The assessment of second language (L2) pragmatic competence typically involves questionnaires, such as discourse completion tasks. This article describes a novel approach to using questionnaires to assess L2 metapragmatic capacities while simultaneously promoting their development: engaging learners in cooperative interaction as they complete the task. Following dynamic assessment principles, cooperative interaction reveals both fully formed and emerging competencies (i.e. zone of proximal development) while at the same time furthering their continued growth. This study draws on data collected during a concept-based pedagogical enrichment program in which US university students of French were learning the concepts of social distance and power hierarchies as illustrated by the second-person pronouns tu and vous ‘you’. We present a case study of one learner, Nikki, to show how support provided by a tutor around one questionnaire item (i.e. choosing tu or vous in an ambiguous situation) both assessed and promoted her developing conceptual knowledge about the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and how these are indexed through language.
Bardovi-HarligK.DörnyeiZ. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–262.
2.
BelzJ.KingingerC. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214.
3.
Blum-KulkaS. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.
4.
BowlesM.A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.
5.
BrownR.GilmanA. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. Reprinted (1970) in BrownR.(Ed.), Psycholinguistics (pp. 302–335). New York: The Free Press.
6.
ByonA.S. (2006). Developing KFL students’ pragmatic awareness of Korean speech acts: The use of discourse completion tasks. Language Awareness, 15, 244–263.
7.
CoveneyA. (1998). Awareness of linguistic constraints on variable ne omission. Journal of French Language Studies, 8, 159–187.
8.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2004) Vous or tu ? Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42, 383–402.
9.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2008). Appropriateness in foreign language acquisition and use: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical considerations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 245–265.
10.
DewaeleJ.-M.PlanchenaultG. (2006). « Dites-moi tu?! » La perception de la difficulté du système des pronoms d’adresse en français [‘Say tu to me?!’: The perception of the difficulty of the French address pronoun system]. In FaracoM. (Ed.), La classe de langue: Théories, méthodes, pratiques [The language classroom: Theories, methods, practices] (pp. 153–171). Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
11.
DewaeleJ.-M.ReganV. (2001). The use of colloquial words in advanced French Interlanguage. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 51–67.
12.
EllisR. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
FrawleyW. (1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
GalperinP.I. (1989). Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27, 45–65.
15.
GalperinP.I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30, 60–80.
16.
GolatoA. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.
17.
HartfoldB.Bardovi-HarligK. (1992) Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In BoutonL.KachruY. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning [Monograph Series 3] (pp. 33–50). Urbana-Champaign, IL: DEIL.
18.
HaywoodH.C.LidzC.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HaywoodH.C.LidzC.S. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KasperG.SchmidtR. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149–169.
21.
KingingerC. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92, Supplement.
22.
KingingerC.FarrellK. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 19–42.
23.
LantolfJ.P. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In KozulinA.GindisB.AgeyevV.S.MillerS.M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LantolfJ.P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.
25.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–74.
26.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
LantolfJ.P.Yáñez-PrietoC. (2003). Talking yourself into Spanish: Intrapersonal communication and second language learning. Hispania, 86, 97–109.
28.
LoCastroV. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators. New York: Routledge.
29.
LyuhI. (1992). The art of apology: Comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
30.
MorfordJ. (1997). Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7, 3–37.
31.
MühlhäuslerP.HarréR. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
32.
NegueruelaE. (2003). A sociocultural approach to teaching and researching second language: Systemic-theoretical instruction and second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
33.
NegueruelaE. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.
34.
PoehnerM.E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323–340.
35.
PoehnerM.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.
36.
PoehnerM.E. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through L2 dynamic assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 244–263.
37.
PoehnerM.E.LantolfJ.P. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 17, 312–330.
38.
RintellE.MitchellC. (1989) Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In Blum-KulkaS.HouseJ.KasperG. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 248–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39.
SchmidtR. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In KasperG.Blum-KulkaS. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
ShardakovaM. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2–4, 423–454.
41.
SilversteinM. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23, 193–229
42.
SwainM.LapkinS.KnouziI.SuzukiW.BrooksL. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
43.
TaguchiN. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.
44.
VerschuerenJ. (2002). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10, 439–456.
45.
van CompernolleR.A. (2010). Towards a sociolinguistically responsive pedagogy: Teaching second-person address forms in French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 445–463.
46.
van CompernolleR.A. (2011). Developing a sociocultural orientation to variation in language. Language & Communication, 31, 86–94.
47.
van CompernolleR.A. (2012). Developing sociopragmatic capacity in a second language through concept-based instruction. Unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
48.
van CompernolleR.A. (forthcoming). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
49.
VygotskyL.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
VygotskyL.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
VygotskyL.S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
52.
WertschJ. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
WilliamsL.van CompernolleR.A. (2009). On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with indefinite reference in synchronous electronic French discourse. Language Sciences, 31, 409–427.
54.
YamashitaS. (2008). Investigating interlanguage pragmatic ability: What are we testing? In SolerE.A.Martínez-FlorA. (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 201–223). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
