i TEACHING AND TESTING SECOND LANGUAGE PRAGMATICS AND INTERACTION Pragmatic ability is crucial for second language learners to communicate appropriately and effectively; however, pragmatics is underemphasized in language teaching and testing This book remedies that situation by connecting theory, empirical research, and practical curricular suggestions on pragmatics for learners of different proficiency levels: it surveys the field comprehensively and, with useful tasks and activities, offers rich guidance for teaching and testing L2 pragmatics Mainly referring to pragmatics of English and with relevant examples from multiple languages, it is an invaluable resource for practicing teachers, graduate students, and researchers in language pedagogy and assessment Carsten Roever is Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne, Australia ii iii TEACHING AND TESTING SECOND LANGUAGE PRAGMATICS AND INTERACTION A Practical Guide Carsten Roever iv First published 2022 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business © 2022 Taylor & Francis The right of Carsten Roever to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Roever, Carsten, author Title: Teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction: a practical guide / Carsten Roever Description: New York: Routledge, 2021 | Includes bibliographical references and index | Identifiers: LCCN 2020054080 (print) | LCCN 2020054081 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367202811 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367203030 (paperback) | ISBN 9780429260766 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Pragmatic–Study and teaching | Second language acquisition Classification: LCC P53.62 R64 2021 (print) | LCC P53.62 (ebook) | DDC 418.0071–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020054080 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020054081 ISBN: 978-0-367-20281-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-20303-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-26076-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9780429260766 Typeset in Bembo by Newgen Publishing UK v CONTENTS Introduction 1.1 What Is Pragmatics and Why Does It Matter? 1.2 Who This Book Is For (and Some Terminology You Might Need) 1.3 How This Book Is Organized Pragmatic Competence and Interactional Competence 2.1 Pragmatics 2.2 How to Talk to Whom: Pragmatic Competence 2.2.1 Speech Acts and Politeness 10 2.2.2 Learning L2 Speech Acts 12 2.2.3 Conclusion 14 2.3 Understanding Non-literal Speech: Implicature 15 2.3.1 Learning L2 Implicature 16 2.4 Fixed Expressions for Fixed Purposes: Routine Formulae 17 2.4.1 Learning L2 Routines 18 2.4.2 Conclusion: Implicature and Routine Formulae 18 2.5 Interactional Competence 19 2.5.1 Learning L2 Interactional Competence 29 2.5.2 Conclusion 30 2.6 Summary: Speech Acts, Implicature, Routines, and Interactional Competence 31 2.7 Resources and Further Readings 32 vi vi Contents How to Make Teaching Materials and Tests for Pragmatics 33 3.1 The Basics: How to Establish Context 33 3.2 Metapragmatic Judgments 36 3.2.1 Types of Metapragmatic Judgment Tasks 37 3.2.2 Procedure: Administering Metapragmatic Judgment Tasks 40 3.2.3 Resources and Further Readings 40 3.3 Multiple-choice Tasks 40 3.3.1 Creating Multiple-choice Items for Routines 41 3.3.2 Creating Multiple-choice Items for Implicature 42 3.3.3 Creating Multiple-choice Items for Speech Acts 44 3.3.4 Procedure: Administering Multiple-choice Tasks 46 3.3.5 Beyond Multiple Choice: Multi-response Tasks 46 3.3.6 Resources and Further Readings 47 3.4 Discourse Completion Tasks 47 3.4.1 Types of DCTs 49 3.4.2 Designing DCTs 51 3.4.3 Procedure: Administering DCTs 53 3.4.4 Resources and Further Readings 53 3.5 Role Plays 53 3.5.1 Types of Role Plays 55 3.5.2 Target Features in Role Plays 56 3.5.3 Role Play Scenarios 56 3.5.4 Interlocutor Considerations 62 3.5.5 Procedure: How to Run Role Plays 63 3.5.6 Resources and Further Readings 64 3.6 Elicited Conversation 65 3.6.1 Designing Elicited Conversation Tasks 66 3.6.2 Procedure: How to Run Elicited Conversation Tasks 68 3.6.3 Resources and Further Readings 68 Pragmatics and Curriculum 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 The CEFR and Other Frameworks: A Brief Introduction 70 A Developmentally Sensitive Pragmatics Curriculum 73 Pragmatics and Proficiency Levels 74 Beginners: the A1 Level Learner and Pragmatics 74 4.4.1 Getting Learners from to A1 76 4.5 Upper Beginner/Low Intermediate: the A2 Level Learner and Pragmatics 79 4.5.1 Getting Learners from A1 to A2 81 vi 69 vi Contents vii 4.6 Intermediate: the B1 Level Learner and Pragmatics 82 4.6.1 Getting Learners from A2 to B1 86 4.7 Upper-intermediate: the B2 Level Learner and Pragmatics 88 4.7.1 Getting Learners from B1 to B2 93 4.8 Advanced: the C1 Level Learner and Pragmatics 95 4.8.1 Getting Learners from B2 to C1 98 4.9 The High Advanced Learner: Pragmatics at the C2 Level 101 4.9.1 Getting Learners from C1 to C2 103 4.10 Resources and Further Readings 103 4.11 Conclusion 103 Teaching Pragmatics vi 105 5.1 Overview: Findings and Issues in Teaching L2 Pragmatics 105 5.1.1 Effectiveness of Teaching L2 Pragmatics 106 5.1.2 Factors in Teaching Pragmatics 107 5.2 Materials for Teaching Pragmatics 108 5.3 Phases of a Pragmatics Lesson 110 5.3.1 Step 1: Presenting the Target Feature 112 5.3.2 Step 2: Receptive Practice 115 5.3.3 Step 3: Productive Practice 118 5.4 Teaching a Feature Across Levels 122 5.4.1 Requests at A1 Level 122 5.4.2 Requests at B1 Level 130 5.4.3 Requests at C1 Level 137 5.5 Resources and Further Readings 140 Testing Pragmatics 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Pragmatics Testing So Far 142 Testing in Pragmatics Research 145 Pragmatic Norms 148 Assessing Learning: Classroom-based Testing of Pragmatics and Interaction 149 6.5 How to Make Sure Tests Work: Validation of Large-scale Tests 150 6.6 Validating “Objective” Tests 153 6.7 Validating Sociopragmatic Judgment Tests 155 6.8 Validating Productive Tests and their Rating Scales 158 6.9 Fairness and Bias in Testing of Pragmatics 167 6.10 Conclusion 168 6.11 Resources and Further Readings 169 141 vi newgenprepdf viii Contents Outlook: the Future of Teaching and Testing of L2 Pragmatics 170 7.1 Pragmatics in General Language Teaching 170 7.2 Specific-purposes Pragmatics: Needs Analyses, Tasks, and Indigenous Criteria 173 7.3 Making Pragmatics Tests Practical: the Role of Technology 175 Notes References Index 178 179 193 vi 1 INTRODUCTION vi This book is about teaching and testing second language pragmatics and interaction Even language teachers may be unaware of what pragmatic competence and interactional competence are but we all use them all the time In the next chapter, I will go into much more detail of what pragmatics and interactional competence consist of, and what we know about how learners acquire them For now, a shorthand definition will suffice to explain why this book was written 1.1 What Is Pragmatics and Why Does It Matter? To put it simply, pragmatic knowledge is knowing how to adapt one’s language use to other people Consider the following scenario: You are in the post office and filling out a form when your pen dies There is a woman about your age right next to you She has just finished filling out her form and is folding it.You would like to borrow her pen What you say? It is perfectly grammatically correct in English to say any of the following: “Give me the pen.” “Can you pass me your pen?” “My pen doesn’t work I so wish I had a pen.” “Excuse me, could I borrow your pen for a second?” “Forgive the intrusion but I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind letting me use your pen for just a moment I’ll return it right away.” DOI: 10.4324/9780429260766-1 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 816 186 References Martínez- Flor, A., & Usó- Juan, E (2006) A comprehensive pedagogical framework to develop pragmatics in the foreign language classroom: The 6R approach Applied Language Learning, 16(2), 39–63 Matsumoto, Y (1988) Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426 https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0378-2166(88)90003-3 Matsumura, S (2001) Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization Language Learning, 51(4), 635–679 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0023-8333.00170 Matsumura, S (2003) Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2 Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465–491 https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.465 McNamara, T F., & Roever, C (2006) Language testing: The social dimension Basil Blackwell McNamara, T., Knoch, U., & Fan, J (2019) Fairness, justice & language assessment Oxford University Press Nagai, N., Birch, G C., Bower, J V., & Schmidt, M G (2020) CEFR-informed learning, teaching and assessment Springer Newton, J M (1993) Task-based interaction among adult learners of English and its role in second language development [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Victoria University of Wellington Nguyen, T T M (2018) Pragmatic development in the instructed context: A longitudinal investigation of L2 email requests Pragmatics, 28(2), 217–252 https://doi.org/10.1075/ prag.00007.ngu Nguyen, T T M., & Basturkmen, H (2010) Teaching constructive critical feedback In D H Tatsuki & N R Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics:Teaching speech acts (pp 125–140) TESOL Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C (2001) Grammatical and pragmatic awareness: A function of the learning environment? In K Rose & G Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp 63– 79) Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139524797.008 North, B., & Piccardo, E (2019) Developing new CEFR descriptor scales and expanding the existing ones: Constructs, approaches and methodologies Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung, 30(2), 142–160 O’Hagan, S., Pill, J., & Zhang,Y (2016) Extending the scope of speaking assessment criteria in a specific-purpose language test: Operationalizing a health professional perspective Language Testing, 33(2), 195–216 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215607920 Ochs, E (1986) Introduction In B B Schieffelin & E Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp 1–17) Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511620898.001 Ockey, G J., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E (2021) Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test Applied Linguistics https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ amaa067 Ockey, G J., Koyama, D., Setoguchi, E., & Sun, A (2015).The extent to which TOEFL iBT speaking scores are associated with performance on oral language tasks and oral ability components for Japanese university students Language Testing, 32(1), 39–62 https://doi org/10.1177/0265532214538014 OET.(2020,October 23).About OET (Occupational EnglishTest).www.occupationalenglishtest org/about-oet/ Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 816 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 817 References 187 816 Ogiermann, E (2018) Discourse completion tasks In A H Junker, K P Schneider, & W Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics (pp 229–255) Mouton de Gruyter https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9783110424928-009 Oxford University Press (2018) Wide Angle Oxford University Press Pekarek Doehler, S (2019) On the nature and the development of L2 interactional competence: State of the art and implications for praxis In M R Salaberry & S Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (pp 25−59) Routledge Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E (2016) L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 555–578 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw021 Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E (2011) Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2 In J K Hall, J Hellermann, & S Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp 206–243) Multilingual Matters https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694072-010 Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E (2015) The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization In T Cadierno & S.W Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage- based perspectives on second language learning DeGruyter Mouton Pill, J (2013) What doctors value in consultations and the implications for specific-purpose language testing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Melbourne Pill, J (2016) Drawing on indigenous criteria for more authentic assessment in a specific- purpose language test: Health professionals interacting with patients Language Testing, 33(2), 175–193 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215607400 Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F L (2014) How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912 https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 Plonsky, L., & Zhuang, J (2019) A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction In N.Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp 287–307) Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-19 Purpura, J (2004), Assessing grammar Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511733086 Ramanarayanan, V., Evanini, K., & Tsuprun, E (2019) Beyond monologues: Automated processing of conversational speech In K Zechner & K Evanini (Eds.), Automated speaking assessment: Using language technologies to score spontaneous speech (pp 176–191) Routledge Rebuschat, P (Ed.) (2015) Implicit and explicit learning of languages (Vol 48) John Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48 Riddiford, N (2013) Working in an eldercare facility: An ESOL resource School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington www wgtn.ac.nz/ l als/ c entres- a nd- i nstitutes/ l anguage- i n- t he- workplace/ resources/ teaching-and-learning-resources Riddiford, N., & Newton, J (2010) Workplace talk in action: An ESOL resource School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies,Victoria University of Wellington Rinnert, C., & Iwai, C (2010) I want you to help me: Learning to soften English requests In D H Tatsuki & N R Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (pp 29–46) TESOL Roever, C (1994) Linguistische Routinen beim Fremdsprachenerwerb des Englischen: Bedeutung, Probleme und Perspektiven [Unpublished Master’s thesis] University of Duisburg Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 18 188 References Roever, C (2005) Testing ESL pragmatics Peter Lang https://doi.org/10.3726/ 978-3-653-04780-6 Roever, C (2006).Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics Language Testing, 23(2), 229–256 https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt329oa Roever, C (2007) DIF in the assessment of second language pragmatics Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 165–189 https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375733 Roever, C (2012) What learners get for free (and when): Learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL environments ELT Journal, 66(1), 10–21 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ ccq090 Roever, C (2013) Technology and tests of L2 pragmatics In N Taguchi & J Sykes (Eds.), Technology and interlanguage pragmatics (pp 215–233) John Benjamins https://doi.org/ 10.1075/lllt.36.11roe Roever, C., & Al-Gahtani, S (2015) The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance ELT Journal, 69(4), 395–404 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv032 Roever, C., & Al-Gahtani, S (2017, March 21) Quantifying developmental markers of interactional competence [Paper presentation] American Association of Applied Linguistics conference, Portland, Oregon Roever, C., & Dai, D W (2021) Reconceptualizing interactional competence for language testing In R Salaberry & R Burch (Eds.), Assessing speaking in context: Expanding the construct and its applications (pp 23–49) Multilingual Matters Roever, C., Fraser, C., & Elder, C (2014a) Testing ESL sociopragmatics Peter Lang https:// doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04598-7 Roever, C., Higuchi, Y., Sasaki, M., & Yashima, T (in press) Validating a test of L2 routine formulae to detect pragmatics learning in stays abroad Applied Pragmatics Roever, C., & Ikeda, N (2020) Testing L2 pragmatic competence In K P Schneider & E Ifantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics (pp 475–496) Mouton de Gruyter Roever, C., & Ikeda, N (2021) What scores from monologic speaking tests can (not) tell us about interactional competence Language Testing, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 02655322211003332 Roever, C., & Kasper, G (2018) Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking Language Testing, 35(3), 331–355 https:// doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758128 Roever, C., Knoch, U., & Macqueen, S (2015) Writing pragmatically: Second language pragmatic ability and email [Unpublished manuscript] Linguistics & Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne Roever, C., & Phakiti, A (2018) Quantitative methods in language assessment and acquisition research Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203067659 Roever, C., Wang, S., & Brophy, S (2014b) Learner background factors and learning of second language pragmatics International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(4), 377–401 https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0016 Rose, K R., & Ng, C (2001) Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses In K R Rose & G Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp 145– 170) Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.013 Ross, S J (2017) Interviewing for language proficiency: Interaction and interpretation Palgrave Macmillan Ross, S J., & O’Connell, S P (2013) The situation with complication as a site for strategic competence In G Kasper & S Ross (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp 311– 326) Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003522_12 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 18 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 819 References 189 18 Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation Language, 50, 696–735 Saito-Stehberger, D (2010) Indirect complaints as a conversational strategy In D H.Tatsuki & N R Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics:Teaching speech acts (pp 141–159) TESOL Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K (2001) “I know your mean, but I don’t think so” Disagreements in L2 English In L Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp 131–151) University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language Sánchez-Hernández, A., & Alcón-Soler, E (2019) Pragmatic gains in the study abroad context: Learners’ experiences and recognition of pragmatic routines Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 54–71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.006 Sato, T., & McNamara, T (2019) What counts in second language oral communication ability? The perspective of linguistic laypersons Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 894–916 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy032 Scarcella, R (1979) On speaking politely in a second language In C A Yorio, K Perkins, & J Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL ’79 (pp 275–287) TESOL Schauer, G (2006) Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development Language Learning, 56(2), 269–318 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2006.00348.x Schegloff, E (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 104–152 Schegloff, E A (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol 1) Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 Schneider, K P (2008) Small talk in England, Ireland, and the USA In K P Schneider & A Barron (Eds.), Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (pp 99–140) John Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.178.06sch Schneider, K P (2011) Imagining conversation: How people think people things with words Sociolinguistic Studies, 5(1), 15–36 https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v5i1.15 Searle, J R (1969) Speech acts Cambridge University Press Searle, J R (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts Language in Society, 5, 1–23 https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 Selinker, L (1972) Interlanguage IRAL, 10(3), 209–231 https://doi.org/10.1515/ iral.1972.10.1-4.209 Shimazu, Y M (1989) Construction and concurrent validation of a written pragmatic competence test of English as a second language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of San Francisco Shively, R L (2010) From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 105–137 Shively, R L (2011) L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818–1835 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.030 Siegal, M (1996) The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency:Western women learning Japanese Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382 https://doi org/10.1093/applin/17.3.356 Sperber, D., & Wilson, D (1995) Communication and cognition (2nd ed.) Harvard University Press Stokoe, E (2013) The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual interaction and the implications for communication training Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 165–185 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.780341 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 910 190 References Stokoe, E (2014) The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265 https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663 Stokoe, E (2018) Talk Robinson Svennevig, J (2000) Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interactions John Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.64 Sydorenko, T., Daurio, P., & Thorne, S (2018) Refining pragmatically-appropriate oral communication via computer- simulated conversations Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 157–180 https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1394326 Sykes, J (2013) Multiuser virtual environments In N Taguchi & J Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp 71–100) John Benjamins https://doi org/10.1075/lllt.36.05syk Tada, M (2005) Assessment of EFL pragmatic production and perception using video prompts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Temple University Taguchi, N (2005) Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543–562 https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-4781.2005.00329.x Taguchi, N (2008) Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context Language Learning, 58(1), 33–71 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x Taguchi, N (2009) Corpus- informed assessment of comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 738–749 https://doi.org/10.1002/ j.1545-7249.2009.tb00202.x Taguchi, N (2011) The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension Language Learning, 61(3), 904–939 https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9922.2011.00633.x Taguchi, N (2012) Context, individual differences, and pragmatic competence Multilingual Matters https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847696106 Taguchi, N (2013) Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience System, 41(1), 109–121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system 2013.01.003 Taguchi, N (2015) Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50 https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444814000263 Taguchi, N., & Ishihara, N (2018) The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca: Research and pedagogy in the era of globalization Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80–101 Taguchi, N., & Kim,Y (2018).Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics:An overview In N Taguchi & Y Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp 1–26) John Benjamins https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.01tag Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Liu, Y (2013) Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(1), 139–157 https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.06tag Taguchi, N., Li, S., & Xiao, F (2013) Production of formulaic expressions in L2 Chinese: A developmental investigation in a study abroad context Chinese as a Second Language Research, 2(1), 23–58 https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2013-0021 Taguchi, N., & Roever, C (2017) Second language pragmatics Oxford University Press Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S (2016) Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a Chinese study abroad context The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 775–796 https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12349 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 910 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 19 References 191 910 Taguchi, N., & Yamaguchi, S (2019) Implicature comprehension in L2 pragmatics research The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics, 31–46 Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-3 Takimoto, M (2008) The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence The Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369–386 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00752.x Takimoto, M (2009) The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ amm049 Tateyama,Y (2019) Pragmatics in a language classroom In N Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp 400–412) Routledge https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-26 Tatsuki, D H., & Houck, N R (2010) Pragmatics:Teaching speech acts Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Timpe, V (2013) Assessing intercultural language learning Peter Lang https://doi.org/ 10.3726/978-3-653-03884-2 Timpe-Laughlin, V., & Choi, I (2017) Exploring the validity of a second language intercultural pragmatics assessment tool Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(1), 19–35 https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1256406 Timpe-Laughlin,V., & Dombi, J (2020) Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multiturn conversation with a fully automated agent Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 221–257 https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-0010 Tran, V T T (2014) Second language interactional competence: Solicitation effects on suggestions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Melbourne Trosborg, A (1995) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies Mouton de Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 University of Cambridge Language Examination Syndicate (2020) Cambridge English qualifications www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/qualifications/ Van Ek, J A (1976) The threshold level for modern language learning in schools Longman Walters, F S (2004) An application of conversation analysis to the development of a test of second language pragmatic competence [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Illinois Walters, F S (2007) A conversation-analytic hermeneutic rating protocol to assess L2 oral pragmatic competence Language Testing, 27(2), 155–183 https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0265532207076362 Watanabe, A (2017) Developing L2 interactional competence: Increasing participation through self-selection in post-expansion sequences Classroom Discourse, 8(3), 271–293 https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2017.1354310 Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T S (1996) Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13–40 https:// doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.53.1.13 Wildner-Bassett, M (1984) Improving pragmatic aspects of learners’ interlanguage Narr Wolfson, N (1983) An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English In N.Wolfson & E Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp 82–95) Newbury Wong, J., & Waring, H Z (2010) Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852347 Wu, J X (2018) Proficiency and preference organization in second language Mandarin Chinese refusals [Unpublished Master’s thesis] University of Melbourne Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 912 192 References Wu, J X (2020) Development of L2 interactional competence in Mandarin Chinese: Comparing role plays and elicited conversations [Manuscript in preparation] Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, University of Melbourne Wu, J X., & Roever, C (in press) Proficiency and preference organization in second language Mandarin Chinese refusals Modern Language Journal Xiao, F., Taguchi, N., & Li, S (2018) Effects of proficiency subskills on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese study abroad Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 469–483 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000128 Yamashita, S (1996) Six measures of JSL pragmatics University of Hawai’i at Manoa, National Foreign Languages Resource Center Yates, L., & Springall, J (2010) Soften up! Successful requests in the workplace In D Tatsuki & N Houck (Eds.), Pragmatics from research to practice: Teaching speech acts (pp 67–86) TESOL Yeh, M (2018).Active listenership: Developing beginners’ interactional competence Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 47–77 https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2018-0003 Yoshitake, S (1997) Interlanguage competence of Japanese students of English: A multi-test framework evaluation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Columbia Pacific University Youn, S J (2013) Validating task-based assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Hawai’i at Manoa Youn, S J (2015).Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods Language Testing, 32(2), 199–225 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214557113 Youn, S J (2018) Task-based needs analysis of L2 pragmatics in an EAP context Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 86–98 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.10.005 Youn, S J (2019) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment:Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels Language Testing, 37(1), 76–106 https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0265532219860077 Youn, S J (2020) Managing proposal sequences in role-play assessment:Validity evidence of interactional competence across levels Language Testing, 37(1), 76–106 https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0265532219860077 Youn, S J., & Bogorevich,V (2019) Assessment in L2 pragmatics In N Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp 308–321) Routledge Young, R F (2019) Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics In N Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp 93–110) Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-7 Zhang,Y (2016) Development of second language interactional competence: Agreement and disagreement negotiation by learners of Mandarin [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] University of Melbourne Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 912 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 193 INDEX Abe, M 30, 65, 66, 67, 94 ability for use, assessing 149–150 academic language ability 90, 96 ACTFL (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) 72, 74, 79, 83, 89, 95, 102, 103, 121, 176 active listening 66 adjacency pairs 20, 24, 26, 30 Ahn, R C 143 Alcón-Soler, E 145–146 Al-Gahtani, S 13–14, 20, 26, 29, 30, 36, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 73, 78, 80, 85, 86, 93, 97, 121, 135 Al-Masaeed, K 146 apologies 13–14, 19, 41–42, 52, 76–77, 82, 97, 143 applied conversation analysis 174 Applied Pragmatics 106 appreciation markers 100, 115, 116 appropriateness judgements 36–40, 145, 154–155, 156–158, 159 Archer, E 119 assessment of pragmatics 141–159, 172, 174 audio recording 63–64, 150 Austin, J L 10 automatization 75, 83–84, 87, 89, 96 Bachman, L F 12, 69, 105 backchannels 66 background knowledge 4, 16–17, 23, 86, 96, 135–136 Bardovi-Harlig, K 17, 18, 40, 48, 73, 91, 94, 97–98, 109, 110, 119, 145, 158 Barraja-Rohan, A M 109 Barron, A 50 Basturkmen, H 113 Baumgarten, N 66 Beebe, L M 48 Bella, S 14, 78, 80, 81, 91, 96–97 Berger, E 30, 92, 93 Blum-Kulka, S 13–14, 47, 119 Bouton, L 17, 43, 85, 90, 95, 145, 155 Brown, A 62 Brown, J D 40, 151, 155 Brown, P 10, 11, 12, 34 Button, G 27 CA (conversation analysis) 19, 20, 109, 110, 144, 174 Cambridge Suite 2, 69, 141, 176 Canale, M 69, 105 Carduner, J 118 Casey, N 27 CCSARP (Cross-Cultural Speech Acts Realization Project) 47, 53 CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) 2, 4, 70–73, 74–103, 171 Cekaite, A 30 chunks 7, 13, 18, 75, 76, 77; see also routine formulae clarification questions 97, 100, 119 classroom assessments 141, 149–150 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 914 194 Index classroom teaching of pragmatics 105–140 closing a conversation 23–24, 87–88 CLT (communicative language teaching) 2, 170 Cohen, A D 50, 108 collaborative activities 94 collaborative completions 92 communicative competence models 69–70 complaints 10, 26, 56, 94, 101–102, 119 computer-mediated communication 30 computer-simulated interactions 174, 176–177 construct validation 152 conventional expressions 17–18; see also routine formulae conventional implicature 43, 85 conventional indirectness 11, 13, 25–26, 81 conversational maxims 15, 85 Cooperative Principle 15 corpora 109, 161 Coulmas, R 17 Cronbach’s alpha 48, 154–155, 167 Crystal, D 6, Cui, X 92, 113 cultural differences 12, 35, 36, 47, 77, 91, 168 Cummings, M C 48 Cummins, J 70 curriculum 69–104, 173 Dai, D W 92, 106, 161, 167, 174, 175 DCTs (discourse completion tasks): assessment of pragmatics 142, 143, 146; extended DCTs 50; teaching pragmatics 33, 47–53, 119–120, 129, 133, 135; validation of tests 153–154, 159–160 Dechert, H W 18 deductive versus inductive teaching 107, 108, 111 delicate topics 139 DIF (differential item functioning) 168 directness: direct refusals 81, 97, 117–118, 127; direct requests 78; validation of tests 159; see also indirectness discourse management formulae 90–91 disjunctive topic shifts 28, 30, 86, 93 dispreferred actions: A1 level 127; A2 level 30, 81–82; B2 level 94; dispreferred sequential organization 25–26, 54; “yes but” structures 86 domain description 151 Dörnyei, Z 40, 145, 158 Drew, P 23 Eck 163 elicited conversations 33, 56, 65–68, 150 elicited imitation tasks 146 elliptical requests 78 Ellis, R 38, 117, 146, 158, 173 emails 48, 51, 88, 95, 140 explanation (test validation) 152, 155, 158, 167 explicit versus implicit approaches to teaching 107, 108, 112, 124, 128, 131 explicit versus implicit pragmatic knowledge 22, 146 extended DCTs 50 external modification 86 extrapolation 152, 175 face threat 10–11, 81, 103, 122 FACETS 163, 167 fairness in testing 167–168 Farhady, H 142 feedback 63, 108, 140, 162 formulaic expressions see routine formulae formulaic implicature 43–44, 90 FPPs (first-pair parts) 24, 100, 145 Fraser, B frontloading 80 Fujimori, J 119 Galaczi, E D 27, 30, 65, 66, 67, 68, 86–87, 88, 92, 94, 98, 103 games 119–120 gap-fill exercises 124, 125 gender 14, 36, 148 generalization of inference 151–152, 154–155, 158, 166–167 German 2, 12, 42, 69, 79, 141 gesture 3, 76, 172–173 Goffman, E 10 Golato, A 48 González-Lloret, M 173, 174 Grabowski, K 144–145 grammar knowledge: A1 level 75, 77; A2 level 79; B1 level 83, 84; B2 level 89–90; C1 level 96; C2 level 102 greetings 22, 23–24, 75–76 Grice, H P 15, 16, 85 Grieve, A M 172 group discussion 53, 68, 115, 133 Haider, I 51 Hall, J K 19 Hanafi 65 Harmer, J 110, 171 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn 914 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 195 Index 195 914 Hartford, B S 48, 91, 97–98 hedges 11, 73, 146 Hellermann, J 30, 107 Heritage, J 27 hesitation 25, 26, 28, 79 Hinkel, E 145 hints 11 holistic ratings 162 Holmes, J 109, 174 Houck, N R 110, 119 House, J 66 HSK 2, 69, 141, 175 Hudson, T 40, 44, 142–143, 151, 159, 161, 163 19–31; intersubjectivity 19, 22; testing 144, 152, 164, 167, 176 intersubjectivity 19, 22, 28–29, 85 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 167 irony 43–44, 80, 85, 95, 146, 147 Ishida, M 30 Ishihara, N 14, 108 Itomitsu, M 143 Iwai, C 119 identity 14, 51–52 idiomatic expressions 84, 88, 117, 144, 160 idiosyncratic implicature 43, 85 IELTS 2, 69, 90, 141, 175, 176 Ikeda, N 144, 148, 151, 152, 161, 162, 166, 167, 176 ILR (Interagency Language Roundtable) 72, 74, 79, 83, 89, 95, 102, 103 imperatives 11, 78 implicature: A1 level 76; A2 level 80; assessment of pragmatics 143; B1 level 85, 87, 88; B2 level 90, 95; C1 level 96; C2 level 102; formulaic implicature 43–44, 90; idiosyncratic implicature 43, 85; multiple-choice tasks 42–44, 117; pragmatics research 8, 15–17, 26, 145; testing 145, 176; validation of tests 155 implicit knowledge 22, 146 implicit teaching 107–108, 112, 128, 131 implied meanings 16, 17 imposition, degree of 12, 22, 34–35; see also Power, Distance, Imposition indefinite replies 97 independent raters 162–163 indigenous assessment criteria 174–175 indirectness: A1 level 74, 127; A2 level 81; B1 level 86, 87, 88; B2 level 91; C1 level 97; C2 level 102; conventional indirectness 11, 13, 25–26, 81; indirect criticism 17; as politeness 91; receptive practice 115, 117 inductive teaching 107, 108, 111 information receipt 27; see also response tokens insert expansions 24, 78, 97, 99, 100 interactional competence: B1 level 85; B2 level 86; C2 level 103; definition 4, Kane, M T 151 Kasper, G 13, 29, 73, 176 Kim, H.Y 14 Kim, J 90, 95 Kim,Y 173 Kinginger, C 172 Jacoby, S 174 Japanese 12, 14, 69, 141 Johnston, B 50 JPT (Japanese Proficiency Test) 69, 141 L1 transfer 14, 112, 114 Lam, D M K 65–66, 68 language for specific purposes 74, 83, 90, 92, 95, 96, 137–138, 172–173 “Language in the Workplace” (Holmes and Stubbe, 2003) 109, 174 Language Testing International 75, 79, 83, 89, 96, 102 Lantolf, J P 90, 95 large-scale assessments 150–168; see also standardized tests learner as ethnographer 172 Leech, G lesson phases 110–123 Levinson, S D 10, 11, 12, 34 Likert scales 37, 38–39, 151, 155, 157 lingua franca communication 148, 175 listener responses 76, 88, 94, 139 listening comprehension tasks 113–114, 131 Liu, J 44, 143 LoCastro,V 116 Mackey, P 174 Mahan-Taylor, R 110 Mandarin Chinese 54, 66, 69, 76, 80, 81–82, 99–100, 141, 167, 173, 175 manner, maxim of 15, 16 Mao, L R 12 Matsumoto,Y 12 Matsumura, S 145, 155, 158 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 916 196 Index maxims, conversational 15, 85 McNamara, T 44, 163, 174, 175 message first principle 80 meta-analyses 106, 108 metapragmatic explanation 107, 108, 111, 118 metapragmatic judgement 33, 36–40, 132, 158 MFRM (multi-faceted Rasch measurement) 163–165 modal verbs 10, 45, 73, 80, 81–82, 87 monologic tasks 176 multiple-choice tasks: designing 40–47; receptive practice 116–117; teaching materials 33, 38, 40–47; testing 133, 142, 143–144, 145; validation of tests 153–154, 155–156 multiple-rejoinder DCTs 50 multiple-response tests 46–47, 153–154 native speaker norms 148 needs analyses 173–175 negative face 10–11, 81 Newton, J 66, 109, 139 Ng, C 108 Nguyen, T T M 51, 113 non-verbal communication 3, 76, 172–173 objective tests 153–155 occupation/profession-specific language 95, 96, 98, 101 Ochs, E 14 OET (Occupational English Test) 69, 98, 106, 141, 172, 174 Ogiermann, E 51 online resources: assessment of pragmatics 110, 143; discourse completion tasks 53; online corpora 109; role plays 63; teaching pragmatics 174 open role plays 55–65 opening a conversation 23–24, 87–88 other-repair 28, 29 overgeneralization 79 overlapping 21, 22 Palmer, A S 12, 69, 105 partial credit scoring 154 passive recipients 30 pauses 26, 79, 81 Pekarek Doehler, S 19, 29, 30, 73, 81, 86, 92, 93 Phakiti, A 155, 167 Pill, J 92, 98, 106, 172, 174 piloting 36 Plonsky, L 106, 108 Pochon-Berger, E 29, 30, 73, 81, 86, 92 politeness: A2 level 82; B1 level 132; B2 level 91; degree of imposition 34–35; delicate topics 139; metapragmatic judgement 37–38; over-politeness 37, 45; pragmatic competence 8, 10–13; recipient design 4; and social relationships 7; validation of tests 159, 160 Pope Q 15, 17, 90, 96, 168 positive face 10–11 post-expansion 26, 60, 122 Power, Distance, Imposition 11–13, 22, 34, 35, 52, 92, 94, 119, 139 power differentials 11, 22, 45, 91, 139 pragmalinguistic competence 8, 9–10, 13–14, 159–167 pragmatic competence 4, 6–32, 13, 139, 161 pragmatic meaning 144–145 pragmatic norms 148, 156–157 pre-closing moves 24 pre-expansions 25, 85, 86, 93, 136 prefatory particles 97 preference organization 20, 24–26 pre-pres 23, 86, 93, 94, 135, 139 Pritchard, C R 109 processing capacity: A1 level 76, 77, 128; A2 level 56, 79; B1 level 83–84; B2 level 89–90; elicited conversations 67 productive practice 118–123, 125–126, 129, 149–150 productive tests 159–167 productive tools 33, 39, 48 proficiency: CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) 69–104; implicature 16; international frameworks 70–73; learning L2 speech acts 13–14; and pragmalinguistic competence 9–10; pragmatics curriculum 73; proficiency levels and pragmatics 74; role plays 62–63; routine formulae 18; testing ability for use 149–150; and writing 150 prompts 24 psycholinguistics 75, 79, 83–84, 89, 96, 176 PTE 69, 141 Purpura, J 144–145 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn Ramanarayanan,V 176–177 Rasch measurements 163 916 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 197 Index 197 916 rating scales 37, 53, 116, 143, 151, 159–167, 175, 176 receipt tokens 66, 88, 94 receptive practice 115–118, 125, 128 receptive tools 33 recipiency 30 recipient design: B1 level 85, 130; B2 level 92; definition 4; interactional competence 19–20, 22–23; and proficiency 73 refusals: A1 level 78; A2 level 81, 82; B1 level 85–86, 136; C1 level 97, 100–101; implicature 16; indirectness as politeness marker 91; receptive practice 115; refusal-request pairs at beginner levels 30; role plays 121–122; speech acts 13, 25 rejoinders 50 relation, maxim of 15 relevance 15 repairs 20, 28–29 requests: A1 level 76, 77–78, 123–130; A2 level 80–81, 82; B1 level 85–86, 130–137; B2 level 94; C1 level 137–140; interactional competence 20–21; receptive practice 117; refusals 25; role plays 121–122; as speech acts 11 residence effects 158–159 response tokens 27, 76 Riddiford, N 109, 139, 174 Rinnert, C 119 Roever, C 13–14, 16, 18, 20, 26, 29, 30, 36, 37–38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 73, 78, 80, 85, 86, 92, 93, 97, 106, 116, 117, 119, 121, 135, 139, 143, 145, 146, 148, 151, 154–155, 157, 158, 159–160, 167, 168, 175, 176 role plays: A1 level 54; A2 level 30, 54, 56, 61; assessment of pragmatics 143, 144; B1 level 57, 61, 137; C1 level 139; designing 53–65; gender balance in task design 36; standardized tests 176; teaching materials 33, 53–65; teaching pragmatics 121–122, 129–130; validation of tests 161 Rose, K R 13, 73, 108 Ross, S J 103, 121, 122, 139 routine formulae: A1 level 77; A2 level 80, 81; adjacency pairs 24; B1 level 83–84, 85, 87; B2 level 90–91, 91; beginners 75–77; C1 level 96; C2 level 102; formulaic discourse markers 96; multiple-choice tasks 41–42, 116; multi- response tasks 46; pragmatics research 8, 17–18, 145–146; productive practice 119, 119–120; testing 143, 175; testing in pragmatics research 145–146; validation of tests 155, 159 Sacks, H 21 Saito-Stehberger, D 119 Salsbury, T 73 Sánchez-Hernández, A 145–146 sarcasm 43–44, 80, 85, 95, 155 Sato, T 174, 175 scaffolding 54 Scarcella, R 53 Schauer, G 158 Schegloff, E 21, 23, 93, 110 Schneider, K P 51 scoring: automated 46, 176; benchmarking 148, 157; discourse completion tasks 53, 145–146, 153; multiple-choice tasks 46, 153; multiple-response tests 153–154; partial credit scoring 154; productive tests 159–167; role plays 63–64; sociopragmatic judgement tests 155–158, 176; technology 175; test development 151; see also rating scales SDS (Spoken Dialogue System) 177 Searle, J R 10 self-introductions 75–76 self-repair 28–29 Selinker, L 79 sentence construction tasks 126 service encounters 14, 17, 56, 75–77, 83, 121 shared knowledge 20, 23, 96 Shimazu,Y M 142 Shively, R L 13–14, 50, 172 Siegal, M 14 small talk 61, 88, 92, 119 social action, coordination of: A2 level 81, 82; B1 level 85, 87; B2 level 91, 94, 95; beginners 76; elicited conversations 66; interactional competence 19, 22, 25; productive practice 120; testing 147–148 social contexts 34, 35, 146 social distance 11–12, 22, 34, 35, 45, 91, 92 social harmony 24–25, 26, 86, 91, 95 social relationships 7, 9, 12, 22–23, 34, 132 social roles 97, 102–103 sociopragmatic competence: A1 level 77; assessment of pragmatics 143–144, 145; B1 level 87; B2 level 91, 92; pragmatic Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 918 198 Index competence 8–10, 11; and pragmatic norms 148; receptive practice 114; transfer from L1 14; validation of tests 155–167 speech acts: A1 level 76; A2 level 80; assessment of pragmatics 143; B1 level 85, 87; B2 level 91; C1 level 96–97; C2 level 102–103; discourse completion tasks 48; learning L2 speech acts 13; metapragmatic judgement 36; multiple- choice tasks 44–45; pragmatics research 8, 10–13, 146; proficiency 167; testing 142–143, 146, 176; validation of tests 159 Sperber, D 16 SPPs (second-pair parts) 24, 49, 77, 100–101, 145 Springall, J 112, 118 standardized tests 141; see also specific tests e.g.TOEFL stay/study abroad 145, 152, 153, 172 stepwise topic shifts 28, 30, 94 Stokoe, E 54, 174 story telling 30, 92–93, 94 Stubbe, M 109, 174 Svennevig, J 65 Swain, M 69, 105 Sydorenko, T 174 Sykes, J 74, 174 Tada, M 44, 49, 143 Taguchi, N 16, 17, 30, 43, 44, 46, 73, 85, 106, 145, 146, 148, 155, 173, 175 Takimoto, M 108, 155 Tateyama,Y 108 Tatsuki, D H 110 TBLT (task-based language teaching) 173–174 teachability of L2 pragmatics 106 teacher-fronted explanation 112 technology: automatic grading of tests 53; computer-mediated communication 30; computer-simulated interactions 174, 176–177; testing in pragmatics research 174, 175–177; virtual worlds 174; see also online resources; video TestDaF 2, 69, 141, 175 text messaging 65, 66, 88 textbooks 106, 108–109, 171 Threshold level 83 Timpe,V 144, 167 TOEFL 2, 69, 90, 141, 175, 176 token agreements 26 topic management: B1 level 86–87; B2 level 90–91, 94; C1 level 98–99; C2 level 103; disjunctive topic shifts 28, 30, 86, 93; elicited conversations 66; interactional competence 26–27; pragmatic competence 20; role plays 56; stepwise topic shifts 28, 30, 94; topic extension 27–28, 86 trained interlocutors 55, 59, 62–63, 64, 148 Tran,V T T 114 transcripts 109–110 transfer from L1 14, 112, 114 Trosborg, A 119 True/False tasks 46, 115 turn transitions 92 turn-taking 19, 21–22, 54, 98–99 TV shows as sources 109–110, 113 validation of tests 151–153, 175 van Ek, J A 83 Vantage level 89 video: in assessment 150; discourse completion tasks 49, 143; role plays 63–64; as sources of samples 110; speech act tasks 44 virtual worlds 174 VKS (Vocabulary Knowledge Scale) 145 vocabulary repertoires: A1 level 75, 77; A2 level 79; B1 level 83; B2 level 89–90; C1 level 96; C2 level 102 Walters, F S 144 Waring, H Z 19, 24, 27, 110 Watanabe, A 92 Wide Angle (OUP, 2018) 69, 106, 108, 171 Wildner-Bassett, M 105 Wilson, D 16 Wong, J 19, 24, 27, 110 Workplace talk in action (Riddiford and Newton, 2010) 109, 139, 174 written language: B1 level 88; B2 level 95; C1 level 99, 101–102; discourse completion tasks 53, 119, 134, 142; pragmatics research 3; testing ability for use 150; see also emails Wu, J X 54, 56, 85, 99 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn Xiao, F 167 918 C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an 91 Index 199 Yamaguchi, S 16, 17, 30 Yamashita, S 44, 143 Yates, L 112, 118 Yeh, M 76 “yes but” structures 86, 87, 97, 115, 116 Yoshitake, S 44 Youn, S J 56, 59–60, 80, 91–92, 97, 98, 144, 148, 161, 163, 173, 176 Young, R F 19 Zhang,Y 56, 65, 66–67, 68 Zhu,Y 146 Zhuang, J 106, 108 918 Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn C.33.44.55.54.78.65.5.43.22.2.4 22.Tai lieu Luan 66.55.77.99 van Luan an.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.33.44.55.54.78.655.43.22.2.4.55.22 Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an.Tai lieu Luan van Luan an Do an Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhd 77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.77.99.44.45.67.22.55.77.C.37.99.44.45.67.22.55.77t@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn.Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.bkc19134.hmu.edu.vn