Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
135比治山大学現代文化学部紀要,第19号,2012Bul. Hijiyama Univ. No.19, 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 2006 the author has taught an introductory course designed to foster pragmatic
awareness in the belief that pragmatic awareness is essential for the development of communicative
competence (Tanaka, 2006) and the enhancement of intercultural understanding and because most
Japanese students of English have had little if any significant exposure to instruction in basic
pragmatic concepts (Azuma, 1994).
The course reported on here has focused on the instruction of eight common speech act sets
(Ishihara & Cohen, 2010) and introduces students to relevant concepts in pragmatics and
intercultural communication. The Heart to Heart textbook used (Yoshida et. al, 2000) was chosen in
part because it is based on speech act data elicited from 150 American and Japanese university
students, allowing for insights into the influence of culture on language and on the production of
speech acts. An overview of this course is provided in Mosher (2010). For another useful overview,
from one of the authors of this textbook, see Kondo (2008).
This article focuses on the assessment of pragmatic understanding, which is a new area in
second language testing for which there are as of yet no commonly accepted methods or measures
(Hudson, Detmer & Brown, 1995; Brown, 2001; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). One reason is that unlike
other areas of language, such as grammar, listening or reading comprehension, there is usually no
single correct answer. Furthermore, what is an appropriate answer in one situation, may be totally
inappropriate in another situation, or presenting even more difficulties for pragmatic test makers,
an expression that conveys a pragmatically appropriate meaning when uttered in one tone of voice,
may be totally inappropriate in a slightly different tone of voice (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010), making
the written assessment of pragmatic competence difficult.
Here, the focus is limited to a brief description of the type of written assessment items
developed for this course, fully realizing that alternative assessments, such as small group
presentations, task sheet homework, office hour and classroom discussions are also valuable tools for
assessing pragmatic understanding. First, a brief overview of the textbook and supplementary
materials is provided. Next, the written exam item types used to assess students’ comprehension of
the course content are described. Finally, the article concludes with a brief discussion of issues for
further improvement.
Assessing Pragmatic Understanding:A Description of One Classroom Approach
David M. Mosher
2. TEXTBOOK OVERVIEW
2.1 Heart to Heart Textbook Contents
The textbook consists of twelve chapters. Eight of the chapters focus on the instruction of one
common speech act set. Every third chapter is a review chapter which provides additional speech act
examples from the previous two chapters in two short dialogs and gives students more opportunity to
role play the speech acts they have studied in different contexts. This article will focus on the non-
review chapters that form the core of the course.
The eight speech act sets covered are: compliments and responses to compliments, thanking,
requests, refusals, complaints, apologies, proposals (i.e., invitations) and disagreeing.
2.2 Speech Act Database
The speech act data consists of discourse completion task (DCT) results for the first speech act
elicitation situation of each of the eight chapters. The DCT were completed by 150 university students
in the United States and in Japan. Fifty students were native speakers of American English (A) living
in the United States. Fifty were Japanese university students who completed the DCT in English (JE),
their second language. And fifty were native speakers of Japanese (J) who completed the DCT in
Japanese.1 Both of the Japanese university student groups were residing in Japan, and members of
neither group had spent more than half a year studying abroad.
2.3 Major Activity Types
Each of the eight chapters, which introduce a new speech act set, is organized into six sections that
progress from activities designed to foster intuitive awareness of the act, to a study of the specific
speech act strategies (c.f., Ishihara & Cohen, 2010) found in the data for each of the participant
groups, to application of this new knowledge and awareness to role play activities, and finally to a
critical incident (c.f., Cushner & Brislin, 1996) that illustrates the kind of miscommunication speech
act differences can cause in intercultural communication. Each activity type is briefly described below.
―F―e―el ―th―e ―A―ct: The pedagogical goal of this activity type is to give students an intuitive feel for the
speech act to be studied by listening to two short dialogues. One dialogue reflects an American style
enactment of the target speech act and the other illustrates a Japanese style as determined by the DCT
data. After listening to both dialogues, students are asked which dialogue feels more American and
which feels more Japanese. Students can be asked which features of the dialogue influenced their
answer, and the instructor can write the dialogues on the board for closer examination of the
differences.
―D―o ―th―e ―A―ct: In this section, students read a short situation that calls for use of the target speech act,
then they are asked to complete a short dialog using the target speech act and role play it with a
classmate. At this point, students are not given any information on differences in American or
Japanese communication styles for this act since the goal is to activate students’ awareness of their
own communication styles before the act is studied in detail.
David M. Mosher136
1 These three groups are referred to hereafter as A, J and JE.
―T―hi―n―k ―a―bo―ut―t―he―A―ct: Here, students study the linguistic means or types of expressions used by the
DCT participants to enact each speech act. For example, for refusals students learn that the DCT
participants used six types of expression or strategies for the situation given in “Do the Act. ”The six
strategies were the expression of positive opinions, thanking, apologizing, giving alternatives, making
direct refusals and providing reasons for refusing. Using this knowledge, students listen to short
dialogs that utilize each strategy type to see if they can identify the type. After this, they look back at
the dialogue they wrote to see which strategies they used in their own English for situation one (Do the
Act).
―C―r―os―s-―
C―ul―tu―ra―l ―C―o―m―m―u―ni―ca―ti―on――N―o―t―es: Students now examine a graph, which displays the numbers
of each speech act strategy type used by each of the three participant groups. They are asked to
compare each of the groups to find similarities and differences and to consider possible cultural and
linguistic reasons for the differences. Even students with very limited intercultural experience can be
encouraged to consider reasons for the native Japanese speaker (J) strategy choices and for the
potential effect of English as a second language on the JE participant group. If students’ English
abilities are low, this phase of the lesson is best done in Japanese.
―U―s―e ―W―h―a―t ―Y―o―u’―v―e ―L―ea―rn―ed: For this activity, students listen to and role play model dialogs before
completing their own short dialogs for two new situations. The goal now is for students to imitate the
American style for the target speech act so as not to cause any misunderstanding. The textbook
provides a short list of “useful expressions” to help the students. The author found, however, that the
students needed more guidance to be able to write appropriately complex dialogues. The task sheets
designed to facilitate this complexity are explained in section 2.4 below and in Mosher (2010).
―C―ul―tu―ra―l ―E―y―e-―
O―p―e―n―er: Each non-review chapter ends with a critical incident that illustrates a
potential speech act based intercultural misunderstanding. Causes for the misunderstanding can be
clearly related to communication style, cultural norms, and value differences, which may be
influencing the enactment of the targeted speech act. An example of one way to facilitate a deep
analysis of these critical incidents is given in Mosher (2010).
2.4 Task Sheets
Task sheets have been designed for each non-review chapter that give students more detailed
guidance for each dialogue completion task than is provided in the textbook. Students are told which
speech act strategy types and the number of types that they should use, in order to make their
dialogue pragmatically appropriate for each situation. Advice is sometimes linked to the list of
technical terms, such the abbreviated list in 2.5; thus, providing a broader conceptual framework for
this activity as well as facilitating class discussion and student presentations (see also Mosher, 2010). It
is left up to the student to decide the best sequence for the speech act types.
2.5 Pragmatic Technical Terms
Students are given a list of annotated technical terms compiled from work in pragmatics and
intercultural communication, in order to provide a broader and richer conceptual framework for the
course (c.f., Cutting, 2002; Dodd, 1995; Lustig & Koester, 1999, Tanaka, 2006). The terms are indexed
to the first chapters in Heart to Heart for which they are deemed relevant. These concepts are taught
explicitly in class in conjunction with specific speech act sets, homework feedback and student
Assessing Pragmatic Understanding: A Description of One Classroom Approach 137
presentations. An abbreviated list of examples follows. For a more complete list see Mosher (2010).
2.5.1 Student Handout (Abbreviated)
Here is a list of technical terms (専門用語) from pragmatics and intercultural communication that
we will use in this course. These terms will help us to understand and talk about the cultural, linguistic
and communication style differences, which we will find in the Cross-cultural Notes data and in the
Cultural Eye-openers of our textbook, Heart to Heart. The chapter numbers are only guidelines: these
terms may be useful in other chapters as well.
speech act An action preformed by the use of a linguistic utterance (言語的発話).
発話行為.
vague Not clear. Vague words depend on the context to make their meaning
clear. 曖昧。Vagueness. (Ch. 2~)
ambiguous The state of having more than one possible meaning. 両義(のあるこ
と);多義性,曖昧さ。Ambiguity. (Ch. 2~)
indirect Avoiding saying something in a clear or obvious way. Not going or not
expressing something in a straight line. 控え目,間接的。Indirectness.
(Esp., Ch. 10)
direct Saying exactly what you mean in a way that nobody can pretend that
they do not understand. 率直的;直接的。Directness.
context The physical and linguistic environment of a linguistic message. コンテ
キスト,文脈。(Ch. 4~)
high-context communication A communication style in which most of the meaning is in the context
and not in the words themselves. Speakers must use contextual
information to guess what the speaker wants to say. (Ch. 2 “Why do
you always apologize,” Ch. 4 “Dr. Macintosh...” & Ch. 7 “You should’ve
told me”)
low-context communication A communication style in which most of the meaning is in the words
themselves. The listener does not need to guess (much). (Chs. 2, 4 & 7)
enthusiasm constraint Showing a lack of enthusiasm about something (熱意の欠如). This may
be interpreted negatively as meaning“no, ”for example, when the
person says“yes.”(Ch. 10 Eye-opener) (Tannen, 1984)
interjections A short sound, word or phrase spoken suddenly to express emotion or
enthusiasm. E.g., Oh! Wow! Ow! Oh-my-god! (SYN, exclamation)間
投詞;感嘆詞。
FTA Face threatening act. Speech acts that threaten someone’s face. 面目を脅
かす(発話)行為。FTA weight (W) = SD (S, H) + P (S, H) + R. (Ch. 4~)
face A person’s public self-image. One’s dignity (尊厳,自尊心). The desire
to be respected. The expectation that one’s public self-image will be
respected. 体面,面目,メンツ。(Ch. 4~)
positive face The need to be connected, to belong to a group. 積極的面目は「連帯」
(solidarity)の願望である。(Ch. 4~)
David M. Mosher138
negative face The need to be independent, not imposed on by others. The right to
have freedom of action. This is also called independence face because it
is the psychological need for independence from others. 消極的/独立
的メンツは「独立」(independence)の願望である。(Ch. 4~)
negative politeness Showing awareness of another’s right not to be imposed on. (Ch. 10)消
極的丁寧さ,独立的丁寧さ。E.g., Could I use your pen? (Ch. 4~)
positive politeness Showing solidarity with another. 積極的丁寧さ,連帯丁寧さ。
E.g., Hey, how about letting me use your pen? (Ch. 4~)
social distance 社会的な距離(SD). The degree of closeness between the S (speaker)
and H (hearer). Age, status and degree of familiarity are three
important factors that determine SD. Examples from close to distant:
family (brother or sister), best friend, classmate, first time
acquaintance, a stranger. (Ch. 4~)
relative power 相対的権力(P). The relative degree of power that S or H have over
each other. For example, a boss has relatively more power than his/her
employee. A professor has relatively more power than his/her student.
(Ch. 4~)
ranking of imposition 押し付けのランク(R). The degree of imposition caused to S or H
because of the speak act. For example, how much will it inconvenience S
or H, or cause them to lose face (メンツを失う)? The R for a request
for the salt is much smaller than the R for a request for a letter of
recommendation. (Ch. 4~)
hesitation words Words like uhhh, ummm, etc. Hesitating is a way of softening a speech act.
softener Words and expressions that soften the impact of a speech act. Softeners
are often used in front of a speech act. 前置き表現は反対意見を聞きや
すくする役割を果す。(Ch. 4 & 7)
3. ASSESSMENT ITEM TYPES
Below are some examples of assessment items used in a 100-point written exam. The multiple-choice
items in section I, are designed to test students ability to identify the major differences between the
three groups that participated in the Heart to Heart DCT study. Section II, tests students’ ability to
recognize the strategy types used in each speech act set. Section III, tests comprehension of the
vocabulary in the pragmatic and technical terms list (c.f., section 2.5). This, of course, is not a direct
test of pragmatic comprehension. Next, the dialog items in section IV were drawn from students’
written task sheet homework (c.f., Mosher, 2010). Responses that were deemed inappropriate were
matched against responses that closely fit the textbook DCT data for the American university
students. Earlier versions of tests developed for this course used two or so written discourse completion
items instead, but such items take more time to grade and limit the number of items that can be
included in a test. Section V tests students’ ability to comprehend and analyze the critical incidents in
the textbook. Finally, it is important to note that this test is given as an open-book exam since the
overall purpose of the course is consciousness raising rather than memorization.
Assessing Pragmatic Understanding: A Description of One Classroom Approach 139
3.1 Assessment Item Examples
I. C.C. Notes (20 points...2pts. each)
1. A use about twice as many compliment types as J or JE.
a. compliments b. no mentions c. thanking d. information
2. Which group uses the most casual request types?
a. American students b. Japanese students learning English c. Japanese students
II. Dialog Analysis (40 points...2pts. each)
―C―o―m―p―li―m―en―ts ―& ―R―es―po―ns―es. A: No Mention; B: Compliments; C: Question; D: Thanking; E: Information
A: Hi, Richard. C―I ―re―al―ly―li―k―e ―yo―u―r j―ac―k―et.
B: D―T―h―an―k―y―o―u.
―R―eq―u―e―s―ts. A: Very Polite Request: B: Polite Request; C: Casual Request
A: Hey, Midori, E―c―o―ul―d ―y―ou―p―a―s―s ―m―e ―th―e ―s―u―g―a―r?
B: Sure. Here you are.
III. Vocabulary Matching: Find the correct technical term for each of the following items, and write the
answer on your answer sheet. (10 points...1pt. each)
a. a vague word b. face c. negative politeness d. positive politeness e. context
f. softener j. social distance h. relative power i. hesitation word
6. The physical or linguistic environment of a linguistic message. (e)
7. A person’s public self-image: their dignity. (b)
8. Words like uhhh, ummm. (i)
9. Words and expressions used in front of a speech act to lessen its impact. (f)
10. Can I use your pen? (c)
11. Sumimasen. (a)
12. The degree of closeness between the speaker and the hearer. (j)
IV. Dialogs: Choose the most typical American style dialog line (台詞) for each of the following
situations. (10 points...1pt. each)
13. Situation: B bought a new pair of shoes.
a. A: Hey, those are nice shoes. Are they new? B: Yeah, I got them at...
b. A: I really like your new shoes. B: Thanks. They’re my favorite pair.
14. Situation: B invites you to go on a camping trip with his friends next weekend, but you can’t go.
a. A: I’m sorry, but I’m very busy next week. B. I’m really sorry.
b. A: Oh, I’d love to, but I really can’t B. I have a big math test on Monday.
V. Cultural Eye-Opener: Read the following eye-opener and answer the questions below.
20 points
David M. Mosher140
"You should have told me!"
Kenji, a Japanese student studying in the U.S., shares a room in a dormitory with Mark. Mark, who
has a part-time job at night, usually comes back very late, around two o’clock in the morning. Every
night Kenji is bothered by the light Mark turns on when he enters their room and is having trouble
sleeping. However, Kenji was afraid to tell Mark about it, because he thought it would ruin their
friendship. So Kenji just said to him, “You were late last night,” hoping that Mark would realize the
situation. Kenji kept quiet for a month, but finally came to the point where he couldn’t take it anymore.
He said, “I’m leaving this dorm. I’m really angry, because you are such an insensitive person. Didn’t you
know that I was having difficulty sleeping because of you?” Mark had no idea what he was talking about
and said, “You should have told me. Since you didn’t say anything, I thought everything was fine!”
15. What’s the main problem? Explain in detail. Then, answer each of the following questions. If you
were in the same situation, would you find it difficult to complain, too? Would you do the same thing as
Kenji? Why or why not? (15 points)日本語で答えてもいい。
16. Rewrite the underlined dialog in English to make a good American style complaint for Kenji. (5
points)
3.2 Explanation of Assessment Types
A C. C. Notes
For these test items, only major patterns of differences in the textbook DCT data are assessed since
given the sample size, small differences would hardly be statistically significant nor realized in many
intercultural encounters. Moreover, attempting to memorize lots of minutiae for each speech act set
would, need-less-to-say, be both very difficult and of low utility. Furthermore, it would risk turning
students off to the very study of pragmatics.
Example one above tests students’ awareness of the major difference between the American and
Japanese students’ compliments. Namely, the American informants saw compliments as an
opportunity to exchange information about the object of the compliments via questions and answers. In
example two, the Japanese students learning English (JE), and doing the DCT in English, stand out in
their use of causal requests to the dean of their college for a letter of recommendation. Among fifty JE
students, there are 35 tokens of casual requests whereas, the fifty Americans use only seven and the
Japanese informants use none. In this situation, both of the later two groups show an overwhelming
preference for the most polite type of request of the three politeness levels identified in the data.
B Dialog Analysis
These items are undoubtedly the easiest of the five item types and are taken directly from example
dialogs in the textbook. The goal is to test recognition of pragmatic meaning in easy everyday
conversation. The comparatively large number of items require both some fluency in reading and some
speed of analysis.
C Vocabulary Matching
This item type is a straightforward attempt to assess students’ understanding of the pragmatic and
Assessing Pragmatic Understanding: A Description of One Classroom Approach 141
intercultural communication concepts taught in the course. Class discussions, task sheet homework and
small group presentations are alternative more holistic means of assessing students’ grasp of these
concepts and their ability to apply them to real world problems like those in the Eye-Openers.
D Dialogs
The correct answer to item 13 is “a” since the DCT data shows that American students do far more
information exchanges (i.e., questions and answers) in their compliments than either group of
Japanese students. Distractor “b” was taken from student homework. The correct answer to item 14 is
“b.” In the refusal data, Americans use more direct refusals (“I really can’t”) than J, but they preface
them with positive opinions (“I’d love to”) or thanking types considerably more often than either
Japanese group. Distractor “a” was, in this case, taken from a textbook dialog more reflective of a
typical J or JE refusal which incorporate more apology types than A do. This item type is another way
to assess students grasp of the major differences between A, J and JE across a range of speech act sets.
As in item type A above, only major differences are singled out for assessment.
E Cultural Eye-Opener.
To answer the Eye-Opener question students have their classmates’ group presentation handout,
such as the following, available to them. This includes a Japanese translation of the critical incident and
the presentation groups’ bilingual pragmatic and cultural analysis of the situation. In addition to the
presenters’ analyses there are instructor comments designed to remind students of additional or more
in-depth explanations for the misunderstanding. Often, these teacher comments include terms from
the technical terms handout (2.5.1) that are particularly relevant to the incident.
Group Presentation Handout Excerpt with Eye-Opener Translation and Analysis
〈日本語訳〉 「あなたは私に伝えるべきです!」
ケンジは日本人の生徒でアメリカに留学しています。そして,マークとルームシェアをしています。
マークは深夜のアルバイトをしていて,いつも深夜2時くらいに帰ってきます。毎晩ケンジはマーク
がバイトから帰って部屋に入ってくる時の電気の光に悩まされ,睡眠不足になっています。しかしケ
ンジは,そのことをマークに怖くて言えません。なぜなら,ケンジは2人の友情が壊れると思ったか
らです。そこでケンジはただ「昨日遅かったね。」とだけ言って,マークが気づいてくれるのを待っ
ていましたが,マークが気づくことはありませんでした。ケンジは1カ月だけ何も言わず黙っていま
した。しかし,これ以上我慢できなくなったケンジは「この部屋を出る。君の鈍感さにはもう我慢で
きない。君のせいで夜眠れなかったのが分からなかったの?」とマークに言いました。マークは何の
ことだかさっぱり分からず,「それならそうと言ってくれれば良かったのに。何も言わないから何も
問題ないと思っていた。」とマークは言いました。
1. What’s the main problem? 主な問題点は何か?
Although Kenji complained indirectly and hoped Mark would notice, he did not notice.
ケンジは気づいて欲しくて,間接的に文句を言ったが,マークは気づいていなかった。
2. If you were in the same situation, would you find it difficult to complain, too?
もしも同じ状況だったら,あなたも不満を言うことができますか?
David M. Mosher142
I would complain because if an indirect complaint does not communicate what I want, the only way
is to more directly communicate what is bothering me.
言います。なぜなら,間接的に言っても伝わっていないのだから,はっきり言ったほうが確実に
困っていることが伝わるから。
Items1and2of the handout are directly relevant to test item question number 15 above. The
students’ response to the first question identifies the basic linguistic problem, but it fails to relate it to
broader notions of communication style differences. The first instructor comment at the end draws
students’ attention to the clash between Kenji’s high-context communication style and Mark’s low-
context communication style. The second comment attempts to make the nature of Kenji’s weak hint
more explicit to students by highlighting what he does not say, so they can see how much is left up to
Mark to infer-too much, it turns out, for a low-context communicator like Mark. It could also be
pointed out here, that from Mark’s perspective, Kenji is not being cooperative enough (Tanaka, 2006 ;
Koizumi, 2001; Yule, 1996; Grice, 1975).
3. Write an acceptable American style complaint for Kenji.
ケンジの為にアメリカンスタイルで好ましい事を書いてください。
I’m having a little trouble getting to sleep. Would you use the small light when you come back
late from your part-time job?
眠れないから困っています。バイトから帰ってきたら,豆電にしてもらえますか?
Suggestion: Do you think you could just turn on the small light when...? 〈Instructor Comment〉
The student presenters’ response to this question is directly relevant to test item number 16 above.
Their complaint begins with a clarification of the situation that includes a softener or down grader (i.e.,
a little) and a specific request to Mark for a change in behavior that would help solve the problem. In
the textbook DCT data, American informants used clarifications and requests twice as often as either
the J or JE informants. The differences in softener strategy use were even more dramatic: A used
thirteen, whereas, J used only two and JE used none.
Instructor Comments
A Both Kenji and Tsutomu are also high-context communicators, but Mark and Dr. Macintosh are
low-context communicators.
B In this situation Kenji is very indirect! He only hints at the problem. He says nothing about the light
or about not being able to sleep. He expects Mark to “read the situation” and guess what the
problem is (空気を読んで問題を悟ること).
4. Conclusions
As noted, the assessment of pragmatic understanding is not any easy task. Here, however, the focus
has been not on an investigation of these difficulties, but rather on a description of one classroom
approach to written assessment of pragmatic understanding. Namely, a description of five item types
was provided: A multiple choice items designed to test awareness of major differences in the informant
Assessing Pragmatic Understanding: A Description of One Classroom Approach 143
groups in the Cross-Cultural Notes DCT data; B multiple choice items designed to test recognition of
the communicative force/intent of dialogs excerpted from the text book; C vocabulary matching items
to check for receptive recognition of technical terms; D binary multiple choice questions to assess
ability to recognize the main American informant style shown in the textbook data versus a more
Japanese style usually taken from student homework; E open-ended questions regarding typical
incidents of cross-cultural misunderstanding from a pragmatic, cultural and intercultural
communication perspective.
As noted in Mosher (2010), the instruction of pragmatics opens students up to a whole new level of
linguistic meaning (Thomas, 1995). Although they are at least tacitly aware of the pragmatic force of
their utterances in their first language, they often have little or no awareness of the communicative
intent of even very basic everyday English conversation. The Heart to Heart textbook helps enhance
students’ awareness of this pragmatic level of meaning systematically. As they progress through the
book, they can see that several speech act strategies are used in more than one speech act set. For
example, compliments are used not only in the compliment and response speech act set of the first
chapter, but as one thanking strategy in chapter two. Thanking which is examined in chapter two is
also a strategy type used in compliment responses as well as in refusals. Explanation and information
strategy types appear in the complement, refusal, complaint, apology and disagreement speech act set
data. Cumulatively, this gives students a fairly rich picture of the use of speech acts in English vis-a-
vis Japanese.
Each time the course has been taught, certain themes have emerged. One that is particularly
noteworthy is that detailed information and explanations seem more important for Americans than for
Japanese in a number of speech act situations. For example, when students complete task sheets and
presentation handouts for compliments and responses (chapter2), refusals (chapter5), complaints
(chapter7), apologies (chapter8) or disagreements (chapter 10), their explanations or reasons for
their disagreement are almost invariably much more succinct and less detailed than seem sufficient to
native speakers, illustrating quite vividly over the length of the course the relatively high-context
communication style of Japanese speakers and the low-context communication style of Americans.
This not only provides multiple teachable moments for the instructor, but also suggests the most
relevant and appropriate areas for assessment.
In conclusion, I will briefly mention a few of what seem to be the more promising ideas for the
improvement of pragmatic assessment. First, items can to be designed to more clearly focus on either
comprehension or on production (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). The development of discourse completion
assessment items is a well-researched approach for assessing productive ability that bears promise.
Hudson, et al. (1995) provide a particularly nice inventory of such item types. Second, the use of
translation to both heighten pragmatic comprehension and to assess understanding of pragmatic
meaning may provide a useful assessment tool for Japanese students (House, 2008). Similarly, testing
students in Japanese may yield more valid results as Brown (2001) notes. Third, the conscious
incorporation of direct and indirect means of assessing comprehension and production bears merit
(Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). For example, indirect means of assessment might provide interesting ways
to assess students’ awareness of the effect of the cooperative principle (Tanaka, 2006; Koizumi, 2001;
Yule, 1996; Grice, 1975), such as, A’s need for more detailed explanations across a range of speech act
sets. Finally, the availability of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) seminal book on politeness in Japanese
David M. Mosher144
provides interesting opportunities for the teaching and assessment of politeness (Brown & Levinson,
2011) and raising students’ awareness of its role in building rapport (Spencer-Oatly, 2004). The
teaching of politeness can be augmented with resources like Vardeaman’s (2000) and on-line corpses
(Ishihara & Cohen, 2010) to provide students with a richer range of English expressions for each
speech act set from which to choose and study.
References
Azuma, S. (1994). Teinena Eigo-Shitsureina Eigo: Eigo no Poraitonesu-Sutoratejii [Politeness
Strategies]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatic Tests: Different Purposes, Different Tests. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper
(eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson S. C. (2011). Poraitonesu: Gengo Shiyou ni okeru, aru fuhen genshou [Politeness:
Some Universals in Language Usage] (N. Tanaka, Trans.). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Cushner, K. & Brislin R. W. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dodd, C. H. (1995). Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, 4th ed. Madison, Wisconsin: Brown and
Benchmark Publishers.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics
Volume3: Speech Acts. Academic Press.
House, J. (2008). Using Translation to Improve Pragmatic Competence, pp. 135-152. In Soler, E. A. &
Martinez-Flor, A. (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning and Testing.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E. & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing Prototypic Measures of Cross-Cultural
Pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture
Meet. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Koizumi, T. (2001). Nyuumon Goyouron Kenkyuu: Riron to Ouyou [An Introduction to Pragmatics
Research: Theory and Application]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Kondo, S. (2008). Pragmatic Development Through Awareness-raising Instruction, pp. 153-177. In
Soler, E. A. & Martinez-Flor, A. (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning
and Testing. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lustig M. W. & Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication Across
Cultures, 3rd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Mosher, D. (2010). Fostering Heart to Heart Communication Skills, Ver. 1. The Bulletin of Hijiyama
University, 17, pp. 47-61.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2004). Iibunka Rikai no Goyouron: Riron to Jissen [The Pragmatics of
Understanding Other Cultures : Theory and Practice] (R. Asaba, N. Tanaka, T. Tsurusaki, Y.
Tsuruda, M. Kumano & S. Fukushima, Trans.). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Tanaka, N. (2006). Puragumateikusu-Waakushoppu: Minomawari no Kotoba wo Goyouronteki ni Miru
Assessing Pragmatic Understanding: A Description of One Classroom Approach 145
[Pragmatics Workshop: Looking at Everyday Language from a Pragmatic Perspective].
Yokohama: Shumpusha.
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.
Vardaman, Jr., J. M. (2000). Yosoyuki Eigo, Fudangi Eigo [A Guide to Politeness in Spoken English]
(A. Tsukada, Trans.). Tokyo: Macmillian Language House.
Yoshida, K. et al. (2000). Heart to Heart: Overcoming Barriers in Cross-Cultural Communication.
Tokyo: Macmillian Languagehouse.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KEYWORDS: pragmatic assessment, speech acts, communication styles
David M. Mosher(言語文化学科国際コミュニケーションコース)
(2012. 11. 15 受理)
David M. Mosher146