Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:55:34.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

Andrew D. Cohen
Andrew D. Cohen*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper starts by giving a rationale for why there is value in explicitly teaching second-language (L2) learners pragmatics in the target language. The importance of a research basis for choosing pragmatic materials to teach is underscored, and the focus is put on sources for materials on pragmatics and the means of data collection. Issues in the teaching of pragmatics are considered, including determining which material to teach, how to prepare teachers to teach it, and the role of teachers in facilitating the learning of pragmatics. Next, L2 pragmatics is viewed from the learners' perspective, in terms of the learning and performance of pragmatics, as well as approaches to assessing what it is that learners are able to do in a pragmatically appropriate way. Finally, consideration is given to the role of technology in making pragmatics accessible to learners, with reference to a website for teachers and curriculum writers and to websites designed for learners of specific languages such as Japanese and Spanish. Recent work on virtual environments for practicing Spanish pragmatics is discussed and preliminary findings from a small-scale study of this effort are reported.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 213 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). On the role of formulas in the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In Bardovi-Harlig, et al. . (eds.), 1–28.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C. & Omar, A. (eds.) (2006). Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 11). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 4). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language, Intensive English Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 143–165.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (eds.) (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R. (eds.) (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: US Department of State. <http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/pragmatics.htm> accessed 29/7/2007.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M. & Waring, H. (2002). The pragmatics in the interlanguage pragmatics research agenda: The case of tone. Presented at AAAL Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 6–9 June 2002, Columbia Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning and Technology 6.1, 60–81.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology 7.2, 68–99.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2004). Learner corpus analysis and the development of foreign language proficiency. System 32.4, 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review 62, 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. L. (eds.) (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review 62.1, 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005). Communication topics and strategies in e-mail consultation: Comparison between American and international university students. Language Learning and Technology 9.2, 24–46.Google Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2006). Making requests in e-mail: Do cyber-consultations entail directness? Toward conventions in a new medium. In Bardovi-Harlig, et al. . (eds.), 81–107.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. & Cohen, A. D. (eds.) (2004). Studying speaking to inform second language learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
CLEAR (2007). Multimedia interactive modules for education and assessment (MIMEA). East Lansing, MI: Center for Language Education and Research, Michigan State University. <http://mimea.clear.msu.edu/> accessed 22/7/2007.+accessed+22/7/2007.>Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In McKay, S. L. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 383–420.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (1997). Developing pragmatic ability: Insights from the accelerated study of Japanese. In Cook, H. M., Hijirida, K. & Tahara, M. (eds.), New trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and culture (Technical Report #15). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 137–163.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2001). From L1 to L12: The confessions of a sometimes frustrated multiliterate. In Belcher, D. & Connor, U. (eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2004). Assessing speech acts in a second language. In Boxer, & Cohen, (eds.), 302–327.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2.3, 275–301.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Ishihara, N. (2005). A web-based approach to strategic learning of speech acts. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota, 57 pp. <http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20Speech%20Act%20Report%20Rev.%20June05.pdf> accessed 22/7/2007.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of socio-cultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning 31.1, 113–134.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Shively, R. L. (2002)/2003. Measuring speech acts with multiple rejoinder DCT's. Language Testing Update 32, 39–42.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Sykes, J. M. (2006). The development and evaluation of a self-access website for learning Spanish speech acts. Presented at the Annual Joint AAAL-ACLA/CAAL Conference, Montreal, Canada, 17 June 2006.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Sykes, J. M. (2007). Strategies, CMC, and learning pragmatics. Presented at 17th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, Honolulu, HI, 26–28 March 2007.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles and strategies-based instruction: A teachers' guide. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning 42.4, 557–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2002). Refusals in Spanish and English: A cross-cultural study of politeness strategies among speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American learners of Spanish as a foreign language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the FL classroom. In Bardovi-Harlig, et al. . (eds.), 167–197.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research. In Kempchinsky, P. & Piñeros, C-E. (eds.), Theory, practice and acquisition. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 239–257.Google Scholar
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K. & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA project. Language Learning and Technology 5.1, 55–102.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Neu, J. (eds.) (1996). Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24.1, 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A. & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27.2, 220–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy-Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer assisted classroom discussion of the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals 25.5, 455–464.Google Scholar
Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening and viewing comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning and Technology 3.1, 88–103.Google Scholar
Hudson, T., Detmer, E. & Brown, J. D. (1994). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report #7). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Hurd, S. (2000). Distance language learners and learner support: Beliefs, difficulties and use of strategies. Links and Letters 7, 61–80.Google Scholar
Hyte, H. D. (2002). The effects of computer-based metacognitive strategy training for adult second language learners. M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2006). Centering second language (SL) speakers' experience: A study of SL speakers' resistance to pragmatic norms of the SL communit. In Subjectivity, second/foreign language pragmatic use, and instruction: Evidence of accommodation and resistance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 114–136.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2007a). Tracing the development of teacher's knowledge about the instruction of L2 pragmatics: The effects of a summer institute. Presented at the AAAL Annual Conference, Costa Mesa, CA, 21–24 April 2007.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. (2007b). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics Instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness 16.1, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (in preparation). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (ed.) (1992). Pragmatics of Japanese as native and target language. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (ed.) (1995). Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatic research. In Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport across cultures. London: Continuum, 316–341.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Bardovi-Harlig, et al. . (eds.), 281–314.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly 40.1, 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. & Andersen, R. W. (1999). Teaching text and context through multimedia. Language Learning and Technology 2.2, 31–42.Google Scholar
LeLoup, J. W. & Ponterio, R. (2001). ON THE NET: Interactive and multimedia techniques in online language lessons – A sampler. Language Learning and Technology 7.3, 4–17.Google Scholar
LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M. E. (eds.) (2004). Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M. E. (2005). Spanish pragmatics. Houndmill: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez Flor, A., Usó Juan, E. & Fernández Guerra, A. (eds.) (2003). Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
McLean, T. (2005). ‘Why no tip?’: Student-generated DCTs in the ESL classroom. In Tatsuki (ed.), 150–156.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 303–325.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 18–35.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S. & Ross, B. (2005). Working memory, synchronous CMC, and L2 oral proficiency devel-opment. Language Learning and Technology 9.1, 35–54.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO 20.1, 7–32.Google Scholar
Pearson, L. (2006). Teaching pragmatics in Spanish L2 courses: What do learners think? In Bardovi-Harlig, et al. . (eds.), 109–134.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S. & Street, B. (2001). Language learners as ethnographers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2004). Difficulty and practicality in tests of interlanguage pragmatics. In Boxer, & Cohen, (eds.), 283–301.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33.3, 385–399.Google Scholar
Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salaberry, R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal 84.1, 28–37.Google Scholar
Schauer, G. A. & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34.1, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17.3, 356–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO 22.3, 399–432.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2007). A dynamic approach to social interaction: SCMC, synthetic immersive environments & Spanish pragmatics. Ph.D. dissertation proposal, Department of Spanish & Portuguese, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Tatsuki, D. (ed.) (2005). Pragmatics in language learning, theory, and practice. Tokyo: Pragmatics Special Interest Group of the Japan Association for Language Teaching.Google Scholar
Tatsuki, D. & Nishizawa, M. (2005). A comparison of compliments and compliment responses in television interviews, film, and naturally occurring data. In Tatsuki (ed.), 87–97.Google Scholar
Thatcher, B. (2005). Situating L2 writing in global communication technologies. Computers and Composition 22.3, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4.2, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (Producer). (1992). Destinos: An introduction to Spanish. Boston, MA: WGBH.Google Scholar
Varghese, M. & Billmyer, K. (1996). Investigating the structure of discourse completion tests. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12.1, 39–58.Google Scholar
Vásquez, C. & Sharpless, D. (2007). Preliminary findings from a nationwide survey on the role of pragmatics in the graduate TESOL curriculum. Ms., Department of World Languages, University of South Florida at Tampa.Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. & Belz, J. A. (2006). A learner corpus-drive intervention for the development of L2 pragmatic competence. In Bardovi-Harlig, et al. . (eds.), 315–357.Google Scholar
White, C. J. (1999). The metacognitive knowledge of distance learners. Open Learning 14.3, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. J. (2006). Distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching 39.4, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widjaja, C. S. (1997). A study of date refusals: Taiwanese females vs. American females. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 15.2, 1–43.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury House/Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.) (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Yamashita, S. O. (1996). Six measures of JSL pragmatics (Technical Report #14). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar