A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

1
moushiwake arimasen type;
2
sumimasen type;
3
shitsurei shimashita type;
4
yurushite kudasai type;
5
osore irimasu type;
6
gomeiwakuwo okake shimasu type.
These apologizing expressions may be intensified with the use of,
for example, hontouni, doumo, taihen, and makotoni. Usually these
intensifiers are pronounced emphatically to communicate a
sincere tone of voice.
4
(a) How many apologizing expressions did you provide?
(b) Notice the number of times Japanese students used
apologizing expressions and evaluate the sincerity of your
apology.
2 9 0
F U R T H E R I S S U E S I N L E A R N I N G , T E A C H I N G , A N D A S S E S S M E N T

---

The number of apology expressions offered by Japanese students
(all apology expressions combined):
Two times (40%)
Three times (25%)
Four times (21%)
Note. In Hayashi’s study, Japanese students wrote down imagined
interactions. When they were to speak, they might actually use
more apology expressions than shown above.
5
(a) What was the level of politeness in your language in general?
(b) What levels of politeness did Japanese students use?
Compare the levels used in the sample dialogue with yours.
The speaker in the sample dialogue uses polite to very polite
language. She uses the desu/masu style all the way, sprinkled 
with some very polite usage – the humble form of some verbs.
Examples of the humble forms in the dialogue:
■
“This is Kato”.
■
ukagau kotoga dekinaku
natte shimattan desu “it so happened that I was made unable to
come (lit.)”
The data presented in the boxes above can be given to learners either by
the teacher or through web-links. The assessment becomes highly authentic
when teachers use actual language of a group of college-age research parti-
cipants. While such naturally occurring data are usually difficult to obtain,
elicited data, such as target speakers’ collective judgment of normative 
pragmatic behavior (as in the above example), would help make for more
authentic assessment. When the speakers providing data may be closer in 
age to learners than the teachers themselves are, the assessment can more
closely reflect pragmatic use and awareness of a sub-group of target language
speakers that learners may be most likely to want to emulate.
A S S E S S M E N T O F P R A G M A T I C S I N T H E C L A S S R O O M
2 9 1

---

Assessment rubrics
One form of teacher-based assessment is the evaluative rubric (or checklist
7
)
that teacher readers may find useful for evaluating learners’ receptive and
productive pragmatic ability. The use of rubrics highlights important prag-
matic aspects being focused on, and enables students and teachers alike to
pay attention to those crucial aspects during instruction and assessment. 
In fact, assessment – especially formative assessment – could be seamlessly
integrated into the instruction. For example, with the teacher’s guidance,
learners can engage in self-assessment or peer assessment of their own or
others’ pragmatic use, where the evaluative process itself can feed into the
learning of pragmatics (see the section on self-assessment below). Learners’
pragmatic awareness could also be informally assessed during class discus-
sion while learners contribute their observation of L2 pragmatic norms.
A principle of teacher-based assessment is that the choice of criteria 
in the evaluation rubric aligns with the instructional goals in a consistent
manner.
8
In other words, the focus of instruction also receives major
emphasis in the assessment. In addition, it is important that learners be
informed as to the assessment criteria before teachers assess their pragmatic
ability. What might such assessment criteria look like, then? The next 
section presents areas of focus for assessing pragmatic ability:
■
linguistic aspects (pragmalinguistic ability);
■
cultural aspects (sociopragmatic ability); and
■
analytic aspects (ability to analyze and evaluate pragmatic use – referred
to as metapragmatic ability).
Classroom-based assessment of pragmatics might include a focus on one or
more of these aspects of L2 pragmatics.
Focus on linguistic aspects (assessing 
pragmalinguistic ability)
Teachers assessing learners’ receptive and productive pragmatic ability with
a focus on the language forms would be answering questions such as: