Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through

concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study
Rémi A. van Compernolle *
Department of Applied Linguistics, The Pennsylvania State University, 305 Sparks Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This article presents a case study of the development of second language (L2)
Received 6 March 2011 sociopragmatic knowledge in an intermediate-level US university learner of French, Jane
Received in revised form 28 May 2011 (a pseudonym), who participated in a one-hour concept-based instruction (CBI) tutorial.
Accepted 20 June 2011
Grounded in a Vygotskian perspective on developmental education, this research focuses
Available online 20 July 2011
on the teaching of scientific, or theoretical, concepts as a way of mediating language
learners’ developing understanding of and ability to use the L2 for meaning-making
Keywords:
Second language pedagogy purposes. The focus of the present study is on sociopragmatic concepts related to the
Second language pragmatics choice between French second-person pronouns, TU and VOUS. An in-depth moment-to-
Instructional pragmatics moment, microgenetic analysis traces how changes in Jane’s cognitive functioning (i.e.,
Sociocultural theory conceptual knowledge) arose in and through her engagement in the CBI tutorial, which
Concept-based instruction included collaboration with an expert tutor as well as access to such mediating artifacts as
Second-person pronouns written concept explanations and pedagogical diagrams.
ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This article presents a case study of the development of second language (L2) sociopragmatic knowledge in an
intermediate-level US university learner of French, Jane (a pseudonym), who participated in a one-hour concept-based
instruction (CBI) tutorial. Grounded in a Vygotskian perspective on developmental education (Davydov, 2004; Galperin,
1989, 1992; Vygotsky, 1997; for L2 research, see Lantolf and Thorne, 2006), this research focuses on the teaching of scientific,
or theoretical, concepts as a way of mediating language learners’ developing understanding of and ability to use the L2 for
meaning-making purposes. As described below, instead of focusing first on language forms, CBI emphasizes the teaching of
holistic theoretical concepts, which then serve to orient learners’ use of particular language forms.
The study reported below aimed to enhance learners’ understanding of the concepts of self-presentation, social distance,
and power hierarchies, using the French second-person pronoun paradigm (i.e., tu/T andvous/V) to illustrate how these
concepts play out in actual language use. The pronouns T and V were chosen as the specific focus of the study because most
students are already somewhat familiar with them but do not typically fully understand the implications of (i.e., meanings
created by) the use of one or the other of these pronouns (Dewaele, 2004). Interactions with native speakers where there
exist social consequences for inappropriate T/V choice during, for instance, telecollaboration (Belz and Kinginger, 2002;
Kinginger, 2000) and study abroad (Kinginger, 2008) can help to disambiguate these meanings because learners are
motivated to maintain positive face. In addition, explicit instruction on and guided analyses of patterns of T/V use can raise
learners’ awareness of the social conventions of address form use (Liddicoat, 2006; Lyster, 1994; van Compernolle, 2010).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: compernolle@gmail.com.

0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009
3268 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

However, the extent to which learners develop a new conceptual framework within which to operate beyond an
understanding of the conventions of T/V use remains unclear. The present study represents an initial step toward promoting
conceptual development in relation to French T/V in particular and sociopragmatics in general. As shown below, the CBI
tutorial assisted Jane in developing not only a better understanding of the French T/V system but also in linking her existing
knowledge to broader sociopragmatic concepts that are relevant to a wide array of language features.
The primary objective of this article is to document the microgenetic development of Jane’s sociopragmatic knowledge over
the course of her 1-hour-and-18-minute CBI tutorial. The term microgenetic derives from Vygotsky’s (1978) proposal that, in
order to understand psychological functioning, we must trace its origins, its genesis, and the qualitative changes in cognition
rather than focusing solely on those abilities that have already fully developed. Wertsch (1985:55) describes this type of
analysis as a ‘‘very short-term longitudinal study’’ because the timeframe for observing development may be as little as a few
hours, minutes, or even seconds. This analytic approach was adopted in order to illustrate how changes in Jane’s cognitive
functioning (i.e., conceptual knowledge) arose in and through her engagement in the CBI tutorial, which included collaboration
with an expert tutor as well as access to such mediating artifacts as written concept explanations and pedagogical diagrams.

2. Background

2.1. Pragmatics instruction and rules of thumb

According to Kasper and Roever (2005:322), ‘‘most aspects of L2 pragmatics are [. . .] amenable to instruction’’ and, they
add, ‘‘instructional intervention is more beneficial than no instructional arrangements specifically targeted to pragmatic
learning’’. Pedagogical interventions may be either implicit or explicit. Implicit conditions entail providing learners with
evidence of pragmatic norms as well as corrective feedback on inappropriate or nontarget-like forms. Explicit conditions
involve the provision of metapragmatic information in addition to evidence of pragmatic norms and corrective feedback. As a
whole, the literature suggests that explicit instruction (i.e., providing metapragmatic information) is more efficacious than
implicit conditions, in particular in raising learners’ awareness of the sociopragmatic dimensions of language use. In other
words, while some studies have shown that implicit conditions can be as effective as explicit conditions in developing
learners’ control over pragmalinguistic conventions (i.e., pragmatic forms), explicit metapragmatic information may in
many cases—especially for classroom language learners—be necessary to develop an understanding of the ways in which
pragmatic forms create, maintain, and shape social relationships and identities (i.e., the sociopragmatic domain). (Useful
reviews of this research are provided in Ishihara, 2010; Martı́nez-Flor and Usó-Juan, 2010; Rose, 2005; Takahashi, 2010.)
However, while instructional interventions focused on particular speech acts and their pragmalinguistic instantiations may
proceed relatively straightforwardly, sociopragmatics is ‘‘a far more thorny issue to deal with in the classroom’’ (Kasper and
Rose, 2001:3). This is because ‘‘it is one thing to teach people what functions bits of language serve, but it is entirely different
to teach people how to behave ‘properly’’’ (Kasper and Rose, 2001:3).
Kasper and Rose’s (2001) cautionary note reflects the fact that teaching sociopragmatics may often entail a rather
subjective interpretation of the conventions of proper social behavior. The danger therein is that one individual’s (e.g., a
teacher, a materials developer) idea of proper language use may represent only a partial view of how language use produces,
reproduces, and transforms social meanings. This is particularly relevant to textbook explanations of sociopragmatic
features of language, which are often presented as rules of thumb for when and with whom to use particular forms or
sociopragmatic variants. For example, van Compernolle (2010) points out that textbook explanations of French T/V are
typically limited to interlocutor-determined rules of thumb (e.g., ‘‘use T with friends’’ and ‘‘use V with strangers’’) that reflect
observable sociopragmatic conventions but say little about the meanings created by the use of one pronoun or the other in
interaction. This is not, however, an argument against the presentation of conventions in pedagogical materials but, as van
Compernolle explains, a call for deeper, more holistic explanations of the meanings created by T/V use, namely social identity
and interpersonal relationships.

[F]ocusing on the underlying concept—or set of subconcepts—of T/V choice can help learners to develop their abilities to
make meaning with these pronouns, rather than being controlled by the social conventions of one community or another.
To be sure, conventions are important for learners’ development of sociolinguistic competence, but they may be
meaningless if learners do not understand how and why these conventions emerge and vary within and across social
groups. (p. 459)

In short, the argument presented in van Compernolle (2010) is that such rules of thumb as ‘‘use T with friends’’ do not
reflect the meaningful concepts that underlie relationship status and social identity. As noted by Lantolf (2007), rules of
thumb in language teaching materials are notoriously incoherent because, while perhaps providing some good general
guidelines for language use, they are also subject to many exceptions and ambiguities. The convention for using T with
friends, for example, is ultimately bound to the notion that, at least within some social groups, T use can mark social intimacy
and solidarity between interlocutors. Thus, T use among friends is not so much a rule as it is one particular linguistic
instantiation of marking (potential) friendship status.
A rule-of-thumb-based approach to sociopragmatic instruction therefore presents a number of difficulties in the
classroom. First, presenting lists of contexts in which to use sociopragmatic variants may risk inculcating learners with a
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3269

limited view of what constitutes proper and improper social behavior. Second, while rules of thumb may reflect some of the
‘‘what’’ of language use (i.e., conventions), they do little to explain the meanings created by people in interaction. Third, even
if lists of conventions avoid the problems outlined above, they can become unwieldy and potentially confusing given the vast
number of exceptions to rules of thumb. For instance, it is not enough to say ‘‘use T with people your own age’’ because this
rule of thumb can be in direct conflict with the rule ‘‘use V with store clerks and waiters’’ or ‘‘use V with strangers’’. The
alternative proposed in the present study attempts to avoid the potential shortcomings and ambiguities of a rules-of-thumb
approach by focusing on the meaningful concepts underlying T/V choice in French.

2.2. The indexical nature of French T/V

As noted above, the French T/V system is rather more complex than textbook-style rule-of-thumb explanations would
seem to suggest. Indeed, as Dewaele and Planchenault (2006) found in a study of learner perceptions, learners often judge
the T/V system as straightforward and easily navigable (usually based on simplistic rules of thumb) during the early years of
study. However, as learners gain experience with and access to a wider range of social-interactive settings with French
speakers, they begin to notice the more subtle complexities of the system and perceive it as increasingly difficult. This is
because French T and V, like many sociolinguistic features of language, are double indexicals (Morford, 1997; Silverstein,
2003); that is, they not only point to aspects of the local context of communication but also to the speaker’s desired social
identity (see also Gardner-Chloros, 2007; Mühlhäusler and Harré, 1990).
Silverstein (2003) adds to this a third level of indexicality: the interpretation of particular features of language that have
entered into supra-local ideologies. In Silverstein’s formulation of the concept of orders of indexicality, language features have
the potential to index multiple and interwoven meanings. An ‘‘n-th’’ order (first-order) indexical is a feature of language that can
be associated with a particular group (e.g., age, region, or socioeconomic status) or semantic function (e.g., number-marking).
These associations can be uncovered scientifically by outsiders, such as linguists. An ‘‘n + 1-th’’ order (second-order) indexical,
however, has been assigned ‘‘an ethno-metapragmatically driven native interpretation’’ (Silverstein, 2003:212) and thus
carries meaning in terms of one or more local ideologies. An ‘‘‘(n + 1) + 1-th’’ order (third-order) indexical is a feature that has
come to be perceived as meaningful within another (not necessarily local) ideological schema (cf. Labov’s 1972 concept of
‘‘stereotypes’’). Importantly, the indexical order is not linear; an indexical may operate on one or more levels simultaneously.
French T/V use thus indexes a broad array of group memberships, politics, and ideologies because of the differentiated
correlations among these factors (see Table 1). These potential indexical meanings and associations with particular identities
are, of course, not fixed but highly malleable. Orders of indexicality themselves are activated in the concrete form of the
utterance and depend on both the speaker’s intention as well as an interlocutor’s interpretation.

2.3. Concept-based instruction as a pedagogical model

Vygotsky (1997) argued that the goal of formal education was to promote the artificial (i.e., intentional) development of
cognitive abilities. In collaboration with his colleagues, most notably A. Luria, Vygotsky showed that education played a
critical role in the development of particular ways of thinking that did not occur in everyday, nonschooled contexts, namely
the development of scientific (or theoretical) thinking. According to Vygotsky, one of the key differences between natural or

Table 1
Indexical meanings of T/V choice in French.

Orders of indexicality Potential meanings and/or associations

First-order indexicality
Sociolinguistic conventions can be correlated with various social groups. For example:
 Generalized T use is widespread in Quebec whereas T/V distinctions remain conventional in France;
 Friends and family use T whereas strangers tend to use V;
 Younger speakers use T more frequently than do older speakers;
 Conservatives use V more frequently than do left-leaning individuals.
These conventions are observable by any linguist and represent only correlations with predetermined social factors.

Second-order indexicality
Sociolinguistic conventions are available as an indexical resource for speakers. Social meaning is attributed to T/V choice
based on the correlations noticed by individual speakers. Here, T/V choice becomes a double indexical (Morford, 1997),
which can serve to index both the nature of the relationship between two interlocutors and one’s social identity. Thus, V
can be used to point to first-order indexicalities, such as distance between strangers, non-youthful (non-student)
identities, conservatism, etc., while T can be used to point to familiarity, youthfulness, left-leaning politics, etc. To be
sure, not all speakers will associate T/V use with the same set of potential second-order indexicalities.

Third-order indexicality
Third-order indexicality entails explicit metadiscourse (or ethnometapragmatics in Silverstein’s 2003 terms) about the
T/V system, in particular noticing and valuating the second-order indexical meanings according to other ideological
schemata. For instance, older, more conservative individuals may view the rise of T among younger, more liberal
individuals as a sign of the loss of politeness or respect, and perhaps left-leaning individuals as a whole as rude or lacking
respect for others. Young liberals, on the other hand, may see older conservatives as impolite too, because they refuse to
use T to mark solidarity with others. Basically, the metadiscourse surrounding second-order indexicality points to
associations with other political and ideological schemata (e.g., conventions for politeness/impoliteness, desire for
solidarity/distance, desire for egalitarianism/hierarchical social order).
3270 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

everyday development and artificial (intentional) development (i.e., in school) exists at the level of conceptual knowledge—
in particular the distinction between everyday and scientific (or theoretical) concepts. Everyday concepts constitute empirical
knowledge (Karpov, 2003) and are based on ‘‘an immediate observable property of an object’’ (Kozulin, 1995:123). Scientific
concepts, by contrast, ‘‘represent the generalizations of the experience of humankind that is fixed in science’’ (Karpov,
2003:66) and encompass the essential features of a given set of objects, which may not be immediately observable.
Following Vygotsky’s position on the role of scientific knowledge in formal education, Galperin (1989, 1992) and Davydov
(2004) developed concept-based approaches to instruction (for detailed comparison of Galperin’s and Davydov’s models, see
Ferreira, 2005). In both Galperin’s and Davydov’s models of concept-based instruction, scientific concepts are presented
verbally (through speech and/or writing) and modeled imagistically (through pedagogical diagrams) in order to guide
learners’ actions. Verbalizations (i.e., explaining the concept as such and monitoring and evaluating one’s actions) help
learners to externalize their understanding of the concept, making the concept open to conscious inspection and revision,
which can assist learners in the process of internalizing the concept. Internalization of the concept in turn affords learners
conscious control over their actions.
Previous research into CBI has shown that internalized linguistic concepts serve a powerful mediational role in L2
development and use. Such studies have investigated the teaching of tense, aspect, and modality in Spanish (Negueruela,
2003), Spanish locative prepositions (Serrano-López and Poehner, 2008), genre in an ESL academic writing course (Ferreira,
2005), the concept of voice in French (Swain et al., 2009), and Spanish literature and metaphor (Yáñez-Prieto, 2008). One
particular advantage of CBI, as opposed to other forms of explicit language teaching, is that concepts can provide learners
with an orienting basis for the use of a range of language features (Lantolf, 2007, 2008). In other words, concepts are not
bound to particular forms, but rather unite different—and sometimes seemingly unrelated—features of language. For
example, in the present study, the concepts of self-presentation, social distance, and power hierarchies are not only relevant
to second-person address in French but also to an array of other pragmatic and sociolinguistic features of language, including
register/stylistic variation, speech acts, and lexical variation (see van Compernolle, in preparation).
Following this previous research into L2 CBI, the present study centered on the presentation of concepts guiding
sociopragmatic variation in French, which were based primarily on the writings of Silverstein (2003), Mühlhäusler and Harré
(1990), and Morford (1997) described above. These concepts were presented verbally (i.e., on written cards) and
imagistically (i.e., in the form of pedagogical diagrams). The focal learner, Jane, read and explained the concepts to herself
during the tutorial. During a posttutorial stage, Jane then engaged in problem-solving tasks aiming to link her developing
conceptual knowledge to practice (i.e., choosing between T and V). More about the study’s design is provided in section 3.

3. Study design

3.1. Overview of the CBI tutorial

The CBI tutorial in which Jane participated was divided into three stages. The first stage (i.e., pretutorial) included a
language awareness interview (LAI) with the tutor and an appropriateness judgment questionnaire (AJQ). During the LAI, the
tutor asked Jane to describe her understanding of T and V, how and when she might use the pronouns, and what, to her
knowledge, the use of these pronouns means in context. Following Kinginger (2008), the AJQ was designed to include some
items where the conventional choice between T and V was relatively clear (e.g., based on age or the relative social status of
interlocutors), and others that introduced some degree of ambiguity. Jane was asked to indicate, for each situation, whether
she would use T or V. She was then asked to explain her choices.
The second stage constituted the tutorial proper. Jane was given a set of 36 cards that explained the concepts relevant to
sociopragmatics in French, including a number of pedagogical diagrams depicting the concepts (or components of concepts)
imagistically. Of these cards, 10 were specifically relevant to T/V choice in French, with the others pertaining to either the
broader concept of orders of indexicality (Silverstein, 2003) or focusing on other specific language features (i.e., nous vs. on ‘we’ or
presence vs. absence of ne in negation; van Compernolle, in preparation). The cards also included ‘‘think aloud questions’’ at
various points. Jane was instructed to read the cards to herself and explain in her own words (i.e., reflect verbally on) what she
understood about the concepts as she did so. She was encouraged to talk to herself as much as possible in light of research
showing that verbalized reflection is an important aspect of the internalization process (Swain et al., 2009). In addition, the tutor
left the room in order to promote as much self-directed or private speech as possible. Self-directed speech is theorized to be
more psychologically meaningful than social or interpersonal speech because it is directed inward to mediate one’s own
psychological functioning rather than primarily having a social or communicative function (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006).
The final stage included a brief summary LAI of what Jane had learned about using T and V as well as two posttutorial
AJQs. The posttutorial AJQs were designed to be collaborative (i.e., Jane could ask the tutor for assistance) and the concept
explanations and diagrams remained available to her in case she wanted to refer to them.

3.2. Concept cards and diagrams

As noted above, the materials developed for this study included concept explanations and pedagogical diagrams
presented on 36 cards. Since this article focuses on Jane’s developing understanding of T/V use in French, only those cards
and diagrams directly relevant to the second-person pronoun system will be described here.
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3271

The leading concept for the tutorial was based on Silverstein’s (2003) notion of orders of indexicality. This concept was
chosen because it not only acknowledges probabilistic conventions for language use (i.e., first-order indexicals) but also how
conventions enter into local (i.e., second-order indexicals) and supra-local (i.e., third-order indexicals) ideologies and social
evaluations of language use. For the CBI tutorial, this concept was explained on four cards in addition to one diagram. The
concept cards explained that (1) conventions emerge from the specific patterns of language use among different groups of
people and in different contexts; (2) stereotypes are formed as people notice the conventions of certain groups of people and
make broader judgments about those ways of speaking; (3) people draw from conventions and stereotypes to create
meaning, by either conforming to or diverging from conventions; and (4) meaning is contingent upon both the design
(i.e., intention) of the speaker and the interpretation of the utterance, which may or may not converge. The fifth card included
a diagram depicting the relationship between conventions, stereotypes, and use of language.
Ten cards, including several diagrams, focused specifically on second-person address in French. Drawing on Morford’s
(1997) conceptualization of French T/V as a double indexical, the concept cards centered on aspects of context and social
relationships as well as self-presentation and social identity. (Sample concept explanations and diagrams are provided as an
appendix.) These included (1) a ‘‘warm-up’’ textbook-style explanation of T and V in terms of formality and rules of thumb
for deciding between the pronouns (e.g., based on age or social status); (2) an explanation that choosing between T and V
points to aspects of one’s social identity at the time of utterance, which was depicted in a diagram as the choice between tee-
shirt-and-jeans (T) and suit-and-tie (V); (3) an explanation that T/V choice points to the degree of social distance one is
creating or maintaining, which was depicted in a diagram as closeness (T) or distance (V); and (4) an explanation that T/V
symmetry (T-T or V-V) versus asymmetry (T-V) points to the degree to which power hierarchies are made explicit, which
was depicted in a diagram as either equal/downplaying power status (symmetrical use) or unequal/drawing attention to power
status (asymmetrical use). An additional card and diagram reviewed the previous concepts and presented them together.
This card explained that, while all three concepts are relevant, speakers must choose which of them are most important at
the time of utterance.

3.3. Data collection and analytic procedures

Jane’s tutorial was video recorded in the researcher’s office. A digital voice recorder was also used because low-volume
(e.g., self-directed or private) speech is not always audible in video recorded data. In total, Jane’s tutorial lasted 1 hour and 18
minutes. The video and audio data were transcribed in their entirety for analysis (transcription conventions are provided at
the end of this article). In addition, digital copies of Jane’s AJQs were made. During the review of the data, three foci of interest
were identified: (1) rule-of-thumb-bound thinking, which derives from textbook-style explanations (e.g., use T with people
your own age; V with persons older than you); (2) concept-bound thinking (i.e., thinking/explaining choices in terms of the
concepts or components thereof); and (3) linking rules of thumb to concepts (e.g., explaining a rule of thumb in terms of a
concept or explaining a concept as it applies to a rule of thumb). Shifts between these forms of thinking marked key points in
Jane’s microgenetic development and, as such, form the focus of the following analysis. It should also be noted that CBI
focuses on developing thoughtful, personally significant understandings of meaning-form relationships rather than
necessarily approximating native speaker norms or a predetermined ‘‘right answer’’.

4. Data analysis

4.1. Pretutorial LAI and AJQ

The pretutorial LAI and AJQ revealed that Jane already had some understanding of the French second-person address
system. However, her understanding was limited to a set of rules of thumb as explained in her textbook. The rules of thumb
typically portray T/V choice as a simple formal/informal distinction, providing students with formulaic situational examples
(e.g., ‘use T with people your own age, fellow students, friends, and family; use V with persons older than you, strangers, or to
whom you owe respect’). As Jane’s textbook pointed out, V is the safe choice because it is respectful: ‘‘If in doubt, use vous—
better too much respect than too little!’’ (Heilenman et al., 2006:6).
In Excerpt 1, Jane displays some competence in terms of the grammatical functions of T and V (i.e., second-personness,
singular vs. plural) as well as their relationship to formality.

Excerpt 1.
Tutor: so first can you tell me a little bit about your understanding of tu and vous for example.
Jane: uh so the tu is the informal you? + and the vous is either the + formal you? or it could also be the um + plural you.
that’s informal. ++ or formal.

As she continued (Excerpt 2), Jane explained that deciding to use either T or V was primarily a question of familiarity and/
or respect. While her explanation is not wrong in terms of conventional use of T and V, neither is it indicative of an
understanding of the meanings created by these pronouns in interaction. Instead, her explanation is framed as a set list of
categories of people with whom to use T or V.
3272 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

Excerpt 2.
Tutor: and so how do you decide + when to use tu or vous.
Jane: um
Tutor: as far as you know.
Jane: as far as I understand + I would use tu for um + people who are very familiar to me? like friends who are sort of
um + maybe + um family members whereas with vous it might be people that I’m meeting for the first time +
um or a person + um occupying like a position of + (where there’s a) higher respect?

Part of Jane’s understanding of T and V included the rule that V should be used with strangers or people she
is meeting for the first time (see Excerpt 2). This is also a typical textbook-style explanation. When asked if she would
ever use T during a first meeting (Excerpt 3), Jane posited that if her interlocutor were her own age, T might be
appropriate.

Excerpt 3.
Tutor: if you’re meeting someone for the first time + is there any time where you might use tu? + or would you always
use vous.
Jane: well as I understand culturally? + like if it’s someone my age I could probably use tu + and for instance as far as I
understood + um so yeah I guess you could.

As Jane continued this explanation, she also commented that, with someone her own age, V use could be seen
as strange or offensive (Excerpt 4). In essence, she demonstrates some understanding of the T of solidarity used
especially among younger persons and students (see Belz and Kinginger, 2002; Kinginger, 2008). Importantly, this
knowledge appears to derive not from a textbook explanation but a comment made by Jane’s teacher, Cassandra (also a
pseudonym).

Excerpt 4.
Jane: hmm. I guess um + I would think that if maybe I used the tu form. ++ um I don’t know they would probably
understand that I want to be just + on par with them? + sort of like an equal relationship? whereas maybe if I
used the vous they might + maybe they might think that I’m + trying too hard to be formal. and they might
actually even maybe think it’s a little bizarre? [. . .] (that’s what) Cassandra was saying. um that they might
actually think it’s kind of strange. like why is she saying vous formal.

Similarly, Jane demonstrated sensitivity to inappropriate T use with, for example, older persons or those in a higher social
or professional status, as shown in Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 5.
Tutor: alright. and what if it was someone + like you mentioned ++ either an older person or someone in like a higher +
um status + or something like that. + like a boss or I don’t know.
Jane: sure. um maybe? uh maybe they would take offense if I used the tu form? because um + they would have an
expectation that I would speak with them in a form- + using the formal vous?
Tutor: mhm. okay.

However, as in her explanation of the T of solidarity, her conceptualization of the V of respect or politeness was limited to
an understanding of her hypothetical interlocutors’ expectations. In other words, her knowledge of T/V choice in French was
based on conventional patterns equated with rules rather than an understanding of the meaning potential of these pronouns.
It is also noteworthy that in all of her explanations, Jane positions herself as an interactant whose primary goal is to avoid
offending her interlocutor by inappropriately using either T or V. In sum, the LAI revealed that Jane’s understanding of T and
V was based on a set of textbook-style rules regarding formality, interlocutor status (e.g., age, friend, family, stranger), and
respect.
These rules also informed Jane’s responses to AJQ1. Fig. 1 displays her responses to each situation. Interestingly, Jane
responds with conventionally appropriate T/V choices, except for the third situation where she switched from the
conventionally appropriate V form to T. Yet, as revealed by her explanations of her responses (see below), Jane’s apparent
sociopragmatic competence is rather underdeveloped, being based solely on her understanding of the rules described in the
LAI. In this case, Jane arguably demonstrates ‘‘performance before competence’’ (Cazden, 1997:309) in that she knew some of
the conventional rules for T/V choice but did not fully understand the meanings created by these pronouns. In short, her
choices were informed primarily by what she understood to be ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong’’, rather than a conceptual framework of
meaning.
For instance, Jane explained that her choice to use T in the first situation was determined by the fact that Jean was a friend,
as shown in Excerpt 6.
[(Fig._1)TD$IG] R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3273

Fig. 1. Jane’s responses to AJQ1.

Excerpt 6.
Tutor: can you explain why you would use tu?
Jane: yeah cause he’s someone I’m familiar with=
Tutor: =okay.=
Jane: =and we’re friends?
Tutor: okay.

By extension, then, she decided to use T with Jean’s girlfriend in the second situation. Here again, Jane points to her
understanding of the roles of friendship status and age, and that using V in this situation could be seen as too formal or
creating social distance (Excerpt 7).

Excerpt 7.
Tutor: so you said tu. why.
Jane: same + I think it was sort of the same logic? ((as for the first situation)) just because um ++ um + you know she
was probably um + since it’s my friend’s girlfriend they’re probably around the same age + um I thought also
that maybe she might think + I was trying to be too formal if I used the vous form + and maybe create social
distance
Tutor: okay.

When asked why she switched from V to T in the third situation, Jane explained that she had imagined a closer
relationship with M Robinet than is perhaps typical between students and teachers (Excerpt 8). Nonetheless, she
demonstrated some hesitation because of the age difference and relative status.

Excerpt 8.
Jane: um with the teacher + who’s forty years old?
Tutor: yeah.
Jane: I actually decided to use the tu form as well? because I thought maybe we have a good rapport
Tutor: uhhuh
Jane: and we’re closer and more familiar + even though he is forty? and my professor + so I don’t really know if that
would be right?
Tutor: okay.
3274 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

Jane also noted that for the fourth and fifth situations, her choice to use V was determined primarily by age and status. As
Excerpt 9 shows, Jane focused on the age of the administrative assistant and the fact that she worked in a formal university
position, which required the V of respect.

Excerpt 9.
Tutor: and now uh the administrative assistant.
Jane: in her fifties ((quietly reading)) yeah um I + definitely selected the vous because she is older + um also working
in a like a formal position.
Tutor: mhm.
Jane: um within the um university. so I would use the vous + out of respect?
Tutor: okay.

Similarly, as illustrated in Excerpt 10, Jane indicated that her professor’s age and status were relevant to her choice.

Excerpt 10.
Tutor: and then you’re going to see your professor. + madame Triolet
Jane: + right. and again I decided to use the formal vous. because she’s a + a professor. and it didn’t really indicate if I
knew her well or
Tutor: okay.
Jane: um + what our relationship was? and so she’s an elder and she’s (xxx) is my professor so out of respect I thought
I’d use the vous

Interestingly, however, when Jane was asked to compare her T/V choices in the third (T) and fifth (V) situations (both with
teachers/professors), she referred back to her imagined closer relationship and better rapport with M Robinet. In fact, she had
imagined that the two of them might have had beers together and, therefore, had possibly established a T relationship.1

Excerpt 11.
Tutor: but + you didn’t + do it for + monsieur Robinet here? ((pointing to situation 3))
Jane: NO + I just thought maybe because we had a good rapport I could get away with saying- with using the tu tu
form?
Tutor: mm.
Jane: I don’t know. ((laughing))
Tutor: okay.
Jane: but I wasn’t sure. ((laughing))
Tutor: right. okay.
Jane: it’s probably wrong. but I just thought maybe + we’d had beers together and we’re on the tu tu form now.
((laughing))
Tutor: oh right. okay.

Taken together, Jane’s LAI and her responses to AJQ1 suggest that she is familiar with some of the conventional patterns of
T/V use. However, this knowledge is rather limited to the type of rules presented in learner textbooks. Although the rules she
has learned are not wrong, neither do they capture the double indexical nature of the French T/V system (Morford, 1997; for
L2 French, Kinginger, 2008; van Compernolle, 2010). Instead, Jane’s decisions regarding T/V use are based on the application
of rules (i.e., if context X, then T; if context Y, then V) likely derived from the examples presented to her in, for example,
pedagogical materials and her teacher’s explanations. In short, Jane’s orientation to T/V use in French is grounded in a ‘‘right/
wrong’’ framework (i.e., it is ‘‘rule-of-thumb-bound’’) and, as such, she demonstrates little voluntary control over the
meanings created by the French T/V system.

4.2. Tutorial stage: verbalized reflections

During the tutorial stage, Jane was instructed to read the concept explanation cards and to explain to herself her
understanding of them. Verbalization (Negueruela, 2003), or languaging (Swain, 2006), is an important part of the

1
It may also be that sociopragmatic norms in Jane’s L1 (American English) differ from those of French. However, such a discussion was not pursued by the
tutor in this interaction. Van Compernolle (in preparation) has, however, delved into the role that previous socialization experiences play in learners’
appropriation of sociopragmatic concepts. The findings suggest that particular personal experiences, rather than large-scale cultural conventions, shape
learners’ orientations to the concepts.
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3275

internalization process. In line with Vygotskian sociocultural theory of mind, languaging mediates cognition and can lead
to a deeper understanding of a skill or concept: ‘‘languaging . . . transforms inner thoughts to external knowing
(externalization) and, conversely, it transforms external knowing into internal cognitive activity (internalization)’’
(Swain et al., 2009:5). The principal objective of the verbalized reflection stage of the tutorial was to allow Jane to
transform her understanding of T/V choice in French by providing her with a conceptual orientation to the notions of self-
presentation, social distance, and power hierarchies. By promoting verbalized reflection, the tutorial aimed to enable Jane
to link her existing knowledge to the relevant concepts and, in turn, transform her knowledge in relation to these new
concepts.
The first example of verbalized reflection regarding T/V use in French occurred when Jane was contemplating the notion
of stereotypes about language, shown in Excerpt 12, which was part of the leading orders of indexicality concept, which read:

Stereotypes are formed as people notice some conventions of certain groups and make judgments about them. For example,
some people may think that upper class or highly educated people sound snobby, or that people from a particular city or region
have funny accents (e.g., accents from Brooklyn, Boston, Pittsburg, or the South).

What can you infer from this explanation?

Can you think of any specific language stereotypes? What do they mean to you?

Excerpt 12.
Jane: um +++ alright well what would I infer? um I guess I would infer that if you use um ++ a formal way of saying
you for example. so in French vous with someone who’s your same age but who you’ve just met + they may
think that you’re being snobby or um ++ or sort of trying to establish that you’re a- uh + maybe higher status
than them.

Although this card did not mention French T/V, Jane uses these pronouns as a concrete example that scaffolds her
understanding of the concept of stereotypes. Here, she begins to link her rule-of-thumb-bound thinking to a particular
conceptual unit. For instance, she links her previous understanding that V with a peer might be inappropriate with the
conceptual units regarding ‘‘snobbiness’’ and ‘‘higher status/class’’, which were mentioned on the card. In other words, she
takes her prior knowledge of rules and relates it to part of the concept she is learning (i.e., that there are social evaluations
of/judgments about language use), namely that an inappropriate use of V with a peer is judged to be inappropriate or perhaps
offensive because of its relationship with stereotypes about which groups of people (e.g., snobs) conventionally engage in
this practice.
Excerpt 13 illustrates a marked shift in Jane’s thinking about T and V. While her earlier explanations of T/V use were
oriented toward a rule-bound system (i.e., during the pretutorial stage), her verbalized reflection of the concept of self-
presentation (Appendix, 2) shows that she is beginning to link those rules with speaker intentionality (e.g., ‘‘when I + want to
convey + um informality’’).

Excerpt 13.
Jane: ((reads text aloud)) again. that when I + want to convey + um informality + I would use tu [. . .] + or if I wanted to
distance myself from say a higher class. + or a different social class. + I could use that. um ++ whereas if I’m- I
want to convey respect I use the formal + vous [. . .] + or if I wanted to create distance from myself- from say a
lower social class. [. . .] ++ um I would probably present myself as tee-shirt-and-jeans with uh friends + um
people on a level playing field with my status + um OR if I wanted to distance myself once again from a(nother)
class. + and suit-and-tie? + I would do that in a + academic situation. if I was applying for a job + speaking to
someone much older than I who I do not know well.

Most notably, Excerpt 13 shows a change from ‘‘following the rules’’ to making agentive choices regarding T/V use.
Crucially, Jane also specifically addresses the tee-shirt-and-jeans (T) versus suit-and-tie (V) conceptualization of self-
presentation, and she then links it to her existing knowledge about the conventions of T/V use according to age, relationship,
and context. In short, Excerpt 13 shows the first real shift in metapragmatic knowledge, namely that T/V choice entails—at
least in part—intentionality in the design of meaning.
Jane’s understanding of the role the T/V use plays in creating and maintaining social relationships also developed as
she continued the tutorial. After reading two cards explaining the concept of social distance (Appendix, 4–5), she linked
her previous rule-bound knowledge of friendship/stranger status to the notions of intimacy and social distance, as in
Excerpt 14.2

2
Although Jane previously used the term ‘‘social distance’’ (excerpt 7), it was bound to her rule-based understanding of T and V. Here, she begins to use
the concept of ‘‘social distance’’ regarding the qualities of social relationships that can be created and reshaped by language-in-use. In short, her earlier
comment reflects an everyday understanding of social distance (as a static rule), whereas she starts to reinterpret this as a theoretical concept, which
involves a systematic understanding of meaning making.
3276 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

Excerpt 14.
Jane: ((reads text aloud)) so I would infer that we would use the + informal tu + um with family members and close
friends + and +++ yeah. + so we would use informal ways of speaking if we wanted to create + intimacy with
another person. + and we would use the formal ways of speaking if we wanted to create a + social distance. perhaps.

This is a critical step in her development as it represents a shift from thinking in terms of conventional patterns to the
meanings instantiated by them (e.g., ‘‘so we would use informal ways of speaking if we wanted to create + intimacy with
another person. + and we would use the formal ways of speaking if we wanted to create a + social distance’’.). This shift in
conceptual knowledge is also present in Excerpt 15.

Excerpt 15.
Jane: ((reads text aloud)) +++ so +++ if I want to- + okay. so I’m inferring from this explanation + that if I want to make
+ a point with someone my own age + that I don’t know and I don’t really want to get to know them? perhaps I
would choose the vous. cause that would create a social distance even though we’re the same age. and could
use the tu. but + um + I would use the tu if I was speaking to someone who I wanted + to create closeness with. +
+ and again. I think the choice would be difficult if I was torn between + not wanting to offend them by not- by
using the informal tu + but on the other hand um ++ where I wanted to convey that I wanted to create closeness.
so I might be tempted to use tu cause I don’t want to create social distance + through vous.

What is interesting here is Jane’s verbalized reflection that the use of V with someone her own age, where the T
of solidarity would be conventionally appropriate, would be a viable option if she wanted to create social
distance (i.e., ‘‘perhaps I would choose the vous. cause that would create a social distance even though we’re the same
age. and could use the tu’’.). At the same time, Jane also comes to the conclusion that it would be difficult to choose between T
and V in cases where, because of age or social status, V might be appropriate but she wanted to avoid creating social distance.
This excerpt suggests that Jane is progressively appropriating the concepts relevant to T/V choice but is also struggling to
reconcile her new knowledge with the sometimes incomplete or contradictory rules she had previously learned.
On the next card (Appendix, 6), the concept of power hierarchies was presented, which was explained in terms of
symmetrical T/V relationships (i.e., T-T or V-V) versus asymmetrical relationships (T-V). In Excerpt 16, for example, Jane
extends her understanding of social distance from previous cards and applies it to her developing understanding of
symmetry versus asymmetry.

Excerpt 16.
Jane: ((reads text aloud)) um basically I would say that if a person’s intent is to create social distance. they will + not +
use + the symmetrical relationship. tu tu or vous vous. they will continue to use the asymmetrical + um tu vous
+ um dynamic. ++ um can I think + of a situation where symmetrical tu relationships are appropriate and vous
relationships. yes. tu relationships um + would be most appropriate between + peers of the same age um who
are familiar with each other. + symmetrical vous um + you know. people um + trying to maintain + a mutual
higher level of respect towards each other. + or- and also who don’t know each other very well.

Two important issues are invoked in this verbalized reflection. First, Jane focuses on the speaker’s intent vis-à-vis creating
social distance/power through the maintenance of an asymmetrical T/V relationship. Second, she links her understanding of
textbook-style rules and the concept of social distance to this new concept when she explains that symmetrical T is appropriate
between peers, persons of the same age, and in familiar relationships, and that symmetrical V is appropriate among people
maintaining a higher level of respect and/or who do not know each other well or at all. In essence, while her rule-of-thumb-
bound thinking remains present, it is progressively being transformed in relation to the concepts she is learning.
Jane continued this explanation commenting on the potential meaning of asymmetrical T/V relationships prompted by
one of the think aloud questions (Excerpt 17).

Excerpt 17.
Jane: ((reads third question aloud)) um ++ perhaps two people of the same age meet? but they do not um +++ I’m not
sure if I understand this one. ((rereads part of text and/or question but inaudibly/barely a whisper)) OH. yeah. so
like an older- so like a person from a higher age group might + call a person of a younger age group um they might
refer to them with a tu form. but would expect the younger person to use vous towards them. + um. and that might
++ simply just mean that there’s a difference in + hierarchies as far as age. it may not necessarily mean much as far
as power. + now if you’re talking about people in a work- + on a work basis. ++ and one person uses tu and expect-
uh expects to be referred to as vous + they might be trying to um create a um power hierarchy.

Jane struggles to understand this component of the concept as evidenced by her self-assessment (i.e., ‘‘I’m not sure if I
understand this one’’) and rereading of the text, two types of languaging that help scaffold learners’ internalization of
concepts (Knouzi et al., 2010; Swain et al., 2009). After this, she demonstrates understanding (i.e., ‘‘OH. yeah’’.) and applies
her knowledge to concrete examples, namely the asymmetrical relationship between an older and younger person, as well as
an example of a workplace environment, in terms of age and power hierarchies.
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3277

Jane’s final verbalized reflection occurred as she read the last concept card related to T/V use, which presented all three
concepts and their respective diagrams together. As shown in Excerpt 18, Jane appears to have integrated her previous rules-
of-thumb-bound knowledge into her new conceptual understanding of self-presentation, social distance, and power
hierarchies.

Excerpt 18.
Jane: ((reads text aloud, looks at diagrams, then reads questions aloud)) um + basically the diagrams indicate to me
that + people of the same age ++ are more likely to use the symmetrical tu or vous. again they would use tu if
they want + if they are to create closeness + vous for social distance + um + people you know. of the same +
maybe social background it w- it would be the same thing. um ++ if people are in a more formal setting this
mutual vous + um ++ if one person is using tu and the other one responds with vous they are trying to create a-
maintain a um + either a social distance to speak + down to the other? or to create a hierarch- power hierarchy.
whereas the other person (xxx) to whom they referred to as tu would be of a + um lower + um power + status.

In this verbalized reflection, Jane links the category ‘‘same age’’ to symmetrical T/V use, T to closeness, and V to distance,
in addition to contextual factors such as formality. At the same time, she integrates her understanding of asymmetry and
power in terms of ‘‘talking down’’ to a person of lower power status.
The excerpts presented above show how, largely through verbalized reflection, Jane integrated her previous rule-of-
thumb-bound knowledge of T and V into the new concepts presented to her. This, in turn, also had the effect of transforming
her understanding of these pronouns in relation to the double indexical nature of French second-person address (Morford,
1997). In essence, Jane demonstrates a shift in thinking about T/V choice in terms of rules to a meaning-based or concept-
bound framework. This shift is highlighted in particular by a refocusing of her attention away from applying rules (e.g., use
T with friends) and toward the meanings instantiated through the use of T or V as they relate to textbook-style rules of
thumb.

4.3. Posttutorial LAI and AJQs

Following the verbalized reflection stage, the tutor reentered the room to discuss with Jane what she had understood
about T/V use and to complete two final AJQs collaboratively. Jane summarized her new understanding of T/V use as shown
in Excerpt 19, focusing specifically on speaker intentions and the concept of social distance.

Excerpt 19.
Jane: so yeah. + so THAT was interesting. [. . .] it was cool because they were giving you little tools like + you know +
you also have to consider like what kind of social distance do you want to create and maintain. [. . .] so even
though it’s somebody who + is the same age as you and you oh um but you really + want to keep that social
distance? then you can use the vous and they’ll probably get the message.

As already shown in the analysis of Jane’s verbalized reflections, her conceptualization of T/V has developed into an
understanding that pronoun choice is a meaning-based practice, as opposed to a list of rules regarding whom to call T and
whom to call V. This is particularly evident in her explanation that V can be used to create social distance even with a person
of the same age. Jane’s more complete, conceptual orientation to choosing T or V was also evident in her responses to the two
posttutorial AJQs. Although Jane provided explanations for her choices for all items, only those items that introduced some
degree of ambiguity will be focused on in the following paragraphs.
While Jane’s responses to AJQ2 (Fig. 2) and AJQ3 (Fig. 3) do not indicate any significant change in her performance in
comparison to the pretutorial AJQ (Fig. 1), her explanations suggest that her performance has come to be informed by a
conceptual/meaning-based framework rather than a rule-of-thumb-based framework. This is evident in her explanation of
her choice of T in the first situation in AJQ2 (Excerpt 20).

Excerpt 20.
Jane: ((reads situation aloud)) well I guess it would depend on my intent. like if I wanted to get to know him. I would
use tu for sure.
Tutor: okay. and why.
Jane: because I + first of all we’re like on the same plane. you know. classmates. but also I want to minimize social
distance. so I could do that by using the tu form.

Here, Jane orients to the choice between T and V as an intentional act to be informed by her intentions for creating a social
relationship with Christophe. She also points to the fact that she and Christophe are of equal social status (i.e., classmates/
students), but instead of using this as the sole reason for choosing T, she expresses her desire to ‘‘minimize social distance’’ by
using T. As such, while there is a clear relationship between student status and T use, Jane’s decision here is informed
principally by her understanding of the concept of social distance.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
3278 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

[(Fig._3)TD$IG] Fig. 2. Jane’s responses to AJQ2.

Fig. 3. Jane’s responses to AJQ3.

Similarly, Jane’s response to the third situation of AJQ3 points to her understanding of the role T and V plays in creating
social distance.
Excerpt 21.
Jane: ((reads situation aloud)) um + if I wanted to meet Paul? and liked the look of Paul? and wasn’t trying to socially
+ isolate myself from Paul? I would use tu ((writes ‘tu’))
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3279

Although there is some ambiguity present in this situation (i.e., Paul is a stranger), Jane opts for T on the condition that she
wanted to meet him. This is another clear indication that Jane’s understanding of the T of solidarity in terms of the concept of
social distance rather than a rule based on social status similarity (i.e., same age, friend of a friend). In short, she recognizes
that T/V choice is not determined by the application of a rule but by her intention to minimize social distance and to position
herself as a potential friend.
Two situations (one each in AJQ2 and AJQ3)—both service encounters—presented Jane with some difficulty. In the fourth
situation of AJQ2, Jane had to confront the ambiguity inherent in addressing a store clerk who is a near-peer. Excerpt 21
displays Jane’s explanation of her choice to use V in response to AJQ2, situation 4.

Excerpt 22.
Jane: okay. the next scenario ((reads situation aloud)) um + ooo. ++ this is a tricky one. cause like while I wouldn’t
want to create a social distance? I don’t know her + and she’s my + age. and so vous seems- and also I don’t want
her to think I’m offending her. by talking down to her.
Tutor: okay.
Jane: just because I’m the patron and she’s the clerk. + I think I would use vous. for sure. because I just think it’s
respectful. and she shouldn’t interpret it in a bad way.
Tutor: okay.

Here, Jane recognizes the possible ambiguity in address form use. Although she would not want to create social distance
intentionally with a near-peer through the use of V, neither would she want to risk offending the clerk by using T, which
could be interpreted as an extension of constructs of power (i.e., customer-clerk interactions). Thus, she settles on V as a
means of expressing respect in this service encounter. Here again, Jane’s conceptual orientation to social distance and power
hierarchies, which has become integrated into and transformed by her understanding of the so-called rules of T/V use, forms
the basis for her choice of V.
Jane provided a similar explanation for her choice to use V in situation 5 of AJQ3, as illustrated in Excerpt 23.

Excerpt 23.
Jane: ((reads situation aloud)) I think again I would use the vous form? ((writes ‘vous’)) just because I- it could be
perceived that I’m in a position of power? if I used tu? + and I don’t want to create that?

Jane recognizes that her status as customer could be perceived as a position of relative power over the shoe store clerk. So,
although she might otherwise have used T with the same type of person in a different context, Jane opts for V in order to
avoid creating a marked power hierarchy in this service encounter.
Overall, the findings of the posttutorial LAI and AJQs indicate, in concert with those of the verbalized reflection data, that
Jane developed a better understanding of the double indexicality of the French T/V system in comparison to her previous
rule-of-thumb-bound knowledge. The CBI tutorial appears to have helped her disambiguate some of the indexical meanings
of address form use, and to have enabled her to think in terms of meanings (e.g., creating particular types of social
relationships) from the point of view of both speaker intention and interlocutor interpretation as they relate not only to social
categories (e.g., age, friend/stranger, employee/employer) but also to the sociocultural context (e.g., informal social
meetings, service encounters, the workplace). Although she still applied her rules of thumb based on age and relative
interlocutor status, these rules were transformed by the meanings (i.e., concepts) that underlie these sociopragmatic
conventions. In addition, Jane was able not only to recognize but to navigate successfully the potential conflict inherent in
situations such as near-peer service encounters and first meetings. In short, instead of relying on an informed guess based on
lists or categories, she was able to make meaningful choices about the types of relationships, social distance, and power
hierarchies she wanted to create.

5. Conclusion

The case study presented above has shown how a concept-based approach to teaching L2 French sociopragmatics has the
potential to reshape a learner’s knowledge about and orientations to the use of sociopragmatic variants. By focusing on holistic
concepts such as orders of indexicality, self-presentation, social distance, and power hierarchies, CBI can provide learners
with a broad and coherent orienting basis for the use of language and may avoid many of the limitations of more traditional
rule-of-thumb approaches to pragmatic instruction. Most notably, in Jane’s case, the rules of thumb for French T/V use were
transformed in relationship to the concepts she was integrating into her cognitive system. By the end of her tutorial, the
concepts had come to inform her choices on the posttutorial AJQs and there was evidence that she had reinterpreted
the previous rules of thumb in terms of self-presentation, social distance, and power. Importantly, Jane’s development was not
simply a matter of passively learning or memorizing the concept explanations but a case of active reception (Lantolf, 2007,
2011) in that she actively integrated this new knowledge into her cognitive system largely through verbalized reflection.
This research represents an initial step toward extending Vygotskian developmental education to the domain of L2
sociopragmatics. In line with Kasper and Roever (2005), it is clear that pragmatic features of language are indeed amenable to
3280 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

instruction. However, the quality of instruction will undoubtedly determine the quality of achievement. As argued above,
pedagogies that focus on rather prescriptivist or rule-(of-thumb)-bound presentations of what constitutes proper social
behavior risk inculcating learners with a narrow view of sociopragmatic variation and its meaning in context in terms of
‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong’’. A concept-based approach has the advantage of presenting meanings (concepts) first, and then linking
those meanings to the various instantiations of language that produce, reproduce, and transform them. Such an approach
attempts to avoid prescriptivist representations of form-meaning relationships and to promote learners’ agentive use of and
conscious control over the language they are learning.
To be sure, the research presented above is not without limitations. This study has documented in great detail one
learner’s development over a 1-hour-18-minute CBI tutorial. However, more research is needed in order to determine how
effective this approach to pedagogy is for a wider range of learners. In addition, it will be necessary to expand the timeframe
for observing longitudinal development by following learners across multiple tutorials and/or other types of tasks. Such
research may also explore ways in which CBI may be scaled up for use in regular classrooms. For instance, in his study of a
concept-based approach to teaching tense, aspect, and mood in L2 Spanish, Negueruela (2003) gave verbalization tasks as
homework whereas other tasks were completed in class. Computer-based tasks may also be appropriate for use in
classrooms (van Compernolle, in preparation). Finally, this research has so far focused primarily on metapragmatic
knowledge and how this informs choices between T and V on AJQs. In the future, research that explores the relationship
between the development of metapragmatic knowledge and the development of more spontaneous language production has
the potential to inform both Vygotskian and other pragmatically oriented pedagogies.

Transcription conventions

+ short pause
++ long pause
+++ very long pause
. full stop marks falling intonation
? raised intonation
(word) single parentheses indicate uncertain hearing
(xxx) unable to transcribe
((comment)) double parentheses contain transcriber’s comments or descriptions
- abrupt cutoff with level pitch
underline underlining indicates stress through pitch or amplitude
= latched utterances
[. . .] indicates that a section of the transcript has been omitted

Appendix. Sample concept explanation cards and pedagogical diagrams

(1) Tu and vous: Both tu and vous (and related forms, e.g., toi, ton, ta, tes, votre, vos, and imperatives) refer to a second
person or persons (i.e., ‘you’). tu is always singular (it refers to one person), but vous can be either singular or plural
(it refers to two or more people). tu is usually described as informal (or familiar) while vous-singular is described as
formal (or polite). Many students have trouble deciding whether to use tu or vous-singular, especially if their first
language doesn’t make this distinction, like English.

What can you infer from this explanation?

When might you use tu? Vous?

(2) The first step in choosing to use either tu or vous-singular is to decide how you want to present yourself, keeping in
mind the conventional uses of these forms. Tu, on, negation without ne are all conventionally informal ways of
using French. They are associated with informal speech, laidback/cool attitudes, friendliness, youthfulness, and
liberalism in everyday contexts. By contrast, vous, nous, and negation with ne are all conventionally more formal
ways of using French. They are associated with formal contexts, academic speech, upper class speech,
conservatism, and formal writing. Remember that you can use these conventions to create the meanings you want
to create. A helpful way of thinking about how to create meaning is to ask yourself: Am I tee-shirt and jeans (tu, on,
negation w/o ne) or am I suit-and-tie (vous, nous, negation w/ne) right now? Then think about the consequences of
presenting yourself as tee-shirt and jeans or suit-and-tie in different contexts.
What can you infer from this explanation?
When might you want to present yourself as tee-shirt-and-jeans? Suit-and-tie?
Can you think of any situations in which the choice might be difficult, or where you might ‘mix’ the tee-shirt-and-
jeans and suit-and-tie ways of speaking? Why?
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3281

(3) Now take a minute to look at the diagram below. How does this relate to what you understand so far about tu and
vous in French? How does this fit in with your understanding of stylistic variation in general (e.g., conventions,
stereotypes, tee-shirt-and-jeans, suit-and-tie)?

[TD$INLE]

(4) Marking closeness or distance can be achieved, in part, through your choice between tu and vous. You can point to
closeness by using tu and distance by using vous. Your choice of pronoun, therefore, has real consequences for your
relationships.

What can you infer from this explanation?

Can you think of some examples when you would want or need to use tu to mark closeness? vous to mark distance?
Can you think of any examples where the choice between tu and vous would be difficult? Why?

(5) Now take a minute to look at the diagram below. How does this relate to what you understand so far about tu and
vous in French? How does this fit in with your understanding of stylistic variation in general (e.g., conventions,
stereotypes, tee-shirt-and-jeans, suit-and-tie)?

[TD$INLE]

(6) Marking relative status can be achieved, in part, by your choice of tu or vous, as well as the symmetry of tu/vous
use—that is, both people using tu or vous versus one using tu and the other using vous. Symmetry (tu-tu or vous-
vous) can point to solidarity or even equality by downplaying any power hierarchy that might exist. Asymmetry
(one person using tu and the other vous) can emphasize or draw attention to a very visible hierarchy in the
relationship—the person called vous is being put in a position of power while the person called tu is being put in
position of lower or no power. For clarification, there is a very strong preference nowadays for symmetrical
relationships (tu-tu or vous-vous). Asymmetrical relationships can be seen as rude or impolite, because of the
history related to social class hierarchies a long time ago (for example, nobles called servants tu, while servants had
to call nobles vous).

What can you infer from this explanation?

3282 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283

Can you think of examples where symmetrical tu relationships are appropriate? Symmetrical vous relationships?
Can you think of examples where one person might call another tu but expect to be called vous in return (an
asymmetrical relationship)? What meaning would this have for the relationship?

(7) Now take a minute to look at the diagram below. How does this relate to what you understand so far about tu and
vous in French? How does this fit in with your understanding of stylistic variation in general (e.g., conventions,
stereotypes, tee-shirt-and-jeans, suit-and-tie)?

[TD$INLE]

References

Belz, Julie, Kinginger, Celeste, 2002. The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: two case studies. Canadian
Modern Language Review 59, 189–214.
Cazden, Courtney B., 1997. Performance before competence: assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. In: Cole, M., Engeström,
Y., Vasquez, O. (Eds.), Mind, Culture, and Activity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 303–310.
Davydov, Vasily V., 2004. Problems of Developmental Instruction: A Theoretical and Experimental Psychological Study. Akademyia Press, Moscow (Trans. P.
Moxay).
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, 2004. Vous or tu: native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics
42, 383–402.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Planchenault, Gaëlle, 2006. ‘‘Dites-moi tu?!’’ La perception de la difficulté du système des pronoms d’adresse en français (‘‘Say tu to
me?!’’ Perceptions of difficulty in the French system of address pronouns). In: Faraco, M. (Ed.), La classe de langue: Théories, méthodes, pratiques (The
Language Classroom: Theories, Methods, Practice). Publications de l’Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 153–171.
Ferreira, Marilia M., 2005. A concept-based approach to writing instruction: from the abstract concept to the concrete performance. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Galperin, Piotr I., 1989. Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology 27 (3).
Galperin, Piotr I., 1992. Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30 (4) July/
August.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope, 2007. T/V choices: an act of identity? In: Ayres-Bennett, W., Jones, M.C. (Eds.), The French Language and Questions of Identity.
Legend, Oxford, pp. 106–115.
Heilenman, L. Kathy, Kaplan, Isabelle, Tournier, Claude T., 2006. Voilà! An Introduction to French 5th ed. Heinle/Cengage, Boston.
Ishihara, Noriko, 2010. Instructional pragmatics: bridging teaching, research, and teacher education. Language and Linguistics Compass 4, 938–953.
Karpov, Yuriy V., 2003. Vygotsky’s doctrine of scientific concepts: its role for contemporary education. In: Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V.S., Miller, S.
(Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 39–64.
Kasper, Gabriele, Roever, Carsten, 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 317–334.
Kasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth R., 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. In: Rose, K.R., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge
University Press, New York, pp. 1–9.
Kinginger, Celeste, 2000. Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign language classroom. In: Verplaetse, L.S., Hall, J.K. (Eds.), Second and
Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 23–45.
Kinginger, Celeste, 2008. Language learning in study abroad: case histories of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92 (s1). Blackwell, Oxford.
Knouzi, Ibtissem, Swain, Merrill, Lapkin, Sharon, Brooks, Lindsay, 2010. Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low
performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20, 23–49.
Kozulin, Alex, 1995. The learning process: Vygotsky’s theory in the mirror of its interpretations. School Psychology International 16, 117–129.
Labov, William, 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Lantolf, James P., 2007. Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning. In: Fotos, S., Nassaji, H. (Eds.), Form-focused Instruction and
Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp. 35–54.
Lantolf, James P., 2008. Praxis and classroom L2 development. Estudios de lingüı́stica inglesia aplicada 8, 13–44.
Lantolf, James P., 2011. Integrating sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics in the second language classroom. In: Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of
Research into Second Language Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed. Routledge, London, pp. 303–318.
Lantolf, James P., Thorne, Steven L., 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Liddicoat, Anthony, 2006. Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: students’ understandings of personal address forms in French. Intercultural
Pragmatics 3, 55–80.
 R.A. van Compernolle / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 3267–3283 3283

Lyster, Roy, 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15,
263–287.
Martı́nez-Flor, Alicia, Usó-Juan, Esther, 2010. The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In: Trosborg, A. (Ed.),
Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 423–442.
Morford, Janet, 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7, 3–37.
Mühlhäusler, Peter, Harré, Rom, 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Negueruela, Eduardo, 2003. A sociocultural approach to teaching and researching second language: systemic-theoretical instruction and second language
development. PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Rose, Kenneth, 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33, 385–399.
Serrano-López, Maria, Poehner, Matthew E., 2008. Materializing linguistic concepts through 3-D clay modeling: a tool-and-result approach to mediating L2
Spanish development. In: Lantolf, J.P., Poehner, M.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. Equinox, London, pp. 321–346.
Silverstein, Michael, 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23, 193–229.
Swain, Merrill, 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In: Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The
Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. Continuum, London, pp. 95–108.
Swain, Merrill, Lapkin, Sharon, Knouzi, Ibtissem, Suzuki, Wataru, Brooks, Lindsay, 2009. Languaging: university students learn the grammatical concept of
voice in French. Modern Language Journal 93, 5–29.
Takahashi, Satomi, 2010. The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In: Martı́nez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E. (Eds.), Speech act performance:
Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 127–142.
van Compernolle, Rémi A., 2010. Towards a sociolinguistically responsive pedagogy: teaching second-person address forms in French. Canadian Modern
Language Review 66, 445–463.
van Compernolle, Rémi A., in preparation. Developing second language sociopragmatic capacity through concept-based instruction. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Vygotsky, Lev S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vygotsky, Lev S., 1997. Educational Psychology. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Wertsch, James, 1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Yáñez-Prieto, Maria del Carmen, 2008. On literature and the secret art of (im)possible worlds: teaching literature-through-language. PhD Dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Rémi A. van Compernolle is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at the Pennsylvania State University where he also works for the Center for Language
Acquisition. His research centers on extending Vygotskian sociocultural theory to second language acquisition, pedagogy, and assessment. Thematically, his work
focuses on pragmatics and sociolinguistics, classroom discourse and interaction, and computer-mediated communication.