Download PDF Pragmatics in language teaching from research to practice 1st edition barón full chapte
Pragmatics in Language Teaching From Research to Practice 1st Edition Barón
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/pragmatics-in-language-teaching-from-research-to-pr actice-1st-edition-baron/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Second Language Pragmatics From Theory to Research 1st Edition Culpeper
Spanish Heritage Learners Emerging Literacy Empirical Research and Classroom Practice Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching 1st Edition Belpoliti Flavia Bermejo Encarna
This innovative book links theory to practice with regard to teaching pragmatics. In laying out why this is useful, how it is achievable, and what to teach when it comes to pragmatics, this book outlines the theoretical background and offers a wide range of hands-on activities. While offering coverage of timely issues like pragmatics in text messaging, the authors expertly provide further guidance for developing pragmatics curricula for learners of different ages and languages, and at different proficiency levels in a research-based, practical way. This reader-friendly resource gives preand in-service FL/L2 teachers the tools and confidence to understand and implement these principles in the classroom and beyond. Advanced students and researchers of applied linguistics, education, and psychology, as well as curriculum developers, teacher trainers, and aspiring teachers around the world – and their students – will benefit from this unique book.
Júlia Barón is Serra Hunter Fellow of Modern Languages & Literatures and English Studies at the University of Barcelona, Spain.
María Luz Celaya is Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) of Modern Languages & Literatures and English Studies at the University of Barcelona, Spain.
Peter Watkins is Principal Lecturer of English Language and Linguistics at the University of Portsmouth, UK, and has been an ELT teacher, teacher trainer, speaker, consultant, and materials developer in many countries for over 20 years.
Research and Resources in Language Teaching
Series Editors: Anne Burns, University of New South Wales, Australia and Jill Hadfield, Unitec Institute of Technology, New Zealand
Research and Resources in Language Teaching is a groundbreaking series that aims to integrate the latest research in language teaching and learning with innovative classroom practice. Books in the series offer accessible accounts of current research on a particular topic, linked to a wide range of practical and immediately usable classroom activities.
Extensive Reading
The Role of Motivation
Sue Leather and Jez Uden
Digital Literacies 2e
Mark Pegrum, Nicky Hockly, and Gavin Dudeney
Sustaining Action Research
A Practical Guide for Institutional Engagement
Anne Burns, Emily Edwards and Neville John Ellis
Initial Language Teacher Education
Gabriel Diaz Maggioli
Critical Thinking
Gregory Hadley and Andrew Boon
Becoming a Reading Teacher
Connecting Research and Practice
Jane Spiro and Amos Paran
Pragmatics in Language Teaching
From Research to Practice
Júlia Barón, María Luz Celaya, and Peter Watkins
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Research-and-Resources-in-Language-Teaching/book-series/PEARRLT
The right of Júlia Barón, María Luz Celaya, and Peter Watkins to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. The purchase of this copyright material confers the right on the purchasing institution to photocopy pages which bear the photocopy icon and copyright line at the bottom of the page. No other parts 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.
ISBN: 978-1-032-01821-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-01820-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-18021-0 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003180210
Typeset in Galliard by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
CONTENTS
Series Editors’ Preface viii
Acknowledgements x
PART I
From research to implications 1
Introduction 1
Section 1. An introduction to pragmatics 2
Defining pragmatics 2
A brief historical overview 4
Culture, society, and context 5
(Im)politeness 7
Identifying pragmatics in speech 8
Excerpt transcript 9
Summary 10
Section 2. Pragmatics in second language learning and teaching 10
Acquiring L2 pragmatics 10
Research on requests: Types and mitigation strategies 11
Research on requests: General findings 12
Research on requests: Two examples 13
Some reflections on research 14
Teaching L2 pragmatics 17
A research overview 17
Two examples 18
Approaches to teaching L2 pragmatics 19
Summary 20
PART II
From implications to application 21
Introduction 21
Section A. Raising pragmatic awareness 25
Section B. Using rich pragmatic input 42
Section C. Eliciting pragmatic output and enhancing interaction 56
Section D. Pragmatics and social media 69
Section E. Pragmatics in the world 79
PART III
From application to implementation 89
Introduction 89
Choosing what and how to teach 89
Assessing pragmatics: How and why 95
Assessing students’ pragmatic awareness and perceptions 95
Assessing students’ pragmatic performance 98
Assessing students’ oral and written production 100
Implementing pragmatics into the classroom and curriculum 101
Summary 105
Further reading 105
PART IV From implementation to research 106
Introduction 106
From research to practice, and from practice to research: Building a cycle 107
Linking theory and practice 107
Designing a study 108
Collecting the data 109
Analysing the data 111
Topics to be investigated 113
Concluding remarks 114
Glossary 117 References 119 Index 122
SERIES EDITORS’ PREFACE
About the series
Research and Resources in Language Teaching is a ground-breaking series whose aim is to integrate the latest research in language teaching and learning with innovative classroom practice. The books are written by a partnership of writers, who combine research and materials writing skills and experience. Books in the series offer accessible accounts of current research on a particular topic, linked to a wide range of practical and immediately useable classroom activities. Using the series, language educators will be able both to connect research findings directly to their everyday practice through imaginative and practical communicative tasks and to realise the research potential of such tasks in the classroom. We believe the series represents a new departure in language education publishing, bringing together the twin perspectives of research and materials writing, illustrating how research and practice can be combined to provide practical and useable activities for classroom teachers and at the same time encouraging researchers to draw on a body of activities that can guide further research.
About the books
All the books in the series follow the same organisational principle:
Part I: From research to implications
Part I contains an account of current research on the topic in question and outlines its implications for classroom practice.
Part II: From implications to application
Part II focuses on transforming research outcomes into classroom practice by means of practical, immediately useable activities. Short introductions signpost the path from research into practice
Part III: From application to implementation
Part III contains methodological suggestions for how the activities in Part II could be used in the classroom, for example, different ways in which they could be integrated into the syllabus or applied to different teaching contexts.
Part IV: From implementation to research
Part IV returns to research with suggestions for professional development projects and action research, often directly based on the materials in the book. Each book as a whole thus completes the cycle: research into practice and practice back into research.
About this book
The aim of learning a foreign or second language is to become a competent speaker who can communicate in a variety of contexts and with different interlocutors. As teachers, to help students achieve this goal, we need to provide them with communicative strategies that go beyond grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation. It is pragmatics another essential component of language that can help learners in the process of becoming competent users of the L2. The objective of this book is to contribute to the body of research that point towards the need of dealing with pragmatics in the L2 class. The book consists of four parts. The first part provides a theoretical background on pragmatics and also research carried out in the area of learning and teaching L2 pragmatics. The second part provides a series of activities that teachers can use in their language class with students at different ages and proficiency levels. Although this book is addressed to teachers, we also think that researchers interested in instructed learning will find some food for thought in these pages. The third part aims at guiding teachers when deciding what to teach and how, as well as providing guidance when incorporating pragmatics in the curriculum. The fourth part creates an opportunity for teachers to carry out action-research studies in their classrooms and so explore future needs in the field of teaching pragmatics.
We hope that you will find the series exciting and above all valuable to your practice and research in language education!
Anne Burns and Jill Hadfield
(Series Editors)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To our families and friends who are always there for support.
We would like to thank the editors of the Research and Resources in Language Teaching series, Anne Burns and Jill Hadfield, for their insightful feedback and suggestions that helped to improve this book.
Júlia Barón would like to thank Dr Alicia Martínez-Flor and Dr Ariadna Sánchez-Hernández for their support throughout the process of writing this book. She would like to express her deepest gratitude to Dr Maria Luz Celaya for her constant guidance and care during all these years of friendship and work, so many times intertwined. Maria Luz Celaya would like to look backwards in her professional career and acknowledge the support of Prof Pedro Guardia for introducing her to the field of Linguistics and for his friendship throughout life; Prof M. Teresa Turell, her PhD supervisor back in 1991, for making her feel passionate about Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ever since. Her gratitude also goes to all her students (undergraduates, MA, and PhD) who year after year have become interested in Interlanguage Pragmatics and in SLA in general; among them Dr Júlia Barón, her friend and colleague now, who has been an example of commitment, enthusiasm, and good work, both academically and in life. Maria Luz Celaya and Júlia Barón would also like to thank the GRAL research group. Peter Watkins would like to thank the teachers and students from whom he continues to learn – you are a constant source of motivation.
PART I
From research to implications
Introduction
Second and foreign language teaching occurs worldwide and has many different goals and expectations. As teachers, we may find ourselves teaching in different contexts and engaging in different types of courses, which will be associated with our students’ needs. Sometimes, we find ourselves preparing our students to pass an official examination; sometimes the course we teach is compulsory in the school or university curriculum; at other times, we may teach a language to students who need it for work purposes; and it may also be the case that we teach languages to students who just want to know the language for pleasure so that they can travel and communicate with others in the target language (TL). In relation to materials that are used, however, even if many curricula nowadays are communication oriented, it is still very common to find courses, and even textbooks, whose main focus is on grammar. This is especially the case in courses whose main objective is to help students to pass an official language exam. Yet, despite the fact that, for the last few decades, many researchers have been claiming the benefits of teaching pragmatics in foreign and second language contexts (González-Lloret, 2019), this area of communication is seldom part of language courses.
Regardless of the course objectives, as teachers we may believe that our ultimate goal is to provide students with strategies to communicate with both native (NSs) and non-native (NNSs) speakers of the students’ TL. Mastering grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation will not guarantee that communication is going to be successful. Being polite, using the appropriate
language depending on who your interlocutor is, adapting the language to the situation you are in, or knowing about the culture of the language you are interacting with are all important and necessary factors to communicate with others in a second language (L2) (González-Lloret, 2021). These features of language are referred to in language study as pragmatics. As Bardovi-Harlig (2013, p. 68) points out, pragmatics is “the study of howto-say-what-to-whom-when”, so if our final objective is to help students to communicate, dealing with pragmatics in the language class should probably be one of the main objectives in classroom syllabi.
This book looks at key theoretical perspectives on pragmatics and how they can be enacted in practice. Part I of this book is divided into two main sections. Section 1 (An introduction to pragmatics) presents a general overview that will frame the theoretical background: from definitions and history of pragmatics, to approaches to pragmatics, culture, social contexts, and (im)politeness. Section 2 (Pragmatics in second language learning and teaching) aims to help readers to understand the process of L2 pragmatics learning as well as to provide an overview of approaches to the teaching of pragmatics.
Section 1. An introduction to pragmatics
Defining pragmatics
Yule’s (1996, p. 3) definition of pragmatics gives a general working overview of the term. He points out that pragmatics is the “study of the speaker’s meaning”, as well as “contextual meaning”, that is, to know what a speaker really means in a particular context. For example, if someone says ‘Some fresh air would be nice now’ after being closed in a room for a very long time, what the speaker really means is ‘let’s get out of here’. Pragmatics shows us “how more gets communicated than is said” which means that we cannot rely only on the literal meaning of sentences, but we need to further understand the implied meanings of utterances, as in the previous example. Finally, according to Yule, pragmatics also expresses “relative distance” which refers to the relationship between speakers when communicating. The language we use with our friends or family members will not be the same as when we communicate with people from work; we might choose more informal language in the first situation, and more formal language in the second one.
Therefore, as Yule suggests, when dealing with pragmatics, we are not only focusing on what the speaker is literally saying; we need to go further and try to infer what the speaker’s meaning really is. Not only that, but also the context or situation in which something is said is an important aspect
to consider, since it may affect the meaning of the utterance. Furthermore, who we are interacting with will play a major role in what we say: talking to a friend is not the same as talking to a boss.
Another working definition of pragmatics is the one by Crystal (1997, p. 301) who defined it as “the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication”. This definition includes some key aspects that play an important role in pragmatics. The first one is the word ‘choices’. According to this definition, pragmatics does not only refer to what speakers say, but how they find themselves choosing which linguistic strategy is more appropriate according to the situation in which it is being said. That can sometimes be problematic: what if we do not choose the appropriate one? What if we make a request which is too direct in a context and culture in which a more indirect one would be expected? Then, ‘interaction’ will probably fail from a pragmatic perspective. Thus, ‘interaction’ is another key term in pragmatics, since pragmatic exchanges always take place in interaction and communication. Nowadays, when we refer to interaction, we no longer mean only face-to-face communication, but also online communication, text messaging, or texting in social media. Finally, the word ‘effect’ in Crystal’s definition is another important aspect that needs to be considered. If pragmatic exchanges take place in interaction, this means that what we say is not only relevant from an individual perspective, but also from the interlocutor’s reaction towards what we say. As in the example provided earlier, if we say ‘it is hot in here’ and somebody opens a window or turns on an air conditioner or fan, it will mean that the hint we have made has had the expected effect that we had hoped for. If, on the contrary, nobody reacts, we may need to change the way we request it, and perhaps become more direct, with something like ‘would you mind opening the window?’
As we can see in the definitions above, pragmatics plays an important role in interaction, a role that is important in our first language (L1) as well. The norms and behaviours of our L1 pragmatics are acquired from childhood, since from very early stages we are told by our parents, caregivers, or teachers what is appropriate and what is not in different situations in our daily life: for example, we can be told that we must say ‘thank you’ when somebody gives us a present, that we must apologise if we do something wrong, that elderly people must be treated with respect, and so on. Of course, we are not born pragmatically appropriate; it is through contact and interaction with pragmatically experienced speakers that we become pragmatically competent in our L1. This takes time.
But what happens when we are learning an L2, when our interactions with L2 pragmatically proficient learners are narrower, and the exposure to the L2 culture and pragmatic norms is scarce? Even if we are attending classes, are materials and course curriculum providing enough information about the L2 pragmatics? These are some of the questions that we will deal with in Section 2 of Part I. Before moving to L2 learning, though, we need to know more about where the term pragmatics comes from, as an important aspect of language.
A brief historical overview
Pragmatics is not a new field in linguistics. It can be traced back to Charles Morris (1938) who first put forward the term to refer to how users of a language interpret linguistic signs. However, it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that pragmatics became of interest for many researchers and philosophers. Pragmatics was born as a reaction to Noam Chomsky’s claim (1957) that language should be understood as syntax-based. In opposition to this, philosophers such as John Austin (1962) and John Searle (1969) (Speech Act Theory) and Paul Grice (1989) (Cooperative Principle) argued that language goes beyond grammar and syntax, and conceptualised language as the means of communication between speakers. Following these initial ideas, pragmatics is now understood as the study of language from the users’ perspective while interacting with others in specific social and cultural contexts. As we saw above, pragmatics also involves the linguistic and non-linguistic features that speakers use, and their effects on the interlocutors (Crystal, 1997).
Pragmatics is a very broad field and has, thus, been investigated from different perspectives. On the one hand, approaches such as contrastive pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics compare how speech acts are realised in different languages and cultures. Speech acts refer to those utterances that we make to request, accept, refuse, apologise, and compliment, among many others. They are acts used in communication by all interactants of a conversation. On the other hand, interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) focuses on how learners of an L2 acquire and develop the pragmatics of that language. Let us have a quick look at these approaches.
In the case of contrastive pragmatics, its main focus is on the more linguistic side of pragmatics. The aim of such an approach is to compare how speech acts are realised in different languages and to see how they may differ from one language to another ( Yule, 1996). In contrast, cross-cultural pragmatics focuses on how culture-specific variables influence the way speech acts are realised in different languages. Cross-cultural pragmatics
emphasises the fact that, in order to be pragmatically appropriate in a language, it is necessary to know the cultural values and norms, and how they are portrayed in linguistic forms (Trosborg, 1995).
On the other hand, ILP focuses on the acquisition of the pragmatics of the L2. According to Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993), ILP should be considered as a “hybrid” of interlanguage, or the learners’ language as they acquire an L2 (see Section 2 for a more detailed definition) and pragmatics. Since ILP aims at studying the acquisition of the pragmatics of the L2, the focus of such studies is the non-native speaker or L2 learner. More specifically, ILP studies the learners’ knowledge, perception, comprehension, and acquisition of the L2 pragmatics, on the one hand, and, on the other, the use and production of L2 pragmatics, both in second and foreign language contexts (Alcón, 2008).
In this book our main focus is the learner, as we will see in Section 2; we will follow most of the premises from research carried out in ILP, since it is what can provide us with more information on how to deal with pragmatics in classroom contexts across levels and ages, also bearing in mind that learners have different first languages. However, we believe that cross-cultural perspectives are important to consider even in an ILP approach, especially in the current era, in which interconnectivity (online or face-to-face) between people across the globe with a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds has become the norm in communication. Therefore, before moving to students’ learning contexts, we devote the following discussion in this section to reflecting on aspects such as culture, society, and further exploring what we mean by context and interaction.
Culture, society, and context
Pragmatics cannot be separated from culture. How to act pragmatically appropriate in each language will be determined not only by how much we know about the language but also by how much we know about its culture. By culture is meant how beliefs, behavioural values, assumptions, and social norms are perceived and shared by a particular community (Hinkel, 2014; Spencer-Oatey, 2000). Let us think of an example, such as kissing. There are some cultures in which, when people meet, they kiss, even if they meet for the first time or in a formal situation. This is the case, for instance, in Spain. When friends or colleagues meet for lunch, they tend to give one another a kiss on each cheek, which is an accepted and expected behaviour in this culture. This act, however, might be seen as inappropriate in cultures where that action is not done in those same contexts. For second language learners, such cross-cultural differences may
be very helpful for them to know, in order not to seem rude, inappropriate, or impolite. What would happen if an L1 Spanish speaker goes to an English-speaking country and is introduced to new people whose primary language is English and starts kissing them? What would be the English speaker’s reactions? How would the L1 Spanish speaker react to the L1 English speaker’s reaction? We could expect to find these people involved in a weird and uncomfortable situation.
Knowing about these differences can definitely help learners to find themselves in more successful communicative situations. As teachers, we can help learners to reflect on cultural differences between languages, paying attention to the L2s but also to the L1s. Another important aspect is to know culture is not static, but dynamic and affected by social and environmental factors. For example, going back to the example of kissing, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have made many people in Spain stop kissing each other. Instead, people keep a social distance and just say ‘hi’, or touch elbows. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that even if we explain the cultural differences between languages to our students, we need to be prepared for changes in a particular society or even worldwide.
According to Ishihara with Cohen (2022), when dealing with culture it is important to distinguish between three types of norms: 1) social norms, which refer to what a group of people agree should or should not be said in a given context; 2) cultural norms, which refer to the values and traditions that influence how people behave and interpret other people’s actions and behaviours; 3) pragmatic norms, which refer to the type of language that is most preferred in the L2 community.
FIGURE 1.1 Salutations in different cultures (image by Roberto Barón).
(Im)politeness
Following a recent definition by Leech (2014, p. 3), (im)politeness can be seen as “a form of communicative behaviour found generally in human languages and among human cultures; indeed it has been claimed as a universal phenomenon of human society”. However, since the study of politeness has been extensively researched in different fields and from the different perspectives of sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and discourse analysis (see Locher & Larina, 2019), the concept of politeness is not so clearcut. Politeness theories were born in the 1960s–1970s, such as Brown and Levinson (1987), who conceptualised (im)politeness from a Western perspective, even if they claimed that politeness was governed by some universal principles. Moreover, their analysis of (im)politeness mainly focused on the speaker’s actions rather than on the hearer’s reactions, and context was not considered. This approach means that the picture of (im)politeness is incomplete, as it focuses on the individuals’ acts, rather than on other factors that may be affecting the individuals’ use of (im)politeness. Recent research on (im)politeness has indeed aimed at analysing it from a more contextual perspective, seeing (im)politeness as jointly constructed by the different participants in a conversation, and taking into account a variety of factors that come into play when interaction takes place: for example, the contextual situation, the L1 culture, and the identity of the speakers, among others. However, this discursive approach has also been considered problematic, since it does not allow researchers and teachers to generalise behaviours, as they might be subjected to a subjective interpretation.
An important factor that was addressed in Brown and Levinson’s theory was the notion of face, a concept created by Goffmann (1967), who considered face as how one represents him/herself in relation to others, and how a specific behaviour is expected in such representation. This concept was adapted by Brown and Levinson through the terms positive and negative politeness: the former understood as one’s representation being approved by others (i.e., using L2 pragmatics to sound pragmatically appropriate in the L2, so as to be accepted by the target community), and the latter, as the freedom to choose how to represent one’s own image in front of others (i.e., keeping one’s identity and L1 pragmatics even if that is not pragmatically acceptable in the target community). Hence, the concept of face has been used in pragmatics to classify speech acts into those which threaten face and those which do not. For instance, requests or refusals have often been considered as face-threatening acts (FTAs) since, depending on the strategies used to convey them, problems in communication may arise. This is because in some languages and cultures, direct requests and certain refusals are considered as impolite, when used in some contexts and with
specific interlocutors. Therefore, according to Brown and Levinson’s theory, FTAs should always be avoided, if successful communication is desired. Together with the concept of face, and following Brown and Levinson’s idea of politeness as a universal phenomenon, three social variables affect politeness behaviour all of which should be taken into account to convey (im)politeness: 1) power (P), the social hierarchy between people; 2) social distance (D), that is the degree of familiarity between the interlocutors; 3) imposition (I), which stands for the gravity of the situation in a particular culture.
An important aspect to bear in mind is that Brown and Levison’s Politeness Theory was developed in the 1970s and 1980s, and the world was not as connected as it is nowadays. Consequently, there are other issues at play. First, we live in a globalised world, in which English has become an international language (EIL), spoken among NSs and NNSs, where we are no longer dealing with target politeness norms, but with new politeness rules developed by interculturally competent speakers. Second, the dichotomy between oral and written communication is nowadays much more complex than forty years ago. We find ourselves immersed in a wide variety of interaction modes every day, both via face-to-face (FTF) and computermediated communication (CMC). These changes have not only affected the means of communication, but the language and the (im)politeness norms that are used in these different interaction modes. However, even as the world changes, terms such as (im)politeness are key for the teaching of pragmatics. As mentioned earlier in relation to culture, we need to be aware that these are dynamic elements. It is useful to bear these changes in mind if we are to teach what is currently used in the L2 that our students are learning.
Identifying pragmatics in speech
Having reviewed some of the main theoretical concepts, how can we identify pragmatics in language? The easiest identifiable pragmatic moves are speech acts (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969). These are declarations, requests, suggestions, apologies, orders, refusals, acceptances, compliments, compliment responses, and greetings, among many others. Apart from speech acts, elements such as pragmatic markers (i.e., yeah, well, okay), and the use of humour, irony, sarcasm, and implicature can also be identified in written or oral performance. In this section, we aim to examine how pragmatic exchanges take place in interaction, bearing in mind the concepts mentioned in the previous sections.
The following excerpt is taken from ‘Did you hear about the Morgans?’. The film is about a separated couple (Paul and Meryl Morgan) who witness a murder. Since the murderer has seen them, they are forced to enter
a witness protection programme with new identities and are sent to a small town. In this town, they are under the supervision and protection of the town’s sheriff and his wife (Clay and Emma), with whom they live for a few days. The following excerpt comes from a scene in which Paul and Meryl arrive at the sheriff’s house for the first time.
Excerpt transcript
Emma:… I’ll show you to your room.
Meryl: Ok.
Emma: Hope you will be comfortable here, we fixed up this, your bedroom, not exactly the Ritz. We usually have one witness at a time.
Clay: The last time was Vitto the Butcher.
Paul: So, you actually do this all the time?
Clay: Yeah, about ten years ago the government asked if we would have someone for a week, ever since then a couple of times a year they bring somebody by. It’s kind of interesting, actually. Now they want me to retire. So, you two are gonna be our last.
Meryl: Oh, well, it’s an honor, and it’s a lovely guest room, but Mr. Morgan, ehm Mr. Foster and I are separating.
Paul: We are thinking of seeing a therapist.
Emma: So how do you want to handle the sleeping arrangements?
Meryl: Well, I can sleep on the couch.
Let us now analyse the excerpt following some of the important terms that we mentioned earlier that are key to understanding pragmatic exchanges. We will focus on a very indirect request made by Meryl. First, we need to contextualise the scene and identify what is affecting the way Meryl makes the request. Meryl does not want to sleep in the same bed with Paul since they are separating. However, this is something that Clay and Emma do not know. As mentioned before, the way we produce speech acts such as requests are affected by three social variables: Power, Distance, and Imposition. Regarding Power, the Morgans are at the house of the sheriff, who is in a higher power position in relation to them, as the sheriff represents authority in Western culture. For Distance, the scene represents a moment in which they have just met for the first time. Thus, the relationship between them is not close; they are still strangers to each other. Finally, for Imposition, the seriousness of the situation is not that high (requesting to sleep in separate rooms). However, taking into account that they do not know each other, and the sheriff and his wife are in a high-power situation, Meryl opts for a very indirect way of requesting, saying that they are separating, which implies that they do not want to sleep in the same bed. Emma
understands the request, because of the situation and the polite rejection of the arrangements, and asks for an alternative.
Of course, this is just one example of how an indirect request can be made in this type of situation, but we need to take into account that different languages and cultures may handle this pragmatic exchange in a different way.
Summary
The aim of Section 1 was to provide some existing definitions for the term pragmatics and to provide an overview of key concepts in the field. As we have seen, pragmatics is an essential aspect in communication, not only when learning an L2 but also in our L1. When interacting with others we are constantly using speech acts (i.e., requests, apologies, complaints, and so on), acts that are co-constructed by all the participants when communicating. Not knowing how speech acts (or other pragmatic moves such as humour or sarcasm) are used in the L2 may lead to communicative breakdowns. Thus, pragmatic errors might sometimes be more serious than grammar or vocabulary mistakes. The following section focuses on how pragmatics is acquired in foreign and second language contexts and how it can be taught in the classroom context.
Section 2. Pragmatics in second language learning and teaching
Acquiring L2 pragmatics
Learning an L2 is not an easy task. We have all probably been language learners at some point in our lives. What was the most difficult thing for you to learn? Was it grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation? These are the components of language that we usually think of when we reflect on our own language learning process. However, as was mentioned in Section 1, pragmatics is another important aspect that we need to learn and understand to overcome problems in communication. Sounding rude and impolite happens even in our L1, so if we do not know about the pragmatics and culture of the L2 that we are learning, we may be headed towards communicative failure.
As we saw earlier, the field of research within pragmatics and second language acquisition (SLA) that investigates how L2 learners use, produce, acquire, and develop the pragmatics of the TL is ILP. As Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) claimed, ILP is a “hybrid” between interlanguage and pragmatics. The term interlanguage (IL) was coined by Selinker (1972),
who defined it as the learners’ own form of the language, with characteristics coming from the L1, the L2, and from other languages known. The process of acquiring an L2 is not linear, and it is not easy. IL could be represented as a long road trip from Chicago (L1) to Los Angeles (TL). During that trip, we go through different towns, cities, and villages (stages of L2 development). On the road, we always learn new things from the different places we visit. Sometimes, though, we will stay longer in some towns; some other times, we will keep going. There will also be times when we will accidentally take the wrong way (making mistakes), or keep making the wrong choice several times, because we may have not learnt the way well (developmental errors). But sooner or later, we will get to LA. We may not stay in the city centre, but we might make it close. We do not need to become Angelenos, since we may keep our own identity, which is totally acceptable. Apart from such a long trip, to become a pragmatically competent speaker will not be an easy task since we will need to be both pragmalinguistically correct (knowing the linguistic strategies to perform pragmatic moves) and sociopragmatically correct (knowing when and with whom to use such linguistic strategies). As teachers, knowing how we acquire languages, what aspects of language are learnt first or later, and what mistakes or errors are due to the L1, might help us to adjust our classes and class curriculum.
Research on requests: Types and mitigation strategies
Scholars became interested in learners’ acquisition of pragmatics in the 1980s and especially at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s. Most of the studies carried out during those years focused on speech acts, since, as mentioned earlier, using speech acts in an ‘inappropriate’ way may lead to communication breakdowns. The aim of such studies was to examine how learners of an L2 produced and developed speech acts over time. The most widely studied speech act in both L1 and L2 acquisition has been requests, classified as a directive in Searle’s Taxonomy of Speech Acts (1969) and considered as a face-threatening act in Brown and Levison’s Politeness theory (1987). When requesting, what the speaker aims at is to get the listener to do something. In order to know how learners acquire requests, first it is important to know what types of requests are commonly used by NSs and how they are softened when necessary. Let us think of English, since English requests have been widely studied to date. The most straightforward classification of requests is between direct and indirect. In a direct request the literal meaning is easily understood (i.e., Shut up), whereas with indirect requests we need to process the conveyed meaning and pay
attention to the context in which it is produced (i.e., It is a little bit loud in here) (Ervin-Tripp, Strage, Lampert & Bell, 1987). We seem to process both literal and conveyed meanings and take advantage of the context to interpret such speech acts appropriately (Takahashi & Roitblat, 1994).
Regarding types of requests, a well-known project in the 1980s developed a categorisation that has been widely used in research. This was carried out by The Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realisation Patterns (CCSARP), which examined the differences among languages in the use of requests and apologies. As can be seen in Table 1.1, their classification of requests goes from those which are more direct (at the top) to those that are more indirect (at the bottom). In an English-speaking context, the more direct a request is, the more face-threatening it may sound. This is the reason why more indirect requests are preferred to get the interlocutor to do something.
Apart from using indirect requests, we can also use other strategies to mitigate them: internal and external modification. These are linguistic elements that appear either inside the request (i.e., Could you possibly open the window?) or outside the request (i.e., Could you open the window, please ?). The former is called internal modification and the latter is called external modification. As with request types, researchers have developed categories for both internal and external modification. Table 1.2 shows one of the classifications provided by Alcón-Soler and Safont (2005).
Research on requests: General findings
What studies in ILP have found regarding request types is that learners tend to use more direct requests in early stages of acquisition and more indirect requests in higher stages (i.e., Achiba, 2003; Barón, 2015; Ellis, 1992; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007). These findings seem to follow a similar pattern to
TABLE 1.1 Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1989, p. 202)
Type Example
Mood derivable
Explicit performative
Leave me alone
I am asking you to dress up the mess
Hedge performative I would like to ask you to give …
Locution derivable
Madam, you’ll have to move your car
Scope stating I wish you’d stop bothering me
Suggestory formulas
So, why don’t you clean …
Reference to preparatory conditions Could you clean up the kitchen, please?
Strong hints You’ve left the kitchen in a right mess
Mild hints I am a nun
TABLE 1.2 Internal and external modification by Alcón-Soler and Safont (2005, p. 17)
Type Sub-type Example
Internal modification Openers Do you think you could open the window? Would you mind opening the window?
Softeners Understatement Could you open the window for a moment?
Downtoner Could you possibly open the window?
Hedge Could you kind of open the window?
Intensifiers You really must open the window.
I’m sure you wouldn’t mind opening the window.
Filters Hesitators I er, erm, er – I wonder if you could open the window.
Cajolers You know, you see, I mean.
Appealers OK?, Right?, Yeah.
Attention-getters Excuse me …; Hello …; Look …; Tom, …; Mr. Edwards, …; Father
External modifications
Preparators May I ask you a favour? Could you open the window?
Grounders It seems it is quite hot here. Could you open the window?
Disarmers I hate bothering you but could you open the window?
Expanders Would you mind opening the window? … Once again, could you open the window?
Promise of reward Could you open the window? If you open it, I promise to bring you to the cinema.
Please Would you mind opening the window, please?
L1 acquisition (Carrell, 1981). As for request modification, internal modification seems to be acquired before external modification (Schauer, 2006, 2007). In some cases, it has been found that modification is overused by means of one strategy like the use of please (Ellis, 1992).
Research on requests: Two examples
Two studies in ILP research that have been the most cited so far are those by Ellis (1992) and Achiba (2003). These two studies followed the participants’ L2 acquisition over a long period of time. Based on these two studies, Kasper and Rose (2003) created five stages of development of L2 pragmatic acquisition that have been used in many studies within the field (i.e., Barón, 2015; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007).
In the case of Ellis (1992), he followed the development of two Englishas-a-second-language (ESL) beginners in London, aged 10 and 11, in a
classroom setting during 15–21 months. As has already been mentioned, the results supported the movement from a direct to an indirect use of requests. However, the two learners failed to develop most of the different request types as well as the linguistic means to perform them. Ellis argued that the sociopragmatic instruction that learners had received in class (explaining how and when to use the different strategies taught) was not realistic, and this may have been an explanation for their failure in sociopragmatic competence.
The study by Achiba (2003) presented a longitudinal case study of her daughter Yao, a 7-year-old Japanese girl, who spent 17 months in Australia. In the course of the 17 months, Yao went through four developmental phases. In the first phase (first 12 weeks in Australia), she mainly used formulaic utterances, such as routines and patterns. In the second phase (from week 13 to week 31), there was still a use of formulaic language, that is, patterns were used, but every time they were more elaborate. Indirect strategies started to arise, probably thanks to the acquisition of new linguistic forms which enabled her to use such strategies. She also started to present grammatical and sociocultural awareness of the target language and community, which enabled her to start developing her pragmatic ability. From week 32 to 61, the third phase, requests started to be more and more elaborate due to the increase of her L2 competence. Modals started to be used for more polite requests, since she made use of politeness with addressees of higher ranks. In the last phase, week 62 to week 75, more complex structures appeared as well as new strategies and mitigation.
As mentioned above, five stages of development were created by Kasper and Rose (2003) based on these two studies. Table 1.3 shows the developmental stages suggested by Kasper and Rose. Knowing the stages of development that learners go through can help us to design input and activities adapted to what they know and what is going to be acquired afterwards.
As both the studies reviewed and the stages of development presented above show, learners of second languages will also go through a series of stages of development. Some will go faster than others and many factors will have different types of influence on the way, but they will ultimately arrive at their destination.
Some reflections on research
How can the categories and studies mentioned in this section help us in our L2 lessons? The class curriculum is tight and we usually follow a textbook or specific materials that are designed for the courses we are teaching.
TABLE 1.3 Stages of development of requests by Kasper and Rose (2003, p. 140)
Stage Characteristics
1: Pre-basic Highly context-dependent, no syntax, no relational goals
2: Formulaic Reliance on unanalysed formulas and imperatives
3: Unpacking Formulas incorporated into productive language use, shift to conventional indirectness
4: Pragmatic expansion Addition of new forms to pragmalinguistic repertoire, increased use of mitigation, more complex syntax
5: Fine-tuning Fine-tuning of requestive force to participants, goals, and context
Examples
“Me no blue”, “Sir”
“Let’s play the game”, “Let’s eat breakfast”, “Don’t look”
“Can you pass the pencil please?”, “Can you do another one for me?”
“Could I have another chocolate because my children – I have five children”, “Can I see it so I can copy it?”
“You could put some blue tack down there”, “Is there any more white?”
Pragmatics is sometimes included: long lists of expressions on how to request, how to agree and disagree, how to give opinions, among many other speech acts and pragmatic moves. However, they are not commonly contextualised and we are not told why some expressions are there, and others are not. Knowing that there are already existing categorisations of speech acts, which are based on what is commonly used in the language that we are teaching, can help us to provide our students with a wider variety of expressions, apart from what we find in the class materials that we have access to. Besides, knowing that there exist stages of development, that even NSs use some strategies at the beginning of language learning, and others later on, can also help us to give our students what they need at the right time. The problem is that sometimes such categorisations are not easy to find. Hence, we provide below some of the categorisations that can be found in the literature that can be helpful when developing materials. We chose speech acts which are commonly present in textbooks. The linguistic strategies presented in Table 1.4 go from informal (at the top) to formal (at the bottom). However, some of them can be used in both registers. Nevertheless, as will be pointed out in the following discussion, providing isolated pragmatic moves will not be enough for learners to use them appropriately. As teachers, we will need to tell our students to take into account at least three relevant factors, namely, the context in which such strategies are used, the interlocutor (distance and degree of familiarity), and the cultural norms of the TL community. Reflections on how we perform such moves in our L1 can also benefit learners.
TABLE 1.4 Pragmatics categories
Thanking
Suggestions
Showing interest
Greetings
Agreeing/Disagreeing Apologising Giving opinion
Thanks a bunch That’s so kind of you I owe you one Anytime! No worries No problem I really appreciate it Much obliged My pleasure I am truly grateful I can’t thank you enough
It is a good idea! What a great/ wonderful idea! That is really interesting! Wow, that sounds amazing That is really wonderful! Uh-huh That’s interesting Oh, I see Right Really? No way! You’re joking! Where do you stand? What about you? What do you think? I suggest that you I would suggest that you I advise you to I would advise you to I recommend that you I would recommend that you Why don't you It would be helpful if you If you want to…, I’ll suggest + noun I suggest to + V Try + Ving Have you tried Have you thought of How about What about You could If I were you, I would What you need (to do) is It would be a good idea to It is better to It would be better to Let’s Shall we We should
Well, no, but the Well, I do I suppose I hadn’t even thought of I actually think I wasn’t keen on the idea I mean Not at all Yeah, you have a point there I see your point I would go along with that I couldn’t agree more I agree with you up to a point I absolutely agree with you You took the words right out of my mouth I agree with you, but/and I am sorry Sorry for Sorry that I/We owe you an apology I do apologise Please accept my/our apologies I/We regret any inconvenience this may cause I/We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause I beg your pardon I/We apologise to our customers for the long wait I think I reckon Personally, I think Personally, I reckon In my opinion In my view It seems to me (that) All things considered If you ask me To tell you the truth To be honest To be frank To my mind As far as I’m concerned Morning Afternoon Evening Hi Hi there Hiya Nice to see you How do you do? Long time no see Pleased to meet you Nice to meet you Good morning Good afternoon Good evening All right?
Teaching L2 pragmatics
A research overview
Even if pragmatics is not commonly included in many course curricula, research in the field has shown that teaching pragmatics is positive for L2 learners. In order to test whether pragmatic instruction is beneficial, researchers usually compare groups who receive pragmatic instruction versus groups who do not get any training in pragmatics. In order to test learning, students do a pre and a post-test; in the case of instructed learners, they do so before and after receiving instruction. When groups are compared, those students who get instruction tend to outperform those who do not (i.e., Alcón-Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2015).
Thus, imagine that we want to know whether teaching indirect requests such as hints (i.e., It is so hot in here – implied meaning: open the window) helps learners to become aware of this strategy and to be able to use them in their oral production. We could use a role-play, for example, before we start the pragmatic instruction to check whether they are already able to use them or not, and we would do the same after instruction (see Figure 1.2 for a summary of the research design).
How would we know that learners are doing better in the post-test? If instruction had an effect, we would see that students incorporate the strategies addressed during instruction in an appropriate way. However, this type of design has sometimes received some criticisms, since learners are sometimes exposed to those expressions outside the classroom (e.g., through TV series, books, conversations with other speakers of the TL). This is why it is always very important to know what learners do outside the class. To find out, researchers use background questionnaires or interviews to enquire about their out-of-school exposure.
Pre-test
Imagine that you are in a very hot and stuffy office and you’d like to ask your colleague to open the window
Instructed group
Non-instructed group
FIGURE 1.2 Research design 1.
Post-test
Imagine that you are in a very hot and stuffy office and you’d like to ask your colleague to open the window
As mentioned above, studies following this design have shown that teaching pragmatics is better than not teaching it. After several studies confirming these results, researchers in the field started to explore approaches to teaching pragmatics. For several years, the studies which were carried out mainly focused on whether to teach pragmatics in an explicit or an implicit way. The methodological difference between explicit and implicit instruction is that when teaching pragmatics explicitly the students know from the very beginning what they are going to learn, they are provided with explanations and rules, and they are given the particular expressions used to express the pragmatic move taught. However, when using implicit methods, the students are first presented with input where the pragmatic features appear, or they are asked to carry out a series of activities in which they might be ‘forced’ to use a specific pragmatic move. In order to test the benefits of these approaches, the research design that studies follow is similar to the one in Figure 1.3. However, in this case the two approaches are compared. Some studies even have a ‘control group’, that is, a group not following any pragmatic instruction whatsoever.
When comparing these two approaches, most studies have shown the benefits of explicit over implicit instruction, but there are still some disagreements about this issue (as shown in a meta-analysis by Plonsky & Zhuang, 2019). Some researchers argue that when it comes to pragmatics, providing students with explanations about why a specific expression is better than another in a particular context helps learners to make more effective choices when they interact outside the class in the TL. This is the reason why recent studies explore such methods in combination with metapragmatic explanations.
Two examples
To better understand how these studies have been carried out, here we have two examples of research which have investigated the effects of explicit
Explicit group
Pre-test
Imagine that you are in a very hot and stuffy office and you’d like to ask your colleague to open the window.
FIGURE 1.3 Research design 2.
Implicit group
Control group
Post-test
Imagine that you are in a very hot and stuffy office and you’d like to ask your colleague to open the window.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
tying to go to the trains. Then the machine is rolled along the line of pigeonholes and fed, by hand, by its retainer. Packs of letters, four inches thick, are placed into position, the machine is set in motion, and then— click, click, clop! That’s the way it sounds. The first two clicks indicate the tying of the packet of letters, sidewise and then lengthwise, and the “clop” the dropping of the bundle into a waiting basket.
Where the best men used to tie five or six packets in a minute, the machine now ties thirty—and it has not tried for a record yet!
Flesh From Body Saves Eye.
The sight of Doctor E. Lerendinger, a professor of Hood College, Frederick, Md., has been restored as the result of an unusual surgical operation. Flesh was removed from the professor’s abdomen and placed in a cavity above one of his eyes, which had been caused by an accident. The operation was performed several weeks ago, but was not made public until success was assured.
Tallest Couple are Wedded.
The tallest couple in Pennsylvania were united in marriage a few days ago in Lewistown. The bridegroom, George Schaffer, who stands six feet seven inches in his stockings, achieved quite a reputation when he was a member of the Allentown police as the tallest cop. The bride is Mrs. Angie Kern, six feet two inches tall. Both parties are about forty years of age.
Mrs. Schaffer is a prospective heiress if she can break the will of the late Charles Losch, who left about $150,000 to be divided among relatives. She produced a letter purporting to have been signed by Losch, saying that if she would take care of him in his declining years he would leave her his homestead in Allentown, valued at $12,000. Schaffer says he often heard Losch say he would leave Mrs. Kern the homestead.
The newlyweds have purchased a farm, and whatever the outcome of the will contest, it will not affect their happiness. The bride says she fell in love with her new husband because she detested walking around with a man shorter than herself.
This Modest Inventor Would Stop World War.
“I can make the United States the strongest nation in the world. I can end the European struggle in a short time. I can make the smallest nation most powerful.”
This is the assertion of John Vogelzangs, of Menominee, Mich., an inventor, who claims to have a method of extracting electricity from the air so that air craft might be manned with powerful guns and not be forced to land until they want to.
“I can sweep the seas clear of vessels. I can kill armies and level cities,” claimed the inventor, who in the same breath asserted he favored universal peace, but that the world was not ready for it.
He says Secretary Daniels’ plan for an advisory board is good.
He refused to give out much information about his new device. He said he lacked money to carry on the work, and displayed a letter from Mr. Daniels, written before the war broke out, saying this nation was not ready to take up his ideas.
Vogelzangs has a reputation for being an inventor of ability. He made a street cleaner, which he refused to sell for $10,000. He also claims he will revolutionize the berry business with a new picker.
Walks on 113th Birthday.
Mrs. Edna G. Goldman, of Glamorgan, Va., celebrated her 113th birthday by walking ten miles to the home of her son, Henry Goldman, at Pound, Va.
Mrs. Goldman was born in Appomattox County, Va., in 1802. Despite her age, she cultivates a small patch of land in corn and beans each year. This year she is “farming” about two acres.
Flivver is Not Amphibious.
Edward Kirby, of Newton, N. J., erred in believing a flivver amphibious. It is alleged that he stole the automobile at the Grand Hotel, Golden Springs, and, when closely pursued by other automobiles, he ran the flivver into the Delaware River, seeking to reach Pike County shore.
The flivver floated several minutes and made quite a little progress in the current, but when the body filled, she went down at the bow and soon plunged to the bottom.
Kirby swam out and made his way across the river. He disappeared into the woods there, and a posse under Sheriff Applegate is seeking him.
Song Tells of Old Man Who Had a Wooden Leg.
John Strain, of Greenwich, Conn., who lost his leg three years ago and his temper recently, has announced that he intends to obtain a rubber artificial limb. His statement was made to-day through a window of the county jail, from which he will watch the dying sun precede each of the next thirty twilights.
The reason Mr. Strain intends to obtain the new artificial limb described it that his wife, a muscular woman, who has been getting plenty of exercise since John ceased to work eight years ago, has been and is in the habit of bounding his artificial limb off his forehead when a domestic storm brews. The present limb is of wood, and, for various reasons, is unsatisfactory to Mr. Strain and his brow.
Over the condition of the weather a quarrel started in the Strain home. Mr. Strain declared he felt that a gale was coming from the northeast, inasmuch as his left leg—not the wooden one—pained slightly. Mrs. Strain, with that rare spirit of raillery which characterizes a woman who supports four children, told John the weather could scarcely affect a man who sat in the house smoking all the time. It was then that John, according to the testimony of his wife in police court, threw eight volumes of Dumas, apparently bound in zinc. His aim was true.
Mrs. Strain then took John’s artificial limb and hung it just west of where he parts his hair. Her judgment of distance was perfect—it generally is. She then cried for help.
When help arrived, John had hopped on one foot over the State border, into New York. A sheriff with a rich baritone voice explained to him that hopping about New York State with no hat and only an undershirt over his shoulders would mean but little in his life. John thought deeply, hopped over into Connecticut again, and was sentenced to thirty days in jail by Judge James R. Meade.
Machine That Remembers.
A machine which will remember the date and hour of an appointment made several weeks previous is one of the latest efficiency devices to be placed on the market. A roll of paper strip passes over a flat surface where the appointment is indicated, and a punch mark made in the margin. When that time occurs, a gong is sounded and a reference to the strip will give the information as to what appointment is to be kept.
Fifty Dollars Gone, Flivver May Survive.
Probably the maddest man in and about Montgomery County, New York State, just at present is Reuben Hyney, who keeps a shoe store on the main street of Fonda, and who, as a side line, rents his automobile to any one who can fit in it. Mr. Hyney has no more temper than any other normal man who lives in Montgomery County, but the shoe business has run over at the heel a bit recently, and the other afternoon something happened which increased Mr. Hyney’s height four inches.
Hyney was adjusting a spring-heeled shoe to a broad foot at about a moment after two o’clock, when the telephone rang sharply. He dropped his client’s foot onto his own and limped to the booth. A man with an educated voice, as Mr. Hyney describes it, was asking if he might hire an automobile for the afternoon. He said he was a school inspector and was as busy as a one-eyed mouse in a cheese factory. He would come running if the buzz wagon was not busy. It was not.
Hardly had the satisfied customer walked from the store when a bearded stranger, wearing a slouch hat, stopped at the door, looked up and down the street craftily, and entered.
“Wait there,” said the shoe merchant, pointing to the central design on a piece of linoleum. “I will oil the machine and call my daughter.”
The stranger, laughing up his sleeve, through his vest and along his hatband, reached into the cash register and took fifty dollars. Then he sat down and waited until Miss Hyney came to watch the store. By this time it was hardly worth it.
An hour later the mysterious stranger told the owner of the machine to stop in front of a building in Fort Plain. He went upstairs.
Three hours later Hyney decided the stranger had given him the metropolitan fare-thee-well. He entered the building and found nothing but the janitor and a flock of rent signs.
Two hours later he was back in Fonda, telling his daughter about the “cuss” who tore the soul out of a dandy four-hundred-dollar touring car and didn’t pay for it. Then his daughter asked him if he had taken fifty dollars from the cash register.
Mr. Hyney is in bed. But what’s the use?—he can’t sleep.
Capture Odd Pair of Mice.
A most remarkable freak of nature is a white mouse and a black one captured in a bureau drawer by John Elias, who lives in Atchison, Kan. The white mouse hasn’t a black spot on it and has black eyes. The black mouse has fur as black as the ace of spades, and its eyes are brown.
Local zoölogists are unable to account for the strange markings of the mice. They are very vicious and never miss a chance to attempt to bite members of the Elias family while being fed.
Billy Goat is Boss of Town.
A billy goat tied up traffic in Kokomo, Ind., as effectively as the streetcar strike did in Chicago. The goat broke away from a colored man who was leading it at the transfer corner.
The conductors of two cars standing there were on the sidewalk at the time. They started for their cars and the goat started for them. The men “beat it” for a candy store and won.
The goat then turned his attention to several pedestrians and soon made a scatterment. About this time Patrolmen Elkins and Webb came along.
Webb lived on a farm and knew the habits of the goat. He kept in the rear. Elkins bravely went forward to capture the goat. He managed to seize the animal by the head and tried to go with him to the station. Every time he pulled, the goat started to butt him. He held on for several minutes, afraid to let go, until the owner of the goat relieved him.
Aged Couple Joined at Last.
George W. Hayden, a retired farmer of Big Laurel, Va., and Larestia Fulton, of Lipps, were married at the home of the bride’s son, Henry Fulton, a few days ago. The bridegroom was some few days past ninety years of age when the knot was tied and the bride was lacking a few days of being eighty-seven.
About seventy years ago Hayden and Miss Helt—the bride’s maiden name—were engaged, but quarreled, and both married other parties and reared large families. Hayden’s wife died eighteen years ago and Mrs. Fulton was left a widow three years ago.
“Well Broken to Hard Work.”
Although many bones in his body have been broken as a result of various accidents during his life, W. M. Morgan, who lives near Lancaster, Kan., finds little cause for complaint for the treatment he has had at the hands of “cruel fate.”
At various times he has had both shoulders fractured, a number of ribs cracked, a thumb broken, both legs broken, and his right foot has almost every bone in it broken. Despite all these handicaps, he works every day at hard labor and has little use for the fellow who thinks hard luck has given him a jolt.
Snake Swallows China Egg.
Blacksnakes down Gales Ferry way cannot tell china nest eggs for hen’s eggs, according to a story related by Mr. and Mrs. R. B. de Bussy, of Mount Vernon, N. Y. The De Bussys were recent guests of Miss Caroline Freeman at the Bouwerie, Gales Ferry. Miss Freeman’s guests at that time included Professor Heuser, instructor in German at Columbia University, and his family.
Professor Heuser’s daughter, six years old, returning from the poultry house at Bouwerie, reported no eggs, but said a big snake was in a hen’s nest. A manservant, using an ax, killed the five-foot snake.
Miss Freeman then discovered that the china nest egg was missing from the nest. The search led to the interior of the snake, where the missing china nest egg was recovered.
Lightning’s Queer Freak.
Lightning apparently photographed a perfect likeness of a tree, branches, twigs, and leaves, in minutest detail, on the breast of Edwin Liesman, who was instantly killed in the Magnolia clubhouse on Mount Penn, near Reading, Pa., in a violent electrical storm.
Liesman’s mother, Mrs. Bernard Liesman, and a friend, Harry Opperman, were badly shocked, but will recover.
Liesman was sitting at a window next to a telephone. The bolt followed the telephone wire. The tree outside the window was almost exactly reproduced on Liesman’s body. The tragedy occurred during four brilliant flashes in swift succession, putting out all the lights in the cottage. Medical men and photographers were puzzled by the strange features wrought on the dead man.
Sounds Like a Fish Story.
A flock of geese were swimming in White River, near Augusta, Ark., and a splash attracted the attention of several men and boys who were near by. A large blue channel catfish came up and grabbed a goose, taking the fowl under with him.
People watched for some time, but the goose never came up. This may sound like a fish story, but nevertheless it is true.
Ghostly Figure That is an Awful Shrieker.
A ghost, or some other creature with a voice like an armload of siren whistles, has frightened the residents of Somerville, N. J., to the point where it is no longer a joke, and they want to get to sleep. The disorder, frightful beyond words, ghastly, ghostly, and hair elevating, has been going on for a week, and the whole town is determined that something is to be done about it.
Thomas Hagen, night roundhouse watchman, was the first one to hear the shrieks. He was going round and round the roundhouse when the most frightful bellow imaginable rent the air. Mr. Hagen, who comes of a warmblooded race, was so startled that his blood ran cold. It could barely run, even.
Right across the railroad tracks from the roundhouse is the cemetery, and Mr. Hagen, after recalling this, took a little jaunt up the road that restored his circulation to normal. He notified the police force, who were sitting up late, reading, and he became indignant when the department took a cigar out of its mouth and laughed at him.
Every night since then the terrible noise has been repeated, and persons who have passed the roundhouse have seen a strange figure flitting about among the bushes and trees which border the railroad tracks at that point. Some of them even describe the flitter, which is going some, considering the speed with which they invariably leave the neighborhood.
For the last two nights every one in the village has been shuddering in unison, and the vibration can be felt as far as Philadelphia. Every now and then the shriek ceases and is replaced by a wail—and the wail is a whale of a wail. It is a relief when the shriek starts again.
Mr. Hagen, who originally heard the alleged ghost and who has become more bored with the noise than any of the comparative beginners, yesterday resigned his position as watchman in the roundhouse. He declared that if everything was on the square he would work forever and willingly walk around and around and around all night, but that under present conditions no self-respecting roundhouse watchman could stand around watching.
Chief of Police Bellis will watch with seven railroad detectives. They will stay right at the roundhouse until the ghost appears. Beyond that they have made no arrangements.
Hoodoo Pursues Two Miners.
Two mining partners, Gus Erickson and Bert Pinney, of Hailey, Idaho, are certainly pursued by some hoodoo. While working on a stage ten feet below the surface, the stage broke away from its fastenings, dropping Pinney down the shaft twenty feet, where, after he had turned head down, his buckskin shoe laces caught on a nail and held him until help arrived. Three hundred feet of water would have received him had his laces broke.
The next afternoon Erickson came to town on his motor cycle to get the mail. Returning, the motor cycle skidded in a rut, throwing its rider over the handlebars into the road, the machine piling on top of him. With his skull
fractured in three places, he lay in the road an hour before he was found. Both men will recover.
Former Water Boy’s Story.
A prominent business man of Castleton, Ill., told the following story the other night to three or four citizens assembled in A. A. Webber’s real-estate office:
“When I was a boy,” he said, “I used to carry water for the men to drink when they were working in the field some distance from the house. One real warm day I carried water to my father, who was running a mower and cutting timothy for hay. As I was about to return home, I noticed a prairie chicken fly up from the freshly mown swath. Thinking there might be a nest of eggs—which, by the way, are fine eating—I investigated, and what do you think I found? A prairie chicken with its head cut off, the mowing bar being just the right height to perform the operation. I also found the feet and legs that belonged to the one that flew away. It probably stood up ready to fly as the mowing bar came along, while the other remained sitting and lost its head. Needless to say, we had prairie chicken for dinner.”
The Nick Carter Stories
ISSUED EVERY SATURDAY BEAUTIFUL COLORED COVERS
When it comes to detective stories worth while, the Nick Carter Stories contain the only ones that should be considered. They are not overdrawn tales of bloodshed. They rather show the working of one of the finest minds ever conceived by a writer. The name of Nick Carter is familiar all over the world, for the stories of his adventures may be read in twenty languages. No other stories have withstood the severe test of time so well as those contained in the Nick Carter Stories. It proves conclusively that they are the best. We give herewith a list of some of the back numbers in print. You can have your news dealer order them, or they will be sent direct by the publishers to any address upon receipt of the price in money or postage stamps.
730—The Torn Card.
731—Under Desperation’s Spur.
732—The Connecting Link.
733—The Abduction Syndicate.
738—A Plot Within a Plot.
739—The Dead Accomplice.
746—The Secret Entrance.
747—The Cavern Mystery.
748—The Disappearing Fortune.
749—A Voice from the Past.
752—The Spider’s Web.
753—The Man With a Crutch.
754—The Rajah’s Regalia.
755—Saved from Death.
756—The Man Inside.
757—Out for Vengeance.
758—The Poisons of Exili.
759—The Antique Vial.
760—The House of Slumber.
761—A Double Identity.
762—“The Mocker’s” Stratagem.
763—The Man that Came Back.
764—The Tracks in the Snow.
765—The Babbington Case.
766—The Masters of Millions.
767—The Blue Stain.
768—The Lost Clew.
770—The Turn of a Card.
771—A Message in the Dust.
772—A Royal Flush.
774—The Great Buddha Beryl.
775—The Vanishing Heiress.
776—The Unfinished Letter.
777—A Difficult Trail.
782—A Woman’s Stratagem.
783—The Cliff Castle Affair.
784—A Prisoner of the Tomb.
785—A Resourceful Foe.
789—The Great Hotel Tragedies.
795—Zanoni, the Transfigured.
796—The Lure of Gold.
797—The Man With a Chest.
798—A Shadowed Life.
799—The Secret Agent.
800—A Plot for a Crown.
801—The Red Button.
802—Up Against It.
803—The Gold Certificate.
804—Jack Wise’s Hurry Call.
805—Nick Carter’s Ocean Chase.
807—Nick Carter’s Advertisement.
808—The Kregoff Necklace.
811—Nick Carter and the Nihilists.
812—Nick Carter and the Convict Gang.
813—Nick Carter and the Guilty Governor.
814—The Triangled Coin.
815—Ninety-nine—and One.
816—Coin Number 77.
NEW SERIES
NICK CARTER STORIES
1—The Man from Nowhere.
2—The Face at the Window.
3—A Fight for a Million.
4—Nick Carter’s Land Office.
5—Nick Carter and the Professor.
6—Nick Carter as a Mill Hand.
7—A Single Clew.
8—The Emerald Snake.
9—The Currie Outfit.
10—Nick Carter and the Kidnapped Heiress.
11—Nick Carter Strikes Oil.
12—Nick Carter’s Hunt for a Treasure.
13—A Mystery of the Highway.
14—The Silent Passenger.
15—Jack Dreen’s Secret.
16—Nick Carter’s Pipe Line Case.
17—Nick Carter and the Gold Thieves.
18—Nick Carter’s Auto Chase.
19—The Corrigan Inheritance.
20—The Keen Eye of Denton.
21—The Spider’s Parlor.
22—Nick Carter’s Quick Guess.
23—Nick Carter and the Murderess.
24—Nick Carter and the Pay Car.
25—The Stolen Antique.
26—The Crook League.
27—An English Cracksman.
28—Nick Carter’s Still Hunt.
29—Nick Carter’s Electric Shock.
30—Nick Carter and the Stolen Duchess.
31—The Purple Spot.
32—The Stolen Groom.
33—The Inverted Cross.
34—Nick Carter and Keno McCall.
35—Nick Carter’s Death Trap.
36—Nick Carter’s Siamese Puzzle.
37—The Man Outside.
38—The Death Chamber.
39—The Wind and the Wire.
40—Nick Carter’s Three Cornered Chase.
41—Dazaar, the Arch-Fiend.
42—The Queen of the Seven.
43—Crossed Wires.
44—A Crimson Clew.
45—The Third Man.
46—The Sign of the Dagger.
47—The Devil Worshipers.
48—The Cross of Daggers.
49—At Risk of Life.
50—The Deeper Game.
51—The Code Message.
52—The Last of the Seven.
53—Ten-Ichi, the Wonderful.
54—The Secret Order of Associated Crooks.
55—The Golden Hair Clew.
56—Back From the Dead.
57—Through Dark Ways.
58—When Aces Were Trumps.
59—The Gambler’s Last Hand.
60—The Murder at Linden Fells.
61—A Game for Millions.
62—Under Cover.
63—The Last Call.
64—Mercedes Danton’s Double.
65—The Millionaire’s Nemesis.
66—A Princess of the Underworld.
67—The Crook’s Blind.
68—The Fatal Hour.
69—Blood Money.
70—A Queen of Her Kind.
71—Isabel Benton’s Trump Card.
72—A Princess of Hades.
73—A Prince of Plotters.
74—The Crook’s Double.
75—For Life and Honor.
76—A Compact With Dazaar.
77—In the Shadow of Dazaar.
78—The Crime of a Money King.
79—Birds of Prey.
80—The Unknown Dead.
81—The Severed Hand.
82—The Terrible Game of Millions.
83—A Dead Man’s Power.
84—The Secrets of an Old House.
85—The Wolf Within.
86—The Yellow Coupon.
87—In the Toils.
88—The Stolen Radium.
89—A Crime in Paradise.
90—Behind Prison Bars.
91—The Blind Man’s Daughter.
92—On the Brink of Ruin.
93—Letter of Fire.
94—The $100,000 Kiss.
95—Outlaws of the Militia.
96—The Opium-Runners.
97—In Record Time.
98—The Wag-Nuk Clew.
99—The Middle Link.
100—The Crystal Maze.
101—A New Serpent in Eden.
102—The Auburn Sensation.
103—A Dying Chance.
104—The Gargoni Girdle.
105—Twice in Jeopardy.
196—The Ghost Launch.
107—Up in the Air.
108—The Girl Prisoner.
109—The Red Plague.
110—The Arson Trust.
111—The King of the Firebugs.
112—“Lifter’s” of the Lofts.
113—French Jimmie and His Forty Thieves.
114—The Death Plot.
115—The Evil Formula.
116—The Blue Button.
117—The Deadly Parallel.
118—The Vivisectionists.
119—The Stolen Brain.
120—An Uncanny Revenge.
121—The Call of Death.
122—The Suicide.
123—Half a Million Ransom.
124—The Girl Kidnapper.
125—The Pirate Yacht.
126—The Crime of the White Hand.
127—Found in the Jungle.
128—Six Men in a Loop.
129—The Jewels of Wat Chang.
130—The Crime in the Tower.
131—The Fatal Message.
132—Broken Bars.
133—Won by Magic.
134—The Secret of Shangore.
135—Straight to the Goal.
136—The Man They Held Back.
137—The Seal of Gijon.
138—The Traitors of the Tropics.
139—The Pressing Peril.
140—The Melting-Pot.
141—The Duplicate Night.
142—The Edge of a Crime.
143—The Sultan’s Pearls.
144—The Clew of the White Collar.
145—An Unsolved Mystery.
146—Paying the Price.
147—On Death’s Trail.
148—The Mark of Cain.
Dated July 17th, 1915.
149—A Network of Crime.
Dated July 24th, 1915.
150—The House of Fear.
Dated July 31st, 1915.
151—The Mystery of the Crossed Needles.
Dated August 7th, 1915.
152—The Forced Crime.
Dated August 14th, 1915.
153—The Doom of Sang Tu.
Dated August 21st, 1915.
154—The Mask of Death.
Dated August 28th, 1915.
155—The Gordon Elopement.
Dated Sept. 4th, 1915.
156—Blood Will Tell.
PRICE, FIVE CENTS PER COPY. If you want any back numbers of our weeklies and cannot procure them from your news dealer, they can be obtained direct from this office. Postage stamps taken the same as money.
STREET & SMITH, Publishers, 79-89 Seventh Ave., NEW YORK CITY
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NICK CARTER STORIES NO. 157, SEPTEMBER 11, 1915: A HUMAN COUNTERFEIT; OR, NICK CARTER AND THE CROOK'S DOUBLE
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
