Spontaneous classroom engagement

facilitating development of L2 pragmatic

competence
A naturalistic study

Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

Simon Fraser University | Trinity Western University

The question of how to teach toward social, cultural and linguistic L2

pragmatic competence has raised serious challenges (Kasper, 1997). This is
more the case for spoken rather than written discourse. As can be expected,
the underlying pragmatic implications of spontaneous face-to-face
communication naturally constrains the interactional scope and its
potential pedagogical application. To address this issue, this naturalistic
study explores two key potential contributors to the development of oral
pragmatic competence: meta-pragmatic classroom conversational discourse
and the course framework supporting that kind of relatively spontaneous
interaction. An English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course provided
fluency practice protocols, instruction in pragmatic categories, analysis of
conversational data and “live” in-class intervention, focusing on meaning
and alternate expressions and forms. Those interventions were designed to
enhance learners’ ability to self-assess, monitor and expand their
interactional repertoires. Part of a larger research project examining
principles of pragmatics applied in EAP instruction, this study focuses on
data from spontaneous classroom interactions situated within the integrated
instructional framework of the course. Results present a range of strategies
employed by the instructor consistent with current theoretical models of
factors or pedagogical interventions that facilitate development of pragmatic
competence.

Keywords: pragmatic competence, inter-language pragmatics, interactional

competence, meta-pragmatic discourse, pedagogic intervention

https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.20011.van | Published online: 16 April 2021

Pedagogical Linguistics 3:1 (2022), pp. 1–28. ISSN 2665-9581 | E‑ISSN 2665-959X
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
2 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

1. Introduction

Taking into account the complex nature of L2 pragmatic development, this

process cannot be understood by simply analyzing pragmatic competence at the
level of speech acts but requires a more comprehensive framework for design-
ing learning environments (Timpe-Laughlin, 2016). This study offers a window
into features of an engaged L2 classroom environment where informal conversa-
tions are practiced and analyzed to trigger background knowledge, build meta-
pragmatic awareness and instruct in pragmatic categories and principles, in order
to facilitate the development of pragmatic competence. These classes included
formal instruction on the pragmatics of conversational interaction (Acton &
Cope, 1999; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Crystal, 2015), “field work” by students, dis-
course analysis of student observation data, conversation skills training, formal
debates, role-plays and student performance on pragmatics-based speaking tasks
and conversations. Analysis of authentic conversational data from three 8-week
EAP oral skills classes conducted over four months focuses on how explicit
instruction in pragmatic categories and meta-pragmatic classroom discussion
(Takimoto, 2012) relate to developing adult learner pragmatic competence and
enhanced performance ability at the implicit procedural level in face-to-face inter-
action. Research has yet to establish a direct, empirical relationship between
spontaneous, conversational, explicit instruction on pragmatic categories and
procedural fluency and increased processing control (Taguchi, 2012, 2015;
Takimoto, 2009, 2010). While it was not possible to empirically demonstrate
the relative impact of the meta-pragmatic discussions on subsequent enhanced
learner oral pragmatic performance in this phase of the study, preliminary analy-
sis of data gathered from the repeated fluency procedures and the live post hoc
classroom analysis (done by instructor and students) accompanying them, seems
to point in that direction.
This study should contribute to better understanding of the dynamics of the
process by which informal, face-to-face engagement such as conversations facil-
itating meta-pragmatic awareness, coaching conversation skills, triggering back-
ground knowledge and instructing in pragmatic categories can serve to help
bridge the gap to real time, oral, pragmatic competence.
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 3

2. Key constructs of the study

2.1 Pragmatic competence

Pragmatics, the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context,

encompasses both the linguistic resources for conveying meaning in commu-
nicative acts, known as pragma-linguistics, and social perceptions underlying
the interpretation and performance of communicative acts, or socio-pragmatics.
Stated alternatively, pragmatic competence is the ability to communicate a mes-
sage and its “nuances” in socio-cultural context, and to interpret the message
of the interlocutor(s) as intended (Fraser, 2010; Gironzettti & Koike, 2016). It
involves both processing and assigning meaning to aural stimuli, and correctly
applying the inferential non-acoustic, body language and cultural and pragmatic
background knowledge associated with it. The acquisition of pragmatic knowl-
edge and its automatic cognitive processing in real time (lexical access skills, mak-
ing inferences, short-term memory and attending skills), in principle, comprise
the declarative and procedural dimensions of pragmatic competence (Kasper,
2001). As a subcategory of Communicative Language Ability (CLA) or commu-
nicative competence within the field of SLA, pragmatic competence includes the
ability to work toward common goals by consciously identifying with others and
constructing L2 identity (Silverstein, 1993; Verschueren, 2000). Thus, pragmatic-
focused engagement seems to occur most productively in authentic situations
where social consequences and identity are in play (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013; Belz,
2007; Clennell, 1999). The EAP course, the grounding of this research, is con-
ceived of as a system of constructs providing the framework in which spontaneous
interaction can occur at various levels of discourse and interlocuter engagement.
The importance of pragmatic awareness and competence in L2 acquisition
is that it both constrains linguistic forms and their acquisition, and is itself a
type of communicative knowledge and object of L2 learning (Kasper & Rose,
1999). Learners must access their internal cognitive processing and inferential
skills along with navigating the external socio-cultural context. In terms of theory
of mind and the shared attention and intention between interlocutors, referred
to as intersubjectivity (Frith & Frith, 2005; Kasper, 2009), pragmatic competence
entails the ability to trigger the appropriate mental networks in one’s self and
in others at the right time, in particular situations. Pragmatic competence in
either case emphasizes the contextual features of the speaker’s goals and inten-
tions, the interpretation and uptake of the listener, and prediction of the likely
result(s) of the interaction (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). In fact, pragmatic failure,
far more than grammatical error, is likely to engender negative perceptions of the
speaker (Timpe, 2013). Pragmatic competence is a construct involving distinctions
4 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

between knowledge, ability and performance, and is integrally linked to individ-

ual learner differences, background knowledge, grammatical and lexical devel-
opment, interactional competence and contextual features, making it difficult to
define and operationalize (Timpe-Laughlin et al., 2015).

2.2 Pragmatics research in conversational interaction and L2 acquisition

The Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1981, 1996) stimulated research into exploring
the relationship between conversational interaction or engagement and L2 devel-
opment (Ziegler & Bryfonski, 2018). The “pre-Communicative” language teaching
perspective of the early 1980s generally held that learners either have the ability
to figure out pragmatic constraints on their own, or they do not. Consequently,
for a number of reasons, methodology at the time did little to address it formally.
That was, to some degree, corroborated in an early study by Bardovi-Harlig &
Dörnyei (1998), which demonstrated that EFL-trained learners ranked grammati-
cal errors more seriously than pragmatically inappropriate ones, in effect, perhaps
not having been instructed to attend adequately to pragmatic parameters. Those
findings along with subsequent studies (Kasper, 2001, 2006; Kasper & Rose, 2002;
Takimoto, 2006, 2012) suggest that without strategic pragmatic intervention in
foreign language instruction, many learners may not develop sufficient under-
standing of what is taking place in specific, contextualized interactions, particu-
larly at higher proficiency levels.
Since the 1980s studies in interlanguage pragmatics have examined the effec-
tiveness of pragmatic instruction using primarily pre/post-test designs, suggesting
the utility of explicit over implicit instruction (Bardovi-Harlig, 2015; Kasper &
Roever, 2005; Nguyen et al., 2012; Roever, 2009; Taguchi, 2011, 2015; Takahashi,
2001; Takahashi, 2010a, 2010b; Takimoto, 2009). The current perspective seems
to be that use of spontaneous speech acts within conversational interaction can
become more pragmatically appropriate and learned more effectively through
explicit instruction and assisted performance (Alcón Soler, 2005; Cohen, 2017;
Cruz, 2015; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Martí nez-Flor & Usó-Juan, 2010; Rose, 2005;
Rueda, 2006; Sykes & Cohen, 2018). In particular, a study by Infantidou (2013),
redefining pragmatic competence in terms of an ‘open-ended array of pragmati-
cally inferred implicatures’ rather than a fixed set of routine speech acts or isolated
implicatures, provided evidence for the positive effect of systematic, explicit and
prolonged pragmatic instruction in a genre conversion task designed to measure
pragmatic inference.
Perhaps as pertinent to the development of pragmatic competence as explicit
pragmatic instruction is the influence of L1 and cultural background and aware-
ness. As noted by Saez (2015), Slobin’s Thinking for Speaking Hypothesis (1996)
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 5

has been recently used in L2 research as a lens from which to examine possible
conceptual restructuring during interlanguage development, since Slobin suggests
that the semantic domains of space, motion and time are more entrenched in L1
than the linguistic forms themselves. Transference from L1 to L2, through cor-
responding form and function mapping can help learners access some pragma-
linguistic knowledge on their own (Kasper, 1997). Internal culturally embedded
cognitive processes required in implicit communication also suggest why prag-
matic competence tends to be more dependent on first language (L1) inferential
skills than on L2-specific cultural knowledge (Taguchi, 2007). To aid the concep-
tual transfer and restructuring of form-meaning connections, a cognitive linguis-
tic approach based in part on metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) was supported
in a recent study focusing on polite requests (Takimoto, 2020). From a ‘lingua
franca’ perspective, the mediation of meaning and intentionality in terms of lex-
ical, syntactical and register performance, and the role played by prosody and
paralanguage in mutual acceptance of speaker’s attitudes, cognitive and cultural
schemata is part of successful meaning negotiation in cross-cultural and multilin-
gual contexts (Sperti, 2019; Sánchez-Lopez, 2018; Taguchi & Ishihara, 2018).
Pragmatic competence continues to be refined, operationalized, measured
and developed relative to learning language proficiency. While research confirms
the overall positive effect of proficiency on pragmatic competence (Taguchi, 2018;
Xiao, 2018), higher proficiency does not necessarily guarantee advanced prag-
matic competence due to the level of difficulty of specific target pragmatic features
and mediating social and contextual factors (Xiao, 2015). As previously discovered
in EFL contexts, L2 language proficiency and the accuracy and speed with which
learners comprehend implied meaning in spoken dialogues do not appear to
be that closely related (Taguchi, 2005). While greater L2 proficiency influences
the accuracy of comprehending implied meaning, the speed of comprehension
and its consequent uptake may be largely unaffected. Adult L2 learners seem to
struggle most with the appropriate realization of illocutionary force and process-
ing control (Taguchi, 2014), especially in productive speech situations (Taguchi,
2011). Factors affecting processing speed in L2 pragmatic tasks can include cog-
nitive abilities, short-term memory, the selection, coordination and integration
of information in real time and ELL learning contexts (Taguchi, 2005, 2008).
Implementation of procedural knowledge, best case, requires well designed face-
to-face interactional practice to enhance speed of comprehension, since a profi-
cient learner may have the capacity to recognize or analyze accurate pragmatic
alternatives, just not necessarily in real time.
6 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

2.3 Meta-pragmatic discussion and pedagogic intervention

Classroom meta-pragmatic discussion helps make students aware of pragmatic

features by describing and analyzing what speech actively does or intends in a par-
ticular context. Takimoto (2012) indicates that meta-pragmatic discussion causes
learners to have additional meta-pragmatic information about target pragmatic
features, familiarize themselves with these features and be more motivated to
attend to the pragma-linguistic and socio-pragmatic conventions of target forms.
In general, pragmatic pedagogic intervention involves, among other things, mak-
ing explicit the choice of targeted speech acts, cultural analysis, linguistic forms,
semantic content, and strategies to realize these acts in terms of semi-scripted
expressions, level of politeness, level of directness and level of formality.
Consistent with research into optimal context and input in developing oral
pragmatic competence, interactive features of pragmatic pedagogic intervention
and meta-pragmatic discussion would entail exposure to modified input and out-
put or fluency practice, negotiation of meaning, corrective feedback and peer
interaction (Ziegler & Bryfonski, 2018). As in the present study, such interactions
are often manifest in the form of confirmation and comprehension checks, clar-
ification requests, repetitions, prompts and segmentation of words or phrases
(Mackey, 2007). Modified input and output in this case include active dialogic
listening and turn-taking (Cross, 2010; Drew, 2013; Ross, 2018; Huang, 2020),
fluency speaking and self-correction modifying production when gaps between
interlanguage and target language are noticed. In terms of modified output during
conversation, Mackey (2012) highlights how learners respond to input and their
interlocutors through the interactional processes of negotiating for meaning, giv-
ing and receiving corrective feedback and producing modified output.
Corrective feedback, in the form of recasts and rephrasing a learner’s imme-
diately preceding non-target-like utterance, has been addressed in various studies
(Long, 2007; Mackey & Gass, 2015; Nguen, Pham & Pham, 2017). It is often used
with advanced proficiency learners, as it seems to be less disruptive of meaning-
making (Ellis & Sheen, 2006). This focus on meaningful interaction is in keeping
with strategies identified in group discussions, where high proficiency speakers
demonstrate more active engagement, clarification and synthesis strategies along
with affective and non-verbal strategies (Zhu & Cheong, 2019). Furthermore,
more advanced learners can better leverage attention to both implicit and explicit
corrective feedback than lower proficiency learners (Gass et. al, 2003; Mackey
and Philp, 1998). This capacity for greater cognitive load may make higher pro-
ficiency learners better able to uptake corrective feedback moves during ongoing
interaction itself. Even so, advanced learners tend to recognize morphosyntac-
tic recasts with less accuracy than lexical or phonological recasts (Carpenter,
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 7

Jeon, MacGregor and Mackey, 2006), creating the need for more metalinguistic
instruction or explanation.
The importance of peer interaction and fluency practice is significant in terms
of social relationship and L2 identity building in the classroom (Garcia, Mayo
& Pica, 2000). In choosing such peer-centered fluency protocols attention to
course structure and culture is important, since some activities (Hunter, 2012),
require lengthy student-initiated topical discussions. In predominantly collective-
focused rather than individual-focused groups, highlighting public voluntary per-
formance may negatively impact learners, whereas a more dialogic process may
be preferrable (Pang & Burri, 2017). Planning for such interactive engagement in
the classroom is, in many instructional contexts, essential, and may include appli-
cation of frameworks from related fields such as L2 acquisition, cognitive psychol-
ogy and psycholinguistics (Taguchi, 2011).

2.4 Situating this study in the EAP speaking class

A number of studies have explored conversational interaction from a post-hoc per-

spective, where, for example, transcription focusing on a specific speech act has
been the pedagogical target of instruction (Cruz, 2015; Herron & Webster, 2019; Li
& Gao, 2017; Nguyen, 2017; Safont-Jordá, 2004; Takimoto, 2012;). The construct of
pragmatic competence development itself, however, encompasses a broader range
of concern, including intercultural awareness, cognitive functioning and inter-
disciplinary knowledge, (Liddicoat, 2014; McConachy, 2019; Taguchi & Ishihara,
2018; Timpe-Laughlin, 2016). From that vantage point, this study analyzes sit-
uated, spontaneous instructor responses in an intermediate-level EAP speaking
course, generated by a set of basic pedagogical strategies designed to cultivate
expanding inventory of appropriate responses to pragmatically rich and relatively
transparent interactions. The course reflects a teaching approach undergirded by
the socio-cognitive concept of ‘common ground’, understood both in terms of pre-
existing mental representations and the emergent dynamism of interactions them-
selves (Bazzanella, 2019; Kecskes & Zhang, 2009). The combination of social and
cognitive perspectives inherent in establishing mutuality or ‘common ground’ dur-
ing communicative interaction provides an environment where interlocutor inter-
subjectivity is more easily maintained and risks are more apt to be taken.
The research reported here, from the first phase of the longer project, exam-
ines student-student and teacher-student interactions during meta-pragmatic
classroom discourse employing an interactional framework based on a counseling
technique focusing on attending skills (Ivey, 1971), termed ‘co-operative attending
skills training,’ (CAST) (Acton & Cope, 1999). The affective grounding prereq-
uisite to the quality of spontaneous, common ground, interaction necessary was
8 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

created, in part, through shared personal anecdotes. The pedagogical interven-

tions were intended to both analytically and subjectively engage students’ under-
standing and identity within an integrated language learning experience.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research framework and questions

In facilitating students’ developing pragmatic competence, a requisite level of pro-

cedural interactivity in the classroom (Lam et. al, 2008; Young, 2013), along with
metapragmatic classroom discourse (Kubanyiova, 2015; Nguyen, 2017; Takimoto,
2012), was created to provide the necessary pedagogical base. Both students and
instructor analyzed authentic student conversations generated over the course
within the co-operative attending skills training protocol, described in detail
in Section 3.4 below (Acton & Cope, 1999). The assumption was that explicit
metacognitive and post hoc conversation analysis in the context of that psycho-
logically rich social interaction between instructor and students should contribute
substantially to development of pragmatic competence.
A key question here is what constitutes the range and nature of the oral,
spontaneous pedagogic interventions employed by the instructor. Exploring how
spontaneous explicit feedback in the context of meta-pragmatic discussions ana-
lyzing conversational data offers more insight into explicit design considerations
in instruction facilitating pragmatic competence. The specific focus on “attending
skills” training provided a potentially good point of departure for examining the
pedagogic interventions of the instructor in discussing and analyzing conver-
sations carried out earlier and observed systematically by students. Analysis of
data from teacher-led critical discussions examining student conversation and the
final student pragmatics questionnaire responses is expected to provide valuable
insight into the contribution of metacognitive, cooperative analysis of authen-
tic interactions, critical to L2 pragmatic development, and what various types of
interaction may facilitate that development.

3.2 Participants

Data for the study was collected over two 8-week terms in three upper-
intermediate, EAP adult oral skills classes from 24 participants among a pool of 48
in the three classes (12 males, 12 females, aged 18–45) from Japan, Korea, China,
Saudi Arabia and France. Over half of the participants were university exchange
students; some were in mid-career or graduate studies. They volunteered from
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 9

each course by individual consent; their subsequent status as participants in the

study was anonymous to their instructor and peers. The course was embedded in
a language and culture program that included courses such as composition, liter-
ature, global citizenship, TOEFL prep, IELTS prep and business communication,
preparing them for regular university enrollment or career advancement.

3.3 Course framework features

The course essentially set up a variety of frameworks and repeated activities

within which students could engage in formal and informal conversations about
specific content and pragmatic features for developing awareness of appropriate
usage in a variety of contexts. The blended classroom environment afforded dis-
cussions that were verbal and face-to-face as well as reflective and shared online
in course discussion threads. Research suggests that technology-mediated envi-
ronments lend themselves to benefiting advanced learners when resolving com-
munication breakdowns, negotiating for meaning or asking questions (Sotillo,
2005). The inclusion of conversational fluency practice, group debates and role-
plays in the second half of the course also provided opportunities to perform and
test the application of pragmatic categories in their spontaneous interactions. The
mid- and high-intermediate speaking courses generally ran eight weekly mod-
ules consisting of two 90-minute classes, each with several themes relevant to
pragmatics: small talk and compliments, native-speaker observations, observa-
tion discussions, feedback on pragma-linguistic and sociolinguistic categories,
Cooperative Attending Skills Training (CAST), and politeness and imposition
with offers, requests, complaints, comment and suggestions. Weekly observations
of native speaker interactions during the first four weeks of the course provided
a basic framework for discussing individual pragmatic findings within groups in
class. It has been found that pragmatic competence often develops in the host
community through direct observation, output practice in communicative situa-
tions, and meaningful contact with target language speakers; explicit instruction
can be a means for ratifying this process and facilitating acquisition of pragmatics
(Taguchi, 2015). These observation/discussions were followed by meta-pragmatic
classroom discussion and explicit instruction in pragmatic categories, including
degrees of politeness, social distance and register.
From this more analytic/empirical approach, the fluency protocol featured in
this study, Cooperative Attending Skills Training (CAST), aimed to develop con-
versational skills by focusing on active listening and using students’ personal nar-
ratives (Section 3.4). In preparation, students were instructed to briefly describe
three events that were short, interesting and uniquely personal; each story was
subsequently shared in CAST sessions during the course. In groups of three,
10 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

one participant observed the listener in partner conversations. These observa-

tions of attending responses were then shared in spontaneous post-hoc sessions
where instructor feedback highlighted possible alternative expressions to poten-
tially extend and amplify conversations in such contexts. The basic stages of ped-
agogic intervention in CAST sessions were:
– instruction in pragmatic categories
– repeated fluency practice protocols
– analysis of conversational data
– intervention in applying alternate expressions and forms intended to assist
learners being better able to self-assess, monitor and expand their interac-
tional repertoires.

3.4 Cooperative attending skills training

Co-operative Attending Skills Training (CAST) is based on a framework for active

listening training, not all that dissimilar from the Rogerian approach to non-
directive therapeutic discourse (Rogers & Wood, 1974). In this approach one par-
ticipant brings a good story to the dialogue, as another, the “attender,” has the
responsibility of facilitating and co-creating the narrative. The CAST protocol
provides a context in which authentic conversations can naturally take place, a
near perfect venue for encouraging both pragmatically rich exchanges and collab-
orative analysis of pragmatic features. Following closely Ivey’s (1971) original for-
mulation, there is a set of three participants, one who provides a story, another,
the attender, who facilitates the story, and one or more observers who take notes
on and later analyze the ongoing conversation.
Using the CAST system, it is relatively easy to help students carry on fluent,
inherently interesting, peer-observed, short conversations. After the story-telling
is over, when learner-observers are reporting their data to the instructor and class
(specific-word instances of effective attending phrases and sentences used by the
attender), opportunities for productive analysis and focus on pragmatics can be
highly productive (see following excerpts). That will frequently include providing
alternative ways of “saying” the same function differently or in other contexts and
social settings. It may also involve various pedagogical strategies such as having
the observer, talker or whole class “repeat” the phrase or word in focus, helping to
anchor it in memory with improved structure or prosodic overlay, as in eliciting
a repetition with attention to a different, more expressive intonation, volume or
tempo.
CAST is designed to provide potential high interactivity between teacher-
student, student-teacher and student-student channels, with relatively low risk,
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 11

and potentially high return (Lam, McNaught & Cheng, 2008). The classroom dis-
cussion further reinforces the fundamental common ground where students can
be initiators (Kecskes, 2014) and active analysts in terms of pragmatic efficacy and
categories of attending such as affective maintainers, clarifiers and elaborators,
while the instructor maintains a perspective and demeanor of ‘positive polite-
ness’ (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The process was repeated three times during the
course in weeks 2, 4 and 6, and had the additional aim of building confidence in
expanding participants’ repertoire of pragmatic and expressive options.

4. Data analysis and results

Four sources of data are analyzed from differing interlocutor perspectives. The
summary analysis of spontaneous pedagogic strategies was collected from the
discussion phases of six CAST sessions from three classes and transcribed and
processed using NVivo12. In addition, qualitative conversational and observation
data, along with reported student perceptions and pragmatic course evaluation
questionnaires were analyzed.
1. Quantitative summary of spontaneous pedagogic interventions or strategies
employed by the instructor during post-CAST analysis caught on video in
weeks 2 and 6 (Tables 1, 2). Various categories and subcategories of instructor-
in-class interventions and student responses were coded to identify the salient
themes in classroom interactions. Each helps to characterize the nature and
potential effectiveness of meta-pragmatic pedagogic interventions used by the
instructor.
2. Three qualitative excerpts from the video transcripts showing contextualized
examples of pragmatic engagement by instructor and students. The first
excerpt is an instructional monologue introducing the third CAST workshop
highlighting salient concepts learned from the previous two CAST sessions.
The following excerpts are interactive post-CAST analyses examining the dia-
logue between students and instructor.
3. Reported student perceptions from post-CAST online response threads of the
prominent features or strategies used by the instructor and students in the
CAST framework (Table 3).
4. Representative excerpts from course evaluations by students, which serve to
partially corroborate the presence and position of the strategies and practice
in the overall process of the course.
12 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

4.1 Pedagogic interventions

For the purposes of this study, dealing with the attending skills classroom sessions
of the research, video transcriptions of the first and third CAST sessions were
coded to identify the range of strategies and functions evident in the speech of
the instructor. The second CAST session was not recorded, the focus being on the
potential contrast or anticipated changes between the initial and final classroom
workshop discussions. In the analysis of 3150 expressions used by the instructor to
facilitate discussion in the sessions, 31 functional nodes or categories were identi-
fied (Table 1).
The frequency of specific instructor intervention categories in Table 1 reflects
the basic conversational framework of the CAST protocol. Beginning with con-
versational maintenance, the instructor affirms, repeats and checks in, and then
clarifies with questioning techniques, and summarizes and elaborates on prag-
matic alternatives. As anticipated from the research and the supportive course
components, the oral engagement by the instructor and students appears to point
back to course content and how it is situated.

Table 1. NVivo node distribution of pedagogic interventions by the instructor

Node Frequency Node Frequency Node Frequency
Affirm 291 Agree 119 Suggest 65
Repeat 269 Appreciate 119 Conclude 52
Check in 198 Understand 113 Transition 45
Confirm 190 Clarify 109 Repair 44
Request detail 171 Recast 103 Accommodate 29
Demonstrate 154 Encourage 101 Correct 19
Directed question 148 Instruct 85 Exaggerate 12
Question 142 Elicit 78 Joke 10
Summarize 128 Think out loud 77 Introduce 3
Prompt 126 Exclaim 72 Review 2

Table 2 displays the three general intervention strategies used by the instruc-
tor. Attending, continuance of dialogue, reflects the basic CAST process, used by
both students and instructor. Intervention for content and form primarily reflects
junctures where the instructor is focusing on the substance of the reported narra-
tives or working on issues of form and instances where the instructor is encour-
aging students to come up with additional material or examples, either from their
observations or previous experience.
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 13

Table 2. Pedagogic intervention thematic categories

General intervention Number of
category NVivo node analysis: Strategy types (31) occurrences
Attending, continuance of Affirm, repeat, check in, confirm, agree, appreciate, 1180
dialogue encourage
Intervention for content Ask for detail, question, elicit, demonstrate 1098
and form, including (alternative forms), clarify, direct questioning,
pragmatic alternatives prompt, instruct, suggest, correct, repair, recast
Metacognitive modeling direct, think-out-loud, exclaim, conclude, summarize, 925
and engagement transition, accommodate, exaggerate, joke, review,
introduce

Of particular importance to this study is the final category, metacognitive

modeling and engagement. This category reflects instruction and modeling of
meta-pragmatic processes and strategies, as evidenced in Excerpts 1 and 2. The
instructor’s opening statement in Excerpt 1 includes at least six general indicators
of attention to conversational conventions and pragmatics in the course: (a) “how
attenders respond”, (b) how storytellers change their stories, (c) looking at differ-
ent ways of saying things, (d) positive politeness, (e) negative politeness, and (f )
indirect strategies. This excerpt introduces a final CAST session in terms of prag-
matic categories with which the students will have had some earlier instruction
and practice, i.e., continuance, clarification, elaboration, formality and politeness
(see Appendix A).
Excerpt 1. Final CAST session instructional review
“Welcome everyone to cooperative attending skills training number three… We’re
looking at three categories – continuing, clarifying, and elaborating and we’re
going to see how attenders… respond, how the story tellers actually change their
story. And we’re also looking at different ways of saying things, as well as the level
of formality and politeness. As you know, there are different ways of being polite…
Positive politeness is trying to make a similar connection with the speaker. So, like
empathy… those kinds of things are very positive. Negative politeness is asking
questions using, “Would you, could you, please.” And then, indirect… strategies
like… sarcasm…”
The three threads – maintaining conversation, intervening and commenting, and
meta-pragmatic classroom discussion – identified in Table 2 and exemplified in
the instructor summary introduction (Excerpt 1), suggest how discussing prag-
matic alternatives and correctives requires intentional framing to make sense
to students, as well as being perceived as necessary for future usage. Couched
14 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

between the comfort of conversational maintenance on the one hand, and the
interest of metacognitive engagement on the other, the exploration and instruc-
tion of pragmatic alternatives are potentially both memorable and motivating
classroom experiences.

4.2 Meta-pragmatic classroom discourse with Post-CAST interactive

analysis

The teacher-to-student and student-to-teacher interactional analysis illustrates

the instructor interventions classified in Table 1, but also student engagement in
the analytic process. The two following transcripts from CAST sessions illustrate
key elements involved in exploring pragmatic alternatives with students by ana-
lyzing exemplars from student data. The second excerpt includes prosodic/prag-
matic variation for expressions of surprise. The third excerpt illustrates emerging
student understanding of clarification functions and strategies realized in the use
of gesture and paralanguage.
(Note: Italicized comments in the following excerpts represent tentative analysis of
the function or relevance to meta-pragmatic classroom engagement on the part of
both instructor and students).
Excerpt 2. Presenting pragmatic alternatives (“Is it true?”)
T … Anything else?
Instructor elicits more exemplars
S20 Uh, is it true?
Student provides example from notes.
T Now, this is really interesting because, “Is it true”, it could mean that you’re trying to
get the speaker to justify his or her story because you don’t really believe. So, you’re
maybe expressing um, shock or surprise. “Is it true?!” You could be trying to clarify
a point in the story. Or you could be asking for justification. “Is it true?” Now, what
do you think, in which sense do you think it was stronger?
Instructor explores alternative, potential meanings and emotional loadings of the
exemplar, without reference to context.
S20 It’s like, it’s difficult to like, believe.
Student provides possible interpretation
T So, it’s more like shock?
Instructor posits possible interpretation, using “more like” as qualifier.
S20 Yes, right.
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 15

T So, it’s more like, “Is it true?” Yeah, good. So, we would classify it as A4. Good!
Anything else? [pause] How else could you say it? “Is it true?” Showing shock,
disbelief. How else could you say that?
Instructor elicits more hypothetical examples (See Appendix A for CAST analysis
framework.)
S21 Really?
T Really? Yup. You could say “really.”
S21 With stress
Student comments that using differential stress could express the same general
meaning.
T Really? Yup. Stress. “Can it be? No way! That can’t be true!” Right? Instead of saying
“Is it true?” “That can’t be true!” Right? That’s on record. Right? Whereas this
would be, “Is it true?” It’s kind of more indirect.
Instructor does extended analysis of exemplar types, focusing on pragmatic variants.
The term “on record” means explicit, recognized by interlocutors.
S21 Mmmm yeah, I think so.

The next excerpt comes from the final CAST session with the highest-level class,
illustrating more nuanced understandings of the interaction and potential prag-
matic alternatives. This includes the idea that anchoring here is both cognitive
and prosodic. The workshop-like session is an example of translating between
different expressions or alternative anchors depending on the linguistic, social,
psychological and emotional import of the exchange, offering a multimodal per-
spective of interactional pragmatic competence (Beltrán-Planques & Querol-
Julián, 2018).
Excerpt 3. Gesture and paralanguage
T Okay! Good! So, if we can classify this as [clears throat] continuing A, clarifying B,
elaboration C, and then all the sub, like A1, 2, 3, 4, how much of this is A? How much
of this is B? How much of this is C [gesturing to the writing on the board] and so on.
Think about that, and WR0103a, we’ll come over here and we’ll ask what you
observed.
(Referencing CAST worksheet listing key strategies to be used by the attender during
CAST sessions – see Appendix A)
S2 Oh! I have another one.
Student offers alternative examples or options
T [nods]
S2 Um…When she got surprised, her eyes open more than as usual.
T So, eyes opened. This is showing surprise, right?
Incidental recast of grammatical error with suggested interpretation of meaning.
16 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

S2 Yeah.
T So A4, yeah? Mhmm.
CAST indicator of surprise or shock by facial gesture
S3 Uhhh, she makes sure it’s correct.
T Mhmm.
S3 He, he repeated what others say with movement. Like, this um, WR0108 said
‘fountain’, but WR0114 makes sure the word with movement.
Addition of gesture to emphasize meaning
T [mouths Ah! silently] So hand,
S3 Yeah, hand movement!
Student finishes instructor’s think out loud realization
T Hand movements, or hand picture, hand gestures like a fountain to make a picture
about what he’s saying. Great! Yeah. So, was this clarifying? What, what function?
Summary restates paralanguage in various mental pictures; prompts communicative
function
S3 Yeah…, B1
CAST clarification (worksheet reference)
T B1? Okay. Did he say anything while he was doing this? [makes fountain/water
gestures with hands]
S3 Uh, repeat the word, and do this. [chuckle]
Re-enacts hand movements.

Being able to reflect on and analyze both gesture and paralanguage accompanying
the reported attending data opens up a wider range of expressiveness for consider-
ation. That the learners felt comfortable attending to each other’s nonverbal com-
munication, not being uncomfortable or intimidated, suggests that the “common
ground” is “operational”.
In summary, the excerpts from the transcripts illustrate a number of features
of the meta-pragmatic ‘conversation’, including salient rhetorical moves and the
context in which these emerged; prosodics, indicating pragmatic alternatives and
short pieces that show teacher and student responses; level of student engagement
and interaction; and basic features of instructor input into the process.

4.3 Student identification of CAST features and strategies

Student responses reflected qualitative evidence of impact of overall EAP class

and attention to pragmatic learning. After the in-class CAST work, students
responded individually in an online discussion thread, where they were given
open-ended prompts to identify prominent features of the CAST work in each
of the three sessions, one to three weeks apart. For example, students responded
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 17

concerning the features of interaction that they considered useful or challenging,

and what they were able to begin using over time.

Table 3. Frequency of student response categories (Response categories used by students

based on the CAST discussion threads) N = 55 students (Total responses: 212)
Category Responses
Interactional awareness (observed and participated in) 40
Conceptual grasp of material overall 33
Self-assessment of appropriateness of use 31
Instructor or task appreciation or evaluation 27
Affective engagement 19
Specific examples cited 17
Stated (explicit) intentions 16
Suggestions or advice 14
Requests and questions 9
Responses 8

The higher frequency of the first four factors (interactional awareness, con-
ceptual grasp, self-assessment and instructor or task appreciation or evaluation)
seems to reflect students becoming more aware of themselves as pragmatic par-
ticipants or players. The next three categories (affective, specific examples cited,
and intentions identified) suggest general pragmatic awareness, whereas the final
three point back to general, procedural conversation maintenance strategies.

4.4 Results

From the students’ perspective, it is apparent that the conversational strategies

learned in attending and developing pragmatic competence were generally under-
stood as valuable, useful in everyday life, relational, allowing thinking on multiple
levels and building cultural awareness and confidence in conversation. The qual-
itative comments on the final course evaluation and self-assessment reflected the
same general perspectives on the work in pragmatics (see Appendix B).
Both in the course content and the activities specifically analyzed, the rela-
tionship between developing pragmatic competence and an empathic dialogic
process begins to emerge, evident in teacher-student interaction and student-
student conversations. Attending skills not only provided fluency practice but
also contributed to a framework for modeling and classifying the maintenance,
18 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

clarification and elaboration of conversations applied by students in response to

instructor-led metapragmatic discussions in class. After three iterations of coop-
erative attending skills, as evident in the excerpts and questionnaire data, students
attest to having been more able to confidently identify their communicative
responses and need for improvement, and appeared more confident, relaxed,
expressive and effective overall.

5. Discussion

The case for pedagogic intervention in developing L2 pragmatic competence is

well-established. In this naturalistic study we have emphasized key dimensions
of facilitating pragmatic competence, namely instructor contributions to sponta-
neous, co-constructed meta-pragmatic analysis in the classroom, and the course
components enabling the interactions themselves. In cooperative attending skills
training, learners experienced and were trained in categories of attending. This
was as true for teacher-student interaction as it was for student-to-student conver-
sations. The focus on the experiential, memorable and metacognitive aspects of
pragmatic and conversational competence, prior to the attending skills protocol
work, was woven through student discussions on corpora observations of real-
time native speaker interactions outside of class. Those observations provided
illustrations of language functions, such as compliments, polite requests and
refusals, and contributed to their general pragmatic awareness and development.
As a result, the class seemed comfortable doing “post hoc” analysis of potentially
problematic forms of usage in their own conversational interactions. Student
responses indicate a growing awareness of themselves as pragmatic participants,
along with identifying areas in need of improvement. The NVivo function and
node analyses revealed a range of instructor responses focusing on the pragmatic
dimensions of the attending conversations (Borg, 2003; Gatbonton, 1999;
Kubinyiova, 2015), perhaps most importantly guiding students toward alternative
expressions and forms for them to begin incorporating into their active, con-
versational repertoires. Various course components provided potential interac-
tional scaffolding for the situational role plays and the pragmatics quiz that were
addressed in pragma-linguistic, meta-pragmatic and socio-pragmatic categories
later in the course. One of the culminating activities, the final role-play assessment
of pragmatic competence, provided learners and instructor with a meaningful
measure of progress and accomplishment. In the words of one high intermediate
student participating in the study, “I really like this. [a reference to the role play
activities and pragmatic classification rubric] We need to do this more.”
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 19

What students have learned by course end will be adequately accounted for
only by factoring in a range of variables, including experience abroad, motiva-
tion for learning L2, use of authentic L2 sources, host family experience (Winke &
Gass, 2018) and the presence of an instructor capable of simultaneously function-
ing in the roles of participant, observer and analyst (Hiver et al., 2019). This mod-
eling and varied student engagement may, in fact, be foundational. The analysis
presented does not at this juncture adequately characterize what the students
learned in the course or could do pragmatically because of it. However, based on
our current understanding of what optimal instructor engagement should look
like, it is an intriguing perspective on features of that process in the classroom.
Future phases of the study will look directly at student pragmatic develop-
ment and performance over the span of the courses to consider potential effec-
tiveness of the framework guiding pedagogic interventions, considered in terms of
procedural and declarative knowledge, as evidenced by fluency and accuracy dur-
ing spontaneous interactions (Alcón-Soler, 2005; Clennell, 1999; Cohen, 2008;
Heron & Webster, 2019; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Taguchi, 2011; Takimoto, 2010).
The analysis will include data from student pragmatics performance rubrics, final
pragmatics-oriented tests and formal course grades.
Instruction in pragmatic competence requires cognitive/meta-pragmatic
insight and reflection, and experience using the expressions under study in sim-
ulated, “real” conversational practice (Cruz, 2013). In understanding that process
and pedagogy, research into the role and impact of instructor, spontaneous meta-
pragmatic classroom discourse scaffolded upon the general type of EAP speaking
instruction course outlined here, is promising, including the rich, face-to-face
interactive, meta-cognitive engagement necessary for developing more sophisti-
cated L2 pragmatic competence.

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful comments on an earlier ver-
sion. This was a joint research effort between Simon Fraser University and Trinity Western
University in British Columbia, Canada. Data was collected from the English Language and
Culture program in the Lifelong Learning Faculty at Simon Fraser University, and funding from
Trinity Western University supported data analysis. Many thanks go to the ELC students at SFU
who participated in this research to further understanding in second language teaching and
learning.
20 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

References

Acton, W. R. & Cope, C. (1999). Cooperative Attending Skills Training, in Kluge, D.,
McGuire, S., Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (Eds). Co-operative Learning. JALT Applied
Materials, Tokyo: JALT, 50–66.
Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context?
System, 33(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.005
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations?
Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly,
3(2), 233–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587583
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00738.x
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). Operationalizing conversation in studies of instructional effect in L2
pragmatics. System, 48, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.002
Bazzanella, C. (2019). The complex process of mis/understanding spatial deixis in face-to-face
interaction, Sociocultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 1–18.
Beltrán-Planques, V. & Querol-Julián, M. (2018). English language learners’spoken interaction:
What a multimodal perspective reveals about pragmatic competence. System (Linköping),
77, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.01.008
Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2
pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070037
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers
think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretations of
recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 209–236.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060104
Clennel, C. (1999). Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP
classes. ELT Journal, 53(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.2.83
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from
learners? Language Teaching, 41(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004880
Cohen, A. D. (2017). Teaching and learning second language pragmatics. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 6th ed., New York:
Routledge. 3, 428–452.
Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: a sociocultural theory
perspective. Language Awareness, 19(4), 281–297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2010.519033
Cruz, M. P. (2013). Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic vigilance of
L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Pragmatics, 59,
117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005
Cruz, M. P. (2015). Fostering EF/SL learns’ meta-pragmatic awareness of complaints and their
interactive effects. Language Awareness, 24(2), 123–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2014.996159
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 21

Crystal, D. (2015). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed. New York: Wiley-
Blackwell Publishing.
Drew, P. (2013). Turn design. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation
analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 131–149.
Ellis, R. & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In: Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W.
& S. Schneider (Eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, 15–34.
Frith, C. & Frith, U. (2005). Theory of mind. Current Biology, 15(17), 644–645.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.041
García Mayo, M. D. P. & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input,
feedback and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica,
54(2), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‑9582.00066
Gass, S. M., Svetics, I. & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language
Learning, 53(3), 495–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‑9922.00233
Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. The
Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026‑7902.00004
Gironzetti, E. & Koike, D. (2016). Bridging the gap in Spanish instructional pragmatics: from
theory to practice. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2), 89–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2016.1251781
Heron, M. & Webster, J. (2019). Scaffolding talk in EAP lessons: an examination of
experienced teachers’ practices. Innovation in Language Learning, 13(4), 358–370.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1466892
Hiver, P. et al. (2019). Language teacher metacognition: beyond the mirror. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 13(3), 201–220.
Huang, Alan. (2020). The dialogical nature of language use in interactive listening: revisiting
meaning in context. Language Awareness, 29(1), 21–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1686509
Hunter, J. (2012). ‘Small Talk’: developing fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. ELT
Journal, 66(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq093
Ifantidou, E. (2013). Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 59,
93–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.008
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and
culture meet. New York: Routledge.
Ivey, A. (1971). Microcounseling: Innovations in interviewing training. Springfield, Ill: Charles
C. Thomas.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? NetWork, 6, 105–119.
Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Rose, K. R., Kasper, G.
(Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
33–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.006
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19,
81–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190056
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
22 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

Kasper, G. & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317–334). Mahwah:
Taylor & Francis.
Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In:
K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language
Learning, (Volume 3, 11, pp. 281–314). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the
skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
IRAL, 47(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.002
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, I. & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-
cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2), 331–335.
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
Kubanyiova, M. (2015). The role of teachers’ future self guides in creating L2 development
opportunities in teacher-led classroom discourse: reclaiming the relevance of language
teacher cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 565–584.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12244
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lam, P., McNaught, C. & Cheng, K. (2008). Pragmatic meta-analytic studies: learning the
lessons from naturalistic evaluations of multiple cases. ALT-J, Research in Learning
Technology, 16(2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v16i2.10886
Li, C. & Gao, X. (2017). Bridging ‘what I said’ and ‘why I said it’: the role of Metapragmatic
awareness in L2 request performance. Language Awareness, 26(3), 170–190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1387135
Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language
learning. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip‑2014‑0011
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.),
Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, (Volume 379, pp. 259–278).
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
413–468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA, (pp.
75–116). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second
language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.006
Mackey, A. (2012). Introduction: The role of conversational interaction in second language
acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd
Ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315750606
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development:
Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(82), 338–356.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01211.x
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 23

Martí nez-Flor, A. & Usó-Juan, E. (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and
Methodological Issues. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26
McConachy, T. (2019). L2 pragmatics as ‘intercultural pragmatics’: Probing sociopragmatic
aspects of pragmatic awareness. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 167–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.014
Nguyen, M., Pham, T. & Pham, M. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-
focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of
Pragmatics, 44(4), 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.003
Nguyen, M., Pham, T., & Pham, M. (2017). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on
the development of second language pragmatic competence. Innovation in Language
learning and Teaching, 11(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907
Nguyen, M. (2017). Using conversation tasks and retrospective methodology to investigate L2
pragmatics development: the case of EFL criticisms and responses to criticisms. The
Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.908404
Pang, W. & Burri, M. (2017). Teaching Dialogic Speaking Strategies in a Canadian EAP
Program. In A. Burns & A. Seigel (Eds.), International Perspectives on Teaching the Four
Skills in ELT (pp. 111–124). New York: Springer International Publishing.
Roever, C. (2009). Teaching and testing pragmatics. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (Eds). The
Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch29
Rogers, C. R. & Wood, J. (1974). Client-centered therapy. In A. Burton (Ed.), Operational
theories of personality (pp. 211–258). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33,
385–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003
Ross, S. (2018). Listener response as a facet of interactional competence. Language Testing,
35(3), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218758125
Rueda, Y. (2006). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied
Linguistics Journal, 8, 169–182.
Safont-Jordá, M. (2004). An analysis on EAP learners’ pragmatic production: a focus on
request forms. Ibérica, 8, 23–39.
Sáez, N. (2015). Rethinking for Second Language Speaking. Working Papers in Applied
Linguistics and TESOL, 15(2), 1–21.
Sánchez-López, L. (2018). Cultural and pragmatic aspects of L2 Spanish for academic
purposes: new data on the current state of the question. Journal of Spanish Language
Teaching, 5(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2018.1538307
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic Discourse and Metapragmatic Function. In A. Lucy,
(Ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge:
Cambridge, University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz &
S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sotillo, S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and
NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 467–496. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.467‑496
Sperti, S. (2019). Cross-cultural mediation in ELF migration contexts: Pedagogical
implications on ELT multilingual settings. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2),
269–286. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.599253
24 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

Sykes, J. & Cohen, A. (2018). Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and
comprehensive. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 381–402.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.9
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in EFL. The Modern Language Journal,
8(4), 43–562.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in EFL.
TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00061.x
Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic
competence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 423–452.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080716
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Taguchi, N. (2011). Do proficiency and study-abroad experience affect speech act production?
Analysis of appropriateness, accuracy, and fluency. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 49, 265–293. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.015
Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, Individual Differences and Pragmatic Competence. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847696106
Taguchi, N. (2014). Pragmatic socialization in an English-medium university in Japan. IRAL,
52(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral‑2014‑0007
Taguchi, N. (2015). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class,
and online. System, 48, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.001
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are,
and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N. & Ishihara, N. (2018). The pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca: Research and
pedagogy in the era of globalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 80–101.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190518000028
Taguchi, N. (2018). Advanced Second Language Pragmatic Competence. In The Handbook of
Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 505–526). Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch26
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing inter-language pragmatic
competence. In: G. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp.
171–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.014
Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg
(Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (Vol. 7, pp. 391–421). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In
F. Martinez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical
and Methodological Issues (pp. 127–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.08tak
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic
proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 393–417.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr198oa
Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’
pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm049
 Spontaneous classroom engagement 25

Takimoto, M. (2010). Evaluating the effects of task repetition on learners’ recognition and
production of second language pragmatic chunks. Paper presented at the International
Conference of Malaysian English Language Teaching Association, Selangor, Malaysia.
June.
Takimoto, M. (2012). Metapragmatic discussion in interlanguage pragmatics. Journal of
Pragmatics, 44, 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.007
Takimoto, M. (2020). Investigating the effect of cognitive linguistic approach in developing
EFL learners’ pragmatic proficiency. System, 89, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102213
Timpe, V. (2013). “Assessing intercultural language learning. The dependence of receptive
sociopragmatic competence and discourse competence on learning opportunities and
input.” Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Timpe-Laughlin, V. et al. (2015). Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic
Competence: Review and recommendations. ETS Research Report.
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2016). Learning and Development of Second and Foreign Language
Pragmatics as a Higher-order Language Skill: A Brief Overview of Relevant Theories, ETS
Research Report.
Verschueren, J. (2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language usage.
Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.02ver
Winke, P. & Gass, S. M. (2018). Individual Differences in Advanced Proficiency. In P. Malovrh
& A. Benati (Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 157–178). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch9
Xiao, F. (2015). Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 4, 557–581. https://doi.org/10.14746/sllt.2015.5.4.3
Xiao, F. (2018). Advanced-Level Pragmatics in Instructed SLA. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati
(Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp.
463–483). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch24
Young, R. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in
academic spoken English. Ibérica, 25, 15–38.
Ziegler, N. & Bryfonski, L. (2018). Interaction-Driven L2 Learning. In P. Malovrh & A. Benati
(Eds.), The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition (pp.
94–113). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch6
Zhu, X., Liao, X. & Cheong, C. (2019). Strategy use in oral communication with competent
synthesis and complex interaction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(5), 116–118.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936‑019‑09651‑0
26 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

Appendix A. Cooperative attending skills training rubric worksheet

Numbers indicate frequency of occurrence in each round/conversation

Attending Expressions: Structure

Frequency 1 2 3 4 5
Intonation / Interjection
WH Questions
Short Statements
Commands
Yes / No Questions

Attending Expressions: Functions

I. Continuance 1 2 3 4 5
A. Minimal Encouragers
B. Empathy
C. Agreement / Understanding
D. Surprise / Shock / Disbelief
II. Clarification 1 2 3 4 5
A. Clarification
B. Topic Repair
C. Summarize / Paraphrase
III. Elaboration 1 2 3 4 5
A. Opinion
B. Prediction
C. Asking for details
D. Justification

© Van Dyke, A. (2014). Adapted from Acton & Cope, 1999.

 Spontaneous classroom engagement 27

Appendix B. Select student evaluation of pragmatics in oral skills

questionnaire results

1. What “pragmatics” means to you:

a. “A tool to use in daily conversations.”
b. “It is a useful skill to avoid worse situation.”
c. “Pragmatic knowledge and competence means something we can use practical.”

2. Which activities did you learn most from?

a. “It taught me about oral skill in different scene, use different tone … improve my elo-
quence and ability to cope.”
b. I learned a lot from analyzing conversations because I could see conversations objec-
tively, so I notice when I have to cope.”
c. “Sharing stories of compliment and politeness is the most useful for me because I
could learn many ways to express and use in daily life”

3. What pragmatic skill was most valuable?

a. “Humor and jokes, politeness, offers, requests, compliments …”
b. “A skill to decline invitations”
c. “Listening to spoken English and respond immediately and appropriately.”

4. Role of instructor
a. “The instructor is a supporter. The instructor(s) doesn’t lead the conversation, but
they always plays a role supporting the learning conversations.”
b. “The most important thing is not sit and talk but just do it actually.”
c. “I feel it’s a kind of very academical (sic) way. It looks a little complicated sometimes
but I think it’s the way that when you research something.”

5. Your participation
a. “I could deepen my understanding of pragmatics knowledge.”
b. “I think the course is useful for my life because you teach us pragmatic skills of speak-
ing.”

Address for correspondence

Angelina Van Dyke

English Language and Culture
Simon Fraser University
West Hastings St., Room 100-East
Vancouver, B.C., V6B 5K3
Canada
avandyke@sfu.ca
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9603-4771
28 Angelina Van Dyke & William R. Acton

Co-author information

William R. Acton
Trinity Western University
william.acton@twu.ca

Publication history

Date received: 4 December 2020

Date accepted: 16 March 2021
Published online: 16 April 2021
Copyright of Pedagogical Linguistics is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.