A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

9 6
G R O U N D I N G I N T H E T E A C H I N G A N D L E A R N I N G O F L 2 P R A G M A T I C S
12 Limited grammatical ability; possibly negative transfer, if the learner’s L1
allows this type of direct request in a service encounter.
13 Overgeneralization; possibly instruction or instructional materials, if the
generalization was misguided through instruction.
14 Instruction or instructional materials; possibly negative transfer, if the learner
guesses or assumes that pause fillers must occur as frequently in Japanese as
in his L1 English.
15 Overgeneralization; possibly instruction or instructional materials, if the source
of his information is instruction or instructional materials; possibly negative
transfer, if he uses many hand gestures in his L1, which may be fine in that
language but comes across as too much in Italian.
16 Negative transfer.
17 Negative transfer.

---

P A R T T W O
The nuts and 
bolts of pragmatics
instruction

---

---

C H A P T E R 6
Theories of language
acquisition and the
teaching of pragmatics
Noriko Ishihara
Introduction
A
lthough the bulk of this teachers’ guide is practical in orienta-
tion, this chapter takes a brief look at theoretical under-
pinnings for L2 pragmatics instruction. Because teachers’ knowledge, beliefs,
and practice are interconnected, (re)visiting a current understanding of
pragmatics-focused language learning and teaching can reinforce this link
and facilitate principled teaching (see Chapter 2). Since language learning is
a complex phenomenon, it is a challenge to explain the multiple layers
involved. Here, an Indian fable about nine blind men
1
may be relevant.
Once there were nine inquisitive blind men who did not know what an elephant
was. They went to make acquaintance with this animal in order to understand
what it was like. Each one touched only one part of the elephant and on that
basis made an observation. The blind man who touched only the ears thought
that an elephant was like a large, thin fan. The man who touched the tail
thought that an elephant was like a rope. Another man who touched the trunk
associated an elephant with a snake. The one who touched the legs likened the
elephant to a tree trunk. The man who touched the elephant’s side thought the
animal was like a tall wall . . .
This fable illustrates the relationship between the parts and the whole
(Figure 6.1). Observation of just one component part – the spotlight on only
1
Cited in Patton (2002: 62).

---