environments for meaningful social interaction between peers and expert speakers of the L2 through telecollaboration. If used effectively, these technologies can also enable extensive feedback from the teacher, curriculum writer, peers, and expert speakers. Finally, authentic interaction through

253

Incorporating Technology  253 telecollaboration can facilitate learners’ self-​reflection, metapragmatic analysis, and critical thinking when they tackle tasks requiring higher-​order cognitive processes (i.e., applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating). The first activity below provides readers with an opportunity to consider various forms of technology that may best facilitate tasks at different levels of cognition. This activity is designed to help teachers when they have pragmatics-​oriented exercises in mind requiring multiple levels of cognitive demands and wish to expand their instructional and technological repertoire by matching forms of technology with the demands of the exercises. The second activity offers a chance to brainstorm on a possible pragmatics-​ focused activity or curriculum in consideration of both learners’ technological capacities and instructional needs in L2 pragmatics. Fortunately, a variety of technologies are becoming more reliably available primarily through computer mediation so that learners now have access to multisensory input and authentic interaction in extended discourse. Conversely, technological glitches may crop up and hinder effective operation of the program in question or may even deny access to what is otherwise conveniently available.Technological failure can frustrate or completely demotivate learners. Teachers need to ensure that learners have continuous access to necessary devices and that there is an adequate technological support system.

ACTIVITY 11.1  Expanding the Instructional and Technological Repertoire for L2 Pragmatics Instruction Objectives 1 You will be able to analyze pragmatics-​focused exercises in terms of the categories of the cognitive process. 2 You will be able to identify suitable form(s) of technology for the pragmatics-​ focused exercises requiring different cognitive demands. Suggested time: 20 minutes Materials • •

Information:“Revised Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive process” Task Sheet: “Different tasks, different technologies”

Directions 1 In groups of approximately four, (re)familiarize yourselves with the revised Bloom’s taxonomy using the Information provided. 2 Go to the Task Sheet. For each cognitive category, there is an example of pragmatics-​focused exercises representing that level of

254

254  Incorporating Technology cognitive demand. In your group, determine the forms of technology that may be compatible with each task and why. 3 Share your ideas with the whole class. Wrap-​up While some activities are a perfect match for CMC platforms, others may be better delivered through other types of technology even though they may not be cutting-​edge. This activity is designed to help you diversify your classroom activities in terms of their cognitive demands and to develop a repertoire of technologies conducive to your students’ learning.You can then choose the best media in light of the characteristics and availability of those technologies. Information: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Processa Categories of the cognitive process

Sample exercises for L2 pragmatics and key words

Remembering Recognizing or recalling certain information Understanding Interpreting or explaining the meaning of the material

Sample task: Identify three examples of discourse markers in the dialogue. Key words: identify, know, label, list Sample task: Explain in your own words what Speaker A implies when she says X. Key words: explain, give example, infer, interpret, classify, compare, paraphrase Sample task: Review the softening (mitigating) strategies used in making requests and predict how they apply when you refuse a friend’s invitation to his/​her birthday party. Key words: apply, carry out, use, implement Sample task: Analyze the reason why you think Speaker A used language X rather than language Y. (In doing this, consider the relationship between Speakers A and B and the situation they were in.) Key words: analyze, break down, compare, contrast, distinguish, select, outline Evaluating

Applying Using a newly learned concept in a novel situation

Analyzing Separating the whole into component parts so that its structure or the relationship can be clarified

Evaluating Making judgments regarding the material

25

Incorporating Technology  255 Categories of the cognitive process

Creating Designing and building a new structure possibly by assembling multiple elements to form a new whole

Sample exercises for L2 pragmatics and key words Sample task: Using the following rubric, evaluate your use of epistemic stance markers in your essay. Are they used logically? Do their levels of formality match that of your essay? Key words: appraise, critique, evaluate, assess, judge, detect, monitor Sample task: Imagine two people speaking to each other on the phone and construct a skit opening and closing a conversation between them. Key words: compose, compile, design, plan, generate, construct

Task Sheet: Different Tasks, Different Technologies Cognitive processes

Examples of pragmatic exercises

Remembering

From the word bank given below, choose five most preferred adjectives for praising your friend’s new car. In this video clip, in response to his friend’s question, Daniel says, “Is the Pope Catholic?” What does he actually mean? Choose the statement that is closest in meaning and explain your reasons. So far, we have observed how fluent speakers use hedges and delays in conversation and have practiced using them in pairs. Now discuss a controversial current issue with your telecollaborative partners. When you express disagreement, use hedges and delays when you think they are helpful. Listen to an excerpt from a political debate and guess the speakers’ stances and positions. What is the relationship between the speakers? How do they index their political and social identities? What is the level of formality of the situation? Why do you think so? Look at your classmate’s work and give feedback using the given rubric. How would the listener most likely understand your classmate’s meaning?

Understanding

Applying

Analyzing

Evaluating

Form(s) of technology

256

256  Incorporating Technology Cognitive processes

Examples of pragmatic exercises

Creating

Generate two new case studies of a challenging situation where you may encounter rudeness. Use all your multilingual resources to come up with possible replies that may be witty, humorous, or perceptive in these settings.

Form(s) of technology

 Adapted from Anderson et al. (2014) and Iowa State University’s Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (2012).

a

ACTIVITY 11.2  Brainstorming on a Technology-​assisted Activity or Curriculum Objectives 1 You will become aware of your students’ technological capacities as well as their instructional needs in L2 pragmatics. 2 You will be able to match your choice of technological resources with a pragmatics-​focused activity or curriculum that meets your students’ technological and instructional needs. Suggested time: 20 minutes (or more as needed) Materials • •

Information: “Open-​ended list of technological resources” Internet access (as needed)

Directions 1 In a group of about four, identify forms of technology, platforms, applications, and devices your students have access to and feel comfortable with. Also, consider the extent to which they have access to the software and hardware. If you are not sure, think of survey questions to ask your students. If your students turn out to be more technologically savvy than you, this may not be a concern, but if online education becomes necessary rather than optional for example, as in the COVID-​19 crisis, this is a crucial starting point. 2 Individually consider your students’ instructional needs in terms of L2 pragmatics. If necessary, look back on Chapter 5 and Activity 5.1 to identify the pragmatic target to be focused on in the activity or the curriculum being designed. Also brainstorm the instructional goals of your activity or curriculum through which to teach the selected pragmatic feature.

257

Incorporating Technology  257 3 Use the “Open-​ended list of technological resources” to brainstorm what forms of technology, platforms, applications, etc. you have available to design your activity or curriculum most effectively. For example, if you have an interactive activity requiring a CMC platform, think of which specific program may work best, what telecollaborative partners you can arrange, and what technological support is available to you and your students. 4 Share your thoughts, questions, or plans in your group and receive feedback. 5 Report back any insights you gained from this activity to the whole class. Wrap-​up The challenge is to select the technological medium of instruction that is realistic and suitable in terms of the task demand, instructional context, and students’ capacity and readiness for technology. In designing your activity or curriculum, try to envision the connections you may have or may be able to develop beyond your immediate instructional context. Consider which telecollaborative partners may be available and what activity or curriculum may be conducive to learners’ pragmatic needs. Information: Open-​ended List of Technological Resources This is a starting list of technologies potentially useful for your classroom. The list is suggestive as categories sometimes overlap, as do the technologies in their functions. Note that this list can quickly become obsolete or some items may be inaccessible depending on your location.You are invited to update the list and to add entries.a 1 Email and mailing lists 2 Social networking systems (SNSs) • Facebook: www.facebook.com • Twitter: https://​twitter.com/​explore • YouTube: www.youtube.com • WhatsApp: www.whatsapp.com 3 Online exercise-​making tools • Hot Potatoes (online exercise maker): http://​hotpot.uvic.ca • Trackstar (webpage organizer): http://​trackstar.4teachers.org/​ trackstar • Sea Monkey (web editor): www.seamonkey-​project.org • The Brain (mind-​mapping tool): www.thebrain.com 4 Learning management systems and wikis • Moodle: www.moodle.org • Blackboard: www.blackboard.com/​

258

258  Incorporating Technology •

5 6

7

8

Trapped in (K-​12-​oriented discussion tools and private text chatrooms): https://​tappedin.org • PBworks: http://​pbwiki.com • Google Classroom: https://​classroom.google.com Discussion platforms • Slack: https://​slack.com • Flipgrid: https://​info.flipgrid.com Blogs • Blogger: www.blogger.com/​start • Typepad: www.typepad.com • EduBlogs: http://​edublogs.org Chat and video-​conferencing programs • Zoom: https://​zoom.us • Skype: www.skype.com • Google Hangouts Meet: https://​gsuite.google.co.jp/​intl/​ja/​ products/​meet • Microsoft Teams: www.microsoft.com/​ja-​jp/​microsoft-​365/​ microsoft-​teams/​group-​chat-​software • Cisco WebEx: www.webex.com Gaming and virtual interaction • Second Life: http://​secondlife.com • World of Warcraft: www.worldofwarcraft.com • Activeworlds: www.activeworlds.com

  All the URLs listed here were accessed on October 16, 2020.

a

259

12  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics in the Classroom

Introduction Formal or informal assessment of learners’ pragmatic competence is an indispensable component in the teaching of pragmatics.1 Assessment gives insights into what the students have and have not learned. Assessment also provides teachers with feedback as to how effective their instruction has been and how well the assessment itself has been designed and conducted. It is only relatively recently that pragmatics has been incorporated into the L2 curriculum, albeit to varying degrees. Since efforts to assess learners’ pragmatic competence in the classroom have lagged instruction, the intention here is to give greater attention to this issue. In this chapter, we will first review some of the instruments with which to assess learners’ pragmatic competence in research literature that may be applicable to everyday classroom context depending on the resources available. Because different tools allow us to make an inference about different aspects of pragmatic competence to varying degrees, it is best if different assessment instruments are used in combination when possible.2 We will then focus on approaches to classroom-​based assessment and consider its practical applications to learners’ pragmatic competence. As the label suggests, classroom-​based assessment (also termed teacher(-​based) assessment, alternative (in) assessment, and performance(-based) assessment)3 is conducted by classroom instructors, not by an outside researcher or trained rater. Classroom-​ based assessment is intended not only to evaluate learners’ work but also to facilitate their development through feedback within the everyday instructional context. We will discuss examples of classroom-​ based assessment instruments, learner language given in response to those assessments, and possible teacher feedback. As part of classroom-​based assessment, we will take a look at self-​and peer-​ assessment, which is also inseparable from classroom instruction. Throughout this book, special attention has been given to the issues of 1  Ishihara (2009, 2010a, 2013b); Timpe-​Laughlin and Choi (2017); van Compernolle (2014). 2  Brown (2001); Cohen (2019a). 3  Ishihara (2009); Rea-​Dickins (2008).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003168188-12

260

260  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics learners’ agency and subjectivity (see Chapter 6 in particular). If teachers are to conduct culturally sensitive instruction, it becomes necessary to take learners’ goals and intentions into consideration in assessing their L2 pragmatic competence. Although most of the examples of classroom-​based assessment provided in this chapter have been piloted, the potential of these assessments has been researched only minimally, and the examples are only preliminary. Pragmatic competence is multi-​faceted; making it valid, reliable, and practical is highly challenging for teachers and researchers alike. Readers are invited to share ideas and experiences to further refine and diversify ways of assessing learners’ pragmatic competence.

Assessment of Pragmatic Competence in the Research Literature Throughout this book, readers have been reminded that the teaching of L2 pragmatics should include material that is informed as much as possible by research even if teachers are expert users of the language. While teacher intuitions have an important role to play, that alone is known to be an unreliable source (Chapter 3). Language samples collected by researchers, teachers, and students add key insights to the L2 pragmatics curriculum. Likewise, assessment of L2 pragmatics can reflect authentic language use more closely if there are other dependable points of reference than teacher intuitions alone. Along this line, let us now discuss examples designed to assess pragmatic competence reported in the research in L2 pragmatics, which may be useful in classroom contexts: 1 Multiple-​ choice or scaled-​ response items for assessing pragmatic competence 2 Criteria for assessing interactional competence 3 Dialogic assessment of metapragmatic awareness 1  Multiple-​choice or Scaled-​response Items for Assessing Pragmatic Competence Although valid and reliable multiple-​ choice questionnaires are time-​ consuming to develop and therefore may not be realistic for everyday practice, some of the rigorous efforts to construct a battery of tests measuring pragmatic competence4 may be adapted for classroom-​based assessment. For example, the following item may be used to assess learners’ metapragmatic judgment of requests.

4  See, for example, Grabowski (2013); Hudson, Detmer, and Brown (1995); Roever (2005); Timpe-​Laughlin (2013); Youn (2015, 2020).

261

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  261

Example 1 Katie is buying some stamps at the post office. As she goes up to the counter, the man says: “Hi, how can I help you?” Katie: Hi, I’m terribly sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you might be so kind as to give me ten 50-​cent stamps. Her utterance is: (a) very impolite/​very harsh (b) not quite polite/​soft enough (c) completely appropriate (d) a little too polite/​soft (e) far too polite/​soft*5 Similarly, in the wake of instruction on compliments and responses, items such as Example 2 may be used in the classroom context:

Example 2 Two newly acquainted friends are meeting at Gabriel’s new flat. Gabriel: So, do you like my new flat? Duke: It’s very small. My flat’s much bigger. Is Duke’s response appropriate? (a) (b) (c) (d)

(Highly) appropriate Somewhat appropriate Somewhat inappropriate (Highly) inappropriate*6

Example 3 Two friends are preparing for a party. Grace:  Wow, you made—​like a ton of stuff.This really is a lot of food! Ming:  Oh, just a few little things really.

5 Adapted from Roever, Fraser, and Elder (2014: 80); Taguchi and Roever (2017: 234). Intended answers are marked with * in the examples in this chapter. 6  Adapted from Taguchi and Roever (2017: 234).

26

262  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics In the conversation, what is Ming probably doing? (a) (b) (c) (d)

Agreeing that there are many things Strongly denying Grace’s point of view Understating his own achievement* Emphasizing his own accomplishment7

Example 2 can be used to assess learners’ metapragmatic or sociopragmatic awareness of what constitutes a socially preferred behavior in the second pair part of the adjacency pair. Learners can also be asked to justify their choice of answer and write a more socially preferred response for teachers to assess their pragmatic production. Example 3 can assess learners’ identification of compliments in the first pair part as well as understanding of the downgrading involved in the second pair part, which attempts to minimize the credit received. Although effective multiple-​choice items are difficult to construct, they can provide excellent springboards for discussion. For advanced students, teachers may, for example, wish to demonstrate how some (or all) of the answer choices in Example 3 could be appropriate in different contexts depending on the relationship, intonation, facial expressions, and other cues. (See also Chapter 8 for a multiple-​choice item for teaching and assessing comprehension of implicature.) Researchers taking a discursive approach to L2 pragmatics would underscore the ability to jointly accomplish pragmatic actions turn-​by-​ turn in sequential organization8 (interactional competence, see Chapter 1). For example, following instruction on the discourse of invitations, the following item may be used to assess learners’ understanding of pre-​ invitation sequences:

Example 4 Kevin calls Melissa. Kevin: Hi Melissa, this is Dick. Melissa: Hi Dick. Kevin: How are ya doin’? Uh, what are you guys doing? Melissa: Well we’re about to leave for class. Why?

7  Adapted from Walters (2009: 39–​40). 8  Al-​Gahtani and Roever (2012); Kasper and Ross (2013); Youn (2015, 2020); Youn and Bogorevich (2019).

263

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  263 In the conversation, what do you think Kevin will most probably do next? (a) (b) (c) (d)

Suggest going to class with Melissa and the others Offer to carry Melissa’s heavy book bag for her Explain that he had intended to make an invitation* Takes his time inviting Melissa and others to do something9

Another way to test learners’ metapragmatic judgment of sequential organization of the workplace discourse is to ask them to compare and contrast two extended dialogues, such as between a boss and an employee and to choose the more successful one in a given sociocultural context.10 2  Criteria for Assessing Interactional Competence Despite the co-​constructed nature of interactive meaning making, there have been research efforts to isolate frequently occurring features in order to assess individual speakers’ pragmatic competence. One way to do this is by carefully identifying recurring pragmatic and interactional features through conversation analytic description.11 For example, research showed that in a role-​play in which a learner is to ask a professor for a letter of recommendation for a scholarship, pragmatically advanced learners were more likely to use a pre-​request sequence (e.g., “I have a favor”).12 In contrast, lower-​level learners typically sounded abrupt by broaching the request immediately after an initial greeting. Because the due date was set fairly tightly in the role-​play situation, advanced learners often volunteered this information while making the request, demonstrating sensitivity to the situation. Beginners rarely did this until asked about the deadline. Advanced learners generally used bi-​ clausal requests with modals in conditional structures (e.g., I was wondering if you could…), but beginners often used a declarative statement (e.g., I need …). These pragmatic features can be assessed through the criteria of content delivery, sensitivity to situation, and language use, respectively (see Example 5).13 Moreover, in the same role-​play, most advanced learners showed their engagement in the conversation using listener feedback (e.g., backchannels, see Chapter 8) suitable to the interactional discourse, while this was not always the case with beginners. Advanced learners were more often able to give an aligned response to the first pair part of an adjacency pair and 9  Adapted from Walters (2009: 39). 10 See Taguchi and Roever (2017: 235) for an example. 11 Youn (2015, 2020). 12  Al-​Gahtani and Roever (2012). 13 Youn (2015, 2020).

264

264  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics used a delay in response to a dispreferred statement made by the professor. However, beginners were often unable to organize their sequences this way. These interactional features can be isolated and scored through the use of the criteria, engagement with interaction and turn organization, as in the following rubric (see Activity 12.1 for assessing learner language using this rubric).

Example 514 Content delivery

3 Clear, concise, and fluent delivery. Smooth topic initiations with appropriate transitional cues (pre-​ request) and clear intonation.

Language use

Sensitivity to situation Engagement with interaction

Turn organization

Pragmatically appropriate linguistic expression (bi-​clausal, conditional, modal verbs). Good control of grammar and vocabulary that doesn’t obscure meaning.

Consistent Demonstrates Complete evidence of understanding adjacency awareness and of previous pairs (granting sensitivity to turns. a request and situations in Evidence of thanking). contents or engagement Interactionally tone (provision with meaningful of explanation, conversation pauses. acknowledgment (clarification, No awkward of short due backchanneling, pauses or date). non-​verbal abrupt cues). overlaps.

2 Generally Mono-​clausal smooth structure but and modals. occasionally No or unclear or inconsistent unnecessarily use of wordy. bi-​clausal Abrupt topic structures. initiation Occasionally (no pre-​ inaccurate request). linguistic Unclear expressions transitional that cues. sometimes obscure meaning.

Inconsistent Inconsistent evidence of demonstration awareness and of previous sensitivity turns. to situations Some but (provision of inconsistent explanation evidence of but no engagement acknowledgment with of a short due conversation. date).

Some delayed turns and absent turns in adjacency pairs (absence of answers and thanking).

1 Choppy, fragmented, or minimal delivery.

Little evidence Evidence of not of situational understanding sensitivity (no previous turns. acknowledgment Noticeable of a short due absence of date, insistence engagement on timely markers. submission of the letter).

Noticeably abrupt overlap or no pauses between disagreements and refusal. Noticeably long pauses or noticeable cutoff between turns.

Abrupt, direct, or not sufficiently polite expressions. Inaccurate and limited linguistic expressions that obscure meaning.

14  Adapted from Youn (2012).

265

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  265 The researcher reported that pragmatically competent raters with ESL training were able to use these criteria consistently after going through extensive rater training.15 This line of data-​driven assessment of pragmatic competence may be applicable to some classroom contexts, especially where these pragmatic and interactional features are extensively taught and resources for pragmatic rating are available. Researchers in L2 pragmatics assessment also argue that open role-​plays, in which learners are to negotiate spontaneously without pre-​determined outcomes, can elicit pragmatic performances close to naturally occurring talk, enabling raters to assess the ability to interactionally achieve a range of language functions.16 3  Dialogic Assessment of Learners’ Metapragmatic Awareness With cognitively advanced learners, especially in small classrooms, teachers may choose to probe sociopragmatic or metapragmatic awareness through dialogic intervention during regular class time. Teachers can stimulate learners’ powers of observation by asking questions that direct their attention to critical aspects of the interaction. This type of dialogic inquiry can also challenge learners to deeply consider social contexts and cultural practices involved in the interaction.This approach is similar to dynamic assessment,17 in that instruction and assessment are integrated into a unified activity to provide dialogic scaffolding. For instance, one researcher used a short dialogue as a springboard for discussion and asked learners a series of questions that prompted speculation on the impact of various contextual factors.18 In this extended class discussion, learners were guided to collaboratively analyze an interaction between a male boss and a female employee, in which he mentioned her perceived weight loss and paid her a compliment on her appearance. Through teachers’ prompts, learners co-​constructed an interpretation that the boss might be displaying special affection for the employee, which might be perceived as a type of sexual harassment in the workplace. In response to teachers’ challenges (e.g., How about if…,What evidence can you see in the conversation?), learners jointly concluded that the female employee was feeling uncomfortable and acting in a distant and unfriendly manner by changing the subject abruptly to a work-​related matter without accepting the compliment (Example 6, Turns 1–​4). When the teacher further challenged learners to contemplate the issues of gender and hierarchy, learners argued that it would be even more inappropriate for a subordinate to broach the topic of weight. The teacher then called on another student who has been silent (Turn 24): 15 Youn (2015, 2020). 16  Al-​Gahtani and Roever (2012); Okada (2010);Youn (2015, 2020). 17  Lantolf and Poehner (2008); van Compernolle (2014, 2019). 18  McConachy (2013).

26

266  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics

Example 6 1 Seiji: Um,… if they have known each other for a long time, Jane might say at least “thank you.” 2 T: Ah, right, yeah. Good point.You think that she’s really not comfortable. 3 Seiji: Yeah. 4 Tai: She might say, “Stop kidding me.”19 … 24 T: Hikari, what do you think? 25 Hikari: Um, I think if [the boss] is [the employee’s] direct supervisor, [she] shouldn’t say such a thing to her boss. But at the same time, on the other hand, for my working environment, I and my co-​workers often say such a thing to the head of the store. 26 T: Is it okay? 27 Hikari: Because he is a very friendly person, so we often say such a thing.20 In Turn 25, Hikari agreed with her peers’ earlier interpretations and yet offered a counterargument that contradicted this view. Upon the teachers’ prompt, she explained that another contextual factor, namely psychological distance, invoked by the boss’s personality, overrides the gender and hierarchy in her authentic experience (Turn 27). This point adds another contextual factor to be analyzed, further cultivating the learners’ metapragmatic awareness of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues embedded in the discourse. Throughout this collaborative exploration, the teacher provides effective scaffolding during the collaborative discussion while informally assessing the status of learners’ metapragmatic awareness. Notably, learners build on each other’s contribution, jointly furthering the metapragmatic analysis.21 Implementation of such metapragmatic discussion requires a higher level of proficiency, although beginning-​level learners may need to use their L1 with a bilingual teacher who speaks it competently.

19  McConachy (2013: 107). 20  McConachy (2013: 107). 21 See McConachy (2013) for further theoretical interpretations of the excerpt. Also see van Compernolle and Henery (2014); van Compernolle, Gomez-​Laich, and Weber (2016) for dynamic assessment of learners’ pragmatic competence in the classroom context (i.e., second-​person pronouns tu/​vous in French and tú/​usted in Spanish).

267

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  267

Classroom-​based Assessment of Pragmatic Competence Let us now return to pragmatics assessment in the classroom context. As mentioned earlier, classroom-​based assessment conducted by the teachers themselves is designed (at least partially) to facilitate learners’ development within the instructional context. The assessment is thus often embedded in instruction and made directly on the actual learner performance. Classroom-​based assessment contrasts with the type of traditional assessment, which sometimes takes the form of standardized multiple-​ choice items and measures learners’ knowledge of language in numerical terms for the purpose of rank-​ordering them.22 Although pragmatic competence may best be assessed in naturally occurring conversations in authentic contexts, that is virtually impractical in most classroom settings. Because classroom-​based assessment has received little attention in L2 pragmatics research,23 this may be an area best explored by teachers themselves, who may wish to consider various assessment instruments illustrated below for pedagogical purposes.24 In assessing learners’ pragmatic competence, teachers may find rubrics (or checklists)25 useful. As in backward assessment, in which teachers first identify an instructional end point to be achieved and work toward it through instruction, the use of rubrics highlights important pragmatic aspects being focused on and enables students and teachers alike to pay attention to those aspects during instruction and assessment.As in dynamic assessment, classroom-​based assessment, especially formative assessment, can be seamlessly integrated into the instruction. For example, with the teacher’s guidance, learners can engage in self-​or peer-​assessment of pragmatic use, where the assessment process itself can feed into the learning of pragmatics. Similarly, learners’ (meta)pragmatic awareness can be informally assessed during class discussion as learners contribute their pragmatic observations (as in Example 6). A principle of classroom-​based assessment is that the choice of criteria in the rubric aligns with the instructional goals in a consistent manner.26 In other words, the focus of instruction receives major emphasis in the assessment of learners’ achievement. In addition, it is important that learners be informed of the assessment criteria ahead of time. In designing criteria for assessing pragmatic competence, teachers may ask one or more of the following questions: 22  McNamara (2001). 23  Ishihara (2009, 2013a, b);Youn and Bogorevich (2019). 24  For example, although DCTs (especially written and single-​turn DCT) do not accurately assess online pragmatic competence in spontaneous interaction, they can serve as pedagogical tools for developing (meta)pragmatic awareness as well as eliciting and assessing pragmalinguistic knowledge (Ishihara 2009; Ishihara and Chiba 2014; see also Chapter 3). 25 While evaluation using rubrics shows the degree to which the criteria are achieved, checklists consist of a dichotomy simply indicating whether or not those criteria are met (Tedick 2002). See Example 18 for a sample of a checklist for assessing the structure of written request discourse. 26  Brown (2004); O’Malley and Valdez Pierce (1996).

268

268  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics

• To what extent are learners able to understand the pragmatic meaning

being created in context? • How is the learner’s language most likely interpreted by L2 community members, for example, in terms of (in)directness, (in)formality, or (im) politeness? • To what extent do learners understand the likely consequences that might result from their pragmatic choices in the L2 community? Below are the specific dimensions of pragmatic language use we might teach and assess:

• Mitigators/​downgraders and upgraders (e.g., a big favor, I just need…) • Grammatical structures (e.g…Can you…/​Would you./​I was wondering • •

• • • •

if…/​Would it be possible…?/​I need…) Strategies for delivering a speech act (i.e., selection of supportive moves and the way they are used) (e.g., giving a reason for a request, apologizing for the trouble, thanking for complying with the request) Level of (in)directness, (in)formality, and (im)politeness negotiated in the interaction: the extent to which learners are sensitive to the overall pragmatic tone (e.g., how (in)formal, engaged, or certain the speaker appears to be through the use of verbal and non-​verbal cues such as pragmatic markers, see Chapter 4) Turn organization or rhetorical structure of the spoken/​written discourse (e.g., sequential organization starting from explanation, grounder, then request; introduction-​body-​conclusion) Listener feedback (backchanneling), pauses (e.g., in dispreferred response, see Chapter 4), and fillers (e.g., by the way, speaking of…, well, um) Handling of cultural norms in the L2 community: the extent to which the speakers adhere to local sociocultural norms (if in fact this is their intent) Handling of cultural reasoning behind the L2 pragmatic norms: the extent to which learners understand an insider perspective behind a certain pragmatic action

These suggestive lists represent the scope of potential instructional targets and assessment criteria, which teachers can select, add to, or adapt for their instructional purposes and contexts. Ideally if teachers have access to baseline data through either formal or informal research of (naturally occurring) pragmatic behavior sampled from pragmatically competent speakers and use these data as a reference point in teaching and assessing learners’ pragmatic competence. It is also important to assess not only productive but also receptive pragmatic competence as well as metapragmatic awareness. Along with learning what to say and how to say it, learners need to interpret what others say as it is commonly understood in the community in the given context. Assessment tools for assessing receptive pragmatic competence (pragmatic

269

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  269 comprehension) can include elicitation of textual interpretation in context and acceptability judgment in the multiple-​choice or scaled-​response format (Examples 1–​4 and 7). Classroom-​based assessments would inform teachers regarding learners’ level of receptive pragmatic competence while providing feedback to the learners as to their understanding of likely pragmatic interpretations in that particular context. Let us now look at examples. Assessment of Receptive Pragmatic Competence Receptive pragmatic competence can be assessed through multiple-​choice or scaled-​response items (see also Examples 1–​4 above). To elicit pragmatic judgment visually, a formality judgment scale allows even young learners to demonstrate their pragmatic comprehension. For example, the following item asks children about the relative levels of formality of two pragmatic formulas:

Example 7 When a well-​dressed gentleman introduces an elephant to you, you say: ①   How do you do? ②  Nice to meet you. ② informal

① formal

In this example, a picture book contains a scene of a well-​ dressed gentleman giving away baby elephants on the street. On the next page, a boy says, How do you do? while respectfully bowing and lowering his hat.27 Here, the teacher can elicit other possibilities from learners or introduce other formulas such as Nice to meet you. Learners can then compare the level of formality of these expressions and point or mark Xs on the scale. Here, learners are exposed to pragmatic choices so that they can make a selection according to their intentions in context, which is an attempt to go beyond the prescriptive teaching of manners. Benefits of this judgment task include the visual and kinesthetic (hands-​ on) activity this scale allows as well as some pragmatic variation this approach can bring up for discussion. In a study teaching and assessing young learners’ pragmatic development, nine-​year-​old learners paid attention to the body language of a character in a picture book courteously bowing and determined his utterance of How do you do? as a fairly formal expression.28 The learners 27  Joslin (1958). 28  Ishihara (2013a).

270

270  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics also compared pragmatic formulas such as I beg your pardon? and Excuse me? as well as You’re welcome, No problem, and No worries in relation to geographical locations and successfully demonstrated their pragmatic awareness on the above scale. Another form of dialogic assessment for adult and young learners integrates assessment into a classroom activity, allowing the teacher to informally observe and formatively assess learners’ comprehension of pragmatic nuances or tone. Learners can be guided to notice and discuss mixed emotions and nuances, as well as verbal and non-​verbal cues.

Example 8 Watch a video clip (or read a picture book) and discuss the nuances being expressed (e.g., being serious, cynical, shocked, confrontational, pessimistic, joking, or sincere). Pay attention to the speaker’s language, gestures, facial expressions, use of space, and eye contact, along with the tone of voice. Young learners can also act out some utterances or short skits, imagining how the speakers are feeling and use one of the emoticons (e.g.,   ), printed separately on a poster board) to show the speakers’ feelings for the teacher’s assessment (see also Chapter 8 for an activity for understanding implicature). Assessment of Productive Pragmatic Competence We now turn to the assessment of learners’ productive pragmatic competence. In this section, we will review a number of analytic scoring29 instruments, learner language, and sample teacher feedback. Here again, if teachers have actual language samples from expert speakers, the data will be a useful yardstick in assessment as well as in instruction. Example 9 presents a rubric used for classroom-​ based assessment of requests elicited through a written DCT followed by learner language and sample teacher assessment.

Example 930 a. Overall (in)directness, (in)formality, (im) politeness of the request head act (tone of the request): (e.g., intonation, use of eye contact/​gaze, body language if applicable)

4  3  2  1

29  For a definition of analytic scoring (as opposed to holistic scoring) and examples of more rigorous analytic and holistic rubrics for pragmatic competence, see Ishihara (2010a). 30  Adapted from Ishihara (2009: 455). See Chapter 7 for details of the instruction.

271

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  271 b. Choice and use of requesting strategies (e.g., too much or too little information offered overall, choice and use of strategies such as: giving a reason, getting a pre-​commitment, checking availability, promising to compensate, showing consideration for the listener, expressing apology/​thanks) c. Overall comprehensibility of the speaker’s intention in terms of appropriateness rather than accuracy (e.g., pronunciation, word choice, grammar, sequencing)

4  3  2  1

4  3  2  1

4: highly appropriate/​comprehensible; 3: somewhat appropriate/​comprehensible 2: less appropriate/​comprehensible; 1: inappropriate/​incomprehensible

Scenario: A university student is asking a professor for an extension on a paper (See Chapter 7, Teaching requesting, “Sample handout” and “Sample data” for the scenario and samples of the baseline data. Learners’ language is in bold comic font below in Karla’s role representing what they perceive as a common response in the L2 community.) Learner 1

Learner 2

Second week of instruction Karla:  Excuse me. I have a favor to ask of you. Could you postphone [sic] report? Prof. Johnson: But you knew the deadline, didn’t you? Karla:  Yes. But I was sick

Second week of instruction Karla:  Hello, I’m student at

Prof. Johnson: But you knew the deadline, didn’t you? Karla:  Yes.

Teacher assessment Tone of the request Strategies Comprehensibility

Teacher assessment Tone of the request Strategies Comprehensibility

since last month. So I couldn’t did my report.

2 2 2

Eighth week of instruction Karla:  Excuse me. I have a

favor of you. Could you postphone [sic] report?

your class. I want you to postpone…

Eighth week of instruction Karla:  Excuse me. My name is

1 1 1

Karla. I’m a student of your class. May I get some extention [sic] for the deadline of a course papers?

27

272  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics Learner 1

Learner 2

Prof. Johnson: But you knew the deadline, didn’t you? Karla:  Yes. But I was sick

Prof. Johnson: But you knew the deadline, didn’t you? Karla:  I know the deadline.

since last month. You know your report are so many. I want to do a good job. So could you postphone [sic] the deadline two days?

Teacher assessment Tone of the request Strategies Comprehensibility

I’m sorry. But, I have another three long course papers at same week. However I want do my best on all course papers. So, could you possibly extend the due date of a course papers for a few days?

Teacher assessment 2 3 2

Tone of the request Strategies Comprehensibility

4 4 4

Here, Learners 1 and 2 were university students in Japan taking the same class. Interestingly, their pragmatic competence developed differently, perhaps due to differences in motivation and beliefs about language learning.31 The next rubric assesses learners’ apologies in a similar manner, but the numerical assessment is accompanied by teachers’ narrative feedback, which makes it especially suitable for formative assessment. If teachers find this type of feedback unrealistic on account of its labor-​intensiveness, learners may be arranged to work in collaboration to come up with one set of responses per group. Some of the learners’ responses and feedback can then be shared in a whole-​class discussion in an attempt to fine-​tune learners’ pragmatic awareness.

Example 10 Scenario: John and Kevin are good friends in college.They arranged to meet to study together for an exam. Kevin arrives half an hour late for the meeting. (Learners respond in Kevin’s role below.) Learner 1a

Learner 2

John: (annoyed) I’ve been waiting at least half an hour for you!

John: (annoyed) I’ve been waiting at least half an hour for you!

31 See Ishihara (2009). Details of the instruction and materials can be found in Chapter 7.

273

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  273 Learner 1a

Learner 2

Kevin:  So what! It’s only an—​a meeting for—​to study.

Karla:  I am so sorry. … I studied until 3 in the morning last night and I couldn’t get up this morning. I will buy your lunch for the compensation. John: Well, I was standing here John: Well, I was standing here waiting. I could have been waiting. I could have been doing something else. doing something else. Karla:  Yeah, I’m sorry. But Kevin: I am very sorry for don’t make such a big keeping you waiting. I deal of it. should have called your cell phone. I won’t do this again! John: Well, it’s pretty annoying. Try John: Well, it’s pretty annoying. Try to come on time next time. to come on time next time. Teacher assessment Teacher assessment 1 Strategies of 4 3 2 1 1 Strategies of 4 3 2 1 apologies apologies 2 Word choice 4 3 2 1 2 Word choice 4 3 2 1 3  Level of formality 4 3 2 1 3  Level of formality 4 3 2 1 4  Pragmatic tone 4 3 2 1 4  Pragmatic tone 4 3 2 1 Comments Comments Considering that Kevin and John are good Kevin sounds very apologetic. He uses friends, the language is appropriately multiple strategies of apologies well to informal and grammatically accurate. express his sincerity. Because Kevin Kevin uses apologies minimally (and and John are good friends, Kevin’s not until the second turn) and even language can be less formal. For blames John for being upset.This makes example, instead of “I’ll buy your Kevin sound less apologetic than John lunch for compensation” he could say, expects him to be. Maybe Kevin isn’t “I’ll make it up to you. How about if feeling very sorry and is being a little I bought you lunch?” or just “I’ll buy confrontational with John. you lunch.”   Scenario and learner responses adapted from Chapter 14 of the first edition of this book (274–​275).

a

Visual aids in assessment as well as in instruction can work particularly well with young learners. Example 11 illustrates student-​generated visual DCT (SVDCT), which can be used after teaching and practicing simple requests (e.g., could you/​could I/​can you/​can I/​may I…) in context, possibly through a picture book. The teacher can ask learners to come up with their own scenario, draw that, and write down the request to be made in the scene. The example below was produced by a 12-​year-​old Japanese learner of English in Hong Kong after some pragmatic instruction on requests.32 32  Ishihara and Chiba (2014).

274

274  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics

Example 11

The drawing shows that roses are located close to a young female clerk. If this is a type of store in which customers pick their own flowers to purchase, the learner’s request Can you pass the rose, please [sic] can be assessed as indicative of a good command of requests in this context. Although young learners may not verbalize imagined contexts in sufficient detail, visual aids can help express their meaning effectively while supporting their contextualized pragmatic awareness.

275

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  275 Assessment of Metapragmatic Awareness Besides evaluating receptive and productive pragmatic competence, it is possible to assess learners’ ability to metacognitively analyze the pragmatics of the L2. If one of the primary goals of pragmatics-​focused instruction is to equip learners with the organizational awareness required for independent pragmatic learning and fine-​turning, it will be important to assess metapragmatic development. The following two examples elicit learners’ metapragmatic awareness of how the L1 and L2 are used in authentic contexts. Example 12 below contains a set of prompts that facilitate the analysis of the relationship between language and context based on an earlier task in which learners collected samples of authentic request discourses in their L1 Japanese and L2 English. Here, learners analyze how relative power, distance, and imposition can influence the language of request and request strategies.

Example 12 You did an excellent job of collecting authentic requests! Now let’s look back at how requests are really used in context in your English or Japanese data. 1 Comparing the dialogues you collected, analyze how P (power), D (social/​psychological distance), and I (level of imposition) influence the language of requests. [Learner response, originally written in L1 Japanese] In Japanese, when P is equal and D is small (close relationship), the language is hardly honorific with small I and even with large I. But when the listener’s P is high and D is large, honorifics are used regardless of the size of I. When P is large but D is small, I observed that speakers use informal honorifics rather than formal ones.

[Teacher feedback] Excellent observation! 2 Provide your hypothesis on how P, D, and I influence pre-​and post-​ request strategies. [Learner response, originally written in L1 Japanese] In Japanese when P is equal and D is small, the larger I is, the higher the frequency of strategy use, and the

276

276  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics smaller I is, the lower the frequency used. In contrast, when P is large and D is large, the chance of strategy use becomes high regardless of the size of I.

[Teacher feedback] Very good analysis. Now how does this apply to English? The influence of I in particular may be different in different cultures.33 Example 13 also builds on metapragmatic analysis but is a more extensive journal-​writing activity conducted as part of instruction focused on pragmatics and intercultural understanding. Prior to journal writing, learners can be guided to discuss pragmatic features (e.g., communication strategies, pragmatic markers, and face-​threatening speech acts) using a few authentic or naturalistic language samples. Learners can then be asked to keep a record of their growing pragmatic awareness based on the interactions they participate in or overhear. Learners can also analyze any intercultural similarities and differences they notice among the languages they use. Through journal writing, learners observe naturally occurring language and reflect on pragmatic norms and language forms involved in the data collected in a learners-​as-​ethnographers approach34 (see Chapter 6). The following discussion questions may serve as effective prompters:

Example 13 To assist you with your journal writing, think of a conversation or written interaction you recently heard, read, or took part in and then try to answer these questions: • • • • •

Who were the participants in the interaction? (e.g., friends, strangers, employer–​employee) Where did the interaction take place? Describe what you notice about the context. What did the participants want from each other? (e.g., friendship, help, a good time, or sympathy) How was the pragmatic meaning shown? Notice, for example, body language, sarcasm, exaggeration, softeners, hedging, understatement, stress, and intonation. Would the equivalent words or literal translations in another language you know carry the same pragmatic or social meaning? Why/​why not?35

33 See Ishihara (2009: 457–​458) for other examples of authentic learner analyses and teacher feedback. 34  Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan, and Street (2001). 35  Adapted from Sachtleben and Denny (2012: 135–​136).

27

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  277 Possible teacher assessment Assessment criteria

Assessment/​Comments

1. Observations of the interactants and context

Excellent Good Needs more work Excellent Good Needs more work Excellent Good Needs more work Excellent Good Needs more work

2. Analysis of pragmatic/​social meaning 3. Noticing and understanding of the language forms or paralinguistic/​extralinguistic features in context (Chapter 6) 4. Intercultural or cross-​linguistic analysis (e.g., cultural reasoning underlying language use)

In action research conducted with undergraduate student interpreters in New Zealand, learners showed awareness of various pragmatic features such as humor, pragmatic markers, speech acts, irony/​sarcasm, intonation, stress, implicature, and other interactional features.36 Thus this activity, with teacher’s individualized feedback, may be equally effective for teacher learners as well.37 The activity can also be adapted into a class discussion in which learners discuss critical incidents experienced while interacting in the L2 (see also Chapter 7 for narrative and case study approaches). So far, we have discussed the value of using research-​based information not only in teaching but also in assessing pragmatics and have looked at examples of classroom-​based assessment. Here we might remind ourselves that not all learners’ divergences from the acceptable range of community norms matter equally in authentic interactions.While some divergences (e.g., slightly awkward word choices) are unlikely to lead to misinterpretation of the learners’ intent, others (e.g., no mitigating expressions in refusals) may cause unintended confusion or conflict. In classroom assessment, we should make distinctions between more and less important features of pragmatics and focus on what is crucial in the feedback as it could cause serious pragmatic failure. As discussed in Chapters 5, 6, 9 and elsewhere, learners in general may wish to model themselves on expert speakers and follow generally preferred norms in the community. On other occasions, the same learners may wish to intentionally behave rather uniquely in order to negotiate their hybrid subjectivities. In such a case, assessing learner language against the range 36  Sachtleben and Denny (2012). 37 See Fujioka (2016) for a similar journal writing task for university students’ self-​assessment during study abroad.

278

278  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics of L2 norms may be perceived as cultural imposition since the learners are in fact attempting to express themselves in a way that distinguishes them from typical community members. For example, learners may wish to sound overly polite even in a fairly informal situation as a way of distancing themselves from a certain group of people they do not wish to associate with even though they are perfectly capable of speaking informally and amicably in other informal situations. In this case, teachers may decide to respect those learners’ agency and support them in achieving their goals. The next section shows how this culturally sensitive assessment might be realized in the classroom context. Assessing Pragmatic Competence Based on Learner Agency In considering L2 pragmatic development, we may bear in mind learners’ intercultural being and their growing multilingual identities as they develop their voices in the L2. Accordingly, teachers may take learners’ goals and intentions into consideration in culturally sensitive assessment. With this effort in mind, teachers could ask:

• To what extent are learners likely to achieve the goal (e.g., the match

between what they want to achieve and the most probable uptake, or consequences of their pragmatic choices)? • To what extent do the learners’ intention match the most probable interpretation (e.g., the fit between how (in)direct, (in)formal, and (im) polite the learner wants to sound, and how they probably sound to the conversational partner)? In this assessment, teachers can work with their students in detecting the nuances they wish to express through their pragmatic behavior. One way to support such learners’ multilingual agency would be to involve them in a partnership role in the assessment of pragmatics, as opposed to having teachers do it alone as in conventional classrooms. The following are two examples of teacher-​ student collaborative assessment of pragmatics based on learners’ goals. (Additional detailed assessment in numerical terms will appear in Example 16 as well as other variations in Activity 15.2.) To ensure that learners are familiar with the instructions and the requirements of the task, it is advised that the format and assessment criteria be clearly explained to learners, and, when possible, presented to them bilingually. Because learners may need experience in order to use this format effectively, the same or a similar format may be used repeatedly during instruction.

279

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  279

Example 14 Scenario: You are trying to do some homework, but your roommate Jenny is watching a sit-​com on TV and has the volume up so loud that it is distracting you and making it hard for you to concentrate. Write what you would say to her if you decide to speak to her about this: You say: [learner writes] Jenny, would you mind turning the volume down a little bit? Thanks. (a) Your intention/​goal as a speaker: How do you want to sound, and what do you want to achieve through your request? [Learner writes] I want to sound politely and getting my wish granted. [sic] (b) Most probable listener’s interpretation: [Teacher writes] The speaker made a fairly polite request. Most people in this situation would comply with this request. (c) Match between (a) and (b): [Teacher marks] Excellent Good Fair Poor

Example 15 Situation: Same as in Example 14 You say: [learner writes] Jenny, I’m trying to do my homework—​ I apologize to bother you but would you mind volume down a little bit? [sic] (a) Check and/​or circle (s) that best describe your intention as a speaker. [Learner responds below.] _​_​_​I want to make a request the way most people do in the community and get my request granted. _​X_​I would want my request to sound (a little) more ( formal /​ informal), ( polite /​less polite), (or _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​) than most other people and get my wish granted but still within the range of acceptable behavior. _​_​_​I choose not to use common behavior because I want to communicate my intentions (or not communicate them at all) in my own way.

280

280  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics _​_​_​ Specify what community norms you decide NOT to use and why you don’t want them:_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_______​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​​ _​_​_​ Other (Specify:_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​____​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​) (b) Most probable listener’s interpretation: [Teacher writes] The speaker made a very polite request. Most people in this situation would comply with this request but the request sounds so formal for a college student that it may seem fairly unfriendly or distant to the listener. (c) Match between (a) and (b): [Teacher marks] Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor For formative assessment, the largely narrative comments used in Examples 14 and 15 provide learners with individualized feedback. Alternatively, the evaluation could be made in numerical terms if desired, as in the next example. A more comprehensive assessment (Example 16) could include the following evaluative foci:

• Pragmalinguistic competence to use community norms: assessed through a) and c) below

• Awareness of the most probable interpretation: assessed through d) • Extent to which learner intentions match the most probable interpretation based on b) and the teacher’s assessment

Example 16 Scenario: Same as in Example 14. (a) What would most English speakers say? [Learner writes] Hey, Jenny, can you turn the TV down little bit so that I can finish studying? It’s kind of hard to concentrate, but I can probably take some time off afterwards. (b) Your intention [learner responds below] _​_​_​ I want to make a request the way most people do in the community to get my request granted. _​X_ I would want my request to sound (a little) more ( formal /​informal), ( polite /​less polite), or _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ than most other people and get my wish granted, but still within the range of acceptable behavior.

281

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  281 _​_​_​I choose not to use common behavior because I want to communicate my intentions (or not communicate them at all) in my own way. _​_​_​Specify what community norms you decide not to use and why you don’t want them:_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ _​_​_​ Other (Specify:_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​) (c) What would you say (if different from (a) above): [Learner writes] I hope you don’t mind my asking this big favor, I’m sorry if it trouble you but I am wondering if it is ever possible for you to turn the TV down just a little bit? I wish it is no problem for you. I very appreciate. (d) How does your roommate most likely interpret your request? [Learner writes] A little more polite than most Americans but considerate and nice. Teacher’s Evaluation 1 Linguistic ability to use community norms (a and/​or c above)

4   excellent 

  3    2  proficient  fair 

2 Awareness of most probable listeners’ interpretations (d)

4    3  highly aware  aware

3 Match between (b) learner goals/​ intentions and most likely interpretations

4     excellent

Total score

10/​12

  1 poor

  2    1      less aware  unaware

  3     2       good  fair 

1   poor

Teacher’s Comments You made a very polite request and showed a high level of consideration for the roommate. She will probably comply with this request, but the request sounds a little too formal. It also sounds very verbose, a bit distancing or scholarly for this informal situation.

28

282  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics Examples 15 and 16 show how teachers may assess learners’ pragmatic behavior based on their intentions while probing their pragmalinguistic control to produce perceived community norms. Ultimately, the degree of success is assessed not just by way of community norms but also by the learners’ level of pragmatic awareness and their ability to align their language with its community interpretation. In these examples, a range of perceived community norms becomes the baseline when learners wish to speak according to such norms. However, when learners do wish to diverge from them to negotiate their hybrid subjectivities, community norms will no longer be the sole reference point. Nonetheless, teachers may feel that this type of assessment is too complex for their particular learners or too time-​consuming in their instructional context. If that is the case, teachers could consider using another approach, which is simpler, yet equally sensitive to learners’ subjectivities, that is, to encourage learners to imagine a character—​a typical member of the L2 community—​ and then to demonstrate the language that this character would be expected to use. For instance, instead of asking: What would you say in this situation? the questions could be phrased as follows: • • • •

What would most speakers say in this situation? What would Mike say in this situation? What could Mike say and couldn’t say in this situation? or, What would be a typical response in this situation?

In this way, teachers can reconcile the wish to respect learners’ (occasional) intention not to speak like other L2 community members on the one hand, with the need to assess learners’ pragmatic awareness and linguistic command on the other. Another culturally sensitive approach to pragmatics assessment would be to have learners assess their own language use for their own purposes, and we now turn to this approach. Self-​and Peer-​assessment: Opportunities for Metapragmatic Reflection Self-​assessment affords learners an opportunity to take responsibility for assessing their own pragmatic competence, typically with some reflective prompts or assessment criteria provided by their teachers. The process

283

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  283 of making and renewing hypotheses about L2 pragmatics calls for active monitoring and assessing of pragmatic use and awareness. Reflection has already been identified elsewhere as potentially contributing to the effectiveness of L2 teaching and learning.38 Metapragmatic reflection entails having learners think deliberately about their own pragmatic competence, and this can take the form of self-​assessment along with peer review and debriefing. In metapragmatic reflection (as in Examples 12 and 13 above), learners can carefully observe pragmatic behavior and analyze contextual factors. Extending this approach to the assessment process, learners can further be encouraged to reflect on their own L2 awareness and production, using the authentic feedback they obtain from their conversational partners in natural settings and from instructors and peers in the classroom. To make metapragmatic analysis an effective part of instruction, learners need varying levels of guidance in how to conduct systematic self-​and peer-​assessment. Learners can be given a rubric or checklist with some clear examples. Teachers might routinely use a similar self-​ assessment format during instruction so that learners know what to do and how to do it. In a self-​assessment task, learners can be asked to compare their production with L2 models in order to evaluate key features of their own L2 pragmatic use. Assessment may also be undertaken in collaboration with teachers and peers. Unlike the case of assessment conducted by teachers alone, in collaborative assessment, learners first reflect on and assess their own language or that of peers. Then, teachers join to further guide their insights as well as to assess the learner language itself (as in Examples 14–​16). In developing assessment, teacher-​driven tools can be adapted to incorporate self-​or peer-​assessment. For example, teachers can provide reflective prompts that direct learners’ attention to key features of pragmatics. Learners’ self-​evaluation can be placed side-​by-​side with the teachers’ for comparison (see Chapter 9 for examples). Example 17 below is designed to facilitate learners’ reflections concerning their own pragmatic awareness (marked as *1 below) and linguistic control (marked as *2). It includes a successful example of authentic learner language and self-​assessment along with a sample of teacher feedback (see Chapter 7 for instruction given before and after this self-​assessment).

38 The Proficiency-​Oriented Language Instruction and Assessment (POLIA) Handbook (Tedick 2002), a curriculum handbook adapting National Standards for Foreign Language Education presents reflection as one of the six pillars of effective language learning. The revised handbook is available online (http://​carla.umn.edu/​articulation/​handbook.html, accessed on October 16, 2020).

284

284  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics

Example 1739 Scenario: A university student asking a professor for an extension on a paper. (See Chapter 7, Teaching requesting, Sample handout and Sample data for the scenario and samples of the baseline data. Learners’ language and analysis is in bold comic font below.) Karla: [Learner writes] Hi Professor Johnson. Um, will you do me a favor? I was wondering about the paper. Could I get an extension? Prof. Johnson:  But you knew the deadline, didn’t you? Karla: [Learner writes] I knew it. But I have three other papers. Self-​evaluation: First, mark an X for power (P), distance (D), and imposition (I) on the scale below and then write what Karla would say to Professor Johnson after class. Power (P)

Distance (D)

Imposition (I)

Low      high

close     distant

minor     major

1 Given the context, how appropriate was Karla’s request in terms of overall (in)directness, (in)formality, (im)politeness, and tone (e.g., intonation, gesture, eye contact)? (a) What part of Karla’s language demonstrates appropriate levels of (in)directness, (in) formality, and (im)politeness? (*1)? [Learner writes] I was wondering … was a polite expression. [Teacher feedback] Good. (b) What part of her language may need improvement considering the appropriate level of directness, politeness, and formality called for by this situation? (*1) What should she have said? Write the expressions you think she could have used. (*2) 39  Although it is best to assess learners’ spoken language in a role-​play (or in natural discourse if possible), analysis of written dialogue as illustrated here can facilitate metapragmatic analysis by both teachers and learners.

285

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  285 [Learner writes] Could I get an extension?—​I could have

asked more politely here, for example: Do you think it’ll be possible to get an extension? I was wondering if you could please, please extend the deadline for me.

[Teacher feedback] Yes, nice analysis and appropriate language! 2 Request Strategies (a) What requesting strategies did Karla use appropriately? Check the ones she used in the left column and write out the expressions she used in the right column. (*1) Requesting strategies

Karla’s language

✓ Getting a pre-​commitment

[Learner writes] Um, will you do

✓ Giving a reason for the request

[Learner writes] I have three

me a favor?

other papers

[Teacher feedback] Give more

details (e.g., I have three other papers due the same week. I’ve been working very hard but…)

Showing consideration for the hearer/​minimizing the imposition Apologizing Thanking/​expressing gratitude Sweetener Promising to pay back

(b) What other strategies could she have used? What might she have said? (*2) [Learner writes] I could have offered apologies or asked more humbly, for example: Thank you; that will be really helpful. [Teacher feedback] Good! I was wondering if you could please extend the deadline for me. I’d appreciate it.

[Teacher feedback] Good.

286

286  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics 3 Listener’s interpretation: How do you think Karla’s request sounds to Professor Johnson given the situation? Check the one that most likely represents the professor’s reaction. Then explain why you think that is the case. (*1) _​ _​ Prof. Johnson would be willing to give her an extension because… _​✓ He would give her an extension but may not be very happy with Karla’s language because… [Learner writes] My language is not very polite and the reason is unclear. It’s not convincing enough for the professor to happily extend the deadline. But I think he’ll probably give her extension considering the fact that she came to ask him. [Teacher feedback] Excellent analysis! _​_​He may not give her an extension because … Teacher’s Assessment *1: Assessment of awareness

*2: Assessment of language

✓ Excellent analysis

✓ Excellent language

Good analysis

Good language

Need more work with the analysis

Need more work with the language

In the classroom setting, teachers may identify common challenges and emphasize socially and contextually suitable L2 use. Learners may also need some pragmalinguistic scaffolding, such as grammar or word choice, in order to understand pragmatic meaning aptly or to communicate ideas in a more culturally preferred manner. Alternatively, learners may want to understand possible cultural reasoning behind certain L2 pragmatic uses. Teachers may also give individual feedback and provide related examples or more extended interactive practice. Depending on learners’ characteristics and learning style preferences, metapragmatic activities may require various degrees of scaffolding and feedback from the teacher. Example 18 illustrates a peer-​assessment activity as part of a lesson on writing a request email asking a professor for a letter of recommendation. After some awareness-​raising and email writing exercises, learners are given the following checklist to assess a peer’s email draft and invited to offer suggestions for improvement.

287

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  287

Example 1840 Work in pairs and familiarize yourself with the basic components of email requests below. Read your partner’s email carefully and answer the questions in the list. If the answer is “Yes,” put a check mark (✓) in the left column. If “No,” put a cross mark (✗) instead.Write down your suggestions below the chart so that your partner can refer to them when revising. Does the email have a subject? Does the email have a salutation? (e.g., “Dear X”) Can the professor identify the sender easily? (If not, did your partner help the professor remember who s/he is?) Did your partner make a request according to his/​her relationship with the professor? Did your partner explain the reason why s/​he needs a recommendation letter? Did your partner tell the professor the deadline? Does the email have a closing and/​or thanking (e.g., “Sincerely,” “Thank you”)? Did your partner sign at the bottom of the email?

Your Suggestions

To realize mutually effective peer-​assessment, teachers should aim to ensure a safe and trusting classroom environment in which learners feel comfortable providing and receiving constructive feedback. Peer-​assessment may not feed directly into the final grades due to potential inaccuracies, but the task can facilitate learners’ metapragmatic reflection on peers’ work as well as on their own.

Discussion Successful instruction in pragmatics cannot be complete without assessing learners’ pragmatic competence and metapragmatic awareness. This chapter first introduced sample assessment items from L2 pragmatics research and then focused on classroom-​based assessment of pragmatics in the everyday instructional context. The chapter provided sample assessment instruments, learner language and (meta)pragmatic awareness in those assessments, and sample teacher assessment and feedback. As has often been stressed elsewhere 40  Adapted from Akikawa and Ishihara (2010: 56).

28

288  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics in this book, pragmatic behavior among expert speakers encompass a healthy degree of variation, which is why some baseline data are recommended as a point of reference. To arrive at fair judgments and enhance reliability, teachers may wish to call upon extra raters in assessing learners’ pragmatic awareness or production. As pragmatically competent speakers assess various pragmatic aspects differently,41 raters require some sort of training or background information regarding the interpretation of each of the assessment criteria. Raters also need to reach some level of consensus on the ratings of anchor samples even though it is unlikely that they will reach perfect agreement because their appraisals of what constitutes acceptable pragmatic behavior could vary. Although such a procedure is time-​consuming and may not seem realistic for everyday practice, this process may work for a group of collaborating teachers.42 The assessment efforts introduced in this chapter are still preliminary and should be further refined and researched. The following activities provide opportunities to practice assessing learner language individually and collaboratively and to design assessments that take learners’ goals and intentions into account. Readers are invited to join these assessment endeavors and help enhance effective future practices.

ACTIVITY 12.1 Assessing Learners’ Pragmatic Competence Objectives 1 You will be able to assess learner language and give feedback to students. 2 You will compare and contrast your assessment with your peers’ and discuss possible compromises in case of discrepancies. Suggested time: 30 minutes Materials • •

Task Sheet: “Assessing learner language for pragmatics” Access to the Internet if possible, to listen to the audio files online

Directions 1 First, work individually at this task, as is often the case with the normal course of assessment in the classroom context. Read or 41  Ishihara, 2013b; Taguchi, 2011. 42  The collaborative rating approach is often used successfully in writing portfolio assessment. Further details of the procedure for rater training (although not specifically about L2 pragmatics) can be found elsewhere (e.g., O’Malley and Valdez Pierce 1996).

289

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  289 listen to the sample learner language given in the Task Sheet. Use the assessment rubric in Example 5 in this chapter and record your assessment for the two learners. 2 Get into a group of approximately four and compare your scores. In case of discrepancies, see if you can resolve the differences and agree on modified scores. 3 Each group reports back to the whole class on similarities and differences between their assessment outcomes and possible compromises. Wrap-​up Discuss the insights and challenges you may have gained or encountered while completing this task.What solutions might there be to issues and challenges in assessing learners’ pragmatic competence? Task Sheet: Assessing Learner Language for Pragmatics Read the scenario below and use the audio files available online to conduct the pragmatics-​focused assessment.a To help you with the assessment, the audio files are transcribed below using conversation analytic conventions. If you are unfamiliar with these, see “CA transcription conventions” at the end of the transcripts or rely on the audio files. Scenario: You have an appointment with Professor Brown today to ask for a recommendation letter for a scholarship for international students from your department and to ask a few questions about a course project. Your professor is meeting with you outside of office hours because you have a class during those hours. You are about to visit your professor.You’ve just entered the professor’s room. Learner 1 (role-​play transcript) 1 P: come i:n 2 (0.7) 3 J: hey 4 P: Hi Jessie how are you 5 J: I’m good how are you doctor Brown 6 P: good have a seat. what can I do for you today 7 J: a:hm (0.3) I was wondering >I’m I’m< applying for ahm 8 (0.5) department scholarship and I was wondering if 9 you could write a letter of recommenda-​tion? 10 P: uh huh­= 11 J: =though ahm: (1.0) I was s-​(.) eh I should have 12 asked you earlier cause the deadline is in (.) one

290

2

290  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics 13 week [from now (0.4) but a:hm (.) if you (0.2) could 14 P: [uhm:: 15 J: that’d be (0.3) great ahm= 16 P: =uh huh 17 (0.6) 18 J: but if you too busy that’s (0.4) °I understand° 19 (0.6) 20 P: yea:h one wee:k >I’d be I’d be happy to write a r-​< 21 a recommendation letter for you but one week might 22 be a bit diffi[cult (0.5) ahm the reason being is 23 J: [right 24 P: I’m going to a conference 25 J: o:h= 26 P: =actually I’m leaving tonight (0.5) and I’m gonna 27 be (.) gone for: a whole week 28 J: oh 29 P: and I’ll be quite busy (.) so: ahm (0.9) >I wonder if 30 it’s possible for me< to submit the letter a little 31 late 32 (0.9) 33 J: a:hm ((coughs)) (0.7) okay (.) ahm since it’s a 34 departmental (0.5) scholarship it might be 35 flexible I’ll (0.9) check with the department [office: 36 P: [uh huh 37 J: ahm (0.8) now 38 (1.4) 39 P: okay and if you could get back to me [on that then 40 J: [>yeah yeah< 41 P: okay 42 (0.9) 43 J: yeah but thank you (.) for ahm (0.9) ((coughs)) well 44 being (0.5) supportive 45 P: °uh huh° 46 J: yeah (0.3) if I-​yeah if you could that’s be (0.2) 47 nice 48 P: okay↑ Learner 2 (role-​play transcript) 1 P: hello:? 2 J: hello do you have time? 3 P: Yes Jessie please come in sit down 4 J: uh: 5 P: what can I do for you? 6 J: ah: I-​(0.7) I plan to apply (0.6) the international 7 student scholarship and I nee:d a letter (0.5)

291

Assessment of L2 Pragmatics  291 8 recommendation letter 9 P: ºuh huhº 10 J: so could you write me >could you write< it (0.4) for me? 11 P: Yes (.) I’d be happy to= 12 J: =°uh huh° 13 (2.2) 14 P: can I ask uh when the letter is due? 15 (0.4) 16 J: ah:: (.) it’s due in one week 17 P: °hmm° 18 (1.8) 19 P: a:h there’s a problem with that (.) ah next week I’m 20 going to a COnferenc[e 21 J: [°conference° 22 P: a::nd I leave for the conference tonight= 23 J: =hm: 24 P: uhm I’ll try to write the lette[r while I’m awa[y 25 J:   [°hm°     [°uh huh° 26 P: tsh uhm: but (.) let me ask you it (.) can the letter 27 be submi:tted after the deadline? Is that possible? 28 (1.0) 29 J: I don’t think so: 30 P: hmm: 31 (2.0) 32 P: okay well uh::: in that case↑ (.) let me I will try and 33 write it↑ (0.4) while I’m away↑ 34 J: °hmm° 35 P: ahm but (0.7) maybe could you CHEck (0.5) to see: if 36 there’s any 37 J: okay 38 P: flexibility [with the deadline 39 J: [uh huh 40 J: okay I will ºcheckº (0.9) the department (0.4) [office 41 P:   [great 42 J: =okay 43 (0.5) 44 P: great 45 J: ºmmmº= 46 P: =ah anything else? (0.4) [I need to know about 47 J:     [oh: 48 P: the letter? 49 J: ºmmmº 50 (1.5) 51 J: you can use hardcopy and (.) you can also you (0.7) 52 submit online (0.4) so which (0.6) do you prefer? 53 (0.3)

29

292  Assessment of L2 Pragmatics 54 P: tsh .hh ºuhº since I’ll be traveling 55 J: ºmmmº 56 P: and there’s a TIme limit↑ 57 J: ºmmmº 58 P: maybe: uh electronic [would be better I can send it 59 J:   [better okay 60 P: to you by [email 61 J: [ºuh huh uh huhº 62 P: ºuhmº (.) >is that< okay? 63 J: okay 64 (0.7) 65 P: great 66 (0.7) 67 J: thank you so much 68 (0.4) 69 P: no problem CA Transcription Conventionsb : -​ (.) >
serious “no.” Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1947–​1955. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., and Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–​31. Schegloff, E. A., and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–​327. Schieffelin, B. B., and Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–​191. Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–​ 174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-​Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–​42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–​32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, J., and von der Emde, S. (2006). Dialogue, conflict, and intercultural learning in online collaborations between language learners and native speakers. In J. A. Belz, and S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-​mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 178–​206). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Schneider, K., and Barron, A. (Eds.). (2008). Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schnurr, S., and Chan,A. (2011). Exploring another side of co-​leadership: Negotiating professional identities through face-​work in disagreements. Language in Society, 40(2), 187–​209. Schnurr, S., and Zayts, O. (2013). “I can’t remember them ever not doing what I tell them!”: Negotiating face and power relations in “upward” refusals in multicultural workplaces in Hong Kong. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10, 593–​616. Scott, B. (2016). “Force and grace.” In P. Friedrich (Ed.), English for diplomatic purposes (pp. 149–​172). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195–​215. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3), 209–​231. Shibata, M., Naka, K. and Fujiwara, Y. (2020). Eigo kyouikuno tameno kokusai eigoron. Eigono tayouseito kokusai kyoutsuugono shitenkara [Teaching English as an international language]. Tokyo: Taishukan. Shishavan, H. B., and Sharifian, F. (2013). Refusal strategies in L1 and L2: A study of Persian-​speaking learners of English. Multilingua, 32(6), 801–​836. Shively, R. L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatic instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 105–​137. Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–​1835.

326

326 References Shively, R. L. (2018). Learning and using conversational humor in a second language during study abroad. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–​22. Shulman, L. S., and Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–​271. Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency:Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356–​382. Siegal, M., and Okamoto, S. (1996). Imagined worlds: Language, gender, and socio-​ cultural “norms” in Japanese language textbooks. In Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 667–​678). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Siegal, M., and Okamoto, S. (2003). Toward reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of gendered speech styles in Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature, 37(1), 49–​66. Sifakis, N. C., and Tsantila, N. (2019). English as a lingua franca for EFL contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sifianou, M., and Garcés-​Conejos Blitvich, P. (2017). (Im)politeness and cultural variation. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, and D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 571–​599). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sinclair, J. M. (1997). Corpus evidence in language description. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, and G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 27–​39). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Smith, K., and Craig, H. (2013). Enhancing the autonomous use of CALL: A new curriculum model in EFL. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 252–​278. Spencer-​Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum. Staley, L. (2018). Socioeconomic pragmatic variation: Speech acts and address forms in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stapleton, P., and Shao, Q. (2016). A worldwide survey of MATESOL programs in 2014: Patterns and perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 10–​28. Statista.(2016).The most spoken languages worldwide.Retrieved October 15,2020,from: www.statista.com/​statistics/​266808/​the-​most-​spoken-​languages-​worldwide Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–​391. Swan, A., Aboshiha, P., and Holliday, A. (Eds.). (2015). (En)countering native-​speakerism: Global perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Swanson, P., and Early, P. (2009). Establish your presence in the blogosphere: A guide to blog development for the foreign language classroom. In C. Wilkerson (Ed.), Dimension (pp. 17–​28).Valdosta, GA: SCOLT. Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399–​431. Sykes, J., and Cohen, A. D. (2006). Dancing with words: Strategies for learning pragmatics in Spanish. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://​carla.umn.edu/​speechacts/​ sp_​pragmatics/​home.html Sykes, J. M., and Cohen, A. D. (2008). Observed learner behavior, reported use, and evaluation of a website for learning Spanish pragmatics. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, and S. Perpiñán (Eds.), Second language acquisition and research: Focus on form and

327

References  327 function. Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 144–​ 157). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Sykes, J. M., and Dubreil, S. (2019). Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 387–​399). New York: Routledge. Sykes, J. M., and Reinhardt, J. (2013). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Pearson. Tagg, C., Seargeant, P., and Brown, A. A. (Eds.). (2017). Taking offence on social media: Conviviality and communication on Facebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453–​471. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N. (2015a). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48, 3–​20. Taguchi, N. (2015b). Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N. (2015c). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-​ of-​ the-​ art article. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–​50. Taguchi, N., and Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80–​101. Taguchi, N., and Kim, Y. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-​ related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-​ making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416–​437. Taguchi, N., Li, Q., and Tang, X. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario-​based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4), 641–​660. Taguchi, N., and Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N., and Sykes, J. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Tajeddin, Z., and Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of Interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies: Investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. 6(4), 153–​180. Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., and Pashmforoosh, R. (2018). Idealized native-​speaker linguistic and pragmatic norms in English as an international language: Exploring the perceptions of nonnative English teachers. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(3), 300–​314. Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures: Handbook of pragmatics series, Vol.VII (pp. 391–​421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takahashi, S., Hardy, T., Negeshi, M., Hedei S., Mikami, N. et al. (2006). New Crown 1: English series (New Edition). Tokyo: Sanseido. Takamiya,Y. (2008). Blog o tsukatta sougou katsudougata nihongo kyouiku no jissen: Bunka o hihanteki ni toraeru koto ni yoru sutereo taipu daha no kokoromi [Breaking down stereotypes in Japanese language education: Seeing culture critically through blogging.]. In H. Hosokawa (Ed.), Kotoba no kyouikuo jissensuru taknkyuusuru: Katsudou gata nihongo kyouiku no hirogari [Practice and exploration of

328

328 References language education: Activity based Japanese language education] (pp. 184–​205). Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Takamiya,Y., and Aida Niendorf, M. (2019). Identity (re)construction and improvement in intercultural competence through synchronous and asynchronous telecollaboration: Connecting learners of Japanese in the United States and Sweden. In E. Zimmerman and A. McMeekin (Eds.), Technology-​supported learning in and out of the Japanese language classroom: Advances in pedagogy, teaching and research (pp. 111–​145). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Takamiya, Y., and Ishihara, N. (2013). Blogging: Cross-​cultural interaction for pragmatic development. In N. Taguchi and J. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 185–​214). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Takenoya, M. (2003). Appropriateness in terms of address. In K. Bardovi-​Harlig and R. Mahan-​Taylor (Eds.), Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from https://​ americanenglish.state.gov/​files/​ae/​resource_​files/​takenoya.pdf Takimoto, M. (2008).The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369–​386. Takimoto, M. (2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1240–​1253. Tanaka, L. (2015). Advice in Japanese radio phone-​in counseling. Pragmatics, 25(2), 251–​285. Tarandis, J., Ronald, J., Fujimoto, D., and Ishihara, N. (Eds.). (2020). Pragmatics undercover: The search for natural talk in EFL textbooks. Tokyo: JALT Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Tateyama, Y., and Kasper, G. (2008). Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In E.S. Alcón and A. Martínez-​Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 45–​71). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tatsuki, D. (2019). Instructional material development in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 322–​337). London: Routledge. Tatsuki, D., and Fujimoto, D. (Eds.). (2016). Back to basics: Filling the gaps in pragmatics teaching materials. Tokyo: JALT Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Tatsuki, D., and Houck, N. (Eds.). (2010). Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Tatsuki, D., and Nishizawa, M. (2005). A comparison of compliments and compliment responses in television interviews, film, and naturally occurring data. In D. Tatsuki (Ed.), Pragmatics in language learning, theory, and practice (pp. 87–​97). Tokyo: JALT Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Tedick, D. J. (2002). Proficiency-​ oriented language instruction and assessment: Standards, philosophies, and considerations for assessment. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Proficiency-​ oriented language instruction and assessment: A curriculum handbook for teachers. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. TESOL (2008). Position statement on English as a global language. Retrieved October 15, 2020, from www.tesol.org/​docs/​pdf/​10884.pdf?sfvrsn=2andsfvrsn=2 Theodoropoulou, I. (2015). Politeness on Facebook: The case of Greek birthday wishes. Pragmatics, 25(1), 23–​45. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-​cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–​109.

329

References  329 Timpe-​Laughlin, V., and Choi, I. (2017). Exploring the validity of a second language intercultural pragmatics assessment tool. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(1), 19–​35. Tomlinson, B. (2003). Material development courses. In B.Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 445–​461). London: Continuum. Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) (2017). SLA research and materials development for language learning. London: Routledge. Ton Nu,A.T., and Murray, J. C. (2020). Pragmatic content in EFL textbooks:An investigation into Vietnamese national teaching materials. TESL-​EJ, 24(3). Retrieved June 9, 2021, from www.tesl-​ej.org/​wordpress/​issues/​volume24/​ej95/​ej95a8/​ Usó-​Juan, E., and Martínez-​Flor, A. (2008). Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal, 62(4), 349–​357. van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development:A Vygotskian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Compernolle, R. A. (2019). Vygotskian cultural-​historical psychology in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 145–​160). New York: Routledge. van Compernolle, R., Gomez-​Laich, M. P., and Weber, A. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concept: A classroom-​ based study. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 341–​361. van Compernolle, R. A., and Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning, 64(3), 549–​578. van Compernolle, R. A., Williams, L., and McCourt, C. (2011). A corpus-​driven study of second-​person pronoun variation in L2 French synchronous computer-​ mediated communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 67–​91. Vásquez, C. (2014). The discourse of online consumer reviews. London: Bloomsbury. Vásquez, C., and Fioramonte, A. (2011). Integrating pragmatics into the MA-​TESL program: Perspectives from former students. TESL-​EJ, 15(2). Retrieved October 15, 2020, from www.tesl-​ej.org/​wordpress/​issues/​volume15/​ej58/​ej58a1 Vásquez, C., and Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the master’s TESOL curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5–​28. Vaughan, E., and Clancy, B. (2013). Small corpora and pragmatics. In R.-​T. J. (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics, Vol. 1 (pp. 53–​73). Dordrecht: Springer. Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-​EJ, 8(2). Retrieved October 15, 2020, from http://​tesl-​ej.org/​ej30/​a3.html Vellenga, H. (2011). Teaching L2 pragmatics: Opportunities for continuing professional development. TESL-​EJ, 15(2). Retrieved October 15, 2020, from www. tesl-​ej.org/​wordpress/​issues/​volume15/​ej58/​ej58a3 Vellenga, H., and Ishihara, N. (2016, November 6). Teacher development for teaching pragmatics: Sprinkled throughout? Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference of the American Pragmatics Association (AMPRA), Bloomington, IN. Verla, A. (2011). You should become thin or what NOT to say to your English teacher. Unpublished course paper, Columbia University Teachers College, Japan Campus, Tokyo. Vettorel, P. (2019). Communication strategies and co-​construction of meaning in ELF: Drawing on “multilingual resource pools”. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8(2), 179–​210.

30

330 References Vine, B. (2016). Pragmatic markers at work in New Zeaanad. In L. Pickering, E. Friginal, & S. Staples (Eds.), Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse (pp. 1–25). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wallace, M. J. (1998) Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walsh, S., and O’Keeffe, A. (2007). Applying CA to a modes analysis of higher education spoken academic discourse. In H. Bowles and P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes (pp. 102–​139). Bern: Peter Lang. Walters, F. S. (2009). A conversation analysis-​informed test of l2 aural pragmatic comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 29–​54. Wang, I. K.-​H. (2015). The use of dialogic strategy clusters for vocabulary learning by Chinese students in the UK. System, 51, 51–​64. Washburn, G. N. (2001). Using situational comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 21–​26. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Weisser, M. (2018). How to do corpus pragmatics on pragmatically annotated data: Speech acts and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wigglesworth, G., and Yates, L. (2007). Making difficult requests: What learners need to know. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 791–​803. Williams, M. (1988). Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common? Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 45–​58. Williams, S. (1997). My dog never says please. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House/​HarperCollins. Wolfson, N., and Judd, E. (Eds.). (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Wong, J. (2002). Applying conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40(1), 37–​60. Wong, J. (2011). Pragmatic competency in telephone conversation closings. In N. Houck and D. Tatsuki (Eds.), Pragmatics:Teaching natural conversation (pp. 135–​152). Alexandria,VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Wong, J., and Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/​EFL teachers. London: Routledge. Xiao-​Desai, Y. (2019). Heritage learner pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 462–​494). New York: Routledge. Yamada, T., Sakai, T., and Bushnell, C. (2019). Rakugo CALL program for Japanese language learning: Its development and possibilities for implementation. In A. McMeekin and E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Technology-​supported learning in and out of the Japanese language classroom: Advances in pedagogy, teaching and research (pp. 149–​ 170). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yates, L. (2003). Softening short requests. In K. Bardovi-​Harlig and R. Mahan-​Taylor (Eds.), Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State. Retrieved October 15, 2020, https://​americanenglish.state. gov/​files/​ae/​resource_​files/​short-​yates.pdf

31

References  331 Yates, L. (2015). Intercultural communication and the transnational: Managing impressions at work. Multilingua, 34(6), 773–​795. Yates, L., and Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Researching the effectiveness of professional development in pragmatics. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 261–​280). New York: Springer. Youn, S. J. (2012, October 19). Validating conversation analysis (CA)-​informed rating criteria for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Pittsburgh, PA. Youn, S. J. (2015).Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–​225. Youn, S. J. (2020). Interactional features of L2 pragmatic interaction in role-​play speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 201–​233. Youn, S. J., and Bogorevich, V. (2019). Assessment in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 308–​321). New York: Routledge. Young, R. F. (2019). Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 93–​110). New York: Routledge. Yu, M.-​C. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31–​53. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zimmerman, E., and McMeekin, A. (Eds.). (2019). Technology-​supported learning in and out of the Japanese language classroom: Advances in pedagogy, teaching and research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Zitzen, M., and Stein, D. (2004). Chat and conversation: A case of transmedial stability? Linguistics, 42(5), 983–​1021.

32

Index

Note: Page numbers in bold refer to tables; references to notes are provided as the page number followed by ‘n’ and the note number, e.g. 48n2. accommodation 22, 24, 51, 89n94, 105, 107–​8, 141, 151, 206, 213 acquisitional pragmatics see pragmatics action research 25, 30, 30n38, 34, 35nc, 277 addressivity/​address term 14, 17, 52, 61–​4, 77, 119, 127, 129, 142, 149–​50, 177, 200, 225, 245–​6 adjacency pair 13, 18, 66, 175, 178, 208, 218, 262–​4; see also pair advice-​giving/​advising 61, 67–​9, 174, 182, 184–​5, 193–​4, 196, 199, 224, 296 affect 4, 5n19, 9, 62, 65, 69, 117, 122, 130, 134, 137, 138, 148, 174, 177, 185, 188, 190, 220–​1, 265; see also emotion affiliation 4, 14, 125, 161, 175, 181 affordance 22, 27, 202, 246, 250, 252, 282 age 13, 32, 43, 49, 63, 113, 115nh, 123, 127, 129, 133, 149, 155, 157–​8, 161, 175–​7, 216, 221, 223–​4, 226, 230, 233, 236–​7, 299 agency 4, 16, 25, 27, 30, 100, 109, 111, 117, 123–​5, 126–​8, 130, 134–​5, 137, 187n52, 206, 228, 246, 249, 260, 278, 293–​4, 297, 299 alternative (in) assessment 259; see also classroom-​based assessment 6, 168, 259–​60, 267, 269–​70, 277, 287, 298 apologizing/​apology 8, 11, 40, 47–​9, 52, 61, 65–​6, 70, 81–​3, 85, 102, 141, 162, 199, 203n20, 210, 220, 222–​6, 228–​30, 234, 238, 250, 268, 271–​3, 279, 285 assessment 3–​4, 6, 10, 13, 21–​2, 25, 32, 37, 68, 74, 89, 107, 109, 111, 134–​6, 140–​2, 148, 150–​5, 157–​164, 168–​9, 172, 180–​2, 184, 186, 197, 201n13,

204, 206, 209–​11, 216, 240, 243–​4, 248, 250–​1, 255, 259–​96, 298–​9; peer 259, 267, 282–​3, 286–​7 asynchronous interaction 243–​6, 248 asynchronous platforms 244 attention 6–​7, 19, 21, 63, 77, 101, 118–​19, 130–​1, 135, 137–​8, 144, 147, 149, 153, 157, 161, 164, 171, 174n22, 181, 183, 185, 198–​9, 202–​3, 215, 229, 232, 238, 241–​3, 259, 265, 267, 269–​70, 284, 299 audio 18, 38–​9, 42–​6, 54–​55, 57, 59nc, 60nf, 80, 102n15, 142–​3, 181n40, 185, 200, 207–​8, 214, 218, 240–​2, 252, 288–​9, 296na autonomy 247 awareness 1n1, 4–​5, 8, 11, 13, 17, 21, 24, 29–​31, 37, 42–​3, 51, 78–​9, 81n65, 94, 97–​8, 100, 104, 107, 109–​11, 113–​14, 118, 120–​1, 131, 133–​5, 13–​18, 140–​4, 150–​5, 159–​61, 163–​4, 179, 182, 185–​6, 187, 196–​7, 203–​4, 208–​9, 217, 225, 228, 230, 234–​5, 248, 264, 270, 272, 274, 276–​7, 280–​3, 286–​8, 293, 298–​9; intercultural 4–​5, 122, 174, 201, 249; metapragmatic 16, 20–​4, 29, 37, 140, 144, 157, 159, 201, 205, 211, 214, 242, 250, 260, 265–​8, 275, 287, 298–​9; of pragmatic variation 4, 54, 78n59, 161; raising 4, 18, 23, 25, 44, 51–​2, 54, 100, 105, 118, 131, 133, 141, 150, 168, 177, 182, 184–​190, 198–​201, 204, 207–​9, 216–​17, 234, 286; sociopragmatic 164, 262 backchannel 13, 180–​2, 263–​4, 268 badinage 64 banter 64, 200

3

Index  333 belief 9, 15, 23–​34, 91, 106–​7, 116, 123–​4, 138, 147, 203, 217, 272, 297, 299 bi-​clausal requests 101, 263–​4 blended instruction/​curriculum 215–​16, 240, 245, 298 blog 22, 243–​6, 248, 258 Bloom’s taxonomy 251–​4 body language 5, 9, 64, 147, 150, 162, 185, 249, 269–​70, 276 Center for Advanced Research for Language Acquisition (CARLA) 37, 59nc, 62, 64n10, 72n37, 79, 81, 83, 94–​5, 102n15, 141, 143, 145n15, 148n22, 151n27, 152n31, 153n35, 154n38, 162n46, 204n23 n. 23–​25, 212n38, 215, 224, 227, 241n2, 283n38 chat 5, 145, 243–​4, 246, 258 classification 11, 62, 67, 87, 185, 219, 221–​2, 228, 235–​6, 238, 254 classroom-​based assessment 6, 168, 259–​60, 267, 269–​70, 277, 287, 298; see also alternative (in) assessment; performance-​based assessment; teacher-​ based assessment cluster 220–​1, 230 co-​construction 3, 9, 11–​13, 17, 85–​6, 126, 132, 207, 263, 265 cognitive 9, 22, 92, 106, 121–​2, 130, 199–​200, 265, 275; demand 131, 251–​4; development 120–​1, 174; domain 117, 121, 138, 304; engagement 147, 174, 188, 190, 209; framework 118, 120, 130, 136; function 97, 220–​1; learning 117, 247, 251; level 137, 187; limitation 109; maturity 43, 150, 198; perspective 122, 134; process 117, 251–​4; thinking 240, 252 communication strategy see strategy community practice 3–​4, 14, 16, 22, 100, 107, 125–​6, 225, 243, 245–​8, 252 comparability 34, 41, 54–​5, 59–​60, 70 complaining/​complaint 2, 11, 50, 57, 59ne, 141, 228, 230–​1, 234, 239 complimenting/​compliment 11, 37, 43–​4, 47, 53, 57, 59ne, 61, 64–​5, 69–​4, 99–​100, 112–​13, 131, 141–​2, 151–​8, 161, 199, 209, 224, 231, 234, 236–​8, 244, 247, 261–​2, 265, 294–​5 computer-​assisted language learning (CALL) 27, 240–​1, 245, 250n54, 251–​2 computer-​mediated communication (CMC) 240, 243–​52, 254, 257

concept 1–​18, 25n29, 66, 117, 121–​3, 128, 132–​3, 137–​8, 140, 144, 152, 196, 202, 206, 237, 242n6, 247, 254, 297 concept-​based pragmatic instruction 132 consequence 5–​6, 9–​11, 14, 24, 32, 42, 53, 55, 79, 97, 100, 105, 107–​8, 110–​11, 113, 119, 122, 126, 132, 136, 156, 159, 161, 200–​3, 205, 237, 243, 250, 268, 278; see also consequentiality consequentiality 42, 55, 59na; see also consequence constructivist 247 contextual factor 10, 21, 37, 40–​1, 43, 55, 101, 118–​19, 133, 137, 153, 155, 161, 171, 198, 265–​6, 283 conversation analysis (CA) 12–​13, 42–​6, 53, 57, 78, 81n65, 172, 177–​82, 208, 263, 289–​92, 296na conversational closing 14, 174, 177, 179, 189–​193; see also implicature conversational management 13, 17, 127, 142–​3, 177–​8, 188, 246 conversational opening 6, 13, 81, 99, 142, 157, 244, 246, 255; see also implicature Cooperative Principle 6, 18, 87; see also maxim corpus 32, 36, 43, 46–​50, 53, 57, 63, 66–​7, 78, 85, 89, 90–​3, 134, 171n4, 173, 180, 182–​4, 189, 193–​4, 196, 198, 204, 207, 232, 298 critical: analysis 248; (pragmatic) awareness 248; discourse analysis 49, 188; feedback 86, 198, 321; incident 22, 120, 127, 147–​8, 200, 277; pragmatics 135, 248; reflection 26, 29, 53, 135; thinking 147, 174, 253 criticality 1n3, 13, 19, 22, 26, 29, 30–​2, 49, 50, 53, 86, 120, 122–​3, 127, 129, 130, 133, 135, 143, 147–​8, 154, 168–​9, 173–​4, 188, 198, 200, 211, 247–​9, 253, 265, 277, 297 criticizing/​criticism 8n30, 61, 68, 70, 79, 86, 88, 198, 234 crosslinguistic influence 98–​100, 111, 114–​15, 181, 184 cultural: literacy 1, 17, 64, 134, 154n37, 216; relevance 236; script 6, 236; sensitivity 22, 32, 106–​7, 135, 137, 202, 260, 278, 282, 294 culture: objective 15; subjective 15, 135 curriculum 3, 21–​8, 36, 49, 54, 62, 102, 126, 140, 171, 195–​218, 220–​1, 241–​2, 247, 252–​3, 256–​7, 259–​60, 283n38, 298

34

334 Index deixis 6–​7, 18, 47, 62, 136, 143 dialogic assessment/​interaction 121, 144, 147, 260, 265, 270 digital: device 17; technology 50; narrative 148; space 247; interaction 250; community 249; learning 249, 255n11; see also game directness 2, 5–​7, 9–​12, 14, 17–​18, 21, 34, 40–​1, 46–​9, 52, 67–​9, 74–​6, 78–​9, 81–​5, 87–​8, 92, 101–​5, 108, 111, 113, 115, 118–​19, 127, 135, 140–​3, 148, 150, 152–​3, 159–​163, 181, 184–​6, 196–​8, 200–​1, 203, 208, 211, 213, 221, 225, 229–​232, 241–​2, 246, 249, 264–​8, 270, 278, 283–​4, 287, 295–​6; see also indirectness disagreeing/​disagreement 46–​7, 61, 72, 84–​7, 90, 136, 172, 181, 196–​9, 201–​2, 204, 216, 244, 255, 264 discourse 3, 6–​8, 11–​14, 17–​18, 23–​4, 32, 36–​8, 42–​5, 47–​50, 52, 59–​61, 66–​7, 73–​4, 78, 80–​81, 84–​6, 90–​2, 100, 104–​6, 124–​7, 134, 136, 143, 154, 159, 160–​3, 171–​3, 176, 178, 182–​3, 188–​9, 193, 198–​9, 205, 207–​9, 214, 229, 232, 244–​6, 253–​4, 262–​3, 266–​8, 275, 284; marker 13, 47, 60–​1, 84, 198, 244, 254; see also pragmatic marker 13, 47, 60nf, 84, 198, 244, 254; structure 6, 17–​18, 37, 198 discourse completion task (DCT) 36, 38–​9, 41–​2, 52–​4, 56, 59, 62, 66, 69, 78, 89, 134, 153, 160, 162, 166n49, 184, 213, 244, 267n24, 270, 273; free 153; oral 39, 53; written 41–​2, 78, 270 discursive 129, 172, 245, 310; approach 45, 262, 314; co-​construction 9; norm 94; resource 17, 128 dispreferred response 74, 80–​81, 84, 91, 196n2, 198, 264, 268; see also preferred response distance 10, 13, 17–​18, 40–​1, 43, 62–​3, 80, 85, 106, 132, 147, 152–​3, 155, 157–​8, 161, 206, 223, 266, 275, 284 divergence see pragmatic divergence diversity 2, 22, 61, 122, 128, 134n78, 151, 159, 187, 202, 248 downgrader 76, 84, 154, 268 dynamic assessment 265–​7; see also dialogic assessment email 6, 17–​18, 43, 50, 64, 99–​100, 127, 199, 204, 230, 234, 243–​4, 246, 257, 286–​7, 292 emic 16, 134

emotion 4–​5, 117, 121, 123, 129, 147–​8, 182, 186, 201, 209, 220, 250, 270; see also affect English as a lingua franca (ELF) 3–​4, 122; see also lingua franca English as an international language (EIL) 2, 122, 311; see also international language epistemic stance marker 47, 91–​2, 136, 255; see also pragmatic marker ethnicity 13, 21, 123, 129, 135, 161, 195, 248 ethnographer 18, 22–​3, 133–​4, 182, 202, 276; see also learners-​as-​ethnographers/​ researchers euphemism 9 Expanding-​circle 122 explanatory pragmatics see pragmatics explicit (pragmatic) instruction 1, 12, 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28–​31, 34, 51, 75, 78, 83, 85, 93–​4, 96–​8, 101, 108, 118–​120, 122, 127, 130–​3, 135, 137–​8, 171, 173–​4, 182, 184–​5, 187, 189, 192, 196, 198–​9, 204–​6, 208, 214–​17, 219, 222, 230, 233–​4, 243, 246–​7, 250, 293, 298–​9 exploratory practice 30, 32–​5 external modifier 77, 80, 86 extralinguistic 5, 10, 14, 44, 79, 309 extralinguistic feature 12, 64, 185, 277 face threatening act (FTA) 10–​11, 67, 70, 74, 76, 82, 84, 86, 96, 172, 184, 196, 203n20, 276 feedback 13, 22–​4, 26, 34, 47, 81n65, 86, 96, 127, 132–​4, 136, 142, 154–​7, 179, 180–​2, 184, 193–​4, 196, 198–​9, 201, 204–​5, 208, 210–​12, 215–​16, 218, 226, 241–​2, 244, 246, 248–​50, 252, 255, 257, 259, 263, 268–​70, 272, 275–​7, 280, 283–​8, 293–​5, 298 field observation 43, 58–​9; see also observation filler 47, 80, 268 film 27, 36, 51–​53, 158, 200, 250 formality 5–​6, 8–​10, 15, 17–​18, 22, 28, 34, 40–​1, 62–​4, 81–​2, 85, 91, 96, 98, 101–​2, 105, 108, 119, 124, 126, 129, 141, 148, 150, 152, 154, 159–​60, 162–​3, 171–​3, 175–​6, 183, 185–​6, 195–​6, 199, 206, 211, 225–​7, 255, 259, 266–​70, 273, 275, 278–​281, 284, 295, 296, 298; see also (in)formality form-​function-​context (connection, mapping, relationship) 21, 118, 171, 132–​3, 241

35

Index  335 formulaic: expression 66, 178, 200; implicature 185; language 75, 89, 127; sequence 250; structure 101 game 71, 136, 148, 226, 243, 249–​50, 252, 258 gaze 5, 12, 43, 45–​6, 73, 85, 162, 185, 270 gender 13–​14, 21, 43, 47–​9, 63, 70, 104, 123–​4, 126–​7, 135, 153, 155, 157–​8, 161, 164n48, 173–​4, 187–​8, 221, 230, 236–​7, 265–​6 generation 14, 21, 63, 123, 129, 144, 148, 195 gesture 5n18 n. 18–​19, 12, 45, 51, 66, 113, 115, 147, 163, 181, 185, 224, 229, 241, 244, 249, 270, 284 globalization 2, 4, 17, 122, 128, 130, 137, 147, 213, 217, 299 grammar/​grammatical competence 5n19, 32, 37, 44, 51, 53, 70, 92, 98, 100–​1, 109, 111, 114–​15, 120, 134, 152, 154–​5, 161–​2, 172, 176, 183–​4, 188, 195, 199, 205, 225–​7, 233n22, 264, 268, 271, 273, 286, 295 gratitude 64–​7, 70, 80, 285; see also thanking greeting 11, 14–​15, 28–​9, 70, 81, 112, 114, 124, 141, 150, 174–​6, 199, 222, 231, 233, 263 hedge 8–​9, 37, 68, 80, 84, 86, 91–​2, 183–​4, 196–​8, 241, 255, 276 heritage language learning 3, 117, 129–​30, 137, 296nb host 22, 63, 125–​7, 135, 200, 202, 320 humor 9, 17, 64, 126–​7, 148, 200, 208, 213, 243–​4, 256, 277, 295 hybridity 4, 6, 17, 74, 97, 100, 106, 109, 129–​30, 134–​5, 277, 282 identity 4, 7, 14, 16, 21–​2, 25–​7, 29–​30, 32, 49, 66, 81, 85, 94, 97–​8, 106, 109, 117, 122–​30, 134–​5, 137, 141, 181, 187–​8, 206, 208, 215, 247–​9, 255, 278, 297–​9 illocution 11–​12, 101 immersion 117, 119, 127, 137, 315 implicature 17, 52, 61–​2, 87–​8, 143, 174, 185–​8, 199–​200, 206, 262, 270, 277; see also relevance implicit (pragmatic) instruction 119, 130–​2, 173 (im)politeness 2, 5–​12, 15, 17–​19, 37, 40–​1, 47, 49–​50, 52, 62, 64, 67, 69, 75–​6, 78, 81, 84, 91–​2, 100–​2, 105, 108,

111–​13, 124, 130, 142–​3, 146, 149, 150, 152, 159–​163, 171, 179, 183–​4, 199–​200, 202, 212, 222–​3, 225, 230–​1, 247, 261, 264, 268, 270, 278–​281, 284–​6, 295–​6, 305, 307–​8; see also politeness imposition 8, 10, 40–​1, 69, 74–​5, 106, 159, 161, 201, 206, 232, 275, 278, 284–​5 (in)directness 2, 5–​7, 9–​12, 14, 17–​18, 21, 34, 40–​1, 46–​9, 52, 67–​9, 74–​6, 78–​9, 81–​5, 87–​8, 92, 101–​5, 108, 111, 113, 115, 118–​19, 127, 135, 140–​3, 148, 150, 152–​3, 159–​163, 181, 184–​6, 196–​8, 200–​1, 203, 208, 211, 213, 221, 225, 229–​232, 241–​2, 246, 249, 264–​8, 270, 278, 283–​4, 287, 295–​6; see also directness inference 1, 6–​7, 17, 77, 87, 92, 208, 230, 254, 259 (in)formality 5–​6, 8–​10, 15, 17–​18, 22, 28, 34, 40–​1, 62–​4, 81–​2, 85, 91, 96, 98, 101–​2, 105, 108, 119, 124, 126, 129, 141, 148, 150, 152, 154, 159–​60, 162–​3, 171–​3, 175–​6, 183, 185–​6, 195–​6, 199, 206, 211, 225–​7, 255, 259, 266–​70, 273, 275, 278–​281, 284, 295, 296, 298; see also formality Inner–​circle 4, 122 input 23, 32, 36, 46–​7, 49–​51, 53, 118, 120, 127, 130, 133, 155, 163, 174, 184, 187, 189, 195–​6, 204, 209, 240–​2, 244–​5, 247, 253 institution 14–​15, 19, 22, 28, 63, 124–​5, 134n78, 141 instruction 4, 6, 9, 14–​15, 19–​21, 23–​33, 47, 50–​1, 53–​5, 81, 94, 98, 104–​5, 107, 109–​111, 114–​15, 119, 122, 133, 136–​7, 140–​170, 179, 183–​5, 187–​9, 195, 206, 208, 214, 220, 223, 240–​2, 244, 248–​253, 256–​7, 259, 267–​8, 282, 287, 298; see also explicit (pragmatic) instruction; implicit (pragmatic) instruction instructional materials 23, 98, 104–​5, 109, 111, 114–​15, 170, 223n14 instructional pragmatics 6, 9, 14, 19–​20, 23–​4, 28, 30–​2, 140, 299 intake 118 interactional competence 13, 46, 123, 180–​1, 213, 260, 262–​3 interactivity 55, 59na, 135 intercultural 3–​5, 8, 11, 13, 16–​17, 31, 37, 75, 99, 102, 105–​6, 122, 128, 130, 134n78, 136, 143–​4, 149, 153, 174, 177, 209, 213–​14, 243,

36

336 Index 247–​50, 276–​8, 297; being 278; (communicative) competence 13n44, 105, 122, 248; difference 8, 134n78, 149, 177; experience 31, 44–​7, 102; identity 16, 248; misunderstanding 99; nonunderstanding 24, 99; pragmatics 130, 214; understanding 144, 248, 250, 276; sensitivity 37, 201; similarity 276; see also awareness intercultural communication 1, 5, 69, 143–​4, 146–​7, 180, 201, 213, 240, 245 interlanguage pragmatics see pragmatics internalization 25, 121, 127, 132 internal modifier 76, 86, 119–​20 international language 2, 122 Internet 55, 95, 133, 136, 168, 193, 215, 244–​5, 256, 288, 298; see also online; web intersubjectivity 13 interview 4, 23, 34, 51, 53, 133–​4, 136, 146, 222, 224, 242, 244–​5, 248, 250 intracultural difference 148 intralingual variation 14 introspection 36–​7, 53–​5, 59 intuition 36–​7, 47, 53–​5, 59, 89, 99, 170–​1, 207, 260 inviting/​invitation 5, 10–​11, 14, 23, 26, 34, 39–​40, 44, 46, 51, 58, 63–​4, 79–​81, 84, 99, 112, 136, 138, 140–​1, 143, 157, 159, 163, 168, 174, 181, 188–​9, 200, 212, 225, 237, 254, 257, 260, 262–​3, 286, 288, 299 irony 9, 17, 64, 85, 87, 129, 185, 245, 277 kinesthetic 269 language: analysis 18, 23, 51, 201; aptitude 230; learning strategies (LLS) 219–​20, 230, 249; see also strategies laughter 5n18, 12, 45, 95, 148 learner-​as-​ethnographer/​researcher 23, 133, 150, 202, 276; see also ethnographer learner: characteristic 208, 230; language 160–​3, 259, 264, 270, 277, 283, 287–​9, 293–​4, 296; see also strategy legitimacy 3–​4, 247 linguaculture 22, 94, 122, 151, 159 lingua franca 2–​3, 24, 89, 122, 172, 213–​14 listener: feedback 13, 47, 142, 180–​2, 208, 263, 268; see also listenership listenership 13, 180–​1, 188, 218, 246 locution 11–​12, 101, 214

L2 pragmatics 1, 4, 15–​16, 19, 21, 24–​5, 27, 29–​32, 34–​7, 45, 47–​9, 51–​4, 61, 95, 97, 106, 108, 117–​19, 121–​2, 130–​1, 133, 136–​8, 140, 143, 147, 150, 158n41, 168, 170–​1, 173–​4, 184–​5, 190, 203–​4, 206, 211, 215, 217–​18, 240, 243, 249–​256, 260, 265, 267, 283, 287–​88n42, 294, 297, 298; see also pragmatics macrosocial variation see variation maxim 6–​7, 84, 87, 133, 201, 233, 249, 251, 294; see also Cooperative Principle mediation 25, 29, 121, 144, 240, 243–​7, 252–​3 metacognitive analysis 275 metacognitive function 220–​1 metapragmatic 16, 20–​1, 23–​4, 29, 107, 119–​20, 130–​3, 137–​8, 140, 155, 171–​2, 186, 195, 204–​5, 208–​211, 214–​16, 227, 229–​30, 240, 244, 246, 250, 252–​3, 260, 262–​3, 265–​6, 268, 275–​6, 282–​4, 286–​7, 298–​9 microanalysis 12–​13, 42–​3, 178; see also conversation analysis (CA) microsocial variation see variation misconception 102, 105, 117, 137, 195 mitigation 9, 24, 64, 67–​8, 71–​3, 76, 78–​9, 81, 84–​7, 91, 100, 135, 159, 161, 172–​3, 184, 196–​9, 202, 206, 208, 213, 225, 233–​4, 254, 268, 277 mobile-​assisted language learning (MALL) 250, 305, 312 mock (im)politeness see politeness multiculturalism 22, 66, 108, 249, 325; and identity 22, 66, 81n66, 135, 137, 249; and subjectivity 106 multilingualism 1n1, 3, 4, 29, 100, 106, 129, 151; and agency 27, 130n62, 278; and identity 16, 97, 109, 126, 141, 188, 206, 215, 278, 298–​9; and resource 4, 16, 109, 256, 299; multimodality 26, 249 multilingual speaker 1, 3n9, 17, 22, 27, 74, 97, 108, 128, 130, 213 multiple-​choice 186, 242, 260, 262, 269 narrative 26, 30, 143–​4, 147–​8, 168, 242, 272, 277, 280 nativeness/​native speaker 1–​5, 14, 16, 22, 24, 37, 47–​8, 62, 89n94, 99n7, 100, 122, 128–​9, 228, 234, 236 natural 155, 17–​22, 283; data 36, 43–​4, 51, 53, 61–​2, 64, 328; dialogue 44–​5, 190; discourse 42–​3, 61, 66, 78, 160, 173, 176, 178, 182–​3, 193, 207, 232,

37

Index  337 284; interaction 36, 42, 184–​5; language 42, 170, 175, 189, 207; sound 47; consequence 100; setting 119, 283; sequence 172, 178; talk 44–​5, 142, 172, 165 natural(istic) 207; context 308; data 44; dialogue 175; discourse 42; interaction 44; language 36, 51, 133, 204, 207, 216, 241, 276, 297; role-​play 80; see also natural, naturally occurring conversation naturally occurring conversation 18, 26, 32, 37, 42–​6, 50–​1, 53–​5, 57, 59, 70, 72, 94, 105, 133, 142–​3, 172–​3, 175, 178–​9, 180–​2, 183, 218 negotiation 1–​5, 7, 10–​11, 16–​17, 44–​6, 49, 63, 67, 78, 85, 97, 106, 108–​10, 121–​6, 129–​30, 135, 147, 159, 163, 172, 185, 199, 201–​2, 206, 209, 213–​14, 243–​4, 247, 252, 265, 268, 277, 282 non-​nativeness/​non-​native speaker 2–​4, 69, 234 norm 1–​4, 11, 14–​16, 22, 24, 37, 65, 70, 81n66, 94, 96–​9, 101, 106–​78, 110, 122, 124–​6, 131, 135–​7, 151, 155, 157, 159, 164, 173, 179, 184, 187–​8, 195, 200, 210–​11, 213, 222, 225, 234, 240, 245–​6, 268, 277–​8, 280–​2, 293, 298; see also pragmatic norm noticing 7, 15, 18, 38, 46, 53, 74, 87, 89, 96, 102, 104, 117–​120, 130, 133, 137–​8, 141, 145, 148–​9, 153, 157, 161, 167, 169, 172, 174, 176, 184, 190, 197, 200–​1, 204, 214, 222, 230, 233, 241, 250, 264, 270, 276–​7, 292 nuance 2, 5, 63, 100, 129, 173, 186, 188, 195, 242, 245, 270, 278 observation 26, 36, 42–​3, 54, 58–​9, 110, 116, 140–​1, 143, 158, 182, 204, 208, 222, 224, 227, 245, 248, 265, 267, 275, 277 online 43, 46–​7, 50, 140–​1, 240–​258, 298; accessibility/​availability 81, 289; audio/​video 148, 207, 288; chat 244; community 51, 247–​8; competence 42, 160, 227, 267; curriculum 215, 221; database 141, 173; discussion 248–​9, 317; edition 211–​2; exercise 252, 257; institute 145n15, 148n22, 300; language 50, 297; materials 36, 50; resource 37, 62, 142, 168, 298; see also Internet, web oppositional talk 84, 86–​7, 201–​2, 313 organization 3, 9, 12–​13, 43, 45, 81n66, 133, 136, 172, 203, 207, 218, 262–​4, 268, 275, 292

Outer-​circle 122n23 overgeneralization 16, 101–​5, 114–​15, 144, 184 overlap 16, 44, 46n26, 57–​8, 97, 184, 207, 228, 243, 257, 264, 292 ownership 3–​4, 22, 128, 224 pair 66, 132, 136, 162, 175, 188, 198, 207, 220–​1, 227, 255, 262–​3, 287; see also adjacency pair paralinguistic 5, 14, 44, 79, 309; feature 12, 64, 185, 208, 218, 277 pause 5, 12, 24, 37, 46, 57, 67, 73–​4, 80, 84, 198, 207–​8, 241, 264, 268, 292; see also silence peace linguistics 202 pedagogical content knowledge 20–​21, 23 peer-​assessment see assessment performance-​based assessment 259; see also classroom-​based assessment perlocution 11 personality 8, 27, 70, 212, 230, 266 plurilingualism 3; see also multilingualism politeness 5–​10, 15, 18–​19, 40, 47, 49, 52, 62, 64, 67, 69, 75–​6, 78, 84, 92, 100, 102, 105, 108, 111–​13, 124, 130, 142–​3, 149, 160–​1, 183–​4, 200, 202, 212, 222–​3, 225, 230–​1, 261, 264, 270, 278–​9, 280–​1, 284, 286, 295–​6; mock 9; negative 8, 18, 62, 231; positive 8, 62, 69, 84, 184, 31; see also (im)politeness posture 5, 43, 64, 85, 147, 181 power 4, 10, 13, 16–​18, 26, 30, 40–​3, 62–​3, 74, 81, 106, 124–​6, 132, 135, 147–​8, 152–​3, 156, 158, 161, 185, 200, 206, 208, 265, 275, 284, 297, 299 power, distance, intensity (PDI) continuum 10, 40–​1, 44, 158, 161, 284 practice 1–​4, 7, 10, 14–​16, 20, 22, 25–​35, 44–​46, 51, 63–​5, 69, 81n65 n. 65–​66, 97, 100, 105–​8, 116, 122, 124–​130, 133–​6, 140, 142, 145, 147, 150–​1, 153–​7, 162, 164, 172, 182–​5, 188, 190, 195, 198–​202, 204, 207–​216, 222, 225–​7, 234, 241–​3, 245–​250, 252, 255, 260, 265, 286, 288, 293, 297, 299; see also community practice pragmalinguistics 14–​16, 21, 42, 47–​8, 67, 89, 94–​5, 101, 106–​7, 109, 119–​120, 132, 135, 156–​7, 162, 164, 199–​200, 206–​9, 211, 221, 225–​6, 242, 250, 252, 266–​7, 280, 282, 286, 295 pragmatic competence 1–​3, 5, 7, 14–​15, 17, 21–​4, 28, 42, 90, 96–​8, 100, 106n19, 107, 110, 122, 127, 129, 135, 150, 157,

38

338 Index 160, 174, 180, 182, 188, 201, 205, 216, 242, 245, 259–​260, 263, 265–​70, 272, 275, 278, 282–​3, 287–​9, 295, 297–​8 pragmatic comprehension 195, 242, 250, 269, 330; see also receptive (pragmatic) competence pragmatic divergence 96–​115, 140, 184, 228, 277, 298 pragmatic formula 17, 61–​2, 89–​90, 120, 142, 150, 250, 269–​70 pragmatic instruction 22, 23n14, 111, 132, 135, 171–​3, 196, 199, 240, 247, 273 pragmatic marker 13, 47, 48–​9, 61–​2, 90–​1, 93–​4, 136, 142, 173, 199, 268, 276–​7; see also discourse marker, epistemic (stance) marker pragmatic norm 2, 4, 21–​2, 24, 31–​2, 34, 53, 98–​102, 104–​9, 111, 122, 127, 131–​3, 135–​6, 153, 155, 164n47, 178, 187, 189, 204–​6, 208–​9, 211, 216–​17, 225, 228, 234, 268, 276; see also norm pragmatic-​related episode 120, 132n72 pragmatic resistance 100, 106–​7, 109, 111, 129 pragmatics: acquisitional 1n3, 130; explanatory 15–​16, 127–​8, 134, 137, 154n37, 212n34; interlanguage 1n3, 14, 62n1, 99n7, 122, 129; see also L2 pragmatics pragmatic strategy see strategy pragmatic transfer 99; see also crosslinguistic influence pragmatic variation 2, 4, 13–​14, 18, 21–​2, 26, 28–​9, 54, 141–​2, 161, 168, 171, 250–​7, 269, 277; see also variation preconception 106, 228; see also misconception preference see preferred response, dispreferred response preferred response 84, 262; see also dispreferred response pre sequence see sequence principle 6, 16, 18, 21, 28, 30–​2, 79, 87, 105–​6, 116, 118–​19, 138, 174, 195–​6, 203–​6, 210, 215–​18, 247n39, 267, 278–​9 productive (pragmatic) competence 42, 135, 150, 153, 184, 270, 275; see also pragmatic comprehension professional development 19–​20, 23–​5, 28–​30n38, 34–​5 rapport 7, 24, 64, 69, 72, 74, 81, 86, 96, 108, 120, 126, 134n78, 213–​14, 242

readiness 240, 249, 257 real play 226, 234 receptive pragmatic competence 107, 135, 182, 268–​9 re-​conceptualization 3, 144, 326 reference 3, 6–​8, 13, 17, 34, 51, 75, 82, 87, 136, 161, 226–​7, 230, 240, 260, 268, 282, 286, 288 reflection 13n3, 15–​16, 19, 22, 25–​27, 29–​34, 53, 95, 111, 133–​6, 140–​1, 143, 145, 147–​8, 155, 157, 159, 161, 177, 179, 184, 188, 190, 197–​9, 201, 205, 210–​11, 216–​17, 227, 241, 248–​9, 253, 276, 282–​3, 287, 297, 299 reflexivity 16, 122–​3 refusing/​refusal 10–​11, 44, 61, 64, 74n45, 79, 80–​1, 84, 96, 99, 102–​3, 106, 119–​20, 134, 141, 199, 210, 212–​13, 222, 224–​5, 237–​8, 242n5, 245–​6, 254, 264, 277, 295–​6 region 13–​14, 21, 26, 63, 128, 161, 195 register 50, 118, 119, 127–​9, 138, 171, 183, 194, 246 relation(ship) 7n25, 9, 19, 25, 29, 52, 64, 101, 104, 124, 129, 146, 149, 155, 161, 182, 197, 199–​200, 206, 245, 247–​8, 270 relevance 6, 87, 186n51; see also implicature; Cooperative Principle; maxim reliability 37, 46–​7, 89, 146, 253, 260, 288 remote 215–​16, 243; learning 240, 298 repair 13, 18, 44–​5, 48, 81–​3, 91, 113, 182, 184, 207–​8, 218, 222, 225, 228 request 2, 5, 10–​11, 14, 26, 34, 40–​1, 46, 52, 61, 64, 70, 72, 74–​80, 83, 100–​2, 111, 115, 119n9, 127, 130n60, 132, 134, 141–​2, 150, 153, 158–​164, 171, 182, 199–​201, 204, 212, 214, 220–​4, 224, 228–​234m 237, 242, 245, 250, 254, 260, 263–​4, 267–​8, 270–​5, 279–​281, 284–​7 ritual 5, 11, 81, 147, 177, 179 role-​play 18, 23, 36, 38–​40, 42, 53–​4, 56, 59, 80, 121, 134, 136, 156–​7, 162, 166n49, 175, 179, 184, 186, 188–​9, 198, 207–​10, 212, 215, 226, 234, 244, 263, 265, 284n39, 289–​90, 294, 296 routine 11, 28–​9, 52, 66, 72n38, 74, 81, 89–​90, 112, 120, 126–​8, 154, 171, 190, 216, 252, 283 rubric 162, 211, 255, 264, 267, 270, 272, 283, 289 rudeness 8–​9, 105, 113, 145, 179, 181, 200, 256

39

Index  339 sarcasm 9, 17, 185, 200, 231, 276–​7 scaled response 260, 269 second language acquisition (SLA) 99n7, 116–​18, 122, 170 self-​assessment 163, 201n13, 204, 210, 277n37, 282–​3 sequence 11, 13, 62, 64, 75, 77–​8, 80–​1, 133–​4, 154, 162, 178, 183, 191–​2, 206, 220–​1, 241–​263; developmental 206; pre(-​invitation/​request) 161, 263 sequential organization 12–​13, 45, 81n66, 136, 218, 262–​3, 268 silence 24, 46n26, 78, 80, 84; see also pause situation comedy (sitcom) 51–​3 small talk 14, 142, 204, 233, 246 socialization 4–​5, 11, 22, 124–​130, 243, 246–​7, 249; and language 4, 125–​7, 149, 246; in second-​language 108, 117, 124n30, 125–​128, 130, 137, 139 social media 17–​18, 53, 64, 166n49, 247n39; see also social networking system (SNS) social networking service (SNS) 43, 50–​1, 243–​7, 252, 257; see also social media sociocultural theory 17, 21–​22, 50, 65, 97–​8, 109, 117, 121, 124, 126, 130, 132, 137, 139, 144, 150, 160, 184, 188, 206, 220, 225, 263, 268, 297 sociopragmatics 14–​16, 21, 42, 68, 81, 89, 94–​5, 120, 130, 135–​5, 147, 164, 196, 199, 207, 209, 211, 225, 234, 242, 246, 248, 252, 262, 265–​6 space 4, 7, 43, 68, 123, 130, 138, 144, 147, 209, 240–​1, 247, 249, 270 speech act 11–​14, 17–​19, 37–​8, 42, 47–​9, 61–​2, 64, 67, 78–​9, 81–​2, 86, 94–​5, 119, 127, 141–​3, 150, 168, 171, 182, 184, 188, 194, 199, 201, 204, 206, 213, 219–​242, 245, 252, 268, 276–​7 speech community 128n51, 222–​6, 232, 235–​7 speech event 17, 208 stakes 10, 13, 17–​18, 40, 87, 134, 145 stereotype 8, 11, 16, 72, 102, 104, 134, 144, 147–​8, 173–​4, 187, 211, 249 strategy 7, 11, 19–​21, 26, 46, 47–​9, 51–​3, 62, 64, 69–​70, 72–​6, 79, 81–​6, 91, 102, 107, 109, 119, 125, 140, 152, 155–​6, 159, 162–​3, 171, 182, 196, 199, 202–​3, 206–​7, 209–​12, 214–​15, 219–​39, 242–​3, 250, 254, 271, 273, 275–​6, 285, 298; communication 3, 24, 108, 136, 155, 171, 182, 204, 213–​14, 216, 218, 220, 227, 276; of initial learning of speech acts 222, 225, 235–​6; instruction (SI)

220; learner 219–​21, 235–​6, 238; of performing speech acts 219–​20, 226, 228–​30, 234–​5, 237–​8; for pragmatics 220; pragmatic 11, 120, 127, 210, 215, 221, 227, 229, 242–​3, 247, 249; for speech acts 219–​39; see also pragmatic strategy student-​generated visual DCT (SVDCT) 39n7, 273 study abroad 22, 26n32, 117, 119–​20, 126–​7, 137, 148, 201, 221, 233–​4, 248, 250, 277n37 style (preference) 7–​8, 24, 52, 104, 107, 127, 133, 148, 188, 208, 213, 226–​7, 230, 240, 246, 250, 286 subjective culture 15 subjectivity 13, 24, 49, 106, 122–​4, 135, 147, 181, 228, 260, 277, 282 subject matter knowledge 20–​1, 23–​4 subjunctive 8, 68, 76, 101, 225 synchronous 243–​6, 248; interaction 243–​4; chat 244, 246; computer-​ mediated communication (CMC) 246 taboo 9, 70, 233, 245 talk-​in-​interaction 12–​13, 172, 178, 218 teacher-​based assessment 158n41, 162, 259, 270–​3, 277, 280, 286–​7, 293; see also classroom-​based assessment teacher knowledge 19–​21, 25, 29 teasing 234 technology 50, 240–​258 telecollaboration 22, 240, 243, 245–​6, 248–​9, 252–​3, 255, 257 terms of address see addressivity/​ address term thanking/​thanks 2, 11, 56, 61, 64–​6, 72, 80, 85, 88–​9, 141, 153, 162, 165, 167, 176–​7, 191–​2, 199, 222, 224, 242, 264, 268, 271, 279, 285, 287, 295; see also gratitude third space/​place 4, 130 tone 5, 8–​9, 37, 43, 58, 64, 85–​6, 105, 109, 148, 162–​3, 171, 181, 185–​6, 207, 210, 215, 229, 231, 264, 268, 270–​3, 284, 295–​6 transfer 214n46, 294; of training 104n16; see also crosslinguistic influence; instructional materials; pragmatic transfer translanguaging 4, 106, 129–​30, 215 translingual (practice) 4, 106, 117, 128–​30, 137 turn 11–​12, 38–​40, 44–​7, 56, 64–​6, 74, 78, 80–​1, 84–​5, 91, 122–​3, 136, 154, 160,

340

340 Index 162, 172, 177, 192, 207–​9, 232, 244, 262, 264–​8, 273, 292 turn taking 13, 18, 47, 55, 142, 184, 208, 218 upgrader 76, 84, 154, 268 uptake 11, 24, 278 variation 14; macrosocial 14; microsocial 13; see also pragmatic variation video 18, 26, 39, 42–​6, 50–​1, 148–​9, 163, 182, 185, 198, 200, 203n21, 207–​9, 218, 241–​5, 250, 252, 255, 258, 270 virtual 243, 247, 249–​50, 252, 258, 267

visual 10, 38–​9, 41, 51, 122, 129, 133, 149, 159–​60, 186, 196–​7, 199–​200, 226, 230, 241–​2, 249, 252, 269, 273–​4 vocative 62n2; see also addressivity/​ address terms Vygotsky, L.S. 121, 132 web 37, 55, 62, 94, 102, 142–​4, 153, 174, 176n25, 204, 215, 220, 223–​4, 227, 241–​3, 246, 248, 252, 257–​8, 266n21; see also Internet, online workplace 51, 91, 107, 117, 124, 127–​8, 134–​5, 147, 142, 173, 199, 201, 204, 207–​8, 210, 222, 224–​5, 231, 263, 265 World Englishes (WE) 14, 94, 122