A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

2
Moderate ____
3
Low X
4
Non-existent ____
In addition, learners of the particular target language (in this case, English)
could be asked to add their rationale for giving a certain rating. So in the
above example, a given learner might add, “It isn’t apologetic enough. The
tone is sarcastic and like criticizing his wife. It isn’t clear that he will actually
change his behavior.” This would serve as a good response.
Learners may have differing reactions, many of which could prompt
interesting class discussion. If the focus is on the likely effect of the speaker’s/
writer’s delivery of a speech act on the listener/reader (i.e., the uptake), then
we could start by assessing how the speech act is perceived by the learner. The
following is a sample vignette where the students are to respond both in a
multiple-choice format and by also providing an open-ended comment as well:
Amir is doing his holiday shopping in Manhattan and has only about
15 minutes before the department store closes. He needs to get across
the entire store to the opposite corner to check out the gift specials at
the women’s perfume counter, but in front of him is a stout lady with
bags in hand. She is in the midst of a heated conversation on her cell
phone and is blatantly blocking the aisle. Amir tries desperately to get
around her, but in the process inadvertently knocks over some of her
bags, tangles up her cell-phone arm, and causes the lady to drop her
phone as well.
Lady: My goodness! What are you doing, young man?!
Amir: Very sorry, lady, but you were in my way!
How likely is the stout lady to consider Amir’s response an apology?

---

A P P R O A C H E S T O A S S E S S I N G P R A G M A T I C A B I L I T Y
2 6 9
(a) Very likely.
(b) Somewhat likely.
(c) Not very likely.
What is your rationale for your choice?___________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Some students may have learned that the intensifier “really” in an apology
signals regret and that “very” is more a marker of etiquette. If so, this would
help signal to them that (c) is the correct multiple-choice response. But 
actually, in this case, the speech act-specific strategy, “acknowledgement of
responsibility,” is the key concern here. A preferred rationale statement
would be as follows:
Amir isn’t really taking responsibility for knocking into the lady. He’s
putting the blame back on her.
In cases where the students all share the same L1 and the teacher knows that
language, then students could make their rationale statements in that L1 if
it allowed them more thoughtful analysis.
Tasks like this one would be intended to tap learners’ understanding of
speech act performance by others, and in this case, the added ingredient of
annoyance or sarcasm. Sometimes the identification of the speech act is not
so challenging, but its function in the interaction can depend on the tone or
attitude of the person who delivers it.
Assessment of the ability to comprehend pragmatics could also entail
measuring it directly. For example, teachers could construct some items for
their learners which have pragmatic input that is perhaps subtle in nature
(e.g., veiled criticism about a talk the person just gave or a complaint about
the person’s working style). The intent would be to see if the learners under-
stand the intention of the message and are able to comprehend it in an
appropriate way pragmatically.
It would also be possible for learners to be asked to do self-assessment,
much as they would assess someone else’s pragmatics (see Chapters 7 and 15
for more on self-assessment). The problem with this is that learners may 
not be as good at rating how well they comprehend their own pragmatic
performance as they are at rating how someone else comprehends their 
performance. They may find in rating their own comprehension that it is

---