Cecilia Sessarego
There seems to be general agreement among L2 Spanish practitioners that the goal of language programs should be to help learners acquire functional language ability for them to navigate a wide range of texts and fields (MLA 2007, my emphasis). In order to meet curricular outcomes, L2 Spanish teachers are therefore faced with the challenge of articulating lexis, grammar, communicative functions, and pragmatics in classroom pedagogical activities. If we look at L2 Spanish instructional materials, for instance, intermediate level textbooks, they include dialogues (e.g., planning a trip, job interviews, and invitations) in which some speech acts are addressed (e.g., requests, suggestions, etc.), and composition activities (e.g., a biography, essays about art) for the production of descriptive, narrative, argumentative, or expository texts. Written work focuses on the right or wrong application of a good number of grammatical rules in mainly stand-alone sentences, semantic meaning, informative or descriptive content, and some basic organizational features of texts. Written activities rarely address a “real” writer and reader, have a communicative purpose, or specific situated context. The roles and context are educational, student (writer)-teacher (reader) and the purpose is to demonstrate linguistic ability in an assignment. The overall aim is to start building learners’ writing skills as academic preparation to write literary essays in literature courses.
If instruction is to aim at integrating lexis, grammar, communicative functions, and pragmatics of authentic culturally produced texts, a shift in perspective is needed from the current syllabus focus on the accumulation of discrete lexical and grammatical items. Grammar should be re-conceptualized as serving the speaker’s intentions and meaning in contexts of language use. In this respect, Koike (2008, p. 33) proposes focusing on a “usage-based, contextualized approach to the structure of the language” and “to conceive grammar as connected discourse.” From this point of view, there is a growing body of research on L2 Spanish pragmatic competence and discourse that can inform instruction (e.g., Koike and Pearson 2005; Félix-Brasdefer 2008; Koike 2010). The focus of instructional models has been on the grammar-pragmatics connections for the expression of speech acts (e.g., requests, refusals, suggestions, etc.) in oral interaction by means of short dialogues and role-plays of mini scenarios (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer 2006; Koike 2008; Sessarego 2009; Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012). Given that the prevalent goal of L2 Spanish instruction is to help learners become linguistically and culturally functional in a wide range of texts and fields, we can gather that pragmatic competence in a greater scope of communicative events and texts (oral, written, hybrid, and digital) should also be the subject of research and be addressed in pedagogical models.
The theoretical and pedagogical framework presented in this chapter addresses L2 Spanish pragmatics on the basis of genre and communicative purpose (Askehave and Swales 2001). The concept of genre broadens the spectrum of texts from the target culture that can be used in the classroom to develop learners’ communicative competence. As Bhatia (2002) puts it, genre analysis can provide insights into the complex and dynamic world of texts, as it relates textual products to the discursive conventionalized practices of a cultural community. Texts are assigned to genres on the basis of their shared contexts, schematic structure, content, and communicative purposes (i.e., speeches, application letters, promotional brochures, business reports, etc.). Surface level properties of texts (lexico-grammatical, semantic, organizational, etc.), are dependent on communicative purpose and the roles of interactants and context. Therefore, an approach focused on pragmatics and genre brings to the fore the aspects of genre as social constructs that are mostly ignored in the L2 Spanish classroom: speaker/writer, communicative purpose, specific context, schematic structure, and hearer/reader. The pedagogical model presented in this chapter uses the concept of genre as a macrolevel term to offer learners access to social ways of communicating in various contexts in the target culture, and to teach students how to act in a purposeful, meaningful way in such contexts. First, the aim is to provide students with metapragmatic resources that assist them in developing awareness of the pragmatic features of genres. Second, the focus is on the acquisition of linguistic and text-based strategies for the expression of communicative purposes in their own production of generic texts. As an example, I will specifically address the discourse structure and pragmatics of the speech genre (an address to an audience) in Spanish as a persuasive communicative event.
Naturally, a focus on developing learners’ L2 pragmatic competence through genres necessarily involves the social communication/interaction aspects of learning. Unlike prevalent cognitive approaches to Second Language Acquisition (SLA) that view cognition as an all in the mind, rule-governed process, the proposed perspective on the development of pragmatic language ability draws on sociocognitive (Atkinson 2011) and complex systems (Larsen-Freeman 2011) theoretical approaches to SLA. These perspectives are aligned with the notion of genres, in that L2 learning is viewed as the acquisition of the discursive conventionalized practices of a cultural community. In situated contexts, learners acquire an L2 from “meaningful participation in the environment” (Atkinson 2011, p. 150).
Additionally, a concept-based learning approach can help raise learners’ awareness of how full texts are created by the L2 target culture and belong to “families” of similar texts. Learners analyze and make use of generic concepts (communicative purpose, context, interactants, schematic structure, and linguistic items to achieve such purpose) for their own production of purposeful texts. Moreover, following a constructivist approach, students are active agents in acquisition processing, as they explore and use the new concepts of real-life genres. The sample task presented is based on a hybrid oral and written text of the speech genre. Intermediate level L2 Spanish learners analyze the genre and then construct their own discourse, integrating lexis, grammar, and pragmatic purposes of the genre.
In the field of genre analysis, the concept of genre has for some time been defined, as Ifantidou (2011, p. 331) puts it, in terms of “formulaic prototypes.” Texts belonging to a genre show certain obligatory linguistic characteristics (Reyes 1998) and are classified into genres according to type, such as literary, poetic, scientific, descriptive, argumentative, etc. This kind of analysis is classificatory of the formal aspects of texts and generally leaves aside the dynamism of social action, such as the contextual and pragmatic aspects of genres.
On the other hand, a conception of genres as “social constructs” has become more prevalent lately across various areas of study. Communicative purpose has been considered a central criterion for deciding whether a particular discourse falls within a particular generic category (i.e., speech, advertising, letter of application) (Askehave and Swales 2001). Swales (1990, p. 58) states in his definition of genre:
A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style.
However, similar properties of texts such as communicative purpose or linguistic features are frequently not sufficient to assign texts to particular genres. For instance, some texts of a genre can have multiple social purposes or not share similar linguistic components. Bhatia (1997) notes that we all manage to identify individual generic artifacts, yet in the real world they are often seen in hybrid, mixed, and embedded forms. Notwithstanding the fluid nature of generic texts and the complexities of assigning texts to specific genres, Bawarshi and Reiff (2010) observe that the conception of genres as typified rhetorical ways of interacting within recurring situations has greatly influenced the study and teaching of writing.
How to address genre knowledge in educational contexts has varied across approaches (e.g., genres in literary, sociological traditions, professional contexts) and their specific pedagogical conditions (Bawarshi and Reiff 2010). Sociological traditions view genres as complex social actions involving social roles and relationships, and stress that learners should gain deeper understandings of the values and expectations underlying genres. On the other hand, Swales’s (1990) perspective focuses on conventionalized linguistic and rhetorical actions to carry out communicative purposes in situated communicative events in discourse communities. Researchers and teachers in North America, Australia, Brazil, France, and Switzerland, in a variety of disciplines (e.g., applied linguistics, TESOL, literary theory), have analyzed genres and created pedagogical applications with a marked focus on communicative purpose and linguistic/schematic features.
Specifically, in the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Swales’s (1990), and later Swales and Feak’s (1994) work has been very effective in helping nonnative speakers of English gain access and participate in various academic contexts. Bawarshi and Reiff (2010) provide the instructional steps showing how such a genre analysis approach has been implemented in ESP: a) identification of a genre within a discourse community and definition of the communicative purpose the genre is expected to achieve, b) examination of the genre’s schematic structure—often characterized by rhetorical “moves,” and c) examination of the textual and linguistic features (style, grammar, syntax, tone) that realize the rhetorical moves. The process is not linear or static, and the focus on lexico-grammatical features attends to the genre’s communicative purpose and the discourse community. Analysis goes from context to text.
In terms of spoken discourse, Crystal (1997) offers a description of the differences between speech and writing, as well as an analysis of mixed-medium texts (written/ oral). During speech, participants are usually present, the speaker has a particular addressee or several in mind, speech is spontaneous, and typically face-to-face. Production is immediately revisable and prosodically rich. Mixed-medium texts (e.g., speeches, telephone messages written down, police statements) share features of oral discourse, such as a particular addressee and almost immediate production, but in terms of written discourse, mixed-medium texts can allow for repeated reading and compact expression.
Furthermore, other types of genres as texts in new media contexts are constantly changing. Crystal (2010) states that texts can vary greatly, from webpages to chat groups. These media genres are not totally new in that they show features of traditional written and oral texts, although with additional features (i.e., webpages with hyperlinks). Askehave and Nielsen (2005) indicate that new genres born with the Internet can share several features with already existing genres and discourses from printed and oral media. In their analysis of a number of commercial homepages on websites, they find that these homepages’ main characteristics replicate promotional and news texts, such as the exordium (that goes back to Aristotle and classical rhetoric) as the introductory part of an oral speech that indicates the content and structure of the presentation that follows.
Clearly, there is a great variety of written, spoken, and new digital text genres— with their own specific pragmatic features—that could be addressed in educational contexts. No matter the medium, genre analysis can help identify communicative purposes and rhetorical actions in situated events of a cultural community. Results of pedagogical applications in the field of ESP in academic contexts lend support to the implementation of a generic perspective in L2 Spanish contexts.
Swales’s (1990) work on analyzing genres has also played a central role in the Spanish-speaking world, as his text-based theory influenced studies directed at genres in the academy and the professions. Bolívar and Parodi (2014) state that investigation of Academic Discourse (AD) in Spanish as a mother tongue began in some universities following ESP’s principles, and has focused particularly on research genres such as the article and its sub-genres. Examples of genre analysis of Professional Discourse (PD) include the sales promotional letter (Bosch 1997) and commercial correspondence (H su 2008). Moreover, a focus on Spanish for specific purposes to address the occupational needs of learners has resulted in university courses such as Business Spanish or Spanish for Medicine. However, Bolívar and Parodi (2014) point out that genre analysis has a relatively short history in the Spanish-speaking context, and they emphasize the need for researchers interested in applying linguistics to the teaching of Spanish and specialized languages for specific purposes.
With respect to spoken genres, specifically L2 Spanish Pragmatics research and pedagogical models, the focus has been on face-to-face, spontaneous oral interaction between L2 learners and native speakers. These studies have led the way in paying attention to the communicative purposes of texts, a key criterion of a Swalesian view of genre analysis. Speech acts (i.e., requests, invitations, refusals, suggestions, etc.) to carry out such functions have been studied in learners’ participation in roleplays and written open-ended dialogues mainly at a high-beginner/intermediate level. Further discussion and greater detail will be provided in Section 4 below. These research studies have yielded unique understanding about learners’ development of pragmatic competence in spoken genres, which, together with research on AD and PD genre analysis in Spanish, provide insights for this chapter’s proposed pedagogical plan.
To frame an L2 instructional approach it is necessary to take into consideration the insights on acquisition from SLA research, which, as Van Patten and Benati (2010, pp. 29–36) pointed out, “cannot speak to the day-to-day issues confronted by teachers” but “might lead to a better set of expectations regarding the interface between teaching and acquisition.” In this sense, the proposed pedagogical approach is based on insights from cognitive and social approaches to SLA.
For the prevalent traditional cognitive conception of acquisition, learning consists of an all-in-the-mind, rule-governed process of accretion of grammatical structures. On the other hand, a socially situated perspective conceives of grammar as emergent (Hopper 1998, p. 118) and as “a vaguely defined set of sedimented . . ., recurrent partials whose status is constantly being renegotiated” in use. For Atkinson (2011, p. 146) grammar is “a reflex of discourse—the always-in-process result of real time language use . . . Apparent grammatical stabilities are the result of the sedimentation of repeated language-situation correspondences in personal and social memory.”
Nonetheless, by adopting a social view on grammar, there is an important role for cognition, though in its revised form as conceived by a socio-cognitive approach to SLA. Instead of considering it as an abstract, all-in-the-mind psychological process, cognition is viewed as situated cognition, “an open biological system designed by evolution and experience to align sensitively with the ambient environment (Atkinson 2011, p. 144)”. Larsen-Freeman’s (2011, p. 49) considers language to be a “complex adaptive system, which emerges bottom-up from interactions of multiple agents in speech communities. The system is adaptive because it changes to fit new circumstances, which are also themselves continually changing.”
Clearly, a socio-cognitive approach to SLA supports the idea that the acquisition of grammar takes place in situated communicative events where participants achieve their pragmatic goals. Classes of communicative events, or genres, recur in a target culture, so by repeatedly participating in them, learners get opportunities to make the language-situation relationships needed for acquisition. Moreover, a socio-cognitive perspective is aligned with the notion of genre that frames the proposed discursive-pragmatic instructional approach. Bawarshi and Reiff (2010, p. 79) view genres as forms of situated cognition, as “for genres to perform actions, they must be connected to cognition, since how we know and how we act are related to one another.”
On the premise that, for language learning to occur, learners need to negotiate their intentions in relation to genres’ social expectations, genres can be considered appropriate communicative texts to help develop learners’ functional language ability. By engaging in the analysis and production of specific genres, learners can acquire not only the textual linguistic regularities, but also “the cultural knowledge that conceptually frames and mediates how we understand and typically act within various situations” (Bawarshi and Reiff 2010, p. 4). Research on L2 Spanish pragmatic learning of some spoken genres seems to indicate that instruction is effective in helping students make language-situation relationships needed for acquisition.
Most L2 Spanish pragmatic pedagogical models focused on speech acts have explored Swales’s main features of genres in the specific oral texts that were addressed: a) communicative purpose, b) pragmatic features of speaker/hearer and other contextual aspects, c) conversational sequences, and d) the linguistic features that realize the speech acts in question.
With regard to communicative purposes, instruction has addressed requests, apologies, compliments, compliment responses, expressions of gratitude, directives, suggestions, advice, invitations, refusals, and reprimands. For the situated context, interlocutors generally included Spanish L2 learners and Native Speakers, peers, service agents, and faculty in everyday transactional contexts. Importantly, particular attention was paid to formal or informal politeness conceptions and sociocultural variations (Koike and Pearson 2005). Additionally, several studies on Spanish Pragmatics (e.g., Curcó and De Fina 2002; Márquez-Reiter and Pla-cencia 2004) have provided a deep understanding of many regional linguistic and politeness differences. Martínez-Flor (2006) proposes a model that addresses both pragmatic and intercultural competence, by making comparisons of how cultural beliefs inform speech behavior. Félix-Brasdefer’s (2006) model to be taught at an intermediate level addresses refusal responses to an invitation or offer. Differences in refusal responses by native speakers of Spanish and English, regional varieties of Spanish, and gender perceptions are analyzed through conversation analysis.
Concerning the schematic structure of the oral texts, some studies have examined speech act sequences in discourse. For example, for transactions in several service encounters (i.e., at a store, hotel, market, travel agency) generic sequences included greeting, request, providing information, asking for information, negotiating, payment, and farewell (Sessarego 2009). In generic invitations, the sequence involves a greeting, invitation-refusal, insistence-response, and farewell (Félix-Brasdefer and Cohen 2012). From a conversation analysis and speech act theory standpoint, the pragmatic aspects of oral communication addressed were the organization of turns, speech act sequences, and mitigation in refusals (Félix-Brasdefer 2008). As to the linguistic indexes, all studies have focused on the grammar-functions mappings learners need to make when expressing prototypical speech acts.
In terms of tasks, instructional models have generally used mini-scenarios as trigger texts, and, in broad terms, included the following instructional steps: a) an input stage, b) an awareness-analysis-discussion stage (pragmalinguistic, sociocultural, regional variation), c) a practice stage, and d) a final discussion/review of performance. Tasks consist of mainly role-plays and discourse completion texts in written form or online, where the pragmatic targets are speech acts at the discourse level in oral interaction.
All in all, the pedagogical models focused on speech acts address the most important generic features of the oral conversation texts that were analyzed. As to the socio-cognitive aspects of acquisition, the input provided is a natural context where native speakers’ typified ways of interacting are present. Learners participate actively in real interactions where they co-construct meaning with the native speaker interlocutors. As to cognitive processing, most instructional models explicitly address pragmalinguistic awareness and provide learners with metapragmatic resources for their own production. Learners make the grammar-functions connections to express their specific purposes.
Indeed, the focus on speech acts and the most common functions in every day conversational oral interaction has found its way into Spanish textbooks and materials. However, since pragmatics is embedded and manifested in a culture’s wide scope of discourse genres through a variety of media (oral, written, digital texts, etc.), pragmatic competence is also needed to effectively understand and produce texts of such genres. Unlike the spoken genre described above, in other kinds of genres, there is a more compact structure, communication may not be face-to-face, the hearer/reader may not provide an immediate spoken response. The speaker/writer’s audience may be composed of not only one individual who participates in the communicative event, but of many hearers/readers who may have different responses. Thus, the challenge for L2 Spanish pragmatic instruction is to further develop pragmatic competence through a wide range of texts and fields. To this purpose, this chapter presents a pedagogical model based on a Swalesian view of genre.
The purpose of using the notion of genre for L2 pragmatic instruction does not simply consist of providing models of genre analysis and classification of texts for learners to replicate. Bhatia (2002, p. 5) points out the two most recurring myths in language pedagogy:
a) Genre theory encourages simple reproductions of discourse forms, and hence represents a rather simplified view of the world, b) Genre-based descriptions are static and hence their pedagogical and other applied linguistic applications discourage understanding and use of creativity and transfer of skills across other discourse forms.
Paltridge (1995) also states that genre analysis in language pedagogy should be seen as versatile and dynamic, and with a natural propensity for innovation. In this regard, Swales’s (1990) first step of his task-based genre approach addresses the issue. For the particular genre of request letters, students are provided with not one but several samples of the genre for them to analyze similarities and differences. Learners then examine the sentence and word choice and appropriateness to the situation and afterwards compose their own letters. By analyzing the variability of communicative purposes of the request letter samples and the linguistic forms, students become aware that request letters do not follow only one prototype.
In fact, the notion of generic categories of texts as an analytical tool is useful for instructors and students to conceive texts as part of “families” (i.e., speeches, letters of application, advertisements, and reports). The texts share some common features in terms of their discourse structure, pragmatic purpose, context, and participants, though not necessarily in terms of all these aspects. This “macro” concept comprises similar texts that can show some variability. For instance, within the genre of “speeches,” a speech can be delivered by the president of a university to students or a student can make a speech to fellow students to run for president of the Students’ Association. These speeches share some discourse features (rhetorical moves) and an inherent communicative purpose of persuasion, but the content, several linguistic features, and relationships between interactants will certainly vary.
To summarize, on the basis of the discussion so far, the following main concepts and understandings will guide the design of generic tasks:
As noted, L2 Spanish research studies and pedagogical models on the development of pragmatic competence have so far only examined speech acts in oral conversation of a transactional kind. The proposed pedagogical frame based on genre draws useful insights from these studies, but adopting the construct of genre as a unit of analysis will involve a new set of challenges. In the case of current SFL pragmatic models, spoken texts have one communicative purpose, which is associated with the speech act in question. Pragmatic competence is assessed on the basis of the successful expression of such speech acts and effectively carrying out the dialogic sequence in mini scenarios. On the other hand, the proposed generic approach can use a great variety of full-length texts of specific genres (i.e., reports, e-mail messages, etc.), which may include a number of different functional moves to achieve their overall communicative purpose. The schematic structure can be more complex than a short sequence of transactional exchanges among interlocutors. Unlike spoken discourse that is loosely structured, a mix of linguistic features of oral and written language may be needed to build a coherent and cohesive discourse toward the overall purpose. With a generic approach, pragmatic competence will need to be assessed more broadly than in terms of the pragmalinguistics of specific speech acts and the completion of a short dialogic sequence.
Nevertheless, the challenge must be undertaken, as a genre approach to teaching L2 pragmatics opens the door to other kinds of dynamics of communicative events within discourse communities of the target culture. The purpose is to make learners aware that a target culture has typified ways of interacting to achieve its social functions, and that genres’ “flexible scripts” can help them communicate effectively in the L2 in similar situations. For example, for the topic of university life, students can explore and produce the genre of invitations. The communicative purpose is to invite/encourage fellow students to join a Hispanic students’ club or association, or to participate in a particular cultural event. As a sample for analysis, the following site of the International Exchange Erasmus Student Network invites students to become tutors in the Erasmus program in Europe: http://www.esn-uah.org/programatutor-erasmus. Other genres and texts with various communicative purposes may be appropriate on the topics of intermediate level syllabi. Most importantly, the learning of a topic, lexis, and grammar should not be an end in itself, this knowledge should be applied to the creation of an actual text with a real communicative purpose.
Classical rhetoric can be considered an important precedent of current linguistic/ pragmatic models of texts. Burton (2007) includes Quintilian’s rhetorical terms for the discourse structure of speeches, which Bosch (1997) utilized when examining a request letter. I have adapted these rhetorical features for the specific case of student speeches (written to be read aloud) addressed in this chapter. The functional components of a speech are as follows:
These elements show that speeches are mainly persuasive texts as their communicative purpose is to influence the audience to agree with the speaker’s position or to take some action. In the proposed pedagogical approach, the object of analysis is a persuasive text as it intends to influence the receiver to act in a certain way.
As a sample for analysis and production, I have chosen the speech genre for several reasons. First, its pragmatic features can be quite clearly identified. There is a clear communicative purpose to persuade hearers/readers to take action. Learners are speakers/writers, fellow students of Spanish or native speakers are hearers/readers. The context is the Spanish-speaking community of students in an Anglophone university who are familiar with the topic (e.g., the environment, work/volunteering, politics, and university life) and also engage in social activities related to such topics. For the schematic structure, or sequential moves (Swales 1990), there exists a clear rhetorical sequence for speeches. As to the linguistic items to carry out those moves, several speeches related to the specific topic can be used as samples for analysis. Moreover, it is possible within this specific university context to get to know the pragmatic impact or interpretation of the interlocutors or readers through surveys or oral feedback.
Second, in terms of addressing communication outcomes of an intermediate level course, the speech genre can be used to integrate lexis, grammar, and pragmatics related to a specific topic in the syllabus, in that it addresses the choice of lexis and grammar needed for its specific communicative purpose. It is assumed that, from instruction in the previous semesters, learners will be familiar with present indicative, some uses of the present subjunctive mood, informal and formal imperative, simple future, preterite and imperfect tenses. Vocabulary related with the topic at hand will have been addressed through a variety of pre-task practice activities. Speech samples for analysis can be found on the Internet or in some instructional materials. One example of a speech related to the topic of university life and politics is Una candidata a representante estudiantil, which can be found in Fuentes, the Lab Manual, by Rusch et al. (2011, p. 38). This sample speech text was explored in two L2 Spanish intermediate (4 th semester) classes in a university context. Rhetorical features of the genre of speeches were addressed in a holistic way, as the focus of instruction was on the indicative-subjunctive mood contrast, in particular the cohesive discursive function performed by the present subjunctive in speakers’ comments (Sessarego 2016). The instructional model presented in this chapter adopts the concept of genre to examine speeches in more detail in terms of communicative purpose and other pragmatic features.
Step 1: Analysis of the generic text’s pragmatic features and schematic structure (by the instructor).
The particular speech intent is to persuade young people to become volunteers for a cause, at an agency, etc.
Step 2: Activating relevant schemata and prior knowledge.
Students in small groups discuss and jot down activities they do as volunteers or would like to do at their university or their community. They talk about what they do at their volunteer jobs. A great variety of activities can come up. For example: Soy voluntaria en una asociación de ayuda a los sin techo. Hago trabajo voluntario en una escuela. Ayudo a los niños que tienen dificultades para leer. Me gustaría trabajar para una organización ONG que protege el medio ambiente.
The whole class discusses the variety of activities and the instructor helps with the expression of some ideas. The activities are written on the board or typed and shown on a screen.
Step 3: Real-life input.
Learners read a minimum of two speeches that try to persuade young people to become volunteers or participate in programs. Webpages of organizations seeking volunteers are a great resource, since they share features of spoken and written discourse. The following samples exemplify the schematic structure of speeches, with the same communicative purpose of persuasion, and they are addressed to a similar audience. The texts in the links below are offered as possible samples of the genre:
Sample “a” is about becoming a volunteer in Madrid for a variety of causes: http://trabajarporelmundo.org/buscando-un-voluntariado-en-madrid/.
Sample “b” is about becoming a volunteer in Honduras and teaching English: http://trabajarporelmundo.org/voluntariado-en-honduras-para-ensenar-ingles/.
Step 4: Reading comprehension and identification of discourse setting.
Learners identify:
The focus is on a general comprehension of the information in the text. The instructor and students go over the script and work on the specific vocabulary and grammar (not new) to achieve a semantic understanding of the information in the text. Learners are exposed to authentic texts and the language they will come across in similar real-life situations.
Step 5: Deeper understanding of the text and identification of discourse schematic structure.
The teacher asks students to work in small groups and identify the sentences/ paragraphs that correspond to the following functional moves of the text:
There is a class discussion on which sections of the speech text address each functional component.
Step 6: Analysis and consciousness-raising of pragmatic functions and corresponding linguistic items at a discourse level.
Students in groups are asked to read the whole text again, then discuss together and as a whole class:
Functional move 1: Persuasive appeal.
Grammar structures that are generally used in Spanish to create persuasive appeal are questions in the simple present (i.e., ¿Buscas aventura? ¿Quieres enseñar inglés en un país hispano?), conditional sentences (Si quieres conocer el mundo, sé voluntario . . . or Si eres entusiasta y atento a la diversidad cultural y eres estudiante de la universidad . . ., puedes presentarte . . .).
Vocabulary: buscar, encontrar, poder, querer.
Functional move 2: Provide information on the topic, description of the organization.
Grammar: simple present tense.
Vocabulary: existir, crear, realizar, promover.
Functional move 3: Purpose and benefits.
Explanation of purpose (simple present) and benefits of volunteering (simple future, simple present of poder).
Vocabulary: fomentar, participar, facilitar, dedicar, aprender.
Functional move 4: Appeal to action.
Grammar: informal imperative (tú), conditional sentences that express probability.
Other common syntactic structures are phrases that require the subjunctive mood (Es importante que te registres. . .).
Vocabulary: contactar, buscar, acceder, encontrar, conocer, poder.
Step 7: Expansion through tasks.
At this stage learners have the opportunity to express their own meanings and purposes within the complete discourse of the genre. Based on the brainstorming in Step 2, they can choose to prepare speeches to encourage classmates to become volunteers in the particular programs they are already involved in. To plan their speeches, students write an analysis chart of the pragmatic components analyzed in Steps 4, 5, and 6. They work on communicative purpose, hearer/reader, context, rhetorical moves, and choice of linguistic items. The preparatory analysis chart aims at gauging learners’ awareness and understanding of the pragmatic features of their speeches. Below is the chart (Table 8.1) with possible answers; linguistic options can vary:
The instructor collects the students’ analysis charts and actual speeches so as to provide feedback regarding learners’ application of pragmatic features of the speech genre. In class, students can first practice aloud their versions with a classmate. Through interaction, students negotiate meaning and try to produce a speech that has a clear persuasive communicative purpose. The speech is a hybrid oral/written text to be read aloud.
Step 8: Delivery of speeches and self-peer assessment.
Each student delivers his/her speech to fellow classmates in his class, other Spanish classes, or to native speaker students in the Spanish Students’ Club if there is one at the particular university. Speeches should be between three and five minutes. Then, listeners can provide oral or written feedback with the following guideline (see Table 8.2):
After the delivery of each speech, there will be a variety of opinions from the audience on how informative and persuasive the speeches are. Students can ask questions about the cause, make comments about some of the language used, speaker’s tone, passion, etc., or only respond to the questionnaire. The purpose is not so
TABLE 8.1 Students’ analysis chart
| Tu audiencia y contexto | Compañeros de la universidad |
| Objetivo principal de tu discurso | Persuadirlos a que participen como voluntarios en el programa XXX |
| Propósito de la introducción de tu discurso | Llamar la atención, crear interés |
| Propósito de la segunda parte | Dar información sobre el programa |
| Propósito de la tercera parte | Explicar los benefi cios de participar |
| Propósito del cierre del discurso | Entusiasmar a los compañeros a que se decidan a participar |
TABLE 8. 2 Peer assessment chart
| Candidato 1 | |
| El comienzo del discurso atrae mi atención a participar | • totalmente • un poco • poco |
| Explica claramente el tipo de causa para la cual se necesitan voluntarios y en qué consiste el trabajo | Sí, claramente No hay muchos detalles Falta información |
| Su discurso es convincente para persuadirme a ser voluntario para su causa (aunque no me interese el tema) | Sí Poco convincente Necesita utilizar un lenguaje más convincente |
much to get students to give a thorough evaluation of the speech (this can be done by the instructor), but to make learners participate in a communicative event where they have a communicative purpose to achieve and they try hard to produce the intended effect on their interlocutors using the appropriate language. The audience also interacts with the speaker to negotiate meaning related to the specific volunteer work. In terms of assessment, the instructor will need to create rubrics to address the various components of the task, clarity of communicative purpose, discourse schemata-rhetorical moves, appropriateness of linguistic choices to carry out the intended effect.
The speech genre to persuade fellow students to become volunteers for a cause can also be addressed through a written message sent by e-mail. The advantage of the hybrid oral/written form is that students can actually deliver their speeches by reading them aloud and then interact with the audience regarding the effects of the delivery.
A discursive pragmatic instructional approach that draws on genre analysis research necessarily involves a shift in perspective from the current linguistic view on texts in most SFL classrooms. While lexis, grammar, and text organization are considered significant components, they should be dealt with so that they carry out the communicative purposes of texts, rather than with a restricted focus on linguistic form and semantic meaning. From a pragmatic perspective, traditional categorizations of narration, argumentation, exposition, etc. can be put to use in communicative events for real-life purposes, without the need to “add” more components to the syllabus. For instance, learners can explore how a particular text, such as a narration of events, can fulfill a variety of communicative purposes based on who the addressees are and the specific contexts (i.e., narration of a personal experience to request a project extension from an instructor vs. a narration of the same personal experience to a friend on social media).
The purpose of this chapter is primarily pedagogical: to advance ways of engaging learners with L2 Spanish pragmatics, and to that effect, the notion of genres is presented as a frame for learners to participate in the conventionalized communicative practices of the target society. Current L2 Spanish syllabi focus on learners demonstrating linguistic ability and content knowledge to complete academic assignments on topic after topic, but there is basically no further instructional step to guide learners in the functional/social application of such knowledge. The proposed pedagogical approach addresses that step by using genres as a means for instructors to design tasks, and for learners to participate in target culture communicative events. A focus on a target culture’s genres is better aligned with curricular objectives to develop learners’ communicative abilities in a wide range of texts and fields.
Indeed, although current L2 Spanish pragmatics research has yielded valuable understandings on the development of L2 Spanish functional ability, it has mostly focused on speech acts in interactional oral situations. Most pedagogical materials have addressed certain speech acts in oral scenarios and their corresponding grammatical structures (pragmalinguistics). A genre approach to teaching pragmatics conceives of all language as texts (genres), and analyzes not only speech acts but also the macro-structures of such texts (e.g., rhetorical moves and coherence). Additionally, a genre perspective provides a broader scope of language and modes of communication (e.g., written, hybrid, virtual) for pragmatic language use to be analyzed and produced. An L2 Spanish program can be organized around sets of genres at each level of instruction, at increasing levels of structural, semantic, and pragmatic complexity, which can be addressed through a concept and task-based approach. Some research has been done on genre analysis of AD and PD in Spanish, but mostly at advanced levels of proficiency. This chapter proposes a model of analysis and instruction for the speech genre that can be implemented at an intermediate level of proficiency.
Finally, there is a great need for research studies on L2 learners’ pragmatic language use and development in a broad scope of real-life genres. In the L2 Spanish learning context, Spanish for Specific Purposes instructional models, though geared at higher levels of proficiency, have been focusing on developing pragmatic language ability in their particular genres. As Spanish programs evolve and offer courses to prepare students to function in a broad spectrum of the target culture’s social contexts, L2 Spanish pragmatics and genre analysis will certainly become central research fields for the design of such courses.
Askehave, I. and A. E. Nielsen. 2005. “Digital Genres: A Challenge to Traditional Genre Theory.” Information, Technology and People 18(2): 120–141.
Askehave, I. and J. Swales. 2001. “Genre Identification and Communicative Purpose: A Problem and a Possible Solution.” Applied Linguistics 22(2): 195–212.
Atkinson, D. 2011. “A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition: How Mind, Body, and World Work Together in Learning Additional Languages.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson, 143–166. New York: Routledge.
Bawarshi, A. and M. J. Reiff. 2010. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Bhatia, V. K. 1997. “Genre-Mixing in Academic Introductions.” English for Specific Purposes, 16(3): 181–196.
Bhatia, V. K. 2002. “Applied Genre Analysis: A Multi-Perspective Model.” Iberica 4: 3–19.
Bolívar, A. and G. Parodi. 2014. “Academic and Professional Discourse.” In Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics, ed. M. Lacorte, 459–476. New York: Routledge.
Bosch, E. 1997. “Análisis de un texto persuasivo desde los principios de la pragmática y de la retórica.” ACELE Actas VIII. 181–186. Centro Virtual Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/asele/asele_viii.htm .
Burton, G. 2007. The Forest of Rhetoric: Silva Rhetoricae. Salt Lake City, UT: Brigham Young University.
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. 2010. “The Changing Nature of Text: A Linguistic Perspective.” In Scholarly Communication, Volume 1: Text Comparison and Digital Creativity: The Production of Presence and Meaning in Digital Text Scholarship, ed. W. Van Peursen and E. Thoutenhoofd. Leiden: BRILL.
Curcó, C. and A. De Fina. 2002. “Modo imperativo, negación y diminutivos en la expresión de la cortesía en español: el contraste entre México y España.” In Actos de Habla y Cortesía en Español, ed. M. E. Placencia and D. Bravo: 107–140. Munich: Lincolm.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2006. “Teaching the Negotiation of Multi-Turn Speech Acts. Using Conversation-Analytic Tools to Teach Pragmatics in the Classroom.” In Pragmatics and Language Learning 11, eds. K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Félix-Brasdefer and A. Omar, 165–197. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. 2008. “Sociopragmatic Variation: Dispreferred Responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish.” Journal of Politeness Research 4(1): 81–110.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. and A. Cohen. 2012. “Teaching Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: Grammar as a Communicative Resource.” Hispania 95(4): 650–669.
Hopper, P. J. 1998. “Emergent Grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. M. Tomassello, 155–176. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hsu., T. W. 2008. “La aplicación del análisis de género a la enseñanza del español con fines especí-ficos: El caso de la correspondencia comercial.” Actas del XLIII Congreso. Centro Virtual Cervantes. Madrid. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/aepe/congreso_43.htm.
Ifantidou, E. 2011. “Genres and Pragmatic Competence.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1): 327–346.
International Exchange Erasmus Student Network. 2015. “Programa Tutor Erasmus.” http://www.esn-uah.org/programa-tutor-erasmus.
Koike, D. A. 2008. “A Grammar of L2 Pragmatics: Issues in Learning and Teaching.” In Conceptions of L2 Grammar: Theoretical Approaches and Their Application in the L2 Classroom, ed. S. Katz and J. Watzinger-Tharp, 35–52. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Koike, D. A. 2010. “Behind L2 Pragmatics: The Role of Expectations.” In Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in Functions and Contexts, ed. D. A. Koike and L. Rodríguez-Alfano, 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koike, D. A. and L. Pearson. 2005. “The Effect of Instruction and Feedback in the Development of Pragmatic Competence.” System, 33(3): 381–546.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2011. “A Complexity Approach to Second Language Development/ Acquisition.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson, 48–72. Abingdon: Routledge.
Márquez- Reiter, R. and M. E. Placencia. 2004. “The Pragmatics of Spanish beyond Spain.” In Current Trends in Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. R. Márquez-Reiter and M. Placencia, 15–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. “A Comprehensive Pedagogical Framework to Develop Pragmatics in the Foreign Language Classroom: The 6Rs Approach.” Applied Language Learning 16(2): 39–64.
Modern Language Association (MLA). 2007. Foreign Language and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World. New York: Modern Language Association.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. 1995. “Working with Genre: A Pragmatic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 24(4): 393–406.
Reyes, G. 1998. Cómo escribir bien en español. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
Rusch, D., M. Domínguez and L. Caycedo Garner. 2011. Fuentes: Conversación y Gramática. Lab Manual, 38. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Sessarego, C. 2009. “Pragmatic Language Instruction and Beginner Learners of Spanish: A Discourse Approach to Pragmalinguistics.” Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 27(49): 97–120.
Sessarego, C. 2016. “A Discourse-Pragmatic Approach to Teaching Indicative/Subjunctive Mood Selection in the Intermediate Spanish Language Class: New Information vs. Reformulation.” Hispania 99(3): 392–406.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. and C. Feak. 1994. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Trabajar por el mundo. 2015a. “¿Estás buscando un voluntariado en Madrid?” http://trabajarporelmundo.org/buscando-un-voluntariado-en-madrid/.
Trabajar por el mundo. 2015b. “Voluntariado en Honduras para enseñar inglés.” http://trabajarporelmundo.org/voluntariado-en-honduras-para-ensenar-ingles/.
VanPatten, B. and A. Benati. 2010. Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.