A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

1 1 4
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
49
See Fordyce (2008) for the effects of instruction on epistemic stance in a foreign
language context.
50
Beebe and Waring (2004) define pragmatic tone as “the affect indirectly conveyed
by linguistic and/or nonlinguistic means” and metaphorically characterize it as the
“‘color’ of emotion and attitude on language” (p. 2).” As they point out, pragmatic
appropriateness is determined not only through word choice, grammar, and semantic
formulas but also by way of tone. The same verbal message can take on different
meanings depending on the tone, since affect is encoded in the tone through intona-
tion, certain linguistic structures (e.g., use of adverbials), non-verbal cues (e.g., gesture,
facial expressions, posture, and pause) and the like.
51
For further theoretical discussion and methodological application of linguistic
politeness and face (Brown and Levinson 1987; Scollon and Scollon 1995), see 
Bou-Franch and Garcés-Conejos (2003).

---

L A N G U A G E - A C Q U I S I T I O N T H E O R Y A N D T E A C H I N G P R A G M A T I C S
1 1 5
■
comparing learners’ L1 and L2 pragmatic norms (see Chapters 7 and 11
for examples);
■
comparing felicitous and infelicitous L2 pragmatic uses, e.g., 
comparing successful and awkward interactions (see Chapter 13);
■
sharing personal stories about pragmatic failure or similar or different
pragmatic norms in another culture (see Activity 10.1 in Chapter 10);
■
reconstructing sample dialogues, e.g., recreating dialogues and
sequencing of lines from a dialogue (see Chapters 7 and 8);
■
role-playing (variation: role-plays with specific intentions, such as
where one person attempts to persuade the other to accept an
invitation and the other intends to refuse the invitation. The role-play
can be recorded for subsequent reflection,
52
see Chapter 8);
■
keeping a reflective journal or interaction log (Chapter 11);
■
interviewing L2-speaking informants about norms for pragmatic
behavior (Chapter 12); and
■
experimenting with certain pragmatic behavior in the L2 community
(Chapters 7 and 12).
In a second-language setting where the target language is commonly
spoken outside of the classroom, pragmatics instruction may best capitalize
on exercises that encourage learners to study the language as used authent-
ically in the community. This technique is termed learner as an ethnographer
53
or learners as researchers.
54
In this learner-centered approach with explicit
instruction of pragmatics in largely inductive terms, learners act like
researchers, collecting naturally occurring linguistic samples from speakers
of the L2, or conducting surveys or interviews regarding particular L2 use.
Then, learners analyze the linguistic features as well as the non-linguistic
contextual factors that influenced the language use in their samples. They
might also compare their preexisting assumptions about L2 pragmatic use
with their new discoveries. These awareness-raising exercises function as a
type of guided simulation for future independent learning of pragmatics.
During these exercises, learners observe, analyze, and adopt some features 
of language they encounter in authentic situations. The learners can be
encouraged to create hypotheses about pragmatic L2 use, test them in
52
Bardovi-Harlig et al. (1991).
53
Bardovi-Harlig (1996); Tarone and Yule (1989); Wolfson (1989). See also Roberts 
et al. (2001) for background on this approach and how an ethnographic approach can
be incorporated into language and culture learning.
54
Tanaka (1997).

---

authentic settings by using the L2 or further observing others, and then
revise hypotheses if necessary. A learners-as-researchers approach models
this cycle of student-centered learning of L2 pragmatics.
Researchers have suggested several instructional frameworks regarding
how pragmatics-focused instructional tasks might be sequentially organized.
One instructional model includes the following stages of instruction:
55
(a) learners’ exploration;
(b) learners’ production; and
(c) feedback from peers and from the teacher.
Another instructional framework is composed of the following phases:
56
(a) a feeling (warm-up) phase;
(b) a doing phase;
(c) a thinking phase;
(d) an understanding phase; and
(e) a using phase.
However, the organizational sequence of classroom exercises would largely
depend on each instructional context (see below for examples of the learner
and language factors), as well as teachers’ beliefs (Chapter 2). The instruc-
tional organization can best be determined locally, rather than always com-
plying with a particular model. The research-based information presented 
in the following section can presumably help teachers to make important
instructional decisions.
Deductive and inductive instruction for L2 pragmatics
The instructional tasks and techniques listed above can be utilized either
with an inductive or deductive orientation, or combination of the two (see
Figure 6.2, below). Instruction is deductive when outside sources, such as
teacher and materials, provide learners with explicit information about
pragmatics before learners study examples. In inductive teaching, learners
analyze pragmatic data to discover L2 pragmatic norms that govern various
language uses (see below).
57
An inductive approach is generally believed to promote higher-order
thinking and may be more effective than a deductive approach. However,
existing research in L2 pragmatics has shown contradicting results that may