The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics [First Edition] 0815349769, 9780815349761

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmaticsis a comprehensive critical survey of the field of L

1,391 94 7MB

English Pages 522 [537] Year 2019

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics [First Edition]
 0815349769, 9780815349761

Table of contents :
Chapter 1 SLA and pragmatics: An overview

Naoko Taguchi

SECTION 1: CONSTRUCTS AND UNITS OF ANALYSIS

Chapter 2 Speech acts in interaction: Negotiating joint action in a second language

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Chapter 3 Iimplicature comprehension in L2 pragmatics research

Naoko Taguchi & Shota Yamaguchi

Chapter 4 Routines in L2 pragmatics research

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Chapter 5 Humor in L2 pragmatics research

Nancy Bell & Anne Pomerantz

Chapter 6 Prosody in L2 pragmatics research

Okim Kang & Alyssa Kermad

Chapter 7 Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics

Richard F. Young

SECTION 2: THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Chapter 8 Cognitive approaches in L2 pragmatics research

Shuai Li

Chapter 9 Language socialization and L2 pragmatics

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

Chapter 10 Vygotskian cultural-historical psychology in L2 pragmatics

Rémi A. van Compernolle

Chapter 11 Identity and agency in L2 pragmatics

Noriko Ishihara

 

 

Chapter 12 Interactional usage-based L2 pragmatics: From form-meaning pairings to construction-action relations

Søren Wind Eskildsen & Gabriele Kasper

SECTION 3: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Chapter 13 Data collection methods in L2 pragmatics research: An overview

Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen

Chapter 14 Mixed methods in L2 pragmatics research 

Steven J. Ross & Yoon Jee Hong

Chapter 15 Conversation analysis in L2 pragmatics research

Junko Mori & Hanh thi Nguyen

Chapter 16 Corpus linguistics approach to L2 pragmatics research

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

Chapter 17 Systemic functional linguistics and L2 pragmatics

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

Chapter 18 Psycholinguistic approaches to L2 pragmatics research

Thomas Holtgraves, Gyeongnam Kwon, and Tania Morales Zelaya

SECTION 4: PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES

Chapter 19 A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction

Luke Plonsky & Jingyuan Zhuang

Chapter 20 Assessment in L2 pragmatics

Soo Jung Youn & Valeria Bogorevich

Chapter 21 Instructional material development in L2 pragmatics

Donna Tatsuki,

Chapter 22 Task-Based Language Teaching and L2 Pragmatics

Marta González-Lloret

SECTION 5: CONTEXTUAL AND INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATIONS

Chapter 23 L2 pragmatic development in study abroad settings

Carmen Pérez-Vidal & Rachel Shively

Chapter 24 L2 pragmatics learning in computer-mediated communication

D. Joseph Cunningham

Chapter 25 Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments

Julie M. Sykes & Sebastien Dubreil

Chapter 26 Pragmatics in a language classroom

Yumiko Tateyama

Chapter 27 Pragmatics learning in the workplace

Veronika Timpe-Laughlin

Chapter 28 Individual learner considerations in SLA and L2 pragmatics

Satomi Takahashi

SECTION 6: L2 PRAGMATICS IN THE GLOBAL ERA

Chapter 29 Norms and variation in L2 pragmatics

Anne Barron

Chapter 30 Heritage learner pragmatics

Yang Xiao-Desai

Chapter 31 Intercultural competence and L2 pragmatics

Jane Jackson

Chapter 32 Multilingual pragmatics: Implicature comprehension in adult L2 learners and multilingual children

Kyriakos Antoniou

Citation preview

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics is a comprehensive critical survey of the field of L2 pragmatics, collecting a number of chapters that highlight the key theories, methods, pedagogies, and research findings throughout its development over the last four decades. Demonstrating the ways in which pragmatics has long served as a lens through which to examine L2 development, the volume is divided into six parts which reflect the field’s structure and evolution: •• •• •• •• •• ••

Constructs and units of analysis Theoretical approaches Methodological approaches Pedagogical approaches Contextual and individual considerations L2 pragmatics in the global era

The handbook has a particular focus on covering not only traditional topics in the field, such as constructs of pragmatic competence (e.g., speech acts, implicature), teaching and assessment, and pragmatics learning in a study abroad program, but also emerging areas of study, including interactional pragmatics, intercultural pragmatics, usage-based approaches, corpus linguistics, and psycholinguistic experimentation. Each chapter introduces the topic and follows with a description of its theoretical underpinnings, an overview of existing literature, appraisal of current practice, concluding with a discussion of future directions for research and key readings. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics is an essential resource for those with an interest in second language acquisition, pragmatics, and applied linguistics. Naoko Taguchi is Professor in the Modern Languages Department at Carnegie Mellon University, USA. She is the co-editor of Journal of Applied Pragmatics and serves/has served on the editorial board for the Modern Language Journal, Language Teaching, Japanese SLA, Study Abroad Research in Second Language Education and International Education, and Studies of Chinese Language Teaching Journal. She is also a member of the Executive Board of AAAL. Her ­primary research area is L2 pragmatics.

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, Series Editors

The Routledge Handbooks in Second Language Acquisition are a comprehensive, must-have survey of this core sub-discipline of applied linguistics. With a truly global reach and featuring diverse contributing voices, each handbook provides an overview of both the fundamentals and new directions for each topic. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics Edited by Naoko Taguchi For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/SecondLanguage-Acquisition-Research-Series/book-series/RHSLA

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

Edited by Naoko Taguchi

First published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Naoko Taguchi to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Taguchi, Naoko, 1967- editor. Title: The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics / edited by Naoko Taguchi. Description: London: New York, NY: Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge handbooks in second language acquisition; 1 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2018045057 (print) | LCCN 2018047296 (ebook) | ISBN 9781351164085 (E-book) | ISBN 9780815349761 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Second language acquisition. | Pragmatics. | Language and languages–Study and teaching. Classification: LCC P118.2 (ebook) | LCC P118.2 .R685 2019 (print) | DDC 401/.93–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018045057 ISBN: 978-0-8153-4976-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-16408-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

Contributorsviii Acknowledgmentsxiii 1 Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics: An Overview Naoko Taguchi

1

PART I

Constructs and Units of Analysis

15

2 Speech Acts in Interaction: Negotiating Joint Action in a Second Language J. César Félix-Brasdefer

17

3 Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics Research Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

31

4 Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

47

5 Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

63

6 Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

78

7 Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics Richard F. Young

93

PART II

Theoretical Approaches 8 Cognitive Approaches in L2 Pragmatics Research Shuai Li

111 113

v

Contents

9 Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

128

10 Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology in L2 Pragmatics Rémi A. van Compernolle

145

11 Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics Noriko Ishihara

161

12 Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics: From Form–Meaning Pairings to Construction–Action Relations Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

176

PART III

Methodological Approaches

193

13 Data Collection Methods in L2 Pragmatics Research: An Overview Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen

195

14 Mixed Methods in L2 Pragmatics Research Steven J. Ross and Yoonjee Hong

212

15 Conversation Analysis in L2 Pragmatics Research Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

226

16 Corpus Linguistics Approaches to L2 Pragmatics Research Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

241

17 Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

255

18 Psycholinguistic Approaches to L2 Pragmatics Research Thomas Holtgraves, Gyeongnam Kwon and Tania Morales Zelaya

272

PART IV

Pedagogical Approaches

285

19 A Meta-Analysis of L2 Pragmatics Instruction Luke Plonsky and Jingyuan Zhuang

287

20 Assessment in L2 Pragmatics Soo Jung Youn and Valeriia Bogorevich

308

21 Instructional Material Development in L2 Pragmatics Donna Tatsuki

322

vi

Contents

22 Task-Based Language Teaching and L2 Pragmatics Marta González-Lloret

338

PART V

Contextual and Individual Considerations

353

23 L2 Pragmatic Development in Study Abroad Settings Carmen Pérez Vidal and Rachel L. Shively

355

24 L2 Pragmatics Learning in Computer-Mediated Communication D. Joseph Cunningham

372

25 Pragmatics Learning in Digital Games and Virtual Environments Julie M. Sykes and Sébastien Dubreil

387

26 Pragmatics in a Language Classroom Yumiko Tateyama

400

27 Pragmatics Learning in the Workplace Veronika Timpe-Laughlin

413

28 Individual Learner Considerations in SLA and L2 Pragmatics Satomi Takahashi

429

PART VI

L2 Pragmatics in the Global Era

445

29 Norms and Variation in L2 Pragmatics Anne Barron

447

30 Heritage Learner Pragmatics Yang Xiao-Desai

462

31 Intercultural Competence and L2 Pragmatics Jane Jackson

479

32 Multilingual Pragmatics: Implicature Comprehension in Adult L2 Learners and Multilingual Children Kyriakos Antoniou

495

Index511

vii

Contributors

Kyriakos Antoniou is Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow in the Center for Applied Neuroscience, University of Cyprus, and Tutor at the Hellenic Open University. After obtaining his PhD (Applied Linguistics) from Cambridge University in 2014, he held various positions at Cambridge University, Université libre de Bruxelles and University College London. Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig is Professor of Second Language Studies at Indiana University and

teaches and conducts research on second language acquisition, pragmatics, and formulaic language. Her work on the acquisition of conventional expressions, pragmatic routines, and formulaic language has appeared in Language Learning, Intercultural Pragmatics, and Second Language Research. Her work on the effects of instruction on pragmatic routines has appeared in Language Teaching Research and Language Learning and Technology.

Anne Barron is Professor of English Linguistics at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg,

Germany. Her research focuses on interlanguage pragmatics, variational pragmatics, the pragmatics of Irish English, and contrastive genre analysis. Recent publications include the co-edited handbooks Pragmatics of Discourse (De Gruyter, 2014) and The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (Routledge, 2017).

Nancy Bell is Professor at Washington State University.  Her research focuses on humor and l­anguage play, especially with respect to L2 users.  Her recent books include  a text on failed humor (We are not Amused: Failed Humor in Interaction) and, with Anne Pomerantz, Humor in the Classroom: A Guide for Language Teachers and Educational Researchers. Valeriia Bogorevich has a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Northern Arizona University. She is currently an ESL instructor at the Program in Intensive English. Valeria has 10 years of EFL/ESL teaching experience, and her main research interests lie in the area of L2 assessment. Rémi A. van Compernolle is Associate Professor and William S. Dietrich II Career Development

Professor of Second Language Acquisition and French and Francophone Studies at Carnegie Mellon University. His research focuses on extensions of cultural-historical psychology to ­second language development, pedagogy, and assessment, with specific focus on pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and interaction.

D. Joseph Cunningham is Assistant Professor of German at Georgetown University. His research is situated at the intersection of computer-assisted language learning and second language pragmatic development, with particular emphasis on telecollaboration/virtual exchange. Wenhao Diao is Assistant Professor in the Department of East Asian Studies and the doctoral program of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching at the University of Arizona. Her research viii

Contributors

deals with the sociolinguistic and sociocultural aspects of second language learning in different contexts, with a focus on study abroad. Sébastien Dubreil is Teaching Professor of French and Francophone Studies, Second Language Acquisition, and Technology-Enhanced Learning at Carnegie Mellon University. Specializing in CALL, his research interests focus on the use of technology in fostering transcultural learning. His most recent research examines the notions of social pedagogies, linguistic landscapes, and game-based language and culture learning. Søren Wind Eskildsen is Associate Professor at the University of Southern Denmark. He primarily investigates developmental issues in L2 learning from the perspective of usage-based linguistics and conversation analysis. His research interests include the interplay between social interaction, opportunities for teaching and learning, and L2 development, inside and outside classrooms. J. César Félix-Brasdefer is Professor of Linguistics and Spanish at Indiana University, Bloomington.

His research interests include pragmatics, discourse analysis, instruction of pragmatics, im/ politeness, and intercultural pragmatics. He has published several books and edited volumes, peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and articles for handbooks. He has a forthcoming textbook on pragmatics, discourse, and variation (Pragmática del español, Routledge Press).

Julieta Fernández is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese and affiliated faculty in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on pragmatic dimensions of language use, language learning and technology, and second language learning and pedagogy. Marta González-Lloret is Professor at the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa. Her research interests

lie at the intersections of TBLT (task-based language teaching) technology and L2 pragmatics. Her books include A Practical Guide to Integrating Technology into Task-Based Language Teaching (Georgetown University Press, 2016) and Technology-Mediated TBLT (with Lourdes Ortega, John Benjamins, 2014). She is currently Editor of the Pragmatics & Language Learning book series (NFLRC) as well as co-editor of the journal System (Elsevier). 

Thomas Holtgraves is Professor of Psychological Science at Ball State University. He con-

ducts interdisciplinary research into multiple facets of language and social psychology. He is the author of the Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (Oxford University Press, 2014), the chapter ‘Social Psychology and Language: Words, Utterances, and Conversations’ in the Handbook of Social Psychology (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey 2010; Wiley), and Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use (Erlbaum, 2002). Yoonjee Hong is a Ph.D. student in Second Language Acquisition at the University of Maryland. She is also a graduate research assistant at the National Foreign Language Center. Her research interests include second language pragmatics, assessing second language proficiency, and universality and specificity in L2 discourse. Noriko Ishihara is Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL/EFL at Hosei University. Her

research interests include instructional pragmatics, identity and language learning, language teacher development, globalization, and peace linguistics. She facilitates teachers’ professional development courses in Japan and the U.S.A. on methodology, pragmatics, and intercultural communication. ix

Contributors

Jane Jackson is Professor in the English Department at the Chinese University of Hong Kong,

where she teaches applied linguistics courses. A recipient of numerous external research grants and awards, she has published widely on study abroad, intercultural communication/education, language and identity, internationalization, and eLearning.

Okim Kang is Associate Professor in the applied linguistics program at Northern Arizona

University, Flagstaff, AZ. Her research interests are speech production and perception, L2 pronunciation and intelligibility, L2 oral assessment and testing, automated scoring and speech recognition, World Englishes, and language attitude. 

Gabriele Kasper is Professor of Second Language Studies at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. After working extensively on speech act pragmatics, she became interested in the social organization of multilingual and multimodal interaction, including cognition, affect, and learning, and standard research methods in applied linguistics. Alyssa Kermad is Assistant Professor in the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures

at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC. Her main research interests are in speech perception, speech assessment, second language speech and pronunciation, and second language acquisition. 

Gyeongnam Kwon received her master’s degree in Cognitive and Social Processes from Ball State University. She obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree in Korean Language and Literature and Business from Hongik University. Currently she is working on texting research to explore how principles of face-to-face communication are reflected in texting messages. Shuai Li is Associate Professor and Chinese Program Coordinator in the Department of World Languages and Cultures at Georgia State University. His research interests include interlanguage pragmatics, language testing and assessment, and Chinese as a second language acquisition and teaching. Joy Maa is a Ph.D. student in the Second Language Acquisition program of the Department of

Modern Languages at Carnegie Mellon University. Her research focuses primarily on the second language acquisition of pragmatics and sociocultural knowledge.

Junko Mori is Professor of Japanese Language and Linguistics at the University of WisconsinMadison, and a core faculty member of the university’s Doctoral Program in Second Language Acquisition. By using conversation analysis (CA), she has investigated the relationship between linguistic structures and organizations of social interaction, classroom discourse, intercultural communication, and workplace interaction. Hanh thi Nguyen is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the TESOL Program at Hawaii Pacific

University. Informed by ethnomethodological conversation analysis, her research focuses on the development of interactional competence in second language learning settings, workplaces, and child–parent interactions. She is also interested in Vietnamese applied linguistics. 

Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen is Associate Professor in the English Language and Literature Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Her primary research interests are in pragmatics and language learning, language pedagogy, and language teacher education. Recently, her work has also expanded to include the development of interactional competence in child-parent interactions and child language socialization. x

Contributors

Carmen Pérez Vidal is a ChairProfessor in Language Acquisition and in English at the

Department of Translation and Linguistic Sciences at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. Her research interests lie within the field of second/foreign language acquisition, bilingualism, and language/culture learning in different contexts (i.e., study abroad, immersion) and instructed second language acquisition. 

Luke Plonsky is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern Arizona University where

he teaches courses in SLA and research methods. His work has appeared in a variety of journals (e.g., Applied Linguistics, Language Learning) and edited volumes. Luke is Associate Editor of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Managing Editor of Foreign Language Annals, and Co-Director of the IRIS Database.

Anne Pomerantz is Professor of Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education. She teaches courses on language pedagogy, linguistic ethnography, and intercultural communication. Her research focuses on the functions of humor in multilingual educational spaces and the affordances of humor for developing learners’ intercultural competence. Steven J. Ross is Professor of Second Language Acquisition at the School of Language, Literature, and Culture at the University of Maryland. His research areas include language assessment, research methods, and second language pragmatics. Marianna Ryshina-Pankova is Associate Professor of German at Georgetown University. As

Director of Curriculum she is actively involved in the evaluation and renewal of the undergraduate curriculum and in mentoring graduate students teaching in the program. Her research focuses on the application of systemic functional theory to the study of second-language writing development and advanced proficiency assessment, as well as on L2 pedagogy and contentand language-integrated curriculum design.

Rachel L. Shively is Associate Professor of Spanish and Applied Linguistics at Illinois State

University. She received her Ph.D. in Hispanic Linguistics from the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on second language pragmatics, discourse analysis, and language and culture learning during study abroad. 

Shelley Staples is Associate Professor of English Applied Linguistics/Second Language Acquisition and Teaching at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on the use of corpusbased discourse analysis to investigate (second) language use across spoken and written contexts, including pragmatic and functional dimensions. Julie M. Sykes is Director of CASLS and Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on applied linguistics and second language acquisition, with an emphasis on technological and pedagogical innovation for interlanguage pragmatic development and intercultural competence. She has published various articles on CALL-related topics, including synchronous computer-mediated communication and pragmatic development, gaming and CALL, and lexical acquisition in digitally mediated environments. Julie was awarded the 2018 University of Oregon Research Award for Impact and Innovation. Naoko Taguchi is Professor of Japanese and Second Language Acquisition at Carnegie Mellon University. Her research addresses a number of topics in L2 pragmatics, including pragmatics learning while abroad, technology-assisted pragmatics learning, heritage learner pragmatics, intercultural pragmatics, and task-based pragmatics teaching. She is currently the co-editor of a new journal, Applied Pragmatics. xi

Contributors

Satomi Takahashi is Professor of Second Language Acquisition at Rikkyo University, Tokyo,

where she teaches second language acquisition and pragmatics. Her current research interests include implicit teaching of L2 pragmalinguistic features and the relationships between L2 pragmatic awareness and various individual difference variables.

Yumiko Tateyama teaches in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the

University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Her research interests include Japanese language pedagogy, teaching and learning pragmatics and classroom discourse. She recently co-edited a book entitled Interactional Competence in Japanese as an Additional Language (Greer, Ishida, & Tateyama, NFLRC, 2017).

Donna Tatsuki is Director of the Graduate School for English Language Education and Research at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, researches cross-cultural pragmatics, the representations of gender/ethnicity in government-approved language textbooks, and multiparty talk-in-interaction in MUN simulations. She has taught in Canada and Japan. Veronika Timpe-Laughlin is a research scientist in English language learning and assessment at

Educational Testing Service. Her research interests include L2 pragmatics, task-based language teaching, technology in L2 instruction and assessment, and young learner assessment. Before joining ETS, Veronika taught in the English Department at TU Dortmund University, Germany.

Yang Xiao-Desai is Associate Professor of Chinese at San Francisco State University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Her main areas of research are in Chinese linguistics, second language acquisition, heritage language education, and world language teacher education.  Shota Yamaguchi is a full-time English teacher at Waseda Jitsugyo Junior and Senior High School in Tokyo. His research interests include pragmatics, conversation analysis, and English as a lingua franca. Richard F. Young is Emeritus Professor in English Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition

at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His teaching and research is in sociolinguistics, English syntax, second language acquisition, and research methodology. Since 2016, he has held the Chutian Professorship in the School of Foreign Languages at Central China Normal University.

Soo Jung Youn is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern Arizona University. Her

research interests include language testing and assessment, L2 pragmatics, task-based language teaching, and mixed methods research.

Tania Morales Zelaya received her master’s degree in Cognitive and Social Processes from Ball State University. She has participated in research examining the role of emoji in text messaging and the variation of its use based on culture. Her research interests include the long-term effects of second language acquisition. Jingyuan Zhuang is a PhD student in Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania State University.

She received her M.S. in Linguistics (with a concentration in Applied Linguistics) from Georgetown University. Her research interests include second language acquisition, L2 pragmatics, and study abroad.

xii

Acknowledgments

With 44 authors contributing to this volume, I am excited to present this comprehensive and wide-ranging portrait of pragmatics research in second language acquisition. A large-scale project like this makes us appreciate the help and support we receive from a number of people without whose kindness and dedication it would be impossible to complete our work. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Susan Gass and Alison Markey, the editors of the Routledge Second Language Acquisition Series, for inviting me to edit this handbook. There are many handbooks of pragmatics in the field, but to my knowledge this is the first one solely dedicated to second language pragmatics (L2 pragmatics). I appreciate the trust and support they provided me in elucidating the vision and scope of the handbook. My sincere appreciation also goes to the contributors to this volume for their insightful work, cooperation, and commitment as we worked our way through a number of revisions during the internal and external review processes. I feel privileged to be associated with these many outstanding scholars whose efforts were essential to the publication of this volume, and I am deeply indebted to all. I learned a tremendous amount from their expertise as I envision future possibilities of the field, and I am confident that readers will feel the same. Last but not least, I would like to thank Andrew Cohen for reviewing a large number of chapters in a timely manner. His succinct and insightful comments stemming from his long-term experience and knowledge of the field has no doubt enhanced the quality of the volume. Thanks also go to Bettina Migge, Lourdes Ortega, Rachel Shively, and Adam van Compernolle, who also took part in the review process. I hope that the scholarship presented in this handbook will cultivate new research agendas, methods, and theories of second language pragmatics as this important field moves to its fifth decade. Naoko Taguchi July 20, 2018 Pittsburgh, PA

xiii

1 Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics An Overview Naoko Taguchi

Both experts and lay people would agree that learning a second language (L2)1 involves more than learning grammar and vocabulary. Learning sociocultural conventions and norms of language use—what to say or not to say in a certain situation, how to convey intentions in a contextually fitting manner, and how to achieve a communicative goal collaboratively with others—is a crucial part of becoming a competent speaker in L2. The field of L2 pragmatics addresses this fundamental yet often neglected area of L2 learning and teaching. L2 pragmatics encompasses two broader disciplines—pragmatics and second language acquisition (SLA)—which are complementary in defining the objectives and substances of the field. Pragmatics serves as a goal for L2 acquisition, and SLA provides frameworks and empirical methods to examine the process and impetus of the acquisition. Pragmatics studies the connection between a linguistic form and a context, where that form is used, and how this connection is perceived and realized in a social interaction. Our linguistic choices (as it pertains to the use of form) are bound by several factors. Certainly, contextual factors such as settings, speakers’ relationships and their roles, and topics of conversation affect our way of speaking, but our linguistic choices are also shaped by agency and consequentiality. We choose to speak in a certain way depending on the type of ‘self’ that we want to project (Duff, 2012; LoCastro, 2003). We are also mindful of the consequences of our linguistic behavior—how it impacts others’ perceptions and reactions. These elements of pragmatics are reiterated in Crystal (1997), who defines pragmatics as ‘the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication’ (p. 301). Given the intricacy involved in pragmatics, one can easily imagine that it can take a village to achieve full competency in pragmatics in L2—if it is ever possible. The challenge comes from many sources. One source is the influence coming from the first language (L1) (or any additional language in the system). Adult learners already have a foundation of pragmatic knowledge in L1 when they come to learn L2. Hence, they need to develop processing control over pre-existing pragmatic representations while re-learning new connections between linguistic forms and the social contexts in which they occur in L2 (Bialystok, 1993). Knowledge of how to express social and interpersonal concepts like politeness, formality, or solidarity in L1 does not directly transfer to L2 because linguistic expressions and strategies required in L2 are different. These concepts also vary in degrees across cultures. 1

Naoko Taguchi

Another challenge for L2 pragmatics acquisition is the sociocultural nature of pragmatics as a learning object. Because social norms and conventions of communication are not salient, it is often difficult for learners to notice what linguistic means are used to project appropriate levels of politeness or formality in a situation, or how meaning is conveyed indirectly with specific linguistic and non-linguistic means (Wolfson, 1989). Those means, and social conventions behind the means, also exhibit considerable variation even in a single community. This variable and tacit nature of forms and conventions further challenges pragmatics learning. Finally, pragmatics involves wide-ranging dimensions that encompass linguistic and sociocultural language use, which makes learning pragmatics a challenging task. Thomas (1983) defined these dimensions in a distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. The former refers to linguistic resources for performing a communicative act, while the latter involves knowledge of sociocultural norms and conventions associated with the act. To become pragmatically competent, L2 learners need a range of linguistic resources, as well as the ability to evaluate contextual information, select appropriate resources, and use them efficiently in a real-time interaction. For instance, when learners want to ask someone a favor, they need to know what linguistic forms are available to convey such illocution. They also need to assess the nature and size of the favor and to whom it is directed in what occasion, as well as its likely outcomes. Learning pragmatics is taxing because of this combination of linguistic knowledge and sociocultural sensitivity required for a pragmatic act. The combination also indicates that grammar and pragmatics are distinct yet interdependent in L2 learning (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Kasper & Rose, 2002). Knowledge of formal aspects of language (e.g., grammar, lexis) does not automatically lead to better pragmatic performance, but pragmatics learning does not occur without it. Threshold linguistic knowledge is pre-requisite and serves as a means for pragmatic performance. These observations suggest that acquisition of L2 pragmatics is a long-term process shaped by multiple interweaving factors: L1 pragmatics, L2 proficiency, knowledge of social conventions and norms, context of language use, and experience in the target community. These factors involved in pragmatics learning also inform a larger field of SLA. SLA is a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary field in which numerous factors—linguistic, psychological, and sociological— need to be examined together all at once to understand the process of L2 development and influences on the process (Gass & Mackey, 2012). As a branch of SLA, L2 pragmatics is a field that investigates the construct of pragmatics and process of acquiring the construct. The Routledge Handbook of SLA and Pragmatics illustrates the long-standing relationship between L2 pragmatics and SLA research. The starting point of the relationship goes back to the term interlanguage pragmatics, which was originally coined by Kasper in the 1980s and later defined in Kasper and Dahl (1991) as L2 learners’ pragmatic systems. Since this term debuted, L2 pragmatics has accumulated a critical mass of empirical findings that have enhanced our understanding of SLA from a pragmatics perspective. This handbook surveys this body of literature in six distinct areas: (1) constructs of pragmatic competence, (2) theoretical foundations, (3) research methods, (4) instruction and assessment of pragmatics, (5) contexts of learning and individual differences, and (6) L2 pragmatics in the global era. The handbook provides a critical review of the L2 pragmatics field by evaluating the existing literature, problematizing the current state, and identifying future directions. As an introduction to the handbook, this chapter presents a historical background of the field in response to critical questions that have guided L2 pragmatics research thus far. My goal is to present an introductory overview of the field and encourage readers to leap into subsequent chapters so they can read further on the issues raised in this chapter. I will address questions in three major areas of L2 pragmatics research: construct, development, and instruction. •• 2

Construct: What does it mean to be pragmatically competent? What elements are involved in the construct of pragmatic competence?

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

•• ••

Development: How does pragmatic competence develop over time? How do individual learner characteristics and contextual resources shape pragmatic development? Instruction: What is the role of instruction in pragmatic development?

In the following, I will present representative literature addressing these questions.

Background Construct: What does it mean to be pragmatically competent? What elements are involved in the construct of pragmatic competence? The definition of pragmatic competence has evolved over time corresponding to the changing view of L2 ability and to epistemology of the field of SLA. The early definition goes back to the theoretical models of communicative competence, which situated pragmatic competence as a fundamental component of L2 ability, distinct from grammatical, discourse, and strategic competences (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980). These models view pragmatic competence as involving two dimensions: functional and sociolinguistic knowledge. The former involves the use of proper linguistic forms for achieving a communicative function (e.g., what to say when greeting a colleague), while the latter involves understanding contextual characteristics and selecting appropriate forms to use in that context (e.g., how to greet a colleague in a business meeting vs. a roommate at a party). In these early models, pragmatic competence is postulated as the knowledge of form–function–context mappings—which forms to use for what communicative functions in what social contexts. With a surge of discursive pragmatics (Kasper, 2006) and interactional competence (Young, 2011), the view of pragmatic competence has moved away from the one-to-one correspondence among a form, function, and context of use. It is now well accepted that the form–function–context associations are not stable or pre-existing within individuals. Rather, they are contingent upon an unfolding course of interaction and are jointly constructed among participants in discourse. The form–function–context associations also shift constantly, corresponding to changing contextual dynamics such as the speakers’ attitudes, affect, and directions of discourse. Hence, ability to adapt to dynamic interaction and achieve a communicative act collaboratively with others is a fundamental aspect of pragmatic competence. Critically, with interaction as part of the construct, pragmatic knowledge is now understood as interactional resources. As Young (2011) claims, participants draw on numerous interactional resources during interaction, including register-specific linguistic forms, speech acts, topic management, turn taking, and repair. These resources are shared among participants as they co-construct a communicative act. More recently, the field of intercultural pragmatics has expanded our understanding of pragmatics-in-interaction. Intercultural pragmatics studies how people from different cultures communicate using a common language (Kecskes, 2014, 2016). Kecskes proposed the sociocognitive approach as a theoretical foundation. This approach combines the cognitive–philosophical perspective, which views intention as pre-existing in the speaker’s mind before it is uttered, and the sociocultural-interactional perspective, which views intention as emergent and jointly constructed among participants in discourse. People draw on their own norms and expectations, but these L1 norms are negotiated and re-defined as they seek common ground during interaction. Hence, individuals’ prior norms eventually develop into new, hybrid norms, creating a ‘third culture that combines elements of each of the speakers’ L1 cultures in novel ways’ (Kecskes 2014, p. 13). These tenets of intercultural pragmatics are directly applicable to L2 pragmatics. Learners draw on their own knowledge of form–function–context associations from their L1 (or other prior experiences), but their individual-level knowledge transforms to shared knowledge with new standards of politeness, directness, and conventions emerging from interaction. 3

Naoko Taguchi

Hence, learners’ willingness to suspend their own standards and seek mutual standards is a critical aspect of pragmatic competence. Also important is the skilled use of communication strategies, which directly affect the process of mutual understanding. While interactional competence (Young, 2011) and the socio-cognitive approach (Kecskes, 2014, 2016) both capitalize on the concept of interaction to explain pragmatic competence, another concept that has recently expanded our understanding of pragmatic competence is learner agency. LoCastro (2003) defines agency as a self-defining capacity that works with volition to bring about a certain effect on or change to one’s behavior. In this definition, learners are viewed as social beings with their own values, beliefs, and perceptions of the world. Following their personal principles, learners make their own linguistic choices to create social positions for themselves, even when their choices do not conform to the norms widely practiced in the local community (Ishihara & Tarone, 2009). Hence, when examining L2 pragmatic competence, it is critical to consider learners’ desired social identity and how it impacts their pragmatic choices. Knowledge of the normative form–function–context associations is one thing, but deciding whether or not to actually use the knowledge with others can be a totally different matter. In summary, the concept of pragmatic competence has evolved over time, shaping our understanding of what it means to be pragmatically competent. Given this evolving conceptualization, pragmatic competence in the current era is best understood as a multi-dimensional and multilayered construct that involves several knowledge and skill areas: (1) linguistic and sociocultural knowledge of what forms to use in what context; (2) interactional abilities to use the knowledge in a flexible, adaptive manner corresponding to changing context; and (3) agency to make an informed decision on whether or not to implement the knowledge in the community. In the current transcultural society, pragmatic competence is often at stake in intercultural encounters where learners from different L1 backgrounds communicate using a common L2. In such a context, pragmatic competence goes beyond the traditional focus of how learners perform a pragmatic act in L2. It extends to how learners co-construct pragmatic norms with others and how they appropriate the norms. The chapters in this handbook collectively illustrate this multiplicity of pragmatic competence. Chapters on constructs and units of analysis in L2 pragmatics present a diverse scope, including traditional constructs of speech acts, conversational implicatures, and routines, as well as more recent areas of prosody, humor, and interactional competence (Part I). Chapters on theoretical foundations also show diverse representations, ranging from cognitive theories that view pragmatic knowledge as individuals’ mental representations, to socially oriented theories that situate pragmatic knowledge in an interpersonal interaction (Part II). Finally, uniform standards of pragmatic language use, as seen in the form–function–context associations, are critically discussed in chapters in the section on pragmatics in the global era, including variational pragmatics, intercultural communication, and multilingual pragmatics (Part VI). Development: How does pragmatic competence develop over time? How do individual learner characteristics and contextual resources shape developmental trajectories? Despite the explicit longitudinal orientation in the mainstream SLA research (Ortega & Byrnes, 2008), L2 pragmatics, particularly in its early years, has fallen short of this trend. This is because of the dominance of cross-linguistic and cross-sectional studies in the 1980s and 1990s, which focused on describing pragmatic language use rather than its development (e.g., Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). Many studies in these periods used a questionnaire-based instrument to elicit speech acts (e.g., a discourse completion test or DCT) and examined how many different speech act strategies exist in a language, whether these are direct or indirect strategies, and how they differ across languages, situations, and participant groups (e.g., L2 learners vs. native speakers). Cross-sectional studies that emerged in this trend 4

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

generated insights into development by comparing learners’ speech acts across different proficiency levels. The early cross-sectional practice still remains today with new target languages (e.g., Greek in Bella, 2014; Arabic in Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2014) and new constructs (e.g., argumentative discourse in Dippold, 2011; interactional competence in Galaczi, 2014). Longitudinal studies, although still outnumbered by cross-sectional studies, started to show more prominence in the 2000s. This shift is largely owed to a series of seminal publications that underscored the paucity of longitudinal practice and encouraged researchers to explore issues in acquisitional pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2000; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Taguchi, 2010). According to Bardovi-Harlig (1999), acquisitional pragmatics addresses two fundamental issues: changes within the L2 pragmatics systems and influences on those systems. Longitudinal research can address both issues: It can document changes in pragmatic competence and explain those changes by examining influences—both contextual and individual—that may be related to these changes. Several longitudinal studies have documented changes in pragmatic language use and uncovered distinct stages of development. A classic study is Ellis’s (1992) investigation into two young ESL learners’ classroom requests. Changes in request forms found in classroom interaction data were interpreted as belonging to one of three developmental stages: (1) A pre-basic stage where learners conveyed a request intention in a context-dependent manner; (2) A formulaic stage where learners performed requests with chunks (e.g., ‘Give me that.’); and (3) An unpacking stage where formulae turned into productive language use with conventional request forms (e.g., ‘Can you’ + verb). Kasper and Rose (2002) later expanded these three stages into five stages of pragmatic development: (1) pre-basic, (2) formulaic, (3) unpacking, (4) expansion (entry of new forms), and (5) fine-tuning (understanding of associations among form, participants, goals, and context). Ohta (2001), on the other hand, analyzed naturalistic interactions in Japanese classes and identified a six-stage development of Japanese acknowledgment and alignment expressions (i.e., feedback signals used to show listenership and empathy). She found that acknowledgment expressions emerged first in learners’ production, followed by alignment expressions, and each expression expanded in lexical variety. In another study, Shively (2013) documented stages of humor production by analyzing an L2 Spanish learner’s conversations in a study abroad program over a semester. Data revealed three changes: (1) decrease in failed humor; (2) decrease in deadpan humor (humor without contextualization); and (3) increase in humorous revoicing. Studies using Conversation Analysis also revealed developmental stages, but unlike other studies focusing on linguistic strategies, these stages were presented from the standpoint of growing repertoire of interactional resources to create meaning. For instance, Al-Gahtani and Roever (2012) analyzed semi-naturalistic role play data to trace development of request-making in L2 Arabic over a semester. Participants increased their use of pre-expansion (explaining the reason for request), which occurred in sequence with the interlocutor’s acknowledgment token. Pakarek Doehler and Berger (2017), on the other hand, examined story-openings by an L2 French learner in a home stay setting. Analysis of 20 conversations recorded over a period of eight months showed that the learner gradually expanded her interactional resources for a story launching: preparing the listener for the upcoming story; relating the story to the prior talk; and projecting the nature of the story (e.g., funny, serious). These studies documenting distinct stages of development are rather under-represented in the longitudinal practice because most existing studies have primarily focused on documenting changes using a pre–post design, rather than revealing a staged progression over multiple datapoints. Hence, the studies described above, albeit the minority, have generated valuable insights into patterns and stages of development, which in turn shed light on SLA issues like developmental order and time scale, ultimate attainment, and variation in developmental patterns. Although changes in pragmatic systems have been documented widely in the literature, when it comes to the other dimension of acquisitional pragmatics, i.e., influences on pragmatic systems, 5

Naoko Taguchi

findings are rather limited. Existing studies are largely descriptive, and do not explain how and why certain changes occurred. When considering ‘how’ and ‘why,’ the most obvious sources of influence are individual learner characteristics and contexts of learning. Individual characteristics have been the paramount area of SLA research (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009; MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Clément, 2016). Because learners often exhibit variation in their degrees of success in L2 acquisition, studies have strived to identify individual factors that can explain the variations and predict success in L2 learning. L2 pragmatics has followed this trend, as seen in a large body of studies that examined proficiency impact on pragmatic competence, and a smaller body of studies looking at other factors (e.g., gender, age, motivation, cognitive abilities, personality, and identity) (for a review, see Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Given the recent surge in the social turn (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner, 1997) and in the dynamic, complex systems approaches (e.g., de Bot, 2008; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), it is more current to situate individual characteristics within a context where learning occurs. Indeed, the recent trend has been that, instead of treating individual characteristics as fixed and discrete variables independent from context, researchers view individual factors as interacting with each other and changing dynamically in context (Dörnyei, 2009). Hence, it is not individual characteristics per se that affect learning; it is a constellation of characteristics mediated by context and time that shapes learning. The interdependence between context and individuals is also seen in L2 pragmatics research. Recent studies have taken a qualitative, case study approach or mixed methods design in longitudinal investigations. These studies have documented learners’ changes over time, with a conjoined analysis of individual characteristics and resources available in a learning context affecting the changes (Brown, 2013; Cook, 2008; D. Li, 2000; Diao, 2016; DuFon, 2010; Hassall, 2006; Ohta, 2001; Shively, 2011; Taguchi, 2012). Many of these studies took place in a study abroad program or sojourn. This trend indicates that the target language community has served as a prolific environment to observe individual and contextual influences on pragmatics learning. Given the sociocultural nature of pragmatic competence, researchers consider that pragmatic development can be best observed in a target language community where learners have opportunities to observe local norms of interaction and experience real-life consequences of their pragmatic behavior. Study abroad settings involve unique participant memberships, activities, and organizations of interactions that could facilitate pragmatics learning to a greater extent than formal classroom settings. Another common feature among these studies is their application of language socialization theory as a guiding framework (e.g., Cook, 2008; Diao, 2016; Li, 2000; DuFon, 2010; Ohta, 2001; Shively, 2011). The language socialization approach contends that linguistic knowledge and sociocultural understanding of the knowledge develop together as learners participate in routine activities (Duff & Talmy, 2011; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Socialization is characterized as a process of novices becoming competent members of a community through interaction with expert members in the community. Using observations, field notes, and analyses of interaction data, researchers have uncovered instances of explicit and implicit socialization leading to pragmatics learning. Ohta (2001), for example, showed how L2 Japanese learners were socialized into the role of empathetic listener through exposure to teacher talk demonstrating acknowledgment and alignment expressions. DuFon (2010) revealed how feedback and modeling coming from local members socialized learners into Indonesian leave-taking routines and cultural values associated with those routines. Diao (2016) analyzed conversations between L2 Chinese learners and their Chinese roommates to reveal socialization into gendered language use. These studies demonstrate a clear connection among learners, contexts, and pragmatic development. By looking at the data, we understand what kind of pragmatics learning opportunities occurred, how they occurred, and what learning outcomes were produced. To summarize, various issues related to pragmatic development can be paraphrased in a single question: What mechanisms drive development, moving learners from their current stage to a 6

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

higher stage of pragmatic competence? This question has been addressed by a line of longitudinal studies, particularly by qualitative research conducted in a naturalistic context. A number of qualitative studies performed a holistic analysis of all the elements involved in a context, revealing a reciprocal relationship between contextual affordances and learners’ characteristics shaping development in a dynamic manner. This handbook will help us evaluate the current practice of acquisitional pragmatics based on two sources of influences on changing pragmatic systems: individual learner characteristics and contexts of learning (i.e., study abroad programs, classrooms, workplaces, and technologyenhanced environments) (Part V). The theoretical foundations section reviews a range of SLA theories from the standpoint of the mechanisms driving pragmatic development (Part II). The research methods section discusses methodological options for examining pragmatic development from a variety of perspectives, including discourse analysis, conversation analysis, corpus linguistics, psycholinguistic approaches, and mixed methods approach (Part III). Instruction: What is the role of instruction for pragmatic development? Instructed SLA (ISLA) is a growing sub-field of SLA as it has rigorously explored how systematic manipulations of learning mechanisms and conditions can lead to the development of an additional language (Loewen & Sato, 2017). L2 pragmatics has followed this trend. Researchers have proposed theoretically grounded hypotheses and tested them systematically using empirical data (for a review, see Takahashi, 2010; Taguchi, 2015). The contribution that pragmatics has made to ISLA is in the target area of instruction. While formal aspects of linguistics (e.g., grammar and lexis) have been the primary interests in ISLA, pragmatics has offered an opportunity to examine instructional effects beyond morpho-syntax, extending to sociocultural aspects of language use. Correspondingly, instructional materials have been designed to incorporate socially oriented communicative goals—whether learners can produce intended communicative effects on others or whether they can convey interpersonal meanings such as politeness, formality, and affect. Early studies in the 1980s and 1990s reached a consensus that pragmatics is teachable, given that instructed groups often outperformed their non-instructed counterparts (for a review, see Kasper & Rose, 1999). Studies in the next decade addressed the question of effective instruction by comparing different teaching methods for learning outcomes. By far, the comparison between explicit and implicit teaching method has dominated the field. Motivated by Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis that capitalizes on the role of consciousness and attention in learning, studies generally revealed that explicit metapragmatic explanation (e.g., information about which linguistic strategies to use when refusing someone’s invitation) is more instrumental than an implicit condition that promotes learning through input exposure and consciousness-raising (e.g., identifying refusal strategies in input). More recent literature suggests that effective teaching is closely related to depth of processing (Taguchi, 2015). Studies showed that implicit teaching can be equally effective when learners are strategically guided to notice pragmatic features and process those features at a deeper level (e.g., deducing why certain refusal strategies are used in a particular situation). In the same period, tips and guidelines for practitioners have also emerged, informing instructors how to design materials that can package key elements of pragmatics—contextual understanding, language use for communicative functions, cultural knowledge, and social interaction (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Tatsuki & Houck, 2010). The general consensus emerging in this literature is three-fold: instructional tasks should be designed to enhance learners’ awareness and reflection of pragmatic language use, have learners engage in pragmatic-focused interaction activities, and guide learners’ discovery and understanding of pragmatics-related conventions and rules (Cohen & Ishihara, 2013). 7

Naoko Taguchi

Parallel to the development in pedagogy, assessment practice has also been fortified. Traditional practices of testing—construct definition and operationalization, measurement design, validity argument, and reliability estimates—have been incorporated to develop a valid, reliable assessment battery of pragmatic competence. Hudson, Detmer, and Brown’s (1995) book was the forerunner of this trend, attempting the multi-trait, multi-method approach to the assessment of pragmatic competence. The study showed how different measures (e.g., written and spoken DCTs, role plays, and multiple-choice questions) can be used to evaluate speech acts of requests, apologies, and refusals. Roever (2005) advanced the practice with technology by developing a web-based test assessing speech acts, implicature, and routines. More recently, in line with the popularity of interactional competence (Young 2011), test developers have addressed learners’ ability to participate in extended discourse as an area of assessment in L2 pragmatics (Roever, Fraser & Elder, 2014; Youn, 2013; for a review, see Ross & Kasper, 2013). In the current decade, instructed pragmatics has grown further in two distinct directions. One is the increasing diversity in the theoretical epistemology underpinning the studies. The field has moved away from the dominance of noticing hypothesis and the comparison between explicit and implicit teaching. Researchers have started to adopt different SLA theories that represent both cognitive and social camps, including input processing (VanPatten, 2015; see Takimoto, 2009 for an example study), skill acquisition theories (Anderson, 1993; see S. Li, 2012), sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978; see van Compernolle, 2014), Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2011; see Kim & Taguchi, 2015), and collaborative dialogue (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; see Taguchi & Kim, 2016). These theories differ in terms of how they view the mechanisms and conditions that drive learning. Studies guided by skill acquisition theories focus on the knowledge of form–function–context associations, which require initial noticing and a large amount of practice to develop. Likewise, studies under sociocultural theory and collaborative dialogue capitalize on the role of interaction assisting co-construction and emergence of pragmatic knowledge. Cognition Hypothesis, on the other hand, informs the nature of an instructional task, focusing on how task features impact learners’ attention and processing of pragmatics and subsequent learning. This growing theoretical diversity has presented an array of conditions to consider when teaching pragmatics. Another recent trend in instructed pragmatics is the increasing popularity of technology application (for a review, see Taguchi & Sykes, 2013 and Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Technology has firmly established its position in SLA research and teaching, as seen in the wide-spread use of digital media for collecting data and delivering instruction, as well as examining technologymediated contexts (e.g., computer mediated communication or CMC, social media, and multiuser virtual environments) for L2 language use and interaction (Chapelle & Sauro, 2017; Chun, Kern, & Smith, 2016). In their seminal paper, Chun et al. (2016) contend that ‘the use of technology should not be seen as panacea, or a goal in and of itself, but rather as one means to support specific learning goals’ (p. 77). When considering this statement, it is apparent that technology plays a beneficial role in supporting learning goals specifically in pragmatics. The most obvious benefit is the contextualization of learning made available via technology. As Harris (2000; also cited in Chun et al.) argues, the computer is ‘the most powerful contextualization device ever known because it not only integrates language with images and sound in variously manipulable configurations, but also because it links information across languages and cultures’ (p. 242). This contextualization effect of technology is most beneficial for pragmatics learning because pragmatics fundamentally draws on the context of language use. A variety of CMC tools (e.g., chat, blogs, online discussion, and video/web conferencing) can provide a platform for learners to directly interact with other language users across time and physical space (e.g., Cunningham, 2016). Digital games and virtual environments can provide an interactive, input-rich, and selfguided space where learners simulate different participant roles in diverse social settings (Sykes, 2013). In such environments, learners can directly participate in an interactional situation, rather than observing the situation as a third person. They can also experience the direct consequences 8

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

of their pragmatic behavior—what impact their language use has on others and how it shapes subsequent linguistic actions. Only recently these characteristics of technology-enhanced learning, i.e., contextualized language use, interaction with consequences, autonomous learning, and experience-based learning, have been integrated into an instructional study in L2 pragmatics. Research is currently underway to examine whether these characteristics actually lead to increased pragmatic knowledge. In summary, pedagogical issues in L2 pragmatics have diversified over time. Early investigation into the teachability of pragmatics has shifted into methods debates over effective instructional approaches and materials. This shift has been characterized by the explicit integration of mainstream SLA theories in designing instructional materials, along with a growth of the theoretical paradigms in guiding the investigation. The question of effective teaching methods has taken a new direction recently with technology as a potential for expanding traditional options of instruction. In this handbook, the chapters on pedagogical approaches address these various recent developments in teaching pragmatics (Part IV). A meta-analysis of instructional studies presents the current landscape of methods, approaches, and findings of pragmatics teaching. An emerging trend on the application of task-based language teaching (TBLT) to instructed pragmatics is highlighted in a chapter advocating this connection (see also Taguchi & Kim, 2018). Principles and guidelines for material design and development are presented through a systematic evaluation of textbooks and pedagogical practices. Also included in this section is the chapter on pragmatics assessment, which reviews various test types (e.g., DCTs, role plays, multiple-choice items, and performance-based tasks) for reliability and validity. Chapters in the contexts of learning also discuss pedagogical issues by highlighting learning resources and opportunities available in different contexts (e.g., CMC, virtual games, classrooms, workplaces, and study abroad programs) (Part V).

Structure and Features of This Handbook A range of research developments described above indicates that L2 pragmatics has firmly established its position as a branch of SLA. L2 pragmatics has constantly offered a window through which core issues of SLA—patterns of L2 development, and individual characteristics and contexts shaping the development—can be observed and understood. This handbook further illustrates the SLA–pragmatics interface. By presenting a critical survey of the existing literature, this handbook intends to exemplify how L2 pragmatics as a field has contributed to the accumulation of knowledge in SLA and identified areas to be taken further in future research. The handbook has several unique features as outlined below.

Depth and Scope in Coverage This handbook strives for both scope and depth in its survey of L2 pragmatics research by reviewing literature in the following six sections: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Constructs and units of analysis Theoretical approaches Methodological approaches Pedagogical approaches Contextual and individual considerations L2 pragmatics in the global era

These sections together represent the essential structure of the L2 pragmatics field in its entirety, and collectively define both the fundamentals and new directions of the field. 9

Naoko Taguchi

Chapters in the section on constructs (Part I) illustrate what it means to become pragmatically competent in L2 by surveying typical constructs and units of analysis in pragmatic competence. Those constructs include traditional areas of speech acts, conversational implicatures, and routines, as well as recent areas of interactional competence, humor, and prosody. The section on theoretical approaches (Part II) showcases diverse theoretical assumptions underlying pragmatic development, ranging from cognitive to social epistemologies (e.g., noticing hypothesis, skill acquisition, usage-based approaches, language socialization, sociocultural theory, and identity/ agency). The section on methodology (Part III) presents an overview of data collection methods and specific research designs (e.g., mixed methods). This section also features data analysis frameworks that are relatively under-represented in L2 pragmatics research, such as corpus linguistics, systemic functional linguistics, and psycholinguistics approaches. The section on pedagogy (Part IV) includes classic areas of instructional studies, material development, and assessment, as well as more recent topics of TBLT and classroom socialization. The section on contexts and individuals (Part V) presents chapters on individual factors and contexts of learning, including typical areas of study abroad and classroom, extending to more recent areas of workplaces and technology-enhanced contexts (e.g., CMC, digital games, virtual environments). The final section on L2 pragmatics in the global era (Part VI) features recent trends by situating L2 pragmatics within the discourse of multilingualism, heritage language learning, lingua franca communication, and intercultural competence. Across sections and chapters, this handbook aims at problematizing the current state and identifying future directions of L2 pragmatics. To achieve this goal, each chapter presents a critical survey of the existing literature and concrete suggestions on how to advance the current practice.

Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical Considerations This handbook incorporates theoretical, empirical, and practical considerations together into the survey of L2 pragmatics research. These three dimensions are made explicit in separate sections dedicated to theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical approaches to L2 pragmatics (Parts II, III, and IV). The theoretical section addresses conceptualization of pragmatic competence and common frameworks used to investigate pragmatics learning and development. The methodological section addresses research designs, data collection measures, and data analysis methods used to investigate pragmatic competence and development. The section on pedagogy surveys instructional intervention studies and their major findings, instructional materials and tasks, and assessment practice. By presenting these three areas separately, the handbook intends to achieve a comprehensive review that appeals to both researchers and practitioners. The theory–research–pedagogy link will also help underscore the ‘applied’ orientation of SLA as a field.

Conceptual Diversity This handbook promotes diversity and an interdisciplinary stance toward the field. Conceptual diversity is achieved by incorporating both orthodox L2 pragmatics topics (e.g., speech acts, implicatures, instruction, assessment, and learning pragmatics while abroad), as well as rather under-represented, emerging topics. For example, theoretical frameworks such as cognitive approaches (e.g., noticing hypothesis), language socialization, and sociocultural theory appear often in the pragmatics literature. An overview of data collection methods and Conversation Analysis are also common topics in the methods of L2 pragmatics research. In order to go beyond these revisited topics, this handbook presents other theories and methods, such as usage-based 10

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

approaches, corpus linguistics, systemic functional linguistics, and psycholinguistic methods. Although existing findings in these under-represented topics are still small, inclusion of these topics will generate new interests and directions in future research. As another attempt to increase conceptual diversity, I have incorporated new perspectives into long-standing, revisited topics. For example, instructed pragmatics has been a common topic for decades, but this handbook addresses this topic with a recent perspective of meta-analysis. New instructional paradigms are presented through chapters on classroom pragmatics socialization and TBLT. Classic topics such as speech acts and implicatures incorporate more recent orientation of interaction as centrality of pragmatic performance. Finally, conceptual diversity is achieved by dedicating an entire section to globalization in L2 pragmatics with regard to current issues such as native speaker norms and variation, heritage learner pragmatics, intercultural competence, and multilingual pragmatics. By covering both classic topics and recent trends, this handbook aims to appeal to a wider audience including those who are new to the field and want to have a general outlook, as well as those who are already active in the field and want to explore new agendas in L2 pragmatics research. It is my hope that this handbook cultivates interests among students, researchers, and teachers who can take a critical look at L2 pragmatics from their own terrain of activity, and identify gaps and areas to be taken further. I believe that the collective insights coming from a number of stakeholders are impetus to strengthening the field of L2 pragmatics within SLA, as both fields continue to grow in the next decade.

Note 1 In this volume, L2 refers to any additional language(s) that learners acquire including a foreign language (FL) in a formal classroom setting and target language in the context where the language is spoken. As the reviewer of this volume pointed out, I am aware that the distinction between L2 and FL is important for pragmatics learning. I opted for using ‘L2’ as a cover term in this handbook for several reasons. First, the purpose of the handbook is to illustrate the connection between pragmatics and the larger field of SLA in which ‘second language (L2)’ is used as a cover term for ‘foreign language,’ ‘target language,’ and ‘additional language.’ Second, in the current era of globalization, the distinction between L2 and FL has become blurry. Even in a traditional FL context where the target language is not an official language, people have plenty opportunities to interact with target language speakers in both face-to-face and technology-supported mediums.

References Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Role-playing L2 requests: Head acts and sequential organization. Applied Linguistics, 33, 42–65. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2014). Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11, 619–643. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677–713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 182–192). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: Office of English Programs, U.S. Department of State. Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 35–62. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–63). New York: Oxford University Press. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 11

Naoko Taguchi

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brown, L. (2013). Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 269–298). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. Chapelle, C., & Sauro, S. (2017). The handbook of technology and second language learning and teaching. New York: Wiley Blackwell. Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal, 100, 64–80. Cohen, A. D. & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics and materials development (pp. 113–126). London/New York: Bloomsbury. Cook, H. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style. New York/Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cunningham, J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer-mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. Modern Language Journal, 100, 484–507. de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. Modern Language Journal, 92, 166–178. Diao, W. (2016). Peer socialization into gendered Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics, 37, 599–620. Dippold, D. (2011). Argumentative discourse in L2 German: A sociocognitive perspective on the development of facework strategies. Modern Language Journal, 95, 171–187. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). London: Routledge. Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). Abington: Routledge. DuFon, M. (2010). The socialization of leave-taking in L2 Indonesian. In G. Kasper, H. T. Nguyen, & D. R. Yoshimi (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 12 (pp. 91–112). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i National Language Resource Center. Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 1–23. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35, 553–574. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2012). Introduction. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 1–4). London: Routledge. Harris, R. (2000). Rethinking writing. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Hassall, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 31–58). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report No. 7). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman. Ishihara, N. & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kecskes, I. (2014) Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kecskes, I. (2016). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatics theories? In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 43–69). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 12

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A.S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 281–314). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i at Manoa National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81–104. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149–169. Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 58–87. Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438. LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): An overview. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1–12). New York: Taylor & Francis. MacIntyre, P., Gregersen, T., & Clément, R. (2016). Individual differences. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 310–323). New York: Routledge. Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ortega, L., & Byrnes, H. (2008). The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pakarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2017). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for contextsensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics. Early view. Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Roever, C., Fraser, C., & Elder, C. (2014). Development and validation of a test of ESL sociopragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ross, S., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818–1835. Shively, R. L. (2013). Learning to be funny in Spanish study abroad: L2 humor development. Modern Language Journal, 97, 939–946. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. Sykes, J. M. (2013). Multiuser virtual environments: Apologies in Spanish. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics Vol. 7 (pp. 333–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic development. Bristol/New York: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. 13

Naoko Taguchi

Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatics-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37, 416–437 Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (Eds.) (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.) (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics Vol. 7 (pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takimoto, M. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1029–1046. Tatsuki, D., & Houck, N. (2010). Speech acts and beyond: New directions in pragmatics. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–111. van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and instructed L2 pragmatics. Bristol/New York: Multilingual Matters. VanPatten, B. (2015). Foundations of processing instruction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53, 91–109. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Youn, S. J. (2013). Validating task-based assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawai’i. Young, R. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In H. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in language learning and teaching (pp. 426–443). New York: Routledge.

14

Part I

Constructs and Units of Analysis

2 Speech Acts in Interaction Negotiating Joint Action in a Second Language J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Introduction Learning to communicate appropriately and effectively in a second language (L2) is part of learners’ pragmatic competence, that is, the ability to comprehend and produce a variety of communicative acts in context (e.g., greeting, complimenting, and expressing agreement). From an interactional perspective, pragmatic competence concerns the dynamic and dialogic aspects of communication, with a focus on language use in social interaction (Taguchi, 2017). Pragmatic competence also involves the ability to co-construct a social action with interlocutors during interaction. This ability is part of learners’ interactional competence, which involves the skillful use of linguistic and non-linguistic resources to enact a variety of social actions (for an overview of interactional competence, see Hall, Hellerman, & Pekarek Doehler, 2011; see also Chapter 7 in this volume). Drawing on the discursive pragmatics perspective (Kasper, 2006), this chapter presents key concepts of joint actions (Clark, 1996) and Conversation Analysis (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), which can reveal the learners’ ability to co-construct a social action with their interlocutors. The chapter first describes the main tenets of speech act theory and explains how this theory can be extended to examine speech acts in extended discourse. The chapter then describes the discursive pragmatics perspective for examining speech acts in interaction and surveys the existing findings. The chapter ends with conclusions and directions for future research.

Speech Act Theory Speech act theory was first presented in 1955 by the British philosopher John Austin at the William James Lectures at Harvard University. This theory was later published posthumously in Austin’s influential book How to Do Things with Words (1962). Austin’s ideas were further developed by the American philosopher John Searle in his seminal work Speech Acts (1969) and in his later works (1976, 2010). Both philosophers were concerned with the structure of utterances with respect to their meaning, use, and the action they perform. Austin proposed a three-way taxonomy of speech acts, namely locution, illocution, and perlocution. A locutionary act refers to the act of saying something meaningful, that is, the act of producing a sentence in the literal sense (referring and predicating). An illocutionary act is the act performed by saying something that has a conventional force, such as requesting, refusing, warning, and complaining. 17

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Finally, a perlocutionary act refers to what we achieve ‘by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising or misleading’ (Austin, 1962, p. 109). Austin (1962) focused on the purpose of performative utterances, indicating that a speech act produced by the speaker has effects on the hearer. Searle (1969), on the other hand, focused on the intentional and conventional aspects of illocutionary acts by the speaker. Searle (1969) further proposed a set of felicity conditions that must be met before an utterance is considered successful as a speech act. Felicity conditions involve propositional, preparatory, sincerity, and essential conditions, each highlighting a different aspect of an utterance. The propositional condition involves the meaning or textual content, such as the reference and predication of an act (e.g., the act of promising has a future reference). The preparatory condition refers to the prerequisites that must be met prior to the realization of the speech act (i.e., knowing that the person is capable of performing the requested action before making the request). The sincerity condition reflects the speaker’s psychological state (i.e., being sincere about the speech act performed). Finally, the essential condition centers on the illocutionary force of an utterance (i.e., how an utterance is understood, such as classifying a request as an attempt to get the hearer to perform an action). Searle (1976) proposed five categories of speech acts: representatives (or assertives), directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations. Representatives constitute assertions that carry truth value and commit the speaker to the expressed proposition (e.g., asserting, claiming, and reporting). Directives involve an effort on the part of the speaker to get the hearer to perform an action (e.g., requesting or giving commands). Commissives create an obligation on the part of the speaker, that is, committing the speaker to performing (or not performing) a future action (e.g., promising or refusing an invitation). Expressives convey an attitude or a psychological state of the speaker (e.g., apologizing or praising). Finally, declarations are speech acts that immediately change the current state of affairs (i.e., institutionalized performatives, such as the act of declaring a marriage official). Austin (1962) noted that the successful performance of an illocutionary act involves three conditions: securing the hearer’s uptake, causing a change in the given situation, and inviting a response from the hearer. These conditions indicate that, although speech act theory primarily focuses on individual utterances rather than discourse, it provides the foundation for analyzing a speech act as a co-constructed act between the speaker and hearer (e.g., invitation–response and compliment– response sequences). First, in order to secure an uptake, the speaker must ensure that the interlocutor understands the force of an utterance. This concept serves as the basis for the analysis of speech acts in interaction because it considers both the speaker’s utterance and the interlocutor’s response to the utterance (e.g., A: I love your glasses; B: Thank you, I love this brand!). Second, illocutionary acts take effect by causing a change in the normal course of events. For example, after President Obama took the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009, he was no longer addressed as Senator Obama. Third, illocutionary acts typically ‘invite by convention a response or a sequel’ (Austin, 1962, p. 117). The response can be realized verbally and non-verbally through gestures and prosodic features (e.g., intonation). The concept of the illocutionary act suggests that speech acts are produced and interpreted in a specific manner between interlocutors. As described above, Austin’s initial conceptualization of speech acts as ‘doing things with words’ provides the foundation for the analysis of speech acts in interaction. Speech act theory contributes to our understanding of social actions in discourse because notions such as hearer uptake, illocutionary force, conventionality, and felicity conditions are part of social actions. These notions have been adapted to examine a wide range of speech act sequences across different languages (e.g., Barron & Schneider, 2009; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Félix-Brasdefer, 2008, 2015; Márquez-Reiter, 2000; Wierzbicka, 2003). As demonstrated in these studies, analyzing the hearer’s uptake of the speaker’s illocutionary force is crucial for understanding how speakers jointly construct a speech act. 18

Speech Acts in Interaction

A Discursive Perspective to Speech Acts Streeck (1980) and Edmonson (1981) were the first researchers to observe that speech acts are not the result of a single utterance; instead, they are the result of a negotiation, a cooperative achievement, and a conversational outcome among speakers. Streeck focused on the speaker’s use of sequential resources to express illocutionary force. The author noted that ‘[t]he performance of speech acts is an activity by which participants in interaction construct a social context within which they exchange verbal messages’ (p. 134). In order to examine speech acts in interaction, one must go beyond the analysis of individual utterances alone and consider their placement and sequential order in conversation, as well as their communicative functions and their uptake by the hearer. The term ‘speech act sequence’ was introduced by van Dijk (1979, 1980) as an extension of Austin and Searle’s speech act theory to account for the function of speech acts in interaction. It is used as an umbrella term to refer to speech acts performed by one speaker or negotiated among speakers across turns (Félix-Brasdefer, 2014). In the following section I review fundamental concepts and methods for examining speech acts in interaction. Those concepts and methods come from Conversation Analysis (CA) (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 2007) and the concept of language use in social action (Clark, 1996).

Conversation Analysis: A Micro-analytic Talk-in-Interaction Perspective Conversation Analysis (CA) offers a rigorous methodological framework for analyzing the sequential organization of discourse (e.g., conversation openings and closings) (Sacks et al., 1974) (see Chapter 15 in this volume for an in-depth discussion of CA). CA concerns how participants co-construct communicative actions (e.g., request–response, invitation–refusal, compliment–response) sequentially turn-by-turn, and how they design their turns to jointly construct actions with their interlocutor. In conversation analytic research, the adjacency pair (e.g., compliment–compliment response) serves as a basic unit of sequential and action organization in conversation. Turns are comprised of turn-constructional units (TCUs) that perform a specific action such as agreeing, disagreeing, or offering an opinion. Transition to a next speaker may typically occur at a transition-relevance place (TRP). A TRP represents a possible completion of a turn (e.g., where a next speaker may take a turn at talk) and indicates the place where the current speaker signals impending completion of the TCU-in-progress to a next speaker (Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 2007). Although the use of authentic data is one of the central assumptions of CA, CA has been extended to L2 pragmatics research that often uses elicited interactional data (e.g., see Taleghani-Nikazm & Huth, 2010, for elicited conversations; for role-plays, see Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012, and Félix-Brasdefer, 2006). Kasper and Wagner (2014) emphasize the value of ‘applied CA,’ which involves ‘the application of basic CA’s principles, methods, and findings to the study of social domains and practices that are interactionally constituted’ (p. 171). Unlike basic CA, which analyzes naturalistic conversations to uncover the tacit principles enacted by participants to co-construct actions turn-by-turn, applied CA does not require a conversation to be naturally-occurring. Applied CA allows the use of CA analytic tools to examine interactional data in controlled settings. For example, CA has been used to examine different aspects of interaction in role-plays conducted as part of an oral proficiency interview (cf. Ross & Kasper, 2013). The aspects analyzed using CA include repair sequences, sequence construction, the organization of turn-taking, and topic selection (Kasper, 2013; Seedhouse, 2013; Tominaga, 2013). Kasper and Wagner (2014) argue that ‘applied linguistics offers a corrective to classic CA’s entrenched monolingualism, a limitation that CA shares with most social sciences outside of linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, and applied linguistics’ (p. 200). 19

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Thus, applied linguists researching L2 pragmatics have adapted CA principles and methods to analyze the sequential organization of social action using elicited interactional data in a variety of L2 contexts.

Joint Actions and Language Use Adopting a conversation as the basic unit of analysis, Clark (1996) offers a discursive approach to the analysis of language use in social interaction. Clark’s approach emphasizes two concepts: joint activities and joint actions. Following Levinson’s (1992) notion of ‘activity type,’ Clark employs the concept of ‘joint activity’ to refer to a social action that is coordinated among participants (e.g., calling a friend to plan a party, asking a professor to write a letter of recommendation, or buying something at a supermarket). The joint activity includes the entire interaction, that is, initiating, carrying out, and ending the social action. Clark proposes three criteria that determine a joint activity: the setting (e.g., an information center, a professor’s office, or the supermarket), the participants’ roles (e.g., clerk–customer, student–professor, or service-provider–serviceseeker), and the participants’ contributions to each activity (e.g., the rights and obligations of the interlocutors during the interaction). For example, at the supermarket, the vendor can initiate the transaction (e.g., ‘Hello, can I help you?’), the customer has the right to request service, and the vendor has the responsibility to provide the service. A joint activity involves joint actions, which Clark defines as an action ‘carried out by an ensemble of people acting in coordination with each other’ (p. 3). Joint actions include those that are coordinated sequentially across turns. A joint action is a sequence that comprises two actions organized as an adjacency pair (e.g., invitation– response). Joint actions require participants to coordinate their respective actions, which essentially form speech act sequences. The coordination of joint actions and goals among participants is part of a joint activity. Hence, Clark adopts an extended version of speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) and key methodological concepts of CA (Sacks et al., 1974) to examine communicative acts performed by participants engaging in joint action. The discursive-pragmatics perspective focuses on language use in social interaction to illustrate how speech acts are negotiated at the discourse level. It adopts key concepts of CA (e.g., adjacency pairs, turn taking, topic change, repair, and preference organization), as well as the notions of joint action (e.g., a greeting exchange and invitation–response sequence) and joint activity (e.g., scheduling a meeting with an advisor). The pragmatic-discursive perspective helps us analyze speech acts in interaction in a range of interactional settings, including face-to-face and online communication (e.g., González-Lloret, 2016; Kim & Brown, 2014).

Speech Acts in Interaction: Survey of Empirical Findings Drawing on the discursive-pragmatics perspective, this section surveys existing studies to illustrate how speech acts can be analyzed in L2 interaction. I will focus on two areas of speech acts where findings are currently concentrated: directives (requests and direction-giving) and dispreferred responses (disagreements and refusals).

Collaborative Construction of the Directive Speech Act According to Searle (1976), directives are defined as ‘speech acts that are attempts of the speaker to get the hearer to do something’ (p. 11). Requests and locative directives (giving directions) belong to this category. In a request, the speaker makes an attempt to get the hearer to do something (e.g., ‘Can you pass me the salt?’). In a locative directive, the direction-giver makes an attempt to get the direction-seeker to follow certain directions to arrive at a destination (e.g., ‘First, walk two blocks, then turn left at the traffic light.’). 20

Speech Acts in Interaction

Request Sequences Request is the most examined speech act in L2 pragmatics research. A number of studies have examined this speech act, ranging from single-moment studies using a cross-sectional design to developmental studies using a longitudinal design. Although the majority of studies have focused on the analysis of the request head act (i.e., the core utterance that conveys the illocutionary force of request), recent studies have analyzed how learners and native speakers negotiate request sequences at the discourse level. This is illustrated in Example (1) from the author’s own data. This is a conversation between a 12-year-old American boy (Gabriel) and a shop assistant at a grocery store in Spain. Gabriel went to the store with his parents and interacted with a female vendor. (↑ indicates final rising intonation; two or more colons [:::] signal elongation of the ­syllable; V = ‘you-formal’; T = ‘you-informal’) (1)   1  Gabriel:  Buenas tardes (Good afternoon.)   2  Vendor:   buenas tardes, guapetón (Good afternoon, handsome.)   3  Gabriel:  ¿tiene leche? (Do youV have milk?)   4  Vendor:   leche semi↑, entera↑ (Low-fat, whole.)   5  Gabriel:  ah, semi (Um, low-fat.)   6  Vendor:   semi↑ (Low-fat.)  7      ((delivers product))   8  Vendor:   mira los donus, tengo de oferta los donus,   9  dos en un euro, ¿te doy donu?   (LookT at the donuts. I have donuts on sale, two for one euro, do you want donuts?) 10  Gabriel:  ((points to a different pastry)) 11  Vendor:   o:::h, ese, está buenísimo ese, con chocolate   (o:::h, that one, that one’s really good, with chocolate.) 12  Father:   ¿quieres ese? Pídelo (Do youT want that one? AskT for it.) 13  Mother:   ¿cuál quieres, hijo? (Which one do youT want, son?) 14  Vendor:   ¿de almendrita o de chocolate? (Almond or chocolate?) 15  Gabriel:  uno y uno (one of each.) 16  Vendor:   uno y uno↑ (one of each.) 17  Gabriel:  no, quiero este ((points to a different pastry))   (No, I want this one.) 18  Gabriel:   vale, gracias (okay, thanks.) ((receives product)) 19  ((payment)) 20  Vendor:   de nada, cariño (You’re welcome, dear.) In this excerpt, Gabriel opens the transaction with a greeting followed by the vendor’s response (lines 1–2). He then issues the request for service in the form of an interrogative, which is interpreted as a request for action, followed by the vendor’s response asking what kind of milk he wants, low-fat or whole (lines 3–4). Gabriel responds, and the transaction is completed successfully (lines 5–7). Then, the vendor initiates another speech act sequence by offering donuts (lines 8–9). Gabriel refuses the offer by pointing to a different pastry, which is followed by the vendor’s acknowledgment (lines 10–11). After Gabriel’s parents ask him to choose one (lines 12–13), the vendor issues another question with two options (line 14), which is followed by Gabriel’s response (‘one of each’) (line 15). Upon the vendor’s confirmation with final rising intonation (↑, line 16), Gabriel responds by pointing to a different pastry (No, quiero este ‘No, I want this one’, line 17). The transaction ends successfully with a closing 21

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

sequence. This example shows the learner’s ability to negotiate a request for service in the target culture by means of verbal and non-verbal resources to get his message across during the sales transaction. This type of request negotiation sequence has been documented in existing studies. Using data from telephone calls to an airline company in South Korea, Lee (2009) showed that extended request sequences between a service-provider and a service-seeker (native speakers of Korean) were frequent during the negotiation of service; that is, the action of requesting was extended over several sequences and co-constructed over turns. Hence, the content of the requests was the result of a joint construction between the speakers. Shively (2011), on the other hand, analyzed L2 Spanish learners’ service encounter interactions in a local community in Spain. She found that, by the end of their semester abroad, the learners developed the ability to use appropriate greeting and closing sequences in their service-encounter requests. They also became able to negotiate requests for service with their service providers over extended discourse using insertexpansions (embedding an adjacency pair within an adjacency pair). Unlike these studies using naturalistic data, Al-Gahtani and Roever’s (2012) cross-sectional study used elicited data (via role-play) to examine request sequences in L2 English. The study demonstrated the usefulness of applied CA in revealing L2 learners’ speech act development in extended discourse. A notable difference across proficiency levels was found in the learners’ use of pre-expansions, which include ‘preliminaries’ or sequences preceding the request (e.g., ‘Could you do me a favor?’) (Schegloff, 2007). Lower-proficiency learners (beginners) did not use preexpansions to preface the request, whereas upper-proficiency counterparts (upper-intermediate and advanced) were able to open the interaction with a greeting sequence and used other forms of pre-expansion such as accounts and justifications for request. The same pattern was observed in the use of post-expansions. Post-expansions are sequences that follow an adjacency pair (e.g., request–acceptance/refusal). When the second pair part is a dispreferred action (e.g., a refusal after a request), post-expansions often occur (e.g., asking for a reason for refusal). Upper-proficiency learners showed a tendency of using longer postexpansions in requests. They frequently used a combination of two insert-expansions that promoted elaboration of the initial request (i.e., two question–response sequences following the initial request). In contrast, lower-proficiency learners accepted the request without adding a complication that could trigger post-expansions. Another study using applied CA with role-play data is Su and Ren’s (2017) study that examined requests among L2 Chinese learners of different proficiency levels. They found that higher-level learners delayed the provision of the request head act and sequenced their requests across turns using both insert- and post-expansions. In contrast, lower-level learners delayed their requests within the head act and barely used insert- and post-expansions. Hence, learners’ ability to sequence their requests with insert- and post-expansions increased with proficiency.

Direction-Giving Interactions Using a face-to-face direction-giving task, Lee (2014, 2017) examined the sequential structure of direction-giving interactions. Participants were learners of L2 English and L2 Korean of different proficiency levels in a U.S. university. Direction-giving interactions include four phases: initiation, route description, securing, and closing. Lee analyzed the direction-giving exchanges for the sequential organization of turns (pre-direction-giving, insert- and post-expansion sequences) and semantic formulas (directives, descriptions, and adjuncts). She found that the beginning-level learners relied on bare imperatives and repetition when giving directions. In contrast, the higherlevel learners elaborated route descriptions in three ways: They established common ground with 22

Speech Acts in Interaction

the interlocutor through pre-direction-giving utterances in the form of preliminaries (e.g., ‘Do you know the campus?’); they used a greater number of descriptions (e.g., ‘The Medical School will be on your right.’); and they organized direction sequences within and across turns by using a wide range of pragmalinguistic resources. Example (2) taken from Lee’s (2014) study shows how a higher-proficiency L2 English learner (Anyu, pseudonym) co-constructed direction-giving sequences with a native speaker of English (Nora, pseudonym) in a role-play task (pp. 229–230). (2)   1  Nora:  Excuse me. I’m from out of town. And I’m not sure how to go from this room.   2      I’m trying to get to the Health Center. Can you give me some directions?   3  Anyu:  Ah: now we’re in the Goodbody Hall.   4  Nora:   Okay. Goodbody Hall.   5  Anyu:  Yeah uh: so (2.0) Health Center is in the cross in the cross.   6  Nora:   the intersection?   7  Anyu:  Yeah   8  Nora:   Okay   9  Anyu:  And it’s behind is the main library. 10  Nora:   Okay 11  Anyu:  It’s a big library. 12  Nora:   Okay 13  Anyu:  Many students in the college. 14        Uh:Now you you’ll take out the door. And the door and turn right. This exchange illustrates how speech acts (i.e., asking for and giving directions) are coconstructed between the learner and the native speaker interlocutor. After Nora asks for directions (lines 1–2), Anyu states the current location (pre-direction-giving), which is followed by agreement from the interlocutor (lines 3–4). In the next turn, he does not give directions immediately, but inserts multiple parenthetical comments that describe the destination location (pre-directiongiving sequences) and features of the destination in line 5 (‘Health Center is in the cross in the cross.’), line 9 (‘And it’s behind is the main library.’), line 11 (‘It’s a big library.’), and line 13 (‘Many students in the college.’). Nora acknowledges the pre-direction-giving utterances with the agreement marker ‘okay’ in lines 4, 8, 10, and 12. After multiple pre-direction-giving utterances, Anyu initiates the second pair part of a direction-giving sequence (route descriptions) in line 14. Lee (2014) found that, as proficiency increased, learners produced a greater number of pre-direction-giving sequences. For example, upper-level learners produced destination repeats and orientation checks as part of pre-direction-giving sequences, which resulted in an extended pre-direction-giving interaction. They also produced more elaborate pre-direction-giving turns prior to the route description phase. In contrast, lower-level learners relied on simple imperatives and one-turn sequences.

Dispreferred Responses: Disagreement and Refusal Sequences Several studies analyzed the sequential structure of dispreferred responses in L2. Some actions are designed as preferred (e.g., agreement and acceptance), whereas others are designed as dispreferred (e.g., disagreement and refusal) (see, e.g., Schegloff, 2007). A dispreferred response is generally signaled by hesitations, delays, mitigations, and various preliminary moves to preface the dispreferred social act. Previous studies revealed how L2 learners use various interactional resources to organize dispreferred social actions. 23

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Disagreement Sequences Bardovi-Harlig and Salsbury (2004) examined disagreement sequences that were realized across multiple turns in native and nonnative speakers’ (L2 English learners) discussions over controversial topics. Over time, the learners’ disagreement changed from a one-turn sequence (i.e., strong disagreement), to a more complex disagreement sequence (i.e., postponement of disagreement across multiple turns, inclusion of agreement components in disagreement, and postponement of disagreement components within a turn). Pekarek Doehler and Pochon-Berger’s (2011) study also revealed disagreement sequences in L2. Using videotaped classroom interaction data, disagreements were analyzed among L2 French learners at two proficiency levels: lower-intermediate students in a secondary school (13–14 years old) and advanced-level students in a high school (17–18 years old). Lowerintermediate learners showed exclusive use of turn-initial immediate disagreement and did not use linguistic hedges to soften the disagreement (e.g., ‘I think’). They relied on one-turn disagreements and did not produce sequential elaborations of disagreements; that is, their disagreements were not preceded by accounts, explanations, or other elements that could reinforce the stance taken by the speaker. In contrast, advanced-level learners employed diverse strategies to negotiate the disagreement. For example, they used turn-initial disagreements and delayed disagreements with a token agreement (e.g., ‘Yes, but …’) and avoided the initial-turn disagreement. They also organized a refusal in a conversational sequence by using hedges and syntactically complex disagreement sentences.

Refusal Sequences Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford’s (1993) classic study revealed how L2 English learners in a U.S. university developed their ability to appropriately refuse an advisor’s suggestion for course selections during academic consultation. Over time, the learners became familiar with the rules of academic advising sessions by offering fewer rejections, more suggestions, and more justifications to appropriately preface the rejection without offending the advisor. The learners also asked questions and provided appropriate reasons to reject the advisor’s suggestion (e.g., having already taken equivalent courses), which led to the advisor’s acceptance of the rejection. Analyzing role-play interactions, Al-Gahtani and Roever (2018) illustrated the sequential structure of L2 English refusals. The study involved L2 English groups in three proficiency levels: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. The beginning-level group showed emerging interactional competence, as seen in their infrequent use of the agreement marker ‘OK’ followed by ‘but’ (‘OK, but …’) and frequent use of direct and unmitigated refusals. In contrast, the intermediate-level group used a conventional agreement marker followed by ‘but’ (‘yes, but …’). They also used preliminaries (e.g., pre-accounts) and insert-expansions to further delay the refusal. Advanced-level learners were more recipient-focused and used a greater combination of various resources to organize the dispreferred nature of the refusal. Using Gass and Houck’s (1999) interactional model of refusal trajectories, Su’s (2017) dissertation work analyzed the sequential structure of refusals among L2 learners of Chinese in a U.S. university. Learners at different proficiency levels (determined via test and institutional status) completed role-plays involving refusal scenarios, and then participated in retrospective verbal interviews. Results showed that lower-level learners focused on understanding the content of the scenarios in order to complete the refusal, while advanced-level learners attended to contextual variables in the scenarios more closely (e.g., cost of the refusal or interlocutors’ power relationship). The advanced-level learners also produced longer refusal sequences over multiple turns. Particularly notable among the advanced-level learners was their use of a combination of various semantic formulas placed across turns. 24

Speech Acts in Interaction

Example (3) illustrates an invitation–refusal interaction between a native speaker of Chinese (I: Instructor) and a low-intermediate learner of Chinese (Jenna, pseudonym) (Su, 2017, pp. 114–115). The interaction involves three sequences: invitation–refusal response (lines 1–7); request for justification–response (lines 8–10); insistence–response (lines 11–13); and closing (lines 14–17). (3) 01    02    03    04    05    06    07  08    09    10   11    12    13    14    15    16    17   

I:  

Jenna: 

I:   Jenna:    I:



Jenna:  I:       Jenna:

Xiao Hu, kuai guo zhongqiu jie le ‘Xiao Hu, the Mid-Autumn Festival is coming soon.’ Wo qing ban shang de tongxue xingqiwu de wanshang ‘I invite the students this Friday evening’ dao wo jia lai wan-er ‘to my house for a party’ Ni keyi lai ma? ‘Can you come?’ Duibuqi, laoshi ‘I’m sorry, professor.’ Wo bu keyi lai. ‘I won’t be able to come (go)’ (.3) Wei shenme? ‘Why?’ Yinwei zhe ge xingqiwu, wo you gongzuo ‘Because I need to work this Friday’ Wo you hen duo gongzuo ‘I have a lot of work to do’ A::, ni you hen duo gongzuo, yao jiaban-er ma? ‘Ah, you have a lot of work. Are you gonna work extra hours?’ En, suoyi wo yao zuowan wo de gongzuo ‘Yes, so I need to finish my work’ A::, na hao ba, na hao ba ‘OK, then’ Yihou ban limian ruguo you huodong dehua, ‘If there are other activities in our class in the future’ xiwang ni neng lai canjia ‘I hope you can come and participate’ Xia ci xiwang ni neng lai canjia. ‘I hope you can come next time’ Wo juede xia ci wo keyi, canjia ni de wanhui. ‘I think I can come to your party next time.’

Jenna (the learner) prefaced the direct refusal (‘I won’t be able to come.’) with an apology (‘I’m sorry, professor’) (lines 5–6). However, she did not provide an explanation for her refusal until she was asked why (line 8). Jenna restated her explanation (line 12), which prompted her interlocutor to accept the refusal (lines 13). As this example illustrates, according to Su, low-intermediate learners’ refusals are characterized by a lack of post-sequences, elaboration of the refusal sequences, and mitigating devices to soften the refusal. In contrast, advanced learners employed a greater number of downgraders and upgraders than lower-level learners in all role-play scenarios, and they also delayed the refusal of the invitation over multiple turns. 25

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

These findings highlight advanced-level learners’ ability to deploy their interactional resources to negotiate a refusal response in extended discourse and organize a refusal sequence, which is co-constructed with their interlocutors over multiple turns.

Conclusion and Future Directions This chapter demonstrated how speech acts are accomplished through actions that learners coconstruct with their interlocutors during interaction. Speech acts in interaction represent a collaborative effort among interlocutors who use their interactional resources to construct a social action in extended discourse. The discursive-pragmatics approach can reveal L2 learners’ use of interactional resources in various aspects of discourse, including sequential organization, turntaking, projection of dispreferred responses, and the use of repair. Studies surveyed in this chapter demonstrate that L2 speech act development can be observed through learners’ use of these interactional resources in a variety of contexts, including formal classrooms and study abroad settings (for a review, see Félix-Brasdefer, 2017; Félix-Brasdefer & Koike, 2014; Taguchi, 2017). Negotiation of speech acts occurs when learners engage in social interaction, which, in turn, leads to the development of their pragmatic skills over time. One tendency found in the literature is that learners’ abilities to co-construct speech acts in interaction are influenced by their general proficiency. Existing cross-sectional studies compared learners across different proficiency levels in the negotiation of requests (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012), direction-giving interactions (Lee, 2017), and dispreferred responses such as refusals (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2018; Su, 2017; Su & Ren, 2017) and disagreements (Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2011). These studies found that lower-proficiency leaners often rely on simple and direct requests through minimal use of request–response adjacency pairs and tend to overuse unmitigated and direct refusals. Lower-proficiency learners’ speech acts also tend to lack preliminaries (e.g., pre-requests, pre-refusals) and post-expansions (e.g., requests for additional information, other-initiated repair sequences). In contrast, higher-proficiency learners tend to use a combination of preliminaries and post-expansions, and exhibit more sophisticated abilities to use turn-taking mechanisms and a broader range of speech act formats across turns (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012; Su, 2017). These findings indicate that, as proficiency increases, learners become able to monitor the unfolding course of discourse and respond to the interlocutor’s contributions in appropriate timing turn-by-turn. With proficiency, learners become able to use a variety of linguistic and interactional resources skillfully to jointly construct a speech act with their interlocutors. These findings point to the importance of analyzing interactional data to reveal speech act development and the need to further explore methodological options for such analysis. As demonstrated in this chapter ‘applied CA’ is one methodological option. Applied CA permits the use of elicited data to analyze the realization of speech acts in interaction. Although using naturalistic data adds to ecology validity, using data-elicitation tasks with an interactional focus can serve as a practical method to examine speech acts in interaction. Role-plays are particularly useful in this regard. Al-Gahtani and Roever (2012) contend that ‘role-plays allow a decent degree of standardization while eliciting extended interactive data’ (p. 44). Félix-Brasdefer (2018a) offers a comprehensive account of the role-play method for the analysis of spoken interaction. The author presents five main role-play varieties that can be used to examine speech acts in interaction: (1) the archetypal role-play (participants take on social roles based on their previous experience); (2) the role-enactment approach (participants perform a role that is part of their real life); (3) the naturalized role-play (participants encounter a distracting task when performing a role-play); (4) the simulated role-play task (participants take on roles that are familiar to them); and (5) the OPI role-play (a component of the oral proficiency interview). These different types of role-play can be useful for eliciting extended discourse around speech acts. 26

Speech Acts in Interaction

Another future direction relates to longitudinal investigation of speech acts in interaction. Except for a few studies (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Salsbury, 2004; Shively, 2011), most studies surveyed in this chapter used cross-sectional design by comparing learners’ interactions across different proficiency levels (e.g., Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012, 2018; Sue & Ren, 2017). In these studies, any group-level differences found in learners’ performance are attributed to changes that learners exhibit at different stages of their development. However, claims about development are most meaningfully interpreted in a longitudinal design by tracing changes in the same participants over time. More longitudinal studies are necessary in the future to test the generalizability of the findings found in cross-sectional studies. For example, studies showed that more advanced learners’ requests were characterized by greater use of pre-/post-expansions and a prolonged turn-taking with insert-expansions. Future longitudinal research can examine whether these patterns emerge at a later point of development in L2 learners (for a sample longitudinal study, see Al-Ghatani & Roever, 2015). Finally, the discursive-pragmatics approach can be incorporated into instructional materials so that we can teach learners how to sequence speech acts in extended discourse. Research has shown that explicit instruction is effective in promoting learners’ pragmatic competence (cf. Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Vellenga, 2015; Taguchi, 2015). Instructors can design materials that can direct learners’ attention to various conversational moves and sequences, such as openings and closings, pre- and post-expansions, and insertion sequences. Using authentic conversations as input, instructors can show learners how head acts (e.g., request-making forms) and external modification devices co-occur and are sequenced over turns. Instructors can also use awareness-raising activities (e.g., analysis of how speech acts are realized), explicit metapragmatic information, and communicative practice (e.g., role-play). For example, Hasler-Barker (2016) showed that learners who received explicit metapragmatic instruction and communicative practice became able to produce expanded compliment responses in Spanish. Similarly, Huth (2010) presented materials for teaching the sequential structure of German requests in extended discourse (e.g., explicit information on request pre-sequences, discussion, role-play, and conversational tasks). Instructors can also provide learners with opportunities to use their interactional resources to negotiate meaning with others. Félix-Brasdefer’s (2018b) website provides a variety of role-play tasks that can supply those opportunities (http​s://p​ragma​tics.​india​na.ed​u/tea​ching​/refu​sals-​engli​ sh.ht​ml). Other tasks are found in online intercultural communication on Reddit (Glide, 2015), in elicited conversations (Félix-Brasdefer & Lavin, 2007) and open role-plays (Félix-Brasdefer, 2018a). These tasks can generate opportunities for L2 learners to negotiate meaning, which could lead to skillful co-construction of speech acts in extended discourse.

Further reading Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2018). Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 140–153. Using a role-play task, this study examined the development of L2 English learners’ interactional competence to sequence their refusals at three proficiency levels (i.e., beginner, intermediate, and advanced). L2 refusal performance was compared to that of native speakers in comparable role-play situations. Differences were observed with regard to how each learner group deployed interactional resources to produce a refusal, specifically presence or absence of preliminaries (e.g., pre-announcements, pauses), delays, or insertexpansions in a refusal sequence. This study underscores the effect of language proficiency on learners’ ability to employ interactional resources to mark a refusal as a dispreferred action. Hasler-Barker, M. (2016). Effects of metapragmatic instruction on the production of compliments and compliment responses: Learner-learner role play in the foreign language classroom. In K. BardoviHarlig & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 14 (pp. 125–152). Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. 27

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

This study examined the effects of instruction on the development of L2 Spanish compliment–compliment responses. Three treatment conditions were involved (explicit instruction, implicit instruction, and control), and the development was assessed with a role-play task. The instructional treatment included awareness raising activities, cross-cultural comparisons, form-focused instruction, and analysis of authentic language samples. Role-play data were analyzed for pragmalinguistic strategies for compliments and compliment responses (frequency and distribution of the strategies) and sequential organization of these speech acts. The sequential analysis revealed that learners who received explicit metapragmatic instruction produced expanded compliment responses in both the immediate and delayed post-tests. The study concludes with the pedagogical implications of teaching these speech acts in interaction. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 281–314). Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. This article takes a discursive approach to examining speech acts in social action. In particular, it presents how CA can be applied to analyze speech acts. The author provides a critical appraisal of central notions in pragmatics—action, meaning, and context—for the analysis of language use in interaction. Each concept is reviewed from different perspectives and theoretical backgrounds, including Searle’s (1969) speech act theory and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory. The author offers an incisive review of existing models of meaning and the notion of context (and contexts) for the analysis of social action from a CA perspective.

References Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42–65. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2015). The development of requests by L2 learners of Modern Standard Arabic: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 570–583. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2018). Proficiency and preference organization in second language refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 140–153. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279–304. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 199–227). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, H., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324–350. Barron, A., & Schneider, K. (2009). Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(4), 425–442. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Edmonson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London: Longman. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversationanalytic tools to teach pragmatics in the classroom. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 165–197). Manoa, HI: Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A contrastive study of the realization and perception of refusals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2014). Speech act sequences. In K. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics of discourse, Vol. 3 (pp. 323–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The language of service encounters: A pragmatic-discursive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 416–434). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2018a). Role plays. In A. Jucker, K. P. Schneider, & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics (pp. 305–331). Berlin: Mouton DeGruyter. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2018b). Pragmatics at Indiana University. Retrieved on June 26, 2018, from https​:// pr​agmat​ics.i​ndian​a.edu​/teac​hing/​refus​als-e​nglis​h.htm​l 28

Speech Acts in Interaction

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Koike, D. (2014). Perspectives on Spanish SLA from pragmatics and discourse. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), Handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics (pp. 25–43). New York: Routledge. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Lavin, E. (2009). Grammar and turn expansion in second language conversations. In J. Collentine, M. García, B. Lafford, & F. Marcos Marín (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 53–67). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Retrieved on June 26, 2018, from http:​//www​.ling​ref.c​om/cp​p/hls​/11/p​aper2​202.p​df Gass, S. M., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross-cultural study of Japanese-English. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Glide, M. (2015). ¿Cuáles son sus recomendaciones?: A comparative analysis of Spanish and English advice given on a Mexican Subreddit. IU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 15(1). Retrieved on XXXX from https​://ww​w.ind​iana.​edu/~​iulcw​p/wp/​issue​/view​/25 González-Lloret, M. (2016). The construction of emotion in multilingual computer-mediated interaction. In M. Prior & G. Kasper (Eds.), Emotion in multilingual interaction (pp. 291–313). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hall, J. K., Hellerman, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hasler-Barker, M. (2016). Effects of metapragmatic instruction on the production of compliments and compliment responses: Learner-learner role play in the foreign language classroom. In K. BardoviHarlig & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 14 (pp. 125–152). Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. Huth, T. (2010). Intercultural competence in conversation: Teaching German requests. Die Unterrichtspraxis/ Teaching German, 43(2), 154–166. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Polity. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.). Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11 (pp. 281–314). Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. Kasper, G. (2013). Managing task update in oral proficiency interviews. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 258–287). Basingtoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212. Kim, E-Y., & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms. CALICO, 31, 264–284. Lee, S. H. (2009). Extending requesting: Interaction and collaboration in the production and specification of requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1248–1271. Lee, J. H. (2014). Speech and gesture in route direction-giving interactions (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Lee, J. H. (2017). Speech in direction-giving interactions in L2 English. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 51–80. Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 66–100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marquez-Reiter, R. (2000). Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive study of requests and apologies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellerman, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ross, S., & Kasper, G. (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. Basingtoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press. Searle. J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2013). Oral proficiency interviews as varieties of interaction. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 199–219). Basingtoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Shively, R. (2011). Pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study on Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835. Streeck, J. (1980). Speech acts in interaction: A critique of Searle. Discourse Processes, 3, 133–154. 29

J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Su, Y. (2017). Developing L2 pragmatics in Chinese: Acceptance and refusal sequences in invitational and offering interactions (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Su, Y., & Ren, W. (2017). Developing L2 pragmatic competence in Mandarin Chinese: Sequential realization of requests. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 433–457. Taguchi, N. (2015). ‘Contextually’ speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class, and online. System, 48, 3–20. Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics: A historical sketch and future directions. In A. Barron (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153–167). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124–137. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T. (2010). L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua, 29, 185–202. Tominaga, W. (2013). The development of extended turns and storytelling in the Japanese oral proficiency interview. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 220–257). Basingtoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 447–456. van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

30

3 Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics Research Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

Introduction Grice (1975) coined the term conversational implicature, referring to non-literal meanings that people infer based on the assumption of relevance and contextual information. Since then, implicature has been the critical concept of pragmatics theories that explain principles and mechanisms of human communication. As Morris (1938) originally claimed, syntax and semantics are concerned about the formal structure of an utterance and utterance-level meaning, whereas pragmatics is concerned about what the speaker means by the utterance. Implicature clearly illustrates the connection among syntax, semantics, and pragmatics because it represents a relationship between utterance meaning, or the literal sense of an utterance, and force, or the speaker’s intention behind the utterance (Thomas, 1995). Theories in the field of pragmatics situate the recognition of the speaker’s intention as the primary goal of communication. This chapter reviews three pragmatics theories that explain the mechanisms behind the recognition of intention: Grice’s (1975) maxims of conversation, Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) Relevance Theory, and Kecskes’s (2014) socio-cognitive approach. The chapter first discusses these theories focusing on their assumptions about how speaker intention is recognized and understood. Then, we illustrate how these theories have informed SLA research as we investigate the development of implicature comprehension. Empirical findings are reviewed in terms of common patterns and generalizations that emerge from the existing findings. The findings are also discussed critically in terms of how research foci and methods are essentially shaped by the theoretical frameworks. Based on the limitations identified in the literature, the chapter concludes with directions for future research.

Grice’s Conversational Maxims in L2 Comprehension of Implicature Maxims of Conversation Grice (1975) claimed that a conversation is built upon four maxims that participants follow: quantity, quality, manner, and relevance. The maxim of quantity tells us not to say too much or too little, while the quality maxim tells us to be truthful and not to lie. The manner maxim is about being orderly and avoiding ambiguity, while the relevance maxim means making a relevant contribution to the conversation in progress. These maxims function as a set of rules for 31

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

communication, guiding how we understand meaning. When the speaker produces an utterance, the listener understands that the message is relevant to the ongoing discourse and draws the most plausible interpretation of the utterance. For example, when someone is late for a meeting, the utterance ‘You’re always on time’ flouts the maxim of quality because it contradicts with the reality. Still, the listener understands the speaker’s underlying intention and interprets the utterance as sarcasm, which purposefully disregards the maxim to produce humorous effects. These maxims of conversation can explain how we understand implicature. During conversation, we assume that each participant is making an appropriate contribution in a way that suits the direction of the conversation. Based on this assumption, we seek the most relevant interpretation of an utterance (the speaker’s true intention), even when the utterance seemingly deviates from the preceding discourse or context of communication.

Maxims of Conversation in L2 Implicature Comprehension Research Adapting Grice’s paradigm, previous studies investigated L2 comprehension of implicature (see also Chapter 32 in this volume). Some studies made an explicit reference to Grice’s maxims by comparing comprehension across different implicature types (e.g., relevance-based implicature, scalar implicature) (Bouton, 1992, 1994, 1999; Roever, 2005; Roever, Wang, & Brophy, 2014). Other studies focused on speech acts by comparing comprehension between direct and indirect speech act utterances (Carrell 1984; Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Garcia, 2004; Koike, 1996; Yamanaka, 2003). Still others focused on irony, which often presents the greatest deviation from the literal meaning (saying the opposite of what is intended) (Shively, Menke, & ManzónOmundson, 2008; Yamanaka, 2003). Most studies used a reading instrument, having L2 learners read a dialogue or a sentence and then respond to a multiple-choice question to assess comprehension. Exceptions are Garcia’s (2004) study that used audio input in a listening test, and Yamanaka (2003) and Shively et al.’s (2008) studies using video clips. One generalization that emerged from these studies is that general proficiency has a strong effect on comprehension. Cross-sectional studies found that higher-proficiency learners outperformed their lower-proficiency counterparts on comprehension of implicature and indirect speech acts (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002; Garcia, 2004). Similar results were found in comprehension of irony (Shively et al., 2008; Yamanaka, 2003). High-proficiency learners were able to detect a clear difference between the utterance meaning and the context, and recognize the ironic intention behind the utterance, while low-proficiency learners comprehended ironic comments literally (Shively et al., 2008; Yamanaka, 2003). Studies using regression analyses revealed a main effect of proficiency on implicature comprehension, overriding other factors such as gender and target language exposure (Roever et al., 2014). Longitudinal studies also found that learners’ comprehension developed naturally as their proficiency matured over time (Bouton, 1992, 1999). The proficiency impact found in these studies tells us that comprehension of implicature is built on threshold L2 knowledge and abilities. To infer non-literal meaning, learners draw on their linguistic resources (e.g., grammar and vocabulary), as well as general skills of reading and listening. Unless there are other salient cues that assist comprehension, understanding utterancelevel meaning is prerequisite to implicature comprehension. Detecting maxim-flouting might be difficult for lower-proficiency learners because, due to their limited linguistic knowledge and skills, they have difficulty comprehending the utterance-level meaning. In contrast, advancedlevel learners have sufficient linguistic resources, which help them comprehend utterance-level meaning and further explore meaning behind the utterance. The proficiency impact is most evident in the wider range of indirectness that high-­proficiency learners can handle, which, in turn, informs SLA issues such as developmental order and ultimate 32

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

attainment in implicature comprehension (see also Taguchi, 2018). Using a cross-sectional design, Yamanaka (2003) assessed L2 English learners’ comprehension of irony, negative evaluation, parody, and rhetorical question. Low-proficiency learners struggled with irony, but highproficiency learners did not. Cook and Liddicoat (2002), on the other hand, assessed L2 English learners’ comprehension of requests at three directness levels: direct (e.g., Pass me the salt.), conventional indirect (e.g., Can you pass me the salt?), and non-conventional indirect (e.g., The meat is a bit bland.). Both conventional and non-conventional indirect requests were difficult for low-proficiency learners, but high-proficiency learners were able to comprehend conventional indirect requests and struggled only with non-conventional indirect requests (hinting). Garcia (2004) examined comprehension of indirect speech acts (requests, suggestions, corrections, and offers). L2 learners of English with high TOEFL scores were more accurate with all speech act types than those with lower TOEFL scores, except for indirect requests, which revealed no significant proficiency effect. Longitudinal studies also revealed a relationship between proficiency and implicature type. Bouton (1992, 1994, 1999) compared L2 English learners’ comprehension of relevance implicature, Pope questions (saying ‘Is the Pope catholic?’ to mean that something is obvious), irony, indirect criticisms, and sequence implicature. Relevance implicatures were relatively easy for learners, but Pope questions, irony, indirect criticism, and sequence implicature remained difficult even after spending 17 months in the U.S.A. When we look at implicature types that advanced-level learners struggle with, we can understand the elements that make comprehension difficult. For one, comprehension difficulty often results from a larger distance between the utterance-level meaning and intended meaning. This is evident in Cook and Liddicoat’s (2002) findings: Higher-proficiency learners had difficulty with non-conventional requests (i.e., hinting), which exhibited a larger mismatch between the surface form and the request intention than with conventional requests. Another source of support comes from studies on irony (Bouton, 1992, 1994, 1999; Yamanaka, 2003). Irony is a rhetorical device in which the propositional and intended meanings are opposite. The widespread deviation from the literal meaning in irony adds to comprehension difficulty, as found in Bouton’s (1994, 1999) participants, who struggled with irony after spending more than a year in the target community. The difficulty related to irony suggests that L2 learners may not be familiar with the convention of irony. Saying the opposite of what is intended is a common rhetorical device, and we use such irony purposefully with a goal of having the listener recognize the opposite intention. The fact that learners struggled with irony indicates that the rhetorical convention of irony is not easily accessible in the L2. It is also possible that irony is culture-specific. Irony may be practiced more in some cultures than in others; as a result, learners may lack experience with irony, adding to their comprehension difficulty. The difficulty coming from culture-specific convention was also found in Bouton’s (1992, 1994) studies where Pope questions were difficult to acquire via exposure alone. Unlike relevance-based implicature that can be understood using L1-based maxims, Pope questions—asking something that has an obvious affirmative response—involve a convention specific to the L2. Without knowing this convention, it is nearly impossible to draw the speaker’s intended meaning from bottom-up, sentence-level processing alone. While a drastic deviation from the literal meaning (i.e., hinting and irony) and L2-specific conventions (e.g., Pope questions) can be the cause of comprehension difficulty, very few studies reviewed here have adapted theoretically informed criteria to operationalize implicature difficulty and design test items accordingly. As a result, the level of comprehension difficulty found in the data is rather incidental, generating ad hoc explanations about what makes implicature difficult. Additionally, previous studies used only a small number of items to reveal comprehension difficulty. Yamanaka’s (2003) study had 12 items, of which only four were irony. Bouton (1994) used more items (28 total) but only three were Pope questions, and the rest were divided into six different implicature types. Garcia’s (2004) test had 12 items assessing four different types of 33

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

indirect speech acts. The small item pool makes comparison across item categories unreliable. To understand different natures of indirectness across implicature types, we need research using theoretically grounded principles to design items and compare learners’ comprehension across item categories with a goal of clarifying a hierarchy of implicature types. We will review those studies in the next section.

Relevance Theory in L2 Comprehension of Implicature Relevance Theory Sperber and Wilson (1995) advanced Grice’s (1975) theory in several important ways. First, they condensed Grice’s four maxims into one, i.e., the maxim of relevance, claiming that the four maxims often overlap. For example, B’s response below flouts the maxim of relevance (not providing the direct answer to A’s question), but it also flouts the maxim of quantity and manner (not providing sufficient and useful information to A’s inquiry): (1)  A:  How was your job interview?     B: I don’t know. By condensing the four maxims into one, Sperber and Wilson underscored the central role of the principle of relevance in communication. When an utterance is presented, people automatically seek relevance of the utterance even when it is largely unrelated to the preceding information. This is illustrated in the following example adapted from Mey (1995): (2)  A:  Let’s go to the movie.    B:  I will bring Kleenex. B’s utterance is not a typical second-pair response to A’s invitation. Still, we can understand that B’s response is an acceptance of the invitation. We also automatically maximize the relevance of B’s response by actively comparing possible interpretations, such as ‘The movie is a sad’ or ‘B has a cold.’ Hence, relevance-seeking is part of human cognition and takes place automatically whenever information is presented (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). Another contribution of Relevance Theory is the theory’s solid grounding in cognitive psychology. Sperber and Wilson explained the process of meaning comprehension as an asymmetry between contextual effect and processing load. The contextual effect indicates saliency of meaning presented, while the processing load refers to the degree of effort required for comprehension. When the contextual effect is strong (or meaning is salient), we do not have to process many contextual cues to detect meaning; as a result, our processing load decreases. When we comprehend meaning, many different assumptions come to our mind. Among those, we select the assumption that has the greatest contextual effect (or most relevance) for the smallest processing load. Several factors affect our processing load: linguistic complexity, number of contextual cues to be processed, and accessibility of the cues (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). When the utterance is linguistically complex and involves a number of contextual cues to process, we need to go through extensive inferencing, resulting in a greater processing load. In Example (2) above, the utterance ‘I will bring Kleenex’ is linguistically simple, but it requires a number of cues, for example, the meaning of Kleenex and its conventional usage, and the type of the movie. In contrast, B’s intention in (3) can be understood almost immediately: (3)  A:  Let’s go to the movie.    B:  I have to finish up this paper. It’s due tomorrow. 34

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

Understanding B’s refusal intention is relatively easy because B’s response follows the conventional pattern of refusal. When someone invites us to do something, our response is either to accept or refuse the invitation. Because refusing an invitation is a dispreferred response (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013), which might threaten the interlocutor’s positive face (Brown & Levinson, 1987), we often avoid saying ‘no’ directly and instead use an indirect reply and explain why we cannot accept the invitation. Hence, giving an excuse is a common pattern of indirect refusal. Our knowledge of this convention, which is built upon our previous experiences, works as a contextual effect, making the speaker’s intention salient and predictable. To summarize, Sperber and Wilson explicated cognitive mechanisms behind the process of inferencing. Comprehension of implicature is driven by our relevance-seeking cognition. When someone says something, we automatically seek relevance of the information by maximizing the use of available contextual cues. The degree of indirectness in an utterance (or strength of implicature) is a function of the number of contextual cues to be processed. The distance between the propositional and intended meaning becomes smaller when meaning is readily accessible via convention and saliency, requiring fewer cues to process.

Relevance Theory in L2 Implicature Comprehension Research The relationship among contextual cues, processing load, and conventionality has been explored in L2 studies (e.g., Taguchi, 2005, 2007, 2008a, 2011, 2012; Taguchi, Li, & Liu, 2013). A distinct feature of these studies is the use of an online listening test and response time data. Response times show how quickly one can respond to the stimuli. Shorter response times indicate relative ease in processing the stimuli, whereas longer response times signal processing effort coming from linguistic, cognitive, and affective demands (see Chapter 18 in this volume). In implicature comprehension, response time data can symbolize the distance between the propositional and intended meaning, and the degree of processing load coming from that distance. Comprehension is faster when the propositional meaning is immediate, but when the proposition is remote, we need to bridge the gap, resulting in longer response times (Hamblin & Gibbs, 2003). Existing findings support the relationship between the degree of indirectness and the amount of processing load. Specifically, studies found that conventionality encoded in implicature facilitates comprehension, resulting in higher accuracy scores and shorter response times. Here, we will focus on two studies that compared comprehension of conventional and non-conventional implicature among L2 English learners across proficiency levels (Taguchi, 2011) and different time-points (Taguchi, 2012). These studies adapted naturally occurring implicature found in corpora of conversations. Conventional implicatures were operationalized as indirect refusals involving a common pattern of refusal (i.e., giving an excuse when refusing), while nonconventional implicatures were operationalized as indirect opinions that do not involve common discourse patterns. Examples of these implicature types are presented below (Taguchi, 2012, pp. 270 and 275). In (4), B’s refusal (last utterance) is conventional (telling A why he can’t go out to eat). In (5), B’s last utterance is non-conventional and idiosyncratic because different utterances can express how B feels about New York. (4)  Conventional implicature: Indirect refusals A:   Hey Nancy, what are you doing? Do you wanna do something tonight? B:   I don’t know. I was just gonna watch TV. A:  I wanna go out tonight. Maybe we can go to the Japanese restaurant. The new one just opened. B:   I don’t have any money this week to pay the bills. 35

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

(5)  Non-conventional implicature: Indirect opinions A:  So, Mary, you and your husband just moved from Florida to New York? B:  Yes, last year. A:  Do you like living in New York? B: We looked around for two years. My husband and I went all over the United States, and we didn’t find any place we liked better. Taguchi’s study found that, regardless of proficiency levels, indirect refusals (conventional implicatures) were easier and faster to comprehend than non-conventional indirect opinions. Comprehension of both implicature types developed over time, but the gain size was larger for refusals than for opinions. The facilitation effect of conventionality was found in other languages, including Japanese (Taguchi, 2008b) and Chinese (Taguchi, Li, & Liu, 2013), as well as in different learning contexts (study abroad programs, immersion settings, and formal classrooms) (Taguchi, 2008a, 2011, 2012), different source materials (corpus-based vs. artificially created dialogues) (Taguchi, 2005, 2011), and different response formats (yes-no vs. multiple-choice questions) (Taguchi, 2008a, 2011). The same results were also found in cross-sectional studies (Taguchi, 2011) and longitudinal studies (Taguchi, 2007, 2012). These findings provide unquestionable evidence of conventionality effect. Critically, the conventionality effect is a property of a shared convention between L1 and L2. Unlike Pope questions that involve culture-specific conventions (Bouton, 1994, 1999), learners are familiar with the indirect refusal convention in L1 and thus can transfer the L1-based convention to L2 comprehension. However, when conventionality is not shared or present, learners need to rely on both linguistic knowledge (bottom-up processing) and contextual information (top-down processing) to derive meaning. As a result, the degree of inferencing becomes extensive, leading to a greater comprehension difficulty and slower-paced progress over time. The conventionality effect helps us operationalize different types of indirectness, which can be used to explore SLA issues such as the construct of comprehension, developmental order, and L1 transfer. For instance, the order of development found in previous studies (comprehension of conventional implicature preceding that of non-conventional implicature) can be treated as stages of L2 development. These stages can be used to examine pace of development, along with individual factors that may affect the pace (e.g., proficiency, personality). In addition, conventionality can be operationalized from universal and language-specific standpoints so we can examine positive bi-directional transfer based on universal (and shared) conventions, as well as negative transfer or absence of transfer due to L1-specific conventions. While the facilitative effect of conventionality in implicature comprehension is clear, this generalization is based on the studies that used an instrument with low contextual effect. Most studies used auditory input and did not incorporate visual cues. Hence, the conventionality effect is restricted to the area of linguistic conventionality, and other areas of contextual effect (e.g., visual input) have not been addressed systematically. Critically, previous studies did not compare contextual effects coming from different sources, limiting our understanding of the relationship between contextual cues and processing load. Indeed, when different signals of contextual effect are compared, linguistic-level conventionality is not always advantageous, as found in Taguchi, Gomez-Laich, and Arufat-Marqués’s (2016) study. They used a multimedia listening test with video-recorded conversations to assess comprehension. Because inferential processing involves a parallel processing of all available signals, both linguistic and non-linguistic (Sperber & Wilson, 1995), multimedia input combining multiple signals at once (e.g., sounds, images, videos, and texts) more closely reflects our real-life inferential processes than does audio input alone. By incorporating multiple sources of input, the

36

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

study examined whether L2 Spanish learners’ comprehension differed across items of different conventionality (indirect refusals, indirect opinions, and irony). Contrary to other studies, the conventionality effect was not found in Taguchi et al.’s study: There was no difference between indirect refusals (conventional implicature) and indirect opinions (non-conventional implicature) in accuracy scores. Indirect opinions were even faster to comprehend than indirect refusals. Introspective interview data revealed the facilitative effect of verbal and non-verbal cues when comprehending indirect opinions. When people express negative opinions (dislike or disapproval), their emotions often appear in facial expressions, gestures, and tone. These visual cues in indirect opinion items reduced the processing load, leading to faster comprehension speed. Drawing on visual cues is economical in comprehension because visual information directly maps onto meaning and helps us bypass the bottom-up processing of an utterance. Notably, the contextual effect coming from visual cues can override that of linguistic conventionality (common indirect refusal patterns), as found in the study. Other than Taguchi et al.’s study, very few studies have used audio-visual input to assess L2 comprehension of implied meaning. Using video clips from films and TV shows, Shively et al. (2008) examined comprehension of irony in L2 Spanish, and Yamanaka (2003) analyzed implicature comprehension in L2 English, but these studies did not address how learners used visual cues in input or how those cues facilitated their comprehension. Use of multimodal input is critical when studying comprehension because comprehension is not merely the decoding of linguistic input; rather, it is a global process that involves the use of all available cues, both linguistic and non-linguistic, to arrive at meaning (Sperber & Wilson, 1995). Multimedia input makes a greater number of cues available and thus presents a more realistic, theoretically grounded approach to understanding L2 implicature comprehension. The next section discusses a global process of implicature comprehension based on naturalistic data drawn from intercultural communication.

The Socio-cognitive Approach in L2 Comprehension of Implicature The Socio-cognitive Approach Grice’s and Sperber and Wilson’s theories situate the recognition of speaker intention as the central goal of communication. They consider that intention exists in the speaker’s mind as a preplanned object, and the listener’s job is to recognize the intention by using contextual cues and assumptions of relevance. Hence, these theories observe a clear separation between the speaker’s intention and the listener’s interpretation of the intention. Quite differently, the socio-cognitive approach (Kecskes, 2014, 2016) combines the speaker’s and listener’s perspectives. Kecskes contends that intention is a ‘cooperation-directed practice’ (p. 47); that is, intention is an a priori state of the speaker’s mind, but it is also emergent, as the speaker and listener jointly develop what is actually communicated. The emergent nature of intention is illustrated in the following example (Kecskes, 2014, p. 9): (6)  Sam:  Coming for a drink?    Andy:       Sorry, I can’t. My doctor won’t let me.   Sam:  What’s wrong with you? Kecskes explains that the last utterance by Sam is ambiguous and generates implicature. It could be a sincere question about Andy’s health, or it could be sarcastically asking Sam why he takes the doctor’s advice seriously. The Gricean paradigm of logical inferencing does not help disambiguate this implicature. Similarly, the relevance-theoretic account of attending to salient cues (intonation, facial expressions) may not lead to a complete understanding. What is likely to

37

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

happen in this situation is a follow-up negotiation sequence between Sam and Andy. Andy might ask a clarification question such as ‘What do you mean?’ Alternatively, Andy might comprehend the question literally and explain his health problems to Sam, or he might respond with laughter as a reaction to a sarcastic comment. Hence, the actual meaning of Sam’s utterance is emergent and locally situated as Sam and Andy negotiate to reach joint understanding. The socio-cognitive approach is a useful framework for understanding intercultural pragmatics (Kecskes, 2014). In intercultural communication, participants bring their own L1-based assumptions, norms, and expectations from their experience. However, these norms and assumptions are not fixed. They are negotiated and redefined as speakers strive to establish mutual understanding. Individuals’ prior norms eventually develop into new hybrid norms reflecting the emergent situational characteristics. As Kecskes (2014) contends, ‘interculture’ involves participants’ ‘mutual transformation of knowledge and communicative behavior rather than transmission’ (p. 44). Participants from different cultures do not necessarily have a common background readily available to them. They need to actively seek and co-construct shared assumptions. Those assumptions are called common ground (Clark, 1996), mutual cognitive environment (Sperber & Wilson, 1995), or presumed shared beliefs (Zegarac & Spencer-Oatey, 2013). As Clark (1996) argues, participants must establish shared knowledge to understand others and to be understood by others. When speakers actively seek for common ground, negotiation of meaning—in the form of accommodation, interactional management, and problem solving—occurs frequently, characterizing the nature of intercultural communication. In summary, unlike Grice’s or Sperber and Wilson’s theories, the socio-cognitive approach attends to two types of intention in synergy: prior intention and emergent intention. Intention is individual and pre-planned, but it is also emergent, reflecting situational experiences shared among speakers. The socio-cognitive approach features the ‘privatization’ of meaning, where the speaker ‘blends his prior experience with the situational (current) experience, and makes an individual understanding of collective experience’ (Kecskes, 2016, p. 50). The privatization of meaning often occurs in intercultural communication where speakers of different cultural backgrounds get together and communicate in search for common ground.

The Socio-cognitive Approach in L2 Implicature Comprehension Research Given the paucity of available findings under the socio-cognitive approach in L2 implicature comprehension, we will present our original data in this section. By analyzing a conversation between two speakers of English as a lingua franca, we will illustrate how implicatures emerge from participants’ different cultural assumptions and how participants try to achieve mutual understanding of implied meaning. Our data shows that implicature comprehension is not always an individual process, as in Grice’s maxims or Relevance Theory. Rather, it is a collaborative process that is locally negotiated among participants.

Participants and Data The participants were two female students (Japanese and Chinese) enrolled in the graduate program in an English-medium university in Japan. The Japanese participant was from Osaka and enrolled in the TESOL program. The Chinese participant was from Xian and enrolled in the Communication Studies program. The data was a 20-minute naturalistic conversation between the two participants, who had a free-flowing discussion based on topics provided by the researchers. The conversation was audio-recorded and transcribed using existing conventions (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 2007; Wong & Waring, 2010) (see Appendix). Adapting the socio-cognitive approach, we analyzed how two types of intention—a priori intention inherent 38

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

in the speaker’s mind and an emergent intention negotiated between the speakers (Kecskes, 2014, 2016)—co-occur in the process of common-ground seeking.

Findings: Collaborative Disambiguation of Implicature In Excerpt 1, the Chinese speaker begins a discussion on pros and cons of early English education in elementary schools in Japan. Starting the discussion, she asks whether the Japanese speaker studied English when she was in elementary school (line 27). The Japanese speaker responds saying that she learned English in a cram school (line 31). This response is ambiguous and generates implicature. The fact that she learned English in a cram school essentially means that she did not study English in an elementary school; however, the Chinese speaker does not understand this meaning because cram schools have different meanings in China. In Japan, cram schools focus on materials that are either absent or limited in formal schooling, whereas in China cram schools primarily teach exam-taking techniques that are closely tied with school curriculums. Critically, misunderstanding occurs in both parties because the Japanese speaker also fails to recognize the intention behind the Chinese speaker’s question. The question was about whether the Japanese speaker learned English as part of an elementary school curriculum, not about learning English elsewhere (e.g., extracurricular activities) when she was of her elementary school age. Hence, the Japanese speaker’s response (learning English in a cram school) is not a relevant answer to the Chinese speaker’s question. In order to solve this miscommunication, the Chinese speaker repeats the same question in line 43. When the Chinese speaker mispronounces the word ‘when’ as ‘one’, both speakers try to clarify the meaning: The Chinese speaker provides self-repair (line 47), and the Japanese speaker provides a confirmation check (line 48). This effort, however, fails again, and the misunderstanding (or failure to recognize each other’s intention) remains.

Excerpt 1 27 C:  yeah, °but°How about, how about (.) one you’re in your elementary school, did you= 28 C:  =learn the (.)English? One you’re in elementary school? 29 J:   Me? 30 C:  Yeah. 31 J:    Ah::, actually I started, ah, to learn English (.) ah, with the:: in the:: cram school? from the= 32 J:    =elementary [school, in elementary school, so I didn’t have chance to learn English so= 33 C:  [ah, yeah 34 J:    =much but I learned alphabet?= 35 C:  Yeah 36 J:    =in six grade and fifth grade 37 C:  $Oh::$ 38 J:    Only that so 39 C:  So early. 40 J:     Yeah, but I think it’s good (.) thing to, for children to be familiar with (.) um 41 C:  Like English 42 J:     Yeah, English 43 C:   Yeah so (.) [why, yeah, for one (.) you are (.) a:: elementary school student, did you learn= 44 J:    [listening skill 45 C:  =English? at that time, one your 46 J:    Why? 47 C:  ONE, WHEN 48 J:    When? 39

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

49 C:  When, when you’re, when you’re in elementary school kids= 50 J:    Third [grade or fourth grade? 51 C:  =[did you (learn them)? So you learn it from third grade one you’re in elementary= 52 C:  =school. 53 J:   Yeah, or fourth grade. 54 C:  ( ) you told me you’re in a private school right? 55 J:   NO, no, no, no, no. it’s from my middle school? so in elementary school, I was in the= 56 J:   =public. 57 C:  Oh, so you didn’t learn English from elementary school. 58 J:   In cram school? I learned. 59 C:  Yeah, I I I it’s it’s it’s it’s early in elementary school, early from the class, not the= 60 C:  =outside (.) °space° 61 J:   No (.) not, for fifth and six grade, I learned um [only… 62 C:  [Yeah, but it’s not, not the school offer,= 63 C:  =right? 64 J:    it is school offer or not. 65 C:  Is that a mean if it is school offered it’s in the um, in the public elementary school that,= 66 C:  =you just go to elementary school you (.) you’re that learning the from just in the class,= 67 C:  =but you go to outside the, like (.) 68 J:    Un 69 C:  Yeah, to learn (it) 70 J:   Yeah 71 C:  So, it’s mean (.) your age that you (dida) learn English from elementary school, yeah= 72 C:  =from just from your school, right? 73 J:   Un Following this, in line 57, the Chinese speaker once again tries to clarify the meaning, but the Japanese speaker still provides the same indirect answer (line 58). Not getting the answer she wants, the Chinese speaker tries to clarify her intention in subsequent turns. She emphasizes that her question is about learning English as part of the school’s offerings, not outside the formal school context (cram schools). What is noticeable here is a greater degree of explicitness and an elaboration in her clarification sequences. She provides a confirmation tag (‘… right?’ in lines 63 and 72); paraphrases her sentence to confirm her interlocutor’s meaning (‘Is that a mean …’ in line 65 and ‘So, it’s mean …’ in line 71); elaborates on her explanation (line 66); and seeks confirmation by repeating the same information (lines 71–72). This intensive clarification work reflects the Chinese speaker’s effort toward achieving mutual understanding. Her clarification work is also contingent upon her interlocutor’s reaction to her utterances. The Chinese speaker seeks confirmation of her stated proposition in lines 62 and 63 (‘it’s not, not the school offer, right?’), but the Japanese speaker does not confirm this, saying that she does not know. Lacking confirmation, the Chinese speaker keeps clarifying her intention. This segment illustrates the process of common ground seeking in several ways. First, we can see that the process takes place through turn-taking in a sequentially organized discourse. Both speakers incorporate interpretive work of what their interlocutors mean turn-by-turn, while using interactional resources to co-construct meaning. The amount of resources used (e.g., confirmation check, paraphrasing, and repetition) is upgraded or downgraded depending on how much mutual ground they are able to establish at the moment. In addition, the process of common ground seeking reflects the synergy between the speaker’s prior mental state and the shared situational experience. The Chinese and Japanese speakers draw on their own assumptions and expectations from their prior cultural repertoires. The Japanese 40

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

speaker assumes that her response, albeit indirect, is clear enough for her interlocutor’s question based on her prior knowledge of Japanese cram schools. The Chinese speaker’s failure to recognize this intention indicates that she also operates on her own assumptions coming from her understanding of cram schools in China. However, these individual cultural experiences are negotiated and redefined in their actual situational experience. Misunderstanding and miscommunication—as evidenced in hesitations, repetitions, clarifications, and confirmation checks— are part of the situational experience. The speakers react to this reality by implementing a series of clarification sequences. During this process, the prior intention (or original meaning) blends with the current situational experience, leading to a collective understanding. The speakers try to reformulate their prior intentions in a way that allows them to fit the actual situation. In essence, miscommunication, which is common in intercultural communication, serves as a driving force for creating the basis for common ground.

Appraisal of the Current Literature Three decades of empirical work have advanced our understanding of how L2 learners comprehend non-literal, implied meaning. Characteristics of the empirical practice can be summarized as follows. First, existing studies have maintained a close connection with the mainstream theories of pragmatics. Grice’s maxims, Relevance Theory, and the socio-cognitive approach all situate the recognition of speaker intention as the central goal of communication, but they differ in their explanations of how such intention is recognized. Grice’s maxims use logical inferencing and presumption of relevance as explanatory force, while Sperber and Wilson present the cognitive inferencing model by drawing on psycholinguistic concepts of saliency, processing load, and economy of communication. The socio-cognitive approach takes both a mentalist and a social-interactionalist approach to meaning comprehension, emphasizing that intention is both pre-existing in the speaker’s mind and shared among participants. These different theoretical accounts have shaped the investigative foci of L2 implicature research. Some studies focus on the state of non-literal comprehension and proficiency effect on comprehension. Other studies focus on different degrees of indirectness by drawing on the concepts of contextual effect and processing load. Still others focus on the process rather than the product of comprehension to reveal how implicature comprehension manifests as a distributed effort among participants. These different research foci tell us that implicature comprehension is both a cognitive and a social phenomenon, depending on which theoretical accounts are adapted. Another observation of the existing practice is its increasing diversification of research methods. Most studies in the 1980s to mid-2000s used a reading instrument with a series of written conversations as input, followed by multiple-choice questions. Since the mid-2000s this practice has been replaced with the use of auditory and visual input. Real-life conversations are usually heard, not read, and also require on-line processing where listeners cannot control the rate at which information is taken in. As such, a test involving audio-visual input reflects real-life language use more closely than does written input. A conversation task can further promote the authenticity of data. In a listening or reading test, learners are third-party observers, eavesdropping other peoples’ conversations and detecting implied intentions involved in the conversations. However, in a face-to-face conversation, learners are participants themselves who generate and clarify implicature emerging from their own interactional experiences. In a real-life conversation, implicature comprehension requires abilities beyond basic linguistic processing. It extends to the use of communication strategies (e.g., clarification requests and confirmation checks) and negotiation skills to develop mutual understanding. Conversation data helps reveal these multiple skills and strategies involved in comprehension. 41

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

These various data collection and analysis methods also influence the conclusions we can draw about implicature comprehension from the data. A reading test with written conversations can only reveal whether or not learners can recognize implied meaning. On the other hand, a listening instrument and response time data available from the instrument help us see the distance between the propositional and intended meaning, as well as the relationship between the distance and the amount of effort required for comprehension. A multimedia instrument incorporating visual and auditory cues helps us see which cues work best as salient signals and facilitate comprehension. Real-time conversation data can reveal participants’ use of communication strategies to derive meaning, going beyond their linguistic knowledge and listening skills. These different findings coming from different research instruments confirm that implicature comprehension is a global process involving multiple resources—linguistic, cognitive, and interactional—in one setting. Finally, three decades of research have revealed a close relationship among implicature comprehension, L2 learning, and development. The relationship is observed in the topics addressed in the research, including L1 transfer, developmental pace, and factors affecting development. Studies showed that learners are able to transfer their L1-based inferencing skill and relevance maxim to L2 comprehension. Transfer has a facilitative effect when meaning encodes a shared convention between L1 and L2, but when an utterance involves a culturespecific convention (e.g., Pope questions) or does not contain any conventional features, comprehension becomes difficult. Other than conventionality, distance between the propositional and intended meaning, as well as availability of audio-visual cues, influence comprehension. Proficiency also has a clear advantage for implicature comprehension, sometimes overriding other factors such as study abroad experience (Roever et al., 2014; Taguchi, 2011). Due to linguistic and skill-specific constraints, low-proficiency learners often devote their resources to utterance-level comprehension. In contrast, high-proficiency learners can take advantage of their advanced-level linguistic knowledge to free up some of their processing resources so they can attend to information beyond the utterance-level to disambiguate implied meaning.

Conclusion and Future Directions Having observed these generalizations that emerge from past research, we conclude this chapter with several directions for future research.

Future Direction 1: Innovation in Instrumentation—Assessing Implicature Comprehension as a Global Process Future research should expand the scope of instrumentation in assessing L2 implicature comprehension. Previous studies mainly used a highly controlled, decontextualized listening or reading test with researcher-made dialogues, limiting the generalizability of the findings in real-life situations. This limitation can be solved by developing instruments that reflect real-life inferential practices. Particularly useful in this direction is the use of multimodal input combining visual, auditory, and textual information. As Sperber and Wilson (1995) contend, comprehension is not just about decoding linguistic input; it is a global process in which all available cues, both linguistic and non-linguistic, are simultaneously used to infer meaning. To assess the global process, instrument design needs innovation. Recent advancement in technology should help us incorporate a number of contextual cues to simulate real-life comprehension. We can examine how learners attend to paralinguistic cues, such as voice tone, stress, gestures, head nods, or gaze directions, and use them to draw inferences. By incorporating these features of authentic interaction, we can assess implicature comprehension at the discourse-level, regulated by all forms of semiotic activity. 42

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

Future Direction 2: Situating Implicature Comprehension in an Interactional, Interpretive work Empirical data and findings under the socio-cognitive approach (Kecskes, 2014) are seriously under-represented in the literature, and thus future research in this area is needed. Previous studies typically treated learners as passive recipients of information and did not examine their active involvement in the process of joint understanding of implicature. Future researchers can commit to discourse analysis or conversation analysis as a methodological option to reveal how participants interactionally disambiguate implicatures that emerge in ongoing discourse (see Chapter 15 in this volume). Researchers can focus on the elements of adaptability and contingency as learners collaboratively establish meaning by using available resources. Such analyses will help us move from the study of comprehension as an individual process to a shared process among participants.

Future Direction 3: Investigating Longitudinal Development of Implicature Comprehension Existing studies have primarily focused on whether or not learners can comprehend implied meaning in L2, and very few studies have addressed development of comprehension in a longitudinal design. The hierarchy of difficulty among implicature types found in previous studies can help us infer the order of development—which implicature type is easier to comprehend and thus comes at an earlier stage of development than others. However, the implicature types examined in the existing studies have been restricted to the dichotomized categories of conventional and non-conventional implicature (e.g., Taguchi, 2012). This practice needs to be improved in the future. Researchers can develop other categories of implicature so those categories can be used to document patterns of development.

Future Direction 4: Applying SLA Theories to Examine Implicature Comprehension The current practice can be advanced by adapting insights coming from SLA theories. A critical question for future research is how implicature comprehension develops over time. Existing studies have primarily focused on factors affecting comprehension (e.g., proficiency, study abroad experiences, and length of formal study), revealing individual learners’ influences on development, but studies have not systematically addressed the underlying mechanisms that drive development. We can resort to SLA theories to unveil the mechanisms that help move learners from their current stage to a higher stage of implicature comprehension. For example, Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis can be adapted as a guiding framework to design an instructional study on implicature development. Schmidt contends that input becomes intake and leads to acquisition if learners notice the input (see also Chapter 8 in this volume). The initial phase of input selection and attention controls learners’ access to consciousness and awareness of input. This initial phase is critical for the subsequent phase—intake and internalization of linguistic forms contained in the input. The noticing hypothesis has been widely used in instructional intervention research, as seen in a large number of studies comparing explicit and implicit teaching methods (for a review, see Taguchi, 2015). Despite this popularity, the noticing hypothesis has rarely been used in teaching implicature (but see Kubota, 1995). Future research can explore how consciousness and attention can facilitate learning of implicature by using tasks focusing on explicit learning, such as consciousness raising, input enhancement, and focus-on-form approaches. Another useful SLA theory for implicature comprehension is the language socialization approach, which postulates that learners are socialized into the use of particular linguistic forms and their socio-cultural meanings through guided assistance from community members 43

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

(e.g., Duff & Talmy, 2011; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) (see also Chapter 9 in this volume). Adapting this theoretical approach, we can analyze a learner’s routine participation in community activities to see how a shared understanding is achieved between the learner and a community member. We can focus on instances of miscommunication arising from non-literal meaning and analyze how such misunderstandings get solved through explicit and implicit socialization. Explicit socialization may occur when a misunderstanding arises from a culture-specific communicative convention (e.g., sarcasm) and a community member providing direct information about the convention. Implicit socialization can be observed in negotiation and clarification sequences where community members implicitly model strategies that learners can use to clarify meaning. An exemplary attempt in using the socialization approach is Shively’s (2013) study that documented an L2 Spanish learner’s development in understanding and creating humor in a study abroad context. She recorded a naturalistic conversation between the leaner and a community member (host father and friend) over one semester and coded instances of humor as either successful or failed. The learner’s humor competence developed as he observed other people’s humor and reflected on others’ reactions to his own humor attempts (see Chapter 5 in this volume for the construct of humor). Compared with the field of pragmatics where theories have evolved over time with new theories refining or replacing old theoretical accounts, the SLA field observes diversity through a number of co-existing theories that explain L2 learning and development. We believe that different theoretical frameworks can collectively strengthen our understanding of the changes within pragmatic systems and influences on these systems. We also believe that pragmatics theories and SLA theories together can help us cultivate a more informed study design to examine L2 learners’ development of implicature comprehension. Explicit application of SLA theories focusing on learning and development, combined with application of pragmatics theories explicating the construct of comprehension, will help us explore what L2 learners develop in implicature comprehension and how they develop.

Suggested reading Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. This book presents intercultural pragmatics as a field of research that studies how speakers with different first languages and cultural backgrounds communicate with each other using a common language. The book presents the socio-cognitive approach as the theoretical foundation for intercultural pragmatics. The book presents a contrast between the cognitive-philosophical approach and the sociocultural-interactional approach, which serves as a useful reading on Gricean and neo-Gricean accounts of meaning comprehension, as opposed to the discursive pragmatics approach to meaning comprehension. The socio-cognitive approach that blends these two perspectives presents another theoretical perspective to meaning comprehension. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. This book presents a comprehensive review of L2 pragmatics research over the past decades. Chapters 2 and 5 are particularly relevant to the present chapter. Chapter 2 presents the representation of pragmatic competence with implicature comprehension being part of the representation. Chapter 5 focuses on longitudinal studies and addresses developmental trajectories of pragmatic competence. The chapter summarizes findings from four key areas: implicature comprehension including psycholinguistic aspects of development, recognition and production of routine formulae, speech-act based research on politeness and appropriateness, and research in discursive pragmatics on extended conversation.

References Bouton, L. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically without being explicitly taught? In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning monograph series, Vol. 3 (pp. 66–80). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. 44

Implicature Comprehension in L2 Pragmatics

Bouton, L. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–167. Bouton, L. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 47–70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Carrell, P. (1984). Inferencing in ESL: Presuppositions and implications of factive and implicative predicates. Language Learning, 34, 1–19. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19–39. Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). Abington, UK: Routledge. Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental differences in speech act recognition: A pragmatic awareness study. Language Awareness, 13, 96–115. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3 (pp. 31–58). New York: Academic Press. Hamblin, J., & Gibbs, R. (2003). Processing the meaning of what speakers say and implicate. Discourse Processes, 35, 59–80. Koike, A. D. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish foreign language learning. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 257–281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicatures to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9, 35–67. Kecskes, I. (2014) Intercultural pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kecskes, I. (2016). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatics theories? In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 43–69). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Mey, J. L. (1995). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap, & C. Morris (Eds.), International encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 77–138). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Blackwell. Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S. (2014). Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52, 377–401. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press. Shively, R. L. (2013). Learning to be funny in Spanish study abroad: L2 humor development. Modern Language Journal, 97, 939–946. Shively, R., Menke, M., & Manzón-Omundson, S. (2008). Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 101–132. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehension of implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543–562. Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 313–338. Taguchi, N. (2008a). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 92, 558–576. Taguchi, N. (2008b). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423–452. 45

Naoko Taguchi and Shota Yamaguchi

Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904–939. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. New York/Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. Taguchi, N. (2018). Advanced pragmatic competence. In P. A. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 505–526). Wiley-Blackwell. Taguchi, N., Gomez-Laich, P. M., & Arrufat-Marqués, M. J. (2016). Comprehension of indirect meaning in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 677–698. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics and Cognition, 21, 139–157. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman. Wong, J., & Waring, H. A. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/ EFL Teachers. New York: Routledge. Yamanaka, J. (2003). Effects of proficiency and length of residence on the pragmatic comprehension of Japanese ESL Learners. Second Language Studies, 22, 107–175. Zegarac, V., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Achieving mutual understanding in intercultural partnerships: Co-operation, self-orientation and fragility. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10, 433–458.

Appendix: Transcription Conventions Transcription conventions based on Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson (1974), Schegloff (2007), and Wong & Waring (2010). (.)    (3.2) hehh, hahh  wo(h)rd $word$ .hh ((sniff)) cu- lo:ng (word) run= =on  ? . : WORD ºsoftº >fast< over[lap [overlap  … word ***** word

46

timed pause shorter than 1.0 second timed pause longer than 1.0 second laughter syllables  (h) laughter within words  smiley voice  inhalation  non-speech sound, non-verbal action, description  cut-off  stretch  unclear or inaudible word  run on/latch  rising intonation  falling intonation  stretch  louder voice  softer speech  faster speech  slower speech  overlap  omission  Italic text indicates non-English word (e.g., Japanese)  Individual name.  Underlined words indicate ‘incorrect’ pronunciation. ‘Incorrect’ pronunciation means the pronounced sounds are far from the received pronunciation.

4 Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Introduction Why are we interested in formulaic language at the intersection of pragmatics and second ­language acquisition (SLA)? From the perspective of pragmatics, pragmatic routines are tied to specific contexts and specific speech acts, two basic pragmatic constructs. They include expressions such as Nice to meet you as a reply to an introduction and Thanks for having me in a reciprocal thanking exchange at an event to which one was invited. Such expressions are part of the pragmalinguistic resources of a given speech community. From an acquisitional perspective, the study of pragmatic routines permits the documentation of the acquisition of one type of formulaic language that occurs with some frequency or density. This is the direct opposite of poverty of stimulus research in which learners come to develop linguistic knowledge not available in the input. However, in the case of pragmatic routines in SLA, the routines are available but not necessarily acquired, as though they were hiding in plain sight. Empirical pragmatics, with its tradition of investigating language use in particular situations, creates robust experimental contexts in which the acquisition of formulaic language in a second language (L2) can be investigated, as was anticipated by Granger (1998) who identified pragmatics as a profitable arena for SLA research on formulaic language. Indeed, the research designs of interlanguage pragmatics have led to discoveries about the acquisition of formulaic language, including the involvement of learners’ developing interlanguage grammar and the morpho-syntactic foundation on which conventional expressions are built (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2017; see also Bardovi-Harlig, 2018a, for extended discussion of the pragmatic contribution to formulaic research more generally). In this chapter, I discuss what the study of the acquisition of formulaic language—pragmatic routines—reveals about the acquisition of L2 pragmatics, namely (a) how formulas are acquired and what pragmatic requirements there are to use them, and (b) how researchers can best study them. The sections that follow will discuss the formulaicity of L2 pragmatics and challenges to acquiring formulaic language. Research design and implementation are also discussed. The chapter concludes with future research directions and applications of research to the teaching of pragmatic routines.

47

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Key Concepts The field of formulaic language is well known for its wealth of terms. Several dozen are listed in the early literature (see, e.g., Weinert, 1995; Wray, 2002; Wray & Perkins, 2000). Within L2 pragmatics, the dominant current terms are conventional expression, pragmatic routine, ­situation-bound utterance (SBU), and formula. Formula seems to be most widely used as a cover term (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012a). Pragmatic routine was originally used by Scarcella (1979) in a discourse completion test (DCT) called the ‘routines test’ and 25 years later by Roever (2005, 2012) in a 12-item multiple-choice ‘routines test’ that contributed to the renewed interest in formulaic language use in L2 pragmatics. Situation-bound utterance (SBU) is the term preferred by Kecskes (2000, 2003, 2016) and his students. In addition to the relation to a certain context (situation boundedness), SBUs have the potential for multiple meanings, often a literal and a figurative meaning, such as piece of cake meaning ‘a slice of a baked good’ and ‘easy.’ The interest in multiple meanings distinguishes SBUs and its approach from the others. Conventional expression was adopted by Bardovi-Harlig (2009) to emphasize the social side of formulaic language use in pragmatics in contrast to psycholinguistic accounts of formulaic language in other areas of SLA. This term has come to mean the preferred form of native speakers in a specific context. Following Erman and Warren (2000), conventional expressions are ‘combinations of at least two words favored by native speakers in preference to an alternative combination which could have been equivalent had there been no conventionalization’ (p. 31). The phrase ‘favored by native speakers’ was operationalized as supplied by more than half (50%) of the native-speaker respondents to a single experimental item in an empirically determined task. Pragmatic routine also has a second use. On the one hand, it is used as a general term (see House, 1996; Roever, 2005, 2012). On the other, pragmatic routine has been contrasted to conventional expression, with the former (routine) reserved for demonstrably frequent strings associated with a speech act often indicating the illocutionary force, but not tied to a specific situation like a conventional expression which is tied to a specific speech act as well as a specific context. For example, expressions such as That’s right, You’re right, That’s true, and I agree all indicate agreement and are demonstrably frequent (65–90/million words for the first three and 35+/million for I agree, based on the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) and are thus considered as pragmatic routines (Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Vellenga, 2015a; Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Su, 2017). In contrast, as shown in Bardovi-Harlig’s (2009) study, {Thanks/Thank you} for your {help/time} was produced by 94% of undergraduates (33 out of 35 total) when presented with a scenario in which they were leaving the office of a busy teacher and Thank you {so/very} much was used by 89% (31/35) of the undergraduates when presented with a scenario in which a teacher allowed them to take a make-up exam. Thus, these thanking expressions are conventional expressions because they are tied to specific contexts. (See Bardovi-Harlig, in 2018b, for an extended discussion.) The fact that an expression may be the preferred expression in one context does not preclude its use in other contexts. However, for research purposes, establishing that there is a single preferred expression in a specific context permits the investigation of whether and how L2 learners come to be able to use expressions that have been conventionalized by a speech community. The learnability problem is whether L2 learners can identify the conventional expressions from a range of grammatical alternatives (called native-like selection by Pawley & Syder, 1983) as pragmatic resources, and this requires sociopragmatic knowledge as well. In the following sections, this chapter treats these terms (i.e., formula, conventional expressions, SBUs, and pragmatic routine) more or less synonymously, while discussing studies that have a pragmatics focus. This focuses on what the terms share, the relatively fixed linguistic forms tied to communicative functions and contexts of use and their role as pragmalinguistic resources, rather than on the subtle differences between them. 48

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

Survey of the Current Literature Pragmatic routines are found in at least two types of L2 pragmatic studies: those in which routines are examined as one type of pragmalinguistic device among others, and those studies in which routines are the specific focus of investigation. In the former, the formulas are not preselected in investigation; researchers analyze what is produced by either native speakers (NS) or learners (or both) in a given situation, which may involve formulas. For example, Barron (2003) investigated the development of pragmatic routines as one type of pragmalinguistic resource (among other resources such as mitigation in speech acts) in the production of Irish learners of German during a study abroad year. Learners showed increased target-like use of routines and decreased non-target-like use of L1-driven expressions within a single academic year. Forsberg Lundell and Erman (2012) examined the production of request sequences by Swedish speakers of L2 English and L2 French who were long-term residents (10 years) in the L2 country. Learners completed a role play between an employee and her/his boss. Even after spending 10 years in the target community, both L2 French and L2 English speakers significantly underused ‘situationbound’ routinized formulaic sequences for expressing the request head act.1

Identifying Candidate Formulaic Expressions In the other strand of studies in which formulas are the focus of investigation, the formulas are identified in advance of the study. Early work of this type relied on intuition and a general sense of what expressions are common in a speech community (Scarcella, 1979) or what expressions are problematic for L2 learners (Kecskes, 2000; Roever, 2005). The studies in the next period used expressions examined in the previous literature (Bardovi-Harlig, 2008; Taguchi, 2011), and more recent studies have empirically documented the conventionality and/or frequency of target formulaic expressions. Candidate expressions have been collected from a variety of sources, including authentic conversations (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; BardoviHarlig, Bastos, Burghardt, Chappetto, Nickels, & Rose, 2010), field notes (Taguchi, Li, & Xiao, 2013), TV reality shows, graffiti dialogues, and diary accounts (Culpeper, 2010), multiple expression generation (asking NS to provide as many possible responses as they can) in response to a DCT (Edmonds, 2014); and identification of phrases produced in DCTs by classroom instructors (Wong, 2012). Other sources include translational equivalents in languages of interest (Roever, 2005), pairs of literal and figurative expressions (Kecskes, 2000), reports by L2 learners on the expressions they needed to use while studying abroad (Bardovi-Harlig & Su, 2018; Yang, 2016), textbooks (Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Vellenga, 2015a; Yang, 2016), reference works including phrasebooks for travelers (Taguchi et al., 2013), and dictionaries (Ding, 2006).

Establishing the Conventionality of Candidate Formulaic Expressions The candidate expressions are then further tested for conventionality in one of two ways, by analyzing native-speaker production on the same elicitation task as the learners complete or by analyzing frequency of occurrence in an appropriately matched corpus. When conventionality is confirmed by native-speaker completion of the same task, candidate expressions are regarded as conventional when their use is high, exceeding a 50% cut-off (see the previous section). When conventionality is confirmed by frequency in an appropriate corpus, frequency of usage ideally meets or exceeds estimates of frequency for multi-word units. Biber and colleagues established a range of 10–40 occurrences per million words as frequent rates for multi-word expressions in corpora (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004). Following this standard, Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2015a) 49

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

identified pragmatic routines as instructional targets when they met or exceeded the range of 10–40 occurrences/million words using the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) (Simpson, Briggs, Ovens, & Swales, 2002). Similarly, Wong (2012) used a Chinese corpus, the Center for Chinese Linguistics Online Corpus, to identify frequent and conventional expressions in Chinese. This group of studies combines the rigor of formula research with established elicitation techniques from L2 pragmatics research. These studies focus on how learners acquire formulas in the target language—including acquisitional stages—and what factors influence their development, thus drawing the studies closer to concerns voiced in SLA research and L2 investigations of formulaic language in general. There are relatively few studies focusing on acquisition issues of formulas in pragmatics (although I expect more to follow): English (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2017); Chinese (Taguchi, Li, & Tang, 2017; Taguchi, Li, & Xiao, 2013; Yang, 2016; Bardovi-Harlig & Su, 2018); French (Edmonds, 2014); and Russian (Furniss, 2016). From the SLA perspective, documenting the conventionality of the expressions is crucial if claims are to be made about their potential learnability based on frequency in the target language. Hence, the studies cited above align more closely to formula research than other studies that do not target formulas in investigation. From the pragmatics perspective, the trials of demonstrating frequency—and the subsequent rejection of low scoring (but familiar) expressions—suggest that pragmatics is not as formulaic as some believe (Bardovi-Harlig, 2016). There is variation even among native speakers (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012b). For example, a pilot study reported in Bardovi-Harlig (2009) and Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2010) showed that, in the situation of someone talking during a movie in a theater, all the undergraduate native-speaker participants (28 total) used one of Be quiet, Keep it down, or Shut up. In the main study involving 49 native-speaker participants, Be quiet continued to dominate with 60% of the responses supplied by the 35 undergraduates, supplemented by Shut up and Keep it down (11% each), Quiet down (9%), and one case of sssshhhh (which is also conventional, but not likely to be formulaic). Also in the pilot, low-imposition request scenarios (e.g., asking a roommate standing next to a kitchen cupboard to hand the speaker a glass) derived from our field notes failed to elicit recurrent formulaic expressions. In fact, of the 77 situations of mixed speech acts that were originally identified, more than half failed to elicit consistent use of candidate expressions upon repeated testing. Taguchi, Xiao, and Li (2016) also compared conventional and non-conventional realization of speech acts; among the non-conventionally realized speech acts were requests, refusals, and compliment responses. Thus, as interesting as formulaic language is, in L2 pragmatics research we recognize that formulas are one type of pragmalinguistic resource among many that learners use and acquire in L2.

Pragmatic Prerequisites for Formula Use Tracking the L2 acquisition and use of pragmatic routines reveals what kind of pragmatic knowledge is required to support their use. It is not the case—as was earlier imagined—that using a target-like expression would render learners’ contributions comprehensible and illocutionarily secure, but rather something quite different is required. Learners must recognize the speech act required in a particular context (and the semantic formulas and the content) in order to use the preferred expression. For example, a speaker has to be able to recognize a context as a setting for the speech act of gratitude to be able to use thanking expressions (rather than apologies). In order to deflect thanks, a speaker must perceive an imposition as minor. In order to accept thanks, a speaker must regard the imposition as significant enough to warrant an acknowledgement. In other words, a speaker’s sociopragmatic knowledge creates contexts for use of pragmatic routines. 50

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

What Do We Know So Far about the Acquisition of Routines and Formulas in L2 Pragmatics? There are three types of formula-focused studies in L2 pragmatics: (1) production studies, (2) non-production (recognition and comprehension) studies, and (3) instructional studies. Many researchers agree that even at the higher levels of proficiency, learners both have fewer formulas in their repertoires and use fewer formulas than native speakers (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; Edmondson & House, 1991; House, 1996; Wildner-Bassett, 1984, 1994). In an attempt to understand why fewer formulas are produced by learners than native speakers, previous studies asked whether learners can distinguish between formulas and nonformulas. Bardovi-Harlig (2010b) aurally presented a recognition task that included both authentic formulas and modified, but grammatical, counterparts. A cross-sectional study showed that as L2 English learners increased in level of proficiency, their acceptance of modified expressions decreased, and their acceptance of authentic formulaic expressions increased. The authentic expressions were accepted as being heard significantly more often than modified responses. Edmonds (2014) employed an online contextualized naturalness judgment task with 13 conventional expressions used in southwest France and corresponding modified expressions. Twenty French native speakers, 20 long-stay non-native speakers (NNS) of French (more than one year of residence), and 20 short-stay NNS of French (4–6 months of residence) completed the task. All groups were able to distinguish conventional expressions from nonconventional but grammatical expressions. Roever (2005) investigated L2 English learners’ ability to select an appropriate routine expression in a given context. He used a 12-item multiple-choice task (the routines task) in which a brief description of a situation was followed by a question such as ‘What would Jack probably say?’ Roever found that even short-term exposure of up to three months led learners in the host environment to score significantly higher than learners without such exposure. Production studies also report that formulas emerge in stages in a variety of languages including L2 Japanese (Tateyama, 2001; Tateyama, Kasper, Mui, Tay, & Thananart, 1997), German (Wildner-Bassett, 1994), English (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2017; Edmondson & House, 1991), and Chinese (Bardovi-Harlig & Su, 2018; Taguchi et al., 2013; Yang, 2016). These studies found that the learner-produced formulas may reflect interlanguage grammar of the learners (including both morphology and syntax); may exhibit non-target-like modification; and may not exhibit modification where expected. In addition to morphosyntax, the suprasegmental delivery of pragmatic routines (i.e., the intonation and rhythm) also develops in interlanguage pragmatics (House, 1996; Tateyama, 2001) (see also Chapter 6 in this volume). These studies documented ‘mechanical’ delivery by German learners of English (House, 1996) and non-hesitant, smooth delivery of apologies by American learners of Japanese where hesitation was actually expected (Tateyama, 2001). Some researchers have posited that lack of formulas leads to unnecessarily longer responses in written DCTs from learners (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; Edmondson & House, 1991). Edmondson and House interpreted learners’ longer responses on written DCTs to be an indication that learners underuse formulas, suggesting that the wordiness in learners’ responses results from their lack of confidence in getting their illocutionary point across. Thus, length is a compensatory strategy. Like Edmondson and House (1991), Kecskes (2003) found that some learners talked too much and used too few formulas, while others oversimplified, suggesting a lack of use of formulas. However, Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2010) found that learners did not use significantly more words or semantic formulas than did native speakers, and there was no significant difference in length (as measured by the number of words or semantic formulas) in responses that contained conventional expressions and those that did not. 51

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Finally, factors such as proficiency, learning environment (at home or abroad), length of residence, and intensity of interaction have all been hypothesized to play a role in the acquisition of pragmatic routines. These factors are often hard to tease apart. House (1996) observed that L2 English foreign-language learners who had had long-term stays in English-speaking countries completed a 14-week instructional unit on pragmatic routines with higher scores than their counterparts with short-term stays; however, she further noted that it was not possible to determine whether it was the length of stay or proficiency that contributed to the higher scores. This is because foreign-language learners often do not engage in study abroad programs equally at all levels of proficiency or years of study. Because study abroad enrollment tends to be more robust in third- and fourth-years, length of study is often confounded with proficiency.2 Length of stay and intensity of interaction are other factors that affect the acquisition of pragmatic routines. Length of stay is distinct from intensity of interaction, but it is likely that more interaction with speakers in the host culture might encourage longer stays, and similarly that longer stays might encourage (but not require) greater interaction. Proficiency has been found to significantly influence learners’ ability to distinguish authentic formulas from modified ones (Bardovi-Harlig, 2010b); to select appropriate conventional expressions (by foreign-language learners, not by learners with host environment exposure; Roever, 2005); to process formulas in a speedy manner (Taguchi, 2011); and to produce morphosyntactically well-formed conventional expressions (Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011). On the other hand, study abroad experience affected the comprehension of routines (Taguchi, 2011), and increased length of stay led to improved formula production (Barron, 2003). Yang (2016) reported that recognition of formulas in context increased as length of stay abroad increased, although it did not affect production. Roever found that L2 English learners with exposure to a host environment scored higher on the selection of routines in context in a multiple-choice task than learners without such exposure, even when their proficiency was kept constant. Even brief exposure of three months or less showed a beneficial effect on the recognition. In a study of proficiency, length of residence, and intensity of interaction combined, Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos (2011) found that recognition of pragmatic formulas was significantly influenced by intensity of interaction, and production of pragmatic formulas by both proficiency and intensity of interaction. Length of stay had no significant effect on either recognition or production. Not surprisingly, instruction facilitates the acquisition of formulas. Many characteristics associated with higher-proficiency formula use are found after instruction. Those characteristics include increased ability to distinguish (and reject) grammatical but nonconventional expressions from conventional ones (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012; Furniss, 2016) and increased use and well-formedness of routines (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2017). Whether or not pragmatic routines can be learned (or should be taught) in a foreign language context remains an unresolved issue. Based on the findings that ESL learners outperformed their EFL counterparts on the recognition of routines, Roever (2012) questioned whether it is necessary to ‘spend valuable class time on the teaching of routine formulae’ in foreign-language classrooms (p. 12), reasoning that it would be unnecessary ‘if learners can be expected to acquire them quickly and unproblematically in the target language country’ (p. 12). He then concluded that ‘learners in the L2 setting get routines “for free” through exposure to contextualized discourse’ (p. 10). However, this claim is not warranted on the basis of a recognition task alone. As noted previously, Roever used a 12-item written multiplechoice task in which learners picked one of four sentences as appropriate to the context; one contained a conventional expression and three did not. Because a recognition task is relatively less demanding than a production task, the sense of ease associated with identification may not hold in a production task, as found in other studies. Nor is the claim warranted on the basis of acquisition in the host environment as judged by production tasks. Learners in the host environment, regardless of target language, show developmental sequences in the acquisition of 52

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

conventional expressions that do not look like getting routines ‘for free,’ especially when we factor in the amount of pragmatic knowledge required to establish a context for the use of a pragmatic routine (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2013). It seems premature to suggest that teaching conventional expressions is a waste of time in foreign-language (or second-language) settings based on ease of acquisition in the host environment, especially at a time when there is increased interest in instructed pragmatics in foreign languages. Promising results have been reported from foreign- as well as second-language classrooms, and these are discussed in the section on Practical Applications.

Appraisal of the Current Practice and Critical Insights There are four main areas of evaluation in the current research on the acquisition of formulaic language in L2 pragmatics. Three areas relate to research methods, namely empirically establishing the list of routines or formulas to be investigated, taking modality (production and comprehension) into consideration when developing a task, and using the target language in the task prompt. The fourth area relates to the analysis of formulas and the resulting degree of transparency for understanding the stages of acquisition. The first area has been discussed in the preceding sections. Practices for identifying candidate pragmatic routines and for verifying their conventionality have been established in previous studies, which provide models for future research. The second area, the issue of modality, continues to plague task design (Bardovi-Harlig, 2010a, in 2018c). The principle is simple. The modality of an elicitation task should match the modality of the event that is simulated. Conversation is spoken, thus, the elicitation tasks that simulate conversation or spoken language should be spoken (or oral-for-oral) (Bardovi-Harlig, 2010a, 2013, 2018c). Interlanguage pragmatics has not fully abandoned written-for-oral designs (e.g., DCT), in spite of numerous negative assessments throughout the literature (see Chapter 13 in this volume). This practice is also seen in the studies on L2 formulaic language reviewed in the previous section (Roever, 2012; Yang, 2016). This mismatched modality in written-for-oral tasks may impact the production of formulaic language directly. In some studies, time-pressured oral DCTs were designed not only to match modality in oral-for-oral tasks (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a), but to recreate conditions that are thought to favor the production of formulaic language (Edmonds, 2014; Weinert, 1995). Thus, oral delivery is intended to help learners perform their best under time pressure—the condition that essentially simulates real-life formulaic language use. Using written elicitation tasks to capture formula use is not only mismatched for modality, but may also hinder performance because at least one essential condition—a shortened planning time, and thus, the use of formulas while planning the rest of a turn—has been eliminated. Language of task delivery is another study design issue. It is ideal to use the target language (rather than learners’ L1) for task delivery. In L2 formulae studies, it means using the target language to deliver DCT and role play scenarios to elicit formulas. Using the target language helps orient learners cognitively and socially to the target language itself and to the target language environment, culture, and pragmatics. There are legitimate concerns about learners’ understanding of the scenarios if they are presented in the target language, but several accommodations and enhancements are found in the literature. In computer-delivered oral DCTs, written scenarios can be presented with pre-recorded files of the scenarios, thus using oral delivery to assist less confident readers and using written input to support listening comprehension of the scenarios (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a). The language itself can be simplified for vocabulary and syntax. In existing studies, target language delivery has been supported by photographs (Nickels, 2006; Schauer, 2006) and by drawings (Scarcella, 1979; Bardovi-Harlig & Su, 2018). Chinese characters have been supplemented by pinyin in a recognition test (Yang, 2016) and during instruction (Taguchi, Li, & Tang, 2017). Occasional glosses of essential but 53

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

unfamiliar words can be provided in L1 (Bardovi-Harlig & Su, 2018). All these approaches have endeavored to avoid using words from the target conventional expression in the scenario so as not to prime the expression itself through its lexis. Using the target language has an additional advantage with multilingual populations. Whereas researchers in the second language environment (host environment) have always worked with learners from multiple L1 backgrounds, this situation is also increasingly common in the foreignlanguage environment as well. Working directly in the target language gives everyone the same opportunity in such a multilingual context. In addition, in a DCT with 24 items, if a scenario is presented in L1, a participant needs to switch from L1 (or institutional language) to target language and back 24 times, leading to a condition that is unlikely to enhance the image of having a conversation in the target language. While differences between L1 (majority or institutional language) and target language delivery remain to be tested, modality has been extensively discussed in the literature. Yang’s (2016) findings indicate that the compound use of majority language (English) and written-for-oral format could have unintentionally depressed L2 Chinese learners’ use of Chinese conventional expressions because learners with comparable backgrounds scored much higher on similar Chinese expressions on an oral task delivered in Chinese with occasional word-glosses (Bardovi-Harlig & Su, 2018). The final area of evaluation of the current literature is analysis of production data. Transparency of the analysis is key in order to identify acquisitional sequences and to assess the impact of instruction on acquisition and use of routines/formulas in L2 pragmatics. Linguistic analysis of production data reveals the levels of pragmatic knowledge involved in using formulaic language as a pragmalinguistic resource. Given the nature of the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge involved, each point of alignment between these two levels of knowledge should be recorded separately. Figure 4.1 displays the main levels of alignment between learners’ potential responses and a community preferred expression given a production

Same speech act? No

Yes Same pragmatic strategy?

No

Yes Same content?

No

Yes Same form?

No Alternative Wording

Attempted Lexical Core

Yes Conventional Expression

Figure 4.1 Levels of pragmatic alignment leading to felicitous use of a pragmatic routine. 54

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

task like an oral DCT or a role play. At the first juncture we ask whether the speech act aligns: Does the participant perform the same speech act as the community? If yes, the contribution has the potential to create a context for the pragmatic routine in question. At the next step we ask whether the participant produced the same pragmatic strategy as the community in the speech act; for example, in an apology, was an explanation given or a promise of forbearance offered? If the pragmatic strategies align, the speaker is one step closer to creating the context for the use of the pragmatic routine in question. Next we consider the content. If the content aligns, say thanking an instructor for his/her time or help, then the speaker has created the context for a pragmatic routine such as {Thanks/thank you} for your {time/help}, but that does not guarantee that the speaker will use the pragmatic routine favored by the community. That brings us to the bottom of the tree, ‘form.’ An exact match in the case of thanking a busy professor, Thank you for your time (from Bardovi-Harlig, 2009) is not the only felicitous option. The respondent may choose alternative wording such as I appreciate it, a favorite among L2 learners (see Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2017). Learners may also attempt the target conventional expression, but fall short due to their interlanguage grammars, nevertheless indicating that they associate the context and the target expression. For example, in a situation in which a student was five minutes late for office hours, Sorry I’m late, is the preferred expression in the community, but learners might use interlanguage forms including Sorry for lating and Sorry about my late, as found in previous studies (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2009). These three options are represented in the final branch of the figure. At any branch labeled ‘no,’ the utterance is ineligible as a context for the target conventional expression. As discussed earlier, a learner may realize a different speech act, or the same speech act with different pragmatic strategies, or the same pragmatic strategies with different content. The same content may be encoded felicitously with a different grammatical form. For example, in response to ‘Thanks for the ride,’ an attested learner alternative to the conventional form ‘No problem’ was ‘That’s okay, any time’ (Bardovi-Harlig, class project data, November 2017). In L2 data, attempting a conventional expression does not guarantee grammatical production of it (Bardovi-Harlig 2009; Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2017; Taguchi et al., 2013), so attempted and full realizations of the target expression should be reported separately (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2017). In that way, we can trace the development specifically related to formulaic language use in L2 pragmatics. Separate scoring categories for targeted speech acts, pragmatic strategies, and content can also be tallied as done in the analysis. The use of holistic scoring, although potentially practical for assessment and placement purposes, might obscure the analysis of development by assigning a point value to a combination of undifferentiated features (e.g., content, strategy, and form) (Taguchi et al., 2013, 2017). Distinguishing different dimensions of knowledge through analytical scoring is important in both charting development—learners get ‘better’ but we need to know in what ways—and in understanding the impact of proficiency, learning environment, intensity of interaction, and instruction on various dimensions of development. For example, instruction on pragmatic routines may not only increase learners’ use of pragmatic routines, but also increase clarity of speech acts, so assigning separate scores on these two categories can be informative (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a). Scores on discrete categories can later be combined and compared. In addition, varying instructional approaches had differential effects on speech act production, but not on pragmatic routines (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2017), which further supports the importance of assigning separate scores on different dimensions.

Directions for Future Research All the areas reviewed thus far could be the focus of additional research, but this section presents two additional areas that are considered crucial to the endeavor of understanding 55

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

how pragmatic routines function in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In addition to continuing to develop appropriate means of eliciting pragmatic routines and focusing on both using the target language to set the scene and matching modality (oral-for-oral and writtenfor written; Bardovi-Harlig, 2010a, 2013, 2018c), the focus of future research should be to expand the number of target languages, and the number and variety of conventional expressions investigated. Within the studies that focus primarily on conventional expressions, English has been the dominant target language, with recent activity in L2 Chinese, French, and Russian. Expanding on the pool of target languages would permit a better understanding of the use of formulaic language in pragmatics. There are slightly more languages that have included pragmatic routines as one of many pragmalinguistic resources investigated, including Forsberg Lundell and Erman’s (2012) study on French, Tateyama (2001) on Japanese, and Barron (2003) on German. All other languages would enhance our knowledge, but noteworthy in their absence given their prominence in L2 pragmatics more generally are studies of Spanish and Japanese. When expanding the target languages, researchers can follow the same implementation procedures as established in the previous literature: first, to identify candidate formulaic expressions and second, to document their frequency of use as done by the studies cited in this chapter (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009 and Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a for English; Edmonds 2014, for French; Taguchi et al., 2013 and Yang, 2016 for Chinese; and Furniss, 2016 for Russian). This crucial second step (documenting frequency and conventionality) involves collecting native speaker data using DCTs (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Edmonds, 2014; Taguchi et al., 2013; Yang 2016) and corpora (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a; Furniss, 2016). Starting from a pragmatic perspective, we could investigate additional speech acts or different situations involving formulas. Both Yang (2016) and Bardovi-Harlig and Su’s (submitted) studies asked former study abroad students to report on the situations that they encountered often in the target language community. Alternatively, we could start with candidate expressions nominated by textbooks and other sources, and verify their occurrence against a register-appropriate corpus (e.g., verifying pragmatic routines occurring in academic discussions by searching those routines in the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English/MICASE). Fieldwork and observation can also yield candidate expressions. We might also supplement frequency counts of expressions with native speakers’ accounts on how often they have encountered specific situations and expressions, a technique already used by Taguchi et al. (2013). Although they found no effect of frequency of occurrence on L2 Chinese learners’ production of formulaic expressions, the same question could be pursued by asking learners how salient or how memorable a specific situation or expression was. A few caveats are in order from what we have learned so far. First, not all speech acts involve pragmatic routines: Some speech acts are realized in an idiosyncratic manner with unique, nonconventional expressions and strategies (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012b, 2016; Taguchi et al., 2016). In addition, formulaic language shows regional variation (and language change), so all formulaic expressions should be treated initially as though they were local until we have the data to suggest that they are used commonly across communities.

Practical Implications The traditional practical implication for research in SLA has been to use empirical research to inform language instruction. As a review of instructed SLA studies shows, the application of research on the acquisition of routines in L2 pragmatics is already underway. Three primary areas have been addressed thus far: the availability of input on pragmatic routines from textbooks, the development of new materials and activities, and resources for teachers. 56

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

Textbook Reviews Previous textbook reviews from pragmatics perspectives have shown that commercially available textbooks are lacking in pragmatically authentic language (see for example, Ishihara & Cohen, 2014). Three recent articles have compared textbook presentation of pragmatic routines with authentic routines. Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2015b) reviewed 26 ESL/EAP textbooks for pragmatic routines in academic discussion (i.e., expressions for indicating agreement, disagreement, and clarification). They found that, although textbooks had pragmatic routines that occur with high frequency in an academic corpus (MICASE), they also included many low-frequency expressions and expressions that did not occur in the corpus. Those expressions included You’re completely wrong and That’s crazy which, although possible, would require very specific contextualization of usage beyond the information that the textbooks offer. Moreover, many common routines in the corpus, such as Yeah but and OK but, did not appear in the textbooks. Yeh (2016) surveyed five major Chinese textbooks (three used in the U.S.A., one in Taiwan, and one in mainland China) and evaluated the textbooks for the inclusion of situation-bound utterances (SBUs), corresponding explanations of how to use them, and repetition of the expressions. Yeh and five native-speaker judges identified a possible 178 SBUs in the textbooks. Of those, only 9 SBUs appeared in all five books, and only 15 SBUs occurred relatively more frequently than the other 178 SBUs, meaning that there was very little repeated occurrence of the majority of expressions. Only one of the textbooks explained the usage of SBUs and provided contexts. De Pablos-Ortega (2011) conducted a survey of thanking expressions in 64 Spanish textbooks and found that thanking was reasonably well-represented in the textbooks at the lower levels, but it decreased at the intermediate level and again at the advanced level. They also found that when compared to native speakers’ responses to a DCT, the textbook thanking expressions were more restricted in terms of variety. These textbook reviews point to the need to expand the representation of routine inventories in Spanish and Chinese textbooks, and a refinement of those in ESL textbooks. All the reviews call for increased contextualization when presenting routines. They also emphasize the importance of using authentic language in textbooks.

Materials and Activities Development Along with adding to the general understanding of how pragmatic routines contribute to L2 pragmatic development, the studies investigating instructional effects have also contributed to the development of pedagogy for pragmatics more generally. A range of approaches have been used to achieve common goals for teaching and learning routines. Authentic language excerpts from a corpus (i.e., MICASE) were used for teaching pragmatic routines for agreements, disagreements, and clarifications in academic discussion (Bardovi-Harlig et al, 2015a). Written fan transcriptions of the TV sitcom Friends were used to teach English routines (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012). In Russian, clips of classic Russian films were used to teach pragmatic routines that were identified from the oral and multimedia subcorpora of the Russian National Corpus (Furniss, 2016). The film clips supplied authentic audio-visual input for learners, and were supplemented by audio and written transcriptions. Audio-visual recordings of researcher constructed dialogs in Chinese (Taguchi et al., 2017) and voice recordings of transcripts from MICASE in English (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a, 2017) provided prosody, as well as context and form, in teaching routines. Means of instructional delivery was also explored. Furniss (2016, 2017) developed a corpusreferred website for online instruction; Taguchi et al. (2017) also developed online instruction, 57

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

utilizing a game-like framework whose dual goals were for students to learn routines and complete the game successfully. Oral practice was implemented through face-to-face card games as well as board games with both unpredictable turns and content built into the games (BardoviHarlig et al., 2015a, 2017). Written production practice of routines was implemented by having students type expressions into a dialogue with missing turns (Taguchi et al., 2017). Online exercises that covered nine different pragmatic and cultural features were designed by Furniss (2016). Assessment tasks developed in the previous studies include recognition tasks (BardoviHarlig & Vellenga, 2012; Furniss, 2016), oral DCTs formatted as oral group-work simulation tasks (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2015a, 2017), online fill-in-the-blank tasks using authentic scripted film transcripts (Furniss, 2016), and written online multiple-choice tasks (Taguchi, et al., 2017).3 One issue that arises in instruction studies is whether learners have had exposure to the routines prior to instruction. Furniss (2016) attempted to control for exposure by eliminating any routines that appeared in the textbook; Taguchi et al. (2017) reported that half of the target routines occurred in the textbook (but without explicit information); and Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2015a) worked almost exclusively with routines that came from textbooks. As Furniss reported, students’ varied experience with routines makes prior experience an uncontrollable variable. Students often come to instruction with radically different levels of knowledge in different areas, making previous exposure hard to control for. However, all the studies employed a pretest, which should be sufficient to document participants’ pre-existing knowledge of routines. Although there have not been many instructed SLA studies on pragmatic routines focusing specifically on how routines are taught and learned, taken together, the most recent instructional studies are found in three languages—English, Chinese, and Russian. These studies illustrated the process involved in the development of a pedagogical practice. They carefully identified the target pragmatic routes for instruction, provided contextualized input and opportunities for practice, and used appropriate assessment tasks to measure learning outcomes. Notably, the studies were all supported by instructional technology.

Resources for Teachers As researchers have investigated the acquisition of pragmatic routines and developed specific instructional approaches, they have also developed resources for teachers. Bardovi-Harlig (2011) demonstrated how to use a recognition task as a pre-teaching assessment to determine whether students can recognize conventional expressions. For the expressions that are unfamiliar to students, instruction begins with basic input; for the expressions that are familiar, instruction begins with usage. Recognizing the relative dearth of instructional materials for teaching pragmatics in general, and conventional expressions more specifically, Schauer and Adolphs (2006) compared sources of thanking expressions for the purpose of developing instructional materials. They compared English thanking expressions collected via DCTs to thanking expressions appearing in CANCODE (Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English, a 5-million word corpus). The focused contexts of the DCT were able to elicit specific thanking expressions that were not attested even in a corpus as large as CANCODE. The DCT data offered advantages for teaching thanking expressions in context, whereas features of interaction were illustrated by the corpus data. Bardovi-Harlig and Nickels (2011) also developed teaching materials and activities for thanking expressions in English. Using native speaker responses collected from an oral DCT (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 2010) as input and using learner responses as a needs assessment, instruction on expressions of gratitude was developed for a range of contexts. As Schauer and Adolphs (2006) demonstrated, corpora can be useful in the instruction of pragmatic routines. With the high value placed on authentic input in pragmatics instruction, it is

58

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

worthwhile to teach instructors how to use free online corpora that are matched to their students’ needs. In an article prepared for continuing teacher education, Bardovi-Harlig et al. (2015b) demonstrated how to select and present authentic MICASE excerpts for instruction on pragmatic routines in an EAP class focusing on academic group work. Similarly, Bardovi-Harlig and Mossman (2016) provided a teacher-audience with guidelines for selecting a corpus given specific curricular goals and illustrated how three different corpora provide a different range of routines (in this case, routines for request-making). Furniss (2017) reported on how the corpus-referred website for the teaching of pragmatic routines in Russian (used in the experimental teaching unit in Furniss, 2016) was developed using the Russian National Corpus. Although these articles address specific target languages, the principles they lay out can be used to develop materials for the instruction of any target language. In conclusion, much progress has been made by L2 pragmatics researchers who have empirically documented inventories of pragmatic routines, contributing to research in both L2 pragmatics and the acquisition of formulaic language. The existing literature speaks to the observation that different elements of pragmatics are not acquired all at once, and it shows how intertwined sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics are in acquisition. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have identified factors that facilitate acquisition (e.g., proficiency, length of residence, intensity of interaction), and instructional intervention studies have also helped to further develop pedagogical practices for teaching pragmatic routines. Building on this foundation, future research will expand both on the range of pragmatic routines investigated and the number of target languages in which they are used.

Notes 1 For reviews of earlier studies of pragmatic routines please see Bardovi-Harlig (2006, 2012a). 2 An exception to this is intensive English programs abroad, in which learners enroll at all levels of proficiency. 3 Authentic scripted input refers to TV and films which are scripted and performed for the entertainment of the target language community, and are thus cultural artifacts. They are both scripted and authentic. See Bardovi-Harlig (2015) for a taxonomy of how conversation has been operationalized in instructional effect studies in pragmatics.

Further Reading Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795. This paper describes the development of tasks for assessing comprehension and production of conventional expressions from field notes and native speaker production on an oral discourse completion test. The paper explains how to set up a production and a recognition task and the relation between them. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012a). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 206–227. This article presents a review of research on conventional expressions, pragmatic routines, and formulas in pragmatics. This is a useful resource for those looking for inspiration on types of expressions that are used cross-linguistically, of what kind of expressions have been studied, and what should be studied next. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015b). Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6, 499–526. This paper details how to work with a corpus to develop materials for teaching routines and evaluating textbooks. Twenty-six ESL textbooks are reviewed and means of conducting a review of other pragmatic routines or routines from other languages are given. The paper also presents how to prepare excerpts from a corpus as teaching materials.

59

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F. (2013). Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2, 23–58. This paper discusses the identification of candidate formulaic expressions in Chinese for research purposes and subsequent confirmation of their status as conventional expressions. Furniss, E. A. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 38–60. This paper describes the use of corpus and films for teaching pragmatic routines and designing a corpusreferred website. The paper provides a guide for those interested in developing such materials for teaching or researching instructional effects on the acquisition of routines.

References Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 11, 1–28. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59, 755–795. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010a). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics: Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 219–259). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010b). Recognition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 12, 141–162. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2011). Assessing familiarity with pragmatic formulas: Planning oral/aural assessment. In N. R. Houck & D. H. Tatsuki (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp. 7–22). New York: TESOL. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012a). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 206–227. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012b). Pragmatic variation and conventional expressions. In J. C. Félix-Brasdefer & D. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues (pp. 141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63 (Suppl.1), 68–86. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2016). How formulaic is pragmatics? Pragmatics and Language Learning, 14, 325–340. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018a). Formulaic language in second language pragmatics research. In A. SiyanovaChanturia & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 97–114). New York: Routledge. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018b). Formulaicity and context in second language pragmatics. In L. Pickering & V. Evans (Eds.), Language in the context of communication: Studies in honor of Andrea Tyler (pp. 193–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2018c). Matching modality in L2 pragmatics research design. System, 75, 13–22. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347–384. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Bastos, M.-T., Burghardt, B., Chappetto, E., Nickels, E., & Rose, M. (2010). The use of conventional expressions and utterance length in L2 pragmatics. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 12, 163–186. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mossman, S. (2016). Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatic routines. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.) SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 250–267). New York: Taylor & Francis. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 76–103. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015a). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19, 324-350. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H.E. (2015b). Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal, 6, 499–526. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Nickels, E. L. (2011). No thanks, I’m full: Raising awareness of expressions of gratitude and formulaic language. In N. R. Houck & D. H. Tatsuki (Eds.) Pragmatics: Teaching natural conversation (pp. 23–40). New York: TESOL. 60

Routines in L2 Pragmatics Research

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Stringer, D. (2017). Unconventional expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research, 33, 61–90. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Su, Y. (2018). The acquisition of conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource in Chinese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 102, 732–757. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77–89. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at… Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165–180. Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232–3245. De Pablos-Ortega, C. (2011). The pragmatics of thanking reflected in the textbooks for teaching Spanish as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2411–2433. Ding, J. (2006). Liuxuesheng hanyu kouyu xiyongyu yukuai xide yanjiu [Exploration of second language acquisition of oral Chinese idioms by foreign students] (unpublished MA thesis). Jinan University, Guangzhou, China. Edmonds, A. (2014). Conventional expressions: Investigating pragmatics and processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 69–99. Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 273–287). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20, 29–62. Forsberg Lundell, F., & Erman, B. (2012). High-level requests: A study of long-residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 756–775. Furniss, E. A. (2016). Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 38–60. Furniss, E. (2017). Teaching pragmatics with corpus data: The development of a corpus-referred website for the instruction of routine formulas in Russian. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics, Vol. 4 (pp. 129–152). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford, UK: Clarendon. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 225–252. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge. Kecskes, I. (2000). Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances. Links & Letters, 7, 145–161. Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton. Kecskes, I. (2016). Situation-bound utterances in Chinese. East Asian Pragmatics, 1, 107–126. Nickels, E. L. (2006). Interlanguage pragmatics and the effects of setting. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 11, 253–280. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman. Roever, C. (2005). Testing ESL pragmatics: Development and validation of a web-based assessment battery. Berlin: Peter Lang. Roever, C. (2012). What learners get for free: Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments. ELT Journal, 66, 10–21. Scarcella, R. (1979). Watch up! Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 79–88. Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56, 269–318. Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34, 119–134. Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Retrieved multiple times between May 2013 and December 2014 from http://quod.lib.umich. edu/m/micase 61

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 1–36. Taguchi, N., Li, Q., & Tang, X. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario-based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 641–660. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F. (2013). Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2, 23–58. Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Effects of intercultural competence and social interaction on speech act production in a Chinese study aboard context. Modern Language Journal, 100, 775–796. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200–222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L. P., Tay, H., & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 8, 163–177. Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16, 180–205. Wildner-Bassett, M. (1984). Improving pragmatics of learners’ interlanguage. Tübingen: Narr. Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (1994). Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘Polite’ noises for cultural appropriateness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 3–17. Wong, H. (2012). Use of formulaic sequences in task-based oral production of Chinese (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Durham University, Durham, UK. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28. Yang, J. (2016). CFL learners’ recognition and production of pragmatic routine formulae. Chinese as a Second Language, 51, 29–61. Yeh, S.-H. (2016). The use of situation-bound utterances in Chinese foreign language textbooks. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 5, 187–212.

62

5 Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

Introduction As play with and through language is increasingly recognized as central to the human experience and omnipresent within bi/multilingual contexts, research within L2 pragmatics has responded by considering non-serious language use more seriously. We have learned a great deal about how jocular forms of language play, or humor, are used by teachers and students in L2 classrooms, as well as how L2 users strategically deploy or avoid humor in interaction, both within intercultural and lingua franca communication (see Bell 2017, 2015, 2014, 2012b for earlier reviews from different perspectives). In this chapter, we begin by presenting key concepts and findings from the study of humor. We then review both foundational and recently published empirical studies that look at the role of humor in L2 pragmatic development and use. In so doing, we highlight three broad, intersecting themes: (1) humor as an aid to L2 pragmatic development, (2) humor as a resource for L2 interactions, and (3) humor as an aspect of the L2 to be learned. Although our review reveals humor to be a productive area of inquiry within L2 studies, short-term, small-scale examinations form much of our current knowledge base. Thus, we argue that a more robust array of approaches would bring much needed methodological diversity in the research of L2 humor. Furthermore, we contend that, in addition to what research on humor might contribute to our overall understanding of L2 pragmatic development, serious consideration must also be given to how classroom instruction might help L2 users to better identify, comprehend, produce, and respond to humor. Before presenting the review of empirical findings, we will briefly discuss key theoretical concepts related to humor.

Key Concepts Research on social interaction has long asked what makes an utterance or written text funny. Although various theories of humor exist, most viable are those—like the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH)—that rest on the notion of incongruity (see Attardo & Raskin, 1991; Attardo, 2001). From this perspective, humor emerges when two or more unconventional, unusual, or unexpected elements come together in a particular moment and the act of noticing this incongruity produces a feeling of mirth (as opposed to confusion or frustration) for the noticer. For example, a person may recognize that an utterance or text can be understood through two competing interpretive lenses or that a given word or phrase may share a similar phonetic realization, 63

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

but not a similar meaning, across national languages, such as when English-speaking learners of Spanish discover that ‘embarazada’ is a false cognate meaning ‘pregnant.’ Humor arises when the individual not only recognizes, but rejoices in the polysemy or ambiguity of what is meant by what is communicated. In taking such of view of humor, the GTVH is compatible with the field of pragmatics in that it foregrounds not only the distributed nature of interpretive knowledge (not everyone will have access to the same lenses for making meaning), but also the active role of individuals as meaning makers (not everyone will find the same utterances or texts funny). It follows, then, that a given bit of language is not inherently amusing or serious; individuals must do some work to shape how the tenor or key of their statements is understood by others. As people interact with one another—either orally or in writing—they deploy an array of contextualization cues that signal to their interlocutors how their communicative actions should be understood (Gumperz, 1982). And, in turn, their interlocutors signal to them how they are understanding the ongoing flow of interaction. For example, Conversation Analytic research on the sequential placement of laughter in face-to-face interaction has illustrated that speakers often use laughter tokens near the end of their utterances in order to signal that the what was said should be understood as funny (Jefferson, 1979). Listeners then use an array of contextualization cues, ranging from smiles, to laughter, to explicit verbal acknowledgement (e.g., ‘good one,’ ‘ha ha,’ ‘very funny’) to show that they recognize, comprehend, and perhaps even appreciate the preceding utterance as humorous. Yet, as cross-cultural research on humor has illustrated, recognizing the presence of humor and coming to a shared understanding of what precisely is funny about an utterance or text, are not one and the same (Davies, 2015). L2 users can detect the presence of humor while not comprehending it (Bell, 2007). And, as Bell (2006) has illustrated, even when they identify and understand the humor, they may not appreciate it. Despite an understanding of humor as an emergent interactional accomplishment, it is not necessarily a ‘one-off’ phenomenon. Efforts to describe the forms that non-serious language use can take have resulted in the identification of recurring genres of humor, ranging from riddles and canned jokes, to teases, hyperbole, parody, and, although not always issued with humorous intent, sarcasm. Like other everyday genres, these forms of humor are habitually realized in certain ways in certain spaces, and their conventional form and frequent reoccurrence serve to cue a nonserious interpretation. Although some types of humor can cross national and linguistic boundaries more or less seamlessly, others tend to be restricted to particular contexts and cultures. Humor, like the taste for certain foods, is both culturally shared and acutely idiosyncratic. Just as many Americans are raised on a dairy-heavy diet and have a passion for cheese, there are some Americans who, despite the ubiquity of dairy on U.S. tables, find the taste and texture of cheese abhorrent. This understanding of humor as organized into various genres, situated within specific contexts, dynamic in its appeal, and intra- and inter-culturally variable mirrors, to a large extent, findings within L2 pragmatics that have demonstrated that registers, politeness markers, and speech acts, among other linguistic elements, behave in similar ways. Research on the functions of humor suggests that humor tends to serve the following purposes: (1) relieving stress and reducing tension, (2) establishing and maintaining rapport, and (3) highlighting and redrawing relations of power (Martin, 2007). In an effort to create a heuristic for categorizing these functions, Bell and Pomerantz (2015) proposed that most instances of humor fall somewhere on a horizontal axis of affiliative or disaffiliative (dimension of solidarity), while simultaneously occupying a space on the vertical axis between norm-upholding and norm-challenging (dimension of power) (see Figure 5.1). This view of humor as operating along the intersecting axes of solidarity and power echoes Brown and Levinson’s (1978/1987) seminal work on politeness and suggests that humor, like other linguistic elements, serves as a resource for doing important social work around relationships and social hierarchies. From this perspective, then, humor becomes not a deviation from the serious business of communicating, but rather a typically recurring aspect of oral and written interaction that has 64

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research Norm-Upholding Joking with a friend about how

Teasing a friend about

D

she used to (mis)pronounce a word

forgetting to call you

i

A

s

f

a

f i

Making fun of a third person’s unusual taste in clothing

Teasing a co-worker for

f

an expensive mistake

f

l

i

i

l

a

i

t

a

i

t

v

Makin fun of a third person’s

e

adherence to a company policy

i Teasing a supervisor about a much

v

disliked policy she put in place

e

Norm-Challenging

Figure 5.1 Functions of humor with examples (Copyright 2015, p. 31, from Humor in the Classroom: A Guide for Language Teachers and Educational Researchers by Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz. Reproduced by permission of Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, a division of Informa plc).

identifiable forms and that realizes critical social functions. Thus, with this as our starting point, we argue that a focus on the pragmatics of humor can help us to understand not only what is distinctive about nonserious talk and texts, but also how they mirror their serious counterparts (see Bell, 2018, for a fuller account of this argument). Such a view pushes us to consider how a focus on humor can enrich what we already know about L2 pragmatic development and use from traditional studies of common units of pragmatics, such as speech acts, implicature, and discourse markers, and can foreground what remains to be learned. With this in mind, we turn to what research on humor has illuminated with respect to L2 pragmatic development, the role of humor in L2 interactions, and humor as an aspect of the L2 to be learned.

Recent Empirical Findings and Critical Insights Humor as an Aid of L2 Development How Can Engagement with Humor Facilitate L2 Pragmatic Development? Some evidence suggests that humor can facilitate L2 development, helping learners to comprehend and remember forms and meanings better than if they were encountered or taught only within a serious (i.e., non-humorous) frame. By keying particular texts or utterances as humorous, 65

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

a learner’s attention is drawn to the focal linguistic elements and, in order to partake in the potential amusement, the learner must work to understand the multiple, and likely ambiguous, meanings of the linguistic elements in this context. Ishihara and Cohen (2010) refer to this as noticing with understanding, a kind of language awareness that goes beyond the mere apprehension of forms to include a deeper appreciation of language in use. For example, both Lucas (2005) and TocalliBeller and Swain (2007) have shown that the act of working through what makes a particular text or utterance funny—in these cases, puns—results in increased understanding and recall of the text. In an effort to examine whether the positive effect of humor might extend to recall of more spontaneous utterances, Bell (2012a) found that ESL learners recalled language elements that were attended to humorously in the classroom better than elements that received a more serious treatment. At the same time, her analysis revealed that the effect of humor was stronger for semantic understanding than for morphosyntax. Given these findings, it seems that pragmatic development, too, might be facilitated through humor, though empirical evidence remains sparse. Whereas the precise relationship between humor and L2 pragmatic development remains to be specified, accounts of L2 learners playing in and with language suggest that a focus on humorous episodes can be used to gain insight into learners’ pragmatic competence. For example, Huth (2017), Lehtimaja (2011), and Reddington and Waring (2015) have illustrated emergent bilinguals’ sensitivity to both the sequential ordering of talk and turn-allocation procedures by carefully documenting learners’ ability to playfully manipulate these formulaic elements. In a similar vein, Ahn (2015) examined spontaneously occurring interaction in an English immersion camp for Korean adolescents. She argued that playful episodes of language use, and in particular those that involved the simultaneous manipulation of Korean and English, allowed learners to display their language awareness, as well as their pragmatic competence as bilinguals. Ahn’s work points to the need to consider the role of humor not only as a metacognitive tool for increasing language awareness, but also as a kind of talk that foregrounds the particular pragmatic dimensions of bilingual interactions (cf., Kramsch, 2009). Indeed, examinations of spontaneously occurring humor in L2 classrooms have shown that learners are quite attuned to and able to play with the functions of language. For example, L2 learners often engage in language play that serves not only as a form of entertainment, but also as a temporary respite from the boredom of language exercises and/or as a counterweight to the potential face-threat of being asked to perform in a language in which their proficiency is still developing (e.g., Broner & Tarone, 2001; Bushnell, 2009; Garland, 2010; Pomerantz & Bell, 2011). Within such work, researchers have looked closely at how learners engage in voicing, illustrating their awareness of the relationship between language and identity, and their skillfulness in deploying particular constellations of communicative resources to enact these identities in socially recognizable ways. For example, Shardakova (2016) looked at learners’ impromptu enactments of Russianness (e.g., speaking through the voice of an obedient Soviet laborer or a stereotypical Russian grandmother) to consider how these episodes might demonstrate their symbolic competence. Following Kramsch (2006, see also Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008), Shardakova describes symbolic competence as ‘the ability to access contextually relevant social memories and symbols, including social roles and identities’ (Shardakova, 2016, p. 180) and links this not only to the notion of ‘performativity’ within pragmatics, but also to a growing consensus within the field of L2 pedagogy that sees the development of interculturality as the end goal (Kramsch, 2014; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). Shardakova presents evidence of spontaneously occurring identity play across three levels of language instruction, novice through advanced, and notes both increasing ability to enact a range of socially recognizable identities as learners grow in proficiency, as well as greater sensitivity to Russian ways of voicing. Similarly, Hann (2017), in a study of the genesis and development of an in-joke between two students and a teacher in a business English class, further corroborates this view, noting how the identity play in this classroom functioned as an opportunity for pragmatic development. The joke 66

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research

originated during a role play, when one student provided an unsympathetic response after his interlocutor informed him that the data he needed was not available, as the person tasked with getting it ready had been sick. The student’s unconcerned ‘OK’ and rather cold ‘it’s not my problem’ were quickly identified as pragmatically inappropriate, and the reaction became rekeyed as humorous and then exaggerated over several days. Not only did this provide these three with a great deal of entertainment, it also drew the attention of the two students to the need to engage in phatic talk, even in a business environment where time is money and the ability to engage in transactional talk is likely to be considered of primary importance. Furthermore, this ongoing joke became a playful part of these students’ identities within the school. When their teacher explained that he would tell their next instructors a bit about these two students, one playfully suggested he explain that they were ‘good guys but not so much polite’ (p. 237). Thus, in addition to this episode likely raising their awareness of the important role of small talk in business, it also enabled them to access and use a broader array of communicative resources than they might have in a class that restricted play, and they were subsequently able to collaboratively and successfully link these linguistic performances to new, playful social identities. Does Teacher-Initiated or Teacher-Sanctioned Play Enhance Pragmatic Development? Notable in both Shardakova’s and Hann’s work is the role of ludic, teacher-sanctioned play in potentially fostering learners’ pragmatic development. Shardakova (2016), for instance, observed that instructors’ willingness to engage with and extend such play seemed to support the development of emergent bilinguals’ symbolic competence, as it provided a structured environment within which learners could test out their knowledge of and ability to speak through Russian voices. Similarly, Hann (2017), who was himself the teacher of the two focal students, collaborated with them in the development of this ongoing joke, rather than deeming it to be off-task, unhelpful behavior. It is also worth mentioning here the detailed description provided by Van Dam and Bannink (2017) of the first day of a Dutch EFL class. This, too, provides some evidence of the role of teacher-sanctioned humor in L2 pragmatic development. Within a largely traditional Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) structure, the teacher engaged in playful practices that allowed students to participate at their own pace, to access a variety of voices, and to engage in complex forms of talk. Ultimately, as Van Dam and Bannink argue, the activities of the first day laid the foundation for a classroom culture where play was encouraged, thus suggesting the potential for engagement with a wider variety of language forms and functions. Still, some caution must be exercised in interpreting these findings. As Petraki and Nguyen (2016) observed in their examination of Vietnamese EFL teachers’ attitudes toward humor in the classroom, teachers are strongly aware of the role that humor can play in building rapport and are open to the idea of humor as an aid for language learning, yet do not use it systematically for such ends. Descriptive accounts of teacher-initiated and teacher-sanctioned humor have revealed that although teachers may engage in frequent ludic language play, they often do so in ways that do not draw learners’ attention to specific aspects of language. And, even when teachers do manage to use humor to raise awareness around language use, their efforts are somewhat limited in scope. For example, in a case study of language play in an intermediate Spanish classroom, Sterling and Loewen (2015) found 209 instances of teacher-initiated language play, most of which involved the teacher using humor for general entertainment and rapport-building functions, such as telling funny stories. Of the 27 playful episodes that explicitly drew attention to language form or meaning, the majority focused on issues of lexicon, with just five episodes focused on grammar and four on pronunciation. While the authors noted that the design of their study precluded investigation of the teacher’s reasons for keying particular pedagogical utterances as humorous, 67

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

nevertheless it suggests a need for more explicit attention to when and how teachers might use humor to foster L2 development. Despite documentation of the frequency of humor in L2 instruction, serious attention to the affordances of humor for classroom management and language development is rarely included as a topic in teacher education. For example, Illés and Akcan (2017) observed that although teacher trainers in Turkey and Hungary recognized the need for L2 instruction to include engagement with a wide array of forms of talk, student-teachers were advised to avoid or put an end to ‘off task’ talk in the classroom, as their mentors perceived such acts—often realized in a humorous key—as evidence of a breakdown in classroom management and a lack of teacher control. This advice, while intended to help student-teachers to develop agency as strong classroom managers, had the adverse (and likely unintentional) effect of closing down opportunities for students to engage in precisely the kind of spontaneous, nonserious talk that they might encounter outside the classroom. Indeed, as Waring, Reddington, and Tadic (2016) noted, experienced teachers often use specific types of humor, like ironic teases, to redirect student contributions that they perceive to be ‘off task,’ thus accomplishing the twin function of maintaining order and providing opportunities for meaningful, student-centered communication. Their work, like that of Illés and Akcan, suggests that teacher educators would be wise to consider how humor might figure into professional development activities for both novice teachers and more experienced practitioners. How Can We Integrate Humor into Classroom Activities to Facilitate Pragmatic Development? The understanding of humor as both an aid to pragmatic development and a resource for classroom management prompts us to consider what kinds of ‘pro-humor’ pedagogical activities teachers might want to implement in their classrooms. Davies (2015) provides an example of classroom talk that emerged in response to the description of a puzzling incident involving humor that an ESL user had experienced in her workplace and subsequently brought to her peers for discussion. Davies described how the metalinguistic act of presenting and analyzing this incident brought to the fore many pragmatic dimensions of language use, including the original participants’ and discussants’ existing frameworks for interpretation; the use of contextualization cues in the focal incident to index semantic meaning, key, stance, and identity; and the discussants’ emotional responses to the example. In addition, she considered how the spontaneous instances of humor that arose both in response to this and other classroom examples provided additional spaces for learners to test out their pragmatic competences and develop a richer understanding of the situated relationship between language and meaning. Although not intentionally aimed at exploring the affordances and limitations of humor as a pedagogical tool for pragmatic development, Sydorenko’s (2015) comparative study of online tasks versus face-to-face role plays to develop L2 learners’ awareness of request strategies in English showed that language play occurred frequently in the role plays, but not the computer-based tasks. In this study both groups received pragmatic instruction designed to raise their awareness of the features of polite requests and to help them notice the differences between requests made to individuals with equal or greater power and social distance (friends vs. professors). Each group then rehearsed this speech act in two scenarios. One group did this via traditional role plays between learners, while the others interacted individually with a computer program that provided fixed prompts to which the students responded. Although the computerbased tasks facilitated better focus on form, they prompted little negotiation of meaning because the computer responses were fixed, rather than responsive to the participant’s utterance. This resulted in longer, uninterrupted turns from the student. In contrast, the face-to-face role plays allowed for more negotiation of meaning and thus construction of more realistic exchange, but with less attention to form. Much of the humor that arose during these role plays took the form of socially unexpected and at times even contextually inappropriate instances of language use. 68

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research

This occurred particularly when students were asked to take on the unfamiliar role of professor, consequently provoking a feeling of mirth among the interlocutors. For instance, one student acting as the instructor asked the student, ‘Why you come in? [pause] I’m busy’ (Sydorenko, 2015, p. 347). Sydorenko argued that, though the presence of humor may have distracted learners from concerns about accuracy, it nevertheless resulted in much richer and more engaging instances of language use (cf. Kim & Kellogg, 2007; Pomerantz & Bell, 2007). Her work is important for helping us understand what types of activities invoke what types of language, thus allowing instructors to make more informed choices that balance accuracy and creativity (see also Kim & Kellogg, 2007; Tin, 2011, 2012).

Humor as a Resource for Successful L2 Interactions As we noted earlier, the functions of humor can be broadly understood as existing along two intersecting axes. On the one hand, humor varies with respect to the kinds of social relationships it creates between interlocutors. To this end, it can be more or less affiliative. On the other, humor also varies with respect to whether it preserves prevailing relations of power or disrupts them. Put simply, humor can stir things up and simmer them down (Jaspers, 2011). Yet, research on the use of humor by L2 users has long noted the tendency within both SLA scholarship and classroom contexts to cast acts of linguistic ingenuity as errors or deviations from the expected norms of language use and to attribute these moves to a lack of linguistic, sociolinguistic, or perhaps even pragmatic competence (Thomas, 1983). Yet, if we begin from the premise that humor is ubiquitous in everyday interaction and a means by which individuals accomplish important interactional work, we must remain mindful of learners’ agency in creating humor (Bell & Pomerantz, 2014). Studies of bi- and multilinguals spontaneously engaging in humor show that regardless of language proficiency, they are aware of the social functions that nonserious talk can play in interaction and can use it strategically. For example, Jwa (2017) examined the ways in which a multinational group of English users (Korean, Malaysian, Japanese) drew on various communicative strategies to manage the social tensions that arose while they were mutually engaged, via video conferencing, in a project for a synchronous, online class. Despite differences in their national origins and linguistic proficiencies, one common strategy used to defuse face threats was self-deprecating humor. The example provided is a rather painful one, in which a discussion of standards of beauty turns to the question of suntanning, and the typically darkerskinned Malaysians refer to their own skin color self-mockingly. Jwa argues that this strategy allowed them to establish affiliation with other students, although it must also be acknowledged that their self-deprecating humor contributed, unfortunately, to an apparently unified assessment by the group of lighter skin as preferable. This complex example does, however, demonstrate the power of self-mocking to ward off potential teasing, while at the same time increasing group affiliation. Similarly, Moody’s (2014) ethnographic, discourse-analytic account of a Westerner interning at a Japanese company showcased the ways in which this intern, David, was able to use humor to navigate between the low status accorded to him as a non-Japanese temporary employee and the ‘star power’ he embodied as an English-speaking foreigner. Moody carefully documented how David strategically manipulated both micro-level interactional resources such as language choice and various pragmatic conventions, as well as macro-level stereotypes about non-Japanese, to create a light-hearted foreigner or ‘gaijin’ identity for himself. This identity, Moody argued, was emergent in local interactional practices and central to David’s ability to manage potentially face-threatening acts, such as interrupting higher-status co-workers, requesting assistance, or creating affiliation across socially-marked ethnocultural differences. Within these interactions, humor played a central role in casting both David and the talk in which he was engaged as wellintentioned and aimed at increasing solidarity. This is an important finding, as it suggests that the 69

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

successful use of humor is both an aspect of one’s interactional ability within settings that are marked as ‘intercultural,’ as well as a potential measure of one’s overall intercultural competence. Another example of an L2 user purposefully and (eventually) successfully using humor is provided by Laursen and Kolstrup (2017). They examine how Tora, a pre-teen relatively new to Denmark and the Danish school system, playfully manipulated aspects of Danish in a cooperative literacy activity to both create affiliation and assert her right to be attended to by her peers. Within the focal interaction, Tora oriented not only herself, but also her peers, to the humorous potential within particular linguistic forms by contextualizing her contributions to the literacy activity as non-serious. Although Tora’s peers at first resisted her attempts to engage them in the imaginary world that she was creating through play, they were eventually drawn into this new universe in which words like ‘hormones’ were mirthfully transcribed as ‘hairmones,’ thus fusing the academic work the girls were doing within the literacy activity with an ongoing and intertwined conversation about hairdos. As Laursen and Kolstrup write, Tora’s language play allowed her to overcome, to a certain extent, the limitations of her proficiency in Danish. She was able to perceive, rejoice in, and share phonetic, semantic, and aesthetic aspects of Danish and thus position herself in more agentive and ‘audible’ ways. Through language play, Tora became not merely a newcomer with poorly developed Danish, but ‘an amusing peer, a serious student, and a guide into a pre-sexual universe’ (p. 18). Research on English as a lingua franca (ELF), too, has been important in illuminating the ways in which L2 users draw on humor to negotiate not only the social dimensions of interactions, but also to create pragmatic norms that exist outside of any one national, linguistic, or cultural frame (e.g., Matsumoto, 2014; Pullin, 2010). Walkinshaw (2016), for example, looked at the occurrence of teasing within a corpus of naturally occurring ELF conversations in East and Southeast Asia. As he notes, prior research on ELF has indicated that ELF interactions tend to be characterized by (1) a willingness on the part of interlocutors to look beyond interpretations grounded in their pre-existing cultural norms and to privilege, instead, a view of pragmatic norms as interactionally emergent within the present interaction; (2) a shared open-mindedness toward acts of linguistic creativity and an ability to suspend interpretation; and (3) a preference for creating and maintaining solidarity, particularly in non-task-oriented interactions. Walkinshaw found that, in line with previous descriptions of ELF, the instances of teasing he identified in the corpus tended to be light-hearted and affiliative, and fell into the following categories: jocular mockery, jocular agreement with a target’s negative self-assessment, jocular insult, and banter. As Walkinshaw observed, despite the potential for teasing to disrupt social relationships and cause offense, there were no instances of this in his data. While Walkinshaw was cognizant of the limitations of his study, nevertheless his findings suggest that a focus on humor can reveal important information regarding the characteristics of particular speech communities (e.g., ELF). Skeptical of descriptions of ELF interactions showing interlocutors striving for affiliation, consensus, and solidarity, Kappa (2016) closely analyzed three extracts of talk from a dinner party in which participants of Southern and Eastern European nationalities living in Denmark diverged in their assessments of some social norm, and in which laughter was present. Teasing, which occurred extensively in her extracts, often communicates criticism, and thus is regularly used for social control, which also can make it a risky strategy, despite the amusement it engenders. Kappa’s analysis demonstrated how these ELF speakers used teasing in this way, with disaffilative outcomes, as well as to the exclusion of one participant’s perspective. This research indicates that ELF interactions are sensitive to contextual variation and we cannot expect that humor will be used in a uniformly affiliative fashion. Although the research we have reviewed thus far in this section indicates that L2 users can engage with humor in the target language in pragmatically appropriate and socially effective ways, some studies have demonstrated that humor can be a source of anxiety and even interactional trouble and marginalization for bilinguals, who are often not expected, by some interlocutors, 70

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research

to joke or understand humor (Bell, 2006; Hassall, 2004; Prodromou, 2007; Shardakova, 2013). L2 users need to be prepared for this possibility, and research on humor use by both L1 and L2 speakers can be a basis for helping them recognize ways that humor might be used as a resource for them in interaction.

Humor as an Aspect of the L2 to Be Learned Above, we reviewed recent studies suggesting ways that humor may be integrated into the classroom systematically to facilitate L2 pragmatic development in general. Another question to consider, however, is the extent to which humor itself may be teachable and, if so, what methods might be used to teach this aspect of pragmatics. It is only recently that this issue has been taken up as a serious line of inquiry, perhaps because humor is sometimes thought of as too creative, risky, or unpredictable to warrant being taught in a classroom setting. Yet, as noted in our discussion of key concepts associated with our topic, research has increasingly demonstrated that humor, like other forms of interaction, often follows generic conventions and norms of use. These findings (see Bell, 2011, for a review) can serve as a useful, empirically grounded point of departure for instruction. However, the question of what such instruction might look like and whether it can help students develop an ability to use, understand, and appreciate L2 humor has not yet been established. Initial studies do, however, suggest that humor can indeed be taught. To this end, we discuss two examples of studies that showcase the design and implementation of research-driven humor curricula. These studies are notable in that unlike other, more descriptive accounts of teaching humor, they incorporate pre- and posttest measures to gauge the effectiveness of their instruction (however, see also Hodson, 2014). Petkova (2013) designed a humor course that she taught to two intact classes of low-advanced students (35 total) enrolled in listening/note-taking classes at an Intensive English Program in California. The students were primarily from China and the Middle East, and were typically studying in preparation for enrolling in a U.S. university. The humor portion of the course was taught over eight weeks, with two 30-minute sessions per week. Petkova based her curriculum primarily on Wulf’s (2010) proposal for a humor curriculum, which drew on current humor theory to establish a set of microskills needed to increase students’ humor competence. The lessons she designed covered different types of humor and their functions, different types of laughter, and various ways that utterances are contextualized as humorous in conversation. Her students kept humor diaries and discussed their experiences with L2 humor in class, as well as analyzing video clips illustrative of American humor. Three instruments were used both before and after the course to assess student learning, as well as their perceptions of their learning: a humor questionnaire, in which students answered questions on a Likert scale about their perceptions of L2 humor, including the extent to which they enjoyed and understood it; a questionnaire in which they answered questions after watching a humorous video clip, in order to gauge changes to their comprehension; and a role play designed to assess changes in their ability to produce humor in English. Her analysis found a significant increase in the students’ perceptions of their ability to appreciate and understand American humor, and this finding was confirmed by their analysis of the video at the end of the course, which showed that actual comprehension, as well as appreciation, also increased. There was, however, no significant difference in their ability to produce humor. Where Petkova’s (2013) work cast a wide net, Kim (2017) and Kim and Lantolf (2016) focused her efforts more narrowly, aiming to improve the identification and comprehension of one specific aspect of humor: sarcasm (see also Chapter 10 in this volume). Kim’s (2014) research demonstrated that sarcasm tends to be challenging even to bilingual Koreans with advanced proficiency in their L2, English. She found that not only is sarcasm comparatively rare in Korean, but the schemas Koreans used to identify and understand it were substantially different from Americans’ conceptualizations. This study allowed Kim to identify specific areas of difficulty 71

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

and to design a sophisticated pedagogical intervention, which she then used to examine whether and to what extent she might be able to improve native Korean speakers’ receptive skills with respect to sarcasm in English. Because her research had demonstrated that her participants would need to develop new concepts regarding sarcasm, she developed a series of SCOBAs (Schema for the Orienting Basis of Action) that the learners could use to assist them in identifying and understanding American sarcasm (Kim, 2017; Kim & Lantolf, 2016). To test the teachability of sarcasm, as well as the effectiveness of instruction on learners’ identification and comprehension of sarcastic utterances, Kim (2017; see also Kim & Lantolf, 2016) worked individually one hour per week for 10 weeks with nine L1 Korean students enrolled in graduate programs in the U.S. During instruction, the students learned to use the SCOBAs to analyze examples of sarcasm, mainly taken from video clips of U.S. television shows. The eight SCOBAs were designed to help the participants assess a sarcastic speaker’s goals and intentions; conceptualize irony broadly, as well as recognize subcategories of it; identify facial, gestural, and bodily cues to sarcasm, and go through a series of steps to systematically assess whether or not an utterance was likely to be sarcastic. In her analysis of pre-, post-, and four-week delayed posttest scores, participants showed significant improvement in their ability to identify American sarcasm, and this change proved durable. Much of the improvement came from using a broader range of cues. In addition, qualitative analysis of their interviews indicated not only that their concept of sarcasm had developed and was more detailed and accurate than at the outset, but their understanding of language use and learning had also expanded to include a greater focus on speaker intentions, rather than merely on decoding the L2. These two studies suggest that instruction targeted at raising learners’ awareness of certain aspects of L2 humor can result in an increase in receptive skills. It is unclear, however, the extent to which an improved ability to recognize and appreciate humor is worth devoting eight to ten hours of course time to (or, in Kim’s case, time spent working with individuals). Such curricular decisions, it must be acknowledged, are tied to learners’ reasons for seeking language instruction and their desires for an explicit focus on humor. Whereas humor is a legitimate and potentially fruitful area for intervention, the intensity of the initiatives described in the previous sections must be taken into consideration. For example, it remains to be seen whether similar gains could be made with less intensive efforts. Likewise, we know little about what other aspects of humor might benefit from instruction. Thus, rather than thinking about humor as an isolated aspect of the L2 to be learned, it may instead make more sense to purposefully integrate it into our instruction more generally. For example, in speech act instruction humor might be presented as one strategy for doing facework, rather than as a separate kind of language use. Yet, despite these cautions, it is important to recognize that the mere act of seeing humor as a teachable element of the L2 represents a shift within the field of language education, as humor has long been regarded as too abstract to teach or as impervious to instruction. Thus, we see considerable potential in studies, like those of Petkova and Kim, that provide evidence as to the value of humor as an object of L2 instruction.

Conclusion and Future Directions As our review has demonstrated, a small but growing body of research has emerged within applied linguistics to address how L2 users engage in and with humor. Such work has provided accounts of the ways in which L2 learners deploy humor in interaction and has begun to illustrate what a focus on humor might contribute to our understanding of pragmatic development. Our descriptions of humor use have come largely from qualitative, discourse analytic work that draws on naturally occurring instances in the data. Future studies will require diversification of the research methods, such as the use of more longitudinal, cross-sectional, comparative, and experimental designs, as well as more attention to issues of instruction. 72

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research

More Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Studies of L2 Humor Development The developmental path of L2 humor is little understood. Here, Shively’s (2013; see also 2018) longitudinal case study of the changes to one study-abroad student’s humor is notable and an excellent model for future inquiry, as she draws on a range of data (recordings of face-to-face interaction, learner diaries, questionnaire data, interviews with participants), as well as a 15-week data collection period. The advantage of this is that she is able to illustrate how individual L2 learners not only used humor in Spanish, but also how their use of humor changed over time and was mediated by particular factors (setting, participants, desire to be perceived as witty, etc.). More developmental accounts, particularly across different linguistic and cultural contexts, would allow us to assess the generalizability of Shively’s findings. Shardakova’s (2016) account of humor development provides a useful model of what a crosssectional design might look like. As we noted previously, Shardakova examined the use of humorous voicing across three levels of Russian language instruction, documenting the frequency and types of humor that occurred in order to understand the role of language proficiency in mediating humor use. In simultaneously collecting data across novice, intermediate, and advanced Russian courses, Shardakova was able to document, within a relatively short time period, changes in humor use that may occur with growing L2 proficiency. In this way cross-sectional studies complement our understanding of humor development in ways that do not overly tax learner participation or researcher time. More studies that use longitudinal and cross-sectional designs will allow us to see not only how L2 humor abilities develop, but also how the interest and willingness of emergent bilinguals to engage in and with L2 humor changes over time.

More Comparative Research In addition, studies of humor in interaction should also begin to include greater diversity of contexts and languages to enable comparison. While the growing body of research into L1 conversational humor practices is a helpful resource for those who wish to integrate humor into their classrooms, extensive gaps remain, for instance, in our understanding of the multimodal means of contextualizing humor, of the typical practices speakers engage in when negotiating various types of humor and responses to them, and in understanding the humor forms and practices of communities of speakers of languages other than English. Here, a great deal of work comparing Australian humor practices with those of other cultures is an excellent model (see, e.g. Béal & Mullan, 2017; Haugh & Bousfield, 2012; Sinkeviciute 2017a, b, c; see also Taylor, 2016, comparing mock politeness in the U.K. and Italy). This type of work follows in the vein of cross-cultural studies of speech acts that began in the 1980s, which have proved helpful for understanding L2 pragmatic development, as well as providing information for L2 pedagogy. While the discourse completion tasks used by those early studies have not yet been attempted, Sinkeviciute (2017a, b, c) has found comparisions of different national versions of the reality show Big Brother to be a fruitful source of data for comparing humor, as well as metalinguistic evaluations of humor across cultures, while others have drawn on linguistic corpora (Haugh & Bousfield, 2012; Taylor, 2016) or naturally occurring interaction (Béal & Mullan, 2017). Of particular interest to language educators (and therefore, we hope, to L2 pragmatics researchers) are comparative studies of the use of humor across cultures that we can use to glean information for teaching and to help us understand and explain humor use to students.

More Experimental Studies In addition to more comparative research, we need studies to assess the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions involving humor. Clearly, many aspects of pragmatics benefit from instruction (see Taguchi, 2015, for a review; see also Chapter 19 in this volume). What remains to be 73

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

seen, however, is the extent to which strategically and purposefully integrating humor into existing pragmatics instruction might further facilitate pragmatic development, as well as increasing learner ease and ability to engage with L2 humor. For instance, we must consider whether, like sarcasm, other types of humor (e.g., teasing, hyperbole) might be taught. Research could be designed to teach and assess students’ understanding of sociocultural norms of humor use, in much the same way that language instructors typically help students gain awareness of other norms of interaction, such as talk in academic contexts or businesses. Production of humor, too, seems to remain a challenge for L2 users, so it is worth asking whether some methods of instruction might help them develop productive skills with respect to humor. Our understanding will be greatly enhanced through research that uses pre- and posttests, as well as a comparison between a treatment and control group. This will allow us to assess the effectiveness of instructional interventions. A great deal remains to be learned through and about the intersection of L2 pragmatic development and humor.

Further reading Bell, N., & Pomerantz, A. (2015). Humor in the classroom: A guide for language teachers and educational researchers. New York: Routledge. This book provides an accessible and comprehensive account of the role of humor in L2 teaching, L2 development, and L2 classroom interaction. It is aimed at teachers and researchers who are curious about the effects of humor on L2 development and about how to integrate humor in theoretically and pedagogically principled ways. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cook’s monograph on the affordances of language play for L2 learning and instruction remains a theoretical touchstone for researchers working in this still nascent area of inquiry. Here, Cook brings together work from an array of disciplines, ranging from evolutionary biology, to cognitive psychology, to applied linguistics, to argue for more attention to nonserious language use in both studies of L2 language development in our approach to L2 instruction. Reddington, E. (2015). Humor and play in language classroom interaction: A review of the literature. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 22–38. This state-of-the art review offers readers a detailed account of what research has revealed about the forms, functions, and developmental affordances of nonserious language use in L2 classroom contexts. Reddington describes how applied linguists have oriented to and documented instances of language play and humor in instructional settings, providing a thoughtful assessment of what the existing research base has taught us and what questions remain to be addressed.

References Ahn, S.-Y. (2015). Exploring language awareness through students’ engagement in language play. Language Awareness, 25(1–2), 40–54. Attardo, S. (2001). Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri, & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication (pp. 166–185). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3/4), 293–348. Béal, C., & Mullan, K. (2017). The pragmatics of conversational humour in social visits: French and Australian English. Language & Communication, 55, 24–40. Bell, N. (2006). Interactional adjustments in humorous intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(1), 1–28. Bell, N. (2007). Humor comprehension: Lessons learned from cross-cultural interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 20(4), 367–387. Bell, N. (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying findings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134–159. 74

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research

Bell, N. (2012a). Comparing playful and non-playful incidental attention to form. Language Learning, 62(1), 236–265. Bell, N. (2012b). Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 189–205. Bell, N. (2014). Second language acquisition. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of humor studies (Vol.2, pp. 672–673). Los Angeles: Sage. Bell, N. (2015). Humour and language play. In R. Jones (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 148–160). New York: Routledge. Bell, N. (2017). Humor and SLA. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Routledge handbook of the linguistics of humor (pp. 444–455). New York: Routledge. Bell, N. (2018). Pragmatics, humor studies, and the study of interaction. In N. Norrick and C. Ilie (eds), Pragmatics and its Interfaces (pp. 291–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bell, N., & Pomerantz, A. (2014). Reconsidering language teaching through a focus on humor. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 1(1), 31–47. Bell, N., & Pomerantz, A. (2015). Humor in the classroom: A guide for language teachers and educational researchers. New York: Routledge. Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 363–379. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bushnell, C. (2009). ‘Lego my keego!’: An analysis of language play in a beginning Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 49–69. Davies, C. (2015). Humor in intercultural interaction as both content and process in the classroom. Humor, 28(3), 375–395. Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 541–565. Garland, J. (2010). ‘I am under cool’: Humorous mock-translation as a claim to expertise in an Irish language class. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(1), 27–44. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hann, D. (2017). Building rapport and a communal sense of identity through play in a second language classroom. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 219–244). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hassall, T. (2004). Through a glass, darkly: When learner pragmatics is misconstrued. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 997–1002. Haugh, M., & Bousfield, D. (2012). Mock impoliteness, jocular mockery and jocular abuse in Australian and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1099–1114. Hodson, R. (2014). Teaching ‘humour competence.’ Proceedings of CLaSIC 2014, 149–161. Huth, T. (2017). Playing with turns, playing with action? A social interactionist perspective. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 47–72). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Illés, E., & Akcan, S. (2017). Bringing real-life language use into EFL classrooms. ELT Journal, 71(1), 3–12. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Longman. Jaspers, J. (2011). Talking like a ‘zerolingual’: Ambiguous linguistic caricatures at an urban secondary school. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1264–1278. Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–95). New York: Irvington Publishers. Jwa, S. (2017). Facework among L2 speakers: A close look at intercultural communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(6), 517–529. Kappa, K. (2016). Exploring solidarity and consensus in English as lingua franca interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 16–33. Kim, J. (2014). How Korean EFL learners understand sarcasm in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 193–206. Kim, J. (2017). Teaching language learners how to understand sarcasm in L2 English. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 317–346). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kim, J., & Lantolf, J. (2016). Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 208–229. Kim, Y.-H., & Kellogg, D. (2007). Rules out of roles: Some differences in play language and their developmental significant. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 25–45. 75

Nancy Bell and Anne Pomerantz

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 249–252. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645–671. Laursen, H., & Kolstrup, K. (2017). Multilingual children between real and imaginary worlds: Language play as resignifying practice. Applied Linguistics. Early view. Lehtimaja, I. (2011). Teach-oriented address terms in students’ reproach turns. Linguistics and Education, 22, 348–363. Liddicoat, A., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL learners. Language Awareness, 14(4), 221–238. Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. Matsumoto, Y. (2014). Collaborative co-construction of humorous interaction among ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 81–107. Moody, S. (2014). ‘Well, I’m a gaijin’: Constructing identity through English and humor in the international workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 75–88. Petkova, M. (2013). Effects and perceptions of a humor competence curriculum in an intensive English program in southern California (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Petraki, E., & Nguyen, H. (2016). Do Asian EFL teachers use humor in the classroom? A case study of Vietnamese EFL university teachers. System, 61, 98–109. Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 556–578. Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. (2011). Humor as safe house in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 148–161. Prodromou, L. (2007). Bumping into creative idiomaticity. English Today, 23(1), 14–25. Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 455–476. Reddington, E., & Waring, H. (2015). Understanding the sequential resources for doing humor in the language classroom. Humor, 28(1), 1–23. Shardakova, M. (2013). ‘I joke you don’t’: Second language humor and intercultural identity construction. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 207–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shardakova, M. (2016). Playful performances of Russianness and L2 symbolic competence. In K. BardoviHarlig & J. C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Pragmatics & language learning (Vol.14, pp. 179–206). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Shively, R. (2013). Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 930–946. Shively, R. (2018). Learning and using conversational humor in a second language during study abroad. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sinkeviciute, V. (2017a). Funniness and ‘the preferred reaction’ to jocularity in Australian and British English: An analysis of interviewees’ metapragmatic comments. Language & Communication, 55, 41–54. Sinkeviciute, V. (2017b). ‘It’s just a bit of cultural [...] lost in translation’: Australian and British intracultural and intercultural metapragmatic evaluations of jocularity. Lingua, 197, 50–67. Sinkeviciute, V. (2017c). What makes teasing impolite in Australian and British English? ‘Step[ping] over those lines […] you shouldn’t be crossing.’ Journal of Politeness Research, 13(2), 175–207. Sterling, S., & Loewen, S. (2015). The occurrence of teacher-initiated playful LREs in a Spanish L2 classroom. System, 53, 73–83. Sydorenko, T. (2015). The use of computer-delivered structured tasks in pragmatic instruction: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(3), 333–362. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. Taylor, C. (2016). Mock politeness and culture: Perceptions and practice in UK and Italian data. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 463–498. 76

Humor in L2 Pragmatics Research

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. Tin, T. B. (2011). Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative writing tasks. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 215–235. Tin, T. B. (2012). Freedom, constraints and creativity in language learning tasks: New task features. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 177–186. Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2007). Riddles and puns in the ESL classroom: Adults talk to learn. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: Empirical studies (pp. 143–167). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Van Dam, J. & Bannink, A. (2017). The first English (EFL) lesson: Initial settings or the emergence of a playful classroom culture. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 245–279). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Walkinshaw, I. (2016). Teasing in informal contexts in English as an Asian lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(2), 249–271. Waring, H., Reddington, E., & Tadic, N. (2016). Responding artfully to student-initiated departures in the adult ESL classroom. Linguistics and Education, 33, 28–39. Wulf, D. (2010). A humor competence curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 155–169.

77

6 Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

Introduction Prosody refers to suprasegmental features of speech, including tone, sentence prominence, word stress, pausing, speech rate, and pitch. Prosody extends over one single sound segment in an utterance and encompasses other suprasegmental aspects of speech such as pitch, tone, duration, intensity, and voice quality that may affect meaning (Chun, 2002). Empirical investigations of prosody have been central to several research areas, especially in the area of speech perception (e.g., Kang 2010, 2012; Kang, Rubin, & Pickering, 2010). Using the speech analysis software Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2016), researchers have analyzed a range of prosodic features to evaluate how these features influence listeners’ judgments of nonnative speakers’ speech. Prosody has also been incorporated into high-stakes assessments for the evaluation of second language (L2) learners’ speech proficiency (e.g., International English Language Testing System, Test of English as a Foreign Language, and Cambridge English Language Assessment). While prosody is central in managing interaction (Brazil, 1997), prosodic features, especially intonation, are not intuitive for L2 learners (Levis, 1999). Yet, learners need to acquire prosodic features in order to convey meaning accurately and appropriately (Chun, 1988). In other words, not only must learners understand linguistic systems of a language (e.g., grammar), but they also have to understand prosody in order to interact effectively in the target language. Prosodic aspects of speech are critical in the effective management of interaction in L2 and essentially in pragmatic competence, which involves the ability to convey and interpret meaning accurately and appropriately in social interaction. In this chapter, we attempt to illustrate the relationship between prosody and L2 pragmatics. The chapter begins with an overview of well-established theories and conceptual frameworks of prosody. Then, we present a survey of the current empirical findings on prosody in pragmatics. We then provide an appraisal of this literature and conclude with implications for future research and teaching. Throughout our discussion, readers should keep in mind that, while we present general trends, patterns, and examples of how prosody and pragmatics are closely linked, prosody is infinitely dynamic, and as such, there is no straightforward one-to-one correspondence between a prosodic pattern and a pragmatic function. Hence, the purpose of this chapter is to highlight general relationships between prosody and pragmatics, providing an overall picture of which prosodic features are commonly associated with what contexts of use. 78

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

Theoretical Frameworks Prosody is critical in the study of pragmatics (Archer, Aijmer, & Wichmann, 2012; Brazil, 1997; Romero-Trillo, 2012). When producing an utterance, speakers are in control of the meaning they wish to convey as they can manipulate prosodic features to transmit their intended meaning (Cheang & Pell, 2008). For example, in English, intonation patterns (or pitch contours) contribute significantly to the meaning of an entire utterance, while a change in pitch can create different meanings for the same utterance (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992). Two major frameworks have been proposed to conceptualize prosodic systems: (1) the British framework represented by David Brazil, and (2) the American framework represented by Janet Pierrehumbert. This section presents these two models. Although most research on prosody in pragmatics does not make distinctions between these two, these theoretical models are important as they can assist with our understanding of the role of prosody in meaning making. Brazil’s model is commonly used by applied linguists because of its focus on real-life communication, as well as its application to discourse analysis and language teaching and learning (Cauldwell, 2013). In fact, because of its focus on discourse, communication, and pragmatics, this framework has been used to prosodically transcribe language in the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Cheng & Warren, 2005), which involves naturalistic interactive data. On the other hand, Pierrehumbert’s framework is commonly used by computational linguists to model speech-to-text synthesis in a quantitative manner.

David Brazil’s Prosodic Framework Emerging from the Birmingham School of Discourse Analysis, David Brazil developed his prosodic framework to discuss prosody in discourse. In Brazil’s (1997) book, The Communicative Value of Intonation in English, he presented the prosodic functions of intonation and prominence, focusing on how they help express pragmatic meaning in interaction. Brazil’s model is based on the shared world between the speaker and the listener, or the context of interaction. In the shared world, the tone unit (a minimal unit that can carry intonation, i.e., a thought group) promotes the conversation between two speakers. Prominence (i.e., highlighted words) and tone (i.e., rising, falling, and level tone) appear in the course of interaction based on the exchange of new and given information in discourse. Sentence prominence is a word highlighted by the speaker within a sentence and is indicated by three prosodic features: (1) pitch (measured in hertz at the onset of a vowel); (2) loudness (measured in amplitude of a wave); and (3) length (measured on the duration of the vowel). Sentence prominence is at a higher level than word stress, although both involve the same features of pitch, loudness, and vowel duration. Word stress follows a rule-based system because there is an expected pattern of stress within a word. In contrast, sentence prominence is part of a discourse-based system because any word in a sentence can carry prominence, even function words. Sentence prominence, therefore, is affected by decisions that a speaker makes in discourse in real time (e.g., which information to emphasize). Central to Brazil’s notion of speaker–listener convergence (or agreement) is the distinction between proclaiming and referring intonation. Intonation patterns can be categorized as proclaiming (fall or rise-fall) or referring (rise or fall-rise), as shown in the examples below: Fall: Rise fall: Rise: Fall rise: 79

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

Generally, when the speaker uses a referring tone (rise or fall-rise) in an utterance, he/she does not change the state of speaker–listener agreement because the utterance involves information of which the listener has previous knowledge. In contrast, the use of a proclaiming tone (fall or rise-fall) changes the state of speaker–listener agreement because the utterance transmits new information, upon which the listener cannot claim to agree. There is a third tone, i.e., the level tone (neither rising nor falling). The level tone can signal incomplete tone units, often characterizing prayers, liturgical discourse, verbal planning, and filled pauses (Brazil, 1997). The choice of tone can be influenced by contextual and discoursal factors. For example, dominant speakers (e.g., teachers, doctors, parents) can use either a proclaiming or referring tone, but non-dominant speakers (e.g., students, patients, children) do not have such a full range of tone options (Brazil, 1997). If this dominant/non-dominant relationship is not pre-established, real-time tone choice attributes this role to a speaker. Cheng and Warren (2005) validated this phenomenon empirically. They found that rising tone, instead of fall-rising, was more frequently used by the speaker in the dominant role. According to Cheng, Greaves, and Warren (2008), use of these tone choices can fall on a continuum with daily conversations being almost 50% (rising):50% (falling) and with professors in academic supervising positions using more of the rising tone. Business meetings have the next most unequal distribution with supervisors using more rising tones than falling tones. Besides the speaker role, tone choice depends on the types of communicative functions that a speaker performs (e.g., expressing forcefulness and adding emphasis to information). In Brazil’s model, tone choice directly affects pragmatic outcomes because each tone is associated with a particular communicative value in the context of interaction. Brazil underscores the importance of considering the consequences that a particular tone choice brings to communication. Because pragmatic meaning is communicated through tone, when choosing a particular tone, the speaker expects the listener to understand the value of that choice. If the listener does not understand the value, the speaker must re-evaluate the communicative situation and re-consider his/her tone choice. Brazil’s concept of pitch concord can explain how a speaker achieves a communicative function by using a specific tone. Pitch concord deals with how speakers match (or do not match) pitch with interlocutors. When taking turns during interaction between two speakers (Speaker A and Speaker B), the ending tone (pitch) of speaker A’s turn should be in line with the beginning tone (pitch) of speaker B’s turn. Successful communicators are expected to match their pitch with their interlocuter’s pitch.

Janet Pierrehumbert’s Prosodic Framework Janet Pierrehumbert’s prosodic framework (1980) was developed in the U.S.A. in collaboration with her colleague and a computer scientist, Julia Hirschberg. This model holds its roots in a generative tradition which presupposes an underlying structure of a language. Pierrehumbert’s model was initially created for the analysis of speech synthesis and recognition. Pierrehumbert’s system has three components of tone: pitch accents, phrase accents, and boundary tones (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990, p. 271). Phrase accents mark the end of a phrase, and boundary tones appear at the end of an intonational phrase. There are six pitch accents (H*, L*, H* +L, H+L*, L*+H, L+ H*) which occur on stressed syllables, and they mark the information status of the item. These six tones indicate tone status that determines the shape of the pitch movement. A high tone is represented as H* where H indicates a high tone and * stands for the alignment of this tone with a stressed syllable. In contrast, L indicates a low tone with * representing a stressed syllable. Pitch accent tones are marked at every accented syllable. The lack of a pitch accent assignment for a syllable usually means that the syllable is not accented. In Example (1), high pitch accents (H*) mark the ‘new’ information. In other words, ‘train’, ‘leaves’, and ‘seven’ are the new information provided to the listener. 80

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

(1) The train leaves at seven H*  H*  H* Hirschberg (2004) discusses the discourse phenomenon of intonational variation. For instance, while pronouns are function words (as opposed to content words) and thus typically receive no prominence, they may receive prominence depending on the discourse context in which they appear. Pitch range and pausing are important in establishing a topic structure, while amplitude (loudness) can signal a topic shift. Prominence can distinguish discourse markers from their adverbial or structural role in a sentence. Finally, intonation can distinguish speech act types (e.g., direct or indirect speech act), as well as question types (e.g., yes/no or wh-questions). While there are a number of similarities between Brazil’s and Pierrehumbert’s frameworks regarding tone, pitch, and prominence descriptions, differences are also notable. First, Pierrehumbert’s model takes a componential approach, where individual pitch accents on prominent syllables are marked within an intonation phrase (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990). Brazil’s framework, on the other hand, emphasizes the movement from the last prominent syllable in the tone unit to the end of the tone unit. That is, Brazil’s model accounts for the tonal movement in the tone unit, not just the prominent syllable. Another difference is that, unlike Brazil’s model, Pierrehumbert’s model does not emphasize the first prominent syllable in the tone unit which has been found to have a great deal of interpretive power (e.g., marking a shift in topic). Finally, Brazil’s framework presents a three-level analysis of pitch height on prominent syllables (low, mid, and high), whereas Pierrehumbert’s framework has only two (high and low). Despite these differences, both models explicate the critical prosodic features of human discourse.

Survey of Prosody Research in L1 and L2 Pragmatics While there is a limited body of research on the prosody–pragmatics interface, much of what is available focuses on indirect meaning. Indirect meaning is often the result of a speaker flouting one or more of Grice’s (1975) maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner (see Chapter 3 in this volume). Indirect meaning has been studied in relation to pragmatic concepts such as speech acts (e.g., indirect refusals), implicature, irony, humor, and impoliteness. Although indirect meaning and Grice’s maxims are not new to the field of pragmatics, a slew of research investigating the prosodic–pragmatic interface in these areas has surfaced within the last ten years, mostly with a focus on irony. Other research investigating the role of prosody in pragmatics is found in the areas of politeness, speech acts, and discourse. We will review these areas of investigation in the following section to provide an overview of the current literature on the prosody–pragmatics interface. Due to the paucity of L2 studies on prosody and pragmatics, our review includes both L1 and L2 studies that explored the connection between prosody and pragmatics.

Indirect Meaning and Prosody Some studies have begun to explore the link between indirect meaning and prosody both quantitatively and qualitatively. Of these, the connection between irony and prosody has been well-documented. In fact, multiple prosodic cues are thought to accompany irony, including intonation, stress, pausing, speech rate, and amplitude (loudness) (Bryant & Fox Tree, 2005; Kalbermatten, 2007; Rockwell, 2000; Taguchi, Gomez-Laich, & Arrufat-Marqués, 2016; Yus Ramos, 1998). Through acoustic analyses using the program Multi Speech (a Windows version of the Computerized Speech Lab for speech visualization), Bryant and Fox Tree (2005) found that, while vocal quality can systematically be associated with irony, there is not a oneto-one match between tone of voice and irony. To this end, ‘an utterance can be sarcastic, angry, 81

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

inquisitive, provide new information, and be spoken with authority all at the same time’ (Bryant & Fox Tree, 2005, p. 272). Irony is therefore a dynamic involvement of many interactional features. Another study, by Taguchi et al. (2016), looked at L2 comprehension of irony. While not taking an instrumental investigation of prosody itself, their work explored the way in which L2 Spanish learners used paralinguistic cues to infer ironic meaning encoded in a series of dialogues presented via computer. Those paralinguistic cues included auditory features of the voice quality, such as sarcastic or negative tones. Similarly, Shively, Menke, and Manzon-Omundson (2008) asked L2 Spanish learners to assess tone of film segments by checking all features that applied (e.g., sincere, sarcastic/ironic, friendly, etc.). While they found that their question on tone was not methodologically ideal as a stand-alone question, they did note that participants seemed to have been able to pick up multiple tones of irony (e.g., joking, criticizing, etc.).

Politeness/Impoliteness and Prosody Speakers can convey politeness and impoliteness through a combination of strategies. See the following examples. (2) X:  Can you come to our dinner party this weekend? Y:  Well, I actually have a lot of work to do. (3) X:  Can you come to our dinner party this weekend? Y:  No. While the invitation is the same in both dialogues, the refusal in Example 2 can be perceived as polite with a hesitation marker (‘well’) and hedging (‘actually’), as well as through an avoidance of an explicit ‘no’, while the refusal in Example 3 is extremely direct and thus can be considered impolite. Besides these syntactic and lexical signals, politeness or impoliteness can also be conveyed through prosody, as illustrated in the following dialogues (words in all caps signal sentence prominence). (4) X:  I am thinking of applying to grad school. Y:  YOU’RE applying to grad school? (5) X:  I am thinking of applying to grad school. Y:  You’re applying to GRAD school? In these two dialogues (Examples 4 and 5), both Speaker Y’s parts are exactly the same at the syntactic level, yet different at the prosodic level. Y’s utterance in Example 4 can be perceived to be impolite because prominence is placed on ‘you’re’, exhibiting Y’s disbelief with X’s applying to grad school, which may sound like an insult to X. In contrast, Y’s utterance in Example 5 is not associated with a politeness value because it simply conveys the speaker’s surprise or excitement with Y’s decision to pursue graduate school. In fact, while scarce, research has documented the role of prosody in signaling politeness and impoliteness. In their seminal work on positive and negative politeness, Brown and Levinson (1987) discuss the qualitative role of prosody in marking certain politeness strategies. 82

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

For instance, higher pitch can be used alongside hedging to signal negative politeness (acknowledging the addressee’s feelings to be unimpeded on), while intonation and stress can be used to signal exaggeration in positive politeness (or the positive self-image of the addressee). Culpeper (2011) takes this concept further through an instrumental analysis of two speech segments of judges on Pop Idol (a British singing talent show). Parallel prosodic structures, a faster speech rate, and some marked pitch movement were used by a judge to signal a polite comment. On the other hand, a slower speech rate, more pausing, a low pitch range, and an overall monotonous speech pattern were used by another judge to signal boredom and impoliteness. Culpeper’s study highlights the role of prosody in signaling (im)politeness and a speaker’s stance.

Speech Acts and Prosody Speech acts, which involve a speaker’s communicative intention or purpose, rely heavily on prosody for their transmission of meaning (Archer et al., 2012). Prominence and intonation are largely responsible in signaling speech acts (Archer et al., 2012; Brazil, 1997). Most prosodic work on speech acts has been conducted on the topic of directives (yes/no or wh- questions). While Pierrehumbert’s framework has been used to describe patterns of yes/no or wh- questions (Hirschberg, 2004), we draw on Brazil’s (1997) model here, as this model is based on discourse in action. Brazil argues that both yes/no questions and information questions (wh-questions) can have a rising or falling tone in the proclaiming vs. referring system of interaction, although traditionally wh-questions have been associated with falling tones and yes/no questions with rising tones. Consider the following sentences that have the exact same words and prominent syllables, but differ in intonational patterns (Brazil, 1997, p. 106): (6) // Do you prefer THAT one // (fall) (7) // Do you prefer THAT one // (rise) The question in Example 6 spoken with a falling tone illustrates the speaker’s intention to learn which one the listener prefers; that is, the speaker has some doubt about the listener’s preferred choice. Once the listener responds with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the state of convergence between the speaker and listener becomes altered, meaning that new information has been transmitted. On the other hand, in the second yes/no question, spoken with a rising tone (Example 7), the speaker has an assumption about the one that the listener prefers, yet asks the question to receive confirmation (or denial) on this assumption. Hence, prior to asking the question, an assumption has already been made, and the common ground between the speaker and the listener has already been established. Information questions (wh-questions) follow the same pragmatic patterns as yes/no questions: A speaker uses referring tones to present information which s/he thinks has been negotiated but lacks confirmation, while proclaiming tones project information which has not yet been negotiated. This is illustrated in the following set of informational questions (Examples 8 and 9) (Brazil, 1997, p. 111): (8) // WHAT TIME is it? // (fall) (9) // WHAT TIME is it? // (fall-rise) 83

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

In Example 8, ‘What time is it?’ spoken with a falling (proclaiming) tone asks the listener to provide information to fill in this unknown time. On the other hand, when spoken with a referring (rising) tone as in Example 9, the speaker is insinuating some underlying information about the time—either the speaker wants to double-check his/her idea of the time or the speaker is hinting that perhaps it is the time to leave. According to Brazil (1997, p. 114), ‘social bridge-building’ questions, or those that are often asked without the purpose of eliciting information (e.g., ‘How are you?’), frequently use referring tones (rise/fall-rise). These questions exchange a minimal amount of world-changing information; therefore, the purpose of the tones in these questions is to highlight the social condition of togetherness. At the same time, questions such as ‘What’s your name?’ can combine social and informational intentions. Brazil gives the example of an interviewer asking this question to an interviewee. The interviewer already knows the interviewee’s name, yet asks the question to include the interviewee into a shared world. In contrast, a receptionist asking a patient for his/her name could be purely informational. In addition to the commonly investigated yes/no or wh-questions, a small amount of work has been conducted on other speech acts and their prosodic patterns. Lin (2013) explored the regularity of prosody and formulaic expressions in the Lancaster/IBM Spoken English Corpus (Knowles, Taylor, & Williams, 1996), revealing that the word at the end of a tone unit (or one that takes up the entire tone unit) in a formulaic expression received the nucleus (the highest point of prominence). Wennerstrom (2001) found that rising tones were used for signaling directives and commissives. Corpus-prosodic research by Aijmer (1996) found the intonation of apologies to vary based on the gravity of the offense, and that the most common apology, ‘sorry,’ is spoken most often with rising or fall-rising tones, indicating its function of routine, rather than serious remorse. More serious apologies, or offering of condolences, have been noted to end with falling tones (Knowles, 2016; Staples, 2015). Tone choice is also used to distinguish between genuine and routine gratitude: The phrase ‘thank you’ spoken with a falling tone expresses sincere gratitude, while when spoken with a rising tone, it simply acknowledges the service as routine (Knowles, 2016, p. 195). The phrase ‘cheers,’ which is more commonly used in British English to mean ‘thank you,’ usually only takes a falling pattern (Knowles, 2016, p. 195–196). Taken together, falling tones are more commonly used in apologizing and thanking for more sincere expressions of the speech act, while rising tones are more routine-like. Only a few studies to date have examined the relationship between prosody and speech acts in an L2. Staples (2015) examined a particular type of nurse–patient interaction (i.e., an assessment interview when a nurse gives an assessment to a patient) in order to investigate differences between internationally-educated nurses (IENs) and U.S.-educated nurses (USNs). She used both Praat and Computerized Speech Lab for her prosodic analyses. She found that the IENs used a much narrower pitch range and more level tones than the USNs in expressions of empathy. These two prosodic patterns together can have a negative impact on patients and the nurse–patient relationship because they signal a lack of interest or care. She concluded that these findings of pitch range and tone choice could contribute to an understanding of sociopragmatic differences in nurses’ approaches to patient interaction. In another study, Hewings (1995) investigated the use of tone choices in parallel readings of a scripted dialogue by 12 speakers of British English and 12 learners of English from Korea, Greece, and Indonesia. Results showed that, in order to mitigate any disagreement or contradiction, learners seemed to use falling tones often, while British English speakers would use rising or level tones (Hewings, 1995). This finding suggested that L2 learners failed to use rising tones for socially integrative purposes in a way that native English speakers would do.

Discourse and Prosody Prosodic cues play a crucial role in spoken texts and contribute independently to the structure of L2 discourse (Pickering, 2017). Nowadays, it is not uncommon to use instrumental measures to 84

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

detect pitch and tone choices in various discourse contexts, instead of relying on human listeners to determine intonation as a general category (e.g., rising and falling) (Hayes-Harb & Hacking, 2015). The number of times the vocal cords vibrate in one second, when producing a voiced sound, is known as the fundamental frequency (F0), and it is measured in Hertz (Hz), ‘cycle per second.’ Our perception of this rate of vibration is known as pitch. Therefore, the greater the fundamental frequency (F0), the higher pitched we perceive the sound to be. These objectively measured properties help create a detailed picture of L2 spoken discourse production. At the same time, prosody has been the empirical focus of pragmatics analysis in discourse. In a speech analysis of the discourse in nurse–patient interactions, Staples (2015) (cited above) investigated the use of prosody by internationally-educated nurses (IENs) and U.S.-educated nurses (USNs). Using Brazil’s (1997) framework, she instrumentally analyzed speech rate, number and length of silent pauses, pitch range, tone choice, prominence, and paratone. After dividing these two nurse groups into low-, mid-, and high-levels on an assessment of interpersonal skills, Staples examined the role of prosody on the effectiveness of communication with patients. She found that more use of level tones and sentence prominence negatively correlated with effective interactions. Higher-scoring nurses used a significantly wider pitch range and fewer level tones to express empathy towards their patients (for example, offering condolences to a patient who lost a family member). In this case, a wider pitch range and fewer level tones indicate more interest, focus, and involvement with the patient. On the other hand, Staples gave the example of how saying the phrase ‘sorry to hear that’ with a level tone can make it sound like a routine expression, such as ‘have a nice day.’ In terms of speech rate, there seemed to be a curvilinear result (which supports research of Munro & Derwing, 1998, 2001); that is, for IENs, the most interactionally effective speech rate was approximately between 3.27 and 3.38 syllables per second, whereas for USNs, it was between 3.48 and 3.69 syllables per second. Speech rate was curvilinear for IENs because too fast of a speech rate (beyond this threshold of 3.27–3.38) was less effective for listeners, but too slow of a speech rate is also inappropriate for communication. Other research, especially in the areas of speech perception, has examined the effect of prosody on discourse success. Pickering (2001) analyzed tone choice using Brazil’s (1997) framework of intonation. She compared the intonation patterns of North American teaching assistants with those of international teaching assistants (ITAs) from China to evaluate overall teaching success in the classroom. Critical differences in tone choice between these two groups revealed that the ITAs did not exploit tone in a pragmatically effective way. With notably more level tones and fewer rising tones, the ITAs not only excluded their students from their teaching interaction, but they also increased the social distance between them and their students. Furthermore, their use of tone gave their students the impression that the ITAs were uninterested and uninvolved. Other studies have found that listeners are largely affected by prosodic cues in non-native speech; therefore, communicative success is due in part to prosodic aspects of communication (e.g., Kang, 2010; Kang, 2012; Kang et al., 2010; Wennerstrom, 1994, 2001). Wennerstrom’s (1994) finding added that non-native speakers of English used low and falling tones more in places where rising or mid-level tones were expected by native speakers. This result affected native speaker listeners’ understanding of L2 speech. Other discourse functions affected by prosody include fillers, turn-taking, alignment, and feedback through discourse markers. L2 learners often use fillers in their speech (e.g., ‘I mean’, ‘you know’) to give listeners a perception of fluent speech (Lin, 2010, p. 183). Furthermore, prosody has been known to play a role in turn-taking. Generally, work on interaction and prosody has connected low-rising tones with holding the floor (Wennerstrom, 1997; Wennerstrom & Siegel, 2003), rising tones on discourse markers with speaker backchanneling (Wennerstrom, 2001), and high-rising tones for turn-shifting (Wennerstrom & Siegel, 2003). However, Szczepek Reed (2004, 2012) argues that in an actual conversation, tone choices are often made through 85

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

interlocutors’ intentions or conversational actions instead of one-to-one correspondences with turn-taking. Overall, prosody in conversation is multi-functional. While it is used at junctures of turntaking, it is also used for other actions including assessments, speech repairs, reported speech, and conversational shifts (Szczepek Reed, 2012). Perhaps even more important in determining whether a turn is acting as a response or a new sequence is the occurrence of ‘prosodic matching,’ or the act of a speaker aligning the prosody of one turn with another speaker’s previous turn (Szczepek Reed, 2012, p. 156). This conversational strategy allows speakers to practice topic continuation, interactional collaboration, and agreement (Szczepek Reed, 2012). As for the use of discourse markers to provide feedback (e.g., ‘mhm’, ‘yeah’), Romero-Trillo and Newell (2012) used Praat to find a divergence between English native speakers’ prosodic patterns and those of non-native speakers. Native speakers tended to use longer and higher-pitched discourse markers than non-native speakers, clearly signaling their use of feedback in an interactive way.

Gestures and Prosody In addition to meaning communicated through prosodic combinations of rate, pausing, pitch, stress, prominence, and intonation, non-verbal cues such as bodily movements or gestures also work to convey speaker meaning (Archer et al., 2012). In fact, Staples (2015) found that therapeutic touch and smiling by U.S.-educated nurses (USNs) could have been used more often than internationally-educated nurses (IENs) to establish rapport with patients. Yet the overall communicative style of IENs, accompanied with smiling less and using less therapeutic touch, could have resulted in misunderstandings between the patients and the nurses. These findings support the multi-modality of communicative meaning: What is important is the combination of what is said, how it is said, and the physical movements that accompany the speech (Archer et al., 2012). While gaze can signal affective meaning about the speaker’s attitude (e.g., shock, confusion, etc.) (Archer et al., 2012), it can also assist in conversation management by signaling turn-taking, adding emphasis, or indicating a speaker’s word-searching process (Allwood, 2008; Argyle, 1988; Archer et al., 2012). Allwood (2008) found that speaker gaze was used to indicate word searching and holding the floor when the gaze was turned away from the interlocutors. When the speaker was able to retrieve the word, the gaze was turned back to the interlocutors. Because gestures and physical movement can be unique to a culture, they may communicate additional meaning. Some gestures and physical language may not be culturally shared and can even carry offense. For example, close physical proximity between speakers may be seen as both a sign of intrusiveness or disinterest, depending on the culture (Archer et al., 2012).

Appraisal of the Current Literature and Critical Insights In the previous section, we reviewed current literature on the relationship of prosody to indirect meaning, politeness/impoliteness, speech acts, discourse, and gestures. Current research on prosody in pragmatics seems to be generally limited in terms of scope and methodological approaches and design. For example, much of the current pragmatic-prosodic work deals with indirect meaning (e.g., irony). We extend a call for research that investigates other areas of pragmatics to inform L2 pedagogy such as L2 comprehension and production of speech acts, service encounters, and interactions in formal and informal situations. As the field of SLA becomes more interdisciplinary (see The Douglas Fir Group, 2016), the junction of pragmatics and prosody should be explored through different methodological approaches and techniques, including combinations of conversational analyses, corpus analyses, and linguistic analyses of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (such as with Staples, 2015). Knowing that speech utterances are multi-modal with no one-to-one mapping of meaning and a single linguistic feature, inclusive 86

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

methodological approaches allow us to learn more about communication and interaction, which are highly context-specific by nature. Approaches which investigate pragmatics and prosody across different settings, with different levels of imposition, various speakers, and on diverse topics can be most representative of the wide roles that prosody plays in pragmatic performance. Furthermore, conversational analysis (see the work of Szczepek Reed, 2004, 2012) can account for turn-taking, overlap, and other organizational structures of discourse (see also Chapter 15 in this volume). Together with instrumental speech analyses (i.e., using computer programs to analyze speech properties), pragmatic-prosodic methodology can be triangulated for unearthing more comprehensive patterns of language use. Furthermore, while some studies reviewed in the previous section (e.g., Shively et al., 2008; Taguchi et al., 2016) have dealt with L2 learners’ pragmatic competence in relation to some prosodic aspects (e.g., ironic tones), a large majority of existing research is limited to native speakers’ speech when analyzing prosody in pragmatics. What is largely unknown is how L2 learners use prosody to express meaning, how their prosodic features in production affect listener comprehension, and how they perceive and comprehend prosodic input themselves. Future research within different learner groups of different proficiency levels, contexts of learning, and L1/L2 backgrounds can be fruitful in our understanding of within-group variance in L2 acquisition of prosody and pragmatics. For example, non-student learners living and/or working in an ESL community may acquire different competencies than traditional student learners in this environment. These differences may be even greater between ESL and EFL contexts. One recent study in this area (Kermad, Kang, & Taguchi, 2017) investigated the effect of study abroad and proficiency on prosodic acquisition of speech acts among Japanese learners of L2 English. Results showed that high-proficiency learners with study abroad experience demonstrated the use of intonational patterns similar to those of native English speakers when making requests. This type of research focusing on prosody and L2 pragmatic competence is still limited in the field, yet greatly needed. Similarly, although connections have been made between a speaker’s intonation and intention expressed in speech acts (e.g. Archer et al., 2012; Brazil, 1997), little research has adopted Brazil’s (1997) discourse-based intonation framework to examine prosodic features systematically through computer-based analyses, particularly among L2 speakers. While a theory-based approach may not be necessary for applied aspects of prosodic events (i.e., tone choices or pitch movement), discourse-based intonation analysis can enhance the ability of interpreting various pragmatic functions. In addition, what is limited in the existing literature on pragmatics and prosody is the assessment of L2 learners’ prosody when performing pragmatic functions (e.g., production of speech acts, comprehension of implicature). Indeed, pragmatic assessment alone is a rather under-represented research area (Roever, 2011, 2014), although assessment of interaction-based pragmatic performance is becoming of more interest in improving the validity of assessment (Youn, 2015) (see Chapter 20 in this volume). While prosody has been incorporated into assessment rubrics, speech samples are largely dependent on pre-determined, structured spoken tasks, which do not necessarily assess pragmatic competence in a naturalistic interaction. Moreover, most of these tasks are monologic, inadvertently understating the importance of dialogue and the negotiation of meaning in communication. While the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has incorporated speaking tasks in interview format and question/answer format, the high-stakes nature of the exam and these particular formats do not currently help assess pragmatic competence in everyday language-use situations. Crystal (2003) defines pragmatics as the ‘study of language from the point of view of the users, especially of the choices they make and encounter in using language in social interaction, and the effects of their use of language on other participants in an act of communication’ (p. 364). This definition indicates that pragmatic competence comprises socially oriented abilities, yet 87

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

existing assessment measures are short of capturing the omnipresence of this competence. An example is discourse completion tests (DCT) that are commonly used for pragmatic assessment. These tests provide a scenario along with an open-ended slot for learners to fill in their responses according to a given scenario. While DCTs have their benefits, they are far from authentic representations of real-life interactions (Roever, 2014; see also Chapters 13 and 20 in this volume). What we find as one of the greatest disadvantages of written DCTs is that these tasks do not allow for prosodic output. If these tasks are to be used for their convenience of administration, context manipulation, and efficient scoring (Roever, 2014), oral DCTs should be used instead of written ones to evaluate prosodic output (e.g., Taguchi, 2012). Similarly, open role plays (Youn, 2015) are recommended for the investigation of prosody-related L2 pragmatics.

Implications for Research The pragmatic-prosodic interface may surface a plethora of future empirical questions. One area which demands further attention is a complete battery of speech acts and their intonational patterns in real-life communication. While research has rather extensively explored the prosody of wh- and yes/no questions (types of directive speech acts), little is known about the prosody of other speech acts—such as compliments, invitations, and refusals—their functions in discourse, and empirical and instrumental investigations of their use. Neither has research uncovered the developmental process of L2 learners with respect to prosody and speech acts. Intervention studies can reveal the extent to which prosody-focused pragmatics instruction can assist L2 learners in recognizing and producing different speech acts. Furthermore, these pragmatic-prosodic abilities can be investigated in different language learning contexts (e.g., at home, immersion, study abroad, work abroad, etc.) and with different learner groups (e.g., traditional college students, non-traditional learners, bilinguals, multilinguals, etc.). With the continued growth of English as an international language, prosodic features and their pragmatic appropriateness should be carefully examined from the perspectives of World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). As Pickering (2017, p. 441) argues, there can be differences in prosodic features (e.g., phonetic realizations of prominence patterns and nucleus placement) between speakers of Inner Circle Englishes and Outer/Expanding Circle Englishes. In Pitzl’s (2005) study, for instance, participants at ELF business meetings combined the use of tonic placement and rising intonation to indicate their need for feedback. Also, it seems to be common for ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) speakers (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Indonesia, or Thailand) to place the nucleus on the final word in their interaction (Deterding & Kirkpatrick, 2006). These prosodic features are somewhat unique and do not necessarily appear in interaction within Inner Circle Englishes. Another example of this case is the use of rising tones, which are often seen by native speakers as a face-saving function to avoid any contradiction; however, WE speakers do not necessarily use them in such a manner (Pickering, 2017). Accordingly, future research should refrain from a unidirectional approach in which prosodic patterns are based on Inner Circle English models, by instead taking a multidimensional method by incorporating social and cultural pragmatics into interpretations of discourse. Future research can also be conducted on detailed prosodic features that can help interpret test takers’ scores when assessing L2 pragmatics. An inherent complexity may exist in the assessment of L2 pragmatics due to its requirement for context-specific goals, social nature, and authenticity. Currently, most high-stakes English proficiency tests do not specify pragmatic competence clearly, even if they have an interactive portion of speaking assessment included in their tests. For example, a speaking section in the Cambridge English Language Assessment has an evaluation criterion for interactive communication, but it mostly emphasizes interactive features (e.g., ‘maintain simple exchanges or require very little prompting and support’), but not pragmatic 88

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

dimensions of formality and appropriateness. Perhaps some of the prosodic features such as pitch concord and rising tones can be incorporated into assessment rubrics to determine test takers’ pragmatic abilities to convey meaning appropriately, as long as specific contexts are described and controlled. Prosodic features such as pitch range or level tones can also be used as the objects of sensitization in future rater training of pragmatic competence.

Implications for Teaching Modern pronunciation textbooks and materials have overemphasized Pike’s (1945) concept of affective meaning, associating different pitches with feelings or attributes of the person’s mood, while discouraging the focus on communication (Levis, 1999). This approach can be a problem because ‘an intonation that sounds “bored” in one sentence, for instance, may sound “level-headed” in another, “angry” in another, and “interested” in yet another’ (Levis, 1999, p. 56). Levis suggests a new approach to teaching intonation with a focus on communication and practice with intonational variations as a communication strategy. This method confirms that of Szczepek Reed (2012) who stresses the part that prosody plays in the whole. In other words, prosody interacts in the dynamic, interactional linguistic and non-linguistic system, drawing on resources such as vocabulary, syntax, information organization, and even gestures, eye contact, and posture. Szczepek Reed calls for an instructional method that is holistic and communicative, minimizing the focus on prosody in isolation. To assist learners with successful communication and the multiple demands involved, providing opportunities for learners to engage in communication with interlocutors to negotiate meaning, agree or disagree, change topics, and so on, is crucial to the development of the successful use of prosody as well as pragmatics. In addition, while teachers can expose learners to the many pragmatic functions of prosody (e.g., speech acts, discourse markers, formulaic expressions), learners’ relationship with prosody should be bi-focal. Not only does a learner need to use prosody in a pragmatically efficient and appropriate way for conversational success, but a learner also has to make sense of prosodic cues after hearing them (Chun, 1988). Classroom practice and inference-based modes of pragmatic assessment can be a vital tool in practicing listener comprehension of speaker meaning via prosody. Since pragmatic meaning and prosody are both highly context-dependent (Romero-Trillo & Newell, 2012), it is imperative to provide learners with numerous opportunities to practice meaningful production and comprehension. To this end, we suggest some practical activities which can be implemented in a communicative language teaching environment. For example, students can practice differentiating between sincere and ironic meaning through tone. This can be done through short, oral role-plays. Praat visualization functions can also be implemented in the classroom to illustrate tone and prominence patterns as students record their dialogue. For example, students can create a sentence and give prominence to different words in the same sentence to illustrate (through Praat) how meaning changes when prosodic focus is placed to different words. Additionally, teachers can prepare common expressions (e.g., greetings, conversation openings and closings, markers for topic shift) and display them in Praat, while having students practice recording the patterns on their own. Moreover, in-class debates can be implemented for practicing agreement and disagreement with tone. Teachers can provide common expressions used to agree or disagree with someone while exemplifying the tonal patterns through Praat. Then, students can have a list of those expressions and emulate them during the debate. Direct and indirect meaning can be analyzed through video content, including news broadcast shows (for factual information), TV series (for humor, irony, speech acts, etc.), and TED Talks (for monologic speech patterns, gestures, discourse management). Scenarios can be written to provide learners with practice in asking wh- and yes/no questions for purposes of both proclaiming and referring 89

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

(Brazil, 1997). For all of these suggestions, pronunciation training is essential for prosodic development, not only in establishing a meta-awareness of this system, but also for the development of learner comprehension and production of L2 pragmatics.

Further Reading Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. This book provides a thorough guide to theoretically grounded, research-based pedagogical instruction of Northern American English pronunciation. An overview of teaching issues from the perspectives of different methodologies and SLA research is also included. The book provides very useful activities and measures for teaching, practicing, and assessing pronunciation in the classroom based on a variety of methods, along with suggestions for syllabus design. Kang, O., Thomson, R., & Murphy, J. (2017). The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation. New York: Routledge. This handbook provides a comprehensive survey of the field covering both theoretical and practical perspectives on pronunciation. It also considers new ways of teaching pronunciation, factors related to pronunciation acquisition, current research topics and applications on L2 pronunciation, the connection between pronunciation and other language skills, and the place of pronunciation within the emerging paradigm of World Englishes. It has several entries that discuss the connection between prosody and other aspects of L2 speech (e.g., vowels and consonants, syllable structure). The volume also offers rich pedagogical implications featuring several chapters on pronunciation instruction and teacher training. Romero-Trillo, J. (2012). Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching. New York: Springer. This edited volume brings together a collection of chapters on the interface between pragmatics and prosody and how they relate to English teaching. The book stresses the undeniable relationship between pragmatics and prosody through a series of chapters on various topics, such as acoustic measurement of rhythm and prosody in conversation. It particularly deals with the stress, rhythm, tone units, information structure, and intonation and pragmatic meaning and discusses their relevance for English language teaching.

References Aijmer, K. (1996). Apologies. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity (pp. 80–123). London: Longman. Allwood, J. (2008). Multimodal corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 207–225). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2012). Unit A9: Pragmatics, prosody, and gesture. In D. Archer, K. Aijmer, & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students (pp. 96–109). Cambridge, UK: Routledge. Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication. London: Routledge. Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.11) [software]. Available from http:​//www​.fon.​hum.u​va.nl​/paul​/praa​t.htm​l Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bryant, G. A., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277. Cauldwell, R. (2013). Phonology for listening: Teaching the stream of speech. Birmingham, UK: Speech in Action. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35.

90

Prosody in L2 Pragmatics Research

Cheang, H. S., & Pell, M. D. (2008). The sound of sarcasm. Speech Communication, 50(5), 366–381. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Can I help you? The use of rise and rise-fall tones in the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 85–107. Cheng, W., Greaves, C., & Warren, M. (2008). A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation: The Hong Kong corpus of spoken English (prosodic). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Chun, D. M. (1988). The neglected role of intonation in communicative competence and proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 295–303. Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Culpeper, J. (2011). It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!: Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (Eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (pp. 57–83). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Deterding, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes, 25(3/4), 391–409. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Hayes-Harb, R., & Hacking, J. (2015). Beyond rating data: What do listeners believe underlies their accentedness judgments? Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 43–64. Hewings, M. (1995). Tone choice in the English intonation of non-native speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 251–266. Hirschberg, J. (2004). Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 515–537). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kalbermatten, M. (2007). Verbal irony as a prototype category in Spanish: A discursive analysis (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN. Kang, O. (2010) Relative salience of suprasegmental features on judgments of L2 comprehensibility and accentedness. System, 38(2), 301–315. Kang, O. (2012). Impact of rater characteristics and prosodic features of speaker accentedness on ratings of international teaching assistants’ oral performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(3), 249–269. Kang, O., Rubin, D., Pickering, L. (2010). Suprasegmental measures of accentedness and judgments of English language learner proficiency in oral English. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 554–566. Kermad, A., Kang, O., & Taguchi, N. (2017). The use of prosodic patterns by L2 learners in speech acts. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Portland, OR. Knowles, G. (2016). Patterns of spoken English: An introduction to English phonetics. New York: Routledge. Knowles, G., Taylor, L., & Williams, B. (1996). A corpus of formal British English speech: The Lancaster/ IBM Spoken English Corpus. London: Routledge. Levis, J. M. (1999). Intonation in theory and practice, revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 37–63. Lin, P. M. S. (2010). The phonology of formulaic sequences: A review. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 74–193). London: Continuum. Lin, P. M. (2013). The prosody of formulaic expression in the IBM/Lancaster Spoken English Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 561–588. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1998). The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluations of native and foreign‐accented speech. Language Learning, 48(2), 159–182. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2001). Modeling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 451–468. Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 233–255. Pickering, L. (2017). Pronunciation in discourse contexts. In O. Kang, R. Thomson, & J. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation (pp. 432–446). New York: Routledge. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollock (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pike, K. L. (1945). The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Pitzl, M.-L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a Lingua Franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14(2), 50–71. Rockwell, P. (2000). Lower, slower, louder: Vocal cues of sarcasm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(5), 483–495. 91

Okim Kang and Alyssa Kermad

Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing, 28(4), 463–481. Roever, C. (2014). Assessing pragmatics. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 125–139). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Romero-Trillo, J. (2012). Introduction. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp. 1–6). New York: Springer. Romero-Trillo, J., & Newell, J. (2012). Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp. 117–131). New York: Springer. Szczepek Reed, B. (2004) Turn-final intonation in English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction (pp. 97–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Szczepek Reed, B. (2012). Prosody in conversation: Implications for teaching English pronunciation. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics, prosody and English language teaching (pp. 147–168). New York: Springer. Shively, R., Menke, M., & Manzón-Omundson, S. (2008). Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 101–132. Staples, S. (2015). The discourse of nurse–patient interactions: Contrasting the communicative styles of US and international nurses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N., Gomez-Laich, P. M., & Arrufat-Marqués, M. J. (2016). Comprehension of indirect meaning in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), 677–698. The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 19–47. Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-native speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 399–421. Wennerstrom, A. (1997). Discourse intonation in second language acquisition: Three genre-based studies (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Wennerstrom, A. (2001). The music of everyday speech: Prosody and discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wennerstrom, A., & Siegel, A. F. (2003). Keeping the floor in multiparty conversations: Intonation, syntax, and pause. Discourse Processes, 36(2), 77–107. Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225. Yus Ramos, F. (1998). Irony: Context accessibility and processing effort. Pragmalingüística, 5–6, 391–410. Retrieved on July 10, 2018, from http:​//rev​istas​.uca.​es/in​dex.p​hp/pr​agma/​artic​le/vi​ewFil​e/530​/464

92

7 Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics Richard F. Young

Introduction Since the 1990s, much research in second language (L2) learning and testing (including L2 pragmatics learning and testing) has focused on the dynamic and dialogic aspects of L2 use. Researchers have used Kramsch’s (1986) term interactional competence (IC) to describe many of those aspects, but there is little agreement among researchers as to which of those dynamic and dialogic aspects to include under the IC umbrella. Some researchers have described interaction using conversation analysis, while others have highlighted the intersubjective nature of interaction. Some cultural theorists have identified IC with intercultural competence, emphasizing how formal schooling of minorities may require teachers and pupils to recognize different interactional competences. Many researchers have described how IC develops in L2, and still others have developed procedures for assessing IC informally in the classroom as well as with formal language tests. In a handbook such as this, with its focus on pragmatics, readers might begin by assuming that IC includes well-studied pragmatic phenomena such as speech acts, implicature, discourse structure, pragmatic markers, studies of face and (im)politeness, prosody, and body language. However, IC and pragmatics are not the same phenomenon. While most researchers agree that pragmatics is the study of the relationship between the meaning of an utterance and the context in which the utterance is produced, they disagree on what to include within the notion of context. In their conceptualization of context, for example, Kasper and Rose (2002) focused on a speaker’s choice among linguistic forms, claiming that ‘pragmatic meanings arise from choices between linguistic forms, such as using one discourse marker or particle over another, or opting for one linguistic format of a communicative act instead of a contextually possible alternative to convey illocutionary force or politeness’ (p. 2). Taguchi and Roever (2017) expanded the notion of context to include both the speaker and listener when they wrote: ‘The field of pragmatics studies aspects of language systems that are dependent on the speaker, the listener, and the context of an utterance’ (p. 1). It is exactly here that pragmatics and IC diverge. As will become apparent in this chapter, participants’ use and understanding of the pragmatic meanings of communicative acts is clearly one defining feature of IC, but IC goes beyond the pragmatic competence of a single participant to recognize that IC is co-constructed by all participants in a discursive practice and, furthermore, that IC is practice-specific.

93

Richard F. Young

In this chapter, I review the research done so far on the development of IC in second and first language contexts and, by framing my review within a general theory of intersubjectivity, I aim to increase mutual understanding among different approaches to IC and L2 pragmatics.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Key Concepts What is Interactional Competence? In linguistic theory, the term competence has been taken to mean an individual’s knowledge underlying the production and interpretation of well-formed sentences in a language. The term was first used in this sense by Chomsky (1965) to distinguish between a speaker’s knowledge of language in the abstract (competence) and the way in which that knowledge is realized in the production and interpretation of actual utterances (performance). Chomsky’s idea of competence was criticized by Hymes (1972), who countered that not only does competence refer to the individual’s knowledge of language, but competence also extends to how the individual uses language in social situations. In effect, Hymes rejected Chomsky’s dichotomy between competence and performance; in Hymes’s words, ‘There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar are useless’ (p. 278). Hymes then went on to specify the knowledge that speakers must have of at least four ways in which language is used in social situations: what is possible to do with language, what is feasible, what is appropriate, and what is actually done. Hymes called this combination of ability and knowledge communicative competence, which many people contrasted with Chomsky’s theory and his concept of linguistic competence. Hymes’s ideas were the basis for an applied linguistics theory of communicative competence put forward by Canale and Swain (1980) and for the assessment of communicative language ability theorized by Bachman (1990). These scholars tried to relate linguistic acts in social situations to an individual’s underlying knowledge, and their views became influential in L2 teaching and testing. In both applied linguistic theory and the practice of language assessment, competence was recognized as a characteristic of a single individual. An individual’s communicative competence was considered to be a complex construct composed of several component parts and something that differentiated one individual from others. For example, Bachman (1990) conceptualized pragmatic competence (a component of communicative language ability) as consisting of two sub-components: illocutionary competence (knowledge of conventions for performing language functions) and sociolinguistic competence (knowledge of social rules of appropriateness). IC builds on the theories of competence that preceded it, but it is a very different notion from Canale and Swain’s communicative competence or Bachman’s communicative language ability. In contrasting language proficiency with IC, Kramsch (1986) made clear the distinction: [S]uccessful interaction presupposes not only a shared knowledge of the world, the reference to a common external context of communication, but also the construction of a shared internal context or ‘sphere of inter-subjectivity’ that is built through the collaborative efforts of the interactional partners. (p. 367) The importance of ‘the collaborative efforts of the interactional partners’ was shown clearly in Shea’s (1994) analysis of four conversations in English between Americans and Japanese students in the U.S.A. Shea’s analysis showed that, in different conversations with different

94

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

interlocutors, learners of English with the same level of communicative competence demonstrated very different knowledge of English. He explained this difference by invoking two dimensions of the participation framework of conversation: participation and perspective. On the participation dimension, a native speaker of English may allow learners to cooperatively share the floor, recognize their right to speak, and value their ideas. Alternatively, the native speaker may interrupt or exclude learners and usurp the rights to shape the direction of talk. On the dimension of perspective, the native speaker may acknowledge learners’ orientation and commitment to the topic of discussion; alternatively, the native speaker may index a distinct orientation and a different commitment. Shea’s study showed that IC is distributed among participants in a discursive practice, and in contexts in which participants do not work to construct a ‘sphere of inter-subjectivity,’ the consequences endure. This was shown by Saville-Troike (2003) in her report of an exchange in a kindergarten classroom in the Navajo Nation: A Navajo man opened the door to the classroom and stood silently, looking at the floor. The Anglo-American teacher said, ‘Good morning’ and waited expectantly, but the man did not respond. The teacher then said ‘My name is Mrs. Jones,’ and again waited for a response. There was none. In the meantime, a child in the room put away his crayons and got his coat from the rack. The teacher, noting this, said to the man, ‘Oh, are you taking Billy now?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ The teacher continued to talk to the man while Billy got ready to leave, saying, ‘Billy is such a good boy,’ ‘I’m so happy to have him in class,’ etc. Billy walked toward the man (his father), stopping to turn around and wave at the teacher on his way out and saying, ‘Bye-bye.’ The teacher responded, ‘Bye-bye.’ The man remained silent as he left. (p. 105) Saville-Troike explained the interaction as one in which participants were interpreting the conversational exchange in different ways. From a Navajo perspective, the Navajo man’s silence was appropriate and respectful; his silence after the Anglo-American teacher’s greeting was also a polite response to her greeting and, if he had identified himself by name, the man would have broken a traditional taboo that prohibits Navajos from saying their own name. The AngloAmerican teacher followed her own expectations that her greeting would be returned and that the unknown man would identify himself. Billy, who was more used to Anglo-American ways than his father, displayed IC by taking his leave of the teacher in the way she expected while his father remained silent. What, then, is interactional competence? An examination of what persons did in the interactions reported by Shea and by Saville-Troike reveals at least four defining features. First, IC may be observed (or its absence noted) in spoken face-to-face interaction. Most research on IC has focused exclusively on spoken interaction, though nonverbal semiotic resources such as gesture, gaze, posture, kinesics, and proxemics are frequently considered, as indeed are verbal prosody, rhythm, and intonation. The second feature of IC involves participants recognizing and responding to expectations of what to say and how to say it (which is also the central concern in pragmatics). These expectations lead participants to interpret forms of talk in a given practice with conventional cultural meanings and to assume that participants have constructed a sphere of intersubjectivity. When in fact participants’ assumptions are incorrect, cultural misunderstandings may occur, as illustrated in Saville-Troike’s comments on the encounter between the Navajo man and the Anglo teacher. Saville-Troike wrote that, ‘[t]his encounter reinforced the teacher’s stereotype that Navajos are ‘impolite’ and ‘unresponsive,’ and the man’s stereotype that AngloAmericans are ‘impolite’ and ‘talk too much’ (p. 106). 95

Richard F. Young

Viewing IC as simply a pragmatic match between cultural expectations and observed forms of talk in a discursive practice may lead us to believe that IC is simply a question of pragmatics, but this would be a mistake. Pragmatic meaning, as defined by Kasper and Rose (2002), arises ‘from choices between linguistic forms’ (p. 2). Such choices are, however, ‘not unconstrained but are governed by social conventions, which can be flexed to different, contextually varying degrees but only entirely set aside at the peril of losing claims to face, insider status, or sanity’ (pp. 2–3). Pragmatic meaning in interaction goes so far but does not include Kramsch’s (1986) notion of ‘the construction of a shared internal context’ (p. 367). Thus, the third defining feature of IC is that IC is not about the ability of a single individual to deploy those resources in any and every social interaction; rather, IC is how those resources are deployed mutually and reciprocally by all participants in a particular discursive practice in order to create a sphere of intersubjectivity; that is, mutual intentionality and sharing of mental state. This means that IC is not the knowledge or the possession of an individual person but is co-constructed by all participants in a discursive practice, and IC varies with the practice and with the participants. The fourth defining feature of IC is that not only does it vary with participants, but it also varies with the discursive practice in which they are engaged. The focus on practice emerged from a debate in education and child development centered on the learning process which culminated in contrasting views of the process. Sfard (1998) has characterized these contrasting views as ‘two metaphors for learning’—the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor. The metaphor of learning as participation is summarized by Rogoff (2003), who emphasized that ‘human development is a process of people’s changing participation in sociocultural activities of their communities’ (p. 52). Framed in this way, language learning is manifested as participants’ progress along trajectories of changing engagement in discursive practices. Such changes lead from peripheral to fuller participation in a community of practice and growth of self-identity. IC is thus participants’ participation in recurring episodes of spoken interaction in context, episodes that are of socio-cultural significance to a community of speakers. Such episodes have been described at length by Young (2007, 2009) building on Hall’s (1995) interactive practices and Hanks’s (1996) communicative practices, and share similarities with the speech events described by Hymes (1974). To summarize, IC is characterized by these four defining features: •• •• •• ••

IC has been described (and its absence noted) in spoken interaction and/or face-to-face interaction. IC is characterized by participants’ understandings of the pragmatic meanings of communicative acts. IC is not the knowledge or the possession of an individual; rather it is co-constructed by all participants in a discursive practice. IC is participants’ participation in specific discursive practice—recurring episodes of spoken interaction in context, episodes that are of socio-cultural significance to a community of speakers.

These four features represent a broader and more detailed depiction of IC than has been taken by other colleagues in the field. Kramsch (1986) focused her attention on IC as the ‘construction of a shared internal context or ‘sphere of inter-subjectivity’ (p. 367). Hall (1999), on the other hand, ignored intersubjectivity and instead focused her definition on the pragmatic resources that participants deploy in interaction. She considered that interactional competence involves context-specific knowledge such as knowledge of interactional contexts (e.g., goals and topics of interaction, participant roles), knowledge of ‘linguistic action patterns’ (e.g., conventional meanings of linguistic forms), flexibility and adaptability in using linguistic resources, and ability to recognize interactional patterns in a specific situation and apply the patterns to a new situation 96

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

(Hall, 1999, p. 137). Like Hall, many L2 pragmatics researchers have taken the individualistic and component-oriented view of pragmatic competence by adopting models of communicative competence (Bachman, 1990; Canale & Swain, 1983) to define pragmatic competence. However, the four features of IC presented above go beyond Hall’s definition of IC and contribute to a new conceptualization of pragmatic and interactional competence. As Hall recognized, IC involves several resources that participants deploy in interactional contexts. There are, however, two cardinal differences. First, in my view of IC, the resources deployed by all participants in interaction are contingent on what they perceive other participants doing and thinking; in other words, intersubjectivity is an essential component of IC. Second, just as IC is not the permanent possession of a specific participant, neither is it an ability that can be deployed in other contexts with other participants, because each discursive practice is unique. Indeed, perhaps the term ‘competence’ does not adequately describe IC because competence, especially ‘linguistic competence,’ has often been taken to refer to a characteristic of an individual speaker that can deployed independent of context.

Communicative Resources Deployed in Creating Intersubjectivity Young (2008, 2011) specified a set of resources that participants deploy in creating intersubjectivity in discursive practice. Building on previous research on the nature of human social interaction and the four defining features of IC presented in the previous section, Young’s set includes the following: ••

••

••

Identity resources •• Participation framework: the identities of all participants in a discursive practice, present or not, official or unofficial, ratified or unratified, and their footing or identities in the discursive practice (Goffman, 1979, 1981; Goodwin, 1990, 2000; Rae, 2001) Linguistic resources •• Register: the set of meanings, the configuration of semantic patterns, that are typically drawn upon in a specific discursive practice, along with the words and structures that are used in the realization of these meanings (Halliday & Hasan, 1976) •• Modes of meaning: the ways in which participants construct interpersonal, experiential, and textual meanings in a practice (Bühler, 1934; Firth, 1957; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) Interactional resources •• Speech acts: the selection of acts in a discursive practice and their sequential organization (Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, 2010) •• Turn-taking: how participants in a discursive practice select the next speaker and how participants know when to end one turn and when to begin the next (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) •• Repair: the ways in which participants respond to interactional trouble in a given discursive practice (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977) •• Boundaries: how participants deploy and identify the opening and closing acts of a discursive practice that serve to distinguish a given practice from adjacent talk and/ or as transitions within a single practice (Geluykens & Swerts, 1994; Schegloff, 1968; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973)

IC involves knowledge and deployment of these resources in social contexts. However, the fundamental difference between alternative conceptualizations of IC, such as those presented by Hall (1999) (see also Hall, Hellermann, & Pekarek Doehler, 2011), and the four defining features of IC realized through the seven resources listed above is that the latter considers an individual’s 97

Richard F. Young

knowledge and deployment of these resources contingent on what other participants do; that is, IC is distributed across participants and varies in different interactional practices. Therefore, the most fundamental difference between interactional and communicative competence is that IC is not about what one person knows; it is about what a participant in a discursive practice does together with others.

Empirical Studies of IC Development The Contributions of All Participants to Co-constructing a Participation Framework To my knowledge, there are no studies that have described all seven resources of IC. Some studies, however, have focused on one set of resources to the exclusion of others. For example, deployment of interactional resources in constructing a participant framework including all participants, present or not, official or unofficial, ratified or unratified has been described by Young and Astarita (2013) in their discussion of a discursive practice on a bus and by Nguyen (2006) in her analysis of the interactional patterns of pharmacy patient consultations. Linguistic resources of register and, in particular, the different modes of meaning deployed by a high school teacher and by a textbook author to describe the physics of light reflecting from a plane mirror were described by Young and Nguyen (2002). Besides these, researchers have paid attention to interactional resources in constructing IC and, in particular, to describing the ways in which L2 learners deploy different interactional resources as they develop. These have been well documented by scholars who have grounded their analyses in the methods of conversation analysis (CA) (see also Chapter 15 in this volume). The value of CA is stressed by Hall and Pekarek Doehler (2011), for whom IC involves: the ability to deploy and to recognize context-specific patterns by which turns are taken, actions are organized and practices are ordered. And it includes the prosodic, linguistic, sequential and nonverbal resources conventionally used for producing turns and actions, to construct them so that they are recognizable for others, and to repair problems in maintaining shared understanding of the interactional work we and our interlocutors are accomplishing together. (pp. 1–2) One of the clearest applications of CA to attempt to describe the development of IC by an L2 user is Pekarek Doehler and Berger’s (2018) study of a German L1 au-pair’s interaction with a host family in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The authors analyzed how Julie, the aupair, managed story openings over her 9-month sojourn with the family. They reported that Julie developed in three areas in the practice of story-telling: She displayed how the story related to prior talk; she secured recipiency from her interlocutor and grounds for the story; and she framed her story as a telling of a given type. They generalized from their longitudinal study of Julie to claim that development of IC involves speakers’ increased ability to design talk in a way for it to be attended to and understood by others, and to deploy context-sensitive conduct based on both sequential and linguistic resources. There is no doubt that Pekarek Doehler and Berger’s study is a brave attempt to document changes over time in social activities indexed by talk, though Schegloff (1993) and Markee (2017) have argued that such comparisons are impossible. However, is their study really about the development of IC? Pekarek Doehler and Berger have ignored identity and linguistic resources. Considering that one of the defining features of IC is that it is not the knowledge or the possession of an individual but rather it is co-constructed by all participants in a discursive practice, the weakness of Pekarek Doehler and Berger’s study is that

98

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

they did not consider how Julie’s French-speaking interlocutors contributed to her development of IC. In five of the six conversational excerpts, the sole recipient of Julie’s stories was Marie, the host mother. But the authors focused entirely on Julie’s agency in placing her story-opening. The only evidence they presented for intersubjectivity came from the host mother, whose contributions were almost entirely response tokens (Gardner, 2002; Young & Lee, 2004). Studies that have considered the contributions of all participants in co-constructing a participant framework for the development of IC in a discursive practice include Cekaite’s (2007) study of a Kurdish immigrant girl in a Swedish kindergarten school classroom, Young and Miller’s (2004) study of changing discourse roles of student and tutor in an ESL writing conference, and Nguyen’s (2006) report of a novice pharmacist’s construction of ‘expertness’ together with clients in pharmacy patient consultations. These three longitudinal studies showed the influence of all participants in co-constructing IC in specific discursive practices. In Cekaite’s study, learning IC is defined (as in Young & Miller, 2004) by changing participant status and movement from peripheral to increasingly active participation in a discursive practice. A total of 90 hours of recordings was made over one academic year of a Swedish immersion class for refugee children. The nine children in the class were all beginning learners who had recently arrived in Sweden, and ‘Fusi,’ the focal participant, was seven years old at the beginning of the year. Cekaite distinguished three phases in the development of IC, which were distinguished by Fusi’s self-selection of topics, turn-taking, and her identity creation. In the early phase, Fusi was mostly silent and participated only very marginally in classroom interactions. She rarely interrupted or disturbed her teacher or other students. By the middle of the year, Fusi had become much more visible in the classroom. When calling for the teacher’s attention, she used assertive intonation to call loudly and abruptly, and she frequently left her desk without permission. Her talk and behavior resulted in reprimands, teacher discipline, or teasing by her peer group, and her teacher characterized Fusi as immature. By the end of the academic year, however, Fusi’s positioning in the classroom community had changed radically. Fusi took more initiatives in engaging in conversations with her teacher. She contradicted the teacher less frequently, and her peers stopped teasing her. Fusi’s trajectory, from a silent and compliant child at the beginning of the year, to a noisy student by the middle of the year, and finally to a skillful student at the end of the year, demonstrated not a unidirectional development of a single learner identity but, rather, included responses of her teachers and classmates at each stage of development. These allowed her to position herself very differently within the classroom community, depending in part on IC co-constructed by the classroom community. In support of the argument that IC does not reside in an individual’s ability to deploy interactional resources but is related to how these resources are jointly used by all participants in a discursive practice, Young and Miller’s (2004) study of ESL writing conferences showed how changing participation in a practice indexed development of IC. The participants were an intermediate Vietnamese learner of ESL and his experienced American writing instructor. In each writing conference, they discussed the student’s draft essay assigned by the instructor. They identified problem areas in the student’s writing, talked about ways to improve the writing, and revised the essay. Young and Miller observed that the student participated more fully in revision talk over four weeks of audio- and video-taping observation, which was observable by changes in these eight sequential actions occurring in every instance of revision talk: 1 2 3 4 5

Both participants display attention to the student’s paper. Both participants identify a problem in the student’s paper. One participant explains or justifies the need for revision. The instructor directs the student to produce a candidate revision. One participant utters a candidate revision. 99

Richard F. Young

6 The instructor directs the student to write the candidate revision. 7 One participant writes the revision. 8 The instructor evaluates the revision. In the first observation of revision talk, the student’s legitimate peripheral participation was marked, in part, by his limited performance of these actions. His only participation was writing the revision, which he did after verbal and gestural prompting from the instructor. In contrast, the instructor’s fuller participation was demonstrated by identifying a problem in the student’s paper, providing an explanation of the need for revision, uttering a candidate revision, directing the student to write the candidate revision, and supplying an implicit negative evaluation. In revision talk two weeks later, however, the student participated more fully. After the instructor identified a problem in the student’s essay, the student himself explained the need for revision and suggested a candidate revision. Finally, in the fourth conference held three weeks later, the student participated more fully in the revision talk. Young and Miller also observed a shift in the prosodic and syntactic shape of the instructor’s turns that seemed to provide for fuller participation by the student. For example, the instructor produced several designedly incomplete utterances (Koshik, 2002). The student’s nonverbal participation also demonstrated fuller participation: He displayed greater awareness of when it was appropriate to produce a written revision. After the instructor had uttered a candidate revision, without further prompting, the student immediately began writing the revision. Although the student was the one whose participation was most obviously transformed, his writing instructor was a co-learner, whose participation changed in ways that allowed for the student’s fuller participation. Young and Miller’s (2004) study contributes to our understanding of IC as co-constructed development by all participants in a situated discursive practice. Although not a study of L2 learners, a third example of the co-construction of IC by all participants in a discursive practice is provided by Nguyen’s (2006) report of a novice pharmacist’s construction of ‘expertness’ together with clients in pharmacy patient consultations. These consultations involved the pharmacist talking with a patient about the medications they were intended to take. Nguyen’s data includes 18 videotaped observations of patient consultations by ‘Jim,’ a novice pharmacist over the course of an eight-week internship. The focus of Nguyen’s report is Jim’s developing identity as an expert in his encounters with patients. She recognized two different performances of Jim’s expertise as a professionally trained pharmacist interacting with a layperson: as a novice expert and an experienced expert. Nguyen (2006, p. 148) explains the difference as follows: Unlike the novice expert, the experienced expert is someone who not only has access to professional knowledge, but also ‘no longer relies on analytic principle (rules, guidelines, maxims)’, and ‘has an intuitive grasp of each situation and zeroes in on the accurate region of the problem without wasteful consideration of a large range of alternative diagnoses and solutions.’ (Benner 1984, p. 31; see also Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986) The contrast between Jim’s construction as a novice expert in the early days of his internship and his claim of experienced expertise later on can be seen in how he provided expert information to the patient. In one of the earlier consultations, Jim displayed his novice expertise to the lay patient by explaining physiological processes when he was explaining the side effects of a heart medication (Nguyen, 2006): Ph: Um when you take it you be sure you’re either sitting down or lying down, cause the way it works […] it makes some of your blood vessels dilate and that will help the blood flow to the heart. (p. 151) 100

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

While Jim was displaying his novice expertise, the patient started to count money, orienting to the upcoming payment activity rather than to Jim’s explanation. In contrast, in his consultations during the last week of his internship, Jim described the side effects of a laxative by taking the patient’s lay perspective—thus, according to Nguyen, constructing himself as an experienced expert (Nguyen, 2006): Ph: If it tastes bad, ↓it probably doesn’t have a good taste, (.) you might wanna put in like a lemonade, or something like that, [it usually will (0.2) take the Ph grimaces, waving hand laterally Pt: [((breathy)) Ah: Ph: edge off a little bit, (p. 153) Nguyen’s study demonstrates how Jim as a participant in the same discursive practice changed his pattern of participation over time by recognizing how his patients responded to the novice expertise of one who had studied in a four-year professional degree program which had prepared him to become a pharmacist. His conversations with lay patients provided him with opportunities to reconstruct and modify his school-taught expertise in the local context of the pharmacy. Nguyen’s data show that while Jim could use a technical register at times, on most occasions, the patient selected vernacular expressions. It was also interesting that when Jim introduced technical information, the patient treated it as advice and instructions, but when the patient brought up expert information, both the patient and Jim treated it as challenges and problems that needed to be resolved. In effect, as a consequence of his interaction with lay members of the public, the resulting co-construction of IC was indexed by Jim’s identity changing over his eight-week internship from novice expert to experienced expert. The studies reviewed in this section share certain features: They were longitudinal studies (varying in length from a few weeks to a whole year); they focused on participants’ progress along trajectories of changing engagement in a single discursive practice (story-telling, teacherled conversation in a foreign language class, revision talk in a writing conference, and pharmacy patient consultations); and they included a focal participant embedded in a participation framework (Julie and her host family; Fusi and her teacher and classmates; the ESL student and his writing instructor; and Jim and his patients). They described development of IC over the duration of the studies.

Developing Intersubjectivity during Study Abroad There is a marked difference between the studies reviewed in the previous section and the analysis of the conversation that Saville-Troike (2003) reported between the Navajo father and his son’s Anglo-American kindergarten teacher. In that single moment of interaction in the Navajo Nation, the pragmatic differences between the two participants may have reinforced cultural stereotypes the Navajo man held of Anglo-Americans and the Anglo-American teacher’s stereotype of Navajos. Cultural differences between cognitive, affective, and behavioral capabilities of persons interacting in particular contexts have been discussed extensively as intercultural competence, defined by Spitzberg and Chagnon (2009) as ‘the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive, and behavioral orientations to the world’ (p. 7) (see also Chapter 31 in this volume). In many contexts, therefore, IC presupposes intercultural competence. Thus, it is not surprising that IC has been studied extensively in study-abroad settings that present opportunities 101

Richard F. Young

for intercultural communication. The social, cultural, and linguistic aspects of study abroad have continued to receive much attention since Freed’s (1995) monograph up to and including extensive work done by Kinginger (2013), among which are a smaller number of studies explicitly addressing the development of IC in study-abroad settings. Here I will review three studies that demonstrate learners’ development of a defining feature of interactional competence—the ‘sphere of intersubjectivity’ that Kramsch (1986) identified. Intersubjectivity was first studied by developmental psychologists observing interaction between mothers and infants (Trevarthen, 1977, 1979) and the concept was further developed in Wells’s (1981) studies of spoken interactions among British schoolchildren. Wells (1981) defined intersubjectivity quite clearly: The sender intends that, as a result of his communication, the receiver should come to attend to the same situation as himself and construe it in the same way. For the communication to be successful, therefore, it is necessary (a) that the receiver should come to attend to the situation as intended by the sender; (b) that the sender should know that the receiver is so doing; and (c) that the receiver should know that the sender knows that this is the case. That is to say they need to establish intersubjectivity about the situation to which the communication refers. (p. 47, emphasis in the original) Studies that documented intersubjectivity among participants in a study abroad setting include: Dings’s (2014) study of speaker selection, alignment activity, and topic management in conversations between an American learner of Spanish and a Spanish native speaker over the course of an academic year abroad in Granada, Spain; Ishida’s (2009) report of the development and use of the Japanese sentence-final particle ne by an American college student of Japanese during a nine-month sojourn in Japan; and Taguchi’s (2014) study of incomplete sentences as interactional resources by 18 learners of L2 Japanese in a large private university in Tokyo. Like many other studies, these three studies claim to report on the development of IC. They are, however, unique in clearly demonstrating intersubjectivity among all participants in specific discursive practices. Dings’s (2007) dissertation and her 2014 article were the first extensive study of the development of IC in study abroad. Dings analyzed six 30-minute conversations in Spanish between Sophie, an American study-abroad student living in Granada, Spain, and José, a native speaker of Spanish, recorded over two semesters. Among other interactional resources, Dings reported changes in how Sophie and José demonstrated their intersubjectivity by means of alignment moves such as assessments, collaborative contributions, and collaborative completions to index shared understanding—the ability to adopt the other’s point of view and the ability to speak in the other’s voice. Sophie’s increasing participation in alignment activity changed the nature of her interactions with José. Sophie’s emergent and evolving contributions to interactions allowed her to play a more active role in co-constructing communication. Another study that focused on a learner’s development of alignment in interactions is Ishida’s (2009) report of an American student studying Japanese in Japan. The student, Fred, recorded eight 30-minute conversations once a month with local Japanese people. Ishida focused on Fred’s use of the Japanese sentence final particle ne [ね]. According to Ishida, this particle has a range of interactional functions in Japanese including: an index of the speaker’s epistemic and/or affective stance, the speaker’s attempt to index a topic that the speaker believes to be known to the hearer, and an index of mutual alignment between the speaker and the hearer. Initially, Fred used ne only in turns that did not require ‘fine-tuning toward the previous speaker’s turn’ (p. 382). In later conversations, Ishida reported that Fred ‘came to use [ne] as an immediate response to the 102

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

previous speaker’s turn and became more active in pursuing aligning responses through its use’ (p. 382). Fred used ne to index opinions that did not align with his interlocutor, while his use of ne in assessments helped achieve mutual alignment with his interlocutor. By focusing on the learner’s expanding interactional functions of a linguistic form, Ishida’s study showed how the learner developed overt attribution of intentional acts to others—intersubjectivity—and did so by means of expressions of alignment to what he perceived to be the knowledge or stance of his interlocutor. Finally, Taguchi’s (2014) report is perhaps the clearest demonstration of the development of intersubjectivity in study abroad. Participants (18 learners of L2 Japanese at a Japanese university) conversed with a peer for 20 minutes in Japanese. Taguchi analyzed two conversations, recorded 12 weeks apart at the beginning and end of the semester, focusing on their use of incomplete sentences (a common phenomenon in a Japanese conversation). By saying less, Japanese speakers are building with their interlocutors exactly what Wells (1981) described as intersubjectivity: ‘The sender intends that, as a result of his communication [or lack of it], the receiver should come to attend to the same situation as himself and construe it in the same way’ (pp. 46–47). According to Taguchi, incomplete sentences serve as the speaker’s projection of an upcoming transition relevance place in their own turn. When the speaker produces an incomplete sentence, the hearer orients to and reacts to it with a backchannel or reactive token (Young & Lee, 2004). The speaker leaves a sentence incomplete by using a clause ending with the conjunctive particle te [て], which projects a second clause produced by the hearer, who then continues by adding a clause ending in the same way. When completing the turn initiated by the first speaker, the second speaker not only produces syntactic completion but also imitates the voice of the first speaker by projecting the same stance, thus displaying emphatic alignment with the first speaker’s experience. Taguchi found not only a dramatic increase in the number of incomplete sentences produced by L2 learners of Japanese but also that the learners were producing and responding to incomplete utterances to show empathy, to assist in explanation, and to expand on the ongoing topic of conversation. As Taguchi concluded, the participants learned to deploy incomplete sentences as interactional resources to establish intersubjectivity with their interlocutors—a clear index of developing IC.

Study Abroad versus Classroom Instruction in the Development of Interactional Competence Though much research on IC and intercultural competence has been carried out in study-abroad contexts, there is considerable doubt whether study abroad is an effective context for developing IC. In a relevant discussion, Kasper and Rose (2002) conducted a comprehensive review of the development of pragmatic competence in an L2 during students’ residence in L2 communities (see also Taguchi & Roever, 2017 for a more recent review and Chapter 23 in this volume). Many of the studies reviewed by Kasper and Rose provided comparisons between the effect of exposure during study abroad and the effect of classroom instruction on pragmatics learning. Although methods of classroom instruction in pragmatics vary widely, all teaching approaches require some theoretical analysis of interaction and context, including concepts of relative status and/or social distance of interlocutors, degree of imposition of an action, and different conceptualizations of politeness in L1 and L2 communities. To the extent that instruction in pragmatics provides learners with a theory of IC in an L2 community, such instruction is top-down and concept based. On the other hand, exposure to interactions with target-language speakers during study abroad provides learners with considerable empirical information and experience about a variety of discursive practices. Whether, through this bottom-up process, learners can attend to such information in order to learn the pragmatics of the new community and position themselves 103

Richard F. Young

as members of a new community of practice without previous or contemporaneous instruction is, in effect, a question about the effectiveness of a study-abroad context—a question that Kasper and Rose examined in considerable detail. The studies that Kasper and Rose (2002) reviewed dispelled what they termed three ‘myths’ about the effectiveness of study abroad on learning L2 pragmatics: ‘For developing pragmatic ability, spending time in the target community is no panacea, length of residence is not a reliable predictor, and L2 classrooms can be a productive social context’ (p. 230). To reframe Kasper and Rose’s claims for the present discussion of IC, we can conclude that exposure alone to discursive practices in an L2 community is not sufficient for developing IC, no matter how long or how intense the exposure is. Kinginger (2013) documented challenges that American students studying abroad face when the pragmatics of the target language community differs from the pragmatics of the home community. One example is the story told by Beatrice in a study abroad program in Paris. In her journal, Beatrice recounted what happened when her classmate, Olivia, requested permission from an instructor to miss a class when her family visited her. Although permission to miss a class is routinely granted in U.S. universities, the French instructor did not grant the permission, saying that it is ‘completely out of the question and how dare she ask something like that’ (p. 71). Beatrice recognized the different sociopragmatic practices in U.S. and French classrooms. She was not, however, able to recognize the status differences between professors in France and those at home in the U.S.A., which led to the French professor interpreting Olivia’s request as a challenge to his authority. This example indicates that it is critical to encourage students to attend to the differences between IC that they have experienced in their home community and IC that they experience in the L2 community, involving different configurations in which identity, linguistic, and interactional resources are deployed. We can encourage them to attend to the differences prior to study abroad—in other words, we can encourage students to theorize about a discursive practice before they participate in it. Acknowledging the importance of discursive practices in a study-abroad context, Taguchi and Roever (2017) claimed that learners gain opportunities to participate in a range of discursive practices while abroad, which can facilitate the process of ‘learning-as-participation’ (Young, 2008). As Young contended, we learn a language by participating in context-specific discursive practices. Learners acquire linguistic and interactional resources that characterize a discursive practice and enable them to participate in the practice. Discursive practices that learners engage in involve a number of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic resources that are specific to the practices. Taguchi and Roever contend that ‘pragmatic development takes place by participating in a range of social practices that involve different types of pragmatic resources’ (p. 187). The question then arises, what kind of pre-departure instruction might be effective to help learners understand the concept of discursive practices before their immersion in the new community? Hall (1999, 2004) and Young (2009) proposed concept-based instruction (Erickson, Lanning, & French, 2017), in which L2 learners study discursive practices in a community of practice outside the classroom, either in situ or through video recordings of authentic L2 community practices. Concept-based instruction would then involve two pedagogical phases. In the first phase, learners are guided through conscious, systematic study of the discursive practice, in which they mindfully abstract and reflect upon the sociocultural context of the practice and the configuration of identity, linguistic, and interactional resources that participants deploy. In the second phase, learners are guided through participation in the practice by more experienced participants. Systematic study of the practice does not require the teacher or learners to be skilled in ethnography or conversation analysis, but the study of the practice should focus on the configuration and deployment of resources by participants. In addition, the roles 104

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

Turns at talk presented to students in a random sequence

Turns at talk rearranged into a conversation

porque suele llover muy poco. (because it tends to rain very little.)

. . . es relajante. pues aquí sí nos suele gustar mucho la lluvia

sí (yeah)



muy seco. (very dry.)

porque suele llover muy poco.

. . . es relajante. pues aquí sí nos suele gustar mucho la lluvia (. . . it’s relaxing. well here yeah we tend to like the rain a lot)

muy seco.

Figure 7.1 Sample OBA of alignment moves in Spanish.

of participants and the ways in which the practice constructs broader societal values should be considered. Analysis of a particular practice is thus framed by a general theory of discursive practice (Young, 2009), and it is this theory as applied to the interpretation of the practice that underlies concept-based instruction. There is considerable support for concept-based instruction of IC in the work of the Soviet psychologist Piotr Gal’perin and his theory of systemic-theoretical instruction (STI) (Arievitch & Stetsenko, 2000; Gal’perin, 1969/1989, 1974/1989, 1976/1989; Haenen, 2001) (see also Chapter 10 in this volume). Gal’perin was a contemporary of Vygotsky and shared many of his basic assumptions of cultural-historical psychology, among which was the crucial role played by cultural tools such as language, concepts, and artifacts in the development and operation of higher cognitive processes of attention, memory, and planning. Gal’perin attempted to transform the cultural-historical approach to human development into a model for the teaching–learning process. Instruction, in his view, is the provision of efficient cultural psychological tools to learners so they can solve problems in a specific domain. Comparing the kinds of cultural mediation available to learners, Gal’perin concluded that the most efficient tool for learners was a general procedure that learners could use to solve any specific problem in a given instructional domain. For Gal’perin, the initial step in the procedure was construction of a ‘schema for a complete orienting basis for an action’ or SCOBA (Gal’perin, 1974/1989, p. 70), which is in effect a theory of the domain of instruction. The new practice to be learned is first brought to the learner’s attention, not in the small stages that characterize behaviorist instruction, but as a meaningful whole from the very beginning. The process of STI involves instruction in a formal classroom setting, which can be used to develop intersubjectivity in L2 prior to study abroad. I take as an example Dings’s (2014) study of Sophie’s acquisition of alignment moves to index her shared understanding in conversations with a native speaker of Spanish. Given that the production of alignment moves is the object of instruction, the first stage in STI is materialization as an ‘orienting basis of action’ or OBA— using physical objects in a concrete, material way to represent the concept to be internalized. One way to do so is to present a dialogue in which two speakers’ utterances are presented randomly on separate cards and to have learners re-arrange the cards into a conversational sequence (see Figure 7.1). After working on several OBAs like this, students can be asked, with the aid of an instructor, to develop understanding of the forms, functions, and sequential contexts of alignment moves in Spanish conversations in a form of theoretical concepts. Those concepts serve as schemas for 105

Richard F. Young

complete orienting basis of action (SCOBAs). Then, students develop their own formulation of the SCOBA by verbalizing the concepts, which may then be internalized as private speech and as inner speech or ‘thought’ (Gal’perin, 1974/1989). A few studies of concept-based instruction reviewed by Lantolf and Thorne (2006) and another study (Lantolf & Tsai, 2018) focused on the acquisition of morphosyntax. Future research is needed in pragmatics, in particular to investigate how concept-based instruction can be used to aid L2 learners in preparing for their experiences in study abroad and development of IC (see Chapter 10 in this volume for examples of such research).

Conclusion and Future Directions There are several differences between the aims of researchers in L2 pragmatics and researchers in IC. While L2 pragmatics research addresses the pragmatic meanings that speakers and hearers attribute to the conventional and context-specific meanings of utterances, the reach of IC research goes beyond pragmatics in its recognition of IC as co-constructed by all participants in a discursive practice rather than simply the knowledge or competence of a single speaker or hearer. Research in pragmatics has always highlighted the relationship between the meaning of an utterance and the context in which the utterance is produced; however, context is much grander than the time and place of utterance and includes the physical, spatial, temporal, social, interactional, institutional, political, and historical circumstances in which utterances are spoken and heard. In recognizing the importance of context, IC researchers have gone further in specifying that what speakers and hearers communicate in a given context is specific to that context, just as IC is co-constructed by all those specific participants. Another difference between research on L2 pragmatics and IC should be clear from the empirical studies reviewed in this chapter: Research on IC has focused entirely on spoken face-to-face interaction. In contrast, while many studies of L2 pragmatics have also focused on spoken interaction, they also examined written communication including written discourse markers, cross-cultural pragmatic differences in literacy, and written historical records of speech acts and terms of address. It is also the case that, given the roots of pragmatics in linguistics, much L2 pragmatics research has privileged language as the primary semiotic means and paid little attention to vocal prosody, gesture, gaze, bodily stance, and other nonverbal semiotic media. In contrast, three studies of IC reviewed in this chapter (Cekaite, 2007; Taguchi, 2014; Young & Miller, 2004) have identified nonverbal media as contributing to the construction of IC. Given the focus on spoken face-to-face interaction in L2 pragmatics and in IC, clearly, a systematic way of analyzing and explaining that interaction is necessary in future research. For many researchers, conversation analysis (CA) has provided a powerful tool and, as reviewed in this chapter, Pekarek Doehler and Berger (2018), Nguyen (2006), and Ishida (2009) have called explicitly on CA methodology to analyze their data. These are all comparative studies of phenomena analyzed over time. In making cross-linguistic, cross-cultural, or longitudinal comparisons among data, however, it is expedient to follow guidelines in performing comparative analyses recommended by Schegloff (2009, p. 378): 1 Explicitly state the target phenomenon or practice. 2 Describe the environments in which the target occurs. 3 Describe the ways in which other environments in which the target occurs are like or different from each other. 4 Specify what makes the target phenomenon or practice of interest.

106

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

In specifying the communicative resources deployed by participants in creating intersubjectivity in discursive practice, Young (2008, 2011) presented four interactional resources which can be investigated using CA. These include: (1) the selection of acts and sequential organization in a discursive practice; (2) speaker selection and speaker change in dyadic and multi-party interaction; (3) the identification and repair of what participants perceive to be interactional trouble in a discursive practice; and (4) how participants open and close a given practice to distinguish it from adjacent talk. Given that IC is conceived as participants’ participation in specific discursive practice, future research needs to identify the linguistic resources that characterize those practices. Those resources are well defined within systemic functional grammar and include register, defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as the set of meanings and the configuration of semantic patterns, which are typically drawn upon in a specific discursive practice, along with the words and structures that are used in the realization of these meanings (see also Chapter 17 in this volume). Other linguistic resources include metafunctions specified by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) as ideational (experiential and logical), interpersonal, and textual metafunctions. Future research on IC needs to include these linguistic resources when analyzing IC development by L2 learners. Finally, as has been stressed throughout this chapter, intersubjectivity cannot be understood by examining the contributions of a single speaker, even though that speaker is a L2 learner, whom we, as applied linguists, wish to aid in the achievement of interactional and intercultural competence. The identity resources listed by Young are fundamental to the co-construction of a participation framework by all participants in a discursive practice. As Goffman (1979) first recognized, the notions of speaker and hearer are far too simple, and ‘the relation(s) among speaker, addressed recipient, and unaddressed recipient(s) are complicated, significant, and not much explored’ (p. 133). Not only has participation framework been ignored by some IC researchers in SLA, but researchers have focused their attention on a single speaker in order to describe that speaker’s development over time. In tracing the development of interactional competence, researchers should consider participation framework as fundamental and, within that framework, examine how speakers and hearers establish intersubjectivity.

Further reading Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. This is a book-length treatment of second and foreign language learners’ acquisition of pragmatics. It provides an account of research findings and covers such central topics as the theoretical and empirical approaches to L2 pragmatic development, the relationship of pragmatic and grammatical development, the role of different learning contexts, the effect of instruction, and individual differences. Taguchi, N. (2015). Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. This book describes the development of interactional competence by learners from a wide variety of backgrounds studying abroad in Japan. These individuals learn not only the forms of a new language, but how their new language creates identities of them in social situations, some of which the learners desire and some of which their interlocutors find strangely impolite. Through her innovative study of how interactional competence develops, the author paints an optimistic picture of how language learning develops through language use. Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell. Discursive Practice is a theory of the linguistic and socio-cultural characteristics of recurring episodes of face-to-face interaction—episodes that have social and cultural significance to a community of speakers. This book examines the discursive practice approach to language-in-interaction, explicating the consequences of

107

Richard F. Young

grounding language use and language learning in a view of social realities as discursively constructed, of meanings as negotiated through interaction, of the context-bound nature of discourse, and of discourse as social action. The book also addresses how participants’ abilities in a specific discursive practice may be learned, taught, and assessed.

References Arievitch, I. M., & Stetsenko, A. (2000). The quality of cultural tools and cognitive development: Gal’perin’s perspective and its implications. Human Development, 43(2), 69–92. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press. Benner, P. E. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dings, A. (2007). Developing interactional competence in a second language: A case study of a Spanish language learner (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, TX. Dings, A. (2014). Interactional competence and the development of alignment activity. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 742–756. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12120.x Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press. Erickson, H. L., Lanning, L. A., & French, R. (2017). Concept-based curriculum and instruction for the thinking classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Firth, J. R. (1957). Modes of meaning. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Papers in linguistics: 1934–1951 (pp. 190–215). London: Oxford University Press. Freed, B. F. (Ed.) (1995). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1957/1989). Mental actions as a basis for the formation of thoughts and images. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 45–64. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1966/1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 28–33. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1969/1989). Study of the intellectual development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 26–44. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1974/1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 65–82. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1976/1989). The problem of attention. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 83–92. Gardner, R. (2002). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Geluykens, R., & Swerts, M. (1994). Prosodic cues to discourse boundaries in experimental dialogues. Speech Communication, 15(1–2), 69–77. doi:10.1016/0167-6393(94)90042-6 Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1), 1–29. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Goodwin, M. H. (2000). Participation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 177–180. Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the teaching-learning process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 157–170. Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 206–232. Hall, J. K. (1999). A prosaics of interaction: The development of interactional competence in another language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 137–151). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (2004). ‘Practicing speaking’ in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 68–87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 108

Interactional Competence and L2 Pragmatics

Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–15). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–385). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kinginger, C. (Ed.) (2013). Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 23(3), 277–309. Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Tsai, M.-H. (2018). L2 developmental education and systemic theoretical instruction: The case of English noun collocations. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched pedagogy (pp. 29–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Markee, N. (2017). Are replication studies possible in qualitative second/foreign language classroom research? A call for comparative re-production research. Language Teaching, 50, 367–383. doi:10.1017/ S0261444815000099 Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.). (2010). Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nguyen, H. t. (2006). Constructing ‘expertness’: A novice pharmacist’s development of interactional competence in patient consultations. Communication and Medication, 3(2), 147–160. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for contextsensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 555–578. Rae, J. (2001). Organizing participation in interaction: Doing participation framework. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 253–278. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095. Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5 Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357–406). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. doi:10.1515/ semi.1973.8.4.289, Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and on the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. Shea, D. P. (1994). Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation across cultural borders. Pragmatics, 4(3), 357–389. Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 109

Richard F. Young

Taguchi, N. (2014). Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use of incomplete sentences as interactional resources. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 518–535. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12087.x Taguchi, N. (2015). Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analyses of infant communicative behaviour. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction: Proceedings of the Loch Lomond symposium, Ross Priory, University of Strathclyde, September, 1975 (pp. 227–270). London: Academic Press. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321–347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press. Young, R. F. (2007). Language learning and teaching as discursive practice. In Z. Hua, P. Seedhouse, L. Wei, & V. Cook (Eds.), Language learning and teaching as social inter-action (pp. 251–271). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book. New York: Routledge. Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 426–443). New York: Routledge. Young, R. F., & Astarita, A. C. (2013). Practice theory in language learning. Language Learning, 63(Suppl. 1), 171–189. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00743.x Young, R. F., & Lee, J. (2004). Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 380–407. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00266.x Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Negotiating discourse roles in the ESL writing conference. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004. t01-16-.x Young, R. F., & Nguyen, H. t. (2002). Modes of meaning in high school science. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 348–372.

110

Part II

Theoretical Approaches

8 Cognitive Approaches in L2 Pragmatics Research Shuai Li

Introduction This chapter reviews L2 pragmatics research taking a ‘cognitivist’ perspective. According to R. Ellis (2008), cognitive approaches to L2 acquisition focus on learners’ internal mechanisms that account for the representation and acquisition of L2 knowledge (p. 405). This understanding of the ‘cognitivist’ stance in SLA suggests two areas of research. The first area is investigating the nature of L2 knowledge, that is, how L2 knowledge is mentally represented in terms of structure and organization (e.g., declarative vs. procedural, explicit vs. implicit). The second area is examining the cognitive processes (e.g., attention, restructuring, and monitoring) involved in knowledge acquisition (i.e., development of mental representation of knowledge). According to R. Ellis (2008), theorizations of cognitive SLA primarily address issues related to knowledge representation (e.g., Bialystok’s two-dimensional model and skill acquisition theories) or issues regarding cognitive processes (e.g., Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, 1993, 2001). This chapter adopts R. Ellis’s classification of cognitive theorizations and reviews empirical L2 pragmatics research accordingly. A cognitive orientation has been prevalent in L2 pragmatics research almost since the field’s inception. For example, Færch and Kasper (1984) conceptualized pragmatic competence consisting of declarative and procedural components, which is consistent with the skill acquisition theories. In the 1990s, the cognitive orientation was reinforced by Kasper and Blum-Kulka’s (1993) edited volume, which only featured cognitive theories. Although the field has witnessed pluralization of theoretical orientations later on, the ‘cognitivist’ stance continues to hold a strong presence among alternative theoretical approaches (e.g., language socialization and sociocultural theory; see Chapters 9 and 10 in this volume) (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Despite their presence in L2 pragmatics research from early on, cognitive theories were not widely adopted in empirical studies in the 1980s because the field was heavily influenced by the research paradigm of cross-cultural pragmatics. Until the end of the 1990s, cognitive theories were mainly used to provide post hoc explanations in empirical studies. It was not until after the early 2000s that researchers increasingly started to use cognitive theories to guide empirical research, assessing the applicability of those theories to L2 pragmatics research. Adopting R. Ellis’s (2008) classification of cognitive theorizations, this chapter first reviews studies informed by theories addressing L2 knowledge representation (i.e., the two-dimensional model, and the skill acquisition theory or ACT-R). The chapter then reviews studies conducted under theorizations of cognitive processes involved in L2 acquisition (i.e., the Noticing Hypothesis). 113

Shuai Li

Representation of L2 Pragmatic Knowledge The term pragmatic knowledge is interpreted differently in the field according to one’s theoretical background. First, a functional understanding of pragmatic knowledge concerns the description of various functions of linguistic forms in specific contexts of communication (i.e., form–function–context mappings). This understanding of pragmatic knowledge draws on pragmatics theories (e.g., pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge) (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), as well as certain models of communicative language competence (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 2010) (see also Chapter 1 in this volume). On the other hand, a psycholinguistic understanding of pragmatic knowledge focuses on the mental structure and organization of the kind of knowledge that enables skillful and appropriate performance in communication (e.g., explicit vs. implicit pragmatic knowledge as theorized by Bialystok in 1993). Such understanding of pragmatic knowledge is based on psycholinguistic or cognitive theories (e.g., Bialystok, 1994, 2011; DeKeyser, 2017). There are overlaps between the two understandings of pragmatic knowledge. For example, from a skill acquisition perspective, knowledge of form–function–context mappings may serve as the declarative knowledge basis for developing procedural knowledge that enables appropriate and fluent pragmatic performance. It is also possible that the linguistic categories of pragmatics (e.g., speech acts) reflect the structure of mental representation at a particular stage of pragmatic development, as hypothesized by Bialystok (1993). The following sections focus on two cognitive theories: the two-dimensional model and the skill acquisition theory or ACT-R. I will discuss each theory for theoretical underpinnings, empirical evidence, and future research directions.

The Two-Dimensional Model Theoretical Underpinnings The two-dimensional model (Bialystok, 1994, 2011) posits that language development involves two cognitive processes: analysis of knowledge and control of processing. The knowledge component concerns the degree to which learners analyze their implicit linguistic knowledge so it becomes explicit (Bialystok, 2011, p. 50). There are three levels of knowledge representation ranging from implicit to the most explicit: (1) conceptual (i.e., linguistic knowledge is organized around semantic meanings and/or context of use, such as children’s initial access to language), (2) formal (i.e., linguistic knowledge is organized around linguistic structures, such as one’s metalinguistic awareness of grammatical rules), and (3) symbolic (i.e., linguistic knowledge is organized based on the symbolic relationships between linguistic forms and their real-world referents, such as knowing that the word table stands for a specific kind of object). The processing component, on the other hand, concerns cognitive procedures involved in accurate selection and coordination of linguistic knowledge, as well as cognitive procedures for efficient access to the knowledge to support performance.

Empirical Evidence The two-dimensional model has several implications for L2 pragmatic development. Regarding the knowledge component, Bialystok (1993) has argued that the mental representation of pragmatic knowledge falls into conceptual, formal, and symbolic levels. She contends that pragmatic performance minimally requires formal representation, where linguistic forms are organized around pragmatic functions (pragmalinguistic knowledge) (e.g., using modals for requesting), but ideally it should rely on symbolic representation, which allows understanding of pragmatic functions of linguistic forms in context (sociopragmatic knowledge) (e.g., understanding that the English bi-clausal structures are appropriate for making requests in high-imposition contexts 114

Cognitive Approaches

due to the tone-mitigating function).1 Development in L2 pragmatic knowledge entails learning new pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatic rules, and gradually sorting out the form–function–context mappings. A challenge for L2 learners is developing processing capacity for accurate selection of and efficient access to relevant pragmatic knowledge during communication. According to Bialystok (1993), the selection issue concerns whether one is able to identify a specific form, among alternatives, that is appropriate to express the intended pragmatic function in context (e.g., using the English bi-clausal structure in request-making), and whether one is able to choose an appropriate interpretation of an utterance in context among competing interpretations (e.g., in Chinese, questions such as ‘Where are you going?’ and ‘Have you eaten?’ can serve as greeting expressions in certain contexts and should be interpreted as such). On the other hand, the access issue also concerns efficient retrieval and display of relevant pragmatic knowledge to support fluent performance. The two-dimensional model provides a useful framework for investigating L2 pragmatic development in terms of knowledge and processing aspects. Although research explicitly referring to this model remains limited, empirical evidence supports the developmental pathways outlined in the model. Regarding the knowledge component, Hassall’s (2015) case study on the learning of Indonesian address terms illustrates the development from formal to symbolic representation. The learner, Ross, was a true beginner of Indonesian. Because he already had the concept of address terms from his L1 (English), developing formal representation of address terms in L2 was a straightforward process: he progressively added new address terms into his pragmalinguistic repertoire over time during his sojourn in Indonesia. However, developing symbolic representation that relates specific address terms to different addressees was more effortful. For example, Ross felt uncomfortable calling interlocutors requiring respect Bapak (‘father’) or Ibu (‘mother’) because that was in clash with his L1 norm. Moreover, although he discovered that the second-person pronoun anda was used infrequently and only in certain contexts, this awareness developed very slowly. After the sojourn, Ross was able to produce appropriate terms in all scenarios on a discourse completion test (DCT) except for one that dealt with peer interlocutors, suggesting that Ross was fine-tuning his symbolic representation of the Indonesian address term system during study abroad. To date, only a few studies have examined the processing aspect of L2 pragmatic development in conjunction with the knowledge aspect. Using on-line listening tasks, Taguchi’s (2007, 2008a, 2008b) longitudinal studies investigated the development of pragmatic comprehension in L2 English. She found that, while comprehension accuracy and speed both developed naturally over time, gains in accuracy and speed did not correlate (Taguchi, 2007); moreover, accuracy and speed demonstrated different developmental trajectories in a study-abroad context compared with a domestic instructional context (Taguchi, 2008a); finally, gains in accuracy and speed were affected by different cognitive and social factors (Taguchi, 2008b). In the area of L2 pragmatic production, S. Li (2014) used an oral DCT to investigate the development of request-making in Chinese during study abroad. He found that, regardless of proficiency level, L2 Chinese learners gained in the quality of requests (as rated on the clarity of intention, grammaticality, and appropriateness), but they did not gain in planning time for production; on the other hand, the advanced-level learners improved on production speech rate whereas the intermediate-level learners did not. In these studies, measures of accuracy/appropriateness of performance were indicators of pragmatic knowledge, and measures of speed/fluency of performance were indicators of processing capacity. Hence, findings of these studies support the two-dimensional model, showing that knowledge and processing are distinct aspects in pragmatic development with different developmental patterns. However, these studies have a methodological limitation because the underlying constructs and their indicators do not align perfectly. Whereas the temporal measures 115

Shuai Li

(e.g., processing speed, speech rate) reflect the efficiency of access to knowledge within the processing component, it is less clear which construct(s), knowledge or processing, the accuracy/ appropriate measures correspond to. Because the instruments used in these studies tap on-line performance, an incorrect judgment (as in Taguchi’s studies) or production of an inappropriate request (as in S. Li’s study) may indicate either a lack of the targeted pragmatic knowledge, or a lack of the processing ability for accurately selecting the relevant pragmatic knowledge, or a combination of both. Hence, no empirical study to date has fully adapted the two-dimensional model to examine L2 pragmatic development.

Future Directions As Taguchi and Roever (2017) observed, over two decades after being featured as a main cognitive model for investigating L2 pragmatic development (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993), empirical studies adopting the two-dimensional model as the a priori theoretical framework remains limited. There are two possible reasons for this. First, with its focus on development, the model requires a study with a longitudinal design, but longitudinal studies have been generally underrepresented in the field (Taguchi, 2010). Another reason is the field’s predominant focus on the appropriateness/ accuracy aspect of pragmatic performance, and to a far lesser focus on the fluency aspect. There are two possible future research directions under the two-dimensional model. First, there is a need to conduct refined analyses on the changes in the representation of pragmatic knowledge from the formal to the symbolic level. Adult L2 learners are considered to start with formal representation and then reach symbolic representation (Bialystok, 1993), but very few studies have documented such changes (e.g., Hassall, 2015). To explore such changes, future research can build on previous studies when selecting pragmatic features for investigation. For example, Takahashi (1996) examined transferability of two types of equivalent request-making strategies in Japanese and English: (1) functional equivalents (i.e., Japanese and English request strategies that match in pragmatic functions) and (2) conventional equivalents (i.e., Japanese and English request strategies that match in surface linguistic structures). Pragmatically appropriate request-making involves using the functional rather than the conventional equivalents. However, Japanese EFL learners rated the conventional equivalents to be more transferable to English than the functional equivalents, suggesting that they relied primarily on their L1 Japanese request strategies when making English requests. Because the learners were already familiar with various request-making strategies in English, they were likely at the level of formal representation of their pragmatic knowledge (i.e., form–function mappings). However, the learners were yet to reach the level of symbolic representation because they were unable to consider pragmatic functions in context when selecting specific request strategies. With these findings, future research can adopt a longitudinal design to examine how Japanese EFL learners develop symbolic representation of pragmatic knowledge for request-making (favoring functional equivalents) based on their existing formal representation (favoring conventional equivalents). Another example for future research is Xiao’s (2017) study that tracked L2 Chinese learners’ production of mitigations when expressing opinions in conversations with native speakers. He examined sentence-level mitigations (i.e., lexical and syntactic downgraders) and discourse-level mitigations (i.e., pre- and post-expansions for preparing and qualifying one’s opinions). He found that learners started with single pre- and post-expansions and gradually became able to use multiple pre- and post-expansions to prepare, qualify, and support their opinions. While the shift from single to multiple expansions suggests development at the level of formal representation (i.e., considering these as two mitigating strategies), it is unclear whether the learners made progress at the level of symbolic representation by employing multiple expansions as opposed to single expansion based on contextual considerations (e.g., expressing opinions on more vs. less sensitive topics). To test this hypothesis, researchers can replicate Xiao’s study by using conversation 116

Cognitive Approaches

topics that differ in contextual dimensions (e.g., more vs. less sensitive topics, different interlocutors) and examine whether learners can switch between single and multiple expansions according to contexts. Another research possibility under Bialystok’s model is improving methods of investigation when examining the development of knowledge and processing components together. As discussed earlier, a problem of studies using on-line data collection instruments (S. Li, 2014; Taguchi, 2008a, 2008b) is the difficulty in teasing apart knowledge from processing. Hence, future researchers can combine off-line and on-line instruments for assessing knowledge and processing. For example, when studying L2 request-making, one can design multiple-choice questions or written DCT (that do not impose time pressure and thus are off-line tasks) to examine whether learners are able to use appropriate request strategies according to contexts. Researchers can ask participants to provide concurrent verbal reports while completing the tasks or interview them afterwards; in this way, researchers can ascertain participants’ existing pragmatic knowledge in request-making. Meanwhile, researchers can include role-play tasks in which learners produce requests under time pressure (and thus an on-line task). The role plays can be analyzed for appropriateness (e.g., ratings, strategy types) and fluency (e.g., speech rates), corresponding to accurate selection and efficienct access within the processing component.

The Skill Acquisition Theory: ACT-R Theoretical Underpinnings The skill acquisition theory that has been applied to L2 pragmatics research is the ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought—Rationale) proposed by Anderson (1993) and introduced to SLA by DeKeyser (2015). The theory posits that skill development (e.g., improvement in language performance) entails changes in the mental representation of knowledge across three stages: cognitive, associative, and autonomous. The initial cognitive stage involves explicit learning of declarative knowledge (e.g., knowing about adding the suffix –ed when expressing the past tense in English). Performance at this stage is slow and erroneous because it often entails effortful retrieval and implementation of relevant declarative knowledge. Next, at the associative stage, learners practice the targeted action (e.g., encoding the English past tense by adding the suffix –ed) by utilizing the learned declarative knowledge. Repeated practices trigger proceduralization, a process in which procedural knowledge develops. Procedural knowledge consists of ‘production rules’, namely ‘if … then …’ procedures (e.g., if one needs to describe past actions in English, then add the suffix –ed). Because procedural knowledge encodes various steps in executing the targeted action into one coherent chunk for processing, performance at the associative stage is much more accurate and fluent than performance during the cognitive stage. Finally, the autonomous stage involves a long fine-turning process called automatization. A large amount of practice is required in this process to develop automatized knowledge, which enables nearly error-free performance with complete spontaneity. There are important differences in the nature and function between declarative and procedural (and automatized) knowledge. First, declarative knowledge consists of factual information, but procedural knowledge encodes procedures involved in performing targeted actions. Second, although procedural knowledge allows accurate and speedy performance, its effects are highly skill-specific in that the procedural knowledge developed through practice in one skill can hardly transfer to support performance of another skill. For example, reading and writing entail different sets of cognitive processes and therefore draw on different procedural knowledge. The procedural knowledge developed from practice in reading can barely transfer to improve performance on writing, and vice versa. In contrast, declarative knowledge can be shared across skills (e.g., reading and writing both require knowledge of vocabulary and grammar). 117

Shuai Li

Empirical Evidence The skill acquisition theory has two implications for L2 pragmatics research. Concerning the nature of pragmatic knowledge, the theory allows conceptualizing the construct in terms of declarative and procedural components. This notion was indicated over three decades ago in Færch and Kasper’s (1984) framework, which distinguishes declarative pragmatic knowledge (referring to pragmatics resources such as pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge) from procedural pragmatic knowledge (consisting of meta-cognitive procedures such as context analysis, goal formation, planning, and monitoring). A second implication concerns the role of practice in facilitating pragmatic development, a topic that has rarely been investigated. In particular, it makes sense to examine what kind of practice and how much practice is needed for developing procedural pragmatic knowledge that supports accurate and fluent performance. A small body of research has explored the aforementioned issues. S. Li (2013) examined the effects of different amounts of practice on the development request-making in L2 Chinese. His study included three groups: an input-based practice group, an output-based practice group, and a control group. All groups first received metapragmatic instruction on targeted declarative pragmatic knowledge (i.e., form–function–context mappings for making Chinese requests). Afterwards, the input group practiced the targeted features receptively, while the output group engaged in production practices. Amount of practice was operationalized as the number of instances for practicing the targeted mappings in either receptive mode (e.g., identifying the most appropriate request-making forms for a given dialogue) or productive mode (e.g., filling in the blanks of a dialogue by using the targeted request-making forms). There were a total of eight instances of practicing for each group. The input group was assessed with a recognition task, while the output group by a production task for three times (i.e., immediately before, half-way through, and immediately after practice). Learners’ performance on the two assessment tasks was analyzed for appropriateness/accuracy and fluency. Overall, more practice resulted in better performance for both groups. However, the amount of practice needed to improve performance varied: four instances of practice led to significant improvement in appropriateness/accuracy of performance, but for performance fluency, the two treatment groups did not outperform the control group even after eight instances of practicing. These findings suggest that, while declarative pragmatic knowledge can be refined to a high degree with a relatively small amount of practice (such as those used in S. Li’s study), the development of procedural pragmatic knowledge requires a larger amount of practice. With a similar design, S. Li and Taguchi (2014) investigated whether the effects of practice were skill-specific (recognition vs. production). The input and output groups engaged in similar practice activities as in S. Li (2013); however, the groups were assessed by both recognition and production tasks. The results showed a cross-modality effect of practice on accuracy. The input group improved on the production task, while the output group gained on the recognition task. However, the practice effects were modality-specific in terms of fluency. Over time, the input group reduced the response times in the recognition task, but did not gain in production fluency; in contrast, the output group improved on production fluency, but did not gain in recognition fluency. These results indicate that, as the skill acquisition theory predicts, the practice effects on procedural pragmatic knowledge are restricted to the same modality, but the effects on declarative pragmatic knowledge are shared across modalities. An important issue that remains unresolved is how much practice is needed to develop procedural pragmatic knowledge. Because it is possible that the amount of practice in these studies was insufficient for developing the procedural pragmatic knowledge, future research can increase the amount of practice gradually and track its effects on proceduralization. This would entail a longitudinal research design to examine the cumulative effects of practice through multiple data collections over time. 118

Cognitive Approaches

Another problem to be resolved in future research relates to more precise measures for capturing proceduralization. In the studies discussed above, raw temporal measures (e.g., response times, planning times, and speech rates) were calculated and compared over time and across groups. Changes in raw temporal measures may merely reflect a speed-up process rather than proceduralization, because proceduralization in the strictest sense refers to the restructuring of cognitive processes that can be captured by decreased coefficient of variation (i.e., the ratio of standard deviation over mean) (Segalowitz, 2010). Although Segalowitz’s position remains controversial (DeKeyser, 2017), using alternative and refined temporal measures that can capture the development of procedural pragmatic knowledge should enrich our understanding of proceduralization in L2 pragmatics research.

Future Directions There are two main directions for future pragmatics research informed by the skill acquisition theory. The first direction concerns various realizations of practice (e.g., types of practice, amount of practice, and timing of practice) and their effects on pragmatic development; the second concerns the external validity in practice activities and measures for assessing practice effects. Regarding types of practice activities, future researchers can be informed by existing instructional studies. For example, Takimoto (2012) compared the effects of two types of practice— task-type repetition (i.e., practicing target features with different exercises) and same-task repetition (i.e., repeating exactly the same exercise)—on the learning of request modifications in L2 English. He found that same-task repetition led to more gains than task-type repetition. Although Takimoto’s focus was on the development of declarative knowledge, task repetition can also trigger the development of procedural knowledge. Different roles that these two types of practice play in enhancing proceduralization would be an interesting topic to pursue in the future. Another example for researching types of practice activities comes from studies comparing deductive and inductive instructions (e.g., Rose & Ng, 2001; Takimoto, 2008). Deductive instruction involves the provision of metapragmatic information followed by practice activities, while inductive instruction provides practice activities that allow learners to infer metapragmatic rules. Both instruction types aim to develop declarative pragmatic knowledge and offer practices for using that knowledge, but they may differ in the depth of processing (Craik, 2002; Lockhart, 2002) involved in the learning process. Compared with deductive instruction, inductive instruction can push learners to process learning materials and the embedded form–function–context mappings more deeply, hence leading to better retention of gains (Takimoto, 2009). Previous studies (e.g., Rose & Ng, 2001; Takimoto, 2008) compared deductive and inductive instructions only against the development of declarative pragmatic knowledge (as indicated by appropriateness/accuracy measures). Future research can investigate whether and to what extent different depth of processing during practice can lead to different development of procedural pragmatic knowledge. Turning to the issue regarding appropriate amount of practice, existing findings (S. Li, 2012, 2013) are preliminary because they are limited to one target feature (i.e., request-making) and input- and output-based types of practice. Pragmatic features vary along different dimensions such as linguistic complexity (e.g., routines such as ‘take care’ vs. the bi-clausal structure ‘I was wondering if …’ for request-making), saliency (e.g., internal modifications being less salient than external modifications), and the amount of cognitive resources required for processing (e.g., conventional expressions being easier to process than non-conventional counterparts). Meanwhile, different types of practice can affect depth of processing differently (e.g., inductive and deductive instructions), as can the cognitive processes involved (e.g., input- and output-based practices). Hence, future research can examine how much practice is needed for learning different types of pragmatic features under different practice conditions. 119

Shuai Li

Another area for future investigation is the distribution of practice. Is it better to spread out practice sessions with wide intervals in between (i.e., spaced practice), or is it more beneficial to have massed practice with brief intervals? These questions have not been examined in L2 pragmatics. But studies on vocabulary and morphosyntax acquisition (e.g., Bird, 2010; Nakata, 2015; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017a, 2017b) have suggested a number of factors that can affect the learning outcome, including the nature of the targeted linguistic feature (e.g., grammar vs. vocabulary), timing of outcome assessment (e.g., immediate vs. delayed posttest), and individual differences in cognitive abilities (e.g. rote memory, analytic ability). Future research can also examine how these factors influence L2 pragmatics learning under different practice conditions. Finally, while the ultimate goal of developing declarative, procedural, and automatized knowledge is to support learners’ real-world communication, existing L2 pragmatics research informed by the ACT-R is purely lab-based with highly controlled practice activities and assessment tasks (e.g., lacking features of interaction). Hence, to what extent the practiced pragmatic performance transfers to real-life situations remains unknown. This brings us to the second main research direction, which concerns the external validity of practice activities and the evaluation of the effectiveness of practice. The crux of the matter is transfer-appropriate processing (TAP), which means that transfer of a skill from a learned task to a new task is likely to the extent that the cognitive operations in the new task are congruent with those in the learned task (DeKeyser, 2007a; Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005). The implication is that practice activities and assessment tasks should be designed with reference to target languageuse behaviors (DeKeyser, 2007b). Future research can incorporate methodologies informed by discursive pragmatics (e.g., Kasper, 2006; Youn, 2015) in order to design practice activities and assessment tasks that better resemble authentic language-use situations. For example, if instruction aims to enable learners to produce appropriate speech acts in face-to-face interactions, then features characterizing natural conversations (e.g., turn taking, engagement in conversation through appropriate sequential moves) should be incorporated into the development of practice and assessment tasks. So far I have reviewed studies that investigates the mental representation of pragmatic knowledge. In the next section, I will discuss research that examines the cognitive processes involved in the development of pragmatic knowledge.

Cognitive Processes Involved in L2 Pragmatic Knowledge Development R. Ellis (2008) distinguishes between micro and macro cognitive processes involved in L2 acquisition. The micro processes include attention, restructuring, and monitoring. The macro processes encompass two pairs of contrastive learning processes: incidental vs. intentional learning, and explicit vs. implicit learning.2 L2 pragmatics research has yet to examine the macro processes; instead, the field has primarily drawn on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (2001, 2010), which underscores the micro process of attention.

The Noticing Hypothesis Theoretical Underpinnings Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (2001, 2010) concerns the cognitive mechanisms involved in the initial processing of L2 input, that is, the role of attention in converting input into intake that can lead to subsequent learning (i.e., changes in mental representation of linguistic knowledge). Noticing is theorized as a lower level of awareness, which refers to ‘conscious registration of attended specific instances of language’ (Schmidt, 2010, p. 725) (e.g., noticing an English request utterance produced with the bi-clausal structure in a situation where a large favor is being asked). 120

Cognitive Approaches

Understanding, on the other hand, represents a higher level of awareness and entails generalizations across instances (e.g., realizing that using the English bi-clausal structure is appropriate for request-making in high-imposition situations). The strong version of the hypothesis posits that noticing is a necessary and sufficient condition for L2 learning to occur (Schmidt, 1993). The weak version (Schmidt, 1993, 2010) acknowledges the possibility of learning without attention (e.g., implicit statistical learning) and proposes that more attention leads to more learning. Nevertheless, the hypothesis has maintained a position arguing for a critical role of attention in L2 acquisition. On the other hand, understanding is considered to be facilitative but not necessary for L2 acquisition.

Empirical Evidence For L2 pragmatics learning, Schmidt (1993, 2010) has argued that noticing entails paying attention to the targeted pragmalinguistic forms, their pragmatic functions, and the associated contextual features, while understanding refers to making conscious connections between the noticed forms and the contexts in which these forms occur for conveying pragmatic functions. The hypothesis has three implications for L2 pragmatic development. First, the strong version of the hypothesis predicts that no pragmatic development can occur without attention. Second, the weak version of the hypothesis posits that more attention can lead to more pragmatics learning. Third, given the facilitative role of understanding, achieving understating is likely to result in better learning than mere noticing. The Noticing Hypothesis has been one of the most frequently referenced cognitive theories in L2 pragmatics research over different learning environments (naturalistic, study abroad, instructed, and virtual environment) (for a review, see Taguchi & Roever, 2017). However, as Taguchi and Roever (2017) observed, the hypothesis is typically not used as an a priori theory to guide empirical research; instead, it is often cited to provide post hoc explanations for learning outcome, that is, learners’ observable performance. Yet the Noticing Hypothesis cannot always account for learning outcome, especially when there is no data showing the cognitive processes (noticing and understanding) involved in input processing. A good example to illustrate this point is the line of research on L2 pragmatics teaching. A number of studies have compared explicit and implicit instructional approaches for their effectiveness (for reviews, see Taguchi, 2015; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). The key difference between the two approaches is whether explicit metapragmatic information is provided or not. Research findings have generally shown that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction. For example, Nguyen, Pham, and Pham (2012) compared the effects of explicit and implicit conditions on the learning of English criticisms. They reported that both instructed groups outperformed a control group, but the explicit condition led to larger gains than the implicit instructional condition. Citing the Noticing Hypothesis as a post hoc explanation, the authors argued that the explicit metapragmatic information could guarantee learners’ attention to the targeted features, whereas such attention was not guaranteed in the implicit condition; moreover, the metapragmatic information could ensure learners’ pragmatic awareness at the level of understanding, which was not necessarily possible under the implicit condition; consequently, the explicit condition led to better learning outcome than the implicit condition. Nguyen et al.’s argument is also seen in other studies reporting an advantage of the explicit over implicit condition. The Noticing Hypothesis can support such explanations because it predicts that more attention leads to more learning and that achieving a higher level of awareness (i.e., understanding) facilitates learning. However, this argument becomes problematic in studies that revealed the opposite—the implicit condition being more effective than the explicit condition (e.g., Q. Li, 2012; Takimoto, 2006, 2009). Q. Li’s (2012) study is one example. This study taught request modifications to Chinese EFL learners. Three treatment groups received 121

Shuai Li

learning materials in print and engaged in the same practice activities. The explicit instruction group received additional metapragmatic information, the enhanced implicit instructional group received input with the targeted features highlighted, and the unenhanced implicit group was given plain copies of the learning materials. The two implicit groups improved more than the explicit group from the pretest to the posttest; at the delayed posttest, only the unenhanced (implicit) group retained gains across all targeted features. Q. Li interpreted that the provision of metapragmatic information might have diverted learners’ attention away from the targeted pragmatic features, which led to less pragmatic gain. Interestingly, while Q. Li (2012) and Nguyen et al. (2012) both acknowledged the essential role of attention to targeted pragmatic features in affecting learning outcome, they differed in whether the provision of metapragmatic information positively or negatively influenced learners’ attentional allocation. Clearly, the Noticing Hypothesis can be used to support Nguyen et al.’s (2012) findings but not Q. Li’s (2012) results. According to Schmidt (1993), the validity of the Noticing Hypothesis can only be verified with data showing whether and to what extent attention is directed to the targeted pragmatic features while learning. However, like Q. Li (2012) and Nguyen et al. (2012), most previous studies did not document the actual attention allocation. Hence, it remains unknown how different instructional conditions affect learners’ attention to the targeted pragmatic features, and to what extent those attended features are subsequently learned. Recently, a few studies (Kim & Taguchi, 2015, 2016) overcame this methodological problem by documenting actual learning processes in conjunction with learning outcomes. These studies were informed by Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (2001, 2003), which posits that increased task complexity can create more opportunities of negotiation (that help focus learners’ attention on targeted features), which, in turn, enhance L2 learning. Kim and Taguchi (2015) compared the effects of simple and complex tasks on the quantity of pragmatics-related episodes (PREs; discussion around pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatic factors) while completing a task, the quality of task completion, and the learning outcome of English request-making among Korean EFL learners. Both instructed groups received metapragmatic information followed by respective complex and simple tasks that differed in the amount of reasoning needed for task completion. In the complex task, learners collaboratively worked out the sociopragmatic factors of a scenario (e.g., setting, interlocutor relationship) while co-constructing a request-making dialogue based on the scenario. In the simple task, learners received explicit sociopragmatic information before co-constructing a dialogue. The complex task condition resulted in a larger number of PREs, which helped direct learners’ attention to the targeted features. The two groups did not differ at the immediate posttest (DCT measures), but only the complex task group retained their gains at the delayed posttest. This study is commendable for its methodological innovation, i.e., collecting data showing learners’ verbalized thinking processes during task-based interaction (as reflected in PREs). Such data can demonstrate that, even under explicit conditions, manipulation of task features can help direct more attention to pragmatic features, which, in turn, can lead to the retention of pragmatic knowledge. Two other lines of research have attempted to investigate what Schmidt (1993) called ‘instance of noticing’ in order to establish the connection between attention and learning outcome. The first line of research involves case studies relying on learners’ self-reports on their learning experiences (e.g., Hassall, 2015; Schmidt, 1993). Hassall (2015) contrasted the learning of Indonesian address terms between two Australians during study abroad. Both participants were interviewed and also kept diaries reporting instances of learning. These participants were strikingly different in the amount of noticing instances of address forms. Ross, who gradually expanded his social network while abroad, reported a number of instances of noticing related to specific address terms in different settings (e.g., classroom, airport, host family, and peer gathering). He also actively sought explanation for what he had noticed from expert speakers. In contrast, Amy, who 122

Cognitive Approaches

felt embattled toward the host culture, reported very few instances of noticing. She also did not achieve the same level of understanding as Ross did. Pre- and post-DCTs revealed remarkable differences between the two participants. While Ross improved from not being able to respond to the DCT items at all to being able to choose appropriate address terms in most items, Amy’s ability remained unchanged over time, as she could complete only one item at posttest. The other line of research (Takahashi, 2005, 2012, 2013, 2017) investigated learners’ allocation of attention as they completed instructional tasks. Takahashi (2005) examined the amount of noticing of English request-making forms and its subsequent effects on learning among EFL learners under two implicit instruction conditions: form comparison (FC) and form search (FS). In the FC condition, learners produced their own requests, compared their productions with native speakers’ requests, and described the differences. Learners in the FS condition received request samples produced by native and non-native speakers, and searched for distinctly native expressions. All learners were asked whether they had noticed the targeted forms and whether they realized their pragmatic functions through a retrospective questionnaire. Compared with the FS condition, participants in the FC condition reported more noticing of the targeted features and their pragmatic functions. However, successful noticing did not invariably lead to subsequent learning as assessed by a DCT. In fact, there were individual differences in noticing and subsequent learning even under the same learning condition, suggesting that the effects of instruction conditions cannot be assumed to have uniform effects on individual learners. These findings indicate the importance of studying individual difference factors that (a) mediate the effects of instruction on the allocation of attention, and (b) mediate the role of noticing in affecting learning (see also Chapter 28 in this volume). To investigate these issues, Takahashi (2012) asked Japanese EFL learners to watch video-recorded conversations containing targeted request forms four times. After each view, learners identified expressions that they found challenging and rated the level of interest in learning those expressions. Takahashi found that pragmatic awareness (operationalized as noticing plus subjective interest) during learning was affected by learners’ motivation and listening proficiency. Using the same instruments, Takahashi (2013) further reported that learners’ pragmatic awareness led to the learning of structurally simple forms (e.g., internal modifiers) but not structurally complex forms (e.g., the bi-clausal patterns), suggesting that linguistic complexity can also mediate the effects of noticing on learning. Most recently, Takahashi (2017) focused on the learners who showed relatively higher levels of pragmatic awareness in her previous studies. She found that learners’ familiarity with the grammatical structures of the targeted pragmalinguistic forms facilitated their noticing of such forms. However, noticing did not invariably lead to learning (as assessed by a DCT), possibly because noticing represents a relatively shallow level of processing. Together, Takahashi’s findings demonstrate that noticing of pragmatic features is jointly influenced by learner-external environments (e.g. level of explicitness/implicitness in teaching) and learner-internal factors (e.g., motivation, proficiency, and grammar knowledge).

Future Directions As previously argued, the Noticing Hypothesis essentially concerns learners’ internal cognitive processes governing the allocation of attention during input processing. Although the strong version of the hypothesis claims that ‘no learning can occur without noticing’, L2 pragmatics researchers have often interpreted it as ‘noticing guarantees learning’. This is probably why there has been a tendency to overuse the Noticing Hypothesis to provide post hoc explanations for observed learning outcomes, while in reality there are several intermediary processes between initial input processing and learning. Again, this hypothesis is a theorization of very specific L2 learning processes (i.e., noticing and understanding), so future research adopting this hypothesis should focus on these processes in the first place. 123

Shuai Li

Research on pragmatics instruction can continue to benefit from the Noticing Hypothesis. Researchers have examined the effectiveness of instructional approaches (e.g., explicit vs. implicit, processing instruction) on L2 pragmatics learning by referring to their role in directing learners’ attention to targeted pragmatic features. Because each instructional approach typically includes different learning tasks, it is unclear whether it is an instructional approach or one (or several) specific learning task that is effective (or ineffective) in directing learners’ attention to learning targets. For example, different effectiveness of the two implicit instruction conditions found in Takahashi’s (2005) study is likely a result of the different operationalizations of the conditions and learning tasks used. Hence, future research should investigate the role of specific instructional tasks in promoting noticing (and understanding) of pragmatic features and whether and how noticing translates into subsequent learning. Methodologically, this means documenting both learning processes and learning outcomes to maximize the explanatory power, as shown in Kim and Taguchi (2015), reviewed earlier in this section. Another research direction to investigate is how attention to target pragmatic features is influenced by various individual difference factors in conjunction with the affordances of learnerexternal environments. Takahashi’s studies reviewed above demonstrated that, under implicit learning conditions, individual differences in motivation, listening proficiency, and grammar knowledge contributed to learners’ attentional allocation to pragmatic features. Presumably, other individual difference factors, such as working memory, structural sensitivity, and other factors related to pragmatics learning (Robinson, 2005) may also facilitate allocation of attention in different learning tasks. Hence, future studies can examine whether and how attention to pragmatic features is influenced by the interaction between task characteristics and individual difference factors. For example, researchers can investigate whether and how working memory (an individual difference factor) influences learners’ attention to structurally simple and complex pragmalinguistic forms (a factor about target feature property) in both cognitively demanding and less demanding tasks (a task feature factor).

Conclusion This chapter reviewed L2 pragmatics studies informed by SLA theories that share a ‘cognitivist’ perspective. At the core of the cognitive theorizations of L2 acquisition is the issue of mental representation of language systems. As VanPatten (2017) argues, acquiring a second language essentially means acquiring the mental representation of that language (i.e., how the knowledge of the language is structured and stored in one’s mind). The ongoing discussions in SLA research surrounding topics such as explicit vs. implicit knowledge, declarative vs. procedural knowledge, rule-based vs. instance-based representation, have all enriched our understanding of the L2 mental representation. Moreover, SLA theories focusing on the cognitive processes (e.g., explicit vs. implicit learning, incidental vs. intentional learning, input processing) all aim to clarify whether and how these theorized processes can lead to changes in L2 mental representation. From a cognitive perspective, the observed development in language use is essentially driven by the changes in learners’ mental representation of the language. L2 pragmatics research, however, has long focused on the use aspect of pragmatic knowledge, with only a very small body of research investigating the mental representation of pragmatic knowledge (i.e., how pragmatic knowledge is structured and stored in one’s mind) and the cognitive processes that can influence the changes in the mental representation. This tendency probably explains why pragmatics is noticeably underrepresented in mainstream discussions of cognitive SLA theories on issues such as the interface between explicit and implicit knowledge and the mechanisms underlying implicit and explicit learning (e.g., N. Ellis, 2017; Rebuschat, 2015; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017c). In fact, L2 pragmatics has much to contribute to these 124

Cognitive Approaches

ongoing debates. For example, to what extent is pragmatic knowledge implicit? Bialystok’s (1994, 2011) theorization suggests the existence of implicit pragmatic knowledge that can gradually be analyzed to become more explicit. If so, how can we empirically examine this theorized explicit/implicit interface in pragmatic knowledge? On the other hand, as DeKeyser (2003) suggested, is it more profitable to discuss declarative/procedural pragmatic knowledge rather than explicit/implicit pragmatic knowledge? Moreover, do implicit learning mechanisms (e.g., statistical learning) work for acquiring L2 pragmatics? These are just some of the fascinating questions to be explored in the future. This chapter, therefore, calls for more empirical studies based on cognitive SLA theories to investigate the nature of pragmatic knowledge and its development.

Notes 1 One should note that learners’ subjectivity and agency can affect whether or not they choose to implement their knowledge at the level of symbolic representation in real-life communication. Interested readers can read more on this topic in Chapter 11 of this volume. 2 R. Ellis (2008) defines the macro and micro processes from the perspective of learners’ internal cognitive operations, rather than from the perspective of learner-external environment. Hence, although L2 pragmatics research has examined explicit vs. implicit instruction (focusing on learner-external environment), the field has yet to investigate explicit vs. implicit learning (focusing on learner-internal cognition) involved in L2 pragmatic development.

Further Reading DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). London: Routledge. This article introduces key constructs shared among skill acquisition theories that are applicable to SLA research. It discusses current issues, reviews key empirical evidence, and proposes future directions surrounding instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) research informed by the skill acquisition perspective. The article also offers several suggestions for classroom teaching. Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies. This article introduces the origin and development of the Noticing Hypothesis. Citing research in cognitive psychology and SLA, it reviews empirical evidence for and major objections against the hypothesis. It highlights the importance of investigating the role of individual difference factors in affecting learners’ awareness as they process L2 input.

References Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka, (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–57). New York: Oxford University Press. Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–168. Bialystok, E. (2011). How analysis and control lead to advantages and disadvantages in bilingual processing. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit conditions, processes and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 49–58). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650. Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present … and future? Memory, 10, 305–318.

125

Shuai Li

DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007a). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007b). The future of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 287–304). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94–112). London: Routledge. DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). London: Routledge. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ellis, N. (2017). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 113–124). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic knowledge: Rules and procedures. Applied Linguistics, 5, 214–225. Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325–353. Hassall, T. (2015). Individual variation in L2 study-abroad outcomes: A case study from Indonesian pragmatics. Multilingual, 34, 33–59. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. FélixBrasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol.11, pp. 281–314). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. New York: Blackwell. Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677. Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2016). Learner–learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 42–57. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Li, Q. (2012). Effects instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 30–55. Li, S. (2012). The effects of input-based practice on pragmatic development of requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62, 403–438. Li, S. (2013). Amount of practice and pragmatic development of request-making in L2 Chinese. In N. Taguchi & J. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 43–69). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Li, S. (2014). The effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of L2 Chinese request production during study abroad. System, 45, 103–116. Li, S., & Taguchi, N. (2014). The effects of practice modality on the development of pragmatic performance in L2 Chinese. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 794–812. Lockhart, R. S. (2002). Levels of processing, transfer-appropriate processing, and the concept of robust encoding. Memory, 10, 397–403. Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of expanding and equal spacing on second language vocabulary learning: Does gradually increasing spacing increase vocabulary learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 677–711. Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H., & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit formfocused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 416–434. Rebuschat, P. (Ed.) (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107. Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. 126

Cognitive Approaches

Rose, K. R., & Ng, K. F. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 145–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies. Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017a). Exploratory research on L2 distributed practice: An aptitude x treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017b). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization of morphology. Language Teaching Research, 21, 166–188. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017c). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67, 747–790. Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 313–338. Taguchi, N. (2008a). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423–452. Taguchi, N. (2008b). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58, 33–71. Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics, Vol.7: Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 333–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. Taguchi, N. & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189–223. Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33, 437–461. Takahashi, S. (2012). Individual differences and pragmalinguistic awareness: A structural equation modeling approach. Language, Culture, and Communication, 4, 103–125. Takahashi, S. (2013). Awareness and learning in second language pragmatics. Language, Culture, and Communication, 5, 53–76. Takahashi, S. (2017). Pragmatics-Grammar interface in pragmalinguistics awareness and learning. Language, Culture, and Communication, 9, 87–111. Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10, 393–417. Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive Instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 369–386. Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1–25. Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 71–96. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–111. VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). London: Routledge. Xiao, F. (2017). Development in the use of Chinese mitigation in interaction. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 6, 39–72. Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32, 199–225.

127

9 Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

Introduction This chapter discusses second language (L2) pragmatic development from the perspective of language socialization. Socialization is a concept originating in anthropology that refers to the process through which a novice acquires ‘knowledge, orientations, and practices’ to ‘participate effectively and appropriately in the social life of a particular community’ (Garrett & BaquedanoLopez, 2002, p. 339). Language socialization, therefore, is the dual processes of learning to use language to socialize and socializing through language into culturally meaningful ways of thinking, doing, and being (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). The focus of language socialization research is how children and other novices learn to use language ‘meaningfully, appropriately, and effectively’ and become members of a particular cultural community (Ochs, 1996, p. 408). Following the ‘social turn’ of SLA (Block, 2003), applied linguists are becoming aware of the limitations of traditional SLA research that emphasizes cognitive and psychological processes of L2 learning (including the learning of pragmatics). While cognitivist SLA research is increasingly being criticized for its exclusive focus on the universal, psychological aspect of language learning, language socialization has been proposed as an alternative to understanding learning as a socially situated and culturally conditioned process (Watson-Gegeo, 2004). As one of the alternative approaches to SLA (Duff & Talmy, 2011), L2 socialization concerns not only how learners acquire linguistic codes, but also how they make sense of the cultural meanings that are associated with the codes. This chapter presents a synthesis of research on L2 pragmatic development that utilizes the language socialization framework. According to Taguchi and Roever (2017), ‘pragmatics links linguistic forms and the ways in which they are used in a social context to perform a communicative act’ (p. 1). Because the language socialization paradigm emphasizes culturally meaningful and appropriate use of language in context, pragmatics learning has always been an important topic within language socialization research (Li, 2008). Our synthesis follows Duff’s (2012) definition that L2 socialization refers to ‘socialization beyond one’s first, or dominant, language and encompasses second, foreign, and (concurrent) bilingual and multilingual learning contexts’ (p. 565). Based on this definition, the chapter critically reviews existing findings on L2 pragmatic socialization. In what follows, we outline the theoretical underpinnings of language socialization and then review how the theory has been applied in inquiries into the development of L2 pragmatic competence. We conclude the chapter with suggestions for future research. 128

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

Theoretical Underpinnings Language Socialization as a Theory for Pragmatics Learning Evolved from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the notion of communicative competence (Gumperz & Hymes, 1964), language socialization is fundamentally concerned with two questions: (1) how language development is interconnected with the learning of culture, and (2) how language development may vary in different social, political, and cultural contexts (Howard, 2014). Therefore, even though language socialization research often investigates pragmatics, it differs from other approaches in L2 pragmatics research in its scope and focus (Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Critically, language socialization researchers are not as concerned about the mastery of pragmatic features per se (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Instead, their goal is to link the ‘microanalytic analyses’ of these features in naturalistic discourse to the learning of ‘cultural beliefs and practices of the families, social groups, or communities’ (p. 186). Further drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) work of power and habitus, Ochs and Schieffelin (2012) reiterated the aim of language socialization research, stating that it is to ‘capture the social structurings and cultural interpretations of semiotic forms, practices, and ideologies that inform novices’ practical engagements with others’ (p. 1). Language is thus conceptualized not just as ways of speaking, but also culturally varied ways of being and thinking (Bourdieu, 1977). These characteristics of language socialization research contribute to our understanding of pragmatics learning. Language socialization departs from cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches, which define pragmatic skills as the ability to map the discrete linguistic form with its pragmatic function and the contextual parameters (Taguchi & Roever, 2017). From the perspective of language socialization, language not only conveys referential meanings; more importantly, it constitutes symbolic practices that are indexical of social meanings such as emotions (how we feel), identities (who we are), and ideologies (what we believe). Indexicality, therefore, is central to language socialization (Ochs, 1992). The relationship between language and the meaning it indexes is a complicated one. A linguistic form can index multiple meanings and identities (Ochs, 1992; Silverstein, 2003). For example, when used as an address form, ‘dude’ in American English signals not only friendship and solidarity, but also affect and masculinity (Kiesling, 2004). Thus, learning pragmatics is to become aware of these indexical meanings in a given culture, and to be able to use the forms to enact relevant identities and discourses. Such an awareness can be developed in interactions through explicit metapragmatic comments (e.g., calling someone’s language ‘vulgar’) (Inoue, 2006) or direct corrections (Friedman, 2009). It can also emerge through routine participation in everyday discourse and observations of how a particular form is repeatedly used in similar situations. The first type is referred to as explicit socialization, whereas the second one is implicit socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012). In L2 socialization processes, both types are often present and can be linked with one another.

Language Socialization as a Research Method Language socialization is not only a theory; it is also a methodological approach. Kulick and Schieffelin (2004) have contended that a study has to meet three criteria to be considered as language socialization research. The first is an ethnographic design. Even though language socialization researchers acknowledge that universalities exist to an extent, the goal of this approach is to understand how processes of learning may be culturally conditioned or influenced (Garrett & Baquedano-Lopez, 2002). An ethnographic account of language learning can reveal what cultural factors may become salient in the process. Furthermore, the commitment to the ethnographic tradition also aligns with Hymes’ argument for ethnography of speaking (e.g. Gumperz & Hymes, 1964). In-depth ethnography has the potential to capture critical moments in which cultural meanings of a linguistic form emerge. 129

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

The second criteria is longitudinal. Research framed by language socialization theory often adopts a longitudinal approach, documenting processes ‘over the course of developmental time’ and, when combined with an ethnographic design, ‘relates these individual development processes to the social cultural contexts in which they are embedded’ (Garrett & Baquedano-Lopez, 2002, p. 341). Although it is difficult to determine how long is ‘longitudinal,’ language socialization is regarded as a lifelong process that transpires in a variety of contexts and settings, such as home, school, and the workplace (Duff, 2008). Finally, a language socialization study has to demonstrate the learning of both ‘linguistic’ and ‘cultural practices’ (Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004, p. 350). A notable example is the cultural variations documented in caretaker–child discourse conventions across societies, as the child-centered ‘baby talk’ may not exist in certain societies (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). These observed variations in caretaker–child discourse conventions can explain differences in children’s pragmatic development in different communities, even when they speak the same language and live close to each other (Heath, 1983).

Second Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatic Development As an emerging but quickly growing subfield of SLA research, L2 socialization adds a new perspective to the research on language development in general and L2 pragmatic development in particular. As a theory of L2 learning, it raises a few important theoretical considerations. On the learner’s side, one issue often investigated from the language socialization perspective is the role of agency (Duff & Doherty, 2015; see also Chapter 11 in this volume). Agency is the socially and culturally mediated ability to act, which encompasses both compliance and resistance (Ahearn, 2001). L2 learners have ongoing histories with more than one language and affiliations with various communities. The identities and ideologies developed in these different languages and communities may contradict one another (Norton, 2013). When they do, learners may exercise their agency and choose to resist the dominant ideologies, norms, identities, and practices that are associated with the L2 features and/or the target group (Duff & Talmy, 2011). This theoretical perspective offers a plausible explanation for some learners’ reluctance to engage in the learning of the L2. Even for heritage speakers whose L2 socialization may take place simultaneously with—or even prior to—L1 socialization, resistance toward the heritage language may still occur due to a perceived need to assimilate and become ‘linguistically’ and ‘socially’ equal to peers who speak the societal language (He, 2014) (see also Chapter 30 in this volume). Learners’ agency can also manifest in forms of creativity and subversiveness (Duff, 2012). A case in point is the female learner of Chinese in Duff et al.’s (2013) study who redesigned a Chinese character by changing its radical to intentionally index her feminist views (p. 91). Rampton’s (2002) study offers another instance of learners’ subversive use of L2—in this case, L2 pragmatics. When an English teacher in this study said ‘thank you’ to his class after the students showed compliance to his call for order, one student interrupted and loudly said ‘danke,’ the German translation of ‘thank you’ (pp. 505–506). This student used ‘danke’ not to perform the speech act of thanking, but instead to mock and challenge the teacher in an English context. These instances of creativity and subversiveness show us why L2 learners may intentionally choose to not be native-like. Through the lens of language socialization, researchers can thus explore how learners agentively make sense of their L2 and assign new meanings to linguistic conventions and pragmatic norms. Agency is not the only socially mediated factor in L2 socialization; the opportunities for socialization may also be culturally conditioned. For many students learning a L2 in a foreign language environment, their socialization opportunities are often limited to the classroom setting, where the teacher takes a primary role in socializing the students into the language and culture (Duff, 2012). But L2 socialization may also take place outside of the classroom in a variety of 130

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

settings, when the learner is a speaker of a heritage or minority language (e.g., home, community), a study abroad student (e.g., host homes, dormitories, service encounters), or an immigrant (e.g., the workplace). One caveat is that unlike L1 socialization, in which children’s eventual membership in a given community is usually assumed, for L2 learners, their legitimacy in using the language and their status in the community are often subject to negotiation. Research on identity has provided ample evidence that, even for immigrants who live in North America where their target language (English) is spoken, their access to speakers of the language can be limited (e.g., Norton, 2013). In a similar vein, overseas sojourners may also encounter cultural discourses that position them as non-legitimate speakers of the local language. For example, a few studies have shown that in several East Asian countries, even if a student of a non-Asian background has a strong desire to learn the local language, they may still be spoken to in English (e.g., Duff, Anderson, Ilnyckyj, Van Gaya, & Wang, 2013; Park, 2009). While these phenomena need to be understood in the global context of linguistic inequalities that lead to the assumption that speakers of English have no need to learn other languages, they have ramifications for L2 pragmatic socialization in these societies. In some cases, speaking inappropriately and being non-nativelike may actually be seen as pragmatically appropriate (Taguchi & Roever, 2017). In summary, the L2 socialization perspective emphasizes the connections between everyday discourse and the cultural context, and can account for the variability of pragmatics learning processes and outcomes. We now turn to a systematic review of existing studies focusing on L2 pragmatic socialization.

Review of the Literature Methods An exhaustive literature search was conducted with the purpose of examining how language socialization has been used to explain L2 pragmatics learning. The following key terms were entered for the initial search: ‘language socialization,’ ‘pragmatics,’ and ‘foreign/second language.’ Combinations of these terms were run through some of the most commonly used databases in applied linguistics (e.g., Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; ERIC; MLA International Bibliography) to identify peer-reviewed studies (i.e., journal articles, book chapters, monographs) written in English. Unpublished theses (e.g., dissertations) were excluded. The initial search produced 1,215 results. Then, the following inclusion criteria were manually applied to ensure that the studies were relevant: 1 Studies had to be data-based and empirical. Review articles were excluded. 2 Studies had to investigate at least one pragmatic feature (e.g., speech acts, address forms, plain/polite language). Studies that dealt broadly with discourse or other topics (e.g., codeswitching) were excluded. 3 Studies had to incorporate language socialization as a theoretical framework in L2 learning. Studies on L1 acquisition were excluded. After the criteria were applied, 14 studies remained. An additional 11 studies were identified from major L2 socialization review articles (Duff, 2012; He, 2012; Kinginger, 2016; Li, 2008; Shively, 2017). The final pool included 25 studies.

Analysis Primary coding was conducted to catalogue the basic characteristics of each study, such as participant age, sample size, L1/L2, L2 proficiency (if reported), and data collection and 131

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa Table 9.1  Secondary Coding and Categorization of Studies Target areas of socialization

Studies

Speech acts Address terms Interactional routines Stance-marking (e.g., honorifics, utterancefinal particles, style-shifting) Humor Cultural orientations (e.g., morality)

Li (2000); Shively (2011); Taguchi (2014) Byon (2003); DuFon (2010); Hassall (2013); Zhu (2010) Kanagy (1999); Ohta (1999); Shively (2016); Yim (2011) Byon (2006); Cook (2008); Diao (2016); Ishihara & Takamiya (2014); Iwasaki (2011); Siegal (1995); Yoshimi (1999) Shively (2013); Shively (2015b) He (2000); He (2001); He (2011); Lo (2004); Lo (2009)

analysis methods. Secondary coding was then applied to categorize the studies according to the target areas of pragmatic socialization (see Table 9.1). In the final stage of analysis, three overarching themes were formulated to organize the literature, based on how language socialization was interpreted and utilized in these studies. This thematic categorization was applied to better capture theoretical and methodological contributions of language socialization to L2 pragmatics research: 1 Pragmatic development as socialization into ways of functioning (DuFon, 2010; Hassall, 2013; Kanagy, 1999; Li, 2000; Ohta, 1999; Shively, 2011; Taguchi, 2014; Shively, 2016; Yim, 2011); 2 Pragmatic development as socialization into ways of being (Byon, 2006; Cook, 2008; Diao, 2016; Ishihara & Takamiya, 2014; Iwasaki, 2011; Siegal, 1995; Shively, 2013; 2015b; Yoshimi, 1999); 3 Pragmatic development as socialization into ways of thinking (Byon, 2003; He, 2000; He, 2001; He, 2011; Lo, 2004; Lo, 2009; Zhu, 2010). Studies that conceived of pragmatic development as socialization into ways of functioning considered how learners acquire the ability to select forms appropriate to context and the knowledge required to participate in expected patterns of interaction. In other words, studies in this category employed the language socialization framework to document learners’ acquisition of pragmatic norms of the target community (or their divergence from those norms). For example, some studies examined how L2 learners produce speech acts (e.g., Li, 2000; Shively, 2011) or engage in interactional routines (e.g., Kanagy, 1999). Research that framed pragmatic development as socialization into ways of being addressed the acquisition of knowledge of how to use language to present oneself in particular ways, which often involves an understanding of the social identities indexed by forms. This ways of being perspective is distinct from the first approach in that it does not view pragmatic acquisition as only knowing to use certain forms in certain contexts because that is the perceived norm (‘use Form X in Situation Y’). Rather, it is the understanding that Form X indexes specific meanings and can be optionally used in Situation Y to signal those or other meanings. Studies on acquisition of gender (e.g., Diao, 2016), humor (Shively, 2013), and style-shifting (e.g., Cook, 2008) fell under this category. Lastly, work in which pragmatic development was conceptualized as socialization into ways of thinking foregrounded the transmission of cultural orientations and ideologies that underlie and are instantiated through language, but are not necessarily limited to linguistic forms. This category included studies on the processes by which cultural morals (Lo, 2004) and communicative preferences (He, 2001) are instilled into learners. 132

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

We acknowledge that these three approaches are by no means separate or mutually exclusive, in theory or in practice. Indeed, they are closely related. For instance, construction of identity often entails understanding how social relationships are ideologically organized in a community. What kind(s) of identity one constructs may also depend on whether they function as expected in a given situation. Conversely, it is possible for a learner to acquire knowledge requisite to functioning appropriately in a particular situation without comprehending the relevant cultural dispositions or the implications for their own identity(s). The following sections present synthesis findings and discuss 25 studies in the above three areas of L2 pragmatic socialization: socialization into ways of functioning, being, and thinking.

Findings Pragmatic Development as Socialization into Ways of Functioning The central concern in the first group of nine studies is the socialization of learners into normative pragmatic practices of the target community, such that they become capable of functioning as community members in specific situations, even though they may choose not to do so. These studies were found for three pragmatic targets: speech acts, address terms, and interactional routines. The speech act of requests was the focus in Li’s (2000) longitudinal case study. Li documented how an immigrant woman in the U.S.A. learned to make requests in the workplace. The participant initially struggled to communicate her requests effectively, due to her personality and her L1 preference for indirectness. However, she continuously expressed a desire to be socialized into L2 norms of directness, and over time she learned these through routine participation in interactions and expert assistance. She even began to socialize her English L1 speaking peers into appropriate public discourse, transforming herself into an active agent in a process of bidirectional socialization. Shively (2011) also focused on requests, following the service encounters of seven L2 Spanish learners in Spain and examining how they made their requests for service. Through observations and engagement in metapragmatic conversations with host family members, as well as a brief instructional intervention, some learners increased their use of target-like request strategies (e.g., imperatives) over time. However, not all learners acquired these strategies and the associated cultural conventions simultaneously. One participant interpreted the imperatives as ‘authoritarian,’ possibly due to her reliance on L1 cultural norms (p. 1830). Although she learned the appropriate forms, she remained unaware of the cultural perspective that informed the pragmatic behavior, which ‘[suggests] that L2 learning does not always go hand in hand with second culture learning’ (p. 1825). Additionally, as Taguchi (2014) demonstrates, multiple factors can complicate the socialization of speech acts. Participants in this study were L1 Japanese speakers studying in an Englishmedium university in Japan. The researcher assessed the students’ ability to express opinions in English over time, and found that they made little progress in how they conveyed their opinions in academic situations despite ample opportunities to do so. Qualitative data from interviews and observations revealed that teacher–student interactions did not promote the students’ use of target-like formal language, because the instructors did not provide corrective feedback and instead accepted informal language use to encourage their generally shy Japanese students to speak up. In this manner, the teachers became socialized into different instructional expectations by their students, and together they constructed a particular academic community where politeness and formality in expressing opinions were not emphasized. The ability to use appropriate address terms is another area of socialization that is key to functioning as a member of a community. Hassall (2013) examined the acquisition of vocative and pronoun address terms by L2 learners of Indonesian during their sojourn abroad. 133

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

Although the learners gained knowledge concerning vocative address terms, in part due to prior L1 experience, their understanding of pronoun address terms remained limited. Similar to Taguchi’s (2014) conclusion, Hassall (2013) also attributed this lack of development to the absence of corrective feedback from native speakers. Meanwhile, the learners were also frequently addressed with a non-target-like form that native speakers did not generally use amongst themselves, possibly because the native speakers positioned the learners as only ‘partial members of the community’ (p.14). Still other studies have tracked L2 pragmatic development in terms of learners’ participation in expected routines. One of these is DuFon’s (2010) study, which investigated L2 socialization into leave-taking in Javanese Indonesian. Through modeling and explicit feedback, learners studying abroad in Indonesia became aware of how the practice of asking for permission was contingent upon cultural considerations of social status. Kanagy (1999), on the other hand, observed how young children participated in classroom routines in L2 Japanese. From the first day of class, students were guided to perform greetings, roll calls, and self-introductions. In addition to the exact expressions for these routines, students were taught appropriate bodily behavior (e.g., bowing and standing up straight). Such routines highlighted the importance of proper outward appearance in Japanese culture and constituted key mechanisms for ‘socializing messages conveyed regarding membership in the L2 classroom community’ (p. 1484). Over the school year, the students gained increasing autonomy over routines (both verbal and non-verbal) and became able to carry them out fluently. Ohta’s (1999) study also explored the potential of classroom interactional routines as a mechanism for socialization. The researcher examined how guided learner participation in teacher-led and student–student interactions spurred the acquisition of alignment expressions in college-level Japanese classrooms. In teacher-fronted interactions, teachers frequently produced assessments in turns following student responses. Such expressions were also scripted into the dialogue of student–student speaking exercises. When the students practiced these dialogues, the teachers joined in and guided them to index different types of alignment (e.g., understanding, affect). Through such ‘peripheral and active participation in routines’ (pp. 1508–1509), one learner became socialized into Japanese interactional norms, as evidenced by her increased and diversified use of alignment expressions. Similar findings were also reported in Shively’s (2016) study focusing on the learning of assessments through participation in L2 Spanish interactions. Participation in routines can also lead to the adoption of new responsibilities and roles. Yim (2011) documented socialization into English academic discourse through online communication. Students in a graduate-level course were required to post on forums regarding reading materials and take turns as the discussion leader. Eventually, the students became able to perform a variety of academic roles to contribute to class discussion (e.g., expressing knowledge/opinions, making requests).

Pragmatic Development as Socialization into Ways of Being The second group of nine studies deal with socialization into ways of being, or knowing how to index identities through language. One example is Cook’s (2008) study, which focused on stancemarking and identity construction. The author followed L2 Japanese learners while abroad and documented changes in their use of Japanese plain/polite forms. While the plain and polite forms normatively correspond to casual and formal styles, speakers often style-shift to manage interpersonal distance and negotiate different identities. By examining participants’ dinnertime conversations with their host families, Cook showed how family members style-shifted to construct different stances and voices (e.g., one host mother using the plain form to create solidarity and the polite form to signal authority). Eventually, learners acquired the social meanings of 134

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

style-shifting through implicit and explicit socialization (e.g., one learner using the polite form while explaining an English word to index authority as an English speaker). In a similar manner, Byon (2003) also illustrated socialization into the indexing of casual/authoritative voices through stance-marking. Byon analyzed how teachers of Korean as a heritage language used the Korean sentence-final particle yo, which is typically associated with politeness, when performing duties associated with their instructor role. Students learned to use yo to signal respect towards the teacher, thereby engaging in ‘doing being students.’ Stance-marking can also index other identities such as gender (Ochs, 1992). Iwasaki (2011) documented four American male students’ use of Japanese plain speech and masculine expressions while abroad. In retrospective interviews, these students reported that Japanese native speakers frequently used plain speech with them where polite speech was normally expected because the students were positioned as Americans and therefore assumed to be friendly and casual. On the other hand, these learners were censured for their use of Japanese masculine language because it was seen as rude. Iwasaki surmised that the data represented local members’ attempts to socialize the learners ‘to a particular foreigner variety of Japanese that the L1 speakers felt was legitimate’ (p. 89). Diao (2016) also examined the socialization of stance and gender of study-abroad participants in China. The researcher revealed how students were guided to construct gender and sexuality in their speech through the use of affective Chinese sentence-final particles. Chinese youth often use these particles to index cuteness, a trait associated with young women. In conversations with her Chinese roommate, a female learner used sentence-final particles with a higher pitch to enact a cute girl persona, which was followed by her roommate’s immediate affirmation and encouragement. In contrast, a male learner’s roommate evaluated the frequent use of the particles as sounding ‘gay,’ guiding the learner to drop the particles from his speech. A third learner, however, did not experience comparable socialization for these particles, possibly because his roommate deemed that there was no need for a foreign student to master them. Socialization into ways of being also happens online, as documented by Ishihara and Takamiya (2014). L2 Japanese learners wrote blogs before and after studying abroad in Japan and received comments from blog readers, some of whom were L1 Japanese speakers. As these learners were being socialized into the meanings of particular linguistic practices, they also felt the need to utilize the linguistic practices to negotiate their emerging multiple identities abroad. The desire to establish an identity prompted the learners to actively seek information through and outside of their blogs regarding pragmatic aspects of the L2, which in return facilitated their socialization into L2 practices. Shively (2013), on the other hand, adopted the language socialization approach to study the acquisition of L2 humor by an American student studying in Spain. The learner’s initial attempts to use L1 strategies for humor were often met with a lack of response from Spanish speakers. In some cases, Spanish-speaking peers gave negative feedback about the learner’s inappropriate humor, thereby serving as expert peers who socialized him into local norms of humor practices. Over the course of the study, the learner came to change his approach, picking up L2 expressions he encountered and employing revoicing—‘[reproducing] the voices of other L2 users’—as a resource for humor (p. 939). A similar account of development was found in Shively’s (2015b) study, which focused on how L2 Spanish students were socialized through and into the practice of teasing while abroad.1 By observing and participating in interactions, learners gained an understanding of social expectations of the target culture, such as what constituted appropriate subjects for teasing and how to identify and respond to teasing. Socialization into ways of being, however, does not always result in learners’ engagement in the L2 norms or practices. This is not only because learners may be positioned as non-legitimate speakers of the language (Diao, 2016; Iwasaki, 2011), but also due to a number of sociocultural factors and learners’ own personal histories. Siegal’s (1995) work provided evidence of learner’s 135

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

agency as one such factor. She examined four western women’s learning of Japanese honorifics. Her findings showed that as some of the women became aware that the honorifics could index a submissive identity, they chose to not use them. On the other hand, Yoshimi (1999) argued for the potentially negative impact of L1 socialization experience on L2 learning. Specifically, the researcher maintained that L1 English learners’ anomalous use of the Japanese discourse marker ne, which can be used to construct empathy and accomplish complex identity work, could be traced to L1 discourse practices.

Pragmatic Development as Socialization into Ways of Thinking The remaining seven studies focus on how expert members socialize novices into cultural orientations and ideologies, typically in heritage language contexts. He (2000) analyzed the role of teacher directives in socializing children into cultural ideologies in a Chinese heritage language classroom. Through the use of directives, the instructor communicated their expectations to the children and linked these expectations to Chinese cultural values, such as respect for one’s parents and a strong work ethic. In her later study, He (2001) further demonstrated how teachers socialized children into a cultural preference for ambiguity in verbal communication through classroom interactions. While He’s (2000, 2001) studies almost exclusively concerned the role of the expert as the socializing agent, her more recent study (He, 2011) foregrounded the active participation of learners in socialization processes. This study investigated episodes where the teacher revised the modality of their utterances when responding to students’ challenges. In one instance, the teacher was explaining a Chinese folk story about yielding to others and presented this action as a moral obligation using the expression yīnggāi (‘should’). One student then questioned the necessity of yielding and suggested sharing as an alternative. In response, the teacher changed their own stance on yielding to one of preferential option/comparison (gènghǎo and zuìhǎo, meaning ‘it is better/best’). These teacher–student exchanges demonstrated how traditional ideologies can become ‘subject to discussion, negotiation, and modification’ in heritage language communities (p. 12), which in turn highlights the bi-directionality of socialization of this kind. Zhu’s (2010) study also illustrates similar processes of negotiation of cultural orientations among Chinese heritage speaking children. She examined the use of Chinese kinship address forms as socialization into ways of both being and thinking. In Chinese, kinship address forms are used not only among relatives, but also for non-relatives to mark deference and hierarchy. Zhu showed how two children and their mother jointly chose between English and Chinese names and kinship terms to signal different roles and evoke the associated ‘cultural expectations’ (p. 198). In a different family, a teenager challenged his parents over the use of kinship terms for non-relatives. The child’s resistance not only led to the reconstruction of his own identity in relation to those around him, but also constituted a challenge to existing family norms and community ideologies. Using address forms to socialize novices into cultural notions of hierarchy is also evident in Byon’s (2006) study of an L2 Korean classroom. Socialization into hierarchy occurred by means of the instructor’s frequent use of assertive directives and reference to herself by her title of teacher, which highlighted her authority and power over students. Students were also taught to use the humble personal pronoun when referring to themselves and honorific verb suffixes for someone of higher social status. Lo’s (2004, 2009) studies, on the other hand, examined the socialization of morality. Lo (2004) explored how a Korean heritage language teacher employed evidential markers to cast students as (non)moral beings. Evidential markers were used when talking about ‘good’ students, since in Korean ‘expressions of uncertainty and distancing are conventionally associated with politeness’ (p. 247). In contrast, no such markers were used for the ‘bad’ students, who were thus framed 136

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

as undeserving of respect. The marked absence of evidentials also allowed the teacher to assert greater authority over those who behaved poorly. Similarly, Lo (2009) revealed instances where the teacher criticized students for displaying affect, which were judged as ‘intentional displays of rudeness’ (p. 222). The instructor’s discourse thus socialized learners into the Korean cultural expectation of emotional restraint.

Appraisal of the Current Literature The majority of the studies discussed here give accounts of ‘successful’ learning of linguistic, cultural—and pragmatic—knowledge through language use. Contrary to a common criticism that language socialization research tends to emphasize the macro aspects of L2 learning over micro-linguistic level analyses (Ellis, 2009), many studies reviewed in this chapter present well-defined linguistic foci of socialization (e.g., speech acts, address forms, particles), with pragmatics as the overarching area of investigation. In some cases, pragmatics learning is observed when learners become capable of functioning to a greater degree as members of the target community by using particular pragmalinguistic forms or interactional conventions (DuFon, 2010; Hassall, 2013; Kanagy, 1999; Li, 2001; Ohta, 1999; Shively, 2011, 2016; Taguchi, 2014; Yim, 2001). In others, pragmatics learning is reflected in the ability to use language to construct a persona or identity (Byon, 2006; Cook, 2008; Diao, 2016; Ishihara & Takamiya, 2014; Iwasaki, 201; Shively, 2013, 2015b; Siegal, 1995; Yoshimi, 1999). In still others, it is the understanding of the morals and values of the underlying culture (Byon, 2003; He, 2000, 2001, 2011; Lo, 2004, 2009; Zhu, 2010). It is also clear that many factors, both personal and cultural, can interact with each other and complicate the learning process, illuminating the contingent nature of language socialization. As shown in the present review, community members may expect L2 learners to behave differently because of the ways they are positioned in local cultural discourses (Diao, 2016; Iwasaki, 2011). These expectations may further socialize learners into practices that diverge from the norms of the target community (Hassall, 2013; Taguchi, 2014). At the same time, learners have their own sense of agency and personal histories, which influence the choices they make regarding their own socialization (Ishihara & Takamiya, 2014; Siegal, 1995) or the socialization of others (Li, 2000). This sense of agency can also lead to (re)negotiation of existing community norms and ideologies (He, 2011; Zhu, 2010). In addition, prior L1 socialization may hinder L2 socialization in some areas (Yoshimi, 1999), as was the case of the student in Shively (2011) who learned the appropriate forms but interpreted them based on her L1 norms rather than the L2 cultural perspective. Methodologically, most studies surveyed in this synthesis adopted the principles of language socialization as outlined in Schieffelin and Ochs’s (1986) foundational paper. The majority of studies employed an ethnographic approach, typically utilizing audio/video recordings of spontaneous interactions between learners and experts. These were often combined with interviews and field observations and subject to qualitative analysis, although notably only nine studies interviewed the participants. All of these studies were conducted in a longitudinal manner, though the length of data collection varied from four months to 21 months. Finally, a minority of studies also incorporated a quantitative component to varying degrees (Diao, 2016; Hassall, 2013; Shively, 2011; Taguchi, 2014; Yim, 2011; Yoshimi, 1999). A few of these employed a pre-post design, using questionnaires or discourse completion tasks (Taguchi, 2014; Hassall, 2013). Still, the prevailing tendency observed in most studies emphasized process over product, with some studies even focusing exclusively on the role of the expert as opposed to learner’s discourse (Byon, 2003; He, 2000, 2001; Lo, 2004; 2009). The following section discusses the ramifications of this tendency as well as the other trends unveiled in this synthesis, along with suggestions for future research. 137

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

Conclusion and Future Directions In this chapter, we have outlined the key issues in the L2 pragmatic socialization research and reviewed existing studies. Our review shows that, by adopting a language socialization framework, the scope of L2 pragmatics research has been expanded to examine how learners are socialized into different ways of functioning, being, and thinking. The L2 pragmatic socialization research has also allowed us to switch our focus from the outcomes to the processes of L2 pragmatics learning in everyday life. While these insights greatly contribute to our understanding of L2 pragmatics, much more work is still needed to further document L2 pragmatic socialization in various languages, communities, and contexts. Below we propose four key questions for future research to explore.

What Are the Socializing Pragmatic Phenomena? The adoption of the language socialization framework has enabled L2 researchers to investigate a wide range of pragmatic features to more fully understand pragmatics learning and development. Under the language socialization perspective, researchers are no longer limiting their investigation to the mapping of form–function–context alone (i.e., ways of functioning, as determined in this chapter). Areas that were typically under-researched in L2 pragmatics, such as ways of being (e.g., sounding cute or funny) and ways of thinking (morality, worldviews), are well within the scope of inquiries into L2 pragmatics learning under this framework. As exemplified by the three themes identified in this synthesis, a language socialization approach enables researchers to conduct nuanced analyses of both learners’ engagement in the use of L2 pragmatic conventions and their interpretations of the sociocultural meanings that are entailed in these cases of pragmatic acquisition. Yet, considering the paucity of research focusing explicitly on L2 pragmatic socialization (25 studies found in the exhaustive literature search), there is still a large variety of pragmatic phenomena, both verbal and nonverbal, that remain under-investigated. For example, although several studies examined speech acts, their focus was largely limited to requests and leave-taking. Other less researched speech acts, such as compliments, apologies, disputes, and even swearing, can also index a range of meanings, identities, and cultural orientations (e.g., affect, aesthetics, gender, sexuality, morality). Similarly, nonverbal behaviors (gestures, gaze, etc.) are embedded in cultural praxis and can index a myriad of meanings, but only a few studies have analyzed nonverbal behaviors (Kanagy, 1999; Lo, 2009). Future research needs to explore the symbolic aspect of pragmatics learning and document L2 pragmatic socialization as multimodal and embodied processes. Additionally, the existing literature focuses primarily on speaking, while other modalities such as listening have received less attention. In everyday communication, the listener is often expected to provide culturally appropriate cues to signal attention to the talk (e.g., saying uh-huh in English), but listenership has been largely overlooked in L2 pragmatics literature in general (but see Diao, Wang, Donovan, & Malone, 2018; Shively, 2015a; Young & Lee, 2004). Attentive listenership is a pragmatic skill that requires a metapragmatic awareness of the cues and their cultural meanings. A language socialization perspective can help reveal the relationship between learning to listen and becoming a competent member in a community.

What is the Target Community? In the current research on L2 pragmatic socialization, the target community is often assumed to be the entire speech community of the language and is treated as linguistically and culturally 138

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

homogeneous. In several studies examining study-abroad participants, for example, the target culture is implied to be the culture of the host country (e.g., Cook, 2008; Shively, 2011). While researchers are increasingly aware of linguistic heterogeneity within societies, studies in L2 pragmatic socialization often continue to be based on monolingual assumptions about the target speech community. Yet societies are almost never linguistically homogeneous, even when members speak the same language (Bakhtin, 1981; see Chapter 29 in this volume). Speakers of a language in a society often approach pragmatics differently to index different (and sometimes opposing) identities, ideologies, or cultural/political views. One example is gender. As shown in our review, there is evidence of L2 learners resisting certain Japanese feminine forms because of their gendered meanings (Siegal, 1995). However, even in the case of Japanese women’s language, politics around gender can change cultural discourses, which may effect new ways of constructing gender linguistically (Inoue, 2006). L2 learners may become aware of the multitude of gender identities and performances within a society, and decide to adopt some but resist others by using language accordingly—or even engage in the creative use of the language to construct alternative gender orientations (Duff et al., 2013). In addition, when combined with compatible theories such as community of practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991), pragmatic features can be seen as a part of social practices that define communities and index membership statuses (Eckert, 2000). Yet, most studies reviewed here only looked at language classrooms, study abroad programs, and homes of heritage speakers, leaving many sites and communities under-explored. For example, Li’s (2000) study remains the only inquiry into L2 pragmatic socialization in the workplace. Other studies have only examined online L2 pragmatic socialization through blogging (Ishihara & Takamiya, 2014) or participation in discussion forums (Yim, 2011). Recent developments in internet technologies have created many new online platforms, transforming our participation in communities in fundamental ways (see Chapters 24 and 25 in this volume). In future research, there is a need to explore socialization processes in a number of possible communities and through a variety of media. Questions concerning the communities (of practices) that learners have access to, and the forms/norms that they are being socialized through and into, should not be taken for granted.

How to Better Document L2 Pragmatic Socialization? As our review illustrates, although all studies employed a language socialization framework, they did so in different ways. Some studies, notably those focusing on heritage language settings (e.g., He, 2001; Lo, 2004), examined exclusively the role of the expert in socialization and viewed the pragmatic phenomena as socializing means through which the novices/children became aware of cultural norms and ideologies (e.g., in He, 2011, the teacher uses zero-anaphora when citing students’ words, making the identity of the author ambiguous, to guide the class to focus on the content matter). These studies contrast with other studies reviewed, the latter of which mostly either implicitly or explicitly provided information regarding the outcomes of such socialization. This is often done through a quantitative or qualitative examination of the novices’ use of the focal pragmatic features and/or the inclusion of participant interviews to demonstrate their changing metapragmatic awareness. To understand these contrasting tendencies, we need to consider the fundamental questions that L2 pragmatics researchers ask versus those that are central to language socialization researchers. While L2 pragmatics researchers may share the language socialization concern of ‘how different kinds of culturally specific subjectivities come into being’ (Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004), particularly when examining minoritized populations such as heritage speakers, in L2 pragmatics literature there is often the inclination to use research to ‘produce implications for pedagogy that actually work for L2 teaching’ (Watson-Gegeo, 2004, p. 332). Inquiries in this 139

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

spirit strive to demonstrate not only how learning takes place and under what cultural conditions (the process), but also what is being learned and to what extent (the outcome). With this difference in mind, future L2 research should incorporate different methodological traditions based on research goals, while still maintaining the strength of longitudinal ethnography that characterizes language socialization research. Greater use of ethnography and ethnographic interviews, furthermore, can also potentially reveal what participants and community members themselves perceive as salient in socialization processes, which conceivably may lead to new insights into the role of agency and how learners are culturally positioned. Another observation in our synthesis is that, while researchers often intended to produce longitudinal accounts of socialization, the length of the inquiries varied between a few months to a little over a year. Participants in these studies were also often limited to young adults (university students) or children. The duration of research and the focal age period pale in comparison with the exemplar studies conducted in the tradition of language socialization, such as Heath’s (1983) decade-long ethnography of language development in two communities. L2 learners generally do not become socialized into both the use of the form and the metapragmatic awareness of the meanings at once (Shively, 2011). However, existing studies often treat the acquisition of either as the endpoint. Thus, there still is a need for research tracking the gradual and non-linear processes of socialization (Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Admittedly, it can be challenging to design a study of great length for L2 pragmatic socialization. Although not focusing on pragmatics, He’s (2014) research provides an innovative approach for documenting developmental time. She synthesized findings for participants from different age groups and constructed a composite narrative of a Chinese heritage speaker’s socialization from early childhood to adulthood. Following He’s work, future studies should continue to explore ways to document pragmatic socialization over a longer timescale. In terms of the potential for producing pedagogical implications, instructional interventions only appeared in two studies reviewed in this chapter (Ishihara & Takamiya, 2014; Shively, 2011). Findings from these studies point to pedagogical implications in terms of how to apply intervention to guide learners in the socialization process, such as encouraging learners to play a more active role in reflecting upon and directing their own socialization. These results point to the need to reconsider language socialization not only as a theory of learning and a method of research, but also as a pedagogical approach to language teaching. More research is needed in this direction.

How to Conceptualize ‘Novice’ and ‘Expert’ in L2 Pragmatic Socialization? Through prolonged tracking of L2 pragmatic socialization in everyday discourse between learners and expert speakers of the target language, several studies have established the antecedent– consequent relationship (Ortega & Iberri-Shea, 2005) between how such discourse unfolds and how learners become aware of certain pragmatic features and their social meanings. However, language socialization is an interactive and contingent process, and expertise cannot be assumed to be transmitted in one direction. Novices are not always socialized by ‘experts.’ As several studies in this synthesis have shown, learners can also be agents of socialization and socialize experts into different roles and ideologies (e.g., Li, 2000; Taguchi, 2014). Similarly, research on L1 socialization shows that children also socialize each other as learning peers (Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012). Socialization between learning peers is arguably even more relevant to L2 learning. While opportunities for interaction with expert speakers of the target language may be limited for L2 learners, interactions among L2 learning peers are often abundant (see Hassall, 2013). Through these interactions, L2 learning peers may guide each other—perhaps in both their L1 and L2—to use certain pragmatic conventions and participate in interactions effectively through 140

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

such use, thus socializing each other into knowledge and practices of the L2. Future work should address questions related to the socialization processes among L2 learning peers, such as what identities and relationships may emerge in these processes, what kinds of pragmatic conventions may become salient, how negotiations of forms and meanings take place, and in what languages. The need to further examine the multi-directionality of socialization in multilingual settings becomes even more pressing if we consider the multilingual reality of our globalized world today. Both L2 learners and the ‘experts’ with whom they interact may have multilingual repertoires but may not be equally proficient in all these languages (Blommaert, 2010). Yet to our knowledge, very few studies have investigated how the learning of pragmatic norms and interactional rules may take place between multilingual speakers, both of whom may not have—nor, perhaps, even need—the ‘perfect’ knowledge of target norms in monolingual societies. Future research needs to go beyond the assumptions regarding L2-learning novices and native-speaking experts, and examine how pragmatic conventions may be (re)negotiated among multilingual learners in multilingual contexts.

Note 1 Kinginger’s (2015) study also investigated the socialization of teasing in the study-abroad context. However, this particular study did not explicitly deal with the learning of L2 pragmatics, and thus it was excluded from this synthesis.

Further reading Duff, P., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to L2 acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). New York: Routledge. This article is an overview of how language socialization can be utilized as a framework to understand L2 development. It outlines theoretical and methodological principles of language socialization research. It then compares similarities and differences between language socialization research and other socially-oriented theories such as identity and power, the Vygotskyan sociocultural theory, and complexity theory. The article concludes with directions for future research. Although some of the gaps identified have been fulfilled in the research since, many are still relevant to the current L2 pragmatic literature. Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.) (2012). The handbook of language socialization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. This handbook provides a historical overview of the language socialization framework and how it has been utilized to investigate the learning of language and culture in various communities. The introduction chapter gives a thorough explanation on the scope of language socialization research and its perspective on language learning. Although the book focuses on L1 socialization, there is a chapter by Duff on L2 socialization and a chapter by He on heritage language socialization. Duff’s chapter is a review of L2 socialization research, whereas He’s chapter also provides her own research as an example of heritage language socialization.

References Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Originally work published 1975.) Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1972.)

141

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

Byon, A. S. (2003). Language socialisation and Korean as a heritage language: A study of Hawaiian classrooms. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(3), 269–283. Byon, A. S. (2006). Language socialization in Korean-as-a-foreign-language classrooms. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 265–291. Cook, H. M. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Diao, W. (2016). Peer socialization into gendered L2 Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 599–620. Diao, W., Wang, Y., Donovan, A., & Malone, N. (2018). Interactional development through dinnertime talk: The case of American students in Chinese homestays. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 309–327). New York: Routledge. Duff, P. (2008). Introduction. In P. Duff & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Vol. 8: Language socialization (pp. xiii–xix). New York: Springer. Duff, P. (2012). L2 socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Duff, P., Anderson, T., Ilnyckyj, R., Van Gaya, E., Wang, R., & Yates, E. (2013). Learning Chinese: Linguistic, sociocultural, and narrative perspectives. Berlin: DeGruyter. Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (second) language socialization research. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to theorizing and analyzing agency and L2 learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Duff, P., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to L2 acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to SLA (pp. 95–116). New York: Routledge. DuFon, M. (2010). The socialization of leave-taking in L2 Indonesian. In G. Kasper, H. T. Nguyen, & D. R. Yoshimi (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 12, pp. 91–112). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i National Language Resource Center. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, R. (2009). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, D. A. (2009). Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 346–367. Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 339–361. Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2012). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 365–390). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (1964). The ethnography of communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 137–153. Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1–17. He, A. (2000). The grammatical and interactional organization of teacher’s directives: Implications for socialization of Chinese American children. Linguistics and Education, 11(2), 119–140. He, A. (2001). The language of ambiguity. Discourse Studies, 3(1), 75–96. He, A. (2011). The role of repair in modulating modal stances in Chinese discourse. Chinese Language and Discourse, 2(1), 1–22. He, A. (2012). Heritage language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 587–609). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. He, A. (2014). Identity construction throughout the life cycle. In T. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. Christian, S. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of heritage and community languages in the United States: Research, educational practice, and policy (pp. 324–332). New York: Routledge. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Howard, K. (2014). Language socialization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Inoue, M. (2006). Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ishihara, N., & Takamiya, Y. (2014). Pragmatic development through blogs: A longitudinal study of telecollaboration. In S. Li & P. Swanson (Eds.), Engaging language learners through technology integration: Theory, applications, and outcomes (pp. 137–161). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Iwasaki, N. (2011). Learning L2 Japanese ‘politeness’ and ‘impoliteness’: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature, 45(1), 67–106.

142

Language Socialization and L2 Pragmatics

Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(11), 1467–1492. Kiesling, S. F. (2004). Dude. American Speech, 79(3), 281–305. Kinginger, C. (2015). Language socialization in the homestay: American high school students in China. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, & K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence abroad (pp. 53–74). Amsterdam: EuroSLA. Kinginger, C. (2016). Language socialization in study abroad. In P. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Language socialization. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. Kulick, D., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349–368). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(1), 58–87. Li, D. (2008). Pragmatic socialization. In P. Duff & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2648–2660). New York: Springer. Lo, A. (2004). Evidentiality and morality in a Korean heritage language school. Pragmatics, 14(2), 235–256. Lo, A. (2009). Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean heritage language school. Linguistics and Education, 20(3), 217–234. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–37). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2012). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–22). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(11), 1493–1512. Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in L2 acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual review of applied linguistics, 25, 26–45. Park, J. S. Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea (Vol. 24). Berlin: DeGruyter. Rampton, B. (2002). Ritual and foreign language practices at school. Language in Society, 31(4), 491–525. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual review of anthropology, 15(1), 163–191. Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835. Shively, R. L. (2013). Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 930–946. Shively, R. L. (2015a). Developing interactional competence during study abroad: Listener responses in L2 Spanish. System, 48, 86–98. Shively, R. L. (2015b). ‘Tú no eres española’: Teasing of L2 learners in host family communities of practice. In D. A. Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities (pp. 107–137). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shively, R. L. (2016). Development of assessments in L2 Spanish during study abroad. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3, 157–170. Shively, R. L. (2017). Language socialization during study abroad: Researching social interaction outside the classroom. In S. Coffey & U. Wingate (Eds.), New directions for research in foreign language education. New York: Routledge. Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), L2 acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 225–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229. Taguchi, N. (2014). Pragmatic socialization in an English-medium university in Japan. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 157–181. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

143

Wenhao Diao and Joy Maa

Watson‐Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331–350. Yim, Y. K. (2011). L2 students’ discourse socialization in academic online communities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(1), 1–27. Yoshimi, D. R. (1999). L1 language socialization as a variable in the use of ne by L2 learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(11), 1513–1525. Young, R., & Lee, J. (2004). Identifying units in interaction: Reactive tokens in Korean and English conversations. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(3), 380–407. Zhu, H. (2010). Language socialization and interculturality: Address terms in intergenerational talk in Chinese diasporic families. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(3),189–205.

144

10 Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology in L2 Pragmatics Rémi A. van Compernolle

Introduction Since the 1990s, there has been increasing interest in extending Vygotskian cultural-historical psychology (CHP), or sociocultural theory (SCT), to second language (L2) research (see Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Concepts borrowed from Vygotsky and his later interpreters such as zone of proximal development (ZPD), mediation, and microgenesis have become commonplace as part of the vocabulary of ‘new mainstream’ L2 acquisition theory (Swain & Deters, 2007). In the L2 pragmatics literature, Vygotsky’s ideas have been used as an analytic lens for understanding processes of L2 socialization into appropriate language use and, more recently, as the basis for designing pedagogical arrangements aimed at fostering and assessing pragmatic growth. This chapter provides a synthesis of the extension of Vygotskian CHP to the study of L2 pragmatics and its development. My goal is to outline the scope of work in this domain in relation to developments in the broader field of L2 Vygotskian work and to provide a critical evaluation of the research literature. The synthesis is limited to research in which the study is framed explicitly within the CHP framework. Consequently, a number of studies that simply mention Vygotsky’s ideas in passing have been excluded. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. In the next section, I provide a brief sketch of the general theory of psychology associated with Vygotsky and its extension to L2 research. I then offer an overview of the contributions of CHP-inspired research to L2 pragmatics, before turning to critical appraisal of this work, and I offer several directions for expanding on, and improving, current research in this important area of inquiry.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Key Concepts Mediation The central theme of Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) work is mediation. The basic idea of mediation is that humans use culturally constructed psychological tools to reorganize our biologically endowed psychological functions into conscious processes (Wertsch, 2007). In other words, culture creates an indirect, or mediated, relationship between our mental and material worlds. In particular, the role of language in mediating our psychology was a prominent focus throughout Vygotsky’s work. John-Steiner (2007) points out that in critically building on, and revising, the work of his contemporaries (e.g., Kohler, Piaget, Stern), Vygotsky suggested that children first acquire language 145

Rémi A. van Compernolle

as a communicative tool in their interactions with adults who can help to regulate their behaviors through speech (e.g., giving directions, prompts). However, communicative speech is eventually internalized (see below for discussion), giving rise to verbal thinking and intellectual speech, which is self-directed (i.e., as private speech and inner speech). Consequently, while speech has a social, interpersonal origin, it becomes an intrapersonal tool that allows individuals to regulate their own mental functioning and actions in the world. Language also mediates how we conceive of the world around us. This is because Vygotsky viewed language as constitutive of consciousness (Leitch, 2011), and not simply as a conduit for communicating thought. Language provides the resources for human consciousness to form, and since these resources vary within and across languages, human consciousness itself is inevitably variable. In this way, Vygotsky’s theory connects with more recent developments in linguistic relativity (e.g., McNeill, 2005; Mühlhäusler & Harré, 1990; Pavlenko, 2011; Slobin, 2003). The linguistic resources that are available to us shape the way in which we interact in and with the world, including other people.

Internalization Internalization is the process through which cultural tools (or mediational means such as language) are integrated into one’s psychological functioning (i.e., as part of consciousness). This concept differs from the idea of acquisition in two fundamental ways. First, internalization focuses on the development of conscious processes rather than implicit processes: Thus, while acquisition typically refers to implicit competence (see Paradis, 2009), internalization involves awareness (i.e., knowing something) and metaawareness (i.e., knowing that one knows something) in addition to tacit ability. Second, internalization assumes a bidirectional inward-and-outward growth process (Frawley, 1997): Cultural tools that mediate mental functioning do not remain ‘inside the head’ but are deployed, adapted, and transformed in externalized material activity. Indeed, internalization is conceived of as a creative process of making mediational means one’s own (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) through a process of personalization (van Compernolle, 2014a). The internalization of language in ontogenesis, as noted above, involves adapting intermental communicative speech1 to function intramentally (i.e., within the individual) to mediate thinking (John-Steiner, 2007). This means that language becomes a tool for thinking and problem solving, which may involve private speech (i.e., vocalized speech for the self) or subvocal/inner speech. This goes beyond the acquisition of sign forms (i.e., lexicogrammar) and learning to use those forms for interpersonal communication. As Wertsch (2007) has pointed out, Vygotsky operationalized the internalization of language in relation to the maxim that ‘sign-meaning develops’ (p. 185). The idea is that children first acquire and begin to use the linguistic forms made available to them in the environment, but the real work of development—that is, internalization of language—involves ‘a process of coming to understand the meaning and functional significance of the sign forms that one has been using’ (p. 186). Because internalization is transformative, personalized (van Compernolle, 2014a), and involves both an inward (internally focused) and an outward (externally focused) dimension (Frawley, 1997), the meaning and functional significance of sign forms is malleable from one use to the next. Indeed, Vygotsky (1986) distinguished between community-wide conventionalized sign meanings (in Russian znachenie) and the contextualized sense (in Russian smysl) that sign forms obtain in use (see Wertsch, 1985, p. 95). For example, the utterance of ‘door’ draws on the conventionalized meaning of the object signified by the word, but its sense depends on the specific context: It could be a directive or request to close a door left open (e.g., for privacy, to keep a pet from escaping a house) or to open a closed door (e.g., when carrying groceries into the house).2 Therefore, meaning and sense are interdependent: Meaning provides a shared social-semiotic system that people draw on during the sense-making process, in interpersonal communication as 146

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

well as in intramental functioning (i.e., private and inner speech). Internalization may therefore be inferred in relation to one’s ability to adapt and creatively recontextualize conventionalized sign meanings to suit one’s communicative and/or intramental needs.

Zone of Proximal Development Internalization is a process of transition, meaning that its link to development needs to be conceptualized in terms of growth and change from one state to the next. Vygotsky (1978, 1986) proposed the notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD) to describe the transitional periods between more stable states of mental functioning (Valsiner & van der Veer, 2014), or what he referred to as one’s actual (i.e., current) developmental level. The concept captures psychological functions that are currently in the process of developing but are not yet under an individual’s independent control. In other words, the ZPD is future-oriented because it accounts for capacities that are emerging, as new or modified cultural tools are being internalized. Vygotsky’s (1978) oft-cited description of the ZPD as the difference between what one can do alone and what becomes possible with assistance is important because in many instances explicit mediation from a more competent person (i.e., intentional assistance in using appropriate tools; see Wertsch, 2007) is needed in order to gain control over still-maturing functions. To be clear, however, the ZPD is not a theory of assistance (Chaiklin, 2003). Rather, it is part of a larger unit of analysis that Vygotsky (1971, 1994) proposed to unite intellectual, affective, and environmental processes: perezhivanie, or ‘the process of experiencing and the state of “livingthrough”’(Valsiner & van der Veer, 2014, p. 160; see also González Rey & Martínez, 2016; Mok, 2015; and Smagorinsky, 2011). Vygotsky used the concept of perezhivanie to operationalize an approach to situated, unitary analysis of the formation of psychological functions in the ZPD. Rather than breaking developmental phenomena into discrete elements for separate analysis, he sought to understand their dynamic internal relations in specific circumstances. For example, an interaction with a more expert person who directs and guides a learner’s performance on a task is not in itself the ZPD, but it may be analyzed as one perezhivanie in which internalization processes operate and possibly contribute to the learner’s movement through the ZPD.

Extension of Sociocultural Theory to L2 Research Vygotsky’s ideas have been extended to L2 research in a number of productive ways since the early papers of Frawley and Lantolf (Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; Lantolf & Frawley, 1984). The majority of such research has used the theory as a lens through which to interpret L2 data. This work has helped to advance our understanding of the roles and contributions of private speech, assistance and scaffolding, collaboration, and so on in L2 development in classroom, tutoring, technologyenhanced, and study abroad contexts (see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Since the mid 2000s, however, focus has shifted to using the theory as a basis for designing applied studies that emphasize Vygotsky’s commitment to educational praxis (see Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Consequently, such work involves pedagogical interventions (e.g., concept-based instruction, dynamic assessment) that aim to study L2 development by intentionally invoking it in educational contexts.

Contributions of Sociocultural Theory to L2 Pragmatics Early Developments In the 1990s and early 2000s, Vygotsky’s ideas were used as an analytic lens for interpreting L2 pragmatics phenomena. Central to this work was an interpretation of the ZPD concept in the broader L2 sociocultural theory (SCT) literature that emphasized (1) the potential benefits 147

Rémi A. van Compernolle

of expert–novice interaction (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) and (2) the potential for peers to collaborate and collectively scaffold each other during task interaction (Donato, 1994). Thus, as Kinginger (2002) pointed out, analytic focus was on the formation of new L2 skills, scaffolding/ assistance, and/or metalinguistic growth during expert–novice or peer–peer interactive discourse. Kinginger (1998) provides an early example of such research. The study reported on the results of intercultural exchange between French university students and U.S. university learners of French that was mediated by videoconferencing technology. Kinginger documented miscommunication and missed opportunities for communication because the French students used an everyday register of spoken French with which the U.S. learners were unfamiliar. She interpreted the French authentic discourse as language beyond the learners’ ZPDs. However, the author noted that ‘the learners’ ZPD only became relevant again after the conference was over, in separate sessions devoted to examining the qualities of the spoken language’ (p. 511). The study highlighted the need for pedagogical arrangements intended to help learners to gain awareness of pragmatic norms (i.e., register of spoken/colloquial speech) since, if they do not already have some of the pieces in place to make progress (cf. the ZPD concept), native speaker input alone is insufficient. Belz and Kinginger’s (2002, 2003) well-known studies of French and German telecollaboration offered evidence that native-speaker peers could assist L2 learners in becoming aware of appropriate pragmatic practices, with specific focus on pronouns of solidarity (i.e., French tu and German du). The researchers found in general that the U.S. learners of French and German alternated between address pronouns, apparently without regard for how inappropriate use (i.e., the pronouns of power and distance, French vous and German Sie) could be interpreted as impoliteness. The native speakers in the study, however, provided explicit feedback to the learners, highlighting inappropriate pronoun use in relation to affective processes (e.g., native speakers were insulted or angry because vous/Sie made them feel old or rejected as a potential friend). Belz and Kinginger argued that the threat of loss of face pushed learners to eventually attend to their address form use and align with their native speaker interlocutors. Belz and Kinginger’s work made an important methodological contribution by extending microgenetic analysis to L2 pragmatics research. The approach, coined by Wertsch (1985), builds on Vygotsky’s (1978) genetic law of development, which holds that in order to understand how higher forms of cognition (in this case, developing sociopragmatic awareness in a new language) arise, we must understand their origins. Microgenetic analysis responds to this idea by tracing ‘the history of development during specific learning events’ (Belz & Kinginger, 2003, p. 615). This allows researchers to document and account for highly contextualized developmental processes as they occur ‘in flight’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57), which often go unnoticed in research that relies solely on the analysis of outcomes (e.g., pre-post designs). Kinginger (Kinginger, 2008; Kinginger & Belz, 2005) extended the genetic approach to documenting L2 pragmatic development to the context of study abroad. However, rather than relying on microgenetic analysis of interactions, this work took an ontogenetic perspective and analyzed learner narratives of personal experience through journals and interviews (later reinterpreted as perezhinvanie; see van Compernolle, in press-a) as a means of tracing the origins of development. Narratives are important because they provide evidence of the cognitive framing of experiences in ways that are culturally mediated by collective remembering (Wertsch, 2002) and the dialogic revoicing of the past in response to one’s present and imagined future circumstances (Bakhtin, 1981). In other words, narratives do not simply provide factual accounts of experiences but, from the SCT perspective, they are seen as tools that mediate memory and the (re)experiencing of the social situation of one’s development. Genetic analysis of narratives allowed Kinginger (2008) to reconstruct study-abroad experiences from the perspective of the learners in relation to developmental outcomes. It was shown that social-relational and affective processes shaped, and in turn were shaped by, learners’ pragmatic development (e.g., awareness and use of second-person pronouns, colloquial vocabulary). Because each individual had a unique experience, outcomes 148

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

were highly variable. Kinginger’s analysis highlighted the ways in which learners constructed personalized understandings of appropriate pragmatic behavior on the basis of their experiences. Thus, while some learners adopted more or less conventionalized pragmatic practices, others chose to eschew conventions as extensions of their emerging L2 identities (see Kinginger, 2013; see also Chapter 11 in this volume). This focus on the formation of identity in relation to personal histories and experience compels researchers to conceptualize pragmatic development as an individualized process that requires an emic perspective on what counts as development rather than assuming a single uniform model.

Instruction and Assessment As noted, in the mid-2000s L2 SCT researchers began using the theory to design pedagogical interventions as a means of extending Vygotsky’s commitment to praxis to the field. Although some proposals for interpreting existing approaches to pragmatics instruction to the ZPD concept had been made before (e.g., Ohta, 2005), van Compernolle’s research (e.g., van Compernolle, 2010, 2011, 2014a; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a, 2012b) went deeper by designing a homegrown SCT approach to pragmatics instruction. He appropriated Vygotskian work in concept-based instruction (Negueruela, 2003) and dynamic assessment (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004; Poehner, 2005, 2008) as means of teaching and evaluating pragmatic development in ways that accounted for individual variation and identity at microgenetic and ontogenetic timescales, following the earlier work of Belz and Kinginger (2002) and Kinginger (2008).

Concept-Based Instruction Van Compernolle and Williams (2012a, 2012b) reported on a semester-long intervention that focused on sociolinguistic and pragmatic variation in an accelerated intermediate-level French course (i.e., students completed French 3 and 4 in a single semester). The study involved explicit conceptual instruction of variation and meaning potential (i.e., how variation in language could index identity and social relationship qualities, with focus on several pragmatic and stylistic variants in French such as T/V address and verbal negation with and without the proclitic particle ne), authentic language analysis tasks (cf. Kinginger, 1998), and small-group computer-mediated chat tasks designed to elicit different registers of language. Students also participated in end-of-semester oral interviews. The results showed that students in general were able to connect their conceptual knowledge of meaning potential to French language variation in awareness tasks, and in turn to connect their knowledge to their own communicative practices. Importantly, however, the approach also allowed learners to make their own choices regarding the appropriateness and desirability of pragmatic variation rather than uncritically adopting (idealized) native-speaker conventions (see Leung, 2005). This is what van Compernolle and Williams (2012a) referred to as sociolinguistic agency—the socioculturally mediated act of choosing from among sociolinguistic and pragmatic variants to create the meanings one wants to create. This view eschews aprioristic conceptions of ‘correct’ or ‘appropriate’ pragmatic behavior that are typically based on ‘narrowly empirical representations of abstracted language use’ (van Compernolle & Williams, 2012b, p. 185), or rules of thumb, that ‘fail to reveal deeper systematic principles’ (Lantolf, 2007, p. 36). The reader should note that the notion of sociolinguistic agency, as articulated by van Compernolle and Williams (2012a), does not suggest an ‘anything goes’ philosophy toward pragmatics, nor does it reject the importance of learning about normative pragmatic behavior within relevant speech communities. Instead, the point is to problematize and contextualize the meaning of community norms in relation to the choices available. Learners need to know what the norms are, but also what alternatives exist, in order to anticipate, and in turn interpret, the effects their 149

Rémi A. van Compernolle

pragmatic choices may have in real-life communicative activity. This kind of metapragmatic knowledge has the potential to assist learners in navigating pragmatic ambiguities, including dealing with the consequences of making a pragmatic choice that does not align with expected or normative behavior. In other words, teaching pragmatics through concepts is a way of teaching how the system works, what the choices are, and what their effects may be so that learners can make informed decisions about their own language use and to accurately interpret the pragmatic actions of others. Indeed, as Kasper and Rose (2001) pointed out nearly two decades ago, we must avoid prescriptivist instruction focused on idealized ‘proper’ or ‘polite’ behavior: ‘learners must be made aware of the consequences of making pragmatic choices, but the choice to act a certain way should be theirs alone’ (p. 3). The approach to concept-based pragmatics instruction was further developed in van Compernolle (2012, 2014a) for use in an enrichment program for learners of French who met one-on-one with a tutor over a six-week period. Galperin’s (1989, 1992) theory of the formation of mental actions was used as the guiding pedagogical principal. Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1986) analysis of concept formation, Galperin’s theory holds that mental actions involve three processes: orientation, execution, and control. The orientation process is especially important because it involves planning one’s actions and knowing which mediational means are relevant for executing one’s actions. In addition, the orientation also impacts on the control function, which entails monitoring and evaluating the execution of the action in relation to one’s orientation and the potentially changing circumstances in which one is acting. Van Compernolle’s study also drew on Paradis’s (2009) theory of the procedural and declarative determinants of L2 acquisition, most notably the idea that explicit metalinguistic knowledge can be used in performance and sufficiently ‘speeded up,’ or ‘accelerated’ (van Compernolle, 2014a), through practice to produce fluent speech. Van Compernolle’s (2012, 2014a) approach followed an iterative reflection–application–performance design: Learners were first introduced to the concepts of indexicality, self-presentation, social distance, and power as illustrated by variation between the second-person pronouns tu and vous, the first-person plural pronouns on and nous, and the presence versus absence of the negative particle ne in negation. Then, they engaged in problem-solving tasks in which they had to apply the concepts by choosing appropriate language forms and explaining their choices. Finally, they performed spoken strategic interaction scenario tasks (DiPietro, 1987) in which they also received assistance when their pragmatic performance faltered. The process was repeated twice. The results showed that the learners developed their conceptual awareness of French pragmatics, but that each individual created his or her own meaningful relationship with the concepts and their implications for appropriate pragmatic behavior (cf. agency and identity). At the same time, the approach was successful in developing learners’ accelerated use of their knowledge in performance: Quantitative (i.e., relative frequencies of variants and their distribution across tasks) and qualitative (i.e., line-by-line interaction analysis of speech production qualities) analyses demonstrated increased controlled use of appropriate pragmatic forms as well as greater fluency in speech production over time. Additional studies have corroborated aspects of van Compernolle’s (2012, 2014a) work. Van Compernolle and Henery (2014) and van Compernolle, Gomez-Laich, and Weber (2016) extended the framework to elementary-level French and Spanish classrooms, respectively, showing that it was feasible to implement this kind of instruction into existing curricula. Kim’s (2013) research has shown that concept-based instruction can be successful in mediating L2 English learners’ ability to detect and understand sarcasm, which is a particularly difficult dimension of pragmatics since it relies on an understanding of context, indirect or implied meaning, and often nonverbal and paralinguistic cues (e.g., speech delivery, facial expressions). Henery (2014) and Fernandez (2017) extended concept-based pragmatics instruction to the study abroad context. Both studies showed that concept-based interventions during the study abroad experience 150

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

helped raised learners’ awareness of pragmatics as well as their ability to interpret the pragmatic practices of the members of the host communities they interacted with (see also Chapter 23 in this volume). Ohta (2017) expanded the framework to the teaching of honorifics in Japanese as expressions of modes of self. Her case study showed evidence of development in one learner’s understanding of the concept of wakimae (i.e., understanding the relative status of one’s interlocutor, social distance, and contextual formality) and use of plain and polite (desu/masu) forms. Finally, van Compernolle (in press-b) has demonstrated that concept-based instruction can be carried out in a relatively short period of time through technology-enhanced means (i.e., an online tutorial with problem-solving tasks). In addition, this study is the only one thus far that compared concept-based instruction to rule-based instruction (cf. van Compernolle & Williams’s 2012b critique of ‘rules of thumb’ instruction as being ‘narrowly empirical’ p. 185, cited above). The results showed no difference between groups in the ability to select appropriate pragmatic forms (both groups improved significantly from pre- to posttest and showed similar rates of attrition in a delayed posttest). However, the concept-based group outperformed the rule-based group in terms of their understanding of the social meaning and significance of pragmatics, a difference that remained stable in a delayed posttest.

Dynamic Assessment While van Compernolle’s (2012, 2014) work focused primarily on concept-based instruction, it also incorporated dynamic assessment procedures as a means of evaluating and promoting the growth of pragmatic knowledge and performance abilities. Drawing on Vygotsky’s ZPD concept, this approach to testing combines assessment and instruction as a unified activity: The point is to determine what the learner is capable of doing alone—his or her zone of actual development—and what becomes possible with support—his or her ZPD (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004; Poehner, 2008). Two task types were used to dynamically assess learners’ pragmatic knowledge in van Compernolle’s study: (1) appropriateness judgment tasks (AJTs), in which learners were prompted by their tutor to use the concepts to solve communicative problems (i.e., selecting tu/vous, on/nous, and ne presence vs. absence) and received assistance in appropriately using the concepts to do so, and (2) strategic interaction scenarios (SISs), in which learners and their tutor performed spoken scenarios and a tutor provided supportive feedback (e.g., prompts, recasts) when pragmatic performance faltered. Analysis of interactions around AJTs allowed the researcher to trace the microgenesis of new concepts (e.g., how tu/vous choice creates qualities of social distance and power) within (van Compernolle & Kinginger, 2013) and across (van Compernolle, 2013a) tasks. The SISs provided insights into the development of speeded up (Paradis, 2009) or accelerated (van Compernolle, 2014a) use of metalinguistic knowledge in performance, as the locus of control (cf. Galperin’s 1989, 1992 theory of the formation of mental actions) moved from the interpersonal plane (between the tutor and the learner) to the intrapersonal plane (within the learner) (van Compernolle, 2013b, 2014b). In other words, over time, learners became able to plan and execute their pragmatic performances independently and fluently (i.e., without hesitation in speech production). The use of dynamic assessment in van Compernolle’s (2012, 2014a) work foregrounded its instructional function: It was used to track and make instructional adjustments to account for learner development. This work is similar to that of Ishihara (2009, 2013), who drew on the notions of mediation and the ZPD in carrying out classroom-based formative assessments of L2 English pragmatics in a Japanese university context. In addition, although not framed as pragmatics, Ai’s (2017) work on an intelligent adaptive computerized test drew on dynamic assessment principles for evaluating and teaching the morphosyntax of Chinese ba-constructions (forms used for creating focus on the result or influence of an action). Emerging work by Qin (2018; Qin & van Compernolle, under review), however, has foregrounded the testing function of dynamic 151

Rémi A. van Compernolle

assessment. Qin’s research focuses on testing L2 Chinese learners’ implicature comprehension (i.e., understanding indirect meaning) in the speech acts of refusals and opinions, drawing on the scholarship of Taguchi (Taguchi, 2005, 2011; Taguchi, Li, & Liu, 2013) in interlanguage pragmatics (see Chapter 3 in this volume). Qin and van Compernolle (under review) report on the results of a computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension that integrated graduated prompts into a multiplechoice test (24 target items total). Test-takers listened to a series of short audio-recorded utterances and then had to answer questions about the speaker’s intended meaning encoded in the utterance. If they did not select the correct answer on the first attempt, they were provided hints and given additional opportunities. Point values for each item reflected the number of attempts needed to respond correctly (i.e., 4 points for first attempt, 3 for the second attempt, etc.). The procedure yielded three scores: (1) an actual score, which included the first responses only; (2) a mediated score, which added points from the second, third, etc. attempts to the actual score; and (3) a learning potential score (LPS; Kozulin & Garb, 2002; Poehner & Lantolf, 2013; van Compernolle & Zhang, 2014) that accounts for the difference between the mediated and actual score. The LPS is meant to reflect a test-taker’s responsiveness to the support (i.e., prompts) offered during the test. The data showed a large degree of individual variation in responsiveness to mediation. While some learners produced high LPSs, others did not make much progress. The findings were interpreted within the ZPD concept: A high LPS indicates a learner with the pieces in place to make progress toward more independent functions (cf. ZPD), whereas a low LPS could mean that the test demands were beyond the learner’s ZPD (i.e., low actual, mediated, and learning potential scores) or that the test did not challenge the learner and so did not tap into his or her ZPD (i.e., high actual score with little room for gains in the mediated score, therefore producing a low LPS). This kind of information, according to the authors, could be useful in distinguishing between learners who appear similar in terms of their independent functioning, as revealed by actual scores, but who may be very different in terms of their emerging capabilities (i.e., ZPD). Classroom instructors could in turn use such information to design individualized teaching and learning plans for students. Qin (2018) has improved on the design of the test by including three distinct phases. In the first phase of the assessment, students attempt to comprehend indirect refusals (example item in Figure 10.1) with no assistance, which Qin refers to as a premediation test. The test is scored based on pilot data collected among Chinese native speakers (NS). A correct response is recorded if the test-taker places the slider within 3 standard deviations of the NS mean. The test also involves three levels of item difficulty based on the amount of Chinese that learners have to

Mike plans to travel to Beijing. He knows his high school classmate, Lucy, is a graduate student there. Mike asks Lucy if he can stay in her dorm for a few nights. Lucy says, Lucy means Mike can’t stay in her dorm. Question: To what extent do you agree with the above statement? Please use the slider below. –50 Strongly Disagree

+50

+35

Clear

Strongly Agree

Figure 10.1 Sample item from Qin (2018) (used with permission). Note: An audio file with the target speech act plays automatically in the test.

152

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

comprehend (i.e., short sentence, long sentence, and full dialogue). In the second phase, testtakers engage in a mediation session where they revisit items they answered incorrectly in the premediation test and receive graduated assistance when needed in order to help them identify the meaning of the target utterances. The third phase, or postmediation test, involves (i) a second test of indirect refusals identical to the premediation test but with different items and (ii) a transfer test focused on indirect opinions. This design, which separates independent performance from mediation (assisted performance) enables Qin to more clearly distinguish test-taker’s actual/current level of development (premediation test) and their ZPDs (what has become possible in the postmediation test). Preliminary results suggest that the design is more sensitive to individual learner needs since there is a clear separation between independent and assisted performance, and assistance is tailored to participants’ premediation independent performance. This approach may therefore yield more useful diagnostic information than the test reported in Qin and van Compernolle (under review).

Teacher Education Teacher education has been the focus of a small number of studies. Ishihara (2011), for example, designed an intensive teacher development seminar for Japanese English-as-a-foreign-language teachers seeking recertification. She drew on Johnson’s (2009) sketch of an SCT approach to teacher cognition and development in an attempt to foster the growth of pedagogical content knowledge with regard to English pragmatics. She focused on a single case analysis that demonstrated how a teacher’s pragmatic awareness was challenged in interaction with other participants during a pragmatics training seminar discussion for teachers, which led to some development. However, Ishihara also outlined several challenges, not least of which involves overcoming teachers’ existing beliefs about language that may conflict with the kind of pedagogical content knowledge privileged in such seminars (see also Lantolf & Johnson, 2007). For their part, van Compernolle and Henery (2015) reported on the development of the French instructor ‘Mrs. Hanks’, who carried out the concept-based instruction pragmatics program reported on in van Compernolle and Henery (2014). The study outlined how Mrs. Hanks’s competence in presenting concepts and mediating her students was developed through biweekly meetings with a more expert collaborator, with whom she would watch videorecordings of previous class meetings and engage in role plays designed to model more appropriate ways of interacting with students. They then focused on Mrs. Hanks’s strategies for mediating her students’ application of the concepts of self-presentation, social distance, and power in relation to tu and vous during instructional conversations centered on appropriateness judgment tasks (i.e., choosing appropriate pragmatic forms in various situations and explaining one’s choices using the concepts). They concluded, similarly to Ishihara (2011), that a major challenge was overcoming previously acquired beliefs about language and language teaching methods (Mrs. Hanks was most familiar with a generic or vague interpretation of communicative language teaching), which required intense one-on-one mediation from the more expert collaborator.

Critical Appraisal of the Literature and Future Directions The research summarized above has provided unique insights into the nature and development of L2 pragmatics. It has also made theoretical and methodological contributions to L2 SCT scholarship in general. This work is not, of course, without its limitations. In the following paragraphs, I offer a critical appraisal of SCT-driven L2 pragmatics research as a whole with recommendations for future research. 153

Rémi A. van Compernolle

One of the principal contributions of SCT scholarship research in general has been a reconceptualization of development as the internalization of mediational means as opposed to the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. SCT research has brought increased attention not only to what learners know about pragmatics (i.e., awareness), but also how they perceive sociopragmatic concepts such as appropriateness and formality, which may be different from one learner to the next, and how such perceptions shape pragmatic practice in communication. In this way, pragmatic competence is not operationalized strictly in relation to adherence to native speaker conventions because individuals may choose to converge or diverge from conventions to suit their communicative needs and identities (Kinginger, 2008; van Compernolle, 2014a; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a). To be sure, other researchers outside of SCT have advocated for nuanced views of pragmatic abilities, with an eye toward understanding individual variability in perceptions of appropriateness (e.g., Brown, 2013; Iwasaki, 2011; Kasper & Rose, 2001). However, SCT is unique in that it offers frameworks and concrete procedures for engaging in agency-driven pragmatics instruction (e.g., concept-based pragmatics instruction) and assessment (e.g., dynamic assessment). Further, SCT contributes to pragmatics scholarship by avoiding reductionist accounts of the role of identity and agency as being purely social constructs (see also Chapter 11 in this volume). Indeed, van Compernolle and Williams (2012a; see van Compernolle, 2014a for extension) offer a framework that recognizes the mediated nature of, and the relationships between, Self, identity, and agency that dialectically unites psychological and social processes. One’s sense of Self is mediated by the past and is dependent upon the mediational means internalized in various perezhivanie (van Compernolle, in press-a). Identities, then, are situated performances of aspects of one’s Self that mediate between the Self and the material world. Agency, in turn, is mediated by the cultural tools made available in one’s past and which become relevant and available in the present (Ahearn, 2001). Consequently, L2 SCT pragmatics research sees the issue of identity and agency not simply in terms of individual choice, but in terms of the interplay, and tensions that arise, between cultural mediation (psychology) and external circumstances (environment). The literature has provided positive evidence that Self, identity, and agency shape, and are in turn shaped by, pragmatic development in study abroad (e.g., Kinginger, 2008) and in educational contexts (e.g., van Compernolle, 2014a; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a).3 However, there are several limitations to this research. First, French has been the primary focus on this work, and a very limited range of pragmatic features of discourse have been investigated, especially secondperson address forms. A greater range of languages and discourse features would help to round out scholarship in this domain. Second, the timescales for existing studies are relatively short, typically no more than an academic semester. It therefore remains to be seen in what ways, if any, Self, identity, and agency shape, and are shaped by, pragmatic development over longer periods of time and in more diverse contexts (e.g., beyond a single pedagogical program or study abroad experience). Third, research has yet to go beyond documenting that Self, identity, and agency are at play in pragmatic development and that individual variability exists. The question, then, is what should we do about it? This is particularly important for praxis in Vygotskian scholarship. As Lantolf and Poehner (2014) have argued, drawing on Marx’s 11th thesis on Feuerbach, it is not enough to simply observe and interpret our object of study, ‘the point is to change it’ (Marx, 1845/2002). This would mean engaging in what Packer (2011) has referred to as emancipatory research, where researchers are not dispassionate objective observers but motivated activists with an interest in changing the course of pragmatic development (e.g., how Self, identity, and agency impact on development), as well as in providing students with opportunities to develop pragmatics in ways that help to reshape the Self, possibilities for identity performance, and forms of agency through the internalization of new mediational means. Concept-based pragmatics instruction has the potential to fill this gap, especially if the approach is further modified to include Engeström’s (1987, 1991) notion of learning by expanding. Students would be assisted not only in internalizing pragmatic concepts but in critically analyzing and in turn modifying the very 154

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

pedagogical materials they are using to learn and develop in relation to conventional and unconventional pragmatic practices. For example, students can be encouraged to reflect on how their own desired L2 identities fit into the concepts and pragmatic practices under study, and how they might modify the concepts and categories of meaning (e.g., social distance vs. closeness) to suit their own communicative needs and identities. Such work would be especially interesting in contexts where learners are actually integrating into a host culture and/or developing social relationships beyond a pedagogical setting (e.g., study abroad, telecollaboration). The ZPD concept has also been usefully extended to L2 pragmatics research as a way of expanding our understanding of learner ability to include emergent capabilities that require support. Early work focused on the role of expert and peer assistance in raising learners’ awareness of pragmatics (e.g., Belz & Kinginger, 2002; Kinginger, 1998; Ohta, 2005), while later work used the concept as a basis for intentionally designing instructional arrangements (e.g., van Compernolle, 2014a) and assessment tools (e.g., Qin & van Compernolle, under review). Both foci have shown that learners can do more with assistance than without, including in interpersonal interaction but also as they engage with tools such as pedagogical materials and tests. However, focus has been predominately on rather low-level pragmatic knowledge and abilities (e.g., pronouns of address, speech acts) or a limited number of pragmatic concepts (e.g., social distance, power), which need to be expanded in future research. The ZPD concept is about much more than the development of discrete knowledge and skills; Indeed, because Vygotsky’s focus was on the reorganization of consciousness, research that draws on the ZPD idea should investigate much larger issues where pragmatics are important. As noted above, the development and reshaping of Self, identity, and agency is one area that L2 SCT pragmatics work should take a greater interest in, and it is one that should be framed in terms of the ZPD. Shifts in one’s sense of Self, and the instability observed as one negotiates who one was and who one is becoming, are essentially transitional zones of development (Valsiner & van der Veer, 2014). To be sure, lower-level pragmatic abilities and concepts certainly play a part in development, so the issue is one of situating research within the broader context of human development, going beyond pragmatic development. Instructional and assessment research has recently begun to show that Vygotskian pedagogical innovations—namely, concept-based instruction and dynamic assessment—are effective in promoting and evaluating pragmatic development. Yet, comparative research demonstrating how the outcomes or practical significance of such innovations is virtually nonexistent. As noted, van Compernolle (in press-b) is the only study in L2 pragmatics that compared concept-based instruction with another more traditional approach based on pragmatic rules. No such research exists in the domain of dynamic assessment. In both cases, two forms of comparative research are needed, as outlined earlier by van Compernolle et al. (2016) (i.e., ‘within theory’ and ‘across theory’ comparisons). ‘Within theory’ comparisons are needed in order to answer questions about instructional effectiveness and assessment functionality. Such work would involve manipulating instructional materials, task components, test delivery, and so on. For example, van Compernolle and Henery (2014) used appropriateness judgment tasks (AJTs) that included relatively straightforward situations as well as ambiguous situations together. Speaking with a close friend would be straightforward because all the various ‘rules’ based on age, friendship, etc. point to the use of tu, whereas speaking with an age-peer grocery store clerk would be ambiguous since two or more ‘rules’ are in conflict (i.e., age = tu; stranger + service encounter = vous). On the other hand, van Compernolle et al. (2016) separated these two kinds of situations: Learners first completed a straightforward AJT and only after engaging in an instructional conversation with the teacher did they move on to the more difficult ambiguous AJT. Unfortunately, the two studies are not directly comparable, so it is not possible to say whether one approach was more effective than the other. A study in which the outcomes of AJT sequencing (from straightforward to ambiguous situations) are directly comparable would be a great contribution to this line of inquiry. 155

Rémi A. van Compernolle

‘Across theory’ comparisons are equally needed in order to address questions of the relative effectiveness and functionality of divergent instructional and assessment practices. For example, concept-based versus rule-based pragmatics instruction (van Compernolle, in press-b) is a step in the right direction for investigating the outcomes of different forms of explicit pragmatics instruction (see Taguchi, 2015). To be sure, comparative studies need to take care to involve instructional conditions that are truly comparable and assessments of learning outcomes that do not favor one approach over another (Loewen & Sato, 2017). Dynamic assessment research would do well to compare the practical significance of test outcomes (e.g., diagnoses of learner abilities) in comparison to nondynamic assessments. For instance, Qin and van Compernolle (under review) argue that dynamic assessment provides more diagnostic information about learners, but it has yet to be shown whether, or for what purposes, an expanded evidential basis (e.g., mediated and learning potential scores) is actually useful for test administrators or teachers in concrete practice. As mentioned earlier, L2 SCT pragmatics research has done a lot to highlight the importance of pragmatic knowledge, awareness, and related concepts in development. Indeed, this is the focus of concept-based pragmatics instruction, following Galperin’s (1989, 1992) model of the formation of mental actions. However, there is a gap in the research linking the development of pragmatic knowledge to pragmatic performance, particularly in real-time interaction. Thus, while performance has been tracked in research on computer-mediated communication (Belz & Kinginger, 2002) and in one study of concept-based instruction (van Compernolle, 2014a), much of the SCT literature has deemphasized performance. Most studies have paid much closer attention to declarative knowledge and interpretive abilities (e.g., comprehension). This is unfortunate since, as Vygotsky (1986) would have argued, knowledge separated from practice is inert. Future research exploring the link between knowledge and performance, and especially praxis-based work examining how pragmatic performance may be intentionally developed through pedagogical (e.g., how to mediate the process of ‘speeding up’ Paradis, 2009] access to metalinguistic knowledge in speech), would make a significant contribution to the literature. For instance, van Compernolle’s (2018) programmatic proposal involves iterating on conceptual instruction, problem-solving, and spoken performance tasks to progressively increase time pressures on learners as a means of accelerating orientation, execution, and control functions.

Conclusion Researchers drawing on Vygotskian psychology have made a number of important contributions to the L2 pragmatics literature. The extension of constructs such as mediation, internalization, and the ZPD to L2 pragmatics has helped to emphasize the interpersonal (interpsychological) origins of development. In addition, SCT research has advocated a dialectical view on the relationship between pragmatic development and Self, identity, and agency. While early work applied the theory as an analytic tool, current scholarship has employed SCT as a larger metatheory for designing instructional interventions and assessments, following the broader trend among SCT researchers to unite theory and practice as praxis (see Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). To be sure, we are only in an embryonic stage of L2 pragmatics praxis, and there are many avenues for future work to pursue. But the shift toward praxis-driven scholarship is important because it has compelled, and should continue to compel, researchers to take an activist-interventionist stance that seeks to address questions of theoretical importance in the context of doing good in the lives of real people.

Notes 1 It is important to note that interpersonal speech is a primary locus of interpsychological activity, as Vygotsky (1978) pointed out. In other words, communication involves the sharing of mental states and intentionality (Tomasello & Carpenter, 2007), or what has been referred to as cognition on the ground (Maynard, 2006; and see van Compernolle, 2016 for extension to SCT). 156

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

2 Lantolf and Thorne (2006) point out SCT’s shared view of the role of contextualized language with pragmatics, dating back at least to Wittgenstein’s notion of language games. 3 It should be noted that SCT shares some common ground with poststructuralist views of identity (e.g., Block, 2007; Norton, 2000), which inform much of the SCT research cited here. The unique contribution of SCT to this work is its emphasis on the dialectical nature of social and psychological processes, as outlined in the discussion of Self, identity, and agency (see van Compernolle, 2014a; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012a). In my reading of the literature, poststructuralist work appears to focus on identity as a social phenomenon.

Further reading Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. This book provides an in-depth discussion of Vygotsky’s approach to the study of psychology in relation to the dialectics of theory and practice, or praxis, and implications for designing and doing research in L2 educational environments. The authors provide in-depth discussion of the philosophical, methodological, and empirical basis for Vygotsky’s work and its application in L2 research. The book also helps to synthesize emerging praxis, namely L2 concept-based instruction and dynamic assessment. van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. This book outlines the theoretical bases of concept-based pragmatics instruction and illustrates its implementation in an extracurricular enrichment program for learners of French involving one-on-one tutoring sessions. The book also outlines an SCT orientation to the construct of appropriateness in relation to pragmatic competence, and extends pragmatics instruction to account for Self, identity, and agency. The empirical parts of the book trace development across various awareness-raising and performance tasks, documenting the process of concept formation and accelerated access to metalinguistic knowledge during performance.

References Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137. Ai, H. (2017). Providing graduated corrective feedback in an intelligent computer-assisted language learning environment. ReCALL, 29(3), 313–334. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed., C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214. Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591–647. Brown, L. (2013). Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural dimensions of language learning in study abroad (pp. 269–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DiPietro, R. J. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning languages through scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygostkian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1, 243–259. Fernandez, L. (2017). Learning another language with conceptual tools: An investigation of Gal’perin’s concept-oriented instruction (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 157

Rémi A. van Compernolle

Frawley, W. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44. Galperin, P. I. (1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27(3). Galperin, P. I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, July/August, 30(4). González Rey, F. L., & Martínez, A. M. (2016). Perezhivanie: Advancing on its implications for the culturalhistorical approach. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7, 142–160. Henery, A. (2014). Interpreting ‘real’ French: The role of expert mediation in learners’ observations, understandings, and use of pragmatic practices while abroad (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Ishihara, N. (2009). Transforming community norms: Potentials of L2 speakers’ pragmatic resistance. In M. Hood (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 Temple University Japan colloquium on language learning (pp. 1–10). Tokyo: Temple University Japan. Ishihara, N. (2011). Co-constructing pragmatic awareness: Instructional pragmatics in EFL teacher development in Japan. TESL-EJ, 15(2). Retrieved on April 11, 2018, from http:​//www​.tesl​-ej.o​rg/wo​ rdpre​ss/is​sues/​volum​e15/e​j58/e​j58a2​/ Ishihara, N. (2013). Teacher-based assessment of L2 Japanese pragmatics: Classroom applications. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 124–148). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Iwasaki, N. (2011). Learning L2 Japanese ‘politeness’ and ‘impoliteness’: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature, 45, 67–106. John-Steiner, V. P. (2007). Vygotsky on thinking and speaking. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 136–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In G. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kim, J. (2013). Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in a second language through conceptbased instruction (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Kinginger, C. (1998). Videoconferencing as access to spoken French. Modern Language Journal, 82, 502–513. Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics, 23, 240–261. Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92(s1). Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 339–358. Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. A. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 369–421. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112–127. Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 35–54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1984). Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguistics: Implications for L2 instruction. In A. Manning, P. Martin, & K. McCalla (Eds.), The tenth LACUS forum 1983 (pp. 425–440). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Johnson, K. E. (2007). Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 877–892. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic Assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–74. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge. 158

Vygotskian Cultural-Historical Psychology

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Leitch, D. G. (2011). Vygotsky, consciousness, and the German psycholinguistic tradition. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18, 305–318. Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 119–144. Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): An overview. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1–12). New York: Taylor & Francis. Marx, K. (1845/2002). Theses on Feuerbach. Marx/Engels Internet Archive. Retrieved on April 11, 2018, from https​://ww​w.mar​xists​.org/​archi​ve/ma​rx/wo​rks/1​845/t​heses​/thes​es.ht​m Maynard, D. W. (2006). Cognition on the ground. Discourse Studies, 8, 105–115. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mok, N. (2015). Toward an understanding of perezhinvanie for sociocultural SLA research. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 139–159. Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Negueruela, E. (2003). A sociocultural approach to teaching and researching second language: Systemictheoretical instruction and second language development (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33, 503–517. Ohta, A. S. (2017). From SCOBA development to implementation in concept-based instruction: Conceptualizing and teaching Japanese addressee honorifics as expressing modes of self. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 4, 187–218. Packer, M. (2011). The science of qualitative research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pavlenko, A. (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages: Overview of the field. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 237–257). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342. Qin, T. S., & van Compernolle, R. A. (under review). Computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension in L2 Chinese. Language Learning & Technology. Qin, T. S. (2018). Computerized dynamic assessment of L2 Chinese implicature comprehension (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Slobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought (pp. 157–191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky’s stage theory: The psychology of art and the actor under the direction of perezhinvanie. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18, 319–341. Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). ‘New’ mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 820–836. Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehension of implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543–562. Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience in pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 904–939. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going in interlanguage pragmatics. Language Teaching, 48, 1–5. Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(1), 139–157. Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10, 121–125. Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2014). Encountering the border: Vygotsky’s zona blizhaishego razvitia and its implications for theories of development. In A. Yasnitsky, R. van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 148–173). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van Compernolle, R. A. (2010). Towards a sociolinguistically responsive pedagogy: Teaching secondperson address forms in French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 445–463. 159

Rémi A. van Compernolle

van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through conceptbased instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3267–3283. van Compernolle, R. A. (2012). Developing sociopragmatic capacity in a second language through conceptbased instruction (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. van Compernolle, R. A. (2013a). From verbal protocols to cooperative dialogue in the assessment of second language pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10, 71–100. van Compernolle, R. A. (2013b). Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of L2 pragmatic abilities. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 327–353). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan. van Compernolle, R. A. (2014a). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. van Compernolle, R. A. (2014b). Profiling second language sociolinguistic development through dynamically administered strategic interaction scenarios. Language and Communication, 37, 86–99. van Compernolle, R. A. (2016). CA-for-SCT: Dialectics and the analysis of cognition on the ground. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(2), 173–193. van Compernolle, R. A. (2018). Focus on meaning and form: A Vygotskian perspective on task and pragmatic development in dynamic strategic interaction scenarios. In M. Ahmadian & M. P. G. Mayo (Eds.), Recent trends in task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 79–97). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. van Compernolle, R. A (in press-a). The qualitative science of Vygotskian sociocultural psychology and L2 development. In J. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van Compernolle, R. A. (in press-b). Learning the sociopragmatics of an artificial language: Comparing rulebased and concept-based instruction. Language & Sociocultural Theory. van Compernolle, R. A., Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Weber, A. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 341–361. van Compernolle, R. A., & Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning, 64, 549–578. van Compernolle, R. A., & Henery, A. (2015). Learning to do concept-based pragmatics instruction: Teacher development and L2 pedagogical content knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19, 351–372. van Compernolle, R. A., & Kinginger, C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 282–302. van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012a). Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: Identity, meaning-making, agency. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 234–250. van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012b). Teaching, learning, and developing L2 French sociolinguistic competence: A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 184–205. van Compernolle, R. A., & Zhang, H. (2014). Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing, 31, 395–412. Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Boston: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Problems of general psychology: Including the volume Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. New York: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

160

11 Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics1 Noriko Ishihara

Introduction With the social turn in applied linguistics, research on identity and agency has been recognized as contributing vital insights to second language acquisition (SLA) (Block, 2003). In the context of globalization marked by increasingly conspicuous linguistic and cultural diversity, sociallyoriented research views the L2 user as an agent shaping the sociocultural structure while being shaped by that structure as they jointly negotiate their identities in a dynamic, interactive context. Engaged in a social activity of language learning and use, L2 users can be reconceptualized as multicompetent (Cook, 2007) or translingual (Canagarajah, 2013), with a focus on how they function across different domains in bi-/multilingual communities and simultaneously negotiate their complex identities (see also Chapters 30 and 32 in this volume). This perspective is in stark contrast with monolingual ideologies representing a ‘deficit’ model in which the language of learners, or ‘nonnative speakers’ is regarded as deviant (or at least divergent) from the idealized language of ‘native speakers’. In the monolingual model, nonnative language is viewed as a fossilized, failed copy of flawless native-speaker language. For example, in a conventional approach to interlanguage pragmatics research, learners’ pragmatic language use is typically compared to empirically-established native-speaker norms. The degree of success in language learning and acculturation is thus measured in terms of the extent of approximation to native-speaker norms; divergences are routinely characterized as negative pragmatic transfer or insufficient pragmatic competence. In a sociohistorically-informed view of language learning, awareness of linguistic and cultural variation is related to the power structure in the social, political, and historical context. For example, scholars investigating the use of English as a global language contend that users of English situated in outer- and expanding-circle2 contexts make deliberate language choices that do not necessarily align with those of native speakers of English in inner-circle countries for the purpose of identity assertion and group solidarity (Berns, 2015). Nativized language varieties are often marginalized as substandard, erroneous, or failed (Seidlhofer, 2011) due to the asymmetrical power structure embedded in the sociopolitical structure. While L1 speakers’ divergence from normative language use is often accepted positively as a manifestation of unique creativity, L2 users are not given the same legitimacy and may feel deprived of their agency to exercise creativity in expressing identities (Kasanga, 2006).

161

Noriko Ishihara

Focusing on the constructs of identity and agency, this chapter first discusses theoretical underpinnings of these key constructs and their relationship to pragmatic language use, as well as a summary of research in this area. Appraisal of the current research and suggestions for future research will be offered at the end, as well as pedagogical implications.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Key Concepts Identity Among the disciplines in which identity has been studied, social psychology is often cited for having influenced earlier work on identity in SLA (Duff, 2012). Social identity theory posits that identity is related to a desire for affiliation and group membership. Individuals derive their sense of self largely from the social categories to which they belong. Thus, social identity is concerned with both self-concept and social intergroup relations, and has emotional and value significance (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Spencer-Oatey, 2007). This understanding of identity has been drawn upon in accommodation theories applied to SLA, which aim to explain, from cognitive and affective perspectives, L2 speakers’ fluctuating style-shifting, which results in convergence with or divergence from target-language speakers or cultures (Beebe & Giles, 1984). While accommodation theories can be used to study L2 speakers’ interactional variation in social contexts at a given time as well as their linguistic variation or the process of L2 acquisition over time, a social psychological framework of identity is often criticized as characterizing identity as static and monolithic (McNamara, 1997). Gumperz (1982) and Ochs (1993) are among those who claimed an indexical connection between (social) identity and language learning or use from the perspectives of contextualization and language socialization respectively (Kasper & Rose, 2002). The poststructuralist notion of identity3 has become prominent in applied linguistics, among other theoretical and methodological approaches including critical theory, feminist theory, and narrative inquiry influencing SLA (Duff, 2012). Based on Weedon (1997), Norton (2000) defines identity as ‘how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future’ (p. 5). Under the poststructuralist paradigm, identity is viewed as multi-faceted, in flux, and socially constructed. That is, individuals perform a repertoire of multiple identities, which is dynamically and discursively negotiated and jointly enacted in context. Block (2007) further characterizes identities as socially-constructed ongoing narratives that are performed, interpreted, and projected in verbal and non-verbal behavior, such as dress, gaze, and body language. Identity construction is a site of struggle often shaped by power, including how individuals are positioned by others as well as how they position themselves, which influences L2 users’ investment in and opportunities for learning and using language (Norton, 2000). Investment is made for an anticipated return on capital, such as symbolic and material resources associated with social power. The notion of investment emphasizes its socio-historically constructed relationship between language learner identity and learning commitment. More recently, Darvin and Norton (2015) renewed Norton’s earlier work on identity in today’s context of technological advances and mobility to illustrate how learners in rural Uganda and urban Canada performed ever more fluid identities on- and off-line and were afforded or denied agency within their sociocultural structures to participate in today’s digital age and globalization.

Agency Intertwined with the construct of identity is that of agency, which can be defined as a dynamically negotiated capacity to act, assume new identities, or resist certain positionings actively and purposefully (Duff, 2012; Rogers & Wetzel, 2013). A prominent characteristic of identity 162

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

includes its agency-giving nature in relation to power and institutions (Norton, 2000), meaning that individuals’ agency or their capacities can be considered acts of identity. McKay and Wong (1996) were among the first to investigate identity construction and agency enactment in multiple discourses from a poststructuralist perspective. Their longitudinal ethnographic study revealed the unique and complex ways in which four Chinese immigrant adolescents in a Californian high school positioned (or failed to position) themselves in the social discourse while enacting agentive social identities (e.g., academic achiever in ESL; socially competent adolescent with advanced Chinese literacy). Although the term agency may evoke free will or intention, human agency can be understood more holistically in its interaction with the sociocultural structure (Ahearn, 2001). Agency can be understood as being mediated, facilitated, or constrained by the institutional structure as well as by the sociocultural, historical, and political configurations of the larger society (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; van Compernolle, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). Like identity, agency is conceptualized not as a static individual property one possesses but as a dynamically constructed relationship one negotiates discursively (Miller, 2014). Being mediated socioculturally, agency also has the potential to form the structure itself, leading to the reproduction or transformation of the structure and its practices, making agency and structure interdependent and mutually-constitutive (Ahearn, 2001; Lu & Horner, 2013). Recent literature on agency in SLA has centered on studies examining the way in which learners’ identities and agentive capacities are discursively negotiated in relation to the dynamics of power. These studies elucidate the complex ways in which agency is mediated by norms, practices, institutions, and discourses through which it is supported or constrained (e.g., Duran, 2015; Varghese, 2012). Also, an increasing number of studies on teacher agency in applied linguistics illustrate the dynamic relationship between agency and structure in the context of educational reforms and language policies as well as in relation to the negotiation of positioning, power, legitimacy, identities, and self-esteem (e.g., Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Ishihara, Carroll, Mahler, & Russo, in press).

Identity and Pragmatic Language Use Identity is known to be interconnected with language learning and use, face, sociocultural mediation, language socialization, and communities of practice, and discursively constructed in relational context (Block, 2007; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Haugh, 2007; Locher, 2011; Spencer-Oatey, 2007). Language learners do not acculturate to perceived native-speaker norms entirely and unidirectionally as if in a sociocultural vacuum but instead discursively negotiate their translingual identities, which are loaded with complex and sometimes conflicting values, beliefs, and worldviews. In language socialization theory, novice members, such as L2 users, are seen to participate in and progressively acquire the pragmatic norms and discourse practices of the community through activities mediated by language or other cultural artifacts (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). Effective participation in community practices in turn allows novices to gradually become competent and central members of that community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, identity reflects and embodies particular sociocultural values, discursive norms, and community practices reproduced over time by group members enacting similar identities. This cumulative linguistic outcome can be characterized as sedimentation (Pennycook, 2010), which is known to contribute to the appearance of stability of the practices. Notably, participation in sedimented practices can be viewed as part of learners’ agency through recontextualization (Lu & Horner, 2013), a conscious and agentive act of identity assertion. While language learners’ alignment with community norms can be understood as part of language socialization, resistance to local practices is also encompassed by language socialization theory. Novice members are not mere passive recipients of sociocultural community practices but 163

Noriko Ishihara

actively and selectively co-construct and re-shape existing practices and outcomes of interactions (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002; Ochs, 1993). In fact, many researchers have pointed out that bilingual or multilingual speakers may choose not to enact certain aspects of their sociocultural identities as typically done by monolinguals, which in turn can influence their choice of language, semiotic resources, pragmatic norms, or discursive practices in each context. For multilinguals, the perceived or idealized behaviors of monolingual native speakers may not necessarily be an optimal model as their diversified identities and discursive negotiation reciprocally constitute one another. Researchers investigating the global spread and use of English offer similar arguments in response to today’s diversified contexts of interactions. Thus, unique language use by multilinguals is not a rare exception to the rule. Rather, this multilingual agency is often referred to as enacted in a third space (Bhabha, 1994; Kramsch, 2009) in which two or more languages are interdependent without being compartmentalized as separate systems (see also Chapters 30 and 32 in this volume). In fact, this hybridity has become as a central argument in identity theory (as described above) as well as in research studies investigating L2 pragmatic choices, some of which are reviewed in the next section.

Survey of the Current Literature on L2 Pragmatics, Identity, and Agency A body of literature on this topic is gradually emerging. Although the theoretical stance is not necessarily stated explicitly in the studies on this topic, their methodologies and terminologies can be used as indicators for the underlying frameworks of identity and agency they draw upon. For example, without using the constructs of identity or subjectivity, Al-Issa (2003) investigated the realization patterns of the refusal speech act in English elicited through a discourse completion test (DCT) from 50 Jordanian learners of English by comparing it with English refusals by 50 American-English speakers and Arabic refusals by 50 Jordanian speakers of Arabic. The learners’ refusals showed divergence from those of American-English speakers in terms of the selection of semantic formulas, length of responses, and the content of selected formulas. Semistructured interviews revealed learners’ pride in their L1 Arabic along with their awareness of American-English norms of refusals, which they did not see as desirable for them as emulating others’ values was not regarded as a virtue. Consequently, the author characterized this as a possible case of sociocultural transfer presumably motivated by learners’ beliefs, perceptions, and religion. The term transfer thus appears to be an indication of the author’s underlying cognitive view of this phenomenon. A more recent study of learner subjectivity and pragmatic language choice conducted within a socio-psychological framework is that of pragmatic transfer by Korean learners of English by Eslami, Kim, Wright, and Burlbaw (2014). Using a DCT and stimulated recall interviews, the requesting behaviors in English and Korean of 30 Korean learners of English were compared to requests by 30 American college students. The researchers detected cases of pragmatic transfer in the learners’ level of directness and perspectives in the request head act. Pragmatic transfer included cases in which participants consciously avoided using perceived L2 norms, demonstrating that not all of these learners aimed to emulate perceived American norms of requests. While learners categorized as convergent accommodated with native-like pragmatic uses presumably wishing to acculturate, others were found to have instrumental motivation viewing English as a utilitarian language, thus diverging by making requests in a way agreeable with their Korean subjectivities. The authors highlighted three factors––purpose of learning the L2, types of motivation, and length of intended residence––as affecting learners’ degree of pragmatic transfer. However, poststructuralist researchers may contest the static characterization of learners as 164

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

either convergent or divergent, arguing that their authentic pragmatic choices are discursively constructed in relation to the subjectivities and power they negotiate within various contextual demands far beyond these three factors. A focus on sociocultural aspects of language learning and use is also reflected in a handful of studies in L2 pragmatics that explored learners’ pragmatic choices. Siegal (1994, 1996) pioneered this line of inquiry through a case study of four female Western learners of Japanese in Japan. Siegal researched these learners’ language use and positions negotiated by themselves and others in relation to race, gender, and social context. For example, Mary, a teacher of Japanese from New Zealand, emulated the behavior she perceived as humble and polite in Japan, which constructed her as a competent community member. In contrast, in an interaction with her native Japanese-speaking advisor, Mary diverged from local use of an epistemic modal by attempting to construct an equal footing with him. Siegal argues that Mary displayed what she understood as a polite demeanor to reposition herself not as a language student but as a researcher. That is, L2 speakers are portrayed as discursively negotiating their subjectivity as active agents whose language use positions them in a unique space in the community. Rather than blindly reproducing native-speaker norms, L2 speakers carve out their third space by developing creative language use and new identities. Following Siegal, LoCastro (1998) reported on her own pragmatic development (or lack thereof) while living and working in Japan. Despite her awareness of the expected use of honorifics, which she understood to be an indicator of a hierarchical social structure, her ideological subjectivities based on more egalitarian, less-gendered structures diminished her motivation to learn L2 pragmatic norms beyond minimal use of formal politeness routines. Although she aspired to function as a liberal feminist professional, her efforts to negotiate these identities were not fruitful due to constant conflicts with biases perceived in the local communities and intricate L2 norms and forms highly sensitive to layers of status differences, the model of which was rarely available to her (see also Brown, 2013). Thus, the ownership of multiple identities and desire to enact them can sometimes be an overwhelming challenge, causing learners to resist L2 pragmatic learning itself. Additional studies have demonstrated L2 speakers’ avoidance of social hierarchy indexed by the use of honorifics and gendered language in Japanese along with other pragmatic uses perceived as reflecting native-speaker norms (Ishihara, 2009, 2010; Ishihara & Tarone, 2009; Iwasaki, 2011; Jones, 2007; Masuda, 2011). For example, Ishihara’s (2009, 2010) phenomenological study documented L2 learners’ resistance to particular pragmatic language uses that they perceived as indexing L2 values, such as ritual apologies and extreme formality or directness in status-differential relationships, which conflicted with learners’ subjectivities. Ishihara defined pragmatic resistance as L2 users’ deliberate divergence from perceived pragmatic norms and language uses they are aware of and linguistically capable of producing. Excluded from this definition are cases where learners diverge from common pragmatic interpretation and production as they lack or fall short of an awareness of L2 norms or ability to produce target-like forms. Although aligning with L2 norms may be considered a more preferred approach, L2 speakers–– even expert speakers residing in the L2 community for decades––were found to sometimes negotiate their identities by refusing to adopt the pragmatic language uses they perceived as being in opposition to their subjective positions. In fact, L2 speakers may at times wish to maintain an optimal distance from the L2 community rather than being in constant and complete conformity to perceived native-speaker norms (Ishihara, 2010). As discussed earlier, pragmatic resistance can be viewed in a language socialization framework as enactment of agency potentially leading to change in community practices. (Also see Ishihara & Takamiya, 2014 and Kim & Brown, 2014, for negotiation of learners’ emerging multiple identities in technologically-­mediated telecollaboration.) 165

Noriko Ishihara

In a similar vein, Iwasaki (2011) conducted ethnographic interviews with four male learners of Japanese who studied in Japan. The data showed that the learners’ style-shifting (e.g., the use of plain vs. ‘polite’ forms) was intertwined with their negotiations of identities and perceived community expectations of their language use. They understood the polite form as a safe register along with a creator of uncomfortable formality and social and psychological distance. Yet, they reported that L1 Japanese speakers neither expected them to use a formal register nor modeled colloquial language often associated with masculinity and vulgarity. After the study abroad, some of these learners tended to use the plain form more often than is typical in an idiosyncratic and divergent manner. One learner appeared to be resisting ‘an imagined essentialized national identity’ (p. 97) of friendly American men by relying on the polite form when in doubt. Iwasaki viewed these learners’ style-shifting as an aspect of language socialization in which they did not always reproduce or maintain local sociocultural practices but sometimes actively and selectively challenged, resisted, or co-constructed them. Iwasaki portrayed these learners as active agents indexing their complex identities through style-shifting. A more current book-length investigation of identity, agency, and pragmatics is Kidd’s (2016) study conducted with young learners of English in Japan. To investigate learners’ management of face and identities, the author analyzed video-taped classroom discourse in which 15 students aged 10 to 12 studied beginning-level English with an American teacher. Kidd triangulated his analysis through a questionnaire and interviews with the learners and teacher. The learners were found to sometimes emulate social practices the teacher enforced by constructing themselves as ‘good students’ and assuming the behaviors deemed expected by the teacher in a position of power. However, the teacher’s cultural model of schooling was not necessarily transparent to the students and occasionally conflicted with the local practices that the students characterized as Japanese. Consequently, the learners felt as if their Japanese identities were being denied and threatened, taking a protective stance as a result. For example, when unfamiliar classroom behaviors (e.g., individual participation without peer collaboration) were expected, the learners sometimes disengaged from class activities or attempted to save face through the use of silence. Because the teacher regarded these behaviors as undesirable, communication breakdown frequently occurred. Kidd characterized students’ silence as an agentive act of identity on their part, through which they reinforced Japanese identity by building solidarity with peers and distancing themselves from the teacher. Thus, a lack of cross-cultural awareness of face needs and management can influence learners’ process of identity negotiation and classroom engagement. Along similar lines, an in-depth investigation of Iranian learners’ identities was conducted by Nasrollahi Shahri (in press) in relation to their investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 2000), voice, and sociolinguistic agency in language choice. Through class observations, biographical and sociolinguistic interviews, and analysis of informal interactions, Nasrollahi Shahri revealed how his participants invested in different voices with the stated intention to construct L2-mediated identities in a contrastive manner. One participant, a master’s student aspiring for a doctorate, preferred formal word choices due to his investment in the English voice indexing science, higher education, and academic sophistication. In contrast, a younger participant preparing to go to college invested greatly in learning and using informal language. His metalinguistic commentary revealed that this linguistic choice was interwoven with his enthusiasm about U.S. media and celebrities. The participants thus gravitated differently toward a formal or informal register and accomplished their voices discursively by embodying their engagement with the language, which was linked to the identities and capital they wished to accomplish. Although Nasrollahi Shahri neither explicitly connected his study to pragmatics nor discussed sociolinguistic agency in depth in dealing with stylistic variation, register, indexicality, and epistemic orientations, this study showed that learners’ pragmatic choices can contribute to their agentive enactment of their voice and identities. 166

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

Theoretically aligned with the poststructuralist approach yet methodologically unique is Liao’s (2009) mixed-methods study, in which the use of discourse markers by six Chinese International Teaching Assistants (ITAs) was investigated. The corpus-based quantification of discourse markers used in ITA-led class discussions and sociolinguistic interviews revealed that one participant associated discourse markers with informal and colloquial language and intentionally avoided them in order to portray herself as professionally formal. Like Nasrollahi Shahri (in press), Liao characterized L2 speakers as individuals with complex multiple identities, each with different voices and investments in L2 learning. Quantification of participants’ self-reported orientation in regards to native-speaker pragmatic norms can also be found in Davis’ (2007) study of preferences for North American pragmatic routines over Australian counterparts by Korean learners of English. Others include LoCastro’s (2001) survey of individual differences in attitude, identity, and pragmatic preferences in Japanese university students of English, Hinkel’s (1996) study of ESL learners’ perceptions and attitudes to L2 pragmalinguistic norms, and Kim’s (2014) investigation of pragmatic decisions and identities of Korean speakers of English. Learners’ identity negotiation and pragmatic language use has also been documented in the learning of other languages than English, such as culturally-specific greeting routines and address terms in Indonesian (DuFon, 1999; Hassall, 2013), honorific forms in Korean (Brown, 2013), and directives in making a request in Spanish (Shively, 2008). Taking pragmatics broadly beyond relatively clear-cut units of analysis such as speech acts, speech events, and discourse markers, a considerable body of research employs a fine-grained method of analysis of naturally-occurring discourse to investigate native, non-native, and bi-/ multilingual speakers’ conversation management, code-switching, and communication strategies. This line of research often uses conversation analysis (see also Chapter 15 in this volume) and associates discursive practices with interactionally-emergent identity assertion. For example, Cashman (2005) examined code-switching behavior among 12 multilingual speakers in an urban Latino community in the U.S.A. through conversation analysis of the bilingual talk-in-interaction. In this study, the author equates social identity with ethnic group membership, showing how the participants’ choice of language indexed their ethnic identities. The view of identity is similar in Zimmerman (2007), Greer (2012), and Mori (2012), in which membership categorization theory was used along with conversation analysis to demonstrate participants’ ethnic identities. Zimmerman (2007) argues that membership categories serve as a means for displaying how speakers orient to their identities in the interaction. In investigating how her Japanese and Korean participants claimed cultural expertise, Zimmerman documented how they used categorical language to define group membership according to nationality or ethnicity. At the same time, they also sometimes resisted essentialist notions of the category equating cultural identity and nationality/ethnicity by performing identities that did not consistently match their own bona fide identities. Focusing on ethnic identity, Greer (2012) demonstrated how multi-ethnic teenagers in Japan were ethnified (i.e., had their ethnicity made relevant through talk) and imposed a range of identity categories. His data consisted of video-recorded classroom and lunchtime interaction, documents, and interviews, which were interpreted through conversation analysis and membership categorization theory. Of note are the various discursive strategies these teenagers deployed to contest such labels. For example, they attempted to re-position themselves with a new label or refused to respond to the act of categorization itself. These skillfully mobilized discursive practices revealed the complex and dynamic negotiation of categorization performed by the multiethnic participants. Mori’s (2012) conversation analytic study dealt with the issue of reflexivity while investigating the influence of researchers’ identities and agendas on multilingual speaker’s construction of interview responses and expression of shifting multiple identities. The focal participant, a Korean-English bilingual studying Japanese, co-constructed her accounts in a locally-contingent 167

Noriko Ishihara

manner according to the different discourses she engaged in with two researchers of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. For example, she largely projected Korean-American identity rather than just Korean when speaking with an interviewer she perceived as a native speaker of American English, while with a native-speaking Japanese language professor in the U.S.A., she drew on their shared experiences and perspective as (East) Asians. Highlighting a broader range of identities, Cook (2008) investigated the identities of learners of Japanese and their host family members as they negotiated an array of group memberships indexed through style-shifting in Japanese. Within a language socialization framework, audiorecorded dinnertime conversations between nine American and British learners of Japanese and their host families were analyzed using conversation analysis. The participants were found to style-shift strategically to index various identities they elected to perform in each interactional context. For example, a host mother routinely switched to the presentational stance using honorific forms when she enacted the identity of a parenting authority in the familiar interactional context of home. As shown above, studies investigating identity through conversation analysis focus largely on ethnic or national identity, even with an awareness that identity can encompass categories far beyond them. This focus may be due to a limitation inherent in the membership categorization theory that is closely aligned to the method of conversation analysis. Additionally, the notion of identity is not always clearly defined or theorized in those studies. More importantly, the construct of agency appears to be rarely linked to identity negotiation as in a poststructuralist tradition. Because conversation analysis is primarily focused on linguistic analysis and looks only into identities that emerge visibly from the interactional context (Kasper & Rose, 2002), conversation analysts presumably do not have an interpretive license to argue for the participants’ willful and agentive acts of identity. On the other hand, issues of identity are more explicitly discussed in studies of the use of global English, such as English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and World Englishes, often in relation to accents but sometimes to pragmatics. Because bi-/multilingual learners may not necessarily aspire to emulate inner-circle native-speaker norms, conformity or approximation to such norms––whether idealized or research-based––may be neither a goal nor a requirement for today’s globalized communication (Seidlhofer, 2011; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018). In fact, it is sometimes argued that L1-influenced pragmatic norms, discourse patterns, and rhetorical styles may be preferred in ELF interactions especially where similar cultural backgrounds and identities are shared (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2015). Simultaneously, such localized, culturally-tinted language practices index and constitute the speakers’ identities in the local community of practice (e.g., Babai Shishavan & Sharifian, 2013; House, 2009). While even empirically-established features of global English varieties may be viewed as reflecting a static view of identity and language, identity is often investigated in authentic interactive discourse and portrayed as being multiple, contextually contingent, and emergent in multicultural interactions in a poststructuralist framework. Moreover, ELF speakers sometimes engage in identity struggle in relation to power, while positioning themselves, others, and their ELF varieties within a hierarchical structure (Gu, Patkin, & Kirkpatrick, 2014; Jenkins, 2007). Instead of simply conforming to inner-circle norms, it has been recommended that we look to bi-/multilingual speakers’ translingual interactional styles for a potentially more appropriate goal for L2 users functioning in a third space. When English is brought into a new context, its use is appropriated in an in-between interactional style to suit the ambient culture and to negotiate diversified identities. For example, in Canagarajah’s (2013) work on translingual practices, multicultural participants uniquely negotiated various identities in a subtle, nuanced, and sophisticated manner while shuttling between languages and drawing on various semiotic, pragmatic, and discursive resources. While choosing from a repertoire of multiple identities and sometimes accentuating their unique voices, ELF users have been found to be largely goal-oriented and 168

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

collaborative in global interactions, negotiating identities and interactional needs simultaneously in a contextually-contingent manner using an array of pragmatic strategies (Canagarajah, 2013; Kecskes, 2014).

Appraisal of the Current Research Practice Stepping back, this section offers an appraisal of the current research practice with regards to identity, agency, and L2 pragmatics from a critical perspective and presents some possible future directions. In particular, an observation can be made about an asymmetrical relationship between research on identity and agency in broader SLA and that in L2 pragmatics. While many L2 pragmatic studies of learner identities draw on a poststructualist theory of identity prominent in SLA, these are hardly referenced in the broader SLA literature. One reason may be that a great deal of research in interlanguage pragmatics in general is conducted from a positivistic point of view, relying at least in part on partial quantification of patterns in pragmatic language use. This orientation is sometimes found in L2 pragmatics studies investigating identity and agency (e.g., Davis, 2007; Liao, 2009; LoCastro, 2001). The underlying assumption is that identity, along with other concepts such as attitude and motivation, is measurable and quantifiable and can serve as an independent variable in predicting or explicating a causal relationship with language learning and use. However, this epistemological stance may be contested by researchers of identity and agency in broader SLA, who employ an interpretive approach with the aim to delineate a complex relationship between identity, agency, pragmatic language use, and discursive practices, without assuming straightforward or simplistic cause-and-effect patterns. Another epistemological disconnect appears to derive from the perceived legitimacy of the data collection methods used in researching identity. Some poststructualist researchers contend that participants need to be observed in or asked to account for authentic social interactions with real-life consequences and on the complex outcomes of social engagement. Arguably, such authentic social interactions can involve dynamic and discursive identity negotiations. However, in L2 pragmatics studies of identity, language elicitation methods such as role-play and DCT are sometimes used and followed up on through retrospective interviews (e.g., Al-Issa, 2003; Eslami et al., 2014; Ishihara & Tarone, 2009; Kim, 2014; Kubota, 1996). These researchers would argue that data elicitation methods can give rise to imagined identities through which researchers can look into how learners talk about the way they position themselves and are positioned by others; identity is after all an imagined construction in imagined communities. Although the legitimacy of language elicitation may be questioned in interpretive research in broader SLA, it is worth pointing out that some studies in L2 pragmatics do investigate naturally-occurring social interactions or their narrative reflections (e.g., Ishihara, 2009, 2010; Iwasaki, 2011; Kidd, 2016; LoCastro, 1998; Siegal, 1994, 1996), which may be in alignment with the interest of researchers of identity in broader SLA.

Future Directions Currently, only a few resource books on L2 pragmatics discuss issues of identity and agency extensively (e.g., Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, 2015; Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Kasper & Rose, 2002; LoCastro, 2012; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). In future research, the criticality and complexity of L2 users’ identity and agency will need to be studied as a central factor in L2 pragmatic development and pragmatics-focused pedagogy. This can be accomplished by incorporating theoretical developments in the larger field of SLA, especially a critical theory of power, into L2 pragmatics research. Notably, while there have been critical counterparts in applied linguistics (e.g., critical applied linguistics and critical discourse analysis), an area of inquiry that might be called critical pragmatics is yet to be established. In critical pragmatics, identity can be theorized and explored 169

Noriko Ishihara

in depth in its discursive construction in relation to issues of power, positioning, agency, language ideologies, language ownership, legitimacy, and emotionality in a macro-social structure (see also Archer, Aijmer, & Wichmann, 2012). Such analysis may be further developed through relevant theories and perspectives, such as symbolic competence (Kramsch, 2009) and intercultural awareness (Baker, 2015). Moreover, L2 pragmatics research can be further advanced by qualitative, narrative, and discursive methods that stand on their own rights. Interpretive research in L2 pragmatics has sometimes been excluded from research synthesis articles. With greater legitimacy, these methods can serve to uncover the complex, fluid, and contextually-contingent interplay between identity, agency, and pragmatic language use, extending the social turn to pragmatics inquiries. Interpretive research can lead to a nuanced understanding of language-related practices transcending the view of pragmatic language use as representing static and monolithic traits of certain groups of language users. In turn, identity research in broader SLA can also be enriched by more firmly incorporating a pragmatics lens. Although pragmatics perspectives are highly relevant to the analysis of identity and language learning/use, these are currently largely neglected in resource books on identity (e.g., Preece, 2016). Theory and constructs in pragmatics, such as face, (im)politeness, humor, implicature, deixis, and speech act theory as well as insights gained in research in intercultural pragmatics (e.g., Cogo & House, 2017) can reinforce theoretical and interpretive rigor in SLA research (see for example, Canagarajah, 2013; Kidd, 2016; Pennycook, 2004). Investigations into intercultural interactions and translingual practices can also be further refined through a stronger emphasis on the perspectives of pragmatics. Such cross-fertilization will become possible through theoretical and interpretive bridge work, which is expected to synergistically advance the field.

Concluding Thoughts for Pedagogy Based on research on learner identity and agency, there is a need to expand the scope of pedagogical practices. While resources on teaching L2 pragmatics abound, most of them are developed based on inner-circle native-speaker norms, assuming that they serve as optimal models for learners. However, as discussed above, research on identity and agency in L2 pragmatics has proved otherwise, offering notable pedagogical implications for classrooms in which L2 pragmatics is taught and assessed. Given learners’ agency in L2 pragmatic choices, it could be considered a form of linguistic imperialism if native-speaker norms were imposed upon learners with conformity expected. Teachers should be advised to exercise sensitivity in accepting and assessing learners’ unique negotiation of identity, which may diverge from native-speakers’ norms. In doing so, teachers may wish to first explore learner goals and the status of their pragmatic knowledge. If learners wish to be integrated into the target culture by emulating native-speaker norms yet diverge from these in their language use, it is likely that learners are lacking or falling short of the pragmatic awareness or linguistic command that would enable them to mobilize that awareness. This gap in pragmatic knowledge can lead to a communication breakdown and develop into cultural stereotypes on either side of the interaction. Therefore, pragmatics-focused instruction is in order, centering on exposure to and understanding of the norms, explicit awareness-raising of the cultural meaning behind them, and interactive practice involving their linguistic realizations. The success of such interactions should be assessed in light of first-order interpretations (i.e., assessment made by interactional participants), rather than second-order interpretations (i.e., assessment by researchers) (Kádár & Haugh, 2013; Locher, 2011). On the other hand, if learners do not aspire to conform to inner-circle norms and their pragmatic divergence is a deliberate expression of their identities, sensitive teachers should honor the agency learners are striving to negotiate. Teachers may do so by ensuring learners’ 170

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

emic understanding (insider perspective) of cultural meanings behind L2 practices and of the potential consequences of their pragmatic choices (Haugh, 2007). Some concrete instructional steps have been suggested along with ways to elicit learners’ goals and intentions upon which to perform assessment (e.g., Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, 2015; van Compernolle, 2014). Because learners’ receptive and productive goals are likely to differ, it will also be important to design distinct instructional goals and assessment strategies for pragmatic reception and production. These preliminary efforts in teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics will require a great deal of further research and pedagogical innovations if identity development is to be nurtured in the classroom. In addition, an important consideration in today’s era of globalization is the learners’ target community, which may be increasingly diversified and contingent on each interaction. If learners communicate interculturally with other multilingual speakers or wish to do so in future, their target involves globally diversified pragmatic norms and social practices beyond those of native speakers. Pragmatic instruction should therefore include a wider range of localized norms to cultivate awareness of global cultures (Gu, 2012; Murray, 2012). Learners’ metapragmatic awareness of multicultural language users’ norms and discourse strategies may also be addressed and developed in the classroom (see Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018). Along these lines, teacher development of critical language awareness, in which language use is studied in its contextualized discourse in relation to power in the larger sociocultural structure, may assist in fostering teachers’ and learners’ thirdness, supporting their translingual hybridity, agency, and identity development.

Notes 1 The writing of this chapter was funded by the Grant–in–Aid for Scientific Research (C) offered by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (#15K02802). 2 Outer-circle countries refer to former British or US colonies, such as India, Nigeria, Singapore, or the Philippines, where English is used as an official language along with local languages. In expandingcircle countries, English is taught as an academic subject and its use is typically limited to communication across national and cultural borders (e.g., China, Italy, Brazil, or Egypt). Inner-circle countries are where English is typically used as a native language by the majority, as in the U.S.A., U.K., or Australia (Kachru, 1990). 3 The terms identity and subjectivity are often used interchangeably in applied linguistics (Duff, 2012). Although the latter may be preferred in the literature based on feminist poststructuralism to stress its discursive nature of self (Vitanova, Miller, Gao, & Deter, 2015), the two terms are frequently used synonymously in the research on pragmatics and identity reviewed in this chapter.

Further Reading Deters, P., Gao, X. A., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2015). Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. This edited volume takes an interdisciplinary view of agency in second language learning, showcasing various theoretical, analytic, and pedagogical approaches to understanding and researching this construct. These diverse perspectives draw from multiple disciplines and contribute to our understanding of agency as one of the facets of the self. Ishihara, N. (in press). Understanding English language learners’ pragmatic resistance and subjectivity. In A. Gao, C. Davison, & C. Leung (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Springer. This chapter addresses the issues of identity and agency in L2 pragmatics by focusing on the phenomenon of pragmatic resistance in second and foreign language contexts as well as from global perspectives. It underscores the centrality of subjectivity in pragmatic language use and pragmatic development acknowledging multilingual hybridity. 171

Noriko Ishihara

Norton, B., & De Costa, P. I. (2018). Research tasks on identity in language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 51(1), 90–112. This article presents an overview of how theories of identity have developed in applied linguistics historically and in relation to current trends in globalization, neoliberalism, and digital technology. The authors also offer broad and interrelated research questions and tasks for researching identity in language learning and teaching as well as a discussion of relevant methodologies.

References Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137. Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(5), 581–601. Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2012). Pragmatics: An advance resource book for students. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge. Babai Shishavan, H., & Sharifian, F. (2013). Refusal strategies in L1 and L2: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Multilingua, 32(6), 801–836. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. Beebe, L. M., & Giles, H. (1984). Speech accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second-language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5–32. Berns, M. (2015). Pedagogy and world Englishes: The legacy of Yamuna Kachru. World Englishes, 34(1), 22–30. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Bloomsbury. Brown, L. (2013). Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 269–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 585–614. Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge. Cashman, H. R. (2005). Identities at play: Language preference and group membership in bilingual talk in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(3), 301–315. Cogo, A., & House, J. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In A. Barron, Y. Gu, & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 168–183). Abingdon: Routledge. Cook, H. M. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multicompetence among second language users? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 237–248). Berlin: Springer. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. Davis, J. M. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57(4), 611–649. Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). London: Routledge. DuFon, M. A. (1999). The acquisition of linguistic politeness in Indonesian as a second language by sojourners in naturalistic interactions (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, HI. Duran, C. S. (2015). Theorizing young language learner agency through the lens of multilingual repertoires: A sociolinguistic perspective. In P. Deters, X. A. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 73–90). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Eslami, Z. R., Kim, H., Wright, K. L., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2014). The role of learner subjectivity in Korean English language learners’ pragmatic choices. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 10(1), 117–145. Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 339–361. 172

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

Greer, T. (2012). Accomplishing multiethnic identity in mundane talk: Half-Japanese teenagers at an international school. Pragmatics, 22(3), 371–390. Gu, Y. (2012). Language learning strategies: An EIL perspective. In L. Alsagoff, L. S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandra (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 318–334). New York: Routledge. Gu, M., Patkin, J., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). The dynamic identity construction in English as lingua franca intercultural communication: A positioning perspective. System, 46, 131–142. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Language and social identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55(1), 1–17. Haugh, M. (2007). Emic conceptualisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 657–680. Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 51–70. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. New York: Routledge. House, J. (2009). Subjectivity in English as a Lingua Franca discourse: The case of you know. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 171–193. Ishihara, N. (2009). Transforming community norms: Potentials of L2 speakers’ pragmatic resistance. In M. Hood (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2008 Temple University Japan colloquium on language learning (pp. 1–10). Tokyo: Temple University Japan. Ishihara, N. (2010). Maintaining an optimal distance: Nonnative speakers’ pragmatic choice. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Nonnative English speakers in TESOL (pp. 35–53). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press. Ishihara, N., Carroll, S. K., Mahler, D., & Russo, A. (2018). Finding a niche in teaching English in Japan: Translingual practice and teacher agency. System, 79, 81–90. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education (reissued in 2014 by Routledge). Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2015). Tabunka rikaino gogaku kyouiku: Goyoronteki shidoeno shotai [Language teaching for multicultural understanding: An invitation to pragmatics instruction] (abridged translation and revision of Teaching and learning pragmatics, 2010). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ishihara, N., & Takamiya, Y. (2014). Pragmatic development through blogs: A longitudinal study of telecollaboration and language socialization. In S. Li & P. Swanson (Eds.), Engaging language learners through technology integration: Theory, applications, and outcomes (pp. 137–161). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Iwasaki, N. (2011). Learning L2 Japanese ‘politeness’ and ‘impoliteness’: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature, 45(1), 67–106. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jones, K. (2007). The development of pragmatic competence in children learning Japanese as a second language. In D. R. Yoshimi & H. Wang (Eds.), Selected papers from pragmatics in the CJK classroom: The state of the art (pp. 141–169). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3–20. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kasanga, L. A. (2006). Requests in a South African variety of English. World Englishes, 25(1), 65–89. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015). Multiple identities, negotiations, and agency across time and space: A narrative inquiry of a foreign language teacher candidate. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(2), 137–160. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kidd, J. A. (2016). Face and enactment of identities in the L2 classroom. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kim, E. Y. A., & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated communication: The case of Korean address terms. CALICO Journal, 31(3), 264–282. Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45, 92–102. Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). World Englishes and local cultures. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 460–470). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Kramsch, C. (2009). Third culture and language education. In V. Cook (Ed.), Contemporary applied linguistics, Volume 1: Language teaching and learning (pp. 233–255). London: Continuum. 173

Noriko Ishihara

Kubota, M. (1996). Acquaintance or fiancee: Pragmatic differences in requests between Japanese and Americans. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 23–38. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1313–1328. LoCastro, V. (1998, March). Learner subjectivity and pragmatic competence development. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29(1), 69–89. LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. London: Routledge. Locher, M. A. (2011). Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In B. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated politeness (pp. 187–208). London: Continuum. Lu, M.-Z., & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy and matters of agency. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 26–38). New York: Routledge. Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519–540. McKay, S. L., & Wong, S.-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–608. McNamara, T. (1997). What do we mean by social identity? Competing frameworks, competing discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 561–567. Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mori, J. (2012). Tale of two tales: Locally produced accounts and memberships during research interviews with a multilingual speaker. Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 489–506. Murray, N. (2012). English as a lingua franca and the development of pragmatic competence. ELT Journal, 66(3), 318–326. Nasrollahi Shahri, M. N. (in press). Constructing a voice in English as a foreign language: Identity and engagement. TESOL Quarterly. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Languages and Social Interaction, 26, 287–306. Pennycook, A. (2004). Performativity and language studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1(1), 1–19. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as local practice. New York: Routledge. Preece, S. (Ed.) (2016). The Routledge handbook of language and identity. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Rogers, R., & Wetzel, M. M. (2013). Studying agency in literacy teacher education: A layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(1), 62–92. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shively, R., L. (2008). Politeness and social interaction in study abroad: Service encounters in L2 Spanish (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Siegal, M. S. (1994). Learning Japanese as a second language in Japan and the interaction of race, gender, and social context (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Siegal, M. S. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356–382. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639–656. Taguchi, N., & 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., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

174

Identity and Agency in L2 Pragmatics

van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Varghese, M. (2012). A linguistic minority student’s discursive framing of agency and structure. In Y. Kanno & L. Harklau (Eds.), Linguistic minority immigrants go to college: Preparation, access, and persistence (pp. 148–162). New York: Routledge. Vitanova, G., Miller, E. R., Gao, X. A., & Deters, P. (2015). Introducion to theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. In P. Deters, X. A. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 1–13). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructualist theory (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Zimmerman, E. (2007). Constructing Korean and Japanese interculturality in talk: Ethnic membership categorization among users of Japanese. Pragmatics, 17(1), 71–94.

175

12 Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics From Form–Meaning Pairings to Construction–Action Relations Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

Introduction Proponents of usage-based linguistics (UBL) have argued that language use forms and drives the emergence of linguistic structure and language learning. For example, Tomasello (1992) argued that ‘[a] language is composed of conventional symbols shaped by their social-communicative functions’ (p. 67), and N. Ellis (2015) stated that ‘[the] functions of language in discourse determine its usage and learning’ (p. 49). Larsen-Freeman (2006) further underscored the social foundations of language, arguing that ‘language is social in nature’ and that ‘it is used for social action within a context of use’ (p. 593). Despite such viewpoints put forth by some of the most prominent and outspoken researchers, second language acquisition (SLA) research from a usagebased perspective has largely ignored the social aspects of language learning. Focus has been on one of the key assumptions within that framework, namely that language is an inventory of what is variously known as symbolic units, form–meaning pairings, or constructions. While this constitutes an important step away from syntactocentric approaches to L2 development, usagebased research on how L2 inventories develop still predominantly focuses on decontextualized instances of language use in the form of constructions rather than on the use of these constructions per se. Exploring the idea of an interactional usage-based approach to L2 pragmatics, we investigate whether it is possible to establish firm links between constructions and the actions they are used to achieve in social interaction. The idea is that UBL can benefit from a more socially anchored take on language that allows for a principled method of describing form–meaning pairings in their primordial clothing as construction–action relations. Given the introductory citations by Tomasello, Ellis, and Larsen-Freeman, our working assumption is not only that this is possible and worthwhile—it is the way it must be if we take seriously the idea that function determines language and its learning; that form–meaning pairings are shaped by their function. We will also argue that the reason why it has not been done yet is that the apparatus in and of itself does not entail a theory of social action. In the following we will briefly outline UBL and present the argument that we need to supplement it with a theory of social action. A section on L2 pragmatics follows before we move on to the empirical section. Finally, we conclude our chapter and outline points for future research. 176

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

Theoretical Underpinnings Usage-Based Linguistics (UBL) UBL is a cover-term for a range of linguistic theories that, in brief terms, unite in abolishing the syntax–lexis distinction and the competence–performance dichotomy, and instead insist that all linguistic units are meaningful and that language is learnable on the basis of experience. It has been derived from the theory of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 1987), whose primary objective is to describe linguistic structures as they correspond to the human perception and categorization of the world. This means that UBL is concerned with semantics and the semiotic nature of language; i.e. the form–meaning pairings which language is seen to consist of. These form–meaning pairings, also called symbolic units or constructions, are described along a continuum of specificity (from fixed formulas to abstract schematic templates which in turn sanction the single instantiations) and complexity (from morphemes to full utterances). Language knowledge, in this conception, is a structured inventory of these constructions. Constructions are cognitive schemas that carry meaning. They range from fairly simple schemas, such as the schema for ‘plural’ that consists of two symbolic structures (the noun and the plural morpheme) to more complex schemas, such as the ‘double-object’ construction. This latter construction is exemplified by such instantiations as ‘he gave her flowers’, ‘they baked us a cake’, and ‘she smiled him her love’. What binds these instantiations together as one construction is the shared syntagmatic structure and the meaning with which it is coupled, namely that of ‘object transfer’ (Tomasello, 1998). Usage-based L1 research has revealed how a creative linguistic inventory comes into being on the basis of recurring linguistic material in use (e.g., Ellis, 2002; Lieven, Salomo, & Tomasello, 2009; Tomasello, 2003; Tomasello & Bates, 2001). This research has found language learning to be concrete, exemplar-based, and rooted in usage, following a trajectory from specific recurring multi-word expressions to partially fixed, partially schematic utterance schemas, to increasingly schematic constructions based on systematic commonalities among patterns—for example, shifting from ‘Where’s the ball?’ to ‘Where’s the X?’, and eventually to ‘Where COP NP?’ Although adults learning an L2 are operating on years of experience as language users and learn in different contexts than children, similar learning trajectories have been observed in adult L2 learning (Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009a, 2009b; Eskildsen, 2012, 2017; Mellow, 2006; Roehr-Brackin, 2014; Tode & Sakai, 2016). This has been shown in larger corpus analyses of the development of L2 English verb-argument constructions (VACs) (Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009a, 2009b). Examining three constructions, verb locative (VL), verb object locative (VOL), and ditransitive (VOO), the authors showed a high degree of reliance on specific, prototypical instances of each of the constructions centered on the verbs ‘go’, ‘put’, and ‘give’, respectively. The frequency distributions of these instantiations were found to be parallel to those found in L1 corpora. Inspired by such larger-scale research, case studies of L2 use over time have revealed that L2 speakers are constantly developing a repertoire of interrelated constructions based on recurring exemplars in experience and that interactional contexts in which L2 speakers participate have profound consequences for the developmental trajectories (Eskildsen, 2012, 2015, 2017). That is, development is not necessarily sparked by one highly frequent exemplar, but instead by a few less frequent but highly useful exemplars. This will be shown later in this chapter’s empirical section illustrating a learner’s ‘can’-uses (cf. Eskildsen, 2009). The key to understanding L2 development, then, lies in speakers’ concrete instances of meaningful language use in the L2 biography.

Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (EM and CA) This brings us closer to the importance of use. UBL posits that language emerges in and from usage events where people attend to language, perceive it, navigate it, conceptualize and try out 177

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

its parts and notice new ones. We will argue here that UBL needs to draw on a theory of social action, i.e., conversation analysis, to capture how social practices are constructed and made visible for people to learn (from) them. UBL’s roots in Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar has brought with it a focus on human cognition, perception, construal and categorization of the world, but there is something more primordial than that, namely people’s in situ reasons for construing scenes—people’s reasons for putting together language to form strings of talk, namely getting some response from some co-participant(s) in some situation, primarily in social interaction. To understand in depth how language use in interaction drives L2 learning, we draw on ethnomethodological conversation analysis. Rooted in sociology and emerging in the 50s and 60s, particularly in the work of Garfinkel (1967), ethnomethodology (EM) is concerned with social order, and more specifically how people accomplish social order through methods of ­accomplishing everyday actions and practices in situ and in vivo, the key being specifically that social order is primarily to be understood from the participants’ perspective (Garfinkel, 2002; Goffman, 1983; Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson, 1996). Whereas EM is not particularly interested in how people use language to accomplish these everyday practices, conversation analysis (CA), which derives from EM, seeks to explain the methods whereby the various interactional practices that specify social order are achieved in and through talk-in-interaction (see also Chapter 15 in this volume). It should be observed, however, that CA is not solely concerned with the modality talk but with all interactional behavior, including embodied actions such as gesture, gaze, and body posture, and uses of and orientations to configurations of space, objects, tools in the environment, etc. Crucial to an understanding of CA is the idea that when an action is produced, the next relevant action is occasioned, and this next action gives meaning to the prior one. In this view, the ascribing of functions to linguistic expressions is done by people in situ rather than a priori (cf. Levinson, 2013). In other words, by providing an answer to a question, accepting an invitation, or mitigating and producing an objection to a produced comment or assessment, people show their understanding of what their co-participant just said, thus ensuring constant construction and maintenance of intersubjectivity. If intersubjectivity is challenged, people can initiate repair and work through the challenge to restore intersubjectivity (for further detail on CA, see Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Schegloff, 2007; ten Have, 2007).

Conversation Analytic SLA Research (CA-SLA) Concerned with L2 learning as a socially observable phenomenon, i.e., as something that people do and demonstrably orient to in and through talk, CA-SLA has demonstrated that L2 speakers in and of themselves are not defective communicators; that people have ways and methods to display learning behaviour; and that repair practices, definition talk, or metalingual talk might lead to situated opportunities for L2 learning.1 A branch of CA-SLA has explored L2 speakers’ interactional competence—that is, socially shared methods of accomplishing particular actions, such as repair, turn openings and closings, story-telling, dispreferred responses, and how those methods change over time (for a recent stateof-the art overview, see Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015; see also Chapter 7 in this volume). Some studies have also shown how people develop their interactional competencies with respect to the deployment of particular words, phrases, and interactional particles2 in an increasing variety of interactional contexts (Eskildsen, 2011, 2018b; Hauser, 2013; Ishida, 2009; Kim, 2009; Markee, 2008; Masuda, 2011).

Combining UBL and CA to Investigate L2 Pragmatics UBL affords an empirically viable, experiential, pattern-based model of language structure as well as a dynamic theory of language emergence that shares with CA the core concept that (L2) 178

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

learning derives from observable phenomena in the environment (Eskildsen & Cadierno, 2015; Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970; Kasper & Wagner, 2014; but see also Hauser, 2013, for a critical discussion). In addition, UBL makes it possible to investigate the development of linguistic–semiotic resources that transcend lexical specificity, allowing for explorations of the emergence of more generic constructions as cognitive routines toward which CA takes an agnostic stance (Burch, 2014; Eskildsen & Cadierno, 2015; Hauser, 2013). CA, on the other hand, throws light on the situated specifics of the interactions in which the development from lexically specific items towards more generic utterance schemas takes place. Drawing on the CA-UBL combination, this chapter explores how L2 pragmatics is learned, but we also explore the extent to which the study of L2 pragmatics can gain insight from applying a perspective that draws on UBL and CA. Therefore, the focus of this chapter will be on an empirical description of L2 pragmatics from that perspective. This description concerns processes and practices of ascribing functions as social actions to linguistic expressions in situ. This will lead to a discussion of how these empirically derived functions can be directly linked to specific form–meaning patterns, which in turn informs the discussion of the benefit of moving from the notion of form–meaning patterns to construction–action relations. Before coming to the empirical section, a few words on L2 pragmatics are in order.

L2 Pragmatics from a CA Perspective Current L2 pragmatics is informed by a variety of approaches to pragmatics, discourse, and social interaction (Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Historically, the strongest theoretical influence came from Searle’s version of speech act theory and Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory. These theories seek to explain how utterances are produced and understood as actions, an interest shared with CA. But their approach to action is rather different. For CA the habitat of action is social interaction. Actions do not have a life outside of the organization of turns and sequences, and therefore cannot be studied in isolation from them. In contrast, speech act research primarily asks how speech acts are implemented through isolated semantic structures and conventionalized linguistic resources, and how these conventions are associated with social context condensed to a few elements (e.g., interlocutor relationship) (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). A particularly good candidate for illustrating how the projects of speech act research and CA overlap and differ is the action of requesting. Requests are the most studied action in both traditions, and they have also been extensively examined in L2 pragmatics, both from the perspectives of L2 use and acquisition. Requests are an attractive object for study because they are universal and ubiquitous across societies and languages. Requests invoke and constitute cooperation and cohesion among social members. Since they are so pervasive, repeated language practices solidify into pragmatic routines. These repertoires of routinized devices are available in the conventions of means and forms that have been studied in several decades of speech act research. An early example is Blum-Kulka’s (1989) cross-linguistic study of ‘conventional indirectness’ in multiple languages. This study showed that interrogatives with modal verbs (‘can/could you’ and ‘will/would you’, and their formal equivalents in Hebrew and varieties of Spanish and French) appeared with high frequency, but also that direct forms (imperatives and declaratives) were more prevalent in the other three languages than in English, in comparable situational contexts, suggesting that cross-linguistically equivalent forms do not map onto the same pragmatic meanings. In developmental L2 speech act research, the pioneering efforts were longitudinal case studies that examined how L2 speakers of English change the linguistic forms of requests in natural interaction over time (Achiba, 2003; Ellis, 1992; Schmidt 1983). Based on Achiba (2003) and Ellis’ (1992) analyses, Kasper and Rose (2002) proposed a five-stage trajectory of request development in which ‘can/could’ interrogatives are used as ‘productive sentence stems’ (Aijmer, 1996) in an increasingly flexible and context-sensitive fashion. More recent longitudinal and cross-sectional 179

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

research on L2 requesting corroborates the five stages for L2 English (Taguchi & Roever, 2017), but equally robust corpora are not yet available for other target languages. At the same time, several analytical practices in developmental speech act research advise us to treat these research outcomes with caution for several reasons. First, data are transcribed without representing the talk beyond the words. The coarse granularity obscures a view on where the request is located in relation to other turns and how it is produced. Second, the transcription is monomodal. Multimodal action is not represented, even though requests can be done, denied, or granted through other means than language. Third, the requests are located and analyzed with pre-existing coding categories (e.g., direct, conventionally indirect, indirect), in isolation from their sequential contexts. This is problematic, among other things, when requests that are pre-empted by offers (without the request proper, there is nothing to code) and when multiple requests are made for the same request target. Similarly, treating requests as ‘speaker meaning’ (Thomas, 1995) erases the recipient and conceals the view on how the recipient’s actions shape the request trajectory. Since CA, in contrast, sees requesting as the participants’ joint accomplishment, the primary analytical interest has been in the role of pre-sequences and preference structure in the organization of requests as emerging actions-in-sequences (Schegloff, 1980, 1988, 2007; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006). CA’s distinctive approach has been extended to research on request sequences in L2 interaction, in particular in a series of studies by Al-Gahtani and Roever on requesting by L2 speakers of Arabic (e.g., Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2015) and English (e.g., Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2013). These studies enable a view of request development as L2 speakers’ increasing interactional competence. Specifically, they show how L2 speakers progress from interactionally unprepared requests to using pre-sequences and preference organization in contextually sensitive ways. In the past decade, conversation analysts have turned the spotlight on the design of turns in ongoing interactional sequences, specifically the formats of initiating actions. Of particular interest is the question of how grammatical formats offer cues for recipients to ascribe a specific action to a turn (Levinson, 2013) and how these forms display the speaker’s orientation to relevant dimensions of the target action. Studies of requests in different languages and institutional settings show that alternative grammatical formats index differential entitlement to the requested action (Curl & Drew, 2008; Heinemann, 2006; Lindström, 2005). In addition, Curl and Drew’s (2008) study highlights that customers and patients display their orientation to contingency (‘factors that could compromise the grantability of the request’, Drew & Couper-Kuhlen, 2014, p. 14) in their selections of grammatical formats. Requests with low contingency and high entitlement are formulated with ‘can/could you’, while high contingency and low entitlement are encoded in ‘I wonder if you can/could’ (see also Craven & Potter, 2010; Nolan & Maynard, 2013, on the association of entitlement and contingency and their encoding in request formats). Lastly, Stevanovic (2011) argues that a key dimension that enables recipients to interpret declarative turn formats as requests is participants’ deontic status, their relative rights to decide a future course of action in a specific social domain. Formulations of speaker need (‘Mommy, I need a spoon’), speaker deficiencies (‘I can’t reach [the bottle on the shelf]’), or recipient’s future actions (‘You are taking a bath now’) (simplified from Stevanovic, 2011) are heard as requests as they activate the speaker’s higher deontic status vis-à-vis the recipient in the setting. Deontic stance, in contrast, describes the relative deontic rights that a speaker claims by selecting a particular turn format over alternatives to perform the same action (e.g., imperatives, modal interrogatives, or declaratives as grammatical formats for requests), which may or may not converge with the speaker’s deontic status (see also Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012). Taken together, there is strong evidence that grammatical action formats provide ‘recurrent and sedimented ways of accomplishing specific social actions in talk-in-interaction’ (Couper-Kuhlen, 2014, p. 624) and that alternative grammatical formats mobilize particular social dimensions in the target action. The association of action formats with dimensions of the target action clearly resonates with early speech act research (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) and politeness theory (Brown & 180

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

Levinson, 1987), but what makes CA’s approach to action formation distinctive is that these associations are demonstrably live for the participants in mundane interaction. Orientations to actionrelated conditions are visible in sequence organization and repair, for instance in requesters’ revised versions of a first request format via self-repair and in the recipient’s treatment of the turn in their response (Couper-Kuhlen, 2014). These observable participant orientations afford researchers a key resource for grounding analytical claims in the endogenous organization of the interaction. People become sensitive to the social dimensions of requesting and their association with linguistic forms early in their lives. Since the mid-1970s, research in developmental pragmatics, language socialization, and developmental CA has accumulated evidence of how children learning a first language begin to use grammatical action formats and how they increasingly differentiate alternative language forms in contextually and especially sequentially fitting ways (Forrester, 2015). A key example is a series of studies by Wootton (1981, 1997, 2005), which examined how young children use grammatical resources in their requests to adults. At age two a child begins to replace imperatives with can I/can you constructions in contexts where she has no evidence that the adult expects the course of action formulated in the request (Wootton, 1997). This usage of can you has stabilized at age five, and it continues to be differentiated from alternative formats that convey the child’s orientation to distinctive sequential trajectories (Wootton, 2005). Can you is used neither when the request proposes consistent alignment or oppositional alignment with the ongoing or emerging activity. Such sequential orientations are indexed through imperative constructions (‘Do X’, ‘Let’s do X,’ ‘Don’t do X.’). In environments where an initial request has been turned down, another version with turn-initial (or free-standing) please upgrades the request to pleading as a method to pursue a granting response (‘please can you/can I’). Also in contexts where children re-issue a request to a parent after an earlier version was not granted, Wootton (1981) documents that at age four children differentiate between with the formats ‘I want’ and ‘can I’ in designing the subsequent request. With ‘I want’ the child objects to the recipient’s unwillingness to grant the request and aims for a change of stance on the matter. In contrast, ‘can I’ is a frequent format when the recipient has not responded to an initial request or the response is equivocal, and the child pursues an acceding response. The request studies and other developmental conversation-analytic research document that young children treat grammatical constructions as non-equivalent action formats from an early age. Distinctive from developmental pragmatics (Ninio & Snow, 1996), developmental CA submits that children’s selections of grammatical expressions exhibit their understanding of sequential contingencies and their inferencing heuristics as observable interactional work. In the remainder of this chapter, we will present data to illustrate how a grammatical construction emerges in an adult L2 speaker’s developing repertoire of request formats and how the request designs display the speaker’s orientation to the local interactional context.

Data and Analysis The data source for the present study is the Multimedia Adult English Learner Corpus, which consists of more than 3,600 hours of audio-visual recordings of classroom interaction in an English as a second language (ESL) context in the U.S.A. (for descriptions of the corpus, see Hellermann, 2008; Reder, 2005). The classrooms in which the recordings were made were equipped with video cameras, and students were given wireless microphones on a rotational basis. The teacher also wore a microphone. There were six ceiling-mounted cameras in each classroom, two of which were controlled by operators and followed the two microphone-assigned students. Classroom activities included various tasks (e.g., grammar exercises, reading, speaking) in a balanced mix of pair/group work, teacher-fronted activities, and ‘free movement tasks’ where students move around the classroom and do spoken tasks. 181

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

The data used in this paper are centered on Carlos (pseudonym), an adult Mexican Spanishspeaking learner of English. Carlos had been in the U.S.A. for 21 months prior to joining the ESL program, and he progressed successfully through the four levels, from beginner to high intermediate. Carlos has been a focal student in previous research (e.g., Eskildsen, 2012, 2015, 2017; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015), and he was originally chosen because he attended the school from 2001 – 2005 (although not consistently; see Eskildsen, 2017), which enables long-term investigations of his L2 learning. Moreover, he was a highly active student who often interacted with the teacher and his peers, and took an active role in organizing classroom activities.

Requesting in an L2: A Case Study of Carlos Eskildsen (2009, in press) showed that Carlos’ use of the modal ‘can’, a very common resource for making requests, sprang from an original source of ‘I can write’ uses. Carlos used ‘I can write’ to volunteer to write on the whiteboard—but only in cases where he was not nominated by the teacher or his embodied volunteering (for example, raising his hand) had gone unnoticed. While ‘can’ may not be prototypically associated with the pragmatics of volunteering a priori, its relation to the pragmatics of requesting is more well-described, as already outlined. Looking at Carlos’ data in their entirety reveals that ‘can’ was one of a range resources that he drew on to make requests. Other recurring ones were ‘one more time’ used to ask for repetitions in repair sequences and ‘you + verb (thing) + a person’ used to instruct fellow students toward task accomplishment. The various ‘can’-formats (e.g., ‘can you’ and ‘can I’) recurred in similar environments over time, which helped establish them as routines for making requests. The other uses, however, were less transparent in terms of the relation between usage and denotic status of the participants. We note with interest that the correlation between interactional environment and request format was extremely high; that is, different formats were used for different purposes. For instance, although we can demonstrate that Carlos was using, or learning to use, the ‘can you’-format to make specific requests, he resorted to other resources in environments where those specific requests were not relevant. The point of this section is to illustrate the development of various resources that Carlos drew on to make requests and the extent to which they are environmentally coupled. We will focus on the ‘can’-uses and also touch on some of other linguistic resources as they become relevant along the way. As shown in Eskildsen (2009), Carlos used ‘can you’ with only a few verbs. In the beginning only two verbs recurred with ‘can’, ‘write’ and ‘spell.’ These two patterns, ‘can you write’ and ‘can you spell’ were typically used as a request for help with the writing or spelling of a word. While some of the uses seemed to overlap, functionally, they were each typically coupled with a specific environment; while Carlos used ‘can you write’ to ask a co-participant for an inscription model, he used ‘can you spell’ to ask a co-participant to spell a word while he himself did the writing, usually letter by letter. Extract 1 serves as illustration of the prototypical environment for ‘can you write.’ In this example Carlos asked a fellow student, Gabriel, what his first language was (‘fierst’ indicates that Carlos’ pronunciation resembles the diphthong in the word ‘fierce’ rather than the vowel in standard pronunciations of ‘first’). The answer turned out to be Kinyarwanda, which, following a repair sequence, Carlos asked Gabriel to write. Gabriel complied with the request (see Appendix for transcription conventions). Extract 1 (November 19, 2001) 01 02 03 04 182

CAR: GAB:

what is your fierst (.) language    (2.8) Kinyarwanda    (0.8)

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

05 06 07 08 09

CAR: GAB: CAR: GAB:

heh?    (1.0) Kinyarwanda kinyawe- can you: can you write for me writes

This usage, with minor variations such as the addition of ‘please,’ was found seven times in Carlos’s first year in class and then on one additional occasion in a high-intermediate class. There were two cases where the co-participants showed Carlos the word in a pre-existing text instead of writing it, which suggests that they understood his request as being concerned with access to the spelling of the word but not necessarily with themselves doing the writing. However, there was one case where the teacher complied with his request by spelling the word in question (Extract 2). Extract 2 (April 23, 2002) 01 CAR: can you write for me please the*:: a:h (0.9) the::                      *points to material 02 TEA: couple? 03 CAR: uhuh*                           *motions to hand his pen to TEA with left hand COM: TEA begins spelling ‘couple’ while CAR takes the pen in his right hand, turns his sheet around and begins writing the word. TEA spells and CAR writes the word letter by letter. This exchange, then, constitutes a deviant case: It is the only example in the collection of Carlos’s ‘can you write’ uses where the requestee complied with the request by spelling instead of presenting the troubling word visually. The teacher did so even though Carlos’s embodied conduct reveals that he was actually asking the teacher to write. There may be a number of reasons for this, but one could be that the teacher perceived it as more challenging, and hence perhaps a better learning opportunity, for Carlos to have to recognize the spoken rather than the written letters. Interestingly, the teacher’s response (spelling the troubling word) resembles what she does when Carlos asks her to spell. There were two examples of this around the same time in class with the same teacher. Extract 3 serves as illustration. The class were engaged in an activity in which they asked each other questions about when they are going to do certain things in the future. In this case, Carlos asked the teacher when she was going to go to the dentist and the answer was ‘next fall.’ In the beginning of the extract, Carlos was writing down her answer, word by word (lines 1–3). He then made his request for the teacher to spell ‘fall’, which she did (lines 4–5). Extract 3 (May 28, 2002) 01 TEA: next 02 CAR: n:ext 03 TEA: f:a:[ll 04 CAR:                 [k- can you spell: [for me 05 TEA:         [f a l l. COM: CAR writes it and TEA explains what it means. ‘Can you spell,’ however, was a phrase that Carlos used for more varied purposes than ‘can you write.’ One recurring use was a means to elicit the spelling of a fellow student’s name for task completion purposes, but Carlos also used ‘can you spell’ on one occasion to test a fellow student’s spelling and on another occasion, prompted by the teacher, to ask the entire class for 183

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

help with the spelling of the word ‘people.’ In all these instances, then, he did not seem to be asking the co-participants to write anything—although that also happened on one occasion with a substitute teacher. What binds all these examples is that they were from Carlos’ first year in class. While there is evidence of the exemplar-based nature of the development of the ‘can you’ uses, with ‘write’ and ‘spell’—the two predominant verbs in the pattern and also the ones used frequently initially—we cannot say with certainty that he learned the pattern in class exclusively. But we see the growth of the pattern as it increasingly recruits new verbs, ‘show,’ ‘help,’ ‘go,’ ‘repeat,’ and ‘give.’ In fact, Carlos was using ‘can you write’ prior to the first request example in Extract 1. In that primordial example he used it for a different purpose, namely to give an instruction at the request of the teacher. Extract 4 shows this. Extract 43 (October, 15, 2001) Omitted lines 07 TEA: [tell *her wri:te your #first name (.) big [letters Omitted lines 11 CAR: i- (.) *i say she? (0.3) #say eh she?= 12 TEA: =please (.) *uhuh tell her uhuh Omitted lines 15 CAR: [heh heh can] you write *here eh (0.8) your first name Prior to the first line in the extract (line 7), the teacher instructed Carlos to tell a new student in the class that she needs to write her name on her name card (lines 1–2; omitted). After a repair sequence (omitted lines), the teacher repeats and elaborates her instruction (line 7). Following some overlapping talk and embodied conduct (omitted lines), Carlos asks for confirmation that he has understood the teacher correctly, using the format ‘I say she?’ (line 11). The teacher confirms by answering ‘uhuh’ and repeating her instruction (‘tell her’). Carlos then hesitates and the new student laughs (omitted lines) in overlap with which Carlos also laughs before complying with the teacher’s instruction as he makes the request for the new student to write her first name on the name card. She does not immediately understand the request but after some explaining from the teacher, Carlos, and fellow students, she eventually complies with the request (not shown). Throughout his time in class, with the exception of the final year, Carlos used ‘can you write/ spell’ to make requests pertaining to the writing/spelling of words. In this first instance, Carlos used the ‘can you’ phrase even when the teacher instructed him to use a more blunt directive (the imperative ‘write your first name’, line 7 in Excerpt 4). As a teacher, she was entitled to use direct imperatives, whereas Carlos did not have those rights. We cannot say with certainty, however, that Carlos was aware of this pragmatic distinction between the ‘can you’-format and the imperative. The following exchange (Extract 5) which took place four days prior to Extract 4, testifies to this. The teacher was instructing the students to put their pens away and stop writing because she wanted their attention (lines 1–2). Jamil, who was sitting next to Carlos, kept writing, which seemed to prompt Carlos to instruct him to put away the pen (line 4). He used the imperative here. The teacher aligned with Carlos and repeated the instruction (lines 5–6), with which Jamil ultimately complied (not shown). Carlos’ laughter in overlap with the teacher’s repetition might have been a token of mitigation. Extract 5 (October, 11, 2001) 01 TEA: I want everyone to put *(.) your pens down because you                                      *puts her pen on desk demonstrably 02    have to listen to me very carefully. (.) okay:? 184

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

03      (3.1) 04 CAR: jamil (.) #put your pen in the*:[:.              #Jamil looks at CAR *CAR makes deictic gesture      twd. surface of his desk 05 TEA:                      [yeah put- put your pen 06         [down 07 CAR:      [hhh heh heh heh .hh In both examples (Extracts 4 and 5) Carlos acted in the interest of classroom management. In the first one, he did it explicitly on behalf of the teacher and in the second one voluntarily. In both cases, the addressee eventually complied. Apart from Extract 5, in which Carlos may have picked up ‘put your pen’ from the teacher’s talk, Carlos did not use the blunt imperative to make requests or perform directives. Rather, he used varieties of the ‘ditransitive’ or ‘double-object’ construction (e.g., ‘you tell me the story’) or a prepositional paraphrase of that (e.g., ‘you tell the story to me’) to do instructing. Analyzing and discussing such instances over time, Eskildsen and Wagner (2018) showed how these patterns were both highly embodied and exemplar-based in Carlos’s development. In particular, when we looked only at the patterns used for instructing, the exemplar-basis became even clearer, as only verbs ‘tell’, ‘say’, and ‘ask’ were found in this pattern (for a full discussion, see Eskildsen & Wagner, 2018). Patterns similar to ‘can you’, i.e., ‘can I + verb?’, were also found in Carlos’s data as a resource to make requests. Carlos used ‘can you + verb?’ to request his co-participant to carry out a particular action that was of help to him, whereas he used ‘can I + verb?’ to request permission to do something. As pointed out in Eskildsen (2009), ‘can I + verb?’ was not used productively by Carlos until his second term in class. Carlos’s first productive uses were ‘can I take?’ in an environment where he was collecting journals from his fellow students. The next instances were ‘can I see?’, ‘can I go?’, and ‘can I call’. These uses all happened in Carlos’s second and third terms in class, and in subsequent terms he expanded further on this repertoire by adding new verbs. Thus, the pattern developed in an exemplar-based fashion, from recurring lexically specific initiations, towards increased productivity as it recruited new main verbs. However, it remained limited in scope with few types and tokens over time, also at more advanced levels (Eskildsen, 2009).

Conclusion and Future Directions As we illustrated in the previous section, Carlos developed an array of routines for making requests. He used different linguistic patterns for different pragmatic purposes, even down to making choices between ‘spell’ and ‘write’ in the ‘can you’-instantiations. This pragmatic difference between these two constructions was not apparent in Carlos’s delivery of the expressions per se but in the reaction by the co-participants. It was that reaction, then and there, that gave Carlos’s expression purpose and meaning. In other words, Carlos achieved, through the use of specific linguistic means, specific social actions which did not become apparent as those specific actions until the co-participant ascribed functions to the expressions. Of course, it is not surprising that he used ‘can I’ and ‘can you’ patterns for different purposes, but the fact that there was functional distribution of instantiations of ‘can you write’ and ‘can you spell’ has some implications for how we approach the issue of explaining the emergence of linguistic structure as formmeaning patterns, because it suggests that the semiotic resource known as ‘language’ is a residual of social sense-making practices (Eskildsen, in press). The data, then, point to the situated socialinteractional reality of the idea that linguistic structure is epiphenomenal (Hopper, 1987), but at the same time the data indicate that reuse of semiotic resources in meaningful interaction is a central issue in L2 learning as L2 speakers seem to draw on linguistic resources that have proven 185

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

useful in prior experience. Such reuse and reliance on available resources, used for recognizable purposes, is, essentially, what makes usage-based learning possible. The phrase ‘I can write’ was the primordial expression from which Carlos’s other ‘can’-uses emerged and it was used exclusively in situations where Carlos volunteered to write on the communal board. Eskildsen (in press) documented a close relationship between the expression ‘I can write’ and the action that it accomplishes (unnoticed volunteering), which has major implications for linguistic theory: Meaning—in this case the meaning of ‘can’—is inherently indexical and fundamentally context-dependent (Sealey & Carter, 2004). It does not make sense to extrapolate ‘can’ from the context of ‘I can write,’ which again is situated in a practice from which the expression derives its meaning and in turn makes the practice accomplishable in this particular way. Social practice and embodied language are mutually constitutive and meaning is primarily action. The action that Carlos accomplishes, in the sense that it is recognized as that particular action by co-participants, through the use of the expression ‘I can write’, is to index unnoticed volunteering and this is what gives meaning to both the expression and its constituents. The data thus indicate that the accomplishment of social action is the driving force for the emergence of linguistic structure, both in terms of language and language learning (cf. Drew & Couper-Kuhlen, 2014). Specifically for usage-based models of language this means that social action deserves more attention in endeavors to understand how people’s real-life achievement of pragmatic function gives rise to form–meaning pairings as action–construction relations. The idea of giving more prominence to an understanding of how constructions are used to accomplish social action is closely tied to an understanding of L2 learning as a matter of interactional competence (IC), that is the development of semiotic repertoires to carry out social action (Eskildsen, 2018a; Hall, 2018; Pekarek Doehler, 2018). In the present data Carlos’s IC has been shown as a matter of developing resources to make requests, and the way the requests are accomplished, through collaboration with co-participants, shows that IC is fundamentally dependent on local contingencies (see also Chapter 7 in this volume). Research on IC, then, is not concerned with an increasing grammatical correctness or even proficiency in traditional terms but with discerning how L2 speakers diversify, recalibrate, fit, and recipient-design their semiotic repertoires in response to environmental changes (Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). The fittedness to local contingencies can also be witnessed in Carlos’s L2 development. We saw, for instance, how he resorted to other resources than ‘can’-patterns when making directives, namely slightly idiosyncratic versions of the ditransitive (‘you tell me the story’) or the related prepositional paraphrase (‘you tell the story to me’) (Eskildsen & Wagner, 2018). Moreover, there were instances in the data of the expression ‘one more time’ used to elicit repetitions which Carlos, over time, developed into ‘can you repeat (please)’ and ‘can you say that again’ (not shown due to space considerations). This development spanned Carlos’ entire time in the classroom (from 2001 to 2005). Given that usage-based theories ascribe crucial importance to discourse function, as indicated in the three introductory citations (cf. also Goldberg, 2003; Ellis & Cadierno, 2009), one might be inclined to think that UBL is inherently capable of capturing the intricate nature of the ‘construction–action relationships’ of language. However, despite the assumed concreteness of language and the locally contextualized nature of its learning, the focus in much UBL research in SLA to date has remained on the semantics of schematic constructions and how lexically specific patterns drive this semantic learning in development (Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009a, 2009b). This interest in semantic schematicity does not easily translate into an interactional epistemology. In that sense, UBL is limited in epistemological scope by a concern with post-festum as opposed to in situ phenomena. However, seeing as language is something visibly done and used, here-andnow, and for that reason perhaps better thought of as languaging (e.g., Hellermann, 2018), and because we know that L2 learning is shaped by that here-and-now experience, it is a matter of 186

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

future empirical research to investigate routinization and change over time in established links, in and through social practices, between participants’ social actions here-and-now and the semiotic resources they put to use to accomplish these social actions. What UBL can do is to help understand the long-term semiotic development that results from understanding and participating in social practices. But the crucial nut to crack for L2 learners is the understanding of the social practices and what actions to be performed. UBL is not automatically fitted to handle this intricate issue because it does not come imbued with a model for investigating social interaction. Therefore, to fundamentally understand the ways in which language use drives language development, UBL can benefit from situated analyses of social interaction through CA. This combination of CA and UBL makes for a powerful tool to investigate L2 pragmatics because CA can illuminate our thinking about people’s ascription of pragmatic function to specific semiotic resources and because UBL can trace, over time, how those specific semiotic resources are linked to other similar semiotic resources in development. Together, CA and UBL can investigate the social-interactional seeds of the frequency-biased build of people’s array of semiotic resources to carry out social action. In sum, we would like to urge usage-based researchers to take into serious consideration the fact of the primordial nature of talk-in-interaction, perhaps converging on an interactional usage-based approach to L2 studies (Eskildsen, 2018a; Pekarek Doehler, 2018). Langacker (1987) described language knowledge as an inventory of form–meaning pairings used for communicative purposes but, using insights from CA, we can enhance the notion of communicative purposes by proposing that they are actions occasioned by local circumstances of social interaction, such as responses to and continuations of prior turns-at-talk (Eskildsen, 2018b; Schegloff, 2007). People’s methods of carrying out social actions in ways that make sense to others, the sine qua non of pragmatics, are the driving force for the learning of the inventory of semiotic resources as it is conceived in UBL.

Notes 1 The research is too rich to be discussed at length here, but see, for example, Markee (1994), Brouwer (2003), Gardner & Wagner (2004), Markee & Kasper (2004), Hellermann (2008), Pekarek Doehler (2010), Pallotti & Wagner (2011), Kasper & Wagner (2011, 2014), and Eskildsen & Majlesi (2018). 2 This term refers specifically to the work by Ishida (2009) and Masuda (2011) who showed the learning and increasingly diversified uses of the Japanese particle ne. 3 The extract was adopted and simplified from Eskildsen & Wagner (2018). Both talk and embodied conduct have been omitted from the extract. We are interested primarily in line 15. For a fuller transcription and analysis, see the original source.

Further Reading Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.) (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. This edited volume presents epistemological and empirical chapters that explore language as an embodied, semiotic, symbolic tool used for communicative and interactional purposes and understand language use as the preeminent condition for language learning. The chapters investigate a range of usage-based issues, for example, the environments of language use and learning, the frequency-biased nature of construction learning, the role of cognition, and the specifics of L2 speakers’ accomplishment of moment-to-moment sense-making activities. Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2014). Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. This edited volume is a collection of research on requesting as a social action. It brings together leading scholars in the field to investigate how social actions such as requesting are formatted, understood and accomplished in situ. The chapters explore issues such as the role of prosody, syntax, and gesture and other embodied resources in the accomplishment of requests in a variety of contexts, including adult and child

187

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

interactions, everyday and professional settings, and a range of languages (e.g., English, Danish, Finnish). It is a state-of-the-art investigation of a specific social action and how it is packaged semiotically across cultures and situations. This volume generates immense implications, not only for speech act theory but also for our understanding of linguistic conduct as social accomplishment.

References Achiba, M. (2003). Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English. Harlow, UK: Longman. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2013). ’Hi doctor, give me handouts’: Low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 67(4), 413–424. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2015). The development of requests by L2 learners of modern standard Arabic: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 570–583. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534–545. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burch, R. A. (2014). Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on communication strategies. Language Learning, 64(3), 651–684. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2014). On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 115–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting—from speech act to recruitment. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special section. Annual review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition. Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1–23. Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language—usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 Inventory in Action: Conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics in SLA. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 337–373). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence?: Exemplar-based L2 learning. Language Learning, 65(1), 33–62. Eskildsen, S. W. (2017). The emergence of creativity in L2 English—a usage-based case-study. In N. Bell (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on language play (pp. 281–316). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eskildsen, S. W. (2018a). Building a semiotic repertoire for social action: interactional competence as biographical discovery. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 68–76. Eskildsen, S. W. (2018b). L2 constructions and interactional competence: Subordination and coordination in English L2 learning. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 61–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 188

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

Eskildsen, S. W. (in press). Doing the daily routine: Development of L2 embodied Interactional resources through a recurring classroom activity. In S. Kunitz, O. Sert, & N. Markee (Eds.), Emerging issues in classroom discourse and interaction: Theoretical and applied CA perspectives on pedagogy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2015). Advancing usage-based approaches to L2 studies. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 1–18). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eskildsen, S. W., & Majlesi, A. R. (2018). Learnables and teachables in second language talk: Advancing a social reconceptualization of central SLA tenets. Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 102(Suppl.), 3–10. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 419–448. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2018). From trouble in the talk to new resources: The interplay of bodily and linguistic resources in the talk of a novice speaker of English as a second language. In S. Pekarek Doehler, E. González-Martínez, & J. Wagner (Eds.). Documenting change across time: Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction (pp. 143–172). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Forrester, M. A. (2015). Early social interaction: A case comparison of developmental pragmatics and psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (2004). Second language conversations. London: Continuum. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–24. Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language Learning, 63(3), 463–498. Hall, J. K. (2018). From L2 interactional competence to L2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualizing the objects of L2 learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25–39. Heinemann, T. (2006). ‘Will you or can’t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1081–1104. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J. (2018). Languaging as competence: EMCA methods for revealing consciousness and learning. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 40–56. Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 139–157. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–386). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). New York: Taylor & Francis. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212. Kim, Y. (2009). Korean discourse markers in L2 Korean speakers’ conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 189

Søren Wind Eskildsen and Gabriele Kasper

Lieven, E., Salomo, D., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–508. Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 209–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Markee, N. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acquisition studies. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404–427. Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500. Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal 95(4), 519–540. Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645–670. Ninio, A., & Snow, C. E. (1996). Pragmatic development. New York: Routledge Nolan, J. A., & Maynard, D. W. (2013). Formulating the request for survey participation in relation to the interactional environment. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 205–227. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammarfor-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reder, S. (2005). The ‘Lab School.’ Focus on Basics 8(A). Retrieved on April 22, 2018, from http:​//www​ .ncsa​ll.ne​t/fil​eadmi​n/res​ource​s/fob​/2005​/fob_​8a.pd​f Roehr-Brackin, K. (2014). Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, 64(4), 771–808. Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’ Sociological Inquiry, 50(3/4), 104–152. Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 55–62. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum. Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. InLiSt, Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 52. Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction. The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). Request sequences: The intersection of grammar, interaction and social context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Tode, T., & Sakai, H. (2016). Exemplar-based instructed second language development and classroom experience. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 210–234. Tomasello, M. (1992). The social bases of language acquisition. Social Development, 1(1), 67–87. Tomasello, M. (1998). Introduction. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol. 1 (pp. xiv–xxix). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, M., & Bates, E. (2001). Language development: The essential readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Wootton, A. J. (1981). Two request forms of four year olds. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 511–523. 190

Interactional Usage-Based L2 Pragmatics

Wootton, A. J. (1984). Some aspects of children’s use of ‘please’ in request sequences. In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), Interpretative sociolinguistics (pp. 147–163). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction and the development of the mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wootton, A. J. (2005). Interactional and sequential configurations informing request format selection in children’s speech. In A. Hakulinen (Ed.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 185–207). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Appendix: Transcription Conventions CAR:, TEA: Participants Wei[rd wo]rd Beginning and end of overlapping talk    [yeah ] */#/ Mark beginning of embodied conduct */#/Word Description of corresponding embodied conduct. (1.0) Pause/gap in seconds and tenth of seconds (.) Micro pause (< 0.2 seconds) word= =word Continuous turn word Prosodic emphasis wo:rd Prolongation of preceding sound word?, word. Falling, rising intonation ↑,↓word   Shift to high/low pitch WORD   Loud volume °word°   Softer than surrounding talk   slower than surrounding talk ->wordA>V C>AV C>A=V C=A=V In the confirmatory approach (Mackey & Ross, 2015) only one of the five mean outcome orders above would be specified as the most probable. The researcher might for instance predict that the control (no intervention) condition will result in more instances of register misalignment in the assessment interview data than will the audio-only condition or the visual-only condition, and that the visual-only intervention will lead to fewer register misalignments compared to the audio-only condition. As the predicted order always precedes the quantitative test, the hypothesis is confirmed only if the observed mean differences corroborate the predicted order. An added advantage of the confirmatory approach is that it avoids the shortcomings of the conventional null hypothesis approach in which the no-difference null may be rejected, but not in the order substantiating the predictions originally formulated. A sequential mixed methods design such as the one outlined here thus affords two advantages. It begins with phenomena emerging from an inductive analysis of interaction undertaken for purposes other than the research itself. In addition, the phenomena discovered in the first phase establishes the basis for the construction of intervention types designed to test whether designed interventions can affect the relative frequency of the phenomena of interest.

Conclusion and Future Directions Mixed methods research designs have become increasingly popular in L2 research and are especially adaptable to L2 pragmatics research. Existing research purporting to use mixed methods has, however, tended to be asymmetric with some studies placing either a larger emphasis on the descriptive qualitative part, or a major focus on quantitative analyses followed by selected quotations from study participants. Few studies appear to be designed from the outset as mixed methods research with equal weights placed on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Further, what constitutes as the quantitative portion of mixed methods studies varies widely and often entails a few tables of frequency counts of phenomena without any formal tests of the frequencies against a random chance alternative. Such studies only superficially appear to be mixed methods and often do not maximize the advantages that mixed methods can afford researchers. A way forward is to approach mixed methods in a systematic manner with more methodological rigor. Recent trends in conversation analysis have moved in the direction of integration of qualitative and quantitative methods organized sequentially (De Ruiter & Albert, 2017). There appears to be considerable potential for adopting this approach in future L2 pragmatics research in particular, 222

Mixed Methods in L2 Pragmatics Research

as we illustrated in the example study design. A qualitative analysis using CA in L2 listener responses helps us discover a phenomenon that has been largely overlooked in L2 pragmatics research. Listener responses might involve less language compared to the speaker turn, but they play an important role in successful interaction as their token frequency is high and because they show ‘good listenership’ (McCarthy, 2003). The implication for sequential mixed methods research such as in our example will help us discover L2 listener behaviors, which in turn can help us design a study that helps them develop good listenership in the real world. Contexts of mixed methods SLA research reviewed in this chapter, such as task-based learning, classroom interaction, instructional or assessment role plays, formal proficiency interview assessments, and task instructions conducted prior to experiments, are similar in that the starting point of a mixed methods study is identifying phenomena arising from the analysis of interaction itself. Micro-level analyses of such interaction may reveal recurring patterns of phenomena indicative of, for example, L1 transfer of pragmatic norms to L2 interaction. Such phenomena provide the focus of possible interventions that researchers can devise to help learners notice how exemplars from target language uses differ from their own. Effectiveness of such interventions can be cast into a number of experimental and quasi-experimental designs and tested with conventional statistical methods. This chapter presented a hypothetical study evolving originally from a casual observation of oral proficiency interview interaction in which a recurring pattern of L1 listener responses did not align to the register of the interlocutor in L2 English. The kind of transfer phenomenon observed in the interaction is assumed to be indicative of a general tendency of L1 Japanese speakers to transfer a more formal register to L2 interactions in which the interlocutor’s register does not align. Such misalignments can be made amenable to a focused interventions designed to raise the consciousness of the L2 learners to notice differences between their L2 use and the language of their interlocutors. We expect that an approach starting with L2 interaction analysis will provide fertile ground for a discovery approach to a range of phenomena with implications for L2 pragmatics. By building the first phase of a study out of the organic material of interaction which is not itself originally constituted as part of the study, researchers can avoid some of the circularity of reference and analysis problems often seen in mixed methods research, and more robustly test interventions devised to influence the phenomena of interest. The approach outlined in this chapter also affords a way around the over-reliance on mono-method data collection and analysis techniques used in L2 pragmatics research (e.g., discourse completions tasks, closed role plays) (see Chapter 13 in this volume). The potential for expanding the methodological repertoire in L2 pragmatics research using sequential mixed methods designs is considerable as the range of phenomena inherently part of interactional competence, both indicative of L2 pragmatic abilities and other facets of proficiency, become the focal points of future research.

Suggested Readings De Ruiter, J., & Albert, S. (2017). An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 90–107. This paper provides a rationale for a methodological convergence of conversation analysis with experimental psychology. They present shortcomings of each approach. The structural focus of conventional conversational analysis often begs the question of external validity. On the other hand, many experimental studies in psychology overly focus on ritualized null hypothesis testing without sufficient accounting for how study participants reveal their internalized understanding of their own social actions. De Ruiter and Albert call for recognition that conversation analysis and experimental psychology (and by extension, experimental designs in SLA and applied linguistics) share a common focus on the exclusive use of empirical data. Their article provides the grounding for sequential mixed methods in which preliminary conversation analysis of interaction can be used to discover phenomena amenable to experimental intervention and hypothesis testing needed to provide justification for claims of external validity. 223

Steven J. Ross and Yoonjee Hong

Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). ‘Some’ versus ‘any’ medical issues: Encouraging patients to reveal their unmet concerns. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis (pp. 15–31). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. This paper provides an example of sequential mixed methods research based on analyses of doctor–patient interactions. Observing systematic variation in diagnostic session closing turns, Heritage and Robinson surmised that the potential for incomplete diagnosis could be associated with the way physicians close the interactions. They designed an experimental video instruction module demonstrating how closing turns can be worded differentially to solicit more information from patients in diagnostic interview settings. Heritage and Robinson subsequently collected quantitative data about how many more health concerns were solicited from the patients of physicians trained to end their interviews with open questions relative to the control group physicians. Their results suggested that a simple intervention based on analysis of interaction could lead to an outcome with substantively important implications for health care quality. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135–173. This paper provides theoretical foregrounds of mixed methods research (MMR) and discusses issues and challenges of the MMR in the field of language teaching and learning. The authors provide a good review of the differences between quantitative and qualitative paradigms, the nature and scope of the MMR paradigm, the philosophical underpinnings of MMR, the purposes of MMR, and techniques and procedures in MMR. By analyzing the trends of 40 MMR existing studies (2002–2011), they found that many of these studies lacked the principles and concepts of MMR. They emphasize that identifying the purpose of using mixed methods in one’s research is a key component to conceptualize mixed methods research.

References Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Ruiter, J., & Albert, S. (2017). An appeal for a methodological fusion of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 90–107. Diao, W. (2016). Peer socialization into gendered L2 Mandarin practices in a study abroad context: Talk in the dorm. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 599–620. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 828–852. Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). ‘Some’ versus ‘any’ medical issues: Encouraging patients to reveal their unmet concerns. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis (pp. 15–31). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Hillman-Kobayashi, K., Ross, S. J., & Kasper, G. (2017). Achieving epistemic alignment in a psycholinguistic experiment. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(4), 1–25. Hoijtink, H. (2011). Informative hypotheses: Theory and practice for behavioral and social scientists. New York: CRC Press. Jang, E. E., Dunlop, M., Park, G., & van der Boom, E. H. (2015). How do young students with different profiles of reading skill mastery, perceived ability, and goal orientation respond to holistic diagnostic feedback? Language Testing, 32(3), 359–383. Kendrick, K. H. (2017). Using conversation analysis in the lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction,50(1), 1–11. Kiss, C., & Nikolov, M. (2005). Developing, piloting, and validating an instrument to measure young learners’ aptitude. Language Learning, 55(1), 99–150. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12. Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed—effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65 (s1), 185–207. Mackey, B., & Ross, S. J. (2015). Bayesian informative hypothesis testing. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 329–345). New York: Routledge. 224

Mixed Methods in L2 Pragmatics Research

Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519–540. McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 33–63. Mroz, A. (2015). The development of second language critical thinking in a virtual language learning environment: A process-oriented mixed-method study. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 528. Ohta, A. S. (2001). A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 103-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687. Plonsky, L., & Loewen, S. (2013). Focus on form and vocabulary acquisition in the Spanish L2 classroom. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4(1), 1–24. Ren, W. (2014). A longitudinal investigation into L2 learners’ cognitive processes during study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 575–594. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135–173. Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147–180. Robinson, J. D., & Heritage, J. (2014). Intervening with conversation analysis: The case of medicine. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 201–218. Ross, S. J. (2017). Interviewing for language proficiency: Interaction and interpretation. Baskingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Sasaki, M., Kozaki, Y., & Ross, S. J. (2017). The Impact of Normative Environments on Learner Motivation and L2 Reading Ability Growth. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 163–178. Shadish, W., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research methods knowledge base. Boston: Cengage Learning. Uzum, B. (2010). An investigation of alignment in CMC from a sociocognitive perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 135–155. van Compernolle, R. A., & Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning, 64(3), 549–578. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage. Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225.

225

15 Conversation Analysis in L2 Pragmatics Research Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Introduction Through the groundbreaking work of sociologists Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, and their associates, conversation analysis (CA) emerged as a distinct research paradigm in the 1960s. Rooted in the ethnomethodological tradition founded by Harold Garfinkel (1967), and sharing Erving Goffman’s (1963, 1967) interest in examining social order through details of everyday interaction, CA established itself as a rigorous empirical approach to the study of conversations and other forms of talk-in-interaction. CA’s primary aim is to discover and describe the mechanisms through which participants in social interaction understand and respond to one another. To this end, CA researchers have conducted meticulous examination of audio- and video-recordings of naturally occurring interactions to discern recurrent patterns across different data sets. In the last few decades, CA’s research framework and empirical findings on the fundamental architecture of interaction (to be discussed further below) have been adopted in a wide range of disciplines. The field of pragmatics in general, and L2 pragmatics in particular, is no exception to this trend. Pragmatics and CA are both concerned with participants’ choices of semiotic resources for meaning-making and interpretation in communication, and in so doing, they both place great importance on the role of context. CA has contributed to the expansion and reconceptualization of the scope of pragmatics research by introducing fresh perspectives on how to understand the nature of language use. Pragmatics, originally developed as a subfield of linguistics and semiotics, formed its foundations through theory-building afforded by intuition and introspection. Classic pragmatics work on speech act theory (Austin, 1975; Searle, 1969), conversational implicatures (Grice, 1975), and politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) provided profound insights into the relationship between linguistic resources and their performative functions, as well as the nature of social and cultural conditions that affect how speakers perform particular speech acts or how listeners may interpret them. From the CA perspective, however, these theories have limitations. Specifically, whereas earlier studies in pragmatics assume that researchers’ and informants’ introspection of what they think they do in hypothetical situations provide sufficient grounds for understanding pragmatic norms, CA considers that such intuitive reflections do not adequately or accurately capture the dynamic and intricate processes in which participants monitor each other’s ongoing verbal and nonverbal behaviors and contingently design their next contribution. Instead, CA demands every analytical claim to be accompanied by hearable or visible evidence that can be 226

Conversation Analysis

located in recorded data, and it aims to go through the kind of live analysis that participants themselves undertake. Thus, while CA and pragmatics (in its earlier form) share an interest in how meaning-making is accomplished through talk, they diverge in their ontological and epistemological stances. In L2 pragmatics research, CA has gained recognition as a credible approach, particularly since the late 1990s (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997; Kasper, 2006, 2009a; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). At the same time, L2 pragmatics has also begun to subscribe to a more interaction-oriented conceptualization of pragmatics, as seen in Kasper and Rose’s (2002) and Kasper and Ross’s (2013) reference to Crystal (1997), who defined pragmatics as ‘the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication’ (p. 301). The timing of this development coincides with sea changes seen in CA and second language acquisition (SLA). While CA has often been criticized for its skewed data in which participants predominantly consist of monolingual American or British English speakers, a growing body of studies has shown that the fundamental organizations of talk-in-interaction in L1 English conversations are largely applicable to L2 and non-English data (Sidnell, 2009; Sidnell & Enfield, 2012; Wagner, 1996). In the meantime, since the mid 1990s, the field of SLA has taken a so-called social turn (Block, 2003; Lantolf, 1996) that has encouraged researchers to adopt a more interdisciplinary approach and to re-conceptualize language learning from more socially informed perspectives. In a seminal publication that contributed to this turn, Firth and Wagner (1997) aptly critiqued the mindset of portraying L2 speakers as deficient communicators vis-à-vis idealized native speakers that was prevalent in the then mainstream SLA studies. The authors demonstrated how such a mindset abounded in SLA research designs and analyses, which tend to focus on classroom data and oral interview tests or various types of experimental or quasi-experimental settings. To counter this tendency, Firth and Wagner advocated for an emic (i.e., participant-relevant) perspective to understand L2 speakers’ participation in social interaction with attention paid to the contextual and interactional dimensions of language use in a broader range of L2 interactions. Their proposition reflects CA’s essential stance and has prompted the subsequent rapid growth of CA studies in SLA. This chapter will first provide an overview of CA’s analytical principles and procedures and introduce its key concepts. Subsequently, it will review how CA is applied to L2 pragmatics research and what kinds of contributions have been made thus far. The last section will discuss ongoing challenges and possible future directions, exploring ways to maximize the use of CA in order to respond to specific needs of L2 pragmatics research.

Analytical Principles and Key Concepts As emphasized in the introduction, CA is a strictly data-driven program, which encourages researchers to begin with unmotivated observations of recorded interactions (Sacks, 1984). While it is a common practice for researchers to approach data with questions informed by previous studies, theoretical frameworks, or common presumptions, CA demands researchers to set aside such pre-specified agenda and to start documenting every noticeable feature of talk and other conduct through close listening and viewing of recordings. This is because CA considers that seemingly unremarkable details, such as onsets of overlapping talk, micro pauses, restarts, changes in volume and other voice quality, gaze or posture shifts, gestures, and the like, can crucially contribute to the participants’ meaning-making process. Transcription conventions initially developed by Jefferson (1973, 2004) and refined by subsequent CA researchers (e.g., Goodwin, 1981; Luff & Heath, 2015) illustrate the kinds of details that have been scrutinized. Thus, for CA, transcribing is not a simple clerical task, but rather a painstaking yet critical analytical process that generates and registers observations, accumulated through repeated listening and viewing. 227

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Discoveries of particular phenomena or practices that are made through these initial unmotivated observations may lead to empirically developed hypotheses, which can be verified (and modified, if necessary) by examining a larger set of data and developing a collection of comparable cases. By following these steps, the founders of CA discovered and described the fundamental organizations of talk-in-interaction, including turn-taking organization (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), sequence organization (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), repair organization (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977) and preference organization (Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987). Sacks et al. (1974), for instance, demonstrated how conversational participants generally orient to the norm of one speaker at a time and systematically manage transfer of speakership. The recurrent patterns of turn-taking observed in a large volume of data exhibit that participants follow a basic set of rules to determine when the transfer of speakership should occur and who is expected to take the next turn. This does not necessarily mean that participants are always conscious of, or strictly regulated by, these rules. In fact, overlaps and gaps between turns occur from time to time. On such occasions, however, participants tend to interpret the significance of overlapping talk or lack of uptake vis-à-vis the normative expectations and work to restore orderliness. Central to turn-taking organization is the notion of turn-constructional units (TCUs). Unlike grammatical units defined by linguists’ etic judgment, TCUs reflect participants’ emic concerns. Grammatical, prosodic, and other features may serve as clues for participants to monitor an ongoing turn at talk and to project its imminent completion, but what matters most for the identification of a TCU is the recognition of action completion (Ford & Thompson, 1996). As detailed in Schegloff’s (2007) authoritative primer, participants’ understanding of action-in-progress is informed by their analysis of the composition (i.e., syntactic, semantic, prosodic, and other features) of an utterance, as well as its position relative to the ongoing development of a sequence of actions. To briefly outline, the most basic unit of sequence organization is an adjacency pair, which consists of two turns produced by two different speakers and relatively ordered in a way that its first-pair part (FPP) specifies a particular set of actions as a conditionally relevant secondpair part (SPP). Examples of such paired actions include summons-answer, greeting-greeting, invitation-acceptance/declination, request-granting/denial, and so on. Here again, the orderliness observed by CA is not something that dictates participants’ conduct, but rather it offers the frame of reference for interpreting each other’s conduct. The non-occurrence of expected types of responses to a FPP, for instance, is viewed as a noticeable absence that needs to be accounted for. To resolve issues preventing the immediate delivery of an anticipated SPP, participants may develop an insert expansion between the FPP and SPP. Further, an adjacency pair that constitutes a base sequence may be preceded by a pre-expansion that lays out the groundwork for the base FPP, or it is followed by a post-expansion that confirms the receipt of the SPP or engages in further negotiation/clarification of its contents. This process of coordinating each other’s actions is not always trouble-free. Participants regularly address problems of hearing, speaking, and understanding, and they work towards the establishment of intersubjectivity. Schegloff et al. (1977) explicated the mechanism of repair practices by focusing on who initiates repair, who actually undertakes repair, and when they do so with respect to the unfolding turn and sequence. For instance, the current speaker may stop talking in the midst of an ongoing turn and restart the talk, replacing an already produced word with a different choice, or insert an additional explanation. In addition to such cases of self-initiated self-repair, repair may also be initiated by a recipient of the trouble-source turn. Depending on the nature of problem, other-initiated repair can be issued in different formats, including open class repair initiator such as ‘huh?’ or ‘pardon?’, category-specific questions such as ‘who?’ or ‘when?’, repetition of the trouble source, or candidate understandings. These next-turn repair initiators occupy the position where SPPs could have occurred, and they prompt the speaker of 228

Conversation Analysis

the trouble-source turn to repeat or reformulate the earlier utterance. Such an exchange could cause a momentary digression from the originally projected course of sequence development, and therefore speakers tend to address detectable trouble sources within the same turn. Indeed, Schegloff et al. (1977) reported that self-repair is far more frequent than other-repair in ordinary conversations, indicating the participants’ preference for self-repair. The term preference, in CA, is used to refer to sequence- and turn-organizational features of conversation, rather than individual participants’ motivations. In addition to the preference for self-repair, other types of preference organization have been reported. Most widely discussed examples concern asymmetrical structures observed in the design of responding actions in SPPs (Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1987). As mentioned above, FPPs such as invitation or request tend to project acceptance/declination or granting/denial as the corresponding SPPs. These different types of responses tend to be designed in different formats. While responses such as acceptance or granting tend to be delivered in a preferred turn shape, characterized by its immediate delivery of a relatively straightforward response, responses such as declination or denial tend to take a dispreferred turn shape, which involves delays, prefaces, hesitations, as well as accounts. The structural difference indicates participants’ understanding of how these alternative responses are treated as affiliative or disaffiliative by the members. Similarly, the design of initiating actions has also been studied from the perspective of preference organization. For instance, offers tend to be treated as preferred actions over requests in that the latter tends to be withheld and prefaced by a pre-request sequence, which may trigger a preemptive offer. While the judgment of affiliative or disaffiliative actions can be linked to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) notion of face preservation and threat in essence, CA’s distinct contribution lies in the explication of how these different actions are systematically designed and treated by participants in actual interaction. As summarized above, the four fundamental organizations of conversations discovered through empirical analysis are not separable, but rather, they operate in an interconnected fashion and serve as the ‘architecture of intersubjectivity’ (Heritage 1984, p. 254). These generic organizations are considered to be applicable to a wide variety of talk-in-interaction taking place in diverse settings and are characterized as context-free. At the same time, CA is interested in investigating how these context-free mechanisms are utilized or adapted in a context-sensitive fashion, responding to particulars of each circumstance. Context, for CA, entails the local, sequential contexts established by the interaction leading up to the moment, as well as broader social contexts surrounding the interaction, including institutional expectations or macro-social structures under which participants are assumed to interact. CA, however, does not treat the latter as preexisting factors that inevitably and consistently impact participants’ conduct. Rather, CA examines how participants enact, renew, or orient to certain aspects of context contingently in talk, that is, how they make a particular interaction-external feature relevant to and salient through their conduct. For instance, in classroom interaction, the roles of teacher and student are not omnipresent. The institutional nature of classroom interaction is made visible as the participants engage in a distinct speech-exchange system and sequence organization that reveal unequal distribution of knowledge and control associated with their respective roles (for a concise summary, see, for example, Gardner, 2013; Markee & Kasper, 2004). While basic CA aims to uncover seemingly context-free mechanisms and continues to refine and expand the earlier findings summarized above, institutional CA has examined a broad range of naturally occurring institutional interactions including classroom interactions, doctor–patient interactions, news and research interviews, courtroom interactions, service encounters, and various types of workplace interactions (for a concise summary, see, for example, Heritage, 2005). Institutional CA uses basic CA as a resource to investigate how social institutions are talked and acted into being. As shall be discussed in the following section, both types of CA have significantly enriched L2 pragmatics research. 229

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Contribution of CA to L2 Pragmatics Research Respecification of Analytical Approach Perhaps CA’s most profound influence in pragmatics research is its introduction of emic and sequential analysis, which triggers the reconceptualization of key notions such as action, meaning, and context (Kasper, 2006) and consequently transforms the analytical approach to data. First, what people do with language is classically conceptualized in pragmatics as speech acts (Austin, 1975), which can be identified in a top-down manner by the analyst based on a given inventory. In contrast, CA views actions as sequentially emergent and contingently coconstructed by participants in unfolding talk-in-interaction (see also Chapter 12 in this volume). In CA, an action needs to be described from the participants’ perspectives. That is, an action’s meaning needs to be demonstrated in how others respond to it in the following turns and how these responses indicate the participants’ own analysis of the prior turns. This analytical process, next-turn proof procedure (Sacks et al., 1974), distinguishes CA from other approaches. CA also suggests that actions are often achieved over multiple turns, and a single turn may perform multiple actions, such that a question may be employed to initiate repair, which in turn may project disagreement, refusal, or non-alignment (Levinson, 2013). Second, traditional pragmatics tends to view meaning as existing outside of message production or as statically encoded in expressions. On the one hand, the study of implicature stipulates that meaning is created and inferred by referring to a set of maxims under the assumption of a shared principle of cooperation (Grice, 1975) (see also Chapter 3 in this volume). On the other hand, in classic speech act analysis, an utterance’s intended meaning (termed illocutionary act) is determined by classifying the utterance’s semantic components into pre-set categories (e.g., Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989) (see also Chapter 13 in this volume). Neither view recognizes the dynamic processes in which meaning takes shape and speech acts come into being in unfolding interaction. In CA’s view, meaning is made visible in participants’ observable conduct, and it is jointly achieved and negotiated in sequential context (for a more in-depth critique of the shortcomings of speech act theory’s approach to actions, see Curl & Drew, 2008; Schegloff, 1988). Finally, CA’s emic stance also means that context in L2 interactions is not treated as a priori and fixed factors that will then influence speakers’ choices (as in Brown and Levinson’s [1987] politeness theory); rather, context needs to be invoked, renewed, and made relevant by participants in moments of interaction (Schegloff, 1992, 1997). This approach forces the analyst to examine dynamic processes in which commonsense knowledge is talked into being by social members (see Kasper, 2006, for a further discussion on CA’s influence on pragmatic notions of action, meaning, and context). To illustrate how such respecification of analytical approach can enhance L2 pragmatics research, Kasper (2006), for instance, reexamined requests by a young ESL learner (reported in Achiba, 2002) using emic sequential analysis and showed how one can gain a more detailed understanding of the process in which the requests are revised contingently as a result of coconstructed negotiation with the other participant. Along similar lines, Al-Gahtani and Roever (2012) demonstrated that CA-informed analysis of role-played requests by ESL learners of different proficiency levels can add further insights on previous findings. While confirming a previous finding in traditional pragmatics research (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007b) that lower-level learners tend to produce requests with less frequent pre-expansions compared to advanced-level learners, Al-Gahtani and Roever’s study also revealed that the requests by learners of different levels varied in their sequential organization (see also Chapter 2 in this volume). High-level learners tended to preface their requests with inquiries about the interlocutor’s availability and accounts for the requests as a way to project the upcoming request, whereas lower-level learners tended to issue the request first and then depended on the interlocutor to elicit any accounts. Importantly, 230

Conversation Analysis

Al-Gahtani and Roever’s findings extended L2 pragmatics research in its recognition of the interlocutor’s role in the co-construction of the requests, such as producing different forms of insert expansions with different levels of learners and producing more frequent reformulations of the learners’ requests with lower-level learners than with higher-level learners. CA-informed analysis of L2 speech acts such as those by Al-Gahtani and Roever (2012) and others (e.g., Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2013; Golato, 2002; Huth, 2006; Taleghani-Nikazm & Huth, 2010) has fruitfully brought more informed understandings about the target and processes of L2 pragmatics.

Identification of Analytical Objects CA has also made striking contributions to the identification and analysis of interactional practices that have not previously attracted researchers’ attention. CA’s analytical starting point to examine talk-in-interaction as it is achieved by participants draws attention to interactional practices in their own right, and thus reveals important meaning-making mechanisms by L2 participants that have escaped preconceived or intuitive theorization, most notably top-down etic inventories of speech acts (see also Chapter 7 in this volume). Among these are practices that have been identified in CA research including turn-taking practices, preference organization, repair practices, sequential structure management, embodied actions, as well as practices that have not been previously documented. To illustrate, CA-informed analysis of L2 learners’ turn-taking practices reveals that novice Japanese learners of English may use vowel-marking (final [o] or [u] epenthesis), a phenomenon commonly taken to be a pronunciation deviation, to manage turns at talk. Specifically, they use vowel-marking to survive overlapped talk, to signal the upcoming of a repair or word search, or to indicate the production of further talk by the same speaker (Carroll, 2005). Additionally, they may produce restarts and sound elongation at a turn beginning while shifting gaze toward the listener to secure recipiency and establish intersubjectivity (Carroll, 2004). Further, L2 learners can develop turn-taking practices over time by taking more initiatives to claim the floor (Young & Miller, 2004) or by using incomplete turn-constructional units to construct meaning collaboratively and display affiliation with co-participants (Taguchi, 2014a). Timely bid for speakership in classroom interaction is another type of turn-taking practices examined. Over time, L2 learners may begin to use ‘heavy’ attention-getting devices (imperatives or high volume) (Cekaite, 2007) and fitting their turn initiations with the flow of an ongoing action (Cekaite, 2007; Pallotti, 2002; Wanatabe, 2017). Focusing on preference organization, Taleghani-Nikazm and Huth (2010) found that American learners of German are able to treat requests as dispreferred by producing pre-requests, which project the upcoming request and enable the recipient to produce an offer. Waring (2013), on the other hand, detailed how an ESL student learned to respond to routine questions such as ‘How was your weekend?’ This type of question is constructed by the teacher as projecting responses about leisure activities. Hence, responding to it with the disclosure of work-related (and not leisure) activities tends to be treated as dispreferred. Waring’s study documented how the student developed her sociopragmatic understanding about what the question projects. Notably, Waring pointed out that the student’s development emerged from the teacher’s in situ treatment of what counted as appropriate responses to the question. Research on repair practices in interaction involving L2 learners uncovers, for example, that over time learners may employ more diverse other-initiated repair methods, moving from only repeating the trouble source to repeating and spelling the target word, as well as producing accounts (Hellermann, 2011). Learners have also been shown to decrease the frequency of selfinitiated self-repair (Hellermann, 2009; Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015) and increase self-repair repertoire to include not only stopping mid-turn and explicitly calling for help but also producing candidate formulation of the trouble source and paraphrasing the target item in the L2 (Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). 231

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Another area that has opened up thanks to CA’s attention to the sequential organization of talk is L2 speakers’ practices of managing larger projects, including story-telling, topic management, and action transitioning. With a focus on story-telling, Barraja-Rohan (2015) traced an ESL learner over time and noted how her story initiations changed from being prompted by a co-participant’s specific question or reference to a specific topic to being formulated as a self-initiated story entry in response to a general question. These changes indicate the learner’s more active role in launching stories. Further, as time went on, the learner also developed lengthier stories persisting over multiple turns and being more sensitive to the co-participant’s responses (for an analysis of learners’ interactional practices as story recipient, see Y. Kim, 2016). Concentrating on how learners manage topics in conversations, Lee and Hellermann (2014) demonstrated that ESL learners were able to change from disjunctive topic shifts to smoother topic shifts by using discourse markers to signal the shift. In another longitudinal study, Nguyen (2012) documented an ESL learner’s development of interactional practices to transition from a casual chat to task-related talk, which included not only the co-construction of the closing of the current topic through turn-withholding and minimal token production but also the joint projection of the next activity through synchronized embodied actions (e.g., shifting body orientation from facing each other to facing the work area, readying work-related objects, and ending smiles). CA’s attention to embodied actions also lends new insights into how meaning-making is achieved and learning opportunities are created in an L2. Mori and Hayashi (2006), for example, showed that a learner was able to orient to embodied completion of turns by a more competent speaker to achieve understanding, and demonstrate intersubjectivity by verbalizing the intended meaning of the gesture used in place of the final element of the prior turn. This then occasioned ratification by the competent speaker in the form of a more precise and elaborate verbal expression, which may have also served as a learning opportunity for the learner. The application of CA to L2 data has also yielded the discovery of other types of interactional practices that reflect important practical concerns for L2 learners. This is exemplified by a longitudinal CA study of a Thai speaker of English by S. Kim (2018). Initially, the learner ran into troubles in answering an interview question about her future career choice, ‘air hostess,’ due to a pronunciation deviation. In subsequent interviews, she resolved the issue not by using a different word or by correcting her pronunciation, but by expanding her response over multiple turns in which she produced descriptors about her career before she produced the word ‘air hostess.’ In doing so, she preemptively achieved intersubjectivity with the interviewer before the problem arose. Kim’s study demonstrates that, by adhering to CA’s principle of grounding the analysis in the data, researchers can capture the innovative solutions that learners arrive at to make sense of and achieve a social interaction. Examples of other studies in this direction include Mori and Hasegawa’s (2009) study on Japanese learners’ employment of invented ‘Japanized’ words during a word search (e.g., ‘disgaizu shimasu’ [(we) disguise], pp. 84–85) and Firth’s (2009) study on multilingual business partners’ incorporation (in English) of nonstandard forms in each other’s turns to achieve fluency and a cooperative stance, as well as the use of stress, intonation, and pauses to produce ‘supportive synchronicity’ (pp. 137ff) in talk. With no pre-set inventory, the conversation analyst is free to pursue any interactional practice that is relevant to the participants.

Expansion of Learning Contexts CA’s requirement to analyze naturally occurring data has triggered researchers to look at L2 learners’ performance beyond discourse completion tasks (DCT) and role-plays in experimental settings (see also Chapter 13, this volume). CA-informed L2 pragmatics research has begun to explore the ways in which L2 speakers participate in social interaction in a wider range of 232

Conversation Analysis

contexts, including settings where L2 learning is, or is not, treated as a central focus of the ongoing activity. Research on learners’ interaction in study abroad and immersion contexts, for instance, reveals a range of pragmatic abilities that learners developed as they engaged in interaction with local community members such as host families and shop owners (see also Chapter 23 in this volume). Those pragmatic abilities include the ability to shift speech styles appropriately in conversations (Taguchi, 2014b), the ability to initiate story-telling (Pekarek Doehler & [Pochon-]Berger, 2015, 2016) and to perform affiliative assessments as a recipient in story-telling (Ishida, 2011), the ability to achieve alignment through specific linguistic resources (Dings, 2014; Ishida, 2009), and the ability to open up language-learning opportunities in business transactions (Eskildsen & Theodórsdóttir, 2017; Theodórsdóttir, 2011a, 2011b). Another body of work focuses on learners’ pragmatic capabilities in L2 conversations-forlearning, in which there is no explicit pedagogical agenda except for holding conversations in the target language. This body of studies has documented learners’ practices for telling stories (Barraja-Rohan, 2015), responding to stories (Y. Kim, 2016), producing repair and other-correction (Hauser, 2010), and using descriptors to preempt interactional troubles (S. Kim, 2018). A related body of research has examined learners’ interactional practices in teacher–student interactions outside the classroom such as office hours and tutoring sessions, demonstrating that learners developed the ability to respond to topic proffers (Nguyen, 2011), to co-construct writing revision activities (Young & Miller, 2004), and to transition between activities (Nguyen, 2012). Expanding into workplace settings, CA studies have shown how L2 users employ diverse and innovative resources to achieve work-related communication, often without highlighting their status as L2 learners (see also Chapter 27 in this volume). Firth (2009), for example, noted that business partners speaking in an L2 often proceeded to accomplish business-related tasks using linguistic expressions that they mark as deviating from expected norms. Such flagging for markedness—realized by slowed speech tempo, word cut-offs, hesitation markers, and rising intonation—served to signal to the recipient that what is being said is unusual and thus assists the recipient with interpreting the meaning. With respect to learning, Nguyen (forthcoming) showed that, while carrying out task-related talk, a novice L2 front-desk agent at a hotel became able to diversify her linguistic resources in the assessment of guests’ tellings about their trips and use different linguistic materials to achieve topic initiation and topic pursuit in less problematic ways. In this fashion, CA’s treatment of naturally-occurring data as primacy has truly opened up a broader and richer range of investigative foci in L2 pragmatics.

Longitudinal Documentation of Pragmatic Development As discussed above, several CA-informed studies of L2 pragmatics have documented learners’ longitudinal development. In this section, we will focus on these studies’ articulation of methodology. While traditional L2 pragmatics research on development has relied mainly on experimental design with quantitative coding and statistical analysis of cross-sectional or longitudinal data (Taguchi, 2010), CA’s fine-grained and emic qualitative approach in a longitudinal study design has made it possible to trace L2 learners’ development over time in a more holistic manner. An experiment design can enable the efficient documentation of a broad range of pragmatic behaviors, but there lingers an unanswered question about how learners actually perform pragmatic acts in real-life situations, where their actions bear real-life consequences (see Félix-Brasdefer, 2007a, for a discussion of the contrast between role-plays and real-life interactions). CA-based longitudinal studies, on the other hand, have shed light on the multi-faceted and co-constructed processes of L2 pragmatic development as learners engage in meaningful interactions with real-world practical concerns (e.g., Hellermann, 2011; Y. Kim, 2016; Lee & Hellermann, 2014; 233

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Nguyen, 2012; Pekarek Doehler & [Pochon-]Berger, 2015, 2016; Waring, 2013). What these studies have in common is how they identify the object of learning, how they document learning, and what they demonstrate to be the impetus for learning. To reiterate, in a CA-based approach, the object of pragmatic development is not preconceived but is determined by examining the learner’s interactional conduct with co-participants. Thus, the object of learning is something demonstrably relevant to the learners. A phenomenon’s relevance is discovered through initial unmotivated looking of naturally occurring interaction. Once the object of learning has been identified in this manner, analysts can draw on previous empirical findings to understand its nature. Subsequently, learning is documented by comparing the learner’s engagement in interactional practices over time. Comparison in CA work is done horizontally by describing a phenomenon in a collection (e.g., Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) or vertically by describing changes over time (see Zimmerman, 1999, on horizontal and vertical comparisons in CA). This comparison is not unlike traditional quantitative research on pragmatic development in that the goal is to identify differences in learners’ conduct across various points in time. What is distinct in a CA-based approach is that this comparison is done qualitatively and with keen attention to the local context of each instance. (The challenges of this comparison will be discussed below.) Finally, a CA-based approach to researching pragmatic development can also explicate the possible forces that may trigger a learner’s changes over time. Since talk-in-interaction is where members’ competence is publicly displayed, and since learners’ actions are coordinated with other interactants, CA researchers contend that interaction itself provides the mechanisms for learning (Hauser, 2011; Kasper, 2009b; Nguyen, 2017; Schegloff, 1989; see also Garfinkel, 2002). Through the management of actions and meanings in talk-in-interaction, participants exhibit to each other at any given moment their understandings about what has been achieved, what is going on, and what is being projected next. It is through these observable displays that a learner can see the outcomes of their actions and modify their conduct in future occasions if necessary to better achieve goals.

Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions A challenge in a CA approach to L2 pragmatics is the tension between, on the one hand, fieldspecific interests in L2 pragmatics such as revealing particular interlanguage patterns and the development of pragmatic abilities, and on the other, CA’s requirement for naturally occurring data and an unmotivated stance in analysis (see Mori, 2007). It takes considerably more effort and time to collect sufficient data about a target pragmatic phenomenon in naturally occurring L2 conversations, whereas simulations such as role-plays and oral and written DCTs can generate a large amount of data covering a range of contextual configurations in a short amount of time (see also Chapter 13 in this volume). A strategy for CA-based L2 pragmatics research has been to record L2 interactions as they occur and identify the analytical objects (e.g., story openings) after data collection (e.g., Nguyen, 2011, 2012; Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). This approach has the advantage of focusing on interactional practices that are relevant to the participants, but the unpredictability of research outcomes is a challenge. Regarding L2 pragmatic development, longitudinal CA-based studies also face the challenge of implementing a ‘same-but-different analysis’ across different points in time (Koschmann, 2013, p. 2). Fundamentally, tracing learners’ chronological development entails comparing the learner’s interactional conduct in different conversations, which may involve different co-participants, topics, actions, and locations. For the comparison to work, there has to be some consistencies across episodes, and yet, to ascertain development, the analysis needs to identify the presence or absence of differences over time. Both consistencies and differences are more challenging to demonstrate when dealing with naturally occurring conversations, which are inherently contingent and 234

Conversation Analysis

co-constructed. Researchers have attempted to resolve this issue by focusing on learners’ actions across comparable contexts over time and by considering learners’ conduct in the context of local contingencies, including co-participants’ actions. For example, Pekarek Doehler and Berger (2016) focused on the specific action of story opening by a German learner of French during her nine-month stay with a host family. Although the topics varied, the co-participants (host family members) and the setting (lunch and dinner conversations) remained stable. The analysts adopted such a strategy to narrow down contexts for tracking the learner’s changes over time (for further discussions on methodological issues and possible solutions, see, Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011; Nguyen, 2017; Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Pekarek Doehler & Berger, 2016). Notwithstanding these ongoing challenges, CA has provided a fruitful direction for L2 pragmatics and can help further expand the field. Below we outline some possible future directions for CA-based L2 pragmatics research. First, CA-based studies have thus far contributed answers to two of the three basic questions in L2 pragmatic acquisition research, namely, what is learned and how it is learned. As a future direction, research in this area can focus on the third question, why something is learned or is not learned. If we take CA’s ethnomethodological position that competence (and non-competence) is concretely and publicly displayed in social interaction (Garfinkel, 2002), by examining learners’ observable modifications of interactional practices, it may be possible to identify the impetuses for learning or non-learning, not as cognitive processes but as locally motivated solutions to interactional problems. Although some CA-based research on pragmatic development and nondevelopment has drawn on exogenous theories as a recourse (e.g., Brouwer & Wagner, 2004; Hellermann, 2008; Karrebæk, 2010; Young & Miller, 2004), more recent studies have begun to adopt this endogenous ethnomethodological standpoint to explain the impetus for learning either explicitly (e.g., Nguyen, 2019) or implicitly (e.g., Hellermann, 2011; Pekarek Doehler & Berger, 2016). Further, a CA approach to L2 pragmatics can also encourage researchers to reflect on fundamental notions of L2 and L2 development. Seen from the multilingual participants’ perspectives, interactional practices deployed in talk may be translingual, intercultural practices, that is, practices that transcend the L1–L2 distinction as participants draw upon whatever resources that are available to accomplish goals (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 2007; see also Chapter 12 in this volume). In response to the recent translingual turn in applied linguistics (Hawkins & Mori, 2018), CA, with its fundamental emphasis on emic perspectives, could contribute to the investigation of when and how the participants distinguish among named languages in ways that are critical to their ongoing activity, and when and how they flexibly assemble linguistic and non-linguistic resources available in situ, disregarding the significance of making such a distinction (e.g., Gafaranga, 1999; Hazel, 2017; Mondada, 2007). Understanding such shifts could also advance our understanding of the impetuses (or lack thereof) for L2 learning. Another area of L2 pragmatics that has been understudied in general and in CA-based research in particular is the investigation of implicature interpretation. So far, L2 pragmatics studies have assessed learner’s understanding of implied meanings by using discrete comprehension tests in an experimental design (e.g., Bouton, 1992; Taguchi, 2007, 2008). In CA, understanding is conceptualized to be observable in talk-in-interaction, and thus evidence of understanding can be obtained through the next-turn proof procedure (Sacks et al., 1974). It would be useful to examine learners’ implicature comprehension as it is at work in real-life conversations, in which learners’ understandings are displayed, claimed, negotiated, and bear visible consequences (see Chapter 3 in this volume). Finally, CA-based L2 pragmatics research can benefit from the incorporation of multimodality and new modes of communication (such as online chat, instant messaging, and social networking) and the expansion of its database to capture the range of pragmatic behaviors in naturally occurring social interaction. Meaning-making, whether in L1 or L2, is not limited to verbal 235

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

conduct, but it is intertwined with embodied actions and manipulations of objects and spaces. With promising recent research on embodiment in L2 interaction (Belhiah, 2013; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015), the field awaits further findings in this area. In addition, as more and more language learning is taking place in computer-mediated communication, researchers have begun to use CA to examine L2 learners’ pragmatic abilities in this environment (see also Chapter 24 and 25 in this volume). For example, González-Lloret (2009) revealed how L2 Spanish learners utilized punctuation marks to initiate repairs and used emoticons and onomatopoeia to initiate and respond to humor in online text chat. In another study, Balaman and Sert (2017) showed how Turkish learners of English became more adept at managing epistemic positioning displays (e.g., requesting and providing clarification, giving collaborative hints, displaying listenership and understanding), which in turn enabled them to accomplish tasks more efficiently. More research is needed to uncover L2 learners’ pragmatic patterns in these new, digitally mediated environments. Lastly, as learners engage in L2 interaction in increasingly diverse contexts, ranging from institutional settings (e.g., Nguyen, 2019, forthcoming) to entertainment (e.g., Piirainen-Marsh, 2011), researchers are compelled to expand their inquiry terrain as well.

Further Reading Have, P. ten. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Written by the original founder of EMCA Wiki (http://emcawiki.net, currently hosted by the International Society for Conversation Analysis), this book offers an accessible introduction to CA’s theoretical roots and fundamental principles as well as the practical process of doing CA, including data collection, transcription, analytical strategies, and the application of CA in other fields. Writing for newcomers, the author introduces new knowledge gently with ample examples and data excerpts. At the same time, core issues in CA are discussed fully and concepts are dealt with thoroughly. This is a must-read for anyone interested in learning how to do CA. Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. A monumental reference for CA practitioners, this handbook contains state-of-the-art chapters written by leading authors in the field. Covering from methodological issues to key topics about mundane conversations and talk in institutional contexts, the chapters bring together up-to-date syntheses of CA findings over the years. In a field where, due to the nature of the mode of inquiry, findings are often incremental and accumulative, the handbook provides a comprehensive and coherent overview of what CA is about and what has been accomplished in CA. Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (forthcoming). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers (2nd ed.). New York/London: Routledge. Written with teachers of English as a second language in mind, this textbook offers a useful reference of CA topics that are relevant to language teaching. The authors explain key CA concepts clearly and succinctly, with references to classic CA works and with ample data excerpts for illustration. In addition to the main content, each chapter includes pre-reading questions, data analysis tasks, authors’ real-life anecdotes, teaching activities, and post-reading discussion questions. Readers not only learn CA concepts but also how to develop interactional practices for L2 learners. This is a multifaceted, dynamic, and fun book for selfstudy or use in a class with teachers in training.

References Achiba, M. (2002). Learning to request in a second language: Child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 42–65. Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2013). ‘Hi doctor, give me handouts’: Low-proficiency learners and requests. ELT Journal, 76(4), 413–424. 236

Conversation Analysis

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Balaman, U., & Sert, O. (2017). Development of L2 interactional resources for online collaborative task accomplishment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 601–630. Barraja-Rohan, A. M. (2015). ‘I told you’: Storytelling development of a Japanese learning English as a second language. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 271–304). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Belhiah, H. (2013). Gesture as a resource for intersubjectivity in second-language learning situations. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 111–129. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing corporation. Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically— without being explicitly taught? In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol 3, pp. 53–65). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 29–47. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, D. (2004). Restarts in novice turn beginnings: Disfluencies or interactional achievements? In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 201–220). London: Continuum. Carroll, D. (2005). Vowel-marking as an interactional resource in Japanese novice ESL conversations. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.), Applying conversation analysis (pp. 214–234). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62. Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. Dings, A. (2014). Interactional competence and the development of alignment activity. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 742–756. Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G. (2017). Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 143–164. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 268–297. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007a). Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context, 42(2), 159–185. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007b). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 253–286. Firth, A. (2009). Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47(1), 127–156. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–819. Ford, C., & Thompson, S. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammar and interaction (pp. 134–184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gafaranga, J. (1999). Language choice as a significant aspect of talk organization: The orderliness of language alternation. Text, 19(2), 201–225. Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 593–611). Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s programs: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 237

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Golato, A. (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 547–571. González-Lloret, M. (2009). CA for computer-mediated interaction in the Spanish L2 classroom. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 281–316). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 1–15). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hauser, E. (2010). Other-correction of language form following a repair sequence. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. Yoshimi, & J. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol.12, pp. 277–296). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Hauser, E. (2011). On the danger of exogenous theory in CA-for-SLA: A response to Hellermann and Cole (2009). Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 348–352. Hawkins, M. R., & Mori, J. (2018). Considering ‘trans-’ perspectives in language theories and practices. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 1–8. Hazel, S. (2017). Mapping the langscape—developing multilingual norms in a transient project community. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 27(3), 308–325. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using ‘no’ by a learner of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 95–126. Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigation of other-initiated repair. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 147–172). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2025–2050. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ‘ne’ in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–385). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person’s telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese: Development of interactional competence during one-year study abroad. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 45–85). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9(1), 47–96. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karrebæk, M. S. (2010). I can be with! A novice kindergartener’s successes and challenges in play participation and the development of communicative skills. In G. Kasper, H. t. Nguyen, D. Yoshimi, & J. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol.12, pp. 327–359). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech act in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. FélixBrasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol.11, pp. 281–314). Honolulu HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Kasper, G. (2009a). L2 pragmatic development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 259–283). Leeds, UK: Emerald. Kasper, G. (2009b). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 11–36. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. University of Michigan: Blackwell Publishing. Kasper, G., & Ross, S. J. (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics: An overview and introductions. In S. J. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 1–40). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 238

Conversation Analysis

Kim, Y. (2016). Development of L2 interactional competence: Being a story recipient in L2 English conversation. Discourse and Cognition, 23(1), 1–8. Kim, S. (2018). Development of discursive practices for Thai English intelligibility in interaction. System, 72, 164–177. Koschmann, T. (2013). Conversation analysis and learning in interaction. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1038–1043). Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: ‘Letting all the flowers bloom!’ Language Learning, 46(4), 713–749. Lee, Y. A., & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation analysis: Crosssectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 763–788. Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2015). Transcribing embodied action. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 376–390). London: John Wiley & Sons. Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500. Mondada, L. (2007). Bilingualism and the analysis of talk at work: Code-switching as a resource for the organization of action and interaction. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 297– 318). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition, conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 849–862. Mori, J., & Hasegawa, A. (2009). Doing being a foreign language learner in a classroom: Embodiment of cognitive states as social events. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 65–94. Mori, J., & Hayashi, M. (2006). The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interaction between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 195–219. Nguyen, H. t. (2011). A longitudinal microanalysis of a second language learner’s participation. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 17–44). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Nguyen, H. t. (2012). Social interaction and competence development: Learning the sequential organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 127–142. Nguyen, H. t. (2017). Toward a conversation analytic framework for tracking interactional competence development from school to work. In S. Pekarek Doehler, A. Bangerter, G. de Weck, L. Filliettaz, E. González-Martinez, & C. Petitjean (Eds.), Interactional competences in institutional settings: From school to the workplace (pp. 197–225). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Nguyen, H. t. (2019). Developing interactional competence in a lingua franca at the workplace: An ethnomethodologically endogenous account. In H. Nguyen & T. Malabarba (Eds.) Conversation analytic perspectives on English language learning and teaching in global contexts (pp. 59–84). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Nguyen, H. t. (forthcoming). Turn design as longitudinal achievement: Learning on the shop floor. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), Language in action: CA studies of L2 learning ‘in the wild.’ London: Routledge. Pallotti, G. (2002). Borrowing words: Appropriations in child second-language discourse. In J. Leather & J. van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language acquisition (pp. 183–202). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In C. Jenks & S. Walsh (Eds.), Conceptualizing learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2016). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for contextsensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, advance article. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021 Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2011). Enacting interactional competence in gaming activities: Coproducing talk with virtual others. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 19–44). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 239

Junko Mori and Hanh thi Nguyen

Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 55–62. Schegloff, E. A. (1989). Reflections on language, development, and the interactional character of talk-ininteraction. In M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Brunner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 139–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–228). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8(2), 165–187. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sidnell, J. (Ed.). (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 302–333. Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338. Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and development of pragmatic comprehension in a studyabroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33–71. Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics, Vol. 7: Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 333–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Taguchi, N. (2014a). Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use of incomplete sentences as interactional resources. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 518–535. Taguchi, N. (2014b). Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Taleghani-Nikazm, C., & Huth, T. (2010). L2 requests: Preference structure in talk-in-interaction. Multilingua, 29(2), 185–202. Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011a). Language learning activities in real-life situations: Insisting on TCU completion in second language talk. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversationanalytic perspectives (pp. 185–208). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Theodórsdóttir, G. (2011b). Second language interaction for business and learning. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 93–116). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Wagner, J. (Ed.) (1996). Special issue: Conversation analysis of foreign language data. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 145–259. Wanatabe, A. (2017). Developing L2 interactional competence: Increasing participation through selfselection in post-expansion sequences. Classroom Discourse, 8(3), 271–293. Waring, H. Z. (2013). ‘How was your weekend?’: Developing the interactional competence in managing routine inquiries. Language Awareness, 22(1), 1–16. Young, R. F., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519–535. Zimmerman, D. H. (1999). Horizontal and vertical comparative research in language and social Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 195–203.

240

16 Corpus Linguistics Approaches to L2 Pragmatics Research Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

Introduction Although corpus linguistics has become a central methodology for second language acquisition research, relatively less work has focused on the area of second language (L2) pragmatics. In part, this is related to the fact that there are relatively fewer corpus linguistic studies of pragmatics in general (outside of L2 pragmatics) and fewer spoken than written corpora, meaning that methodologies within corpus linguistics for investigating pragmatics are newer and less well developed (Aijmer & Rühlemann, 2014). As Callies (2013) discusses, the relative lack of corpusbased L2 pragmatics research may also be related to the rather narrow focus of L2 pragmatics research on speech acts, which are difficult to identify (and may not even occur) in large corpus data sets. To explore the current state of corpus-based L2 pragmatics research and posit possibilities for future research, then, this chapter takes a broader view of pragmatic research, including not only speech acts and the challenges faced when identifying them in corpora, but also other aspects such as discourse organization and interactive communication (e.g., discourse markers) that are more commonly found in corpus-based studies, the use of pragmatic markers such as stance features, the use of prosody and non-verbal behavior, the use of formulas for pragmatic purposes (e.g., discourse organization and stance), and functional approaches to corpus linguistics that have implications for research in pragmatics. We begin with an overview of corpus linguistic methodology and corpus-based approaches to pragmatics research and then move to a survey of the corpus-based research focusing on L2 pragmatics followed by a critical reflection on this research. We end with a discussion of future research directions and provide suggestions for further reading.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Key Concepts A corpus (plural, corpora) is a large, principled collection of texts that are representative of a given domain (register, genre, and situation) of language use (McEnery & Hardy, 2012). Corpus linguistics is primarily a method that includes both quantitative and qualitative analysis of language in a discourse context that employs computational programs for large-scale data analysis (for overviews of corpus linguistic methodology see McEnery, Xiao, & Tono, 2006 and McEnery & Hardy, 2012). Findings from corpus-based analyses of L1 data (and to some extent L2 data) in various registers have been used extensively to inform language teaching, particularly for 241

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

vocabulary and grammar in English (see, for example, textbook series such as Touchtones, Focus on Vocabulary, and Grammar and Beyond). To an increasing extent, however, L2 corpora have been also used to investigate L2 pragmatics (e.g., Chen & Baker, 2016; De Felice & Deane, 2012; Hasselgren, 2002). In one sense, a corpus is ideal for studying pragmatics in that corpus compilers (when taking a corpus-linguistic approach) are always concerned with the context in which the language is produced. However, there are a number of limitations to studying pragmatics within corpora, let alone L2 pragmatic development, particularly when traditional pragmatic constructs such as speech acts are the focus. For example, it is not always easy to locate specific speech acts within corpora. There are many variant forms of a given speech act, and speech acts must generally be manually annotated in corpora (although there has been some effort in automatic annotation of speech acts). Corpora are typically created without targeted elicitation, while common research instruments in L2 pragmatics such as discourse completion tasks (DCTs) purposefully elicit participants’ language use, thereby tapping into their introspection, potentially affecting the eventual language use (see also Chapter 13 in this volume). While using corpora has the advantage of allowing researchers to observe the language that writers and speakers use in authentic discourse, it has the disadvantage that a researcher may need to spend long hours identifying or even finding a given speech act. In fact, although a large portion of the research in L2 pragmatics has focused on learners’ performance of speech acts, when it comes to corpus linguistics research in pragmatics analyses, often ‘the starting point is either a discourse particle with a fixed form that can easily be retrieved from a large corpus, or a speech function that is generally realized in a small number of variant patterns’ (Jucker, Schreier, & Hundt, 2009, p. 4). This different emphasis poses both challenges and opportunities in using corpus linguistics to research pragmatics. The challenge of identifying pragmatic aspects of language use within corpora can be addressed in a number of ways. If speech acts are the focus of the analysis, researchers can identify particular registers or genres in which those speech acts are likely to occur. For example, Reinhardt (2007) analyzed a corpus of office hour conversations to examine the use of directives by international teaching assistants (ITAs) since this particular register requires the use of directives due to its situational characteristics (e.g., ITAs often provide students with instructions on completing class assignments). A second way in which corpora can be used to investigate speech acts is to create a corpus in which particular speech acts are elicited through extended and naturalistic role plays. In this way, the corpus is more similar to a DCT in that it can be expected to produce the desired speech act, but unlike many DCTs, they result in more naturalistic data (e.g., there is turn-taking in an unfolding interaction) (Taguchi & Roever, 2017). For example, Staples (2015) investigates expressions of empathy by L2 English speaking nurses in a corpus of nurse–patient interactions that include a scenario in which the patient has just lost her father and her grief is related to some of the health care issues she faces. This scenario was developed by health care professionals to elicit the nurses’ response to the patient’s grief since this is known to be an area of difficulty in L2 pragmatics. Since the power of corpus linguistics is in its ability to identify linguistic and phraseological features, one can begin the analysis with common linguistic features that are known to convey pragmatic functions (e.g., discourse markers, stance markers, vague language) as has been done in many studies of L2 pragmatics (Gilquin, 2008; Hasselgren, 2002; Müller, 2005). Alternatively, after using corpus-based methods to identify frequent linguistic features (e.g., lexico-grammar, formulaic language, or prosody) these formal elements can be examined for their pragmatic functions. While this requires a more bottom-up approach to pragmatics research, it can potentially reveal aspects of pragmatics (such as prosodic patterns used to convey empathy) that are not identified from a top-down approach. Particular methods that are frequently used within more functional approaches to corpus analysis (such as move analysis or multi-dimensional analysis 242

Corpus Linguistics Approaches

described below) can also potentially be utilized by pragmatic researchers to identify pragmatic aspects of language use within L2 contexts and thus to investigate L2 pragmatics. The key to corpus-based analysis of pragmatics is to go beyond formal quantitative analysis to identify pragmatic functions of forms in discourse contexts by using qualitative methods. Such an approach has actually been present to some extent in corpus methodology from its beginning, particularly with the examination of concordance lines, which display a keyword in context (KWIC), where the context is the larger discourse environment across a group of interactions/ written texts represented in the corpus. This method allows researchers to examine the pragmatic function of individual lexical or grammatical items within a larger discourse context. Newer tools, such as the freeware program AntConc (Anthony, 2018), allow researchers to toggle back and forth between KWICs and the full written text/transcript of an interaction. Coding schemes for pragmatic functions can then be applied to the emergent patterns within large data sets. In the next section, we focus first on how researchers have investigated speech acts and pragmatic markers in corpora, and then turn to corpus-based studies of prosody and non-verbal behavior that have implications for L2 pragmatics research. Finally, we discuss research on formulaic sequences that can be used to understand pragmatics aspects of language use within discourse.

Survey of the Corpus-Based Studies in L2 Pragmatics Speech Acts and Other Discourse-Level Units in L2 Corpus-Based Research A large portion of the research in L2 pragmatics has focused on learners’ performance of speech acts. In corpus linguistic L2 pragmatics research, we encounter the same challenges that researchers face in identifying speech acts in naturally occurring discourse, but on a much larger scale. Reinhardt (2007) exemplifies some of these challenges, such as how to identify representative strings of language in speech acts (in his case with directive intent, such as ‘must,’ ‘should,’ or ‘have to’) that can be searched and quantified in a corpus. Reinhardt’s study compared directive language use in office hour consultations by instructors who are L1 speakers of American English, as identified in a pre-existing corpus, the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) (Simpson, Briggs, Ovens, & Swales, 2002), with those by international teaching assistants (ITAs) in training, using a learner corpus (ITAcorp, a corpus of spoken role-play data) compiled by Reinhardt (2007). Reinhardt found that the ITAs used fewer modal (e.g., ‘you should’) and semi-modal constructions (e.g., ‘you want to’) in their directives in comparison with the L1 speakers in MICASE. Instead, ITAs were found to over-rely on the construction ‘you can.’ As one of the few L2 studies that involve explicit tagging of speech acts, De Felice and Deane (2012) provide a model of how such research might be approached. They used role-play data from a TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) task that elicited an email in response to common workplace situations (e.g., customer complaints). The directions required the inclusion of specific speech acts (e.g., requests). The researchers divided the emails into individual utterances and then manually annotated them for speech acts, using both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Using computational methods, they then trained the tagger to identify and tag speech acts using these guidelines. Their study is noteworthy because it indicates that it is possible to develop an automatic speech-act tagger with fairly high accuracy.

Pragmatic Markers in L2 Corpus-Based Research Pragmatic markers are single or multi-word expressions that are left as signals so that the interlocutor(s) can interpret an utterance (Aijmer, 1996; Müller, 2005). Pragmatic markers ‘signal transitions in the evolving process of the conversation, index the relation of an utterance 243

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

to the preceding context, and indicate an interactive relationship between speaker, hearer, and message’ (Fung & Carter, 2007, p. 411). As such, we use the term pragmatic markers (PMs) to include discourse markers (Müller, 2005), ‘smallwords’ (Gilquin, 2008; Hasselgren, 2002), general extenders (Fernández, 2013; Fernández & Yuldashev, 2011), and stance markers (Belz & Vyatkina, 2008; Gablasova & Brezina, 2015). The investigation of PMs has been one of the most fruitful areas of corpus-based studies of L2 pragmatics. In particular, many studies have compared PM use by L1 and L2 speakers and revealed that L2 speakers tend to use PMs less frequently or with less variety than native speakers in similar contexts (e.g., Aijmer, 2004; Fung & Carter, 2007; Gilquin, 2008; Müller, 2005). Müller’s (2005) study on discourse markers using the Giessen-Long Beach Chaplin Corpus (GLBCC) illustrates this approach well. The GLBCC is a spoken corpus of narratives by L1 speakers of American English and German EFL learners. Müller compared the frequency of use and functions of four discourse markers, namely ‘so,’ ‘well,’ ‘you know,’ and ‘like,’ in these two sub-corpora and found differences across the two groups. For example, while the groups used ‘well’ with approximately the same frequency, the German EFL learners used this discourse marker for two functions that were not found in the native speaker data (i.e., to summarize a point and continue talking). Moving away from L1/L2 comparisons, Polat’s (2011) study exemplifies the contribution of longitudinal learner corpora to the study of L2 pragmatic development. Polat interviewed her participant, a Turkish speaker who learned English ‘in the wild,’ over the course of a year, resulting in 24 interactions that she collected into a corpus. She then used AntConc (Anthony, 2018) to investigate changes in frequency of use for three discourse markers, ‘you know,’ ‘like,’ and ‘well,’ comparing her findings with the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE) (Du Bois et al., 2000–2005). Interestingly, the learner did not use ‘well’ at all, even though this is a frequent discourse marker in spoken contexts (Gilquin, 2008). In contrast, he started using ‘you know’ with strikingly higher frequency than found in the SBCSAE, and then his use declined by 50% throughout the year. Polat argued that learners in naturalistic settings might find some discourse markers more difficult to learn and use appropriately than others. Hasselgren (2002) and Gilquin (2008) show the important role that PMs play in L2 fluency. Hasselgren (2002) compared discourse markers and other PMs (which she calls ‘smallwords’) in two learner corpora of L1 Swedish learners of L2 English (intermediate and advanced levels) and a corpus of English L1 speakers. Adopting a relevance theoretical framework (Sperber & Wilson, 1995), she proposed that smallwords constitute a system of ‘prototypical cues’ that serve to facilitate the transfer of communicative intention. Her analysis showed that more fluent L2 speakers were able to employ a wider range of signals using a more native-like range of smallwords (including ‘right,’ ‘all right,’ and ‘well’). Gilquin (2008) investigated the use of smallwords as well as other hesitation phenomena (i.e., pauses, drawls, truncated words, and repetitions), arguing that they are inherent to unplanned interaction and essential in turn taking since speakers use them so as not to relinquish the floor. She compared these features in the French component of the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI-FR), a corpus of interviews with L1 French learners of L2 English, with those used in the Louvain Corpus of Native English Conversation (LOCNEC), which contains interviews with L1 speakers of British English. Her results suggest that, while the learners overused silent and filled pauses to indicate hesitation, they used a smaller range of PMs than native speakers, relying largely on ‘well.’ A number of researchers have investigated vague language or general extenders (‘and stuff’), which also function as PMs in spoken discourse (Fernández, 2013; Fernández & Yuldashev, 2011; Hasselgren, 2002). Fernández (2013) used the Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpora (SPLLOC; Mitchell et al., 2006–2010), a rich resource for investigating L2 Spanish use at three proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced). She found important register differences in the use of y eso ‘and that’ by the same L2 learners: General extenders were more frequent in dialogic tasks such as pair discussion and interview, and less frequent in monologic tasks such 244

Corpus Linguistics Approaches

as narratives. In another study, Fernández and Yuldashev (2011) applied an analysis of general extenders to a synchronous CMC corpus of L1 and L2 English, revealing that L2 speakers used fewer disjunctive (e.g., ‘or something,’ ‘or anything’) and societal general extenders (those that are culturally related such as ‘a huge turkey, gravy, and stuff’). Stance markers, another category of PMs, have received a great deal of attention in corpusbased studies, but mostly in writing, particularly in the work of Ken Hyland (e.g., Hyland, 2004). A smaller number of studies have focused on L2 speech (Belz & Vyatkina, 2008; Gablasova & Brezina, 2015; LaFlair, Staples, & Yan, in press). Gablasova and Brezina (2015), for example, analyzed the interactions in the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (TLC) between native speaker examiners and advanced L2 learners of English (test takers), focusing on adverbial epistemic markers such as ‘actually,’ ‘possibly,’ and ‘sort of.’ The results showed that examiners used a wider range of stance markers and chose different markers (e.g., ‘certainly,’ ‘possibly,’ and ‘sort of’). Examinees used a narrower range of markers (e.g., ‘kind of,’ ‘maybe,’ and ‘of course’), but with higher frequency. Belz and Vyatkina (2008) also investigated stance markers but in addition provided evidence of longitudinal development in PM use in L2 German across a period of two months. The Developmental Learner Corpus (DLC) used in the study is a richly documented (or ‘dense’) CMC learner corpus of L1 and L2 English/German interactions. At the beginning of data collection, L2 German learners used four German modal particles (MPs) (ja, den, doch, and mal, which are stance markers) and German pronominal adverbs (da-compounds) less frequently than their L1 German counterparts. The researchers then provided the L2 German learners with instruction on the use of these focal stance markers and pronominal adverbs (see Belz & Vyatkina, 2005 for more details). Toward the end of the exchange the L2 German speakers approximated the L1 German speakers in frequency, and thus demonstrated general ‘appropriateness’ in their pragmatics language use. Finally, Fernández, Gates Tapia, and Lu (2014) moved away from comparison of L2 data with L1 data to investigate the use of two PMs, pues and bueno, in a Spanish learner corpus of oral examinations. The authors compared PM rate of occurrence and functions by examinees (e.g., comment, hesitation, pre-closing, reformulation, reported speech, response, or thematic link marker) at two levels of language proficiency using quantitative and qualitative methods. The results showed that participants at higher levels of proficiency used more PMs and for a wider range of functions than their lower proficiency counterparts.

Multi-modality in L2 Corpus Pragmatics: Prosody and Gesture Prosody is an equally important yet somewhat less explored area within L2 pragmatics research (see also Chapter 6 in this volume). As such, even fewer corpus-based studies have examined the connections between prosody and pragmatics in L2 speech. One of the challenges of examining prosody in discourse is the variability that occurs across different contexts. For this reason, researchers interested in prosody often combine corpus data with more traditional tasks (e.g., text reading) (Gut, 2009; Verdugo & Trillo, 2005). Verdugo and Trillo (2005), for example, examined the prosody of tag questions in dialogues and texts read by L1 Spanish learners of L2 English and L1 English speakers. They found that the L1 Spanish learners overgeneralized the use of rising tone: They used it to express propositional uncertainty, but they also used it in situations where L1 English speakers would use falling tone (e.g., to demand pragmatic confirmation on the part of an interlocutor). One particularly impressive resource is the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Cheng, Greaves, & Warren, 2008), which implements Brazil’s (1997) discourse intonation framework for prosodic coding (see Chapter 6 in this volume for an explanation of Brazil’s framework). The speakers in the corpus include both Hong Kong Chinese speakers (HKC) and native English speakers (NES). The corpus has been used by its creators, Winnie Cheng and Martin Warren, to provide rich descriptions of how prosody differs across speech acts such as disagreements and 245

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

giving advice. They found, for example, that the most common pattern for speakers to use in disagreement was an acknowledgment marker followed by contrastive stress (Cheng & Warren, 2005). Another key factor in understanding prosodic patterns was the rich register variation afforded by their corpus (e.g., classroom teaching, business meetings, and service encounters). Two other corpus-based studies show the importance of examining register in relation to prosodic patterns (Pickering, 2001; Staples, 2015). Pickering (2001) investigated prosodic patterns among three groups of teaching assistants (TAs): L2 English speakers from Outer Circle countries such as China (NNES), L2 English speakers from Inner Circle countries (here, India; IES), and native English speakers from the U.S.A. (NES). Pickering found key differences among the groups, including that IES TAs used more rising tone than NES, resulting in the pragmatic effect of a lack of completion in their statements. Staples (2015) created a corpus of 102 interactions between nurses (52 L2 English and 50 L1 English) and patients (in this case standardized patients, i.e., actors trained to present the same case to nurses in the same way). Her work focused on the sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics of nurse–patient interactions at various linguistic (lexico-grammatical, interactional) and paralinguistic (non-verbal cues as well as prosodic and fluency features) levels. For her prosodic analysis, she focused on important speech acts within the particular interactions she investigated, including greetings and expressions of empathy. Key differences were found in the use of particular prosodic patterns by the L1 and L2 nurses, including pitch range and tone choice on empathetic statements. A lower pitch range on empathetic statements and increased stress on syllables within informational statements were correlated with lower patient satisfaction scores. One implication is that the pragmatic impact of lower pitch range on empathetic statements may be interpreted by an interlocutor as a sign that the speaker does not care or is uninterested in engaging in conversation about issues requiring empathy, such as the recent loss of a loved one. This investigation of prosody in selected speech acts illustrates a way to make more explicit connections between prosody and pragmatics in spoken corpus data. Along with prosody, the use of gestures and other non-verbal elements is also known to play a major role in the understanding of pragmatic communication (Knight, 2011). However, even more than prosody, analysis of non-verbal phenomena is in a fledgling state in corpus-based pragmatic research. Lin (2017) represents a novel use of a multi-modal corpus of interactions between Indian, Taiwanese, and Indonesian L2 speakers of English at three proficiency levels (low intermediate, intermediate, and advanced). Lin coded deictic, iconic, and metaphoric gestures in the 24 hours of data in her corpus and identified the gesture–speech relationship (e.g., reinforcing, integrating, or complementary). She found that higher proficiency level speakers used significantly more gestures that served reinforcing and integrating functions. Lower proficiency level speakers, on the other hand, produced more gestures as complements and other gestures that had no obvious relationship to the verbal content of their speech. Another important resource for multi-modal L2 pragmatics research is the Corpus Español Multimodal de Actos de Habla (COREMAH) (Spanish Corpus of Multimodal Speech Acts) (Vacas Matos, 2017). COREMAH is a fairly recent, pragmatically annotated, small corpus available for download or online search. It consists of 108 video recordings of L2 Spanish participants’ role-plays, totaling 18,737 words. It is divided into three speech acts (compliments, apologies, and refusals) and by Spanish proficiency of the speakers (learners at the intermediate and advanced levels, and native speakers). It is tagged by verbal or non-verbal strategy and can be searched by word or tag.

Formulaic Language in L2 Corpus Pragmatics An area that has received more attention in pragmatics research in recent years is the role of formulaic language. In particular, Bardovi-Harlig (2009; see also Chapter 4 in this volume) discusses the importance of formulaic language (which she refers to as conventionalized language 246

Corpus Linguistics Approaches

or conventional expressions) in L2 pragmatic development. Importantly, within studies on L2 pragmatics, researchers focus on the ‘social aspect of use—namely, a speech community’s preference for a particular string’ (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009, p. 757). Since explorations of formulaic language abound in corpus-based studies, the methodology developed in this area can potentially help inform pragmatics research. Of note are the smaller subset of corpus-based studies of formulaic language that have specifically focused on functional analysis of the formulas in a discourse context, often using a top-down coding scheme such as that proposed by Biber, Conrad, and Cortes (2004), which identifies formulaic language in relation to its stance, discourse, and referential functions. For example, ‘I don’t want to’ within the statement ‘So I may not want to see her face to face because I don’t want to deliver bad news to her’ is a stance formula which allows the speaker to frame their own self-motivated wishes and desires. Although Biber, Conrad and Cortes’s (2004) work did not focus on L2 use of formulas, other research has specifically examined the relationship between the use of stance, discourse organizing, and referential formulas and L2 writing at different proficiency levels (Chen & Baker, 2016; Staples, Egbert, Biber, & McLair, 2013; Yan & Staples, 2017). Chen and Baker (2016) provide an especially useful example of this type of research. Importantly, Chen and Baker used both the three macro-categories of formulas (stance, discourse organizing, and referential) as well as micro-categories within these larger categories to examine writing samples evaluated for Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level (Council of Europe, 2018). For example, within referential functions there are framing, quantification, and time/place/deixis functions. They found that formulas used for quantification (e.g., ‘a lot of’) were used more frequently at lower proficiency levels (CEFR level B1), while formulas used for framing (e.g., ‘the result of this’) were used more frequently at higher proficiency levels (CEFR level C1). Future research could extend such analysis to examination of spoken learner corpora.

Appraisal of the Current Research and Critical Insights As the review of research shows, a growing number of studies have investigated L2 learners’ pragmatics abilities by using corpus linguistic methods. Progress has been somewhat slow given that not many corpus resources have been created for pragmatics research. However, as more corpora are compiled and/or become increasingly available, more corpus-based studies have started to explore L2 learners’ use of different pragmatic features, including speech acts (e.g., Reinhardt, 2007), pragmatic markers (e.g., Fung & Carter, 2007), and prosody (e.g., Pickering, 2001). These studies were able to take a quantitative approach to determining areas in which particular groups of learners struggled with pragmatic competence in naturally occurring discourse. The studies show key differences in the ways in which L2 speakers use pragmatic elements when compared to L1 speakers (Fernández & Yuldashev, 2011; Gilquin, 2008; Müller, 2013; Verdugo & Trillo, 2005). In addition, a number of studies investigated the use of pragmatic markers by L2 speakers in specific contexts (e.g., classroom teaching, office hours, and nurse-patient interaction; Fung & Carter, 2007; Pickering, 2001; Reinhardt, 2007; Staples, 2015) to show that they used language differently from L1 speakers in particular speech acts (e.g., directives, providing rapport, empathetic statements). In some cases, this was shown to have a negative impact on interlocutors (e.g., Staples, 2015). This latter finding in particular shows perhaps one advantage of investigating pragmatics quantitatively in discourse contexts that are naturally occurring or intentionally simulating naturally occurring contexts (through extended role play). A smaller set of studies was able to link use of pragmatic features to higher proficiency levels of L2 learners (Chen & Baker, 2016; Fernández, Gates Tapia, & Xu, 2014; Hasselgren, 2002; Yan & Staples, 2017). In particular, pragmatic markers (e.g., ‘right’ and ‘well’ in English and 247

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

pues and bueno in Spanish) were found to be used more frequently and with more variety at higher proficiency levels in spoken discourse. However, overt stance features (e.g., ‘my opinion is,’ ‘should not’) were used less at higher proficiency levels in writing. These findings show the ability for corpus-based studies to reveal clear patterns of pragmatic use on both quantitative and qualitative levels. Finally, two studies specifically investigated longitudinal development of pragmatic markers (Belz & Vyatkina, 2008; Polat, 2011). The small number of studies in this area reflects the difficulties in building longitudinal learner corpora. Small sample size in these studies (only one participant in Polat’s study and only two in Belz & Vyatkina’s study, although the larger corpus contained 16 students) introduces limitations that are usually less pronounced in corpus-based studies. However, these studies showed the emergence of pragmatic markers as well as the ebb and flow of pragmatic marker use over time in naturally occurring discourse by different learners. More and more robust longitudinal corpora are needed. As can be seen from the studies focused on the identification of speech acts reported above, corpora used for this type of research are often developed as extended role plays (De Felice & Deane, 2012; Reinhardt, 2007; Staples, 2015). This provides a model for how researchers can ­balance the desire for more authentic data in which to investigate speech acts and the ability to locate speech acts of interest in the corpus. Somewhat related to this, research in the area of corpus pragmatics often draws on smaller corpora, given the longstanding interest in the type of individualized data that requires a manual, one-by-one analysis of speech functions (Jucker et al., 2009). This also often stems from the fact that, as argued by Walsh (2013), smaller corpora (50,000 to 100,000 words) are likely to be context-specific, that is, ‘recorded in a single, ­homogeneous context and used in response to a particular question or problem’ (p. 102). Thus, pragmatics researchers new to corpus-based methods may want to approach corpus-based ­analysis through the development of smaller corpora or by using a subset data from a larger corpus. Although the potential for corpus-based studies of PMs is well attested and there are numerous models of how corpora can be used to investigate PMs, much of the research in this area begins from language that is frequently used by L1 speakers to identify whether or not those markers are used by L2 speakers. The focus on what is frequently produced by native speakers ‘can be at the expense of developing knowledge of what is possible and appropriate’ (Cook, 1999, p. 65). The research on formulaic language within corpus linguistics, particularly those studies with an emphasis on the functions of these formulas, have potential for a more bottom-up approach to L2 pragmatics. However, the existing coding schemes such as Biber, Conrad, and Cortes (2014) would benefit from more nuanced approaches that could be better informed by pragmatic theories and existing analytic coding schemes. For example, Biber, Conrad, and Cortes (2014) have a small section at the end of their framework for ‘special conversational functions,’ which include ‘politeness,’ ‘simple inquiry,’ and ‘reporting’ (p. 388). However, this category could be expanded to include other speech acts identified in pragmatic literature. In addition, the majority of the current corpus linguistics work in this area is focused on writing, so more emphasis on L2 spoken learner corpora is needed.

Conclusion and Future Directions In conclusion, corpus linguistic research on L2 pragmatics shows the usefulness in using corpora for understanding L2 speakers’ and writers’ use of pragmatic markers, speech acts, and prosodic cues for pragmatic functions on both quantitative and qualitative levels within extended and naturally occurring discourse. However, much more work in this area is needed, and thus this section focuses on key areas in which corpus linguistic researchers can focus in order to advance research in L2 pragmatics. 248

Corpus Linguistics Approaches

Annotation for Speech Acts and Other Pragmatic Phenomena As discussed above, very few corpora are annotated for speech acts, which makes the work of an individual researcher time consuming. Those that have targeted speech acts have focused on native speaker corpora (e.g., Garcia, 2007; Koester, 2002), with the exception of De Felice and Deane (2012), described above. Tools such as Martin Weisser’s Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool (DART; Weisser, 2014b) can be used to automatically identify conventionalized speech acts (e.g., greetings), dialogue-managing speech acts (e.g., acknowledgment markers), and information-seeking (e.g., wh-questions asking for information), but these tools have yet to be applied to L2 data. Weisser (2014a; see also Weisser, 2018) provides a useful overview of the capabilities of DART, and compares it with other models from computational linguistics such as DAMSL (explained below; see Jurafsky, 2006). For example, DART automatically codes a question as wh- or yes/no and then provides options to the user for further pragmatic coding based on those structures (request for information, request for directive, and suggest are all options for wh- questions while the first two are the only options for yes/no questions). When a speech act is automatically assigned by the program, the researcher can still interact easily with the program to manually correct tags as needed. Another method commonly employed in corpus-based research that seems fruitful for L2 pragmatics researchers is to code for larger pragmatic units such as moves (Swales, 1990) and phases (a term used within conversation analytic frameworks; see ten Have, 1989). In move analysis, pragmatic units (e.g., identifying a niche or gap within introductions of research articles) are identified (manually), and then the language used within each move can be explored through automatic methods, usually part of speech tagging (e.g., Kanoksilapatham, 2007). Although less commonly applied to spoken discourse, researchers can similarly start by identifying larger phases (e.g., openings and closings) within which specific speech acts can be explored. For example, Staples (2015) manually divided the L1 and L2 English speaking nurse-patient interactions in her corpus into different phases such as openings, closings, examination phase, and counseling phase. She then automatically identified lexico-grammatical features such as first person pronouns and prediction modals (e.g., ‘I’m going to …’ or ‘I’ll …’). These features were used differently by the L1 and L2 nurses, and also varied depending on the phase in which they were found (e.g., to promote rapport in the exam phase and to indicate the doctor and nurses’ next actions in the counseling phase). These differences had important implications for the degree of ‘patient centeredness’ within the interactions, with L2 nurses tending to use more provider-centered language while L1 English speaking nurses tended to use more patient-centered language. Such work can be seen as a possible middle ground that can allow researchers to identify pragmatic functions within speech and writing but does not necessarily require the coding of individual utterances/sentences.

Prosodic and Non-verbal Phenomena The studies described here show important steps in the area of the prosody–pragmatics interface, but much more needs to be done in this area. Part of the reason for limited work in prosody relates to the limitations of automatic extraction of suprasegmental features from speech files. Important strides have been made in this area for features such as speech rhythm and fluency, but most studies using automatic segmentation of suprasegmental features have relied on read speech, which is not helpful for pragmatics research (e.g., Ferrenge, 2013). A mixture of automated and manual coding seems promising for identifying prosodic features in naturally occurring data (see, e.g., the C-ORAL-ROM project, Cresti & Moneglia, 2005). However, it is not clear how accurate semi-automated systems might be for L2 learner data. Gut (2009), for example, chose to use manual annotation for all suprasegmental elements of the LeaP corpus. For this reason, 249

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

it is suggested that researchers first identify either speech acts or larger units of analysis such as phases performing a pragmatic act. In this way, similar to the work of Staples (2015), researchers can narrow down portions of the interaction that may be particularly pragmatically interesting and focus the prosodic analysis in that area. Finally, there is a need for more longitudinal corpora that contain prosodic annotation, to allow for examination of pragmatic development. Although there have been minimal explorations of non-verbal behavior and its relation to pragmatics in L2 corpora (Lin, 2017 and Vacas Matos, 2017 above; see also Staples, 2015), within corpus-based studies as a whole, research on non-verbal behaviors has started to take off (e.g., Knight, 2011; Knight & Adolphs, 2008). Knight and Adolphs (2008), for example, explored the use of head nods defined on five types: small (nonchalant) nods of short duration, small (nonchalant) multiple nods of longer duration, intense nods of short duration, intense and multiple nods of longer duration, and multiple nods, comprising a combination of the other types and of longer duration. They showed that the first type of nods were associated with information receipt, while the second type were associated with convergence. This research indicates the importance of investigating gesture for understanding pragmatic aspects of language use and provides an example of a fine-grained approach. Knight (2011) in her much more extensive discussion of multi-modal corpora also presents a study on the reliability of automated tracking of head movements in relation to backchanneling behavior. Based on her analysis, it seems that the program, Head Tracker, was good at recall (when a head nod occurred that was signaling backchanneling behavior, the automated tracking system caught it). However, it was not very precise (e.g., It annotated many more head nods than were coded manually as backchanneling behavior). Thus, at this point, as with prosodic and speech act analysis, it seems best if the researcher can interact with an automated system for semi-automated processing. Using a combination of automatic and manual coding will undoubtedly speed up the process from complete manual coding and thus shows promise for future research.

Multidimensional Approaches to Pragmatics Research The work on multimodality highlights the importance of considering all levels of linguistic and paralinguistic cues that contribute to pragmatic functions within texts. Moving farther away from traditional pragmatics research, we also introduce here a methodology common within corpus linguistics that allows researchers to examine functional aspects of language use through constellations of linguistic elements, namely multi-dimensional analysis (MDA; Biber, 1988). MDA takes as its starting point the notion that individual linguistic features are not used in isolation but work in concert to convey (pragmatic) functions such as rapport in interpersonal relationships or stance towards ideational propositions. Although most MDA studies have focused on L1 rather than L2 use, there is a growing body of research that shows the value of such an approach for identifying functional aspects of L2 use across proficiency levels (Biber, Gray, & Staples, 2016; LaFlair & Staples, 2017; Weigle & Friginal, 2015; Yan & Staples, 2017). For example, instead of investigating individual stance markers (or other PMs), the impact of a collection of linguistic forms used to express stance often emerge as a single dimension in MDA (e.g., first person pronouns, mental verbs, and complement clauses like ‘I think that …’). Generally speaking, we can categorize the use of stance into more overt approaches which use the features described above and less overt ways of expressing stance which use stance nouns and noun complement clauses (e.g., ‘the argument is that …’ or ‘the fact that …’) (Gray & Biber, 2015). Gray and Biber (2015) showed that these less overt (more indirect) stance expressions are more common in academic writing, while more overt expressions are more often found in speech. In terms of L2 use, there is evidence that writers at lower levels of proficiency use more overt approaches, while less overt approaches are used more frequently by more proficient L2 writers (Yan & Staples, 2017). 250

Corpus Linguistics Approaches

Although MD approaches have been used since the late 1980s, they have focused almost exclusively only on lexico-grammatical features, since the focus of analysis has primarily been writing. Future MDA work can accommodate prosodic, interactional, and multimodal features within spoken discourse, which can enable researchers to identify functional elements that account for the multi-modal aspects of pragmatics. For example, the expression of attitudes, possibilities, and evaluations (stance) has been shown in previous MD studies to contain various lexical and grammatical characteristics, but we know that stance can also be expressed through intonation and stress patterns. An MDA that contains prosodic features thus could help identify the constellation of features that contribute to expressions of stance. In order to conduct MDA, however, researchers must have the skills to identify linguistic phenomena at numerous levels and also the ability to use appropriate statistical procedures (i.e., factor analysis, a type of multivariate analysis). Thus, it requires a high level of linguistic training as well as statistical knowledge. In another effort to integrate multiple variables into the investigation of speech acts, computational linguists have also developed speech act models such as Dialogue Act Markup in Several Layers (DAMSL; see, Jurafsky, 2006) which combine lexical, syntactic, discourse, and prosodic cues to identify ‘dialog acts,’ which code individual utterances according to pragmatic function such as agreements, appreciations, or requests (Stolcke et al., 2000). As Weisser (2014a) indicates, there are limitations to the DAMSL system, which make it difficult for practical use. In addition, unlike DART (Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool; Weisser, 2014a), it does not have a graphical user interface, which means that non-programmers will be hard pressed to use DAMSL. Similar to many tools for examining pragmatics in naturally occurring discourse, DAMSL has also not been applied to L2 data so the accuracy is questionable. However, the principles of DAMSL provide promising steps towards capturing the multi-dimensional aspects of pragmatic language use.

Integration of Technology Enhanced Language Learning and Corpus Pragmatics Finally, an area that has not been explored a great deal but which seems encouraging is the use of L2 corpora in technology-enhanced teaching of L2 pragmatics. As Taguchi and Sykes (2013) indicate, technology-enhanced approaches to SLA are of great interest to teachers, and with the growth of mobile applications, digital games, and geolocation in language teaching, there is an opportunity to investigate these new modes of language production and learning with corpusbased approaches. The affordances of technology for L2 pragmatics research discussed by Taguchi and Sykes (2013) include capturing difficult aspects of pragmatic performance (such as fluency and, as we discussed above, prosody), recording data from a large group of participants, and conducting automated computer-based analyses of large amounts of texts. Many of these affordances are shared with corpus-based approaches but have yet to be combined productively with newer technologies (mobile apps, games, etc.) for L2 pragmatic feedback (especially sociopragmatic feedback). We suggest that this area is ripe for future investigation of L2 pragmatic development and, along with the creation of more multi-modal corpora, we see this as a promising direction for future L2 corpus pragmatic research. For example, using a place-based mobile game (such as Mentira, see Holden & Sykes, 2013), a language teacher could build a dense, longitudinal, multimodal corpus of all of the interactions between a learner and characters in the game in order to draw learners’ attention to their own language production, accompanied with some form of self-assessment that would allow learners to reflect on their own intentions at the time of production (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). This corpus-based approach would allow learners and teachers to focus on the pragmatic consequences of the learners’ choices, particularly their use of language in interactions with characters within the game. 251

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

Further Reading Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (2014). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. An important volume for understanding how pragmatic research can be conducted using corpus-based methodology. The handbook covers corpus-based research on speech acts, pragmatic markers, evaluation, reference, turn-taking, and other pragmatic principles. However, there is virtually no discussion of the use of corpus pragmatics for examining L2 data or L2 pragmatic development. Of particular interest is the chapter describing the large study of corpus-based analysis of speech acts conducted by Garcia (2007), which provides a model of how manual coding can be used at an initial stage followed by automated analysis. The chapter discussing pragmatic annotation of speech acts by Weisser provides a helpful overview of existing tools for such endeavors as well as their limitations. Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. This new volume provides an important overview for researchers interested in conducting corpus research with L2 data. The handbook introduces readers to important considerations in collecting and building learner corpora, and provides examples of various corpus methodologies that can be applied to L2 data. It also contains information on annotation of spoken corpora. Particularly notable is the chapter on corpus pragmatics and the section on learner corpus research and SLA, which include discussion of formulaic language and developmental patterns in learner corpora more generally.

References Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman. Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 159–172. Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (2014). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (Version 3.5.6) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved on April 27, 2018, from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 59(4), 755–795. Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked inter-cultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review/ Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 62(1), 17–48. Belz, J. A., & Vyatkina, N. (2008). The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning and Technology, 12(3), 33–52. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across textual task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. Brazil, D. (1997). The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Callies, M. (2013). Advancing the research agenda of interlanguage pragmatics: The role of learner corpora. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013: New domains and methodologies (pp. 9–36). New York: Springer. Chen, Y., & Baker, P. (2016). Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 849–880. Cheng, W., Greaves, D., & Warren, M. (2008). A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (2005). //→ well I have a DIFferent //↘ THINking you know//: Disagreement in Hong Kong business discourse: A corpus-driven approach. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Gotti (Eds.), Asian business discourse(s) (pp. 241–270). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Cook, G. (1999). Communicative competence. In K. Johnson & H. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics (pp. 62–68). Oxford: Blackwell. Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference (CEFR). Retrieved on April 27, 2018, from https​://ww​w.coe​.int/​en/we​b/com​mon-e​urope​an-fr​amewo​rk-re​feren​ce-la​nguag​es/ 252

Corpus Linguistics Approaches

Cresti, E., & Moneglia, M. (2005). C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated reference corpora for spoken romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. De Felice, R., & Deane, P. (2012). Identifying speech acts in e-mails: Toward automated scoring of the TOEIC® E-Mail Task. ETS research report no. RR-12-16. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. Meyer, C., Thompson, S.A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Fernández, J. (2013). A corpus-based study of vague language use by learners of Spanish in a study abroad context. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 299–332). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fernández, J., Gates Tapia, A., & Lu, X. (2014). Oral proficiency and pragmatic marker use in L2 spoken Spanish: The case of pues and bueno. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 150–164. Fernández, J., & Yuldashev, A. (2011). Variation in the use of general extenders and stuff in instant messaging interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2610–2626. Ferrenge, E. (2013). Automatic suprasegmental parameter extraction in learner corpora. In A. DíazNegrillo, N. Ballier & P. Thompson (Eds.). Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 151–168). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fung, L., & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410–439. Gablasova, D. & Brezina, V. (2015). Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2015 (pp. 117–136). New York: Springer. Garcia, P. (2007). Pragmatics in academic contexts: A spoken corpus study. In M. C. Campoy & M. J. Luzón (Eds.), Spoken corpora in applied linguistics (pp. 97–126). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2015). Stance markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 219–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilquin, G. (2008). Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 119–149). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Hasselgren, A. (2002). Learner corpora and language testing: Smallwords as markers of learner fluency. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 143–173). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Have, P. ten. (1989). The consultation as genre. In B. Torode (Ed.), Text and talk as social practice: Discourse difference and division in speech and writing (pp. 115–135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris Publications. Holden, C. & Sykes, J. (2013). Complex L2 pragmatic feedback via place-based mobile games. In N. Taguchi & J. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 155–184). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analyzing academic writing (pp. 5–23). London, UK: Continuum. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge. Jucker, A., Schreier, D., & Hundt, M. (Eds.). (2009). Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. Jurafsky, D. (2006). Pragmatics and computational linguistics. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 578–604). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 73–119). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Knight, D. (2011). Multimodality and active listenership: A corpus approach. New York: Continuum. Knight, D., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of active listenership. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente (pp. 175–190). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Koester, A. J. (2002). The performance of speech acts in workplace conversations and the teaching of communicative functions. System, 30(2), 167–184. LaFlair, G., & Staples, S. (2017). Using corpus linguistics to examine the extrapolation inference: A case study of a high stakes speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34(4), 451–475. LaFlair, G., Staples, S., & Yan, X. (in press). Connecting corpus linguistics and assessment. In J. Egbert & P. Baker (Eds.), Using corpus methods to triangulate linguistic analysis. New York: Routledge. 253

Shelley Staples and Julieta Fernández

Lin, Y. L. (2017). Co-occurrence of speech and gestures: A multimodal corpus linguistic approach to intercultural interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 155–167. McEnery, T., & Hardy, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, R., Dominguez, L., Myles, F., Arche, M., Marsden, E., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006–2010). Spanish Language Learner Oral Corpora (SPLLOC). Retrieved on April 27, 2018, from http://www.splloc.soton. ac.uk/index.html Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 233–255. Polat, B. (2011). Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3745–3756. Reinhardt, J. (2007). Directives usage by ITAs: An applied learner corpus analysis (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Staples, S. (2015). The discourse of nurse-patient interactions: Contrasting the communicative styles of U.S. and international nurses. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A. (2013). Formulaic sequences and academic writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 214–225. Stolke, A., Ries, K., Coccaro, N., & Shriberg, E. (2000). Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics, 26(3), 339–373. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N.,& Sykes, J. (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vacas Matos, M. (2017). COREMAH (Corpus Español Multimodal de Actos de Habla). Retrieved on April 27, 2018, from http://www.coremah.com Verdugo, D. R., & Trillo, J. R. (2005). The pragmatic function of intonation in L2 discourse: English tag questions used by Spanish speakers. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(2), 151–168. Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Weigle, S. C., & Friginal, E. (2015). Linguistic dimensions of impromptu test essays compared with successful student disciplinary writing: Effects of language background, topic, and L2 proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 25–39. Weisser, M. (2014a). Speech act annotation. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook (pp. 84–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weisser, M. (2014b). Manual for the dialogue annotation & research tool (DART). Retrieved on April 27, 2018, from http:​//mar​tinwe​isser​.org/​publi​catio​ns/DA​RT_ma​nual.​pdf Weisser, M. (2018). How to do corpus pragmatics on pragmatically annotated data. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Yan, X., & Staples, S. (2017). Investigating lexico-grammatical complexity as construct validity evidence for the ECPE writing tasks: A multidimensional analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Cambridge Michigan Language Assessment Research Reports.

254

17 Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

Introduction Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language that focuses on how language functions and is structured to function to make meaning and achieve communicative goals in social contexts. Complementing the structural perspective on language that is concerned with how the elements are ordered together (syntagmatic view), this theory gives priority to the paradigmatic conceptualization of language as a system of choices, where each choice has meaning against the system of other options that are not selected. The aim of the chapter is to bring together the two fields—SFL and L2 pragmatics and demonstrate how SFL can enable new perspectives, reveal less explored research foci, and offer different methodological tools which would lead to further insights about the nature of L2 learning, communicative competence, and effective instruction. The chapter begins with a discussion of the commonalities between the two fields. Then, it presents some unique aspects of the systemic functional theory that can help enrich our understanding of L2 pragmatics. The theoretical overview is followed by a review of SFL-based studies of L2 performance and development that shows what, precisely, SFL can reveal about L2 pragmatics. The chapter concludes with applications of the SFL-based approach to instruction that aims to foster L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence, as well as suggestions for future research.

Commonalties Between the Frameworks of SFL and Pragmatics In contrast to the formalist approaches to language, both pragmatics and SFL share a fundamental interest in investigating language in terms of its use as meaning-making in social contexts. The primary concern of Michael Halliday, the founder of SFL, with the questions of ‘how can we characterize a text in its relation to its context of situation?’ and ‘how do we get from the situation to the text?’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1989, p.12) can be compared to what Stalker (1989) calls a ‘general agreement’ with regard to the definition of pragmatics as: a system of rules which defines the relationship of meaning to the contexts in which it occurs, that is, it matches functions with particular language choices in particular contexts. (Stalker, 1989, p. 184, cited in Timpe Laughlin, Wain, & Schmidgall, 2015)

255

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

The questions posed by Halliday and Stalker’s broad characterization of pragmatics assume a dialectic relationship between language use and the context in which it occurs and emphasize the importance of analyzing and describing this relationship. With regard to the study of L2 learning and production, an overview of various L2 pragmatics models led Timpe Laughlin et al., (2015) to formulate three principles that underlie L2 pragmatic competence: (1) language use as making meaning and expressing intentions; (2) the interactive and co-constructed nature of communication; and (3) the fundamental role of context, which includes participants and relationships between them, and institutional and cultural settings as a point of reference for language use. At the same time, Timpe Laughlin et al. conclude that the reviewed theoretical models view these principles as the background of pragmatic ability, ‘the necessary underpinnings and conditions for the generation of pragmatic meaning’ (p. 15), while pragmatic competence is ‘also a fundamental component of the language ability’ (p. 15), that is, it includes the ability to use grammatical, lexical, and discourse organizational resources for performing particular speech acts, registers, dialects, and genres. While the framework derived by Timpe Laughlin et al. through incorporation of the various theories, models, and principles synthesizes pragmatic competence into various interrelated components, the question about specific principles of relating the sociopragmatic elements, as aspects of context and intended meanings and purposes, to the pragmalinguistic ones, as grammatical, lexical, or discourse structures, remains open. In other words, while the components identified seem to be encompassing, the relations between the components stays untheorized. In specifying salient elements of context and delineating ways they relate to the systems of lexis and grammar there lies a unique contribution of the SFL theory to our understanding of pragmatics (and its extension to L2 pragmatics) as ‘the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication’ (Crystal, 1997, p. 301). Most importantly, in SFL, context is not just in the background of pragmatic meaning-making, and it does not precede it. Rather, it is theorized as a stratum in the model of language where the social and the linguistic are sides of the same coin: the social being encoded through the linguistic and the linguistic activated by the social.

Connecting Language, Communicative Functions, and Contextual Factors in SFL Halliday’s theory of language as social semiotic, i.e., as language signs creating meaning within a social system and in turn being shaped by it, theorizes language as a stratum in a multilayered model that consists of the contextual, the semantic, and the lexicogrammatical (the term used in SFL to emphasize the continuity between lexis or vocabulary and grammar or syntax) levels (Figure 17.1). The contextual layer is divided into the context of culture represented by genres as purposeful staged communicative actions; and the context of situation that is described as a configuration of three most salient dimensions: field of discourse as the nature of activity or subject matter, tenor or participants, their roles and relationships, and mode as the role language plays in the situation. At the semantic level, field-construing meanings are referred to as the ideational metafunction (how we render and reflect on reality around us and inside us), tenor-construing meanings relate to the interpersonal metafunction (how we relate to and act on others), and mode-construing meanings concern the textual metafunction (how we organize ideational and interpersonal meanings in a structured way through oral, written, or hybrid texts). The two contextual strata, the semantic layer with metafunctions and the stratum of lexicogrammar, are connected to each other through the process of realization (Figure 17.1), ‘whereby different orders of abstraction 256

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

Context: Genre

Context: Register: field, tenor, mode Context: Semantics ideational, interpersonal, textual meanings Context: Lexicogrammar transitivity, mood, modality, theme

Expression: Phonology

Expression: Phonetics

Figure 17.1 SFL model of language as social semiotic (adapted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014).

“re-present” the “same information”’ (Hasan, 2012, p. 268). In particular, genres are realized through situational combinations of field, tenor, mode; these activate particular ideational, interpersonal, and textual meanings, which get enacted lexicogrammatically, and ultimately through phonology or graphology. Systemic functional grammar (SFG) further specifies which language system enacts which aspect of context. For example, tenor and interpersonal meanings are encoded in lexicogrammar through the choices in the systems of mood (indicating interactional roles like giving information through a declarative or demanding it through an interrogative), modality (modifying interactions by the degree of probability, usuality, or obligation/inclination, for example, through modal verbs), and evaluation (as when expressing affect, judgment, or appreciation); field and ideational meanings are realized through transitivity, as choice of participants, processes, and circumstances; and mode and textual meanings are encoded through the system of theme/rheme (the start of the clause, its point of departure) and cohesion devices (for example, conjunctions). To illustrate, the situation of cooking activates the ideational meanings related to food and manipulations with it, combined with an expert to non-expert relationship between participants, and interpersonal meanings of offering formal instructions occurring in written mode, where language plays a constitutive role. These are realized through the genre of recipe with its textual episodes of ‘ingredients,’ ‘instructions,’ and often ‘serving suggestions,’ and verbs that take the initial or thematic position in the clause and nouns related to cooking (mix the dough), adverbs of time (first, then), place (in the bowl), and manner (thoroughly), additive conjunctions to show sequence (and), and the grammatical system of mood (imperative). 257

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

Connecting Language Use to Language System, Performance to Competence Not only does the SFL framework specify the relationship between the structures of context and semantics and the structures of language, it also revises the common conceptualization of the relationship between the language system and language use as two opposites. Rejecting the understanding of langue and parole as two binaries, Halliday posits them on the continuum and in the relation of instantiation: The language system as the potential is actualized in the instances of language use. They are not opposites but ‘two points of existence of the “same” phenomenon’ (Hasan, 2012, p. 269), ’two states in the natural life of linguistic elements, one of having “become” (part of a system), and the other on the way to “becoming” (part of a system)’ (Hasan, 2012, p. 270). The only way to describe the system that is just an idealized theoretical concept is by describing all specific instances of language use. Since it is impossible to do that, the theory proposes an interim category of instance type or genre that is specific enough to enable description of language resources of a concrete contextualized instance yet abstract enough for this description to apply to other instances of the same type, i.e., social activities that are enacted through language use that occurs recurrently in similar situational and cultural contexts. Such theorization of language presents pragmatics and pragmatic competence, as the study of contextualized language use, at the center and as the substance of linguistic inquiry, rather than as a separate skill that supplements what we call ‘knowing a language.’

Implications of SFL for the Study of L2 Learning and Use The SFL model of language described above contributes to the study of pragmatics in general and L2 pragmatics in particular, as it provides the following affordances for applied linguistic research. With regard to identifying pragmatic meanings, the SFL framework makes new phenomena visible in three interrelated ways. First, the interest in interpersonal meanings, the traditional focus of research in pragmatics, now extends to ideational and textual meanings that can be included as important areas of investigation of meaning-making in use. Second, the study of face-to-face oral social encounters can be complemented by the research of other communicative contexts that include interaction enacted through the written or hybrid (e.g., computer-mediated communication) modes. Consequently, the traditional unit of analysis in L2 pragmatics—decontextualized discrete speech acts (see the pervasive preference for choosing them as the focus in Timpe Laughlin et al., 2015)—can now be supplemented by the more encompassing focus on discourse and genre. Seeing any language use in terms of participation in contextualized interpersonal interactive discourse moves the research inquiry beyond the focus on oral dialogic encounters commonly examined in L2 pragmatics and toward exploration of a variety of genres, including the literacy ones. And third, from the perspective of form, rather than randomly identifying certain linguistic resources that are seen as typically contributing to pragmatic meaning-making (for example, personal pronouns, particles, qualifiers, or tag questions), SFG delineates in a systematic way connections between networks of choices within various lexicogrammatical systems and structures of context. In this sense, it enables one to discover new target pragmatic constructs, in line with Taguchi’s call to ‘expand the scope of target pragmatic features’ (Taguchi, 2015, p. 38) and identify those that are specific of particular languages. Thus, SFL provides applied linguists with a powerful analytic instrument for a detailed description of linguistic resources that are used for contextualized meaning-making, enacting language users’ intentions, communication goals, and interpersonal relationships. To conclude this section, a more encompassing approach to what constitutes pragmatic language use, a different view of how it relates to linguistic competence, and a thoroughly delineated 258

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

system of lexicogrammatical resources enacting pragmatic meanings offer new opportunities for detailing the nature of L2 pragmatic competence and its development. Explicitly connecting the sociopragmatic and the pragmalinguistic aspects, the SFL model views L2 pragmatic competence as an ability to function in a broad range of social contexts through verbal interaction by choosing from a variety of resources with the awareness of the function and communicative purpose that they encode. Development of this competence is unlikely to be fully complete due to the difficulty of gaining exposure to and participation in the totality of all cultural contexts. Finally, connecting pragmatic competence to oral or written communication, as encoding of culturally determined situationally contextualized social processes in patterned texts, and defining L2 development in terms of the ability to produce such texts in an increasing range of contexts have important implications for teaching L2 pragmatics. Beyond instructional approaches that focus on directly interactional language (e.g., speech acts) and successfully prepare students for personal and transactional communication in the target culture (see a review of the effective instructional approaches in Taguchi, 2015; see also Chapter 19 in this volume), other approaches to pedagogy, such as in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) or genre-based curricula, become visible as pragmatics-oriented and can be further researched for their contribution to sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic learning.

Investigating L2 Pragmatic Meaning-Making and Development Through SFL Across Contexts This section first points out a typical methodology, research assumptions, and procedures common to SFL-based research and lists instructional contexts where it has been conducted. It then provides the reader with an overview of studies and their findings that demonstrate the contribution of SFL to the investigation of L2 learning and use with regard to three types of pragmatic meaning making: interpersonal, ideational, and textual.1

Methodological Aspects and Research Contexts The typical research method that characterizes SFL-based studies involves collecting learnerproduced spoken and written texts as instances of contextualized and meaningful language use at a particular time and over time into small or large corpora and conducting a detailed analysis of the data. A typical analysis approaches the data from the semantic point of view, as it applies the SFL concepts of genre, register, or the three metafunctions and records their realization through particular lexicogrammaical systems as described in SFG (e.g., analyzing interpersonal meanings in the genre of appeal through a focus on mood). Quantitative and qualitative orientations are often combined in such an analysis. Quantitatively, researchers gain insights into the frequencies and salient patterns of use, whereas the qualitative analysis describes the meaning-making practices of L2 learners within these patterns in detail. These semantic and lexicogrammatical regularities of L2 learner language-use are then interpreted with regard to their appropriateness and effectiveness for achieving contextualized communicative goals and are sometimes juxtaposed with typical meaning-making practices in the target culture. In line with the theoretical position discussed in the previous sections, according to which language learning comes about through language use, many of these studies, cross-sectional and contrastive in their majority but some longitudinal, connect instances of L2 learner language with its regularities and changes to language-learning trajectories and draw provisional conclusions about L2 development in general. The following example (see Ryshina-Pankova, 2018, for a more detailed illustration) can illuminate the difference between the formal and functional SFL-based approach to the data analysis. If, within the context of telecollaborative exchanges, studies in L2 pragmatics might typically focus on the use of questions (interrogatives) as resources that enable interlocutors to initiate, 259

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

develop, and deepen intercultural exchanges, the focus of an SFL-based investigation would be first and foremost not on the form (interrogatives) but on the discourse semantic function of turns as requests for initiation or elaboration of dialogue. The functional approach will enable analysts to identify other mood forms besides interrogatives, for example, declaratives that are frequently used to initiate and develop conversations that the form-oriented analysis might miss. At the same time, the focus on the form-like interrogatives for determining the ability of the interlocutors to deepen exchanges might be misleading, since interrogatives also include the so-called clarifying questions (e.g., ‘Did you mean … ?’, ‘Did you say … ?’) that do not have the conversationsteering and content-development function. Because of its emphasis on meaning-making, the SFL approach to the study of L2 pragmatics has been used to analyze L2 language use and learning in contexts where interpersonally purposeful and content-oriented language use, oral or written, is of particular importance. These contexts of investigation include immersion English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts where there is a strong pressure to communicate in L2 (e.g., Llinares, 2007); online language-learning through telecollaborative discussions or chats where communication with chat partners has real communicative consequences (e.g., Oskoz & Perez-Broncano, 2016; Ryshina-Pankova, 2018); content- and genre-based foreign language (FL) and heritage learner instruction that aims at integrating language and culture learning (Byrnes, 2009; Colombi, 2006; Ryshina-Pankova, 2010, 2011; Ryshina-Pankova & Byrnes, 2013; Warren & Winkler, 2015); L2 academic writing where students need to learn the appropriate ways of constructing knowledge and expressing stance and attitude (Chang & Schleppegrell, 2011; Lancaster, 2011; Liardét, 2013, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2004); and CLIL as the context of teaching school subjects through a FL in European secondary schools (e.g., Llinares & Morton, 2010, 2017; Llinares & Nikula, 2016). In what follows, rather than describing SFL-informed studies within the instructional contexts mentioned above, I will organize my presentation of the SFL approach to L2 pragmatics by highlighting some of the findings of this research with regard to such pragmatic functions as building social relations and expressing stance as interpersonal meaning-making; constructing knowledge or ideational meaning-making; and shaping and organizing texts as textual meaning-making. Importantly, while this overview of research starts with the findings related to the interpersonal function, a traditional area of interest in mainstream L2 pragmatics research, it also reports on the studies that investigate ideational and textual meaning-making as they, too, reveal to us the peculiarities of language use in context.

Interpersonal Meaning-Making in L2 Three major areas of investigation of interpersonal meaning-making in L2 can be distinguished: (1) studies of spoken or spoken-like discourse that focus on the speech functional analysis through exchange structure and different types of meaning-making it enables; (2) expression of stance through modality in L2 oral and written production; (3) and encoding of one’s position and negotiation of other viewpoints through Appraisal and Engagement in written or hybrid academic genres. The first strand of studies explores how L2 users negotiate meanings by adopting and assigning each other roles in a dialogue. These investigations draw on the SFL theorization of the ways interpersonal meanings are encoded through exchange structure (Eggins & Slade, 1997; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) and realized through a choice of particular speech functions by interlocutors, such as giving or demanding information in initiating moves or reacting to them through supporting or confronting moves. These studies demonstrate how choosing among these functional options enables conversation participants to construct content knowledge or exchange intercultural information, and whether and what L2 lexicogrammatical resources are used appropriately to achieve these goals. Llinares and Morton’s (2017) study is a good illustration of such an investigation. They analyzed secondary school CLIL students’ use of speech functions in the context of history learning 260

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

in English. This study revealed different patterns in the use of the discourse structuring moves across two types of classroom contexts, role plays and interviews, and with regard to interaction with average and above-average students, where the rating concerned their level of English, as evaluated by the teachers. For example, in interviews, interviewers’ more frequent use of prolonging moves that elaborate on the initiation moves (e.g., introduced by, for example, ‘I mean,’ ‘and,’ ‘but,’ or other moves that provide causal, conditional, or spatial-temporal information) enabled average-rated students to complete the interview task and be partially successful in demonstrating content knowledge. The analysis of role plays revealed how this type of interactional task enabled learners to use challenging and confronting moves that were not present in other class interaction contexts but are considered to form an important part of argumentation ability as a valued skill in educational contexts. Additionally, the study demonstrated that the linguistic realization of some of the exchange structure moves by the students was not in line with the expectations of the academic register. Both average- and high-rated learners struggled with the use of appropriate lexicogrammatical resources for encoding the prolonging moves of enhancement, an important semantic strategy for constructing historical knowledge, which would qualify the previous statements by reference to time, place, manner, cause, or condition. The role of specific discourse-semantic moves and their particular linguistic encodings as affording a display and at the same time development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) is under focus in Ryshina-Pankova’s (2018) study of written telecollaborative chats between advanced collegiate learners of German and students in a German university. The study shows how a balanced use of initiating, prolonging, responding, and elaborating moves by both interlocutors in chat dyads promotes deep engagement with each other’s culture. Furthermore, the study identifies a particular type of challenging moves (the so-called rejoinder disalignment moves) as providing an opportunity for telecollaboration partners to shift their cultural perspectives. For example, in the following excerpt (translated from German), the Rejoinder-rebound moves by the German speaker (in b, d, and e) cautiously question the assumptions of the language learner about the importance of national pride, opening the space for relativizing her cultural perspectives and potentially changing them (as one might infer from f and g). a. LL*: I think national anthems are important when there is a good connection between the music and national pride (Initiation Statement Opinion). b. GS: Why do you find national pride important (Rejoinder-rebound)? WH c. LL: Because it produces memories and feelings for the home country (Rejoinder-resolve). d. GS: Ok, but in a big country there are really very different feelings and memories about the home country (Rejoinder-rebound). D e. GS: Can one summarize all of them in one song (Rejoinder-rebound)? PI f. LL: Yes, this is correct, it is difficult to summarize all of them (Respond-agree). g. LL: Yes, indeed (Respond-agree). *LL stands for language learner; GS stands for German speaker. With regard to linguistic encoding of the moves, the analysis points out felicitous realizations of some of them through particular linguistic structures. For example, encoding of the initiating moves through Wh-interrogatives and declaratives allows for most dialogic space in a response and thus fosters intercultural exchange; and realization of the disalignment moves through declaratives and interrogatives rather than declaratives with negations appears to offer a less direct way of countering the interlocutor’s opinion without jeopardizing the dialogue. The second research perspective on the realization of interpersonal meanings in L2 learner discourse concerns the use of modality in various genres to encode a speaker or writer point of view. Studies in this strand analyze how modality as a resource for qualifying claims in terms of their usuality and probability (modalization) or obligation and inclination (modulation) is 261

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

expressed by L2 users and how it is encoded in terms of various lexicogrammatical structures that make these expressions explicitly or implicitly subjective and objective (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Table 17.1 illustrates these various options. The subjective choices include the use of modal verbs, as in the implicit constructions, and the use of mental and relational clauses, as in the explicit alternative that renders the extent of commitment to a proposition. The objective choices are divided into the explicit ones, realized through relational clauses with an empty subject ‘it,’ and the implicit options rendered through the use of modal adjuncts. Within secondary school contexts, Xuan and Huang (2017) conducted an analysis of writing samples by ESL learners in the final year of their junior secondary schooling in China and found that learners encoded potentiality through an overuse of the modal auxiliary ‘can.’ A similar finding of the restricted use of modality resources is reported by Whittaker and Llinares (2009), who found that ‘can’ was the only and most frequent resource that was used for encoding a range of modal meanings. They also note a lack of qualifying statements as an important feature of the academic register in the oral and written discourse of secondary school CLIL students in the subjects of history and geography, saying that ‘our students’ generalisations are absolute, using the simple present tense, rather than qualified by a modal verb or adverb’ (p. 231). Referencing the categorization of modality into implicitly and explicitly subjective and objective (Table 17.1, Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), Xuan and Huang (2017) make another insightful observation with regard to the deployment of modality resources by L2 writers. They found that in their data the use of modality was limited to implicitly subjective (e.g., ‘We should remember’) as the most frequent choice in L2 written texts, but not necessarily the most appropriate one in academic writing contexts. The same preference of non-expert L2 writers for subjective modality options is noted by Schleppegrell’s (2004) and Liardét’s (2015) investigations of L2 written academic texts. Schleppegrell’s contrastive study of L1 and L2 laboratory reports demonstrates the frequent use of explicit subjective modality in L2 reports (e.g., ‘I believe,’ ‘I find’) in contrast to the more appropriate explicitly objective option (e.g., ‘It is not possible to + verb’) deployed by proficient L1 writers that helps conceal the source of the belief and present the argument as an objective perspective. Similarly, Liardét (2015) found that the Chinese university learners of English relied on explicitly subjective options in their written essays that made their reasoning less compelling and credible. Finally, the third approach to the exploration of interpersonal meanings draws on the SFLbased Appraisal framework (Martin & White, 2005) that provides researchers with a detailed system of options for the analysis of L2 users’ ability to evaluate their experience in terms of various attitudinal resources (system of Attitude that consists of Affect, Appreciation, and Judgement) and to express stance and negotiate with others through various strategies of Engagement that either open or close the dialogic space (e.g., referring to other perspectives, rejecting them, or proclaiming one’s own). Attitudinal meaning making is explored in Warren and Winkler’s (2015) study that demonstrates how the focus on Attitude in German contentbased instruction at the introductory level led L2 learners to develop and expand their dialogic speaking tasks on the topic of traveling to a city in Germany by producing a higher number

Table 17.1  Subjective and Objective Orientation in Modality

explicit implicit

262

subjective

objective

I think I am sure We should remember

It is important to learn It is possible to draw conclusions Certainly Probably

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

of turns as well as more coherent conversations. L2 learners in the experimental group (as contrasted with the control group) elaborated on their experiences through the use of a variety of linguistic resources that encode such interpersonal meanings as emotions of surprise and happiness, as well as evaluations of quality. With regard to the system of Engagement, contrastive studies of L2 learner academic texts in English report the greater use of expanding dialogic strategies, like supporting one’s claims by reference to other researchers, in high-rated essays as opposed to the preference for contractive strategies, like proclaiming one’s own position, in the low-rated texts (e.g., Ho, 2011; Wu, 2007). Enhancing our understanding of the use of dialogic resources, Lancaster’s (2011) contrastive study of economic policy papers in English by L1 and L2 upper-level undergraduate students points out that it is not only the prevalence of particular strategies that makes an academic essay successful, but also the dialogic balance—the ability to structure and alternate between Engagement devices, like expansion and contraction, in a textually explicit way.

Ideational Meaning-making in L2 The most common type of studies within this strand investigate the ways L2 learners achieve abstractness and technicality as necessary elements of academic meaning-making in literacy contexts. Prioritizing the semantic perspective, these investigations describe resources L2 learners deploy to represent reality metaphorically as an object for reflection and interpretation, as in explanatory or argumentative genres, rather than dynamically, as in narrative genres. A semantic concept that is employed to identify these resources is that of grammatical metaphor (GM) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). GM can be understood as a strategy to construe reality in non-typical or incongruent ways, whereby the typical correspondence between grammatical form and grammatical function is disrupted. In Excerpt 1b below, a dynamic process of arriving is not construed through the grammatical class of verbs, which is typically used to render processes; rather it is construed as a noun arrival, a grammatical class that typically encodes people or things. Nominalizations like arrival are a typical example of GM. But GM is a semantic term that encompasses other resources of incongruent representation, not only nominalizations. In Excerpt 1b, a logical relation of causality that is typically encoded through conjunctions (‘because’ in 1a) is rendered here through the verb prevented that is also considered a GM. Excerpt 1a: I didn’t arrive on time because I was sick. Excerpt 1b:Being sick prevented me from timely arrival. In research on L2 ideational meaning-making, longitudinal studies from various instructions contexts, such as Spanish as a heritage language or German and English as FL, report an increase in the use of GM as nominalizations toward higher curricular levels of instruction (Byrnes 2009; Colombi 2002, 2006; Achugar & Colombi, 2008; Ryshina-Pankova, 2010; Yasuda, 2015). Colombi (2002, 2006) and Achugar & Colombi, 2008, just like Byrnes, Maxim, and Norris (2010), connect this increase to another common measure of L2 development, lexical density, but treat it as more than a change in the use of formal resources. Rather, these studies point out how GMs in the form of nominalizations allow for a different type of making and connecting meanings: within the clause (Excerpt 1b), rather than across clauses (Excerpt 1a), and as more abstract and objective ­construal—more pragmatically appropriate—in academic contexts. The challenge of representing content and relationship between its aspects in this way is also noted in the studies by Llinares and Morton (2010) and Llinares and Whittaker (2010) who, in their analysis of L2 oral and spoken texts in the subject of history by secondary school children in CLIL contexts, found that the production of historical explanations by these L2 users was limited to the across-clausal representation of causality realized through the use of conjunctions (‘because’), in contrast to the preferred use of circumstantial elements realized through 263

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

prepositional phrases with nominalizations (‘due to the spread of plague’) in the discourse of their Spanish L1 peers. Other studies of L2 learner performance in academic genres, at a single moment rather than longitudinally, explore the qualitative implications of the use of GM further. For example, these studies indicate that it is not only the quantity of GM used that distinguishes high-rated from lowrated texts, but rather ways it is deployed as a tool for content (re)conceptualization and textual structuring that enables L2 writers to move from concrete to abstract, and from abstract to concrete representations (Liardét, 2013, 2016; Ryshina-Pankova, 2010; Ryshina-Pankova & Byrnes, 2013).

Textual Meaning-Making in L2 The ability to make effective and appropriate textual meanings is most often studied within the context of L2 writing and advanced literacy development. In particular, SFL-inspired research in this area examines L2 learner ability to create coherent and cohesive texts by structuring the ideational and interpersonal meanings in them. While a thorough review of such studies is not feasible in this handbook chapter, I would like to single out research on two interrelated resources—nominal group and thematization patterns—that SFL analysts focus on to reveal the organizational features of L2 texts, as well as how learners progress as L2 writers. Specifically, the analysis of these two elements can give us crucial information about two aspects of textual meaning-making: (1) how knowledge construction and enactment of relationships are managed in a cohesive way; and (2) how writers achieve coherence with the registerial, genre-based, or context-related goals of their written language production. An illustrative study that focuses longitudinally on the first resource, the nominal group or a group of words that describe an entity (a noun), is that by Whittaker, Llinares, and McCabe (2011) where they analyzed the structure of the nominal group in a variety of textual genres written in English by CLIL secondary school students of history over a period of four years. Corroborating other evidence on the importance of the nominal group for cohesive and registerappropriate writing (e.g., Christie, 2010; Halliday, 1989; McCabe & Gallagher, 2008), the study connects L2 writing development with the increase of complexity in the nominal group that occurs through the reduction of reliance on pronouns and unmodified nouns (e.g., ‘these peasants’) and the increase in the use of pre- and post-modification, for example, via prepositional phrases or relative clauses (e.g., ‘the obligations and rights of the peasants in the feudal system’). Another approach to the analysis of textual meaning-making within SFL is enabled through the focus on theme that helps organize texts rhetorically. When defined in simple terms, theme is syntactically the first element in the clause that creates local interclausal cohesion. Semantically, it is the clausal or textual ‘point of departure’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) that, through particular realizations, helps foreground certain ideational or interpersonal meanings to achieve the global communicative goals and generic coherence (e.g., fronting of temporal and locative circumstances in narratives to anchor the happenings in time and space). Theme analysis can provide interesting insights about development and progression in L2 textual meaning-making. For example, Ryshina-Pankova’s (2006, 2010, 2011) studies of theme in the genre of book review in German by American learners of German across three consecutive instructional levels reveal various changes in theme selection toward higher curricular levels. Ryshina-Pankova (2006) reports an increase in the use of complex theme (defined as a theme with more than three lexical elements, e.g., the seemingly uncomplicated life path of the main character) and its structural variety (modifications of the nominal group through prepositional phrases, appositions, and relative clauses), a finding that is in line with the above-mentioned research on the development of the nominal group in L2 writing in general. Significantly, this study demonstrates what implications the deployment of complex nominal groups in the strategic theme position has for achieving the goals of the book-review genre: Lexically complex themes 264

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

enable writers to summarize story plots by including a large amount of details about the book and its author; they also enable evaluation, a crucial aspect of reviewing and recommending a book. Rather than the number or structural variety of lexical items, the complexity of theme can also be interpreted as the use of experiential GM in this position (e.g., the appeal of the story). Ryshina-Pankova (2010) demonstrates an increase in the use of GM in themes in the book reviews of more advanced learners of German, where thematized GMs not only help summarize the previous discourse and move it forward, but also contribute to the development of argumentative reasoning in this persuasion-oriented genre. Finally, theme can be examined in terms of the ways it foregrounds certain interpersonal meanings. For example, in their investigation of L2 writers’ IELTS (International English Language Testing System) exams, Coffin and Hewings (2004) describe how beginner-writer essays thematize subjective interpersonal stance (e.g., ‘I believe’), which makes their argumentation inappropriately assertive. Ryshina-Pankova (2011) further notes the movement from foregrounding writer opinion (e.g., ‘I found the book interesting …’) about a book in lower curricular level texts in German to intersubjective and reader-oriented themes that highlight the audience in higher curricular level texts (e.g., ‘If you enjoy reading about adventure in space …’) (2011). In conclusion of this overview of research of L2 language learning and use, we can reiterate how SFL can expand the current scope of L2 pragmatics research in terms of objects and methods of investigation. First, the focus of SFL-based studies encompasses all three types of pragmatic meaning-making—interpersonal, ideational, and textual. Second, rather than starting with singling out specific language forms (as in traditional L2 speech-acts studies), they employ a discourse semantic approach that, through a fine-grained analysis of form–social function links, reveals what meanings are made and how they are encoded lexicogrammatically. Third, the analyses describe L2 verbal production and evaluate its effectiveness and appropriateness in view of the communicative characteristics and goals of social contexts where it occurs, for example, connecting L2 discourse to intercultural communicative learning goals in telecollaboration or to content-learning in content- and language-integrated programs, or to L2 writing in the contexts of secondary or tertiary schooling. Finally, the longitudinal studies provide us with an insight into some developmental trajectories in meaning-making by L2 learners: a progression from subjectively oriented to intersubjective and dialogic, and from less to more differentiated expression of interpersonal relationships; a movement from congruent to incongruent representation of reality; and a developing ability to organize discourse coherently and cohesively through specific selections in theme and an increase in complexity of the nominal group.

Fostering L2 Pragmatic Development as a Meaning-Making Ability: SFL-Inspired Instructional Approaches At the center of the SFL-inspired teaching of L2 pragmatics is the genre-based approach to pedagogy and curriculum construction that was originally developed in Australia by the so-called Sydney School, a group of systemic functional linguists who designed what proved to be a very successful pedagogical framework and instructional materials for supporting L1 literacy development and closing the gap between learners of different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Rose & Acevedo, 2006). In genre-based approaches, teaching ‘linguistic forms, functional meanings, and relevant contextual features’ as the ‘necessary condition for pragmatics input to become intake’ (Taguchi, 2011, p. 291) is structured around the concept of genre as a ‘staged goaloriented social process language users are engaged in as members of culture’ (Martin, 1984, p. 25). Genre serves as a building block that enables both: charting curricular progressions and learning trajectories, and integrating language with cultural context and content learning. While not yet widely used in L2 education, the approach has been successfully implemented in some collegiate content- and language-integrated FL programs (e.g., Byrnes et  al., 2010; Crane,  2006; 265

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

Maxim, Hoeng, Lancaster, Schaumann, & Aue, 2013; Ryshina-Pankova, 2016; Yasuda, 2011, 2015); in L2 writing (e.g., Chang, 2010; Devrim, 2013; ); as well as in CLIL contexts (e.g., Lorenzo, 2013). The curriculum-oriented proposals like Byrnes et al. (2010) and Lorenzo (2013) conceptualize pragmatics learning as language use in various types of contexts that are represented by a variety of textual genres and explored through the analysis of the connections between pragmatic, discourse-semantic, and lexicogrammatical features in them. Byrnes et al. (2010) offer a description of a text- and content-based curriculum organized around the primary–secondary discourse genres continuum (Gee, 1998) that is spelled out as various trajectories within ideational, interpersonal, and textual meanings (e.g., from congruent to incongruent; from overtly dialogic to implicitly dialogic; from oral-like to written-like). These trajectories are then related to the discourse-semantic and lexicogrammatical features of particular texts as materials for learning within a variety of content themes. Lorenzo’s model provides us with a map of genres and their rhetorical structures for the school subject of history learned through an FL in CLIL. In both of these projects the authors raise the importance of production tasks and how they may be modelled after the original genres to enable meaningful and scaffolded genre (re)construction by the learners, as well as assessment of their performance (see also Byrnes, Crane, Maxim, & Sprang, 2006; Ryshina-Pankova, 2015). Pedagogical implementation of the approach draws on sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and emphasizes the active role of the instructor who explicitly models the genres and carefully scaffolds learner production of them through instructional conversations within the ‘deconstruction-joint reconstruction-independent construction’ cycle (Rothery & Stenglin, 1995). The specific steps teachers can take while exploring the context of textual production and languagecontext links, as well as design tasks for learner independent production, are presented for the genre of political appeal (Byrnes et al., 2010), summary (Yasuda, 2015), story (Liamkina & Ryshina-Pankova, 2012; Byrnes & Sprang, 2004), interview (Weigert, 2004), and discussion (Ryshina-Pankova, 2016). Furthermore, teacher-talk in the genre-modeling stage is also detailed in the Reading to Learn/Learning to Write framework (Rose & Martin, 2012). To summarize, the genre approach to instruction helps language educators create an environment for meaningful and culturally contextualized language use and thus overcome the commonly cited limitation of the L2 classroom as decontextualized and remote from the authentic communication in the target culture. Unlike speech acts that are mostly used in the context of oral and mundane interaction, the concept of genre enables instructors first to focus on whole texts as ‘complete instances of language and social use’ (Perrett, 2000, p. 93); and second, to teach the pragmatics of both oral- and written-like communication employed in more formal, institutionalized, academic, and professional, contexts, thus giving learners access to literacy discourses and content knowledge in various domains. Furthermore, learner exploration and appropriation of language used in these various contexts are supported through an instructional approach that is centered around explicit teaching of the form-contextualized meanings-social purposes connections that instructors help learners notice, analyze, and reflect on and ultimately (re)create in their own discourse.

Conclusion and Future Directions While the overview of the studies above illustrates how systemic functional theory provides researchers of L2 pragmatics with powerful tools to understand L2 language learning and language use in various contexts, future SFL-inspired investigations can offer further insights about L2 pragmatics within the following research directions: ••

266

Conducting more longitudinal studies on the realization of interpersonal, ideational, and textual meanings within particular genres could give us a more comprehensive picture of the

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

••

••

••

••

changes in L2 pragmatics and help us design and improve instruction in line with these findings (e.g., Ryshina-Pankova, 2010; Whittaker et al., 2011). The longitudinal research within or across genre groups could address cross-sectional data by learners within articulated and coherent programs of L2 study and real longitudinal data within or across various genres and text types. Research that will encompass a range of genres, as well as focus on various features within them, would enhance our understanding of the characteristics, peculiarities, and challenges of pragmatics-related language use in different contexts (e.g., Oskoz & Perez-Broncano, 2016). Within this strand, researchers can address various categories of genres: oral ones that are harder to capture; hybrid ones like telecollaborative chats; or those that represent primary vs. secondary discourses. Studies on the effect of SFL- and genre-based instruction on learning outcomes could provide us with explicit evidence of pedagogical and curricular practices that foster the learning of sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics (e.g., Pang, 2002; Warren & Winkler, 2015; Yasuda, 2015). While within this research direction a significant caveat could be the ethical difficulty in setting up a control group as a group not exposed to genre-based instruction, comparisons can still be made across various task conditions: unpreceded by modeling, preceded by modeling but without a joint functional analysis, and preceded both by modeling and scaffolding through the analysis. Investigations of classroom interaction through SFL would help us understand how teachers can enable learners to expand their ability to communicate appropriately and effectively in L2 (e.g., Llinares & Morton, 2017). Researchers pursuing this orientation could focus on SFL-based classroom conversation analysis within content- and language-integrated curricula, conduct contrastive investigations of language use in various participation frameworks (for example, teacher-fronted or group-work activities), or compare and contrast activities and tasks by identifying which offer more affordances for contextualized and purposeful meaning making measured through SFL-based tools (e.g., Miller, Mitchell, & Pessoa, 2016). Finally, combining SFL with other frameworks that are traditionally used in L2 pragmatics research, like conversation analysis, corpus linguistics, or speech-act analyses, can result in rich multifaceted accounts of L2 pragmatic performance and development (e.g., Llinares, 2013; Llinares & Nikula, 2016; see also Chapters 2, 15, and 16 in this volume).

Note 1 While the chapter on L2 pragmatics and SFL could include an overview of studies that produce rich descriptions of communication in various social contexts as these are crucial for informing L2 teaching and the analysis of L2 learner production, I will only focus on the investigations that address L2 language use and development directly.

Further Reading Byrnes, H. (2009). Instructed foreign language acquisition as meaning-making: A systemic functional approach. Linguistics and Education, 20(1) (Special issue). This special issue of the journal is a collection of five papers that inform the reader about the ways SFL can be used in FL teaching, curriculum construction, and assessment of learner development. It opens with Jim Martin’s piece on the concept of genre and is followed by the articles on the various aspects of FL acquisition and teaching research: from the focus on the development of meaning-making abilities by the learners of Chinese by Jingzi Huang and Bernard Mohan, genre-based pedagogy in the context of Spanish heritage learning by Cecilia Colombi, writing development in German as a FL by Heidi Byrnes, and teaching grammar as a meaning-making resource to the learners of Japanese by Kazuhiro Teruya.

267

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum. This book offers an accessible yet thorough introduction to the systemic functional theory of language through the chapters that focus on its most important aspects such as genre, register, transitivity, mood and modality, and theme. It ends with a detailed registerial and lexicogrammatical examination of three texts within the same field, their differences and similarities, which illustrates to the reader the basics of the systemic functional approach to text analysis. Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. Focusing on the dimension of tenor, Eggins and Slade present the reader with the systemic functional approach to conversation analysis. Using transcripts of authentic conversations between participants of different ages, socio-economic class, race, and gender in everyday contexts as illustration, they equip the readers with the tools of approaching various aspects of conversations. Among them, they discuss the discourse semantic structure, speech functions, their lexicogrammatical realizations, and attitudinal meanings that are being exchanged. These aspects of analysis are then connected to the issues of identity, gender, and construction of relationship of power and solidarity. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Drawing on the framework of SFL, the authors develop a fine-grained model of evaluative meanings that captures various semantic and lexicogrammatical options for encoding attitude, stance, alignment, or disalignment with other interlocutors, and ways these evaluative meanings can be graded, amplified, or softened. The descriptive apparatus presented in the first part of the book is applied in the second part to the analysis of journalistic texts that demonstrates how evaluative resources construct various journalistic genres and encode explicit and implicit ideological positions.

References Achugar, M., & Colombi, C. (2008). Systemic functional linguistic explorations into the longitudinal study of advanced capacities: The case of Spanish heritage language learners. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 36–57). London: Routledge. Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50–66. Byrnes, H., Crane, C., Maxim, H., & Sprang, K. (2006). Taking text to task. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 85–109. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 42, S–1. Byrnes, H., & Sprang, K. (2004). Fostering advanced L2 literacy: A genre-based, cognitive approach. In. H. Byrnes & H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs (pp. 47-85). Boston, MA: Thomson/Heinle. Chang, P. (2010). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Inductive learning for second language writers using a stance corpus (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 140–151. Christie, F. (2010). The ontogenesis of writing in childhood and adolescence. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English language and literacy teaching (pp. 146–158). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2004). IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 15371). London: Continuum. Colombi, M. C. (2002). Academic language development in Latino students’ writing in Spanish. In M. J. Schleppegrell & C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 67–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Colombi, M. C. (2006). Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in Latino students of Spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147–163). London: Continuum. 268

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

Crane, C. (2006). Modelling a genre-based foreign language curriculum: Staging advanced L2 learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 227–245). London: Continuum. Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Devrim, D. Y. (2013). Development of grammatical metaphor in academic literacy through online language support (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. Gee, J. P. (1998). What is literacy? In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 51–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ho, V. L. (2011). Non-native argumentative writing by Vietnamese learners of English: A contrastive study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a socialsemiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Hasan, R. (2012). A view of pragmatics in a social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Human Sciences, 5, 251–279. Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing in economics: Implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 8. Retrieved on January 31, 2018 from http:​//wac​.colo​state​.edu/​atd/e​ll/la​ncast​er.cf​m Liamkina, O., & Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2012). Grammar dilemma: Teaching grammar as a resource for making meaning. Modern Language Journal, 96, 270–289. Liardét, C. L. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 161–178. Liardét, C. L. (2015). ‘As we all know’: Decoding Chinese EFL learners’ use of interpersonal grammatical metaphor. Paper presented at the International Systemic Functional Congress (ISFC), Aachen, Germany. Liardét, C. L. (2016). Grammatical metaphor: Distinguishing success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 109–118. Llinares, A. (2007). Young learners’ functional use of the L2 in a low-immersion EFL context. ELT Journal, 61, 39–45. Llinares, A. (2013). Systemic functional approaches to second language acquisition in school settings. In M. García Mayo, M. Gutiérrez Mangado, & M. Martínez-Adrián (Eds.), Approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Llinares, A., & Morton, R. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and languageintegrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1, 46–65. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (2017). Speech function analysis to explore CLIL students’ spoken language for knowledge construction. In A. Llinares & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Llinares, A., & Nikula, T. (2016). Evaluative language use by teachers and students in CLIL across contexts: integrating SFL and pragmatic approaches. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz Milne, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualizing integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 189–210). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Llinares, A., & Whittaker, R. (2010). Writing and speaking in the history class. Data from CLIL classrooms: From speaking to writing. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 73–89). Madrid: Richmond-Santillana. Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 375–388. Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader (pp. 21– 29). Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Maxim, H., Höyng, P., Lancaster, M., Schaumann, C., & Aue, M. (2013). Overcoming curricular bifurcation: A departmental approach to curriculum reform. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 46, 1–26. McCabe, A., & Gallagher, C. (2008). The role of the nominal group in undergraduate academic writing. In C. Jones & E. Ventola (Eds.), New developments in the study of ideational meaning: From language to multimodality (pp. 189–208). London: Equinox. Miller, R., Mitchell, T., & Pessoa, S. (2016). Impact of source texts and prompts on students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 11–24. 269

Marianna Ryshina-Pankova

Oskoz, A., & Perez-Broncano, O. (2016). What did you say? How did you say it? Linguistic choices in online discussions. Foreign Language Annals, 49, 772–788. Pang, T. (2002). Textual awareness and contextual awareness building: A comparison of two approaches to teaching genre. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 145–161). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Perrett, G. (2000). Second and foreign language development. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching languages in schools and communities (pp. 87–110). London: Cassell. Rose, D., & Acevedo, C. (2006). Closing the gap and accelerating learning in the middle years of schooling. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 42, 32–45. Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. Sheffield, South Yorkshire: Equinox. Rothery, J., & Stenglin, M. (1995). Exploring literacy in school English (Write it right resources for literacy and learning). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2006). Creating textual worlds in advanced learner writing: The role of complex theme. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 164–183). London: Continuum. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2010). Toward mastering the discourses of reasoning: Use of grammatical metaphor at advanced levels of foreign language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 94, 181–197. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2011). Developmental changes in the use of interactional resources: Persuading the reader in FL book reviews. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 243–256. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2015). Foreign language curriculum as a means of achieving humanities learning goals: Assessment of materials, pedagogy and learner texts. In J. Norris, J. Davis, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Student learning outcomes assessment in college foreign language programs (pp. 249–274). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i National Foreign Language Resource Center. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2016). Scaffolding advanced literacy in the FL classroom: Implementing a genredriven content-based approach. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills (pp. 51–70). New York: Routledge. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2018). Discourse moves and intercultural communicative competence in telecollaborative chats. Language Learning and Technology, 22, 218–329. Ryshina-Pankova, M., & H. Byrnes. (2013). Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 179–197. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172–189). London: Continuum. Stalker, J. C. (1989). Communicative competence, pragmatic functions, and accommodation. Applied Linguistics, 10, 182–193 Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50. Timpe Laughlin, V., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and operationalizing the construct of pragmatic competence: Review and recommendations (ETS Research Report No. RR-15-06). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press. Warren, M., & Winkler, C. (2015). Developing multiliteracies through genre in the beginner German classroom In Y. Kumagai, A. López-Sánchez, & S. Wu (Eds.), Multiliteracies in world language education (pp. 29–57). New York: Routledge. Weigert, A. (2004). What’s business got to do with it?” The unexplored potential of business language courses for advanced foreign language learning. In. H. Byrnes & H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs (pp. 131–150). Boston, MA: Heinle Thomson. Whittaker, R., & Llinares, A. (2009). CLIL in Social Science classrooms: Analysis of spoken and written productions. In. Y. R. de Zarobe & R. M. J. Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 215–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15, 343–362. Wu, Siew Mei. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254–271. 270

Systemic Functional Linguistics and L2 Pragmatics

Xuan, W., & Huang, X. (2017). Understanding interpersonal meaning-making in Chinese high school students’ ESL writing: A systemic functional perspective. The Asian Pacific Education Researcher, 26, 227–238. Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 111–133. Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 105–121.

271

18 Psycholinguistic Approaches to L2 Pragmatics Research Thomas Holtgraves, Gyeongnam Kwon and Tania Morales Zelaya

Introduction Historically, psycholinguistic approaches to second language (L2) pragmatics have been ­relatively rare. An early review of SLA and pragmatics (Kasper & Rose, 1999) noted the lack of empirical research on processes involved in production and comprehension of pragmatic meanings among L2 learners. Though the situation has improved somewhat since then, pragmatic processing (in SLA and otherwise) remains under-researched. In addition, it is only recently that the field of pragmatics itself has taken an experimental turn and begun using psycholinguistic methods to examine pragmatic phenomena (e.g., Noveck & Sperber, 2004). As a relatively new field, experimental pragmatics has dealt with only a limited range of phenomena, and there are only a handful of studies examining L2 pragmatics. Still, we argue in this chapter that a psycholinguistic approach has much to offer to L2 pragmatics, especially as a vehicle for testing theoretically grounded propositions. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a relatively broad overview of psycholinguistic research on pragmatics and SLA, describing methodological techniques and theoretical approaches, as well as some of the major findings and their theoretical implications.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Key Concepts The hallmark of a psycholinguistic approach is the use of a clearly defined experimental procedure that includes both experimental manipulation and control. Researchers can manipulate a variable of interest, such as the context within which a scalar expression occurs, or whether a meaning is conveyed directly or indirectly, and then examine the impact of that variable on comprehension-related measures such as comprehension speed, memory, electrophysiological response, and so on. Control of other variables is typically achieved via the random assignment of participants to conditions. Applying this approach to SLA typically involves the additional variable of participants’ language background. For example, native speakers (L1) and nonnative speakers (L2) can be compared on the dependent variable of interest (e.g., comprehension speed), and more importantly, whether the manipulated independent variable has the same or different effects for L1 and L2 participants. Other variations on this would be to include multiple groups differing in, for example, degree of exposure to a second language. Such an approach has the

272

Psycholinguistic Approaches

potential to provide meaningful information regarding the nature of pragmatic processing in L2 as well as possible L1–L2 differences in pragmatic processing. One of the most popular measures used by psycholinguistic researchers has been reaction time. Sometimes this is used as a measure of sentence or utterance comprehension speed. For example, the difference between two utterances conveying the same meaning, but one doing so indirectly and the other directly, can be compared using reaction-time data. Other times it is used as a means of assessing the time taken to perform a related task. For example, to investigate whether comprehension of an utterance involves activation of a particular meaning, researchers might use a lexical decision task (LDT; deciding whether a letter string is a word) following the presentation of an utterance. On some trials the target word for the LDT represents the meaning of the previously presented utterance. The speed of the lexical decision on those trials, relative to control trials (i.e., when the target word does not represent the meaning of the prior utterance), can then be taken as an indication of the extent to which that meaning has been activated. More recently, electrophysiological measures, in particular event-related potentials (ERPs), have been used as a means of assessing online processing of pragmatic phenomena. For example, the specific neural responses involved in the comprehension of different types of speech acts have been assessed in this way (e.g., Egorova, Shtyrov, & Pulvermuller, 2013). Interestingly, this research suggests a different time course for the comprehension of different types of speech acts (e.g., naming vs. requesting), suggesting the possibility of parallel syntactic and pragmatic processing. And there are now many research examples of functional imaging (e.g., fMRI) (for examples, see Abutalebi & Della Rosa, 2012) being used to examine pragmatic phenomena. This neurobiological technique allows for the identification of networks involved in pragmatic comprehension. For example, research points to the important role played by Theory of Mind networks (e.g., temporo-parietal junction) in the comprehension of certain types of indirect meaning (e.g., Basnáková, Weber, Petersson, van Berkum, & Hagoort, 2014). We are not aware, however, of any research examining L2 pragmatic processing with these approaches. However, we see no reason why they could not be successfully employed in that manner. There are of course limitations with psycholinguistic approaches. One issue is how large a difference must be observed before concluding that there is a real difference. This is typically answered by evaluating the results using some type of inferential statistical procedure, that is, estimating the probability of obtaining the observed difference in the sample of individuals participating in the study, if in fact there was no difference in the general population from which these individuals are sampled (i.e., the null hypothesis). If the probability of observing such a difference is low (typically less than .05), then the researcher will conclude that the effect is real (i.e., significant and unlikely to simply reflect chance variation). There has been, and continues to be, controversy regarding the logic of null hypothesis testing (Levine, Weber, Hullett, Park, & Lindsey, 2008). There are other statistical procedures that can accompany or replace null-hypothesis testing (e.g., confidence intervals, effect sizes), and their use has and will continue to grow. Another potential problem with psycholinguistic approaches to L2 pragmatics is the issue of generalizability. Testing the effects of a language variable by manipulating certain words raises the issue of whether any observed effects are simply unique to those words, or whether the effects can be generalized to other words in that class. This is the reason why psycholinguists often treat both participants and language as random variables, testing for the generalizability of results over both participants and verbal stimuli. Relatedly, the language materials used in psycholinguistic research are often created specifically for that experiment. Though this allows for precise experimental control, there is the question of whether these experimental materials generalize to actual language use. The gain in manipulation and control comes at the expense of realism. As with all research there are trade-offs. 273

Thomas Holtgraves et al.

Survey of Recent Empirical Findings and Critical Insights We organize the material in this section around several specific pragmatic phenomena that have been investigated experimentally. We begin with the comprehension of indirect meaning, followed by implicit speech acts (i.e., speech acts that do not contain the performative verb) and scalar expressions (e.g., ‘some’). Finally, we review research from the text comprehension literature.

Comprehension of Indirect Meaning One of the most heavily investigated topics in L2 pragmatics is the comprehension of indirect meaning, a popularity paralleling the interest in this topic in the experimental pragmatics literature overall (see also Chapter 3 and Chapter 32 in this volume). At a very general level, indirect meaning refers to a situation in which the literal interpretation of an utterance does not completely specify a speaker’s intended meaning. It is important to note at the outset that there are multiple types of indirect meaning, including irony, metaphor, sarcasm, indirect requests, jokes, and so on. In general, the processes involved in comprehension vary over these different types of indirect meaning. One high-level scheme for categorizing these different types of indirect meaning is to differentiate between conventional and nonconventional indirect meaning, a distinction that is roughly similar to that made by Grice (1975) between generalized implicatures (contextindependent meaning and hence conventional) and particularized implicatures (context-dependent and hence nonconventional). Researchers have explored various aspects of the processing of these different types of indirect meaning using a variety of methods. Indirect requests are the most commonly investigated type of conventional indirect meaning. In English, conventional means for performing an indirect request include questioning one’s ability (‘Could you loan me your car?’) or willingness (‘Would you loan me your car?’) to perform the requested act (Clark, 1979). In an early study, Takahashi and Roitblat (1994) investigated whether conventional indirect requests in English are processed differently by native English speakers (L1) and high-proficiency Japanese learners of English (L2). Their experiment was designed to test competing models of indirect request comprehension: the direct access model of indirect meaning (e.g., Gibbs, 1986), whereby indirect meaning is directly retrieved without the literal meaning ever being instantiated, and what is often referred to as the standard pragmatic model (e.g., Grice, 1975), whereby hearers activate both the literal and indirect meaning and then reject the literal meaning in favor of the indirect meaning. Participants read stories that induced either a literal interpretation or a conventional indirect interpretation of a sentence. For example, there were two versions of a story ending with the question ‘Why don’t you come over here?’ with one version prompting a request for action (i.e., indirect) interpretation, and the other version prompting a literal interpretation. The primary dependent measure was reading times for subsequent target sentences that paraphrased either the literal meaning or the conventionally indirect meaning. Target sentences were read more quickly (by both L1 and L2) when they paraphrased a conventional indirect interpretation of the sentence than when they paraphrased a literal interpretation, and they were also read more quickly (again by both L1 and L2) if they paraphrased the interpretation induced by the context, relative to when it did not match the context. This suggests that in these contexts L1 and L2 speakers process both the literal and nonliteral meanings of the primed sentence (hence the underlying comprehension process is the same for both L1 and L2). In contrast to conventional indirect forms, nonconventional forms, or particularized implicatures, are typically viewed as requiring some consideration of the context, most notably the prior discourse context, in order to be understood. One common example of a particularized implicature is to violate the relation maxim (e.g., subtly changing the topic) when responding to a sensitive question (Holtgraves, 1998). For example, when Charlie asks Dan what he thought of his class presentation, and Dan replies, ‘It’s hard to give a good presentation,’ Charlie is likely to 274

Psycholinguistic Approaches

interpret Dan’s reply as conveying a negative opinion of his presentation. In contrast to conventional indirect forms (i.e., generalized implicatures), this interpretation can be derived only by considering the utterance in terms of its relation to the preceding discourse context. Taguchi (2002) used introspective verbal reports to examine L2 English learners’ ability to understand the implied meaning conveyed with indirect replies, as well as the processes involved in this understanding, and the role of language proficiency. Participants listened to dialogues and replies that violated Grice’s maxim of relevance (and thus had an implicit meaning). In addition, participants reported on how they had arrived at their answer. Taguchi identified six strategies: use of paralinguistic cues, adjacency pair rule, background knowledge/experience, key word inferencing, logical reasoning, and speaker intention, with the first two strategies occurring more frequently than the others. Participants responded correctly 70% of the time with the error rate highest for disclosure items. Higher proficiency students were more accurate in understanding the implicit meaning of the utterances than their lower proficiency counterparts, though followup analyses suggested that this is largely a function of differences in confidence. There was a trend that high proficiency participants used more sophisticated strategies, whereas low proficiency participants tended to rely on experience/background information. Because comprehension of implied meaning elicits different strategies simultaneously, pragmatic competence can be considered a multidimensional process. Moreover, pragmatic inference can be interpreted as relevance-seeking, as articulated in Relevance Theory (RT) (Sperber & Wilson, 1986). That is, people select among contextual cues the ones that best confirm the relevance of an utterance. Given that participants in both groups were actively searching for the speaker’s implied meaning and were generally accurate in doing so, Taguchi concluded that inferential abilities may appertain to humans in general and this ability guides L2 interpretation/comprehension. Taguchi (2005; see also Taguchi, 2008) investigated L1–L2 differences in the processing of conventional forms (indirect requests and refusals) and less conventional forms (i.e., particularized implicatures). Conventional indirect forms were expressions whose indirect meanings were relatively clear (e.g., ‛Would you X?’ as a request). Less conventional forms were based on violations of the relation maxim (Grice, 1975). For L1 participants, processing speed and accuracy were roughly equal for both forms. In contrast, L2 participants processed the moreconventional forms more quickly and accurately than the less-conventional forms. Moreover, L2 proficiency was significantly related to accuracy for both forms. However, for reaction time, the relationship was significant only for the more conventional forms. In addition, in contrast to the speed–accuracy trade-off model, comprehension accuracy and reaction time were not associated. These results illustrate how L1–L2 processing differences can vary over different types of indirect meaning. Slightly different results were reported by Taguchi, Li, and Liu (2013), who examined the comprehension of conventional and non-conventional implicatures in L2 Chinese as a function of proficiency and learning context (foreign language learners vs. heritage language learners). Comprehension was assessed with a 36-item listening test consisting of three types of implicature (as in Taguchi, 2008). Comprehension accuracy, but not speed, varied as a function of implicature type, and accuracy was significantly lower for the nonconventional indirect opinion than the other two forms (see also Bouton, 1988, 1992). Other researchers have examined whether there are age differences in the comprehension of indirect utterances by nonnative speakers (Lee, 2010). Participants in Lee’s (2010) study were Hong Kong Cantonese children (second, fourth, and sixth graders) who were learning English at school, and their native language was Cantonese. A multiple-choice comprehension exercise consisting of direct and indirect versions of five different speech acts (i.e., request, apology, refusal, compliment, and complaint) was used to examine comprehension ability. Comprehension accuracy increased in a linear fashion for both the direct and indirect speech acts. Indirect forms, particularly indirect refusals, compliments, and complaints, were difficult for the youngest children. 275

Thomas Holtgraves et al.

In addition, think-aloud protocols demonstrated changing strategies for comprehending indirect forms. For example, the youngest group relied more upon the literal meaning and formulaic expressions than did the older children. The comprehension of indirectness in L2 has received considerable experimental attention. This research has demonstrated that there are different types of indirectness with different processes involved in their comprehension. Moreover, it is clear that pragmatic acquisition is not constant over these different types; in general, L2 learners appear to have greater difficulty with less conventional forms (e.g., particularized implicatures) than with more conventional forms (e.g., generalized implicatures). At the same time, this research also suggests that the comprehension of indirectness involves processes that are the same for both L1 and L2 speakers (a point that we elaborate upon below).

Speech-Act Recognition Indirect speech acts are usually viewed as involving the performance of multiple illocutionary acts, with the indirect act conveyed via performance of the direct act (e.g., requesting another to open a window by asserting ‘It’s stuffy in here’). Most of the indirect meanings discussed in the prior section were of this type. It is also possible, however, to perform a single illocutionary act in an implicit manner. That is, an important distinction can be made between speech acts that are explicit and those are that are implicit. The former (referred to as explicit performatives by Austin, 1962; see also Bach, 1994) are utterances containing the performative verb, that is, the verb that names the speech act being performed with the utterance. For example, ‘I promise to shut the door’ contains the performative verb ‘promise’ which names the speech act being performed. Implicit speech acts, in contrast, do not contain the performative verb. For example, an explicit speech act such as ‘I promise to finish it by tomorrow’ could also be performed implicitly with ‘I’ll have it finished tomorrow,’ an utterance that does not contain the performative verb. Implicit speech acts are probably far more common than utterances that contain performative verbs (though this no doubt varies over speech acts with some performative verbs—e.g., promise—being frequently used and others—e.g., request—being rarely used). To explore this issue Holtgraves (2008) examined whether implicit performatives were automatically recognized by native speakers of English. Participants in four experiments read utterances that either performed a specific (implicit) speech act like ‘remind’ (e.g., ‘Don’t forget to go to your dentist appointment today’) or control utterances that contained many of the same words as the speech act utterance but did not perform the speech act (e.g., ‘I’ll bet you forgot to go to your dentist appointment today’). Immediately following the utterance, participants performed either a lexical decision task (LDT) (judge whether a string of letters is a word, Experiment 2) or a recognition probe task (judge whether a word appeared in the preceding utterance, Experiment 1). The logic of these experiments was as follows. If comprehension involves automatic speech act activation, participants performing an LDT should be significantly faster at verifying a word (e.g., ‘remind’), naming the speech act performed with the utterance, relative to the control utterance. They were. For the recognition probe task, participants should be significantly slower at verifying that the word was not in the prior utterance, due to the confusion created by the activation of the speech act term at comprehension. And again, they were. This effect was very brief and occurred when the to-be-performed task occurred right after comprehension (250 ms later) but not when it occurred later, at 2000 ms after comprehension. Holtgraves (2007) examined whether automatic speech-act recognition occurs also with nonnative (L2) English speakers. The materials and procedure were the same as Experiment 2 in Holtgraves (2008). Hence, participants read scenarios and corresponding utterances and then performed an LDT (250 ms later) where the target words were either the relevant speech act verb or a control verb. L1 performance on the LDT was significantly faster for the speech-act 276

Psycholinguistic Approaches

verbs than control words, demonstrating automatic activation of the speech-act term (consistent with the results reported in Holtgraves, 2008). In contrast, L2 participants did not display this pattern; they were not significantly faster for the speech-act verbs than the control verbs. Hence, automatic speech act activation did not occur for the L2 participants. Note that this does not mean the L2 participants were unable to recognize the speech act being performed; only that it did not occur online. Subsequent analyses indicated that there was a significant positive correlati