Volume 12, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This paper approaches classroom interaction from a pragmatic perspective. More specifically, it concentrates on how pragmatic awareness is reflected in the use of modifying elements of talk by two teachers (both non-native speakers of English), and how their use of modifiers affects the ongoing interaction. The data come from two different classroom settings where English is either the object or the medium of study. The findings reveal an overall tendency towards directness in the teachers’ performance that is affected in complex ways both by the institutional context and the teachers’ status as nonnative speakers. The findings also suggest a need for future research to analyse classrooms as social contexts in their own right and with their own pragmatic constraints which may not correspond to those of everyday discourse in other settings.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allwright, D
    (1999) Discourse in the language classroom. In B. Spolsky (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 319-323.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P
    (1988) On deixis and displacement. Folia Linguistica 22/3-4: 263-292. doi: 10.1515/flin.1988.22.3‑4.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1988.22.3-4.263 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardovi-Harlig, K
    (2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics?In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-32. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, K. , and B.S. Hartford
    (1990) Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning40: 467-501. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00603.x
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00603.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Bardovi-Harlig, K. , B.S. Hartford , R. Mahan-Taylor , M. Morgan , and D. Reynolds
    (1991) Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal45: 4-15. doi: 10.1093/elt/45.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/45.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergman, M.L. , and G. Kasper
    (1993) Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Longman, pp. 82-107.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. , and E. Finegan
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text9.1: 93-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blum-Kulka, S
    (1991) Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson , E. Kellerman , M. Sharwood-Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 255-272.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P. , and S.C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Caffi, C. , and R. Janney
    (1994) Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22.3/4: 325-373. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90115‑5
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Christoph, J.N. , and M. Nystrand
    (2001)  Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher's transition towards a dialogic classroom . CELA Research Report No. 14003. cela.albany.edu/christoph013/main.html
  12. Clennell, C
    (1999) Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal 53.2: 83-91. doi: 10.1093/elt/53.2.83
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.2.83 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coates, J
    (1987) Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society 1987: 110-131. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1987.tb00714.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1987.tb00714.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, A. , and E. Ohlstain
    (1993) The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly27: 33-56. doi: 10.2307/3586950
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586950 [Google Scholar]
  15. Flyvbjerg, B
    (2001) Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810503
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503 [Google Scholar]
  16. Framework
    (1996) Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework of reference. CC LANG (95) 5 Rev. IV, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fruhauf, G. , D. Coyle , and I. Christ
    (eds.) (1996) Teaching content in a foreign language. Practice and perspectives in European bilingual education. Alkmaar: The European Platform for Dutch Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. García, C
    (1992) Responses to a request by native and non-native English speakers: Deference vs. cameraderie. Multilingua 11.4: 387-406. doi: 10.1515/mult.1992.11.4.387
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1992.11.4.387 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hakulinen, A
    (1987) Avoiding personal reference in Finnish. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi (eds.), The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 141-153. doi: 10.1075/pbcs.5.12hak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.5.12hak [Google Scholar]
  20. Hakulinen, A . et al
    . (forthcoming) Iso suomen kielioppi(‘A reference grammar of Finnish’).
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harder, P
    (1980) Discourse as self-expression. On the reduced personality of the second-language learner. Applied Linguistics 1.3: 262-270. doi: 10.1093/applin/1.3.262
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.3.262 [Google Scholar]
  22. Holmes, J
    (1990) Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication 10.3: 185-205. doi: 10.1016/0271‑5309(90)90002‑S
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S [Google Scholar]
  23. House, J
    (1996) Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18.2: 225-252. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100014893
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014893 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyland, K
    (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17.4: 433-454. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.4.433
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kasper, G
    (1979) Communication strategies: Modality reduction. The Interlanguage Studies Bulletin - Utrecht 4.2: 266-283.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2001) Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-60. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.006 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kasper, G. , and K. Rose
    (2001) Pragmatics in language teaching. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-9. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524797.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kramsch, C
    (1986) From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal70.4: 366-372. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1986.tb05291.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05291.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Krueger, M. , and F. Ryan
    (eds.) (1993) Language and content. Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lemke, J.L
    (1990) Talking science. Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nikula, T
    (1996) Pragmatic force modifiers. A study in interlanguage pragmatics. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia 39. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nikula, T. , and D. Marsh
    (1997) Vieraskielisen opetuksen tavoitteet ja toteuttaminen (‘Content and language integrated teaching: From aims to implementation’). Helsinki: National Board of Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Nystrand, M. , and A. Gamoran
    (2001)  Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse . CELA Research Report No. 14005. cela.albany.edu./nystrand015/main.html
  34. Östman, J-O
    (1981) You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  35. (1986) Pragmatics as implicitness: An analysis of question particles in Solf Swedish, with implications for the study of passive clauses and the language of persuasion. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (1995) Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik , S-K. Tanskanen & R. Hiltunen (eds.), Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku conference. Anglicana Turkuensia14: 95-108.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Overstreet, M. , and G. Yule
    (1999) Fostering pragmatic awareness. Applied Language Learning 10.1 & 2: 1-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schourup, L
    (2002) Rethinking well . Journal of Pragmatics33.7: 1025-1060. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00053‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Silverstein, M
    (1993) Metaparagmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J.A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language. Reported speech and metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-58. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Snow, M.A. , and D.M. Brinton
    (eds.) (1997) The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Swain, M
    (1996) Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review 52.4: 529-548.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Takala, S. , D. Marsh , and T. Nikula
    (1998) Vieraskielinen opetus Suomessa (‘Content and language integrated teaching in Finland’). In S. Takala & K. Sajavaara (eds.), Kielikoulutus Suomessa(‘Language education in Finland’). Jyväskylä: Centre for Applied Language Studies, pp. 139-170.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tomlinson, B
    (1994) Pragmatic awareness activities. Language Awareness3.3 & 4: 119-129. doi: 10.1080/09658416.1994.9959850
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1994.9959850 [Google Scholar]
  44. Trosborg, A
    (1987) Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics11.2: 147-167. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90193‑7
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90193-7 [Google Scholar]
  45. Verschueren, J
    (1995) Metapragmatics. In J. Verschueren , J-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 367-371. doi: 10.1075/hop.m
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hop.m [Google Scholar]
  46. (1999) Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2000) Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics 10.4: 439-456.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zuengler, J. , and D.M. Brinton
    (1997) Linguistic form, pragmatic function: Relevant research from content-based instruction. In M.A. Snow & D.M. Brinton (eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. White Plains, NY: Longman, pp. 263-273.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Classroom interaction; Modifiers; Pragmatic awareness; Teacher talk
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error