A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

2 7 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
perhaps too familiar to them to analyze properly. In other words, they would
have an insider’s angle on what they intended by what they said, which is
not the case when they are assessing their comprehension of someone else’s
pragmatic performance.
Measuring speech acts production
Oral role-play
Under ideal circumstances, it would be nice to have samples of students’
pragmatic performance in non-elicited situations, both in and out of the
classroom. In terms of out-of-class data, it might be possible to have students
record themselves, perhaps as part of a speaking portfolio that they establish
and add to over a period of time (e.g., a semester, in the case of college stu-
dents). One problem with collecting impromptu data in class is that some
students say more than others. In addition, they may not use the pragmatic
structures that are the focus of assessment. So teachers may have little alter-
native but to elicit the L2 pragmatics performance that is the target of the
assessment.
In order to “bias for best” in the elicitation process,
6
you may wish to
give your students some warm-up time, rather than to assume that they are
ready to perform pragmatically on demand. Their minds may need to get
going in the target language first. Warm-up can be done in several ways.
One way is for you to give students a chance to rehearse what it is they will
need to say or write. If it is to be oral, they could even be given time to
rehearse it with a partner. You may wish to set up role-play situations, such
as the following:
You completely forget a crucial meeting at the office with the boss at
your new job. An hour later you show up at his office to apologize.
The problem is that this is the second time you’ve forgotten such a
meeting in the short time you have been working at this job. Your
boss is clearly annoyed when he asks, “What happened to you this
time?” Do your best to smooth over the situation.
6
Swain (1984).

---

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 7 1
The sociocultural factors of interest in measuring pragmatic ability, such as
in a role-play like this, often include the following:
■
the relative status of the speaker and listener;
■
the level of acquaintance of the speaker and listener;
■
the degree of severity, imposition, or other impact caused by the
situation.
In this case, the speaker is clearly of lower status in being an employee. Since
it is a relatively new job, the speaker is probably not that acquainted with
the boss. The meeting was crucial so the severity level is high. The responses
in such role-play situations could be rated for:
■
the ability to use an appropriate speech act;
■
the typicality of the expressions used;
■
the appropriateness of the amount of speech and information given;
and
■
the appropriateness of the level of formality, the directness, and the
level of politeness.
So let us say the response from a learner of English looks like this:
Very sorry, Mr Peterson. You see . . . uh . . . I have sleeping problems
and . . . uh . . . then I missed the bus. But I can make it up to you.
In this instance, the speaker has apologized using the strategies of express-
ing an apology, giving an explanation, and offering repair. So three of the
key apology strategies were used. Nonetheless, it is likely that pragmatically-
competent speakers of American English would not state the explanation
and the offer of repair in such a cursory way. They would probably say
something more like the following:
Oh, I’m really sorry about that, Mr Peterson. I’ve been suffering from
chronic sleep disorder and as a result I have trouble getting going in
the morning. I can get you a doctor’s note about it. And to make 
matters worse this morning, I got to the bus stop just as the bus was
pulling away. I’m really sorry about that. What can I do to make it up
to you? I’ll work overtime, whatever.

---