A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

2 1 8
T H E N U T S A N D B O L T S O F P R A G M A T I C S I N S T R U C T I O N
Find a partner and exchange your written (or orally recorded) role-
play. Read (or listen to) your partner’s work carefully and answer 
the following questions. Remember to be supportive and respectful –
rather than critical and evaluative – in your review. (Your review will
be part of your grade.)
■
What makes your partner’s language appropriate for the context?
■
What makes it less appropriate, and why do you think so?
■
What questions or suggestions do you have for your partner?
■
What did you learn from this peer review process?
More formal teachers’ evaluation of learners’ L2 pragmatic uses would
also give recognition to pragmatics elements. Curriculum writers and teach-
ers can choose from various forms of assessment, each focusing on different
aspects of L2 pragmatics. For example, teachers can evaluate learners’ choice
and use of strategies, or culture-focused (sociopragmatic) skills. Alternatively,
teachers may collaborate with learners to assess the match between the
speaker’s intention and the listener’s interpretation.
24
(See Chapters 14 and
15 for more on assessment.)
Explaining cultural reasoning for L2 pragmatic norms
Just because learners encounter pragmatic norms that are different in their
L1 and L2 does not mean that there will inevitably be a problem in learning
them. Sometimes differences may actually enhance learning due to their
salience. However, when learners’ L1 norms or personal values directly conflict
with certain L2 norms,
25
the learners may make a negative value judgment
about the target culture, which could lead to negative stereotypes of that
culture and the community members.
26
Consequently, learners may have
difficulty deciding whether (and/or to what extent) to emulate the L2 norms,
or to resist them altogether. It is at these times that it may be helpful for the
learner to be well-informed as to why target language speakers speak as they
do. Knowing the cultural reasoning behind language use can provide learners
with an insider view of the culture, whether they like it or not. This would
allow them to make informed pragmatic choices (see also Chapters 1 and 6).
24
See Ishihara and Maeda (2010) for sample rubrics and teacher support.
25
Di Vito (1993); Ishihara (2006).
26
Wolfson (1989).

---

C U R R I C U L U M W R I T I N G F O R L 2 P R A G M A T I C S
2 1 9
For this reason, the sample curriculum attempts to provide as much 
cultural interpretation as possible,
27
drawing from the research literature on
sociolinguistics and intercultural communication. For example, in the unit
on making refusals in Japanese in the sample curriculum, some explanatory
information about Japanese speakers’ use of a white lie is provided. In speak-
ing diplomatically, it may be socially and ethically acceptable for Japanese
speakers to use innocent, untruthful remarks as a way of face-saving both for
themselves and for their conversational partners.
28
While some American
learners of Japanese see this practice as dishonest,
29
they may appreciate
knowing the cultural value behind this particular pragmatic convention,
which may be constructed differently in their L1.
30
With this knowledge,
learners would be familiar with generalized values in the target culture and
able to make a more informed decision as to their own language use. In the
sample curriculum, the following feedback is given to learners after they
have performed an interactional role-play where model speakers do in fact
use white lies as a way of declining an invitation.
31
A white lie is used also as a face-saving strategy when the speaker does
not want to comply with the listener’s request or invitation. It is 
normally considered polite and desirable to give a reason the speaker
has no control over, rather than saying that the speaker simply does
not want to comply (Moriyama 1990).
In talking with a close friend, however, speaking honestly may 
be more appreciated, depending on the personality and relationship
(Moriyama 1990). So the strategy here is choosing an appropriate rea-
son for the refusal according to the situation.
As you see, cultural norms for interpreting and performing speech
acts are very complex. We recommend that you listen to other
Japanese speakers carefully to observe their use of speech act strategies
along with the situation. Arrive at your own hypotheses regarding
appropriate use of the target language and be willing to renew them
as necessary.
27
This approach is referred to as “explanatory pragmatics” (Meier 2003; Richards and
Schmidt 1983; see also Chapters 1 and 6).
28
Moriyama (1990).
29
Ishihara (2007b); Kubota (1996).
30
See Hancock (2008) for discussion on white lies in American English.
31
Available at: http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/japanese/refusals/feedbackex2.
htm, accessed December 10, 2009.

---