Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 12:4 (2002) ► pp.447–467

Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness

A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings

This paper approaches classroom interaction from a pragmatic perspective. More specifically, it concentrates on how pragmatic awareness is reflected in the use of modifying elements of talk by two teachers (both non-native speakers of English), and how their use of modifiers affects the ongoing interaction. The data come from two different classroom settings where English is either the object or the medium of study. The findings reveal an overall tendency towards directness in the teachers’ performance that is affected in complex ways both by the institutional context and the teachers’ status as nonnative speakers. The findings also suggest a need for future research to analyse classrooms as social contexts in their own right and with their own pragmatic constraints which may not correspond to those of everyday discourse in other settings.
Keywords: Modifiers, Teacher talk, Classroom interaction, Pragmatic awareness
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 December 2002
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.12.4.03nik
References (48)
Allwright, D. (1999) Discourse in the language classroom. In B. Spolsky (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 319-323.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1988) On deixis and displacement. Folia Linguistica 22/3-4: 263-292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and B.S. Hartford (1990) Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning 401: 467-501. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., B.S. Hartford, R. Mahan-Taylor, M. Morgan, and D. Reynolds (1991) Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal 451: 4-15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, M.L., and G. Kasper (1993) Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Longman, pp. 82-107.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., and E. Finegan (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text9.1: 93-124.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991) Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, M. Sharwood-Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 255-272.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson (1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, C., and R. Janney (1994) Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22.3/4: 325-373. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Christoph, J.N., and M. Nystrand (2001) Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher's transition towards a dialogic classroom . CELA Research Report No. 14003. [URL]
Clennell, C. (1999) Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal 53.2: 83-91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. (1987) Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society 1987: 110-131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A., and E. Ohlstain (1993) The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 271: 33-56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Framework (1996) Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework of reference. CC LANG (95) 5 Rev. IV, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Fruhauf, G., D. Coyle, and I. Christ (eds.) (1996) Teaching content in a foreign language. Practice and perspectives in European bilingual education. Alkmaar: The European Platform for Dutch Education.Google Scholar
García, C. (1992) Responses to a request by native and non-native English speakers: Deference vs. cameraderie. Multilingua 11.4: 387-406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. (1987) Avoiding personal reference in Finnish. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi (eds.), The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 141-153.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, A. et al.. (forthcoming) Iso suomen kielioppi(‘A reference grammar of Finnish’).
Harder, P. (1980) Discourse as self-expression. On the reduced personality of the second-language learner. Applied Linguistics 1.3: 262-270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990) Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication 10.3: 185-205. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
House, J. (1996) Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18.2: 225-252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17.4: 433-454. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (1979) Communication strategies: Modality reduction. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin - Utrecht 4.2: 266-283.  BoPGoogle Scholar
. (2001) Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G., and K. Rose (2001) Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1986) From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal 70.4: 366-372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krueger, M., and F. Ryan (eds.) (1993) Language and content. Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA:D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Lemke, J.L. (1990) Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (1996) Pragmatic force modifiers. A study in interlanguage pragmatics. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia 39. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nikula, T., and D. Marsh (1997) Vieraskielisen opetuksen tavoitteet ja toteuttaminen (‘Content and language integrated teaching: From aims to implementation’). Helsinki: National Board of Education.Google Scholar
Nystrand, M., and A. Gamoran (2001) Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse . CELA Research Report No. 14005. [URL]
Östman, J-O. (1981) You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1986) Pragmatics as implicitness: An analysis of question particles in Solf Swedish, with implications for the study of passive clauses and the language of persuasion. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
. (1995) Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik, S-K. Tanskanen & R. Hiltunen (eds.), Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku conference. Anglicana Turkuensia 141: 95-108.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M., and G. Yule (1999) Fostering pragmatic awareness. Applied Language Learning 10.1 & 2: 1-13.Google Scholar
Schourup, L. (2002) Rethinking well . Journal of Pragmatics 33.7: 1025-1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993) Metaparagmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J.A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snow, M.A., and D.M. Brinton (eds.) (1997) The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1996) Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review 52.4: 529-548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takala, S., D. Marsh, and T. Nikula (1998) Vieraskielinen opetus Suomessa (‘Content and language integrated teaching in Finland’). In S. Takala & K. Sajavaara (eds.), Kielikoulutus Suomessa(‘Language education in Finland’). Jyväskylä: Centre for Applied Language Studies, pp. 139-170.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (1994) Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness 3.3 & 4: 119-129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1987) Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11.2: 147-167. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1995) Metapragmatics. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, manual . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 367-371. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
. (1999) Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
. (2000) Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics 10.4: 439-456.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J., and D.M. Brinton (1997) Linguistic form, pragmatic function: Relevant research from content-based instruction. In M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman, pp. 263-273.Google Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Wu, Xiaoling
2024. A Literature Review on Teaching Pragmatics in the EFL Context: Challenges and Implications. International Journal of Education and Humanities 15:2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Pitkänen-Huhta, Anne
2019. Young People’s Emerging Multilingual Practices: Learning Language or Literacy, or Both?. In Reconceptualizing Connections between Language, Literacy and Learning [Educational Linguistics, 39], ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Sobhy, Nashwa Nashaat
2017. Investigating pragmatics in CLIL through students’ requests. In Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 47], ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Lorenzo, Francisco & Leticia Rodríguez
2014. Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic language proficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL. System 47 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Buysse, Lieven
2011. The Business of Pragmatics. The Case of Discourse Markers in The Speech of Students of Business English and English Linguistics. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 161 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Klimczak, Agata
2011. British Politeness in a Polish ESL/EFL Classroom?. In Extending the Boundaries of Research on Second Language Learning and Teaching [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Alcón, E., M. P. & S. Jordà
2008. Pragmatic Awareness in Second Language Acquisition. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, ► pp. 1948 ff. DOI logo
Appel, Joachim
2007. Language teaching in performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17:3 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Leppänen, Sirpa & Tarja Nikula
2007. Diverse uses of English in Finnish society: Discourse-pragmatic insights into media, educational and business contexts. mult 26:4 ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Tarja Nikula
2006. Pragmatics of Content-based Instruction: Teacher and Student Directives in Finnish and Austrian Classrooms. Applied Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Alcón Soler, Eva
2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?. System 33:3 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
2005. Negotiating interpersonal meanings in naturalistic classroom discourse: directives in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics 37:8 ► pp. 1275 ff. DOI logo
Nikula, Tarja
2005. English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education 16:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
NIKULA, TARJA
2007. Speaking English in Finnish content‐based classrooms. World Englishes 26:2 ► pp. 206 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.