Contents

From http://teachinginthetargetlanguage.com

Laura of the Teaching in the Target Language blog has some suggestions for jumpstarting classes in the new year, which is the halfway mark for the school for many of us. First, she asks us all to reflect in a number of ways: evaluating our goals for the year, asking our students to do the same (or set goals if they need to), asking for feedback, and asking students to evaluate themselves. Second, she reminds us of four language-rich activities that we can use in our classes: taboo, scavenger hunts, jigsaw, and rotating conversation circles.

Read the full post at http://teachinginthetargetlanguage.com/5-ways-to-jump-start-our-wl-classes-in-january/

From https://www.edutopia.org

Alex Shevrin Venet shares a simple community-building class opener: each person in class (including the teacher) shares something positive going on in his/her life (a rose) and something negative (a thorn). Read the full article for specific guidance on making this activity work to build classroom community: https://www.edutopia.org/article/simple-powerful-class-opening-activity

From http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2018/12/how_educators_can_counter_anti-immigrant_and_anti-refugee_rhetoric.html

Coshandra Dillard writes, "When students hear false, hateful rhetoric directed at immigrants and refugees, they will either believe it, question it, or absorb it as a message directed at them. By teaching students about America's long and complex immigration story—including how groups of people move around the world to seek better lives—we establish an environment more conducive to effective, reasoned dialogue around this narrative." Read her December article in Education Week, which is rich with links to resources for teaching about immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, and human rights: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2018/12/how_educators_can_counter_anti-immigrant_and_anti-refugee_rhetoric.html

By Linda Forrest, CASLS Research Director

As language instructors, we focus much of our time on vocabulary and grammar. But in the world outside our classrooms, students must choose among multiple options for the right words in a particular context. Their ability to do this successfully is intercultural pragmatic and interactional competence. In September, we discussed a framework for understanding the dimensions of this competence. In this article, we discuss how to apply the framework to introduce discussions of intercultural competence into your classroom.

Greetings are an excellent area to begin raising your students’ awareness of intercultural competence. Although greeting sequences are largely formulaic, and most students learn some greetings early on, they are steeped with cultural nuance. In English, for example, one can choose from “Hi!," “Hello,” “Hey!." “Yo!," and others. Each initial statement can be accompanied by an inquiry such as, “How are you?," "What’s up?," “How’s it going?” and others. Depending on the initial statement, the person addressed replies with a characteristic response, such as “Fine, thank you," “Nothing much," “Great, thanks,” and so on. The verbal statements may be accompanied by gestures, such as smiles, waves, and hugs.

Besides the knowing the specific details of each greeting sequence, speakers must also be familair with the surrounding dimensions that impact their use (i.e.,social distance between themselves and the hearer, the relative power relationship between themselves and the hearer, and degree of imposition they are placing on the hearer by greeting them). Read more about these dimensions here. Close friends are greeted differently from strangers, as are bosses from children. If the hearer appears to be in a hurry, a quick greeting is better. The Knowledge dimension of the framework addresses the learner's repertoire in terms of the number, type, and use of the pragmatic information available.

The Analysis dimension refers to the learner’s ability to select the most appropriate formulae and sequences based on their intended meaning, describe the various factors that affect their and their hearers’ choices, and consciously attempt to repair miscommunications. For example, a casual greeting is usually selected for a friend, while more formal greetings are used for a stranger. Authority figures usually require a more formal greeting than is necessary when your hearer is younger or below you in social status. And for anyone in an obvious hurry or at a distance, a simple “Hi!," or just a smile or wave, is best. Students demonstrate the Analysis dimension when they can explicitly state what factors are impacting a particular situation as related to their intended meaning or the intended meaning of others.

The Awareness dimension refers to the learner’s ability to perceive the effect their statement had on the other person. Were they too abrupt? Where they too familiar? Or not friendly enough? A friend greeted formally may feel unwelcome, while a stranger or authority figure may be affronted by an overly familiar greeting. And a long greeting sequence may impose on someone in an obvious hurry. To demonstrate Awareness, hearers should be able to explain why their hearer seemed put off by their greeting.

Finally, the Subjectivity dimension refers to the learner’s ability to make conscious choices about what they say. For example, they may make choices as expressions of personality, rather than simply conforming to social norms.  Other choices might convey information in a specific context. For example, the speaker might choose to greet a friend in a formal manner in order to indicate a rift in the relationship.

Today's Activity of the Week is designed to raise your students’ awareness of the intercultural dimensions of greetings. The approach has students analyze these dimensions within their L1, then extend their observations to their L2.

By Stephanie Knight, CASLS Assistant Director

Ishihara and Cohen (2010) offer a nice summary of the field of pragmatics in the subtitle to their book, “Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet.” One one hand, this subtitle supports a rhetoric that is common in language teaching circles - that language and culture are inextricably intertwined. On the other hand, however, truly engaging learners in understanding "where language and culture meet" necessitates a considerable shift from traditional teaching methods. It necessitates that teachers not only teach grammar and vocabulary in context, but also critically examine the context of targeted communication tasks to identify what skills and knowledge learners need to communicate successfully. For example, learning the required grammar and vocabulary to engage in extending an invitation is not enough. Learners need to also be aware of target culture expectations regarding that invitation extension: What are face-saving techniques that might be incorporated? Is it considered pushy or polite to extend the invitation multiple times after an initial no? Does yes really mean yes? Knowing the answers to these questions not only increases the authenticity of language course content, but also empowers learners to take on communication with expert speakers confidently.

 Making the shift to pragmatics-centered instruction is not instantaneous, nor is it highly supported by common, popular resources (textbooks, for example, tend to only identify cultural expectations as they relate to communication in superficial or inconsistent ways). The question then presents itself as to what teachers, many of whom have not studied the field of pragmatics and are completely strapped for time, can logically do to make this important shift. The suggestions below address this concern.

1. Identify common points of misunderstanding that arise from something other than than how language is coded. Consider your past interactions in the target language. Did you ever extend an apology that wasn’t accepted? Did you ever offend someone unintentionally? Use those interactions to help you identify a few learning targets for your students. When you aren’t sure what exactly to teach (how can you teach how to have an apology accepted when you aren’t sure why yours was rejected in the first place?), a few minutes of research on the internet can provide enough insight to adequately supplement the information that you already have in your text. And speaking of your text…
2. Critically evaluate the contexts for communication embedded in your text or other teaching resources. Have a casual conversation with a friend in the context for communication presented in your text to see if the accompanying, prescribed grammar appears in real life. You may discover quite a few imperfect matches. For example, though Spanish textbooks commonly present reflexive verbs in the context of describing one’s daily routine, reflexive verbs aren’t actually commonly used this way. Instead, it might be more salient to present reflexive verbs in the context of learning how to make suggestions/give advice as it is common to use said verbs to help a child get ready for the day (Put on your shoes!, Don’t forget to brush your teeth!) or when sharing a bathroom with a roommate (Why don’t you shower tonight, and I will in the morning?).
3. Incorporate a process for analyzing authentic resources in your class. Learners will be able to create knowledge If you provide them with processes to guide how they view, analyze, and otherwise use authentic resources. Ishihara and Cohen (2010) suggest that learners first engage in observation (usually of authentic texts), then analysis, and ultimately some sort of extension when engaging in the study of language pragmatics. You can see examples of this sequence in last week's and this week's Activities of the Week. While adopting this framework is certainly up to the discretion of the teacher, teachers should come up with a similar routine that allows learners to glean what is observable, analyze what they see, and practice the language at hand or investigate more.
4. Consider how power differentials and social distance (how close people are) impact the language functions you teach. While you may not have studied pragmatics in the past, it is relatively easy to conceive of, research, and find examples for a language function being used among interlocutors of varying power differentials and degrees of social distance. For example, when greeting a friend (a situation in which the speakers are of equal power and the social distance between them is low), one would likely use different language from when greeting a potential employer (the speakers are of unequal power and the social distance between them is high). Embed considerations of how those differences impact language in your class throughout the year as much as is possible. For more discussion of these two variables along with rank of imposition, see this Topic of the Week article. 
5. Start small. It is impossible to change one’s syllabus overnight, particularly given that most educators aren’t autonomous actors when it comes to textbook and resource selection. Pick a few lessons, especially those that already involve authentic resources, and think about how you can update them to have learners focus on language pragmatics. Alternatively, pick one language function per chapter or unit and update your lesson to involve more consideration of the cultural expectations embedded in the function at hand.
6. When in doubt, use linguistic corpora. When there is a target structure that you wish to incorporate in your class, but you are unsure of how to contextualize it or of how to have your learners explore and analyze it, use linguistic corpora. If you aren’t familiar with corpora, Linguee (linguee.com), is a great place to start. It is a world language dictionary that links to external sources that use the word or phrase that you searched for in context. These results can be used and analyzed by learners for their accuracy and validity and provide considerable grounding into understanding how certain terms are used by expert speakers.

The shift to incorporating language pragmatics in instruction is a necessary and worthwhile endeavor. It builds salience and relevance while simultaneously helping learners to develop critical thinking skills that will help them in the classroom and beyond. By approaching the shift thoughtfully and carefully, all teachers, even those without training in language pragmatics, can make the change.

Reference

Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. New York: Routledge.

By Julie Sykes, CASLS Director

With varying personalities, preferences, backgrounds, and perceptions of the world, it is not surprising that there are many ways of using language. Most of the time, those choices propel us forward and create instances of meaningful communication. Other times, they result in miscommunications and conflict.  Part of our job as language teachers is to ensure learners have the tools they need to make those choices on their own. Subjectivity, defined by Ishihara and Tarone (2009) as a dynamic approach to learners’ identity and informed choice-making, refers to learners’ ability to articulate why they made the choices they did. Learners might, for example, explain why they made an extended apology to meet their interlocutors’ expectations (i.e., I chose to apologize a lot because I wanted to be sure they knew I was really sorry, even if the spill seemed minor to me) or might be an explicit, and intentionally diverge from expectations (i.e., I didn’t apologize because I didn’t think it was a big deal. Why do we apologize for everything?).  Regardless of the choices they make, the ability to distinguish subjectivity from lack of knowledge is critical for communicative success and the measurement of learners’ abilities. A couple of tips for dealing with subjectivity in the classroom:

1. Evaluate the skill, not the choice. As you allow learners to make informed choices, they may make language choices that make you want to cringe or correct. However, if they are able to articulate the intended impact of those choices, it is fundamental to recognize that as skilled pragmatic behavior. In the apologies example above, a learner might say, “I know I should apologize, and if I did, I would do it this way. However, I am mad and do not want to.” This often represents sophisticated pragmatic behavior and should be evaluated as such.
2. Offer many opportunities to practice. As we teach models, examples, and patterns, it can be helpful for learners to embed examples of subjectivity. For example, using characters that might consciously diverge from the norm.  Questions like, What do you think someone who is angry might do? Or someone who wants to be funny? While it is important not to stereotype all people, gaining insight into individual choice can be very helpful for learners when developing their own subjectivity.

From https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/talking-indian

Talking Indian: Identity and Language Revitalization in the Chickasaw Renaissance
By Jenny L. Davis 
Published by the University of Arizona Press

In Talking Indian, Davis—a member of the Chickasaw Nation—offers the first book-length ethnography of language revitalization in a U.S. tribe removed from its homelands. She shows how in the case of the Chickasaw Nation, language programs are intertwined with economic growth that dramatically reshape the social realities within the tribe. She explains how this economic expansion allows the tribe to fund various language-­learning forums, with the additional benefit of creating well-paid and socially significant roles for Chickasaw speakers. Davis also illustrates how language revitalization efforts are impacted by the growing trend of tribal citizens relocating back to the Nation.

Visit the publisher's website at https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/talking-indian

From https://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-109.html

The 2019 iteration of the Dene Languages Conference will be hosted at the University of California, Davis on July 6-7, in conjunction with the Linguistic Society of America's Summer Institute (http://lsa2019.ucdavis.edu). The main conference will feature general sessions and two special themed sessions: ''Dene Epistemologies: Linguistic Stability and Adaptation'' focused on issues related to the dynamics of linguistic and cultural contact, and ''The Language of Music, Dance, and Performance,'' which will feature papers related to manifestations of spoken language in various genres of performance. In addition, a pre-conference workshop focused on the Pacific Coast Dene languages of California and Oregon will take place on July 5, hosted by the Native American Language Center. 

General session papers can address any topic related to Dene languages, including but not limited to theoretical or descriptive linguistics, language maintenance and revitalization, language teaching, linguistic anthropology, and sociolinguistics. 

There are also two special sessions: "Dene Epistemologies: Linguistic Stability and Adaptation" and "The Language of Music, Dance, and Performance."

The deadline for submissions is February 22, 2019.

View the full call for papers at https://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-109.html

From https://symposium.sla.wisc.edu/

2019 Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Symposium
Transmodalities: Contesting Borders in Language Studies
April 19-20, 2019
University of Wisconsin–Madison

The organizers seek proposals from students whose research both reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the field of SLA and the increasing focus on multilingual contexts and learners. Studies from a variety of areas will be accepted.

Abstracts are due by January 27.

For full details, go to https://symposium.sla.wisc.edu/about-the-symposium/