The pragmalinguistic dimension

In order to present and discuss the pragmalinguistics related to requesting, the researcher introduced scientific concepts during the first two weeks of the instruction period. The scientific concepts, e.g. ‘in-between’, were adapted to make them suitable for the target group, which is in line with van Compernolle (2014, p. 45), who argues that concepts need to “be simplified for pedagogical use […] without compromising [their] coherence and systematicity”. The framework of request strategies developed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) was thus chosen as it provides systematicity, but the terms were adapted for the purposes of the instruction. Table 3.1 presents the scientific concepts introduced during the instruction.

Table 3.1: Scientific concepts employed during the instruction (also presented in Article III (Myrset, 2021))

Terminology Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) Adapted

Directness levels Direct Direct ^a

Conventionally indirect In-between Non-conventionally

indirect/hints

Hint ^a

Internal modification Alerter Attention getters

Address term Address term

Lexical downgraders Polite words^b

External modification Grounder Reason

Sweetener Compliment

Promise of reward Promise

aThe two terms 'direct' and 'hint' are very similar to their Norwegian equivalents (direkte and hint) and were thus employed during the instruction

b The term ‘polite’ was used for three reasons: 1) Considering the age of the learners the term itself was one that the learners were familiar with and could attach meaning to. 2) It was grounded in the learning aim from the national curriculum. 3) The term functioned as a starting point for raising the learners’ awareness about the contextually situated and sometimes idiosyncratic interpretations of the term (e.g. Watts, 2003).

To foster the internalisation of the scientific concepts (e.g. van Compernolle, 2014;

Vygotsky, 1934/2012), after being introduced, the concepts were used consistently for the duration of instruction. For instance, in the sessions following the introduction of directness levels, the terminology, i.e. ‘direct’, ‘in-between’, and ‘hint’, would be used

when they were relevant in the subsequent discussions and activities. Each session opened with a short repetition of the concept from the previous session before a new concept was introduced by the researcher, complemented with scaffolded discussions.

Following each introduction, the learners were given activities adapted from those used in previous research and pragmatics literature (see Table 3.2) in which they could practise the pragmalinguistic forms. During these activities, which were either written or oral, the learners were reminded of previously introduced concepts. For instance, during the activity focusing on external modification, e.g. ‘reason’, the learners were asked to choose between being ‘direct’, ‘in-between’, or to ‘hint’ when making a request containing a ‘reason’. Each session ended with a short discussion to prompt reflection. Table 3.2. provides an overview of each session (1-6) focusing on the pragmalinguistic dimension.

Methodology 56

Table 3.2: Overview of the sessions in the first two weeks focusing on the pragmalinguistic dimension. SessionConceptAimIn focusActivities 1Directness Learners will be able to perform and respond to requests.

Directness strategies, i.e. direct, conventionally indirect, and hints. May, could, would

Class discussion: Using video clips fromDumb and Dumberer a The Big Bang Theory in which the characters request. What did the ask for in the clips, and what did they say?a The requests from t clips are then presented on a PowerPoint slide, and subsequent placed on a continuum from ‘direct’ to ‘hint’. Following this, m pragmalinguistic resources are added to the continuum. Activity (adapted from Eslami and McLeod (2010) and Rinnert an Iwai (2010)): Three requests for each directness level are given on a worksheet. In pairs, the learners revise them into a differ directness level, e.g. a direct request to a hint. See Appendix 1 for worksheet. 2DowngradersLearners will be able to utilise downgraders to modify requests.

Please, perhaps, possibly

Class discussion: Can you think of any words we use in Norwegi that make requests sound less ‘harsh’? Is there a way to make th 'softer'? What do you think I mean by 'softer'? Provide the learn with examples of words. Activity(adapted fromRinnert and Iwai (2010)):In pairs, t learners make requests and add downgraders.

Methodology 57

3AlertersLearners will be able to utilise alerters to get someone's attention when modifying requests.

Excuseme, pardon me, sorry

Class discussion: Using a learner as prop.S/he stands with hi back towards the class: What can we say to get his/her attentio Norwegian or English?Show the learners some examples alerters: Where do you think it makes sense to place these request? Activity: Onion circle. The learners stand in two concentric ci facing each other. The learner in the outer circle produces a req with an alerter (and downgrader) to a learner in the inner circl responds. The learners in the outer circle take a step to the rig that they are facing a new learners, and repeat the process. S to inner circle producing request and outer circle responding. 4Address TermsLearners will be able to utilise address terms to modify requests.

Mr, Mrs, miss, sir, madam. Used as contrasting examples: dude, mate, love

Class discussion: Using twolearners as props. They bow deeper than the other: What is going on? Why do you think s bowing deeper than him/her? What if I tell you it has to do something called 'status' and ‘respect’? Who do you think is t to show respect to the other? Can you think of ways we cou this by using language? Activity: The learners are mobile in the classroom. They app each other, and produce requests with an address term. H1Homework week 2Internal modification strategies.

Worksheet: Two pairs of requests are provided on a works Learners ask a parent/guardian to choose the request in the pai they think is “nicer”. Afterwards the parent/guardian explains choiceb. The learners’ findings are used as prompts for a cl discussion, aiming to explore differences in perceptions. D parents/guardians in the class have different preferences? W the learners think that is? See Appendix 2 for worksheet.

Methodology 58

5Supportive movesLearners will be able to utilise supportive moves to modify requests.

Grounder, sweetener, promise of reward

Class discussion: Show three head acts on the board, each w arrows before and after. Sometimes we add something before o after the request itself. Add a grounder, a sweetener and a prom of reward, e.g. “You’re such a great driver. Could you give m lift?” What do these do to the request? Pair activity: A worksheet where the learners make requests w a supportive move. See Appendix 3 for worksheet. Group activity: As a group (4-5), the learners make a request w an aggravating move (referredto as 'insults' and 'threat'). Aft deciding on a request, they write it down on a piece of paper an make a tableau (three-dimensional image) where they act as t speaker, hearer(s), and bystanders. Discussion: How did they com up with the request, and their choices when making the tableau. 6SummaryLearners will be able to utilise internal and external modification strategies to modify requests.

Class discussion: What have we talked about so far? What have added to the requests? Activity: Individual work. Using a computer, the learners write as many request formulations as they can think of, e.g. "Can I have pencil?", "Can I have a pencil, please?", in 10 minutes. See Appendix 4 for examples of requests produced. a Underlined sentences are questions used to prompt the learners. The questions were asked in English, but often followed up in Norwegian. b Whereas this activity focused on decontextualised utterances, that is, making a pragmalinguistic choice without considering the sociopragmat dimension, the activity aimed to focus specifically on the pragmalinguistics of requests to raise awareness of individual differences in perceptio This was grounded in a previous study (Savić & Myrset, Forthcoming-b) in which the learners often viewed specific words and phrases, e. ‘please’ and ‘can I/you’, as inherently polite, regardless of the context. This was a view that he wanted the learners to question in the pres study. Thus, the activity aimed to raise awareness that such individual preferences can be found even in decontextualised utterances. The activ was then used to stimulate a discussion about contextual situatedness of request appropriateness as well as about variability in individual speake preferences.