2018 L2 Spanish Pragmatics

L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS
L2 Spanish Pragmatics is a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of current

research into pragmatics and Spanish language teaching.
It presents the research on the teaching of pragmatics and Spanish language
as a multifaceted discipline. Written by an international cohort of scholars,
the breadth of topics includes innovative topics in the teaching of Spanish,
such as genre analysis, discourse markers, politeness and impoliteness, nonverbal
communication, irony, and humor, as well as web-based pragmatics resources.
Key features:
• An overview of new trends in Spanish pragmatics research and the growing

need for instruction in intercultural communication;
• Insights derived from important theoretical and empirical works that may
contribute towards integrating pragmatics in the teaching of the language;
• Explanations with great clarity, plenty of examples and references, as well as
connections to language teaching and learning;
• Tasks and activities that can help teachers move from a traditional curricular
approach to a more innovative and engaging one;
• Descriptions of numerous activities or guidelines for the classroom,
supplemented with additional materials;
• A bilingual glossary of terms in pragmatics that will help teachers in their
implementation of activities to teach L2 Spanish pragmatics.
L2 Spanish Pragmatics constitutes a reference book on current research on

learning and teaching Spanish pragmatics. It will be of interest to university
lecturers, researchers, and graduate students. It will also be an excellent resource
for language educators and K–16 teachers willing to expand their knowledge and
apply the teaching of pragmatics as an integral component in the teaching of the
Spanish language.
Domnita Dumitrescu is Professor Emerita of Spanish at California State

University, Los Angeles, and a full member of the North American Academy of the
Spanish Language (ANLE), USA.
Patricia Lorena Andueza is Associate Professor of Spanish at the University of

Evansville, Indiana, USA.
PRAISE FOR THIS EDITION
This pioneering volume does a superb job of bringing together a set of research and
practical works on different areas of pragmatics and on how to apply the research to
the L2 Spanish classroom. The studies give an up-to-date view of a variety of topics,
including non-verbal communication, conversational implicatures, discourse management,
sociolinguistic aspects of language use, interethnic communication, humor, and politeness.
There are highly useful chapters on the writing of curricula for the teaching of pragmatics,
and specific guidelines on how to promote the development of pragmatic competence.
The wide range of issues discussed by experienced scholars points to the vibrancy and
innovative potential of the field of L2 Spanish pragmatics, properly underscored in this
excellent anthology. It is a significant contribution to the teaching and assessing of L2
Spanish pragmatics, an essential book for every L2 Spanish teacher, important to professors
of linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA), pragmatics, and applied linguistics.
Professor Carmen Silva-Corvalán, University of Southern California
L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Practice, superbly edited by Professors Domnita

Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza, contains twelve groundbreaking studies on the
application of pragmatic theory to the teaching of Spanish and its implementation in the
Spanish curriculum. All of the authors enjoy well-deserved international reputations in
research on pragmatics. This revolutionary volume will have a profound impact on the
teaching of Spanish by showing how to incorporate and embed pragmatics into L2 textbooks
and class activities in a systematic and meaningful fashion. Moreover, it will provide students
with the tools to employ the language in appropriate situational interactions with native
speakers of Spanish and to avoid the common language blunders. It is now time to move
to the next level of linguistic proficiency through the inclusion of pragmatics in the core
curriculum. This volume provides a much-needed roadmap on how to introduce pragmatic
competence into syllabus.
Professor Frank Nuessel, University of Louisville
This splendid collection of studies is an immensely valuable contribution to applied

pragmatics, specifically to second and foreign language pragmatics. The volume edited by
Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza fills the gap between theoretical and
applied pragmatics, a gap that has been too large for too long in specialized literature. It is
true that no one can be a specialist in the whole of pragmatics, but it is equally true that it is
not possible to apply pragmatics without knowing its fundamentals. Teachers of second and
foreign languages will enjoy the benefits of these inspiring and illuminating pages.
Professor Francisco Moreno-Fernández,
Universidad de Alcalá and Instituto Cervantes at Harvard University
Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching
The Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching series provides a showcase for
the latest research on the teaching and learning of Spanish. It publishes high-quality
authored books, research monographs and edited volumes on innovative methods
and theories.
The series takes a multiple-perspective approach, with titles focusing on core
topics in the areas of applied linguistics, Spanish language and grammar, second lan-
guage skills, sociolinguistic and cultural aspects of language acquisition and Spanish
for academic purposes. Through a discussion of problems, issues and possible solu-
tions, books in the series combine theoretical and practical aspects, which readers
can apply in the teaching of the language.
Series editor: Javier Muñoz-Basols, University of Oxford.
L2 Spanish Pragmatics
From Research to Practice
Edited by Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza
Aprender a aprender en la era digital
Tecnopedagogía crítica para la enseñanza del español LE/L2
Esperanza Román-Mendoza
La formación de palabras y enseñanza del español como LE/L2
David Serrano-Dolader
For more information about this series please visit: https://www.routledge.com/

languages/series/RASLT
L2 SPANISH
PRAGMATICS
From Research to Teaching
Edited by
Domnita Dumitrescu and
Patricia Lorena Andueza
First published 2018
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 selection and editorial matter, Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia
Lorena Andueza; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza to be
identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for
their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77
and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Dumitrescu, Domnita, editor. | Andueza, Patricia Lorena.
Title: L2 Spanish pragmatics : from research to teaching / edited by
Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza.
Description: First edition. | New York : Routledge, 2018. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017045949 | ISBN 9781138279933 (hardcover :
alk. paper) | ISBN 9781138279940 (softcover : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781315276182 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Spanish language—Discourse analysis. | Spanish
language—Spoken Spanish. | Second language acquisition—
Research | Pragmatics—Research.
Classification: LCC PC4434 .L18 2018 | DDC 460.1/41—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045949
ISBN: 978-1-138-27993-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-27994-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-27618-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
To the memory of Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ohio State
University, USA), whose groundbreaking work as a linguist,
and endless generosity as a friend and as an advisor, will
always be remembered.
CONTENTS
List of Contributors xi
Acknowledgments xiv
Introduction: Taking pragmatics to the L2 Spanish classroom 1

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza
PART I
L2 Spanish pragmatics research 13
1 The pragmatics toolbox 15

Victoria Escandell-Vidal
2 Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics: What research says,

what textbooks offer, what teachers must do 33
Montserrat Mir
3 Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks: Perspectives from Spain 53

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega
4 When to speak Spanish and when not to: Interethnic

communication and US students of L2 Spanish 74
Laura Callahan
5 Nonverbal communication in L2 Spanish teaching 90

Ana M. Cestero Mancera
x Contents
6 Teaching L2 Spanish discourse markers and pragmatic markers 108

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez
PART II
L2 Spanish pragmatics instruction 129
7 Teaching sociopragmatics: Face-work, politeness and

impoliteness in L2 Spanish colloquial conversations 131
María Bernal
8 Developing L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability in

a persuasive genre at an intermediate level 151
Cecilia Sessarego
9 The pragmatics of irony in the L2 Spanish classroom 169

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega
10 Teaching with and about humor in the L2 Spanish classroom 191

Susana de los Heros
11 L2 Spanish pragmatics instruction at the novice level:

Creating meaningful contexts for the acquisition of
grammatical forms 214
Lynn Pearson
12 Web-based pragmatics resources: Techniques and strategies

for teaching L2 Spanish pragmatics to English speakers 232
Victoria Russell
Glossary 253
Index 272
CONTRIBUTORS
M. Belén Alvarado Ortega is Professor of Spanish at the University of Alicante

(Spain). She was a Visiting Professor at Rutgers University (USA) and at other insti-
tutions. She is a member of the research group GRIALE (Grupo de Investigación
para la Pragmática y la Ironía en Español). Her current research focuses on the
pragmatics of irony. She is the co-editor (with Leonor Ruiz Gurillo) of Irony and
Humor: From Pragmatics to Discourse.
Patricia Lorena Andueza is Associate Professor at the University of Evansville

(USA). She teaches Spanish and Hispanic Linguistics courses in the Department
of Foreign Languages and Cultures, as well courses in language acquisition and
methodology in the Department of Education. She has a PhD in Hispanic Linguis-
tics from The Ohio State University. Her research centers on Hispanic pragmatics,
semantics, and syntax.
María Bernal is Associate Professor and Lecturer of Spanish Linguistics at Stock-

holm University (Sweden), and a member of the EDICE Program, which focuses
on the study of linguistic (im)politeness. Her research interests are interactional
pragmatics, conversation, and discourse analysis, mainly from a sociopragmatic per-
spective and through oral corpora (Spanish colloquial conversations, courtroom
interactions, political discourse, etc.).
Laura Callahan, formerly Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at The City Col-

lege and Graduate Center-CUNY, is currently Visiting Professor of Spanish in the
Department of Modern Languages and Literatures at Santa Clara University (USA).
Her areas of interest are: code switching; language, race, and identity; intercultural
xii Contributors
communication; heritage language maintenance; and linguistic landscapes. Her cur-

rent research centers on language maintenance and linguistic landscapes.
Ana M. Cestero Mancera is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Alcalá

(Spain). Her main areas of research are nonverbal communication, conversation
analysis, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. She is currently technical coordinator of
the “Project for the Sociolinguistic Study of Spanish in Spain and America” (PRE-
SEEA) and co-director of the team of the University of Alcalá, which collaborates
in the creation of the “Spanish Corpus of the 21st Century” of the Royal Spanish
Academy (RAE).
Domnita Dumitrescu is Professor of Spanish Linguistics (Emerita) at California

State University, Los Angeles (USA). She has published extensively on the pragmat-
ics of Spanish, Spanish in the United States, and comparative topics in Spanish and
Romanian linguistics. As a member of the North American Academy of the Span-
ish Language, she is currently involved in several inter-academic projects related to
the elaboration of the 24th edition of the Diccionario de la lengua española (DLE) and
the Glosario de términos gramaticales.
Victoria Escandell-Vidal is Professor of Linguistics at the Universidad Nacio-

nal de Educación a Distancia (UNED) (Spain). She has worked on the interfaces
between grammar, semantics, and pragmatics from a cognitive perspective, and also
on pragmatics in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). She is currently engaged in
a project investigating how feature mismatches are resolved during the course of
utterance interpretation.
Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez is Professor of Spanish Language at the University

of Sevilla (Spain), specializing in discourse syntax and pragmatics. She is the author
of several research projects including the study of discourse markers, modality, meta-
discourse, (im)politeness, media discourse, and political discourse. She is currently
engaged in a research venture entitled “Macrosyntax of Current Syntax: Sentence
Structure and Sentence Combining.”
Susana de los Heros is Professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Rhode

Island (USA). Her main areas of interest are Spanish sociolinguistics and pragmatics.
Her publications include Lengua y género en el castellano peruano, Utopía y realidad, and
Fundamentos y modelos del estudio pragmático y sociopragmático del español (co-edited
with Mercedes Niño-Murcia). She is currently working on the social and gender
co-construction of identity.
Montserrat Mir is Associate Professor of Spanish and Applied Linguistics, and

the Language Coordinator at Illinois State University (USA). Her area of research
and publication includes Spanish L1/L2 Pragmatics and Language Teaching and
Contributors xiii
Learning. She is the author of Qué me dices: A Task-Based Approach to Spanish

Conversation.
Carlos De Pablos-Ortega is Associate Professor in Spanish, Linguistics and Audio-

visual Translation at the University of East Anglia (United Kingdom). His areas of
interest include contrastive pragmatics, language attitudes and perceptions, cultural
representations, and audience reception in subtitling. He is currently engaged in a
project in which undergraduate students provide subtitles for audiovisual materials
to charitable and non-profit organizations.
Lynn Pearson is Associate Professor of Spanish at Bowling Green State University

(USA). She has authored work in interlanguage pragmatics, discourse analysis, and
world language teacher education. Her current projects include developing materi-
als to teach pragmatics and studying discourse by Spanish L2 learners who reside in
a university dormitory designed for Spanish immersion.
Victoria Russell is Associate Professor of Spanish and Foreign Language Educa-

tion at Valdosta State University (USA). She earned a PhD in Second Language
Acquisition and Instructional Technology (University of South Florida), and her
research interests include online language pedagogy, pragmatics, and foreign lan-
guage teacher preparation. Her work has appeared in journals such as Foreign
Language Annals, The Internet and Higher Education, and Dimension.
Cecilia Sessarego is Associate Professor of Spanish at Mount Royal University

(Calgary, Canada). She is the author of studies in applied linguistics, including
pragmatic language learning, discourse-pragmatics, and genre analysis; as well as
undergraduate program design, second language teaching methodology, and pro-
fessional translation. She is currently working on discourse pragmatic contrasts
between English and Spanish and their impact on the instruction of translation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book could not have been published without the help of many people, to
whom we are deeply indebted. The words that follow are intended to show our
warm appreciation to those who assisted and supported us during the editorial pro-
cess, and who made this book better.
In the first place, we would like to thank the contributors to this volume, for
their expertise, their hard work, and their infinite patience in preparing their chap-
ters according to two successive sets of guidelines—as the manuscript of this book,
due to unforeseen circumstances, migrated from a former publisher to the current
one, and transformed itself into what the readers have before them today.
Secondly, we are eternally grateful for the encouragement, support, and wise
guidance we constantly received from Javier Muñoz-Basols (University of Oxford,
UK), the series editor of Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching, without
whom nothing of what we achieved here would have been possible. And, of course,
we are also very grateful for the valuable suggestions made by the anonymous read-
ers of the publishing house before the proposal was approved and during the final
evaluation of the manuscript.
We also want to express our deepest gratitude to the fellow linguists who so
selflessly took time from their busy academic schedules to read various chapters
of this book and provide helpful suggestions for improvement. They are, in alpha-
betical order, the following: Aoife Ahern (Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Spain); Diana Bravo (University of Stockholm, Sweden); Carmen Curcó (Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico); Carmen García (Arizona State
University, USA); Paula Garrett-Rucks (Georgia State University, USA); Nieves
Hernández-Flores (University of Copenhagen, Denmark); Derrin Pinto (Univer-
sity of Saint Thomas, USA); and Lidia Rodríguez-Alfano (Universidad Autónoma
de Nuevo León, Mexico).
Acknowledgments xv
In addition, we want to express our greatest appreciation to Frank Nuessel (Uni-

versity of Louisville, USA), who not only carefully read the final manuscript and
wrote an insightful and detailed report for Routledge, but also made very valuable
suggestions regarding the style and the content of each chapter, all with the gracious
and unassuming demeanor that is typical of truly great scholars like him.
Last but not least, we deeply appreciate the continuous support we received from
the Routledge staff, in particular from Samantha Vale Noya, Camille Burns, Louise
Peterken, and Laura Sandford, who guided us with a steady hand through the maze
of the publishing process itself.
To all of them, our most sincere thanks. We hope not to have disappointed you,
or our readers, in the end.
Domnita Dumitrescu, Los Angeles, CA,
and Patricia Lorena Andueza, Evansville, IN
INTRODUCTION
Taking pragmatics to the L2 Spanish classroom
Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza
Pragmatics is the study of the conditions of human language uses as these are deter-
mined by the context of society.
(Iacob Mey 1993, p. 42)
1. Rationale for this book

We are pleased to present this new volume on L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research
to Practice in the series Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching, the writing
of which was prompted by the mismatch that we perceived between what research
in Spanish pragmatics has found and how L21 Spanish is taught today. In our view,
L2 language teachers need to have specific guidance in how to teach and assess
pragmatics in order to know how to incorporate it into their classrooms. Not only
do many available textbooks lack examples of activities to teach or assess pragmatic
skills, but also guidelines on how to promote the development of pragmatic com-
petence are practically non-existent.2 In addition to this, as Gironzetti and Koike
(2016) point out, with the exception of few contributions,3 the vast majority of
Spanish pragmatic research has adopted a theoretical approach. Therefore, the lack
of pedagogical guidelines for teachers to integrate pragmatics in the Spanish lan-
guage classroom is evident and noteworthy. As De Pablos-Ortega (2016) writes,
“[q]ue la pragmática se convierta en un componente esencial dentro de los programas
de formación del profesorado es todavía una asignatura pendiente” (p. 184). We
believe that presenting empirically validated studies on pragmatics in L2 Spanish can
be useful for teaching this important component of speakers’ linguistic competence.
This book is primarily focused on teaching practices with special attention to
instructional approaches and classroom methods. Our goal is to identify the issues
that need to be explored and analyzed by researchers, and to point out the important
resources that teachers need for them to be successful in their practice.
2 Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza
In this volume, we address different areas of pragmatics, such as nonverbal

communication, conversational implicatures, conversational structure, discourse
organization, discourse management, and sociolinguistic aspects of language use.
We are also concerned with curriculum writing and the incorporation of online
pragmatics material. To this aim, we provide specific proposals that can help to
move from a traditional curriculum to a more innovative one.
2. Language and culture intertwine

Different words signal a different mentality—a different way of looking at things,
which explains why there are differences in how meaning is conveyed in different
languages, and how underlying cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions influence
native speakers’ behavior. In other words, when we learn a language, we learn not
only the ability to produce and understand grammatical sentences in that target
language, but also how to use our linguistic knowledge when communicating with
other people, in other places, with different purposes, and using other modes of
communication.
Hymes (1996) emphasizes that learning culture should be an integral part of
language learning and education, because culture refers to socio-cultural norms,
worldviews, beliefs, assumptions, and value systems that find their way into prac-
tically all facets of language use. As Byram and Morgan (1994, p. 43) point out,
“[l]earners cannot simply shake off their own culture and step into another, their
culture is a part of themselves and created them as social beings.” Learners’ aware-
ness of socio-cultural frameworks and the concepts they acquire as part of their
socialization into beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors remain predominantly first-
culture bound even for advanced and proficient learners (Hinkel 1999). If no
formal pragmatics instruction is provided, Ishihara and Cohen (2010) claim that
it would take at least ten years in a second language context to be able to use the
language in a pragmatically native-like manner. The majority of learners apparently
do not acquire the pragmatics of the target language on their own, even if they are
immersed in the L2 environment (Bouton 1988, 1990, 1992), because they may still
not have enough language exposure. Therefore, language instruction must integrate
cultural and cross-cultural instruction. Research has extensively demonstrated that
learners appreciate the pragmatic behavior of native speakers to a greater degree
once they are aware of their system of cultural beliefs, values, and norms. Students
need to be trained to reflect on the world and on themselves through the lens
of another language and culture, comprehend speakers of the target language as
members of foreign societies, and understand that they can also be perceived as
members of a society that is foreign to others.
Learning pragmatics also requires L2 learners to construct and negotiate their
identities as members of a community where they have to interact with native speak-
ers. However, learners decide whether they want to be pragmatically appropriate or
simply learn to accommodate to L2 norms. If they choose to avoid cross-cultural
misunderstanding, they need to understand the social factors in the target language
Introduction 3
and the cultural reasoning. For instance, if it is appropriate to express a compliment to

a complete stranger or if it is appropriate to accept an invitation immediately. In other
words, the acquisition of communicative competence involves the ability to manage
a complex system that is comprised of language, language users, and the context of
interaction. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate
strategies to implement them according to the contextual features of the situation.
In sum, using the language appropriately involves taking into account the
norms of behavior relevant to the given situation in a given speech community.
For that reason, we intend to highlight, in each chapter, the social and cultural
aspects in the learning of Spanish L2 pragmatics and invite teachers and readers
to consider why learners need to be aware of these aspects regardless of their level
of proficiency.
3. Pragmatics is teachable
The main focus of instruction in the vast majority of L2 programs both in Europe
and the Americas is still on the development of grammatical competence, or, at best,
the development of grammar and vocabulary. However, grammatical (or lexical)
errors are easily identified and “forgiven” by native speakers while pragmatic ones
are interpreted on a social and personal level, and may result in misunderstandings
and communication breakdowns. Indeed, the field of pragmatics has grown expo-
nentially in the last few decades, and has branched out in a series of subfields. As
Márquez-Reiter and Placencia (2005, p. 2) observed:
Present-day pragmatics is an interdisciplinary endeavor, at the intersection

of different fields, including, among others, linguistics, discourse analysis,
philosophy, sociology, cultural/linguistic anthropology, and cognitive and
cross-cultural psychology. As such, there cannot be one all-embracing prag-
matics theory with a unified methodology, since a number of diverse theories
have developed out of different research interests and programs.
According to several studies (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1996; Bardovi-Harlig

1999; Kasper and Schmidt 1996; Kasper and Rose 1999; Bardovi-Harlig and
Mahan-Taylor 2003), L2 learners show significant differences from native speakers
in the area of language use, in the execution and comprehension of certain speech
acts, in conversation functions, and in conversational management such as back
channeling and short responses. Even learners at the higher levels of grammatical
proficiency will not necessarily show equivalent pragmatic competence, and the
classroom can be considered a safe space where the students can use the language
and experiment with new forms and patterns of communication by participating
in conversations and engaging in different types of discourse (for discussion, see
Chapters 8 and 11).
Research into the pragmatic competence of L2 learners has convincingly dem-
onstrated that most aspects of L2 pragmatics are teachable, and that the teaching
of pragmatics could be beneficial to the process of learning a second language.

Several researchers (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Betancourt Romero 2012; Bouton
1994; House 1996; Kasper and Rose 2002; LoCastro 1997; Schmidt 1993) have
shown not only that the teaching of pragmatics could be beneficial to the process
of learning a second language, but also that instruction is more beneficial than
simple exposure (Billmyer 1990; Bouton 1994; Lyster 1994; Wishnoff 2000;
Yoshimi 2001). As Schmidt (1993) pointed out, pragmatic functions and relevant
contextual factors are often not salient to learners and unlikely to be noticed
despite prolonged exposure. Therefore, the curricular materials should seek to
raise learners’ awareness of the pragmatic use of language in order to enable them
to take the initiative in developing their own pragmatic ability over time. In the
last ten years, different organizations, such as the European Council, the Instituto
Cervantes, and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages,
have recognized the need to develop pragmatic competence when acquiring a
foreign language, and have incorporated guidelines and rubrics to assess it.
In our view, the main goal of L2 teaching should be to facilitate the process of
raising awareness in order to enable L2 learners to acquire intercultural abilities
and be more conscious of the various factors involved in interpersonal commu-
nicative interaction. Teachers should focus on exposing the students to input, and
guide them so they can recognize the pragmatic functions of grammar for com-
municative purposes. Teaching L2 pragmatics should also stimulate reflection on
the sociopragmatic values associated with language forms within specific contexts
and cultural norms, and incorporate other pragmatic features into the curriculum
besides speech acts, such as politeness, implicatures, conversational turns, humor,
and indirectness, etc. A corpus4 can also be a very useful tool to develop analytic
tasks in order to offer learners the opportunity to notice, analyze, and interpret the
use of natural language. Teachers may encourage students to not only pay careful
attention to the way language is used (such as politeness routines, expressions, and
phrases) by speakers or hearers, but also identify the reasons for the use of these
language devices in order to develop their own repertoire of strategies.
In sum, we believe that the teaching of pragmatics should aim to facilitate the
learner’s sense of being able to find socially and culturally appropriate language for
the situations that they might encounter. Research can help L2 textbook writers
and instructors develop teaching material to raise students’ pragmatic awareness,
but learners also need to be offered opportunities for reflection on their pragmatic
knowledge of the target language, and practice in hands-on communicative activi-
ties to develop their pragmatic competence.
4. How to teach pragmatics

Research on the instruction in second languages has undergone a significant shift
from the early studies influenced by pedagogical theory and practice to a field in
which the focus of second language acquisition (SLA) research is in psycholinguis-
tics and cognitive psychology. The latter approach is based on three interrelated
hypotheses. Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis (Schmidt 1993, 1995) holds that in
Introduction 5
order for input to become intake, it needs to be registered through awareness.

On the other hand, Swain’s output hypothesis (Swain 1996) suggests that during
output production, learners may notice gaps in their interlanguage knowledge, and
it also requires that learners reflect on and analyze their knowledge. Finally, Long’s
interaction hypothesis (Long 1996) integrates these two theories and proposes that
the type of negotiation that takes place in communicative interactions facilitates
acquisition.
Interactional opportunities promote learners’ retrieval and retention of informa-
tion, and automaticity in recalling this information can be enhanced, thus resulting
in improved fluency. These types of tasks also require learners to attend not only
to their own utterances, but also to those of their interactional partners; they must
respond appropriately in a specific context, often in real time. Therefore, they may
learn to modify and restructure the immediate interaction in terms of linguistic
form, conversational structure, or the content of the message. For instance, the inter-
pretation of a speech act depends on the context, which includes the situation as
well as social and cultural knowledge. As a result, using speech acts as data allows
the teacher to describe language structures and a range of pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic norms in the communities where the target language is used. The
linguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of specific speech acts (such as the social status
of the speaker and the hearer; social distance between them; their ages, genders; and
the situation where the interaction takes place) can be easily manipulated in the
classroom to focus on routine and conventionalized uses of language in context.
Activities that provide opportunities to practice, such as role-plays, simulation, or
drama, engage students in different social roles and speech events, which help them
develop their pragmatic and sociolinguistic skills. Language classrooms should also
provide opportunities to analyze and interpret authentic input and highlight spe-
cific features of language use.
Speech acts have been thoroughly studied, and research findings have been read-
ily applicable to instruction. That being said, speech acts are only one component of
the pragmatic knowledge that students need to acquire. As Kasper and Rose (2002)
claim, most studies have concentrated on the production of pragmatics strategies
or their use in interaction. However, instruction specifically aimed at improving
learners’ pragmatic comprehension has received far less attention. Implicatures and
presuppositions are a more complex pragmatic phenomenon, since in order to be
taught and understood the learners require knowledge and experience with the
target language and the cultural norms. They demand inductive learning that takes
time to develop. We believe that addressing the process of conversational implica-
tures can also shed light on the ability of non-native speakers to derive the same
message from conversational implicatures. Bouton (1990, 1992, 1994) points out
that, with regard to American English implicature, none of the ESL texts make any
direct attempt to develop the skills necessary to interpret implicatures, and instances
in which the attention of the students was focused on a particular implicature as a
source of indirectly conveyed information were relatively rare. This is also true for
Spanish. Shively et al. (2008), Ruiz Gurillo (2008), and Bell and Pomerantz (2016)
point out that textbooks, at least in Spanish and English, barely address how to teach
irony or humor. Therefore, it is not surprising to find out that the progress made
by non-native speakers (NNS) in learning to interpret implicatures successfully has
been slow. Some implicatures are more difficult than others, and irony and humor
are among them (for discussion, see Chapters 9 and 10).
Because of the wide variety of factors that conform the pragmatics of a language,
in this volume we wanted to cover other pragmatic aspects besides speech acts
that we thought might be useful to understand and teach Spanish pragmatics, such
as nonverbal communication, conversational structure, discourse markers, online
resources, and identity factors.
5. About this volume

In the first part of this book (Chapter 1–6), we begin by situating our review
of research on the teaching of pragmatics within the larger research domain of
this complex and multifaceted discipline. In Chapter 1, Victoria Escandell-Vidal
explains how pragmatics can help teachers and learners understand all of the social
and cognitive factors involved in communication. Like other scholars before her,
she reinforces the claim that learning and teaching a second language are associated
with gaining awareness in understanding how linguistic and non-linguistic infor-
mation affect the way we handle social interactions, and how complex systems
of assumptions and expectations that are culturally based guide the way we make
inferences and process information. In her view, L2 teachers are expected to have
an extensive knowledge of the structure of the language, and the cultural and social
differences that can affect the expectations, the identification of communicative
intentions, and the perception of politeness.
In the following two chapters, Montserrat Mir and Carlos De Pablos-Ortega
explore the issue on how L2 Spanish textbooks currently used on the market address
the teaching of pragmatics through specific exercises and other pedagogical activities.
Even though both authors examine Spanish textbooks, their approaches and con-
clusions are slightly different. Mir focuses more on providing detailed pedagogical
guidelines for different proficiency levels in an attempt to minimize what she
considers a palpable lack of material addressing pragmatic information in textbooks
used in the US. According to her, language teachers should focus not only on
developing pragmatic awareness, but also motivate metapragmatic discussions on
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues. On the other hand, Carlos De Pablos-
Ortega, after analyzing five Spanish textbooks and the corresponding teachers’ edi-
tions that belong to the Aula Internacional series edited by Difusión, concludes that
pragmatic information comprises one-third of the content of the books, and this
information is homogeneous and presented evenly throughout levels A1 to B2.
However, the author concludes that metapragmatic information is only comprised
of speech acts and politeness (basically concentrated in level A2), and therefore fur-
ther work needs to be done.
Speakers’ use of particular linguistic and pragmatic features and the language
they use are symbolic of their group standards. Sometimes they may choose to
Introduction 7
diverge in order to maintain their distinctive in-group identities and accentuate

their linguistic differences with the intention of isolating themselves from other lan-
guage groups. In Chapter 4, Laura Callahan takes into account this factor of human
communication, and the importance of addressing the perception of the Spanish
language and the Hispanic population in the United States in L2 Spanish classes. She
analyzes the negative reactions that some US Spanish native speakers show when
non-native speakers talk to them in Spanish. She ends the chapter by proposing sev-
eral suggestions to help students be aware and cope with this reality that they might
encounter in their interactions with Spanish native speakers.
In Chapter 5, Ana M. Cestero Mancera discusses research in the field of non-
verbal communication, in order to draw attention to the importance of this type
of communication in human interaction as a whole. The author claims that the
early acquisition of nonverbal communication systems can solve communication
problems since this is a way of overcoming verbal shortcomings. In addition to this
aspect, she presents some guidelines not only to create different types of activities
for different levels of proficiency, but also to show how to collect natural data from
nonverbal communication signs, and ways to present them in the classroom.
In Chapter 6, Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez offers an analysis and classification
of discourse and pragmatic markers, along with teaching guidelines and exercises
for classroom practice. After she thoroughly reviews the vast literature on the topic
under discussion, she offers an original analysis of these markers, subdividing them
in two large functional categories: connectors and operators, with numerous sub-
categories, which she illustrates with authentic data from several online corpora and
for which she provides pedagogical activities.
The second part of the book focuses on the learning, teaching, and assessing of
L2 Spanish pragmatics. This part of the volume includes a variety of teaching styles
and approaches that share some pedagogical practices, such as awareness activities,
input processing activities, and output activities.
The purpose of Chapter 7, by María Bernal, is to study the sociocultural aspects
of communication in connection with face management, politeness, and impolite-
ness in the specific situation of complaints in L2 Spanish. The author claims that
the use of tests of social habits followed by a whole class discussion of the responses
is a useful instrument not only to gather natural information, but also to direct
attention to how language users operate spontaneously. In addition, Bernal proposes
guidelines to make the students develop their own questionnaires, which can help
them reflect on the theoretical and methodological topics covered during a course
in pragmatics at an advanced level.
Cecilia Sessarego shows, in Chapter 8, that the integration of vocabulary and
grammar, with communicative functions and pragmatics, is possible if grammar
is no longer conceptualized in terms of discrete items in stand-alone sentences,
but instead is used to serve the speaker’s intentions and meaning in context of
language use. She argues that a discursive pragmatic instructional approach can
be implemented in most L2 Spanish courses at an intermediate level, which will
necessarily involve a shift in perspective from the current linguistic view on texts.
Namely, traditional categorizations of narration, argumentation, or exposition can

be employed in communicative events for real-life purposes, without the need to
“add” more components to the syllabus.
Chapter 9, by M. Belén Alvarado Ortega, has as its aim to study effective ways
to work with the pragmatic concept of irony in L2 Spanish classes. Since irony
can only be learned in conversational interactions, the author adopts a commu-
nicative and functional approach to design activities conducive to such learning.
Alvarado Ortega claims that there are several linguistic indicators and markers
that give rise to ironic interpretations. Based on these markers and indicators, she
presents a complete didactic unit (two 60-minute class sessions) to bring irony as
a pragmatic phenomenon into the L2 classroom. The unit includes cards for both
the teacher and the student, accompanied by an answer key and a self-assessment
section.
Susana de los Heros, in Chapter 10, claims that humor, although a universal
phenomenon, is rooted in speakers’ ethnic and cultural heritage, and therefore is a
part of their communicative competence. Its functions vary; namely, it can serve
as a social lubricant, show alignments and bonding, and mitigate conflict between
participants of different status. The goal of this chapter is to provide teachers with
specific teaching strategies and different types of activities (raising language and
cultural awareness, structured output, and social interaction exercises) to integrate
humor in the classroom, both as a teaching strategy and a subject matter.
In Chapter 11, Lynn Pearson takes a pragmalinguistic approach in an attempt to
map forms and meaning in meaningful interactions. The author details pedagogical
activities to teach Spanish directives in beginning level courses with the additional
objective of aiding acquisition of grammatical forms and vocabulary (specifically
verbal morphology and indirect object pronouns). The varieties of activities pro-
posed have different purposes: to raise consciousness, analyze the pragmatics aspects
of directives, and provide short practice activities of role-plays with guidelines for
learners.
Finally, in Chapter 12, Victoria Russell focuses on teaching speech acts, and
describes an open access web-based tutorial (WBT) that was designed and devel-
oped for instructing Spanish pragmatics to learners whose first language is English.
The WBT offers both video and audio input, and provides a unique and highly
interactive user interface where learners can record video responses to the discourse
completion tasks. In addition to this, the WBT includes an overview of the main
pragmatic theories (Speech Act Theory, Noticing Hypothesis, and Politeness The-
ory), and suggestions to address learners who have different levels of proficiency.
This chapter also includes a very useful appendix, listing a number of websites
where one can find ideas and activities to teach pragmatics not only in Spanish, but
also in other languages.
This book is intended for a wide audience, including language teachers, teacher
educators, researchers, college professors, and linguists. We hope that it will stimu-
late further discussions and works on the application of research to the teaching
of pragmatics in the Spanish as a Second Language (L2) classroom. After all, as
Introduction 9
Márquez-Reiter and Placencia (2005, p. 2) have pointed out, “pragmatic is . . .

best broadly understood as a perspective on communication; more specifically, as
the cognitive, social and cultural study of communication.” This means that, as we
already claimed in this introduction, if we really want our students to communi-
cate in the target language and to thrive in the environment where that language
is spoken, teaching them L2 pragmatics is a sine qua non. We hope this book will
provide the inspiration needed in this regard.
Notes
1 Shrum and Glisan (2010, p. 12) make a distinction between foreign and L2 learning based
on whether the language is acquired via “formal classroom instruction outside of the
geographical region where it is commonly spoken” or “within one of the regions where
the language is commonly spoken,” instead or in addition to formal instruction (see also
Callahan’s comments in this volume). In this book, however, we use the term L2 learning
in a broad, all encompassing sense, to refer to any type of learning of the language by a
non-native speaker, in this case, by non-native speakers of Spanish.
2 However, to be fair, we must acknowledge that some newly created scholarly journals, such
as the Journal of Spanish Language Teaching—which appears to be at the forefront of this
trend—are showing an increased interest in exploring such topics. Articles such as Koike
and Lacorte (2014), Hernández (2015) and Hernández Muñoz (2016), for example, appear
to make promising overtures toward the application of pragmatic concepts to the teaching
of L2 Spanish, as do all the articles in the recent monographic issue of this journal (3.2,
2016), entirely dedicated to “bridging the gap in Spanish instructional pragmatics: from
theory to practice” (guest editors: Elisa Gironzetti and Dale Koike).
On the other hand, books on Spanish applied linguistics that have appeared in the
recent years include, unlike older books of the same kind, explicit sections on the ben-
eficial effect of instruction on the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence. Positive
examples in this regard are Blake and Zyzick (2016, pp. 155–160), and Muñoz-Basols
et al. (2017, pp. 246–276).
And, of, course, we should not forget the book by Pinto and De Pablos-Ortega (2014),
which is the first comprehensive approach to L2 Spanish pragmatics from a didactic
perspective.
3 Even though most of the publications are theoretical, it is important to recognize the con-
tributions of several projects and journals, such as the CARLA project, GRIALE, and the
already mentioned Journal of Spanish Language Teaching.
4 These are some corpora in Spanish that can be incorporated in Spanish classes: the Corpus
Oral de Referencia del Español Contemporáneo (1992), the Corpus Oral del Lenguaje Adolescente
(2001), the Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA) (1995), the Corpus del Español
Mexicano Contemporáneo (1974), the Corpus del Proyecto para el Estudio del Español de España
y de América (PRESEEA) (2014), the Corpus de Valencia Español Coloquial (Val.Es.Co) (1990),
the Corpus de Alicante-Corpus Oral del Español (COVJA) (Azorín and Jiménez 1997),
the Corpus de Alicante-Corpus Oral del Español (ALCORE) (Azorín, 2002), the Macrocor-
pus de la Norma Lingüística Culta de las Principales Ciudades del Mundo Hispanico (Samper
Padilla, Hernández Cabrera, and Troya Déniz 1998), and the Corpus Monterrey-PRESEEA
(Rodríguez Alfano, Flores Treviño, and Pérez Aguirre, 2010).
References
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 2012. ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-profi
ciency-guidelines-2012.
Azorín, D., coord. 2002. Corpus de Alicante-Corpus Oral del Español (ALCORE). CD-ROM.
Azorín, D. and J. L. Jiménez, coords. 1997. Corpus oral de la variedad juvenil universitaria del
español hablado en Alicante (COVJA). Alicante: Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. “Exploring the Interlanguage of Interlanguage Pragmatics:
A Research Agenda for Acquisitional Pragmatics.” Language Learning 49(4): 677–713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Empirical Evidence of the Need for Instruction in Pragmatics.” In
Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and B. S. Hartford. 1996. “Input in an Institutional Setting.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 171–188.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: United
States Department of State.
Bell, N. D. and A. Pomerantz. 2016. Humor in the Classroom: A Guide for Language Teachers
and Educational Research. London and New York: Routledge.
Betancourt Romero, M. V. 2012. “Adquisición de pragmática en segunda lengua: Un mod-
elo didáctico para la enseñanza de la pragmática.” MA diss., Indiana University. http://
scholarworks.iupu.edu/handle/1805/2968.
Billmyer, K. 1990. “The Effect of Formal Instruction on the Development of Socio-
linguistic Competence: The Performance of Compliments.” PhD diss., University of
Pennsylvania.
Blake, R. J. and E.C. Zyzick. 2016. El español y la lingüística aplicada. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Bouton, L. 1988. “A Cross-Cultural Study of Ability to Interpret Implicatures in English.”
World Englishes 7(2): 183–196.
Bouton, L. 1990. “The Effective Use of Implicature in English: Why and How It Should Be
Taught in the ESL Classroom?” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, eds. L. Bouton and
Y. Kachru, Vol. 1: 43–52. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bouton, L. 1992. “Culture, Pragmatics and Implicature.” AFinLa Yearbook 1992: 35–61.
Bouton, L. 1994. “Can NNS Skill in Interpreting Implicatures in American English be
Improved through Explicit Instruction? A Pilot Study.” In Pragmatics and Language Learn-
ing, eds. L. F. Bouton and Y. Kachru, Vol. 5: 88–109. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an
International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Byram, M. and C. Morgan. 1994. Teaching and Learning Language and Culture. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). 2015. “Pragmatics and
Speech Acts.” www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/.
Corpus Oral de Referencia del Español Contemporáneo (CORLEC). 1992. http://www.lllf.
uam.es/ESP/Corlec.html.
Corpus Oral del Lenguaje Adolescente (COLA). 2001. http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/cola/.
Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA). 1995. www.rae.es/recursos/banco-de-datos/
crea.
Corpus del Español Mexicano Contemporáneo. 1974. http://www.corpus.unam.mx:8080/
unificado/index.jsp?c=cemc#.
Corpus del Proyecto para el Estudio del Español de España y de América (PRESEEA). 2014.
http://preseea.linguas.net/Corpus.aspx.
Corpus de Valencia Español Coloquial (Val.Es.Co). 1990. www.valesco.es/.
De Pablos-Ortega, C. 2016. “Pragmática en la formación de profesores de segunda lengua.”
Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(2): 171–188.
Introduction 11
European Council. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/
linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf.
Gironzetti, E. and D. Koike. 2016. “Bridging the Gap in Spanish Instructional Pragmatics:
From Theory to Practice.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3(2): 89–98.
Grupo de Investigación Sobre Ironía y Humor (GRIALE). 2002. https://dfelg.ua.es/griale/.
Hernández, J. 2015. “General Extender Use in Spoken Peninsular Spanish: Metaprag-
matic Awareness and Pedagogical Implications.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching
2(1): 1–17.
Hernández Muñoz, N. 2016. “Adquisición de la competencia intercultural y metodologías
de aprendizaje activo: un estudio sobre la formación de profesores de español.” Journal of
Spanish Language Teaching 3(1): 1–14.
Hinkel, E. 1999. “Appropriateness of Advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data.” Applied
Linguistics 18(1): 1–26.
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.
Hymes, D. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice.
Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes: Niveles de referencia para el
español. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. http://cvc.cervantes.es/Ensenanza/Biblioteca_Ele/plan_
curricular/default.htm.
Ishihara, N. and A. D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and
Culture Meet. Harlow: Pearson.
Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 1999. “Pragmatics and SLA.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
19: 81–104.
Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. “Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169.
Koike, D. and M. Lacorte. 2014. “Toward Intercultural Competence: From Questions to
Perspectives.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(1): 15–30.
LoCastro, V. 1997. “Pedagogical Intervention and Pragmatic Competence Development.”
Applied Language Learning 8(1): 75–109.
Long, M. H. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisi-
tion.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia,
413–468. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R. 1994. “The Effect of Functional-Analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immer-
sion Students’ Sociolinguistic Competence.” Applied Linguistics 15(3): 263–287.
Márquez-Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Mac-
millan.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Muñoz-Basols, J., N. Moreno, I. Taboada and M. Lacorte. 2017. Introducción a la lingüística
hispánica actual: Teoría y práctica. London and New York: Routledge.
Pinto, D. and C. De Pablos-Ortega. 2014. Seamos pragmáticos: Introducción a la pragmática espa-
ñola. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Rodríguez Alfano, L., M. E. Flores Treviño and T. Pérez Aguirre, coords. 2010. Corpus Mon-
terrey–PRESEEA. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. CD-ROM.
Ruiz Gurillo, L. 2008. “El lugar de la ironía en la clase de español como lengua extranjera:
Más allá del Marco y del Plan Curricular.” RedELE 14: 1–8.
Samper Padilla, J. A., C. E. Hernández Cabrera and M. Troya Déniz, coords. 1998. Macro-
corpus de la norma lingüística culta de las principales ciudades del mundo hispánico. Universidad
de las Palmas de Gran Canaria. CD-ROM.
Schmidt, R. 1993. “Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Interlanguage
Pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 21–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the
Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign
Language Learning, ed. R. Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Shively, R. 2008. “Perception of Irony by L2 Learners.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(2):
101–132.
Shrum, J. L. and E. W. Glisan. 2010. Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Language Instruction.
Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Swain, M. 1996. “Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning.” In Principle and
Practice in Applied Linguistics, eds. G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer, 245–256. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wishnoff, J. 2000. “Hedging your Bets: L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in
Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse.” Second Language Studies: Working
Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies 19(1): 119–157.
Yoshimi, D. R. 2001. “Explicit Instruction and JFL Learners’ Use of Interactional Discourse
Markers.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 223–244. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
PART I
L2 Spanish pragmatics
research
1
THE PRAGMATICS TOOLBOX1
Victoria Escandell-Vidal
1. Introduction
Understanding how languages work in communication is a matter of unravelling
a complex tangle of factors, including structural rules and restrictions, cognitive
abilities, social and cultural preferences, and individual features. Just like any other
human institution, language is extremely sensitive to its environment, so despite the
universality of our mental architecture, there is a wide range of variation in com-
munication practices, among both different languages and different varieties of the
same language. Pragmatics can help teachers and learners by providing a general
frame of reference for establishing the relative weight and contribution of each of
the various aspects involved in language use, as well as the tools necessary to describe
and explain the principles underlying this complexity.
2. Communication: Beyond words and grammar

A quick search for the word pragmatics in the literature will produce a relatively
high number of definitions, with partial overlaps, but also with significant dif-
ferences. The object of pragmatics as a discipline has been identified as meaning
in use, speaker’s meaning, cognitive abilities involved in utterance interpretation,
or meaning in a social context. (For an overview, see among others Leech 1983;
Levinson 1983, 2000; Green 1989; Kerbrat-Orecchioni [1990] 1994; Mey 1993;
Reyes 1994; Grundy 1995; Thomas 1995; Escandell-Vidal [1996] 2006, 2014;
Yule 1996; Verschueren, Östman, and Blommaert 1995; Verschueren 1999; Horn
and Ward 2004; LoCastro 2003; Márquez-Reiter and Placencia 2005; Chapelle
2012; Huang 2012).
16 Victoria Escandell-Vidal
But what is special about language in interaction? Consider the following Whats-
App dialogue between an adolescent (J) and his mother (M). After having had
lunch at his friend’s house, he writes:
(1) J: Me quedo un rato más, que vamos a ver una peli.

M: ¿Y los exámenes?
J: Tengo mañana y pasado.
M: Tú mismo.
For both the mother and the son it is clear what they mean by their utterances and
how they fit together, considering the whole conversational setting and the shared
knowledge they have. The interpretation of this conversation can be clear for other
people as well, to the extent that they know (or can imagine) the situation. The dia-
logue in (1) can be reported as follows: the son is informing his mother that he intends
to stay at his friend’s home to watch a movie. Both of them know that the date for the
son’s exams is approaching, so the mother reminds him of this fact to suggest that he
should come home and study some more. The son then rejects this suggestion on
the basis that he has two more days before the exams, ample time to study. The mother,
rather reluctantly, leaves the responsibility on her son and ends the conversation.
It is evident that what we understand in (1) goes well beyond what has been put
into words. For example, the boy does not specify where he wants to stay, but nev-
ertheless we recover this information; the mother only mentions the exams, without
stating how they are relevant, but we can easily add this information; the boy says
he has two days, though he does not say what for, and we can recover the missing
details. In addition, we also understand that the boy’s opening utterance is not a way
of asking for permission, that the mother’s reply is a hint not to stay and that the
mother is not happy with her son’s decision.
There are, thus, various kinds and levels of information recovered that are not
directly encoded by the linguistic form. The crucial question, then, is how all this
extra information has been obtained. The obvious answer is, of course, it comes
from the context. But then new questions arise: What is “the context”? How do
we know what can count as context? How can participants anticipate what oth-
ers will understand? How do they recognize each other’s intentions and emotions?
The main problems that pragmatic theories aim to explain are brought to light in
questions like these.
Several facts emerge from this simple example. First and foremost—and contrary
to what is sometimes assumed—there is much more to communication than encod-
ing and decoding messages. Human communication is not a mechanical activity
of exchanging linguistic signals, in which participants merely wrap up all they
wanted to convey; rather, speakers communicate by providing clues (both linguis-
tic and non-linguistic) of their intended message, and hearers are able to use such
clues, together with their knowledge of the situation, to infer additional content
and reconstruct the communicative intention (Grice 1957, [1967] 1975). This is,
in fact, exactly what we have in (1): each participant gives partial indications to
guide the addressee toward the representations they want to convey. Thus, when
The pragmatics toolbox 17
used in communication, linguistic expressions actually work as pointers to infor-

mation, rather than as packages containing all the information. In other words,
in our interactions, symbols are used as indexes. This feature is unique to human
communication.
A second fact that emerges is that linguistic expressions are very sensitive to the
environment in which they occur. It is very easy to find that the same words have
different communicative imports depending on the surrounding words and the
situational setting. Consider the excerpt in (2), an exchange between two faculty
colleagues (A and B):
(2) A: Hoy he tenido la última comisión para juzgar trabajos de fin de curso.
B: ¿Y los exámenes?
A: Tengo mañana y pasado.
B: Ah, entonces terminas enseguida.
The segments in italics in (2) are identical to the question/answer pair in (1); how-
ever, here their import is quite different, as can be seen in (3):
(3) A: Hoy he tenido la última comisión para juzgar trabajos de fin de curso.
B: ¿Y [cuándo tienes] los exámenes?
A: Tengo [mis exámenes] mañana y pasado.
B: Ah, entonces terminas enseguida.
The answer contains the same words, but their interpretation radically changes:
here the predicate tener is enriched, invoking a different conceptual (and syntactic)
frame, taking a non-overt argument, mis exámenes, as its object with mañana y pasado
as adverbial modifiers, whereas in the previous case the object was mañana y pasado.
Besides, in (3) tener [un examen] is interpreted from the point of view of the teacher,
thus meaning “giving an exam to the students,” not “doing an exam,” as when the
situation is seen from the perspective of the student. Furthermore, in (3) the ques-
tion asks for unknown information, and the answer provides the new information
required, while this was not the case in (1).
All these cases show that the situation (including previous context, prior
general and specific knowledge, situational expectations, etc.) contributes to
modelling the interpretation in a way that if the situation is changed, the very
same segment can receive a different interpretation. This is why taking some-
one’s words out of context can be a strategy for changing the intended import
of their message.
The role of the context is not thus merely that of a fixed scenario where the
plot develops. The extralinguistic information has a leading role at least at two dif-
ferent levels. On the one hand, it completes what has been linguistically encoded
by providing further details for vague expressions or unspecified constituents. For
instance, we understand “Me quedo un rato más” as meaning “I’m staying here (at my
friend’s) for a while,” so we conceptually add the indication of a particular location
to the event of staying, and we do so on the basis of the information we have about
the place where the speaker is. The inferential processes that enrich the encoded
content and develop it into a more detailed proposition, even by adding “miss-
ing” arguments and predicates when needed, are known as “primary processes”
(Recanati 2004, p. 17); the resulting level has been called “explicature” (Sperber and
Wilson [1986] 1995, p. 182; Wilson and Sperber 2012; see also Carston and Hall
2012 for a general overview).
On the other hand, the interpretation also includes several representations that
are formally independent: These are added pieces of general knowledge invoked for
the occasion to make sense of what has been said by relating it to the intentions or
the attitudes of the users. For example, when we interpret that the mother’s question
is a reminder and that she would prefer that her son come home earlier to prepare
his exams, in order to relate her words to her intentions we are resting on unspoken
assumptions about preparing exams and parents’ preferences. The new assump-
tions added in the interpretation are known as “implicatures” (Grice [1967] 1975,
pp. 49–50; see also Carston and Hall 2012) and the inferential operations by which
we retrieve, build, and integrate them with the encoded content are “secondary
processes” (Recanati 2004, p. 17).
Finally, and again contrary to what is usually assumed, exchanging information
is not necessarily the major goal of all instances of linguistic communication. If the
first utterance of the dialogue in (1) is excluded, the rest of the exchange does not
consist of information new to any of the participants: neither the mother’s question
asks for unknown information, nor does her son’s answer offer new data. Actually,
both of them know that he has to study for his exams, when these exams will take
place, and that it is the son’s responsibility to do his best. The relevance of these
ideas to the ongoing exchange comes not from their novelty, but from the impact
they will have on the shared context: it is precisely because its content is shared that
we will understand the question as a reminder with an implicit suggestion, and the
answer will count as a refusal. The interaction in (1) is thus not an exchange of
information, but rather a power game, where each contender struggles to keep his
or her position.
3. The arena of pragmatics

The aim of pragmatic theories is explaining the regularities found in human
communication: once it is established that words and grammar rules fall short of
accounting for its complexity, the next step is understanding how the various fac-
tors involved relate to each other. The interaction between the external factors and
the structural properties of language cannot be random and inconsistent. Actually,
though not completely fail-proof, human communication is mostly predictable,
at least when some previous background is shared, which suggests that it must be
governed by some kind of regularities. It is the task of pragmatics to uncover the
source for such regularities.
Different theories focus on different aspects of the problem, depending on
what facet of language and communication they prioritize: some of them bring
interpretive abilities to the foreground and search for rationality principles and
heuristics (Grice 1957, [1967] 1975; Horn 1984, 2004; Levinson 2000); others
focus on the cognitive mechanisms that make it possible to manage the variety of
information sources, anticipate interpretive hypotheses, and attribute mental states
and intentions (Grice 1957, [1967] 1975, 1989; Sperber and Wilson [1986] 1995;
Blakemore 1992; Carston 2002, 2004); finally, others concentrate on social practices
and on the way in which communication contributes to creating, maintaining,
enhancing, or cutting off social relations among individuals (Mey 1993; Thomas
1995; Verschueren 1999).
A major divide has usually been established between cognitive and social prag-
matics. Cognitive approaches analyze communication and its regularities as a
product of the design of the human brain as it has been shaped by evolution: our
mental architecture determines the possibilities and limitations of human process-
ing capacities, including the mechanisms that allow us to acquire, retrieve, store, and
combine information, and the principles governing the operation of these abilities.
Social pragmatics, on the other hand, aims at identifying social conventions on
the use of the language in different social groups; to this end, the communicative
behavior of large population samples is analyzed to extract statistical generalizations.
The approach taken here is intended to go beyond this divide and to identify
the basic concepts and distinctions. Cognitive and social notions are intrinsically
interwoven and cannot be understood without each other (Escandell-Vidal 2004,
2009, 2014; Kecskés 2014; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-Vidal 2018). The next
three sections are devoted to presenting an overview of the main tools needed to
understand the various factors involved in linguistic communication, with special
attention to their implications for teaching and learning.2
4. Language, knowledge, and mental representations

The relation between linguistic meaning, on the one hand, and world knowledge,
on the other, is intuitively the key to understanding our ability to communicate in
such an efficient way, with encoded content working as a convenient hint for the
more complex set of assumptions that are actually conveyed. The crucial point is
then how linguistic and non-linguistic information interact. Linguistic information
can be seen as a set of propositions, but what about non-linguistic knowledge?
The factors that can be relevant for utterance interpretation come in different
forms and from different sources: the identity of the people we are talking to and
our relationship with them, our goals and intentions, the situational setting where
the exchange takes places, the nature and the amount of shared knowledge . . .
Of course, the list is not exhaustive, but can give an idea of the complexity of the
factors involved. It is easy to see that these factors are not all of one kind (i.e.,
there are individuals, relations, mental states, situations, knowledge . . .), so it is
not easy to figure out how they can interact with each other and with linguistic
representations: the challenge is, then, dealing with the heterogeneity of all these
factors.
This problem can be solved by employing the same strategy that speakers
actually use, i.e., by treating these factors not as external pieces of reality, but as
internal representations that individuals have about the surrounding world. For
us speakers, the whole set of data from the extra-linguistic situation (including
the relationship among the participants, their knowledge, and their intentions)
have the same status in our minds: they are all internal representations (Kosslyn
and Pomerantz 1977; Fodor 1981; Johnson-Laird 1983; Chalmers 2004). In fact,
if any of the external factors determine our behavior at all, they do so not on the
basis of their intrinsic, objective properties, but rather in the way they have been
perceived and conceptualized. Individuals have their own way of seeing situations,
other individuals, objects, and beliefs: it is not the world as it is that counts, but
the world as we see it.
Thus, even if our cognitive systems are designed to yield accurate representations
of the world, this is not always the case, so we can be driven by misconceptions and
inaccurate representations. This has been largely exploited in fiction. For exam-
ple, the interaction between Oedipus and Jocasta in the well-known Greek myth
is based on several wrong assumptions, particularly on the misjudgment of both
characters about their relationship to each other. Neither of them knows that they
are mother and son, so their behavior is driven by false assumptions about the
actual state of affairs. Human behavior, then, is determined by the way in which
we see the world and by the internal representations we entertain about it.
By resorting to the notion of mental representation, we can give a common
format to all the external factors that can be brought to bear on the interpretation
of communicative behavior. We are no longer dealing with individuals, relation-
ships, mental states, and knowledge, but rather with representations of individuals,
relationships, mental states, facts, and so on. This uniformity of format facilitates
the interplay between the representations transmitted by linguistic means (which
also have a propositional form) and the representation of all the external factors
mentioned before. As we will see later, combining linguistic and non-linguistic
information can be modelled using well-established inferential patterns.
Many of the representations we have will be individual, having to do with very
situation-specific details and with our desires and preferences; this explains why
behaviors and interpretations are subjective to a greater or lesser extent, and why
different people can have partially different views on the same situation. A large
number of representations, however, are shared with other members of the same
social group, thus promoting a sense of commonality and affiliation, and also facili-
tating a smooth interaction among the co-members. In fact, during our process
of socialization, we tend to replicate a significant part of the ways of thinking and
perceiving that are characteristic of our community.
The representations that we share are not simply isolated propositions; on
the contrary, they form more complex knowledge structures known as scripts,
frames, or schemata (Schank and Abelson 1977; Rumelhart 1980). “A script is a
predetermined, stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well-known situa-
tion” (Schank and Abelson 1977, p. 41). Scripts consist of variable slots, actions, and
scenes that make it possible to establish temporal and causal connections between
events. Entering a college canteen opens up a script with a sequence of events and
a set of objects and participants that is quite different from the script of a fancy
restaurant: each provides its own reference framework that facilitates interaction
and processing by providing ready-to-use information on how to classify situa-
tions, understand the various events and actions, and anticipate what comes next
at any given point. Scripts are networks of associations in the memory that create
predefined patterns of activation and routes for interpretation. A simple cue will
suffice to evoke the whole chain of temporal and causal relations. Once expecta-
tions have been internalized, they automatically determine behavior, with no need
for conscious access to any sort of explicit representation.
The failure to use an adequate script may result in misconceptualizations and
miscommunication. As it has been pointed out, “the lack of applicability of avail-
able scripts would make it harder (and take more time) for a hearer to understand”
(Schank and Abelson 1977, p. 41). If two individuals have different scripts for the
same situation, this can result in misunderstandings, and the participants can find
themselves unable to behave as expected or to understand what is going on.
Any internalized script can thus be seen as a set of expectations, internalized
images of the general sequences of events and participants for each situation. Expec-
tations can be characterized as “brain states that reflect prior information about
what is possible or probable in the forthcoming sensory environment” (Summer-
field and Egner 2009, p. 403). Expectations lie at the heart of what we perceive
as normal, “smooth interaction.” When the participants share a similar script and
act according to it, the events go almost unnoticed; if the participants do not con-
form to the expectations, in contrast, their behavior becomes salient and frequently
results in misunderstandings and triggers an evaluation—typically, a negative one
(Escandell-Vidal 2017). Expectations arise as the result of social practice, but cannot
be understood without considering their cognitive foundation.
5. Speech acts and cultural expectations

One of the most popular theoretical proposals is Speech Act Theory (Austin 1962;
Searle 1965, 1969, 1975a, 1975b; Searle and Vanderveken 1985; Tzohatzidis 1994),
a model that underlies a significant area of the teaching of communicative com-
petence. The theory emphasizes the character of activity of linguistic utterances,
which are seen as actions (i.e., speech acts). Like any other kind of action, speech
acts are carried out with a certain goal, so intentionality plays a major role in char-
acterizing linguistic activity.
The felicity and success of a speech act depends on many different factors, both
internal and external. For a wedding formula to take legal effect, it has to be uttered
by a person with the recognized right to marry. Similarly, like other forms of action,
speech acts have social consequences: promises and oaths, for instance, create a com-
mitment for the speaker, who is bound by her own utterance to take a certain
course of action in the future. Thus, requirements and consequences show that
speech acts are not merely a matter of linguistic performance, but a form of social
action embedded in a social context.
There are common practices that speakers of a particular community recognize
as their own. Thus, what we usually call “culture” is a set of widely shared represen-
tations and expectations. The role of culture in shaping conversational styles is well
known, and intercultural studies have largely benefited from the insights of linguists,
sociologists, and ethnographers (Ting-Toomey 1999; Hofstede 2001; Nisbett 2003;
Spencer-Oatey 2005, 2007; Samovar, Porter, and McDaniel 2006; Kecskés 2014;
Wolfson 1989).
Competent speakers have internalized the guidelines for dealing with different
speech acts in different situations and are able to apply those guidelines in a flex-
ible and appropriate way (see Hymes 1971; Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983;
Llobera 1995; Kecskés 2000, 2006, 2010): they “are able to interpret the intended
meanings of what is said or written, the assumptions, purposes or goals, and the
kinds of actions that are being performed” (Yule 1996, pp. 3–4). An individual
can belong to different circles of various sizes, depending on the scale that we are
considering. Individuals who are able to interact in various circles can count on a
wider repertoire of formulas, conceptualizations, and conditions, allowing them to
be at ease in many different situations.
Given that scripts have a culture-specific component, interacting with members
of a different culture in a different language usually involves dealing with differ-
ent structures of knowledge (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989; Cohen and
Olshtain 1989; Oleksy 1989; Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993; Scollon and Scol-
lon 1995; Gass and Neu 1996; Ishihara and Cohen 2010; Cohen 2005; Samovar,
Porter, and McDaniel 2006; Mey 2007; Cohen and Sykes 2013; Kecskés 2014;
Escandell-Vidal 2014; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-Vidal 2018). People who
learn a foreign language need to be aware of the differences existing between L1
and L2, and know the guidelines governing the new system if they want to have
a smooth interaction and avoid misconceptions and misunderstandings; similarly,
native speakers interacting with L2 learners should also be aware to detect possible
differences (Scarcella, Andersen, and Krashen 1990; Ellis 1994; Byram 1997; Rose
and Kasper 2001; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-Vidal 2018). These differences can
affect a wide range of aspects, including the identification of the communicative
intention, verbal and non-verbal expectations, and the perception of politeness. This
is the point where cognitive aspects merge with the social side of communication.
The tendency to use one’s own native social norms and cultural expectations
when speaking a different language is known as “pragmatic transfer” (Kasper
1992; see also Thomas 1983; Odlin 1989; Kasper 1992; Escandell-Vidal 1996b;
Bou Franch 1998). Such transfer may produce inappropriate linguistic behav-
ior and lead to misunderstandings and miscommunication. When dealing with
transfer, the first examples that come to mind are those involving the choice of
linguistic formulas from L1 to L2. In some stereotyped situations, L2 learners
can often be inclined to use the exact equivalent to the formulas in their L1. For
example, it is not surprising that a German or an Italian learner of Spanish can
greet someone who is eating with the expression ¡Buen apetito!, a literal translation
of the formula used in their L1 (Guten Appetit!, Buon appetito!), rather than with
the more idiomatic Spanish formulas ¡Buen provecho! or ¡Que aproveche!—all of
which can be situationally equivalent to ‘Enjoy your meal!’ This kind of transfer
has been called “pragmalinguistic” (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983): it is the direct
use of the forms from L1 in L2. They are easy to recognize and usually have no
serious consequences for social relations.
However, learning idiomatic expressions is often not enough. The non-linguistic
aspects of communicative interaction also have to be taken into account. For
instance, native speakers have internalized where, how, and under which circum-
stances it can be felicitous to greet someone who is eating. There are sure to be
cultural differences in the conceptualization of the situations, so there is the risk of
having learned the right words but still using them in the wrong circumstances. In
this case, a failure can arise when the expectations related to a certain situation in
the culture associated to L1 are not equivalent to those governing the correspond-
ing situation in the culture of the L2. Here, the transfer is “sociopragmatic” (Leech
1983; Thomas 1983). This kind of transfer is more difficult to perceive and its con-
sequences can be more serious because unexpected behavior tends to be assessed as
if it were intentional.
In L2 teaching and learning it is usual to concentrate on single sentences as the
exponents of a given communicative function, rather than on whole communica-
tive exchanges. However, in many occasions, the main speech act is expected to be
carried out by means of a number of different subacts. Take, for instance, the case of
apologies (Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Cohen and Olshtain 1985; Trosborg 1995).
When asked about how to apologize in Spanish, L2 learners typically claim that
they would say lo siento ‘I regret it’ or perdone ‘Forgive (me)’, and this is also what
most teaching materials indicate. Of course, these two expressions can indeed be
used to apologize, but usually saying lo siento will not suffice to offer an adequate
apology: it can be enough if you have stepped on somebody’s toe, but not in many
other circumstances. When the situation involves a greater risk to the social rela-
tionship, using the bare formula can even yield the opposite effect and be perceived
as a further offense. In Spanish, more complex forms of apology typically include
at least some of the following components: a) expression of apology (nucleus);
b) acknowledgment of responsibility; c) explanation or justification; d) offer of
repair; e) concern for the consequences; and f ) promise of forbearance. The greater
the offense, the longer and more intense the apology is.
The example in (4) can illustrate this point. This is an apology offered by a native
speaker whose parked car had been blocking someone else’s car for quite a while:
(4) Dios mío, disculpe, de verdad, lo siento mucho. Estaba con el ruido de la aspira-
dora y no oía nada . . . Además, me olvidé por completo de volver a bajar para
meterlo en el garaje . . . Lo siento, de verdad, disculpe las molestias, y ¡muchísi-
mas gracias por no avisar a la grúa!
(Pragmaticks corpus)
Here the speaker resorts to accumulating different formulas, emphasizes the sincer-
ity of the apology, provides more than one explanation and shows gratitude to the
interlocutor for not having taken revenge.
One of the most significant variables in the contextualization of situations and
the shaping of utterances is the social relation among the participants in the inter-
action. Social distance is the representation that individuals have about their place
in society and their relationship to each other (Brown and Gilman 1960; Brown
and Levinson 1987; Spencer-Oatey 1996, 2007; Escandell-Vidal 2014). This image
is determined by the way in which each group conceptualizes it. Social distance is
usually analyzed in two axes of coordinates, which define a two-dimensional space:
• Hierarchy measures the distance between two individuals depending on their

relative position in the social scale as defined by their group (power, status). It
is the vertical axis.
• Familiarity locates the degree of prior knowledge between speakers and their
degree of solidarity, empathy, or affect. It is the horizontal axis.
As for hierarchy, all societies show a certain degree of stratification of their mem-
bers. The criteria to categorize individuals and the system of values behind them
vary from culture to culture. In general, the relative position of two individuals can
be measured according to two main categories:
• Inherent characteristics correspond to the physical and intrinsic properties of

individuals, such as age or sex, which some groups use to establish hierarchi-
cal differences. In most cultures, elderly people occupy a position higher than
youth; and still in many cultures, men occupy hierarchical positions superior to
women. Other cultures, in contrast, are more egalitarian.
• Social characteristics are attributes that must be recognized and accepted by the
rest of the members of the group. The most important come from the social
roles that an individual can play, deriving from the differentiation of labor
(boss/employee, doctor/patient, client/server, judge/citizen . . .). Social roles
are not linked to intrinsic and visible properties of the individuals, so their social
significance has to be learned explicitly. There can be external signs that make
social roles visible, such as uniforms, caps, and gowns. By their very nature,
social roles may vary from one situation to another: for example, someone who
is a boss with respect to employees in a situation can be a patient with respect
to a doctor, or a common citizen with respect to a law representative. Social
roles carry expectations with respect to the rights and obligations of every
individual.
The hierarchical relationships can be both symmetrical and asymmetrical, depend-

ing on whether two individuals occupy similar positions or not.
As for familiarity, the distance between two individuals can be measured accord-
ing to two new parameters:
• Prior knowledge: two people who have known each other for a long time have
a closer relationship than two strangers.
• Empathy: two people who sympathize with one another are closer than those
who do not.
By their very nature, familiarity relations tend to be symmetrical.

The reason why social distance is important for communication is that it deter-
mines the conceptualization of the situations and the appropriateness of linguistic
choices; the greater the social distance, the greater the linguistic distance. Linguistic
distance manifests itself in various ways, such as the choice of forms of treatment
(formal vs. informal) (Brown and Gilman 1960), the selection of words (high
register vs. colloquial register) and, to a lesser extent, the pronunciation (careful
diction vs. relaxed pronunciation) and syntactic construction (elaborated structure vs.
casual construction).
Social distance is also relevant to the conceptualization of the situation. The
very same communicative intention can be perceived differently depending on the
relationship between the participants in the interaction. For example, a suggestion
from the boss to an employee is very different than a suggestion from the employee
to the boss. This difference has to do with the asymmetry in their social roles. The
impact on the relationship between the two participants is different, so the linguistic
resources used are also different.
The content of the actions is also crucial. A promise and a threat, for example,
both belong to the class of acts in which the speaker commits to carrying out a
certain action; the obvious difference, of course, is that in the case of the prom-
ise, the act is presented as positive or favorable to the hearer, while in the case
of the threat, the consequences are negative. Similarly, asking something always
imposes an obligation on the hearer, to a greater or lesser extent, and this may
have a social cost.
Human interaction is thus highly sensitive to the effects and the consequences
that communicative choices may have on social relations among individuals.
The linguistic resources used to perform a certain speech act can be exploited to
moderate this impact, either by enhancing the positive effects, mitigating possible
impositions, avoiding unwanted consequences, or even stressing negative effects
and breaking the relationship (Kaul de Marlangeon 2008; Clyne, Norrby, and
Warren 2011).
The linguistic strategies for managing social relationships are analyzed under
the label of “politeness (studies)” (see Fraser 1990; Kasper 1990; Sifianou 1992;
Watts, Ide, and Ehlich 1992; Ide 1993; Haverkate 1994; Escandell-Vidal 1995,
1996a, 1998; Fukushima 2000; Márquer-Reiter 2000; Placencia and Bravo 2001;
Félix-Brasdefer 2008; Escandell-Vidal 2009; Amenós, Ahern, and Escandell-
Vidal 2018). One of the most influential works in politeness theory is Brown
and Levinson (1987). The authors base their theory on the notion of “face,” an
individual’s self-image. Face is made up of both positive and negative sides. The
positive side includes the desire that one’s self-image be appreciated and approved
of by others, whereas the negative side of the notion of face includes the desire
for freedom of action and freedom from imposition (Brown and Levinson 1987,
pp. 61–62).
Politeness strategies are claimed to be universal. This does not mean, of course,
that all languages adopt the same linguistics resources to the same ends; after all,
speech acts grow from social conventions, so we can expect that they vary from
culture to culture. In most cases, what is different is not the strategy itself, but rather
the conceptualization of the action (and hence the degree of redress needed). The
parameters by which an action is evaluated as costly or beneficial to the hearer can
be different. For example, in most Western cultures, giving a present has positive
implications both for the person who gives the gift and for the person who receives
it. In contrast, in some Eastern cultures, the action of giving is perceived as an
imposition on the recipient, to whom the need to correspond to the gift has been
imposed. Therefore, it is not surprising that in these cultures linguistic resources
used when giving a present usually do not have the properties and the ingredients
of offers, but those of apologies instead, to compensate for the imposition, even with
an overt minimization of the present.
Similarly, there are different perceptions about the conditions in which gratitude
has to be expressed. In the Spanish culture, thanking is compulsory when receiving
a favor or a gift, but also when people do something for you as part of their job; in
these latter cases, other cultures do not have the need to express gratitude. For some
social groups, gratitude is expressed to strangers but not among close relatives, and
this can cause misunderstandings and lead to uncomfortable situations when mem-
bers of different cultures interact.
6. Back to cognition: Inference and understanding

Cognitive approaches have shown that a principle of economy governs many
aspects of interaction, including the interpretation of verbal behavior: the process-
ing of communicative stimuli follows a path of least effort (Sperber and Wilson
2002). Thus, when we interpret a certain action, we do so by using the assumptions
that are more accessible. Speakers from a social community have been exposed to
certain patterns. The degree of accessibility of a set of assumptions depends, among
other things, on the frequency of use: the more frequent a behavior in a given
situation, the more accessible it will be when the situation arises. As a result, if an
individual is used to behaving in a certain specific way in the culture of his/her
L1, this pattern of action and interpretation will be highly accessible and used by
default as a guide for behavior and interpretation no matter the language.
Consider again the case of apologies. In Spanish culture, the greater the offense,
the more complex and elaborate the apology. Now, faced with a situation that
requires an apology, the first (i.e., the most accessible) schema that comes to the
natives’ minds is the one they have internalized in their native language. If the inter-
locutors belong to the same group or culture, they all have internalized the same
basic pattern, so they find each other’s behavior to be predictable to some extent. If
one of the participants belongs to a different culture and has internalized a differ-
ent schema, the schema is easily accessible for the speaker, but its content does not
match the content of other participants, nor will the speaker’s behavior comply with
their expectations. The result may be perceived as “deviant” and can be interpreted
as insulting, arrogant, or disrespectful.
Words also have an essential role in the activation and accessibility of the
assumptions used in interaction. A word does not merely activate a concept; it also
makes all the encyclopedic information and world knowledge associated with it
accessible (Kecskés 2014). Thus, lexical units provide access to a set of experiential
contents that are also highly culture-dependent. The way in which knowledge is
structured in the human mind explains why a single word can open and activate
entire frames and scripts for common situations. Learning the words of a language
is therefore more than learning new forms to refer to the same realities; rather, it
is learning new realities, resetting the contents of many seemingly equal concepts.
Concepts such as “food,” “wedding,” or “work” can be very different in Spain,
the USA, Japan, or Cameroon. Even when we use the correct equivalent word
in another language, it is quite possible that the background assumptions we are
activating are not the same, so the inferential processing will not yield the same
results.
7. Conclusion
Pragmatics can provide a theoretical basis for understanding a significant number of
facts about language use in interaction—facts that cannot be accounted just from a
grammatical perspective. Communication involves many other non-linguistic fac-
tors, both cognitive and social.
Learning a second language is more than acquiring new grammatical rules:
it crucially includes gaining awareness to understand how native speakers tend
to perceive and evaluate situations and social relations. L2 teachers are expected
to have a thorough knowledge of the structure of the language and cultural ten-
dencies in order to anticipate potential difficulties and choose activities that can
facilitate the acquisition of the new strategies. For L2 learners, managing the inter-
action in a successful way is more important than producing grammatically correct
sentences; while grammatical failures can be easily amended in interpretation,
pragmatic inadequacies are not detected or corrected with the same ease. Misun-
derstandings may arise and they usually create negative stereotypes about people
from a different culture. The main goal of L2 teaching is to facilitate the process of
consciousness-raising to enable L2 learners to acquire intercultural abilities and be
more cognizant of the various factors involved in interaction.
Notes
1 This research has benefited from grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y
Competitividad to the projects “Semántica procedimental y contenido explícito III”
(SPYCE III; FFI2012–31785) and “The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface and the Resolution
of Interpretive mismatches” (SPIRIM; FFI2015–63497). I am very grateful to José Amenós,
Aoife Ahern, Manuel Leonetti, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and
discussion on a previous version. Thanks to Aoife Ahern again for checking my English.
Needless to say, any remaining shortcomings are my own.
2 For a general discussion of the development of linguistic communication, see also Richards
and Schmidt 1983; Bardovi and Hartford 1997; Bardovi, Brasdefer, and Omar 2006; Kasper
and Rose 2002.
References
Amenós, J., A. Ahern and V. Escandell-Vidal. 2018. Comunicación y cognición en ELE: La
perspectiva pragmática. Madrid: Edinumen.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and B. Hartford, eds. 1997. Beyond Methods. Components of Second Language
Teacher Education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. Omar, eds. 2006. Pragmatics and Language
Learning, Vol. 11. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University
of Hawaii.
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper, eds. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and
Apologies. New York: Ablex.
Bou Franch, P. 1998. “On Pragmatic Transfer.” Studies in English Language and Linguistics
0: 5–20.
Brown, R. and A. Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Lan-
guage, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon:
Canale, M. 1983. “From Communicative Competence to Language Pedagogy.” In
Language and Communication, eds. J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt, 2–27. London:
Longman.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Sec-
ond Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. 2004. “Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction.” In The Hand-
book of Pragmatics, eds. L. Horn and G. Ward, 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. and A. Hall. 2012. “Implicature and Explicature.” In Cognitive Pragmatics, ed. H. J.
Schmidt, 47–84. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Chalmers, D. 2004. “The Representational Character of Experience.” In The Future for Phi-
losophy, ed. B. Leiter, 153–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapelle, C. A., ed. 2012. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 10. Oxford: Wiley.
Clyne, M., C. Norrby and J. Warren. 2011. Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address
in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A.D. 2005. “Strategies for Learning and Performing L2 Speech Acts.” Intercultural
Pragmatics 2(3): 275–301.
Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1985. “Comparing Apologies across Languages.” In Scientific
and Humanistic Dimensions of Language, ed. K. R. Jankowsky, 175–184. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1989. “Speech Act Behavior across Languages.” In Transfer in
Production, eds. H. Dechert and M. Raupach, 53–67. New York: Ablex.
Cohen, A.D. and J. M. Sykes. 2013. “Strategy-Based Learning of Pragmatics for Intercul-
tural Education.” In Linguistics for Intercultural Education, eds. F. Dervin and A. J. Liddicoat,
87–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1995. “Cortesía, fórmulas convencionales y estrategias indirectas.” Revista
Española de Lingüística 25(1): 31–66.
Escandell-Vidal, V. [1996] 2006. Introducción a la pragmática. Barcelona: Ariel.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1996a. “Towards a Cognitive Approach to Politeness.” Language Sciences
18(3–4): 621–650.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1996b. “Los fenómenos de interferencia pragmática.” In Didáctica del espa-
ñol como lengua extranjera, eds. M. Baralo, et. al., 95–109. Madrid: Expolingua.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 1998. “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alican-
tina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 45–57.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 2004. “Norms and Principles. Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics
Together.” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, eds. R. Márquez-Reiter and M. E.
Placencia, 347–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 2009. “Social Cognition and Intercultural Communication.” In Inter-
cultural Business Communication and Simulations and Gaming Methodology, eds. V. Guillén-
Nieto, C. Marimón-Llorca and C. Vargas-Sierra, 65–96. Bern: Peter Lang.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 2014. La comunicación. Lengua, cognición y sociedad. Madrid: Akal.
Escandell-Vidal, V. 2017. “Expectations in Interaction.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language
Use, eds. K. Allan, A. Capone and I. Kecskés, 493–503. Berlin: Springer.
Escandell-Vidal, V. (forthcoming). Pragmaticks (online corpus).
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the
Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fodor, J. A. 1981. Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fraser, B. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 219–236.
Fukushima, S. 2000. Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Gass, S. 1999. Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-Cultural Study of Japanese-English. Berlin:
Mouton-De Gruyter.
Gass, S. and J. Neu, eds. 1996. Speech Acts across Cultures. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Green, G. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grice, H. P. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388.
Grice, H. P. [1967] 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts,
eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 43–58. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grundy, P. 1995. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Haverkate, H. 1994. La cortesía verbal. Estudio pragmalingüístico. Madrid: Gredos.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations
Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Horn, L. 1984. “A New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implica-
ture.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context (GURT ’84), ed. D. Schiffrin, 11–42. Washing-
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Horn, L. 2004. “Implicature.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. L. R. Horn and Gregory
Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.
Horn, L. and G. Ward, eds. 2004. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Huang, Y. 2012. The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Ide, S., ed. 1993. “Linguistic Politeness, I, II y III.” Multilingua 7 (1988), 8 (1989) and 12.
Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and
Culture Meet. London and New York: Routledge.
Jackendoff, R. 1992. Languages of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kasper, G. 1990. “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2):
193–218.
Kasper, G. 1992. “Pragmatic Transfer.” Second Language Research 8(3): 203–231.
Kasper, G. and S. Blum-Kulka, eds. 1993. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaul de Marlangeon, S. 2008. “Tipología del comportamiento verbal descortés en español.”
In Actas del III Coloquio del Programa EDICE. Cortesía y conversación: de lo escrito a lo oral,
eds. A. Briz et al., 254–266. Valencia/Stockholm: Departamento de Filología Española,
Universidad de Valencia.
Kecskés, I. 2000. “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach to Situation-Bound Utterances.” Journal
of Pragmatics 32(5): 605–625.
Kecskés, I. 2004. “Lexical Merging, Conceptual Blending and Cultural Crossing.” Intercul-
tural Pragmatics 1(1): 1–21.
Kecskés, I. 2006. “A Dual Language Model to Explain Code-Switching: A Cognitive-
Pragmatic Approach.” Intercultural Pragmatics 3(2): 257–283.
Kecskés, I. 2010. “Situation-Bound Utterances as Pragmatic Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics
42(11): 2889–2897.
Kecskés, I. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. [1990] 1994. Les interactions verbales, Vol. 3. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kosslyn, S. M. and J. R. Pomerantz. 1977. “Imagery, Propositions, and the Form of Internal
Representations.” Cognitive Psychology 9(1): 52–76.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Llobera, M., ed. 1995. Competencia comunicativa: Documentos básicos en la enseñanza de lenguas
extranjeras. Madrid: Edelsa.
LoCastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Márquez-Reiter, R. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
Márquez-Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Mac-
millan.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. 2007. “Developing Pragmatics Interculturally.” In Explorations in Pragmatics, eds.
I. Kecskés and L. Horn, 165–189. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Nisbett, R. E. 2003. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently . . .
and Why. New York: Free Press.
Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning, Cambridge:
Oleksy, W., ed. 1989. Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Olshtain, E. and A.D. Cohen. 1983. “Apology: A Speech Act Set.” In Sociolinguistics and
Language Acquisition, eds. N. Wolfson and E. Judd, 18–35. New York: Newbury House.
Placencia, M. E. and D. Bravo. 2001. Actos de habla y cortesía en español. Munich: LINCOM.
Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reyes, G. 1994. El Abecé de la pragmática. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Richards, J. and R. Schmidt, eds. 1983. Language and Communication, London: Longman.
Rose, K. and G. Kasper, eds. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. 1980. “Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition.” In Theoretical Issues in
Reading Comprehension, eds. R. J. Spiro et al., 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter and E. R. McDaniel, eds. 2006. Intercultural Communication.
A Reader. New York: Thomson Wadsworth.
Scarcella, R. C., E. S. Andersen and S. D. Krashen, eds. 1990. Developing Communicative Com-
petence in a Second Language. New York: Newbury House.
Schank, R. C. and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Searle, J. 1965. “What is a Speech Act?” In Philosophy in America, ed. M. Black, 221–239.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J. 1975a. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In Language: Mind and Knowledge, Min-
nesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. K. Gunderson, Vol. 7, 344–369. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Searle, J. 1975b. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, eds. P. Cole and J. Mor-
gan, Vol. 3, 30–57. New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundation of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sifianou, M. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 1996. “Reconsidering Power and Distance.” Journal of Pragmatics 26(1):
1–24.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2005. “(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging
their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2007. “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics
39(4): 639–656.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. [1986] 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 2002. “Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading.” Mind and
Language 17(1–2): 3–23.
Summerfield, C. and T. Egner. 2009. “Expectation (and Attention) in Visual Cognition.”
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(9): 403–409.
Thomas, J. 1983. “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure.” Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communication across Cultures. New York: Guilford.
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton-
De Gruyter.
Tzohatzidis, S. L., ed. 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Verschueren, J., J. O. Östman and J. Blommaert, eds. 1995. Handbook of Pragmatics. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Watts, R. J., S. Ide and K. Ehlich, eds. 1992. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory
and Practice. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge: Newbury.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2
LEARNING L2
SPANISH PRAGMATICS
What research says, what textbooks
offer, what teachers must do
Montserrat Mir
1. Introduction
The ability to communicate successfully and appropriately is determined by our
grammatical and textual knowledge of the language as well as our understand-
ing of how language can be used to convey the speaker’s intention in accordance
with the rules of the target language or what is called pragmatic knowledge
(Bachman 1990). What constitutes grammatical knowledge in a language is easily
agreed upon. For example, despite regional differences, the grammatical, syntactic,
phonetic, and morphological rules of the Spanish language are identifiable and
accepted across different varieties of Spanish. To a certain extent, the number
of rules of Spanish grammar is a finite number mostly shared by the different
varieties of Spanish. Pragmatics, on the other hand, considers the negotiation of
meaning between speaker and listener, the context, and the meaning of an utter-
ance (Thomas 1995). The pragmatics of a language is widely diverse and cannot
be reduced to a number of finite rules. For example, it is impossible to clearly
quantify and define the rules for using the deferential pronoun system in Spanish,
despite what textbook authors try to imply in their often-simplistic explanations
of the use of tú and usted in Spanish. The use of these two pronouns entails more
than just being aware of the intended degree of formality and, for example, within
the same communicative event, one can move from using the informal tú to the
formal usted just to add humor, establish distance between interlocutors, or pur-
posely offend someone.
In learning the pragmatics of a second language (L2), research has shown that
an extended period of time in an uninstructed setting leads to native-like prag-
matic competence (Bouton 1994; Olshtain and Blum-Kulka 1985; Wolfson 1989).
However, we also have solid evidence that formal instruction facilitates the devel-
opment of pragmatic instruction (Bardovi-Harlig 1996, 2002; Kasper 2001). This
34 Montserrat Mir
chapter aims to examine whether or not what research has revealed about the effec-
tiveness of pedagogical interventions in the teaching of Spanish pragmatics has
informed college Spanish textbook authors in addressing pragmatic knowledge in
their instructional materials. In addition, we will also offer pedagogical guidelines
for developing materials for teaching Spanish pragmatics based on what research on
teaching pragmatics has shown.
2. Teaching Spanish pragmatics: What research says

In the world of pragmatics research, we need to go back to the seminal work
of Kasper and Schmidt (1996) and Cohen (1996), who called for the need to
investigate the development and use of L2 pragmatics. Since then, several studies
have provided empirical evidence for the existence of developmental stages of
pragmatics L2 production and comprehension (see Timpe-Laughlin 2017, for
review), as well as for the slow progression of pragmatic development in nat-
uralistic settings (Taguchi 2010). It is this latter development that has ignited
research in L2 pragmatics pedagogy, which in turn has provided many teaching
suggestions and implications. Several review articles and edited volumes already
exist focusing on effective teaching methods in pragmatics (Cohen 2008; Taguchi
2011; Takahashi 2010a, 2010b; Alcón-Soler and Martínez-Flor 2008; Martínez-
Flor and Alcón-Soler 2005; among others). In addition, the most recent review
(Taguchi 2015) of 58 empirical studies on pragmatics instruction across six target
languages found that, first, pragmatics instruction leads to pragmatic knowledge,
and second, the explicit teaching of pragmatics is particularly beneficial for the
development of pragmatic knowledge and use. Implicit teaching of pragmatics is
equally effective but only if it involves noticing and processing activities (Taguchi
2015). In other words, research has shown that learners need to first derive the
connections between target form, function, and context, and then, with the help
of an informed teacher, learners need to reinforce these connections by process-
ing them consciously through in-class activities (Cohen 2016). Simple exposure
to the input will not guarantee that learners will notice how form, function, and
context interconnect.
The goal of pragmatics instruction is, therefore, not to insist on a set of forms but
rather to raise learners’ awareness about the connection between the meaning of the
utterance and the speaker’s intentions, the choices learners have when they engage
in conversation, and the role of contextual and sociocultural variables in shaping the
forms used in interaction. Although much of the research has focused on languages
other than Spanish, the results, as seen by Taguchi’s review (2015), clearly show
that pedagogical interventions positively impact learners’ pragmatic knowledge. In
the case of Spanish pragmatics instruction in the second language (L2) classroom,
some authors have offered pedagogical tasks for teaching Spanish deference markers
(García 1989), invitations (García 1996), voseo (Shenk 2014), or grammar lessons on
the Spanish imperative and conditional with pragmatics instruction (Rose 2012).
Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics 35
However, empirical studies on the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions in

pragmatic development are very limited in number and scope.
The following review of Spanish L2 research in the teaching of pragmatics is
necessary to understand to what extent textbook authors incorporate what we
know about pragmatics instruction into their materials. In addition, a closer look
at this research will help us determine what informed teachers need to know to
address pragmatic development in the Spanish L2 classroom. Taguchi’s review
(2015) of the current literature followed a rigid analytical criterion leading to
a major comparison and contrast of pedagogical interventions, assessment tools,
and measurement outcomes. Several studies were not included because they did
not fall within the selection parameters established by the author. Due to the
limited number of studies in Spanish L2 pragmatics pedagogy, I decided to cover
all the studies found while understanding that any conclusions derived from this
review need to be taken with caution due to the disparity of research methods
and measurements. The review that follows is presented chronologically to my
best knowledge.
Overfield (1996) observed the impact of explicit instruction in the realization of
apologies, requests, and refusals among fourth-semester Spanish L2 college learn-
ers. The pedagogical intervention included exposure to video and audio-taped
conversations, teacher talk, and written dialogues. Results showed no significant
changes in the use of apologies and request strategies after the treatment. How-
ever, all learners used fewer direct refusals (e.g., I can’t) and more indirect strategies
(e.g., reasons/explanations, alternatives, apology) after instruction. Pearson (2001,
2006) examined the effect of two pedagogical treatments on the development of
Spanish expressions of gratitude, apologies, and directives among second semester
Spanish L2 college learners. Pedagogical interventions included metalinguistic
discussions to draw learners’ attention to the speech acts in question, and video
scenes followed by role-play practice. Both treatments resulted in higher use of
intensifiers in expressions of gratitude and apologies and softeners in directives in
the post-tests.
The effect of input enhancement and interactive video viewing on L2 prag-
matics awareness was investigated by Witten (2002). Using the video series
Destinos (VanPatten et al. 1992), a group of Spanish L2 college students focused
on the similarities and differences between English and Spanish apologies and
requests as well as the use of formal and informal forms of address. Participants
performed significantly better on a written task, oral role-plays, and the use of
address forms. Witten (2002) explains these results by the amount of time spent
watching the video and the repetitive attention to pragmatic features such as
forms of address.
Also using video clips, Taylor (2002) examined whether gambits can be effec-
tively taught in L2 Spanish. After explicit instruction of Spanish gambits, learners
practiced using role-plays and engaging in a discussion task, which resulted in two
groups. Taylor noted gains in the discussion group, both in terms of quantity and
36 Montserrat Mir
variety of gambits, while the role-play group did not show any improvement. Taylor
defends that the transactional nature of the role-plays interfered with the presence
of gambits in the conversation.
During a seven-week period, Mwinyelle (2005) exposed a group of fourth-
semester Spanish college students to video clips containing different advice situations.
Learners also received explicit pragmatics instruction, and engaged in metaprag-
matic discussions. Another group watched the same videos with the transcript but
did not have any pragmatics instruction or metapragmatic discussions. Statistical
significance was found in the first group for all the pragmatic features studied (i.e.,
formality, directness, politeness, etc.), whereas the second group improved in only
two areas, speech act realization and amount of speech. Mwinyelle defends that
the findings of this study support the concept of consciousness-raising (Sharwood-
Smith 1981) and the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt 1993) because the group that
received pragmatics instruction by directing learners’ attention to pragmatic features
in the input performed better.
The impact of explicit/implicit instruction and feedback was examined by Koike
and Pearson (2005) in a study on Spanish suggestions with third-semester Span-
ish L2 college students. Learners who received explicit instruction and feedback
performed better in the recognition multiple-choice sections of the test. Learners
under the implicit instruction and feedback performed better during the dialogue
reconstruction section of the test. Koike and Pearson (2005) conclude that explicit
instruction and feedback call learners’ attention to pragmatic form, and thus, help
them to understand pragmatic knowledge. On the other hand, implicit feedback
in the form of recasts and implicit instruction seems to facilitate performance of
appropriate pragmatic utterances.
Félix-Brasdefer (2008a, 2008b) proved that input enhancement techniques in
the teaching of pragmatics can improve learners’ ability to negotiate a refusal
interaction with native Spanish speakers. The researcher used a Powerpoint pre-
sentation to show a variety of Spanish refusals and responses, and to draw learners’
attention to the different refusal strategies by enhancing relevant syntactic ele-
ments and lexical forms using color and capitalization. The results showed that
learners decreased the number of inappropriate direct refusals and incorporated
a wider variety of indirect strategies in their Spanish refusals (Félix-Brasdefer
2008a). In addition, learners improved in the use of internal modification (e.g.,
the use of conditional, the subjunctive, tag questions, etc.) to mitigate their refusal
interactions.
The use of online materials in the teaching of Spanish speech acts was explored
by Langer (2011) with beginning, intermediate, and advanced Spanish L2 col-
lege learners who completed four online lessons demonstrating common uses of
requests, invitations, refusals, and apologies in Spanish. All groups showed significant
gains in their use of speech acts, although the intermediate level showed the great-
est gains. Langer (2011) notes that the intermediate level seems to be the adequate
developmental stage where pragmatic development benefits most from pragmatics
instruction.
The use of technology to facilitate instruction and practice was also explored
by Sykes (2009, 2013), who created a three-dimensional space in Spanish where
learners engaged in tasks with computer-generated avatars and practiced request
and apology. Sykes revealed only a slight gain in learners’ choice of request strate-
gies, although learners increased the number of hearer-oriented apologies emulating
target language standards. The difference in results between apologies and requests
was explained by the formulaic nature of the apology head acts.
Finally, Hasler-Barker (2013) showed that explicit instruction is more beneficial
than implicit instruction and input alone in her study of Spanish compliments
and compliment responses with intermediate fourth-semester Spanish learners.
Her pedagogical treatment included audio and video-recorded dialogues, guided
metapragmatic discussions, and role-play practice. In her conclusions, Hasler-Barker
(2013) stresses the importance of teaching pragmatics as evidenced by the fact
that all her groups showed some pragmatic development with just two 50-minute
lessons.
Despite the limited number of studies and the evident inconsistency of assess-
ment tools and measurements, it is clear that as with for other foreign languages,
pragmatics instruction is beneficial for the development of Spanish pragmatics
competence. As indicated by the research, several teaching practices seem to be
especially beneficial, at least for the development of speech act realization and rec-
ognition. Especially metapragmatic discussions, input enhancement techniques in
teacher talk or embedded in instructional materials, frequent pedagogical interven-
tions, authentic video clips that draw learners’ attention to pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic rules, and/or explicit and implicit feedback in learners’ performance
seem to contribute to the development of pragmatic knowledge. In addition, learn-
ers’ proficiency levels may also play a role in learning pragmatics after explicit
instruction, although data on this matter are quite preliminary. The question that,
therefore, arises is how this evidence is reflected in current teaching practices and
materials.
3. Teaching Spanish pragmatics: What textbooks offer

Textbooks are a fundamental tool for language practitioners and, in fact, many use
textbooks as a guide to decide major curricular issues, such as what to teach, how
to teach, and how to test (Angell, DuBravac, and Gonglewski 2008). In addition,
not all language instructors are formally trained as such, and the textbook becomes
their only exposure to foreign language pedagogy. Also, especially in large univer-
sities where lower-level Spanish classes are often taught by graduate students, for
many instructors Spanish is not their native language and, thus, the textbook offers
valuable information about specific grammatical features and native language usage
(Orozco and Thomas 2014). For native speaking language teachers, the textbook
also provides information about language and cultural variation across regional
varieties of Spanish. In summary, textbooks are fundamental for language practitio-
ners and curriculum administrators.
38 Montserrat Mir
Unfortunately, only a few studies have investigated the type of pragmatic

input and practice provided in Spanish textbooks. De Pablos-Ortega (2011)
identified thanking situations in 64 Spanish L2 textbooks published in Spain
and compared the data with thanking responses from a written questionnaire
from native Spanish speakers. The results showed that the thanking sequences
provided by the native speakers included just a simple thanks/thank you for-
mula and, less frequently, more elaborate sequences. The textbooks, on the other
hand, tended to offer a greater variety of thanking strategies, especially at more
advanced levels. Eisenchlas (2011) explored the speech act of advice giving by
comparing the pragmalinguistic features described in 12 intermediate Spanish
L2 textbooks published in the United States with natural data collected from
online advice about relationship breakups. The textbooks surveyed revealed that
the speech act of giving advice appears embedded under the syntactic structure
of the subjunctive and/or the imperative, and often disguised under the function
of commands. The textbooks also failed to explain how and why speech acts are
realized and instead “adhered to a one-to-one correlation between form and
function” (Eisenchlas 2011, p. 59). Eisenchlas (2011) also found a wider range
of advice formulas in naturally occurring online data than what is presented in
textbooks.
Research in teaching Spanish pragmatics has focused on beginning and
intermediate language learners. Therefore, I selected eight beginning and eight
intermediate college Spanish textbooks published in the United States and ana-
lyzed the presence of explicit or implicit teaching of speech acts and/or other
pragmatic features.1 All textbooks were instructor’s editions. The selection was
based on the date of publication (the oldest was published in 2011) and avail-
ability for analysis. I also consulted with publishers about which textbooks were
the most popular in the market and all but one (not available to the author), were
included in the analysis. The distinction between beginning and intermediate
textbooks was based on the authors’ description in the preface of the textbook.
Speech acts were identified at the time they were cited as speech acts in the text
or when they were defined by their function (e.g., requests, apologies, thanking,
advice, suggestions, etc.). I examined how and where speech acts were mentioned
and the type of practice offered. In addition, the presence of pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic information was also considered.
Beginning and intermediate books differ in the variety and number of speech
acts included. Beginning texts refer to speech acts (explicitly or implicitly by their
function) 54 times in comparison to 21 in intermediate texts. In all texts, two com-
mon teaching approaches are observed. Speech acts are embedded in grammatical
explanations or in vocabulary lists. The latter is prevalent in beginning texts. Seven
of the eight beginning textbooks explain greetings in their preliminary or first chap-
ter by offering a set of expressions often used in personal introductions. Some texts
present formal and informal expressions by introducing the distinction between
tú and usted, but all illustrate greetings through short simulated dialogues followed
by several practice exercises where learners select or identify pronouns in different

scenarios or perform short dialogues with classmates. Four beginning textbooks
also rely on vocabulary lists to explicitly introduce the speech acts of invitations
and requests, Vistas (Blanco and Donley 2016); farewells and suggestions, Arriba
(Zayas-Bazán, Bacon, and Nibert 2012); invitations, Mosaicos (Olivella de Castells
et al. 2015); and advice, warnings, suggestions, and requests, Gente (De la Fuente et al.
2015). Only one intermediate text uses vocabulary lists to introduce reprimands
and apologies (Gente). In all cases, the speech acts appear as headings for the lists and
sociolinguistic and/or pragmatic information are not included to explain how and
when the expressions are used.
The textbook Gente (De la Fuente et al. 2015) devotes a section to conversational
strategies in both its beginning and intermediate texts where lists of expressions are
offered to facilitate conversation. Sometimes pragmatic knowledge is included in
these sections. For example, verbal courtesy is explained and exemplified in the use
of command forms (De la Fuente et al. 2015, p. 134) or in the use of the conditional
to attenuate what is suggested or requested (De la Fuente et al. 2015, p. 260). In
all these sections, lists of expressions are introduced without much attention to the
sociopragmatics of the language. Instead, the authors encourage learners to learn
these expressions as “chunks” of the language to help keep conversations going,
add fluency, and focus their energy on the accuracy of other parts of the conversation
(De la Fuente et al. 2015, p. 44). Similarly, in Día a Día (Nibert and Abbott 2015),
an intermediate text, a section on the expressive function of speech is supplemented
by a side note, with useful expressions, and on the usefulness of formulaic speech
to help learners speak more fluently and efficiently. However, no specific practice
exercises on how and when to use these expressions are offered (Nibert and Abbott
2015, p. 91).
Vocabulary is central to knowledge and particularly critical to language learners
at the beginning stages because so much meaning can be transmitted through one
single word without the need for grammar. It has been argued that lexical chunks
play a role in vocabulary and grammar acquisition (Schmitt 2000). This emphasis
on vocabulary learning is an example of teaching pragmatics by exposing learners
to the linguistic choices of the target language community and encouraging memo-
rization of these formulas. However, the lack of sociopragmatic information about
how these expressions are used can lead to breakdowns in miscommunication when
social norms are violated and learners are unaware of what happened and/or how
to repair the situation.
The inclusion of speech acts under syntactic structures is the most frequent
instructional technique used in all textbooks. Imperatives are often associated
with commands, advice, and suggestions. The subjunctive and the conditional
are associated with requests. However, the inclusion of pragmatic features in
grammar explanations is very scarce and often reduced to the use of the con-
ditional: Con Brío, p. 6 (Lucas Murillo and Dawson 2013), Exploraciones, p. 475
(Blitt and Casas 2012), Vistas, p. 589 (Blanco and Donley 2016); Espacio, p. 85
40 Montserrat Mir
(Sandstedt and Kite 2014), Conexiones, p. 267 (Zayas-Bazán, Bacon, and García
2014), Identidades, p. 244 (Guzmán et al. 2013) or the imperfect subjunctive: Arriba,
p. 425 (Zayas-Bazán, Bacon, and Nibert 2012) to make polite requests. Overall,
in comparison with beginning texts where pragmatic knowledge in grammar
sections is very succinct, intermediate texts include more elaborate pragmatic
explanations presenting learners with a wider array of linguistic choices to match
speakers’ intentions. In example 1 below, the speech act of requesting using what
the authors call “more polite forms,” is exemplified by listing different language
forms commonly used to request something.
(1) Commands are a very strong form of request for many occasions. In fact, they
tend to be used more frequently to give instructions: recipes, directions, medical
advice, and so on. There are other more polite forms of requesting in Spanish.
They are preferably accompanied by por favor.
- Question in present indicative (very familiar)
¿Me prestas la pluma?
‘Can/Will you lend me the pen?’
¿Me pasas el libro, por favor?
‘Can you pass me the book, please?’
- Questions with poder in the conditional or imperfect subjunctive.
¿Podría/Pudiera (ud) ayudarme con este fax?
‘Can you help me with this fax?’
- Suggestions with deber in the conditional or imperfect subjunctive.
Creo que deberías/debieras comprarte un escáner nuevo.
‘I think you should buy a new scanner.’
(Pérez-Gironés and Adan-Lifante 2014, p. 127)
Intermediate textbooks have a greater emphasis on cultural texts and knowl-

edge than beginning texts, where culture is often relegated to one big section
or small boxes within the chapter. It is in the cultural notes where intermediate
textbooks sometimes introduce relevant pragmatic information, although often
in the form of generalizations, thus a lot is missing or lost. For example, Punto y
Aparte includes a cultural note explaining that speakers in Spain are more direct
than in the United States, where people tend to use euphemisms or soften their
statements (Foerster and Lambright 2011, p. 24). Similarly, Día a Día also has
a side note about the use of reprimands and criticisms in conversation and
how in certain Spanish cultures reprimands are performed indirectly or in a
soft manner such as in the case of Mexican culture (Nibert and Abbott 2015,
p. 160). However, no explicit linguistic information to students or instructors
appears in these cultural notes, so learners are left without a clear sense of how
language manifests these pragmatic functions.
An implicit approach to Spanish pragmatics instruction is also present in several

texts, although no specific pattern is apparent. This implicit pedagogical perspective
appears in the form of instructions in activities by including items such as giving
suggestions or advice in certain situations. In other cases, a note embedded in a
grammatical explanation refers to pragmatic information:
(2) . . . when the English will refers not to future time but willingness of someone
to do something, Spanish does not use the future tense but rather the verbs
querer or poder, or simply the present tense of any verb. In contrast, querer has
almost the force of a command:
¿Quieres /puedes cerrar la puerta por favor?
‘Will/could you please close the door?’
(Dorwick et al. 2012, p. 503)
All textbooks examined share similar practice activities. Some include input-based
exercises before productive activities, but overall, activities revolve around contextual
cues prompting learners to produce one-sentence responses or engage in scripted or
partially scripted dialogues. Very few activities motivate learners to engage in open-
ended conversations. In all, exercises aim at practicing a specific grammatical form
and/or vocabulary list. In fact, when pragmatic information appears as a separate
point or in a side note, no follow-up practice is offered, which reinforces the idea
that only grammar and/or vocabulary practice is at the core of all textbooks tasks
and activities. For example, a common practice exercise is to place learners in a
situation and ask them to respond using a grammatical structure and/or vocabulary
item, as seen in (3) below.
(3) Unos pedidos (requests). Imagínense que van de vacaciones a distintos lugares.
Túrnense para expresar lo que quieren o no quieren que haga su compañero/a
durante sus vacaciones. Usen ´quiero´ o ńo quiero´ y el subjuntivo.
Modelo: sacar muchas fotos
E1: Quiero que saques muchas fotos.
E2: !Claro que sí! (No puedo. No tengo cámara)
1 Visitar museos
2 Conocer gente interesante, etc. . . .
(Zayas-Bazán et al. 2012, p. 305)
Although the number of textbooks included in this analysis is very limited, the
evidence strongly suggests that the teaching of Spanish pragmatics is at the ser-
vice of grammatical and/or vocabulary instruction. Pragmatics is merely used as
a background or an incidental detail attached to grammatical and cultural expla-
nations. In addition, the emphasis on one single response and/or scripted short
dialogues overemphasizes the role of the speaker to the detriment of the listener.
42 Montserrat Mir
Focus on communication in current textbooks is clearly reflected on the numer-

ous oral activities triggering learners’ personal meaning. However, this emphasis
in “speaking” has resulted in lack of attention to the listener and his/her role in
the communicative act itself where interlocutors react to what is being said and to
how language is used. None of the practice exercises examined in this study con-
sider the listener’s interpretation of speaker’s intentions. When exercises call for a
semi-structured conversation using a specific target form, no instructions are given
about the sociocultural factors determining either language choices or the force that
different linguistic strategies carry in expressing speakers’ intentions. In fact, instruc-
tions are geared toward the speakers’ choices and not to the listeners’ reactions.
Finally, the lack of sociopragmatic instruction in presenting speech acts and other
pragmatic features shows a limited approach to the sociocultural characteristics of
communication.
Given the very small number of textbooks analyzed, and the fact that neither
input source nor ancillary materials, such as online resources and/or workbooks,
were included, any final conclusions and implications are tentative. However, this
analysis is in accordance with what other research has revealed. Pragmatics instruc-
tional materials are rarely grounded in research and they lack representativeness,
contextual information, and sometimes offer inaccurate information (Ishihara and
Cohen 2010). In addition, despite advancements in communicative approaches in
teaching foreign languages, pragmatics instruction is not considered in the develop-
ment of instructional materials, which translates into leaving Spanish instructors
with the task of finding alternatives to present and practice Spanish pragmatics in
the classroom.
4. Teaching Spanish pragmatics: What teachers must do

L2 teachers face two main challenges in teaching Spanish pragmatics. First, they
may know very little about Spanish pragmatics and language variation and, sec-
ondly, they may lack pedagogical training in how to present, practice, and assess
pragmatic competence in the classroom. In a recent survey of US teacher edu-
cation programs, Vásquez and Sharpless (2009) found that even though some
academic programs integrate pragmatics instruction into their curriculum, the
emphasis is on theory of speech acts and politeness and not on practical appli-
cation. The ACTFL Program standards for the preparation of foreign language
teachers (2013) require teacher candidates to demonstrate knowledge of the
linguistic elements of the TL and their changes as well as compare language sys-
tems. Specifically, teachers need to understand the “pragmatic features of target
language discourse” (ACTFL 2013, p. 10). Therefore, it is safe to say that many
foreign language teacher education programs prepare their students to understand
the different linguistic components of the TL, including pragmatics. However,
qualifications to teach L2 pragmatics effectively should not only cover awareness
of pragmatics norms and variations in the target language, but also an ability to
offer metapragmatic information through pragmatic-form focused instruction and
assessment considering learners’ culture and individual differences (Ishihara 2010).
The interest in pedagogical approaches to L2 pragmatics has resulted in several

articles and publications promoting specific teaching techniques and perspectives
(for an overview, see Ishihara 2010). In all pedagogical approaches, we see a clear
preference for an explicit approach to teaching. Given that the goal in teaching
pragmatics is to raise learners’ pragmatics awareness and give them language choices
(Bardovi-Harlig and Mahan-Taylor 2003), opportunities for metapragmatic dis-
cussions led by the teacher or initiated by the learner through reflection and/or
reasoning (Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2010) should lead to a better understand-
ing of the dynamic relationship between linguistic forms and utterance meaning in
interaction. In addition, the use of real examples in eliciting, presenting, and prac-
ticing conversation in the classroom to develop pragmatic competence is crucially
relevant (Bardovi-Harlig 2015).
The research studies in the teaching of Spanish pragmatics outlined in this paper
as well as other pedagogical approaches proposed in recent literature suggest peda-
gogical treatments on one speech act that last over two or three 50-minute classroom
periods. Unfortunately, in beginning and intermediate college Spanish classrooms,
contact hours and curriculum requirements do not allow for that lengthy instruc-
tion on one single pragmatic feature. Therefore, pragmatics instruction needs to be
addressed from a practical viewpoint.
It is widely accepted that comprehensible and meaningful input (Krashen 1981)
and comprehensible output in interaction (Swain 1985) are necessary ingredients
for second language acquisition. In the early stages of learning, exposure to input
offers the data necessary for learners to develop their own interlanguage. There-
fore, pragmatics instruction at the beginning level should also focus on exposure
to input, recognition, and controlled practice. Since, as seen in the analysis of the
textbooks examined here, some speech acts are mentioned in grammatical expla-
nations and vocabulary lists, language teachers should use these presentations to
explicitly instruct learners in speech act performance. In presenting vocabulary,
teachers can extend vocabulary usage to speech act production, as in the examples
below, and encourage learners to think of similar contexts where isolated words
could be used to perform different language functions.
(4) Buenos días, un café, por favor (in a service encounter situation)
Oye, ¿la sal? (request among close friends/intimates at dinner table)
¿Un vino? (invitation among close friends/intimates)
In teaching the present tense in Spanish, requests and invitations can be explicitly
introduced. Sample dialogues contrasting the function of questions using the pres-
ent tense, as shown below, can help learners see how the same language forms can
be used to perform different speech acts.
(5) Dialogue A
A: ¿Tienes muchas clases este semestre?
B: Cuatro, ¿y tú?
44 Montserrat Mir
Dialogue B
A: ¿Tienes los apuntes de ayer?
B: Sí, ¿los quieres?
A: Pues, si no te importa, me harías un gran favor.
Dialogue C
A: ¿Salimos el viernes?
B: Vale, ¿qué hacemos?.
A: No sé, ¿vamos al cine?
Dialogue D
A: ¿Me llevas a la universidad?
B: Sí, claro. Te paso a recoger a las 3 p.m.
Teachers could guide learners in matching forms with functions and in establish-
ing cross-linguistic comparisons, especially in cases where forms and functions do
not transfer from Spanish to English. Questions in the present tense fail to make
an invitation in English (Dialogue C) and cannot always be used to make a request
(Dialogue D). Failure to recognize the speech act represented in these conversations
can result in misunderstandings and inappropriate reactions.
In introducing the imperative, the subjunctive and/or the conditional, requests
and invitations can again be introduced. The se constructions for unplanned
circumstances (i.e., se me rompió la computadora) can be used in apologies. Con-
structions like gustar are often included in compliments (i.e., me encanta tu suéter).
Given that current textbooks are grammar driven, teachers need to “direct
learners’ attention to the pragmatic functions of grammar for communica-
tive purposes” (Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012, p. 665). However, beginning
language learners may see all these forms as chunks of the language without
understanding how they are used in communication. Therefore, learners need to
be instructed on the sociopragmatics of the different linguistic choices available.
Due to the difficulty of finding a variety of samples across different social vari-
ables in naturalistic data, recorded role-plays between native speakers can be used
to show learners how the social characteristics of the environment determine
which choices to use.
Beginning learners have great difficulty engaging in spontaneous role-plays
because they are still at early stages of second language acquisition where speech
is just emerging (Krashen and Terrell 1983). However, as adult learners, activi-
ties that focus on recognition and reflection of language forms within specific
contexts and cultural norms can be very beneficial. The teaching technique of
dictogloss offers learners and teachers an excellent opportunity to practice and
discuss pragmatic features. Using transcripts from role-plays performed by native
speakers and/or using the role-plays themselves as video and/or audioclips, learn-
ers first listen and/or see a short communicative event that contains one or two
speech acts and then, working in pairs, they reconstruct the dialogue. In select-
ing the input, teachers should manipulate the social variables under which the
role-plays will be performed and draw learners’ attention to these social vari-
ables in recreating the dialogue. Dictogloss engages learners in metalinguistic and
metapragmatic discussions that force them to test their own hypothesis about
language, pragmatics, and language use.
The goal at beginning levels of instruction is to open learners’ minds to how
language has a performative function and how speaker’s intentions and context
determine language use. However, at this level, learners may not fully understand
how politeness, indirectness, or other pragmatic elements work. Recycling speech
acts throughout the curriculum as new grammar is introduced provides learn-
ers with repetitive attention to pragmatic features, which has proven to facilitate
pragmatic development (Witten 2002). In addition, learners can build up a list of
choices as they move on in the development of grammatical competence, which
will help them see grammar as a communicative resource (Félix-Brasdefer and
Cohen 2012).
At the intermediate level, emphasis could be placed on sociopragmatic knowl-
edge, language variation and other pragmatic features besides speech acts. Based
on research (Félix-Brasdefer 2008a, 2008b; Koike and Pearson 2005; Mwinyelle
2005), intermediate learners are attentive to pragmatic features in the language
and able to incorporate them into their speech. Explicit teaching of speech acts
and other pragmatic features such as mitigation, politeness, implicature, conversa-
tion turns, humor, and indirectness, among others, need to be incorporated into
the curriculum. For example, in introducing mitigation, teachers should inform
learners about the importance of mitigation in communication and the types of
mitigating devices common in speech. Mitigation is a communicative strategy
of softening an utterance to reduce its impact or limit the face loss associated
with a message (e.g., Fraser 1990; Brown and Levinson 1987). Several classifica-
tions of mitigating resources exist depending on the focus of study. However, in
order to facilitate metapragmatic discovery in the language classroom, a simple
three way classification could be shared: syntactic mitigation such as the use of
imperfect or conditional in Spanish, the use of embedded verbal phrases such as
pensaba que . . ., no creo que . . .; propositional mitigation which includes the use
of extra propositions that soften the utterance such as sé que estás muy ocupada
estos días pero . . . in introducing a complaint/reprimand; and lexical mitigation
which adds lexical choices such as diminutives, discourse markers, hedges, adverbs,
etc. Authentic input should be used to show how mitigation works in Spanish.
Literary texts, TV shows, radio programs, social networks, etc. offer an array of
contexts in which mitigation can be analyzed.
In addition, language variation can be explored by contrasting similar conversa-
tions from different Spanish-speaking regions. For example, in the cooking shows
La cocina de Yolo from México and Cocina con Sergio from Spain, the chefs prepare a
dish with the help of a TV host. The conversation between both participants can
46 Montserrat Mir
be used to explore language variation and pragmatic features such as mitigation and
politeness, as the transcripts below show.
(6) La cocina de Yolo

Pincho: Ay, Ay, Ay. Qué bonito, señores, bienvenidos ahora a nuestro nuevo
lugar aquí tienen a la bella y la bestia de la cocina de la cocina de Yolo.
Yolo: Señores, muy buenos días, bienvenidos a la cocina de Yolo y su pinchito
el señor Barcelata.
.....
Yolo: . . . y ahora hay que añadir la masa y aquí me ayuda usted por favor.
Pincho: La masa que ya está disuelta.
Yolo: Que ya está disuelta pero que hay que colarla.
Pincho: ¿Puedo? (Checking whether he can pour the mix.)
Yolo: Por favor.
.....
Yolo: Ayúdeme, por favor, señor . . . a poner la licuadora.
Pincho: Con todo gusto.
(La Cocina de Yolo 2013)
(7) Cocina con Sergio

Sergio: Marchando para hoy una de vieiras a la plancha sobre una sopa de ajo,
romero y patata. Colores, textura, sabores, aroma todo en un solo plato.
Pepa: Ingredientes muy sofisticados sobre una base muy sencilla.
.....
Sergio: Pues, Pepa, estas las vigilas tú. (Placing fish pieces on the grill.)
Pepa: Vale.
.....
Pepa: Y yo estas ¿las miro a ver qué pinta tienen?
Sergio: Déjalas un poquito más.
Pepa: ¿Un poquito más?
Sergio: Incluso por subir un poco más no pasa nada.
Pepa: Vale.
Sergio: Que dore un poquitín y ya fuera del fuego una pizca de sal y de pimienta
y recuerda cuando vayas a dar la vuelta, rascamos.
Pepa: Exacto, para que no se nos queme.
Sergio: Para que no se nos queme.
Pepa: Cuando tú me digas, maestro. Ya sabes que yo soy una mandada.
Sergio: Prueba esas ya, prueba esas ya.
Pepa: Venga.
Sergio: Les das la vuelta . . . muy bien . . . veis qué bonitas que nos han quedado.
(Cocina con Sergio 2015)
In these two transcripts, teachers can guide learners in identifying and analyz-
ing the speech acts of requesting and greeting; the use of politeness markers such
as por favor, and mitigating devices as in the use of diminutives and conditionals;
and make comparisons between both language varieties. The Internet offers an
impressive collection of sources for spontaneous language use. As teachers incor-
porate these types of exercises in their lessons, learners are also being trained in
identifying pragmatic features in speech so they can eventually, under the teacher’s
guidance, research their own authentic input by being directed to specific sites
or TV shows online where they can transcribe conversations, analyze pragmatic
features, and explore language variation. In addition, with some guidance, lan-
guage learners could collect pragmatic data by interviewing native speakers about
their conversational style and specific use of pragmatic features. For example, in
teaching compliments and compliment responses, besides using naturalistic data
to analyze, learners can create a DCT-type questionnaire with scenarios that differ
on social variables, and interview native speakers from different countries using
online chatting sites such as WeSpeke.com. By researching speech acts and prag-
matic features in the language, learners gain not only understanding of pragmatics
but experience language from a different perspective, not just as a speaker, but as
an informed explorer and user.
The type of practice at the intermediate level should involve role-plays where
learners are encouraged to negotiate and collaborate in the communicative act. To
that end, roles should also include descriptions where failure in communication is
present. For example, in receiving a compliment, the response could be inappropri-
ate or non-existent; in a requesting situation, the listener may deny the request or
feel offended by the request itself; in an apologetic scenario, the participant may
question the sincerity of the apology. Often in role-play situations in the classroom,
learners are “too nice” to each other, which results in lack of negotiation and atten-
tion to language choices. The inclusion of pragmatic failure will cause participants
to pay attention to the forms chosen so they can save face and recover mutual
understanding. As learners become familiar with role-playing different types of
scenarios, language teachers can use popular culture to contextualize role-plays such
as the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway? Teachers can give “lines” or language
forms that can be used to perform a speech act and ask participants to spontane-
ously incorporate them into a short dialogue. The “host” (teacher) can ask them to
use the line appropriately or inappropriately. Role-plays can be recorded and used
for metapragmatic discussion later.
5. Conclusion
Teaching Spanish pragmatics at the college level is the responsibility of teachers.
The instructional materials analyzed here do not offer any consistent pedagogy
in pragmatics instruction. Based on research evidence, language teachers should
focus on developing pragmatic awareness by using authentic input and motivating
48 Montserrat Mir
metapragmatic discussions on pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic issues. The lan-

guage proficiency of the learners and the academic context of college Spanish in
the US are factors that cannot be ignored. Consequently, teachers need to actively
seek opportunities within the curriculum to incorporate pragmatics instruction.
Especially, the beginning learner can benefit from repeated mention of speech
acts along the curriculum, building up a collection of linguistic devices to per-
form several speech acts. Intermediate learners, on the other hand, can explore
other pragmatic features besides speech acts by collecting, analyzing, and compar-
ing authentic samples of language use under teachers’ guidance. It is possible to
train intermediate learners to become amateur researchers of Spanish pragmat-
ics. Finally, new technological applications for teaching pragmatics are on the rise
(Taguchi and Sykes 2013) at the same time as college textbooks keep adding inno-
vative applications for self-instruction and assessment. Therefore, considering the
curriculum and timing constraints of teaching college Spanish in the US, textbook
authors should incorporate pragmatics instruction in their online components,
such as the self-access website developed by Sykes and Cohen (2006) to teach
pragmatic strategies in order to identify and perform different Spanish speech acts.
Pragmatics awareness develops over time. Consequently, the possibility of having
online lessons on Spanish pragmatics associated with textbooks would offer the
repeated practice that language learners need to incorporate pragmatic features in
their L2 speech.
Note
1 All the textbooks analyzed are listed in the references, even if some of them are not explic-
itly cited in the chapter.
References
ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. 2013. https://www.
actfl.org/sites/default/files/CAEP/ACTFLCAEPStandards2013_v2015.pdf.
Alcón-Soler, E. A. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language
Learning, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Andrade, M., J. Egasse, E. Miguel Muñoz and M. J. Cabrera Puche. 2014. Tu Mundo: Español
sin Fronteras. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Angell, J., S. Du Bravac and M. Gonglewski. 2008. “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally:
Selecting Textbooks for College-Level Language Programs.” Foreign Language Annals
41(3): 562–572.
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1996. “Pragmatics and Language Teaching: Bringing Pragmatics and
Pedagogy Together.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning, ed. L. F. Bouton, 21–39. Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2002. “Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition.” In The Oxford

Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. R. B. Kaplan, 182–192. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2015. “Operationalizing Conversation in Studies of Instructional Effect
in L2 Pragmatics.” System 48, 21–34.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor, eds. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC:
Office of English Programs, US Department of State.
Blanco, J. A. and P. R. Donley. 2016. Vistas: Introducción a la lengua española. 5th ed. Boston,
MA: Vista Higher Learning.
Blitt, M. A. and M. Casas. 2012. Exploraciones. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Bouton, L. F. 1994. “Conversational Implicature in a Second Language: Learned Slowly
When Not Deliberately Taught.” Journal of Pragmatics 22(2): 157–167.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness Usage: Some Universals in Language. Cambridge:
Cocina con Sergio, October 10, 2015. www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/cocina-con-sergio/cocina-
sergio-vieiras-patatas/3318620/.
Cohen, A.D. 1996. “Developing the Ability to Perform Speech Acts.” Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition 18(2): 253–267.
Cohen, A.D. 2008. “Teaching and Assessing L2 Pragmatics: What Can We Expect from
Learners?” Language Teaching 41(2): 213–235.
Cohen, A.D. 2016. “The Teaching of Pragmatics by Native and Nonnative Language Teach-
ers: What They Know and What They Report Doing.” Studies in Second Language Learning
and Teaching 6(4): 561–585.
De la Fuente, M. J., E. Martín Peris and N. Sans Baulenas. 2015. Gente: Nivel Básico. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
De Pablos-Ortega, C. 2011. “The Pragmatics of Thanking Reflected in the Textbooks for
Teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2411–2433.
Dorwick, T., A.M. Pérez-Gironés, A. Becher and C. A. Isabelli. 2012. Puntos de Partida.
9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eisenchlas, S. A. 2011. “On-line Interactions as a Resource to Raise Pragmatic Awareness.”
Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 51–61.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008a. “Pedagogical Intervention and the Development of Pragmatic
Competence in Learning Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(1):
49–84.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008b. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Classroom: Instruction of Mitiga-
tion in Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Hispania 91(2): 479–494.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language
Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669.
Foerster, S. and A. Lambright. 2011. Punto y Aparte: Spanish Review. Moving toward Fluency.
5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fraser, B. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 219–236.
García, C. 1989. “Development of Sociolinguistic Skills in Spanish, Sample Activities.” For-
eign Language Annals 22(4): 357–366.
García, C. 1996. “Teaching Speech Act Performance: Declining an Invitation.” Hispania
79(2): 267–279.
Guzmán, E., P. Lapuerta, J. E. Liskin-Gasparro and M. Olivella de Castells. 2013. Identidades:
Exploraciones e interacciones. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
50 Montserrat Mir
Hasler-Barker, M. 2013. “Effects of Pedagogical Intervention on the Production of the

Compliment-Compliment Response Sequence by Second Language Learners of Span-
ish.” PhD diss., Indiana University.
Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research and Teacher Edu-
cation.” Language and Linguistics Compass 4(10): 938–953.
Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and
Culture Meet. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Kasper, G. 2001. “Classroom Research on Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics in Language
Teaching, eds. K.R. Rose and G. Kasper, 33–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koike, D. A. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Develop-
ment of Pragmatic Competence.” System 33(3): 481–501.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Per-
gamon Press.
Krashen, S. and T. D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Class-
room. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
La Cocina de Yolo. January 13, 2013. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AZTiYjnOBY.
Langer, B. D. 2011. “The Effects of Pragmatic Instruction in the Spanish Language Class-
room.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis.
Leeser, M. J., B. VanPatten and G. D. Keating. 2011. Así lo veo. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lucas Murillo, M. C. and L. M. Dawson. 2013. ¡Con brío! Beginning Spanish. 3rd ed. Hobo-
ken, NJ: Wiley.
Martínez-Flor, A. and E. Alcón-Soler. 2005. ¨Special Issue: Pragmatics in Instructed Lan-
guage Learning.” System 33(3), 381–546.
Martínez-Flor, A. and E. Usó-Juan. 2010. “The Teaching of Speech Acts in Second and
Foreign Language Instructional Contexts.” In Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures, ed.
A. Trosborg, 423–442. New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Munné, J., L. Paredes, E. Martín Peris, N. Sánchez Quintana and N. Sans Baulenas. 2013.
Gente: Nivel Intermedio. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mwinyelle, J. B. 2005. “The Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence in an L2 Classroom:
Giving Advice in Spanish.” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Nibert, H. J. and A. R. Abbott. 2015. Día a día: De lo personal a lo profesional. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Olivella de Castells, M., E. E. Guzmán, P. LaPuerta and J. E. Liskin-Gasparro. 2015. Mosaicos:
Spanish as a World Language. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Olshtain, E. and S. Blum-Kulka. 1985. “Degree of Approximation: Nonnative Reactions
to Native Speech Act Behavior.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds. S. Gass and
C. Madden, 303–325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Orozco, R. and J. J. Thomas. 2014. “The Future Tense in Spanish L2 Textbooks.” Spanish in
Context 11(1): 27–49.
Overfield, D. M. 1996. “Teaching Pragmatic Competence: Input, Interaction and Conscious-
ness Raising.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh.
Pearson, L. 2001. “Pragmatics in Foreign Language Teaching: The Effects of Instruction on
L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Spanish Expressions of Gratitude, Apologies and Directives.”
PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Pearson, L. 2006. “Patterns of Development in Spanish L2 Pragmatic Acquisition: An
Analysis of Novice Learners’ Production of Directives.” Modern Language Journal 90(4):
473–495.
Perez-Gironés, A.M. and V. M. Adan-Lifante. 2014. Más: Español intermedio. 2nd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rose, M. 2012. “Grammar in the Real World: Enhancing Grammar Lessons with Pragmat-
ics.” Hispania 95(4): 670–680.
Sandstedt, L. A. and R. Kite. 2014. Espacio. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Schmidt, R. 1993. “Awareness and Second Language Acquisition.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 13: 206–226.
Schmitt, N. 2000. “Key Concepts in ELT.” ELT Journal 54(4): 400–401.
Sharwood-Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.”
Applied Linguistics 2: 159–168.
Shenk, E. M. 2014. “Teaching Sociolinguistic Variation in the Intermediate Language Class-
room: ‘Voseo’ in Latin America.” Hispania 97(3): 368–381.
Swain, M. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and
Comprehensible Output in its Development.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds.
S. Gass and C. Madden, 303–325. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sykes, J. 2009. “Learner Request in Spanish: Examining the Potential of Multiuser Virtual
Environments for L2 Pragmatics Acquisition.” In The Second Generation: Online Collabora-
tion and Social Networking in CALL, eds. L. Lomika and G. Lord, 199–234. San Marcos,
TX: CALICO Monograph.
Sykes, J. 2013. “Multiuser Virtual Environments: Learner Apologies in Spanish.” In Technol-
ogy in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching, eds. N. Taguchi and J. Sykes, 71–100.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Sykes, J. and A.D. Cohen. 2006. Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics in Span-
ish. Minneapolis, MN: Regents of the University of Minnesota. www.carla.umn.edu/
speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html.
Taguchi, N. 2010. “Longitudinal Studies in Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Handbook of Prag-
matics. Vol.7: Pragmatics Across Languages and Culture, ed. A. Trosborg, 333–361. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied Lin-
guistics 31: 289–310.
Taguchi, N. 2015. “Instructed Pragmatics at a Glance: Where Instructional Studies Were, Are,
and Should Be Going.” Language Teaching 48(1): 1–50.
Taguchi, N. and J. M. Sykes, eds., 2013. Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and
Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Takahashi, S. 2010a. “Assessing Learnability in Second Language Pragmatics.” In Pragmatics
Across Languages and Cultures, ed. A. Trosborg, 391–421. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Takahashi, S. 2010b. “The Effect of Pragmatic Instruction on Speech Act Performance.” In
Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, eds. A. Martínez-Flor
and E. Usó-Juan, 127–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taylor, G. 2002. “Teaching Gambits: The Effect of Instruction and Task Variation on the Use
of Conversation Strategies by Intermediate Spanish Students.” Foreign Language Annals
35(2): 171−189.
Thomas, J. A. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Timpe-Laughlin, V. 2017. “Adult Learners’ Acquisitional Patterns in L2 Pragmatics: What
Do We Know?” Applied Linguistics Review 8(1): 101–129.
VanPatten, B., M. Alford Marks, R. V. Teschner and T. Dorwick. 1992. Destinos: An Introduc-
tion to Spanish (Videotape). New York: The Annenberg/CPB Collection.
Vásquez, C. and D. Sharpless. 2009. “The Role of Pragmatics in the Master´s TESOL Cur-
riculum: Findings from a Nationwide Survey.” TESOL Quaterly 43(1): 5–28.
52 Montserrat Mir
Witten, C. M. 2002. “The Effects of Input Enhancement and Interactive Video Viewing on
the Development of Pragmatic Awareness and Use in the Beginning Spanish L2 Class-
room.” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House
HarperCollins.
Zayas-Bazán, E., S. M. Bacon and H. J. Nibert. 2012. Arriba: Comunicación y cultura. 6th ed.
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Zayas-Bazán, E., S. M. Bacon and D.M. García. 2014. Conexiones: Comunicación y cultura.
5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
3
PRAGMATICS IN L2 SPANISH
TEXTBOOKS
Perspectives from Spain
Carlos De Pablos-Ortega
1. Introduction and objectives

It is apparent that learning a foreign language does not consist exclusively of acquir-
ing a set of grammar rules and a wide range of vocabulary and expressions. Since the
1970s, the main aim of the communicative approach has been to create and develop
meaningful strategies and tools in order to help language learners develop commu-
nicative competence. Effective communication implies the use of certain elements
along with accurate grammatical structures and appropriate lexical items, which
make the message as effective as possible in a particular communicative situation.
Those elements refer to extralinguistic factors such as the individual characteristics
of the interlocutors, their relationships, and the contextual information, which are
connected with the pragmatic aspects of a language.
It might be presumed that the use of language in context, i.e., pragmatics, is some-
thing already implicit when using a language and, consequently, it is not something
that needs to be taught explicitly. For example, knowing how to make a request in a
foreign language is a basic functional aspect that can be performed easily. However,
non-native speakers of a language might use the pragmatic patterns of their first lan-
guage (L1) when communicating in their foreign language (FL) or second language
(L2) and these two patterns might not necessarily be the same in both languages.
This is what is known as pragmatic transfer. The main aim of the study summarized
in this chapter is to explore and analyze how pragmatic content is portrayed in the
textbooks targeted at Teaching Spanish L2 (TSL2). The analysis aims at answering
the following questions:
1) How much pragmatic information, both implicit and explicit, is included in

recently published TSL2 textbooks?
54 Carlos De Pablos-Ortega
2) Which specific pragmatic aspects are covered?

3) Is the amount and type of pragmatic information given similar weighting at
each linguistic proficiency level?
The ultimate outcome of the research and this chapter is twofold: first, the intention
is to ascertain how much pragmatic related content is included in the textbooks of
Spanish L2; the second is to create an awareness of the need to include pragmatic
related information when designing teaching materials.
The present chapter begins with a review of the work and research carried out
in the areas of pragmatics and language learning and the theoretical elements that
sustain the investigation, namely the foreign language-learning frameworks. This
is followed by a section detailing the methodology of the study and the corpus
used for the analysis. A further section presents the results of the quantitative and
qualitative analyses. The chapter concludes with a discussion and conclusion sec-
tion, where the research questions are answered and suggestions for further studies
are included.
2. Pragmatics and Spanish language learning

This section presents a summary of the research carried out in connection with
three areas: firstly, pragmatics and language learning, both in the classroom and in
immersion contexts; secondly, the teaching of pragmatics explicitly; and thirdly, the
analysis of textbooks from a pragmatic perspective. The final part of this section is
devoted to how pragmatic components are reflected in two reference documents
that set up the guidelines for language learning.
Research in the areas of pragmatics and foreign language learning has focussed
on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in the classroom (Alcón-Soler 2005;
Bardovi-Harlig 2015; Félix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker 2015; Jeon and Tadayoshi
2006; Pinto and De Pablos-Ortega 2014; Rose 2005; Taguchi 2011 and 2015;
Takahashi 2010; Usó-Juan 2013) and in language immersion contexts or during
study abroad programs (Alcón-Soler 2015; Cohen and Shively 2007; Shively 2010 and
2011; Winkie and Chunhong 2010).
Eva Alcón-Soler has carried out extensive research connected to the areas of lan-
guage use and language learning in TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language).
In her edited volume (with Alicia Martínez-Flor) Investigating Pragmatic Language
Learning in Foreign Language Classrooms (2008), she presents a review of the theoretical
perspectives on pragmatic learning and its use in interlanguage pragmatic research. In
this work, she states that research from an acquisitional perspective has provided the
key elements that influence the development of learners’ pragmatic competence: the
availability of input, learners’ L2 proficiency, the length of exposure to the L1, and
pragmatic transfer and instruction. Therefore, the exposure to materials addressing prag-
matic content, from both the metapragmatic and use of language perspectives, proves
to be a critical factor for the development of pragmatic competence in L2/FL learners.
Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks 55
Teaching pragmatics explicitly is another aspect to bear in mind in the process of

pragmatic competence acquisition. Langer’s (2011) study examines the benefits of
the explicit instruction of speech acts at three different levels of proficiency in L2
learners of Spanish. The outcome of the investigation reveals that students who are
exposed to explicit pragmatic teaching improve their pragmatic competence when
compared to those who were not exposed to such instruction.
Given the importance of teaching materials as rich sources of pragmatic infor-
mation, it is essential that pragmatic awareness be reflected in the material design
processes. Ishihara (2010) claims that most of the published textbooks for English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) are usually
written on the writers’ intuition, and dialogues included in these textbooks may
sound contrived. The author questions the authenticity of the materials, suggesting
the need for presenting natural language and for introducing pragmatic issues when
teaching materials are created.
In the area of textbook analysis, specifically for TSL2, Cubillo’s (2014) explora-
tion deals with textbooks from a diachronic and general perspective, not focusing on
pragmatic content. More specifically from a TEFL pragmatic perspective, Vellenga
(2004) studies eight English textbooks, which contrasts using English as a Second
Language (ESL) with English as a Foreign Language (EFL) materials. The analysis,
carried out both qualitatively and quantitatively, covers three main aspects: the type
of pragmatic information included in the textbooks, how the amount of informa-
tion differs between ESL and EFL materials, and the strategies used by teachers
to incorporate and supplement information in terms of pragmatic information.
Vellenga’s pragmatic analysis covers four main areas: general pragmatic informa-
tion, metalanguage style, speech acts, and metapragmatic directives. The first area,
general pragmatic information, includes a wide range of pragmatically related ele-
ments: politeness, appropriacy, formality, register, and culture. Her study reaches the
conclusion that a pragmatically friendly textbook should include: activities, which
raise awareness about pragmatics; extralinguistic and contextual information for the
language samples to provide pragmalinguistic choices; and cultural information to
identify sociopragmatic elements. Following Vellenga’s study, Peiying (2007) carried
out a similar investigation that confirmed the shortage of pragmatic information in
the textbooks analyzed.
Two important official reference documents that set up the guidelines for foreign
language learning are: the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFRL), and El Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes (Curricular Plan of Cer-
vantes Institute, henceforth PCIC). The first document provides the guidelines and
basis for the development of language syllabi, curriculum guidelines, textbooks,
etc. following all levels of language proficiency. In section 5.4.3 of Chapter 5 of
the document, there is a detailed description explaining the content and inventory
of pragmatic competence for language learners. The PCIC, based on CEFRL, was
created specifically to cater to the needs of a framework of reference for TSL2.
The document includes a comprehensive analysis, description, and inventory of the
different linguistic levels of proficiency in Spanish. It covers grammar, pronuncia-

tion, spelling, linguistic functions, pragmatic strategies, discourse genres and textual
products, cultural models, and sociocultural knowledge and behaviour. Since the
establishment of this framework of reference in 2006, textbooks for TSL2, which
are published in Spain, have aimed at following and including the guidelines from
PCIC in their content design, activities, tasks, and resources.
2.1. Pragmatic information in PCIC

This section presents a detailed description of the pragmatic components of PCIC,
namely the inventory of Tácticas y estrategias pragmáticas from levels A1 to C2. How-
ever, only the description of levels A1 to B2 is presented, given that the materials
for analysis cover those levels exclusively. The inventory is divided into two sets: one
comprising levels A1 and A2 and another for levels B1 and B2. In both cases, three
sections are included: 1) construcción e interpretación del discurso, 2) modalización, and
3) conducta interaccional.
The first section, entitled Construcción e interpretación del discurso, contains eight
subsections: 1.1 Mantenimiento del referente y del hilo discursivo, 1.2 Marcadores del dis-
curso, 1.3 La deixis, 1.4 Desplazamiento en el orden de los elementos oracionales, 1.5
Procedimientos de cita, 1.6 Valores ilocutivos de los enunciados interrogativos, 1.7 La expre-
sión de la negación, and 1.8 Significados interpretados. The second section, entitled
Modalización, has five subsections: 2.1 Intensificación y refuerzo, 2.2 Atenuación y mini-
mización, 2.3 Focalización, 2.4 Los valores modales de la entonación y de otros elementos
suprasegmentales, and 2.5 Desplazamiento de la perspectiva temporal. The final section,
Conducta interaccional, includes politeness aspects and is divided into two categories:
mitigating politeness and enhancing politeness.
The inventory for each of the previous sections contains comprehensive lists of
examples of these pragmatic resources, which are often connected to grammatical
and lexical-semantic resources. It is worth highlighting two significant aspects of
pragmatic features from the inventory, which are connected with the illocutionary
value of questions and issues of politeness (mitigation and enhancement). In the
case of illocutionary force, the examples refer, amongst others, to the performance
of speech acts: greetings (level A1), asking for permission and offerings (level A2),
requests and offers (level B1), and offers and expressing doubt (level B2). This sub-
section also presents features on the use of interactional strategies: phatic value and
the use of questions to confirm information and rhetorical questions. Another sub-
section connected to verbal politeness shows key aspects which should be taken
into consideration when designing teaching tasks and activities. In level A2, there
are structures used to express impersonality and others referring to indirect speech
acts. The pragmatic patterns for level B1 are: verb tenses used to attenuate a request,
a suggestion, or a wish (imperfect and conditional tenses); indirect speech acts; per-
formative verbs to attenuate opinion, beliefs, and positive statements; and a list of
structures used to repair face-threatening acts. A final section on how to express
compliments is also included at the end of the inventory. The inventory for level B2
displays a more thorough account of mitigating resources, namely strategies to show
impersonality, the inclusion of the imperfect subjunctive as a politeness strategy
with two specific verbs (deber and querer—‘must’ and ‘want’), performative verbs to
mitigate requests and preliminary statements to introduce a speech act that threatens
the receiver’s negative face. This rich and valuable amount of pragmatic informa-
tion from the PCIC serves as a solid framework for the inclusion of pragmatic
content and information at each level of language proficiency, and will be used to
confirm whether these pragmatic components are taken into consideration when
designing teaching materials.
3. Methodology
3.1. Description of corpus
For the purpose of this investigation, five TSL2 textbooks with their corresponding
teacher’s editions were chosen for analysis. The criteria for the selection of these
books a twofold: firstly, their recent years of publication (2013, 2014, and 2015),
as one of the main objectives of this investigation is to explore recently published
materials, and secondly, the pedagogical principle used for their design, i.e., the
communicative approach. The selected textbooks were published by Difusión, one
of the most well-known publishers specialising in TSL2 for more than 25 years. The
books belong to the Aula Internacional series and cover levels A1 to B2 following the
CEFRL. Additionally, the teachers’ books were also analyzed in order to ascertain
the amount of pragmatic information included for the instructors.
The Aula Internacional series (2010, 2014, and 2015) claims “to take to the class-
room the most advanced communicative approaches” and the new edition takes
into account suggestions made by users of the book, renewing the graphic language,
layout, and the inclusion of new information technology. Each unit of the book
is divided into five different sections: Empezar, Comprender, Explorar y Reflexionar,
Practicar y Comunicar, and Viajar. The first section, Empezar, anticipates the tasks that
the students will encounter, and all of the communicative, grammatical, and lexi-
cal resources covered in the unit. This section helps students activate any previous
knowledge and prepares them for the content. The second section, Comprender,
helps contextualize the linguistic and communicative content using various types
of texts in varied formats (web pages, email messages, adverts, etc.). The aim of
this section is to facilitate the development of reading comprehension activities.
The third section, Explorar y Reflexionar, is devoted to showing how the language
works at different levels (morphological, lexical, functional, discursive, etc.) and
is intended to help students reinforce their explicit knowledge about grammar.
This section contains charts detailing functional grammatical elements. Practicar y
Comunicar offers a wide range of tasks for linguistic and communicative practice.
These are based on the students’ experiences and their observations and perceptions
from an intercultural perspective. These tasks are intended to trigger communica-

tive interaction in the classroom and, as a conclusive point, students are encouraged
to complete a final task (writing an article, carrying out a debate, organising an
advertising campaign, etc.) using their speaking and writing skills. The final section
of every unit is entitled Viajar, and its aim is to expose learners to various cul-
tural and everyday aspects of life in different Spanish-speaking countries. In the last
part of each book, additional exercises and a more detailed breakdown of grammar
explanations is found in order to reinforce what is learned in each unit. The Aula
Internacional is a popular series of textbooks, aimed at audiences studying Spanish at
higher education institutions and language schools internationally, in places such as
the UK, Australia, or Spain.
For the purpose of this investigation, the current study employs a methodology
for analysis, inspired by Vellenga’s (2004) analytical model. Two pragmatic areas
are explored: general pragmatic information (including speech acts, politeness, and
sociopragmatic information) and metapragmatic description. Speech acts refer to
linguistic forms and structures which are used to perform different acts (requesting,
apologizing, thanking, etc.). The area of politeness looks at explanations in relation
to politeness markers and other elements, such as the use of forms of address or
specific grammatical structures in relation to the social distance and power between
interlocutors. Sociopragmatic information refers to the social elements surrounding
the language, how to behave in specific social situations, for example. Metaprag-
matic description refers to the inclusion of explicit explanations in the textbooks
(both students’ and teacher’s books), which is connected to the use of language.
The analysis of these aspects is done using both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies. The qualitative analysis for the description of the different types
of pragmatic information is obtained by performing a page-by-page analysis of the
textbooks. For the quantitative analysis, the total number of pages of each book is
taken into account and compared with the number of pages in which general prag-
matic information is included. It is important to note that many elements in the
book might be regarded as pragmatic in nature, for example, verb forms to express
likes or dislikes, which lead students toward a specific use of the language. How-
ever, for the specific purpose of this investigation, only the content concerning the
specific use of language, such as the use of interactional linguistic patterns and the
metapragmatic information were used for analysis.
3.2. Elements for the analysis

This series of books is divided into four different levels, one for each language
proficiency stage from A1 to B2. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis and
presentation of results, CEFRL levels will be used, e.g., A1, A2, B1, and B2, and
the textbooks will be referred to using the language proficiency levels: A1 for Aula
Internacional 1, A2 for Aula Internacional 2, B1 for Aula Internacional 3, B2 for both
Aula Internacional 4 and Aula Internacional 5. Table 3.1 displays the number of pages
and units of study for both the student’s and teacher’s books.
TABLE 3.1 Number of pages and units for each level in the books
A1 A2 B1 B2 Total
Student’s book (number of pages) 190 215 246 314 965
Teacher’s book (number of pages) 160 192 215 264 831
Student’s book (number of units) 9 10 12 12 43
All levels (A1 to B2) include specific sections containing valuable pragmatic
information, and have been divided into five different categories:
(1) Speech bubbles: These are interspersed throughout the textbooks and are
used in many activities in which students are asked to interact with their peers.
The speech bubbles present samples of conversational patterns and serve as model
answers of what students are expected to produce (Figure 3.1). Their primary
FIGURE 3.1 Speech bubble (Aula Internacional 2, p. 66)

function is to exemplify the use of grammatical structures studied in the units

and to promote conversation and oral production. They, therefore, help develop
students’ communicative competence and can be regarded as key elements for
language use. The contextual information in these speech bubbles is limited as
it does not always present details, such as settings or the characteristics of the
interlocutors.
(2) Communication boxes: These boxes summarize and show samples of linguis-
tic constructions (grammatical and lexical); and their main aim is to act as structural
models and reminders to be used in the activities and tasks. These samples do not
contain grammatical explanations as such, but they display linguistic patterns con-
nected to language functions. For example, the box presented in Figure 3.2 includes
a series of constructions which are intended for students to use when role-playing
the interaction between a waiter and a client in a restaurant. In the box, the key
structures and vocabulary are displayed in bold, highlighting the most important
content.
(3) Comic strips and cartoons: Occasionally, comic strips are found throughout all
levels and their main objective is to contextualize interactions and dialogues. Cartoons
are usually included on pages that cover grammatical explanations (Figure 3.3). They
are intended to exemplify the use of structures and constructions in a given context.
These two visual elements provide valuable contextual information in language use,
which is one of the essential elements in the field of pragmatics.
FIGURE 3.2 Communication box (Aula Internacional 1, p. 91)

FIGURE 3.3 Cartoon image (Aula Internacional 5, p. 87)
(4) Dialogues: These are included throughout all levels and are mainly used in
two different ways: as introductory tools of language samples and as contextualiza-
tion devices for the grammatical content being studied in the unit (Figure 3.4), in
the same way comic strips and cartoons are used.
(5) Metapragmatic information: This refers to explicit explanations regarding the
use of language and other pragmatic features of the Spanish language (Figure 3.5).
This information appears in different sections of the textbooks for each level, for
instance in grammar content pages, embedded in tasks and activities.
4. Analysis of pragmatic-related content in Aula Internacional

textbook series
It is apparent that the textbooks contain many elements that help contextualize the
linguistic content they present from grammatical, lexical, and cultural perspectives.
The materials used for the textbook analysis include visual aids which support this
contextualization: photos, images, and drawings. In addition, all levels contain listen-
ing comprehension activities, some of which present different types of interactions,
occasionally built from prefabricated dialogues. These can be regarded as abstrac-
tions of real conversations.
This section presents the analysis of the materials from both quantitative and
qualitative angles. From the quantitative perspective, the total number of pages
of each textbook is compared with the number of pages that include pragmatic-
related information (PRI), showing percentages. The qualitative analysis gathers
FIGURE 3.4 Dialogue (Aula Internacional 1, p. 26)
FIGURE 3.5 Metapragmatic information (Aula Internacional 2, p. 53)
general PRI from all textbooks, followed by a more detailed analysis by level.
The findings based on the exploration of metapragmatic content are examined
meticulously by level.
Table 3.2 presents a breakdown of the distribution of pragmatic information by
level. The analysis of the complete set of books covers a total number of 965 pages
distributed in 190 pages for level A1, 215 pages for level A2, 246 pages for level B1,
and 314 pages for level B2. The textbooks with the largest number of pages corre-
spond to higher levels (B1 and B2), which is due to the nature of the activities and
tasks they present and, as a consequence, larger texts are included as examples. The
total number of pages displaying PRI for all levels is 328, which is equivalent to
33 percent of the content of the book series.
The percentages of PRI by level are distributed as follows: 37 percent for level A1,
33 percent for level A2, 39 percent for level B1, and 28 percent for level B2. These
results indicate that the distribution of PRI is even throughout all levels, although
there is a slight increase in levels A1 and B1 in comparison with levels A2 and B2.
However, the space devoted to metapragmatic information is higher in level A2
(11 pages) compared with the rest of the levels A1 and B1 (1 page) and B2 (2 pages).
TABLE 3.2 Number of pages and percentages of pragmatic-related content by level
Pragmatic-related content Number of pages including PRI

Level A1 Level A2 Level B1 Level B2
Speech bubbles 51 47 74 61
Communication boxes 10 8 17 10
Comic strips and 4 2 4 15
cartoons
Dialogues 6 2 2 0
Metapragmatic 1 11 1 2
information
Total number (PRI) 72 71 97 88
Percentages (PRI) 37% 33% 39% 28%
In general, levels A1 and A2 provide more pages including metapragmatic informa-

tion than levels B1 and B2. Conversely, levels B1 and B2 include more speech
bubbles used as language samples. The fact that the percentages of PRI are even
throughout all levels is evidence of the rigorous pedagogical principles underlying
the design of these teaching materials.
All textbooks include, at the beginning of every unit, a summary of grammatical,
lexical, and communicative resources, thus fulfilling the recommendations of PCIC.
This initial section, entitled Recursos comunicativos (communicative resources), is com-
prised of a set of bullet points stating the communicative functions of the language
being dealt with in each specific unit and, therefore, exemplifies the importance of
the communicative functions of the language.
4.1. Analysis by level
4.1.1. Level A1
As happens in all levels, the most frequent amount of PRI is displayed in the speech
bubbles and mainly includes samples of language for oral tasks. Due to students’ basic
linguistic proficiency at this level, structures included in these bubbles show simple
constructions, which are intended to promote and facilitate oral practice.
The communication boxes provide information about basic grammatical
structures with the aim of signposting the most significant structures. One exam-
ple, found on pages 20 and 21 of Aula Internacional A1, shows a comic strip
introducing different ways of addressing someone in Spanish (using formal or
more colloquial formulae) depending on the context and the person taking part
in the interaction. Students are shown different scenarios in which the charac-
ter’s name (Francisco) is used in various forms of address (Señor Martínez, Paco,
Paquito, etc.) according to the situations where the character is found. Two other
examples of dialogues, found on pages 26 and 64, come in the format of Internet
chats. The first is used to introduce the present tense and the second, based on a
conversation about the description of someone’s family, is used to present posses-
sive adjectives. The rest of the dialogues are connected with the use of language
in a shop (p. 52), a restaurant (p. 86), and in conversations employed to ask and
provide directions (p. 99). Another set of three short dialogues, referring to the
ways in which drinks are drunk or bought, is used to present the use of direct
object pronouns (p. 88). Therefore, the main aim of the dialogues for level A1
is to introduce grammatical components, rather than specifically focusing on
pragmatic issues.
The only example of metapragmatic information (p. 89) refers to an explanation
on registers and the use of second person pronouns, both singular (tú and usted) and
plural (vosotros and ustedes). The information recommends the use of polite forms,
usted and ustedes, in public places. No information about the use of these pronouns
in Latin American countries is included.
In every unit of level A1, there is a specific section entitled Consultar displayed
in yellow-colored pages and devoted to the summary of grammatical and lexical
elements studied in the unit. It is worth noting that some subsections in these pages
present linguistic functions. In connection with these, the number and use of vari-
ous speech acts are significant, namely expressing likes and dislikes and preferences,
giving opinions and requesting. The latter is used in connection with scenarios
when shopping, ordering food in a restaurant, or asking for directions in the street.
In Unit 5 (p. 55), students are asked to role-play a situation in a market where
transactions (buying and selling) are taking place. Interestingly, the communication
box, including the language samples, presents the imperfect tense as the only choice
for requesting (quería). This verb form is used to request more politely than, for
example, the simple present tense (quiero), which is also employed for this speech act.
Unfortunately, no further explanation on this request formula is included, which
would have been a useful way of highlighting how polite structures are used when
requesting in Spanish.
4.1.2. Level A2
This level includes the largest amount of PRI in comparison with the rest, but
displays metapragmatic information more prominently. The number of language
samples for oral activities and tasks presented in the speech bubbles is similar to the
previous level: 47 in level A2 compared with 51 in level A1. Given the higher level
of linguistic competency, the samples display more sophisticated structures and,
unlike level A1, patterns for the exchange of information with their peers or for
the presentation of information to each other are often used. The number of pages
with communication boxes in comparison with level A1 remains similar (8 for level
A2 and 10 for level A1).
Most of the pages including metapragmatic information are concentrated in

Unit 4. The content included in the communicative resources at the beginning of
the unit covers the following four areas:
1) How to manage codified situations: invitations, introductions, greetings and

farewells.
2) Asking for something (an action and a favor).
3) Asking and granting permission.
4) Giving excuses and justifying.
The unit starts with an activity in which students are presented with four short
dialogues that need to be matched with four photographs in which interlocu-
tors greet each other or say goodbye. Students are asked about greeting and
farewell rituals in their own countries, thus establishing contrasting elements
with the L1 culture. They are also asked about any specific gestures used when
greeting someone, so offering an opportunity to demonstrate and understand
sociopragmatic elements contrastively in both cultures. This task is followed by a
listening activity connected to requests. Students are presented with six cartoon-
like images and, after listening to six short recordings, are asked to decide which
specific actions are being performed in each given situation. They are asked
to choose from a list of seven: asking for a favor, asking permission, justifying,
thanking, introducing someone, being interested in someone’s life, and asking a
waiter for something.
Another example connected to the use of metapragmatic information is found
on page 51 and is related to making requests. In this case, the aim of the activity is
to establish the differences between questions used to ask for permission and ques-
tions to ask for a favor. In the second part of the activity, two questions are asked: the
first connected to the level of directness of the request (more or less direct), and the
second related to the factors or elements that influence the decision on the level of
(in)directness of each question. This activity is followed by another (p. 52) in which
the lexical uses of the verb dejar and dar are explored in different situations. Students
are given two cartoon-like drawings where these two verbs are used for requesting
(one with the meaning of giving and the second one for lending). This activity is
followed by another which is related to the use of the construction es que, as a way
of introducing an excuse. However, there is no further explanation in the textbook
about the use of this expression.
Unit 4 includes further activities connected to metapragmatic components. In
the first, students are asked to write a question or a phrase given six situations. The
idea of this task is to elicit different speech acts according to each particular situ-
ation. In the second activity, students need to relate each of the two answers of a
given question to two characters, each labelled as “polite” and “impolite.” In the
second part of this activity students are asked to produce two negative responses to a
given question, one showing politeness, the other impoliteness. Later on, their peers
are asked to identify which responses are meant to be polite or impolite. The third
and final activity of Unit 4 is entitled ¿Cómo lo dices? ‘How do you say that?’ and
begins with a listening comprehension task presenting an interaction where there is
a request. Students are asked to associate the dialogue with one of the four situations
given as choices. In the second part of this task, students are encouraged to role-play
one of four given situations.
Unit 4, unlike other units in the book, includes an interesting task in the Further
Activities section at the back of the book. There is a text entitled La cortesía ‘Polite-
ness’, which includes information on contrastive politeness elements between Spain
and other countries, such as Holland and the United States, but more specifically
with regard to the use of thanking. After reading the text, students are asked to
mark whether thanking is usually performed in five given situations. This qualita-
tive analysis of level A2 shows a significant amount of metapragmatic information,
placing considerable emphasis on the reflection of linguistic elements and cover-
ing the performance of different speech acts: requesting, granting permission, and
giving excuses and justifying. As included in the previous level, the yellow-colored
pages in each unit cover functional linguistic aspects when referring to grammatical
constructions and verb forms.
4.1.3. Level B1
The textbook for level B1 contains a larger number of pages than books for levels
A1 and A2, and this is also reflected in the percentage of pages that include PRI
(39 percent). However, the increase in the percentage of PRI does not differ much
from level A1 (37 percent). Generally speaking, the textbook includes more speech
bubbles with language samples and these are also more elaborate, due to the higher
level of linguistic proficiency. The number of “Communication boxes” is also larger
(17) than in previous levels (A1, 10 and A2, 8).
Conversely, the number of yellow-colored pages included in each unit, which con-
vey information regarding language functions, is slightly lower when compared to
previous levels. The same pages present three cartoon-like drawings that are found in
units 2, 7, and 12 and help contextualize the linguistic functions. In Unit 9 (pp. 106
and 107), there is a comic strip used to introduce the content of the unit in a specific
sociocultural context; a family Christmas lunch. In the same unit, there are a couple
of tasks including two contextualized dialogues. The first activity (p. 111) presents a
character showing her disagreement and annoyance in five different situations. The
second task (p. 112) displays two conversations on two mobile phones and students
are asked to find the expression used to introduce the arguments.
The only instance where metapragmatic information is found is on pages 36
and 37. This includes an activity focusing on sociopragmatic elements and is related
to social behavior in Spain. The task heading is ¿Qué sabes de los españoles? and it
presents a questionnaire entitled Cómo relacionarse en España y no morir en el intento.
Students are presented with eight different scenarios with multiple-choice questions
about how to behave or react in different social situations. Once the questions are
answered, the students are requested to read a short text entitled Cosas que debes tener
en cuenta en España so that they can check their answers from the questionnaire. This
task is followed by a listening comprehension exercise in which three people who
live in Spain discuss the most surprising aspects and habits when they first arrived
in the country. This is another significant activity which exemplifies essential socio-
pragmatic aspects that students might not be aware of, helping them to reflect on
cultural differences.
4.1.4. Level B2
This level corresponds to two textbooks (Aula Internacional 4 and Aula Internacional 5).
The percentage of PRI included in this level is the lowest (28 percent) when compared
with previous levels (A1= 37 percent, A2= 33 percent, and B1= 39 percent).
The number of pages with speech bubbles, including language samples for the
oral practice, is lower than in level B1. This is due to the nature of the activities,
which are less focused on oral production. The content in the speech bubbles dis-
plays more sophisticated language, in line with the language proficiency expected in
level B2. This finding is commensurate with what happens in the pages containing
communication boxes, which are lower in number than in previous levels, as fewer
linguistic and lexical patterns are being presented in each unit.
A remarkable finding in this level worth highlighting is the frequent use of a
wide range of cartoon-like images in the yellow-colored pages, labelled in this
level as Para consultar. Unlike in previous levels, this section now appears dis-
played on two pages due to the increased number of grammatical structures. The
cartoon-like images help to exemplify and contextualize the explanations, and
appear much more frequently than in other levels. As in previous levels, these
pages display a wide range of grammatical elements and examples of functional
language.
The only metapragmatic information found in level B2 that is included in Aula
Internacional 4 (Unit 2, p. 30) is related to conversational analysis. This small sec-
tion presents a list of expressions used to start, give, and take conversational turns,
and a brief explanation indicating how these expressions are meant to be used
with a determined tone and how to use gestures to signal and initiate turn taking
in the conversation. It is noted that in Spanish it is common to take the interlocu-
tor’s conversational turn, i.e., interrupt him/her before s/he has finished talking.
The explanation concludes stating that, in general, this conversational feature is not
impolite.
4.2. Analysis of teacher’s books

It is assumed that the teacher’s books can provide further PRI, probably embed-
ded in the suggestions given for planning the lessons and the exploitation of the
individual activities and tasks. Nevertheless, the analysis performed in the teacher’s
books for all levels does not reveal a significant amount of such information, since
this is mainly found in the explanations of the activities and tasks that include PRI.
In level A1, information about registers, specifically the use of formal and informal
forms of address, is found in Unit 4 (p. 67), Unit 7 (p. 104), and Unit 8 (p. 116). The
explanation for the teachers indicates that the uses of the informal you (tú) and the
formal one (usted) depend on the age of the interlocutors and other factors, such as
the physical appearance, the social level, etc. In the same activities, one of the sug-
gestions is to discuss with the students whether these forms of address exist in their
languages and cultures. Another pragmatic-related piece of information is found in
Unit 5 (p. 71) about the use of ¿no? (isn’t it? /doesn’t it? etc.) to ask for confirmation
and as a communication strategy to ask indirectly.
The analysis of the teacher’s book for level A2 concentrates all the PRI in Unit 4.
On page 54, there is an explanation of the way in which men and women usu-
ally greet each other and a suggestion to discuss this issue contrastively, using the
students’ cultural backgrounds. Extra-linguistic information about requesting and
asking for favors is included on page 58: the degree of formality when performing
these speech acts depends on the social position, age, and hierarchy of the interlocu-
tor as well as on the context and the difficulties involved in carrying out the actual
request. A comment in relation to politeness and requesting is found on page 60:
“politeness norms in Spanish indicate that a request should be accompanied by a
justification when asking someone to stop doing something that is bothering them.
In some cases, the justification substitutes the actual request.” On the same page,
but in relation to a different activity, teachers are asked to remind the students that
politeness norms vary in each culture and, consequently, there are also differences in
what is acceptable as correct or incorrect. It is also stated that the aim of the activ-
ity is to learn to decode what is incorrect in the characters’ behavior according to
Spanish politeness norms. The teacher’s books for levels B1 and B2 do not include
any PRI as a result of the scarce amount of metapragmatic information found in
these levels.
5. Discussion of results and conclusion

The analysis of the books for levels A1 to B2 reveals interesting findings with regards
to PRI. In foreign language teaching, one of the main aims is to promote the use of
language in communicative situations and interaction, and this is an aspect that is
reflected extensively in the materials these books provide for this study. This consis-
tency in the use of communicative elements of the language is clearly displayed at
the beginning of each unit in Recursos comunicativos. This section appears in levels A1
to B2 and contains an average of two to five bullet points listing the communica-
tive functions that will be achieved in each specific unit of the textbook. These are
presented along with grammatical and lexical resources, which are also displayed in
the same front pages.
From a pragmatic perspective, many of the activities and tasks whose main
aim is to promote and reinforce oral practice, and subsequently communicative
competence, are found in each language level, covering a third of the books
analysed. This is evidence, once again, of the significance given to the inter-
play between the use, context, and communication aspects of a language. The
textbooks display numerous linguistic samples in the speech bubbles, which are
intended to serve as language patterns and models to generate conversation in
the oral tasks. Together with these, the communication boxes are used to signal
which grammatical structures, sentence patterns, and lexical items need to be
remembered in each unit. However, both speech bubbles and communication
boxes would have benefited from the inclusion of specific contextual informa-
tion regarding the characteristics of the interlocutors or the settings where the
interactions take place.
The frequent use of dialogue helps present contextualized samples of language
in interactions that consequently serve as rich sources and examples of language
in use. Unsurprisingly, these dialogues are mainly found in lower proficiency lev-
els (A1 and A2) where more basic communicative patterns are needed. Regardless
of the linguistic proficiency, the textbook series demonstrates remarkable consis-
tency in the pedagogical treatment of the content and in the design of activities
and tasks. These are clearly linked to the grammatical and lexical content and
various structures reflecting the importance of functional language. This is not
something new in the area of foreign language teaching. However, the homo-
geneity presented at all levels is significant and shows evidence of pedagogical
awareness with regards to the pragmatic competence of the writers and coordina-
tor of the textbook series.
The findings reveal that the metapragmatic information is concentrated in Unit 4
(level A2). As mentioned in the detailed analysis by level, this information focuses
on three speech acts: greetings and farewells, requests and (giving) advice, and some
politeness aspects. The activities and tasks are designed to encourage reflection,
explicitly on pragmatic uses, therefore showing the pragmatic awareness of the text-
book writers. Given the quality of the material used in this unit, it is surprising to
find that these kinds of activities and tasks have not been included in more units
throughout the rest of the series.
Although the analysed materials present enough evidence of pragmatic aware-
ness by both textbook writers and pedagogical coordinators, the inconsistencies
in the use of metapragmatic-related tasks and activities at each level may be due
to the fact that, unlike grammatical competence, pragmatic competence is not yet
a key element borne in mind in the design of teaching materials. Throughout the
textbooks, there are many grammar points and explanations which could have been
exploited pragmatically, thus providing learners with an opportunity to reflect on
the use of language. Given the emphasis placed on pragmatics by the PCIC inven-
tory, entitled “Pragmatic Tactics and Strategies,” it is advisable for TSL2 textbook
writers to give more consideration to the inclusion of activities and tasks covering
pragmatic content. For example, the sections from the inventory, which are related
to the illocutionary values of questions and enhancing and mitigating elements of
verbal politeness, provide a rich source of information which can be used in tasks
and activities to promote pragmatic awareness.
Given the results of the analyses, it is now possible to answer the research ques-
tions posed at the beginning of this study:
1) How much PRI, both implicitly and explicitly, is included in TSL2 textbooks?
The amount of PRI covers approximately one-third of the content in the
books for each level. Therefore, it can be confirmed that textbook writers and
pedagogical coordinators are pragmatically aware when designing teaching
materials.
2) Which specific pragmatic aspects are covered? Most of the pragmatic informa-
tion included implicitly covers a wide range of functional language and is found
in various sections of the books, throughout all levels. The explicit information
(metapragmatic) comprises two main elements: speech acts and politeness.
3) Is the amount and type of pragmatic information given similar weighting
at each linguistic proficiency level? Although the type of general pragmatic
information is homogeneous and presented evenly throughout all levels, the
metapragmatic information is only concentrated in level A2.
This research has shown that publishers are increasingly aware of the need to
include pragmatic issues in the design of language teaching materials. This study has
explored a complete series of textbooks and, although the corpus comprises a rela-
tively small sample, the findings make a significant contribution, given the absence
of this type of investigation in current literature and opens an exciting area in need
of further investigation. Therefore, more research needs to be carried out in order
to ascertain the extent to which pragmatic content is included in other teaching
materials from Spain or other countries, such as the US.
References
Alcón-Soler, E. 2005. “Does Instruction Work for Pragmatic Learning in EFL Contexts?”
System 33(3): 417–435.
Alcón-Soler, E. 2015. “Pragmatic Learning and Study Abroad: Effects of Instruction and
Length of Stay.” System 48(1): 62–74.
Alcón-Soler, E. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Lan-
guage Learning, Teaching and Testing (Second Language Acquisition). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2015. “Operationalizing Conversation in Studies of Instructional Effect
in L2 Pragmatics.” System 48(1): 21–34.
Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García and I. Ginés. 2013. Aula Internacional 1, Libro del profesor.
Barcelona: Difusión.
Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García and I. Ginés. 2014. Aula Internacional 2, Libro del profesor.
Barcelona: Difusión.
Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García, P. Garrido and I. Ginés. 2014. Aula Internacional 3, Libro del
profesor. Barcelona: Difusión.
Berja, A., R. Castón, E. García, P. Garrido and I. Ginés. 2014. Aula Internacional 4, Libro del
profesor. Barcelona: Difusión.
Cohen, A. and R. Shively. 2007. “Acquisition of Requests and Apologies in Spanish and
French: Impact of Study Abroad and Strategy-Building Intervention.” Modern Language
Journal 91(2): 189–212.
Corpas, J., E. García and A. Garmendia. 2013. Aula Internacional 1. Barcelona: Difusión.
Corpas, J., A. Garmendia and C. Soriano. 2013. Aula Internacional 2. Barcelona: Difusión.
Corpas, J., A. Garmendia and C. Soriano. 2014. Aula Internacional 3. Barcelona: Difusión.
Corpas, J., A. Garmendia, N. Sánchez and C. Soriano. 2014. Aula Internacional 4. Barcelona:
Difusión.
Corpas, J., A. Garmendia, N. Sánchez and C. Soriano. 2015. Aula Internacional 4. Barcelona:
Difusión.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.coe.int/t/
dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf.
Cubillos, J. 2014. “Spanish Textbooks in the US: Enduring Traditions and Emerging Trends.”
Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(2): 205–225.
Félix-Brasdefer, C. and M. Hasler-Barker. 2015. “Complimenting in Spanish in a Short-
Term Study Abroad Context.” System 48(1): 75–85.
Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Niveles de referencia para el español: Plan Curricular del Instituto
Cervantes. Madrid:Biblioteca Nueva. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/plan_
curricular/default.htm.
Ishihara, N. 2010. “Adapting Books for Teaching Pragmatics.” In Teaching and Learn-
ing Pragmatics, eds. N. Ishihara and A. Cohen, 145–165. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.
Jeon, E. H. and K. Tadayoshi. 2006. “Effects of L2 Instruction on Interlanguage Pragmatic
Development.” In Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, eds. J. M. Norris
and L. Ortega, 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langer, B. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatic Forms in Spanish.” Segundas lenguas e inmigración 1(5):
5–34.
Pinto, D. and C. De Pablos-Ortega. 2014. Seamos pragmáticos: Introducción a la pragmática
española. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Peiying, J. 2007. “Exploring Pragmatic Knowledge.” CELEA Journal 30(5): 109–119.
Rose, K. 2005. “On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics.” System 33(3):
385–399.
Shively, R. 2010. “From the Virtual World to the Real World: A Model of Pragmatics
Instruction for Study Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 43(1): 105–137.
Shively, R. 2011. “L2 Pragmatic Development in Study Abroad: A Longitudinal Study of
Spanish Service Encounters.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1818–1835.
Taguchi, N. 2011. “Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 31: 289–310.
Taguchi, N. 2015. “Contextually Speaking: A Survey of Pragmatic Learning Abroad, in
Class, and Online.” System 48(1): 3–20.
Takahashi, S. 2010. “Assessing Learnability in Second Language Pragmatics.” In Handbook of
Pragmatics VII, eds. A. Trosborg, 391–421. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Usó-Juan, E. 2013. “Effects of Metapragmatic Instruction on EFL Learners’ Production

of Refusals.” In Refusals in Instructional Contexts and Beyond, eds. O. Martí-Arnándiz and
P. Salazar-Campillo, 65–100. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vellenga, H. 2004. “Learning Pragmatics from ESL and EFL Textbooks: How Likely?” Teach-
ing English as a Second or Foreign Language-Electronic Journal 8(2): 1–18.
Winkie, P. and T. Chunhong. 2010. “Using Task-Based Pragmatics Tutorials while Studying
Abroad in China.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7(2): 363–399.
4
WHEN TO SPEAK SPANISH
AND WHEN NOT TO
Interethnic communication and US
students of L2 Spanish1
Laura Callahan
1. Introduction
Spanish is the language with the highest enrollments in US high schools and col-
leges (Flaherty 2015), and it is also that nation’s most-spoken language besides
English (Ryan 2011). This would seem to make for the perfect situation for learners
who wish to practice speaking Spanish outside the classroom. Conversation with
native speakers is often touted as all but essential for successful L2 acquisition, and
students are urged to seek opportunities to engage in such exchanges to improve
their pronunciation and other skills. However, not every native speaker wishes to
indulge the learner’s desire to use the language (e.g., Woolard 1989; Norton 2000;
Callahan 2009). And since in the United States the majority of Spanish-speakers
are also proficient in English (National Council of La Raza 2010), if for whatever
reason a Spanish-speaker does not wish to speak or be spoken to in Spanish, a switch
to English is probable. Research and experience suggest that the use of Spanish by
non-Latino speakers may produce a negative reaction in native speakers of that lan-
guage, ranging from a refusal to answer in Spanish to a hostile tone regardless of the
language of response. In this chapter, we will review this phenomenon and examine
the implications for language learners and teachers.
The questions guiding this exposition are: What is the role of the native speaker
in L2 acquisition? Does the learning of Spanish in the United States equate to
cultural appropriation? How can we teach respectful communication in Spanish?
Using one language instead of another, when both are available, conveys a mes-
sage about the speaker’s intentions. Language choice in such contexts is therefore a
fundamentally pragmatic matter, and therefore concerns US teachers of L2 Spanish
who hope to incorporate issues of pragmatics into their instruction.
Interethnic communication of L2 Spanish 75
2. The role of the native speaker in language

teaching and learning
As mentioned above, interaction with native speakers is frequently seen as a sine
qua non for learners’ successful acquisition of the target language. First, a few
words about the notion of native speakerhood. As Kramsch (1998, p. 80) writes,
“[i]t is not clear whether one is a native speaker by birth, or by education, or by
virtue of being recognized and accepted as a member of a like-minded cultural
group.” An operational definition that has been used elsewhere assumes a certain
level of linguistic skill for both native and non-native speakers, with the differ-
ence in labels stemming from how and from what age those skills were acquired
(Callahan 2006, p. 26).
2.1. Native speaker language teachers

Despite a long-standing problematization of the construct of the native speaker as
the ideal speaker,2 its use as the gold standard by which to evaluate linguistic abili-
ties remains in full force. Although the strengths and weaknesses of both native and
non-native speakers as language teachers have been examined in many academic
publications (the bulk of which concern the teaching of English as an L2/foreign
language)—many people, both inside and outside the profession, accept the assump-
tion that native speakers are superior teachers.
The two areas most often cited as those for which native speaker teachers
are crucial are pronunciation and cultural knowledge. Pronunciation is seen as
a vital component of successful language acquisition, and native speakers are
seen as an essential element in the attainment of good pronunciation. Despite
the reality that, as McBride (2015, p. 28) notes, “L2 learners are not, [. . .] and
cannot become monolingual native speakers of their target language,” popu-
lar notions abide, according to which the language learners’ ultimate objective
should be to sound almost like a native speaker if not actually pass for one (Piller
2002). And students not infrequently believe that this can only be achieved with
native speaker teachers. Students quoted in Callahan (2006, p. 21), for example,
expressed the opinion that “a native speaker should be teaching this class” and
“[the instructor’s] accent didn’t sound authentic” and “native speakers would
help more.”
Yager (1988, p. 115) reports that “[s]trategies such as actively listening to native
speakers [. . .] and imitating native speakers are associated with more native-like
language scores.” He goes on to state that “providing study abroad opportuni-
ties may indeed facilitate the acquisition of native-like Spanish” (Yager 1988,
p. 142). We will discuss study abroad further in Section 2.2. For now, let it suffice
to note that while a sojourn in another country to acquire, practice, or perfect
an L2 may seem logical and indeed the only real choice for some languages, one
76 Laura Callahan
might wonder why this should be necessary in the case of Spanish. The presence of
Spanish in the United States has grown exponentially since Yager’s investigation.3
More importantly, so has its prestige, although US Spanish still suffers a stigma in
comparison to other varieties.4 However, despite the number of native Spanish
speakers in the US then or now, there are other obstacles to be considered. Namely,
two factors would appear to be in an inherent conflict. On the one hand, there
are adult learners whose best hope for reaching native-like oral production lies in
having positive attitudes toward and opportunities for integrative interaction with
native speakers. And on the other hand, there are native speakers who may have
little interest in—if not an active antipathy for—such interaction.
Not all investigations refer to a direct role for native speakers in the acquisition
of L2 pronunciation, but most do make reference to native speakers, more often
than not as some type of benchmark for comparison. Native speakers are also often
seen as the ideal candidates to impart cultural knowledge (Lederer 1981; Callahan
2006). What exactly constitutes culture is questioned from time to time, but a dis-
tinction is usually made between “high” and “anthropological” culture. According
to Scollon and Scollon (2001, pp. 126–127), “anthropological [. . .] culture is any
of the customs, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, and other
taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set that group apart as a
distinctive group.”
Professional language organizations package cultures as discrete entities, the
understanding of which is nevertheless given to be an essential companion to lin-
guistic knowledge of a language. Culture is an integral part of what are known as
the five C’s, the National Standards for Foreign Language Education. According
to these rubrics, students are supposed to “gain knowledge and understanding of
other cultures,” “acquire information and recognize the distinctive viewpoints that
are only available through the foreign language and its cultures,” and “demonstrate
understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures stud-
ied and their own” (National Standards for Foreign Language Education 2006).
Notwithstanding pedagogic conventions, the construct of cultural knowledge
has been problematized in recent years. One aspect in particular that has been
questioned is the assumption that culture consists of pre-existing and enduring
sets of values and practices that individuals automatically reproduce and subscribe
to (e.g., Godley 2012; Piller 2012). In popular conceptions, though, culture is
still considered to be all but innate. In the words of one informant in Callahan
(2006, p. 31), “[. . .] native Spanish-speaking instructors have the added advan-
tage of knowing Spanish culture, since they were born into it [. . .].” The fact
that a speaker was born into a group with a certain cultural background implies
long exposure to that culture; therefore, length of time can be used to rank an
individual’s cultural experience. Although most non-native speakers—virtually by
definition—fall short on such a measure, exposure to a culture might be obtained
by living in a target language country as part of a study abroad program (to be
discussed further below), or as the child of missionaries or of members of the
military or foreign service. Just as native speaker status can be an advantage for job
candidates, so can certain life experiences. Moreover, this is not seen as something
that can be acquired by just anyone: witness job announcements and candidates’
vitae that list the quality “bicultural,” in a way that equates to code for racial/
ethnic group membership.
2.2. Interactions with native speakers outside the classroom

References to native and non-native speech and speakers are sprinkled through-
out the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Most to the point for the present chapter,
these guidelines reflect an assumption that one of the goals of language learners is
to converse with native speakers, although such interactions may not necessarily
prove successful until students reach the advanced level, at which point they will
“have sufficient control of basic structures and generic vocabulary to be understood
by native speakers of the language, including those unaccustomed to non-native
speech” (ACTFL 2012). This reference to native speakers who are “unaccustomed
to non-native speech” suggests conversations that take place outside the classroom,
since the teacher would be accustomed to non-native speech and (most) classmates
would not be native speakers. The question is, then, where will such interactions
take place?
Norton (2000) studied language learners in Canada, who journaled their
struggles to acquire English. Her interviewees were immigrant women whose
socioeconomic status and, especially, their gender limited their opportunities for
interaction with target language speakers. Smith (2013) notes a similar dynamic
for Senegalese women in Rome, whose efforts to acquire Italian were hindered
not only by racist attitudes from host country citizens but also by ingroup censure
that cast aspersions on the morals of Senegalese women who interacted with Ital-
ian men. These cases involve immigrants learning the dominant language of their
host country. The situation of the language learners addressed in the title of this
chapter—students of L2 Spanish—differs from that of immigrants. US students of
Spanish are learning Spanish by choice—even if it is to fulfill a university language
requirement—whereas immigrants, in contrast, are under enormous pressure to
learn the majority tongue of their host country. In general, the immigrants’ success
or failure in the acquisition of their L2 will have a greater effect on their everyday
life and long-term prospects than the results of US students’ efforts to learn Span-
ish will have on theirs. Nevertheless, and assuming we go along with the belief
that interaction with native speakers is beneficial if not downright crucial in such
a quest, both types of learner may encounter certain obstacles in obtaining such
interaction.
Study abroad has been and continues to be one of the principal means recom-
mended for students learning a foreign language to speed their progress and aid
in their acquisition of both linguistic and cultural knowledge. Living in a coun-
try where the target language is the majority code can equate to an immersion
78 Laura Callahan
experience that translates to gains in a learner’s skills and confidence. However,

study abroad is neither the sine qua non nor the panacea it is sometimes made out to
be. While students who participate in a study abroad program may indeed increase
both their linguistic and sociolinguistic competence, research conducted over the
past couple of decades indicates that gains can be tempered by factors ranging from
gender to motivation to living arrangements to length of stay in-country. Students
who lack access to social networks—such as those provided by a host family, for
example—are much less able to find native speakers willing to engage in conver-
sation with them (e.g., Farrell Whitworth 2006; Kinginger 2009). Thus, simply
being in the presence of native speakers of the target language does not guarantee
opportunities to use the language.
A similar situation exists in the United States, where speaking practice outside
the Spanish language classroom is not an automatic advantage of living in a country
with a large population of Spanish speakers. As earlier work on the public use of
Spanish by non-native speakers and language choice in US service encounters has
shown, Spanish is an in-group language and learners’ overtures initiated in Span-
ish are often answered in English. As Callahan (2009, p. 77) argues, “[t]he position
of Spanish as a minority language in the United States contributes to its status as
an ingroup mode of communication, which in turn imposes restrictions on its
employment. These restrictions include to whom Spanish is available for use.” This
brings us to the topic of the next section, cultural appropriation.
3. Spanish as a foreign language and

cultural appropriation
The term cultural appropriation bears a negative valence, and is often both uttered
and heard as an accusation. In popular usage, cultural appropriation refers to prac-
tices considered to be faintly—or frankly—exploitative.
Are US students of Spanish as a foreign language guilty of cultural appropriation
by definition? When the definition centers on the learner rather than on the native
speakers of the language in question, cultural appropriation as understood by at least
some scholars of language acquisition and education can be seen as something more
neutral. Kramsch (1998, p. 81) discusses
the concept of appropriation, whereby learners make a foreign language

and culture their own by adopting and adapting it to their own needs and
interests. The ability to acquire another person’s language and understand
someone else’s culture while retaining one’s own is one aspect of a more gen-
eral ability to mediate between several languages and cultures [. . .].
When the language being learned is English, what Kramsch proposes is unproblem-
atic. As she notes, it is undesirable to impose “on learners a concept of authenticity
that might devalue their own authentic selves as learners” (1998, p. 86; emphasis in
the original). In this same vein, Block examines McMahill’s (1997) Japanese English-
as-a-foreign-language learners’ “engagement with English as an international lan-
guage (and not as the patrimony of native speakers)” (Block 2009, p. 113).
What if learners of Spanish were to engage with that language as an international
one, and not, to borrow Block’s phrase, as the patrimony of native speakers? This
seems to be what the commercial language learning program Rosetta Stone encour-
ages. Casillas (2014) maintains that this product promotes an image of Spanish
“divorced from the brown body.” Rosetta Stone for Spanish comes in two versions—
Spanish (Spain) and Spanish (Latin America)—and the faces and situations that
are shown in both versions distance Spanish from the local, US context. At first
glance, such an approach might seem to empower US populations of Spanish
speakers—after all, to be a user of an international code must surely bring advan-
tages. However, those who raise alarm over the commodification of Spanish argue
that its end result is not to empower but rather to dispossess a minority group of a
unique asset (García 1993). One reason for this is that native speakers of US varieties
of Spanish are not always accepted as wholly legitimate users of that language by
Spanish speakers in other nations, and US Latinos have internalized language ideolo-
gies that forever hold some variety other than their own to be “the best Spanish”
(e.g., Villa 1996, 2002; Callahan 2010a).
As Ochoa (2014) observes, Spanish has historically been a marginal language in
the academy. Departments of Comparative Literature did not recognize Spanish as
a major European language until the 1970s. As Leeman ([2006] 2007, p. 35) notes,
even after interest in offering Spanish language as a subject in school began to grow
in the second decade of the twentieth century, Peninsular Spanish was privileged
over Latin American, let alone US, varieties. While US varieties of Spanish are often
still disparaged, the language has nevertheless risen in status, due in large part to
the increase in numbers and hence acquisitive power of the Hispanic population.
Sellers wish to market their products and services to a sector that was as of 2014
over 50 million strong and projected to reach 29 percent of the country’s popula-
tion by 2050 (Passel and Cohn 2008). So now the Spanish language is seen as a
commodity, a product (Leeman [2006] 2007; Leeman and Martínez 2007; Lynch
2012; González Támara 2014), to be acquired by Latinos and non-Latinos alike,
often with more emphasis on the latter (García 1993). Ethnic commodification
results when the minority language itself or items inscribed with the language are
marketed to outgroup members (Przymus 2015; Vandenbroucke 2015).
Even as the Spanish language comes to be seen more and more as a thing of
value, US Latinos—due to their positioning as somehow less than real Spanish
speakers—do not participate in the benefits. This is because they are not seen as
full speakers of the best Spanish (Leeman 2014; Schwartz 2014; Magro 2016).
Furthermore, their hold on Spanish as an ingroup resource and positive symbol of
group identification suffers erosion as, to paraphrase García (1993), its connection
to Latinos becomes diffuse as it turns into a resource available for exploitation by
outgroup members.
80 Laura Callahan
But let us return to the case of our foreign language learners. When the language
involved is a minority one, and the learners are elite bilinguals—those who acquire
an L2 by their own election, often in a classroom, as opposed to by economic com-
pulsion, often in non-academic settings—there is less imposition and more choice
involved. There is much more choice, in fact, than the native speakers of the lan-
guage have at their disposal. For example, subjects in Schneider (2014) adopted a
language that gave them access to certain positive characteristics associated with a
culture, without assuming liabilities borne by its native speakers:
Schneider studies the performance of multiple identities by socioeconomi-

cally mobile Australians, who speak Spanish as a second language and take
salsa lessons taught by Latin Americans in dance schools owned by Australians
of Anglo descent. [. . .] Similar to Hall-Lew’s [2014] [. . .] young white
San Franciscans, these Australian salsa aficionados are able to access another
ethnic group’s authenticity from a transnational perspective, while the non-
mainstream group that makes it possible for them to achieve this has no such
opportunity to assume and divest themselves of their authenticity at will.
(Callahan 2015)
These non-Hispanic Australians’ Spanish skills let them identify themselves with
the positive cultural stereotypes of warmth and openness without experiencing
the hardships suffered by actual minority group members. Of course, not all US
students of Spanish are of high socioeconomic status, although it would be safe to
suppose that most of those who can attend university enjoy certain advantages many
recent immigrants lack. Furthermore, majority group members, even those from
less affluent sectors, receive certain linguistic concessions not afforded to minor-
ity group members. This dynamic is illustrated in a popular animated television
program, King of the Hill, in which the character of Peggy Hill, a white woman
and a native speaker of English whose Spanish skills would be rated at the novice
level on the ACTFL scale, works as a substitute junior high school Spanish teacher.
Betts (2006, pp. 185–186) describes the character of Peggy thus: “[a]lthough she
represented a person from the dominant cultural group in society who made a con-
scious decision to learn Spanish, an elite bilingual, she didn’t learn to speak her new
tongue accurately. [. . .] At the same time, she was recognized by offical channels
of society for speaking the language, and rewarded with a job that she clearly could
not perform.”
King of the Hill is a comedy that presents a parodic view, and it often makes
use of exaggeration as a comedic device. Yet its representation of an underprepared
Spanish teacher is not without a kernel of truth—some US high school Spanish
teachers’ proficiency in the language they teach does not surpass the ACTFL level of
intermediate-mid (Gutiérrez-Candelaria 2000, cited in Callahan 2006, p. 22). Contrast
this with minority group members who are penalized for imperfect oral production
of English; see, for example, Urciuoli (1996), Hill (1998), and Zentella (2003).
Ethnicity and race are topics of ongoing contention. In a 2015 opinion

piece, conservative syndicated columnist Victor Davis Hanson echoes what post-
modernists have affirmed for decades—that race and ethnicity are social constructs.
However, this does not stop racial or ethnic attributions from having real social con-
sequences, as a letter in response to Hanson’s column points out (Mitchler 2015).
Hanson cites cases of individuals who have been accused of claiming minority status
to gain educational or professional advantage. For example, former Florida governor
and one-time US presidential candidate Jeb Bush once classified himself as Hispanic
on a voter registration form. Hanson (2015, p. A13) asks whether “[p]erhaps Jeb
Bush could be called transracial. By virtue of his marriage [to a Mexican Ameri-
can woman], his Spanish fluency and his years of residence in Spanish-speaking
countries, is he more Latino than are third-generation Americans with names like
Nicole Lopez or Juanita Brown who speak no Spanish and have never visited Latin
America?” A letter to the editor retorts that notwithstanding cases such as those
Hanson cites, assignation to minority (read “non-white”) status far too often causes
real disadvantage to those so identified. It is a classification from which, unlike
members of more privileged groups, they cannot escape no matter how much they
achieve. Most relevant to the present chapter is the observation that “[c]hoosing to
be a minority when you aren’t is quite different from being born a minority. How
many minorities can become ‘white’ based on their ability to speak fluent English?
How many minorities enjoy all of the privileges of being ‘white’ simply because
they are married to one?” (Mitchler 2015, p. A11).5
4. Respectful communication in Spanish

Concerns over cultural appropriation will not—and should not—halt the teach-
ing and learning of Spanish in the United States. And while non-native speakers
by definition can never become native speakers, continued practice of the target
language is their best hope of achieving whatever fluency level may be possible.
Support for the belief that oral practice is most beneficial if conversation partners
are native speakers can be found in various studies, such as Yager, cited above, and
others too numerous to include here.6
It is clear that students of Spanish have to speak the language with someone,
even if their interlocutors are other non-native speakers. And one might wonder
why that should present a problem. Let learners go ahead and attempt to speak
Spanish, whenever, wherever, and to whomever they can. However, it isn’t that
simple. Speaking Spanish in the United States can have consequences. This has
been well documented in the case of Latinos using Spanish in such public settings
as schools and the workplace. Speaking Spanish in school in past decades could
result in sanctions including corporal punishment (Shockley 1974; Sánchez 1983;
Bernal-Enríquez 2000). And Latinos who speak Spanish in the workplace continue
to this day to be at risk of firing or other disciplinary action (Zentella 2003; Cal-
lahan 2005; Wells Fargo 2014).
82 Laura Callahan
And as we have seen in Section 3, non-Latinos speaking Spanish—or attempt-

ing to do so—can also be a source of friction. Casillas (2014) calls learning
Spanish “a badge of liberalism,” a label that offers its own brand of ironic stigma,
depending on who utters it and whom it is meant to describe. It might call to
mind the non-Latino politicians who take private lessons to learn just enough
Spanish to sprinkle a few sentences into their speeches. Latino reactions to this
practice range from praise to censure. Sometimes the reaction is tempered by
the L2 speaker’s skill, with those politicians who are barely able to utter a few
lines the most ridiculed, but other times the act itself regardless of the speaker’s
proficiency—and sometimes also regardless of his/her ethnicity—is seen as cyni-
cal (Callahan 2004).
Another use of Spanish, not normally even quite as polished as that which
some politicians have been heard to use, is the subject of a large body of litera-
ture, beginning with anthropologist Jane Hill’s work on Mock Spanish.7 Mock
Spanish has been defined as “a special register in which Spanish words or phrases
are used to evoke humor, often indexing an unflattering and stereotypical image
of Spanish speakers” (Callahan 2014, p. 203). Mock Spanish may involve Angli-
cized pronunciations of Spanish words, Spanish suffixes appended to English
words, and the use of Spanish words in place of English ones to reference unde-
sirable qualities.
What does Mock Spanish have to do with L2 learners? L2 learners’ efforts
have sometimes been mischaracterized as resembling or even constituting Mock
Spanish. So, when L2 learners of Spanish practice speak, they may incite percep-
tions that they are taking unlicensed liberties with the language, that they are not
according it the deference it is due, and by extension, that they disrespect the
group considered to be its rightful owners, Latinos. Callahan (2014, pp. 216–217)
maintains:
Non-Latino, non-heritage learners and users of Spanish are admonished by

U.S. Latinos to approach the second language with respect and diligence,
lest their use of Spanish be perceived as mocking or cynical and self-serving
(e.g., Callahan 2004, 2010; Mendoza-Denton 2008). As to the question of
whether non-native speakers of Spanish or those in the process of learning
Spanish should refrain from using Spanish in a humorous way, my answer to
those who are interested in avoiding offensive speech is yes. How to sensitize
learners is a more complex issue. [. . .] [T]eachers can teach by example,
showing their disapproval of Mock Spanish when it occurs in the classroom.
This can be done by ignoring a student’s clowning bid for attention and
making a point of attending to his or her peers’ serious attempts at com-
munication. Another recommendation would be to forego the class trip to
the Mexican restaurant during which students are supposed to practice their
Spanish on the dining room workers.
Notwithstanding this recommendation concerning “the class trip to the Mexican

restaurant” (Callahan 2014, pp. 216–217), teachers should indeed encourage their
students to use Spanish outside the classroom. As Pellettieri (2011) demonstrates,
students need their instructor’s support to overcome a reluctance to use their L2
outside the classroom, due to fears stemming from their “socialization within a
multicultural society that is often insensitive to nonnative speakers” (Pellettieri
2011, p. 295). It is important to note that participants in Pellettieri’s investigation
were enrolled in an intermediate level Spanish course with a reflective community-
based learning component. It is, rather, the unreflective assumption that restaurant
staff or other Spanish-speaking community members are there for students’ conve-
nience that should be avoided.
5. Implications for students and teachers

In this chapter, we have considered the dilemma students may encounter while
learning an ingroup language as outgroup members. Although Spanish is the de facto
L2 of the United States, a country which may by 2050 be first in the world in the
number of Spanish-speakers within its borders (Instituto Cervantes 2012), this does
not translate to unfettered access to conversation partners in that language for non-
native speakers. Students will find this out on their own; some will take it in stride.
Others will be surprised to discover that their attempts to speak Spanish are not
welcome in all encounters with classmates, friends, and acquaintances, and much
less with strangers. Some will become disillusioned; the degree of acceptance from
target language speakers has been shown to affect the degree of language acquisi-
tion (albeit this has been studied more in cases of immigrant acquisition of the host
country’s language; see, for example, Baker 2011).8 Other students will persist in
speaking Spanish in ways that perpetuate the image—deserved or undeserved—of
the insensitive majority group member, who enjoys the privilege of speaking an
L2 badly, heedless of any social sanctions and blissfully unaware of—or unconcerned
by—an interlocutor’s cues.
We as educators can offer some solutions. First, we can inform students of the
fact that some native speakers may reject their efforts, especially in situations in
which an outgroup member’s use of Spanish may be perceived as an insinuation
that an interlocutor is unable to speak English. As has been discussed in Section 3
of this chapter, due to inequalities in US society, not all speakers are subject to
the same social sanctions for having less than perfect English ability. Students
should first of all be asked to reflect on the question of why such a perception—
i.e., that one is unable to speak English—could be damaging to someone, and
whether it would be equally damaging to members of all social groups. Students
could be asked to think of in what types of situations this perception might arise,
and to engage in their own ethnographic observations of everyday encounters in
which languages other than English are used. Who are the interlocutors? Does
84 Laura Callahan
the encounter begin in English and transition into the other language? If so, how
does this seem to happen?
Coupling language study with community involvement, whether within the con-
text of an experiential learning course (aka service learning or community-based
learning) or a domestic immersion program (Miano, Bernhardt, and Brates 2016)
has been shown to be a very promising means of helping students acquire both
linguistic proficiency and sociocultural sensitivity. However, as has been observed (see
endnote 3), such programs typically enroll students at the intermediate or advanced
levels of language study. And since many US college students will stop after just
one year (or less) of instruction, they will not have the opportunity to develop the
insights that community engagement may offer. An alternative may lie in explicit,
in-class instruction about language and social dynamics. In other words, teach socio-
linguistics side-by-side with language from the introductory level, so that students
can appreciate the nuances of respectful communication and understand more about
the complex situation of Spanish in the US (Magro 2016; Pellettieri et al. 2016).
Finally, we can incentivize students to continue their acquisition of Spanish to
more advanced levels. Although outgroup members fluent in an ingroup language
may still encounter situations in which their use of the language is not welcome,
these will be fewer for skilled users and they will not run the risk of being mistaken
for speaking Mock Spanish.
Notes
1 A distinction between foreign and L2 learning has been made based on whether the lan-
guage is acquired via “formal classroom instruction outside of the geographical region
where it is commonly spoken” or “within one of the regions where the language is com-
monly spoken” (Shrum and Glisan 2010, p. 12). So-called L2 learning may or may not
include formal classroom instruction. The idea is that L2 learners have access to interac-
tions with native speakers of their target language everywhere, such as in the workplace,
stores, and other community venues. Since this is not the case for non-Latino US students
of Spanish, I will refer to Spanish as a foreign language in the context of this chapter, even
though it is not a foreign language by other criteria.
2 See, for example: Paikeday (1985); Cook (1995, 1999); Kramsch (1997); Valdés (1998).
Otheguy (2015) also problematizes the notion of the native speaker, in particular its validity
as a psycholinguistic concept.
3 Another area new since that time is service learning, also known as community-based or
community-engaged learning. While more and more tertiary institutions are incorporat-
ing service learning, in language instruction this tends to be most common in intermediate
or advanced courses, which are beyond the level of L2 study required at most US universi-
ties and hence involve far fewer students.
4 A discussion of the prestige of US varieties of Spanish is beyond the scope of this chapter.
See, for example: Valdés et al. (2003); Leeman ([2006] 2007); Callahan (2010a); Ochoa
(2014); Beaudrie (2015); Bruzos Moro (2016).
5 See Winfrey Harris (2015) for one of numerous opinion pieces on another much-
publicized case of a majority group member claiming minority group membership—
Rachel Dolezal, who headed a chapter of the NAACP, was forced to step down from that
role after it was discovered that both her parents were white, and that she lacked African
American ancestors. Winfrey Harris makes the same point as Mitchler:
Being able to shift one’s race is a privilege. Ms. Dolezal’s masquerade illustrates that
however much she may empathize with African-Americans, she is not one, because
black people in America cannot shed their race. We cannot proclaim the black race a
nebulous concept, while strictly policing whiteness and the privileges of that identity.
(Winfrey Harris 2015; see also Blow 2015)
6 See Bowles (2011, p. 30) for more references.
7 For more on Mock Spanish, see: Hill (1995, 1998, 2008); Zentella (2003); Barrett (2006);
Breidenbach (2006); Mendoza-Denton (2008); Schwartz (2008); Callahan (2010b, 2014);
Potowski (2011).
8 In turn, a positive attitude toward the target language community—as manifested in a desire
to interact with its members—has been shown by Gardner (e.g., 2001) to be a factor in
successful L2 acquisition.
References
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 2012. ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-pro
ficiency-guidelines-2012.
Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Clevedon:
Barrett, R. 2006. “Language Ideology and Racial Inequality: Competing Functions of Span-
ish in an Anglo-Owned Mexican Restaurant.” Language in Society 35(2): 163–204.
Beaudrie, S. M. 2015. “Approaches to Language Variation: Goals and Objectives of the Span-
ish Heritage Language Syllabus.” Heritage Language Journal 12(1): 1–21.
Bernal-Enríquez, Y. 2000. “Factores socio-históricos en la pérdida del español del suroeste de
los Estados Unidos y sus implicaciones para la revitalización.” In Research on Spanish in the
United States, ed. A Roca, 121–136. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Betts, G. F. 2006. “Making a Run for the (Linguistic) Border: The Cultural Power of Lan-
guage and Dialect-Mixing on Television.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico.
Block, D. 2009. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Blow, C. M. 2015. “The Delusions of Rachel Dolezal.” New York Times. June 17, 2015.
Bowles, M. A. 2011. “Exploring the Role of Modality: L2-Heritage Learner Interactions in
the Spanish Language Classroom.” Heritage Language Journal 8(1): 30–65.
Breidenbach, C. M. 2006. “Deconstructing Mock Spanish: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of
Mock Spanish as Racism, Humor, or Insult.” PhD diss., University of South Carolina.
Bruzos Moro, A. 2016. “El capital cultural del español y su enseñanza como lengua extran-
jera en Estados Unidos.” Hispania 99(1): 5–16.
Callahan, L. 2004. “Native Speakers’ Attitudes Toward the Public Use of Spanish by Non-
Native Speakers: From George W. to J. Lo.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23(1): 1–28.
Callahan, L. 2005. “‘Talking Both Languages’: 20 Perspectives on the Use of Spanish and
English Inside and Outside the Workplace.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Devel-
opment 26(4): 275–295.
Callahan, L. 2006. “Student Perceptions of Native and Non-Native Speaker Language
Instructors: A Comparison of ESL and Spanish.” Sintagma: Revista de Lingüística 18: 19–49.
Callahan, L. 2009. Spanish and English in U.S. Service Encounters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Callahan, L. 2010a. “U.S. Latinos’ Use of Written Spanish: Realities and Aspirations.” Heritage
Language Journal 7(1): 1–27.
Callahan, L. 2010b. “Speaking with (Dis)Respect: A Study of Reactions to Mock Spanish.”
Language and Intercultural Communication 10(4): 299–317.
86 Laura Callahan
Callahan, L. 2014. “The Importance of Being Earnest: Mock Spanish, Mass Media, and the
Implications for Language Learners.” Spanish in Context 11(2): 202–220.
Callahan, L. 2015. Review of Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, eds. V. Lacoste,
J. R. E. Leimgruber and T. Breyer. Linguist List 26 (3008). June 23, 2015.
Casillas, D. I. 2014. “Sin Barreras, Rosetta Stone, and the Politics of Language Learning.”
Paper presented at Imagining Latina/o Studies: Past, Present, and Future: An International
Latina/o Studies Conference. Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL. July 18, 2014.
Cook, V. 1995. “Multi-Competence and the Learning of Many Languages.” Language, Culture
and Curriculum 8(2): 93–98.
Cook, V. 1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.” TESOL Quarterly
33(2): 185–209.
Farrell Whitworth, K. 2006. “Access to Language Learning during Study Abroad: The Roles
of Identity and Subject Positioning.” PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University.
Flaherty, C. 2015. “Not a Small World After All.” Inside Higher Education. February 11,
2015.
García, O. 1993. “From Goya Portraits to Goya Beans: Elite Traditions and Popular Streams in
U.S. Spanish Language Policy.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 12(1–2): 69–86.
Gardner, R. C. 2001. “Integrative Motivation and Second-Language Acquisition.” In Motiva-
tion and Second Language Acquisition, eds. Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt, 1–20. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Godley, A. J. 2012. “Intercultural Discourse and Communication in Education.” In The
Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, eds. C. Bratt Paulston, S. F. Kiesling
and E. S. Rangel, 449–481. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
González Támara, A. I. 2014. “Tratamiento de la variación del español en textos para estudi-
antes bilingües en Estados Unidos.” Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Graduate
Students’ Conference. PhD Program in Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Lan-
guages. The Graduate Center, City University of New York. April 4, 2014.
Gutiérrez-Candelaria, J. R. 2000. “Attitudes of Teachers toward Varieties of Spoken Spanish.”
Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Spanish and
Portuguese. San Juan, Puerto Rico. August 2–6, 2000.
Hall-Lew, L. 2014. “Chinese Social Practice and San Franciscan Authenticity.” In Indexing
Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, eds. V. Lacoste, J. R. E. Leimgruber and T. Breyer,
55–77. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hanson, V. D. 2015. “It May Be Time to Stop Racial Labeling.” San Jose Mercury News. April 17,
2015. A13.
Hill, J. H. 1995. “Junk Spanish, Covert Racism, and the (Leaky) Boundary between Public
and Private Spheres.” Pragmatics 5(2): 197–212.
Hill, J. H. 1998. “Language, Race, and White Public Space.” American Anthropologist 100(3):
680–689.
Hill, J. H. 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Instituto Cervantes. 2012. “El español y sus hablantes en cifras.” El español en el mundo. Anu-
ario del Instituto Cervantes 2012.
King of the Hill. USA. Fox. 1997–2010. Television.
Kinginger, C. 2009. Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research.
Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kramsch, C. 1997. “The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker.” PMLA 112(3): 359–369.
Kramsch, C. 1998. Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lederer, H. 1981. “The Native Speaker Issue: Problem or Pretext?” ADFL Bulletin 12(4):
1–4.
Leeman, J. [2006] 2007. “The Value of Spanish: Shifting Ideologies in United States Lan-
guage Teaching.” ADFL Bulletin 38(1–2): 32–39.
Leeman, J. 2014. “Critical Approaches to the Teaching of Spanish as a Local-Foreign Lan-
guage.” In The Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte, 275–292. New
York: Routledge.
Leeman, J. and G. Martínez. 2007. “From Identity to Commodity. Ideologies of Spanish in
Heritage Language Textbooks.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 4(1): 35–65.
Lynch, A. 2012. “Brain, Language, Commodity: Locating Bilingualism in the 21st Century.”
Guest lecture, Cultural and Ethical Issues in Language and Communication. The City
College of New York. April 2, 2012.
Magro, J. 2016. “Lengua y racismo: Motivación, competencia y conciencia lingüística en
la clase de español como segunda lengua: integración de contenidos relacionados con la
dimensión socio-política del lenguaje en un acercamiento content-based.” PhD diss., City
University of New York.
McBride, K. 2015. “Which Features of Spanish Learners’ Pronunciation Most Impact Lis-
tener Evaluations?” Hispania 98(1): 14–30.
McMahill, C. 1997. “Communities of Resistance: A Case Study of Two Feminist English
Classes in Japan.” TESOL Quarterly 31(4): 612–622.
Mendoza-Denton, N. 2008. Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina Youth
Gangs. London: Blackwell.
Miano, A. A., E. B. Bernhardt and V. Brates. 2016. “Exploring the Effects of a Short-Term
Spanish Immersion Program in a Postsecondary Setting.” Foreign Language Annals 49(2):
287–301.
Mitchler, C. R. 2015. “Don’t Confuse Cultural Pride with Ethnicity.” San Jose Mercury News.
April 20, 2015. A11.
National Council of La Raza. 2010. “Twenty of the Most Frequently Asked Questions about
Hispanics in the U.S.” http://publications.nclr.org/handle/123456789/78.
National Standards for Foreign Language Education, 3rd ed. 2006. ACTFL. www.actfl.org.
Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change.
London: Longman.
Ochoa, J. 2014. “¿Latino Studies en español? Teaching and Researching in Latina/o Lit-
erature in a Spanish Department.” Paper presented at Imagining Latina/o Studies: Past,
Present, and Future: An International Latina/o Studies Conference. Palmer House Hilton,
Chicago. July 19, 2014.
Otheguy, R. 2015. “Linguistic Ideology, Linguistic Theory and Spanishes in the U.S.” Key-
note speech at the 25th Conference on Spanish in the United States/10th Conference
on Spanish in Contact with Other Languages. The City College of New York. March 26,
2015.
Paikeday, T. M. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto: Paikeday Pub.
Passel, J. S. and D. Cohn. 2008. “U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050.” Pew Research
Center. www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005–20.
Pellettieri, J. 2011. “Measuring Language-Related Outcomes of Community-Based Learning
in Intermediate Spanish Courses.” Hispania 94(2): 285–302.
Pellettieri, J., L. Callahan, R. Ramírez, A. Sampaio and A. Schindewolf. 2016. “Spanglish,
Mock Spanish, and the Prestige of Spanish in the United States.” Panel discussion, Lan-
guage Matters! Department of Modern Languages and Literatures. Santa Clara Univer-
sity. May 11, 2016.
Piller, I. 2002. “Passing for a Native Speaker: Identity and Success in Second Language Learn-
ing.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(2): 179–206.
88 Laura Callahan
Piller, I. 2012. “Intercultural Communication: An Overview.” In The Handbook of Intercultural

Discourse and Communication, eds. C. Bratt Paulston, S. F. Kiesling and E. S. Rangel, 3–18.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Potowski, K. 2011. “Linguistic and Cultural Authenticity of ‘Spanglish’ Greeting Cards.”
International Journal of Multilingualism 8(4): 324–344.
Przymus, S. 2015. “A Tale of Two Tucsons: The Language of Street Signs and Classroom
Instruction.” Paper presented at the 7th International Linguistic Landscape Workshop.
University of California, Berkeley. May 7, 2015.
Ryan, C. 2011. “Language Use in the United States: 2011.” American Community Survey
Reports. US Census Bureau. www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf.
Sánchez, R. 1983. Chicano Discourse: Socio-Historic Perspectives. Houston, TX: Arte Público
Press.
Schneider, B. 2014. “‘Oh Boy, ¿hablas español?’—Salsa and the Multiple Value of Authentic-
ity in Late Capitalism.” In Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, eds. V. Lacoste,
J. R. E. Leimgruber and T. Breyer, 113–135. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schwartz, A. 2008. “Their Language, our Spanish: Introducing Public Discourses of ‘Grin-
goism’ as Racializing Linguistic and Cultural Reappropriation.” Spanish in Context 5(2):
224–245.
Schwartz, A. 2014. “Third Border Talk: Intersubjectivity, Power Negotiation and the Making
of Race in Spanish Language Classrooms.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language
227: 157–173.
Scollon, R. and S. Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach.
2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shockley, J. S. 1974. Chicano Revolt in a Texas Town. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Shrum, J. L. and E. W. Glisan. 2010. Teacher’s Handbook. Contextualized Language Instruction.
Smith, M. A. 2013. “Multilingual Practices of Senegalese Immigrants in Paris and Rome: A
Comparative Study of Language Use and Identity Construction.” PhD diss., University
of California, Berkeley.
Urciuoli, B. 1996. Exposing Prejudice. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Valdés, G. 1998. “The Construct of Near-Native Speaker in the Foreign Language Profes-
sion: Perspectives on Ideologies about Language.” ADFL Bulletin 29(3): 4–8.
Valdés, G., S. V. González, D. López García and P. Márquez. 2003. “Language Ideology: The
Case of Spanish in Departments of Foreign Languages.” Anthropology and Education Quar-
terly 34(1): 3–26.
Vandenbroucke, M. 2015. “Displacing Gentrification: A Diachronic Case-Study of Lan-
guage and Multilingualism in Brussels’ Quartier Dansaert.” Paper presented at the
7th International Linguistic Landscape Workshop. University of California, Berkeley.
May 7, 2015.
Villa, D. J. 1996. “Choosing a ‘Standard’ Variety of Spanish for the Instruction of Native
Spanish Speakers in the U.S.” Foreign Language Annals 29(2): 191–200.
Villa, D. J. 2002. “The Sanitizing of U.S. Spanish in Academia.” Foreign Language Annals
35(2): 222–230.
“Wells Fargo to pay $295K after firing Spanish speaking worker.” 2014. Fox9.com. October 1,
2014.
Winfrey Harris, T. 2015. “Black Like Who? Rachel Dolezal’s Harmful Masquerade.” New
York Times. June 16, 2015.
Woolard, K. A. 1989. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Yager, K. D. 1988. “Second Language Acquisition: Spanish Grammar and Pronunciation in
Adult Native Speakers of English.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico.
Zentella, A. C. 2003. “‘José, Can You See?’ Latin@ Responses to Racist Discourse.” In Bilin-
gual Aesthetics, ed. D. Sommer, 51–66. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5
NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
IN L2 SPANISH TEACHING
Ana M. Cestero Mancera
1. Introduction
Didactic methods in second language teaching (henceforth L2) have undergone an
important change over the past decades; the development of linguistic disciplines
such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics, dialectology, conversation analysis, and discourse
analysis, whose object of study is speech, interaction, and communication, together
with the development of linguistics applied to language teaching, have brought
about changes in theory and methodology which have resulted in the emergence of
a new general focus on a systematic use of a methodological approach that is very
different from the traditional one. Currently, the general aim is to teach and learn
to communicate and interact in the target language and, to this end, it is necessary
to pay special attention to communicative competence.
In order to communicate effectively and appropriately, it is not enough to simply
acquire the linguistic system of the target language, no matter how thorough and com-
plete it may be. We must also be communicatively competent, with all that that implies:
in the first place, the knowledge and correct use of the verbal communication system
and, in the second place, the knowledge and use of pragmatic, social, situational, and
geographical information, together with the signs of nonverbal communication. Thus,
communication is not to be conceived purely and simply as the use of the elements of
the linguistic system, but as the combined use of all the signs, systems, and aspects that
are naturally carried out in any act of human communication.
This chapter deals with the signs and systems of nonverbal communication, with
the aim of offering a clear theoretical and methodological base that enables the incor-
poration of nonverbal signs into L2 Spanish teaching. We believe that the use of these
elements constitutes a substantial and basic part of communication and of the means of
human communication. Nevertheless, they are the communicative elements that have
received the least attention in L2 curriculum design, due in part to the longstanding
Nonverbal communication 91
and prevalent focus on the teaching of the verbal system and its use, and partly to the
fact that our knowledge of nonverbal communication is scant and fragmented.1
2. Nonverbal communication
The expression nonverbal communication has an extraordinarily broad meaning, since
it refers to all the nonlinguistic signs and systems of signs that communicate or
inform. Therefore, these include cultural habits and customs in the broadest sense
and the so-called nonverbal communication systems. Bearing in mind that we are
dealing with interrelated aspects and elements, we propose the following definition,
which enables us, for practical reasons, to establish two different types of elements
that constitute what is commonly called nonverbal communication: cultural signs
and systems, and nonverbal communication systems.
On the one hand, cultural signs and systems are the set of behavioral and envi-
ronmental habits and beliefs of a community that communicate both in the widest
and the strictest senses of the word. On the other hand, nonverbal communication
systems represent the set of signs that constitutes the basic nonverbal communica-
tion systems, both the paralinguistic and the kinesic, as well as the two secondary or
cultural ones, the proxemic and chronemic systems.
Both of these types contain universal elements along with those that are particu-
lar to each language and culture and, therefore, require specific study and teaching.
However, in this case, we are going to focus only on the second type, namely,
nonverbal communication systems because the cultural aspect, with its signs and
systems, is an area worthy of independent study, which is carried out in the field of
what is now known as the culture component or interculturality.
2.1. Nonverbal communication systems

Paralanguage, kinesics, proxemics, and chronemics are the four currently recognized
nonverbal communication systems. Of these, the first two, one phonic and the other
corporal, are considered basic or primary due to their direct impact in any act of
human communication, as they are activated at the same time as the verbal system
in order to produce any communicative act. The other two, the proxemic and
chronemic systems, are considered to be secondary or cultural systems, since they
generally act by modifying or reinforcing the meaning of the elements of the basic
systems (language, paralanguage, and kinesics) or independently, providing social or
cultural information. Let us now make a more detailed examination of the systems
that concern this topic.
2.1.1. The paralinguistic system

The paralinguistic system is formed by phonic qualities and modifiers, acoustic
indicators of physiological and emotional reactions, quasi-lexical elements, and
92 Ana M. Cestero Mancera
the pauses and silences which, with their meaning or their inferred components,
communicate, specify, or nuance the sense of signs belonging to other systems in
communicative acts (Poyatos 1993, 1994b).
The physical qualities of sound, such as tone, pitch, quantity, and loudness, and the
phonic modifiers or voice types can provide any linguistic or paralinguistic expression
with inferential components which, traditionally, may determine the information
that the speaker wishes to give or nuance the content of the utterance or act of
communication. Thus, for example, an expression like “Ven aquí” may convey joy
or contempt, happiness or anger, depending on the tone and volume at which it is
produced and the length of some of its sounds, or it can have a different meaning if
it is whispered, shouted, produced with lip stretching, and so on.
Some physiological or emotional reactions, like laughter, crying, sighing, coughing,
throat clearing, yawning, panting, spitting, belching, hiccupping, sneezing, flatulence,
and chattering of teeth produce sounds containing certain inferential communica-
tive components that may vary from one culture to another. These are acoustic
signals, emitted consciously or unconsciously, which have great functional value.
For example, laughter is an emotional reaction normally expressing joy, but it can
also express sadness or fear; furthermore, it is used to qualify utterances, whether
they proceed from others (showing agreement, disagreement, understanding, rec-
ognition, or following) or are our own (denoting anecdotes and amusing events, or
minimizing errors, faux pas, or embarrassing utterances). Finally, it can function as
a sign of conversational action (marking the beginning and end of turns or con-
tinuation or active participation in an interaction) (Bolaños 2010, 2015; Bravo
1997, 2000; Cestero 2014). The yawn is another physiological reaction that can be
perceived and interpreted by the Spanish in different ways; for example, it conveys
boredom or weariness and, therefore, attempts are made to avoid it, giving rise to
the appearance of concealment strategies, such as lowering the head or covering the
mouth, whereas for North Americans from the US it conveys tiredness, normally
associated with a great effort.
Quasi-lexical elements are conventional “vocalizations” and “consonantizations”
with little lexical content, but great functional value (Bernardi 2014; Edeso 2007;
Poyatos 1994b; Real Academia Española 2010; Torres 2004). Most interjections
(¡Ah!,¡Oh!), are considered to belong to this group, as are the onomatopoeias
(Glu-glu, Miau), acoustic emissions having names of their own (chistar, sisear, lamer,
gemir . . .) and many other sounds (Uff, Hm, Iaj, Ojj, Puaf, Tch . . .) which, despite
not having established names or spellings, are normally used with a similar com-
municative value to that of certain linguistic or kinesic signals, which leads to
their being considered paralinguistic alternants (Poyatos 1994b). Although they
are very productive elements, due to the difficulty involved in identifying and
transcribing them, there are, as of yet, no complete and detailed inventories that
facilitate their inclusion in language teaching programs. This is clearly necessary
as these signals show a great intercultural variation, as can be seen from the fact
that a quasi-lexical signal widely used in Spain, like hm, used to show agreement
with a speaker, has a different form in other cultures (Mm, Ha, Mha . . .) or that a
lingual click (ts, tz) ‘tsk’, ‘tut’, which is used to decline or refuse in Spain, conveys
incredulity in Taiwan.
Finally, it must be remembered that the absence of sound also communicates
(Poyatos 1994b; Méndez Guerrero 2014a, 2014b). The primary function of pauses
is to regulate turn-taking, marking the end of one turn and the possible beginning
of the next, but they can also be used to present different types of verbal communi-
cation, such as questions, narrations, or requests for support, and, furthermore, they
can be reflexive or physiological. Regarding silence, which is infrequent in Spanish,
it can be used to confirm previous utterances or be caused by a failure in interactive
mechanisms, such as a change of speaker, a correction or a response to a question,
or a communication breakdown as in the cases of hesitation, doubt, reflection, and
so on. Furthermore, it can serve to present communicative acts, like questions or
narrations, or to emphasize the content of previously emitted utterances or those
that are soon to be emitted. The general functions of absences of sound, whether
long or short, vary from one culture to another, for which reason they must also be
dealt with in L2 teaching curricula and, above all, in teaching Spanish, a language
and culture “without empty spaces,” where the pause is used as a secondary marker
in conversation, which means that it does not normally occur between turns. This
differentiates Spanish from Spain from many other languages and cultures, in which
these nonverbal signs (pauses and silence) constitute a basic marker of the end of a
turn and are therefore obligatory before the intervention of the interlocutor. This
means that when students of Spanish try to converse with a native of Spain, they will
expect a pause before starting to speak, but the native will not stop, meaning that,
following the turn-taking mechanism, s/he will go on speaking, taking for granted
that the foreign interlocutor does not wish to speak. This difference, however simple
it may appear, makes it incredibly difficult for a foreign interlocutor to begin to
speak spontaneously and naturally (Cestero 2005).
2.1.2. The kinesics system

The kinesics system, also basic or primary, is comprised of the bodily movements
and postures which communicate, specify, and nuance the meaning of communica-
tive signs or acts of communication, including such relevant aspects as eye behavior
or bodily contact, which have on occasions been treated as independent systems,
as they are situated half-way between kinesics and proxemics (Poyatos 1994b). In
general, there are three basic categories of kinesic signs: facial and bodily gestures
and movements, conventional ways of performing actions, and movements or static
communicative positions (Adam and Nelson 2016, Cartmill and Goldin-Meadow
2016, Hwang and Matsumoto 2016).
Gestures are psychomuscular movements of conventional communicative value;
that is, they are used in accordance with socio-cultural conventions to produce
an act of communication. The human body offers a huge number of possibilities
of movement; however, they can be simplified to differentiate two basic types of
gesture that are generally interrelated, although they can be specified according to
function: facial gestures/expressions (made using the eyes, eyebrows, space between
the eyebrows, forehead, cheeks, nose, lips, mouth, and chin), and bodily gestures
(made using the head, shoulders, arms, hands, fingers, hips, legs, and feet). This is the
most widely studied nonverbal category in the field of cultural interaction and the
one that receives the most attention in L2 teaching, since the variations in the rep-
ertoires of gestures of different cultures are quickly and easily observed and there are
few teachers and students who are not aware of some of these. We could give a long
list of bodily signs that differ from culture to culture, but let us take for example the
nodding of the head, meaning agreement, consent, or affirmation which, in most
cultures, is carried out with a direct up and down movement, whereas in others it is
horizontal or even a sideways movement, which may lead to confusion between the
functions of affirmation, negation, or doubt.
Manners, as the name indicates, are the ways of making movements, adopting
postures, and, generally, carrying out nonverbal acts of communication. Therefore,
on one hand, they refer to the ways we normally produce gestures and postures,
and on the other, to certain habits of cultural behavior. This definition enables us
to distinguish two basic types of manners that should be studied and taught in dif-
ferent ways. First, gestural and postural manners should be identified and described
together with the corresponding gesture or posture (since this is part of their produc-
tion). Second, the ways of carrying out habits of cultural behavior (for example, the
way in which one sits or stands in public transportation or the way of eating in a bar).
Postures are static positions that the human body adopts or is able to adopt and
communicate actively or passively. As in the case of manners, they are nonverbal signs
which, on one hand, are part of a gesture, since the meaning can vary depending on
the final posture adopted by the organs involved, and on the other hand, they function
as independent communicative signals, as in the case of a cross-legged sitting posture,
or a posture where the legs are slightly bent and the hands are folded in the lap.
2.1.3. The proxemic system

The proxemic system, which is secondary or cultural, is made up of behavioral and
cultural habits and a community’s beliefs regarding the human being’s concept of
space and its use and distribution (Poyatos 1975, 1976; Knapp 1980; Matsumoto,
Hwang, and Frank 2016).
Currently, three categories of proxemics can be identified. Conceptual proxemics
concerns the study and didactic treatment of topics such as behavioral and environ-
mental habits and beliefs pertaining to the concept of space of a certain community
or culture (if it is considered to be concrete or abstract, material and tangible, or
intangible and why), continuing with the distribution of space (the layout of cities,
towns, homes and furniture, parks, different types of premises, and so on), and finish-
ing with the influence of all this on human behavior (order or disorder in arranging
objects, waiting in line, or respect for prohibited or private spaces). Moreover,
the category of conceptual space deals with the values of concepts like near/far,
approach/leave, arrive/depart, here/there, or come/go, which have to do with the
concept of proxemics and show great cultural variation. The category of social prox-
emics includes cultural signs relative to the use of space in social relations (the use of
public or private exterior and interior space for social interaction), as well as people’s
actions when faced with invasions of their territory. Finally, interactional proxemics,
which is of special interest to L2 teaching, has to do with the establishment of the
distances at which people carry out different communicative interactions (consoling,
advising, chiding, conversing, carrying out job interviews, teaching). These show
cross-cultural variations, being much closer in Mediterranean, Arab, and African
cultures, known as contact cultures because they favor body contact as a regulator of
interaction, especially in conversation, and a wider variety of signals used to contact
other people. Furthermore, interactional proxemics is concerned with the functions
performed by a series of nonverbal signals in a co-construction with signs belonging
to other communication systems or alternating with those signs (moving closer to a
person to indicate the intention of going with them or to show agreement).
2.1.4. The chronemic system

Time also communicates, both passively offering cultural information and actively
modifying or reinforcing the meaning of the elements of the other systems of human
communication. The study of time is known as chronemics, which is defined as a
human being’s concept of time and how it is structured and used (Poyatos 1972,
1975, 1976; Bruneau 1980).
Similar to that which occurs in the proxemic system, there are three categories
of chronemics: conceptual time, social time, and interactive time. Conceptual time is
formed by the behavior and beliefs of different cultures relative to their concept of
time, such as whether or not they value it or consider it to be concrete or abstract,
material and tangible, or intangible and why. It also refers to those beliefs concern-
ing the distribution of time in different communities and its influence on human
behavior, like planning time and regularly carrying out several activities at once.
Likewise, this category deals with the cultural value of concepts like punctuality
or lack of it, earliness and lateness, a moment, a while, a long time and an eternity,
and activity and inactivity, all of which are chronemic concepts directly reflected in
signs of the linguistic system which show cross-cultural variation. Social time, which
depends directly on conceptual time, is constituted by the cultural signs that show
how time is managed in social relations and deals with the length of social encoun-
ters such as meetings, job interviews, or visits; the structuring of daily activities
such as having breakfast, lunch, tea, and supper; or the choice of the right time of
day for certain social activities. Finally, interactive time refers to the duration of signs
from other communication systems. This has an informative value, either because it
serves to reinforce the meaning of its elements or because it specifies or changes the
meaning; thus, the greater or lesser the length of the sounds in some words, of some
gestures or pauses, and their corresponding connotations are chronemic signs, along
with increased speed in emitting an utterance, which can intensify or diminish its
critical or corrective effect.
2.2. Characteristics of nonverbal signs

As we have just explained, the systems of nonverbal communication are para-
linguistic, kinesic, proxemics, and chronemics. Each of these has its own specific
characteristics, but we can highlight five fundamental aspects that are generally
considered to be basic features of nonverbal signs, which provide us with informa-
tion about their functions and use.
1) Nonverbal signs can communicate actively or passively. That is, they can be
used to communicate, but they can also communicate unintentionally. Most
cultural signs communicate passively and the majority of signs from nonverbal
systems communicate actively. This also concerns the conscious or unconscious
use of nonverbal signs. It is possible and even usual to use nonverbal signs
unconsciously in acts of communication that are imperceptible to the sender
but not to the receiver, who will give them more credit for the very fact that
they are involuntary. Examples of this include lingual clicks, intakes of breath,
and changes of posture made when a person wishes to speak, which are usually
involuntary or so spontaneous that the emitter is not aware of their production,
but which, for the interlocutor, constitute an unmistakable sign of the desire
to speak; the same occurs with hand gestures made when a person is nervous
or the aversion of the eyes when one is not interested in a subject, with mov-
ing closer to a person that we find pleasant and with the rigid posture adopted
when we are tense.
2) Nonverbal signs can be used in combination or alternating with verbal signs or
even among them, or independently, using a single system or several.
3) The communication that is produced through nonverbal signs is basically func-
tional. It is used to carry out acts of communication related to social interaction,
such as greeting, introducing, congratulating, thanking, promising, and so on; in
relation to the structuring and control of communication itself, such as asking
permission to speak, taking one’s turn to speak, finishing that turn, or relating
parts and elements of speech, or concerning usual practices in human interac-
tive communication such as identifying, describing, asking, opining, advising,
and expressing (experiences, sensations, feelings, and wishes). Its inclusion in the
current language teaching curricula, designed around notions and functions is,
therefore, relatively simple.
4) Nonverbal signs, like verbal ones, can vary according to the social characteriza-
tion of the person and the situations in which they are used.
5) Finally, the signs of nonverbal communication systems are multifunctional; that
is, at any moment of an interaction, they can carry out one or more functions.
They can add information to the content or meaning of a verbal or nonver-
bal communication act or they can nuance it. When paralinguistic, kinesic,
proxemics, or chronemic signs are used in this way, they can fulfil various
sub-functions: (1) to specify the content or meaning of a verbal utterance; the
tone in which we say “Of course” or “By all means” defines whether it is an
utterance of agreement, assent, or even of disagreement; (2) to confirm the

content or the meaning of a verbal utterance; for example, a gesture of negation
or refutation accompanying the words “I don’t like it” or a broad smile that
confirms the meaning of “I like it”; (3) to reinforce the content or meaning of
a verbal utterance; thus, a loud tone or a shouting voice accompanying “That’s
wrong” reinforces the meaning of the verbal expression, as do the increase in
speed when saying “I don’t understand” or an effusive embrace accompanying
“I’m pleased to see you”; (4) to soften the content or the meaning of a ver-
bal utterance, as occurs when an utterance like “It could have been better” is
pronounced with a smile; (5) to contradict the content or meaning of a verbal
utterance; thus, when a phrase like “You’ve done really well” is expressed very
loudly, practically shouting, what is really communicated is that we believe that
the person has done something very badly and even that we are annoyed or
angry about it; and, (6) to camouflage the real meaning of a verbal utterance;
for example, when an utterance like “I don’t mind if you don’t come to my
birthday party” is pronounced very slowly in a low voice, we may be trying to
hide our real feelings.
Bearing in mind the range of these uses of nonverbal signs, it is easy to accept with-
out question the existence of the basic triple structure mentioned by Poyatos (1994a,
1994b) on countless occasions and, conceiving accordingly the process of human
communication, one might ask if it is correct to speak of L2 learning (focusing on the
linguistic system) or if, on the contrary, we must aim for the development of complete
communicative competence, both verbal and nonverbal, since both systems, verbal and
nonverbal, are put into action simultaneously in any act of communication.
Besides adding to or nuancing information of a verbal communication act,
the signs of nonverbal communication systems can substitute verbal language. As
we have argued above, the elements of the verbal system must, out of necessity,
be accompanied by elements of paralinguistic and kinesics systems in order for
communication to take place. However, the same is not true of nonverbal signs,
as some of them can alternate with verbal signs or take their place, often being
more meaningful. Thus, the wish for someone to keep quiet or stop talking can be
communicated in several ways: with verbal/nonverbal co-structuring (“Be quiet,”
“Wait,” “Stop”), or with an utterance in which verbal and nonverbal signs are
used alternately (Please + gesture requesting silence or gesture meaning stop) or by
producing a nonverbal paralinguistic sign (Shh) or a nonverbal kinesic sign (gesture
meaning silence or stop) or a co-structure formed by a paralinguistic and a kinesic
sign used simultaneously (Shh + gestures for silence or stop).
Also, there are many elements in the nonverbal systems that can be used to
regulate, organize, or structure interactions. What is more, any interactive activity
is generally regulated and structured in this way. This is a very important function,
since a lack of regulation usually leads to a breakdown in communication. Examples
of paralinguistic or kinesic elements habitually used in this way include: lowering
the voice, pausing or lengthening final sounds in order to organize turn-taking in
speech, smiling, or quasi-lexical elements like hm, aha, ah to express support (as
signs of agreement and with a phatic function). Certain signs from the systems of
nonverbal communication are often used to avoid gaps in a conversation and speech
produced by momentary verbal deficiencies or a lack of knowledge of the corre-
sponding elements of the linguistic system. Paralinguistic signs like (e:) or (m:) are
regulators that fill the gaps caused by hesitation or doubt and an illustrative hand
gesture can substitute a lexical element that is unknown to us or that does not come
to mind at a certain juncture of communication.
The early acquisition of nonverbal communication systems is especially help-
ful in L2 learning in order to solve communication problems since this is a way of
overcoming verbal deficiencies that could block or interrupt any act of interactive
or non-interactive communication. Thus, when a learner does not recall a word or
is incapable of constructing certain expressions in the language being studied, he
makes natural use of kinesics and paralanguage in order to make himself understood,
achieving his aim only if the nonverbal elements are those used in the target culture.
The acquisition of nonverbal signs also enables students at intermediate or advanced
levels to correct their verbal deficiencies, but the main function is to help them
acquire interactive fluency, which, in turn, favors the development of oral expression
and, in general, the acquisition of linguistic fluency.
Finally, thanks to systems of nonverbal communication, we can hold several con-
versations at the same time and produce more than one utterance simultaneously.
This can be seen in the conversations held with those around us at the same time as
we are speaking on the telephone or when we are in two conversations at the same
time, listening to the person who is speaking while, at the same time, commenting
on what is said to the other interlocutors using signs made by the hands, feet, or eyes.
2.3. Nonverbal communication and intercultural interaction

Thus far, we have explained what nonverbal communication is, the signs and sys-
tems that it comprises, and how they work, attempting to highlight their relevance
in the process of human communication. Its importance in communication should
be reason enough to justify its inclusion in L2 teaching, but there are still more
reasons to support this idea.
As mentioned above, when verbal communication takes place, it is necessary
to put into action elements from three systems at the same time: the linguistic,
paralinguistic, and kinesic systems. This is known as the basic triple structure of
communication (Poyatos 1994a, Chapter 4), and the signs through which most
information is transmitted are nonverbal ones. Furthermore, it is possible to com-
municate using only nonverbal signs, whereas this is not possible only verbally.
Moreover, the development of communicative competence goes hand in hand
with the acquisition of verbal fluency. In this regard, nonverbal signs are a very use-
ful tool developing students’ linguistic fluency as well as favoring the acquisition of
cultural fluency, encouraging its systematic use and facilitating the achievement of
verbal/nonverbal/cultural competence.
The emission of nonverbal signs is occasionally unconscious, so interlocutors

usually pay more attention to the information received through these than to that
of verbal signs, producing what are known as “information leaks”: information that
is produced without being aware of it.
Nonverbal signs perform many communicative functions, either replacing verbal
signs or being used in combination with them. But, in addition, there are interactive
actions which generally take place using only nonverbal signs, such as expressing the
wish to speak, indicating the end of someone’s turn, and showing attention, agree-
ment, or comprehension in conversation, all of which underlines the importance of
nonverbal communication shown by its role in natural conversation.
Finally, we have stated that some nonverbal signs are shared by several cultures,
but most are specific to each culture or community. Unfamiliarity with specific
nonverbal signs is usually an important cause of errors in communication in inter-
cultural interactions, which, in turn, often causes communication breakdowns and,
apart from amusing or embarrassing situations, stoppages and setbacks in the learn-
ing of a second language.
These problematic situations underline the importance of the knowledge and
correct use of nonverbal signs in intercultural interaction, and therefore strengthen
our conviction that they should form part of the L2 curriculum. Moreover, like the
signs of the linguistic system, they require specific, programmed teaching, as their
acquisition is neither spontaneous nor natural. It is a well-known fact that the acqui-
sition process of second languages, in this case of nonverbal signs of different cultural
origin, does not take place in the same way as that of the first language, since learners
do not start from zero, but rather have previously acquired the nonverbal repertoire
of their mother tongue, which, if not corrected by teaching, will be transferred to
the target language and culture. If the nonverbal signs of the mother culture are used
systematically in the target language, they will become fossilized and, once this has
occurred, it will be virtually impossible for students to acquire the nonverbal ele-
ments of the second language, which means they will never communicate correctly
and effectively in that second language.
Bearing in mind the functions and characteristics mentioned here, we can there-
fore affirm that if our aim as teaching professionals is to enable our students to
communicate and interact in another language and culture, it is preferable to pro-
vide them with as many tools as possible from the very beginning of their learning
process. This means that it is essential to pay attention not only to the verbal system,
but also, at the same time, to nonverbal systems. This proven fact accentuates the
need for the study and teaching of these elements, and so we will dedicate the rest
of the chapter to this topic.
3. Nonverbal communication and L2 teaching

In spite of the fact that studies on nonverbal communication are still at the stage
of identification, description, and classification of signs and systems, our current
knowledge of this topic is sufficient to make us aware of the necessity of including it in
teaching and learning. In order to do this, it is first necessary to make inventories of

nonverbal signs and to carry out comparative intercultural or intercommunity stud-
ies in order to select the elements that are particular to each culture (Cestero 1999a,
2017; Poyatos 1994b, 2017). Once this is achieved, it is possible to begin to progres-
sively teach nonverbal communication in the classroom, integrating the elements
from different cultures into the curriculum, as it occurs with the linguistic system.
3.1. The study of nonverbal communication in the area of

second languages: Compiling comparative inventories
We have already dealt, on several occasions, with the study of nonverbal signs for
their application in the L2 teaching-learning process. In this context, which basi-
cally concerns signs that communicate in substitution of verbal language, regulating
interactions, or correcting verbal deficiencies, it is necessary to make inventories
of nonverbal signs and to carry out comparative intercultural or intercommunity
studies in order to select those elements that are particular to each culture (Poya-
tos 1994b; Cestero 2016). The inventories must be similar, and must therefore be
compiled with the systematic use of a specific methodology, thus facilitating their
combined and complementary use, as explained below.
3.1.1. Selection and statement of the object of study

On beginning a research on nonverbal communication with a view to compiling an
inventory, it is first necessary to have a clear idea of our object of study, that is the
nonverbal communication system that is going to be dealt with and, within it, the
categories with which we are going to work.
When specific inventories are compiled for second language teaching, as is the
case here with L2 Spanish, it is preferable to work with the different nonverbal
systems at the same time so that the inclusion of these signs in teaching syllabi can
be obtained. The most useful type of classification, bearing in mind current cur-
ricular design, is notional functional, and it will be carried out starting from the
basic functions of the signs, which will be distributed, first, according to their main
uses: nonverbal signs with social uses, nonverbal signs used to structure discourse,
and nonverbal signs with communicative uses; and, second, according to their value
or the meaning of their verbal equivalent (Cestero 2007, 2017).
3.1.2. Collection of material

The provisional classification of the basic functional uses that we wish to include in
our inventory acts as a guide to collect material in order to obtain an extensive cor-
pus for analysis. Given that the perception and collection of nonverbal signs can be
extremely difficult, we recommend four different collection procedures that should
be used successively: (1) Introspection. The researcher should be the first source of
nonverbal material to be analyzed. The first inventory of nonverbal signs and the
description of each one can be obtained from personal reflection. (2) Direct obser-
vation. Next, the researcher will actively observe the way in which other members
of the community use the signs collected in the repertoire formed from his own
introspection. (3) Conducting surveys. The signs of nonverbal communication sys-
tems, like those of verbal systems, vary according to the social characteristics and
geographical origin of the person using them as well as the situations in which they
are used. The most appropriate way to verify the variations of a sign, while at the
same time discovering its generalization, is to conduct sociolinguistic or dialectal
surveys, controlling factors such as sex, age, level of education, origin of the person,
and context of use. These surveys should be fully recorded using audiovisual media.
And, (4) Television programs, press, literature, and the media in general. The final
phase of the collection of material should consist of a revision of the use of the signs
that we are studying in popular television shows, illustrations or journalistic inter-
views, in parenthesis or author’s notes in works of literature, and so on, since these
are different media in which we can find a large variety of uses and different people
who will be of use to bear out, once more, the data collected previously.
3.1.3. Analysis of material

The qualitative analysis of the material collected, as we have seen, is carried out
progressively and simultaneously with the different phases of data collection. Its
aim should be to make a definitive classification of the elements studied and their
most habitual uses, as well as the social, geographical, and situational variations that
systematically appear. It is advisable to carry out a quantitative analysis of nonverbal
signs in order to verify their generalized use and to select the most representative
variants.
3.1.4. Presentation of results

The results of the study should be presented in the form of inventories in which
all the elements studied should be included clearly and systematically, and pertinent
relationships should be established between them.
In inventories aimed at second language teaching, paralinguistic, kinesic, prox-
emics, and chronemic nonverbal signs should appear together, since they should
be taught together, classified, as explained, according to their basic communicative
functions, and furthermore, they are to be used in combination with the verbal signs
or groups of signs, which have the same function.
Using this methodology as a starting point, numerous comparative studies have
already been carried out at the university level, in Spain, and other countries, and
presented as final-year degree projects, providing us with interesting information
regarding the differences in nonverbal communication among Spain and other
cultures and, once more, showing the necessity of working on nonverbal com-
munication in the L2 classroom. The first of these studies focused on subgroups of
signs, but the most recent ones work with complete basic repertoires of nonverbal
signs within the framework of teaching L2 Spanish and offer relevant data regarding
differences in use, form, and function of basic nonverbal signs (Cestero 2016, 2017;
Nascimento 2012; Rogero 2015; Murias 2016).
3.2. Teaching nonverbal communication in the

second language classroom
The studies on nonverbal communication are still at the stage of identification,
description, and classification of signs and systems; however, our current knowl-
edge of this field is sufficient to make us aware of the necessity of including it in
the second language teaching-learning process. In this regard, it can be stated that
the incorporation of elements from the paralinguistic, kinesic systems (as well as
of some from the proxemic and chronemic systems) in the curricula of some lan-
guages and cultures, such as L2 Spanish, could be immediate, since there are already
inventories of paralinguistic signs (Poyatos 1993, 1994b), several of Spanish and
Hispanic kinesic signs (Coll, Gelabert, and Martinell 1990; Green 1968; Meo-Zilio
and Mejía 1980–1983; Saitz and Cervenka 1962, 1972; Takagaki et al 1998) as well
as at least one that includes, in integrated form, signs from the four systems of non-
verbal communication (Cestero 1999b).
3.2.1. Ranking
The existing inventories of nonverbal signs and those that are due to appear in the
near future will serve as a base for the inclusion of nonverbal communication in
the L2 curriculum. However, unless it has already been carried out in the invento-
ries, before beginning to teach, it will be necessary to rank the nonverbal elements
according to their level, always following the syllabus with which we are work-
ing. In the first place, the signs will be ordered according to their greater or lesser
functionality; second, according to their greater or lesser frequency; and, finally,
according to the level of difficulty involved in producing them (Cestero 2007, 2017;
Forment 1997; Poyatos 2017).
At elementary levels (A1 and A2), we should include only paralinguistic, prox-
emics, and chronemic signs that can be used with lexical signs or instead of certain
frequently used, simple linguistic constructions, as well as those corresponding to
nonverbal constructions of some deictic expressions and connectors, and those with
certain physiological or emotional sounds, such as laughter, crying, coughing, and
clearing the throat.
At intermediate levels (B1 and B2), the repertoire of basic nonverbal signs will be
enlarged in order to work with those corresponding to certain commonly-used set
phrases and with frequent prepositional and conjunctional markers, also introducing
phonic qualities and modifiers and more physiological and emotional sounds.
Finally, at higher levels (C1 and C2), the basic inventory of nonverbal signs will
be further widened and the repertoires of set phrases, markers, qualities, phonic
modifiers, and physiological sounds will be completed.
3.2.2. Integration
Bearing all this in mind, the presentation of nonverbal signs in the classroom should
not be problematic since it can be carried out at the same time as the corresponding
linguistic equivalents, be they phonetic, grammatical, pragmatic, or conversational.
In this way, when teaching the first verbal signs with social use, such as verbal for-
mulas for greeting or leave-taking, the gestures and quasi-lexical elements used to
perform the same function can be taught simultaneously. These include a kiss on
both cheeks in informal contexts, handshakes in more formal ones, and different ges-
tures involving raising the hand or the paralinguistic signs Ey, Eeh, Chss . . ., which
can be used to greet or say goodbye in passing. Similarly, along with the teaching
of verbal elements related to discourse organization, we will teach the correspond-
ing gestures or those that can perform the same function in structuring discourse,
such as raising the fingers (starting with the thumb) to enumerate the points to be
explained, accompanying or replacing “First/In the first place . . .”. “Next/In the
second place . . .”, “Finally/In the third place . . .”. Lastly on teaching and practic-
ing ways to situate objects and describe people, we will work simultaneously on
verbal, paralinguistic, and kinesic expression (along with the relevant proxemic and
chronemic information).
It must be remembered that only through the joint development of verbal and
nonverbal expression can we favor the acquisition of communicative competence.
3.2.3. Teaching methodology

The experience of teaching nonverbal communication in the classroom is scant,
thus far, but it would seem sufficient to determine that the most effective method-
ology is the communicative one. Therefore, the following steps should be followed:
(1) Presentation, either explicit or implicit, of nonverbal signs. Teachers should show
the nonverbal elements they wish to work with clearly and accurately, paying special
attention to the way they are produced and their communicative function. This
phase should not be considered to be finished until it is absolutely clear that the
students have understood their usefulness and are able to reproduce them. (2) Car-
rying out activities aimed at learning nonverbal signs. Once these signs have been
presented, a number of activities should be undertaken, directed by the teacher
and closed in nature, in which the signs are used individually or in small groups.
(3) Activities designed to reinforce the learning of nonverbal signs. These are also
directed by the teacher and are semi-closed, aiming to practice the use of nonverbal
signs in interactions in pairs or small groups. (4) Activities for the acquisition of
nonverbal signs. Finally, the teacher will loosely direct certain open activities, with
the intention that the students should use the signs learned in more or less natural
and spontaneous interactions.
In the most up-to-date methodologies with integrated content, the first two steps
can be carried out independently, suggesting activities to show and learn grammati-
cal, lexical, and nonverbal content, or in an integrated manner, using exercises that
favor the learning of lexical, grammatical, and nonverbal content. However, the
third and fourth steps, aimed at developing oral and nonverbal expression, as well as
the acquisition of the other content, should be carried out in an integrated fashion,
devising activities in which the student has to put into action, at the same time, the
verbal and nonverbal signs that are being studied. The most difficult task for the
teacher at this final stage is to make sure that the pupils use the verbal and nonverbal
signs in a natural and spontaneous manner at all times.
The most useful way to demonstrate nonverbal signs is for the teacher to perform
them (in the case of kinesic signs) or produce them (when they are paralinguistic
signs); however, it may be more advantageous to use audiovisual material, such as
realistic films or comics, in which the elements are contextualized, or photographs,
drawings, or advertising artwork.
The standard activities that work best to teach and learn paralinguistic and
kinesic elements are acting or role playing, nonverbal conversation and speeches,
creating texts or inventing stories for illustrations or series of illustrations, and par-
ticipative observation. With these basic tools and different supporting materials
(videos, photographs, flash cards with drawings or quasi-lexical elements, cartoons
with or without sound representations, and so on), many varied exercises can be
devised. Moreover, more conventional, structured exercises can be used, such as
filling in or completing utterances with nonverbal signs, reacting nonverbally to
stimuli, or communicating without using verbal signs or combining elements from
different systems. It is also possible to adapt or create games to practice certain non-
verbal signs in isolation or combined with their corresponding verbal equivalents
(Cestero 2017).
4. Conclusion
In this chapter, we have made a brief presentation of a simple theoretical base to
be used to increase awareness of nonverbal communication, the signs and systems
comprising it, and how they work, as well as a methodological base to facilitate
the study of nonverbal communication and to enable it to be incorporated into
current L2 teaching curricula, with special attention to the Spanish language. We
have been motivated to do this by our belief that nonverbal communication is of
special importance in the learning and acquisition of second languages. This is
shown by various facts: in every act of human communication, linguistic signs are
co-structured with paralinguistic and kinesic signs, and, furthermore, all of these can
be modified or nuanced through the use of proxemic or chronemic signs; the role
played by nonverbal signs in the acquisition of communicative fluency and every-
thing related to it, and the importance of nonverbal communication in intercultural
communication, permitting the correction of verbal deficiencies and communica-
tive errors and, thus, avoiding setbacks in the learning process and communication
breakdowns. With this brief review, our intention is to simply draw attention to the
importance of nonverbal communication in language teaching and, for this reason,
we will be fully satisfied if the ideas and suggestions offered here serve as motivation
or assistance for research in the field from an applied perspective and for its system-
atic integration in current language teaching curricula.
Note
1 In this chapter we present a general introduction to nonverbal communication and its study
and teaching within the frame of linguistics applied to language teaching, starting from the
ideas expressed in Cestero (1999a, 1999b, 2016, 2017), and those offered in Poyatos (1972,
1975, 1976, 1983, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2017), as well as on our
own research experience in conversation analysis. See also Burgoon, Guerrero, and Floyd
(2016), Matsumoto, Hwang, and Frank (2016a, 2016b), McNeill (2005), and the Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior (Claremont, California) https://link.springer.com/journal/10919.
References
Adam, R. B. and A. J. Nelson. 2016. “Eye Behavior and Gaze.” In APA Handbook of Nonver-
bal Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 335–362. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bernardi, L. 2014. “Interjecciones, onomatopeyas y ¿sonidos inarticulados? Una reflexión
desde la perspectiva de categorización cognitiva.” SCRIPTA (Belo Horizonte) 18(34):
41–61.
Bolaños Carpio, A. 2010. “La risa: Elemento regulador del flujo conversacional.” InterSedes:
Revista de las Sedes Regionales 11(20): 22–34.
Bolaños Carpio, A. 2015. “La risa y los actos amenazantes de imagen.” Revista de Filología y
Lingüística de la Universidad de Costa Rica 41(2): 149–160.
Bravo, D. 1997. “¿Reírse juntos?: Un estudio de las imágenes sociales de hablantes españoles,
mexicanos y suecos.” Diálogos Hispánicos 22: 315–364.
Bravo, D. 2000. “Risas y contrastes en los estilos comunicativos de negociadores españoles y
mexicanos.” Signo y Seña: Revista del Instituto de Lingüística de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
11: 133–165.
Bruneau, T. J. 1980. “Cronemics and the Verbal-Nonverbal Interface.” In The Relationship of
Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, ed. M. R. Key, 101–118. The Hague: Mouton.
Burgoon, J. K., L. K. Guerrero and K. Floyd. 2016. Nonverbal Communication. New York:
Routledge.
Cartmill, E. A. and S. Goldin-Meadow. 2016. “Gesture.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal Com-
munication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 307–333. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Cestero, A.M. 1999a. Comunicación no verbal y enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Madrid: Arco/
Libros.
Cestero, A.M. 1999b. Repertorio básico de signos no verbales del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Cestero, A.M. 2005. Conversación y enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Cestero, A.M. 2007. “La comunicación no verbal en el Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes:
apuntes para su enseñanza.” Frecuencia L. Revista de Didáctica de Español Lengua Extranjera
34: 15–21.
Cestero, A.M. 2014. “Comunicación no verbal y comunicación eficaz.” Estudios de Lingüística
Universidad de Alicante 28: 125–150.
Cestero, A.M. 2016. “La comunicación no verbal: propuestas metodológicas para su estudio.”
Lingüística en la Red. Monographic Issue 14(1): 1–25.
Cestero A.M. 2017. “La comunicación no verbal.” In Manual del Profesor de ELE, eds. A.M.
Cestero and I. Penadés, 1051–1122. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la
Universidad de Alcalá.
Coll, J., M. J. Gelabert and E. Martinell. 1990. Diccionario de gestos con sus giros más usuales.
Madrid: Edelsa.
Edeso, V. 2007. “Las interjecciones en la enseñanza de ELE: significados expresivos de la
interjección ‘oh’.” In Las Destrezas Orales en la Enseñanza del Español L2-LE. Actas del XVII
Congreso Internacional de ASELE, ed. E. Balmaseda Maestu, 495–508. Logroño: Univer-
sidad de la Rioja.
Forment, M. M. 1997. “La verbalización de la gestualidad en el aprendizaje de E/LE.”
Frecuencia-L 5: 27–31.
Green, J. R. 1968. A Gesture Inventory for the Teaching of Spanish. Philadelphia, PA: Chilton
Books Educational Division.
Hwang, H. C. and D. Matsumoto. 2016. “Facial Expressions.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal
Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, 257–287. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Knapp, M. L. 1980. Essentials of Nonverbal Communication. New York: Rinehart and Winston.
Matsumoto, D., H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank. 2016a. “The Body: Postures, Gait, Proxemics
and Haptics.” In APA Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, eds. D. Matsumoto, H. C.
Hwang and M. G. Frank, 387–400. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Matsumoto, D., H. C. Hwang and M. G. Frank, eds. 2016b. APA Handbook of Nonverbal Com-
munication. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Méndez, B. 2014a. “Los actos silenciosos en la conversación en español. Estudio pragmático
y sociolingüístico.” PhD diss., Universitàt de les Illes Balears.
Méndez, B. 2014b. “¡Mira quién calla! La didáctica del silencio en el aula de ELE.” Revista
Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras 3 (supl.): 1–131.
Meo-Zilio, G. and S. Mejía. 1980–1983. Diccionario de Gestos: España e Hispanoamérica. Bogotá:
Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Murias, R. 2016. “Signos no verbales españoles y turcos: estudio comparativo para su apli-
cación a la enseñanza de ELE.” PhD diss., Universidad de Alcalá.
Nascimento, N. 2012. La comunicación sin palabras: estudio comparativo de gestos usados en
España y Brasil. Alcalá de Henares, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de
Alcalá.
Poyatos, F. 1972. “The Communication System of the Speaker-Actor and His Culture:
A Preliminary Investigation.” Linguistics 10(83): 64–86.
Poyatos, F. 1975. “Cultura, comunicación e interacción: hacia el contexto total del lenguaje
y el hombre hispánicos, III.” Yelmo 22: 14–16.
Poyatos, F. 1976. Man beyond Words: Theory and Methodology of Nonverbal Communication. New
York: New York State English Council.
Poyatos, F. 1983. “Language and Nonverbal Systems in the Structure of Face-to-Face Inter-
action.” Language and Communication 3(2): 129–140.
Poyatos, F. 1993. Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and
Sounds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poyatos, F. 1994a. La comunicación no verbal: Cultura, lenguaje y conversación. Madrid: Istmo.
Poyatos, F. 1994b. La comunicación no verbal: Paralenguaje, kinésica e interacción. Madrid: Istmo.
Poyatos, F. 1996. “La comunicación no verbal en el discurso y en el texto.” Analecta Malacitana
19(1): 67–85.
Poyatos, F. 2000. “New Perspectives on Intercultural Interaction through Nonverbal Com-

munication Studies.” Intercultural Communication Studies 12: 1–41.
Poyatos, F. 2002. Nonverbal Communication across Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poyatos, F. 2006. “La enseñanza del español a extranjeros a través de los estudios de comuni-
cación no verbal.” In Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Español como Lengua Extranjera:
Desarrollos Recientes, ed. A.M. Cestero, 27–46. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicacio-
nes de la Universidad de Alcalá.
Poyatos, F. 2017. La comunicación no verbal en la enseñanza integral del Español como Lengua
Extranjera: E-eleando. ELE en Red 1. www.e-eleando.es.
Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2010. “La inter-
jección: sus grupos sintácticos.” In Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española II, 2479–2523.
Madrid: Espasa.
Rogero, A. 2015. “Introduction des gestes-emblèmes dans les programmes de français langue
étrangère: Ressources didactiques et pilotage au sein des ‘escuelas oficiales de idiomas’ esp-
agnoles.” PhD diss., Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED).
Saitz, R. L. and E. J. Cervenka. 1962. Colombian and North American Gestures: A Contrastive
Inventory. Bogotá: Centro Colombo-Americano.
Saitz, R. L. and E. J. Cervenka. 1972. Handbook of Gestures: Columbia and the United States.
The Hague: Mouton.
Takagaki, T., H. Ueda, E. Martinell and M. J. Gelabert. 1998. Pequeño diccionario de gestos
hispánicos. Tokyo: Hakusuisya.
Torres Álvarez, M. D. 2004. “De interjecciones, onomatopeyas y paralingüismo en La Celes-
tina.” Celestinesca 28(1–2): 117–140.
6
TEACHING L2 SPANISH
DISCOURSE MARKERS AND
PRAGMATIC MARKERS
Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez
1. Introduction
Discourse markers (DMs) have become an important topic in pragmatics, after the
well-known work of Schiffrin (1987), Fraser (1990, 1996, 2006, 2009), Abraham
(1991), Jucker and Ziv (eds.1998), Aijmer (2002), Bazzanella (2006), Fischer
(ed. 2006) among others. Discourse markers are perhaps the most developed area
of linguistic pragmatics, with numerous publications and conferences dedicated
to them (the 2015 Heidelberg Symposium on markers in Romance languages, to
cite just one example), and they expand the study of Spanish linguistic research
to pragmatics. DMs have been analyzed from a variety of methodological perspec-
tives, and this has created some confusion regarding what should be understood
by the term. Such confusion is most clearly seen in the context of teaching, where
no systematic treatment of discourse markers appears in textbooks.
Discourse marker (DM) is a flexible term, which includes elements that are func-
tionally and distributionally distinct and which pertain to different levels. In this
way, unless functions are adequately distinguished, progress in the study of discourse
is unlikely. Some of them are connectors, free units, independent of the verb in
the sentence, whose discourse function is to establish the relationship between two
clauses or minor segments. Others are operators, sentential adjuncts whose meaning
is procedural and intersubjective: argumentative, informative, enunciative, or modal.
The aim of the present chapter is to offer teaching strategies of the discursive mark-
ers, starting from a definition and classification of the elements included in this
category.
This chapter is organized as follows. After this introduction (Section 1), Sec-
tion 2 presents studies about DMs (background). A definition and description
of markers will be provided in Section 3, differentiating two functional classes
(Section 4). In Section 5, a classification of DMs will be presented, followed by an
Discourse markers and pragmatic markers 109
explanation of their paradigms in Spanish. Guidance for teaching will be included

in both sections.
2. Studies on discourse markers

The emergence of discourse studies, transcending the sentence boundaries, was
one of the landmarks in the history of linguistics.1 For the topic under discussion,
1987 was a key year, which saw the publication of Schiffrin’s Discourse Markers.
She presented a series of units above the sentence level (with no function in rela-
tion to the main verb) that have a cohesive function or refer to the speaker. These
units had not been discussed in previous literature. Schiffrin incorporated into
discourse markers elements from a range of categories: discourse connectives such
as and, but, or and markers of cause and result (because, so)2 together with interjec-
tions or fillers such as oh, well, temporal adverbs such as now, then, and markers such
as y’know and I mean. These are treated as information and participation markers.
For instance, oh is a marker of information management as well as a marker of
response. Schiffrin’s work marks the beginning of real interest in these discourse
units but falls short of establishing categories or connecting them with recent
research in grammar.
In Spanish linguistics, traditionally associated with grammatical description,
Fuentes Rodríguez’s Enlaces extraoracionales was also published in 1987. In 1993,
Briz published articles on pragmatic connectors and metadiscursive connectors
(see Briz 1998). Other authors have also set out to analyze these “particles,”
“relational elements,” and “adverbials.” In 1991, Cortés published his study
“Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en el español hablado,” and others fol-
lowed, such as Portolés (1998) and Pons (1998). Martín Zorraquino and Portolés
presented their approach in Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (Martín
Zorraquino and Portolés 1999), which represents a point of departure for many.
Their definition points to an inferential theory: “unidades lingüísticas invariables,
no ejercen una función sintáctica en el marco de la predicación oracional—son,
pues, elementos marginales—y poseen un cometido coincidente en el discurso:
el de guiar, de acuerdo con sus distintas propiedades morfosintácticas, semánti-
cas y pragmáticas, las inferencias que se realizan en la comunicación” (Martín
Zorraquino and Portolés (1999, p. 4057).
In the research on markers different approaches have been used: pragmatic and
grammatical. The debate on grammatical aspects has centered on the various func-
tions carried out by the adverbials and the need to establish some sort of order
among them. Works such as Greenbaum (1969) and the grammar of Quirk et al.
(1972) are central to a broad perspective of analysis. It was a question of defining
a paradigm of units, which participated in the discourse but could not fit into the
traditional grammatical categories.
As mentioned previously, DMs mark the expansion of pragmatics in the area of
Spanish linguistics. At the same time, with the emergence of different methodologies
110 Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez
in pragmatics and discourse analysis, approaches expanded and became more varied:
relevance theory, adopted by authorities such as Blakemore ([1988] 1992), Montolío
(1997) and Briz, Portolés, and Pons (2008); argumentation theory (Anscombre and
Ducrot 1983), which is evident in the work of Ducrot (1995), García Negroni
(1998) and Fuentes Rodríguez (1994, 1997); or studies on modality or enunciation
(Rossari 1994; Fuentes Rodríguez 1995, 2002, 2004; González Ruiz 2000; Garcés
Gómez 2005). For this reason, Martín Zorraquino and Montolío edited Los marca-
dores del discurso (1998), which brought together all of these perspectives along with
specific studies in which they are applied (es más, más aún, máxime, vamos, no obstante,
oye, en cambio, por el contrario). This made for a broad and fruitful study, whose meth-
odological diversity, far from being a disadvantage, testifies, on the contrary, to the
complexity of the topic.
Markers are also described from the point of view of interaction in conversa-
tion analysis. It is this point of view that underpins the Val.Es.Co group approach,
consonant with their model of discourse segmentation (Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co.
2003). This study is related to the application of a variational perspective in the
oral/written dimension.
Furthermore, the historical evolution of discourse markers (grammaticalization)
is explored. Traugott (1995) and Company (2004) set out to apply the approach
to the study of markers, and other authorities speak of “pragmaticization” (Dostie
2004) or “discursivization” (Diewald 2011) to express the specificity of the process
these units undergo: from elements syntactically integrated in the sentence to mark-
ing discourse relationships.
A number of studies, for example, Landone (2009), relate markers to polite-
ness. There are also studies from the variational pragmatics perspective (in terms
of region, situation, and gender) such as Fuentes, Placencia, and Palma (2016). In
other cases, the focus is on ideological or discourse-type variation. Studies of profes-
sional (Montolío 2000), parliamentary, or media discourse, can be situated within
this framework (see Fuentes Rodríguez and Álvarez Benito, eds. 2016, and Fuentes
Rodríguez ed. 2016).
The result of all this is that the plethora of perspectives, not all of which are
pragmatic or discursive, has been accompanied by an excessive number of studies
on the individual elements. There is clearly a lack of consensus about delimit-
ing the units and consequently analyzing their functions and classifying them
accordingly.
This has an immediate effect on teaching DMs: students wishing to learn a
second language or translators who, on encountering these units, generally translate
them inappropriately or not at all, or researchers who are new to the field, do not
know where to begin. The topic initially seems appealing and accessible, because it
is reducible to paradigms, but quickly the picture becomes confused and the limits
fuzzy. Every author sets out his or her own system but not always with a clear jus-
tification. Thus, it is very necessary to establish strategies to teach these elements,
generally absent from textbooks. In this chapter, I try to answer some questions:
What are DMs? (see Section 3); What are their characteristics and functions?
(Section 4); How many types are there and what pattern is involved? (Section 5);
How can they be taught? What strategies can be adopted for teaching them in the
classroom? (Sections 4 and 5 include the answers to both questions, integrating
teaching techniques with theory).
3. Definition and delimitation

The terminology is manifestly ambiguous. The term “discourse marker” can be
used for all of the elements which can be moved around within the discourse,
whatever their function. It may be applied to: a) the structuring of the discourse,
whether it be establishing its constituents (ordering elements), interactive markers,
or argument relations: causative, addition, or counter-argumentation markers; b) the
expression of speaker intention or subjectivity, and c) the interactive relation with
the hearer and his/her interpretation. This is Schiffrin’s perspective and the one
widely adopted in the Spanish literature. She defines DMs as “sequentially depen-
dent elements which bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin 1987, p. 31). Later she goes on
to discuss their contribution to the textual cohesiveness and their double anaphoric
(reference to something mentioned early in the discourse) and cataphoric functions
(reference to something mentioned later in the discourse).
Fraser, an authority in the field, who has written extensively on DMs (1990,
1996, 2006), voices his disagreement (Fraser 2006, p. 190). For Fraser, DMs are a
subset of pragmatic markers. As a canonic definition of “pragmatic markers” he
offers this:
Lexical members of this class typically have the following properties: they
are free morphemes, they are proposition-initial, they signal a specific mes-
sage either about or in addition to the basic message, and they are classified
as pragmatic markers by virtue of their semantic/pragmatic functions. Many
PMs have homophonous lexical counterparts which are classified by virtue of
their syntactic function, e.g., however, clearly, allegedly, so, etc.
(Fraser 2009, p. 295)
Martín Zorraquino and Portolés (1999, p. 4057), as I have already mentioned,

highlight their degree of fixation (“unidades lingüísticas invariables”), extra-
propositionality (“no ejercen una función sintáctica en el marco de la predicación
oracional—son, pues, elementos marginales”), and their discourse function (“poseen
un cometido coincidente en el discurso: el de guiar, de acuerdo con sus distintas
propiedades morfosintácticas, semánticas y pragmáticas, las inferencias que se reali-
zan en la comunicación”).
Loureda and Acín (2010, p. 22) define them as “unidades que actúan en la esfera
del discurso, en concreto, en la estructural (informativa), en la formulativa o en la
argumentativa, como los estructuradores de la información, los operadores, los conectores y
los reformuladores,” and include every kind of category, allowing it to be inferred that
the reformulators and structuring elements of the information are different from
connectors and operators.3 Following such an approach implies that the reformu-
lators and the elements structuring the information do not connect, and that the
connection is solely argumentative.
The authority most widely followed in the field is Fraser (1990, 2006, 2009),
who considers DMs a subset of pragmatic markers (see Figure 6.1). His classifica-
tion (2009) is:
1) Basic pragmatic markers (please, I promise) “signal the type of message (the
illocutionary force [. . .]) the speaker intends to convey in the utterance of the
segment” (Fraser 2009, p. 295).
2) Commentary pragmatic markers “signal a comment on the basis message”:
assessment (fortunately), manner-of-speaking (frankly), evidential markers (cer-
tainly), hearsay markers (reportedly, allegedly) and (non)deference markers (sir)4
(Fraser 2009, p. 296).
3) DMs “which signal a relation between the discourse segment which hosts
them, and the prior discourse segment” (Fraser 2009, p. 296): contrastive (but,
on the contrary), elaborative (and, anyway), inferential DM (so, as a result).
4) Discourse structure markers (DSMs) “signal an aspect of the organization of the
ongoing discourse” (Fraser 2009, p. 297): discourse management (in summary),
topic-orientation (returning to my previous topic), and attention markers (look)
(Fraser 2009, p. 297).
discourse
markers
basic discourse
pragmatic
pragmatic structure
markers markers markers
commentary
pragmatic
markers
Figure 6.1 Fraser’s classification of pragmatic markers

This author includes conjunctions together with the markers. Fraser (2009, p. 297) for-
mulates the definition of DMs as follows: “For an expression to be a discourse marker it
must be acceptable in the sequence S1 – DM + S2, where S1 and S2 are discourse seg-
ments,each representing an illocutionary act,although elision may have occurred.”These
DMs in English “naturally fall into three functional classes: contrastive markers (. . .),
elaborative markers (. . .), inferential markers” (Fraser 2009, pp. 300–301).
Martín Zorraquino and Portolés (1999) include, among the DMs connectors,
reformulators, contact control operators, and conversational operators. All are
included under the definition of “discourse marking,” but not all are at the same
level. The behavior of claro ‘of course’ is not the same as that of sin embargo ‘how-
ever’, either distributionally or in terms of its discourse function.
These elements are connected with other parts of the grammar. Dehé and
Kavalová (2007), among others, related DMs to parentheticals on the basis of their
distribution (medial position) and tonal structure (isolated). Kaltenböck, Heine, and
Kuteva (2011) included them in a thetical grammar (separated from the sentence
grammar) because they express subjectivity or reference to the speaker. The differ-
ences with the rest of the elements that have designative content (nouns, verbs), their
distribution and function in anchoring the discourse, and, above all, in marking
communicative agents, are arguments for their inclusion: “Rather than being deter-
mined by the morphosyntactic structure of the sentence, the meaning of theticals
is shaped by a network of conceptual components that we referred to (. . .) as the
situation of discourse” (Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011, p. 882). Properties of
theticals are: “a. They are syntactically independent; b. They are set off prosodically
from the rest of an utterance; c. Their meaning is “non-restrictive”; d. They tend to
be positionally mobile; e. Their internal structure is built on principles of SG [sen-
tence grammar] but can be elliptic” (Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011, p. 857).
4. A mixed bag: Two functional classes

This diversity makes it necessary to differentiate types, functions, and spheres
or levels of reference prior to offering any definition. Given the sheer volume
of research at present, it is easy to detect two large functional classes: operators
and connectors (Fuentes Rodríguez 2003, 2009). It is fundamental to make this
distinction so that students understand how these units function pragmatically.
Its utility has also been demonstrated in practice in Masters courses for teaching
Spanish as a second language. It is similar to the distinction drawn by Fraser and
therefore easier for English-speaking students to assimilate. The fact that connec-
tors and operators involve different processing instructions and differing domains
of communication allows the instructor to separate the two classes more easily.
For example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learn-
ing, Teaching, Assessment includes these elements in different sections. Elements such
as sin embargo and además have a connective function and involve a type of prag-
matic competence called discursive competence: “la capacidad que posee el usuario
o alumno de ordenar oraciones en secuencias para producir fragmentos coherentes
de lengua” (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte 2002, p. 120). The teach-

ing of elements such as claro, vale, por desgracia, etc. (operators) would include
functional competence, referring to the performance of communicative functions,
such as expressing attitudes or persuading (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y
Deporte 2002, pp. 122–127).
My teaching proposal, which has arisen from experience in the classroom, con-
sists of three steps: 1) the instructor explains how the two sets of markers differ, in
regard to functions and distribution; 2) practical observation of their characteristics
and behavior in real texts, and 3) a set of exercises to practice use, distribution, and
functions. Instructors should work with dialogues and texts in order to practice
both oral and written skills. They are complex units, which require training in order
to be able to appropriately use the inferences they generate.
4.1. Proposal: Definition and classification

Discourse and pragmatic markers are grammaticalizations of adverbial, verbal ele-
ments or nominal constructions. They operate in the field of discourse since they
depend on the context, and their functions consist of establishing the architecture
of the discourse (what I will call connectors) or the interpersonal or intersubjective
relationships (the operators). They should be described from a contextual perspective,
since many of these units signal their contextual relationships (see Table 6.1).
These two groups differ syntactically and belong to different categories. Con-
nectors are free units, independent of the verb in the sentence, whose discourse
function is to establish the relationship between two clauses or minor segments.
They are elements with a dual relationship (< >). They are mobile, occur between
pauses (see example 1), and combine with each other or with a conjunction, as we
can see in the example (2) below.
(1) Este chico tiene un currículo excelente. Ha trabajado, además, en el extranjero

y en empresas de prestigio.
(2) Generalmente voy a comer a casa, pero hoy, sin embargo, me apetece tomarme
un sándwich.
TABLE 6.1 Functional classification of DMs
Category5 Level Discursive function
Connector Structural cohesion Inter-sentential

connection
Operator Interpersonal level Argumentative (even)
Enunciative ( frankly)
Modal (unfortunately)
Informative ( just)6
(Fuentes Rodríguez 2016, p. 82).
Operators act within the sphere of the utterance. They affect the whole sentence.
They usually occur marginally, between pauses, and their sphere of reference is
argumentation (example 3), information (example 4), formulation (example 5),
and modality (example 6). They do not require any previous utterance. They
can combine with any connector or conjunction, as in the example (7) below.
An element of the sentence sometimes falls within its scope (“el miércoles 15,”
example (8)):
(3) Esta pareja tiene, al menos, tres coches.

(4) Él suele llegar a esta hora, precisamente.
(5) Francamente, Marisa y Elena no son tan amigas como parece.
(6) Ya ha llegado Susana con sus amigos franceses, afortunadamente.
(7) Está visto que el problema tiene que ver con fallas mecánicas y señalización.
Es decir, evidentemente esto es peligroso, pero por otro lado también se está dando
coordinación con representantes para mejorar las condiciones.
(8) Elena se marcha justamente el miércoles 15.
(CREA, [Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual: corpus.rae.es/
creanet.html], La Prensa Libre 2003, pp. 1–7)
They have some features in common and others which differentiate them, as
reflected in Table 6.2 below:
TABLE 6.2 Characteristics of connectors and operators
Characteristics Connectors Operators
Syntactic-semantic • Parentheticals
characteristics: • Mobility: sentence initial, medial and final
Micro-structure
• Procedural meaning
Macro-structure: Discourse structure: Speaker or listener
Discursive/pragmatic • Order the discourse oriented
functions Subjectivity or
• Initiation of interaction
intersubjectivity:
• Continuation
• Modality
• Closure of the interaction
• Formulation
• Reformulation
• Evidentiality
• Argumentative structure:
• Argumentation:
• Additive
scalar operators . . .
• Counter-argumentative (opposition,
• Focus and thematic
concessive)
structure
• Causative (conditional, concessive,
final, consecutive, conclusive)
However, as almost everyone now accepts, the inventories cannot be closed ones;
what is required is an open approach, one that admits gradation and the flexible
application of criteria, which is suggestive of a prototype approach. These markers
are multifunctional and this needs to be reflected in how they are taught.
4.2. Teaching strategies

The distinction made between connectors and operators is a fundamental one,
which students must be aware of and practice if they are to master the use of DMs.
The instructor in the L2 classroom must convey to students how they function:
connectors relate segments to each other while pragmatic markers express subjec-
tivity. The teaching strategies are designed to allow students to differentiate these
markers from others that relate to the main verb (exercises 1 and 2 below) and
familiarize students with the characteristics that separate connectors (exercise 1)
from operators (exercise 2):
Exercise 1. Identify which element of the sentence is used to connect segments

and describe its characteristics (position, occurrence between pauses, relationship to
the main verb . . .):
(9) No existía Internet . . . en fin . . . eso fue hace poco, el siglo pasado.
(CREA, Minniti, Javier; Graf, Hans, La Vinotinto 2004)
Exercise 2. In the following sentences, indicate whether there are any elements
that meet these criteria: a) suggests the subjectivity of the speaker, b) is invariable,
c) occurs between pauses (see the following examples):
(10) Lo siento, se cayeron los dientes del peine. Bueno, ya estaban torcidos.
(CORPES [Corpus del Español del siglo XXI: www.rae.es/recursos/
banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi], Aridjis, Homero, La zona del silencio 2005)
(11) ¡Cuánto tiempo, por favor! (CREA, Caiga quien caiga, Tele 5 1996)
Exercise 3. The following excerpt contains connectors and operators. Identify them
and indicate their difference in behavior. Complete the following table (Table 6.3):
(12) Los periodistas han acudido al pueblo donde se ha producido el inci-

dente. Lamentablemente, ha habido muchas víctimas y la gente está muy
afectada. Por lo tanto, nadie quiere hablar con ellos. Es lógico, sobre todo
porque hay menores. El pueblo, evidentemente, está de luto oficial. La
investigación, sin embargo, tiene que continuar. Una tragedia, vamos.
TABLE 6.3
Connectors/Operators Function Position: initial, medial or final

Exercise 4. Create spoken or written texts which contain the following markers: sin
embargo, encima, al menos, sorprendentemente, incluso, por otra parte, eso sí, por cierto, o
sea, hombre, claro. Distinguish those that serve to connect phrases (connectors) from
operators, which refer to the speaker.
Exercise 5. Formulate correct and incorrect sentences which include the following
elements: vamos, es decir, en pocas palabras, menos mal, encima, como mucho, simplemente,
francamente, por así decir.
Exercise 6. Of the following phrases, explain which are correct and which incorrect:
(13) Voy menos mal a ir.
(14a) Francamente, el piso está muy bien.
(14b) El piso está, por así decir, muy bien.
(14c) El piso está, como mucho, muy bien.
(14d) El piso está, es decir, muy bien.
Exercise 7. Present students with a text in which they must introduce operators and
connectors in their correct position. The instructor will provide a list of markers.
5. Classification: Types and behavior

Teaching strategies include the following two stages:
1) Explanation of syntactic features (distribution) and pragmatic instructions con-

cerning usage so that students may acquire practical knowledge of their use (see
Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.2.1.).
2) Consolidation of learning with a series of activities (see Sections 5.1.3 and
5.2.2.).
5.1. Connectors
5.1.1. Syntactic and pragmatic description

Connectors, as I have mentioned, require the presence of two parts. Generally, they
connect sentences, as in example (1) above, repeated here for convenience as (1’),
but they may appear with smaller units (clauses in example (15), and phrases in
example (16)):
(1’) Este chico tiene un currículo excelente. Ha trabajado, además, en el extranjero

y en empresas de prestigio.
(15) El ordenador suele ir bien, aunque, eso sí, a última hora va más lento.
(16) Su novio es serio y, además, de trato agradable.
The connector is positioned between the two clauses, although it may be mobile
in the second utterance and may appear medially, or finally, followed by a pause
(Fuentes Rodríguez 1996, p. 2003). It generally occurs between commas and may
combine with conjunctions. It always presupposes a previous segment, and for this
reason cannot appear in initial position:
(17) Sentí una mano fría en la espalda y pegué un grito. La vieja que me había
tocado pegó otro, y encima tuve que acompañarla hasta la puerta de su casa
en el cuarto piso.
(CORPES, López, Alejandro, La asesina de Lady Di. 2001)
Encima is a connector that indicates the addition of an utterance. It combines with

y and carries an argumentative-type instruction (what it introduces is considered
higher in the scale by the speaker) and a subjective meaning (the information of the
construction or element that is its scope is often considered excessive or undesir-
able). In this case, having to accompany the old lady comes after the shock of the
cold hand on the back followed by the shout.
Connectors can occur in other positions. Thus, por otra parte appears initially and
por lo demás is inserted medially in example (18) below. Sin ir más lejos occurs in final
position in example (19):
(18) El actual tamaño del Congreso, con 120 congresistas, es el mismo que tenía el
país en 1859, cuando la población era de 2,48 millones casi la décima parte
de la actual y el derecho a voto estaba reservado solamente a varones, alfabetos
y poseedores de un bien inmueble, capital rentista o profesión, industria u
oficio. Por otra parte, la vigencia desde 1995 del sistema electoral único coloca
al país al nivel de Gabón, Israel, Senegal y Macedonia, cuya población sumada
es, por lo demás, menor a la del Perú.
(CREA, Caretas 22–9–2000)
(19) Yo también podría decir cosas de toda la familia. Del tío Celso, el primero.
Sin ir más lejos.
(CREA, A. Gala, Los invitados al jardín 2002)
The types of connectors can be organized, as I have shown, as additives, counter-

argumentatives, causatives, organizers of the discourse, reformulators, and elements
which structure initiation, continuation, and closure in a monologic or dialogic
text. I will go on to describe each category (with examples), citing its most fre-
quently used and grammaticalized members, as well as the general and specific
pragmatic instructions for use, so that speakers are able to bring into line what they
say with their communicative intentions.
5.1.2. Classification
Additive connectors. All additive connectors express the same instruction to the lis-
tener: “The two segments of information are considered to be on the same level.”
They are two arguments, which lead to the same conclusion.7 (Examples 1, 16,
17, and 18).
The most frequent connectors are: además aparte, asimismo, encima (high posi-
tion on the scale), es más, más aún (formal), igualmente, por otra parte por cierto and
a propósito (digression markers).
Structuring information and ordering of the discourse connectors. These markers order
the information sequentially. They may indicate:
• discourse initiation: para empezar, para comenzar, de entrada

• discourse closing: bien, bueno, pues nada, (dialogue), en fin, para terminar, por último,
y nada (más), y para de contar
• enumeration: de un lado . . . de otro (lado), de una parte . . . de otra (parte), por un
lado . . . por otro (lado), por una parte . . . por otra (parte), en primer lugar . . . en
segundo lugar . . . primero, segundo, tercero
• filler: bien, bueno, como digo, pues, ya digo . . .
(20) ¿Quieren privarme de la vida? ¡Pues tengan, hijos de la chingada!

(CORPES, H. Aridjis, La zona del silencio 2005)
Interactive connectors. In dialogue, various elements are employed to: a) initiate an

interaction and reply to the interlocutor (bien, bueno, verá(s) (the first two are very
frequent in Spanish), b) call the other’s attention (mira, mire [usted], oye, venga, or
nominal address forms as chico, hijo, hombre, mujer, tío), c) ensure the interlocutor is lis-
tening (¿comprendes?, ¿entiendes?, ¿no?, ¿sabes?, ¿verdad?, ¿ya me entiendes?, ¿ya ve(s)?).
An example is (21).
(21) ¿Qué escritores españoles lees?

Bueno, a muchos, pero entre mis preferidos están Pérez-Reverte, Vázquez
Montalbán, Rosa Montero, entre muchos otros.
(CORPES, Entrevista a L. Esquivel 2001)
Conclusion connectors. These markers introduce a conclusion, which brings the

foregoing to a close: en conclusión, en definitiva, en suma, entonces, total. The last marker
is the most colloquial. Al fin y al cabo and pues bien combine closure and conclusion:
(22) El Supremo indica que, al no dar el Tribunal respuesta lógica al recurso

de amparo, “los magistrados demandados actuaron con una negligencia
profesional grave, (. . .) ya que la ilicitud tiene como base la violación de
unas normas absolutamente imperativas.” “En conclusión -dice Sierra-, nos
encontramos ante una conducta judicial absolutamente rechazable.”
(CREA, Diario de Jérez Digital 27/01/2004)
Consecutive connectors. Consecutive connectors or markers are employed to intro-

duce the result of an action. Examples are por (lo) tanto, entonces, por eso, por ende, and
en consecuencia. The first two are the most frequent.
(23) Es preferible disminuir el consumo de té y café porque alteran el sueño y son

diuréticos, por lo tanto, contribuyen a la deshidratación.
(CREA, Revista de Nutrición XXI, nº 11, 01–02/2004)
Counter-argument connectors. These connectors, as examples (2) and (15) show,

relate opposing elements, by indicating counter-possibility, contraposition, and con-
cession. A counter-possibility, equivalent of “if not” (conditionals) is expressed by de
lo contrario, de otra forma, de otra manera, de otro modo. To simply oppose two statements,
it is possible to use ahora bien, ahora, (que, in oral language), al contrario. If there is a
parallel between them, the appropriate forms are en cambio, por el contrario, and to
introduce an objection it is necessary to use eso sí, solo que.
Concessive connectors: The connectors introduce a result contrary to what would
be expected to follow from the cause. The earlier argument is an obstacle to the
fulfillment of the principal argument, but the speaker does not take it into consid-
eration. These markers are en cualquier caso, no obstante, aun así, con todo, de cualquier
forma (manera, modo). Of all these, the most frequently used are de todas formas, (mane-
ras, modos).
Reformulation connectors. These elements introduce a new utterance, which modi-
fies the foregoing formulation (see example (7)). This new formulation may be
an explanation if the marker is a saber, dicho de otra forma (manera, modo), en otras
palabras, en una palabra, es decir, esto es, o sea, vamos, vaya (in oral register). Correc-
tion or rectification is the instruction of bueno, mejor dicho, perdón, que diga. The
speaker can reformulate a statement by introducing a specific case which illustrates
it (specificity-particularization). In this case, the Spanish markers are concretamente,
en particular, sin ir más lejos. The connector in colloquial Spanish for this function is
o sea and vamos.
Exemplification connectors. Connectors or markers of exemplification in Spanish
are pongamos por caso, por ejemplo, as in the following example.
(24) Pero faltan algunas cosas: el perro ya no está, por ejemplo.

(CORPES: R. Bolaño, Últimos atardeceres en la tierra 2001)
Temporal markers. The paradigm of connectors used to order events chronologi-

cally includes a continuación, después, luego, entonces, entretanto, finalmente mientras, por
fin por último.
(25) Bajan. Raquel prácticamente es empujada por David. Mientras tanto alguien
ha dejado un sobre por debajo de la puerta.
(CORPES: Lillo, Daniella, Con flores amarillas 2001)
5.1.3. Teaching strategies

After the instructor’s explanation on the distribution and contents of the markers,
students should practice their use. Exercises below may serve as guidance:
Exercise 1. Group work: create a narrative among all members of the group, for
example, on the first moon landing or a voyage to an uninhabited island. The
instructor will begin with a phrase and ask each student in the group to continue
and choose an element that connects the discourse.
Exercise 2. Students should construct an application form and state the reasons
that underpin their choice of university:
“He elegido la Universidad X, por varias razones: En primer lugar . . ., en segundo
lugar, además, . . .” And conclude: “Por tanto . . . .”
Exercise 3. Make up a dialogue with a classmate. Use interactive elements (pues
mira, eh . . .).
Exercise 4. Create a debate in the class between two groups concerning a topic of
current social or political interest. Each group of three students will adopt a position
and defend it in the debate. Three students will form the judging panel and will
award points for the correct usage of each connector. At the end, the points won by
each group will be added up and the winner declared.
5.2. Operators
5.2.1. Syntactic and pragmatic description

Operators are units situated within the utterance despite having no syntactic func-
tion with respect to the main verb of the clause. They affect a segment of the
sentence, but without any referential function. They may signal enunciation, modal-
ity, focus, and argumentation.
Enunciative operators mark the way to speak, to enunciate (sincerely, honestly, frankly);
or they indicate who the speaker is and how s/he is responsible for the act of speak-
ing, as in the examples (5), above, or (26).
(26) Sinceramente, no sé qué partido votar en las próximas elecciones.
With these markers, speakers express their commitment to the assertion. If there is
a lesser degree of commitment, approximation markers may be used. These indicate
that the term used is inexact, is a metaphor, a generic term, or something approxi-
mating to the speaker’s communicative intention. This is the content of como aquel
que dice, como quien dice, como si dijéramos, digamos, diríamos, por así decir(lo). Likewise,
with reservation markers the speaker does not wish to take responsibility for what
is said; s/he relates it on the basis of the evidence available. These elements are por lo
visto, presumiblemente, presuntamente, que yo sepa.
Qualifiers of the discourse (regarding its relevance, clarity, length, apropriateness)
are represented by de hombre a hombre, en el fondo en general generalmente, lisa y llana-
mente, normalmente, sencillamente, simplemente.
Modal operators express the speaker’s modality or subjective attitude, as in example

(27). As Greenbaum (1969) stated, these elements can constitute a reply by them-
selves or accompanied by sí or no, as in example (28):
(27) Lucía será la nueva directora, claro.

(28) Q: ¿Pero cree que el dopaje nace sólo de la falta de educación o de infor-
mación de los implicados?
A: Evidentemente, no. No somos ingenuos.
(CREA, El País 23–2–2004)
Another characteristic of the modal operators is the potential for linking them with
the clause by means of the conjunction que. Thus example (27) may be taken as
Claro que Lucía será la nueva directora.
Some markers express doubt, possibility or a non-committal stance, or non-
assertion. The speaker does not take responsibility for what is said, or attributes it to
others. This content is expressed by a lo mejor, a lo peor, por lo visto, depende, según, en
teoría, posiblemente, quizá, probablemente, seguramente. Reaffirmative markers strengthen
an assertion: claro, por supuesto, desde luego, cómo no, efectivamente, evidentemente, indud-
ablemente, lógicamente, naturalmente. Markers of agreement are bien, bueno, de acuerdo,
vale. If, on the contrary, the speaker wishes to express disagreement or rejection s/he
may use de ningún modo, en absoluto, ni hablar, para nada, qué va.
Confidence is conveyed by the operators seguro, sin duda. Markers of positive
emotion are afortunadamente, gracias a Dios, menos mal, por fin, and markers of negative
emotion are indicated by lamentablemente, desgraciadamente, por desgracia. Surprise may
be expressed by no me digas, sorprendentemente, and wishes by Dios quiera. Another
dimension of modality is necessity (necesariamente). Epistemic modals are ciertamente,
de hecho, en realidad, realmente, which indicate certainty, reality, and fact. Finally, an
appeal to the listener can be made by the use of anda, por favor, disculpa, perdona,
hombre, oye, oiga.
The function of informative operators is to express the informational status of a
segment. These operators differentiate given and new information, expected and
non-expected argument, or emphasize a segment of the utterance:
(29) La impresora llegó justamente ayer.
Finally, argumentative operators add content relating to the argumentation: orienta-

tion, force, or argumentative adequacy. Incluso in example (30) presupposes that the
show is very popular and that the speaker’s mother was not expected to like it. In
example (31), by using por lo menos, the speaker seeks to communicate the minimal
adequacy of the gesture of crossing the square to greet the individual concerned.
(30) Incluso a mi madre le gusta ese programa.

(31) Hubiera sido preferible que, por lo menos, cruzara la plaza para saludarlo.
(CREA, ACAS Caretas 7–9–2000)
Argumentative operators can indicate a) high position on the scale (a lo sumo, bastante,
como máximo, como mínimo, demasiado, hasta, incluso, para colmo); b) low position on
the scale (si acaso), and c) preference (en especial, especialmente, preferiblemente, princi-
palmente, sobre todo). These preference operators indicate elements selected by the
speaker as the most appropriate in the scale.
Sufficiency markers are al fin y al cabo, al menos, por lo menos, siquiera and insufficiency
markers are apenas, meramente, ni siquiera, poco, solamente, solo, únicamente.
Finally, attenuation and intensification are two pragmatic dimensions habitu-
ally expressed by argumentative markers. Mitigators are aproximadamente, casi, en
principio, and intensifiers are esencialmente, fundamentalmente, nada más y nada menos,
sumamente. To these should be added quantifiers such as más, menos, mucho, tanto,
totalmente . . . and others that add an evaluative comment to the intensification:
abrumadoramente, extraordinariamente, terriblemente, tremendamente. Among these
argumentative markers may be included quantifying operators such as mucho, comple-
tamente, eminentemente, etc.
(32) Tengo menos tiempo, porque la Facultad te absorbe mucho.
More than one operator can be used in the same utterance. For example, two forms
appear in example (33): más bien, an enunciative operator, and demasiado, an argu-
mentative operator here integrated in a noun phrase. Moreover, these elements
behave in a multidimensional way, operating on various levels at the same time.
This is actually the most decisive characteristic of the elements operating in the
discourse.
(33) La selección es más bien caprichosa y sin demasiado rigor estilístico, pero Ella
y Louis todo lo resisten.
(CREA, El Clarín 22–1–2002)
Más bien indicates that the adjective “caprichosa” comes closest to the speaker’s
intention, the most suitable in his or her opinion for describing the reality. It can be
used with an argumentative force. In order to persuade the interlocutor, the speaker
may mitigate his/her speech by using approximative terms. S/he seeks to avoid
violating politeness principles and thus achieve the desired result.
It is common to find operators and connectors combined. Let us look at the
following example (34):
(34) Es lo que te iba a decir, Margarita: ¿Que no somos sujetos de crédito, que
no nos creen a las mujeres? Exactamente. Y, sin embargo, por ejemplo, una de las
propuestas de Vicente Fox que se anunció hace poco, en un encuentro con
algunas mujeres, es justamente un Fondo de Apoyo en cuestión de microcrédi-
tos, empresas productivas, etcétera.
(CREA, Fox en vivo, Fox contigo, Radio ACIR 28–10–2000)
Connectors can combine with conjunctions (y) but they also appear with other
connectors: sin embargo, por ejemplo. In this case, markers of addition, opposition, and
exemplification are combined. There is also a closure connector (etcétera), a modal
operator (exactamente, a reply marker), and another informative marker, justamente,
which brings the adjective into focus.
The best way to classify these elements and facilitate their teaching and acqui-
sition is to relate them to the communicative functions they express (Fuentes
Rodríguez 2009).8
5.2.2. Teaching strategies

The aim of these exercises is to learn how to use markers that express the speaker’s
subjectivity. For a full list, see Fuentes Rodríguez (2009). This dictionary also offers
specific values for each marker. The following are some suggestions for use in teaching:
Exercise 1. Markers expressing subjectivity are usually found in spoken discourse.

The instructor will ask students to form pairs and create a dialogue. The starting
point will be a question such as: ¿Vienes al teatro?
Students should respond by expressing:
a) acceptance
b) rejection
c) doubt
d) certainty
e) approximation
h) reaffirmation
Exercise 2. Express your opinion concerning your friends’ house: a) appreciation

b) strong dislike.
Exercise 3. Express your agreement with this opinion.
Exercise 4. Enunciative operators. In conversation, the speaker frequently reinforces
an utterance by using a marker expressing commitment: honradamente, francamente
. . . Invent sentences of the sort and note the position of the marker.
Exercise 5. Argumentative operators. In order to teach argumentative operators, it
is essential to teach the concept of scale. As an exercise, we propose the following:
“Estáis en una agencia de viajes tus amigos y tú, hablando sobre lugares de vacacio-
nes. Os ofrecen diversas opciones, pero no estáis convencidos.” The dialogue may
take this form:
A: Este apartamento es muy caro. Nos exige incluso entregar una fianza. Marbella
es una buena opción: tiene playa y como mucho nos costará 1000 euros entre
todos.
B: ¿Solo mil euros?
C: ¿Nada menos que mil euros? Encima hay que pagarlos por adelantado.
D: Bueno, al menos nos divertiremos.
Tasks:
Task 1. Students should identify the argumentative operators.

Task 2. They should also answer the following questions:
a) Which of the friends considers the place acceptable or inexpensive? Who

is not in favor? Which operator makes this clear?
b) Regarding the argument employed, money, what is A’s position? Is it a lot
of money? What does como mucho mean?
c) What is intended by solo in B’s reply?
d) Why does C use nada menos? What does he mean by this?
e) What relationship is there between the thousand euros and the payment
in advance? Which instruction includes encima?
f) What does D mean by al menos?
Task 3. A clue: the values of these operators are: insufficiency, sufficiency, upper
limit of the scale, higher position on the scale, excess. Match the values
with the appropriate operator (Table 6.4).
TABLE.6.4
Function Marker
Sufficiency
Insufficiency
Upper limit of the scale
Higher position on the scale
Excess
Task 4. Generate conversational texts. Students must work in pairs.

Situation a: Your friend has a new car. You have to express surprise when you
see it (color, style, price . . .).
Situation b: Your friend tells you about the possibility of travelling to Paris this
summer. You have to accept or reject his/her proposition. State how much
you can afford for the trip.
Situation c: You are talking with your mother about this trip. Please, highlight a
particular element in this sentence: “Nos vamos a Paris este verano.”
Situation d: You are talking with your father about the result of your football
team’s next match. Please, express uncertainty or doubt.
We recommend accessing the learning library at the Centro Virtual Cervantes
(http://cvc.cervantes.es/aula/didactired/didactiteca/), where a key to the
exercises may be found. Also of interest is the webpage of Fundación Sierra
Pambley (www.sierrapambley.org/alumnos/).
6. Conclusion
The topic of discourse markers is fundamental for language teaching. For this reason,
a clear description of their syntactic functions and semantic-pragmatic properties is
required. I consider connectors and operators to be different since they enact differ-
ent strategies. Connectors establish the architecture of discourse and operators mark
interpersonal or intersubjective relationships. All of them should be described from
a contextual perspective since their meaning is procedural.
This distinction allows discourse markers to be taught more appropriately and it
is of great help for the instructor. I listed a series of suggestions for teaching that can
be used in the classroom. In this way, we wish to confirm that teaching and learn-
ing a second language involves awareness of syntactic and pragmatic instructions
of linguistic elements. This separation of levels and syntactic functions in discourse
represents a significant contribution to the construction of a discourse grammar.
Notes
1 This study has been carried out within the framework of the project I+D+I FFI2013–
43205-P, of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness: Macrosyntax of
Current Spanish. I would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments on an earlier version of this chapter. I am grateful to C. Langmuir
for his help.
2 All of them are classified as conjunctions.
3 The explanation is that following Portolés (1998), only operators and argumentative
connectors are admitted. Unlike Fuentes Rodríguez (2003), they do not contemplate a
syntactic-discursive classification.
4 (Non)deference markers in Fraser (2006) are considered “parallel pragmatic markers.”
5 I prefer to speak of two distinct categories: operators and connectors, because functionally
and distributionally, and in terms of their semantic-pragmatic behavior, that is what they
are. Relating them to the wider terminology of DMs and pragmatic markers is a way of
connecting with a broader tradition.
6 These levels arise from the relationship with the speaker (modal, enunciative) or with the
hearer (informative, argumentative). They were proposed in Fuentes Rodríguez ([2000]
2015), in a pragmalinguistic approach and in 2013, as a model of analysis for the study of
discourse. Studies in this field are numerous.
7 The classification which follows comes from Fuentes Rodríguez (2009, pp. 377–381). It is
meant for teaching purposes, since it includes instructions for use and is not merely a list.
For complete information on each element, see Fuentes Rodríguez (2009).
8 See also Briz, Portolés, and Pons (2008–today).
References
Abraham, W., ed. 1991. Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anscombre, J. C. and O. Ducrot. 1983. Lárgumentation dans la langue. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.
Bazzanella, C. 2006. “Discourse Markers in Italian: Towards a ‘Compositional’ Meaning.” In
Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. K. Fischer, 449–464, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Blakemore, D. [1988] 1992. “La organización del discurso.” In Panorama de la lingüística
moderna de la Universidad de Cambridge, Vol. 4, ed. F. J. Newmeyer, 275–298. Madrid:
Visor.
Briz, A. 1998. El español coloquial en la conversación. Barcelona: Ariel.

Briz, A., J. Portolés and S. Pons. 2008–today. Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español
(DPDE). www.dpde.es.
Briz, A. and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2003. “Un sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje
coloquial.” Oralia 6: 7–61.
Centro Virtual Cervantes. http://cvc.cervantes.es/aula/didactired/didactiteca/.
Company, C. 2004. “¿Gramaticalización o desgramaticalización? Reanálisis y subjetivización
de verbos como marcadores discursivos en la historia del español.” Revista de Filología
Española 84(1): 29–66.
CORPES (Corpus del español del siglo XXI). www.rae.es/recursos/banco-de-datos/corpes-xxi.
CREA (Corpus de referencia del español actual). http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html.
Cortés, L. 1991. Sobre conectores, expletivos y muletillas en el español hablado. Málaga: Ágora.
Dehé, N. and Y. Kavalová. eds. 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Diewald, G. 2011. “Pragmaticalization (Defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Func-
tions.” Linguistics 49(2): 365–390.
Dostie, G. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.
Ducrot, O. 1995. “Les modificateurs déréalisants.” Journal of Pragmatics 24(1–2): 145–165.
Fischer, K., ed. 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. 1990. “An Approach to Discourse Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(3): 383–395.
Fraser, B. 1996. “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190.
Fraser, B. 2006. “Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles,
ed. K. Fischer, 189–204, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. 2009. “An Account of Discourse Markers.” International Review of Pragmatics 1(2):
293–320.
Fuentes, C., M. E. Placencia and M. Palma. 2016. “Regional Pragmatic Variation in the
Use of the Discourse Marker Pues in Informal Talk among University Students in Quito
(Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain).” Journal of Pragmatics 97: 74–92.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1987. Enlaces extraoracionales. Seville: Alfar Universidad.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1994. “Usos discursivos y función argumentativa: De hecho, en efecto,
efectivamente.” Español Actual 62: 5–18.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1995. “Polifonía y argumentación: Los adverbios de verdad, certeza,
seguridad y evidencia en español.” Lexis 19(1): 59–83.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1996. La sintaxis de los relacionantes supraoracionales. Madrid: Arco
Libros.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 1997. “Los conectores en la lengua oral: Es que como introductor de
enunciado.” Verba 24: 237–263.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2002. “Simplemente Feliz Navidad: Los marcadores de adecuación o
relevancia enunciativa.” Oralia 5: 29–51.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2003. “Operador/ conector, un criterio para la sintaxis discursiva.”
Rilce 19(1): 61–85.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2004. “Enunciación, modalidad y aserción, tres clásicos.” Anuario de
Estudios Filológicos 27: 121–145.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2009. Diccionario de conectores y operadores del español. Madrid: Arco
Libros.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. [2000] 2015. Lingüística pragmática y análisis del discurso. 2nd ed.
Madrid: Arco Libros.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. 2016. “Para colmo, Scalar Operator and Additive Connector. Keys to
an Evolving Process.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1): 79–106.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C., ed. 2016. Estructuras argumentativas y discurso político. Madrid: Arco
Libros.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. and G. Álvarez Benito, G., eds. 2016. A Gender-Based Approach to Par-
liamentary Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fundación Sierra Pambley. www.sierrapambley.org/alumnos/.
Garcés Gómez, P. 2005. “Reformulación y marcadores de reformulación.” In Estudios sobre lo
metalingüístico en español, ed. M. Casado, R. González and O. Loureda, 47–66. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
García Negroni, M. M. 1998. “Cuando la excepción refuerza la argumentación: A propósito
del uso exceptivo de même e incluso.” Thélème: Revista complutense de estudios franceses 13:
207–218.
González Ruiz, R. 2000. “Felicidades, sinceramente, don Antonio: A propósito de los adver-
bios de enunciación.” Rilce 16(2): 289–324.
Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. London: Longman.
Jucker, A. H. and Y. Ziv, eds. 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kaltenböck, G., B. Heine and T. Kuteva. 2011. “On Thetical Grammar.” Studies in Language
35(4): 852–897.
Landone, E. 2009. Los marcadores del discurso y cortesía verbal en español. Bern: Peter Lang.
Loureda, O. and E. Acín, eds. 2010. Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy.
Martín Zorraquino, M. A. and E. Montolío. 1998. Marcadores del discurso: Teoría y análisis.
Martín Zorraquino, M. A. and J. Portolés. 1999. “Los marcadores del discurso.” In Gramática
descriptiva de la lengua española, eds. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2002. Marco Común Europeo de referencia para las
lenguas: Aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/marco.
Montolío, E. 1997. “La Teoría de la Relevancia y el estudio de los conectores discursivos.”
In Introducción a la pragmática lingüística, ed. C. Fuentes Rodríguez, 27–39. Seville: Kronos.
Montolío, E. 2000. “La conexión en el texto escrito académico. Los conectores.” In Manual
práctico de escritura académica, ed. E. Montolío, 105–164. Barcelona: Ariel.
Pons, S. 1998. Conexión y conectores. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
Portolés, J. 1998. Marcadores del discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1972. A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
Rossari, C. 1994. Les opérations de reformulation. Bern: Peter Lang.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E C. 1995. “The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of
Grammaticalization.” Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=B0B6BD357B86026A44112807057949C4?doi=10.
1.1.89.2536&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
PART II
L2 Spanish pragmatics
instruction
7
TEACHING SOCIOPRAGMATICS
Face-work, politeness and impoliteness in
L2 Spanish colloquial conversations
María Bernal
1. Introduction
This work presents selected theoretical and methodological lines of research
developed within EDICE Program (Studies on the Discourse of Politeness in Span-
ish) for the teaching of Spanish sociopragmatics from a sociocultural perspective.
It focuses on the concepts of face management, politeness, and impoliteness in nat-
ural colloquial conversations to reveal their implications for the classroom of
L2 Spanish. Both the use of authentic materials and the use of certain meth-
odological instruments (such as tests of social habits, see sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2)
will prove to be a productive teaching approach. Such an approach falls within
the field known as “interlanguage pragmatics” (Alcón Soler and Martínez-Flor
2008, p. 3), adopting a sociopragmatically oriented line of research and teach-
ing to examine how pragmatic action is subject to social and cultural conditions
(Blum-Kulka [1997] 2002, pp. 89–90) and how to transpose such action in a
classroom context.
Within the field of the teaching and learning of L2 Spanish, there are several
studies centering on the teaching of pragmatic contents and competences from a
pragmalinguistic perspective. For example, Félix-Brasdefer (2004) discusses the use
of mitigating refusals, while Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen (2012, p. 651) use the term
grammar “to refer to a focus on grammatical forms in their role as pragmalinguistic
resources (such as conditionals, imperfect tenses, adjectives, and adverbials) that are
used to express pragmatic intent, such as respect or politeness, in socially appropri-
ate situations.”
Since the goal of this chapter is to present a sociopragmatic perspective that
takes into account valid sociocultural aspects for the situation in which commu-
nicative exchanges take place, Bravo’s approach to “sociocultural pragmatics” is
key to the understanding of language as an object of study embedded in its social
132 María Bernal
context (Bravo 2005, p. 24). This definition pays attention to the language users’
own sociocultural contexts, which includes interpersonal information, the com-
municative interaction, the speech community, and other possible social, economic,
and cultural factors. Sociocultural contents are not, therefore, universal, but they are
“filled” accordingly. Following this approach, many studies have used a “consulta-
tion” methodology through inter-subjective tests to assess their own interpretations
centered on the language user under study and for different Spanish-speaking com-
munities (cf. Bernal 2007; Hernández Flores 2002, 2006; Murillo Medrano 2005,
among others).
This chapter is divided in three main sections. First, the chapter will discuss the
concept of face with a focus on two of its variants, autonomy and affiliation proposed
by Bravo in different works (Section 2), followed by an approach to the phenom-
ena of politeness and impoliteness, based on the analysis of natural Spanish data
extracted from corpora of colloquial conversations (Section 3). Then the chapter
wraps up with some pedagogical implications and suggestions for the teaching of
L2 Spanish sociopragmatics (Section 4). The teaching strategies proposed high-
light the importance of the analysis of authentic conversations in combination with
questionnaires or tests of social habits to study the sociopragmatic contents in a
given sociocultural context; finally, the chapter closes with a section of conclusions
and recommendations (Section 5).
2. Face: Autonomy and affiliation

The concept of face as defined by Goffman (1967) has been widely used for decades
in studies of communicative interaction: “The term face may be defined as the posi-
tive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he
has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of
approved social attributes [. . .]” (Goffman 1967, p. 5).
Brown and Levinson ([1978] 1987) further elaborated this concept by including
two components: a positive face or “the want of every member that his wants be
desirable to at least some others” and a negative one or “the want of every ‘compe-
tent adult member’ that his actions be unimpeded by others” (Brown and Levinson
1987, p. 62). Thus, social interaction is based on the balance of meeting the needs
of a positive face and those of a negative one for all the interlocutors involved in
a communicative exchange. The strategies of positive or negative politeness arise
with the need of safeguarding those faces from the inherent threats of certain acts; for
example, directive acts that constrain the listener’s freedom of action, as they relate to
their negative face. However, many researchers (Bravo 1999, 2003; Hernández Flores
2002; Matsumoto 1988) have criticized this dichotomy based on either theoretical or
empirical evidence; for example, by considering that threats to the negative face can
be subsumed in the positive one (Meier 1995, p. 385). These authors call for a greater
cultural relativism to avoid falling into ethnocentrism.
Bravo’s work is of particular interest. This author considers that the positive-negative
division of face is not valid for all cultures; instead, she presents an elaboration of
Teaching sociopragmatics 133
face that correlates with the concepts of autonomy and affiliation, two comprehen-
sive categories of supposedly human principles and, from there, supposedly universal.
Bravo has defined these concepts in different studies (Bravo 1999, 2003, 2012):
autonomy refers to the perceptions that an individual has of him or herself and
the perceptions that others have of him or her as someone with a contour of its
own within a group, while affiliation consists on behaviors that signal how a person
wishes to see him or herself and to be seen by others with features that identify him
or her with the group (Bravo 2003, p. 106).
In a conversation, autonomy is manifested through everything an interlocutor
does to display a differentiating feature from the group, and affiliation every-
thing that promotes identification with it. In the Spanish society, for example,
some autonomy contents configuring its basic face would involve the expres-
sion of autoafirmación (self-assertion) and autoestima (self-esteem): “being original
and aware of the good qualities owned [by the speaker]” (Bravo 1999, p. 168,
my translation); while some affiliation contents would have its ideal in show-
ing afecto (affection) and confianza (trust). The ideals of trust and the want of
strengthening friendship and vicinity bonds have also been identified by Hernán-
dez Flores (2002), Contreras Fernández (2004) and Bernal (2007) in colloquial
Spanish conversations between participants from different regions of Spain. Trust
is understood as familiarity and intimacy: speaking trustfully supposes for Spanish
individuals speaking unreservedly and without the fear of offending the interloc-
utor. Some other examples include the following (cf. Bernal 2007, p. 51): having
both valued qualities and valid opinions, performing tasks positively recognized
and performing properly the tasks dictated by the role performed (autonomy
face), and receiving and showing appreciation and consideration, being supportive
and engaging with others (affiliation face).
3. Politeness and impoliteness
3.1. Politeness categories

The definitions of politeness have proliferated since the publication of Brown and
Levinson’s work (1987). The sociopragmatic classification presented in this chap-
ter comes from Bernal (2007), and it is based on empirical analysis of authentic
materials (colloquial conversations in the area of Valencia, Spain) gathered by Briz
and Grupo Val.Es.Co. (2002) (cf. Section 4). From this analysis, the author develops
categories for studying (im)politeness that sometimes are not entirely independent
of each other and may overlap.
3.1.1. Strategic politeness

This type of politeness refers to acts intended to avoid face-threatening risks. The
aim is to alleviate the tension that those threats may cause during interaction. The
threats are likely to damage the interlocutor’s face, its social or professional roles,
134 María Bernal
and its competence as a speaker, among others. These acts can attenuate the differences
of opinion, the issues known to cause conflict, and utterances that are too imposing
and may be considered threatening. An example of strategic politeness follows:
(1) [L.14.A.2] (120–126)

Luisa estaba hablando de unos muebles que había visto en un escaparate cuando
la interrumpe su amiga Elena.
1. Luisa: = y queda superguay ese dibujo [mola cantidad
2. Elena: [mira que (( ))] // perdona
perdona↓
perdona que te corte↓ sigue hablando§
3. Luisa: § no§
4. Elena: § noo/ digo que a ver dónde lo
esperamos/ que está en Alacuás// en Mislata1/ que ya viene para acá
In this exchange, the interruption is mitigated though the polite excuses Elena prof-
fers in her first intervention (number 2 in the above example).
3.1.2. Valorizing politeness

This type of politeness, identified in different studies about Spanish-speaking com-
munities (Albelda Marco 2008; Barros García 2011; Bernal 2007; Kaul de Marlangeon
2005), aims at enhancing the interlocutor’s face, something that can be achieved
through acts such as direct flattering (addressing, for example, a high intellectual
level or a graceful physique), praising property (that is nice and desirable), or praising
somebody from the family or circles of friends for their good qualities.
(2) [IH.340.A.1] (12–14) Ana muestra unas lámparas a su hermana Victoria.

1) Victoria: ¿cómo la has encendido↑?§
2) Ana: § tocando (3”)
3) Victoria: ¡ay! pues sí/ sí que [ilumina=]
4) Ana: [es un mue(ble)]
5) Victoria: = ¡qué cosa más bonita! ¿eh?¡qué original!§
The interaction above occurs between two sisters and inside Anna’s apartment,
newly married. Ana is showing the lamps to Victoria, who repeatedly makes com-
pliments during the conversation to praise her sister’s good taste.
3.1.3. Group politeness

The communicative activities identified as group politeness aim at promoting the
relations between the members of a group. There are acts directed at, for example,
joint activities (see example (3)), defending the group against negative comments of
others, and remembering shared experiences.
(3) [J.82.A.1] (559–567) Sergio invita a Jaime a jugar al frontón.

1) Sergio: ((ahora)) VENTE ahora a- a jugar al fronTÓN Jaime// los
jueVEES/ por la mañana
2) Jaime: cuando se me cure el constipao
3) Sergio: de once a UNA/ jugamos ahíi/ ((pero)) unas palizas/ pero de
muerte ¿eh?// y después la cervecitaa↑
Bernal (2007) postulated a type of inauthentic impoliteness for apparently impolite

acts2 (use of insults, denigrating nicknames, among others) that are aimed at the
interlocutor but without an interpretation favoring impoliteness or impacting the
situation with a negative effect. Such acts form part of a playful style that favors
the affinity and the solidarity between participants. Its use is based on a relation of
trust and a high degree of interpersonal closeness.
(4) [J.82.A.1] (479–489) Juan cuenta a sus amigos que ha empezado a construir
una bodega en su casa de campo.
1) Juan: Me estoy haciendo una bodega en Cirat, macho me estoy haciendo
una bodega
2) Vicente: ¡calla cabrito! que te vas y no me dices ni pío/ tú
3) Sergio: pero si fue pensao y hecho/ mira era- era un sábado a las ocho de
la noche/ y dig(o) ¡hostia!/ yo tengo que (( ))
When interpreting the above, from a broad perspective, the term cabrito ‘cocky
bastard’ is not considered insulting because there is closeness and familiarity
between friends. Indeed, if we restrict the analysis to the form of the utterance, the
term is embedded in a directive act, an appeal to silence the interlocutor. How-
ever, if we include in the analysis sociopragmatic considerations on how Vicente
treats Juan’s face, what is said in line 2 would constitute, firstly, a rebuke to Juan
for going to town without Vicente (so that the affiliative face among them may
be threatened), while at the same time, Juan’s autonomy face is also enhanced by
presenting himself as a person with interesting plans and projects to share some-
how. Consulting with other language users may provide support to the analyst’s
interpretation and give new perspectives. In this sense, and as presented in Section
4.1.2, informants provided their views on this particular example in a question-
naire about impoliteness. Some of the answers obtained were: it is the typical rebuke
among friends, they do not seem to be angry; it is almost a manner of talking to each
other; Juan is more impolite for his attitude than Vicente for the expression he uses. Thus,
calla cabrito ‘shut up cocky bastard’ is not interpreted as an insult with an effect of
136 María Bernal
impoliteness. Additionally, not fulfilling Juan’s invitation is considered as socially

worse than Vicente’s rebuke.
3.1.4. Ritual politeness

This category results from empirical evidence in everyday meeting situations
and home visits. In authentic materials of conversations among Spanish par-
ticipants, the acts produced by the host are, for example, making offers of food
and drink, insisting on the offers, preventing possible failures in making such
offers, ensuring the guests’ comfort, showing interest in their issues, health, or
family members and significant others. Among the acts produced by the guest
are, for example, praising the offers received, praising the host’s belongings or
other related aspects, showing interest for their issues and health, their family and
significant others, not wanting to cause discomfort, and, finally, interceding on
behalf of their children.
An example would be the following: in a home visit between relatives and
friends, having a guest ask for one more piece of cake before it has been offered is
most likely played in the Spanish context as a compliment to the host, as it is a posi-
tive confirmation of the offer or even of the host’s ability as a chef (which would
enhance its autonomy face in terms of their value as such).
Another example of ritual politeness can be found in the following exchange:
(5) [L.15.A.2] (1090–1092) Elena le ofrece una bebida a Luis.

1. Elena: ¿Quieres un Jotabé?
2. Luisa: Un Jotabé nada menos↓ que tiene aquí ¿tienes Jotabé?
3. Elena: Sí.
In this example, the affirmative response that the guest gives to her host is achieved
through praising the quality of the offer.
3.1.5. Discursive politeness

This type of politeness also emerged as a result of the empirical analysis of
authentic conversations among Spanish participants (Bernal 2007). It refers to
aspects of discursive and thematic progress, as well as interlocutors’ active par-
ticipation in conversation. Discursive politeness utilizes the social function of
showing interest for the interlocutors as competent speakers and of showing
commitment with their discourses, ratifying them as valid narrators. It includes
conventional discursive politeness (paying attention, backchannelling, or provid-
ing positive feedback) and thematic discursive politeness. In the latter, one can
identify acts such as collaborating with the interlocutor by supplying a word that
is lacking, confirming, or correcting a term that has been used, sharing similar
experiences to those of the interlocutor’s, bringing up issues of concern to the
interlocutor, and finally following maintaining or resuming the interlocutor’s

conversational topics. Here is an example:
(6) [RB.37.B.1] (1–10) Belinda y Claudia (estudiantes) hablan con Aurelia, la

señora de la limpieza.
1) Belinda: ¿QUE cuándo iréis al pueblo por fin?
2) Aurelia: ¿al pueblo? ((a ver mañana/ sábado/// pero ¿cómo quiés decir↓
de vaca [ciones↑?]
3) Claudia: [((¡ayy!))]§
4) Belinda: § sí↓de vacaciones
5) Aurelia: en agosto
6) Belinda: QUE tu marido las tiene en agosto ↓, ¿no?
3.2. Impoliteness
Impoliteness has been frequently defined as absence of politeness. The interde-
pendence between politeness and impoliteness is found in the theoretical and
methodological frameworks based on Brown and Levinson’s ([1978] 1987) seminal
work. For example, Culpeper (2005) inverts the set of strategies for politeness
and orients them toward the production of impoliteness in the following way
(Culpeper 2005, pp. 41–44): (1) bald on record impoliteness: refers to the intention of
provoking harm on the interlocutor’s face; (2) positive impoliteness: used to attack a
positive face; (2) negative politeness: used to attack a negative face; (4) sarcasm or mock
politeness: use of an insincere politeness; (5) withhold politeness: lack of politeness
where a polite behavior is expected; (6) off-record impoliteness: produced through
indirect forms and implicatures.
According to Bernal (2007, p. 73), a critique of Culpeper’s model (2005) is that,
on the one hand, strategies identified may correspond to different levels at the same
time: what the author proposes as a positive impoliteness (2) and a negative one (3)
may be produced directly in (1), concealed in (4), or through implicatures in (6).
On the other hand, the clear intention of damaging the interlocutor’s face might be
present in more than one strategy.
When analyzing impoliteness, it is very important to observe the effects of the
interlocutors’ behavior during the interaction; that is to say, the social effect—
positive or negative—that the acts have on the interpersonal relationship (Bravo
2003, p. 146), so as to interpret whether impoliteness has been produced. The
effect of impoliteness is crucial, for example, to interpret the impact of an insult,
an act commonly codified as impolite, but interpreted otherwise depending on
situational and contextual factors such as, for example, the use of the expression
cabrón (bastard) among friends and with a sense of camaraderie (cf. Section 3.1).
The analysis of everyday conversations between Spanish interlocutors enables
the identification of different types of impoliteness, which are valid just for the
138 María Bernal
communicative situations analyzed and the sociocultural community under study

(cf. Bernal 2007, 2008).
3.2.1. “Normative” impoliteness

This type of impoliteness meets the expectations of a quarrel between related inter-
locutors in which the threatening acts (such as blaming and criticizing, among
others) do not directly involve a negative interpersonal effect, but on the contrary,
help to vent emotions and positively contribute to a settlement.
(7) [VC.117.A.1](40–56) Pilar (madre), Carlos (padre) y Mónica (hija) hablan de

poner la televisión y grabar un programa.
1) Pilar: ¡AY AY AY! oye Mónica/ ponme el vídeo
2) Carlos: YA ESTÁ PUESTO
3) Pilar: ¡mira que es!/ ¿eh?
4) Carlos: YA (E)HTÁ PUESTOO
5) Mónica: (A Pilar) °ponn el vídeo que no te lo ha puesto°
6) Pilar: mira que tiene maal ¿eh? yogur/ tiene mal yogur
grande§
7) Carlos: § (alcahueta)
8) Pilar: ¡cállate ya!/// (2´´) no hace más que hablar/ (sandeces)
The daughter, Mónica, tells her mother that, contrary to her father’s claims, the
recorder is not turned on, hence the discomfort of the mother, Pilar, who, in line 6,
makes a negative comment about Carlos with an euphemistic expression (changes
the expression “having bad blood” tener mala leche to “having bad yogurt”); Carlos
responds with “snitch,” an insult that is actually received by Pilar and answered in
line 8. When presenting the above example with a brief description of the situation
and the participants (cf. Section 4.1.2), the informants commented as follows below:
I find that it is impolite because of the close relationship between family members. Respect is
lost when it comes to your own family. He is disrespectful to Pilar, and he even insults her
constantly. Carlos is not polite to his wife and daughter, and the daughter with her father.
They may be considered too impolite by raising their voices and using imperatives, but it is
quite difficult to assert this because the conversation may have a humorous overtone that is not
reflected in the transcript. This shows how the analyst’s interpretation and the consul-
tation with the language user can come together to reinforce the interpretation in
relation to prevailing sociocultural contents.
3.2.2. Impoliteness produced by threats that are not

attenuated or repaired
This type of impoliteness is oriented as an attack toward the interlocutor’s face,
either toward his/her personal worth, social or professional roles, or group face
regarding family, friends, or another group membership.
(8) [S.65.A.1] (445–450)

1) Ana: ¿yy usted qué le hace a su chiquita/ ee- que le hace rabiar?/ [la
pobreta=]
2) Marisa: [(( ))]
3) Ana: =siempre está gri- [siempre está=]
4) Marisa: [(( ))]
5) Ana: = mamá déjame déjame§
6) Marisa: §sí déjame porque
(es que es demasiao↓ ¡hija mía! es que es demasiao) ayer a las diez me
llamó por teléfono↑/ mamá prepárame el (( ))/ oye↓ pero bueno pero ese
estrés ¿¡para qué!? no↓ no↓
In the consultation conducted (cf. Section 4.1.2), informants’ perception of the

situation in example (8) is as follows: Yes, it is offensive, it is very direct. Ana is impolite
when invading Marisa’s privacy (but that depends on the degree of trust). It is impolite to
meddle and ask about a private situation between mother and daughter (but this depends
on the relationship). The informant’s comments, regardless of whether they perceive
impoliteness or not, agree on the importance of the relation and the trust between
the participants involved in the situation.
3.2.3. Impoliteness produced by breach of politeness norms

This type of impoliteness refers to acts that break the expectations in the rituals of
politeness for certain situations; for example, within encounter situations, not greeting
the participants or, in the ritualized situation of a visit, not accepting offers or referring
to certain taboo topics, among many others. This also includes self-denigrating acts
that are consented by the interlocutor instead of expressing a disagreement.
In the following example, Marina, rather than positively value the fact that her
friend Felisa has lost two kilos she had previously gained, makes a comment that
goes in the opposite direction, pointing out the kilos that she has yet to lose: Well,
you still got twenty to go, which can be very threatening for Felisa. In the consultation
process, this has been considered impolite by informants, since it seems that Marina,
instead of supporting her friend, is laughing at her.
(9) [PG.119. A.1] (302–318) Felisa, Marina y Paco son amigos; hablan del peso
de Felisa.
1) Felisa: había engordao dos/ pesaba ochenta y dos (RISAS)
2) Marina: (RISAS)
3) Felisa: ya sabes que me- que me zurzan§
4) Paco: § va a estar ciento sesenta y tantos↑
5) Marina: ¡jo(d)er!/// ¿y ahora cuántos? ¿ya los has adelgazao?
6) Felisa: ahora he bajao dos// ahora estoy en ochenta
7) Marina: bueno/ pues aún te sobran veinte
140 María Bernal
4. Pedagogical implications
Based on the above considerations, the need to use authentic materials for the analysis
of (im)politeness phenomena becomes apparent; these materials are also necessary for
analyzing the performance of speech acts and the description of sociocultural con-
tents. When presenting authentic colloquial conversations to learners of L2 Spanish,
the pedagogical sequence should focus on how language users behave spontaneously.
The teacher’s role is that of a facilitator who uses natural communicative situations
during the learning process, instead of using made-up examples. As for the purely
cultural contents, Koike and Lacorte (2014, p. 27) point out that the objective is “for
learners to discuss their own cultural expectations regarding cultural norms, and to
compare them to those of the different Hispanic groups, so that they might see their
own behaviors and values in light of those of Hispanic cultures.”
As Alcón Soler and Martínez-Flor (2008, p. 8) mention, “following a conversa-
tion analysis (CA) approach, research has provided information about how learner’s
interactional competencies are both resources and objects of learning.” Ishihara
(2010) has also drawn attention to the usefulness of naturally occurring data in
instructional pragmatics,3 as “the results from empirical work in CA can be directly
applicable to the teaching of L2 pragmatics and discourse” (Ishihara 2010, p. 943),
something that is in line with Félix-Brasdefer’s (2006) research, who shows the
potential of conversational analysis for teaching and learning the pragmatics of a
language. Following this, learners of Spanish are able to work with natural Spanish
language interactions extracted from corpora gathered by academics and published
for the community or accessible through the Internet, as the ones described below.
The examples presented so far were extracted from the general corpus of spo-
ken Spanish developed by the research group Val.Es.Co. (Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co.
2002). This corpus contains data from the Spanish spoken in the metropolitan
area of Valencia (Spain) and is widely used within corpus analysis, pragmalin-
guistics, and sociopragmatics for the Spanish language. The aim of this research
group is to characterize colloquial register (including intonation, word order, and
connectors) and study the structure of conversation and its units. The corpus has
also provided a language basis for studying politeness phenomena (Albelda Marco
2008; Barros García 2011; Contreras Fernández 2004; Zimmermann 2003).
The following section presents methodological instruments that have been
developed for the analysis of different sociopragmatic and cultural contents, and
that may be applied in the teaching of L2 Spanish in order to expose students
to authentic materials and promote their analytical perspectives on this content.
4.1. Tests of social habits

The study of politeness conducted by researchers in the EDICE Program has been
enriched by the use of tests and questionnaires for different varieties of Spanish: e.g.,
Spain (cf. Hernández Flores 2002, 2006; Contreras Fernández 2004; Bernal 2007),
Argentina (Boretti 2003), or Costa Rica (Murillo Medrano 2005). In these tests,
interlocutors themselves define and interpret certain communicative behaviors, pre-

sented in general or in particular through research materials. Knowing what the
“everyman’s interpretation” is enriches the analyst’s interpretation. Boretti (2003)
draws attention to the fact that the use of tests of social habits is fruitful as supporting
material to comprehend the interlocutors’ sociocultural context and perceptions
of what is socially valid in their community. Such metapragmatic information and
knowledge on the sociocultural context is crucial in sociopragmatic research to
interpret whether a behavior is polite or not in a given situation (Bravo 2003,
pp. 103–104). Accordingly, a test of this kind helps the analyst get closer to the
perceptions interlocutors have about what is polite or impolite.
Within the EDICE Program, the project COSOPRAG—Corpus of Socioprag-
matic Information (www.edice.org)—included a discourse completion test for eliciting
certain communicative acts in given situations, using the following two general
questions: 1) What are the prototypical communicative acts for this situation? and
2) What are the social habits related to these acts? Other questions are used to gather
both linguistic and sociocultural information on the prototypical communicative
activities under study.
Teachers may replicate this type of questionnaire by providing students with
language sequences in which they can assess the interlocutors’ behaviors. In this way,
learners get an approximation on what language users consider valid and pertinent
for a given situation (Bernal and Hernández Flores 2016). Contrastive studies have
shown the efficient use of this methodology to deepen the understanding of cul-
tural contents as in, for example, Contreras Fernández (2004) for German-Spanish.
Below we present three instruments used in different studies with the aim of
researching communicative activities related to face, politeness, and impoliteness, in
connection with the socio-cultural contexts relevant to each situation.
4.1.1. Test of social habits for politeness

Hernández Flores (2002) used this type of questionnaire to gather information on
the interlocutors’ representations and evaluations of politeness behavior among fam-
ily and friends in Spain. The test was a two-part questionnaire: in the first part,
participants wrote down what they would say in nine different situations (including
asking for something, giving advice, or inviting); in the second one, participants gave
their own definitions or views on politeness phenomena. The information obtained
had an indicative value, since the interlocutors’ definitions of polite behavior did not
necessarily correlate with the ones produced during the interaction (Hernández
Flores 2002, p. 45). From her analysis, Hernández Flores (2002) concludes that
interlocutors are not concerned with their negative face, contrary to what would
be expected in these types of situations according to Brown and Levinson’s theory
(cf. Section 2). Also, the author remarks that politeness is considered a manifestation
of affection within the family; for instance, participants referred to politeness as the
action to help, a purely affiliative behavior. Contreras Fernández (2004) also used this
type of test to conduct a contrastive study between Spanish and German. When
142 María Bernal
comparing definitions, in both studies politeness is predominantly considered as an

attitude, with a focus on the forms used, the interlocutors’ behaviors and the way of
addressing one another, and respect and education are the values most commonly asso-
ciated with politeness. Offering the seat, greeting, or helping someone are examples
of activities that reflect polite behavior. However, cues referring to politeness as
a social norm are not comparable in number (22 and 3 respectively). Also, it is
interesting to note that informants refer in eleven occasions to the utilitarian and
strategic features of politeness; for instance, politeness as a condition to achieve dif-
ferent purposes (Hernández Flores 2002).
4.1.2. Test of social habits for impoliteness

Regarding impoliteness, Bernal (2007) presented a questionnaire similar to the ones
discussed above, but focused on eliciting representations of impolite behavior (the
questionnaire is accessible at the following website: www.edice.org). The author
used this tool as a supporting analytical instrument to provide evidence on behav-
iors and values prevailing in the sociocultural group under study, as well as to shed
some light on the phenomenon of impoliteness being analyzed in other areas, such
as in political discourse (Bolívar 2005) and talk shows (Culpeper 2005).
The collected responses came from informants from the metropolitan area
of Valencia, since it was considered relevant to access informants’ opinions and
perceptions of impoliteness in the same area of the corpus. This methodologi-
cal decision is to take into account the peculiarities that may exist in a particular
cultural community, but also, to enable a valid contrastive analysis with other data,
so as to establish similarities and differences with informants from other areas or
communities.
Specifically, the questionnaire asked participants to:
a) Give a definition of impoliteness.

b) Narrate an impolite situation experienced or witnessed, and provide more
examples where they would observe impoliteness in everyday life.
c) Give their opinions about interruptions or overlaps during conversations (with
the aim of capturing some aspects of cultural variability).
d) Indicate how often they would use offensive expressions, such as tacos (‘taboo
words’) and insults when talking to certain people (different family members
or friends).
e) Indicate whether they use such expressions in the same way with people other
than their own gender.
f) Indicate whether they would use certain expressions found in the materials ana-
lyzed when addressing certain people (including spouse, children, and friends).
The previous sections (Section 3, Section 4.1.2) already contain some extracts from
the results obtained from the questionnaire. To briefly summarize the results from the
questionnaire, impoliteness in informal, colloquial conversations is defined as:
a) A breach of politeness rules (for example, to start eating without all the guests
at the table).
b) A lack of respect and education (for example, to put a person in a humiliating
situation by not showing the deserved respect).
c) A behavior aimed at hurting other person’s feelings (that is, not having consid-
eration and offending the other individual).
4.2. An example of a questionnaire applied

in the classroom: Complaints
In general, pragmatic and sociopragmatic contents are not systematically or rigor-
ously presented in textbooks for learning L2 Spanish, at least in the very first stages.
It is often left to the discretion of the teacher and their own personal motivation and
concern to introduce such language contents in the classroom (cf. Morales Ruiz
2015). In most cases, pedagogical materials do not accurately reflect the sociocul-
tural reality of the Spanish language and its culture with regard to, for example, the
speech act of thanking, as De Pablos-Ortega (2011, p. 2424) points out. In a Swed-
ish context, De Matos Lundström (2013) reaches the same conclusion in reviewing
secondary-school textbooks most commonly used for teaching L2 Spanish: “Usu-
ally the metapragmatic information is not combined with any activities, and the
activities that aim to develop communicative skills are not combined with further
metapragmatic information” (p. 2).
This section briefly presents an application of the above critique. In this case,
Swedish students of L2 Spanish designed and answered a questionnaire on the
speech act identified as complaint (see Appendix 2). Students had previously enrolled
in a course on Pragmatics and Sociopragmatics at a Swedish university, as part of the
third (out of four) semester of studies leading to a degree in Spanish. During the
course, one of the central topics was the analysis of speech acts related to face manage-
ment and (im)politeness. They analyzed examples from studies of different varieties
of Spanish, trying not to focus on one in particular. The group of 15 students was
quite heterogeneous: there were Swedish students (with Swedish as their native
language), students from Spanish-speaking countries studying Spanish to com-
plete their teacher-training program for secondary schools, and second-generation
students who have Spanish as a heritage language. The last two subgroups were
speakers of Peruvian, Spanish Peninsular, Venezuelan, Cuban, and Chilean varieties.
Swedish students had experiences with stays in different Spanish-speaking coun-
tries. All this led to a rich discussion regarding sociocultural norms and values in
different Spanish-speaking communities, as well as many sociocultural hypotheses
(cf. Bravo 2003) that were made for the Swedish community in order to make
comparisons and contrasts.
Students analyzed in great depth rejections, compliments, offers, and complaints,
all of these in relation to the notions of face and the social effects of (im)politeness.
Students reviewed, among others, the works of Bravo (2012), Félix-Brasdefer (2004),
Placencia and Fuentes (2013) and, more specifically for complaints or claims, Bolívar
144 María Bernal
(2002) for Venezuelan Spanish. Having read and analyzed the specialized literature,
students were then asked to think of situations that could elicit the use of com-
plaints, handing them out in writing for one given class. The teacher would then
proceed to discuss the situations into small groups, asking them to select twelve situ-
ations that would take place in very different contexts and with different degrees of
formality (in a restaurant, in a shop, among friends, among others). These situations
shaped the basic design for the questionnaire (see Appendix 2). During the same
class, students proceeded to edit the questionnaire using a computer and projector.
The next activity was to administer the questionnaire to a few people who knew
Spanish (coworkers who attended other classes, family and friends, among others).
The answers obtained were brought to class and discussed in small groups. After
the questionnaire, as a pilot study, students themselves realized that some situations
should have been formulated differently because of their opaqueness or ambiguity;
for example, in a situation where a girlfriend cheats with a best friend (“What would
you tell your partner?”), it would have been best to elicit answers from different par-
ties and not just focusing on a single one (“What would you say to your partner and to
your best friend?”). Students also commented that they could have included the “Do
not say anything” option because, due to a given situation included in the question-
naire (“You’re on the subway and a woman hits you in the face with her elbow”), there may
be a tendency not to say a word, as is the case found for the Swedish group, while
for the Spanish-speaking group virtually all students would produce a complaint.
The classroom activities, both to develop the questionnaire and to review the
answers gathered, led to a discussion of the theoretical and methodological topics
covered during the course, with thoughts on some of the following questions:
1) How is face configured in the situations?

2) Is the speech act of complaining produced politely or impolitely?
3) If produced politely, what strategies are being used? What type of politeness best
represents the strategy in question?
4) If produced impolitely, what elements are expressing this communicative
behavior? Would it be impolite because it is threatening the interlocutor’s face,
because it is breaching any norm, or both?
The answers obtained from the ensuing discussion related to the course contents,
operating methodologically with a research instrument that was collaboratively cre-
ated by native and non-native speakers of Spanish and that served the purpose of
gathering natural information from participants. The results did not provide wide-
reaching conclusions, but they were valid for the purpose intended. On the one
hand, students could specify some differences and similarities between the Swedish
sociocultural groups and Spanish-speaking ones, while on the other hand students
could engage in a very productive exchange where the importance of taking into
account sociocultural contexts was a key for understanding conversational interac-
tions in different Spanish varieties.
5. Conclusion
This chapter introduced the lines of research carried out within the international
network EDICE Program (Studies on the Discourse of Politeness in Spanish), in
terms of communication strategies for managing face, as discussed by Bravo (1999,
2003, 2005, 2012) and Hernández Flores (2002, 2013), with special attention to
activities related to politeness and impoliteness, as referred by Bernal (2007, 2008)
for colloquial conversations in Spanish. In addition to authentic materials for the
teaching and learning of L2 Spanish or Spanish as a foreign language, the use of tests
of social habits is considered a crucial instrument for gathering valuable support
material when researching language use. It is one instrument that may enable access
to language users’ sociocultural contexts, the way they relate to each other, and their
perceptions about what communicative behaviors are socially valid.
In the classroom, when teaching sociopragmatic contents, the implications of
following these theoretical and methodological frameworks are: a) using authentic
materials is needed for showing how the phenomena under study are achieved
naturally; b) the tests of social habits can be adapted for specific needs; for example,
focusing on a specific speech act, identifying potential face-threatening acts, or
analyzing what social effects produce (im)polite communicative behavior on the
interaction. Both implications need a close reading of previous studies in the spe-
cialized literature, adopting instruments for approaching sociocultural contexts, as
well as designing those instruments in the classroom itself.
An illustration of the above has been given with the class activity in a Swed-
ish university-level course on Pragmatics and Sociopragmatics. Students analyzed
complaints by referring to specialized literature, designing a questionnaire focused
on that speech act, submitting the questionnaire to selected informants, and later
on discussing the results obtained. The whole process was accompanied by a
productive, ongoing discussion on the course contents, particularly on face man-
agement, (im)politeness phenomena, and the role of sociocultural context when
interpreting language data and analyzing a specific communicative behavior. The
heterogeneity of this group of students in terms of their origin from different
Spanish-speaking countries, some students’ background as speakers of Spanish as
a heritage language, as well as the community membership of the native speakers
of Swedish, contributed to a greater awareness of the importance of referring to
sociocultural contents when analyzing a specific communicative behavior.
Notes
1 Villages situated in the vicinity of Valencia.
2 A phenomenon identified as “antipoliteness” (anticortesía) by Zimmermann (2003) for
teen language.
3 Instructional pragmatics is a term that refers to the educational component of inter-
language pragmatics, aiming to promote the acquisition of sociopragmatic competence
(Ishihara 2010, p. 938).
146 María Bernal
References
Albelda Marco, M. 2008. “Codificación de la descortesía y variación de su interpretación
dependiendo de factores sociales y situacionales.” Pragmatics 18(4): 751–774.
Alcón Soler, E. and A. Martínez-Flor. 2008. “Pragmatics in Foreign Language Contexts.” In
Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, eds. E. Alcón Soler
and A. Martínez-Flor, 3–21. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Barros García, M. J. 2011. La cortesía valorizadora en la conversación coloquial española: estudio
pragmalingüístico. Granada: University of Granada.
Bernal, M. 2007. “Categorización sociopragmática de la cortesía y de la descortesía: Un
estudio de la conversación coloquial española.” PhD diss., Stockholm University. http://
urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-6758.
Bernal, M. 2008. “Do Insults Always Insult? Genuine Impoliteness versus Non-Genuine
Impoliteness in Colloquial Spanish.” Pragmatics 18(4): 775–802.
Bernal, M. and N. Hernández Flores. 2016. “Variación sociopragmática en la enseñanza de
español: Aplicación didáctica de un cuestionario de hábitos sociales.” Journal of Spanish
Language Teaching 3(2): 114–126.
Bolívar, A. 2002. “Los reclamos como actos de habla en el español de Venezuela.” In Actos
de habla y cortesía en español, eds. M. E. Placencia and D. Bravo, 37–54. Munich: Lincom
Europa.
Bolívar, A. 2005. “La descortesía en la dinámica social y política.” In Actas del Segundo
Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. J. Murillo Medrano, 137–164. San José:
Universidad de Costa Rica—Programa EDICE.
Blum-Kulka, S. [1997] 2002. “Pragmática del discurso.” In El discurso como interacción social, ed.
T. A. van Dijk, 67–99. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Boretti, S. 2003. “Test de hábitos sociales y la investigación de la cortesía.” In Actas del Primer
Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. D. Bravo, 109–120. Stockholm: Stockholm
University.
Bravo, D. 1999. “¿Imagen ‘positiva’ vs. imagen ‘negativa’? Pragmática sociocultural y compo-
nentes de face.” Oralia.:Análisis del Discurso Oral 2: 155–184.
Bravo, D. 2003. “Actividades de cortesía, imagen social y contextos socioculturales: Una
introducción.” In Actas del Primer Coloquio Internacional del Programa EDICE, ed. D. Bravo,
98–108. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Bravo, D. 2005. “Categorías, tipologías y aplicaciones: Hacia una redefinición de la ‘cor-
tesía comunicativa’.” In Estudios de la (des)cortesía en español: Categorías conceptuales y
aplicaciones a corpora orales y escritos, ed. D. Bravo, 21–52. Buenos Aires: Dunken.
Bravo, D. 2012. “Cortesía lingüística y comunicativa en español.” In Fundamentos y modelos
del estudio pragmático y sociopragmático del español, eds. S. de los Heros and M. Niño-Murcia,
83–115. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Briz, A. and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002. Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Anejo de la Revista
Oralia. Madrid: Arco-Libros.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. [1978] 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Contreras Fernández, J. 2004. El uso de la cortesía y las sobreposiciones en las conversaciones: Un
análisis contrastivo alemán-español. PhD diss., Universitat de València.
Culpeper, J. 2005. “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weak-
est Link.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 35–72.
De Matos Lundström, A. 2013. Los aspectos pragmáticos en manuales suecos de español como lengua
extranjera: Su contribución al desarrollo de la competencia pragmática en el bachillerato. MA diss.,
Stockholm University.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2004. “La mitigación en el discurso oral de mexicanos y aprendices
de español como lengua extranjera.” In Pragmática sociocultural: estudios sobre el discurso de
cortesía en español, eds. D. Bravo and A. Briz, 285–299. Barcelona: Ariel.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. “Teaching the Negotiation of Multi-Turn Speech Acts: Using
Conversation-Analytic Tools to Teach Pragmatics in the FL Classroom.” In Pragmatics and
Language Learning, eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. S. Omar, 165–198.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press,
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A.D. Cohen (2012). “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Lan-
guage Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday
Anchor Books.
Hernández Flores, N. 2002. “La cortesía en la conversación española de familiares y amigos:
La búsqueda de equilibrio entre la imagen del hablante y la imagen del destinatario.” PhD
diss., Aalborg University.
Hernández Flores, N. 2006. “Actividades de autoimagen, cortesía y descortesía: Tipos de
actividades de imagen en un debate televisivo.” In Discurso y sociedad: Contribuciones al
estudio de la lengua en contexto social, ed. J. L. Blas Arroyo, 637–648. Castellón: Universitat
Jaume I.
Hernández Flores, N. 2013. “Actividad de imagen: Caracterización y tipología en la interac-
ción comunicativa.” Sociocultural Pragmatics: International Journal of Spanish Linguistics 1(2):
175–198.
Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Edu-
Kaul de Marlangeon, S. 2005. “Descortesía intragrupal-crónica en la interacción coloquial
de clase media-baja del español rioplatense.” In Actas del Segundo Coloquio Internacional
del Programa EDICE, ed. J. Murillo Medrano, 165–179. San José: Universidad de Costa
Rica—Programa EDICE.
Koike, D. and M. Lacorte. 2014. “Toward Intercultural Competence: From Questions to
Perspectives and Practices of the Target Culture.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(1):
15–30.
Matsumoto, Y. 1988. “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in
Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 12(4): 403–426.
Meier, A. J. 1995. “Passages of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 24(4): 381–392.
Morales Ruiz, J. 2015. Competencia sociopragmática en aprendientes de ELE: Un estudio cualitativo
sobre factores incidentes en el aula de bachillerato. MA diss., Stockholm University.
Murillo Medrano, J. 2005. “Significados de la cortesía lingüística a partir de la aplicación
de un test de hábitos sociales en Costa Rica.” In Actas del Segundo Coloquio Internacional
del Programa EDICE, ed. J. Murillo Medrano, 115–136. San José: Universidad de Costa
Rica—Programa EDICE.
Placencia, M. E. and C. Fuentes. 2013. “Cumplidos de mujeres universitarias en Quito y
Sevilla: Un estudio de variación pragmática regional”. Sociocultural Pragmatics: International
Journal of Spanish Linguistics 1(1): 100–134.
Zimmermann, K. 2003. “Constitución de la identidad y anticortesía verbal entre jóvenes
masculinos hablantes de español.” In Actas del Primer Coloquio Internacional del Programa
EDICE, ed. D. Bravo, 47–59. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
148 María Bernal
Appendix 1. Transcription conventions (adapted from Briz and

Grupo Val.Es.Co, 2002)
1., 2., 3. Each of the interventions of a speaker.
§ Immediate succession, without noticeable pause between two
emissions of different speakers.
= Maintenance of turn of a participant in an overlap.
[ Place where an overlap or superposition begins.
] End of simultaneous talk.
- Restarts and self-interruptions without a pause.
/ Short pause, less than half a second.
// Pause between half of a second and second.
/// Pause of a second or more.
(5 “) Silence (lapse or interval) of five seconds; the number of seconds
is indicated in the pauses of more than one second, where it is
especially significant.
↑ Rising intonation.
↓ Falling intonation.
→ Maintained or suspended intonation.
HEAVY Marked or emphatic pronunciation (two or more uppercase letters).
(( )) Indecipherable fragment.
((Always)) Doubtful transcription.
(hea) vy Reconstruction of a lexical unit that was pronounced incomplete,
when understanding is needed.
h Aspiration of implosive “s”.
(LAUGHTER, COUGHING) Comments that appear outside the utterances.
aa Lengthening of vowels.
nn Lengthening of consonants.
¿¡ !? Exclamatory questions.
¿? Interrogations. Also for tags such as “right?, uh?, you know?”
! Exclamations.
Italics: Reproduction and imitation of utterances. Direct style, character-
istic of the so-called conversational narration.
Bold: Fragment the analyst wants to highlight in the analysis.
Appendix 2. Questionnaire on complaints made by students of

L2 Spanish in the classroom.
DATOS DE LOS INFORMANTES. Marca con una X y rellena los espacios
donde sea apropiado.
Sexo: (M) (F)
Edad: (15–25) (26–55) (más de 56)
Nivel/curso: (1) (2) (3) (4) Otros ____________
Idioma:
Español como lengua materna (nativo) ( ) País de origen ______________

Español como lengua de herencia (2a generación) ( ) País de origen
Sueco ( )
Otro ( ) ____________
Cantidad de años como estudiante de español ____________________
Estancias en países de habla hispana (duración y lugar)
1. SITUACIONES. Escribe del modo más espontáneo posible lo que dirías tú/
diría la persona en cuestión en estas situaciones.
Situación 1
Has comprado un sofá muy caro. Después de solo un mes de uso, se rompe.
Llamas a la tienda donde lo compraste y dices:
Situación 2
En el restaurante pides una arepa rellena de huevos de codorniz y cuando te la
estás comiendo te percatas que el relleno no es con huevos de esa ave sino con
huevos de gallina, te diriges hacia el mesero y le dices:
Situación 3
Estás en un restaurante con la familia cenando. El camarero no está haciendo
su trabajo bien, tarda en servirles, se le cae la coca-cola encima de tu plato y no
es nada agradable. ¿Qué haces/dices?
Situación 4
Al llegar al aeropuerto y recoger tu equipaje enviado de forma especial y de
costo adicional, sientes, al mover el paquete, que el contenido se ha roto. Te
acercas a información y dices:
Situación 5
El cajero de un restaurante usualmente se queda dormido sentado en su silla
frente al mostrador, su jefe lo ha pillado 3 días seguidos en una misma semana.
¿Qué le dice?
Situación 6
Estás en el metro yendo al trabajo, estás tranquilo escuchando música y ley-
endo el periódico. De repente, una señora te pasa y te pega con su codo en
la cara.
¿Qué le dices?
Situación 7
Es tu cumpleaños y a tu hermano se le olvida. No te llama, no te manda nin-
guna carta. Cuando sí te llama una semana más tarde, le dices:
150 María Bernal
Situación 8
Has quedado para tomar un café con un amigo íntimo. Un día, hace tiempo, le
prestaste 100 coronas, todavía te acuerdas de este momento y todavía te molesta
no haber recibido el dinero de vuelta, ahora se van a ver de nuevo. ¿Qué haces/
dices?
Situación 9
Cada vez que el novio se queda a dormir en casa de la novia, le deja el asiento
del inodoro subido; también le deja la ropa tirada el suelo. ¿Qué le dice ella al
novio?
Situación 10
Es domingo y son las 10 de la noche. Te preparas para irte a dormir, cuando tu
vecino del piso superior enciende el aparato de sonido a todo volumen. Asomas
la cabeza por el balcón. ¿Qué le gritas?
Situación 11
Recibes una prueba corregida por tu profesor y ves que ha corregido mal y que
te faltan varios puntos. ¿Qué le dices?
Situación 12
Tu novia te engaña con tu mejor amigo. ¿Qué le dices?
8
DEVELOPING L2 SPANISH
DISCURSIVE-PRAGMATIC ABILITY
IN A PERSUASIVE GENRE AT AN
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
Cecilia Sessarego
1. Introduction
There seems to be general agreement among L2 Spanish practitioners that the goal
of language programs should be to help learners acquire functional language abil-
ity for them to navigate a wide range of texts and fields (MLA 2007, my emphasis).
In order to meet curricular outcomes, L2 Spanish teachers are therefore faced with
the challenge of articulating lexis, grammar, communicative functions, and prag-
matics in classroom pedagogical activities. If we look at L2 Spanish instructional
materials, for instance, intermediate level textbooks, they include dialogues (e.g.,
planning a trip, job interviews, and invitations) in which some speech acts are
addressed (e.g., requests, suggestions, etc.), and composition activities (e.g., a biogra-
phy, essays about art) for the production of descriptive, narrative, argumentative, or
expository texts. Written work focuses on the right or wrong application of a good
number of grammatical rules in mainly stand-alone sentences, semantic meaning,
informative or descriptive content, and some basic organizational features of texts.
Written activities rarely address a “real” writer and reader, have a communicative
purpose, or specific situated context. The roles and context are educational, student
(writer)-teacher (reader) and the purpose is to demonstrate linguistic ability in an
assignment. The overall aim is to start building learners’ writing skills as academic
preparation to write literary essays in literature courses.
If instruction is to aim at integrating lexis, grammar, communicative func-
tions, and pragmatics of authentic culturally produced texts, a shift in perspective
is needed from the current syllabus focus on the accumulation of discrete
lexical and grammatical items. Grammar should be re-conceptualized as serv-
ing the speaker’s intentions and meaning in contexts of language use. In this
respect, Koike (2008, p. 33) proposes focusing on a “usage-based, contextual-
ized approach to the structure of the language” and “to conceive grammar as
152 Cecilia Sessarego
connected discourse.” From this point of view, there is a growing body of research
on L2 Spanish pragmatic competence and discourse that can inform instruction
(e.g., Koike and Pearson 2005; Félix-Brasdefer 2008; Koike 2010). The focus
of instructional models has been on the grammar-pragmatics connections for
the expression of speech acts (e.g., requests, refusals, suggestions, etc.) in oral
interaction by means of short dialogues and role-plays of mini scenarios (e.g.,
Félix-Brasdefer 2006; Koike 2008; Sessarego 2009; Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen
2012). Given that the prevalent goal of L2 Spanish instruction is to help learners
become linguistically and culturally functional in a wide range of texts and fields,
we can gather that pragmatic competence in a greater scope of communicative
events and texts (oral, written, hybrid, and digital) should also be the subject of
research and be addressed in pedagogical models.
The theoretical and pedagogical framework presented in this chapter addresses
L2 Spanish pragmatics on the basis of genre and communicative purpose (Askehave
and Swales 2001). The concept of genre broadens the spectrum of texts from the
target culture that can be used in the classroom to develop learners’ communicative
competence. As Bhatia (2002) puts it, genre analysis can provide insights into the
complex and dynamic world of texts, as it relates textual products to the discursive
conventionalized practices of a cultural community. Texts are assigned to genres on
the basis of their shared contexts, schematic structure, content, and communicative
purposes (i.e., speeches, application letters, promotional brochures, business reports,
etc.). Surface level properties of texts (lexico-grammatical, semantic, organizational,
etc.), are dependent on communicative purpose and the roles of interactants and
context. Therefore, an approach focused on pragmatics and genre brings to the fore
the aspects of genre as social constructs that are mostly ignored in the L2 Span-
ish classroom: speaker/writer, communicative purpose, specific context, schematic
structure, and hearer/reader. The pedagogical model presented in this chapter uses
the concept of genre as a macrolevel term to offer learners access to social ways of
communicating in various contexts in the target culture, and to teach students how
to act in a purposeful, meaningful way in such contexts. First, the aim is to provide
students with metapragmatic resources that assist them in developing awareness of
the pragmatic features of genres. Second, the focus is on the acquisition of linguistic
and text-based strategies for the expression of communicative purposes in their own
production of generic texts. As an example, I will specifically address the discourse
structure and pragmatics of the speech genre (an address to an audience) in Spanish
as a persuasive communicative event.
Naturally, a focus on developing learners’ L2 pragmatic competence through
genres necessarily involves the social communication/interaction aspects of learn-
ing. Unlike prevalent cognitive approaches to Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
that view cognition as an all in the mind, rule-governed process, the proposed
perspective on the development of pragmatic language ability draws on socio-
cognitive (Atkinson 2011) and complex systems (Larsen-Freeman 2011) theoreti-
cal approaches to SLA. These perspectives are aligned with the notion of genres,
in that L2 learning is viewed as the acquisition of the discursive conventionalized
L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability 153
practices of a cultural community. In situated contexts, learners acquire an L2 from

“meaningful participation in the environment” (Atkinson 2011, p. 150).
Additionally, a concept-based learning approach can help raise learners’ aware-
ness of how full texts are created by the L2 target culture and belong to “families”
of similar texts. Learners analyze and make use of generic concepts (communicative
purpose, context, interactants, schematic structure, and linguistic items to achieve
such purpose) for their own production of purposeful texts. Moreover, following a
constructivist approach, students are active agents in acquisition processing, as they
explore and use the new concepts of real-life genres. The sample task presented is
based on a hybrid oral and written text of the speech genre. Intermediate level L2
Spanish learners analyze the genre and then construct their own discourse, integrat-
ing lexis, grammar, and pragmatic purposes of the genre.
2. Genre
In the field of genre analysis, the concept of genre has for some time been defined, as
Ifantidou (2011, p. 331) puts it, in terms of “formulaic prototypes.” Texts belonging
to a genre show certain obligatory linguistic characteristics (Reyes 1998) and are
classified into genres according to type, such as literary, poetic, scientific, descriptive,
argumentative, etc. This kind of analysis is classificatory of the formal aspects of
texts and generally leaves aside the dynamism of social action, such as the contextual
and pragmatic aspects of genres.
On the other hand, a conception of genres as “social constructs” has become
more prevalent lately across various areas of study. Communicative purpose has
been considered a central criterion for deciding whether a particular discourse falls
within a particular generic category (i.e., speech, advertising, letter of application)
(Askehave and Swales 2001). Swales (1990, p. 58) states in his definition of genre:
A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which

share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized
by the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby
constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic
structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content
and style.
However, similar properties of texts such as communicative purpose or linguistic

features are frequently not sufficient to assign texts to particular genres. For instance,
some texts of a genre can have multiple social purposes or not share similar linguistic
components. Bhatia (1997) notes that we all manage to identify individual generic
artifacts, yet in the real world they are often seen in hybrid, mixed, and embedded
forms. Notwithstanding the fluid nature of generic texts and the complexities of
assigning texts to specific genres, Bawarshi and Reiff (2010) observe that the concep-
tion of genres as typified rhetorical ways of interacting within recurring situations
has greatly influenced the study and teaching of writing.
2.1. Written, spoken and new genres: Pedagogical applications

How to address genre knowledge in educational contexts has varied across
approaches (e.g., genres in literary, sociological traditions, professional contexts) and
their specific pedagogical conditions (Bawarshi and Reiff 2010). Sociological tradi-
tions view genres as complex social actions involving social roles and relationships,
and stress that learners should gain deeper understandings of the values and expec-
tations underlying genres. On the other hand, Swales’s (1990) perspective focuses
on conventionalized linguistic and rhetorical actions to carry out communicative
purposes in situated communicative events in discourse communities. Research-
ers and teachers in North America, Australia, Brazil, France, and Switzerland, in a
variety of disciplines (e.g., applied linguistics, TESOL, literary theory), have analyzed
genres and created pedagogical applications with a marked focus on communicative
purpose and linguistic/schematic features.
Specifically, in the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Swales’s (1990),
and later Swales and Feak’s (1994) work has been very effective in helping non-
native speakers of English gain access and participate in various academic contexts.
Bawarshi and Reiff (2010) provide the instructional steps showing how such a genre
analysis approach has been implemented in ESP: a) identification of a genre within
a discourse community and definition of the communicative purpose the genre is
expected to achieve, b) examination of the genre’s schematic structure—often char-
acterized by rhetorical “moves,” and c) examination of the textual and linguistic
features (style, grammar, syntax, tone) that realize the rhetorical moves. The process
is not linear or static, and the focus on lexico-grammatical features attends to the
genre’s communicative purpose and the discourse community. Analysis goes from
context to text.
In terms of spoken discourse, Crystal (1997) offers a description of the differences
between speech and writing, as well as an analysis of mixed-medium texts (written/
oral). During speech, participants are usually present, the speaker has a particular
addressee or several in mind, speech is spontaneous, and typically face-to-face. Pro-
duction is immediately revisable and prosodically rich. Mixed-medium texts (e.g.,
speeches, telephone messages written down, police statements) share features of oral
discourse, such as a particular addressee and almost immediate production, but in
terms of written discourse, mixed-medium texts can allow for repeated reading and
compact expression.
Furthermore, other types of genres as texts in new media contexts are constantly
changing. Crystal (2010) states that texts can vary greatly, from webpages to chat
groups. These media genres are not totally new in that they show features of tradi-
tional written and oral texts, although with additional features (i.e., webpages with
hyperlinks). Askehave and Nielsen (2005) indicate that new genres born with the
Internet can share several features with already existing genres and discourses from
printed and oral media. In their analysis of a number of commercial homepages
on websites, they find that these homepages’ main characteristics replicate promo-
tional and news texts, such as the exordium (that goes back to Aristotle and classical
rhetoric) as the introductory part of an oral speech that indicates the content and
structure of the presentation that follows.
Clearly, there is a great variety of written, spoken, and new digital text genres—
with their own specific pragmatic features—that could be addressed in educational
contexts. No matter the medium, genre analysis can help identify communicative
purposes and rhetorical actions in situated events of a cultural community. Results
of pedagogical applications in the field of ESP in academic contexts lend support to
the implementation of a generic perspective in L2 Spanish contexts.
2.2. Genres in the Spanish-speaking world

Swales’s (1990) work on analyzing genres has also played a central role in the Spanish-
speaking world, as his text-based theory influenced studies directed at genres in
the academy and the professions. Bolívar and Parodi (2014) state that investigation
of Academic Discourse (AD) in Spanish as a mother tongue began in some uni-
versities following ESP’s principles, and has focused particularly on research genres
such as the article and its sub-genres. Examples of genre analysis of Professional
Discourse (PD) include the sales promotional letter (Bosch 1997) and commercial
correspondence (Hsu 2008). Moreover, a focus on Spanish for specific purposes to
address the occupational needs of learners has resulted in university courses such as
Business Spanish or Spanish for Medicine. However, Bolívar and Parodi (2014) point
out that genre analysis has a relatively short history in the Spanish-speaking context,
and they emphasize the need for researchers interested in applying linguistics to the
teaching of Spanish and specialized languages for specific purposes.
With respect to spoken genres, specifically L2 Spanish Pragmatics research and
pedagogical models, the focus has been on face-to-face, spontaneous oral interaction
between L2 learners and native speakers. These studies have led the way in paying
attention to the communicative purposes of texts, a key criterion of a Swalesian
view of genre analysis. Speech acts (i.e., requests, invitations, refusals, suggestions,
etc.) to carry out such functions have been studied in learners’ participation in role-
plays and written open-ended dialogues mainly at a high-beginner/intermediate
level. Further discussion and greater detail will be provided in Section 4 below.
These research studies have yielded unique understanding about learners’ develop-
ment of pragmatic competence in spoken genres, which, together with research on
AD and PD genre analysis in Spanish, provide insights for this chapter’s proposed
pedagogical plan.
3. A socio-cognitive perspective of SLA

To frame an L2 instructional approach it is necessary to take into consideration
the insights on acquisition from SLA research, which, as Van Patten and Benati
(2010, pp. 29–36) pointed out, “cannot speak to the day-to-day issues confronted
by teachers” but “might lead to a better set of expectations regarding the interface
between teaching and acquisition.” In this sense, the proposed pedagogical approach
is based on insights from cognitive and social approaches to SLA.
For the prevalent traditional cognitive conception of acquisition, learning consists
of an all-in-the-mind, rule-governed process of accretion of grammatical structures.
On the other hand, a socially situated perspective conceives of grammar as emergent
(Hopper 1998, p. 118) and as “a vaguely defined set of sedimented . . ., recurrent
partials whose status is constantly being renegotiated” in use. For Atkinson (2011,
p. 146) grammar is “a reflex of discourse—the always-in-process result of real time
language use . . . Apparent grammatical stabilities are the result of the sedimentation
of repeated language-situation correspondences in personal and social memory.”
Nonetheless, by adopting a social view on grammar, there is an important role
for cognition, though in its revised form as conceived by a socio-cognitive approach
to SLA. Instead of considering it as an abstract, all-in-the-mind psychological pro-
cess, cognition is viewed as situated cognition, “an open biological system designed
by evolution and experience to align sensitively with the ambient environment
(Atkinson 2011, p. 144)”. Larsen-Freeman’s (2011, p. 49) considers language to be a
“complex adaptive system, which emerges bottom-up from interactions of multiple
agents in speech communities. The system is adaptive because it changes to fit new
circumstances, which are also themselves continually changing.”
Clearly, a socio-cognitive approach to SLA supports the idea that the acquisi-
tion of grammar takes place in situated communicative events where participants
achieve their pragmatic goals. Classes of communicative events, or genres, recur in
a target culture, so by repeatedly participating in them, learners get opportunities
to make the language-situation relationships needed for acquisition. Moreover, a
socio-cognitive perspective is aligned with the notion of genre that frames the pro-
posed discursive-pragmatic instructional approach. Bawarshi and Reiff (2010, p. 79)
view genres as forms of situated cognition, as “for genres to perform actions, they
must be connected to cognition, since how we know and how we act are related to
one another.”
On the premise that, for language learning to occur, learners need to negotiate
their intentions in relation to genres’ social expectations, genres can be considered
appropriate communicative texts to help develop learners’ functional language abil-
ity. By engaging in the analysis and production of specific genres, learners can
acquire not only the textual linguistic regularities, but also “the cultural knowledge
that conceptually frames and mediates how we understand and typically act within
various situations” (Bawarshi and Reiff 2010, p. 4). Research on L2 Spanish prag-
matic learning of some spoken genres seems to indicate that instruction is effective
in helping students make language-situation relationships needed for acquisition.
4. L2 Spanish pragmatic pedagogy of spoken genres

Most L2 Spanish pragmatic pedagogical models focused on speech acts have explored
Swales’s main features of genres in the specific oral texts that were addressed: a) com-
municative purpose, b) pragmatic features of speaker/hearer and other contextual
aspects, c) conversational sequences, and d) the linguistic features that realize the
speech acts in question.
With regard to communicative purposes, instruction has addressed requests,
apologies, compliments, compliment responses, expressions of gratitude, directives,
suggestions, advice, invitations, refusals, and reprimands. For the situated con-
text, interlocutors generally included Spanish L2 learners and Native Speakers,
peers, service agents, and faculty in everyday transactional contexts. Importantly,
particular attention was paid to formal or informal politeness conceptions and
sociocultural variations (Koike and Pearson 2005). Additionally, several studies
on Spanish Pragmatics (e.g., Curcó and De Fina 2002; Márquez-Reiter and Pla-
cencia 2004) have provided a deep understanding of many regional linguistic and
politeness differences. Martínez-Flor (2006) proposes a model that addresses both
pragmatic and intercultural competence, by making comparisons of how cultural
beliefs inform speech behavior. Félix-Brasdefer’s (2006) model to be taught at an
intermediate level addresses refusal responses to an invitation or offer. Differences
in refusal responses by native speakers of Spanish and English, regional varieties of
Spanish, and gender perceptions are analyzed through conversation analysis.
Concerning the schematic structure of the oral texts, some studies have examined
speech act sequences in discourse. For example, for transactions in several service
encounters (i.e., at a store, hotel, market, travel agency) generic sequences included
greeting, request, providing information, asking for information, negotiating, pay-
ment, and farewell (Sessarego 2009). In generic invitations, the sequence involves
a greeting, invitation-refusal, insistence-response, and farewell (Félix-Brasdefer and
Cohen 2012). From a conversation analysis and speech act theory standpoint, the
pragmatic aspects of oral communication addressed were the organization of turns,
speech act sequences, and mitigation in refusals (Félix-Brasdefer 2008). As to the
linguistic indexes, all studies have focused on the grammar-functions mappings
learners need to make when expressing prototypical speech acts.
In terms of tasks, instructional models have generally used mini-scenarios as
trigger texts, and, in broad terms, included the following instructional steps: a) an
input stage, b) an awareness-analysis-discussion stage (pragmalinguistic, sociocul-
tural, regional variation), c) a practice stage, and d) a final discussion/review of
performance. Tasks consist of mainly role-plays and discourse completion texts in
written form or online, where the pragmatic targets are speech acts at the discourse
level in oral interaction.
All in all, the pedagogical models focused on speech acts address the most impor-
tant generic features of the oral conversation texts that were analyzed. As to the
socio-cognitive aspects of acquisition, the input provided is a natural context where
native speakers’ typified ways of interacting are present. Learners participate actively
in real interactions where they co-construct meaning with the native speaker inter-
locutors. As to cognitive processing, most instructional models explicitly address
pragmalinguistic awareness and provide learners with metapragmatic resources
for their own production. Learners make the grammar-functions connections to
express their specific purposes.
Indeed, the focus on speech acts and the most common functions in every day
conversational oral interaction has found its way into Spanish textbooks and materi-
als. However, since pragmatics is embedded and manifested in a culture’s wide scope
of discourse genres through a variety of media (oral, written, digital texts, etc.), prag-
matic competence is also needed to effectively understand and produce texts of such
genres. Unlike the spoken genre described above, in other kinds of genres, there is a
more compact structure, communication may not be face-to-face, the hearer/reader
may not provide an immediate spoken response. The speaker/writer’s audience may
be composed of not only one individual who participates in the communicative
event, but of many hearers/readers who may have different responses. Thus, the
challenge for L2 Spanish pragmatic instruction is to further develop pragmatic com-
petence through a wide range of texts and fields. To this purpose, this chapter presents
a pedagogical model based on a Swalesian view of genre.
5. A discursive-pragmatic teaching-learning
framework based on genre
The purpose of using the notion of genre for L2 pragmatic instruction does not
simply consist of providing models of genre analysis and classification of texts for
learners to replicate. Bhatia (2002, p. 5) points out the two most recurring myths
in language pedagogy:
a) Genre theory encourages simple reproductions of discourse forms, and

hence represents a rather simplified view of the world, b) Genre-based
descriptions are static and hence their pedagogical and other applied linguis-
tic applications discourage understanding and use of creativity and transfer of
skills across other discourse forms.
Paltridge (1995) also states that genre analysis in language pedagogy should be
seen as versatile and dynamic, and with a natural propensity for innovation. In this
regard, Swales’s (1990) first step of his task-based genre approach addresses the issue.
For the particular genre of request letters, students are provided with not one but
several samples of the genre for them to analyze similarities and differences. Learn-
ers then examine the sentence and word choice and appropriateness to the situation
and afterwards compose their own letters. By analyzing the variability of com-
municative purposes of the request letter samples and the linguistic forms, students
become aware that request letters do not follow only one prototype.
In fact, the notion of generic categories of texts as an analytical tool is useful
for instructors and students to conceive texts as part of “families” (i.e., speeches,
letters of application, advertisements, and reports). The texts share some common
features in terms of their discourse structure, pragmatic purpose, context, and
participants, though not necessarily in terms of all these aspects. This “macro”
concept comprises similar texts that can show some variability. For instance,
within the genre of “speeches,” a speech can be delivered by the president of a
university to students or a student can make a speech to fellow students to run

for president of the Students’ Association. These speeches share some discourse
features (rhetorical moves) and an inherent communicative purpose of persuasion,
but the content, several linguistic features, and relationships between interactants
will certainly vary.
To summarize, on the basis of the discussion so far, the following main concepts
and understandings will guide the design of generic tasks:
a) Genres are classes of communicative events which show typified ways of inter-
acting to achieve social goals within discourse communities (i.e., academia,
business, scientific, legal).
b) Generic texts are of many types and occur through spoken, written, hybrid
(oral/written), virtual, and new media.
c) Genres of texts have communicative purposes and are made up of rhetorical
moves or functional units (Swales 1990), which are meant to achieve the overall
communicative goal of the genre. Texts are created within a situated context
with specific interactants.
d) L2 Pragmatics and genre learning are based on a socio-cognitive approach to
SLA: attention is paid to both the cognitive and social processes involved in
planning social action, and adapting grammar/pragmatics to the specific fea-
tures of situated communicative events.
e) Combined genre and L2 pragmatics pedagogical frameworks mostly consist
of these steps: a) provision of authentic samples of generic texts, b) pragmatic
awareness raising by examining communicative purpose, context, and interac-
tants, c) analysis of schematic structure, d) learners’ practice in social interaction,
and e) discussion/evaluation of pragmatic performance.
f) Instruction based on a constructivist task-based view (Nunan 2004) appears
to have worked well to address L2 Spanish pragmatics in classroom contexts
(mainly role-plays).
g) Current research indicates that learners can make grammar-function connec-
tions to express speech acts in oral interaction at high-beginner and intermedi-
ate levels of proficiency.
As noted, L2 Spanish research studies and pedagogical models on the development

of pragmatic competence have so far only examined speech acts in oral conver-
sation of a transactional kind. The proposed pedagogical frame based on genre
draws useful insights from these studies, but adopting the construct of genre as
a unit of analysis will involve a new set of challenges. In the case of current SFL
pragmatic models, spoken texts have one communicative purpose, which is asso-
ciated with the speech act in question. Pragmatic competence is assessed on the
basis of the successful expression of such speech acts and effectively carrying out
the dialogic sequence in mini scenarios. On the other hand, the proposed generic
approach can use a great variety of full-length texts of specific genres (i.e., reports,
e-mail messages, etc.), which may include a number of different functional moves
to achieve their overall communicative purpose. The schematic structure can be

more complex than a short sequence of transactional exchanges among interlocu-
tors. Unlike spoken discourse that is loosely structured, a mix of linguistic features
of oral and written language may be needed to build a coherent and cohesive
discourse toward the overall purpose. With a generic approach, pragmatic compe-
tence will need to be assessed more broadly than in terms of the pragmalinguistics
of specific speech acts and the completion of a short dialogic sequence.
Nevertheless, the challenge must be undertaken, as a genre approach to teaching
L2 pragmatics opens the door to other kinds of dynamics of communicative events
within discourse communities of the target culture. The purpose is to make learn-
ers aware that a target culture has typified ways of interacting to achieve its social
functions, and that genres’ “flexible scripts” can help them communicate effectively
in the L2 in similar situations. For example, for the topic of university life, students
can explore and produce the genre of invitations. The communicative purpose is to
invite/encourage fellow students to join a Hispanic students’ club or association, or
to participate in a particular cultural event. As a sample for analysis, the following site
of the International Exchange Erasmus Student Network invites students to become
tutors in the Erasmus program in Europe: http://www.esn-uah.org/programa-
tutor-erasmus. Other genres and texts with various communicative purposes may be
appropriate on the topics of intermediate level syllabi. Most importantly, the learning
of a topic, lexis, and grammar should not be an end in itself, this knowledge should be
applied to the creation of an actual text with a real communicative purpose.
5.1. Integrative tasks based on genre at an intermediate

level of proficiency: A focus on speeches as a genre
of persuasive texts
Classical rhetoric can be considered an important precedent of current linguistic/
pragmatic models of texts. Burton (2007) includes Quintilian’s rhetorical terms for
the discourse structure of speeches, which Bosch (1997) utilized when examining a
request letter. I have adapted these rhetorical features for the specific case of student
speeches (written to be read aloud) addressed in this chapter. The functional com-
ponents of a speech are as follows:
a) Introduction (exordium): the speaker announces the subject and purpose and
also uses persuasive appeal to create credibility with the audience.
b) Topic (narratio): the speaker provides a narrative account or explains the case.
c) Purpose (partitio/propositio): the speaker outlines what follows in terms of the
issue and the purpose of the speech.
d) Appeal to action (peroratio): the speaker summarizes the information and tries
to obtain a favorable attitude in the audience.
These elements show that speeches are mainly persuasive texts as their communi-
cative purpose is to influence the audience to agree with the speaker’s position or
to take some action. In the proposed pedagogical approach, the object of analysis
is a persuasive text as it intends to influence the receiver to act in a certain way.
As a sample for analysis and production, I have chosen the speech genre for sev-
eral reasons. First, its pragmatic features can be quite clearly identified. There is a
clear communicative purpose to persuade hearers/readers to take action. Learners are
speakers/writers, fellow students of Spanish or native speakers are hearers/readers. The
context is the Spanish-speaking community of students in an Anglophone university
who are familiar with the topic (e.g., the environment, work/volunteering, politics,
and university life) and also engage in social activities related to such topics. For the
schematic structure, or sequential moves (Swales 1990), there exists a clear rhetorical
sequence for speeches. As to the linguistic items to carry out those moves, several
speeches related to the specific topic can be used as samples for analysis. Moreover, it
is possible within this specific university context to get to know the pragmatic impact
or interpretation of the interlocutors or readers through surveys or oral feedback.
Second, in terms of addressing communication outcomes of an intermediate
level course, the speech genre can be used to integrate lexis, grammar, and pragmat-
ics related to a specific topic in the syllabus, in that it addresses the choice of lexis
and grammar needed for its specific communicative purpose. It is assumed that,
from instruction in the previous semesters, learners will be familiar with present
indicative, some uses of the present subjunctive mood, informal and formal impera-
tive, simple future, preterite and imperfect tenses. Vocabulary related with the topic
at hand will have been addressed through a variety of pre-task practice activities.
Speech samples for analysis can be found on the Internet or in some instructional
materials. One example of a speech related to the topic of university life and politics
is Una candidata a representante estudiantil, which can be found in Fuentes, the Lab
Manual, by Rusch et al. (2011, p. 38). This sample speech text was explored in two
L2 Spanish intermediate (4th semester) classes in a university context. Rhetori-
cal features of the genre of speeches were addressed in a holistic way, as the focus
of instruction was on the indicative-subjunctive mood contrast, in particular the
cohesive discursive function performed by the present subjunctive in speakers’ com-
ments (Sessarego 2016). The instructional model presented in this chapter adopts
the concept of genre to examine speeches in more detail in terms of communicative
purpose and other pragmatic features.
5.2 Instructional plan

Step 1: Analysis of the generic text’s pragmatic features and schematic structure (by the
instructor).
The particular speech intent is to persuade young people to become volunteers
for a cause, at an agency, etc.
• Discourse genre: speech.

• Communicative purpose: persuade students in Spanish classes to become volun-
teers for a cause.
• Speaker/writer: students in an intermediate level class (4th semester) who deliver

the speeches.
• Listener/reader: peers in Spanish classes and/or native speaker students in other
programs.
• Context: Volunteering is a commonly practiced activity within the university
community.
• Topics: Volunteer causes can be related to the topics of the course, such as pro-
tecting nature, work experience teaching abroad, participating in a political
party, etc.
• Schematic structure: rhetorical moves: a) introduction: the subject is announced
and there is appeal to the audience, b) topic: the speaker describes the case,
c) purpose and issues of the case, and d) appeal to action.
• Outcomes: Pragmatic awareness of how speech texts are constructed in terms of
purpose, moves, and linguistic features (grammar-pragmatic mappings), prag-
matic production of a speech, integrating grammar, lexis, and pragmatics in a
persuasive text related to the topic at hand.
Step 2: Activating relevant schemata and prior knowledge.

Students in small groups discuss and jot down activities they do as volunteers or
would like to do at their university or their community. They talk about what they
do at their volunteer jobs. A great variety of activities can come up. For example:
Soy voluntaria en una asociación de ayuda a los sin techo. Hago trabajo voluntario en una
escuela. Ayudo a los niños que tienen dificultades para leer. Me gustaría trabajar para una
organización ONG que protege el medio ambiente.
The whole class discusses the variety of activities and the instructor helps with
the expression of some ideas. The activities are written on the board or typed and
shown on a screen.
Step 3: Real-life input.
Learners read a minimum of two speeches that try to persuade young people to
become volunteers or participate in programs. Webpages of organizations seeking
volunteers are a great resource, since they share features of spoken and written dis-
course. The following samples exemplify the schematic structure of speeches, with
the same communicative purpose of persuasion, and they are addressed to a similar
audience. The texts in the links below are offered as possible samples of the genre:
Sample “a” is about becoming a volunteer in Madrid for a variety of causes:
http://trabajarporelmundo.org/buscando-un-voluntariado-en-madrid/.
Sample “b” is about becoming a volunteer in Honduras and teaching English:
http://trabajarporelmundo.org/voluntariado-en-honduras-para-ensenar-ingles/.
Step 4: Reading comprehension and identification of discourse setting.
Learners identify:
• The writer/agency: the agency that requires volunteers.

• The audience-reader: young people who would do volunteering.
• The purposes of the webpage speech: persuade young people do be a volunteer
for their causes.
The focus is on a general comprehension of the information in the text. The

instructor and students go over the script and work on the specific vocabulary and
grammar (not new) to achieve a semantic understanding of the information in the
text. Learners are exposed to authentic texts and the language they will come across
in similar real-life situations.
Step 5: Deeper understanding of the text and identification of discourse schematic structure.
The teacher asks students to work in small groups and identify the sentences/
paragraphs that correspond to the following functional moves of the text:
• Introduction: the speaker/writer announces the subject and uses persuasive

appeal to create credibility with the audience.
• Topic: the speaker/writer describes the organization.
• Purpose: the speaker/writer explains the purpose of volunteering for the orga-
nization and its benefits.
• Appeal to action: the speaker summarizes the information and tries to obtain a
favorable attitude in the readers of the webpage.
There is a class discussion on which sections of the speech text address each func-
tional component.
Step 6: Analysis and consciousness-raising of pragmatic functions and corresponding lin-
guistic items at a discourse level.
Students in groups are asked to read the whole text again, then discuss together
and as a whole class:
• Which sentences and linguistic items (phrases, vocabulary, and grammar) or

speech acts are key to express the ideas of each component in Step 5.
• Other linguistic items that can be used to express the same ideas and produce a
persuasive impact on the reader.
Functional move 1: Persuasive appeal.

Grammar structures that are generally used in Spanish to create persuasive appeal
are questions in the simple present (i.e., ¿Buscas aventura? ¿Quieres enseñar inglés en un
país hispano?), conditional sentences (Si quieres conocer el mundo, sé voluntario . . . or
Si eres entusiasta y atento a la diversidad cultural y eres estudiante de la universidad . . .,
puedes presentarte . . .).
Vocabulary: buscar, encontrar, poder, querer.
Functional move 2: Provide information on the topic, description of the organization.

Grammar: simple present tense.
Vocabulary: existir, crear, realizar, promover.
Functional move 3: Purpose and benefits.

Explanation of purpose (simple present) and benefits of volunteering (simple
future, simple present of poder).
Vocabulary: fomentar, participar, facilitar, dedicar, aprender.
Functional move 4: Appeal to action.

Grammar: informal imperative (tú), conditional sentences that express probability.
Other common syntactic structures are phrases that require the subjunctive
mood (Es importante que te registres . . .).
Vocabulary: contactar, buscar, acceder, encontrar, conocer, poder.
Step 7: Expansion through tasks.

At this stage learners have the opportunity to express their own meanings and
purposes within the complete discourse of the genre. Based on the brainstorming
in Step 2, they can choose to prepare speeches to encourage classmates to become
volunteers in the particular programs they are already involved in. To plan their
speeches, students write an analysis chart of the pragmatic components analyzed
in Steps 4, 5, and 6. They work on communicative purpose, hearer/reader, context,
rhetorical moves, and choice of linguistic items. The preparatory analysis chart aims
at gauging learners’ awareness and understanding of the pragmatic features of their
speeches. Below is the chart (Table 8.1) with possible answers; linguistic options
can vary:
The instructor collects the students’ analysis charts and actual speeches so as to
provide feedback regarding learners’ application of pragmatic features of the speech
genre. In class, students can first practice aloud their versions with a classmate.
Through interaction, students negotiate meaning and try to produce a speech that
has a clear persuasive communicative purpose. The speech is a hybrid oral/written
text to be read aloud.
Step 8: Delivery of speeches and self-peer assessment.
Each student delivers his/her speech to fellow classmates in his class, other Span-
ish classes, or to native speaker students in the Spanish Students’ Club if there is one
at the particular university. Speeches should be between three and five minutes.
Then, listeners can provide oral or written feedback with the following guideline
(see Table 8.2):
After the delivery of each speech, there will be a variety of opinions from the
audience on how informative and persuasive the speeches are. Students can ask
questions about the cause, make comments about some of the language used, speak-
er’s tone, passion, etc., or only respond to the questionnaire. The purpose is not so
TABLE 8.1 Students’ analysis chart
Tu audiencia y contexto Compañeros de la universidad

Objetivo principal de tu discurso Persuadirlos a que participen como voluntarios en el
programa XXX
Propósito de la introducción de tu discurso Llamar la atención, crear interés
Propósito de la segunda parte Dar información sobre el programa
Propósito de la tercera parte Explicar los beneficios de participar
Propósito del cierre del discurso Entusiasmar a los compañeros a que se decidan a
participar
TABLE 8. 2 Peer assessment chart
Candidato 1
El comienzo del discurso atrae mi atención a • totalmente
participar • un poco
• poco
Explica claramente el tipo de causa para la Sí, claramente
cual se necesitan voluntarios y en qué consiste No hay muchos detalles
el trabajo
Falta información
Su discurso es convincente para persuadirme Sí
a ser voluntario para su causa (aunque no me Poco convincente
interese el tema)
Necesita utilizar un lenguaje más
convincente
much to get students to give a thorough evaluation of the speech (this can be done
by the instructor), but to make learners participate in a communicative event where
they have a communicative purpose to achieve and they try hard to produce the
intended effect on their interlocutors using the appropriate language. The audience
also interacts with the speaker to negotiate meaning related to the specific volunteer
work. In terms of assessment, the instructor will need to create rubrics to address
the various components of the task, clarity of communicative purpose, discourse
schemata-rhetorical moves, appropriateness of linguistic choices to carry out the
intended effect.
The speech genre to persuade fellow students to become volunteers for a cause
can also be addressed through a written message sent by e-mail. The advantage of
the hybrid oral/written form is that students can actually deliver their speeches
by reading them aloud and then interact with the audience regarding the effects
of the delivery.
6. Conclusion
A discursive pragmatic instructional approach that draws on genre analysis research
necessarily involves a shift in perspective from the current linguistic view on texts
in most SFL classrooms. While lexis, grammar, and text organization are considered
significant components, they should be dealt with so that they carry out the com-
municative purposes of texts, rather than with a restricted focus on linguistic form
and semantic meaning. From a pragmatic perspective, traditional categorizations
of narration, argumentation, exposition, etc. can be put to use in communicative
events for real-life purposes, without the need to “add” more components to the
syllabus. For instance, learners can explore how a particular text, such as a narration
of events, can fulfill a variety of communicative purposes based on who the address-
ees are and the specific contexts (i.e., narration of a personal experience to request a
project extension from an instructor vs. a narration of the same personal experience
to a friend on social media).
The purpose of this chapter is primarily pedagogical: to advance ways of engag-

ing learners with L2 Spanish pragmatics, and to that effect, the notion of genres is
presented as a frame for learners to participate in the conventionalized communi-
cative practices of the target society. Current L2 Spanish syllabi focus on learners
demonstrating linguistic ability and content knowledge to complete academic
assignments on topic after topic, but there is basically no further instructional step to
guide learners in the functional/social application of such knowledge. The proposed
pedagogical approach addresses that step by using genres as a means for instructors to
design tasks, and for learners to participate in target culture communicative events.
A focus on a target culture’s genres is better aligned with curricular objectives to
develop learners’ communicative abilities in a wide range of texts and fields.
Indeed, although current L2 Spanish pragmatics research has yielded valuable
understandings on the development of L2 Spanish functional ability, it has mostly
focused on speech acts in interactional oral situations. Most pedagogical materi-
als have addressed certain speech acts in oral scenarios and their corresponding
grammatical structures (pragmalinguistics). A genre approach to teaching pragmat-
ics conceives of all language as texts (genres), and analyzes not only speech acts
but also the macro-structures of such texts (e.g., rhetorical moves and coherence).
Additionally, a genre perspective provides a broader scope of language and modes
of communication (e.g., written, hybrid, virtual) for pragmatic language use to be
analyzed and produced. An L2 Spanish program can be organized around sets of
genres at each level of instruction, at increasing levels of structural, semantic, and
pragmatic complexity, which can be addressed through a concept and task-based
approach. Some research has been done on genre analysis of AD and PD in Span-
ish, but mostly at advanced levels of proficiency. This chapter proposes a model of
analysis and instruction for the speech genre that can be implemented at an interme-
diate level of proficiency.
Finally, there is a great need for research studies on L2 learners’ pragmatic language
use and development in a broad scope of real-life genres. In the L2 Spanish learning
context, Spanish for Specific Purposes instructional models, though geared at higher
levels of proficiency, have been focusing on developing pragmatic language ability
in their particular genres. As Spanish programs evolve and offer courses to prepare
students to function in a broad spectrum of the target culture’s social contexts, L2
Spanish pragmatics and genre analysis will certainly become central research fields
for the design of such courses.
References
Askehave, I. and A. E. Nielsen. 2005. “Digital Genres: A Challenge to Traditional Genre
Theory.” Information, Technology and People 18(2): 120–141.
Askehave, I. and J. Swales. 2001. “Genre Identification and Communicative Purpose:
A Problem and a Possible Solution.” Applied Linguistics 22(2): 195–212.
Atkinson, D. 2011. “A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition: How
Mind, Body, and World Work Together in Learning Additional Languages.” In Alternative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson, 143–166. New York: Routledge.
Bawarshi, A. and M. J. Reiff. 2010. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and
Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Bhatia, V. K. 1997. “Genre-Mixing in Academic Introductions.” English for Specific Purposes,
16(3): 181–196.
Bhatia, V. K. 2002. “Applied Genre Analysis: A Multi-Perspective Model.” Iberica 4: 3–19.
Bolívar, A. and G. Parodi. 2014. “Academic and Professional Discourse.” In Handbook of
Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte, 459–476. New York: Routledge.
Bosch, E. 1997. “Análisis de un texto persuasivo desde los principios de la pragmática y de la
retórica.” ACELE Actas VIII. 181–186. Centro Virtual Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.
es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/asele_viii.htm.
Burton, G. 2007. The Forest of Rhetoric: Silva Rhetoricae. Salt Lake City, UT: Brigham Young
University.
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. 2010. “The Changing Nature of Text: A Linguistic Perspective.” In Scholarly
Communication, Volume 1: Text Comparison and Digital Creativity: The Production of Presence
and Meaning in Digital Text Scholarship, ed. W. Van Peursen and E. Thoutenhoofd. Leiden:
BRILL.
Curcó, C. and A. De Fina. 2002. “Modo imperativo, negación y diminutivos en la expresión
de la cortesía en español: el contraste entre México y España.” In Actos de Habla y Cortesía
en Español, ed. M. E. Placencia and D. Bravo: 107–140. Munich: Lincolm.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. “Teaching the Negotiation of Multi-Turn Speech Acts. Using
Conversation-Analytic Tools to Teach Pragmatics in the Classroom.” In Pragmatics
and Language Learning 11, eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. Omar,
165–197. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. “Sociopragmatic Variation: Dispreferred Responses in Mexican
and Dominican Spanish.” Journal of Politeness Research 4(1): 81–110.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language
Hopper, P. J. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and
Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. M. Tomassello, 155–176. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hsu., T. W. 2008. “La aplicación del análisis de género a la enseñanza del español con fines especí-
ficos: El caso de la correspondencia comercial.” Actas del XLIII Congreso. Centro Virtual Cer-
vantes. Madrid. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/aepe/congreso_43.htm.
Ifantidou, E. 2011. “Genres and Pragmatic Competence.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1):
327–346.
International Exchange Erasmus Student Network. 2015. “Programa Tutor Erasmus.” http://
www.esn-uah.org/programa-tutor-erasmus.
Koike, D. A. 2008. “A Grammar of L2 Pragmatics: Issues in Learning and Teaching.” In Con-
ceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom, ed.
S. Katz and J. Watzinger-Tharp, 35–52. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Koike, D. A. 2010. “Behind L2 Pragmatics: The Role of Expectations.” In Dialogue in Span-
ish: Studies in Functions and Contexts, ed. D. A. Koike and L. Rodríguez-Alfano, 257–282.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koike, D. A. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Develop-
ment of Pragmatic Competence.” System, 33(3): 381–546.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2011. “A Complexity Approach to Second Language Development/
Acquisition.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson,
48–72. Abingdon: Routledge.
Márquez- Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2004. “The Pragmatics of Spanish beyond Spain.”
In Current Trends in Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. R. Márquez-Reiter and M. Placencia, 15–30.
Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. “A Comprehensive Pedagogical Framework to Develop Pragmatics
in the Foreign Language Classroom: The 6Rs Approach.” Applied Language Learning 16(2):
39–64.
Modern Language Association (MLA). 2007. Foreign Language and Higher Education: New
Structures for a Changed World. New York: Modern Language Association.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. 1995. “Working with Genre: A Pragmatic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics
24(4): 393–406.
Reyes, G. 1998. Cómo escribir bien en español. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Rusch, D., M. Domínguez and L. Caycedo Garner. 2011. Fuentes: Conversación y Gramática.
Lab Manual, 38. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Sessarego, C. 2009. “Pragmatic Language Instruction and Beginner Learners of Spanish:
A Discourse Approach to Pragmalinguistics.” Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 27(49): 97–120.
Sessarego, C. 2016. “A Discourse-Pragmatic Approach to Teaching Indicative/Subjunctive
Mood Selection in the Intermediate Spanish Language Class: New Information vs. Refor-
mulation.” Hispania 99(3): 392–406.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Swales, J. and C. Feak. 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Trabajar por el mundo. 2015a. “¿Estás buscando un voluntariado en Madrid?” http://traba
jarporelmundo.org/buscando-un-voluntariado-en-madrid/.
Trabajar por el mundo. 2015b. “Voluntariado en Honduras para enseñar inglés.” http://
trabajarporelmundo.org/voluntariado-en-honduras-para-ensenar-ingles/.
VanPatten, B. and A. Benati. 2010. Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
9
THE PRAGMATICS OF IRONY IN
THE L2 SPANISH CLASSROOM1
M. Belén Alvarado Ortega
1. Introduction
This chapter aims to study possible ways to work with the pragmatic conception
of irony in the L2 Spanish classroom; hence our proposal for an analysis of this
phenomenon and an L2 Spanish classroom-oriented application with specific activi-
ties. The analysis carried out by the Grupo de estudio para la pragmática y la ironía del
español (GRIALE) (Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García 2009) will serve as the basis to
achieve this goal. GRIALE is a University of Alicante research group on verbal irony
and verbal humor in Spanish (Alvarado Ortega 2009; Alvarado Ortega and Ruiz
Gurillo 2013a, 2013b.)
Irony is one of the hardest pragmatic phenomena to investigate. Contrary to
the rhetorical explanation, which states that irony consists of a figure of speech in
which one says the opposite of what is really meant, pragmatics brings situational
contexts into play, along with the speaker’s intentions and the listener’s interpreta-
tions. The stance adopted in this chapter is rooted in neo-Gricean theories (Ruiz
Gurillo and Padilla García 2009) because irony has an inferred conversational
meaning, insofar as the communication transmitted through an ironic statement is
possible thanks to an inversion of the conversational maxims that Levinson (2000)
takes up and modifies from Grice ([1975] 1991). Some considerations about the
pragmatic functioning of irony are offered below.
2. Verbal irony from a pragmatics perspective

The conception of traditional rhetoric, wherein irony entailed saying the opposite
of what is really meant, has been abandoned by authors such as Haverkate (1985),
who argues that contradiction does not suffice to unify all the ironic phenomena, or
Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla García (2009), who deal with irony from a pragmatic point
of view, since it is the context and the interlocutors that will determine an ironic
170 M. Belén Alvarado Ortega
utterance. Furthermore, the existence of a contradiction does not characterize utter-

ances as ironic because there may be utterances with irony and a marked figurative
sense that lack an implicit contradiction even with humor.
What reveals the presence of irony is very often not an opposite meaning but
rather a different one. This approach justifies the decision to study irony as a prag-
matic phenomenon and to propose an analytical theory that arises from neo-Gricean
theories when speakers have an explicit intention to communicate something when
they use an ironic utterance. They consequently want their listener to infer what
they have not said so that the complete meaning of their utterance is specified.
Relevance Theory has taken a position in this regard, suggesting an explanation
for irony based on the concept of echo. According to Wilson and Sperber (1992,
p. 272), “relevance theory claims that it is ironical because it is echoic: verbal irony
consists in echoing a tacitly attributed thought or utterance with a tacitly dissocia-
tive attitude.” Therefore, irony is studied as a process of distancing oneself from a
thought or an utterance attributed to someone, and it will always entail a context
that can be understood as a mocking echo. Hence, the goal of this chapter is to
prove that not all ironic utterances contain that mocking echo; in fact, irony can
actually lack the mocking component altogether.
The most important explanations about irony refer to several theories, among
which there are those that state that irony is an indirect speech act (Searle [1969]
1986); a transgression of the maxim of quality (Grice [1975] 1991); a phenomenon
which entails an interpretive use of language, which is explained as an echo or as a
pretense (Wilson and Sperber 1992, p. 274); or even as an argumentative resource or
polyphony (Anscombre and Ducrot [1983] 1994.)
Neo-Gricean theories are the starting point for this study, in which the notion
of echo proposed by Relevance Theory is not entirely abandoned. This requires
explaning two pragmatic approaches that have endeavored to solve the problems
posed by ironic utterances: Gricean and polyphonic theories. The former relates
irony to Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975). Every time irony appears, it does
so because a maxim has been violated and said principle is violated. Let’s see an
example where María boasts to her friends about her great sense of direction when
she arrives in an unknown city, but then they get lost that evening and Antonio
makes the following comment:
(1) A: María, I can see you are a walking compass.
In this example, it is absolutely untrue that María can be described as a walking

compass; she does not seem to have a good sense of direction. María must definitely
understand a different message; in this case, that she was unable to find the right
location. Antonio has violated the maxim of quality, thus leading to the inference
of the implicatures that give rise to irony, since the facts are incorrect, and he does
not say what he really means.
On the other hand, polyphonic theories, with Ducrot (1986) as the best-known
proponent, consider that two meanings co-exist in every ironic utterance, and that
The pragmatics of irony 171
they are seen as an echoic phenomenon, since a reference is made to a meaning that
does not form part of the utterance and is retrieved as an echo of something said
before. See the example below in which a mother and her daughter talk about her
poor grades in school. The daughter had been planning her end-of-year trip, but
when the mother sees the grades, she makes the following utterance:
(2) M: Now you are (indeed) going on a trip, yes (you are) . . .
Two points of view exist in this example: the mother’s and the daughter’s. This
utterance shows the speaker (the mother) picking up the daughter’s point of view
and ridiculing it by means of irony. From this approach, the speaker takes up again
a proposition that appears as an echo of something said previously in another con-
text, and which underlies the utterance (a first perspective, you are going on a trip) to
reject it ironically (a second perspective, now you are (indeed) going on a trip, which is
equivalent to you are not going on a trip). Consequently, all ironic utterances have two
possible interpretations. One of them is present and the other is retrieved as an echo
of what had been said before.
The approaches above show that understanding irony requires us to take into
account the linguistic context or co-text, the situational context or external circum-
stances, and the socio-cultural context or knowledge, shared life experiences, etc. The
listener has to infer the utterance’s meaning, taking into account the context. Further-
more, the speaker inserts markers (linguistic elements that help to identify irony, such as
indeed) or indicators (ironic linguistics elements per se that contribute to irony because
they contain irony in themselves, such as ironic intonation in yes you are . . .) in his/her
utterance so that the listener can interpret it as an ironic mode (Alvarado Ortega 2009).
As explained previously, the stance adopted in this chapter stems from neo-
Gricean theories, i.e., the research approach of the GRIALE Group. I will focus
on the GRIALE group to explain irony, because it offers a systematic explana-
tion of verbal irony and is supported by the theory of S. C. Levinson (Rodríguez
Rosique 2009). While not denying the particular nature of irony, it is considered
essential to resort to those generalizable inferences that imply that certain indicators
and markers identify an utterance as ironic. The reason for this is our belief that
irony has an inferred conversational meaning. What is being communicated in an
ironic utterance comes about by an inversion of the Gricean (1975) maxims, which
are revisited by Levinson (2000). Levinson reduces Grice’s four maxims (quan-
tity, quality, pertinence, and manner) to three principles (informativity, manner, and
quantity) and presumes the maxim of quality as a prerequisite for communication
that is assumed by the speaker and the listener.
Rodríguez Rosique (2009) states that the pre-condition of quality is infringed
in ironic utterances, which entails a systematic inversion of the conversational prin-
ciples understood as the Principle of Inversion. That means that the speaker violates
the sincerity requirement and imposes the following instruction upon the listener:
Interpret the utterance from the systematic inversion of conversational principles. The speaker
has inverted the maxim of quality, and the conversational principles operate in an
opposite fashion. This pragmatic theory, which has the Inversion Principle as its
starting point, allows a greater number of ironic examples to be explained with
an inferred meaning. For GRIALE, the inversion of different principles in ironic
contexts gives rise to different types of irony (prototypical, which means a denial
of what is said, or non-prototypical, which implies another linguistic mechanism).
Thus, when the Principle of Quantity (Q)—the one suggesting that one gives exact
information—is violated in an ironic utterance, one obtains prototypical irony (say-
ing the opposite), as inferences are conveyed through denial. Here is an example:
(3) A: Excuse me, what do you think of Donald Trump?

B: Donald Trump? Well, as far as I know he is a very empathetic president.
The utterance above can be interpreted literally; that is, that Donald Trump is
an empathetic and caring president, or figuratively, that Donald Trump is a mean
and uncaring person when it comes to immigrants, for example. For this reason, the
word “empathetic” should be interpreted in its opposite sense (prototypical irony).
The utterances consequently offer a figurative meaning where marked expres-
sions are utilized to refer to reality, but they are not prototypical irony. In other
words, the theory put forward by GRIALE finds its primary impetus in inversion,
that is, the particularized conversational implicatures generated by the utterance
would be inverted and, therefore, the conversational principles are in turn inverted
(gradual prototypical irony). This fact prevails over other conversational principles
that might appear in the same utterance, such as the Manner or Quality Principles.
This explanation allows to find certain recurrent patterns in the behavior of irony—
beyond what is essentially contextual—in utterances. Furthermore, the markers and
indicators appearing in the utterance help to create an ironic context that the lis-
tener understands as such. GRIALE understands markers to refer to gestures that
are helpful in ironic interpretation, such as a smile or a wink, whereas indicators are
ironic structures in themselves, for example, a joke.
In this way, irony is conceived of as a pragmatic phenomenon based on indicators
and markers, which is why it is possible to offer an explanation that goes beyond
the particular contexts in which irony arises. Therefore, GRIALE’s model explains
a greater number of humorous ironic examples with an inferred meaning (Ruiz
Gurillo and Padilla García 2009).
Irony as a pragmatic phenomenon shows that a speaker has a clear intention to
communicate something opposite of what s/he means when s/he uses an ironic
utterance. Thus, s/he wants the listener to infer what has not been said—from
the aforementioned Inversion Principle—so that the whole meaning of his/her
utterance can be understood. Therefore, when an utterance is ironic, it may have
a negative or a positive effect. What distinguishes these two types of effects is the
presence or absence of mockery. In other words, if mockery is being produced
through irony, that is irony with a negative effect; the absence of mockery, on the
other hand, indicates irony with a positive effect. I propose, in Alvarado Ortega
(2009), the following scheme for both types of irony:
• Irony with a negative effect:

• Towards the listener
• Towards an absent person
• Towards a situation
• Irony with a positive effect:
• Negative-image irony
• Self-irony
• Positive-image irony
• Towards the listener
• Towards an absent person
• Towards a situation
It is understood that irony has a negative effect when the presence of mockery
toward the listener, toward an absent person, or toward a situation becomes appar-
ent. The absence of mockery in the ironic utterance implies that irony has a positive
effect. This latter type may, in turn, convey a negative or positive image. In the case
of irony entailing a negative image, there is self-irony in which the speaker seeks to
maintain his/her image and wants the other conversational partners to appreciate
his/her personality and behavior. When irony is associated with a positive image,
the speaker uses irony as a conversational strategy, and irony will most likely be
targeted toward the listener, an absent person, or a situation, as we can see in the
example (4).
In this example, there are two female friends talking about a third friend and her
husband, who are not participating in the verbal exchange.
(4) E: e- el- el otro día ha- hablé con- con Carmen y Ricardo↑/ porque me van a
poner- dice cuando quieras me bajas lo que te tengo que engarzar digo bien/ dice
¡AY! me han dicho que tu amiga se ha ido→ digo sí dice pero ¿adónde? digo al
centro de Valencia/ digo a un piso digoo muy majo diciendoo esto dice ¡pos hala! a
ver si me invita un día digo pues yo se lo diré que te invite un día y te vienes un
día con nosotros digo tiene un piso precioso y ya lo tiene casi to(do) terminao↑/
di- y Ricardo dice ¿QUÉ son muchos de familia? digo noo/ dice pero→se han
ido a vivir dice pues me alegro mucho↓ yo se lo diré que te invite un día
y te vienes con nosotras dice ¡me alegro mucho! e- se fue e-§
R: § yo no- no- no sé nada de ella/ no sé si se habrá traído a su maadre o-§
E: § en principio se iba a traer a su madre
(Briz and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002, p. 261)
This example contains an instance of irony that affects the image of the two people
absent from the conversation, Carmen and Ricardo. The irony has a positive effect
because it helps strengthen the bonds among the interlocutors, that is to say, it does
not damage the positive image of the participants in the interaction, but rather it
reinforces solidarity within the group. This passage contains an apparent attack
directed at the negative image of Ricardo, Carmen’s husband, who, during his meet-
ing with E, pretends to be interested in R’s life. However, this utterance actually
does not harm Ricardo’s public image, given the fact that R continues the dialogue
without stressing this potential damage (yo no sé nada de ella, no sé si se habrá traído
a su madre). For more information regarding this way of analyzing irony, consult
Alvarado Ortega (2009).
3. Irony in the L2 Spanish class

The theoretical foundations set out in the previous section will serve as the basis to
apply teaching irony in the L2 Spanish classes (Shively et al. 2008). Ruiz Gurillo
(2008) reflected on the place of irony within the Common European Framework of
Reference (CERF 2002) and the Cervantes Institute’s Curricular Plan (PCIC, its initials
in Spanish) (PCIC 2007) and verified that, although both publications aim to unite
Spanish teaching-learning models, irony is left out or receives very little treatment
at advanced levels (C1, C2).
An effort has been made by our GRIALE Group (Ruiz Gurillo and Padilla
García 2009) to carry out the broadest possible classification of the linguistic indi-
cators and markers that give rise to irony, some of which are: punctuation, trigger
words, anomalous adverb placement, repetitions, juxtapositions, quotation markers,
evidentials—which are, according to Alvarado Ortega (2016, p. 327), linguistic ele-
ments that encode the different ways in which knowledge is acquired or the source
of information, like indeed in example 2—re-interpretation of phraseological units,
litotes, hyperbole, and oxymoron. On the basis of these markers and indicators, the
GRIALE Group (2010) devised irony activities for advanced levels (B2, C1, and C2),
which were intended to help their students practice a wide variety of linguistic,
communicative, and intercultural competencies. These were activities for one or
two class sessions lasting 50 minutes each, designed for young or adult students,
which included various skills such as oral, audiovisual, or written comprehension;
oral and written expression; or oral and written interaction. Each activity focused
on one of the indicators that appear in the above list, and attention was paid to its
relationship with other indicators.
In accordance with the model previously developed by the GRIALE Group, the
next step will consist in proposing a complete teaching unit, with its corresponding
justification and exercise cards both for the teacher and for the student, in addition
to an answer key and a self-assessment section, which aims to introduce irony as a
pragmatic event in the classroom.
4. Practical activity: Irony at Sight
4.1. Justification for the activity

The Irony at Sight teaching unit sought to integrate irony into the L2 Spanish class-
room, because it has been neglected in textbooks due to the difficulty involved in
defining it linguistically. This occurred because irony is expressed through several

linguistic and non-linguistic indicators and, in turn, it deals with different compe-
tencies, including linguistic, intercultural, and communicative ones; and it shows
the need to incorporate this phenomenon into classroom activities, because it is
ubiquitous in everyday life and deeply rooted in the culture.
The teaching unit was conceived from a communicative and functional frame-
work, since irony must be learned from the perspective of its function in the
utterance. Work should simultaneously focus on basic language skills (listening
comprehension, oral expression, written comprehension, and written expression
and oral interaction) with a wide range of components: communicative, lexical,
grammatical, phonological, and socio-cultural, as I will show in the section entitled
Unit Development.
Seeking to make knowledge acquisition easier, cards were designed using
straightforward, clear, and direct language. Furthermore, a decision was made not to
use video, CDs, or the Internet, so that the unit could be implemented in a classroom
situation and avoid limitations associated with this material or technological problems.
4.2. Materials
The materials to be used are reproducible cards for the unit and writing instruments
(pens, pencils, erasers, etc.).
4.3. Target learners

The unit was aimed at teenagers and adults who have reached at least level B2
defined by the Common European Framework of Reference, within a formal education
context.
4.4. Previous knowledge

An L2 Spanish teacher must have some previous knowledge of irony, understood as
a pragmatic process that is expressed in the language through various indicators. In
case readers wish to extend their knowledge, Ruiz Gurillo (2008) contains a list of
ironic indicators.
Students need not have any previous knowledge about the procedures to shape
ironic utterances, because those ironic mechanisms constitute the starting point for
this unit. Therefore, the students are not supposed to know anything about irony
creation and interpretation processes in Spanish.
4.5. Number of sessions

The estimated time for the whole unit is two class sessions lasting 60 minutes each.
Nevertheless, the unit’s distribution into six individual cards gives the teacher free-
dom when it comes to choosing the time dedicated to this unit. Below are some
TABLE 9.1 Time required for each activity
Length Activities
10 minutes Exercise 1 (Card 1) and Exercise 1 (Card 2)
30 minutes Exercises 1 and 2 (Card 1) and Card 3
50 minutes Card 1 and Card 2
60 minutes Exercises 1 and 2 (Card 1), Cards 2, 3 and 4
guiding principles to put it into practice in the actual classroom depending on the
time available (Table 9.1).
4.6. Motivation activities

The teacher can start the unit by proposing an imaginary ironic situation, for
instance:
A mí no me gusta nada cocinar. Un día hice macarrones y se quedaron pegados a la

olla. Desde entonces Sergio, mi novio, me dice que soy una gran cocinera.
‘I don’t like cooking at all. One day I made macaroni and it ended up get-
ting stuck to the pot. Since then, Sergio, my boyfriend, tells me (that) I am a
great cook.’
After this situation, the teacher asks students to reflect on what s/he has just said
and to highlight “the lie” (that will later be called irony): → una gran cocinera ‘a great
cook’. Then s/he tells them to think of something that they are really bad at, using
the same structure soy un gran . . . ‘I am a great . . .’ to stress something that they do
not do well. This pre-activity allows the teacher to introduce the topic of this teach-
ing unit: irony. Students are then encouraged to participate in class.
5. Development of the unit in cards for the teacher

An explanation will subsequently be given to the teacher about how to develop
the unit through cards, showing the content and how much time students must
dedicate to each exercise. The reproducible cards for students are supplied at the
end of Section 5.
5.1. Instructions for the teacher

Card 1 (Total time: 35 minutes)
Procedure: Work with the whole class or in pairs.
Exercise 1 (5 minutes)
The teacher briefly explains a situation to the whole class where irony arises; for
example, the one proposed in “Motivation activities.” Based on this example, a
brainstorming activity can be written on the board to find out what irony means
and whether it appears in other languages, as well as to check if students know
some procedures to create ironic utterances. The topic is thus introduced during
the class.
Exercises 2 (10 minutes) and 3 (10 minutes)

The teacher asks students to form pairs and carry out Written Comprehension
Exercises 2 and 3. In Exercise 2, the pairs have to role-play the dialogue; this way,
the teacher can correct any pronunciation mistakes that gradually appear in the
classroom. As for Exercise 3, it involves students reflecting on the ironic utter-
ances that they have identified in the text. Moreover, they are given a table that
students should fill in at the end of the exercise that will help them understand
irony.

Before carrying out the exercise, the teacher must review the concept of poly-
semous words (i.e., words with several meanings). After doing this, they are in a
position to carry out the activity in pairs. This activity will be shared with their
other classmates once it is completed.

The teacher highlights the importance of intonation in the Spanish language, and
particularly in ironic utterances. Seeking to help students understand the role of
intonation, s/he reads Exercise 1 out loud for the whole class and tells students to
repeat with him or her. After doing this, s/he asks them to sit in pairs and do the
exercise again on their own.

The teacher tells students to do the exercise in pairs and then to compare the into-
nation required by these utterances with those of the previous exercise. If they are
unable to do the exercise by themselves, the teacher will have to provide guidance
so that they can use the correct intonation. The Notice box will help them reflect.

The teacher explains that irony may imply an attack against the listener’s public
image or that of a person who is not present. Students have to interpret the exer-
cise’s utterances in pairs.
The teacher points out that irony does not always imply an attack; it is also used to
create closer ties with the listener, to have complicity, to joke about a specific situ-
ation, etc. After doing this, the teacher asks students to do the exercise in pairs and
interpret the utterances.
To complete the task, the teacher makes a final reflection that exemplifies the
most important ideas, as seen in the box Notice.

Procedure: Work with the whole class, in pairs, or individually.
The teacher writes all the students’ ideas about the procedures seen on Cards 2 and
3, which served to create ironic utterances on the board. This procedure facilitates
oral interaction.
The teacher guides students to carry out Exercise 2 in pairs. Once that has been
done, s/he will select a few pairs to read the utterances aloud.
The teacher briefly reviews Spanish verb tenses and suggests that students do Exer-
cise 1 about the revision of grammatical contents individually.
The final table can prove useful to reflect on the concepts seen on the card.

Procedure: Work with the whole class or with individuals.
The teacher asks students to do the self-assessment exercise and asks them to deter-
mine what they have learned in the unit.
The teacher asks how many questions had “yes” as answers and how many had
“no”. S/he tries to find out what was not understood and why. S/he will clarify
doubts using this information.
5.2. Assessment
An assessment of the teaching unit will be carried out at the end of the class period.
Students will complete Card 5 for this purpose, which in turn will enable the
instructor to check the extent to which students have learned the concepts about
irony in Spanish explained in class. There will be an analysis based on the informa-
tion obtained from Card 5. Together with the remarks concerning the activities
carried out in the classroom during the development of the unit, this will offer
information about the goals achieved (with regard to initial expectations), the dif-
ficulties found in the acquisition of certain contents, the pace at which students
learn, etc.
5.3. Answer key for each card

Card 1
Exercise 1
Free response
Exercise 2
Reading the text carefully
Exercise 3
a) No, no sabe inglés. ‘No, he doesn’t know any English.’
b) Noo, ¡qué va!, es un hacha con los idiomas.‘No, not at all! He is a genius for lan-
guages.’
c) Yes, one has a straightforward meaning and the other has an ironic meaning.
Exercise 4
The Spanish polysemous words—those with several meanings—which appear in the
text in Exercise 2 are: banco ‘seat/office/school of fish’, hacha ‘tool/a genius’, relám-
pago ‘meteorological phenomenon/fast’, golpe ‘sudden movement/extraordinary
event’, cola ‘hairstyle/end of the spine’, plantar ‘to fix a plant/to arrive quickly’,
carrera ‘studies/race’, mosquear ‘to swat flies/to get angry’; and aurora ‘proper name/
sunlight’.
Card 2
Exercise 1
Reading with appropriate intonation.
Exercise 2
The utterances in this exercise are not ironic, insofar as the routine formulas
present have a literal meaning; in other words, they are used to show what they
really mean.
Card 3
Exercise 1
Irony appears in the phrase ¡vaya cochecito! ‘What a car!’ of the first utterance. This
time, the diminutive does not convey the idea of coche pequeño ‘small car’—which
would be the literal meaning. Instead, the speaker is speaking ironically about the
fact that the interlocutor has quite an expensive car and, therefore, should stop com-
plaining about not having any money. A’s public image is consequently attacked.
In the second utterance, irony is present in ¡qué diversión! ‘What fun!’, since its
meaning differs from the literal sense that it originally has. This happens because B
attacks A’s image knowing that A did not have a good time with María.
The third utterance contains A’s ironic words (tú tranquilo/a, no te vayas a estresar
‘Keep calm, don’t you get stressed, please’) which damage B’s public image, insofar
as s/he is clearly shown as some lazybones before his/her interlocutor.
Therefore, irony is utilized negatively in this exercise because it attacks the
interlocutor’s public image and shows him up before the other interlocutors. This
implies an effort by the speaker, who needs to produce another utterance to protect
his/her image.
Exercise 2
B utilizes an ironic structure (¡menudo sueldazo! ‘What a super salary!’) to create
closer ties with his/her interlocutor, since s/he thinks that A should be paid more
money by his/her boss.
In the second utterance, B seeks complicity with his/her female interlocutor
through the use of repetition (sí, sí [Yes, yes]), because she thinks that what the
boyfriend does is not right.
The third utterance shows several friends remembering what they had done on
the previous Saturday. The attack is not aimed at their own image; instead, what they
do is build closer links and speak ironically about the experience that they had with
the girls that Saturday (espero que estén sentadas ‘(I) hope they are sitting down’).
Therefore, irony is used in a positive way because it does not attack the listener’s
image. Irony actually creates stronger links between interlocutors and favors their
mutual complicity.
Card 4
Exercise 1
These are the structures that help to identify irony: desde luego ‘of course’, ¡menudo
negocio! ‘what a [big] business’, ¡no me digas! ‘You don’t say!?’, listísimo ‘extremely
clever’, ¡vaya cochecito! ‘What a car!’, ¡qué diversión! ‘What fun!’; tú tranquilo ‘keep
calm’, ¡menudo sueldazo! ‘what a super salary’, sí, sí ‘yes, yes’, espero que estén sentadas
‘(I) hope they are sitting down’.
Exercise 2
Possible answer:
Luis: Oye Alba, ¡qué bien que nos haya tocado juntos!
Alba: Sí, no sabes las ganas que tenía yo también.
Luis: Lo estabas deseando, ¿verdad?
Alba: Claaaaro, se lo he pedido yo y todo . . .
Luis: Y será verdad . . .
Luis: Hey, Alba; it’s so good that we have ended up together!
Alba: Yes, you don’t know how I wished that too.
Luis: You couldn’t wait, could you?
Alba: Suuuure, I even asked him actually . . .
Luis: And it must be true . . .
Exercise 3
Visitamos; tenía; fuimos; estuvimos; timaron; digas; creer; sabes; sacaron ‘we visited; I had;
we went; we were; they swindled, you say; to believe; you know; they took out’.
Card 5
Exercise 1
Free response.
Exercise 2
The teacher must solve the problems as they arise in the classroom, providing refer-
ences if necessary.
6. Development of the unit in cards for the student

--------------------------------------------------------------
Card 1
Exercise 1
Warm-up activities:
a) Do you know what irony is?

b) Is being ironic well regarded in your culture? Why?
c) Do you know any procedure to create ironic utterances?
Exercise 2
Read aloud with the help of a classmate the following dialogue, in which two
‘female’ friends talk about their weekend. Pay attention to the use of the phrase qué
va ‘not at all!’:
Aurora: Este fin de semana mi marido y yo hemos hecho un viaje relámpago a

Londres.
Marga: ¡Ah! ¿sí?, ¡qué bien! Pues no sé por qué, pero pensaba que estabais en casa.
Aurora: ¡Qué va! Resulta que le llamaron el viernes por la noche del banco, y le
dijeron si podía visitar al representante que tienen en Londres. Y yo en
pijama . . . Así es que me vestí, me hice una cola, cogimos las maletas y
nos plantamos allí en tres horas.
Marga: Menudo golpe de suerte que ha tenido Antonio, me alegro mucho.
Además, habrá sido buenísimo para ti practicar inglés estos días.
Aurora: Ya ves, estuve practicando todo el tiempo con el representante. Me ha
venido muy bien para la carrera. Además, me he traído un libro de fonética
inglesa que va muy bien para practicar la pronunciación.
Marga: Me lo tienes que dejar . . . Y Antonio ¿qué? ¿Se mosqueaba porque hablaras
en inglés con el representante?
Aurora: Nooo ¡qué va! él dice que me entendía, es un hacha con los idiomas . . .
Marga: Jajaja, pero si Antonio no sabe inglés.
Aurora: No, pero sí que me entendía . . . no ves que no es un inglés muy académico
el que hablo yo.
Marga: No me hagas reír, Aurora, ¡por Dios!
Exercise 3
Questions:
1) Taking into account Marga’s last statement, do you think Antonio knows any
English?
2) In which utterances do you perceive irony? What leads you to interpret those
utterances as ironic ones?
3) Can you see any differences between the uses of qué va? There are some utter-
ances with literal usage and others with an ironic usage. List a few of them:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
NOTE: These speakers have used structures such as ¡qué bien! ‘How good!’,
¡qué va! ‘Not at all!’ and ¡por Dios! ‘For God’s sake!’, which help to express the
speaker’s attitude.
Exercise 4
The previous text contains a number of polysemous words. Do you remember
what they are? Could you highlight any polysemous word in the text and give their
meanings?
Below are some clues for you:
1)___________
2)____________
3)____________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Try doing it with another one? Draw it and explain it:

_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card 2
Exercise 1: Intonation becomes essential to understanding ironic
utterances. Read these four examples out loud and check your intonation:
(A lleva puesto un cinturón horrible)

A: Mira qué cinturón tan bonito.
B: Desde luego.
A: Le he dado a Ana mi pulsera de oro a cambio de su pañuelo.

B: ¡Menudo negocio!
(A y B viven juntos)
A: El niño no ha parado de llorar en toda la noche.
B: ¡No me digas!
A: Tu nieto es listísimo. Ha repetido curso 4 veces.
Exercise 2
Now read on; can you distinguish the previous utterances from these other ones?
(A lleva puesto un cinturón precioso)

A: Mira qué cinturón tan bonito.
B: Desde luego . . .
A: Le he dado a Ana mi pulsera de oro a cambio de su coche.

B: ¡Menudo negocio!
(A y B son compañeras de trabajo y no viven juntas)

A: Mi niño no ha parado de llorar en toda la noche.
B: ¡No me digas!
A: Mi nieta es listísima. Ha aprobado a la primera.
NOTE: Apart from intonation, situational contexts are essential to under-

stand irony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card 3
Exercise 1
Irony sometimes implies an attack against the listener. Do you think the notion of
“attack” is present in these cases? Explain it to the class:
(A se ha quejado varias veces de no tener dinero)

A: Mira lo que me he comprado, un Mercedes.
B: ¡Vaya cochecito! ¿No decías que no tenías dinero?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
(A y B saben que María es muy aburrida)

A: Anoche salí a dar una vuelta con María.
B: Uy, ¡qué diversión! Lo pasarías de muerte . . .
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
(B ha repetido curso 3 veces)

A: ¿Cómo llevas el año? ¿Estás sacando buenas notas?
B: La verdad es que no estoy yendo a clase.
A: Eso, tú tranquilo, no te vayas a estresar.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Exercise 2:
Can you find any differences between the previous utterances and these other ones?
Explain it to your classmates:
(A y B hablan del jefe de una de ellas)

A: Mi jefe dice que el año que viene nos sube el sueldo 10 euros.
B: ¡Menudo sueldazo! Con el dinero que tiene, ya podría pagarte mejor.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
(A está harta de su novio mentiroso y se lo comenta a B, su amiga)

A: Anoche me dijo que no lo haría más y yo le miraba . . .
B: Sí, sí, somos tontas.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
(A y B se ríen de unas chicas que conocieron el sábado)

A: Me decía: ¿Me vas a llamar mañana?, y yo: sí, sí
B: Espero que estén sentadas, jajajaja.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Irony is not always used to attack the other person’s image; it also
proves useful when it comes to creating closer ties with the listener.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card 4
Exercise 1
List the structures that helped you identify irony in Cards 2 and 3. For example:
Vaya cochecito ‘What a car!’.
Exercise 2
Write an ironic dialogue for the following context:
Luis y Alba son compañeros de clase, se llevan mal y les ha tocado hacer juntos un
trabajo sobre el medio ambiente
Exercise 3
First, review verb tenses, and then fill in the blanks using the right verb form:
Sacar ‘to take out’ saber ‘to know’ tener ‘to have’ timar ‘to swindle’
decir ‘to tell’ visitar ‘to visit’ ir ‘to go’ estar ‘to be’ creer ‘to believe’
(Miguel y Andrea son pareja y le cuentan a Alba su viaje.)

Andrea: Este fin de semana mi marido y yo hemos hecho un viaje relámpago
a Londres. ____________ el museo de la capital, además yo _______
muchas ganas de ver el Big Ben, así es que ______ a verlo, ¡qué bonito
era! Por la noche ___________ visitando Trafalgar Square y London Eye.
La verdad es que ha sido un viaje espectacular.
Alba: ¡Qué bien!
Miguel: Sí, sobre todo, si tenemos en cuenta que nos __________.
Alba: ¡Ah! ¿Sí?, ¡no me ________! ¡No me lo puedo ________! Con lo cosmo-
politas que sois vosotros . . .
Andrea: No fue nada, ya _______ cómo es él de exagerado . . .
Miguel: ¿Exagerado? ¡Madre mía! Si nos _________ una navaja y todo.
NOTE: Routine formulas (qué bien, qué bonito, qué va, etc.) may have a straight-
forward meaning or an ironic one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card 5: SELF-ASSESSMENT
Exercise 1
Answer the following questions:
1. I know what irony is.

□ Yes □ No
2. I know several techniques to build ironic utterances.
□ Yes □ No
3. I am aware of the fact that some expressions may have a straight meaning or an
ironic one.
□ Yes □ No
4. I recognize polysemous words.
□ Yes □ No
5. I can use the right intonation for ironic utterances.
□ Yes □ No
6. I have the ability to recognize ironic utterances.
□ Yes □ No
7. I can use irony to create closer ties with the listener.
□ Yes □ No
8. The context becomes essential for the interpretation of an ironic utterance.
□ Yes □ No
9. I am familiar with the different verb tenses used in routine formulas.
□ Yes □ No
10. I know the significance of irony.
□ Yes □ No
Exercise 2
Discuss the answers with your teacher.
Note
1 This chapter has received support from Project GRE 12–01 “Lengua y Sexo: Uso del
humor en hombres y mujeres” [Language and Sex: Use of Humor in Men and Women],
and Project GV/2015/106: “La variable género en textos humorísticos del español y del
inglés” [Gender Variable in Spanish and English Humorous Texts].
References
Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2009. “Ironía y cortesía.” In Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres:
una aproximación pragmática a la ironía, eds. L. Ruiz Gurillo and X. Padilla García, 333–345.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2016. “Enunciación y percepción: La evidencialidad en los textos
turísticos del español.” Onomazein 33: 327–342.
Alvarado Ortega, M. B. and L. Ruiz Gurillo, eds. 2013a. Humor, ironía y géneros textuales.
Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
Alvarado Ortega, M. B. and L. Ruiz Gurillo, eds. 2013b. Irony and Humor: From Pragmatics to
Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anscombre, J. C. and O. Ducrot. [1983] 1994. La argumentación en la lengua. Madrid: Gredos.
Briz, A. and Grupo Val.Es.Co. 2002. Corpus de conversaciones coloquiales. Madrid: Arco Libros.
CERF. 2002. Common European Reference Framework (Marco común europeo de referencia para las
lenguas: Aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación). Madrid: Anaya. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ense
nanza/biblioteca_ele/marco/.
Ducrot, O. 1986. El decir y lo dicho: Polifonía de la enunciación. Barcelona: Paidós.
Grice, H. P. [1975] 1991. “Lógica y conversación.” In La búsqueda del significado, ed. L. Valdés,
511–530. Murcia: Tecnos.
GRIALE Group, ed. 2010. Actividades para la enseñanza de la ironía en la clase de ELE. Madrid:
Edinumen.
Haverkate, H. 1985. “La ironía verbal: análisis pragmalingüístico.” Revista española de
lingüística 15(2): 343–391.
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PCIC. 2007. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblio
teca_ele/plan_curricular/default.htm.
Rodríguez Rosique, S. 2009. “Una propuesta neogriceana.” In Dime cómo ironizas y te diré
quién eres: Una aproximación pragmática a la ironía, eds. L. Ruiz Gurillo and X. Padilla García,
109–133. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ruiz Gurillo, L. 2008. “El lugar de la ironía en clase de ELE: Más allá del Marco y del Plan
Curricular.” Redele 14: 1–8. www.mepsyd.es/redele/Revista14/index.shtml.
Ruiz Gurillo, L. and X. Padilla García, eds. 2009. Dime cómo ironizas y te diré quién eres: Una
aproximación pragmática a la ironía. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Searle, J. [1969] 1986. Actos de habla: Ensayo de filosofía del lenguaje. Madrid: Cátedra.
Shively, R. L., M. R. Menke and S. M. Manzón-Omundson. 2008. “Perception of Irony by L2
Learners of Spanish.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(2): 101–132.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber.1992. “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua 87: 53–76.
10
TEACHING WITH AND ABOUT
HUMOR IN THE L2 SPANISH
CLASSROOM
Susana de los Heros
1. Introduction1
Humor is a universal phenomenon that enables people across cultures to manifest
“experienced ambiguities, dilemmas, and paradoxes” common to all human beings
(Driessen 2015, p. 418). Likewise, humor serves many important social functions.
For example, humor can help to establish and build rapport between people (Boxer
and Conde 1997; Coates 1996; de los Heros 2001; Straehle 1993), to show intimacy,
and to mitigate conflict (Holmes, Marra, and Burns 2001; Norrick and Spitz 2008).
Still, humor may also have negative effects. Ironic and sarcastic comments and jokes
may be offensive and damaging to people, and serve to exert control over an indi-
vidual or a social group (Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Billig 2005).
Humor is believed to be an innate human capability that, according to Vrticka,
Black, and Reiss (2013, p. 860), has served “important evolutionary socio-emotional
processes.” Furthermore, these authors emphasize the fact that the regions and net-
works in the brain “underlying humor appreciation” evolved to function as such
once humor became a prominent tool “in processing social information” (Vrticka,
Black, and Reiss 2013, p. 866). Humor is definitely rooted in speakers’ ethnic and
cultural heritage; thus, it is a part of their communicative competence (Shively
2013). In addition, some scholars posit that there is a joke and/or humor com-
petence (Attardo 2002, p. 161; Bell and Attardo 2010; Carrel 1997, as quoted in
Gironzetti 2013, p. 191).2 In view of such competence and its prominent role in
social life, the teaching and learning of humor in foreign or second language prag-
matics should be central; however, humor has been inadequately studied compared
to other areas of L2 pragmatics (Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Shively 2013).3 Similarly,
in most curricula in schools, the teaching of Spanish as a second language (here-
after L2 Spanish) does not include the teaching of pragmatic skills to understand
and produce humor. Still, humor in the L2 classroom may be used as a strategy to
192 Susana de los Heros
lower anxiety, rather than as a pragmatic skill that needs be developed and included
as a content area. In addition, the textbooks used in class usually lack pedagogi-
cal explanations on humor in general, humor strategies, or conversational humor
mechanisms in the L2.4 Furthermore, when humor is included, it is only presented
in the form of illustrated comic strips.
In this chapter, I discuss some of the sociocultural functions of humor and the
reasons for which it should be considered a part of speakers’ L1 communicative
competence, making a case for its inclusion as a content area in L2 teaching. In
order to do that, first, I briefly examine the functions of humour in society and the
different models for its interpretation. Then, I make a distinction between the use
of humor as a strategy to entertain and to lower students’ anxiety in the L2 class-
room, and the teaching of humor as a pragmatic communicative skill. Subsequently,
I explore L2 Spanish instructors’ ideas about the role of humor in the classroom and
whether they think that the development of humorous skills is part of their current
instructional practices. Finally, due to the fact that there are no guidelines regarding
the skills to use humor in L2 Spanish, I present some helpful tips for teaching about
humor and how to use it in Spanish. These pedagogical practices are drawn from
experiences in the teaching of L2 English (Bell 2005, 2007, 2009a, 2011; Bell and
Attardo 2010; Bell and Pomerantz 2016), from other scholars in Spanish pedagogy
(Díez Domínguez 2008; Gironzetti 2013; Padilla García 2010; Shively 2013), and
from instructors of L2 Spanish, including the author herself.
2. Definition and functions of humor in society

Humor is a rhetorical element that can only be understood in relation to the lin-
guistic and extra-linguistic context in which it occurs. Intonation, syntax or writing
style, discursive metaphors, theme, type of event, and contextual features are used by
recipients or the audience to interpret humorous texts (Robinson and Smith-Lovin
2001). Additionally, its functions vary. For example, it can serve as a social lubri-
cant between strangers, while teasing among participants of the same status can
show alignments and bonding (Boxer and Conde 1997; Coates 1996; de los Heros
2001; Straehle 1993), and mitigate conflict between participants of different status
(Norrick and Spitz 2008). Nonetheless, speakers of higher status can employ humor
for bonding within their group to exclude other members from fully participating
in the main discussions (Rogerson-Revell 2007). Humor can also be used to exert
power over minority groups (Billig 2005).
2.1. Theoretical approaches to humor

There are many theories that interpret and explain how humor functions in soci-
ety. The most influential are the Superiority Theory (Billig 2005), the Theory
of Relief (Freud 1963; Lefcourt and Martin [1986] 2011), and the Incongru-
ity Theory (Meyer 2000; Torres Sánchez 1999). Within the Superiority Theory,
Teaching with and about humor 193
humor is seen as a mechanism used by social elites to assert their power over
minority or “inferior” groups (Billig 2005). The Theory of Relief, on the other
hand, posits humor as a tool to diffuse tension (Freud 1963; Lefcourt and Martin
[1986] 2011). Finally, the Incongruity Theory maintains that humor emerges
when people experience an unexpected event or see something illogical or absurd
that makes the situation laughable (Meyer 2000, p. 316; Torres Sánchez 1999).
Additionally, there are recent theoretical developments such as the Dual Pro-
cess Theory with Computational Considerations (Boyang 2016, p. 71) which
builds on current “advances on cognitive science and consider(s) findings on
the neurological and cognitive processes involved in humor interpretation” with
the intention of developing a unified theory of humor. For example, the brain’s
processing of humor has been found to take different forms, but it “is reliably
associated with (residual) incongruity detection and resolution” (Boyang 2016,
p. 861). This means that all forms of humor are processed similarly in the brain.
Therefore, an integrated theory of humor could be useful. Nonetheless, for the
purposes here, this new cognitive theory will not be employed, due to its technical
and complex nature, which does not work well for educational purposes. There-
fore, in this chapter, only the General Theory of Verbal Humor, hereafter GTVH
(Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 2001, 2008; Attardo, Hempelmann, and Maio
2002) will be addressed. This theory is the only one that describes the linguistic
mechanisms of humorous texts that teachers will be able to both follow and use
to develop students’ pragmatic skills in the L2.
2.2. The general theory of verbal humor

The GTVH has six knowledge resources, which are ordered hierarchically. These
resources correspond to different parameters or levels of the joke and include
the following concepts: (1) opposition of schemes, (2) logical mechanism,
(3) situation, (4) narrative strategy, (5) language, and (6) text of the joke (Attardo,
Hempelmann, and Maio 2002, p. 4). The hierarchical order does not reflect pro-
duction; it is dependent on relationships between the parameters (Attardo and
Raskin 1991, p. 294).
At the center of this theory is the opposition of scripts. A script refers to a
cultural understanding of the world that is shared between producers and their
respective audiences. For example, the script of a common scenario germane to
a restaurant includes that food will be served, waiters will serve it, and clients
will pay for service. It is generally observed that these scripts relate to different
contexts, situations, or stereotypes of people, and are also often associated with
specific words in a language. According to this theory, a comical event takes place
when two scripts or schemas, which are incompatible, occur in a given situation
at the same time, or one immediately after another, provoking an inconsistency
with the reality that people need to resolve. Humor, then, arises as a solution of
incompatibility.
3. Humor in the L2 classroom as a pedagogical strategy

and a content area
Humor has multiple functions in the L2 classroom. It can be used as an L2 peda-
gogical strategy to lower language students’ anxiety, and also for entertainment.
As a component of speakers’ communicative practice, the development of skills to
understand and use humor can be set as an objective in the L2 curriculum. Its value
as an L2 instructional strategy has been emphasized by many authors (Bell 2005,
2007, 2009a, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Bell and Attardo 2010;
Deneire 1995; Gironzetti 2013, 2017; Neuliep 1991; Schmitz 2002; Shively 2013;
Wagner and Urios-Aparisi 2007, 2011). I argue here that humor mechanisms need
to be explicitly taught in L2 Spanish courses so that students can learn both how to
interpret humor and how to create humorous utterances/texts in Spanish.
In L2 classes, students may feel nervous and threatened when they cannot
express themselves well in the language, so lowering their anxiety is important.
Humor can also relax and entertain students making them more attentive to what
is being taught (Torok, McMorris, and Lin 2004; Wagner and Urios-Aparisi 2007,
2011). Furthermore, Wagner and Urios-Aparisi (2007, 2011) provide examples in
which L2 teachers’ humor makes face-threatening situations less intimidating to
students, aiding them in memorizing difficult grammatical structures. However,
humor is not always “recognized, understood, and appreciated,” as at times people
may take offense. Instructors and students need to take this into consideration
(Bell and Pomerantz 2016, p. 31). Indeed, instructors need to be careful in their
use of humor, and also avoid ironic and dark humor (Bell and Pomerantz 2016).
3.1. Humor as a content area

The development of pragmatic skills to enable students to understand and employ
humor is usually not viewed as content matter per se in L2 Spanish, thus it is gen-
erally not included in the curriculum. However, for more than two decades there
have been advocates in favor of incorporating humor as an L2 content area and
more specifically as a pragmatic competence skill. For example, Deneire (1995,
p. 295) considers that “well-developed communicative competence implies humor
and vice-versa.” As this author indicates, humor skills can be taught within many
different frameworks. Within contrastive analysis, instructors can “use humor as a
technique to make students aware of the mechanisms underlying verbal humor such
as polysemy, homonymy, etc.” (Deneire 1995, p. 291). Following a more communi-
cative approach, instructors can concentrate on the different schemata that underlie
humorous expressions such as puns.
More recently, other scholars such as Cook (1997), Pomerantz and Bell (2007),
Bell and Pomerantz (2016), and Shardakova (2013), among others, have emphasized
the centrality of language play, including humor, for L2 acquisition. As language play
embodies “the continual push and pull between creativity and formulaicity” (Bell
and Pomerantz 2016, p. 34), the teaching of humorous mechanisms allows students
to understand that learning an L2 involves more than rote memorization, because it
includes creativity within the boundaries of L2’s rules. It also lets students manipu-
late L2’s sounds, words, patterns, and rules. Furthermore, humor may aid students in
constructing and negotiating their L2 identity with native speakers of the language
(Shardakova 2013). L2 learners need both linguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge
for comprehension and production of L2 humor; however, these two modes involve
different skills. To understand humor, people should be able to deal with semantic
ambiguities, which may lead to multiple interpretations that are solved in relation to
inferences and contextual cues. Thus, humor in language teaching can help students
develop an awareness of language as “dynamic and dialogic” (Bell and Pomerantz
2016). Instructors can analyze humor in conversation or in texts in the target language
to highlight inferential processes in communication.
In general, the comprehension of humor has three levels: (1) recognition,
(2) understanding of the frame of humor or knowledge of the scripts, and (3) its
appreciation. In other words, the listener/reader/audience needs to recognize the
humorous intention, then understand the mechanisms of humor at work, and lastly,
appreciate it (or reject it) (Bell and Attardo 2010; Hay 2001). Therefore, to teach
humor teachers can incorporate exercises where they include these three stages. For
example, a picture of a humorous wall tile, as the one provided below in Figure 10.1,
can serve teachers for this purpose. I will delineate the different steps here.
In this particular case, the instructor should read the text and review some struc-
tures that are used in the text, such as the se impersonal and comparisons. At the
same time, the scripts about buying something on credit should be discussed briefly
in class. The instructor should comment on traditional transactions in small towns
in Spain and Latin America where people sometimes buy on credit, but with more
informal restrictions. The text should be read again, this time looking at the con-
straints that the seller details before selling things on credit. Contrast this statement
to usual credit restrictions in the United States. Finally, contrast the two scripts and
explain how humor emerges.
In brief, there are many linguistic and sociopragmatic skills involved in humor
comprehension. These may include familiarity with joke scripts and cultural stereo-
types. In addition, for the production of humor, L2 speakers need be able to recognize
where jokes can be expected and where they can occur in an interaction. They also
need to know the types of jokes that are culturally appropriate, as well as knowledge
of what is funny in a particular culture (Attardo and Bell 2010; Hay 2001).
It should be noted that in L2 language play, students would be able to increase
metalinguistic awareness of communication processes that entail interpreting infer-
ences using contextual cues. In that way, the teacher can help language learners
develop further, while at the same time “expand their communicative repertoires”
(Bell and Pomerantz 2016, p. 34). Of course, incorporating humor as a pragmatic
skill and as a content element in the L2 classroom does not entail removing the
grammatical structures from the lesson. Instructors should and can do both. Fur-
thermore, if instructors decide to include humor in their classroom, learners can
gradually become intercultural language users aware of how the target language
works.
FIGURE 10.1 Wall tile
3.2. Challenges when including humor in the classroom

Despite its advantages, the inclusion of the pragmatics of humor in the L2 class-
room presents many challenges. For instance, language learners need to have some
linguistic and cultural knowledge to understand certain kinds of humor. To avoid
misunderstandings, instructors should introduce students to all of the cultural and
structural elements used in any joke or humorous text before presenting it in class
(Deneire 1995). Additionally, humor should never be used as a technique to teach
new information “but rather as an illustration and reinforcement of acquired
knowledge” (Deneire 1995, p. 294).
Schmitz (2002) proposes dividing humorous forms for L2 teaching into:
(1) universal or “reality-based joke,” (2) cultural jokes which are based on cultural
stereotypes, and (3) linguistic-based jokes, which are built around specific features
in a language’s phonology, morphology, and syntactical structures. This author is
aware that students of different proficiency levels cannot equally process linguistic
structures or culturally complex jokes. However, he asserts that teaching humor can
start with beginners, provided that instructors “plan ahead and make sure that stu-
dents learn the vocabulary, linguistic or cultural traits on which the oral or written
joke or humorous text is based” (Schmitz 2002, p. 93). He also recommends using
jokes that do not require understanding complex words or structures at lower levels,
and introducing more culturally specific humor at the intermediate level.
Bell (2009a, p. 244) indicates that lower proficiency students may use language
creatively, as she has found novice learners to be able to do it. Davies (2003) also
noticed that non-native English learners of various proficiency levels can col-
laborate and co-construct conversational joking with native speakers outside the
classroom. The L2 English learners in Davies’ study engaged in conversations with
native speakers who were also “tutors.” Thus, Davies shows how of all these ESL
students exploited their “limited sociolinguistic resources” to create a “joking epi-
sode” between them (Davies 2003, p. 1381).
Lower proficiency L2 students can, in some instances, play with language and use
humorous utterances, but they are not always successful in doing so. Unsuccessful
humorous attempts are cases of failed humor, which can also occur in someone’s
first language (Bell 2009b; Bell and Attardo 2010). There are two main types of
failed humor. There are cases in which humor is not recognized, or where the audi-
ence is aware of the attempt but does not find it funny. Bell and Attardo (2010,
p. 430) provide seven different (not mutually exclusive) categories for L2 speakers’
failure to understand and/or produce humor. These are: (1) speakers’ failure to
process language at the locutionary level (i.e., when speakers do not understand the
utterance); (2) speakers’ failure to understand the meanings of words and/or con-
notation of words; (3) speakers’ failure to understand the pragmatics of utterances,
including irony; (4) speakers’ failure to recognize the frame of the joke, either by
presuming a false negative, (i.e., they miss a joke) or by perceiving a false positive
(i.e., they see a joke when in reality there is no humorous intention); (5) speakers’
failure to understand the incongruity of the joke (i.e., they cannot recognize the
different scripts at play); (6) speakers’ failure to appreciate a joke (i.e., it is not per-
ceived as funny); and (7) speakers’ failure to join in the joking as active speakers (Bell
and Attardo 2010, p. 430).
Students of an L2 may feel uncomfortable using humor and may not know how
to react to it when it is directed towards them. In addition, their humorous statements
may be misinterpreted. For instance, an outcome of their jokes may be viewed by native
speakers as a mistake rather than as a good-humored utterance (Shardakova 2013).
However, the objective of teaching should not be to make students express themselves
as native speakers, but to present “learners with specific formulas for appropriateness,
[such that] language is taught as a set of choices, and learners are allowed to choose
those that allow them to feel most at ease in the L2” (Bell 2011, p. 150).
Learning about the skills needed to produce humorous utterances in an L2 in
the protected environment of the L2 classroom, in which instructors guide students
by modeling speech, provides them with a safe space for experimentation. Teaching
pragmatic skills to employ humor will also help students learn more about cultural
norms (Bell 2011), thus preparing them to use the L2 appropriately in the real
world.
Finally, it is important to mention that research on pragmatics and ESL has found
that explicit instruction has positive effects on SLA (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper
and Rose 2002; Gironzetti 2013; Spada and Tomita 2010; Tammenga-Helmantel
et al. 2016). For example, Spada and Tomita (2010, p. 290) compared the results of
41 studies that measured the different effects that implicit and explicit instruction
have on the acquisition of L2 English structures, and found that explicit instruction
not only helped “learners’ explicit knowledge of complex and simple forms” but it
also “contributed to their ability to use these features in un-analyzed and spontane-
ous ways.” Explicit teaching is also important in the case of learning about social
patterns and behaviors in a different culture, even when there may be similarities
in both (Escandell-Vidal 2009). Escandell-Vidal indicates that L2 students find dif-
ficulties in learning new social patterns from another culture, and they will also have
drawbacks because:
a student will continue to use his/her cultural values, which can be very
different from those of the target language and culture. This can cause inter-
ferences and misunderstandings. To avoid these, a student will need to create
a second self-regulation process in order to inhibit the automatic response
every time that it is inadequate for the norms of the new culture.
( Escandell-Vidal 2009, p. 18, my translation)
In other words, instructors need to explicitly describe different cultural norms and
patterns and make students practice these forms. Therefore, Escandell-Vidal (2009,
p. 18) recommends explicitly reconstructing “the social situation with all relevant
details; then inhibiting their automatic responses; and, finally, substituting all of these
by other consciously monitored reactions” (my translation). In this line of thought,
Bell endorses an overt instruction of the mechanics and functions of humor. She
argues that to enable this, different types of humor and their production patterns
should be incorporated in L2 textbooks in an organized and systematic fashion, as
other pragmatic elements (e.g., speech acts) are introduced. In that way, students
will be aware of “the forms and functions of L2 humor, and possibly increas[e]
their comprehension and, if they so choose, engage in the production of playful L2
interactions” (Bell 2011, p. 136). The inclusion of jokes or comic strips in textbooks
is risky, because “humorous texts can become outdated in a matter of months”
(Schmitz 2002, p. 94). Still, there are longstanding jokes that are still considered
funny. Additionally, if humor is presented in a conversational way—which is not
necessarily conventionalized—it can easily be interpreted in relation to context,
especially if a synthetic and simplified theory of humor such as the GTVH is pre-
sented along the way. Considering the centrality of the role of the teachers in L2
learning process, it is essential to assess their ideas about humor and also explore
their own teaching practices.
4. Instructors’ ideas about teaching humor

Language teachers are very influential in the learning process since they determine,
among other things, the scope of the class, the methodology, as well as the supple-
mentary materials used for instructional purposes. In order to learn what teachers
think about the role of humor in the classroom, I developed an online questionnaire
using SurveyMonkey.5 This survey was sent to colleagues at several American uni-
versities and language institutes in Spain.
The following questions guided my research for this section:
a) Do instructors believe that the skills for the production and interpretation of
humor in Spanish are important components of the language that need to be
introduced in the classroom?
b) Do instructors include the teaching of skills to produce and interpret humor in
Spanish in their class by bringing in activities to develop them?
c) Do instructors intuitively teach skills for the interpretation and production of
humor in Spanish or have they devised techniques to do it?
d) Do any of the instructors’ background characteristics, such as native language,
educational background, gender, and study abroad in a Spanish-speaking coun-
try, affect their ideas about teaching skills to use and interpret humor in the
classroom?
4.1. The survey

The survey consisted of 28 items. It was later discovered that the interpretation of
four of the 28 items was very ambiguous, so they were discarded from the final count
rendering a total of 24 items in the survey. The first nine items elicited respondents’
demographic information, including their social, educational, and teaching back-
ground. All of the remaining items inquired about instructors’ views on L2 teaching
and their ideas about the role of humor in the classroom. Participants were asked to
either agree or disagree with statements. In addition, there were two open-ended ques-
tions. Due to space restrictions, I will limit my discussion to the responses given to the
two open-ended questions and to four items. These specifically requested respondents’
ideas about the role of humor in L2 Spanish and their instructional practices in relation
to the teaching of the production and use of humor. The four items are:
1) Humor is an important element of communicative competence and should be

taught in class (Question 13 in the survey; hereafter Question=Q).6
2) I bring activities to class so that students learn Spanish about conversational
humor in Spanish (Q18).
3) Humor is an important element in the teaching of Spanish, and I teach it using
comic strips and providing cultural explanations (Q24).
4) I would like to teach students how to use humor in Spanish, but I don’t know
how to do it (Q25).
There were also two optional items that requested teachers to share their instruc-
tional techniques on the use of humor in Spanish as a part of their teaching plan, or
to make comments on the topic of teaching humor.7
4.2. The respondents

The survey was aimed at Spanish instructors in the US and Spain. One hundred
sixty-two Spanish instructors responded, but not all answered all the questions in
the survey. Each survey item was answered by approximately 156–160 respondents.
Eighty percent of the participants were women ages 20 to 75. The great major-
ity (48.9 percent) worked in an American university 29.9 percent in an American
middle or high school, 11.7 percent worked at a Spanish language institute, and only
9.5 percent at a Spanish university. Many respondents (60.6 percent) had earned a
Spanish master’s degree; 21.2 percent had a PhD, and 4.4 percent had only attained a
high school diploma. Many of them (59.9 percent) were native Spanish speakers. Most
non-native speakers of Spanish had studied in a Spanish-speaking country, although
8.45 percent indicated that they had never studied in Latin America or Spain.
4.3. Discussion
In this section, I briefly summarize and interpret the survey responses on those items
that specify instructors’ thoughts on the use of humor in the classroom. I intended
to learn about instructors’ ideas and practices regarding teaching humor and to
determine whether or not social factors affected participants’ responses.8
Figure 10.2 shows participants’ responses about the importance of humor in the
L2 classroom. Most respondents, regardless of their social and educational back-
ground, consider humor as an important component of Spanish communicative
competence that should be taught in class. However, only a few of the participants
left comments in the two open-ended items. In general, participants stated that
humor was an important component in teaching. For example, one participant
stated that humor “is part of language expression and that is why it should be
taught.” Overall, their comments reveal that many instructors thought humor was
related to speakers’ communicative competence. Additionally, some respondents felt
that humor was an instructional strategy, and a few of them indicated that teaching
humor did not have any kind of value.
Teachers were also asked whether or not they included activities specifically
designed to teach Spanish conversational humor. Results are shown in Figure 10.3.
If one contrasts results from Figure 10.2—where 85.17 percent of the participants
agreed that humor was an important content area of instruction—with Figure 10.3—
where approximately 50 percent reported bringing activities to teach humor
in class—there is evidently an obvious discrepancy.9 This inconsistency can be
explained by two factors resulting from the comments in the open-ended section of
the survey: lack of time to cover the material in the syllabus, and not knowing how
to properly incorporate humor in their lessons.
FIGURE 10.2 The importance of humor in L2 classes (Q13)
FIGURE 10.3 Use of activities or videos to learn conversational humor (Q18)
Figure 10.4 shows responses to the question of whether instructors include

comic strips and cultural explanations to teach humor. More than half of the
respondents claim that they do so, utilizing sources not found in their textbooks.
These are tebeos10 or comic books and chistes ‘jokes’. In addition, some instruc-
tors reported employing well-known Argentine and Spanish comic strips such as
Mafalda (Quino) and El Roto (Rábago).
When comparing Figures 10.3 and 10.4, it is evident that more instructors use
comic strips than other sources. This may be due to familiarity with this type of
resource. Comic strips are frequently included in Spanish conversation textbooks,
so instructors may be more accustomed to these. Also, respondents may perceive
conversational humor as too difficult for learners to understand. Indeed, some
instructors indicated that finding good videos for teaching and devising ways to
incorporate videos into the classroom were problematic issues.11
Use of comic strips or cultural explanations to learn conversational

FIGURE 10.4
humor (Q24)
Figure 10.5, below, shows either respondents’ agreement or disagreement with

the statement that they would like to teach humor, but do not know exactly how
to teach it in the classroom. Results show that 45 percent of the instructors claim
that they do not know how to teach humor. The results can partially be interpreted
by their training. Instructors with an MA or PhD in Spanish in the US usually take
one or more classes on teaching methodology where they learn how to develop class
materials. Nonetheless, in such classes, the focus is on reading, writing, listening,
and speaking skills, with an emphasis on grammar and vocabulary. There is seldom
a focus on developing skills to employ and understand humor, and rarely on L2
pragmatics. Of course, in these courses they comment on some cultural aspects of
Latin America and Spain, but not specifically in relation to humor. Moreover, as Bell
and Pomerantz (2016) remark, in L2 education, language play is hardly included as
a topic of instruction.
In the open-ended section of the survey, some participants expressed their lack
of knowledge on the subject of teaching humor (see Figure 10.5). A noteworthy
quote from a respondent supporting this point was that “humor is a culture-sensitive
phenomenon” that is “difficult to teach in Spanish.” Lastly, another interesting
comment from one of the participants is: “There are guidelines on how to teach
grammar and vocabulary. I ask myself, how can humor be taught?” This question
points to the fact that ACTFL does not have guidelines about the use of pragmatic
skills to understand and use humor in an L2. However, as I have argued previ-
ously, there are explicit ways to develop communicative competence skills that can
be incorporated in the L2 classroom. I will present more detailed suggestions in
Section 5.1.
Additionally, some respondents indicated that they have too much to cover
in their curriculum, and nothing else could be added. In sum, although many
instructors feel humor is a key cultural element in L2, many do not know how to
approach it, while others say they do not have enough time to include it in the
FIGURE 10.5 No systematic knowledge on how to teach humor in the classroom
curriculum. Most of the instructors who reported that they teach about humor
in Spanish said they used comics, rather than videos, which address conversational
humor.
Another objective of this chapter was to find out whether or not participants’
social factors affected their responses. A Pearson chi-square test was employed to
determine if there is a significant relation between the responses of teaching humor
in the classroom and any of the demographic variables of respondents. It was found
that only teachers’ place of work and their native language had a significant correla-
tion (at 90 percent or p > 0.1) on the survey item: I bring activities to class so students
can learn Spanish conversational humor. It was observed in the data that L2 Spanish
instructors from American universities were more likely to bring activities to class
to teach humor than (university) instructors in Spain. The same data also revealed
that American university instructors employed humor more than their counterparts
in the American secondary education classroom. Interestingly, the respondents in
this section were mostly native speakers of Spanish.12
5. Strategies for the integration of humor in L2 teaching

The results of the survey about teaching humor revealed that many instructors
were willing to include humor in class but were not sure how to do it. To bridge
this gap, in the next section, I discuss some strategies and instructional prac-
tices, which can be employed for that purpose. I base this discussion on Bell and
Pomerantz’s (2016) Chapter 8 (pp. 166–183). Then, I provide some sample activi-
ties that can be incorporated in the Spanish L2 classroom based on my literature
review and research. These have been adapted from ESL literature (Bell 2005,
2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Bell and Pomerantz 2016), from other
scholars like Díez Domínguez (2008), Gironzetti (2013, 2017), Padilla García
(2010), and Shively (2013), from the respondents of the questionnaire, and from
the author herself.
5.1. Explicit instruction of mechanisms and functions of humor

It is evident that humor is pervasive in the social life of any linguistic community.
Even though humor varies culturally and linguistically, there are some common
elements that make people laugh across cultures, and then again, there are instances
of humor that are not intentional (i.e., clumsiness, unexpected incongruities in a
situation that seem odd). Others are, on the other hand, culturally bound. To be
able to teach students on the use of humor strategies instructors need to plan and
organize their material. Bell and Pomerantz (2016, p. 170) suggest four types of
activities related to the understanding and production of humor to be considered in
L2 language planning: (1) activities which help students identify humorous forms,
(2) activities to analyze and understand how humor works in language, (3) activities
that aid students in producing humorous forms, and (4) activities that teach students
how to respond to humor. Instructors should be aware that there are micro-skills
that need to be developed in any kind of humor-based activity. A good example
of such planning is found in Gironzetti (2013, 2017). This author proposes three
stages for the analysis of a joke: (1) textual exploration and recognition, (2) humor-
ous incongruity and resolution (Hay 2001, understanding), and (3) social and/or
political critique (Hay 2001, appreciation and agreement).
The objective in the classroom should be to teach students ways of recognizing
instances of intentional humor. It has been shown that explicit instruction in prag-
matics helps SLA acquisition. Thus, in L2 courses, there should be an overt discussion
of humor mechanisms, their functions and the topics of cultural jokes. Instructors
should choose a theoretical framework that is easy to understand and explain, such as
the GTVH (Attardo and Raskin 1991; Attardo 2001, 2008; Attardo, Hempelmann, and
Maio 2002). This theory is explained in layman’s terms and details the mechanisms
of jokes based on both the incongruency of scripts (cultural knowledge of situations
and things to expect in them) and the components of language (i.e., words, intonation,
formulaic phrases). Instructors should also mention to their students that there are
some recurrent topics that usually serve as the bases for jokes in English and Spanish,
such as the things that “deal with the boundaries between nature and culture, in par-
ticular with sex, food, health, and death, as well as with social boundaries (us and them,
strangers and lunatics)” (Driessen 2015, p. 417). Additionally, Bell and Pomerantz
(2016, pp. 180–181) also present a chart with a scale of appropriate activities—based
on proficiency level of students—that were successful in an ESL classroom. These
types of activities can be adapted for L2 Spanish or other languages classes. For exam-
ple, for beginning students, activities will range from the identification of puns to the
recognition of how humor can be co-constructed in a conversation. More advanced
speakers could also analyze and produce ironic and sarcastic humor.
5.2. Students’ language and cultural awareness about the use of

humor in the L2 Spanish class
Explicit language instruction positively affects L2 acquisition (Bardovi-Harlig
2001; Kasper and Rose 2002; Gironzetti 2013; Spada and Tomita 2010; Tammenga-
Helmantel et al. 2016). Therefore, it is important to focus on form and discuss the
different functions and forms of humor. Overtly, this can be accomplished in many
different ways.
5.2.1. Analysis of humor using Spanish video clips

Students should be asked to think of the most important ways they use humor and
the reasons behind it (i.e., for bonding with people, saving face in embarrassing situ-
ations, sarcasm, to make fun of others, etc.). They should also be asked if they think
that humor varies depending on language register and context (i.e., in an informal
conversation, class discussion, lecture, TV show, etc.). After discussing their answers,
instructors can show clips demonstrating humor in a variety of contexts. By doing
this, students can learn to recognize some of the similarities and differences in how
humor is portrayed in their L1 and L2. The videos should be followed by carefully
planned instructor discussions to ascertain whether or not they can spot those simi-
larities and differences. Students will be presented with categories of different kinds
of humor (e.g., sarcastic humor, joke, language play). As they listen to the clips, they
can match them to a category. To make this experience less challenging, as one of
my informants indicated, the transcription of the clips could be included to provide
understanding of the audio.
5.2.2. Request students to gather funny texts/conversations

from L2 magazines and/or TV programs
The Internet offers access to TV programs and magazines from many Spanish and
Hispanic communities. L2 Spanish learners can be assigned to gather humorous
texts/conversations or jokes from TV programs, sitcoms, or magazines in Spanish
found on the Internet. In class, students can work in groups to analyze the samples,
examine the techniques utilized, and find cultural elements that are tied to them. In
humorous programs, students may benefit from hearing laugh tracks to clue them
into what is viewed as funny. In class, ambiguous and/or complex segments can be
analyzed and discussed. The classroom can be a rich environment for students when
instructors make a communicative interaction possible. In this kind of atmosphere,
instructors can use contextual cues as well as available verbal resources, and associate
them to relevant topics being treated in class to help students and to incorporate
verbal play and humor into language. Díez Domínguez (2008) suggests a sample
activity called the “Caza del Tesoro,” or Treasure Hunt, to learn about humor in
the L2. In this task, teachers propose a query in the form of a treasure hunt about
a cultural item in the L2, which can be solved using the Internet and following
a set of detailed instructions in a handout created by the instructor. This activity
needs to be organized ahead of time. First, the teacher guides students through a
set of sub-questions, defining the steps that they need to take in order to solve the
mystery or treasure hunt. All these questions are related to the query to be solved
after the student has solved all previous sub-questions. To be able to solve the last
task, students have to understand and reflect on the contents of the previous tasks.
Teachers provide links that students will use to respond to all the questions. It is
recommended that the teacher include an assessment rubric at the end.
5.3. Teachers as models of Spanish humor production

As mentioned before, some topics are commonly used for humorous purposes in
many cultures. Additionally, humor mechanisms are universal (i.e., the contrast of
two scripts which are incompatible but emerge in a particular situation). Spanish
instructors can make students aware of similarities and differences in implementing
these mechanisms in English and Spanish, as well as in topics that are usually used
for jokes. Activities incorporating humor can be used to target the vocabulary that
students know or are learning. For example, in my elementary Spanish class when
I describe myself I jokingly use the adjective joven “young” (even though I am not)
and describe one of my young students in the class as viejo “old” (even though that
person is not). I use an emphatic intonation and make faces so they know I am
using a play mode. I know it is successful if students laugh. My experience is that
this kind of activity makes students feel more relaxed and at the same time aware
of the fact that there are similar joking strategies in Spanish and English. However,
it should be noted that teachers should be very careful with humor in reference to
age in the media.13
5.4. Play with language, making students aware of dynamism

Since language communication depends heavily on context and speakers’ inten-
tions, Bell and Pomerantz (2014) recommend that instructors help students play
with language, even when the manipulation is not necessarily humorous. An exam-
ple provided by these authors is to experiment with a formulaic expression such
as “I got up on the wrong side of the bed today,” and change some words so that
it means the opposite, contextualizing it: I feel great + I got up on the right side of
bed. A similar activity in Spanish can also be done using popular proverbs, or say-
ings. A phrase like ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente ‘eyes which do not see, heart
which does not feel’ or ‘out of sight, out of mind’ can be used alongside pictures of
food, and changing the proverb to ojos que ven, corazón que siente, to show that they
can be creative with language and make people laugh because it is something that
people do not expect (they are expecting the negative form of the verbs ven and
sienten). Gironzetti (2017) suggests first teaching humor by raising students’ aware-
ness of different types of humor, humor expressions, and formulae. She also adds
that students should be guided in their analysis of humorous text by teaching them
to focus on key features of verbal elements such as phrases and non-verbal behavior
(i.e., people reactions and the context). In terms of helping students’ production
of humor for interactional purposes, Gironzetti (2017) recommends the training
of students. In these exercises, students are asked to choose topics and ideas, then
to select humorous scripts and figure out how these can overlap. Teachers should
be able to provide them with some strategies used for these purposes such as exag-
geration (e.g., Era tan alto que se caía el lunes y se levantaba el sábado), irony (to say
the opposite of what you mean, e.g., Me encanta la clase que me deja tanta tarea que
no tengo tiempo libre), and word play with homonyms (e.g., MARINERO: -¡Almi-
rante, quince carabelas aproximándose!; ALMIRANTE:-¿Una flota?; MARINERO:
¡-No, flotan las quince, where flotar is a verb and flota, a noun), among others.
5.5. Provide space for creativity

Students can be given time to interact with each other and to be creative with lan-
guage in a less structured way. Language manipulation in the form of role-plays or
games sometimes is not deemed as important as other language practices, but when
students work in groups doing role-plays or games, they interact in more spontane-
ous and meaningful ways, and “bec[o]me deeply invested in their utterances and
rich uses of language [occur]” (Pomerantz and Bell 2007, p. 571). Additionally, stu-
dents can be given resources such as http://zachary-jones.com/zambombazo/tag/
lolcats/ or http://profe-de-espanol.de/2016/06/04/los-memes-en-clase-de-ele/
where they find materials they can utilize to interact in a meaningful and humor-
ous way in Spanish (Marcos Miguel, personal communication).
An example of bilingual word play that students can be given in class to promote
their creativity is presented in Figure 10.6 (shared by Veronica Flaherty):
After receiving a couple of comic strips like this one, they will be instructed to
use them to create an original Spanish assignment to be shared with their classmates,
noting that their product can be but does not need to be, bilingual.
5.6. Structured practice with trained native speakers of the

target language outside the classroom
Many schools and universities offer a Tertulia, or Spanish conversation hour, as an
extracurricular activity for students to practice the L2 they are learning. In one of
these meetings, humor can be discussed using the prompt “tell us stories where some-
thing funny happened to you while you were using Spanish.” In those circumstances,
FIGURE 10.6 Comic strip

trained Spanish native speakers or teachers can guide and collaborate with students, as
in Davies (2003), to engage in conversation and help create joking episodes.
5.7. Use of comic strips

One of the most obvious and traditional ways to teach humor is through comic
strips. They are often included in textbooks, as they have a cultural component.
In addition, many of the participants of this study indicated that comic strips are
one of the main types of materials they bring to class to help students develop
pragmatic skills to use and understand L2 humor. A comic strip can be utilized
in different ways in the L2 classroom (Bongaerts 2010; del Rey Cabero 2013). As
del Rey Cabero (2013) points out, comic strips are visual and include a contextual
background or characters where there is a communicative event going on. Some-
times this includes playful interactions between the characters. The instructor can
also exploit the images including pictures and gestures, as well as the language used
and the social/cultural meaning in different ways. Del Rey Cabero (2013) suggests
a series of activities that can be done with comics, including the comprehension of
the text and images, the manipulation of the comic, the creation of their own comic,
and the use of their cultural background to make sense of the comic. Additionally,
Bongaerts (2010) mentions teaching culture as one of the main uses of the com-
ics, as humor is closely related to culture. Furthermore, Padilla García (2010), for
example, describes how comic strips enable students not only to learn about recent
social events but also to develop intercultural awareness and improve reading skills.
Gironzetti’s dissertation (2013) provides many examples on how to use the Internet
along with comic strips to analyze humor in relation to cultural stereotypes, and
politics in Spanish. This author (2017) proposes teaching humor comprehension
by contrasting similar political cartoons in the students’ first language (and cultural
context) and in Spanish. For example, for an American student with English as
an L1, use and contrast a similar cartoon about the US president Donald Trump
and Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto. This process allows Spanish L2 learn-
ers to “reconstruct the sociocultural presuppositions to which the [L2] cartoon
refers” (Gironzetti 2017). Furthermore, Gironzetti (2017) recommends skimming
and scanning the context so students can anticipate the purpose of the caricature
and its content. Students will be guided so they can recognize the main characters/
caricatures. Afterwards, they can analyze the verbal and visual elements in more
detail and examine the differences between the cartoon and the “reality” which will
activate the pseudo logic mechanism. The recommendation, therefore, is to discuss
the stereotypes and factual knowledge of the cartoon and then critique it.
5.8. Socialization with natives during study abroad programs

Shively (2013) reports how socialization with native speakers in study abroad pro-
grams can help students develop their ability to play with language and be funny.
This is not an activity that can be translated into the classroom, but it should be
considered when instructors take students abroad. It is important to help students

“find opportunities to build relationships with members of the host culture, since it
is in those relationships that students will have the greatest opportunities to engage
in and develop L2 humor” (Shively 2013, p. 943).
5.9. Additional exercises

Here are some additional exercises, to stimulate reflections about humor, as pre-
sented in the previous sections of this chapter.
Exercise 1: Think of forms of humor in your speech community that may be
common to other cultures. Explain why you think this is the case.
Exercise 2: Find a popular Spanish canned joke and analyze it using the GTVH
theory.
Exercise 3: Find a couple of jokes, cartoons or other forms of humor that would
only be funny in your own socio-cultural group and in your language. What are
the similarities and differences between these forms of humor and those shared with
other communities?
Exercise 4: Reflect on the kinds of contextual cues and on the type of word
play people use in conversation when one of the participants wants to diffuse ten-
sion, entertain others, or make a point without embarrassing someone (e.g., saying
“good evening,” when someone gets to class very late). Consider using some of
these examples in class to help students develop awareness about the inferential
nature of language interpretation. Organize an activity in the form of role-play.
Exercise 5: Look for a humorous political cartoon of a current situation in a
Spanish-speaking country newspaper or website (e.g., Argentina, Mexico, Colombia,
Peru, or Spain). Before presenting it to the class, prepare a review of the vocabulary
and grammar forms that are needed to interpret the language in the cartoon. Write
as many questions as needed to help students decode the elements that make it funny.
6. Conclusion
In this chapter, I have discussed how to incorporate skills to help students in the
understanding and production of humor in L2 Spanish. I have argued that humor
is an important part of the L2 communicative competence, and, in this way, I have
made a case for its inclusion in L2 Spanish classes. I have also explored whether or
not instructors believed humor was an important pragmatic mechanism to incor-
porate in Spanish L2 teaching, and whether or not they knew how to incorporate it
in their lessons. Most of them indicated that they thought humor was an important
element of Spanish, and they were willing to include humor in class but were not
sure how to do it. To bridge this gap, in the next section, I discuss some strategies
and instructional practices. Finally, since the results of the surveys indicated that a
large number of instructors did not know how to teach skills for developing humor
competence, I have also presented examples of activities that could be adapted to be
used in an L2 classroom.
The discussion of the literature shows that many scholars have considered includ-
ing humor in teaching foreign languages. However, as Deneire (1995) and Schmitz
(2002) indicate, there are some difficulties with low-proficiency students because
humor involves cultural knowledge that such students do not have. Thus, Schmitz
(2002) posits that only some forms of humor are appropriate for students. There is
no doubt that there are challenges in the process, and that it is harder for students
with low L2 proficiency to understand and employ humor in their interactions
with others in the L2, but it is not impossible.
More recent studies on the teaching of humor, which use native speakers’
interactional data, suggest that even students with low proficiency can, given the
appropriate environment, use contextual conversational cues to be funny (Bell 2005;
Bell and Pomerantz 2016; Davies 2003). Obviously, L2 speakers with advanced or
superior proficiency will be able to manipulate linguistic resources to be funny and
display some creativity (Bell 2005, p. 212). While it seems that speakers of all levels
can exploit humor, there are types of activities that may be more appropriate for
different types of students. Bell and Pomerantz (2016, pp. 180–181) provide a very
suitable table with a scale of activities divided into L2 proficiency based on research.
In regard to instructors’ ideologies on teaching skills to develop humor com-
petence, it was found that most Spanish teachers who responded to the survey
agreed that humor was an important component of communicative competence
that should be taught in the L2 classroom. Many, particularly native Spanish speak-
ers with a university degree, said that they incorporated video clips in the class to
practice conversational humor. However 45 percent of the respondents indicated
that they did not know how to teach humor. In response to this gap, I have provided
some activities that can be employed by those L2 Spanish teachers who would like
to include activities that explicitly describe techniques and develop skills to use
humor in the L2. Nonetheless, more research needs to be done in this area particu-
larly in assessing the kinds of activities that can be used to develop good pragmatic
skills at different proficiency levels.
Notes
1 I would like to thank Laura Lenardon, Melanie Magidow, Nausica Marcos Miguel, Angela
Pitassi, and Clement White, as well as the various anonymous reviewers for all of their
comments and suggestions to this chapter. I would also like to thank Juan Azula for his
help with the statistics. Moreover, my gratitude goes to Elisa Gironzetti for facilitating me
an article I was not able to get while in Spain, and for sending me her presentation at the
July 2017 Annual Conference of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and
Portuguese in Chicago.
2 Attardo (2002, p. 161) defines humor competence as “the capacity of a speaker to process
semantically a given text and to locate a set of relationships among its components, such
that he/she would identify the text (or part of it) as humorous in an ideal situation.”
3 Some L2 researchers distinguish between the teaching and learning of a foreign and a
second language (Longcope 2009). It is considered a foreign language when the language
is taught/studied in a place where it is not commonly found in the public domain. In
contrast, it is referred as an L2 when the language is widely available in the place where it
is taught/studied. Here I use L2 in reference to both contexts.
4 The only textbook that I have found that includes some explicit teaching of humor pro-
duction is ¡A Debate! Estrategias para la Interacción oral, Nivel C, and has been published in
Spain (Muñoz-Basols et al. 2013).
5 The University of Rhode Island IRB for this study (HU1415–159) was approved on
June 10, 2015.
6 As one of the anonymous reviewers points out, questions (1) and (3) may be ambiguous
to respondents. While respondents agreeing or disagreeing with these statements—
consisting of two clauses connected with “and”—should be agreeing or disagreeing with
both clauses, this may not always the case.
7 I also included another category of items, which explored instructors’ views on L2 teach-
ing. Due to space limitations, I will not discuss the results here.
8 I also wanted to ascertain whether there was a connection between instructors’ ideas on
communicative teaching methods and their ideas on the teaching of humor. Due to space
limitations, I will not be discussing those results here.
9 As one of reviewers points out, it seems a very optimistic number given that there are
not many materials to teach about humor. It is possible that teachers may have reported
teaching humor while in reality only including humorous materials in their lessons, but
without focusing on the humor.
10 In peninsular Spanish, a tebeo is a comic book for children.
11 I want to thank Melanie Magidow for pointing this out to me.
12 There were fewer respondents from Spain.
13 Teachers should be careful with the topic of age. Please refer to Nuessel’s (1992) work on
how the media portray older people.
References
Attardo, S. 2001. Linguistics Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. 2002. “Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of
Detection.” In Say Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication, eds. L. Anolli, R.
Ciceri and G. Riva, 159–180. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Attardo, S. 2008. “Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor.” Language and Linguistics Compass
2(6): 1203–1215.
Attardo, S. and V. Raskin. 1991. “Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Repre-
sentation Model.” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 4(3–4): 293–347.
Attardo, S., C. Hempelmann and S. Maio. 2002. “Script Oppositions and Logical Mecha-
nisms: Modeling Incongruities and their Resolutions.” Humor—International Journal of
Humor Research 15(1): 3–46.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Evaluating the Empirical Evidence: Grounds for Instruction in
Pragmatics?” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. Cam-
Bell, N. D. 2005. “Exploring L2 Language Play as an Aid to SLL: A Case Study of Humor
in NS—NNS Interaction.” Applied Linguistics 26(2): 192–218.
Bell, N. D. 2007. “Humor Comprehension: Lessons Learned from Cross-Cultural Commu-
nication.” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 20(4): 367–387.
Bell, N. D. 2009a. “Learning about and through Humor in the Second Language Class-
room.” Language Teaching Research 13(3): 241–258.
Bell, N. D. 2009b. “Responses to Failed Humor.” Journal of Pragmatics 41(9): 1825–1836.
Bell, N. D. 2011. “Humor Scholarship and TESOL: Applying Findings and Establishing a
Research Agenda.” TESOL Quarterly 45(1): 134–159.
Bell, N. D. 2012a. “Formulaic Language, Creativity, and Language Play in a Second Lan-
guage.” Linguist Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 189–205.
Bell, N. D. 2012b. “Comparing Playful and Nonplayful Incidental Attention to Form.” Lan-
guage Learning 62(1): 236–265.
Bell, N. D. and S. Attardo. 2010. “Failed Humor: Issues in Nonnative Speakers’ Appreciation
and Understanding of Humor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7(3): 423–447.
Bell, N. D. and A. Pomerantz. 2014. “Reconsidering Language Teaching through the
Focus on Humor.” EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 1(1): 31–47.
Bell, N. D. and A. Pomerantz. 2016. Humor in the Classroom: A Guide for Language Teachers and
Educational Researchers. New York: Routledge.
Billig, M. 2005. Laughter and Ridicule. London: SAGE.
Bongaerts, H. 2010. “El uso de historietas para tratar la cultura argentina en la clase de
ELE.” ASELE 21: 225–237. http://cvc.Cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/
pdf/21/21_0225.Pdf.
Boxer, D. and F. Conde. 1997. “From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity
Display.” Journal of Pragmatics 27(3): 275–294.
Boyang, L. 2016. “Humor: A Dynamic and Dual-Process Theory with Computational
Considerations.” Advances in Cognitive Systems 4: 57–74.
Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Cook, G. 1997. “Language Play, Language Learning.” ELT Journal 51(3): 224–231.
Davies, C. E. 2003. “How English-Learners Joke with Native Speakers: An Interactional
Sociolinguistic Perspective on Humor as Collaborative Discourse across Cultures.” Journal
of Pragmatics 35(9): 1361–1385.
De los Heros, S. 2001. Lengua, identidad y género en el castellano peruano. Lima: Pontificia Uni-
versidad Católica del Perú.
Del Rey Cabero, E. 2013. “El comic como material en el aula de E/LE: Justificación de
su uso y recomendaciones para una correcta explotación.” RESLA—Revista Española de
Lingüística Aplicada 26: 177–195.
Deneire, M. 1995. “Humor and Foreign Language Teaching.” Humor—International Journal
of Humor Research 8(30): 285–298.
Díez Domínguez, P. 2008. “Intercultura en el aula de ELE: Cazas del tesoro y humor.
Una propuesta didáctica.” V Encuentro Práctico de ELE. Instituto Cervantes de Nápoles.
125–136.
Driessen, H. 2015. “Anthropology of Humor.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., ed. J. D. Wright, 416–419. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Escandell Vidal, M. V. 2009. “La comunicación intercultural: aspectos cognitivos y sociales.”
Jornadas de Formación del Profesorado en la Enseñanza de L2-ELE: Actas. 7–24 Madrid:
REDINED.
Freud, S. 1963. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Norton.
Gironzetti, E. 2013. “Estudio pragmático experimental del humor gráfico en español e ital-
iano y sus aplicaciones para la enseñanza de una LE/L2.” PhD diss., Universidad de Ali-
cante. https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/35847/1/tesis_elisagironzetti.pdf.
Gironzetti, E. 2017. “Developing Spanish L2 Pragmatic Competence through Humor.”
Paper presented at the 99th Annual AATSP Conference, Chicago, IL, July 6–9.
Hay, J. 2001. “The Pragmatics of Humor Support.” Humor 14(1): 55–82.
Holmes, J., M. Marra and L. Burns. 2001. “Women’s Humour in the Workplace: A Quan-
titative Analysis.” Australian Journal of Communication 28(1): 83–108.
Kasper G. and Rose, K. 2002. “The Role of Instruction in Learning Second Language Prag-
matics.” Language Learning 52(1): 237–273.
Lefcourt, H. and R. Martin. [1986] 2011. Humor and Life Stress: Antidote to Adversity. New
York: Springer.
Longcope, P. 2009. Differences between the EFL and the ESL Language Learning Contexts.
Studies in Language and Culture 30(2): 303–320.
Meyer, J. 2000. “Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Com-
munication.” Communication Theory 10(3): 310–331.
Neuliep, J. W. 1991. “An Examination of the Content of High School Teachers’ Humor in
the Classroom and the Development of an Inductively Derived Taxonomy of Classroom
Humor.” Communication Education 40(4): 343–355.
Norrick, N. R. and A. Spitz. 2008. “Humor as a Resource for Mitigating Conflict in Interac-
tion.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(10): 1661–1686.
Nuessel, F. 1992. The Image of Older Adults in the Media: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Muñoz-Basols, J., E. Gironzetti and Y. Pérez. 2013. ¡A Debate! Estrategias para la interacción
oral, Nivel C. Madrid: Edelsa Grupo Didascalia, S.A.
Padilla García, X. 2010. “Las viñetas cómicas como recurso en la enseñanza de ELE.” Español
con humor 1: 16–33.
Pomerantz, A. and N. D. Bell. 2007. “Learning to Play, Playing to Learn: FL Learners as
Multicompetent Language Users.” Applied Linguistics 28(4): 556–578.
Robinson, D. T. and L. Smith-Lovin. 2001. “Getting a Laugh: Gender, Status, and Humor in
Task Discussions.” Social Forces 80(1): 123–158.
Rogerson-Revell, P. 2007. “Humor in Business: A Double-Edged Sword: A Study of Humour
and Style Shifting in Intercultural Business Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(1): 4–28.
Shardakova, M. 2013. “‘I Joke You Don’t’: Second Language Humor.” In Social and Cultural
Aspects of Cross-Border Language Learning in Study Abroad, ed. C. Kinginger, 207–238.
Shively, R. L. 2013. “Learning to Be Funny in Spanish During Study Abroad: L2 Humor
Development.” Modern Language Journal 97(4): 930–946.
Schmitz, J. R. 2002. “Humor as a Pedagogical Tool in Foreign Language and Translation
Courses.” International Journal of Humor Research 15(1): 89–113.
Spada, N. and Y. Tomita. 2010. “Interactions between Type of Instruction and Type of Lan-
guage Feature: A Meta-Analysis.” Language Learning 60(2): 263–308.
Straehle, C. 1993. ‘‘‘Samuel?’ ‘Yes, dear?’ Teasing and Conversational Rapport.” In Framing in
Discourse, ed. Deborah Tannen, 210–230. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tammenga-Helmantel, M., I. Bazhutkina, S. Steringa, I. Hummel and C. Suhre. 2016.
“Comparing Inductive and Deductive Grammatical Instruction in Teaching German As
a Foreign Language in Dutch Classrooms.” System 63: 101–114.
Torok, S. E., R. F. McMorris and W. C. Lin. 2004. “Is Humor an Appreciated Teaching Tool?
Perceptions of Professors’ Teaching Styles and Use of Humor.” College Teaching 52(1): 14.
Torres Sánchez, M. A. 1999. Estudio pragmático del humor verbal. Cádiz: Universidad Varela
Bravo.
Vrticka, P., J. M. Black and A. L. Reiss. 2013. “The Neural Basis of Humour Processing.”
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(12): 860–868.
Wagner, M. and E. Urios-Aparisi. 2007. “Pragmatics of Humor in the Foreign Language Class-
room: Learning (with) Humor.” In Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural
Perspectives, eds. M. Pütz and J. A. Neff-Van Aertselae, 206 –224. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Wagner, M. and E. Urios-Aparisi. 2011. “The Use of Humor in the Foreign Language
Classroom: Funny and Effective?” Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 24(4):
399–434.
11
L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS
INSTRUCTION AT THE
NOVICE LEVEL
Creating meaningful contexts for
the acquisition of grammatical forms
Lynn Pearson
1. Introduction
Studies in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have documented learners’ inappropri-
ate realizations of speech acts (SAs) in target languages (TLs) (Bardovi-Harlig and
Hartford 2005; Barron 2003; Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989a; Félix-Brasdefer
and Koike 2014; Kasper and Rose 1999, 2002; Koike, Pearson, and Witten 2003).
One explanation for the gaps in pragmatic competence is the limited grammatical
resources in the second language (L2), especially for learners at lower proficiency
levels (Koike 1989; Pearson 2006a; Wildner-Bassett 1994). Although research
and pedagogical materials for L2 pragmatics have expanded (Alcón Soler and
Martínez-Flor 2008; Cohen 2008; Félix-Brasdefer and Koike 2014; Martínez-Flor
and Usó-Juan 2010; Rose 2005; Taguchi 2011), many language courses still focus on
grammar and vocabulary instead of teaching learners to use the TL appropriately in
various contexts and with different listeners (De Pablos-Ortega 2011; Sykes 2010;
Vellenga 2004). This emphasis ignores the rich potential of pragmatics instruction
to provide meaningful contexts for acquiring linguistic items (Félix-Brasdefer and
Cohen 2012; Rose 2012).
This chapter details pedagogical activities to teach Spanish directives in begin-
ning L2 level courses with the additional objective of aiding acquisition of difficult
grammatical forms for English-speaking learners; namely, verbal morphology and
indirect object pronouns. The proposed instruction is an effort to demonstrate the
value of pragmatics to facilitate the acquisition of grammar, a traditional goal of
language teaching along with fostering pragmatic awareness in the first stages of L2
learning. The directive strategies presented reflect the grammatical syllabus of first
year courses at the university level. The chapter also reviews the existing research
about speech acts (SAs) and pragmatics, the current lack of pragmatics instruc-
tion in language courses, the acquisition of L2 pragmatics from a developmental
Pragmatics instruction at the novice level 215
perspective, interaction of pragmatic and grammatical competences in interlan-

guage, and models for pragmatics instruction.
2. Pragmatic competence
Research in interlanguage pragmatics has been based primarily on the framework of SA
theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1979). Speakers use different strategies to carry out various
functions—request, apologize, disagree, etc. Another influential model is that of Polite-
ness Theory (Brown and Levinson 1987), which analyzes interactions based on the
speakers’ needs and wants and those of their hearers. Speakers use language to reduce
infringement on the “face” (the public self-image of an individual). In SAs, speakers
employ two types of knowledge: 1) pragmalinguistic competence, which is composed
of the linguistic resources in a particular language for communicating the specific
meaning, and 2) sociopragmatic competence, which comprises the cultural norms
about performing the SA (Thomas 1983). To perform an appropriate apology in Span-
ish, speakers have to access the necessary pragmalinguistic items such as perdón ‘pardon’
(noun), imperative forms of the verbs perdonar and disculpar ‘to excuse’, and statements of
regret with the verbs lamentar ‘to regret’ and sentir ‘to feel’ as in Lo siento ‘I’m sorry’. Speak-
ers need to evaluate the context of their communication to the hearer using knowledge
of the sociopragmatic rules: Is it necessary to apologize in this situation? What strategy
is appropriate? Are additional strategies required (e.g., explanation about the offense,
proposing a remedy, etc.)? How do I address the hearer? In other words, realizing an
apology SA can be complex, even for native speakers (NSs), who may disagree about
what is appropriate in a given situation. For L2 learners, using TL SAs is more com-
plicated due to their gaps in linguistic competence and incomplete knowledge about
target culture norms. Production that diverges from the norms can produce “prag-
malinguistic” or “sociopragmatic failure” (Thomas 1983), which may result in minor
misunderstandings as well more serious consequences for non-native speakers (NNSs)
because they are perceived as rude, unassertive, or having other negative characteristics.
Pragmatic competence is a component of communicative competence. Hymes
(1972) introduced communicative competence to describe the “rules of use” of
language for creative and social use functions. Several frameworks of communi-
cative competence have been proposed (Canale 1983; Canale and Swain 1980;
Larsen-Freeman 1982), which include both grammatical and semantic knowledge,
but also areas of knowledge needed for using language appropriately in interactions,
such as sociolinguistic competence and discourse competence. Pragmatics plays a
prominent role in Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model of “communicative lan-
guage ability,” which has two components: organizational knowledge and pragmatic
knowledge. Grammatical knowledge is part of organizational knowledge, while
pragmatic knowledge is composed of functional knowledge (i.e., the ability to use
and understand various functions in a language) and sociolinguistic knowledge (i.e.,
to use language appropriately for the context, dialectal variation, register, etc.). In
this model, performing a linguistic act involves some or all of these components.
216 Lynn Pearson
For example, formulating a request requires accessing the linguistic materials from
organizational competence, (e.g., specific vocabulary and verb forms). The compo-
nents of pragmatic competence imbue the forms with specific functions and social
meanings to convey the linguistic action.
3. Teaching L2 pragmatics
Given the complexity of speaking appropriately in the TL, many learners require
pedagogical intervention to develop pragmatic competence. In the ILP field, there
now exists a substantial body of research on the effectiveness of teaching pragmatics
in L2 courses (Taguchi 2015). Despite the evidence that it can be taught, pragmat-
ics instruction remains limited or absent in many courses. Various researchers have
explained the possible reasons for the lack of pragmatics in TL instruction. Sykes
(2010) observes that the information gathered by researchers about the feasibility of
teaching pragmatics may not be readily accessible to instructors. Wyner and Cohen
(2015) note that teacher training often does not include pragmatics. Even when
instructors learn about pragmatics in their course work, the knowledge may be too
theoretical to easily put into practice in the classroom (Ishihara 2010). Teachers may
feel insecure about their abilities to teach this area of language and evaluate students’
learning. In response, ILP researchers have produced materials for teaching pragmat-
ics that are on the Internet for both instructors and learners (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig
and Mahan-Taylor 2003; Félix-Brasdefer 2011; Sykes and Cohen 2008). There are
also several print resources to help instructors prepare lessons for developing prag-
matic competence in their classes (e.g., Ishihara and Cohen 2010; Martínez-Flor
2006; Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2010).
Another factor limiting the teaching of pragmatics is the view that it should only
be included in more advanced courses when learners have sufficient command of
the TL grammar and vocabulary or for study abroad, so that learners can effectively
interact in immersion contexts. The reality of foreign languages as an academic sub-
ject in the United States is that most students will only take a few required courses,
such as two years in high school (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages 2012) or at university (Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin 2015). Statistics from
the 2013–2014 academic year show that only 9.9 percent of US undergraduates
participated in study abroad and most (62.1 percent) chose short-term programs
(Institute of International Education 2015). Therefore, pragmatics instruction needs
to begin during the first courses, because most learners will not take advanced
courses and very few study abroad. In addition, the current status of Spanish in the
United States makes it likely that learners in lower level courses will encounter NSs
through service-learning courses, volunteer work, or personal contacts. After grad-
uation, students may need to use and comprehend basic Spanish in their professions.
It is necessary for world language curriculum and instructors to teach pragmatic
rules in beginning courses. Due to the low proficiency levels, the expectations for
acquisition of TL pragmatics will be modest. However, this instruction will supply
learners with skills for interacting in the TL as well as give meaningful contexts
for grammatical items that are typically presented in the first-year syllabus. Some
learners believe that their academic L2 courses lack “real-world” expressions, and
teaching pragmatic functions can provide the authenticity that they desire (Magnan
et al. 2012; Magnan, Murphy, and Sahakyan 2014; Pearson 2006b).
4. L2 pragmatic development
To date, there is no order of acquisition for ILP as has been proposed for other areas
of language (e.g., morphology or syntax) (Kasper and Schmidt 1996). Studies indi-
cate some patterns in the initial development with routines and unanalyzed chunks.
With growth of linguistic proficiency, learners are able to deconstruct and access the
linguistic items in order to carry more complex strategies. Later stages of acquisition
show that learners will have more options in their routines and conventionalized
strategies to realize TL SAs. Increased proficiency may lead to changes, such as for-
mulating more indirect strategies to replace the more direct ones, characteristic of
early patterns (Bardovi-Harlig 2008). More advanced learners can draw on more
varied resources to modify their production such as intensifiers (e.g., Muchas gracias,
‘Thank you very much’). and greater sensitivity to contextual variables for using their
linguistic resources will develop. With regard to L2 requests, Kasper and Rose (2002)
propose five stages of development, illustrated with examples from Pearson (2006a):
1) Pre-basic (dependent on context, with no syntax or relational goals): ¿La moch-

ila? ‘The backpack?’ (request to move object)
2) Formulaic (analyzed formulas and imperatives): Quiero las aspirinas, por favor.
‘I want the aspirin, please.’ (want statement)
3) Unpacking (formulas in productive language use and shift to conventional
indirectness): ¿Me puedes dar la revista Time? ‘Can you [informal] give me the
Time magazine?’
4) Pragmatic expansion (addition of new forms to pragmalinguistic repertoire,
increased mitigation, more complex syntax): Necesito que limpies la cocina. Es
(< Está) sucia. ‘I need you [informal] to clean the kitchen. It’s dirty.’ (complex
sentence with explanation)
Stage 5 is “Fine-Tuning” to regulate requestive force according to participants, goals,

and contexts. Novice learners will begin to express their pragmatic acts in the pre-
basic and formulaic stages, and instruction may help them develop strategies from
more advanced stages (3 and 4). There may also be elements of fine-tuning as learners
take into account factors such as hearers and context with vocatives and verb forms.
Adults learning the pragmatics of an L2 contend with a multi-faceted process of
learning linguistic items and sociocultural rules. As Bialystok (1993, 1994) observes,
adult learners have to acquire linguistic material, such as grammar and vocabulary,
to produce and comprehend various structures in the L2 used to carry out linguistic
actions. These learners enter the acquisition process with an L1 pragmatic system
formed through years of training and observation (Koike 1989). Without explicit
218 Lynn Pearson
instruction in classes or through feedback in interactions, they may not notice pos-
sible differences in SA realizations in the TL.
5. Grammar and pragmatic competence

Several researchers have examined the relationship between pragmatic competence
and grammatical competence. Some indicate that learners acquire pragmatic concepts
in the L2 before the grammatical system catches up (Dietrich, Klein, and Noyeau
1995; Eisenstein and Bodman 1986; Ellis 1992; Koike 1989; Schmidt 1983; Salsbury and
Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Walters 1980). This means that SA realizations in the TL will
reflect learners’ proficiency levels to convey the pragmatic information. Other inves-
tigations have produced evidence that grammar precedes pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig
and Hartford 1991; Bodman and Eisenstein 1988; Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Robinson
1992; Rose 2000; Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Takahashi 2001). This phe-
nomenon has been observed when the L2 competence shows the acquisition of
certain grammatical structures; however, the learners do not incorporate them into
their pragmatic production. Learners may also utilize their grammatical competence
to undertake pragmatic functions that deviate from the TL norms.
The instructional approach detailed in this chapter assumes the primacy of prag-
matics over grammar. When beginning their L2 acquisition, adults have already
developed their L1 pragmatic competence. Koike (1989) observes that adult learners
link L1 structures to parallel options in L2 as they acquire the TL in a process of
restructuring to advance through developmental stages. The Spanish directive les-
sons will facilitate these connections between L1 and L2 by teaching learners about
the pragmatic uses of grammatical forms.
6. Spanish directives
Directive SAs were selected because they will be useful to learners in numerous
contexts: formal classes, travel abroad, job, volunteer work, etc. These SAs are poten-
tial threats to the hearer’s needs and wants as speakers express their desires about
the former’s actions. Orders and requests are “impositive” (Haverkate 1984), mean-
ing that the hearer’s actions primarily fulfill the goals of the speakers, as opposed
to “non-impositive” directives, such as suggestions that imply potential benefits to
the hearers if they perform the action proposed by the speakers. Spanish directives
have been extensively researched (see summaries in Félix-Brasdefer 2010; Márquez
Reiter and Placencia 2005; Pearson 2006a) and there are some general tendencies.
First, considerable variation exists with regard to the head act strategies (e.g., ¿Me
das el libro? ‘Will you give me the book?’), which is the main strategy to realize the
SA independent of other possible components, such as alerters (e.g., ¡Oye! ‘Hey!’)
or softeners (e.g., por favor ‘please’) (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989b). Some
dialects (e.g., Argentinean, Cuban, Ecuadorean, Peninsular, Uruguayan) show prefer-
ence for direct strategies, in particular imperative forms (e.g., Limpia la cocina, ‘Clean
the kitchen’). However, other Spanish varieties (e.g., Costa Rican, Mexican, Peru-
vian, Valencian) favor indirect strategies (e.g., ¿Podrías limpiar la cocina? ‘Could you
[informal] clean the kitchen?’). Speakers can select a particular verb form to convey
a different directness level in a request (e.g., present indicative ¿Me puedes ayudar?
‘Can you help me?’ or conditional ¿Me podrías ayudar? ‘Could you help me?’).
Regarding the differences between English and Spanish, there are certain pref-
erences about the head act strategies. Speaker-oriented strategies in requests (e.g.,
¿Puedo tener unas aspirinas? ‘Can I have some aspirin?’) employ the first-person verb
form and represent requests for permission so that speakers can carry out the action
themselves with the hearers’ approval (Márquez Reiter and Placencia 2005). In
hearer-oriented strategies (e.g., ¿Me puede dar unas aspirinas? ‘Can you [formal] give
me some aspirin?’), a speaker names the hearer in the directive act with the second-
person form of the verb so that the latter performs the action. Research about
Spanish requests has shown that hearer-oriented strategies are favored (Blum-Kulka
1989; Ruzickova 1998). However, English requests employ both options (Blum-
Kulka 1989). This contrast between the two languages illustrates a potential transfer
of the L1 pragmatics system for English NSs, and instruction can guide them to
choose more appropriate strategies in Spanish.
Other strategies outside of the head act seen in directive SAs include lexical soften-
ers, such as por favor ‘please’ and other courtesy expressions. Directives strategies may
also utilize diminutives (e.g., Hazme un favorcito, ‘Do me a little favor’), alerters to pre-
view the directive (e.g., Necesito tu ayuda, ‘I need your [informal] help’), and grounders
or explanations (e.g., Se me olvidó la cartera, ‘I forgot my wallet’ in a request for money).
7. Pedagogical models for L2 pragmatics

With the growth of studies about pragmatics instruction, several models have been
proposed in order to apply the research findings in pedagogy. These proposals reflect
various theoretical frameworks in L2 acquisition. The Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt
1995) holds that learners must notice elements in the TL input as a first step in acquisi-
tion. Another cognitive model for L2 pragmatic acquisition is by Bialystok (1993, 1994)
who proposes a framework with two components: 1) the fully formed representation
of pragmatic knowledge that L2 adult learners possess as they undertake acquiring
pragmatic competence in a TL; and 2) the need for the learners to develop control
over attentional resources in order to select appropriate knowledge. Given the fact that
pragmatics is used primarily to create and comprehend meanings in communication,
pedagogy is also based on theories about language use in interactions and social and
cultural contexts. The Interaction Hypothesis (Long 1996) stresses the importance of
conversation for learners to negotiate meanings and receive feedback as a way of devel-
oping their linguistic proficiency. Sociocultural theories view learning as a product of
meaningful interpersonal activities and collaboration with fellow learners and members
of speech communities (Lantolf 2006; Lantolf and Thorne 2007).
The lessons to teach L2 Spanish directives in this chapter incorporate the fol-
lowing activities seen in various pedagogical proposals: consciousness raising, input,
analysis of input, and practice. Usó-Juan (2010) presents activities to teach requests
in English in order to develop sociopragmatic knowledge for using this SA with
learners’ exploration of L1 and L2 strategies and the various factors that affect
220 Lynn Pearson
speakers’ choices. In addition, learners produce request strategies in oral and written
modes and receive feedback from peers about the appropriateness of their requests.
Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen (2012) provide examples of various activities to teach
SAs at the beginning and intermediate levels, which utilize resources in L2 Span-
ish textbooks along with research about the Spanish of native speakers. They focus
on the role of grammar as a communicative resource for SAs and detail a four-
step model to teach L2 Spanish refusals with the following components: 1) raise
awareness about L1 pragmatics; 2) written and oral input of refusal strategies;
3) instruction about pragmatic functions of grammatical forms (e.g., verbal mor-
phology) and discursive elements for mitigation (e.g., tag questions, subordination);
and 4) role-play activities for students to practice the refusals.
Sessarego (2007) proposes a model to teach L2 Spanish pragmatics for beginning
learners and provides guidelines for creating activities with input, which reflects
authentic contexts, but is also accessible for the learners’ lower proficiency level,
cultural knowledge, and experiences. The SA strategies should be similar to the
learners’ L1 and reflect their limited competence with less complex morphologi-
cal forms and syntax. Learners analyze the functions found in conversations in
commercial contexts (e.g., a travel agency) and instructors guide the discussions
to examine other elements (e.g., sociocultural differences and discourse markers).
Learners not only practice role-plays with classmates, but also with NSs or advanced
NNSs to acquire language used in commercial transactions.
Koike (2008) describes an L2 pragmatic “grammar” (i.e., knowledge of prag-
matic expressions and their use) to teach language forms in a “situated context that
illustrates the social dynamics of talk” (p. 47). Instead of a list of strategies, input is
presented in contextualized dialogues in video and written transcripts, with a list of
questions to guide learners’ analysis of pragmatic and linguistic features. Learners
see how choices of grammatical forms conform with various factors (e.g., partici-
pants’ relationships, context, linguistic and sociocultural expectations, etc.). They are
made aware of possible dialectal differences for strategy choice (e.g., an imperative
or a question as a request). The practice begins with controlled dialogues in which
learners choose responses or fill in blanks before moving to full role-plays based
on situations. Like Sessarego (2007), Koike recommends interactions with NSs and
suggests use of Internet tools to facilitate practice.
8. Sample lessons
8.1. Overview
The following activities provide instruction about L2 Spanish directives that utilize
the grammatical forms typically included in the first-year university curriculum and
reflect models of pragmatic instruction by presenting input, facilitating analysis by
learners, and later practice in interactions. The input of Spanish directive forms is
presented in short written dialogues.1 The activities are designed to accompany units
that teach specific verb forms (e.g., modal verb poder and imperative mood) and
indirect objects. Following Koike (2008), the learners analyze the dialogues using
questions to focus their attention on the content so that they can identify the SA
strategies, levels of directness, formality distinctions, modifications to directive acts,
and effects of speaker-hearer relationship and contexts. Learners will also receive
information about sociocultural norms for using directives in the Spanish-speaking
world and the preference for hearer-oriented strategies. Due to the lower linguistic
proficiency of the learners, the dialogues are shorter and the focus of the pragmatic
analysis is limited. For example, NSs may include humor and cultural allusions,
which are difficult for novice learners to understand. Therefore, the overall goal is to
provide a model for teaching pragmatics in beginning level courses, most especially
for learners who are studying Spanish in a foreign language context without oppor-
tunities to interact with NSs. By doing so, the learners can start linking grammatical
forms to pragmatic functions from the earliest stages of their TL learning, which
will aid their acquisition of Spanish grammar as well as develop their pragmatic
competence. The activities also represent an effort to recycle the information about
Spanish directives throughout the first-year curriculum, so that learners acquire a
repertoire of forms with some guidelines about their applications in interactions.
The series of lessons begins with an introduction to pragmatics, in order to
make learners aware of how language is used to carry out different functions and
address hearers. The following two lessons present directive acts realized with spe-
cific grammatical forms: the modal verb poder, use of the indirect object me ‘to me’,
and formal commands.2 The lesson outline is as follows: 1) a sample dialogue with
a brief introduction to explain the context and the relationship between the par-
ticipants; 2) questions for analysis to help notice the directives and other pragmatic
aspects, such as expression of formality or informality (each lesson has a guide for
instructors about the questions’ objectives); and 3) short practice activities of role-
plays with guidelines for learners to formulate their talk (e.g., select their directive
forms and possible strategies to support their SAs, such as explanation, and decide
about formality distinctions). Instructors may also add optional activities to use
directives in writing (e.g., email messages to professors and other addressees). Alter-
natively, instructors can have learners practice the SAs with native Spanish speakers
or advanced NNSs in face-to-face conversations or with Internet tools, such as chat
or Skype. Instructors wishing to use these lessons in the class can do so as a unit on a
particular day, if scheduling allows, or by using the components over a series of days.
8.2. Lesson 1: Introduction to pragmatics
8.2.1. Input
In the first few days of any language course, students learn about ways to greet
different people and introduce themselves. Below are two dialogues featuring intro-
ductions from the first-year textbook Mosaicos (Castells et al. 2015, p. 5):
Antonio: Me llamo Antonio Mendoza. Y tú, ¿cómo te llamas?

Benito: Me llamo Benito Sánchez.
Antonio: Mucho gusto.
222 Lynn Pearson
Benito: Igualmente.
Profesor: ¿Cómo se llama usted?
Isabel: Me llamo Isabel Contreras.
Profesor: Mucho gusto.
These interactions are accompanied by the information about the use of tú and usted;
namely that tú should be used with someone with whom you are on a first-name basis
(children, close friends, relatives) and that usted is employed to show respect or formal-
ity, with titles (doctor/a, profesor/a, señor/a) and for people whom you do not know well.
Instructors can use these conversations and those used to present greetings to
address how language is used in interactions pending on the participants and con-
text as a first step in consciousness raising about pragmatics in L1 and in L2 Spanish.
Some questions for students to analyze pragmatics in their L1 are listed below to
guide the discussion, which will have to be done in English due to the learners’ level
and the complexity of the subject.
8.2.2. Questions for analysis

The following questions help learners to notice pragmatic features in the two
dialogues:
1 Spanish, unlike English, has more than one word for “you.” What do you say
to someone when you want to speak in a formal or respectful way? What do
you say when you want to talk to a friend or family member?
2 Do you notice other ways that speakers use language in English depending on
the situation? Compare how you talk to the people in these situations.
• You arrive at your apartment and your roommate left trash from his party
all over the kitchen, again. You talk to your roommate about cleaning the
kitchen.
• You had an emergency and cannot finish the paper that is due in a course.
You talk to the professor to ask for an extension.
8.2.3. Guide for instructors

The analysis by the students using the questions in 8.2.2 should elicit the following
points:
1 Speakers use titles instead of first names, more formal expressions versus infor-
mal expressions.
2 Students’ responses will likely include information about using titles/address
terms (professor versus dude), direct strategies (e.g., commands “Clean the
kitchen!”) vs. indirect strategies (e.g., polite requests “Would it possible to
get an extension?”), explanations about the requests/commands (e.g., “I had a
family emergency”; “This is the third time you have left a big mess in here!”),
differences in the speakers’ tone of voice (yelling, deferential tone).
The instructor can explain that during the first semester/year of study, students will
learn various ways to use Spanish to address different hearers and to speak appropri-
ately in the different situations; specifically, the focus will be on using directives (SAs
in which one person tells another person to do something—such as requesting,
issuing commands, suggesting, etc.). Many people believe that learning a language
consists of knowing grammatical rules, memorizing vocabulary, and pronouncing
correctly, but there is another area of language called pragmatics, which guides us
to make decisions about our communication. Students will remember that their
parents, teachers, and others taught them to say “please” and “thank you” in order
to be polite. Also, they can think of situations (e.g., writing to request a recommen-
dation letter or apologizing to someone) when they may have thought about how
to word their writing or speech. Pragmatics is the knowledge that helps users of
the language to be courteous and communicate successfully. To emphasize this idea,
students can think of how the hearers would react if the speaker switched the strate-
gies for the two situations, in effect to use the informal and direct language to ask a
professor for an extension (e.g., “Hey dude, give me more time for my paper!”) and
to talk more respectfully with indirect requests to a roommate (e.g., “I wondered if
it would be possible for you to clean up a little bit. I know that you are very busy.”).3
This change should be funny to the students, but it underscores the importance of
language use for appropriate communication.
8.3. Lesson 2: Polite requests with poder and

indirect object pronoun
The request forms in this lesson consist of the verb poder + infinitive with the indi-
rect object pronoun, which specifically indicates the benefit of the hearer’s actions
to the speaker. This particular structure is often realized in English with a speaker-
oriented strategy in the head act (e.g., “Can I have your book?”); however, in
Spanish, the preference is to use a hearer-oriented strategy (e.g., “¿Me puedes dar tu
libro?”). Also, the request structure provides practice of the object pronoun, which is
placed before the conjugated verb, unlike in English where it follows the verb (e.g.,
“Can you give me the book?”).4
8.3.1. Input
Situation: A conversation between two students in the library who are taking the
same class. Next week, there will be a test in the class. One student missed a lecture
and needs notes. The student talks to her classmate about the problem.
Maribel: Hola, Jorge. ¿Cómo estás?

Jorge: Bien. ¿Y tú?
Maribel: Bien. Sabes que perdí la clase de química el lunes pasado y vamos a tomar
el examen 2 esta semana. ¿Me puedes prestar tus apuntes?
Jorge: ¿Mis apuntes?
224 Lynn Pearson
Maribel: Sí, puedo hacer las copias inmediatamente aquí en la biblioteca.

Jorge: Bueno, aquí tienes mi carpeta.
Maribel: Muchas gracias. Te la devuelvo enseguida.
Jorge: Tranquila, no hay prisa. Voy a estar aquí hasta las 9.

The following questions provide guidance to identify the request and other prag-
matic features in the dialogue.
1 What is Maribel asking Jorge?

2 Is this . . . ?
a) a command
b) a suggestion
c) a request
3 Is Maribel speaking in a direct way or indirect way?
4 How would you ask for your classmate’s notes in English? How is that strategy
different than the Spanish request?
5 Is Maribel addressing Jorge formally (usted) or informally (tú)? Why is she using
this treatment? How does Jorge address Maribel and why?
6 What other information does Maribel include when talking to Jorge?
7 What does Jorge say to Maribel’s question?

The questions help learners to do the following:
• Identify and recognize the SA in the conversation (questions 1 and 2).

• Consider the conventionally indirect strategy that is also used in the L1 and the
addition of the indirect object pronoun to connect the hearer’s action to benefit
the speaker (question 3).
• Compare the strategies in English, which uses both speaker-orientation (e.g.,
“Can I borrow your notes?”) and hearer-orientation (e.g., “Can you lend me
your notes?”) more or less equally, with the preference for hearer-orientation
in Spanish (e.g., Me puedes prestar tus apuntes).
• Recognize the use of informal treatment with the tú forms (puedes), which is
appropriate for two classmates (question 4).
• Identify other strategies used by the speaker, such as an alerter about a request
(Sabes que perdí la clase de química la semana pasada) and an assurance about copy-
ing the notes right away (question 5).
• Notice Jorge’s initial response—questioning tone about the notes—which ini-
tiates Maribel’s assurance that she will make copies right away (question 6).
8.3.4. Practice
Students can perform a similar conversation in which they ask a friend to lend
something or request more time for an assignment from a professor.
8.4. Lesson 3: Formal commands

Commands as direct strategies are syntactically less complex than the requests prac-
ticed in Lesson 2. However, the imperative forms of the verbs can be challenging
because it is likely the first encounter that learners have with a change in the theme
vowel of verbs (e.g., -AR > e, -ER/-IR > a). The command forms for Ud. and Uds.
are usually presented in the first semester and the informal commands are taught in
a later unit.5 Because of this sequence, the dialogue and practice feature a context in
which the speaker and hearer address each other formally.
8.4.1. Input
Situation: Conversation between a waiter and a customer at a restaurant adapted
from Gente (De la Fuente, Martín, and Sans 2012, p. 134).
Cliente: Buenas tardes. Disculpe, ¿tienen mesas libres?

Mesero: Sí, pase, pase. Siéntese aquí, por favor. ¿Qué va a pedir?
Cliente: ¿Me puede traer primero una ensalada?
Mesero: Cómo no. ¿Y después?
Cliente: Tráigame por favor un bistec con papas fritas.

The following questions facilitate the students’ discussions about the directive acts
in the restaurant context.
1 Describe the content of the conversation between a waiter and the customer.
2 When the waiter guides the customer to the table, does he use . . .
a) commands
b) requests
c) suggestions
3 These strategies are very direct. How do the speakers make them sound politer?
4 Is there a request in the conversation? Does the speaker provide any explana-
tion? Why or why not?
5 Are the speakers addressing each other formally (usted) or informally (tú)? Why
are they using this treatment?
6 What is the function of “disculpe”?
226 Lynn Pearson

The questions help learners to do the following:
• Comprehend a situation: a customer asks for a table at a restaurant, is seated by

the waiter, and orders food (question 1).
• Identify the strategies formulated with imperative forms (pase, siéntese, tráigame)
(question 2).
• Notice the use of the lexical softener por favor (question 3).
• Identify the use of the request ¿Me puede traer? presented in Lesson 2 and think
about why an explanation is not being used in the restaurant conversation (i.e.,
compliance with customers’ requests is part of the waiter’s job) versus a personal
conversation, in which there is potential imposition on the hearer (question 4).
• Identify the use of usted for the restaurant context to participate in a commercial
transaction (question 5).
• Recognize disculpe, a command, as a way of getting the waiter’s attention
(question 6).
Learners should also be made aware that there is variation of directive forms in the
Spanish-speaking world as seen above due to politeness norms. They may observe
the use of direct strategies, like commands, without any lexical softener. In addi-
tion, they may hear the informal command forms (usually presented in a later unit).
Likewise, in some contexts, more indirect strategies, such as questions with poder
presented in Lesson 2, will be used. The dialogue also shows how different strategies
(commands, polite requests) may occur in the same conversation.
8.4.4. Practice
Students can perform similar conversations to order in restaurants, shop in stores, or
other contexts where services are provided to customers.
9. Conclusion
This chapter has presented activities to teach Spanish directives, which can be used
in conjunction with an existing curriculum focusing primarily on acquisition
of grammatical forms and vocabulary. The lessons proposed in this chapter will
provide learners with the opportunities to gain awareness of Spanish pragmatics
and comprehend the meanings of linguistic items in the TL (e.g., morphemes for
person-number and mood) in communication. The materials represent a first step
for learners to begin developing their TL pragmatic competence and establish a
foundation to acquire more speech functions with a variety of strategies. As learn-
ers advance in their acquisition, the materials used to teach TL pragmatics can
present more complex interactions and learners can undertake their own inves-
tigations about how NSs use language in different contexts (Rose 2012; Shively
2010). Rather than taking time away from the “important” stuff, like grammar and
vocabulary, teaching pragmatics adds input and practice in the TL to contribute to

the acquisition of communicative competence.
Because many lower-division language programs utilize textbooks, the syllabi of
first- and second-year courses at the university is largely determined by the content
of these materials. Basic L2 courses are often taught by graduate students and part-
time instructors, who may feel uncomfortable about adding to the standardized
curricula in their departments or find that there is not enough time to do extra
activities along with the required units. Although ILP researchers have supplied
numerous resources, instruction of pragmatics must be included in more textbooks
to reach the majority of L2 learners at US universities in order to help them acquire
the linguistic and cultural knowledge to participate successfully in interactions with
speakers of the TL in their future professional and personal lives.
Notes
1 The dialogues in this chapter are written, but instructors can make their own recordings
or model the conversations. Two dialogues are from first-year textbooks and the other is
invented by the author. While some researchers have recommended the use of authentic
language in pedagogy used to teach pragmatics (Rose and Kasper 2001), the sample dia-
logues provide input about Spanish directives, which will be comprehensible for novice
learners and readily accessible for instructors. Following the model of the lessons presented
here, instructors can adapt first-year textbooks and other supplementary materials to high-
light target language pragmatics.
2 Other verb forms employed in indirect requests are the conditional (e.g, ¿Me podría dar la
revista? ‘Could you [formal] give me the magazine?’) and the subjunctive (e.g., Quiero que
termines el proyecto, ‘I want you [informal] to finish the project’). They are not included
here due to length considerations and because these structures may not be covered in some
first-year courses. However, instructors can develop similar lessons for these forms using
the format of the sample lessons.
3 A similar consciousness-raising technique can be seen in Rose (1994), where it is asked to
have students focus on changing pragmatic strategies in the L1 to observe the resulting
inappropriateness.
4 For constructions with infinitives, speakers also have the option of attaching the clitic pro-
nouns to the unconjugated form of the verb (e.g., ¿Puedes decirme?).
5 A sample dialogue with informal commands can be found in Koike (2008), which includes
the use of humor and family discourse in Hispanic cultures.
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). 2012. Performance Descrip-
tors for Language Learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. https://www.actfl.org/publications/
guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012.
Alcón Soler, E. and A. Martínez-Flor, eds. 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language
Learning, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bachman, L. and A. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful
Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2008. “Recognition and Production of Formulas in L2 Pragmatics.” In
Understanding Second Language Process, eds. Z. Han and E. Park, 205–222. Clevedon, UK:
228 Lynn Pearson
Bardovi-Harling, K. and B. Hartford. 1991. “Saying ‘No’ in English: Native and Nonnative
Rejections.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Monograph Series Vol. 2), eds. L. Bouton
and Y. Kachru, 41–57. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Bardovi-Harling, K. and B. Hartford, eds. 2005. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional
Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and R. Mahan-Taylor. 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC: United
States Department of State.
Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words
in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bialystok, E. 1993. “Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Com-
petence.” In Interlanguage Pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 43–57. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bialystok, E. 1994. “Analysis and Control in the Development of Second Language Profi-
ciency.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16(2): 157–168.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1989. “Playing It Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness.” In Cross-
Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, eds. S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper,
37–70. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper, eds. 1989a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and
Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper. 1989b. “Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:
An Introductory Overview.” In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, eds. S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, 1–34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bodman, J. and M. Eisenstein. 1988. “May God Increase Your Bounty: The Expression of
Gratitude in English by Native and Non-native Speakers.” Cross Currents 15 (Summer): 1–21.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge:
Canale, M. 1983. “On Some Dimensions of Language Proficiency.” In Issues in Testing
Research, ed. John W. Oller, 333–342. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Castells, M., E. Guzmán, P. Lapuerta and J. Liskin-Gasparro. 2015. Mosaicos: Spanish as a
World Language. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A. 2008. “Teaching and Assessing L2 Pragmatics: What Can We Expect from Learn-
ers?” Language Teaching 41(2): 215–237.
De la Fuente, M., E. Martín and N. Sans. 2012. Gente: Nivel básico. 3rd ed. New York: Pren-
tice Hall.
Dietrich, R., W. Klein and C. Noyeau. 1995. The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Lan-
guage. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Eisenstein, M. and J. Bodman. 1986. “’I Very Appreciate’: Expressions of Gratitude by
Native and Non-Native Speakers of American English.” Applied Linguistics 7(2): 167–185.
Ellis, R. 1992. “Learning to Communicate in the Classroom.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 14(1): 1–23.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. 2007. “Pragmatic Development in the Spanish as a FL Classroom:
A Cross-sectional Study of Learner Requests.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 253–286.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. 2010. “Intra-Lingual Pragmatic Variation in Mexico City and San José,
Costa Rica: A Focus on Regional Differences in Female Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics
42(11): 2992–3011.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. 2011. “Indiana University Pragmatics Website [Refusals].” https://prag

matics.indiana.edu.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language
Félix-Brasdefer, J. and D. Koike. 2014. “Perspectives on Spanish SLA from Pragmatics and
Discourse.” In The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte,
25–43. New York and London: Routledge.
Goldberg, D., D. Looney and N. Lusin. 2015. Enrollments in Languages Other than English in
United States Institutions of Higher Education. New York: Modern Language Association.
Haverkate, H. 1984. Speech Acts, Speakers, and Hearers: Reference and Referential Strategies in
Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. 1972. “On Communicative Competence.” In Sociolinguistics, eds. J. Pride and
J. Holmes, 269–293. Harmonsworth: Penguin.
Institute of International Education. 2015. Open Doors Report on International Educational
Exchange. New York: Institute of International Exchange.
Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research and Teacher Edu-
Ishihara, N. and A. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture
Meet. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.
Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 1999. “Pragmatics and SLA.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
19: 81–104.
Kasper, G. and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Koike, D. 1989. “Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlan-
guage.” Modern Language Journal 73(3): 279–289.
Koike, D. 2008. “A Grammar of L2 Pragmatics: Issues in Learning and Teaching.” In Concep-
tions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom, eds.
S. Katz and J. Watzinger-Tharp, 35–52. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Koike, D., L. Pearson and C. Witten. 2003. “Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis in Span-
ish Second Language Acquisition Research and Pedagogy.” In Spanish Second Language
Acquisition: State of the Science, eds. B. Lafford and R. Salaberry, 160–185. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Lantolf, J. 2006. “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning: State of the Art.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(1): 67–109.
Lantolf, J. and S. Thorne. 2007. “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.” In
Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, eds. B. VanPatten and J. Williams,
201–224. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1982. “The ‘What’ of Second Language Acquisition.” In On TESOL ’
81, eds. M. Hines and W. Rutherford, 107–128. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Long, M. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.”
In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413–468. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Magnan, S., D. Murphy and N. Sahakyan. 2014. “Goals of Collegiate Learners and the
Standards for Foreign Language Learning.” Modern Language Journal Monograph Series
98(S1): 1–11.
Magnan, S., D. Murphy, N. Sahakyan and S. Kim. 2012. “Student Goals, Expectations, and
the Standards for Foreign Language Learning.” Foreign Language Annals 45(2): 170–192.
Márquez Reiter, R. and M. Placencia. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
230 Lynn Pearson
Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. “A Comprehensive Pedagogical Framework to Develop Pragmat-

ics in the Foreign Language Classroom: The 6Rs Approach.” Applied Language Learning
16(2): 39–63.
Martínez-Flor, A. and E. Usó-Juan, eds. 2010. Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and
Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pearson, L. 2006a. “Patterns of Development in Spanish L2 Pragmatic Acquisition: An
Analysis of Novice Learners’ Production of Directives.” Modern Language Journal 90(4):
473–495.
Pearson, L. 2006b. “Teaching Pragmatics in Foreign Language Classes: What Do Learners
Think?” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 11), eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. Félix-
Brasdefer and A. Omar, 109–132. Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curricu-
lum Center University of Hawaii.
Robinson, M. 1992. “Introspective Methodology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research.” In
Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language (Technical Report No. 3), ed. G. Kasper,
27–82. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of
Hawaii at Manoa.
Rose, K. 1994. “Pragmatic Consciousness-Raising in an EFL Context.” In Pragmatics and
Language Learning (Vol. 5), eds. L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, 52–63. Urbana-Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois.
Rose, K. 2000. “An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study of Interlanguage Pragmatic Develop-
ment.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1): 27–67.
Rose, K. 2005. “On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics.” System 33(3):
385–399.
Rose, M. 2012. “Grammar in the Real World: Enhancing Grammar Lessons with Pragmat-
ics.” Hispania 95(4): 670–680.
Rose, K. and G. Kasper, eds. 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ruzickova, E. 1998. “Face, Face-threatening Acts and Politeness in Cuban Spanish.” PhD
diss., University of Pittsburgh.
Salsbury, T. and K. Bardovi-Harlig. 2001. “I Know What You Mean, But I Don’t Think So:
Disagreements in L2 English.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning (Vol. 10), ed. L. Bou-
ton, 131–151. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language,
University of Illinois.
Schmidt, R. 1983. “Interaction, Acculturation and the Acquisition of Communicative Com-
petence.” In Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition, eds. N. Wolfson and E. Judd,
137–174. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role
of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language
Learning (Technical Report #9), ed. R. Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Searle, J. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sessarego, C. 2007. “La enseñanza de la pragmática: Principios de un enfoque didáctico para
nivel principiante en un entorno universitario anglófono.” Hispania 90(2): 316–327.
Shively, R. 2010. “From the Virtual World to the Real World: A Model of Pragmatics Instruc-
tion for Study Abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 43(1): 105–137.
Sykes, J. 2010. “(In)commensurable Discourse: Researchers and Practitioners Bring Prag-
matics to Language Learning.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 3(1): 253–263.
Sykes, J. and A. Cohen. 2008. “Observed Learner Behavior, Reported Use, and Evaluation
of a Website for Learning Spanish Pragmatics.” In Second Language Acquisition and Research:
Focus on Form and Function. Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum,
eds. M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán and R. Bhatt, 144–157. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
guistics 31: 289–310.
Taguchi, N. 2015. “Instructed Pragmatics at a Glance: Where Instructional Studies Were, Are,
and Should Be Going.” Language Teaching 48(1): 1–50.
Takahashi, S. 2001. “The Role of Input Enhancement in Developing Pragmatic Compe-
tence.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 171–199. New York:
Usó-Juan, E. 2010. “Requests: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” In Speech Act Performance:
Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues, eds. A. Martínez-Flor and E. Usó-Juan,
237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vellenga, H. 2004. “Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely?” TESL-
EJ 8(2): 1–18.
Walters, J. 1980. “Grammar, Meaning, Sociological Appropriateness in Second Language
Acquisition.” Canadian Journal of Psychology—Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 34(4):
337–345.
Wildner-Bassett, M. 1994. “Intercultural Pragmatics and Proficiency: ‘Polite’ Noises for
Cultural Appropriateness.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 32(1): 3–17.
Wyner, L. and A. Cohen. 2015. “Second Language Pragmatic Ability: Individual Differ-
ences According to Environment.” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5(4):
519–556.
12
WEB-BASED PRAGMATICS
RESOURCES
Techniques and strategies for teaching L2
Spanish pragmatics to English speakers
Victoria Russell
1. Introduction
This chapter describes a web-based tutorial (WBT) that was designed and developed
for teaching Spanish pragmatics to learners whose first language (L1) is English. The
WBT may be used as a self-access instructional resource or it may be incorporated
into classroom-based instruction. In addition, it may be adapted for every level of
Spanish language learner. The purpose of the WBT is to raise learners’ awareness of
their pragmatic strategy use in English and to help them become aware of the simi-
larities and differences between pragmatic strategy use in English and Spanish during
complaint scenarios. All of the content in the WBT is based on available research
findings about complaints and requests at the time of development (Giddens 1981;
Cohen and Olshtain 1981, 1993; Brown and Levinson 1987; Olshtain and Cohen
1989; Pinto 2002; Cohen 2005; Sykes and Cohen 2006). Multimedia tools and
applications are particularly effective for pragmatics instruction because learners are
able to observe native speakers, realizing speech acts with both video and audio input
(Hoven 1999; Kramsch and Anderson 1999; LeLoup and Ponterio 2000; Russell and
Vásquez 2011; Taguchi 2011). In addition to listening to the language that the native
speakers use to perform the speech acts, the inclusion of video input allows learn-
ers to view the speakers’ facial expressions, gestures, and gesticulation. According to
Taguchi (2011), the key features of a multimedia environment, such as input, interac-
tion, and simulation, are also key conditions for learning pragmatics.
The chapter begins with an overview of speech acts and politeness theory, which
serve as the theoretical framework for the present WBT. Following this, materials
that are currently available online for teaching pragmatics across a variety of lan-
guages and contexts are examined. The WBT presented in this chapter built upon
current and extended previous work in the field by maximizing the capabilities of
the web-based learning environment to help learners notice the gap between their
Web-based pragmatics resources 233
production and native speaker norms (Schmidt 2001; Schmidt and Frota 1986). Fol-
lowing an overview of the design of the WBT, the chapter concludes with practical
applications, strategies, and instructional techniques for implementing the tutorial
with learners who have varying levels of proficiency in Spanish.
2. Speech acts
One way to help language learners acquire pragmatic competence is to instruct them
on speech acts (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002). Searle (1969) described
speech acts as language users’ attempts to perform specific actions or interpersonal
functions. Some examples of speech acts include apologizing, complaining, compli-
menting, refusing, requesting, and thanking. According to Searle (1969), these types
of functions are typically universal across languages. In order to communicate appro-
priately given specific contexts and speakers, language learners need to understand the
intended (or illocutionary) meaning communicated by speech acts, and they must also
be able to produce speech acts using appropriate language and manner. Therefore,
understanding and producing speech acts according to the surrounding social and
cultural context can be a complex task, even for advanced language learners.
Furthermore, Cohen (1998) suggested that in order to successfully produce
speech acts in the target language, learners need to have sufficient sociolinguis-
tic and sociocultural abilities. Sociolinguistic ability refers to the learner’s ability
to manipulate the appropriate forms and structures as well as the ability to use
the correct register to realize a speech act. Register refers to the style or variety
of language that is used for a particular social setting, audience, and/or purpose.
Cohen (1998) classified errors due to a learner’s lack of sociolinguistic ability as
pragmalinguistic. In other words, learners are aware of which speech act to use
for a given situation; however, they do not know the appropriate forms, structures,
vocabulary items, and/or register in order to formulate a linguistically appropriate
speech act. According to Cohen (1998), acquiring sociocultural ability is a much
more complex issue because it involves knowledge of the social and cultural norms
of the target language, including the personal and situational factors that can affect
how speech acts are realized. Cohen described errors of this type as sociopragmatic,
because the learners do not know which speech act to use for a given situation or
when to use speech acts appropriately.
Cohen (2010) asserted that among members of a given community, many speech
acts follow regular and predicable patterns. However, language learners’ pragmatic
behavior does not always adhere to the expected patterns, especially if they have not
had any instruction on pragmatics. Ishihara and Cohen (2010) stated that without
pragmatics instruction, a learner would need to be fully immersed in the second
language context for at least ten years in order to develop native-like pragmatic
competence. However, even total immersion for extended periods of time does not
guarantee that a learner’s pragmatic ability will become native-like (Bardovi-Harlig
2001; Ishihara and Cohen 2010). Moreover, some studies indicate that pragmatics
234 Victoria Russell
instruction is more beneficial than exposure to the target language culture (Billmyer
1990; Bouton 1994; Lyster 1994; Wishnoff 2000; Yoshimi 2001).
With respect to the instruction of speech acts, several studies support providing
instruction on strategies for learning and performing speech acts (Cohen, Weaver,
and Li 1998; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004; Cohen 2005; Cohen and Ishihara
2005; Cohen et al. 2005). Based on the research cited above, Cohen (2010) set
forth a taxonomy of strategies for learning speech acts, which includes strategies for
learning speech acts initially, strategies for producing speech acts, and metacognitive
strategies for learning and producing speech acts. Cohen’s taxomony will be revis-
ited in greater detail during the discussion of classroom applications of the WBT.
3. Awareness-raising approach to pragmatics instruction

The WBT described in the present chapter takes an awareness-raising approach
to pragmatics instruction; namely, the instructional design of the WBT is based
on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt and Frota 1986; Schmidt 1990, 1993,
2001). Within this framework, attention and awareness play a key role in learning;
therefore, pragmatic information must be consciously noticed and attended to in
order for pragmatics learning to take place (Kasper and Schmidt 1996). According
to Schmidt (2001), noticing, by itself, is not the only necessary ingredient for sec-
ond language acquisition (SLA); he states, “SLA is largely driven by what learners
pay attention to and notice in target language input and what they understand the
significance of noticed input to be” (p. 4). Moreover, attention to input is essential
for storage into short-term memory and it is a critical precursor to hypothesis for-
mation and testing (Schmidt 2001).
Schmidt claimed that learners must notice the gap or the mismatch between
their interlanguage production and the appropriate target language form for acqui-
sition to take place (Schmidt and Frota 1986). In the present WBT, the user interface
design provides the most optimal environment for learners to “notice the gap”
between their production and native speaker norms because they are continually
prompted to compare their written and/or video responses to discourse comple-
tion tasks with those of native speakers. DCTs are open-ended questionnaires that
require learners to respond to a particular scenario. In addition, appropriate and
inappropriate pragmatic strategy use is explicitly pointed out to learners through-
out the WBT, and technology is used to enhance the input in order to facilitate
noticing. This is achieved through text bubbles that appear outside of the video
frame that point out the native speakers’ pragmatic strategy use in real time. While
Sharwood Smith (1981, 1991) proposed that input enhancement should be used to
make specific features of the written input more salient for language learners, the
technology employed in the present WBT makes pragmatic features of the spoken
input more salient for language learners. Therefore, technology has enabled the
notion of input enhancement to be extended in the web-based learning environ-
ment through the use of computer technology to enhance the input. By drawing
learners’ attention to features of the spoken language, they are more likely to notice
the pragmatic strategies that the native speakers use to realize speech acts in Spanish
within the video-based lessons.
4. Politeness theory
Politeness theory also provides a theoretical framework for the WBT described
in this chapter because all complaints—and the requests that result from them—
are potentially face-threatening acts (FTAs). Haverkate (1987, 1994) and Márquez
Reiter (2000) asserted that politeness refers to the linguistic strategies that interlocu-
tors employ in order to maintain the equilibrium of interpersonal relationships.
Communicative acts are deemed polite or impolite based upon the social standards
of a given community (Werkhofer 1992). Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) pro-
posed a framework of politeness that emphasized the concept of face, which is the
self-image that individuals present to others. This framework includes the notions
of saving and losing face as well as the assumption that all competent adult members
of a community are concerned about their face while recognizing that others have
similar face concerns. Losing face refers to being humiliated or embarrassed, and it
is closely related to the culturally accepted norms of linguistic politeness that may
vary from one community to another. During conversations, speakers strive to save
their own face, but it is considered polite to protect the face of the hearer as well.
Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) framework includes both positive and nega-
tive face. Positive face refers to an individual’s desire to seek approval and acceptance
from at least one other person while negative face refers to an individual’s desire to
be unobstructed by others. In other words, negative face is the desire to act while
being free of any impositions by others. Face-threatening acts (FTAs) are those that
are contrary to the speaker and/or the hearer’s positive or negative face. Brown and
Levinson asserted that negative face is a more powerful force than positive face; they
also suggested that some speech acts, such as requests and complaints, automatically
pose a threat to the face needs of the hearer and/or speaker. According to their
framework, the level of politeness or face-work required is dependent upon three
factors: (1) the social distance between the speaker and the hearer, (2) the power
difference between the speaker and the hearer, and (3) the degree of imposition on
the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1987). Given that the WBT focuses on speech
acts that can be perceived as FTAs by speakers and/or hearers, it was important to
include instruction on politeness theory within the tutorial. One of the instruc-
tional goals of the WBT described in this chapter is to help learners save their
own face while protecting the face of their hearer during complaint scenarios in
Spanish.
5. Online resources for teaching pragmatics

Resources that are currently available on the Internet for pragmatics instruction
fall into four main categories: (1) websites that provide information on how to
teach pragmatics (for instructors, researchers, and graduate students), (2) lessons
and resources for English language learners, (3) lessons and materials for Japanese
language learners, and (4) lessons and resources for Spanish language learners.
A current list of pragmatics websites and an overview of the materials and resources
that each website provides are presented in Appendix A.
Three websites provide general information on the field of pragmatics as well as
specific information on techniques, strategies, activities, and/or lessons for teach-
ing pragmatics. These websites are generally intended for instructors, researchers,
and/or graduate students, and they provide many helpful resources for instructors
to design their own pragmatics-focused lessons for the language(s) that they teach.
With respect to pragmatics-focused materials for English language learners, there
are open access resources available for both children and adults on the Internet. Of
the few pragmatics-focused materials that are available on the Internet for Japanese
and Spanish language learners, they all appear to target adult language learners.
There are three open access websites currently available for the instruction of
Spanish pragmatics. The Dancing with Words website is the most comprehensive, as
it includes modules for the instruction of numerous speech acts in Spanish, includ-
ing compliment sequences, expressing gratitude, leave taking, requests, apologies,
invitation sequences, service encounters, advice, suggestions, disagreements, com-
plaints, and reprimands. It also provides an introduction to the field of pragmatics
and additional resources for approximating more native-like performance of speech
acts in Spanish. The Discourse Pragmatics website provides information on pragmatic
variation that occurs between ten different Spanish-speaking countries, including
the United States. It also offers information on linguistic politeness and instruc-
tion on apologies, complaints, compliments, refusals, requests, and suggestions. The
Discourse Pragmatics website also includes exercises, resources, and lesson plans for
teaching Spanish pragmatics; however, it does not include video-based lessons. The
Pragmatics en español website complements the present body of materials that are
currently available on the Internet for instruction on Spanish pragmatics; namely,
it provides video-based instruction on complaint scenarios, which is a context that
is not represented on the Dancing with Words website. In addition, its user interface
and innovative use of technology differ considerably from the other websites that
offer Spanish pragmatics instruction. The Dancing with Words website only allows
text responses to DCTs, while both text and video responses are possible on the
Pragmatics en español website. Therefore, the multimedia environment is optimized
by offering a unique and highly interactive user interface where learners may record
a video response (using their web cams) to the two DCTs that are presented in the
tutorial. Furthermore, the Pragmatics en español website makes use of computerized
visual input enhancement to point out native speaker pragmatic strategy use in real
time to learners.
Although there are some materials available on the Internet for pragmatics
instruction at present, a review of the websites listed in Appendix A demonstrates
that—of the few resources that are available—the majority focus on either English
or Spanish as a foreign language. Given that web-based environments may provide
the most optimal environment for learning pragmatics (Taguchi 2011), many more
resources need to be developed for teaching pragmatics across a variety of languages

and proficiency levels.
6. Components of the WBT

The WBT described in this chapter may serve as a model for others to design and
develop their own pragmatics tutorials for the languages and levels that they teach.
Therefore, a brief overview of the components that were included in the present
WBT is provided here.
The first element to consider is the layout; it was designed to be circular rather
than linear in nature (see Figure 12.1). In other words, learners do not have to
move in a lock-step fashion through the tutorial; rather, they are able to begin
anywhere that they like, which encourages them to navigate to areas of the website
that capture their attention. The WBT has four main components as follows: (1) an
introduction to pragmatics, (2) two self-contained video-based lessons, (3) an inter-
active assessment, and (4) resources for developing pragmatic competence.
6.1. Homepage
After learners enter the WBT through a splash page that lists the technical require-
ments for using the tutorial, they land on the homepage that introduces them to
the field of pragmatics. On the homepage, an animation is used to illustrate the
Introduction
to Pragmatics
Lesson 1 or
Resources
Lesson 2
Interactive
Assessment
FIGURE 12.1 Circular design of the WBT

need for foreign and second language learners to study pragmatics. The animation
demonstrates the sociocultural differences between American and Mexican cultures
with respect to the amount of personal space that is considered to be appropriate
and how these differences can lead to misunderstandings between cultures. Since
this is a sociocultural difference of which many learners are already aware, it builds
on learners’ prior knowledge and provides a starting point for them to understand
the importance of acquiring pragmatic competence in Spanish. Visit www.slai
tresearch.com to view the homepage of the WBT.
The homepage also contains two navigation areas, one across the top of the
page and one on the left-hand side of the page. The navigation bar across the top
remains static throughout the WBT and has links in the shape of talk bubbles that
contain the following headings: (1) Pragmatics, (2) Lessons, (3) Assessment, and
(4) Resources. The navigation area on the left-hand side of the page has a link to the
pragmatics lessons, a link to the introduction to the field of pragmatics, and a link
to the interactive assessment. The left-hand navigation bar provides a more detailed
description of each area of the tutorial than the navigation bar located across the
top, which only contains headings.
6.2. Introduction to pragmatics page

When learners navigate to the introduction page, they have two options: (1) they
may view a mini tutorial that takes approximately five minutes to play or (2) they
may read a text-based version of the pragmatics introduction. The mini tutorial con-
tains both audio and visual support; while learners listen to an audio presentation, a
slideshow with bulleted points of the most salient information plays automatically.
The text-based presentation contains the same information as the mini tutorial, but
there is no audio and the text is static on the page. These options provide learners
with the autonomy to select the modality in which they prefer to access information.
Both versions of the introduction to pragmatics provide information on speech acts,
face or politeness systems, and pragmatic error types. The introduction also provides
examples of speech acts as well as examples of pragmatic errors in English. However,
if learners do not wish to spend time on the introduction, they may learn about
pragmatics experientially while they work through the video-based lessons.
6.3. Video-based lessons

From the main lessons page of the WBT, learners are able to select from two stand-
alone video-based lessons: one that presents a familiar complaint scenario and
another that presents a formal complaint scenario. Because both lessons contain
DCTs that require learners to make requests and because all requests are potentially
FTAs, information on FTAs is presented at the top of the page for students. The
main lessons page also contains the following list of four learning objectives that
students should master by working through the video-based lessons.
At the end of each lesson you will be able to:
1) Notice the strategies that you use to complain in English.

2) Recognize how you transfer your pragmatic knowledge of English into Spanish,
either appropriately or inappropriately.
3) Identify the strategies that native speakers of Spanish use to complain in both
public and private settings.
4) Understand the various social factors and language strategies that are important
when complaining in Spanish.
Lesson 1 places learners in an informal complaint scenario (speaking with a room-

mate) and Lesson 2 situates them in a formal complaint scenario (speaking with
a hotel employee). For each of these lessons, learners complete a DCT—which is
a complaint scenario—that requires them to make a request in Spanish. Research
has shown that among native speakers of Spanish from a wide variety of Spanish-
speaking countries, over 90 percent of complaints result in a request for an action
to repair the grievance, and requests of this nature are typically perceived as FTAs
(Giddens 1981; Pinto 2002). When making their requests, learners are prompted to
take into account factors such as the social distance and power difference between
the speaker and the hearer, and the degree of imposition on the hearer. They are
also given background information on the native speakers in the video-based les-
sons; namely, they are provided with social factors such as their age, relationship
with each other, country of origin, and, for the native Spanish speakers, the number
of years spent living in the United States. Learners are informed that these and
other factors contribute to pragmatic variation among native speakers from differ-
ent backgrounds.
At the beginning of each lesson, learners view a short video that introduces the
complaint scenario between two interlocutors in English. At the end of the video
introduction in English, the DCT for the complaint scenario appears in text for-
mat and learners are then prompted to complete the DCT in their L1 using a text
box to capture their written responses. After learners submit their responses, they
are prompted to compare them with the most common strategies that are used in
English for the speech acts required by the DCT. After viewing the list of com-
mon strategies used in English for making requests—which appears to the left of
students’ responses on the web page—learners are then prompted to view the con-
clusion of the video where the native English speakers complete the DCT. By first
completing the DCT in their L1 followed by learning about pragmatic strategy use
in English, learners’ awareness is raised as they listen for the pragmatic strategies that
the native English speakers use during the conclusion of the complaint scenario in
English. The English portion of the lesson then concludes with a page that provides
the full written transcript of the conversation in English, and learners are asked to
compare their production with that of the native English speakers in the video.
Following the lesson in English, learners are provided with the same scenario, but
they must complete the DCT in Spanish. They have the option of either recording
a video response or typing their responses in a text box in Spanish. After students
create their response, they are taken to a page that displays explicit information
regarding appropriate versus inappropriate pragmatic transfer from English to Span-

ish. Visit www.slaitresearch.com (Lessons 1 and 2) to view the instructions that
students receive on appropriate versus inappropriate pragmatic transfer.
Each lesson concludes with the full complaint scenario in Spanish with text
bubbles that point out pragmatic strategy use in real time beside the video frame.
While it is difficult for language learners to recognize pragmatic strategy use during
real-time conversations (Kasper 1996; Kasper and Schmidt 1996), the user interface
design of the WBT is able to make these strategies more salient for learners through
computerized visual input enhancement. Visit www.slaitresearch.com (Lessons 1
and 2) to view the text bubbles that indicate the native speakers’ pragmatic strat-
egy use during real-time conversations. At the end of the lesson, learners are also
provided with the full transcript of the conversation in Spanish and they are encour-
aged to download it and to compare it with their own production.
6.4. Game-based assessment

The WBT’s assessment was designed as an interactive game in order to motivate
learners to attempt it multiple times. On the assessment page, two black talk bubbles
appear in the middle of the page, one for “native speaker” responses and another
for “non-native speaker” responses. A DCT appears at the top of the page, and
learners are prompted to determine which responses were made by Spanish lan-
guage learners and which were made by native Spanish speakers. Four responses
appear on each page, and learners must drag and drop the letter that appears next to
each response into the appropriate black talk bubble (native speaker or non-native
speaker). The instructions indicate that there may be multiple native or non-native
speaker responses on each page. The goal of the assessment is for learners to rec-
ognize both appropriate and inappropriate pragmatic strategy use in Spanish. After
learners drag and drop all of the responses into the black talk bubbles, they are then
prompted to check their answers before moving on to the next item in the game.
However, learners may click “Reset” if they wish to change their responses. When
they click “Check Answer,” they are only told if their answers are correct or incor-
rect. Once they complete all items in the game, they are given the number of items
that were correct, the number that were incorrect, and their total score. After view-
ing their total score, learners are prompted to “Play Again.” Since the game-based
assessment contains the same two DCTs that appear in the video-based lessons, the
instructional content of the WBT is reinforced during the assessment. Visit www.
slaitrsearch.com to explore the assessment portion of the WBT.
Data for the assessment were elicited from ten native speakers of Spanish who
were working as Spanish teaching assistants (TAs) at a large urban university in the
southeastern US, and from two classes of second-semester university students of
Spanish. The native and non-native speakers of Spanish completed the two DCTs
from the WBT, and their responses were examined. Eight pragmatically appropriate
native speaker responses and eight pragmatically inappropriate non-native speaker
responses were incorporated into the game-based assessment.
6.5. Resource pages

The top navigation bar includes a main resource page that contains all of the tran-
scripts from both video lessons (both in English and in Spanish). Ishihara (2010b)
suggested that providing transcripts for videos is beneficial for supporting learners
with lower levels of proficiency when implementing technology-based pragmatics
instruction. The main resource page also includes links to the Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) website; specifically, there are links for
their “Introduction to Pragmatics” page and for their “Dancing with Words” homep-
age. There are also links for students to learn and/or review the specific vocabulary
items that are needed to realize the speech acts that are presented in the two video-
based lessons. In addition, there are links that provide information on the Spanish
language and culture as they relate to the content that is presented in the WBT.
There are two additional resource pages that appear at the end of each les-
son with web-based resources that are specific to each lesson. Each of these pages
includes external links for learners to further explore the linguistic and cultural
information that will help them achieve more native-like production in Spanish
when requesting and complaining in public and private settings. In addition, a
brief explanation of the content and purpose of each link is provided for learners.
Walters (1979) and Rodríguez (1997) asserted that Spanish language learners must
master a wide range of verbal morphology, such as the present indicative tense, the
imperative mood, the conditional mood, and the past subjunctive mood, in order to
realize requests in a manner that is comparable to native speaker norms. In addition
to mastery of the various tenses and moods listed above, learners must also be able
to distinguish when to use formal and familiar language appropriately. The resource
pages at the end of each lesson were designed to support learners with additional
details on the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information that is needed to
request and complain in Spanish with appropriate language and manner.
7. Classroom applications
7.1. Learner proficiency level

This WBT could be used to support language learners who have various levels of
proficiency in Spanish. Novice learners of Spanish receive sufficient scaffolding
to be able to complete the tutorial because the WBT presents the DCTs first in
English prior to presenting the content in Spanish. In addition, English translations
are available for all of the video content that is in Spanish. Furthermore, novice
learners receive an introduction to the field of pragmatics, which could help them
understand the importance of building pragmatic competence from the early stages
of language learning. The WBT could also accompany instruction on the con-
ditional and past subjunctive moods for intermediate level learners, and it could
reinforce these grammatical structures for advanced level learners. With respect to
the lexical items that are employed within the WBT, they are appropriate for both
intermediate and advanced Spanish language learners. Moreover, the content of

the WBT would be suitable for both secondary (grades 6–12) and post-secondary
students of Spanish, and the game-based assessment may be appealing to learners
of all levels.
7.2. Instructional context

The WBT may also be implemented in a variety of instructional contexts. In tra-
ditional face-to-face classrooms where there is no access to computer laboratory
facilities, instructors could print the DCTs and students could fill in their responses
as the instructor walks the class through the WBT using a single computer with
a projector or a smart board to display the content for the class. For instructional
settings with adequate computer laboratory facilities, students could work through
the WBT over several class sessions. Conversely, the WBT may be assigned as a
self-access resource for students to complete independently outside of class time.
Ishihara (2007) suggested using a WBT as an extracurricular activity to support
classroom instruction on apologies and compliments in Japanese. This WBT could
be used in a similar fashion to support classroom instruction of Spanish pragmatics.
Furthermore, the WBT could be incorporated into online Spanish courses either
to supplement existing lessons or to infuse pragmatics instruction into the online
Spanish curriculum. The WBT is an open educational resource; therefore, the URL
may be embedded in online modules without infringing on any copyrighted mate-
rials. Finally, the WBT could be used for pragmatics instruction prior to study
abroad experiences in Spanish-speaking countries. This may be an especially mean-
ingful context because study abroad participants may be particularly motivated to
approximate target language norms in their language production.
7.3. The WBT and Cohen’s (2010) taxonomy

of learner strategies
The WBT may also be implemented in conjunction with Cohen’s (2010) tax-
onomy of strategies for the initial learning of speech acts. Although the taxonomy
is a hypothesized list of strategies that may promote pragmatic development among
language learners, Cohen created it based on the results of several research studies
that investigated strategy use for the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge (Cohen,
Weaver, and Li 1998; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004; Cohen 2005; Cohen et al.
2005; Cohen and Ishihara 2005).
At the initial stages of learning speech acts, Cohen recommends employing four
instructional strategies, the first of which is for students to gather data through inter-
views and observations about how specific speech acts are realized within a given
community while paying close attention to what speakers say and how they say it.
He also recommends that students closely observe the speakers’ non-verbal behav-
ior, such as gestures and facial expressions (Cohen 2010). The video clips from the
WBT described in this chapter could be used for students to collect observational
data about how native speakers of English and Spanish perform speech acts during
complaint scenarios. For this purpose, instructors and/or students would only need
to play the video clips from the tutorial while students take notes on what speakers
say, how they say it, and other paralinguistic cues, such as gesture, gesticulation, and
facial expression. Students could then share and compare their notes prior to viewing
the final video clip from each lesson where the native speakers’ pragmatic strategy use
is pointed out in real time through the text bubbles that appear outside of the video
frame. Students could use this portion of the WBT to check their work.
The second strategy that Cohen (2010) recommends for the initial learning
of speech acts is for students to conduct a lay cross-cultural analysis, the purpose
of which is to compare and contrast the language used as well as the cultural
norms associated with a particular speech act in both the students’ first and second
languages. The present WBT could be used to support the completion of a lay
cross-cultural analysis as suggested by Cohen (2010). Given that the first part of
the WBT already prompts learners to complete DCTs in their L1 in both public
and private settings, instructors could assign the first part of each video-based lesson
for students to complete either on their own or during class. Students could then
research how native Spanish speakers in the field complete the two DCTs from the
WBT, noting the particular language forms and pragmatic strategies that are used.
After completing their research, students could compare their notes from the field
with the linguistic forms and pragmatic strategies that are used by the native speak-
ers in the WBT. Students could then check their research findings from the field
against the information provided in the WBT with respect to positive and negative
pragmatic transfer. If students do not have access to native speakers for field research,
then the instructor could invite a native speaker to class in order to provide data to
compare with the WBT.
Cohen (2010) also recommends asking native or near native speakers to model
the performance of a speech act under differing conditions. For example, the social
factors that Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) described as impacting the level of
politeness necessary between speakers and hearers should be modeled for students.
In other words, learners should be exposed to the same speech act with speakers
and hearers who vary in status, age, and roles; furthermore, the relative magnitude
of the speech act (the degree of imposition) should also vary in order for learn-
ers to observe the differences in language and manner that occur when the same
speech act is performed under varying conditions. The WBT may be employed to
show how the speech acts of requesting and complaining may occur in public (for-
mal) and private (informal) settings, and with interlocutors who are friends versus
those who do not know each other. It should be noted that the relative degree of
imposition is not very great for either scenario presented in the WBT. Therefore,
instructors could expand upon this by asking native speaker guests to model the two
DCTs from the WBT while increasing the magnitude of the request (e.g., asking
for a refund of an entire hotel bill rather than only for the room service breakfast
that was delivered late). These and other changes could be made to the DCTs from
the WBT in order to model speech acts under varying conditions for students. The
language and manner used by the guest native speakers could then be compared to
those of the native speakers from the WBT.
The final strategy that Cohen (2010) lists in his taxonomy for the initial learn-
ing of speech acts is for students to access print and web-based materials that focus
on speech acts. He suggested that students consult self-access websites, second
language textbooks, and research articles to learn how to perform speech acts
appropriately in the target language. The WBT presented in this chapter could
serve as a starting point for students to learn about requests and complaints in
Spanish. Spanish language learners could also access other web-based resources for
learning about speech acts such CARLA’s Dancing with Words website as well as
other links and resources for learning about pragmatics and speech acts that are
provided by the WBT.
8. Conclusion
While there are a number of research studies whose findings indicate that pragmatics-
focused instruction is beneficial for language learners’ acquisition of pragmatic
abilities (Bouton 1994; House 1996; LoCastro 1997; Cohen, Weaver, and Li 1998;
Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004;
Cohen 2005; Cohen and Ishihara 2005; Cohen et al. 2005; Koike and Pearson 2005;
Jeon and Kaya 2006; Ishihara 2007), the majority of foreign language textbooks fail
to include any formal instruction on pragmatics (Pinto 2002). Similarly, Ishihara
(2010a) claimed that of the ESL textbooks that do include pragmatics instruction,
many are insufficient in their treatment of pragmatics and in the quality of prag-
matics instruction that they provide. While there are some web-based materials
available for instruction on pragmatics for English and Spanish language learners,
there are very few pragmatics-focused materials available on the Internet for learn-
ers of other languages. The WBT presented in this chapter helps fill an important
gap and may provide a model for teaching speech acts in a manner that takes full
advantage of the capabilities of the web-based learning environment. The design of
the WBT and the pedagogical rationale for including specific content was described
in detail so that others may replicate the WBT for their own instructional needs
and contexts. Furthermore, the chapter provided a number of practical instruc-
tional techniques for using the tutorial with learners who have varying levels of
proficiency in Spanish. The WBT presented in this chapter is open and available for
instructors, students, and researchers alike at: www.slaitresearch.com.
References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. “Empirical Evidence of the Need for Instruction in Pragmatics.”
In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, 13–32. Cambridge:
Billmyer, K. 1990. “I Really Like Your Lifestyle: ESL Learners Learning How to Compli-
ment.” Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6(2): 31–48.
Bouton, L. 1994. “Can NNS Skill in Interpreting Implicature in American English be

Improved through Explicit Instruction? A Pilot Study.” In Pragmatics and Language Learn-
ing, eds. L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, Vol. 5, 88–109. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of
English as an International Language, University of Illinois.
Brown, C., C. O’Brien, V. Russell, P. Wahlgren and G. Worley. 2008. “Pragmatics en español.”
www.slaitresearch.com.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.”
In Questions in Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. Ester N. Goody, 56–310. Cam-
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. 2015. “Pragmatics and Speech
Acts.” www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/.
Cohen, A.D. 1998. “Contrastive Analysis of Speech Acts: What Do We Do with the Research
Findings?” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies 12: 81–90.
Cohen, A.D. 2005. “Strategies for Learning and Performing L2 Speech Acts.” Intercultural
Cohen, A.D. 2010. “Strategies for Learning and Performing Speech Acts.” In Teaching and
Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and A. D Cohen,
227–243. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A.D. and N. Ishihara. 2005. A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts.
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of
Minnesota. www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/Japanese%20speech%20act%20report%20
rev.%20june05.pdf.
Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1981. “Developing a Measure of Sociolinguistic Competence:
The Case of Apology.” Language Learning 31(1): 112–134.
Cohen, A.D. and E. Olshtain. 1993. “The Production of Speech Acts by EFL Learners.”
TESOL Quarterly 27(1): 33–56.
Cohen, A.D., M. R. Paige, R. L. Shively, H. Emert and J. Hoff. 2005. “Maximizing Study
Abroad through Language and Culture Strategies: Research on Students, Study Abroad
Program Professionals, and Language Instructors.” Final Report to the International Research
and Studies Program, Office of International Education, DOE. Minneapolis, MN: Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. www.carla.umn.
edu/maxsa/documents/maxsaresearchreport.pdf.
Cohen, A.D., S. J. Weaver and T. Li. 1998. “The Impact of Strategies-Based Instruction on
Speaking a Foreign Language.” In Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language, ed.
Andrew D. Cohen, 107–156. Harlow: Longman.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2011. “Discourse Pragmatics: Language and Culture Resources for
Instructors, Students, and Researchers of Spanish Linguistics.” Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University. www.indiana.edu/~discprag/index.html.
Giddens, D. 1981. “An Analysis of the Syntax and Discourse of Oral Complaints in Spanish.”
MA diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Haverkate, H., ed. 1987. La Semiótica del diálogo. (Diálogos Hispánicos de Amsterdam No. 6).
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Haverkate, H. 1994. La cortesía verbal: Estudio pragmalingüístico. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
Hoven, D. 1999. “A Model for Listening and Viewing Comprehension in Multimedia Envi-
ronments.” Language Learning and Technology 3(1): 88–103.
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.
Ishihara, N. 2007. “Web-Based Curriculum for Pragmatics Instruction in Japanese as

a Foreign Language: An Explicit Awareness-Raising Approach.” Language Awareness
16(1): 21–40.
Ishihara, N. 2010a. “Adapting Textbooks for Teaching Pragmatics.” In Teaching and Learning
Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and A.D. Cohen, 145–165.
New York: Routledge.
Ishihara, N. 2010b. “Incorporating Technology into Pragmatics-Focused Instruction.” In
Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and
A.D. Cohen, 244–263. New York: Routledge.
Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen. 2006. “Strategies for Learning Speech Acts in Japanese.”
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. University of Minnesota. www.
carla.umn.edu/speechacts/japanese/introtospeechacts/index.htm.
Ishihara, N. and A.D. Cohen. 2010. “Learners’ Pragmatics: Potential Causes of Divergence.”
In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, eds. N. Ishihara and
A.D. Cohen, 75–96. New York: Routledge.
Jeon, E.H. and T. Kaya. 2006. “Effects of L2 Instruction on Interlanguage Pragmatic Devel-
opment: A Meta-Analysis.” In Synthesizing Research on Language Teaching and Learning, eds.
John M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega, 165–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kasper, G. 1996. “Introduction: Pragmatics in SLA.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition
18(2): 145–148.
Kasper, G. 1997. “Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught?” (NetWork #6). Honolulu:
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. www.nflrc.
hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/.
Kasper, G. and K. R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Koike, D. 2010. “Pragmatics.” In Foreign Language Teaching Methods, eds. C. Blyth and
H. Kang. Austin: Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning
(COERRLL), The University of Texas. https://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/
pragmatics/.
Koike, D. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Develop-
ment of Pragmatic Competence.” System 33(3): 481–501.
Kramsch, C. and R. W. Anderson. 1999. “Teaching Text and Context through Multimedia.”
Language Learning and Technology 2(2): 31–42.
LeLoup, J. and R. Ponterio. 2000. “Enhancing Authentic Language Learning Experiences
through Internet Technology.” Report No. EDO-FL-OO-O2. Washington, DC: Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
LoCastro, V. 1997. “Pedagogical Intervention and Pragmatic Competence Development.”
Applied Language Learning 8(1): 75–109.
Lyster, R. 1994. “The Effect of Functional-Analytic Teaching on Aspects of French Immer-
sion Students’ Sociolinguistic Competence.” Applied Linguistics 15(3): 263–287.
Márquez Reiter, R. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
Olshtain, E. and A.D. Cohen. 1989. “Speech Act Behavior across Languages.” In Transfer in
Language Production, eds. Hans Dechert and Manfred Raupach, 53–67. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Paige, M. R., A.D. Cohen and R. L. Shively. 2004. “Assessing the Impact of a Strategies-Based
Curriculum on Language and Culture Learning Abroad.” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad 10: 253–276.
Pinterest. (n.d.). “Pragmatic / Social Language.” www.pinterest.com/sostherapy/pragmatic-

social-language/.
Pinto, D. 2002. “Perdóname, ¿Llevas mucho esperando? Conventionalized Language in L1
and L2 Spanish.” PhD diss., University of California, Davis.
Quiñones, C. 2013. “Teaching and Assessing English Pragmatics Knowledge with Web
Resources.” http://cjq208.wix.com/teachingpragmatics#!websites/c46.
Rodríguez, S. 1997. “Appropriate Requests and the Card Sorting Judgment Task.” Manu-
script, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Russell, V. and C. Vásquez. 2011. “A Web-Based Tutorial for the Instruction of Span-
ish Pragmatics.” International Association for Language Learning Technology (IALLT) Journal
41(2): 27–55.
Schmidt, R. 1990. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.” Applied
Linguistics 11(2): 206–226.
Schmidt, R. 1993. “Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmatics.” In Interlanguage
Pragmatics, eds. G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, 43–57. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. 2001. “Attention.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. P. Robinson,
3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. and S. N. Frota. 1986. “Developing Basic Conversational Ability in a Second
Language: A Case Study of an Adult Learner of Portuguese.” In Talking to Learn: Conversa-
tion in Second Language Acquisition, ed. Richard R. Day, 237–326. Rowley, MA: Newberry.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.”
Applied Linguistics 2(2): 159–168.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. “Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types
of Language Information for the L2 learner.” Second Language Research 7(2): 118–132.
Sykes, J. and A.D. Cohen. 2006. “Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics
in Spanish.” Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, The University of
Minnesota. www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html.
guistics 31: 289–310.
United States Department of State (n.d.). “American English: A Website for Teachers and
Learners of English as a Foreign Language Abroad.” http://americanenglish.state.gov/
resources/teaching-pragmatics.
Walters, J. 1979. “The Perception of Politeness in English and Spanish.” In On TESOL ’79,
eds. C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins and J. Schachter, 288–296. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Werkhofer, K. 1992. “Traditional and Modern Views: The Social Constitution and the
Power of Politeness.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory, and Practice, eds.
R. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 155–197. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wishnoff, J. 2000. “Hedging your Bets: L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in
Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse.” Second Language Studies, Working
Papers of the Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii 19(1): 119–157.
Yoshimi, D. 2001. “Explicit Instruction and JFL Learner’s Use of Interactional Discourse
Markers.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, eds. K. Rose and G. Kasper, 233–244. Cam-
APPENDIX A
Online resources for teaching pragmatics
Resources for teachers, researchers, and graduate students

1) https://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/pragmatics/
Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning, University of
Texas at Austin, Foreign Language Teaching Methods: Pragmatics, Author: Dale Koike;
Editor: Carl Blyth.
This website contains four web-based lessons that are taught by Dr. Dale Koike,
who is a Professor of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Texas at Austin.
The first lesson provides an introduction to the field of pragmatics and the topics
include sociocultural norms, speech acts, and face-threatening acts. The second
lesson focuses on language and culture, and Dr. Koike covers language functions,
appropriateness, and L2 sociocultural norms. The third lesson provides examples
of how teachers may incorporate pragmatics instruction in the L2 classroom. This
lesson includes dialogues, formulas, metapragmatic discussions, and information for
building awareness of sociocultural norms. The fourth and final lesson focuses on
the teachability of pragmatics, learner proficiency level, and the evaluation of lan-
guage production. All of the lessons conclude with opportunities for learners to
reflect and review. This is a powerful resource for all language teachers who which
to incorporate pragmatics instruction in their L2 classrooms.
2) www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University
of Minnesota, Pragmatics and Speech Acts, Author: Unknown.
CARLA’s website provides a wealth of information and resources for teaching
pragmatics. There are links and resources on the following topics: background infor-
mation on pragmatics instruction and the second and foreign language curriculum,
descriptions of speech acts, a bibliography on pragmatics and speech acts, a wiki
for second and foreign language teachers, strategy training on the development of
pragmatic ability, information on CARLA summer institutes for language teach-

ers, and links to the Dancing with Words and Strategies for Learning Speech Acts
in Japanese websites. There are also examples of speech acts in American English,
Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, Japanese, and Spanish. Furthermore, the wiki provides a
space for language teachers to share their resources, lesson plans, and videos for the
instruction of L2 pragmatics with others. This feature may be of particular interest to
teachers who are new or less experienced in teaching L2 pragmatics.
3) www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/
National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Can Pragmatic Competence be Taught? (NetWork #6), Author: Dr. Gabriele Kasper.
This was one of the first websites to provide information and resources on prag-
matics instruction. While the website was authored in 1997, most of the research
articles that are cited are seminal articles in the field, and they are still relevant for
language teachers today. The author, Dr. Gabriele Kasper, provides information on
how pragmatic competence figures into the broader construct of communicative
competence. She also provides a clear rationale for the need to include pragmatics
instruction in the second or foreign language curriculum. The studies that are cited
on the website are broken down by the pragmatic topic that is taught, learners’ pro-
ficiency level, the L2, the research goal, and the assessment procedure or instrument.
This information is especially useful for graduate students and researchers who are
interested in conducting research on the acquisition of L2 pragmatic competence.
The author also provides research-based suggestions and resources for learners to
practice L2 pragmatic abilities in the second or foreign language classroom.
Resources for English-language learners

(adults and adolescents)
1) http://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/teaching-pragmatics
United States Department of State, American English: A Website for Teachers and
Learners of English as a Foreign Language Abroad, Author: Unknown.
This website contains 30 separate open-access pragmatics lessons that can be
downloaded and implemented in English as a second or foreign language classroom.
Each lesson plans describes the level of learner that is targeted as well as the peda-
gogical rationale for each activity. Some of the lesson titles include: “Greetings with
a Difference,” “Are you Listening (Backchannel Behaviors),” “Using the Telephone
to Teach Pragmatics,” “Giving and Responding to Compliments,” “The Rules of
the Queue,” and many more. This is an outstanding resource for teachers who are
new or less experienced in providing instruction on L2 pragmatics.
2) http://cjq208.wix.com/teachingpragmatics#!websites/c46c
Open Access Website, Teaching and Assessing English Pragmatics Knowledge with
Web Resources, Author: Candice Quiñones.
The author of this website compiled a number of links and resources for the
instruction of L2 pragmatics to English language learners. The materials include
audio, visual, and text-based resources. There are also brief tips and suggestions for
incorporating the materials into classroom instruction.
Resources for English-language learners (children)

1) www.pinterest.com/sostherapy/pragmatic-social language/
Pinterest, Pragmatic/Social Language, Author: Unknown.
This open-access website allows teachers to post and share pragmatics materials
for young children. While most of the materials are geared to native speakers of
English, these materials are also appropriate for young English language learners.
Some of the topics include learning social skills, norms regarding personal space,
appropriate ways to express being upset, and working in groups to name a few.
There are lesson plans, resource folders, and editable classroom activities available
on this website.
Resources for Japanese language learners

1) www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/japanese/introtospeechacts/index.htm
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Min-
nesota, Strategies for Learning Speech Acts in Japanese, Authors: Dr. Noriko Ishihara
and Dr. Andrew D. Cohen.
This website was authored by Dr. Noriko Ishihara and Dr. Andrew D. Cohen,
and it contains seven modules for instructing speech acts for intermediate- to
advanced-level learners of Japanese as an L2. The first module provides an intro-
duction to speech acts and it places learners in eight different situations or vignettes
where they have to respond to a scenario in English. These vignettes were designed
to raise students’ linguistic and cultural awareness prior to completing the web-based
pragmatics lessons. The module titles are: “Apologies,” “Compliments/Responses
to Compliments,” “Refusals,” “Requests,” and “Thanks.” There is also a module
on strategies for avoiding negative pragmatic transfer from the L1 (English), as well
as tips and strategies for using appropriate communication strategies in Japanese.
Resources for Spanish language learners

1) www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Min-
nesota, Dancing with Words: Strategies for Learning Pragmatics in Spanish, Authors: Julie
Sykes and Andrew D. Cohen.
The Dancing with Words website is the most comprehensive website that is cur-
rently available for learning speech acts in Spanish. The learning modules focus on
strategy training for the acquisition of pragmatic competence in Spanish. Students
are encouraged to complete the “Introduction to Pragmatics” module prior to
completing the learning modules that focus on specific speech acts. The following
speech acts are presented on this website: “Compliment Sequences,” “Gratitude

and Leave Taking,” “Requests,” “Apologies,” “Invitation Sequences,” and “Ser-
vice Encounters.” The lessons are video-based and are geared for intermediate/
low through advanced/high students of Spanish as a foreign language. Students are
provided with a chart so that they can match their ability level to specific mod-
ules. Furthermore, resources and materials are available for students, teachers, and
researchers.
2) www.indiana.edu/~discprag/index.html
Indiana University at Bloomington, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Dis-
course Pragmatics, Author: J. César Félix-Brasdefer.
The Discourse Pragmatics website provides materials and resources for students,
teachers, and researchers. This website is unique because it highlights the differences
in cultural and pragmatic norms across the Spanish-speaking world, which enables
learners to recognize that Spanish speakers from different regions and countries will
vary in their speech act production and interactional patterns. The countries that
are represented on this website include: Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Spain, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
In addition to information on politeness and speech acts, this website also provides
audio recordings from native Spanish speakers, exercises, and additional resources
that teachers may download and use in their classrooms to teach Spanish pragmatics to
English speakers.
3) www.slaitresearch.com
Pragmatics en español, Authors: Christine Brown, Coby O’Brien, Victoria Russell,
Patrik Wahlgren and Gordon Worley.
This website provides two video-based pragmatics lessons that were designed for
teaching complaints and requests to L2 Spanish learners. The first lesson prompts
learners to complain and request in a familiar setting, and the second lesson pro-
vides instruction on a formal complaint setting. Students may respond to discourse
completion tasks using their web cams, and learners are continually prompted to
compare their production with native speaker norms. The website also contains
a module that provides an introduction to the field of pragmatics, a game-based
assessment, as well as additional resources for learning Spanish pragmatics.
GLOSSARY1
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). A pro-

fessional organization of foreign languages instructor in the US, which has
developed several instruments for measuring the L2 proficiency of students,
among them, the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the World-Readiness
Standards for Learning Languages. www.actfl.org.
additive connectors (conectores aditivos). Discourse markers that connect two
informative segments situated at the same level, or two arguments that lead to
the same conclusion. Examples in Spanish are: aparte, asimismo, es más, etc.
advanced NNSs (hablantes no nativos de nivel avanzado). This term refers to Span-
ish L2 learners with greater proficiency than novice learners in their first year
of study. Although these terms (novice and advanced) reflect the ACTFL Profi-
ciency Guidelines, the “advanced NNSs” described here have not necessarily been
evaluated as having “advanced proficiency” on the ACTFL scale (see ACTFL).
affiliation (afiliación). Affiliation face is a term formulated by Fant (1989, p. 255).
It refers to “inner representation of Self as an accepted member of the group to
which one has an idea of belonging.” Bravo (1999) develops a new approach to
Spanish politeness, claiming that affiliation is related to the individual’s and the
others’ perception of him/herself as part of the group.
anaphoric (anafórico). A linguistic item that refers to something mentioned early
in the discourse, giving rise to a relation of coreference, as in María se está
duchando, where the reflexive se is coreferential with María (i.e., refers to the
same person in the real world), or as in Se lo ofrecí a Juan, pero el tonto no aceptó,
where se Juan and el tonto are coreferential. Juan is anaphoric to el tonto.
1 Please note that the citation references for the glossary are listed at the end of the glossary.
254 Glossary
anthropological culture (cultura antropológica). “Customs, worldview, language,

kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day
practices of a people which set that group apart as a distinctive group” (Scollon
and Scollon 2001, p. 126–127).
argumentative operators (operadores argumentativos). They add content relating
to the argumentation: orientation, force, or argumentative adequacy. Examples
in Spanish are: incluso, por lo menos, preferiblemente, etc.
autonomy (autonomía). Autonomy face is a term formulated first by Fant (1989).
It refers to the inner representation of self as an independent, autonomous
person with an inviolable territory. Bravo (1999) develops a new approach
to Spanish politeness, claiming that autonomy is related to the image that an
individual has of him/herself and to the perception that the others have of the
individual as different from the rest of the group.
cataphoric (catafórico): A linguistic element that refers to something mentioned
later in the discourse, establishing with it a relation of coreference, as in “Los
chocolates belgas les encantan a mis hijos,” where les and a mis hijos are coreferential.
The cataphoric element here is les.
CEFRL (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment) (Marco Común Europeo de Referencia
para las Lenguas: Aprendizaje, Enseñanza, Evaluación (MCER)). Guidelines used
primarily in the European countries to measure the development and the pro-
ficiency of L2 learners. For Spanish, see https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/
biblioteca_ele/marco/default.htm.
chronemics (cronémica). A community’s concept of time and how it is structured
and used.
cognitive pragmatics (pragmática cognitiva). A subfield of pragmatics that puts
the focus on the mental systems and processes that underlie the way in which
meaning is built by considering both the content encoded in sentences and the
set of contextual assumptions (including situation, world knowledge, cultural
norms, etc.).
cognitivism (cognitivismo). Cognitivism is the study in psychology that
focuses on mental processes, including how people perceive, think, remem-
ber, learn, solve problems, and direct their attention to one stimulus rather
than another.
commentary pragmatic markers (comentadores). Term used by Fraser (2009)
for a subtype of pragmatic markers which “signal a comment on the basic mes-
sage: assessment ( fortunately), manner-of-speaking ( frankly), evidential markers
(certainly), hearsay markers (reportedly, allegedly) and (non)deference markers (sir)”
(p. 297). Examples in Spanish are: afortunadamente, por cierto, supuestamente, etc.
communicative approach (enfoque comunicativo). A language learning method-
ology in which the communication of real meaning takes precedence over the
grammatical accuracy. Its main objective is for the learner to acquire enough
competence in L2 as to sustain a meaningful exchange with an interlocutor of
Glossary 255
L1 (see below L1). Basically, when learners get involved in real communica-
tion, their strategies for their first language acquisition are used in order to
learn the new language. Also known as communicative language teach-
ing, notional-functional approach, or functional approach (enseñanza
comunicativa de la lengua, el enfoque nocional-funcional o el enfoque funcional).
communicative competence (competencia comunicativa). Communicative com-
petence refers to a learner’s ability to use language to communicate successfully.
Canale and Swain (1980) defined it as being composed of competence in four
areas: words and rules, appropriateness, cohesion and coherence, and use of
communication strategies.
communicative event (evento comunicativo). A meaningful communication activity
where participants use a set of utterances to perform a linguistic action or
function.
communicative language ability (habilidad lingüística comunicativa). A model
of communicative competence, which separates linguistic knowledge (various
language systems) and skills to use (functional knowledge). See Bachman and
Palmer (1996).
complexity theory (teoría de la complejidad). The study of complex and chaotic
systems and how order, pattern, and structure can arise from them.
conceptual proxemics ( proxémica conceptual). Conceptual proxemics deals with
the habits and beliefs pertaining to the concept of space of a certain community
or culture (if it is considered to be concrete or abstract, material and tangible
or intangible, and why), to the distribution of space (the layout of cities, towns,
homes and furniture, parks, different types of premises, and so on), and to the
influence of all this on human behavior (order or disorder in arranging objects,
waiting in line, or respect for prohibited or private spaces).
conceptual time (tiempo conceptual). Conceptual time is formed by the behav-
ior and beliefs of different cultures relative to their concept of time, such as
whether or not they value it or consider it to be concrete or abstract, material
and tangible or intangible, and why. It also refers to those beliefs concern-
ing the distribution of time in different communities and its influence on
human behavior, like planning time and regularly carrying out several activities
at once.
concessives connectors (conectores concesivos). Concessive connectors introduce
a result contrary to that which would be expected to follow from the cause.
The earlier argument is an obstacle to the fulfillment of the principal argu-
ment, but the speaker does not take it into consideration. Examples in Spanish
are: aun así, con todo, de cualquier forma, etc.
conclusion connectors (conectores conclusivos): Markers that introduce a conclu-
sion which brings the foregoing arguments to a close. Examples in Spanish are:
en suma, total, al fin y al cabo, etc.
connectors (conectores). Connectors are free units, independent of the verb in
the sentence, whose discourse function is to establish the relationship between
256 Glossary
two clauses or minor segments. Examples in Spanish are: por otra parte, además,
encima, etc.
consciousness-raising (estímulo de la conciencia). It is a teaching approach or
technique intended to help learners notice something about the language using
their intellectual and cognitive capacities to become aware of language struc-
ture and use (Sharwood Smith 1983).
consecutive connectors (conectores consecutivos). These connectors introduce the
result of an action. Examples in Spanish are: por (lo) tanto, en consecuencia, por
ende, etc.
context (contexto). Context is usually understood as: (1) the physical context that
encompasses what is physically present around the speakers/hearers at the time
of communication; (2) the linguistic context, namely what has been said in
the conversation; (3) the social context, which is the social relationship of the
people involved in communication; and (4) the knowledge and beliefs of the
speaker and the hearer (epistemic knowledge). The linguistic context is also
sometimes referred to as co-text.
COSOPRAG (COSOPRAG). It is a research project aimed at creating a model
for registering socio-pragmatic forms of conduct that will allow to formulate
general categories suitable for the study of the linguistic production from dif-
ferent varieties of Spanish. http://edice.org/cosprag.
co-text (co-texto). See context.
counter-argument connectors (conectores contra-argumentativos). Connectors
that indicate counter-possibility, contraposition, and concession. Examples in
Spanish are: por el contrario, ahora bien, eso sí, etc.
cultural appropriation (apropiación cultural ). A process in which practices or
products associated with members of a minority group are adopted and adapted
for use or consumption by members of the dominant group.
cultural signs and systems (signos y sistemas culturales). The set of behavioral
and environmental habits and beliefs of a community that communicate both
in the widest and the strictest senses of the word.
culture (cultura). The whole set formed by knowledge, beliefs, customs and com-
mon practices, etc. that is largely distributed among the members of a social
group, who see it as their own.
deixis (deíxis). Indicate the way in which the reference of certain elements
in a sentence is determined in relation to a specific speaker and addressee,
and a specific time and place of utterance. For instance, in “Usted llegó aquí
ayer,” the reference of usted is the interlocutor of the speaker, the reference of
aquí is the place where the exchange occurs, and the reference of ayer is the
day before the one in which the exchange takes place. Discourse deixis
(la deixis discursiva) refers to anaphoric and cataphoric elements (see entries
for these terms).
Discourse Completion Test/Task (DCT) (Prueba/tarea de finalización del
discurso o cuestionario/tarea de producción). An open-ended questionnaire that
require learners to respond to a particular scenario either orally or in writing.
Glossary 257
It is a linguistic tool designed, in particular, to elicit particular speech acts where

participants provide responses to a situational prompt.
discourse markers (marcadores del discurso). These are linguistic terms that lack
referential content, and, instead, have a procedural role, generally parentheti-
cal. They guide the inferences of the listener or reader when interpreting a
message, and they perform macrostructural functions, such as connecting
and/or structuring information. Examples in Spanish are: es más, en cambio,
vamos, etc.
discourse structure markers (marcadores que estructuran el discurso). Term used
by Fraser (2009) for a subtype of pragmatic markers that “signal an aspect of
the organization of the ongoing discourse”: discourse management (in sum-
mary), topic-orientation (returning to my previous topic) and attention markers
(look) (p. 297). Examples in Spanish are: volviendo al tema, mira, en resumen, etc.
discursive competence (competencia discursiva). The user’s capacity to organize
sentences in sequences in order to produce coherent messages.
discursive politeness (cortesía discursiva). Discursive politeness has the social
function of showing listeners’ interest in the interlocutor as a competent speaker
and involvement in their conversation. See also politeness.
Dual Process Theory (teoría del proceso dual). Dual Process Theory builds on
current “advances on cognitive science and consider(s) findings on the neu-
rological and cognitive processes involved in humor interpretation” with the
intention of developing a unified theory of humor (Boyang 2016, p. 861).
EDICE Program (Programa EDICE ). EDICE stands for Estudios sobre el Discurso
de la Cortesía en Español (Studies on the Discourse of Politeness in Spanish),
an international research network based in Sweden about linguistic, social,
and cultural aspects of Spanish and all its variants, focusing particularly on
(im)politeness phenomena and related sociopragmatic notions (such as identity
and face). See www.edice.org.
elite bilinguals (bilingüe de élite, o por privilegio). Those learners who acquire a
second language by their own choice, often in a classroom, as opposed to those
who learn it for economic reasons, often in non-academic settings.
enunciative operators (operadores enunciativos). Enunciative operators mark the
way to speak, to enunciate (sincerely, honestly, frankly); or they indicate who the
speaker is and how he/she is responsible for the act of speaking. Examples in
Spanish are: sinceramente, presumiblemente, que yo sepa, etc.
ethnic commodification (mercantilización de la etnicidad). A process in which
practices or products associated with an ethnic group—such as language, fes-
tivals, or cuisine—are commercialized and marketed to outgroup members.
evidentials (marcadores de evidencialidad). Linguistic elements that encode the
different ways in which knowledge is acquired or the source of information
(Alvarado Ortega 2016). An example in Spanish is: dizque.
exemplification connectors (conectores de ejemplificación). Markers that introduce
an example whose role is to justify the conclusion being reached. Examples in
Spanish are: por ejemplo, pongamos por caso, etc.
258 Glossary
expectations (expectativas). Predictions made about a future course of events

based on frequency and previous knowledge.
explicature (explicatura). The truth-conditional, propositional content of an
utterance that derives directly from the encoded meaning plus the result of
the pragmatic processes needed for reference assignment, disambiguation, and
enrichment of vague expressions. The term is used in the framework of Rel-
evance Theory (see Relevance Theory).
explicit and implicit feedback (retroalimentación explícita e implícita). In explicit
feedback, the instructor points to the language error in a learner’s production
by offering the corrected form or making a metalinguistic comment or clari-
fication question eliciting self-correction. In implicit feedback, the instructor
provides a corrected reformulation of a learner’s utterance hoping the learner
will pick up on the correction.
explicit and implicit instruction (instrucción explícita e implícita). Explicit
instruction requires the instructor to clearly outline learning goals by offer-
ing well-defined explanations of language rules, skills, and structures. Implicit
instruction requires the instructor to present information or problems to learn-
ers so they can make their own conclusions about language rules, skills, and
structures.
face (imagen pública). Term postulated by Brown and Levinson (1978), based on
Goffman (1967), who considered face to be an image of self, delineated in terms
of approved social attributes, as a universal psychological feature addressed by
politeness. Face is defined as the image that a person has as a member of society
and is two-sided: a person’s sense of self-esteem (positive face) and desire to
determine their own course of action (negative face).
face-management (gestión de la imagen). Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2002) has sug-
gested that linguistic politeness should be seen as one of the many resources
available for managing relations. She claims that the force behind the manage-
ment of relations comprises two components: the management of face and the
management of sociality rights. Management of face refers to the desire to be
evaluated positively in terms of personal qualities, and it is in this sense that
face is related to personal self-esteem, in other words, to Brown’s and Levinson’s
positive face. See also face.
face-wants vs. face threats (deseos de imagen vs. amenazas a la imagen). Need to
have face respected vs. threat to self-esteem or to freedom of action. See also face.
face-work (actividades de imagen). According to Goffman (1967), these are the
activities that a person performs in order to save both his /her face and that of
his/her interlocutor, preventing possible threats to either. See also face.
frames and schemata (marcos y esquemas mentales). Frames and schemata are
structures of organized world knowledge.
functional competence (competencia funcional). It refers to the performance of
communicative functions, such as conveying attitudes or persuading.
General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) (Teoría General del Humor Ver-
bal). This theory is a variant of the incongruity theory, developed by Attardo
Glossary 259
and Raskin (1991). The GTVH proposes six knowledge resources which are
ordered hierarchically and correspond to different parameters or levels of the
joke. These include the: (1) opposition of schemes, (2) logical mechanism,
(3) situation, (4) narrative strategy, (5) language, and (6) text of the joke (Attardo,
Hempelmann, and Maio 2002, p. 4). The hierarchical order does not reflect
production; it is dependent on relationships between the parameters and kinds
of knowledge (Attardo and Raskin 1991, p. 294).
genre ( género). Genre is the term used for any form of communication (written,
spoken, digital, artistic, etc.) shaped by socio-cultural conventions. Texts of a
genre tend to share linguistic characteristics as well as stylistic, aesthetic, rhetori-
cal, communicative, or functional features.
gestures ( gestos). Psychomuscular movements of conventional communicative
value; that is, used, consciously or unconsciously, in accordance with socio-
cultural conventions to produce an act of communication.
Grice’s Cooperative Principle (el Principio de Cooperación de Grice). Pragmatic
principle based on the theory of H.P. Grice ([1967] 1975), according to which
participants in a conversation must cooperate in order for their utterances to
make sense.
GRIALE (Grupo de Investigación para la Pragmática y la Ironía en Español del Área
de Lengua Española). A research group on pragmatics and irony, located at the
University of Alicante, Spain. See http://griale.dfelg.ua.es/.
group politeness (cortesía grupal). The principal objective of group politeness is
to encourage unity and solidarity between the members of a group.
heritage learner (estudiante de herencia). According to Guadalupe Valdés (2000,
p. 1), this is a student “who is raised in a home where a non-English language
is spoken, who speak[s] or at least understand[s] the language, and who, up to a
certain point, [is] bilingual in both English and that heritage language.”
humor (humor). From a pragmatic perspective, humor is considered an act intended
to be comical and cause laughter. It is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon
difficult to define because humor varies across cultures and is context dependent.
humor competence (competencia del humor). Humor competence is defined by
Attardo (2002, p. 1) as “the capacity of a speaker to process semantically a given
text and to locate a set of relationships among its components, such that he/
she would identify the text (or part of it) as humorous in an ideal situation.”
hyperbole (hipérbole). The term for “exaggeration” in the ancient doctrine of
figures of speech (Matthews 1997, p. 166).
illocutionary force (fuerza ilocutiva). Applied in the theory of speech acts, this
term refers to the force (i.e., the communicative intention) that an expression
of some specific forms will have when it is uttered. For example, stopping
somebody and saying: Por favor, me puede ayudar? would have the illocutionary
force of a polite request for assistance, by virtue of its interrogative form pre-
ceded by por favor.
implicature (implicatura). Each one of the propositional representations that an
utterance can convey without encoding them; implicatures are recovered by
260 Glossary
inference. This definition can vary according to the theoretical framework

of each author.
impoliteness (descortesía). Culpeper (1996) has proposed a model to account for
the expression of impoliteness that has a parallel structure to Brown and Levin-
son’s (1978, 1987) politeness model. This model consists of five super strategies:
(1) “bald on record impoliteness, deployed when there is much face at stake,”
(2) “positive impoliteness,” (3) “negative impoliteness,” (4) “sarcasm or mock
politeness,” and (5) “withhold politeness.” Impoliteness is geared toward harm-
ing the interlocutor’s face, based on social codes allegedly shared, and has a
negative interpersonal effect.
impoliteness produced by threats or by breach of politeness norms
(descortesía provocada por actos amenazantes o por ruptura de las normas de cortesía).
These are two types of impoliteness: one produced by threats to the face of the
speaker (whether to the face of personal value, the face of his role, or the face of
his group image in respect to his family, friends, or others) which are neither
diminished nor amended, and the other caused by a break from the normal rules
of politeness. This includes such things as breaking with what is considered polite
when meeting someone, during a visit, and in adjacency pairs (concretely in those
of self-criticism followed by an affirmation of the criticism by the speaker).
inauthentic politeness/non-genuine politeness (cortesía inauténtica/atípica).
According to Bernal (2007), these are apparently impolite acts (use of insults,
denigrating nicknames, among others) that are aimed at the interlocutor but
without an interpretation favoring impoliteness or impacting the situation
with a negative effect. Such acts form part of a playful style that favors the
affinity and the solidarity between participants. Their use is based on a relation
of trust and a high degree of interpersonal closeness.
incongruity theory (teoría de la incongruencia). This theory claims that humor
emerges when people experience an unexpected event or see something illogi-
cal or absurd that makes the situation laughable (Meyer 2000, p. 316; Torres
Sánchez 1999).
informative operators (operadores informativos). These operators differentiate
given and new information, expected and non-expected argument, or empha-
size a segment of the utterance. An example in Spanish is justamente.
input enhancement (realce o revalorización del input). Input enhancement is any
technique used to make specific features of the written input more salient for
language learners (Sharwood Smith 1981, 1991). Examples of input enhance-
ment include highlighting and/or changing the font style, size, or color.
instructional pragmatics (pragmática enfocada a la instrucción). According to Ishi-
hara (2010), this term refers to the educational component of interlanguage
pragmatics, aiming to promote the acquisition of sociopragmatic competence.
In L2 settings, it may focus on the acquisition of pragmalinguistic elements, of
sociopragmatic elements, or a combination of both.
(in)sufficiency markers (marcadores de (in)suficiencia). Markers that indicate if an
argument is sufficient or insufficient to support the conclusion being presented.
Glossary 261
Examples in Spanish are: al menos, por lo menos (sufficiency), ni siquiera, meramente

(insufficiency).
Interaction Hypothesis (Hipótesis Interaccionista). Interaction hypothesis is a
model of second language acquisition proposed by Long (1996), who believes
that language acquisition occurs when learners participate in interactions to
negotiate meaning.
interactional proxemics (proxémica interaccional). Interactional proxemics studies
the establishment of the distances at which people carry out different commu-
nicative interactions (consoling, advising, chiding, conversing, carrying out job
interviews, teaching). These show cross-cultural variation. It also refers to the
functions performed by a series of non-verbal signals in co-structuration with
signs belonging to other communication systems or alternating with those
signs (moving closer to a person to indicate the intention of going with them
or to show agreement). See also proxemics, social proxemics.
interactive connectors (conectores interactivos). Connectors used in interaction in
order to establish the relationship with the listener. Examples in Spanish are:
bueno, verás, mira, etc.
interactive time (tiempo interactivo). Interactive time has to do with the duration
of signs from other communication systems. This has an informative value,
either because it serves to reinforce the meaning of its elements or because it
specifies or changes the meaning; thus, the greater or lesser the length of the
sounds in some words, of some gestures or pauses, and their corresponding
connotations are chronemic signs, along with increased speed in emitting an
utterance, which can intensify or diminish its critical or corrective effect.
interlanguage (interlengua o interlenguaje). Concept created by Selinker (1972) to
refer to the individual linguistic system of L2 learners at different stages of the
acquisition process; basically, this system is intermediate between that of their
native language and that of the one being learned.
Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) (pragmática de la interlengua). Interlanguage pra-
gmatics is a subfield of second language acquisition which investigates the acquisi-
tion, comprehension, and production of pragmatics by second language learners.
internal/mental representations (representaciones internas/mentales) These are
assumptions that an individual has stored or can entertain as reflecting his/her
perception of the world, either actual or imaginary.
irony (prototypical and non-prototypical) (ironía prototípica y no prototípica).
Irony is conceived of as a pragmatic phenomenon based on indicators and
marks, which is why it is possible to offer an explanation that goes beyond the
particular contexts where irony arises:
prototypical irony (ironía prototípica). This is the one that arises from the
negation of the utterance; non-prototypical (ironía no prototípica) irony is
produced through different phenomena which do not involve contradiction.
kinesics (cinésica o kinésica). The kinesic system is comprised of the bodily move-
ments and postures which communicate, specify, and nuance the meaning of
262 Glossary
communicative signs or acts of communication, including such relevant aspects

as eye behavior or bodily contact.
L1 (first language) (primera lengua). The acronym L1 is shorthand for referring
to the language that someone learns to speak first. This is generally used in
contrast to L2 (second language). See also L2.
L2 (second language) (segunda lengua). In a broad sense, the term L2 (second
language) refers to the language learned by a non-native speaker, in this case, by
non-native speakers of Spanish (See also L1).
L2 learning vs. FL learning (aprendizaje de una segunda lengua vs. aprendizaje
de una lengua extranjera). Shrum and Glisan (2010, p. 12) make a distinction
between foreign and L2 learning based on whether the language is acquired
via “formal classroom instruction outside of the geographical region where
it is commonly spoken” or “within one of the regions where the language is
commonly spoken,” instead of or in addition to formal instruction. In Spain
and other Spanish-speaking countries, it is usual to refer to ELE (“español como
lengua extranjera”).
language socialization (socialización lingüística). According to Ochs and Schief-
felin (2014, p. 1), the study of language socialization “examine[s] how children
and other novices apprehend and enact ‘the context of situation’ in relation to
the ‘context of culture’. In so doing, language socialization research integrates
discourse and ethnographic methods to capture the social structuring and cul-
tural interpretations of semiotic forms, practices, and ideologies that inform
novices’ practical engagements with others.”
Levinson’s theory (la teoría de Levinson). Theory presented by Levinson in Pre-
sumptive Meanings (2000), in which it is claimed that in order to account for
generalized conversational implicatures (GCI) (and other types of presump-
tive meanings, or preferred interpretations), it is necessary to distinguish a new
level of utterance-type meaning from sentence-meaning and speaker-meaning:
“This level is to capture the suggestions that the use of an expression of a cer-
tain type generally or normally carries, by default” (p. 71).
linguistic, situational, and sociocultural context (contexto lingüístico, situacional
o sociocultural). Understanding irony requires taking into account the linguistic
context or co-text, the situational context or external circumstances, and the
socio-cultural context or knowledge, shared life experiences and beliefs, etc.
linguistic information (información lingüística). The content transmitted by lin-
guistic encoding.
linguistic/or verbal politeness (cortesía verbal). A branch of pragmatics that
studies how speakers mitigate face threats by saving their own face or the face
of their interlocutor(s).
litotes (lítote). Term in rhetoric for understatement, especially by ironic use of a
negative, as in: “That wasn’t at all a bad dinner,” meaning “It was a very good
dinner.”
manners (modales). This term refers to making movements, adopting postures,
and, generally, carrying out non-verbal acts of communication. Therefore, on
Glossary 263
one hand, they refer to the ways we normally produce gestures and postures,
and on the other, to certain habits of cultural behavior.
markers and indicators (marcas e indicadores). The markers and indicators
appearing in the utterance help to create an ironic context that the addressee
must understand as such. The GRIALE team of researchers (http://rua.ua.es/
dspace/handle/10045/2484) understand by markers those elements which are
helpful in the ironic interpretation, whereas indicators are ironic structures as
such (see also GRIALE).
mockery (burla). According to the Merriam-Webster Learning Dictionary, it is a
behavior or speech that makes fun of someone or something in a hurtful way:
mocking behavior or speech.
Mock Spanish (español empleado como recurso para burlarse). “Mock Spanish” (term
coined by Hill (2008)) is a special register in which Spanish words or phrases
are used to evoke humor, often indexing an unflattering and stereotypical
image of Spanish speakers.
modal operators (operadores modales). Modal operators express the speaker’s
modality or subjective attitude. Examples of modal operators in Spanish are: a
lo mejor, en teoría, evidentemente, etc.
native speaker (NS) (hablante nativo). A proficient user of a language for whom
it has been the language of instruction from elementary school onward and/or
the language consistently spoken at home by the user with at least one family
member (Callahan 2006, p. 26).
non-linguistic knowledge (conocimiento no lingüístico). This term refers to the
set of representations an individual considers to be a faithful description of the
factual world.
non-native speaker (NNS) (hablante no-nativo). Non-native speaker is a term
used to refer to someone who has learned a particular language as a child or
adult rather than as a baby. See also native speaker.
non-verbal communication (comunicación no verbal). Non-verbal communica-
tion comprises all the nonlinguistic signs and systems of signs that communicate
or inform. These include cultural habits and customs in the broadest sense and
the so-called non-verbal communication systems.
non-verbal communication systems (sistemas de comunicación no verbal). Non-
verbal communication systems are the set of signs that constitute the basic
non-verbal communication systems, both paralinguistic and the kinesic, as well
as the two secondary or cultural ones, the proxemic and chronemic systems.
normative impoliteness (descortesía normativa). Normative impoliteness occurs
during arguments, when threatening acts (reproaches, criticism, etc.) do not
imply directly, per se, a negative personal effect. This is because they help to
show emotions and to positively contribute to a solution of the conflict.
Noticing Hypothesis (la hipótesis de fijar la atención). The Noticing Hypothesis
is a model of second language acquisition proposed by Schmidt (1995), which
holds that learners must notice items in a target language as a first step in
acquisition.
264 Glossary
operators (operadores). Operators are linguistic elements that act within the utter-
ance, have no propositional content and do not depend on the verb of the
sentence. They indicate interpersonal or intersubjective relationships: references
to the speaker (modality, enunciative activity) or to the listener (focalization or
argumentation). Examples of operators in Spanish are: sinceramente (enuncia-
tive), claro (modal), incluso (argumentative), etc.
oxymoron (oxímoron). Term in rhetoric for the deliberate coupling of words
that are strictly contradictory, to create new meanings. An example in Spanish
would be: silencio atronador.
paralanguage (paralenguaje). The paralinguistic system is formed by phonic quali-
ties and modifiers, acoustic indicators of physiological and emotional reactions,
quasi-lexical elements and the pauses and silences which, with their meaning or
their inferred components, communicate, specify, or nuance the sense of signs
belonging to other systems in communicative acts (Poyatos 1993, 1994b).
politeness (positive and negative) (cortesía positiva y negativa). In Brown and
Levinson’s model (1978)—still the most influential approach to politeness in
pragmatics—politeness in language use is governed by the need to preserve
“face,” and computed as a function of speaker-hearer power-distance differen-
tial and degree of imposition. Politeness is divided into positive politeness (the
expression of solidarity), and negative politeness (the expression of restraint).
Polyphonic Theory (teoría de la polifonía). Ducrot (1986), as its most important
representative, considers that two meanings exist in every ironic utterance, and
they are seen as an echoic phenomenon, since a reference is made to a meaning
that does not form part of the utterance and is retrieved as an echo of some-
thing said before.
positive vs. negative face (imagen positiva vs. negativa). Positive face refers to
the desire of affiliation (i.e., to be accepted as a member of the social group).
Negative face refers to the desire of freedom (i.e., of not receiving impositions
from others). See also face.
postures (posturas). Postures are static positions that the human body adopts or
is able to adopt and communicate actively or passively. As in the case of man-
ners, they are non-verbal signs which, on one hand, are part of a gesture, since
the meaning can vary depending on the final posture adopted by the organs
involved, and on the other hand, they function as independent communicative
signals, as in the case of a cross-legged sitting posture, for example.
pragmalinguistic error (error pragmalingüístico). Cohen (1998) classified errors due
to a learner’s lack of sociolinguistic ability as pragmalinguistic. In other words,
learners are aware of which speech act to use for a given situation; however, they
do not know the appropriate forms, structures, vocabulary items, and/or register
in order to formulate a linguistically appropriate speech act. Before him, Thomas
(1983, p. 94) defined this type of error as due to the students “knowing the cor-
rect thing to day, but not knowing how to say it correctly.”
pragmalinguistic transfer (transferencia pragmalingüística). This is a subtype of
pragmatic transfer in which the words standardly used in one language for a
Glossary 265
given speech act are used in another language in which they do not have the
same interpretation. See also pragmalinguistic error.
pragmatic knowledge (conocimiento pragmático o competencia pragmática). Pragmatic
knowledge is the ability to use language effectively in a contextually appropriate
manner. Often used as a synonym of pragmatic competence (Thomas 1983).
pragmatic markers (marcadores pragmáticos). Fraser (2006, p. 190) defines this
group as follows: “Lexical markers of this class typically have the following prop-
erties: they are free morphemes, they are proposition-initial, they signal a specific
message either about or in addition to the basic message, and they are classified as
pragmatic markers by virtue of their semantic/pragmatic functions.”
pragmatic transfer (transferencia pragmática). The use in a language of the forms
and/or conceptualizations of a speech act or situation that correspond to the
way in which the speech act or situation is conceived of in a different language.
See also pragmalinguistic transfer.
pragmatics (pragmática). Pragmatics is the study of how meaning in communica-
tion goes far beyond what is literally encoded in words and is rather determined
by the context of situation. Among the main topics traditionally studied by
pragmatics are verbal acts, activities, turns, sequences, stances, style, intentional-
ity, agency, and the flow of information.
pragmaticization (pragmaticización) (Dostie 2004) or discursivization (discur-
sivización) (Diewald 2011). Terms that express the specificity of the process
discourse markers undergo: from elements syntactically integrated in the sen-
tence to marking discourse relationships.
principle of inversion (principio de la inversión). The principle of inversion refers
to situations in which a speaker violates the sincerity requirement and imposes
the following instruction upon the listener: “Interpret the utterance from the
systematic inversion of conversational principles.”
proxemics (proxémica). Proxemics is the sum of behavioral and cultural habits,
and a community’s beliefs regarding the human being’s concept of space, and
its use and distribution, including the cultural distances people maintain dur-
ing activities they carry with the interlocutors (Poyatos 1975, 1976). see also
interactional proxemics, social proxemics.
quasi-lexical elements (elementos cuasi-lexicales). Quasi-lexical elements are con-
ventional vocalizations and consonantizations with little lexical content, but
great functional value. Most interjections (¡Ah!, ¡Oh!), are considered to belong
to this group, as are the onomatopoeias (Glu-glu, Miau), acoustic emissions hav-
ing names of their own (chistar, sisear, lamer, gemir . . .), and many other sounds
(Uff, Hm, Iaj, Ojj, Puaf, Tch . . .) which, despite not having established names
or spellings, are normally used with a similar communicative value to that of
certain linguistic or kinesic signals, which leads to their being considered as
paralinguistic alternants (Poyatos 1994a, 1994b).
reformulation connectors (conectores reformulativos). These markers introduce
new information that may be an explanation or a correction. Examples in
Spanish are: en otras palabras, a saber, dicho de otro modo, etc.
266 Glossary
register (registro lingüístico). Register refers to the style or variety of language that
is used for a particular social setting, audience, and/or purpose. For example,
formal, informal, vulgar, etc.
Relevance Theory (Teoría de la relevancia). Theory of pragmatics developed by
Sperber and Wilson (1986), based on relevant inferences that the listener must
make upon hearing an utterance. Relevance is defined as a property that any
utterance must necessarily have and is relative to a set of existing assumptions
that constitute the context in which an act of speech takes place.
ritual politeness (cortesía ritual). Ritual politeness occurs in meeting situations
(which include the acts of greeting at their initiation and of saying goodbye at
the end), and visit situations, including several acts that are performed by the
host or the guest, according to their situational role in the encounter.
script (guión). Script is a term that originates in psychology (Shank and Abelson
1977). It refers to people’s cultural understanding of the world that is shared
between producers and their respective audiences. Furthermore, it points to the
fact that people have preconceived ideas of what to expect in different contex-
tual situations, such as eating at a restaurant, going to the movies, etc.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Adquisición de una Segunda Lengua).
Second Language Acquisition theory attempts to understand and explain the
complex and multifaceted phenomenon of learning an additional language.
Some of the approaches include cognitivism, sociocultural theory, language
socialization, complexity theory, and socio-cognitivism (See these terms).
secondary processes (procesos secundarios). These are inferential processes that
combine the proposition expressed by an utterance with other contextual, non-
linguistic assumptions, in order to yield an interpretation of the utterance in
context.
semantic ambiguity (ambigüedad semántica). Semantic ambiguity “occurs when
a word corresponds to more than one meaning (. . .) Such words are called
interlingual homographs or false friends” (Degani and Tokowicz 2010). An
example would be: embarassed and embarazado/a, since the latter means in Span-
ish “pregnant,” not “embarrassed.” So, when a male student, who is a beginner,
says that está embarazado, people laugh.
social distance: hierarchy vs. familiarity (distancia social: jerarquía vs. familiari-
dad). Social distance is a measure for the relationship between two individuals
or two social groups. Hierarchy measures the relationship based on power.
Familiarity is based on the degree of acquaintance and empathy.
social pragmatics (pragmática social). Social pragmatics is a subfield of pragmatics
that puts the focus on the societal systems and processes that determine the way
in which language is used (produced and understood) in communication. (See
also sociopragmatics).
social proxemics (proxémica social). Social proxemics includes cultural signs relative
to the use of space in social relations (the use of public or private exterior and
interior space for social interaction), as well as people’s actions when faced with
invasions of their territory. See also interactional proxemics, proxemics.
Glossary 267
social time (tiempo social). The social time includes the cultural signs that show
how time is managed in social relations and deals with the length of social
encounters such as meetings, job interviews or visits, the structuring of daily
activities, such as having breakfast, lunch, tea, and supper, or the choice of the
right time of day for certain social activities. See also chronemics.
sociocultural theory (teoría sociocultural). Sociocultural theory grew from the
work of seminal psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1930), who believed that par-
ents, caregivers, peers, and the culture at large were responsible for developing
higher order functions. Vygotsky describes learning as a social process and the
origination of human intelligence in society and culture. According to him,
learning has its basis in interacting with other people.
sociopragmatic error (error sociopragmático). Acquiring sociocultural ability is
a much more complex issue because it involves knowledge of the social and
cultural norms of the target language, including the personal and situational
factors that can affect how speech acts are realized. Cohen (1998) described
errors of this type as sociopragmatic because the learners do not know which
speech act to use for a given situation or when to use speech acts appropriately.
Before him, Thomas (1983, p. 94) defined the sociopragmatic error as due to
students “not knowing what to say, or not saying the appropriate thing as a
result of transferring the incongruent social rules, values and belief systems
from their native languages and cultures.”
sociopragmatic transfer (transferencia sociopragmática). Sociopragmatic transfer
is a subtype of pragmatic transfer in which the standard conceptualization that
a situation receives in a given language/culture is used in another language/
culture in which the situation is normally conceived in a different way.
Sociopragmatics (sociopragmática). This term was coined by Leech (1983) to
describe the study of the ways in which pragmatic meanings reflect “specific
local, social and cultural conditions on language use.” It is a subfield of pragmat-
ics that he distinguished from the study of more “general” pragmatic meaning.
See also social pragmatics.
speech acts (actos de habla). Searle (1969) described speech acts as language users’
attempts to perform specific actions or interpersonal functions. Some exam-
ples of speech acts include apologizing, complaining, complimenting, refusing,
requesting, and thanking. According to Searle (1969), these types of functions
are typically universal across languages.
strategic politeness (cortesía estratégica o atenuadora). According to Bernal (2007),
strategic politeness consists of acts directed at mitigating a possible threat to the
face of the speaker, relieving the tension that this could cause in the interaction.
Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlight-
ing friendliness. Negative politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving
offense by showing deference. A subtype is reparatory politeness (cortesía
reparadora,), which occurs retrospectively after the threat has occurred.
structuring information and ordering of the discourse connectors (conec-
tores que estructuran y ordenan la información). These are connectors that order the
268 Glossary
information sequentially: discourse initiation, discourse closing. Examples in

Spanish are: para empezar, para terminar, de entrada, etc.
Superiority Theory (teoría de la superioridad del humor). Within this theory,
humor is seen as a mechanism employed by the social elites to assert their supe-
riority from other groups and draw boundaries between them (Billig 2005).
SurveyMonkey. It is a commercially available online survey that can be used to
collect data. Its website is surveymonkey.com.
symbol vs. index (símbolo vs. índice). These are two subtypes of signs (i.e., of
form-meaning associations): the association between form and meaning is con-
ventional in symbols, and is natural in indexes. The distinction is borrowed
from the theory of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1940) who is considered to
be, with Saussure, the founder of a general theory of signs. (See Buchler (1955),
in the reference section, for Peirce’s edited works).
target language (TL) (la lengua meta). The language being taught or which
one is acquiring. For example, Spanish is a target language for students whose
mother tongue is English, or French, or Chinese.
temporal markers (marcadores temporales). These are connectors that order events
chronologically. Examples in Spanish are: a continuación, por fin, mientras, etc.
tests of social habits (tests/ pruebas de hábitos sociales). Questionnaire used to
provide support to the analysts’ interpretations and to show how language
users define politeness/impoliteness etc. These opinions help the analyst to
understand the socio-cultural context in which communication is immersed.
the 5 C’s: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, commu-
nities (Las 5 Ces de ACTFL: comunicación, culturas, conexiones, comparaciones,
comunidades). These are subcategories of ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards for
Learning Languages. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/stand
ards/World-ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf. See also ACTFL.
Theory of Relief (teoría del alivio de tensiones del humor). This theory conceives
humor as a tool to diffuse tension (Freud 1963, Lefcourt and Martin [1986] 2011).
thetical gramar (gramática “tética”- abreviación de paren(tética)). For Kaltenböck,
Heine, and Kuteva (2011), it is a part of grammar, which complements the
sentence grammar, and deals with all the units referred to the contextual infor-
mation, especially regarding the speaker. Theticals do not contribute to the
propositional meaning of the utterance and play an important role in the orga-
nization of linguistic discourse.
valorizing politeness (cortesía valorizante o valorizadora). The objective of this
type of politeness is to enhance the face of the interlocutors, which can be
achieved through acts such as directly complimenting them (their intelligence,
their physical appearance) or things that belong to them. Acts that perform val-
orizing politeness are sometimes called face-enhancing (or face-flattering)
acts: (actos de habla valorizantes) (cf. Kerbrath-Orecchioni 1997), and they are
the opposite of the face-threatening acts (actos de habla amenazantes).
web-based tutorial (WBT) (Tutoría en la red/internet). An interactive software
program that serves as a learning tool.
Glossary 269
References
Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2016. “Enunciación y percepción: La evidencialidad en los textos
turísticos del español.” Onomazein 33: 327–342.
Attardo, S. 2002. “Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adoption to Failure of
Detection.” In Say Not to Say: New Perspectives on Miscommunication, eds. L. Anolli, R.
Ciceri and G. Riva, 159–180. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Attardo, S. and V. Raskin. 1991. “Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Repre-
sentation Model.” Humor–International Journal of Humor Research 4(3–4): 293–347.
Attardo, S., C. Hempelmann and S. Maio. 2002. “Script Oppositions and Logical Mech-
anisms: Modeling Incongruities and their Resolutions.” Humor–International Journal of
Humor Research 15(1): 3–46.
Bachman, L. and A. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful
Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bernal, M. 2007. “Categorización sociopragmática de la cortesía y de la descortesía. Un
estudio de la conversación coloquial española.” PhD diss., Stockholm University. http://
urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-6758.
Billig, M. 2005. Laughter and Ridicule. London: SAGE.
Boyang, L. 2016. “Humor: A Dynamic and Dual-Process Theory with Computational Con-
siderations.” Advances in Cognitive Systems 4: 57–74.
Bravo, D. 1999. “¿Imagen ‘positiva’ v. imagen ‘negativa’?: Pragmática sociocultural y compo-
nentes de face.” Oralia 2: 155–184.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In
Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. E. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge:
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Buchler, J., ed. 1955. The Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.
Callahan, L. 2006. “Student Perceptions of Native and Non-Native Speaker Language
Instructors: A Comparison of ESL and Spanish.” Sintagma. Revista de Lingüística 18: 19–49.
Cohen, A.D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow: Longman.
Culpeper, J. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25(3): 349–367.
Degani, T. and N. Tokowicz. 2010. “Semantic Ambiguity within and across Languages:
An Integrative Review.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(7): 126–303.
Diewald, G. 2011. “Pragmaticalization (Defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Func-
tions.” Linguistics 49(2): 365–390.
Dostie, G. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.
Ducrot, O. 1986. “Esbozo de una teoría polifónica de la enunciación.” In El decir y lo dicho.
Polifonía de la enunciación, 175–238. Barcelona: Paidós.
Fant, L. 1989. “Cultural Mismatch in Conversation: Spanish and Scandinavian Communica-
tive Behaviour in Negotiation Settings.” Hermes Journal of Linguistics 3: 247–265.
Fraser, B. 2006. “Towards a Theory of Discourse Markers.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles,
ed. K. Fischer, 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. 2009. “An Account of Discourse Marker.” International Review of Pragmatics 1(2):
293–320.
Freud, S. 1963. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Norton.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday
Anchor Books.
270 Glossary
Grice, H. P. 1 [1967] 1975. “Logic in Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts,
eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Hill, J., 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Ishihara, N. 2010. “Instructional Pragmatics: Bridging Teaching, Research, and Teacher Edu-
Kaltenböck, G., B. Heine and T. Kuteva. 2011. “On Thetical Grammar.” Studies in Language
35(4): 852–897.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. “A Multilevel Approach to the Study of Talk-in-Interaction.”
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lefcourt, H. and R. Martin. [1986] 2011. Humor and Life Stress: Antidote to Adversity. New
York: Springer.
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisi-
tion.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 413–468.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Matthews, P. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Meyer, J. 2000. “Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Com-
munication.” Communication Theory 10(3): 310–331.
Ochs, E. and B. Schieffelin. 2014. “The Theory of Language Socialization.” In The Handbook
of Language Socialization, eds. A. Duranti, E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin, 1–21. Malden, MA:
Wiley Blackwell.
Poyatos, F. 1975. “Cultura, comunicación e interacción: hacia el contexto total del lenguaje
y el hombre hispánicos, III.” Yelmo 22: 14–16.
Poyatos, F. 1976. Man beyond Words: Theory and Methodology of Nonverbal Communication. New
York: New York State English Council.
Poyatos, F. 1993. Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and
Sounds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poyatos, F. 1994a. La comunicación no verbal. Cultura, lenguaje y conversación. Madrid: Istmo.
Poyatos, F. 1994b. La comunicación no verbal. Paralenguaje, kinésica e interacción. Madrid: Istmo.
Schank, R. C. and R. P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:
L. Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role
of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language
Learning (Technical Report #9), ed. R. Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Scollon, R. and S. Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach.
2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(1–4): 209–231.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.”
Sharwood Smith, M. 1983. “Crosslinguistic Aspects of Second Language Acquisition.”
Sharwood Smith, M. 1991. “Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types
of Language Information for the L2 Learner.” Second Language Research 7(2): 118–132.
Shrum, J. L. and E. W. Glisan. 2010. Teacher’s Handbook. Contextualized Language Instruction.
Glossary 271
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2000. “Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis.” In Culturally

Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, ed. H. Spencer-Oatey. London:
Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2002. “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to
Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of
Pragmatics 34(5): 529–545.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Torres Sánchez, M. A. 1999. Estudio pragmático del humor verbal. Cádiz: Universidad Varela
Bravo.
Valdés, G. 2000. Spanish for Native Speakers. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. 1930. Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
INDEX
Abbott, A.R. 39, 40 Bachman, L. 33, 215, 255

Abelson, R.P. 20, 21, 266 Baker, C. 83
Academic Discourse (AD) 155 Bardovi-Harlig, K.C. 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 198,
Acín, E. 111 204, 214, 216–218, 233, 244
additive connectors 115, 118, 253 Bawarshi, A. 153, 154, 156
advice-giving 36, 38, 39–41, 70, 141, 157, Bell, N.D. 5, 20, 191–192, 194–195,
236 202–204, 206–207, 210
affection 133, 141 Benati, A. 155
affiliation 141, 253, 264 Bernal, M. 7, 131–150, 260
affiliation face 253 Betts 80
Ahern, A. 19, 22, 25, 28n1 Bhatia, V.K. 152, 153, 158
Alcón-Soler, E. 34, 54, 131, 140, 214 Bialystock, E. 217, 219
Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 8, 169–190, 257 Billig, M. 191–193, 268
Amenós, J. 19, 22, 25, 28n1 Black, J.M. 191
American Council on the Teaching of Block, D. 79
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 42, 77, 80, Blum-Kulka, S. 22, 33, 131, 214, 218, 219
202, 223 Bolívar, A. 142, 143, 155
anaphoric 111, 253, 254, 256 Bongaerts, H. 208
Anscombre, J.C. 110, 170 Boretti, S. 140, 141
Angell, J. 37 Bosch, E. 155, 160
anthropological culture 76, 254 Bou Franch, P. 22
apologies 23, 24, 26, 35–39, 44, 47, 58, 157, Bouton, L. 2, 4, 5, 33, 234, 244
215, 223, 233, 236, 242, 250, 251, 267 Boyang, L. 193, 257
appropriacy 55 Bravo, D. 131–133, 137, 141, 143, 145, 253,
Argumentation Theory 110 254
argumentative operator 122–125, 254 Briz, A. 109, 110, 126n8, 140, 148
Askehave, I. 152–154 Brown, C. 251
asking permission 16, 56, 66, 67, 96, 219 Brown, P. 24–26, 45, 81, 132–133, 137, 141,
Atkinson, D. 152, 153, 156 215, 232, 235, 243, 258, 260, 264
Attardo, S. 191–195, 197, 204, 210n2 Brown, R. 24, 25
Aula Internacional series 6, 57–64, 68 Burton, G. 160
Autonomy 132, 133, 135, 136, 238, 254 Bush, J. 81
autonomy face 133, 135, 136, 254 Byram, M. 2
Index 273
Callahan, L. 7, 9n1, 74–89, 263 Cubillo, J. 55

Canale, M. 215, 255 Culpeper, J. 137, 142, 260
cartoons and comic strips 60, 61, 64, 66–68, cultural appropriation 74
104, 192, 198–199, 201–202, 207–209
Casillas, D. 79, 82 Dancing with Words (website) 236, 241,
cataphoric 111, 254, 256 244, 249, 250
Center for Advanced Research on Language Davies, C.E. 197, 208, 210
Acquisition (CARLA) 9n3, 241, 244, Davis Hanson, V. 8, 81
248–249 DCT see Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
Centre for Open Educational Resources and De los Heros, S. 191–213
Language Learning 248 De Matos Lundstrom, A. 143
Centro Virtual Cervantes 125 De Pablos-Ortega, C. 1, 6, 8, 9n2, 38,
Cervantes Institute Curricular Plan (PCIC) 53–73, 143, 214
55–57, 64, 70, 174 Degani, T. 266
Cestero Mancera, A.M. 7, 90–107 Dehe, N. 113
chronemics 31, 35–36, 101–104, 254, 261, deixis 102, 256
263 Del Rey Cabero, E. 208
cognitive pragmatics 254 Deneire, M. 194, 196, 210
cognitive psychology 4 Destinos (video series) 35
cognitivism 254, 266 dialectology 90
Cohen, A. D. 2, 22, 23, 34, 42, 44, 45, 48, dialogue 16, 18, 35–47, 55, 60–62, 64–67,
54, 131, 152, 157, 214, 216, 220, 70, 114, 119, 121, 124, 151–152, 155,
232–234, 242–244, 250, 264, 267 174, 177, 182, 188, 220, 221, 224–226,
commands 38–41, 221–226, 227n5 277, 248
Common European Framework of dictogloss 44–45
Reference for Languages (CEFRL) 55, 57, Diewald, G. 110, 265
58, 174, 254 Díez Domínguez, P. 205
communication boxes 60, 64–68, 70 direct observation 101
communicative approach 42, 53, 57, 194, discourse analysis 3, 90, 110
254 Discourse Completion Test (DCT) 47, 234,
community-based learning 84, 84n3 236, 238–243, 256–7
Company, C. 110 discourse connectors 119, 267
complaints 7, 45, 143–145, 148, 232–244, discourse markers 6, 45, 108–128, 220, 253,
251 257, 265
complexity theory 255 Discourse Pragmatics (website) 236, 251
compliments 3, 37, 44, 47, 57, 134, 136, discursivization 110, 265
143, 157, 233, 236, 242, 249, 250, 251, Dolezal, R. 84n5
267, 268 Dorwick, T. 41
conceptual proxemics 94, 255 Dostie, G. 110, 265
conceptual time 95, 255 Driessen, H. 191, 204
conjunctions 102, 113–115, 118, 122, 124, Dual Process Theory with Computational
126n2 Considerations 193, 257
connectors 7, 102, 108, 109, 112–120, 123, DuBravac, S. 37
124, 126, 126n3, 126n5, 140, 255–256 Ducrot, O. 110, 170, 264
Contreras Fernández, J. 133, 141
conversation analysis 90, 105n1, 110, 140, Echo 170, 171, 264
157 EDICE program 131, 140, 141, 142, 145,
conversational turns 4, 68 257
Cooperative Principle 170 Egner, T. 21
Corpus of Sociopragmatic Information Eisenchlas, S.A. 38
(COSOPRAG) 141, 256 El Roto (comic strip) 201
Cortés, L. 109 elite bilinguals 80, 257
co-text 171, 256, 262 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 54, 55
courtesy 39, 219, 223 English as a Second Language (ESL) 5, 55,
Crystal, D. 154 197, 198, 203, 204, 244
274 Index
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 154, Glisan, E.W. 9n1, 84n1, 262
155 Goffman, E. 132, 258
Erasmus program 160 Gonglewski, M. 37
Escandell-Vidal, V. 15–32 grammar 2–4, 7–8, 18, 27, 33–34, 37–41,
ethnic commodification 257 43–45, 53, 56–58, 60–61, 64–65, 67–70,
European Council 4 103–104, 109–110, 113–114, 118, 126,
evidentials 174, 257 131, 151–154, 156–157, 159–166, 175,
explicature 18, 258 178, 194, 195, 202, 209, 214–218, 220,
221, 223, 226, 241, 255, 268
face 7, 25, 26, 45, 47, 56, 57, 79, 131–150, Greenbaum, S. 109, 122
194, 205, 215, 235, 238, 248, 254, 258, greetings 38, 47, 56, 66, 70, 96, 103, 139,
260, 262, 264, 267, 268; negative face 25, 142, 157, 222, 249, 266
57, 132, 137, 141, 235, 264; positive face GRIALE 9n3, 169, 171, 172, 174, 259, 263
25, 137, 235, 264 Grice, H.P. 16, 18, 19, 169, 170, 171, 259
face work 131–150 group politeness 134, 259
face-threatening acts (FTAs) 133, 145, 194, Grupo Val.Es.Co. 110, 133, 140, 148, 173
235, 239, 248 Gutiérrez-Candelaria, J.R. 80
familiarity 24, 25, 99, 133, 195, 201, 266
Fant, L. 253, 254 Hall-Lew, L. 80
Feak, C. 154 handshakes 103
feedback: explicit 258; implicit 36, 37, 258 Hartford, B.S. 3, 4, 33, 43, 54, 198, 204, 214,
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 36, 44, 45, 54, 132, 216–218, 233, 244
140, 143, 152, 157, 214, 216, 218, 220, Hasler-Barker, M. 37, 54
251 Haverkate, H. 169, 218, 235
Five ‘C’s see National Standards for Foreign Hay, J. 195, 204
Language Education head nodding 94
Flaherty, C. 74 Heidelberg Symposium on markers in
Flaherty, V. 207 Romance languages 108
flattery 134, 268 Heine, B. 113, 268
fluency 81, 104 Hempelmann, C. 193, 204, 259
Foerster, S. 40 heritage learner 82, 143, 145, 259
formality 25, 33, 35–38, 55, 64, 69, 103, 144, hesitation 93, 98
157, 161, 221–226, 238–239, 241, 243, 266 hierarchy 24, 69, 193, 259, 266
forms of address 33, 58, 64, 69 Hill, J. 80, 82
frames 17, 20, 27, 195, 197, 258 Hinkel, E. 2
Fraser, B. 45, 108, 111–113, 126n4, 254, home visits 136
257, 265 Hopper, P.J. 156
Freud, S. 192, 193, 268 Hsu, T.W. 155
Fundación Sierra Pambley 125 humor 4, 6, 8, 33, 82, 169–170, 172,
Fuentes-Rodríguez, C. 7, 108–128 191–213, 221, 227n5, 257–260, 263, 268;
functional competence 114, 258 failed humor 197
Hymes, D. 2, 22, 215
García, O. 79 hyperbole 174, 259
Gardner, R.C. 85n8
General Theory of Verbal Humour Ifantidou, E. 153
(GTVH) 193, 198, 204, 209, 258 illocutionary force 56, 112, 259
genre 56, 152–166, 259 immersion 54, 77, 84, 216, 233
gestures 66, 68, 93–98, 103, 172, 208, 232, implicatures 2, 4, 5, 6, 18, 45, 137, 170, 172,
242, 243, 259, 261 259, 262
gift-giving / present-giving 9n2, 26, 204, impoliteness 7, 66, 131–151, 260, 263, 268
206, 208 Incongruity Theory 192, 193, 258, 260
Gilman, A. 24, 25 indirect objects 8, 214, 220, 221, 223, 224
Gironzetti, E. 1, 9, 191–194, 198, 203, 204, indirectness 4, 45, 217
206, 208, 210n1 information leaks 99
Index 275
input enhancement 35–37, 234, 236, 240, Levinson, S. 15, 19, 24–26, 45, 132, 133,
260 137, 141, 169, 171, 215, 232, 235, 243,
Instituto Cervantes 4, 55, 83 258, 260, 262, 264
instruction: explicit 35–37, 55, 198, 204, lexical chunks 39
258; implicit 36, 37, 258 litotes 174, 262
Interaction Hypothesis 5, 219, 267 Long, M. 5, 219, 261
interactional proxemics 95, 261 Longcope, P. 210n3
interactive time 95, 261 Loureda, O. 111
interculturality 4, 22, 27, 58, 91, 92, 99, 100,
104, 157, 174, 175, 195, 208 McBride, K. 75
interjections 92, 109, 265 McMahill, C. 79
Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) 214, 216, Mahan-Taylor, R. 3, 43, 216
217, 227, 261, 131, 145n3, 214, 215, Maio, S. 193, 204, 259
260 Maio, S. 193, 204, 259
Introspection 100, 101 manners 94, 262, 264
Inversion Principle 172 Márquez-Reiter, R. 3, 9, 15, 157
irony 2, 6, 8, 42, 43, 55, 82, 140, 145n3, Martínez-Flor, A. 54
169–190, 191, 194, 197, 198, 204, 216, Meier, A.J. 132
233, 234, 241, 242, 244, 250, 259–264 metalanguage 35, 45, 55, 195, 258
Ishihara, N. 2, 22, 42, 43, 55, 140, 145n3, metapragmatic 6, 36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48,
216, 233, 234, 241, 242, 244, 250, 260 54, 55, 58, 61, 63–71, 141, 143, 152, 157,
248
Japanese 79, 236, 242249, 250 Mexico / Mexican culture 40, 45, 82, 83,
jokes 172, 178, 191, 193, 195–198, 201, 208, 238
204–206, 209, 259 Mir, M. 6, 33–52
Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 9n2 Mitchler, C.R. 81, 84n5
mitigation 8, 25, 36, 45–47, 56–57, 71, 123,
Kaltenbock, G. 113, 268 131, 134, 157, 191, 192, 217, 220, 262,
Kasper, G. 5, 22, 34, 217, 227n1, 233, 234, 267
249 Mock Spanish 82, 84, 85n7, 263
Kavalova, Y. 113 mocking 82, 137, 170, 172, 173, 263
Kecskes, I. 27 Montolío, E. 110
Kerbrath-Orecchioni, C. 268 Morgan, C. 2
kinesics 91–93, 96–98, 101–104, 261, 263, Muñoz-Basols, J. 9n2, 211n4
265 Mwinyelle, J.B. 36
Koike, D. 1, 9n2, 36, 45, 140, 151, 152, 147,
217, 218, 220, 227n5, 248 NAACP 84n5
Kramsch, C. 75, 78 narrations 8, 93, 121, 136, 142, 148, 151,
Krashen, S. 43, 44 165
Kuteva, T. 113, 268 National Foreign Language Resource
Center 249
Lambright, A. 40 National Standards for Foreign Language
Landone, E. 110 Education (Five ‘C’s) 76
Langer, B. 36, 55 Nibert, H.J 39, 40
Langmuir, C. 126n non-verbal communication 263
language play 194, 195, 202, 205 normative impoliteness 138, 263
language socialization 262, 266 Norrick, N.R. 192
Larsen-Freeman, D. 152, 156, 215 Norton, B. 77
Latinos 74, 79, 81, 82, 84n1 Noticing Hypothesis 4, 8, 36, 219, 234, 263
laughter 92, 102, 139, 148, 204, 205, Nuessel, F. 211n13
206 Nunan, D. 159
Leech, G. 23, 267
Leeman, J. 79 O’Brien, C. 251
Leonetti, M. 28n1 Ochoa, J. 79
276 Index
Ochs, E. 262 Principle of Inversion see Inversion

offers 23, 26, 56, 136, 139, 142, 143, 157 Principle
onomatopoeia 92, 265 Principle of Quality 172
operators 7, 108, 112–117, 121–126, 254, pronunciation 25, 56, 74–76, 82, 148, 177
257, 260, 263, 264 proxemics 91, 93–96, 101–104, 255, 261,
Orozco, R. 37 263, 265, 266
Otheguy, R. 84n2 psycholinguistics 3, 84n2
output hypothesis 5 puns 194, 204
Overfield, D.M. 35
questionnaires 7, 38, 47, 67, 68, 132, 135,
Padilla García, X. 169, 172, 203, 208 140–145, 148, 164, 199, 203, 234, 256, 268;
Palmer, A. 215, 255 see also Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
Paltridge, B. 158 Quiñones, C. 249
paralanguage 91, 98, 264, 92, 96–98, Quirk, R. 109
101–104, 243, 263–265
parentheticals 113, 115, 257 Raskin, V. 193, 204, 259
Parodi, G. 155 Recanati, F. 18
pauses 92, 93, 95, 114–117, 148, 261, 264 refusals 18, 35, 36, 93, 131, 152, 155, 157,
PCIC see Cervantes Institute Curricular 220, 233, 236, 250, 267
Plan register 25, 55, 65, 69, 82, 120, 140, 205,
Pearson, L. 8, 35, 36, 45, 157, 214–231 215, 233, 263, 266
Peiying, J. 55 Reiff, M.J. 153, 154, 156
Pellettieri, J. 83 Reiss, A.L. 191
phatic value 56, 98 Relevance Theory 110, 170, 258, 266
Piller, I. 75–76 requests 35–44, 47, 53, 56–58, 65–70, 93,
Pinto, D. 9n2, 239, 244 97, 151–152, 155, 157–158, 160, 165,
Pitch 92 215–226, 227n2, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238,
Placencia, E. 3, 9, 15, 157 239, 241, 243, 244, 250, 251
politeness 4, 6, 7, 8, 22, 25, 26, 36, 40, 42, Reyes, G. 153
45–47, 55–58, 65–71, 110, 123, 131–150, rhetoric 153–155, 159, 160–166, 169, 192,
157, 215, 222, 223, 226, 232, 235, 236, 259, 262, 264
238, 243, 251, 253, 254, 257–260, Robinson, M. 192
262–264, 266, 267, 268; negative Rodríguez Rosique, S. 171
politeness 132, 137, 264, 267; positive Rogerson-Revell, P. 192
politeness 264, 267; ritual politeness role-plays 5, 8, 35–37, 44, 45, 46, 60, 65, 67,
136, 266 see also group politeness, 152, 157, 159, 177, 207, 209, 220
impoliteness Rose, K. 5, 34, 198, 217, 226, 227n1, 227n3
Politeness Theory 8, 25, 215, 232, 235 Rosetta Stone (software) 79
Polyphonic Theory 170, 264 Ruiz Gurillo, L. 5, 169, 172, 174, 175
Pomerantz, A. 5, 20, 191, 192, 194, 195, Russell, V. 232–252
202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210 Ryan, C. 74
Portolés, J. 109–111, 113, 126n3, 126n8
postures 93, 94, 96, 261–264 Schank, R.C. 20, 21, 266
Poyatos, F. 92–95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 105n1, schemata 20, 162, 165, 194, 258
264, 265 Schieffelin, B. 262
pragmalinguistic error 264 Schiffrin, D. 108, 109, 111
pragmalinguistic transfer 264 Schmidt, R. 4, 28n2, 34, 36, 217, 219, 233,
pragmatic markers 7, 108–128, 254, 257, 234, 240
265 Schmitz, J.K. 196–198, 210
pragmatic transfer 22, 53, 54, 240, 243, 250, Schneider, B. 80
264, 265 Scollon, R. 22, 76, 254
pragmaticization 110, 265 Scollon, S.W. 22, 76, 254
Pragmatics en Español (website) 236, 251 scripts 20, 21, 27, 160, 163, 193, 195, 197,
praise 82, 134, 136 204, 206, 266
Index 277
Searle, J. 21, 170, 215, 233, 267 Taguchi, N. 34, 35, 48, 216, 232, 236
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) 4, 152, Taylor, G. 35, 36
155, 156, 159, 198, 204, 234, 266 Teaching English as a Foreign Language
secondary processes 18, 266 (TEFL) 54, 55
self-assertion 133 temporal markers 120, 268
self-esteem 133, 258 Terrell, T.D. 44
semantic ambiguity 266 TESOL 154
service learning 84, 84n3, 215 textbooks 1, 4, 5, 6, 33–73, 108, 110, 143,
Sessarego, C. 7, 151–168, 220 151, 158, 174, 192, 198, 201, 208, 211n4,
Shardakova, M. 194, 195, 197 220, 221, 227, 227n1, 244
Sharpless, D. 42 Theory of Relief 192, 268
Sharwood-Smith, M. 36 thetical grammar 113, 268
Shenk, E.M. 34 Thomas, J. 23, 33, 37, 215, 264, 265, 267
Shively, R. 5, 174, 191, 203, 208, 209, 226 Tokowicz, N. 266
Shrum, J.L. 9n1, 84n1, 262 Tomita, Y. 198
silence 92, 93, 97, 148, 264 tone 68, 74, 92, 96, 97, 154, 164, 222,
Smith-Lovin, L. 192 224
social distance 5, 24, 25, 235, 239, 266 transcription 47, 92, 148
social pragmatics 19, 266 Traugott, E.C. 110
social proxemics 95, 266 trust 133, 135, 139, 260
social time 95, 267
sociocultural theory 267 Uso-Juan, E. 43, 54, 214, 216, 219
sociopragmatics 4–6, 23, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44,
45, 48, 55, 58, 66, 67, 68, 131–150, 195, Valdés, G. 259
215, 219, 233, 241, 257, 260, 266, 267 Valencia 133, 140, 142, 145n1
Spada, N. 198 Van Patten, B. 155
Spanish for Specific Purposes 155 Vásquez, C. 42
Speech Act Theory 8, 21, 157, 215 Vellenga, H. 55, 58, 214
speech acts (SA) 3, 5, 6, 8, 21–26, 35–40, verbal morphology 8, 214, 220, 241
42–45, 47–48, 55–58, 65–67, 69–71, 140, Vrticka, P. 191
143–145, 151–152, 155–160, 163, 166, Vygotsky, L. 267
170, 198, 214–215, 218–221, 224,
232–236, 238–239, 241–244, 248, 249, Wahlgren, P. 251
250, 251, 257, 259, 264, 265, 267 Walters, J. 241
speech bubbles 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70 web-based tutorial (WBT) 8, 232–244,
Spencer-Oatey, H. 258 268
Sperber, D. 18, 19, 26, 170, 266 Werkhofer, K. 235
Spitz, A. 192 WeSpeke.com (website) 47
study abroad programs 54, 75–78, 199, 208, WhatsApp (software) 16
216, 242 Wilson, D. 18, 19, 26, 170, 266
sufficiency markers 260 Winfrey Harris, T. 84n5
Summerfield, C. 21 Witten, C. 35, 45
Superiority Theory 192, 268 Worley, G. 251
surveys 42, 101, 161, 199, 202–210, 268 Wyner, L. 216
Swain, M. 5, 43, 215, 255
Swales, J. 152–161 Yager, K.D. 75, 76, 81
Sykes, J. 37, 48, 216, 250 Yule, G. 22
syntax 17, 25, 33, 36, 38, 39, 45, 110, 111,
113–115, 117, 121, 126, 154, 164, 192, Zimmerman, K. 145n2
196, 217, 220, 225, 265 Zorraquino Martín, V. 109–111, 113

2018 L2 Spanish Pragmatics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 L2 Spanish Pragmatics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L2 SPANISH PRAGMATICS

L2 Spanish Pragmatics is a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of current

• An overview of new trends in Spanish pragmatics research and the growing

L2 Spanish Pragmatics constitutes a reference book on current research on

Domnita Dumitrescu is Professor Emerita of Spanish at California State

Patricia Lorena Andueza is Associate Professor of Spanish at the University of

L2 Spanish Pragmatics: From Research to Practice, superbly edited by Professors Domnita

This splendid collection of studies is an immensely valuable contribution to applied

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

Introduction: Taking pragmatics to the L2 Spanish classroom 1

1 The pragmatics toolbox 15

2 Learning L2 Spanish pragmatics: What research says,

3 Pragmatics in L2 Spanish textbooks: Perspectives from Spain 53

4 When to speak Spanish and when not to: Interethnic

5 Nonverbal communication in L2 Spanish teaching 90

6 Teaching L2 Spanish discourse markers and pragmatic markers 108

7 Teaching sociopragmatics: Face-work, politeness and

8 Developing L2 Spanish discursive-pragmatic ability in

9 The pragmatics of irony in the L2 Spanish classroom 169

10 Teaching with and about humor in the L2 Spanish classroom 191

11 L2 Spanish pragmatics instruction at the novice level:

12 Web-based pragmatics resources: Techniques and strategies

M. Belén Alvarado Ortega is Professor of Spanish at the University of Alicante

Patricia Lorena Andueza is Associate Professor at the University of Evansville

María Bernal is Associate Professor and Lecturer of Spanish Linguistics at Stock-

Laura Callahan, formerly Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at The City Col-

communication; heritage language maintenance; and linguistic landscapes. Her cur-

Ana M. Cestero Mancera is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Alcalá

Domnita Dumitrescu is Professor of Spanish Linguistics (Emerita) at California

Victoria Escandell-Vidal is Professor of Linguistics at the Universidad Nacio-

Catalina Fuentes-Rodríguez is Professor of Spanish Language at the University

Susana de los Heros is Professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Rhode

Montserrat Mir is Associate Professor of Spanish and Applied Linguistics, and

Learning. She is the author of Qué me dices: A Task-Based Approach to Spanish

Carlos De Pablos-Ortega is Associate Professor in Spanish, Linguistics and Audio-

Lynn Pearson is Associate Professor of Spanish at Bowling Green State University

Victoria Russell is Associate Professor of Spanish and Foreign Language Educa-

Cecilia Sessarego is Associate Professor of Spanish at Mount Royal University

In addition, we want to express our greatest appreciation to Frank Nuessel (Uni-

Domnita Dumitrescu and Patricia Lorena Andueza

1. Rationale for this book

In this volume, we address different areas of pragmatics, such as nonverbal

2. Language and culture intertwine

and the cultural reasoning. For instance, if it is appropriate to express a compliment to

Present-day pragmatics is an interdisciplinary endeavor, at the intersection

According to several studies (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1996; Bardovi-Harlig

of pragmatics could be beneﬁcial to the process of learning a second language.

4. How to teach pragmatics

order for input to become intake, it needs to be registered through awareness.

5. About this volume

diverge in order to maintain their distinctive in-group identities and accentuate

Namely, traditional categorizations of narration, argumentation, or exposition can

Márquez-Reiter and Placencia (2005, p. 2) have pointed out, “pragmatic is . . .

2. Communication: Beyond words and grammar

(1) J: Me quedo un rato más, que vamos a ver una peli.

used in communication, linguistic expressions actually work as pointers to infor-

3. The arena of pragmatics

4. Language, knowledge, and mental representations

5. Speech acts and cultural expectations

• Hierarchy measures the distance between two individuals depending on their

• Inherent characteristics correspond to the physical and intrinsic properties of

The hierarchical relationships can be both symmetrical and asymmetrical, depend-

By their very nature, familiarity relations tend to be symmetrical.