Full Ebook of Pragmatics Pedagogy in English As An International Language 1St Edition Zia Tajeddin Online PDF All Chapter

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an
International Language 1st Edition Zia

Tajeddin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/pragmatics-pedagogy-in-english-as-an-international-la
nguage-1st-edition-zia-tajeddin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Teaching of Culture in English as an International

Language An Integrated Model Routledge Advances in
Teaching English as an International Language Series
1st Edition Shen Chen
https://ebookmeta.com/product/teaching-of-culture-in-english-as-
an-international-language-an-integrated-model-routledge-advances-
in-teaching-english-as-an-international-language-series-1st-
edition-shen-chen/
Exam Success in English Language for Cambridge

International AS A Level 1st Edition Becky Brompton
https://ebookmeta.com/product/exam-success-in-english-language-
for-cambridge-international-as-a-level-1st-edition-becky-
brompton/
Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, Language and

Academic Literacy Pedagogy 1st Edition Zihan Yin
(Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/multifunctionality-in-english-
corpora-language-and-academic-literacy-pedagogy-1st-edition-
zihan-yin-editor/
Pearson Edexcel International GCSE (9-1) English as a

Second Language Teacher's Book 1st Edition D A Turner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/pearson-edexcel-international-
gcse-9-1-english-as-a-second-language-teachers-book-1st-edition-
d-a-turner/
Pedagogical Grammar and Grammar Pedagogy in Chinese as
a Second Language 1st Edition Fangyuan Yuan Baozhang He
Wenze Hu
https://ebookmeta.com/product/pedagogical-grammar-and-grammar-
pedagogy-in-chinese-as-a-second-language-1st-edition-fangyuan-
yuan-baozhang-he-wenze-hu/
Vocabulary Strategy Training to Enhance Second Language

Acquisition in English as a Foreign Language 1st
Edition Andrés Canga Alonso
https://ebookmeta.com/product/vocabulary-strategy-training-to-
enhance-second-language-acquisition-in-english-as-a-foreign-
language-1st-edition-andres-canga-alonso/
International Perspectives on CLIL (International

Perspectives on English Language Teaching) Chantal
Hemmi (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/international-perspectives-on-clil-
international-perspectives-on-english-language-teaching-chantal-
hemmi-editor/
Critical Language Pedagogy Interrogating Language

Dialects and Power in Teacher Education Amanda J.
Godley
https://ebookmeta.com/product/critical-language-pedagogy-
interrogating-language-dialects-and-power-in-teacher-education-
amanda-j-godley/
TBLT As a Researched Pedagogy 1st Edition Virginia

Samuda
https://ebookmeta.com/product/tblt-as-a-researched-pedagogy-1st-
edition-virginia-samuda/
Routledge Advances in Teaching English as an International
Language
PRAGMATICS PEDAGOGY IN
ENGLISH AS AN
INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE
Edited by
Zia Tajeddin and Minoo Alemi
This volume constitutes a purposive collection of thoughtful, provocative, and
timely contributions by leading international experts on pragmatics applied to
real-world English as an international language (EIL) learning, teaching, and
assessment contexts. The book grapples in impressively substantive ways with
issues such as replacing the idealized native-speaker norms with multiple
norms, consistent with the multilingual hybridity that EIL represents. The
editors have orchestrated the chapters so that the book as a whole deals in a
homogeneous way with strategies for performing pragmatics effectively within
a myriad of English varieties and associated cultures.
Andrew D. Cohen
Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an
International Language
Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language aims to bring

to light L2 pragmatics instruction and assessment in relation to English as an
International Language (EIL). The chapters in this book deal with a range of
pedagogically related topics, including the historical interface between L2
pragmatics and EIL, reconceptualization of pragmatic competence in EIL,
intercultural dimension of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, teacher pragmatic
awareness of instruction in the context of EIL, pragmatics of politeness in
EIL, pragmatic teaching materials for EIL pedagogy, teachers’ and scholars’
perceptions of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, assessment and assessment cri
teria in EIL-aware pragmatics, and methods for research into pragmatics
in EIL.
This book is different from other books about both EIL pedagogy and
pragmatics pedagogy. Exploring the interface between different dimensions of
pragmatics pedagogy and EIL, it suggests instructional and assessment tasks
for EIL-aware pedagogy and directions for research on EIL-based pragmatics
pedagogy.
Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language will be useful
for a range of readers who have an interest in the pragmatics instruction and
assessment of EIL, as well as those whose main area of specialization is EIL
but would like to know how EIL, with its rich conceptual and empirical
background, can go beyond linguistic instruction to embrace the instruction
of pragmatic competence.
Zia Tajeddin is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tarbiat Modares Uni

versity, Iran, where he teaches doctoral courses in L2 Pragmatics, Culture and
Identity, and Teacher Education. He is the co-editor of Applied Pragmatics
(John Benjamins) and sits on the editorial/review boards of many journals
such as RELC Journal and TESL-EJ. His research interests center on L2
pragmatics instruction and assessment, classroom discourse analysis, tea
cher identity and cognition, and EIL/ELF. His recent co-edited volume
(with Carol Griffiths) is Lessons from Good Language Teachers (Cambridge
University Press, 2020).
Minoo Alemi is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Islamic Azad
University (IAU), West Tehran Branch, and a post-doctoral associate at
Sharif University of Technology (SUT), Iran. She is the founder of Robot-
Assisted Language Learning (RALL) and the co-founder of Social Robotics
in Iran. She is the associate editor of Applied Pragmatics (John Benjamins)
and sits on the editorial/review boards of many journals, including British
Journal of Educational Technology, BRAIN, LIBRI, and Scientia Iranica.
Her areas of interest include discourse analysis, L2 pragmatics, materials
development, and robot-assisted language education.
Routledge Advances in Teaching English as an International
Language
Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) is a new paradigm in English Lan
guage Teaching (ELT) that has emerged as a response to the rapid increase in the global
spread of English, which has brought about structural, functional, and demographic chan
ges to the language. These changes include the fact that the majority of communicative
events in English that are currently taking place around the world are between so called
"non native" speakers of the language. Around 2 billion people on the planet are now using
English on a daily basis, and English has an official role in more than 70 countries and
territories. The rapid spread of English among communities of speakers around the world
has also led to the localisation or nativisation of the language and the development of many
new varieties, such as Chinese English. These recent changes to the English language and
the ways in which the language is being used call for revisiting many aspects of teaching,
learning, and using English. Although an increasing number of publications have come out
on the topic of EIL, no book series to date has been dedicated to the teaching and learning
of EIL.
The series will publish original research and theoretical essays on various aspects of TEIL. It
will also publish books that engage with practical aspects of TEIL, such as pedagogy, EIL
assessment, EIL materials development, and intercultural communication in EIL.
Series Editor: Jette Hansen Edwards, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Founding Editor: Farzad Sharifian, Monash University, Australia
International Advisory Board

James Dean Brown, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Hawai’i
Seran Dogancay Aktuna, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA
James F. D’Angelo, Chukyo University, Japan
Jette G. Hansen Edwards, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Nobuyuki Hino, Osaka University, Japan
Guangwei Hu, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Aya Matsuda, Arizona State University, USA
Sandra McKay, San Francisco State University, USA
Mario Saraceni, University of Portsmouth, UK
Zhichang Xu, Monash University, Australia
Phan Le Ha, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei & University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawai’i.
Teaching of Culture in English as an International Language

An Integrated Model
Shen Chen and Thi Thuy Le
Englishes in English Language Teaching

Marzieh Sadeghpour
The Place of English as an International Language in English Language Teaching

Teacher’s Reflections
Ngan Le Hai Phan
Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language

Zia Tajeddin and Alemi Minoo
For more information about this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/Routledge

Advances in Teaching English as an International Language Series/book series/RATEILS
Pragmatics Pedagogy in English
as an International Language
Edited by
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 selection and editorial matter, Zia Tajeddin and Minoo Alemi;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Zia Tajeddin and Minoo Alemi to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has
been asserted 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.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Tajeddin, Zia, 1962 editor. | Alemi, Minoo, editor.
Title: Pragmatics pedagogy in English as an international language / edited by Zia Tajeddin,
Minoo Alemi.
Description: London ; New York : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Routledge advances in teaching
English as an international language series | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Summary: "Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language aims to bring to light 2
pragmatics instruction and assessment in relation to English as an International Language (EIL).
The chapters in this book deal with a range of pedagogically related topics, including the historical
interface between L2 pragmatics and EIL, reconceptualization of pragmatic competence in EIL,
intercultural dimension of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, teacher pragmatic awareness of instruction
in the context of EIL, pragmatics of politeness in EIL, pragmatic teaching materials for EIL
pedagogy, teachers' and scholars' perceptions of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, assessment and
assessment criteria in EIL aware pragmatics, and methods for research into pragmatics in EIL.
This book is different from other books about both EIL pedagogy and pragmatics pedagogy.
Exploring the interface between different dimensions of pragmatics pedagogy and EIL, it suggests
instructional and assessment tasks for EIL aware pedagogy and directions for research on EIL
based pragmatics pedagogy. Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language will be
useful for a range of readers who have an interest in the pragmatics instruction and assessment of
EIL as well as those whose main area of specialization is EIL but would like to know how EIL,
with its rich conceptual and empirical background, can go beyond linguistic instruction to embrace
the instruction of pragmatic competence" Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020034314 (print) | LCCN 2020034315 (ebook) | ISBN
9780367563288 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003097303 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: English language Study and teaching Foreign speakers. |
English language Globalization. | Pragmatics.
Classification: LCC PE1128.A2 P6935 2021 (print) | LCC PE1128.A2 (ebook)
| DDC 428.0071 dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020034314
LC ebook record available at https://lccn loc.gov/2020034315
ISBN: 978 0 367 56328 8 (hbk)

ISBN: 978 1 003 09730 3 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman

by Taylor & Francis Books
Contents
List of illustrations xi
List of contributors xii
Foreword xvii
Acknowledgments xviii
Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: An Overview xix
ZIA TAJEDDIN AND MINOO ALEMI
1 Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: A Historical Perspective 1

ZIA TAJEDDIN AND MINOO ALEMI
2 Pragmatic Competence in EIL 19

ANNE BARRON
3 Teacher Pragmatic Awareness in English as an International

Language 44
ESTHER USÓ-JUAN AND ALICIA MARTÍNEZ-FLOR
4 Global Englishes and Intercultural Communication: Implications

for Understanding and Teaching Pragmatics 59
WILL BAKER AND YASMINA ABDZADEH
5 Intercultural Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca 76

NAOKO TAGUCHI AND SHOTA YAMAGUCHI
6 Pragmatic Instruction in English as an International Language 95

ARIADNA SÁNCHEZ-HERNÁNDEZ AND EVA ALCÓN-SOLER
7 Pragmatics of (Im)Politeness in EIL Interactions 117

GERRARD MUGFORD
8 Pragmatic Teaching Materials in EIL 136

THI THUY MINH NGUYEN AND HELEN BASTURKMEN
x Contents
9 Teaching the Pragmatics of English as an International
Language: Practitioners’ Perspectives Informing Language
Teacher Development 155
NORIKO ISHIHARA
10 Perceptions of Pragmatics in EIL: Voices from Scholars and

Teachers 172
ERHAN ASLAN
11 Pragmatics Assessment in English as an International Language 191

SHUAI LI
12 Rating Criteria and Norms for Pragmatic Assessment in the

Context of EIL 212
ZIA TAJEDDIN, MINOO ALEMI AND NEDA KHANLARZADEH
13 Methods and Data Bases for Investigating Pragmatics in EIL 232

SOO JUNG YOUN AND BRETT HASHIMOTO
Epilogue: The Future of EIL-Aware Pragmatics Pedagogy 253

MINOO ALEMI AND ZIA TAJEDDIN
Index 258
Illustrations
Figures
2.1 Presence of at least one conventionalized response to thanks
token (head) across the varieties given in percentage 29
2.2 Distribution of single and multiple heads as a percentage of the
number of informants using heads across varieties 29
13.1 AntConc user interface displaying results from search of the
word “can” from the leisure subcorpus of VOICE (Anthony,
2018) 242
13.2 Vertical reading versus horizontal reading versus integrated
reading. Note that the ### indicate features of interest (adapted
from Aijmer & Rühlemann, 2015, pp. 3, 8, 12) 243
Tables
1.1 Periods in L2 pragmatic instruction, assessment, and research 2
2.1 Total number of informants in EngE and CanE male sub-corpus 28
2.2 Distribution of head types and tokens over single/ multiple
thanks across the varieties 30
2.3 Distribution of thanks strategies across the varieties 31
8.1 Coding Categories with Illustrative Examples from our Analysis
of Chapter 9 of Pragmatics: Teaching Speech Acts 151
13.1 Raw and Normed Counts per 1,000 of “can” in two VOICE
subcorpora 241
13.2 English as an International Language Corpora 246
Contributors
Yasmina Abdzadeh has recently graduated from the PhD programme in

Applied Linguistics at University of Southampton. Her research interests
include intercultural communication, intercultural language education,
language policy in different contexts, culture representation in textbooks,
and ELT. Having experienced presenting in different national and interna
tional conferences and teaching at a wide range of subjects at the uni
versity and outside, Yasmina’s research focus is now on applicability and
integration of intercultural aspect of English teaching into language syllabi
in different contexts. Email: ya2e10@outlook.com
Eva Alcón-Soler is Full Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the
University Jaume I, and leader of the LAELA research group (Research
Group in Applied Linguistics to English Language Teaching). Her research
interests include the acquisition of L2 pragmatics, the role of interaction in
L2 learning, and multilingualism. She has published widely on those issues
both at an international (Communication and Cognition, International
Review of Applied Linguistics, System, Journal of Pragmatics) and at a
national level (ATLANTIS, Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada,
Revista Española de pedagogía, among others). Email: alcon@uji.es
Minoo Alemi is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Islamic Azad
University (IAU), West Tehran Branch, and a post-doctoral associate at
Sharif University of Technology (SUT), Iran. She is the founder of Robot-
Assisted Language Learning (RALL) and the co-founder of Social
Robotics in Iran. She is the associate editor of Applied Pragmatics (John
Benjamins) and sits on the editorial/review boards of many journals,
including British Journal of Educational Technology, BRAIN, LIBRI, and
Scientia Iranica. Her areas of interest include discourse analysis, L2 prag
matics, materials development, and robot-assisted language education.
Email: minooalemi2000@yahoo.com
Erhan Aslan is Lecturer of TESOL and Applied Linguistics at the University
of Reading, UK. He received his PhD in Second Language Acquisition
and Instructional Technology from the University of South Florida, USA.
List of contributors xiii
His main research interests are pragmatic and cultural issues in second
language learning and teaching, as well as computer-mediated commu
nication in social and educational Web 2.0 environments. His research was
published in journals, such as Journal of Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics and
Society, Classroom Discourse, and CALICO Journal. Email: erhan.
aslan@reading.ac.uk
Will Baker is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and Deputy
Director of the Centre for Global Englishes, University of Southampton.
His research interests are English as a Lingua Franca, Intercultural and
Transcultural Communication, English medium instruction and higher
education, Intercultural education and ELT, and he has published and
presented internationally in all these areas. Recent publications include: co
editor of Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (2018),
author of the monograph Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua
Franca (DGM 2015) and co-editor of the book series ‘Developments in
English as Lingua Franca’ (DGM). Email: w.baker@soton.ac.uk
Anne Barron is professor of English linguistics at the Leuphana University of
Lüneburg, Germany. She publishes in the areas of variational pragmatics,
the pragmatics of Irish English, second language pragmatics, and con
trastive genre analysis. Recent publications include Public Information
Messages (2012, Benjamins), the special issues Pragmatic Development and
Stay Abroad (Journal of Pragmatics, Elsevier, 2019) and A variational
pragmatic approach to regional variation in language (Multilingua, De
Gruyter, 2015) and The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (Routledge,
2017, co-editors Y. Gu and G. Steen). Email: barron@leuphana.de
Helen Basturkmen teaches courses on discourse analysis and English for
Specific Purposes at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She has
written two books on English for Specific Purposes (Lawrence Erlbaum,
2006; Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) and edited English for Academic Pur
poses in the Critical Concepts in Linguistics Series (Routledge, 2015). Her
research interests in spoken discourse include classroom interaction and
seminar type discussion. Email: h.basturkmen@auckland.ac.nz
Neda Khanlarzadeh is PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at Allameh Taba
taba'i University, Tehran, Iran. Her areas of interests are discourse studies,
second language pragmatics, and teacher education. She currently teaches
English courses at Allameh Tabataba'i University and English language insti
tutes in Tehran. She has also co-authored papers and a book review in
national and international journals, including Iranian Journal of Language
Teaching Research, Applied Research on English Language, and Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching. Email: nedakhanlarzadeh@yahoo.ca
Brett J. Hashimoto is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at Northern Ari
zona University, USA. His academic interests include corpus linguistics,
xiv List of contributors
language assessment, lexical studies, grammatical variation, and applied
pragmatics. More specifically, he is interested in utilizing corpora to improve
language assessments and language research instruments, as well as to inves
tigate language use and acquisition in EAP and ESP settings. He has also
recently accepted a full-time position in the Brigham Young University J.
Reuben Clark Law School as a research fellow. There, he will develop cor
pora, tools, and training for the Brigham Young University Law and Corpus
Linguistics Project. Email: bretthashimoto@gmail.com
Noriko Ishihara holds a PhD in curriculum and instruction from the Uni
versity of Minnesota and is Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL/
EFL at Hosei University in Tokyo. Her research interests include instruc
tional pragmatics and globalization, identity and language learning,
language teacher development, and peace linguistics. She facilitates tea
chers’ professional development courses and workshops in Japan, the
USA and elsewhere in the areas of language teaching methodology,
pragmatics, and intercultural communication. Her research articles
appear in the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Modern Language
Journal, TESOL Quarterly, Language Awareness, and Multilingua,
among others. Email: ishi0029@gmail.com
Shuai Li (PhD Carnegie Mellon University) is Associate Professor, Director
of Undergraduate Studies, and Chinese Program Coordinator in the
Department of World Languages and Cultures at Georgia State University.
His research interests include second language acquisition, language testing
and assessment, interlanguage pragmatics, and international populariza
tion of Chinese. He has published in applied linguistics journals (e.g.,
Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal, Language Teaching,
and Language Assessment Quarterly) and has co-edited two volumes:
Classroom Research on Chinese as a second languages (2019, with Fan
gyuan Yuan), and Engaging language learners through technology integra
tion: Theories, applications, and outcomes (2014, with Peter Swanson).
Email: sli12@gsu.edu
Alicia Martínez-Flor is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Universitat
Jaume I (Castellón, Spain). Her main research interests include inter-
language pragmatics and language teaching and learning. Some of her
work has appeared in international journals such as Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics and Foreign Language Annals. She has co-edited sev
eral volumes, including Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of
the Four Language Skills (Mouton de Gruyter, 2006), Pragmatics in For
eign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (Multilingual Matters,
2008) and Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and
Methodological Issues (John Benjamins, 2010). Email: aflor@uji.es
Gerrard Mugford is a lecturer in pragmatics, discourse analysis and socio
linguistics in the Modern Languages Department at la Universidad de
List of contributors xv
Guadalajara in Guadalajara, Mexico. His current research interests
include im/politeness, foreign-language interpersonal language use, and
critical pedagogy. He has published articles and book chapters on
politeness, impoliteness, phatic communion and lexical studies in
Mexico, the USA, the UK, Canada, Spain, and Colombia. His recent
book, published by Routledge, is Addressing Difficult Situations in
Foreign-Language Learning: Confusion, Impoliteness, and Hostility.
Email: gerrardmugford@gmail.com
Thi Thuy Minh Nguyen is a faculty member at the Department of English
and Linguistics, University of Otago. Her research focuses on applied
pragmatics, interactional competence development, and second language
education. She has published widely in reputable applied linguistics jour
nals and edited books. She is currently serving on the editorial board of the
Asian Journal of English Language Teaching published by the Chinese
University of Hong Kong. Her forthcoming co-edited book (with C.V. Le,
M. T.H. Nguyen, and R. Bernard) is Building teacher capacity in English
Language Teaching in Vietnam: Research, Policy and Practice (Routledge,
2020). Email: thithuyminh.nguyen@nie.edu.sg
Ariadna Sánchez-Hernández is an assistant professor of English Linguistics at
Complutense University of Madrid. She holds a PhD in Applied Linguis
tics (University Jaume I), and is a member of the research group Applied
Linguistics to English Language Teaching (LAELA). Her research inter
ests include second language pragmatics and intercultural competence, with
a focus on the study abroad context and English-medium instruction. Her
publications include articles in international journals (Journal of Pragmatics
2018, System 2018, English Language Teaching 2019), chapters in collective
volumes (EUROSLA Series 2018; Peter Lang 2018), and she is the co-editor
of the volume Learning Second Language Pragmatics beyond Traditional
Contexts (Peter Lang 2018). Email: ariadna.sanchez@ucm.es
Naoko Taguchi is Professor of Japanese and Second Language Acquisition
at Northern Arizona University. Her research addresses a number of
topics in L2 pragmatics, including pragmatics learning while abroad,
technology-assisted pragmatics learning, heritage learner pragmatics,
intercultural pragmatics, and task-based pragmatics teaching. She is
currently the co-editor of a new journal, Applied Pragmatics. Email:
taguchi@andrew.cmu.edu
Zia Tajeddin is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tarbiat Modares Uni
versity, Iran, where he teaches doctoral courses in L2 Pragmatics, Culture
and Identity, and Teacher Education. He is the co-editor of Applied Prag
matics (John Benjamins) and sits on the editorial/review boards of many
journals such as RELC Journal and TESL-EJ. His research interests center
on L2 pragmatics instruction and assessment, classroom discourse analysis,
teacher identity and cognition, and EIL/ELF. His recent co-edited volume
xvi List of contributors
(with Carol Griffiths) is Lessons from Good Language Teachers
(Cambridge University Press, 2020). Email: zia tajeddin@yahoo.com;
tajeddinz@modares.ac.ir
Esther Usó-Juan is a Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Universitat
Jaume I (Castellón, Spain). Her research focuses on language teaching and
learning, as well as interlanguage pragmatics. Some of her publications
have appeared in international journals such as The Modern Language
Journal, Applied Language Learning and ELT Journal. She has co-edited
several volumes, including Current Trends in the Development and Teach
ing of the Four Language Skills (Mouton de Gruyter, 2006), Pedagogical
Reflections on Learning Languages in Instructed Settings (Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2007) and Speech Act Performance: Theoretical,
Empirical and Methodological Issues (John Benjamins, 2010). Email:
euso@ang.uji.es
Shota Yamaguchi is a full-time English teacher at Waseda Jitsugyo Junior
and Senior High School in Tokyo. His research interests include prag
matics, conversation analysis, and English as a lingua franca. Email:
mountainmouth2010@wasedajg.ed.jp
Soo Jung Youn is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics/TESL at
Daegu National University of Education, South Korea. Her academic
interests include language testing, pragmatic assessment, interactional
competence, task-based language teaching, mixed methods research, and
Conversation Analysis. In particular, she is interested in applying various
research methods to measure the multidimensional nature of pragmatics.
Her research has been published in Language Testing, TESOL Quarterly,
System, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, and Applied Linguistics
Review. Email: soojungyn@gmail.com
Foreword
Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language, edited by Zia

Tajeddin and Minoo Alemi, is an important and timely volume within Rou
tledge’s Advances in Teaching English as an International Language Series.
The first book-length treatment of pragmatics and English as an international
language (EIL), Tajeddin and Alemi’s comprehensive and cohesive collection
of chapters − all written by experts in the field − provides an important
springboard for both teachers and researchers, as it offers readers a rich and
diverse overview of pragmatics pedagogy and the teaching of EIL. With
chapters ranging from global forms of English and intercultural communica
tion, pragmatics assessment in EIL, pragmatic variation and competence,
intercultural pragmatics and English as a lingua franca, teacher development,
teaching materials for teaching pragmatics within an EIL framework, and
methods and databases for research and teaching pragmatics in EIL, among
other things, this volume makes a significant contribution to the growing
body of work examining the impact of globalization on the teaching and use
of English. Importantly, the volume offers language practitioners practical
guidance and examples to help them to develop effective pedagogical prac
tices in the incorporation of pragmatics in their own teaching of English as an
international language. This ground-breaking volume offers teachers and
researchers key insight into a critical issue in English language teaching.
Jette G. Hansen Edwards, Series Editor

Chinese University of Hong Kong
Acknowledgments
This book is dedicated to the memory of Professor Farzad Sharifian, Monash

University, who was the Series Editor of Routledge’s Advances in Teaching
English as an International Language Series. He initiated the project by
inviting us to contribute a volume to this series and made a significant con
tribution to the completion of this volume. We also wish to express our
heartfelt thanks to the contributors of this volume, who worked hard to pro
duce great chapters and promptly responded to our feedback and comments
on earlier drafts.
We appreciate the valuable and timely feedback provided by the two
anonymous reviewers on the chapters of the original version of this volume.
We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Katie Peace, the Com
missioning Editor of Routledge Linguistics, for her continued support and for
allowing us the time to complete this volume. Finally, our gratitude goes to
Adam Woods and Jacy Hui, Routledge Editorial Assistants, for responding to
our queries during the production phase.

Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: An Overview
Globalization, in conjunction with postcolonial development, has changed

the scope and aims of education, including language education. In line with
these changes, the conceptualization of English as an International Language
(EIL) and its use in the three circles (inner, outer, and expanding) and the
implications of EIL for language teaching and learning convinced scholars to
revisit the long-held understanding of native speakerism, native criteria and
benchmarking, native-like competency, L2-bound cultural identity, and inter
cultural appropriacy. The vivid corollary of this shifting trend is a large body
of volumes addressing the characteristics of EIL together with EIL pedagogy.
Thanks to a large body of studies, the phonological, morphological, lexical,
and grammatical features of EIL, constituting EIL linguistic features, have
been investigated. In the same vein, the pedagogy of EIL has addressed, inter
alia, the fundamental issues of teaching linguistic skills in EIL, teaching
materials in EIL, EIL curriculum development, teacher and learner identity
in EIL, and EIL assessment. Although the pragmatic aspect of EIL has
received scant attention, it has been constantly regarded as an area providing
a better picture of EIL. Despite this concern for the pragmatic nature of EIL,
pragmatics pedagogy of EIL has only recently begun to be addressed in con
ceptual papers and a very small body of empirical research. This gap moti
vated the conception of a whole volume devoted to the pedagogy of
pragmatics in the context of EIL.
This book aims to bring to light L2 pragmatics instruction and assessment
in relation to EIL. For this purpose, the chapters in this book deal with a
range of pedagogically related topics, including the historical interface
between L2 pragmatics and EIL, the reconceptualization of pragmatic com
petence in EIL, the intercultural dimension of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL,
teachers’ pragmatic awareness of instruction in the context of EIL, the prag
matics of politeness in EIL, pragmatic teaching materials for EIL pedagogy,
teachers’ and scholars’ perceptions of pragmatics pedagogy in EIL, the
assessment and assessment criteria in EIL-aware pragmatics, and methods for
research into pragmatics in EIL. It should be noted that this book uses the
term ‘English as an International Language (EIL)’ despite confusion and
debates over the meanings of the terms Global Englishes, World Englishes,
xx Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: An Overview
English as a lingua franca, and EIL. Furthermore, this book is different from
other books about EIL pedagogy and pragmatics pedagogy. It explores the
interface between different dimensions of pragmatics pedagogy and EIL and
suggests instructional and assessment tasks for EIL-aware pedagogy and
directions for research on EIL-based pragmatics pedagogy.
This book would be useful for a range of readers who have an interest in
the pragmatics instruction and assessment of EIL, as well as those whose
main area of specialization is EIL but would like to know how EIL, with its
rich conceptual and empirical background, can go beyond linguistic instruc
tion to embrace the instruction of pragmatic competence. Hence, the
numerous groups benefiting from this book would include:
� pre-service teachers in order to help to prepare themselves for EIL-aware

pragmatics pedagogy
� in-service teachers, who might derive insights into pragmatics instruction
and assessment in EIL from the topics addressed in the book
� students working on degrees in TESOL, TEFL, Applied Linguistics, and
Second Language Teacher Education, for whom the topics covered in this
book might relate to their program
� teacher educators and supervisors, for whom the book might provide
materials and resources for teacher education courses, workshops, and
post-observation discussions
This book begins with an overview by the editors, followed by 13 main

chapters and a closing chapter. Each of the 13 chapters is organized into four
main sections: introduction, theoretical and empirical background, pedagogi
cal implications for pragmatic instruction, and conclusion and directions for
further research. In addition to these sections, in most chapters there is a
section reporting on an empirical study related to the main theme of the
chapter. In chapter one, Tajeddin and Alemi explore the historical trajectory
through which the connection between EIL and pragmatics pedagogy has been
created and reinforced. Based on historical evidence, the authors divide this
trajectory into non-EIL and EIL-aware eras of pragmatics pedagogy. They
conclude that there is a paucity of research on the beliefs of learners, teachers,
and policymakers about EIL-shaped pragmatics pedagogy and that the
instruction and assessment of pragmatics informed by an array of EIL-related
concepts are in their embryonic stage. Chapter two, by Barron, investigates
pragmatic variation across the varieties of English in terms of variety-specific
and variety-preferential variation. It continues by looking at recent definitions
of pragmatic competence and examines the role of intralingual pragmatic var
iation in the conceptualizations of pragmatic competence. Next, it reports on
an empirical study investigating pragmatic variation in responses to thanks in
Canadian English and English English. The chapter brings to light the impli
cations of intralingual pragmatic variation for the conceptualizations of learner
pragmatic competence in EIL-aware language classrooms and closes with some
Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: An Overview xxi
areas for future research. In chapter three, Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor
address some theoretical foundations of L2 pragmatics and related research on
teachers’ pragmatic awareness. The authors discuss the inclusion of empirically-
based techniques and strategies in pragmatics courses in order to develop tea
chers’ understanding and awareness of pragmatic features in the context of
EIL. They provide recommendations for future research on pragmatics
courses in teacher education. In chapter four, Baker and Abdzadeh explore
the implications of global Englishes and intercultural communication for
understanding and teaching pragmatics. The chapter begins a terminologi
cal discussion of Global Englishes and their relationship with con
temporary approaches to intercultural and transcultural communication.
This discussion is followed by an exploration of how Global Englishes and
intercultural communication can contribute to conceptualizing intercultural
communicative competence, intercultural awareness, and pragmatic strate
gies. The authors present an empirical study of intercultural education and
discuss the pedagogic implications for intercultural awareness and
pragmatic instruction.
Chapter five, co-authored by Taguchi and Yamaguchi, focuses on inter
cultural pragmatics in English as a lingua franca. The authors outline the
theoretical framework of intercultural pragmatics and review the literature on
English as a lingua franca. They report on a study that investigated a con
versation between two college students − one from China and one from Japan
− who communicated using the global lingua franca, English. This report is
followed by the pedagogical implications of the study and directions for
future research. In chapter six, Sánchez-Hernández and Alcón-Soler explore
aspects of pragmatics instruction in EIL. They illustrate how recent trends in
globalization and the emergence of EIL have shaped and reshaped pragmatics
instruction. They describe a study on the teaching of pragmatic competence
in EIL to Spanish university students. The authors present some practical
implications of pragmatic instruction in EIL and propose some directions for
future research. Chapter seven, by Mugford, describes the theoretical under
pinnings of the pragmatics of EIL im/politeness in contrast to the existing
understanding of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a
Second Language (ESL). The chapter continues with research into the enact
ment of EIL im/politeness and reports on a study on how Mexican EIL users
reacted to situations that involved the three speech acts of suggesting, giving
an opinion, and requesting. The chapter presents practical implications for
the teaching and learning of EIL im/politeness and directions for research on
EIL im/politeness. The main theme of chapter eight, co-authored by Nguyen
and Basturkmen, is pragmatic teaching materials in EIL. The authors review
the literature on ELT materials for teaching EIL, which shows that EIL-
orientated materials are scarce They then describe their study that aimed to
evaluate how well a set of pragmatics-focused instructional materials reflected
the shifting paradigms to EIL. The chapter ends with insights and
recommendations for teachers in using pragmatics-focused materials.
xxii Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: An Overview
In chapter nine Ishihara discusses practitioners’ perspectives informing
language teacher development for teaching the pragmatics of EIL. After
reviewing the literature on the pragmatics of EIL and teachers’ perspective on
EIL pedagogy, she reports on a case study of Japanese L2 teachers’ beliefs
and perceptions about EIL pragmatics and offers implications for language
teacher education and the teaching of EIL pragmatics. In chapter ten, Aslan
investigates teachers’ and scholars’ perceptions on the pragmatics in EIL. The
aim of this chapter is to underscore pragmatics in EIL contexts. For this
purpose, the author focuses on the various conceptualizations of EIL to
identify whether or not pragmatics is recognized in EIL paradigms. Next, he
reviews research findings on the perceptions of English language teachers
about the place and their implications for pedagogical practices. Finally, some
directions are given for future research in EIL pragmatics. The focus of
chapter eleven, by Li, is on the pragmatics assessment in EIL. This chapter
discusses the influences of EIL on pragmatics assessment. To do so, Li starts
with a brief review of studies on the challenges of applying ELF in language
assessment and describes the new understanding of the construct of pragmatic
competence, which informs assessment. Afterwards, the practical implications
for assessing pragmatics in real-life EIL communication contexts are dis
cussed, and future research directions are suggested. In chapter twelve,
Tajeddin, Alemi, and Khanlarzadeh highlight the importance of EIL prag
matics rating. They start by reviewing the research on the pragmatics of EIL
assessment and pragmatic rating. Next, they report on an empirical study on
EIL scholars' perspectives on EIL pragmatic assessment and its rating cri
teria. They propose numerous implications of their study and point to further
research. Chapter thirteen, by Youn and Hashimoto, explores methods and
databases for investigating pragmatics in EIL. To this end, the chapter pro
vides an overview of methodological approaches to L2 pragmatics, with a
focus on the theoretical and methodological strengths of Conversation Ana
lysis (CA) and Corpus Linguistics (CL) and on how CA and CL can com
plement each other in strengthening research on pragmatics in EIL. The
chapter ends with practical suggestions on how to advance the current
methodological practices of pragmatics in EIL for future research directions.
1 Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL
A Historical Perspective
Introduction
Pragmatic competence is considered as an essential component of English as
an international language (EIL) communication (Cogo, 2015; Jenkins, 2006;
Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015; McKay, 2018; Sharifian, 2009; Taguchi &
Ishihara, 2018; Tajeddin, Alemi, & Pashmforoosh, 2018). It follows that EIL-
aware pedagogy cannot be effectively implemented if the pragmatic compo
nent is not properly imbedded within it. Despite this intertwined connection,
the conceptual status of EIL in L2 pragmatics has a rather short history
(Ishihara, 2012; Murray, 2012; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018), and its empirical
place in EIL pedagogy is in its very embryonic stage as it is the case with EIL
pedagogy in general. This status has been achieved through a long-standing
tradition which is rooted in both non-EIL and EIL-aware eras. The non-EIL
era witnessed a belated integration of pragmatics in English language teaching
pedagogy despite an earlier conceptualization of pragmatics as a main com
ponent of communicative competence (Bachman, 1990). Similarly, although
the pragmatic core has been nested in the various conceptualizations of EIL
(Berns, 2008; Matsuda, 2012; McKay, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2000, 2004; Sifakis,
2004), EIL has very recently received attention in pragmatics pedagogy
mainly through the investigation of teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about the
pragmatics of EIL rather than the actual implementation of EIL-based prag
matics pedagogy for instruction, assessment, materials development, and tea
cher education. The aim of this chapter is to explain the historical trajectory
through which the interface between EIL and pragmatics pedagogy has been
created and promoted during non-EIL and EIL-aware eras of pragmatics
pedagogy.
Pragmatics Pedagogy in the Non-EIL Era

By the non-EIL era, we mean the period when pragmatics pedagogy was not
informed by the relevant concepts and insights existent in EIL theorizing.
Pragmatics pedagogy in the non-EIL era is characterized by descriptive and
acquisitional studies of L2 pragmatics. These studies reflect two periods of L2
2 Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language
pragmatics history. The historical trajectory of L2 pragmatics, as delineated
by Tajeddin and Alemi (2020), falls into three periods: Descriptive Pragmatic
Awareness, Acquisitional Pragmatic Awareness, and (Critical) Pragmatic
Awakening (Table 1.1). Drawing this delineation, we offer and extended clas
sification (see Table 1.1). As the table shows, the first period, mainly domi
nant in the 1980s, did not manifest a major concern with pragmatics
pedagogy, as studies were focused on speech acts within a single language
(Eisenstein & Bodman, 1995; García, 1999; Ide, 1998) or cross-cultural
domains with regard to speech act realization strategies in L1 and L2 or two
native languages (Beckers, 1999; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986; Kanemoto,
1993; Liao & Bresnahan, 1996; Nakata, 1989; Nelson, El-Bakary, & Al-
Batal, 1993; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1985; Widjaja, 1997). However, prag
matics pedagogy in its full-fledged development has gained momentum since
the early 1990s, i.e. in the second period of L2 pragmatics history, when
acquisitional pragmatics became the dominant strand in L2 pragmatics. During
this period, pragmatic acquisition of L2 learners shaped the main themes of
studies. Accordingly, discussions were centered on the teachability of prag
matics, effective pragmatic instruction tasks, and the interface between L2
pragmatics and second language acquisition (SLA) theories (Bardovi-Harlig,
1999, 2010; Barron, 2003; Cohen, 1996; Cohen & Tarone, 1994; Kasper, 1997;
Kasper & Rose, 1999; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Rose & Kasper, 2001). The
periods of descriptive and acquisitional pragmatic awareness largely correspond
to what we mean by the non-EIL era of pragmatics pedagogy.
Table 1.1 Periods in L2 pragmatic instruction, assessment, and research

Descriptive Pragmatic Awareness
Speech act studies
Cross cultural pragmatic studies
Studies of pragmatic features
Studies of Speech act realization strategies
Acquisitional Pragmatic Awareness
Pragmatic acquisition in L1
Pragmatic acquisition in L2
Pragmatic instruction tasks
Learner variables in pragmatic acquisition
Pragmatic assessment methods
Pragmatic rating criteria
Interface between L2 pragmatics and SLA theories
(Critical) Pragmatic Awakening
Teacher role
Teacher pragmatic awareness and cognition
Pragmatically focused teacher education
Pragmatic instruction and assessment for EIL and postcolonial period
Pragmatic variation across world Englishes
Learner and teacher pragmatic identity
Legitimacy of (non)native speakers’ norms for pragmatic instruction and assessment
Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL 3
In the non-EIL period, the main objectives of pragmatics researchers and
practitioners were informed by three principal questions: (a) Are the target
pragmatic features teachable?; (b) Is the instruction of the target feature more
effective than no instruction?; and (c) Are different instructional approaches
differentially effective? (Kasper & Rose, 2002). While there was an agreement
on the teachability of pragmatics, the central focus of studies was placed on
the differences between exposure and instruction, as well as differences in
pragmatic gains based on the type of instructional tasks. The entire volumes
allocated to pragmatic development and instruction (Kasper & Rose, 2002;
Rose & Kasper, 2001), as well as articles conceptually discussing pragmatic
instruction or reporting on empirical findings (Kasper, 1997; see Rose &
Kasper, 2001, for a review of empirical studies), addressed a range of
instructional issues. The first area of inquiry concerned individual differences
in L2 pragmatic development. Numerous studies falling within this area, as
outlined by Kasper and Rose (2002), mainly set out to investigate L2 prag
matic development as affected by variables such as learners’ gender (Kerekes,
1992), age (Kim, 2000), motivation (Niezgoda & Röver, 2001; Takahashi,
2005), L2 proficiency (Tajeddin & Pirhoseinloo, 2012; Takahashi, 2005; Xiao,
2015), and, later on, general and pragmatic-specific learning strategies (Cohen
& Ishihara, 2005; Tajeddin & Ebadi, 2011; Tajeddin & Malmir, 2015; Tajed
din & Zand-Moghadam, 2012; Takahashi, 2005) and learner identity (among
the few studies on this subject, see Habib, 2008; Kim, 2014). The second area
of inquiry embodied the learning context and the role of instruction. The
related research explored pragmatic development in second and foreign lan
guage contexts and at home and abroad (Hassall, 2013; Schauer, 2009;
Shively, 2011; Taguchi, 2015a; for a review, see Taguchi, 2018 and Barron,
2019). Aligned with this, the main instructional variables included the effect
of instruction versus simple exposure and deductive versus inductive instruc
tion (Glaser, 2013; Nguyen, Pham, & Pham, 2012; Rose, 2005; Tajeddin &
Hosseinpur, 2014; Takimoto, 2008; for a review, see Taguchi, 2015b). Later in
this period, attention was directed toward input- and output-driven pragmatic
development (Takimoto, 2009), scaffolded instruction (Ohta, 2005; Tajeddin
& Hosseinpur, 2013; Tajeddin & Tayebipour, 2012, 2015), and pragmatic
corrective feedback (Nipaspong & Chinokul, 2010; Takimoto, 2006).
Although the acquisitional period flourished and expanded mostly in the
1990s and 2000s, it is still the main framework followed in L2 pragmatics
research. In the early days of this acquisitional and interventionist period,
research on pragmatics pedagogy was not strongly or clearly rooted in second
language acquisition theories. A learner variable (e.g., gender) or contextual
and instructional variable (e.g., EFL/ESL settings, inductive instruction)
motivated the researcher to identify its impact on the pragmatic acquisition of
the target feature. This state of lagging behind mainstream research on lin
guistic development, which was driven by SLA theories, resulted in a hotch
potch of pragmatic studies which did not contribute, or aim to contribute, to
the construction of a picture of pragmatic development from a particular
SLA perspective. However, Kasper and Rose’s (2002) work functioned as a
milestone by allocating sufficient space to pragmatics from the perspective of
SLA theories, such as the acculturation model (Schmidt, 1983), cognitive
theories (DuFon, 1999; Hassall, 2003; Schmidt, 1993), and sociocultural
theory (Ohta, 1995; Shea, 1994). In this work, pragmatic studies framed
within each SLA theory were critically reviewed, and their contribution to the
theories of pragmatic development was discussed.
Pragmatics Pedagogy in the EIL-Aware Era

Grappling with pragmatics pedagogy in EIL entails the analysis of two
strands of development: the status of pragmatics in mainstream EIL studies
and the status of EIL in mainstream pragmatics studies.
EIL-Oriented Strand
Compared with the late acceptance of EIL in L2 pragmatics, the status of
pragmatics in EIL conceptualizations, i.e. the first strand, has a well-estab
lished history which is as long as EIL per se. A review of theoretical and
empirical trends in EIL indicates that EIL researchers were continually con
cerned with its pragmatic aspects (Cogo, 2009; Cogo & Dewey, 2006; Cogo &
House, 2018; Ehrenreich, 2009; Firth, 1996; House, 2012; Jenkins, 2006;
Kecskes & Horn, 2007; McKay, 2002, 2003, 2009; Louhiala-Salminen,
Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005; Widdowson, 2015). Unlike this picture, in
the periods of descriptive and acquisitional pragmatic awareness, L2 prag
matics researchers were almost totally inattentive to the interface between
EIL and pragmatics and to the significance of EIL to pragmatics (for excep
tions, see House’s pioneering attempts to bring to light the need to revisit
pragmatics in light of EIL, 2008, 2009). As one of the essential components
of language competence, pragmatics has incrementally become a matter of
particular interest for EIL/ELF researchers since the early days of EIL
research. The importance of pragmatic competence was tangible for EIL
scholars, as their central concern was the use and function of English in
intercultural communication, while SLA and pragmatics researchers were
inclined to the investigation of the learning and, to a lesser extent, the use of
English in EFL/ESL settings. In fact, as EIL is used by speakers of various
first languages as a means of communication, and hence “successful commu
nication” is always prioritized over excessive focus on linguistic “correctness”
(Jenkins, 2011, p. 284), it is reasonable to assume the mastery of language use
(or pragmatic competence) as the main goal of EIL interactions. In various
conceptualizations of EIL, its components, and EIL-related areas of research,
the pragmatic dimension stands out.
Studies on the pragmatics of EIL suggest that EIL users are somewhat
successful in communicating with each other and getting their messages
across. Early studies on the pragmatics of ELF revealed how creatively and
successfully EIL speakers can handle their communication and potential
breakdowns via various strategies (e.g., Baumgarten & House, 2010; Firth,
1996). The majority of the studies focused on various instances of language
produced by EIL speakers in different settings, such as business, academic,
and informal contexts (e.g., Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Firth, 1996; House, 2010;
Mauranen, 2012; Watterson, 2008; Zhu, 2017). They generally focused on
different pragmatic aspects of EIL users, including their negotiation of
meaning strategies, politeness strategies, use of interactional elements, turn-
taking patterns, discourse markers, topic management, and idiomatic expres
sions (Baumgarten & House, 2010; Cogo, 2009; House, 2002, 2008, 2010,
2013; Lesznyak, 2004; Pitzl, 2009; Seidlhofer, 2009).
This strand of research was initially based on analyzing simulated data,
such as telephone conversation analysis and corpus analysis, with the aim of
extracting major characteristics of EIL talks (see Firth, 1996; House, 1999).
However, current studies predominantly focus on pragmatic understandings
of EIL users with the analysis of natural instances of language (e.g., Björk
man, 2014; Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Cogo & Pitzl, 2016; Metsä-Ketelä, 2016). It
should be noted that most of these studies were initially descriptive in nature,
targeting specific linguistic features that eventually elucidated pragmatic pro
cesses (Seidlhofer, 2017). The results of the early studies revealed that EIL
users manage pragmatic challenges by drawing on different resources and
strategies that are not usually preferred by native speakers. For example,
Meierkord (2000) reported that whenever they came across any pragmatic
difficulty in their interactions, EIL speakers resorted to abrupt talking chan
ges, using short utterances or non-verbal backchannels, instead of negotiation
for understanding. Similarly, the cooperativeness of EIL speakers during
interaction and their focus on the message despite some grammatical incor
rectness was reported in other studies (e.g., Gramkow Andresen, 1993). In
two other studies, Firth (1996) and Wagner and Firth (1997) found that EIL
interactions are generally consensus-oriented, as the interactants do not
highlight each other’s “abnormal linguistic behaviors” and try to either toler
ate or normalize them by “let it pass” strategies when total understanding is
not crucial.
Although repetition and repair were among the leading pragmatic strate
gies in EIL, other strategies were observed. In her analysis of pragmatic
strategies used by lecturers and students in EIL academic settings, Bjorkman
(2011) found other strategies such as comment on terms and concepts, com
ment on details of task, discourse structure, discourse content, intent, signal
ing importance, common ground, and back-channeling. Furthermore, Kaur
(2017) reported on various strategies enhancing the explicitness of EIL talks
including the use of a parenthetical remark that provides illustration, defini
tion description, and comparison of similarity or dissimilarity along with
reformulation and repetition.
Another dominant strategy in EIL interaction has been the special use of
discourse markers. Discourse markers such as you know, yeah, and ok have
been abundantly used by EIL speakers for various functions (Baumgarten &
House, 2010) and as a means of improving pragmatic competence for EIL
speakers (House, 2013). For example, as put forward by House (2009), the
marker you know signals the more fluent speaker and usually accompanies
conjunctions like but, and, because, Yes/yeah, so, and okay to indicate up-
taking, discourse structuring, back-channeling, agreeing, and expressing con
sensus (House, 2013). Or the discourse marker so functions as a supporter of
the speaker during the interaction (Cogo & House, 2018).
Meanwhile, numerous studies on the discourse of EIL focused on how
individuals accommodate differences and reach common grounds in con
versation (e.g., Cogo, 2009; Jenkins, 2011; Klimpfinger, 2009; Litchkopler,
2007). Indeed, accommodation is known as the most essential pragmatic skill
of EIL speakers, as they use these strategies to increase comprehension and
diminish misunderstandings, despite the diversities (Jenkins, 2011). Code
switching and repetition are regarded as two convergent strategies that are
commonly used by EIL speakers for this purpose (Cogo, 2009). Code switching
as a means of expressing multilingual identities of the EIL speakers has various
discourse functions, including highlighting solidarity and membership of a
community, revealing their social and cultural identities, and conveying
information that is unavailable in English, with each code (language) fulfilling
specific functions in a given context. Moreover, repetition as another
accommodation strategy more or less accomplishes the same functions as code-
switching while signifying alignment and solidarity (Cogo, 2009). Furthermore,
some other strategies such as the use of different metapragmatic expressions are
preferred by EIL users to establish common ground and to increase mutual
understanding (Liu & Liu, 2017).
The preceding review indicates the status of pragmatics in EIL theoretical
conceptualizations and empirical studies. Despite some dissenting voices (e.g.,
Planken, 2005), the results of the previous studies suggest that ELF speakers
possess good command of strategic and pragmatic competence, as they
handle misunderstandings and communication breakdowns fairly well. They
monitor each other’s moves, spot the problems, tolerate each other’s ill-
formed and vague utterances, attend to a various range of cooperative strate
gies, and sustain ambiguity (Firth, 1996; House, 2002, 2013; Kaur, 2010;
Lichtkoppler, 2007; Pitzl, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2004).
Pragmatics-Oriented Strand
Although the EIL movement has been continuously attending to pragmatics
since the early proliferation of EIL studies, the pragmatics-oriented strand
was almost blind to its potential links with EIL in the 1980s, 1990s, and
2000s. This time span is simultaneous with the descriptive and acquisitional
periods of L2 pragmatics. There are a number of reasons for the belated wel
coming of EIL by L2 pragmatics researchers and practitioners. One reason is
that L2 pragmatics − termed as interlanguage pragmatics for a long time in
main volumes on pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005; Kasper &
Blum-Kulka, 1993; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi & Sykes, 2013) − was an emerging
field of study in the 1980s and lacked strong ties with SLA studies, let alone
EIL research. As noted earlier in this chapter, this period witnessed a bur
geoning interest in descriptive studies aimed at describing speech act produc
tion patterns in a single language or contrastive studies on speech act
strategies across two or more languages. The researchers in this period sought
to discover direct and indirect strategies used by native speakers of a lan
guage, compare these strategies with those realized in another language, and
describe the use of speech act strategies in bilingual and multilingual contexts.
Moreover, in many of these studies, the language under study was not only
English but also other language including Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese, and
Spanish. Accordingly, EIL had no place in studies conducted in this period,
as the researchers were essentially working within a descriptive paradigm in
which English was not the focus of description or the strategies used by native
speakers to produce speech acts were regarded as a benchmark for pragmatic
appropriateness.
In the second period, i.e. acquisitional pragmatic awareness, which runs
from the 1990s to the 2000s and is still predominant in many L2 pragmatics
studies, L2 pragmatics was aligned with interlanguage studies, with the term
interlanguage pragmatics becoming the well-accepted term. As with inter-
language studies in general, interlanguage pragmatics was characterized by
the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence in which the main concepts in
interlanguage such as L1 transfer, native-likeness, similarities and contrasts
between L1 and L2, and the degree of approximation to L2 norms were taken
up to inform acquisitional pragmatic studies. The large body of research in
this period documents a move from predominantly descriptive studies to
research in which learner variables and contextual variables were investigated
to shed light on their impact on the acquisition of L2 pragmatics, particularly
speech acts, by L2 learners in EFL and ESL settings. The degree of acquisi
tional gains was measured largely using a discourse completion test, or, rather
less frequently, role plays and in terms of the production of speech acts,
pragmatics routines, and politeness markers as used by native speakers
considered as the benchmark. The pragmatic acquisition process was theo
rized as a unidirectional trajectory of moving from L1 to L2 pragma
linguistic and sociopragmatic accuracy and appropriacy. In line with this
conceptualization, pragmatic failure and inappropriacy in both pragma
linguistic and sociopragmatic domains were measured in view of the align
ment of L2 learners’ production with native speaker norms. As a result, L2
pragmatic acquisition was embodied into an interlanguage, cultural frame
rather that a multilingual, intercultural frame espoused by the EIL trend.
These features of the acquisitional period indicate that L2 pragmatics
pedagogy, not aligned with EIL, began to apply main SLA concepts in
pragmatics pedagogy. The main themes of research in this period, still
informed by native speakerism and interlanguage-driven concepts, led to a
proliferation of studies on pragmatic input and output (Takahashi, 2001;
Takimoto, 2009), L1 pragmatic transfer (Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz,
1990; Keshavarz, Eslami, & Ghahraman, 2006), implicit and explicit
instruction (Alcon Soler, 2007), metapragmatic explanation (Eslami-Rasekh,
2005, Eslami-Rasekh, Eslami-Rasekh, & Fatahi, 2004; Ishihara, 2007), and
the role of learner variables like age, gender, and proficiency level (Kim,
2000; Kerekes, 1992; Xiao, 2015).
After two decades of theorizing and empirical studies in EIL, the awaken
ing period of L2 pragmatics pedagogy began in the early 2010s. The long
tradition of EIL studies and manifest direction toward reconceptualization of
language education in light of the interrelated concepts of globalization,
postcolonial studies, and world Englishes culminated in an expanded,
reshaped orientation in pragmatics pedagogy (House, 1996; Ishihara, 2012;
Murray, 2012; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018, Tajeddin et al., 2018). The emer
gence of this awakening period in L2 pragmatics pedagogy was also stream
lined by the growing strength of interculturality studies and the fading away
of the cultural paradigm in language education (Baker, 2011, 2012, 2018;
Buttjes & Byram, 1991; Byram, 1997, 2012; Friedrich, 2012). The influential
roles of these EIL and interculturality trends in the formation of the
awakening period in L2 pragmatics pedagogy are described below.
Although L2 pragmatics researchers’ consistent attention to EIL in prag
matics pedagogy began in the 2010s, pragmatics has figured in mainstream
EIL studies since the 1990s, particularly in the conceptual papers and book
chapters published in the 2000s. Cogo (2009) argued for accommodating dif
ferences in EIL conversations in view of pragmatic strategies. Murray (2012)
emphasized the need to develop L2 learners’ pragmatic competence in order
to prepare them for EIF communication. However, L2 pragmatics has come
to seriously consider EIL-related concepts in pragmatics pedagogy in the past
few years. Among pioneering researchers, House (2010) contended that EIL
users should develop their pragmatic fluency. Related to this, House (2013)
studied the development of pragmatic competence in EIL by focusing on the
use of discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. While
House’s concern was framed more by the pragmatic ability of EIL users
rather than the need for EIL-aware pedagogy for English language learners,
LoCastro (2012) addressed the interface between EIL and classroom prag
matic development in a few sentences in her book on pragmatics for language
educators, referring to the debate that features of EIL might not be applicable
when it comes to teaching the language systems. LoCastro argues that, from
the viewpoints of EIL teachers, the dilemma of what to teach and what lan
guage standards to prioritize is far-reaching. Interestingly, however, even
LoCastro considers any further investigation of this topic beyond the scope of
her book. Besides House, Ishihara (2012) was among the first L2 pragmatics
researchers to bring to light the importance of incorporating EIL in L2
pragmatics pedagogy. She argues that users of EIL should acquire and prac
tice pragmatic competence, as English is increasingly used for cross-cultural
communication beyond national and regional boundaries in today’s globaliz
ing world. This was earlier stated by Lin (2007), who argued that native and
non-native English speakers have to be trained with pragmatics that involves
diverse cultures and languages to accomplish appropriateness and politeness
in EIL communication. In a seminal paper, Taguchi and Ishihara (2018), as
two researchers with their main specialization in L2 pragmatics, reviewed the
pragmatics of English as a lingua franca in the era of globalization. They
argued that the rationale behind incorporating EIL in pragmatics pedagogy is
the need to be in step with advancing globalization, which “compelled” not
only applied linguists to reconsider established assumptions about language
use and learning but also challenged the conventional ways of L2 pragmatics.
Summarizing EIL pragmatic studies, Taguchi and Ishihara distanced them
selves from the traditional definition of pragmatic competence, which was
limited to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competencies, and presented
a definition of EIL pragmatic competence which is centered on speakers’
creativity and adjustments in interaction. It includes:
� The ability to shape illocutionary force according to the interlocutor’s

reactions and jointly construct a speech act sequence via turn-taking
� The ability to co-construct mutual norms and standards of what is
appropriate and acceptable in a given situation without necessarily
adhering to native-speaker norms
� The ability to navigate the communicative demands skillfully by using a
variety of communication strategies and discourse devices to achieve
mutual understanding
� The ability to display alignment with the interlocutor’s linguistic acts and
needs, developing shared discourse repertoire for rapport management.
(Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018, p. 88)
The scope of EIL-aware pragmatic competence described by Taguchi and

Ishihara (2018) clearly shows the range of abilities entailed in pragmatically
appropriate communication in EIL settings. This study, together with the
others outlined above, shows the emergent shaping of EIL-pragmatics inter
face in the period which Tajeddin and Alemi (2020) term as (critical)
pragmatic awakening.
Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

The history of EIL studies provides strong evidence that EIL researchers have
explicitly recognized pragmatics as a salient aspect of EIL features and EIL
pedagogy alike. As to EIL features, while most empirical studies have focused
on the linguistic nature of EIL to discover both the common core and varia
tion, the pragmatics of EIL has also been addressed in a number of studies.
This focus has been expanded by pioneering EIL researchers (e.g., McKay,
2002, 2003, 2009) who have suggested the inclusion of pragmatics in EIL
pedagogy. This trend has gained mounting momentum with the establishment
of a stronger intercultural orientation in EIL research. As interculturality is
intertwined and even sometimes considered synonymous, with pragmatic
ability, the pragmatic aspect of EIL has recently become more evident. From
this progressive significance of pragmatics in EIL, we can conclude that the
EIL-oriented strand for pragmatics pedagogy has a great potential to
contribute to an EIL-aware L2 pragmatics pedagogy. As to the pragmatics-
oriented strand, the developmental trajectory of studies in pragmatics
pedagogy shows that, unlike EIL researchers, pragmatics scholars have
attended to and embraced the concept of EIL from a conceptual perspective
only recently. It follows that there is a paucity of research on the beliefs of lear
ners, teachers, and policymakers about EIL-shaped pragmatics pedagogy. When
it comes to the actual instruction of pragmatics informed by an array of EIL-
related concepts, the evident conclusion is that the issue is almost unexplored.
The recent, albeit still-poor, interface between pragmatics pedagogy and
EIL sets directions for future pragmatics instruction and research. As to
pragmatics instruction, EIL should inform materials development, instruc
tional tasks and activities, and assessment of learners’ pragmatic ability.
Materials for pragmatics pedagogy should be based on samples of input from
native and non-native speakers alike, as well as from speakers who use a
variety of forms of world Englishes. These materials should include instances
of variations in pragmatic norms and convention and manifest how users of
EIL negotiate pragmatic meaning and resolve pragmatic misunderstanding.
Furthermore, teaching tasks and activities should direct the learners’ atten
tion to the use of intercultural negotiation strategies for dealing with prag
matic failure and success in the EIL context. In the instruction of pragmatics,
the teacher variable is of utmost importance. As there have been few teacher
education courses for the enhancement of teachers’ pragmatic knowledge and
practice, the first step is to set up teacher education courses for pragmatic
instruction in general. A module in these courses could address EIL-informed
pragmatics instruction. Besides instruction, the assessment of learners’ prag
matic ability in the context of EIL should be pursued in order to bring posi
tive washback to pragmatics teaching and learning. As pragmatics assessment
in general has a low status or almost non-existent in high-stakes and low-
stakes exams, there is an urgent need to push these exams toward both the
inclusion of EIL-aware pragmatic test tasks and rating.
The interface between EIL and pragmatics pedagogy offers numerous
promising areas for research. The first area, which functions as a pre
requisite to innovations in language education, is to explore the perspectives
of stakeholders on pragmatics pedagogy as aligned with EIL attributal fea
tures. The stakeholders, which could be the source of resistance in EFL and
ESL contexts, include learners and teachers together with supervisors and
managers of language institutes and schools. As they are eventually the
agents of changes and directly involved in the emergent EIL-based prag
matics pedagogy, they should be aware of and interested in this pedagogy.
Related to this, research is needed to investigate the effect of this pedagogy
on learners’ attitudes toward pragmatic norms in EIL and their under
standing and interpretation of pragmatic meaning conveyed by EIL users.
There is also a manifest gap in our understanding of pragmatic rating cri
teria. While the previous studies have investigated pragmatic gains and
appropriateness measured against rating rubrics informed by native speaker
norms (Alemi & Tajeddin, 2013; Liu, 2010; Taguchi, 2011), future studies
could address the development of EIL-informed pragmatics assessment,
pragmatic test tasks, and pragmatic rating rubrics. We need to know how
EIL-informed and non-EIL-informed ratings affect the measurement of
learners’ pragmatic ability. Beyond all these and in tandem with EIL
research, future studies should address the likely common core of pragmatic
norms and conventions in EIL and across world Englishes, which can
inform both pragmatics instruction and assessment.
In addition to the preceding research areas emerging from EIL-pragmatics
relationship, a large array of concepts in SLA and language assessment can
be investigated in the research on EIL-related pragmatics pedagogy. With
regard to instruction, the focus of research can be on the impact of EIL-based
pragmatic input and output, metapragmatic explanation, awareness raising,
explicit and implicit instruction, and various task types on learners’ pragmatic
learning gains. As for EIL-based pragmatics assessment, test fairness and
bias, test washback, rater bias, and consequential validity can be investigated.
From a broader perspective, the effect of EIL-based pragmatics pedagogy on
learners’ willingness to communicate, identity, ethnocentrism, and
intercultural awareness can constitute fruitful areas of research.
References
Alcon Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through
explicit and implicit consciousness raising tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.),
Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 221 241). Clevedon: Multi
lingual Matters.
Alemi, M., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Pragmatic rating of L2 refusal: Criteria of native
and nonnative English teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 30, Special Issue 7, 63 81.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: modelling an understanding of cultures in
intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 197 214.
Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT.
ELT Journal, 66(1), 62 70.
Baker, W. (2018). English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. In J.
Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a
Lingua Franca (pp. 25 36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bardovi Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research
agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677 713.
Bardovi Harlilg, K. (2010). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan
(Ed.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 232 243). Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press.
Bardovi Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (Eds.). (2005). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Explor
ing Institutional Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things
with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barron, A. (2019). Pragmatic development and stay abroad. Journal of Pragmatics,
146, 43 53.
Baumgarten, N., & House, J. (2010). I think and I don’t know in English as lingua
franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1184 1200.
Beckers, A. (1999). How to say “no” without saying “no”: A study of the refusal
strategies of Americans and Germans (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni
versity of Mississippi, Oxford, MI.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL
refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Com
municative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55 73). New York, NY: New
bury House.
Berns, M. (2008). World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility.
World Englishes, 27(3/4), 327 334.
Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca:
Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4),
950 964.
Björkman, B. (2014). An analysis of polyadic English as a lingua franca (ELF) speech:
A communicative strategies framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 122 138.
Buttjes, B., & Byram, M. (1991). Mediating Languages and Cultures Towards an
Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2012). Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and
intercultural citizenship. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Language and
Intercultural Communication (pp. 85 97). Abingdon: Routledge.
Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of prag
matic strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca:
Studies and Findings (pp. 254 273). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cogo, A. (2015). English as a lingua franca: Descriptions, domains and applications.
In H. Bowles & A. Cogo (Eds.), International Perspectives on English as a Lingua
Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 1 12). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic
motives to Lexico grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5,
59 93.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus
driven Investigation. London: Continuum.
Cogo, A., & House, J. (2018). The pragmatics of ELF. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M.
Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca
(pp. 210 223). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cogo, A., & Pitzl, M. L. (2016). Pre empting and signalling non understanding in
ELF. ELT Journal, 70(3), 339 345.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18(2), 253 267.
Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2005). A web based approach to strategic learning of
speech acts. Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20Speech%
20Act%20Report%20Rev.%20June05.pdf.
Cohen, A. D., & Tarone, E. (1994). The effects of training on written speech act
behavior: Stating and changing an opinion. MinneTESOL Journal, 12, 39 62.
DuFon, M. A. (1999). The acquisition of linguistic politeness in Indonesian as a
second language by sojourners in naturalistic interactions (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Ehrenreich, S. (2016). English as a lingua franca (ELF) in international business con
texts: Key issues and future perspectives. In K. Murata (Ed), Exploring ELF in
Japanese Academic and Business Contexts (pp. 135 155). London: Routledge.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1986). ‘I very appreciate’: Expressions of gratitude
by native and non native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7(2),
167 185.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1995). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G.
Kasper & S. Blum Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64 81). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Eslami Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT
Journal, 59(3), 199 208.
Eslami Rasekh, Z., Eslami Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). Using metapragmatic
instruction to improve advanced EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. TESL EJ,
8(2), 1 12.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’
English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237 259.
Friedrich, P. (2012). ELF, intercultural communication and the strategic aspect of
communicative competence. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and Practices of
Teaching English as an International Language (pp. 44 54). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
García, C. (1999). The three stages of Venezuelan invitations and responses. Multi
lingua: Journal of Cross Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 18(4), 391 433.
Glaser, K. (2013). The neglected combination: A case for explicit inductive instruction
in teaching pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 150 163.
Gramkow Andresen, K. (1993). Lingua franca discourse: an investigation of the use of
English in an international business context (Unpublished MA thesis). Aalborg.
Habib, R. (2008). Humor and disagreement: Identity construction and cross cultural
enrichment. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1117 1145.
Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Prag
matics, 35(12), 1903 1928.
Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short term study abroad: The case
of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1 17.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language:
Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18(2), 225 252.
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in
English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann
(Ed.), Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language (pp. 133 160). Tubin
gen: Stauffenburg.
House, J. (2002). Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In S. Foster Cohen
(Ed.), EUROSLA Yearbook 2 (pp. 243 261). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
House, J. (2008). (Im)politeness in English as a lingua franca discourse. In M. Locher
& J. Strassler (Eds.), Standards and Norms in the English Language (pp. 351 366).
New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
House, J. (2009). Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. Inter
cultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 141 145.
House, J. (2010). The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (Ed.),
Pragmatics Across Languages and Cultures (pp. 363 387). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
House, J. (2012). Teaching oral skills in English as a lingua Franca. In L. Alsagoff, S.
L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and Practices for Teaching
English as an International Language (pp. 186 205). London: Routledge.
House, J. (2013). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca:
Using discourse markers to express (inter) subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of
Pragmatics, 59, 57 67.
Ide, R. (1998). ‘Sorry for your kindness’: Japanese interactional ritual in public dis
course. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(5), 509 529.
Ishihara, N. (2007). Web based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a
foreign language: An explicit awareness raising approach. Language Awareness,
16(1), 21 40.
Ishihara, N. (2012). Incorporating a critical approach into teaching pragmatics: A
story based approach. International Journal of Innovation in English Language
Teaching, 1(1), 29 36.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a
lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157 181.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(4), 926 936.
Kanemoto, M. (1993). A comparative study of refusal assertion in the United States
and Japan. Ryudai Review of Language and Literature, 38, 199 212.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu, HI: National
Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii Press.
Kasper, G., & Blum Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 81 104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language.
Language Learning 52 (Supplement 1).
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149 169.
Kaur, J. (2010). Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes,
29(2), 192 208.
Kaur, J. (2017). Ambiguity related misunderstanding and clarity enhancing practices
in ELF communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 25 47.
Kecskes, I., & Horn, L. (Eds.). (2007). Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cogni
tive, and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kerekes, J. (1992). Development in nonnative speakers’ use and perception of asser
tiveness in mixed sex conversations (Occasional paper No. 21). Honolulu: Uni
versity of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.
Keshavarz, M. H., Eslami Rasekh, Z., & Ghahraman, V. (2006). Pragmatic transfer
and Iranian EFL refusals: A cross cultural perspective of Persian and English. In
K. Bardovi Harlig, J. C. Felix Brasdefer, & A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and
Language Learning (vol. 11, pp. 359 402). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language
pragmatic norms. System, 45, 92 102.
Kim, I. O. (2000). Relationship of onset age of ESL acquisition and extent of informal
input to appropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English:
A study of native Korean adult speakers of ESL (Unpublished doctoral disserta
tion). New York, NY: New York University.
Klimpfinger, T. (2009). ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’ forms and functions
of codeswitching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.),
English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (pp. 348 371). Newcastle: Cam
bridge Scholars Publishing.
Lesznyak, A. (2004). Communication in English as an international lingua franca: An
exploratory case study. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.
Liao, C., & Bresnahan, M. J. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American
English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18(3 4),703 727.
Lichtkoppler, J. (2007). “Male. Male.” “Male?” “The sex is male.”: The role of
repetition in English as a Lingua Franca conversations. VIEWZ, 16(1), 39 65.
Liu, J. (2010). Testing interlanguage pragmatic knowledge. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Prag
matics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 467 488). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Liu, P., & Liu, H. (2017). Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic
expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 1 15.
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspec
tive. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lopriore, L., & Vettorel, P. (2015). Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the
English language classroom. In H. Bowles & A. Cogo (Eds.), International Per
spectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights (pp. 13 34). Hamp
shire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Louhiala Salminen, L., Charles, M. and Kankaanranta, A. 2005. English as a lingua
franca in Nordic corporate mergers: two case companies. English for Specific Pur
poses, 24(4), 401 421.
Matsuda, A. (2012). Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International
Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in ELF commu
nication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123 150.
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF in Academia. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re examining common
ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1 22.
McKay, S. L. (2009). Pragmatics and EIL pedagogy. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as
an International Language (pp. 227 234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an international language: What it is and what it
means for pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9 23.
Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of
non native /non native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online, 5(1/00).
Metsä Ketelä, M. (2016). Pragmatic vagueness: Exploring general extenders in English
as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(3), 325 351.
Murray, N. (2012). English as a lingua franca and the development of pragmatic
competence. ELT Journal, 66(3), 318 326.
Nakata, T. (1989). Hatsuwa kouitoshiteno chinshato kansha: Nichiei hikaku (‘Apology
and thanks in Japanese and English’). Nihongo Kyouiku (Journal of Japanese Lan
guage Teaching), 68, 191 203.
Nelson, G. L., El Bakary, W., & Al Batal, M. (1993). Egyptian and American com
pliments: A cross cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17,
293 313.
Nguyen, T. T. M., Pham, T. H. & Pham, M. T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit
and implicit form focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic compe
tence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416 434.
Niezgoda, K., & Röver, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function
of the learning environment? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.). Pragmatics in
Language Teaching (pp. 63 79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nipaspong, P., & Chinokul, S. (2010). The role of prompts and explicit feedback in
raising EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL,
5, 101 146.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse:
Learner learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 93 121.
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development.
System, 33(3), 503 517.
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1985). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior
among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuc
celli Papi (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 Inter
national Pragmatics Conference (pp. 195 208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pitzl, M. L. (2005). Non understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from
a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14(2), 50 71.
Pitzl, M. L. (2009). ‘We should not wake up any dogs’: Idiom and metaphor in ELF.
In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Find
ings (pp. 298 322). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A compar
ison of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4),
381 400.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics.
System, 33(3), 385 399.
Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage Pragmatic Development. London: Continuum.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative
competence: A case study of an adult. In M. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Socio
linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 137 174). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.
Kasper & S. Blum Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21 42). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2000). Mind the gap: English as a mother tongue vs. English as a lingua
franca. Vienna English Working Papers, 9(1), 51 68.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209 239.
Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua
Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 195 215.
Seidlhofer, B. (2017). English as a lingua franca and multilingualism. In S. May (Ed.),
Language Awareness and Multilingualism (pp. 391 404). Cham: Springer.
Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogi
cal Issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Shea, D. P. (1994). Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participa
tion across cultural borders. Pragmatics, 4, 357 389.
Shirkhani, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2017). Pragmatic corrective feedback in L2 classrooms:
investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices. Teaching Eng
lish Language (TEL), 11 (2), 25 56.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study
of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1818 1835.
Sifakis, N. C. (2004). Teaching EIL teaching international or intercultural English?
What teachers should know. System, 32, 237 250.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3),
453 471.
Taguchi, N. (2015a). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad,
in class, and online. System, 48, 3 20.
Taguchi, N. (2015b). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies
were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1 50.
Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of
the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124 137.
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 Lin
guistics, 38, 80 101.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research
and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M. (2020). Pragmatics and good language teachers. In C. Grif
fiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from Good Language Teachers (pp. 189 202).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M. & Pashmforoosh, R. (2018). Idealized native speaker linguis
tic and pragmatic norms in English as an international language: exploring the
perceptions of nonnative English teachers. Language and Intercultural Communica
tion, 18(3), 300 314.
Tajeddin, Z., & Ebadi, S. (2011). Noticing request realization forms in implicit prag
matic input: Impacts of motivation and language proficiency. Iranian Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 145 171.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2013). Consciousness raising tasks in EFL learners’
pragmatic development: A sociocultural perspective on the microgenetic develop
ment of request. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 147 187.
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014). Deductive, inductive, and L1 based conscious
ness raising tasks: Impact on EFL learners’ acquisition of the request speech act.
Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 6(1), 73 92.
Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning
strategies: Investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. Journal of
Teaching Language Skills, 6(4), 153 180.
Tajeddin, Z., & Pirhoseinloo, M. (2012). Production of apologies in English: Variation
by L2 proficiency and apology situations. TELL, 6(2), 129 160.
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effects of dynamic assessment on EFL
learners’ acquisition of request and apology. Journal of Teaching Language Skills
(JTLS), 4(2), 87 118.
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2015). Interface between L2 learners’ pragmatic per
formance, language proficiency, and individual/group ZPD. Applied Research on
English Language, 4(1), 31 43.
Tajeddin, Z., & Zand Moghadam, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic motivation: Its
construct and impact on speech act production. RELC Journal, 43(3), 353 372.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic compe
tence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching
(pp. 171 199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and pro
ficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90 120.
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic
proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393 417.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the devel
opment of language learners’ pragmatic competence. Modern Language Journal,
92(3), 369 386.
Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input based tasks on the development of learners’
pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1 25.
Wagner, J., & Firth, A. (1997). Communication strategies at work. In E. Kellerman &
G. Kasper (Eds.), Advances in research on communication strategies (pp. 323 344).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watterson, M. (2008). Repair of non understanding in English in international com
munication. World Englishes, 27(3/4), 378 406.
Widdowson, H. G. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 359 372.
Widjaja, C. S. (1997). A study of date refusals: Taiwanese females vs. American
females. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 15(2), 1 43.
Xiao, F. (2015). Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 557 581.
Zhu, W. (2017). How do Chinese speakers of English manage rapport in extended
concurrent speech? Multilingua, 36(2), 181 204.
2 Pragmatic Competence in EIL
Anne Barron
Introduction
Spoken by 379 million native speakers (NS) scattered around the globe, Eng
lish is the third most spoken language by NS worldwide (Statista, 2019; see
also Crystal, 2019). Added to this are some further 896 million speakers
worldwide who have English as a second language alongside other/another
language(s) (see Crystal, 2019). This widespread use of English means that
the English language is characterized by “messiness” (Matsuda, 2017, p. xiii)
in that it consists of a wide range of varieties, both regional and social, in all
corners of the globe. From a pragmatic perspective, Kachru (2017), writing in
the Oxford Handbook of World Englishes on speech act variation in World
Englishes pragmatics, notes that “Users of English do not use the language to
make meanings in identical ways. They do not respond to invitations, make
requests, pay compliments, apologize, and so on, in the same ways” (p. 276;
see also Barron, 2017a, 2019; Schneider, forthcoming). In other words, there
is variation in pragmatic norms across the varieties of English.
In the English as a foreign language (EFL) context, in contrast, the concept of
English is much less “messy.” In a recent self-report questionnaire-based study of
teachers focused on investigating teaching practices of EFL in Germany and
Sweden, Forsberg, Mohr, and Jansen (2019) report that pupils in the EFL con
text are exposed to a neutral variety or to the target varieties of British English
(BrE) or American English (AmE) or a mixture of both of the latter varieties. In
addition, these authors note that EFL teachers in Germany and Sweden experi
ence a conflict between the ideal of the goal of communicative fluency on the
one hand and that of NS English on the other. In other words, although stating
that the teaching goal should be to be able to use the English language to com
municate, the teachers at the same time view BrE and AmE as “the ‘correct’
forms of speaking or using English” (Forsberg et al., 2019, p. 51; see also
Tajeddin, Alemi, & Pashmforoosh, 2018). This contradiction is, Forsberg et al.
(2019) suggest, closely tied to the focus of published materials on BrE and AmE
NS norms (Henderson et al., 2012; Simon, 2005).
As noted in Forsberg et al. (2019) and elsewhere, communicative language
teaching, building on Hymes’ (1972) concept of communicative competence,
is today a dominant approach adopted by EFL education departments and
teachers alike. This approach takes as its goal to enable language learners to
use language to communicate with others. Pragmatic competence is an
important part of being communicatively competent (e.g., Bachman &
Palmer, 1996), and there has been much research on describing the linguistic
resources needed to use language (e.g., on apology strategies) and on
describing variation on a micro-social level, i.e., on the influence of situa
tional factors, such as distance, hierarchy, and degree of imposition, on prag
matic-functional knowledge. Overall, however, there has until recently been
little systematic attention paid to pragmatic variation on a macro-social level,
i.e., pragmatic variation across regional and social varieties (Schneider &
Barron, 2008). Rather, BrE and AmE have been presented as homogeneous
wholes and as the “correct” norms (Forsberg et al., 2019). Thus, the fact that
pragmatic norms vary across the regional and social varieties of English has
not been communicated in the language classroom (Barron, 2005; Bieswan
ger, 2008). Given, however, that the aim of EFL teaching is to communicate
and given that communication norms vary across varieties, it would seem
time to revisit the notion of what pragmatic competence means for the
English as an international language (EIL) context.
Research in EIL accepts and values the plurality of English and rejects the
idea of a single variety of English (Marlina, 2018). EIL pedagogy examines
the extent to which the teaching of English today mirrors and prepares lear
ners for the “real English” that they (will) meet outside of the classroom
context with the aim of providing recommendations for the development of
English language teaching in the global world (Marlina, 2018, p. 5). One
aspect of EIL is its use in the English as a lingua franca (ELF) context. Pre
vious research has examined what the status of English as a global lingua
franca means for conceptualizations of pragmatic competence (Taguchi &
Ishihara, 2018). In contrast, the present article focuses on the other reality of
present-day English in an international context, i.e. the multitude of varieties
of English to which users of English are exposed in the global context. Cur
rently, information on the varieties of English in the school context is typi
cally limited to selective information on the orthographical, lexical and
phonological levels and focused for the most part on contrasting BrE with
AmE (Bieswanger, 2008; Forsberg et al. 2019). The present paper, however,
examines research on pragmatic variation across the varieties of English and
explores what intralingual macro-social pragmatic variation in English means
for conceptualizations of learner pragmatic competence in the EIL language
classroom.
In the following section, we first look at pragmatic variation across the
varieties of English and in particular at insights from variational pragmatics
and World Englishes. We look at the types of pragmatic variation which
occur, examine the breath of pragmatic variation and also explore variety-
specific and variety-preferential variation. Following this, we look at recent
definitions of pragmatic competence and explore the nature of the concept in
Pragmatic Competence in EIL 21
models of communicative competence before then examining the role intra-
lingual pragmatic variation plays in conceptualizations of pragmatic compe
tence. An empirical study focusing on pragmatic variation in responses to
thanks in Canadian English (CanE) and English English (EngE) illustrates
some of the concepts and debates relevant in the study of macro-social prag
matic variation. Finally, the chapter turns to what the existence of intralin
gual pragmatic variation in English means for conceptualizations of learner
pragmatic competence in the EIL language classroom, and the chapter ends
with some suggestions for future research.
Theoretical Underpinnings and Existing Research
Pragmatic Variation
Research in EIL is informed by research on ELF and by research on the
varieties of English (Marlina, 2018; McKay, 2018). Research on the varieties
of English is located in the areas of World Englishes and variational prag
matics. In the following section, we sketch the contribution of these two areas
of research to the study of pragmatic variation, and we also discuss how they
relate to each other (Barron, 2019). We start with some basic concepts in the
study of pragmatic variation.
A basic differentiation made in the study of intralingual pragmatic varia
tion is that between (a) micro-social pragmatic variation and (b) macro-social
pragmatic variation. Micro-social pragmatic variation deals with the influence
of situational factors, such as social dominance, social distance, and degree of
imposition, on pragmatic norms. Macro-social pragmatic variation is con
cerned with pragmatic variation according to such factors as region, gender,
age, ethnic identity, and socioeconomic status. As mentioned above, prag
matic research was long focused on the investigation of micro-social prag
matic variation. In contrast, macro-social pragmatic variation was not until
recently systematically research and instead a homogeneous pragmatic norm
was assumed (Barron 2005; Schneider & Barron, 2008). Studies thus looked
at the pragmatics of “English” or “German,” for instance, without looking
systematically at regional or social variation within either language.
Influenced by cross-cultural pragmatics and modern dialectology, varia
tional pragmatics emerged in this research context. Its emergence made the
study of intra-lingual pragmatic variation according to macro-social factors
the focus of systematic analysis. Variational pragmatics thus investigates the
influence of region, gender, age, ethnic identity, and socio-economic status on
pragmatic conventions within one language. A basic premise of the field is
that research should be empirical and contrastive and use comparable data,
as it is only such data that can highlight the relationships between varieties
(Barron, 2014, 2017b, forthcoming; Barron & Schneider, 2009; Schneider,
2010; Schneider & Barron, 2008). Particularly relevant for the discussion of
global variation across English is the question of region. In variational
pragmatics, in contrast to the case in dialectology, region can be con
ceptualized on a supranational, national, sub-national, and also on local and
sub-local levels (Schneider & Barron, 2008). Variation on the supranational
level refers to norms shared among varieties or languages, as when Nilsson,
Norrthon, Lindström, and Wide (2018) speak of a “pragma-cultural area”
involving the Nordic countries (p. 81). Variation on the national level refers to
national varieties of pluricentric languages (e.g., Germany vs. Austria). Sub-
national variation denotes variation within different regions (e.g., variation
between eastern and western Germany). Local level variation contrasts con
ventions in different towns or cities (e.g., Munich vs. Hamburg), and sub-local
variation means variation existing within a town or city (e.g., Hammer, Clo
nard, Ballmacarrett all working class districts in Belfast; see Milroy, 1981;
Barron, 2019).
Variational pragmatic research identifies six levels of analysis: (a) the
formal level (e.g., discourse-pragmatic markers, pragmatic routines), (b) the
actional level (e.g., speech acts), (c) the interactional level (e.g., sequential
patterns), (d) the topic level (e.g., content and topic management), and (e)
the organizational level (e.g., turn-taking) (Schneider & Barron, 2008) and
finally (f), a sixth level proposed by Félix-Brasdefer (2012), namely the sty
listic level (e.g., polite/ plain styles, pronominal address forms). In addition,
recent work suggests that these levels might be supplemented with a proso
dic level, a metapragmatic level, and non-verbal level (Schneider, forth
coming). Empirical analyses sometimes also combine these levels. To date,
most work has been on the actional level.
Variational pragmatic analyses have revealed much in common between
intralingual varieties, but also both variety-specific and variety-preferential
features. On a pragmalinguistic level, the strategies for realizing speech acts
have, for instance, been found to be broadly similar across varieties (e.g.,
Barron, 2008, 2017a). Variety-specific variation is recorded where a specific
linguistic form realizing a particular function in language is recorded in one
variety but not in another. An example is will I + agentive verb? which rea
lizes a question future act of speaker offer strategy in Irish English (IrE)
whereas shall I + agentive verb? realizes the same strategy in BrE (Barron,
2011) (see also, e.g., clause-final like in IrE − Nestor, Ní Chasaide, & Regan,
2012). Variety-preferential variation, meanwhile, is recorded when the same
pragmalinguistic strategies and forms are employed, but there is a different
distribution of preferences for particular strategies and forms across the
varieties compared.
Similar to variational pragmatics, World Englishes is also concerned with
the description of varieties across the globe. From a broad perspective, World
Englishes deals with inner and outer circle varieties; from a narrow perspec
tive only with outer circle Englishes (see also Marlina, 2014; McKay, 2018).
Research in World Englishes in both broad and narrow perspectives tradi
tionally encompasses descriptions of the traditional language system. The
study of pragmatic variation, in contrast, is still in its infancy, despite an early
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
southern hemisphere, our reckoning has been to the westward of the
observations; and that, after he passed to the other side of the line,
our differences have changed. The thermometer during this month
was commonly between 19° and 20°, it fell twice to 18°, and once to
15°.
Whilst we were amidst the great Cyclades, some business called
me on board the Etoile, and I had an opportunity of verifying a very
singular fact. For some time there was a report in both ships, that the
servant of M. de Commerçon, named Baré, was a woman. His
shape, voice, beardless chin, and scrupulous attention of not
changing his linen, or making the natural discharges in the presence
of any one, besides several other signs, had given rise to, and kept
up this suspicion. But how was it possible to discover the woman in
the indefatigable Baré, who was already an expert botanist, had
followed his master in all his botanical walks, amidst the snows and
frozen mountains of the the straits of Magalhaens, and had even on
such troublesome excursions carried provisions, arms, and herbals,
with so much courage and strength, that the naturalist had called him
his beast of burden? A scene which passed at Taiti changed this
suspicion into certainty. M. de Commerçon went on shore to
botanize there; Baré had hardly set his feet on shore with the herbal
under his arm, when the men of Taiti surrounded him, cried out, It is
a woman, and wanted to give her the honours customary in the isle.
The Chevalier de Bournand, who was upon guard on shore, was
obliged to come to her assistance, and escort her to the boat. After
that period it was difficult to prevent the sailors from alarming her
modesty. When I came on board the Etoile, Baré, with her face
bathed in tears, owned to me that she was a woman; she said that
she had deceived her master at Rochefort, by offering to serve him
in mens cloaths at the very moment when he was embarking; that
she had already before served a Geneva gentleman at Paris, in
quality of a valet; that being born in Burgundy, and become an
orphan, the loss of a law-suit had brought her to a distressed
situation, and inspired her with the resolution to disguise her sex;
that she well knew when she embarked that we were going round
the world, and that such a voyage had raised her curiosity. She will
be the first woman that ever made it, and I must do her the justice to
affirm that she has always behaved on board with the most
scrupulous modesty. She is neither ugly nor handsome, and is no
more than twenty-six or twenty-seven years of age. It must be
owned, that if the two ships had been wrecked on any desart isle in
the ocean, Baré’s fate would have been a very singular one.
CHAP. V.
Run from the great Cyclades; discovery of the gulph of Louisiade; extremity to
which we are reduced there; discovery of new isles; putting into a port on New
Britain.
From the 29th of May, when we lost sight of the land, I sailed
westward with a very fresh east, or south east wind. Direction of our
The Etoile considerably retarded our sailing. We course after
sounded every four and twenty hours, finding no leaving the
Cyclades.
bottom with a line of two hundred and forty fathom.
In day time we made all the sail we could, at night we ran under
reefed top-sails, and hauling upon a wind when the weather was too
dark. The night between the 4th and 5th of June, we 1768. June.
were standing to the westward under our top-sails by moon-shine,
when at eleven o’clock we perceived some breakers, and a very low
sand bank, to the southward, half a league from us. Meeting with
We immediately got the other tacks on board, at the breakers.
same time making a signal of danger to the Etoile. Thus we ran till
near five in the morning, and then we resumed our former course to
W. S. W. in order to view this land. We saw it again at eight o’clock,
at about a league and a half distance. It is a little sandy isle, which
hardly rises above the water; and which, on that account, is a
dangerous shoal for ships sailing at night, or in hazy weather. It is so
flat, that at two leagues distance, with a very clear horizon, it can
only be seen from the mast head; it is covered with birds; I called it
the Shoal of Diana (la Bâture de Diane).
CHART
of the Discoveries
in the
SOUTH PACIFICK OCEAN
made by
M. de Bougainville
in 1768.
Continued.
Signs of land. On the 5th, at four o’clock in the afternoon, some
of our people thought they saw the land and breakers to the
westward; they were mistaken, and we continued our course that
way till ten in the evening. The remaining part of the night we lay-to,
or made short boards, and at day-break we resumed our course, all
sails set. For twenty-four hours past, several pieces of wood, and
some fruits which we did not know, came by the ship floating: the
sea too was entirely fallen, notwithstanding the very fresh S. E. wind
that blew, and these circumstances together gave me room to
believe that we had land pretty near us to the S. E. We likewise saw
a new kind of flying fish in those parts; they are black, with red
wings, seem to have four wings instead of two, and somewhat
exceed the common ones in size.
The 6th, at half an hour past one o’clock in the afternoon, a sand-
bank appeared about three quarters of a league distant a-head, and
convinced me that it was time to alter the course, which I had always
continued to westward. This sand extended at least half a league
from W. by S. to W. N. W. Some of our people even were of opinion
they saw a low land to the S. W. of the breakers. We stood to the
northward till four o’clock, and then again to the westward. This,
however, did not last long; for at half pass five o’clock, the men at the
mast-heads saw fresh breakers to the N. W. and N. W. by W. about a
league and a half from us. We approached nearer, in order to view
them better. They were seen to extend above two miles from N. N.
E. to S. S. W. and we could not see an end of them. In all probability
they joined those which we had discovered three hours before. The
sea broke with great violence on these shoals, and some summits of
rocks appeared above water from space to space. This last
discovery was the voice of God, and we were obedient to it.
Prudence not permitting us to pursue an uncertain Necessary
course at night, in these dangerous parts, we spent alteration of the
it making short boards in that space, with which we course.
had made ourselves acquainted in the preceding day; and on the
7th, in the morning, I gave orders to steer N. E. by N. abandoning
the scheme of proceeding further westward in the latitude of 15°.
We had certainly great reason to believe, that the Tierra Austral
del Espiritù Santo was no more than the Archipelago of the great
Cyclades, which Quiros took to be a continent, and represented in a
romantic light. When I persevered in keeping in the parallel of 15°, it
was because I wanted to verify our conjectures, by getting sight of
the eastern coasts of New Holland. Thus, according to the
Astronomical Observations, (of which the uniformity for a month, and
upwards, was a sufficient proof of their accuracy) we were already,
on the 6th at noon, in 146° east latitude; that is one degree more to
the westward than the Tierra del Espiritù Santo, as laid down by M.
Bellin. Besides this, our repeated meeting with the breakers, which
we had seen these three days; those trunks of trees, these fruits and
sea-weeds, which we found at every moment; the smoothness of the
sea, and the direction of the currents, all sufficiently marked the
vicinity of a great land; and that it already surrounded us to the S. E.
This land is nothing else than the eastern coast of Geographical
New Holland. Indeed these numerous shoals, reflections.
running out to sea, are signs of a low land; and when I see Dampier
abandoning in our very latitude of 15° 35′, the western coast of this
barren region, where he did not so much as find fresh water, I
conclude that the eastern coast is not much better. I should willingly
believe, as he does, that this land is a cluster of isles, the approach
to which is made difficult by a dangerous sea, full of shoals and
sand-banks. After such an explanation, it would have been rashness
to risk running in with a coast, from whence no advantage could be
expected, and which one could not get clear of, but by beating
against the reigning winds. We had only bread for two months, and
pulse for forty days; the salt-meat was in greater quantities; but it
was noxious, and we preferred the rats to it, which we could catch.
Thus it was by all means time to go to the northward, and even to
deviate a little to the eastward of our course.
Unluckily the S. E. wind left us here; and when it returned, it put us
into the most dangerous situation we had as yet been in. From the
7th, our course made good, was no better than N. by E. when on the
10th, at day-break, the land was discovered, bearing from east to N.
W. Long before the break of day, a delicious smell Discovery of
announced us the vicinity of this land, which forms a new lands.
great gulph open to the S. E. I have seen but few lands, which bore
a finer aspect than this; a low ground, divided into plains and groves,
lay along the sea-shore, and from thence it rose like an amphitheatre
up to the mountains, whose summits were lost in the clouds. There
were three ranges of mountains; and the highest chain was above
twenty-five leagues in the interior parts of the country. The wretched
condition to which we were reduced, did not allow us, either to spend
some time in visiting this beautiful country, that by all appearances,
was fertile and rich; nor to stand to westward in search of a passage
on the south side of New Guinea, which might open a new and short
navigation to the Molucas, by the gulph of Carpentaria. Nothing,
indeed, was more probable, than the existence of such a passage; it
was even believed, that the land had been seen as far as W. by S.
We were now obliged to endeavour to get out of this gulph as soon
as possible, and by the way which seemed to be most open: indeed
we were engaged much deeper in it than we at first thought. Here
the S. E. wind waited us, to put our patience to the greatest trials.
Critical During the 10th, the calm left us at the mercy of a
situation in great south-eastern swell, which hove us towards
which we are. the land. At four o’clock in the evening, we were no
more than three quarters of a league distance from a little low isle, to
the eastern point of which lies connected a ledge, which extends two
or three leagues to the eastward. Towards five o’clock we had
brought our head off, and we passed the night in this dreadful
situation, making all our efforts to get off shore with the least
breezes. On the 11th, in the afternoon, we were got to about four
leagues from the coast; at two leagues distance you are out of
soundings. Several periaguas sailed along the shore, on which we
always saw great fires. Here are turtles; for we found the remains of
one in the belly of a shark.
The same day, at sun-setting, we set the eastermost land, bearing
E. by N. 2° E. by compass, and the westermost bearing W. N. W.
both about fifteen leagues distant. The following days were dreadful;
every thing was against us; the wind constantly blowing very fresh at
E. S. E. and S. E. the rain; a fog so thick, that we were obliged to fire
guns, in order to keep company with the Etoile, which still contained
part of our provisions; and, lastly, a very great sea, which hove us
towards the shore. We could hardly keep our ground by plying, being
obliged to wear, and to carry but very little sail. Thus were we forced
to make our boards; in the dark, in the midst of a sea, strewed with
shoals; being obliged to shut our eyes to all signs of danger. The
night between the 11th and 12th, seven or eight of the fish, which are
called cornets[115], and which always keep at the bottom of the sea,
leaped upon the gang-boards. There likewise came some sand and
weeds from the bottom upon our fore-castle; it being left there by the
waves that beat over it. I did not choose to sound; it Multiplied
would not have lessened the certainty of the danger, dangers which
which was always the same, whatever expedient we we run.
could take. Upon the whole, we owe our safety to the knowledge we
had of the land on the 10th in the morning, immediately before this
continuance of bad and foggy weather. Indeed the winds being E. S.
E. and S. E. I should have thought steering N. E. an excess of
precaution against the obscurity of the weather. However this course
evidently brought us into the most imminent danger of being lost, as
the land extended even to E. S. E.
The weather cleared up on the 16th, the wind still remaining
contrary; but we had at least got day-light again. At six o’clock in the
morning we saw the land from north to N. E. by E. by compass, and
we plyed in order to double it. On the 17th, in the morning, we did
not see any land at sun-rising; but at half past nine o’clock we
perceived a little island to the N. N. E. by compass, five or six
leagues distant, and another land to N. N. W. about nine leagues off.
Soon after we discovered in N. E. ½ E. four or five leagues distant,
another little isle; which from its resemblance to Ushant[116], obtained
the same name. We continued our board to N. E. by E. hoping to
double all these lands, when, at eleven o’clock, we discovered more
land, bearing N. E. by E. ½ E. and breakers to E N. E. which seemed
to join Ushant. To the N. W. of this little isle, we saw another chain of
breakers, extending half a league. The first isle likewise seemed to
be between two chains of breakers.
All the navigators, who ever came into these parts, always
dreaded to fall to the southward of New Guinea, and of finding a
gulph there corresponding to that of Carpentaria, which it would have
proved difficult for them to clear. Consequently they have all in good
time got into the latitude of New Britain, at which they touched. They
all followed the same track; we opened a new one, and paid dear for
the honour of the first discovery. Unhappily hunger, Extremities to
the most cruel of our enemies, was on board. I was which we are
obliged to make a considerable diminution in the reduced.
allowance of bread and pulse. It likewise became necessary to forbid
the eating of that leather, which is wrapped round the yards, and any
other old leather, as it might have had the most dreadful
consequences. We had a goat remaining, which had been our
faithful companion since we left the Malouines, where we had taken
her on board. Every day she gave us some milk. The hungry
stomachs of the crew, in a capricious instant, condemned her to
death; I could only pity her; and the butcher who fed her such a long
time, shed tears over the victim which he thus sacrificed to our
hunger. A young dog, taken in the straits of Magalhaens, shared the
same fate soon after.
On the 17th, in the afternoon, the currents had been so
favourable, that we had again taken the N. N. E. board, standing
much to windward of Ushant, and the shoals around it. But at four
o’clock we were convinced, that these breakers extend much farther
than we were at first aware of; some of them were seen even in E.
N. E. and there was yet no end of them. We were obliged, during
night, to return upon the S. S. W. tack, and in day-time the eastern
one. On the 18th, during the whole morning, we saw no land; and we
already gave ourselves up to the hope of having doubled these isles
and breakers. Our joy was short; about one o’clock in the afternoon,
an isle was seen in N. E. by N. by compass; and soon after it was
followed by nine or ten others. Some of them bore E. N. E. and
behind them a higher land extended to N. E. about ten leagues
distant. We plyed to windward all night; the day following gave us a
view of the same double chain of lands running nearly east and
west, viz. to the southward, a number of little isles connected by
reefs, even with the surface of the water, to the northward of which
extended the higher lands. The lands we discovered on the 20th
seemed to be less southward, and only to run E. S. E. This was an
amendment in our position. I resolved to run boards of four and
twenty hours; we lost too much time in putting about more frequently;
the sea being extremely rough, and the wind blowing very hard and
constantly from the same point: we were likewise obliged to make
very little sail, in order to spare our crazy masts, and damaged
rigging; our ships too went very ill, being in a bad sailing trim, and
not having been careened for so long a time.
We saw the land on the 25th at sun-rising, extending from N. to N.
N. E. but it was now no longer low; on the contrary we saw a very
high land, seemingly terminating in a large cape. It was probable that
the coast after that should tend to the northward. We steered all day
N. E. by E. and E. N. E. without seeing any land more easterly than
the cape which we were doubling, with such a joy as I am not able to
describe. On the 26th in the morning, the cape being much to
leeward of us, and seeing no other lands to windward, we were at
last enabled to alter our course again towards N. N. E. This cape
which we had so long wished for, was named Cape We at last
Deliverance, and the gulph, of which it forms the double the
eastermost point, Gulph of the Louisiade (golfe de la lands of the
gulph.
Louisiade). I think we have well acquired the right of
naming these parts. During the fortnight we passed in this gulph, the
currents have pretty regularly carried us to the eastward. On the 26th
and 27th it blew a hard gale, the sea was frightful, the weather
squally and dark. It was impossible to make any way during night.
We were about sixty leagues to the northward from Cape
Deliverance, when on the 28th in the morning, we discovered land to
the N. W. nine or ten leagues, distant. It proved to consist of two
isles, the most southern of which, at eight o’clock, bore N. W. by W.
by compass. Another long and high coast appeared at the same
time, bearing from E. S. E. to E. N. E. This coast extended to the
northward, and as we advanced north eastward, it lengthened more,
and turned to N. N. W. We however discovered a space where the
coast was discontinued, either by a channel, or the opening of a
large bay; for we thought we saw land at the bottom of it. On the
29th in the morning, the coast which lay to the We meet with
eastward of us continued to extend N. W. though new islands.
our horizon was not terminated by it on that side. I intended to come
near it, and then to go along it in search of an anchorage. At three
o’clock in the afternoon, being near three leagues off shore, we
found bottom in forty-eight fathoms, white sand and broken shells:
we then stood for a creek which seemed convenient; but we were
becalmed, and thus the rest of the day was passed away fruitlessly.
During night we made several short boards, and on the 30th, by
break of day, I sent the boats with a detachment under the command
of the chevalier Bournand, to visit several creeks along the shore,
which seemed to promise an anchorage, as the bottom we had
found at sea was a favourable sign. I followed him under an easy
sail, ready to join him at the first signal he should give for that
purpose.
Description of Towards ten o’clock, a dozen periaguas, of
the islanders. different sizes, came pretty near the ships, but
would not come along-side of them. There were twenty-two men in
the largest, in the middling ones eight or ten, and in the least two or
three. These periaguas seemed well built; their head and stern are
raised very much; they are the first we saw in these seas that had no
outriggers. These islanders are as black as the negroes of Africa;
their hair is curled, but long, and some of a reddish colour. They
wear bracelets, and plates on the neck and forehead; I know not of
what substance they were, but they seemed to be white. They are
armed with bows and lances (sagayes); they made a great noise,
and it seemed as if their disposition was far from pacific. I recalled
our boats at three o’clock; the chevalier de Unsuccessful
Bournand reported that he had almost every where attempt to find
found good anchoring ground, from thirty, twenty- anchorage
here.
five, twenty, fifteen to eleven fathoms, oozy sand,
but that it was in open road, and without any river; that he had only
seen one rivulet in all that extent. The open coast is almost
inaccessible, the sea breaks upon it every where, the mountains
extend to the very sea shore, and the ground is entirely covered with
woods. In some little creeks there are some huts, but they are in very
small number, for the islanders inhabit the mountains. Our pinnace
was followed by three or four periaguas, that seemed willing to
attack her. An islander actually rose several times to throw his lance
(sagaye); however, he did not throw it, and the boat returned on
board without skirmishing.
Our situation was upon the whole very hazardous. We had lands,
hitherto unknown, extending on one side from S. to N. N. W. by the
E. and N. on the other side from W. by S. to N. W. Unhappily the
horizon was so foggy from N. W. to N. N. W. that we could not
distinguish any thing on that side further than two leagues off.
However, I hoped in that interval to find a passage; we were too far
advanced to return. It is true that a strong tide coming from the north
and setting to the S. E. gave us hopes of finding an opening there.
The strength of the tide was most felt from four o’clock to half an
hour past five in the evening; the ships, though they had a very fresh
gale, steered with much difficulty. The tide abated at six o’clock.
During night we plyed from S. to S. S. W. on one tack, and from E.
N. E. to N. E. on the other. The weather was squally, with much rain.
1768. July. The 1st of July, at six in the morning, we found
ourselves at the same point which we left the preceding evening; a
proof that there was both flood and ebb. We steered N. W. and N. W.
by N. At ten o’clock we entered into a passage about four or five
leagues broad, between the coast which extended hither on the east
side, and the land to the westward. A very strong tide, whose
direction is S. E. and N. W. forms, in the middle of this passage, a
race which crosses it, and where the sea rises and breaks, as if
there were rocks even with the surface of the water. Dangerous
I called it Denis’s race (raz[117] Denis), from the name shores.
of the master of my ship, an old and faithful servant of the king. The
Etoile, who passed it two hours after us, and more to the westward,
found herself there in five fathoms of water, rocky bottom. The sea
was so rough at that time, that they were obliged to lay the hatch-
ways. On board the frigate we sounded forty-four fathoms, bottom of
sand, gravel, shells, and coral. The eastern coast began here to
lower and tend to the northward. On it we perceived, being nearly in
the middle of the passage, a fine bay, which to all appearance
promised a good anchorage. It was almost a calm, and the tide
which then set to the N. W. carried us past it in an instant. We
immediately hauled our wind, intending to visit this bay. A very
violent shower of rain coming on at half an hour past eleven,
prevented our seeing the land and the sun, and obliged us to defer
this scheme.
New attempts At half an hour past one o’clock in the afternoon, I
to find an sent the boats, well armed, under the command of
anchorage. the ensign[118] chevalier d’Oraison, to sound and visit
the bay; and during this operation, we endeavoured to keep near
enough to follow his signals. The weather was fair, but almost calm.
At three o’clock we saw the rocky bottom under us, in ten and in
eight fathoms. At four our boats made signal of a good anchorage,
and we immediately worked with all sails set to gain it. It blew very
little, and the tide set against us. At five we repassed the rocky bank
in ten, nine, eight, seven and six fathoms. We likewise saw an eddy
within a cable’s length to the S. S. E. seeming to indicate that there
was no more than two or three fathoms of water. By steering to N. W.
and N. W. by N. we deepened our water. I made signal to the Etoile
to bear away, in order to avoid this bank, and I sent her boat to her to
guide her to the anchorage. However, we did not advance, the wind
being too weak to assist us in stemming the tide, and night coming
on very fast. In two full hours we did not gain half a league, and we
were obliged to give up all thoughts of coming to this anchorage, as
we could not go in search of it in the dark, being surrounded by
shoals, reefs, and rapid and irregular currents. Accordingly we stood
W. by N. and W. N. W. in order to get off shore again, sounding
frequently. Having made the north point of the N. E. land, we bore
away N. W. afterwards N. N. W. and then north. I now resume the
account of the expedition of our boats.
The islanders Before they entered the bay, they had ranged its
attack our north point, which is formed by a peninsula, along
boats. which they found from nine to thirteen fathoms, sand
and coral bottom. They then entered into the bay, and about a
quarter of a league from the entrance, found a very good anchorage,
in nine and twelve fathoms, bottom of grey sand and gravel,
sheltered from S. E. to S. W. by the east and north. They were just
taking soundings, when they all at once saw ten periaguas appear at
the entrance of the bay, having on board about one hundred and fifty
men, armed with bows, lances, and shields. They came out of a
creek, at the bottom of which is a little river, whose banks are
covered with huts. These periaguas advanced in good order, and as
fast as possible towards our boats; and when they thought they were
near enough, they divided very dexterously into two squadrons to
surround them. The Indians then made horrible cries, and taking
their bows and lances, they began an attack, which they must have
thought would be a mere play to them, against such a handful of
people. Our people discharged their arms at them; but this did not
stop them. They continued to shoot their arrows and throw their
lances, covering themselves with their shields, which they looked
upon as a defensive weapon. A second discharge put them to flight;
several of them leaped into the sea in order to swim on shore. Our
people took two of their periaguas: they are long, Description of
well wrought, their head and stern very much raised, their boats.
to shelter the people against arrows, by turning either end of the boat
towards the enemy. On the head of one of these periaguas, they had
carved the head of a man; the eyes were of mother of pearl; the ears
of tortoise-shell, and the whole figure resembled a mask with a long
beard. The lips were dyed of a bright red. In their periaguas our
people found bows, arrows in great quantity, lances, shields, cocoa-
nuts, and several other fruits, of what species we could not tell,
arecca, several little utensils employed by the Indians for various
purposes, some nets with very fine meshes, very well knit, and the
jaw of a man, half broiled. These islanders are Description of
black, and have curled hair, which they dye white, the islanders.
yellow or red. Their audacity in attacking us, their custom of bearing
offensive and defensive arms, and their dexterous management of
them, prove that they are almost constantly at war. We have in
general observed in the course of this voyage, that the black men
are much more ill-natured than those whose colour comes near to
white. These islanders are naked, excepting their privy parts, which
are covered by a piece of mat. Their shields are oval, and made of
rushes, twisted above each other, and very well connected. They
must be impenetrable by arrows. We called the river and creek from
when these brave islanders came, the Warriors River (Riviere aux
Guerriers). The whole isle and the bay obtained the name of Isle and
Bay Choiseul. The peninsula on the north side of the bay is covered
all over with cocoa-nut trees.
Farther It blew very little the two following days. After
discoveries leaving the passage, we discovered to the westward
which we a long hilly coast, the tops of whose mountains were
made.
covered with clouds. The 2d in the evening we still
saw part of the Isle of Choiseul. The 3d in the morning we saw
nothing but the new coast, which is of a surprising height, and which
lies N. W. by W. Its north part then appeared terminated by a point
which insensibly grows lower, and forms a remarkable cape. I gave it
the name of Cape l’Averdi. On the 3d at noon it bore about twelve
leagues W. ½ N. and as we observed the sun’s meridian altitude, we
were enabled to determine the latitude of this cape with precision.
The clouds which lay on the heights of the land dispersed at sun-
setting, and shewed us mountains of a prodigious height. On the 4th,
when the first rays of the sun appeared, we got sight of some lands
to the westward of Cape l’Averdi. It was a new coast, less elevated
than the former, lying N. N. W. Between the S. S. E. point of this land
and Cape l’Averdi, there remains a great gap, forming either a
passage or a considerable gulph. At a great distance we saw some
hillocks on it. Behind, this new coast we perceived a much higher
one, lying in the same direction. We stood as near as possible to
come near the low lands. At noon we were about five leagues distant
from it, and set its N. N. W. point bearing S. W. by W. In the
afternoon three periaguas, in each of which were five or six negroes,
came from the shore to view our ships. They stopped within musket
shot, and continued at that distance near an hour, when our
repeated invitations at last determined them to come nearer. Some
trifles which were thrown to them, fastened on pieces of planks,
inspired them with some confidence. They came along-side of the
ships, shewing cocoa-nuts, and crying bouca, bouca, onelle! They
repeated these words incessantly, and we afterwards pronounced
them as they did, which seemed to give them much pleasure. They
did not long keep along-side of the vessel. They Description of
made signs that they were going to fetch us cocoa- some islanders
nuts. We applauded their resolution; but they were who come near
the ship.
hardly gone twenty yards, when one of these
perfidious fellows let fly an arrow, which happily hit nobody. After
that, they fled as fast as they could row: our superior strength set us
above punishing them.
These negroes are quite naked; they have curled short hair, and
very long ears, which are bored through. Several had dyed their wool
red, and had white spots on different parts of the body. It seems they
chew betel, as their teeth are red. We found that the inhabitants of
the Isle of Choiseul likewise make use of it; for in their periaguas we
found little bags, containing the leaves, with areka and lime. From
these negroes we got bows of six feet long, and arrows armed with
points of a very hard wood. Their periaguas are less than those from
the Warriors Creek; and we were surprised to find no resemblance in
their construction. This last kind of periaguas had no great elevation
at the head and stern; they were without any out-rigger, but broad
enough for two men to work at the oar in one row. This isle, which
we named Bouka, seems to be extremely well peopled, if we may
judge so by the great number of huts upon it, and by the appearance
of cultivation which it has. A fine plain, about the middle of the coast,
all over planted with cocoa-nut trees, and other trees, offered a most
agreeable prospect, and made me very desirous of finding an
anchorage on it; but the contrary wind, and a rapid current, which
carried to the N. W. visibly brought us further from it. During night we
stood as close as possible, steering S. by W. and S. S. W. and the
next morning the Isle of Bouka was already very far from us to the
east and S. E. The evening before, we had perceived a little isle,
bearing N. W. and N. W. by W. We could not, upon the whole, be far
from New Britain, where we hoped to take shelter at.
Anchorage on On the 5th, in the afternoon, we got sight of two
the coast of little isles to the N. and N. N. W. ten or twelve
New Britain. leagues distant, and almost at the same instant
another more considerable one between N. W. and W. Of this last,
the nearest lands at half past five o’clock in the evening, bore N. W.
by W. about seven leagues distant. The coast was high, and seemed
to form several bays. As we had neither water nor wood left, and our
sick were growing worse, I resolved to stop here, and we made all
night the most advantageous boards to keep this land under our lee.
The 6th, at day-break, we were five or six leagues distant from it,
and bore away for it, at the same moment when we discovered
another new land, which was high, and in appearance very fine,
bearing W. S. W. of the former, from eighteen to twelve, and to ten
leagues distance. At eight o’clock, being about three leagues from
the first land, I sent the chevalier du Bouchage with two armed boats
to view it, and see whether there was an anchorage. At one o’clock
in the afternoon he made signal of having found one; and I
immediately gave order to fill the sails, and bore down for a boat,
which he sent to meet us; at three o’clock we came to an anchor in
33 fathom, bottom of fine white sand, and ooze. The Etoile anchored
nearer the shore than we did, in 21 fathom, same bottom.
Qualities and In entering, you have a little isle and a key to the
marks of the westward, on the larboard side; they are about half
anchorage. a league off shore. A point, advancing opposite the
key, forms within a true port, sheltered against all the winds; the
bottom being, in every part of it, a fine white sand, from 35 to 15
fathom. On the eastern point there is a visible ledge, which does not
extend out to sea. You likewise see, to the northward of the bay, two
small ledges, which appear at low water. Close to the reefs there is
12 fathom of water. The entrance to this port is very easy; the only
precaution which must be taken, is to range the eastern point very
near, and to carry much sail; for as soon as you have doubled it, you
are becalmed, and can enter only by the head-way, which the ship
makes. Our bearings, when at an anchor, were as follows: The key,
at the entrance, bore W. 9° 45′ S. the eastern point of the entrance,
W. 10° S. the western point, W. by N. the bottom of the harbour, S.
E. by E. We moored east and west, spending the rest of the day with
those manœuvres, and with striking yards and top-masts, hoisting
out our boats, and visiting the whole circuit of the harbour.
Description of It rained all the next night, and almost the whole
the port and its day of the 7th. We sent all our water-casks on
environs. shore, pitched some tents, and began to fill water,
take in wood, and make lies for washing, all which were absolutely
necessary occupations. The landing-place was handsome, on a fine
sand, without any rocks or surf; in the bottom of the port, in the
space of four hundred yards, we found four brooks. We took three
for our use; the one for the Boudeuse, and the other for the Etoile to
water at, and the third for washing. The wood was near the sea-side,
and there were several sorts of it, all very good fuel; some excellent
for carpenters, joiners, and even for veneering. The two ships were
within hail of each other, and of the shore. Besides this, the harbour
and its environs were not inhabited within a great distance, by which
means we enjoyed a very precious and undisturbed liberty. Thus we
could not wish for a safer anchorage, a more convenient place for
taking in water and wood, making those repairs which the ships most
urgently wanted, and letting our people, who were sick of the scurvy,
ramble about the woods at their ease.
Such were the advantages of this harbour; but it likewise had its
inconveniencies. Notwithstanding all our searches, we could neither
find cocoa-nut trees and bananas, nor had we any other resources,
which by good-will, or by force could have been obtained in an
inhabited country. If the fishery should not happen to be abundant,
we could expect nothing else here than safety and the mere
necessaries. We had therefore great reason to fear, that our sick
would not recover. It is true, we had none that were very ill, but many
were infected; and if they did not mend, the progress of the disease
must of course become more rapid.
Extraordinary On the first day we found a periagua, as it were
adventure. deposited, and two huts, on the banks of a rivulet, at
a mile’s distance from our camp. The periagua had an out-rigger,
was very light, and in good order. Near it there were the remains of
several fires, some great calcined shells, and some skeletons of the
heads of animals, which M. de Commerçon said were wild boars.
The savages had but lately been in this place; for some bananas
were found quite fresh in the huts. Some of our people really thought
they heard the cries of men towards the mountains; but we have
since verified, that they have mistaken for such the plaintive notes of
a large crested pigeon, of an azure plumage, and which has the
name of crowned bird[119] in the Moluccas. We found something still
more extraordinary on the banks of this river. A sailor, belonging to
my barge, being in search of shells, found buried in the sand, a piece
of a plate of lead, on which we read these remains of English words,
HOR’D HERE
ICK MAJESTY’s
There yet remained the mark of the nails, with which they had
fastened this inscription, that did not seem to be of any ancient date.
The savages had, doubtless, torn off the plate, and broke it in
pieces.
Marks of an This adventure engaged us carefully to examine
English camp. all the neighbourhood of our anchorage. We
therefore ran along the coast within the isle which covers the bay; we
followed it for about two leagues, and came to a deep bay of very
little breadth, open to the S. W. at the bottom of which we landed,
near a fine river. Some trees sawed in pieces, or cut down with
hatchets, immediately struck our eyes, and shewed us that this was
the place where the English put in at. We now had little trouble to
find the spot where the inscription had been placed. It was a very
large, and very apparent tree, on the right hand shore of the river, in
the middle of a great place, where we concluded that the English
had pitched their tents; for we still saw several ends of rope fastened
to the trees; the nails stuck in the tree; and the plate had been torn
off but a few days before; for the marks of it appeared quite fresh. In
the tree itself, there were notches cut, either by the English or the
islanders. Some fresh shoots, coming up from one of the trees which
was cut down, gave us an opportunity of concluding, that the English
had anchored in this bay but about four months ago. The rope, which
we found, likewise sufficiently indicated it; for though it lay in a very
wet place, it was not rotten. I make no doubt, but that the ship which
touched here, was the Swallow; a vessel of fourteen guns,
commanded by captain Carteret, and which sailed from Europe in
August 1766, with the Dolphin, captain Wallace. We have since
heard of this ship at Batavia, where I shall speak of her; and where it
will appear, that we from thence followed her track to Europe. This is
a very strange chance, by which we, among so many lands, come to
the very spot where this rival nation had left a monument of an
enterprise similar to our’s.
Productions of The rain was almost continual to the 11th. There
the country. seemed to be a very high wind out at sea; but the
port is sheltered on all sides, by the high mountains which surround
it. We accelerated our works, as much as the bad weather would
permit. I likewise ordered our longboat to under-run the cables, and
to weigh an anchor, in order to be better assured concerning the
nature of the bottom; we could not wish for a better. One of our first
cares had been to search, (and certainly it was our interest to do so)
whether the country could furnish any refreshments to our sick, and
some solid food to the healthy. Our searches were fruitless. The
fishery was entirely unsuccessful; and we only found in the woods a
few thatch-palms, and cabbage-trees in very small number; and
even these we were obliged to dispute with enormous ants, of which
innumerable swarms forced us to abandon several of these trees,
already cut down by us. It is true, we saw five or six wild boars; and,
since that time, some huntsmen were always out in search of them;
but they never killed one. They were the only quadrupeds we saw
here.
Some people likewise thought they had seen the footsteps of a
tyger-cat. We have killed some large pigeons of great beauty. Their
plumage was green-gold; their neck and belly of a greyish-white; and
they have a little crest on the head. Here are likewise turtle-doves,
some widow-birds larger than those of the Brasils, parrots, crown-
birds; and another kind, whose cry so well resembles the barking of
a dog, that every one who hears it for the first time, must be
deceived by it. We have likewise seen turtle in different parts of the
channel; but this was not the season when they lay eggs. In this bay
are fine sandy creeks, where I believe a good number of turtle could
be caught at the proper time.
All the country is mountainous; the soil is very light, and the rocks
are hardly covered with it. However, the trees are very tall, and there
are several species of very fine wood. There we find the Betel, the
Areca, and the fine Indian-reed, which we get from the Malays. It
grows here in marshy places; but whether it requires a peculiar
culture, or whether the trees, which entirely overshadow the earth,
hinder its growth, and change its quality, or whether we were not
here at the proper season when it is in maturity, so much is certain,
that we never found any fine ones here. The pepper-tree is likewise
common to this country; but it had neither fruit nor. flowers at this
season. The country, upon the whole, is not very rich for a botanist.
There remain no marks in it of any fixed habitation: it is certain that
the Indians come this way from time to time; we frequently found
places upon the sea-shore, where they had stopped; the remnants of
their meals easily betrayed them.
Cruel famine On the 10th, a sailor died on board the Etoile, of a
which we complication of disorders, without any mixture of the
suffer. scurvy. The three following days were fine, and we
made good use of them. We refitted the heel of our mizen-mast,

Full Ebook of Pragmatics Pedagogy in English As An International Language 1St Edition Zia Tajeddin Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Pragmatics Pedagogy in English As An International Language 1St Edition Zia Tajeddin Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an

International Language 1st Edition Zia

Teaching of Culture in English as an International

Exam Success in English Language for Cambridge

Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, Language and

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE (9-1) English as a

Vocabulary Strategy Training to Enhance Second Language

International Perspectives on CLIL (International

Critical Language Pedagogy Interrogating Language

TBLT As a Researched Pedagogy 1st Edition Virginia

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language aims to bring

Zia Tajeddin is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tarbiat Modares Uni­

International Advisory Board

Teaching of Culture in English as an International Language

Englishes in English Language Teaching

The Place of English as an International Language in English Language Teaching

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language

For more information about this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/Routledge

ISBN: 978 0 367 56328 8 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

1 Pragmatics Pedagogy in EIL: A Historical Perspective 1

2 Pragmatic Competence in EIL 19

3 Teacher Pragmatic Awareness in English as an International

4 Global Englishes and Intercultural Communication: Implications

5 Intercultural Pragmatics in English as a Lingua Franca 76

6 Pragmatic Instruction in English as an International Language 95

7 Pragmatics of (Im)Politeness in EIL Interactions 117

8 Pragmatic Teaching Materials in EIL 136

10 Perceptions of Pragmatics in EIL: Voices from Scholars and

11 Pragmatics Assessment in English as an International Language 191

12 Rating Criteria and Norms for Pragmatic Assessment in the

13 Methods and Data Bases for Investigating Pragmatics in EIL 232

Epilogue: The Future of EIL-Aware Pragmatics Pedagogy 253

Yasmina Abdzadeh has recently graduated from the PhD programme in

Pragmatics Pedagogy in English as an International Language, edited by Zia

Jette G. Hansen Edwards, Series Editor

This book is dedicated to the memory of Professor Farzad Shariﬁan, Monash

Zia Tajeddin and Minoo Alemi

Globalization, in conjunction with postcolonial development, has changed

� pre-service teachers in order to help to prepare themselves for EIL-aware

This book begins with an overview by the editors, followed by 13 main

Pragmatics Pedagogy in the Non-EIL Era

Table 1.1 Periods in L2 pragmatic instruction, assessment, and research

Pragmatics Pedagogy in the EIL-Aware Era

� The ability to shape illocutionary force according to the interlocutor’s

The scope of EIL-aware pragmatic competence described by Taguchi and

Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Theoretical Underpinnings and Existing Research

You might also like

Zia Tajeddin is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Tarbiat Modares Uni