The book focuses on encounters in the various domains of native-speaker life (based on Fishman's 1972 distinction): family, educational, social, religious, and work, with a chapter on L1-L2 cross-cultural face-to-face interaction in these social, work, and educational domains (through a small sample of data of interactions between university staff and international students). The chapters review current research in that domain, with a focus on research methodological issues, and end with an analysis of interaction in that domain. Pragmatics is defined as what is mean by what is said or written. Discourse analysis refers to any study of language beyond the utterance/sentence level. Conversational analysis only looks at what can be gleaned from a transcript of conversation (not from the social context, past history, etc.). Ethnography of communication is defined as anthropologically-based ethnography united with linguistic analysis. Interactional sociolinguistics -- sometimes known as microethnography, involves interactional analysis using video-taped data and taking into account non-verbal behavior such as facial gestures, postural shifts, and proxemics; it combines sociology, linguistics, and anthropology. It focuses on the miscommunication between different ethnic groups. Boxer discusses elicitation instruments, role plays, sociolinguistic interviews, radio and TV talk, laboratory data (subjects recording conversations about particular topics in a laboratory). The interaction situations: nagging in family interaction, conversational joking and teasing in social interaction, sarcasm in educational interaction, rite-of-passage discourse in religious interaction, bragging and boasting in workplace interaction, and gatekeeping discourse in cross-cultural interaction. For nagging, Boxer had her students write down nagging sequences as they occurred in domestic contexts. On sarcasm, Nelms used videotapes of classroom interaction and had interpretations verified with ethnographic interviews. She found its positive value for humorous intent, to make a point as through an indirect reprimand. Negatively it was found to be used to shame and to push students to performance.

Boxer, D. (2002). Discourse issues in cross-cultural pragmatics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 150-167.

Focuses on the clash of expectations and misperceptions when individuals from different societies or communities interact according to their own pragmatic norms. Such research is conducted by close ethnographic or interactional sociolinguistic analysis, not through interlanguage pragmatic research which involves elicited samples. An example of these clashes in the education sphere would be international teaching assistants with native-speaking college students.

Cohen, A.D. (1996). Speech acts. In S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The chapter first defines speech acts and provides a brief overview of how this field of discourse has been applied to second language acquisition. Next, research methodologies used in studying speech acts are examined, and selected empirical studies are considered. Finally, a small set of studies on the teaching of speech act behavior to nonnative speakers is reviewed, and the pedagogical implications of the findings for these studies are described.

Kasper, G. (2000). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Honolulu: Dept. of English as a Second Language, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Deals with four approaches to pragmatic development in a second language: pragmatics and grammar (the relationship between control over grammatical features and pragmatic performance), cognitive processing perspectives (the issue of noticing and of the value of explicit instruction in pragmatics -- with explicitness advantageous according to research), sociocognitive theory (interactionist, Vygotskian, developmental), language socialization perspective on pragmatic development (both implicit and explicit socialization in the classroom).

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2003). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ch. 2 lays out the benefits that can be derived from different theoretical approaches to studying pragmatics. Two groups: those with a primarily individual-psychological focus (the acculturation model and cognitive-processing models) and those interested in social practice theories (sociocultural theory, language socialization theory, and approaches to interactional competence). They underscore the value of studies conducted from a cognitive-processing perspective, as well as from different or combined social practice approaches with an analytical focus on interactional engagements. Ch. 3 is rich for its methodological insights. The authors stress the importance of matching research method to the task at hand, and being appropriately critical of its implementation. They point out the methodological flaw in the Sawyer (1992) study of learners' developing use of ne in four interviews -- namely the asymmetrical nature of the relationship. Their point is that if comparisons are to be made between native and nonnative use of ne, then the two groups need to be in the same discourse roles, which wasn't the case here (pp. 85-86). Ch. 4 focuses on the development of pragmatic ability. Ch. 5 is devoted to pragmatics and grammar. They note that while untutored learners may lead with their pragmatic knowledge before grammar is acquired, more advanced learners lead with their grammatical knowledge and acquire the pragmatics. Of interest to those who conduct research on study abroad is Ch. 6, "Learning context and learning opportunities." The chapter focuses on the role of the environment in pragmatic development. First the authors discuss the length of residence as a factor. For example, they reproduce the Olshtain & Blum-Kulka 1985 table indicating the percent of correct positive politeness in requests or apologies for immigrants of less than 2 years, 2-10 years, more than 10 years, as compared to natives. They bring up the variable of high- and low-input generators and the role this may have, based on a study by Kim (2000) of Korean ESL students. They note that just being in the environment need not produce the language development in Japan. Learners are provided differential access to learning opportunities based on social position. The authors then talk about institutional talk and cite the Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford research. Next, they look at the contribution on pragmatic performance of classroom instructions, sometimes the main contact with the language. Research shows that over time the learners become more adept at, for example, marking transitions and taking turns in German (Kasper 1981) without much instruction. They attribute this to the students' universal interactional competence and teacher input -- that these enabled them to identify transition-relevant places and start turns. After looking at numerous other interactive types, the authors move to study-abroad contexts. They cite Marriott (Marriott, H.E., "Code-switching in classroom interaction: Study of English transfers in Japanese classrooms," in H.E. Marriott and M. Low (eds.), Language and Cultural Contact with Japan, Occasional paper of the JSC, Monash Asia Institute, Clayton Australia, 26, 52-78, 1996) for evidence of language gain among Australian HS students in Japan for a year. Their politeness formulas improved, such as opening and closing conversational routines improved in oral proficiency interviews. They also increased their use of plain forms. They cite a study by Rodríguez (2001) of students in one semester in Spain vs. those who continued studying Spanish in the US. No advantages to study abroad were noted, but it was also pointed out that the measure was of assessment of question strategies, not one of production. They also describe Hoffman-Hicks’ (1999) doctoral research on study abroad in France. Three basic insights emerged from the study -- that spending time in the target community is no panacea, that length of residence is not a reliable predictor, and L2 classrooms can be a productive social context. The authors identify eleven themes relating to language learning abroad, based on their review of the literature:

1. time in the target community is helpful depending on the quality and quantity of input;
2. ideologies in the local community can get in the way of the learners' access to locals;
3. the role of foreigner may make it difficult to get input, though a person’s situational role may override this difficulty;
4. there are two-way stereotypes -- that Americans are direct/egalitarian may have locals avoid the self-humbling formulaic expression_rs, and conversely may prevent learners from noticing polite language use that in fact is being exercised in the American community;
5. learners tend to see co-participants as relevant role models and not those with a different status;
6. non-instructional feedback may be on grammar, not on pragmatics;
7. pragmatic salience and input frequency contribute to acquisition, which can explain why even on short trips some pragmatic development can take place;
8. the pragmatics of different social domains and activity types may be learned in different ways, so we would want to know about access to sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic input in the target culture with specific attention to the interactional organization of different activity types;
9. teachers can explicitly model and guide students in their use of target practices, engage students in awareness-raising activities of L2 pragmatics, and provide feedback on students' production;
10. prior to departure, teachers can prepare students for pragmatic practices in the target speech community and during the study abroad, students will benefit from language courses or courses related to L2 culture and society that encourage them to discuss and reflect on their experiences with L2 interactional practices;
11. aspects of L2 pragmatics vary in the learning difficulty they pose for learners with different backgrounds, learners may have differential exposure to the input, and the forms may be more or less usable in the learner's own production.

Ch. 7 reviews studies on the role of instruction in learning L2 pragmatics. They note that explicit instruction is better than none. Ch. 8, "Individual Differences in L2 Pragmatic Development": They point out that within the small body of research on individual differences in SLA, there is a 4-way split in categorization -- theory-led studies in natural settings or experimentally, exploratory studies in natural settings or where groups have been identified and studied. They then consider studies that have dealt with age, gender, motivation, social and psychological distance, and social identity.

Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (2), 149-169.

Explores cognitive and socio-psychological theories that might offer explanations of different aspects of pragmatic development. Suggestions are provided for a research agenda as well. They cite the cross-sectional studies and then describe several of the longitudinal studies, such as Schmidt's (1983) study of Wes, Ellis' (1992) study of a Portuguese and a Pakistani boy developing directives. Basic questions about SLA and what is known about the answers with respect to interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). (1) Are there universals of language underlying cross-linguistic variation and, if so, do they play a role in ILP? (2) How can approximation to target language norms be measured? (3) Does the L1 influence the learning of a second language? (4) Is pragmatic development in a second language similar to first language learning? (5) Do children enjoy an advantage over adults in learning a second language? (6) Is there a natural route of development, as evidenced by difficulty, accuracy, or acquisition orders or discrete stages of development? (7) Does type of input make a difference? (8) Does instruction make a difference? (9) Do motivation and attitudes make a difference in level of acquisition? (10) Does personality play a role? (11) Does learners' gender play a role? (12) Does (must) perception or comprehension precede production in acquisition? (13) Does chunk learning (formulaic speech) play a role in acquisition? (14) What mechanisms drive development from stage to stage?

The study considers ways that experiences living abroad have affected Americans' communicative behavior upon repatriation. The residual effects of learning the language and culture of the host country are referred to as communicative lingerings. Three general categories of lingerings are found: linguistic/paralinguistic lingerings, interactional lingerings, and perceptual lingerings. The article starts where the author, after two years, deflects a compliment: Ken: "You've improved; you're dancing really well tonight." Laura: "Well, I don't know, but if that were the case I'd be happy." Hers was a direct translation of Ja, shiranai kedo, soo daattara ureshii to omoismasu. Her explanation is that the new behavior replaces the old, which upon return cannot easily be defined. We don't remember its parameters. She points out that the research literature has dealt with numerous issues but not specifically with this one. Various fields have been considered such as cross-cultural pragmatics and especially microethnographic interactions involving speech acts: code switching; SLA and bilingualism; cultural homelessness and identity; and culture shock, but not re-entrants' language and culture experience. She looked at verbal and non-verbal communicative behaviors that are foreign as used upon re-entry, and their beliefs about them. Also the re-entrants' reactions to "home culture" communicative style. She looked at seven re-entrants, including herself, who had been abroad for one year or longer. The data were anecdotal -- getting at re-entrants' recollections of events completely out of the ordinary, and stemming from the residual effects of having been abroad. Linguistic/paralinguistic lingerings: Uttering a word or phrase in the host country language without realizing it. Four categories of frequent ones: intensifiers, set phrases (e.g., "Good morning," "I don't know"), emotional expression_rs ("God willing" in Arabic - insha'ala), and backchanneling. Also their body language (e.g., the way the head is cocked) and thought organization would be effected. In the latter case, it was having to translate thoughts into the most simple, basic form in order to speak the host language (in this case a Pidgin dialect in Papua New Guinea with only about 2000 words!). For example, the person would hear bad news and say, "Sorry, sorry" even though he knew it was inappropriate and even condescending to use in English. Interactional lingerings: physical distance (e.g., getting too close to someone), hugging, kissing, other elements of greeting (e.g., approaching a baby to take a good look). Perceptive lingerings : feeling of being overwhelmed by all the inputs -- a form of attention deficit disorder; easily distracted by all that is going on. Reverse culture shock about necessity vs. waste -- things you need and those you don't, such as a new winter coat. In all cases these were experiences that were noticed and not consciously selected. They regretted having left a part of them behind -- a personal sense of loss upon repatriation.

Spencer-Oatey, H. & _egarac, V. (2002). Pragmatics. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 74-91). London: Arnold.

Pragmatic perspectives on language use, pragmatic meaning: assigning reference in context, assigning sense in context, inferring illocutionary force, working out implicated meaning. Explaining the impact of social factors, conversational patterns and structures, the role of context, pragmatic research: paradigms and methods. Implications for language teaching, learning, and use: the importance of context, the complexity of meaning construction, the impact of speech act theory, the possibility (or likelihood) of pragmatic transfer, people's sensitivities to face.