Speech Act Performance Theoretical Empirical And Methodological Issues 1st Edition Alicia Martnezflor Esther Usjuan

Speech Act Performance Theoretical Empirical And
Methodological Issues 1st Edition Alicia
Martnezflor Esther Usjuan download
https://ebookbell.com/product/speech-act-performance-theoretical-
empirical-and-methodological-issues-1st-edition-alicia-
martnezflor-esther-usjuan-51680636
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Speech Act Theory And Shakespeare Scenes Of Thanking In Shakespeares
Plays Chahra Beloufa
https://ebookbell.com/product/speech-act-theory-and-shakespeare-
scenes-of-thanking-in-shakespeares-plays-chahra-beloufa-56723694
Imprecation As Divine Discourse Speech Act Theory Dual Authorship And
Theological Interpretation Kit Barker
https://ebookbell.com/product/imprecation-as-divine-discourse-speech-
act-theory-dual-authorship-and-theological-interpretation-kit-
barker-51830978
Imprecation As Divine Discourse Speech Act Theory Dual Authorship And
Theological Interpretation 1st Edition Kit Barker
https://ebookbell.com/product/imprecation-as-divine-discourse-speech-
act-theory-dual-authorship-and-theological-interpretation-1st-edition-
kit-barker-36258658
Essays In Speech Act Theory Daniel Vanderveken Susumu Kubo Daniel
Vanderkeven
https://ebookbell.com/product/essays-in-speech-act-theory-daniel-
vanderveken-susumu-kubo-daniel-vanderkeven-1857950

Renewing Meaning A Speechact Theoretic Approach Stephen J Barker
https://ebookbell.com/product/renewing-meaning-a-speechact-theoretic-
approach-stephen-j-barker-1880956
Trauma Talks In The Hebrew Bible Speech Act Theory And Trauma
Hermeneutics Alexiana Fry
https://ebookbell.com/product/trauma-talks-in-the-hebrew-bible-speech-
act-theory-and-trauma-hermeneutics-alexiana-fry-56745094
The Matthean Beatitudes In Their Jewish Origins A Literary And Speech
Act Analysis Studies In Biblical Literature 1st Edition Michelle
Howell Hancock
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-matthean-beatitudes-in-their-jewish-
origins-a-literary-and-speech-act-analysis-studies-in-biblical-
literature-1st-edition-michelle-howell-hancock-52506872
Towards The Pragmatic Core Of English For European Communication The
Speech Act Of Apologising In Selected Euroenglishes 1st Edition Agata
Klimczakpawlak Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/towards-the-pragmatic-core-of-english-
for-european-communication-the-speech-act-of-apologising-in-selected-
euroenglishes-1st-edition-agata-klimczakpawlak-auth-4696664
Insensitive Semantics A Defense Of Semantic Minimalism And Speech Act
Pluralism Herman Cappelen
https://ebookbell.com/product/insensitive-semantics-a-defense-of-
semantic-minimalism-and-speech-act-pluralism-herman-cappelen-1962692

Speech Act Performance

Volume 26
Speech Act Performance. Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues
Edited by Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
Editors
Nina Spada
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto
The LL&LT monograph series publishes monographs, edited volumes and
text books on applied and methodological issues in the field of language
pedagogy. The focus of the series is on subjects such as classroom discourse
and interaction; language diversity in educational settings; bilingual
education; language testing and language assessment; teaching methods and
teaching performance; learning trajectories in second language acquisition;
and written language learning in educational settings.
Language Learning & Language Teaching (LL&LT)
Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl
Center for Language Study
Yale University

Speech Act Performance
Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues
Edited by
Alicia Martínez-Flor
Esther Usó-Juan
University Jaume I, Castelló
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Speech act performance : theoretical, empirical and methodological issues / edited by
Alicia Martínez-Flor, Esther Usó-Juan.
p. cm. (Language Learning & Language Teaching, issn 1569-9471 ; v. 26)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Speech acts (Linguistics) I. Martínez Flor, Alicia. II. Usó Juan, Esther.
P95.55.S625 2010
401’.452--dc22 2009051897
isbn 978 90 272 1989 3 (Hb ; alk. paper) / isbn 978 90 272 1990 9 (Pb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 8836 3 (Eb)
© 2010 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
8
TM

To our loving children, David,
Gerard, Javier and Ferran.

Table of contents
Acknowledgements ix
List of contributors xi
Preface xiii
section i. Theoretical groundings
Pragmatics and speech act performance 3
Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
section ii. Empirical foundations
The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 23
Lisa M. Kuriscak
Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTS, role plays,
and verbal reports 41
J. César Félix-Brasdefer
Conversation analysis and speech act performance 57
Marta González-Lloret
Culture and its effect on speech act performance 75
Ardith J. Meier
Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 91
Gila A. Schauer
Speech act performance in workplace settings 109
Lynda Yates
The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 127
Satomi Takahashi
section iii. Methodological innovations
Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness 145
Sachiko Kondo

 Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues
Complaints: How to gripe and establish rapport 163
Diana Boxer
Compliments and responses to compliments: Learning communication
in context 179
Noriko Ishihara
Disagreement: How to disagree agreeably 199
Lewis H. Malamed
Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies 217
Zohreh R. Eslami
Requests: A sociopragmatic approach 237
Esther Usó-Juan
Suggestions: How social norms affect pragmatic behaviour 257
Alicia Martínez-Flor
Index 275

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers for their time, comments and thoughtful
suggestions on the chapter being asked to review. In alphabetical order, they are:
Anne Barron (University of Bonn, Germany), Winnie Cheng (The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong), Andrew D. Cohen (University of Minnesota,
USA), Andrea Golato (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA), Myra M.
Goldschmidt (The Pennsylvania State University, USA), Sandra Harris (Notting-
ham Trent University, UK), Timothy Hassall (The Australian National University,
Australia), Noel Houck (California State Polytechnic University, USA), Juliane
House (University of Hamburg, Germany), Kazutoh Ishida (University of Hawai‘i
at Manoa, USA), Dale A. Koike (University of Texas at Austin, USA), Shoichi
Matsumura (Ryukoku University, Japan), Tarja Nikula (University of Jyväskylä,
Finland), Maria Sabaté i Dalmau (University of Barcelona, Spain), Andy Seto (The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong), Julie M. Sykes (University of New
Mexico, USA), Yumiko Tateyama (University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA), Donna
Tatsuki (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Japan) and Sayoko Yamashita
(Meikai University, Japan).
Thanks also go to the research project we are involved in funded by (a) the Spanish
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI2008-05241/FILO) and (b) Fundació
Universitat Jaume I and Caixa Castelló-Bancaixa (08I447.01/1).

List of contributors
Diana Boxer
Department of Linguistics
University of Florida
4131 Turlington Hall, Box 115454
Gainesville, FL 32611
USA
[email protected]
Zohreh R. Eslami
Department of Teaching, Learning
Marta González-Lloret
Department of Languages and
Literatures of Europe and the Americas
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
1890 East-West Rd.
Moore Hall 483
Honolulu, HI 96822
USA
[email protected]
and Culture
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4232
USA
[email protected]
J. César Félix-Brasdefer
Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Indiana University
Noriko Ishihara
Faculty of Business Administration
Hosei University
Fujimi 2-17-1, BT1707
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8160
Japan
[email protected],
[email protected]
Ballantine Hall 858
1020 East Kirkwood Ave.
Bloomington, IN 47405
USA
[email protected]
Lewis H. Malamed
General Education Center
Sachiko Kondo
Department of English Language
Sophia Junior College
999 Sannodai, Kamiohzuki, Hadano-shi
Kanagawa-ken 257-0005
Japan
[email protected]
Tokai University
3-20-1 Orido
Shimizu-ku, Shizuoka-shi
424-8610 Shizuoka-ken
Japan
[email protected]
[email protected]
Lisa M. Kuriscak
Department of Modern Languages
and Classics
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
USA
[email protected]

 Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues
Alicia Martínez-Flor
Department of English Studies
Universitat Jaume I
Campus Riu Sec, s/n
12110 Castelló
Spain
[email protected]
Ardith J. Meier
Satomi Takahashi
Department of Intercultural
Communication
Rikkyo University
3-34-1 Nishi-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku
171-8501 Tokyo
Japan
[email protected]
English Department
University of Northern Iowa
Baker Hall 117
Cedar Falls, IA 50613-0502
USA
[email protected]
Gila A. Schauer
Esther Usó-Juan
Department of English Studies
Universitat Jaume I
Campus Riu Sec, s/n
12110 Castelló
Spain
[email protected]
Department of Linguistics
and English Language
Lancaster University
Bowland College
LA 1 4 YT
UK
[email protected]
Lynda Yates
Department of Linguistics
Macquarie University
North Ryde 2109
Australia
e-mail address: [email protected]

Preface
Pragmatics examines how speakers use and interpret language in various contexts
while interacting with different hearers. In the fields of second language acquisi-
tion (SLA) and language pedagogy, the predominant theoretical framework for
pragmatics is the speech act, an utterance that performs a particular function.
Researchers in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have focused on learners’ pro-
duction and comprehension of speech acts in target languages. In addition, they
have expanded their agenda to investigate developmental patterns. The SLA stud-
ies provide a wealth of information for educators wishing to develop materials to
teach speech acts to learners in second language (L2) and foreign language (FL)
courses. At present, there exist a variety of resources in print and on the Internet
about speech acts for educators and students.
Readers who are unfamiliar with the field of ILP may ask Why are speech acts
important? and Why do we need to teach speech acts in target languages? To answer
the first question, one needs only to think about the language used in daily interac-
tions to request things, compliment, complain, etc. When formulating a particular
speech act, speakers take into consideration various factors such as the hearer(s),
the context and motivations for the utterance. For example, an apology for a minor
offense to a stranger, such as bumping into someone unintentionally, may merit a
brief utterance of Excuse me or Sorry. In contrast, a speaker who apologises for a
major offense to a close friend will likely include more strategies beyond the apol-
ogy expression of I’m sorry, such as a reason for the offense (e.g. I wasn’t thinking)
or promising not to offend in the future (e.g. It won’t happen again). By examining
the varying formulations of speech acts, it is obvious that speakers make numer-
ous decisions when undertaking a particular act in order to make it appropriate
for the context and the hearer(s).
With regard to the second question about the reasons for teaching speech
acts, research on learners’ realisations and comprehension of these utterances has
shown that the acquisition of pragmatics is not automatic as linguistic competence
expands. In fact, studies of advanced learners, with more control of target lan-
guage grammatical and lexical items and long-term immersion in target language
environments, still have gaps in their pragmatic knowledge. While some similari-
ties exist between languages for formulation of speech acts, there are also many
differences about what to say and when to say it. Learners who apply the pragmatic
rules of their native language and culture in interactions in a target language may,

 Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues
at the very least, create minor misunderstandings. In other more extreme cases,
their utterances can lead to hard feelings and prejudice as native speaking hearers
interpret the learners’ talk as rude or otherwise inappropriate. Instruction about
speech acts is crucial for alleviating potential problems in cross-cultural encoun-
ters. In first language acquisition, children are taught explicitly about pragmatics
(e.g. say please) and have countless opportunities for observation and feedback in
order to learn how to realise speech act in their native languages. Investigations
of pedagogy to teach speech acts indicate that L2/FL learners also benefit from
explicit instruction in order to acquire pragmatic competence.
This volume presents research on pragmatics and speech acts in L2/FL from
multiple perspectives. The first section, Theoretical groundings, describes the field
of pragmatics, with special attention to speech act theory. It outlines the necessary
conditions for speech act learning in the classroom, namely those of input, out-
put and feedback. The second section, Empirical foundations, focuses on research
on speech act performance from various perspectives: (1) factors affecting speech
act production by nonnative speakers (e.g. personality, aptitude, motivation, pro-
ficiency, culture and learning environments, including both study abroad and
workplace settings), (2) issues related to instructional interventions, such as the
teachability of pragmatics, the effects of strategy-based instruction and explicit
and implicit pedagogical techniques, and (3) methods for analysing speech act
data across multiple turns in interactions. The third section, Methodological inno-
vations, offers descriptions of several speech acts and specific strategies to teach
learners how to use them appropriately. The variety of speech acts include some
widely studied functions, such as apologies or requests, along with others less
common in ILP research (e.g. indirect complaints or disagreements). The chapters
in this section propose various methods and instructional techniques to develop
cross-cultural speech act competence in a target language, including exposure to
input, awareness raising, data collection, analysis by learners, reflection and com-
municative practice. Suggestions are also given for creating materials for speech
act instruction based on ethnographic research and language corpora.
Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues is a
welcome resource to help increase teaching of speech acts in L2/FL instructional
contexts. It is a worthy contribution to the SLA and language pedagogy fields by
providing an extensive overview of speech acts for researchers, language educa-
tors and teacher candidates. This book will be an invaluable reference for teaching
language use to foster pragmatic competence.
Lynn Pearson
Bowling Green State University

section i
Theoretical groundings

Pragmatics and speech act performance
Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
Universitat Jaume I
Pragmatics, a branch of linguistics which studies communicative actions in their
sociocultural context, has been the focus of attention of a number of scholars over
the last few decades (Rose & Kasper, 2001). Given the importance of this area
of research to develop competent users of a given language, the present chapter
first outlines its main defining characteristics. Then, among the different subareas
included within this field, a detailed description of speech act theory is provided.
The reminder of the chapter addresses the theoretical conditions needed for
the learning of particular speech acts in instructed settings, namely exposure to
pertinent input, opportunities for communicative practice and feedback.
1. Introduction
Pragmatics, the branch of linguistics devoted to examining language use in
communication including speakers’ intentions when producing utterances in
particular contexts, has aroused the interest of a number of scholars over the last
four decades (Stalnaker, 1972; Leech, 1983; Levinson, 1983; Mey, 1993; Yule, 1996;
Crystal, 1997; Verschueren, 1999; LoCastro, 2003). An interest in this particular
discipline initially appeared as a reaction to Chomsky’s (1965) use of language
as an abstract construct based on a competence theory in which grammar was
paramount and should be mastered independently from the actual functions of
language use. Leech (1983) encouraged a shift of direction within linguistics by
proposing this new area of research (i.e. pragmatics) that paid attention to mean-
ing in use rather than meaning in the abstract. In other words, language should
be used as a means of communication and, consequently, performance rather than
competence should be the main target goal for acquiring a particular target language
(TL). In this respect, pragmatics has also been regarded as one of the grounding
linguistic approaches for developing the notion of communicative competence
(Hymes, 1972), a construct in which pragmatic competence has been highlighted
as one of its main components, as reported in a series of models (Bachman, 1990;
Celce-Murcia et al., 1995; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006).
The different models of communicative competence proposed by these authors
have claimed that, in order to make learners communicatively competent in a

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
second (L2) or foreign language (FL), not only does their grammatical knowledge
need to be fostered, but also their pragmatic competence. This competence has
been defined as the speaker’s ability to employ different linguistic resources in an
appropriate way for a given context (Kasper, 2001a). Specifically, both pragma-
linguistics and sociopragmatics, that is, the two areas of pragmatics that refer to
specific local conditions of language use (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), need to
be mastered by learners in their process of achieving full communicative compe-
tence in a TL. Among the different pragmatic aspects examined within this area of
pragmatics, there is no doubt that speech acts have been the most widely studied
feature (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002). The reason lies in the fact that language learners
are continuously faced with the need to use a variety of speech acts and speech
act sets in order to communicate appropriately in the TL (Cohen, 1996, 2005).
Consequently, providing learners with the opportunities to develop their ability to
perform and understand speech acts in both L2 and FL contexts is nowadays recog-
nised as the ultimate goal of language teaching. Given such a need, this chapter
1
first
presents a brief overview of the main defining characteristics of pragmatics. Then,
it discusses speech act theory, a subfield of pragmatics, and finishes by addressing
those theoretically motivated conditions needed for the learning of speech acts in
instructed settings.
2. Pragmatics
In recent years, pragmatics has become an important branch of linguistics, as
the inadequacies of purely formalist and abstract approaches to the study of lan-
guage became more evident. In this sense, the specific area of research known as
pragmatics has aroused the interest of a number of scholars over the last three
decades. Specifically, it was in the 1970s when the field of pragmatics, or the
study of language in use, came to be regarded as a discipline in its own right.
This fact is grounded in the work of a series of philosophers of language such
as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975), who developed what was to
become a science of language of enormous relevance. Until that time, researchers
such as Saussure (1959) or Chomsky (1965) had only paid attention to isolated
linguistic forms and structures. Both Saussure’s concepts of langue and parole
from the paradigm of structuralism and Chomsky’s generative-transformational
1. This study is part of a research project funded by (a) the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia
e Innovación (FFI2008-05241/FILO) and (b) Fundació Universitat Jaume I and Caixa
Castelló-Bancaixa (08I447.01/1).

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
grammar based on the notions of competence and performance merely accounted
for an ideal grammatical knowledge shared by native speakers (NSs) of a given
language. Neither of the two paradigms took into consideration the real use of
language in a particular context. In other words, they did not regard the notion
of communication.
Levinson (1983) argued that the interest in pragmatics appeared as a reaction
to Chomsky’s use of language as an abstract construct, on the one hand, and as a
necessity to bridge the gap between existing linguistic theories of language and
accounts of linguistic communication, on the other. By the same token, regard-
ing the fact that Chomsky’s (1965) theory of mental faculty was a competence
theory based on the independence of a grammar from the users and functions
of language rather than a performance theory, Leech (1983) encouraged a shift
of direction within linguistics away from competence towards performance with
the creation of a fresh paradigm. This new paradigm, that is to say pragmatics,
pays attention to meaning in use rather than meaning in the abstract, and its
main defining characteristics include: (1) the use of language as a means of com-
munication; (2) the importance of language use focusing on functions rather than
on forms; (3) the study of the processes which occur in communication; (4) the
importance of context and authentic language use; (5) the interdisciplinary nature
of pragmatics; and (6) the application of linguistic theories based on the concept
of communicative competence.
From all these characteristics, we may observe two important aspects that
differentiate pragmatics from other linguistic disciplines, such as syntax or seman-
tics. On the one hand, particular attention is devoted to users of language and, on
the other hand, great emphasis is given to the context in which these users interact.
In this sense, Yule (1996) assumes that pragmatics is primarily concerned with
the study of both speaker meaning and contextual meaning. Verschueren (1999)
also considers pragmatics as the study of meaning in context, since meaning is not
regarded as a static concept but as a dynamic aspect which is negotiated in the pro-
cess of communication. Apart from the previous considerations about pragmatics, we
believe that one of the most elaborate definitions was proposed by Crystal (1997),
who considered pragmatics as:
The study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the
choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social
interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the
act of communication. (from Crystal, 1997, 301)
This definition indicates that apart from users and context, interaction also
plays a very important role when dealing with pragmatics, since the process of
communication does not only focus on the speakers’ intentions, but also on the

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
effects those intentions have on the hearers. In fact, Thomas (1995) regards pragmat-
ics as meaning in interaction. According to this author, pragmatics involves three
main processes, namely (1) those of the negotiation of meaning between speaker
and hearer, (2) the context of utterance, whether physical, social or linguistic,
and (3) the meaning potential of an utterance. In the same line, LoCastro (2003)
also advocates that pragmatics is related to meaning in interaction instead of
forms of analysis that only deal with levels of sentence meaning.
Up to this point, we have dealt with pragmatics as a general discipline by pro-
viding appropriate definitions of this term and outlining its main defining charac-
teristics. We have stated that it pays attention to language use in communication
and the speaker’s intentions when saying utterances in particular contexts. Thus,
concepts such as users, context, interaction, real language use or communication are
applied to pragmatics. Nevertheless, this area of language is not a unitary field – rather
it includes different theoretical and methodological approaches which depend on
certain aspects of human communication. In this line, Leech (1983) and Thomas
(1983) made a distinction between general pragmatics and the areas of pragmalin-
guistics and sociopragmatics. Whereas general pragmatics is regarded as “the study of
linguistic communication in terms of conversational principles” (Leech, 1983: 10–11),
pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics belong to more specific local conditions of
language use. On the one hand, pragmalinguistics refers to the grammatical side
of pragmatics and addresses the resources for conveying particular communica-
tive acts. Such resources include pragmatic strategies like directness and indirect-
ness, pragmatic routines, and a range of modification devices which can intensify
or soften the communicative act. On the other hand, sociopragmatics deals with the
relationship between linguistic action and social structure, since it refers to the social
factors such as status, social distance and degree of imposition that influence what
kinds of linguistic acts are performed and how they are performed.
These two areas of pragmatics are particularly relevant in the field of L2 learning.
In fact, as recently claimed by Alcón and Martínez-Flor (2008), it is necessary to
view these two components in interaction in language learning, that is, to deal with
the relationships between the forms of particular speech acts and the contextual
factors that shape those particular speech act forms. In order to understand this
assumption, in the next section, we will address the pros and cons of speech act
theory, since it provides the theoretical framework for understanding the learning
of speech acts.
3. Speech act theory
While it is true that speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, this theory
has been established as perhaps the most relevant in this field. The first known

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
study on speech acts was conducted by Austin (1962) and later complemented
by Searle (1969, 1976), who were working in the area of the philosophy of lan-
guage. Austin (1962) has been regarded as the father of speech act theory with
his famous assumption that people use language not just to say things, but to do
things. According to his performative hypothesis, Austin claimed that when peo-
ple use language, they do more than just make statements, that is, they perform
actions. However, Austin (1962) soon discovered that not only performative verbs
could perform actions. In fact, Thomas (1995) argues that Austin’s assumptions
about the direct correlation between doing things with words and the existence of a
corresponding performative verb is clearly erroneous, since there are many acts in
real language use where it would be impossible, or very unusual, to use a perfor-
mative verb. Hence, Austin (1962) developed his three-fold classification of utter-
ances into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. The former refers
to the acts of saying something, that is, the actual words uttered. The illocutionary
acts represent what is done in saying something or, in other words, the force or
intention behind the words. Finally, the perlocutionary acts imply what is done by
saying something, that is, the effect of the illocution on the hearer.
Austin (1962) focused on the second type of speech acts by developing a
taxonomy of five types of illocutionary acts, which included verdictives, exercit-
ives, commissives, behabitives and expositives. Verdictives involve the giving of a
verdict or judgment (i.e. acquit, convict, diagnose). Exercitives refer to the exer-
cising of power, right or influence (i.e. appoint, order, name). Commissives are
illocutionary acts that entail the assuming of obligation or the giving of an under-
taking (i.e. promise, agree, bet). Behabitives relate to the adopting of an attitude
(i.e. apologise, compliment, welcome), and as regards expositives, these speech acts
address the clarifying of reasons, arguments and expounding of views (i.e. deny,
inform, concede).
On the basis of this taxonomy, Searle (1969) distinguished between proposi-
tional content and illocutionary force, which in Austin’s (1962) terms referred to
locution and illocution. Focusing on the illocutionary purpose of the act from the
speaker’s perspective, Searle (1976) developed a taxonomy of illocutionary acts,
grouped according to common functional characteristics. This taxonomy includes
five major categories, namely those of representatives, directives, expressives, com-
missives, and declarations (Searle, 1976: 1–16). Representatives are linguistic acts in
which the speaker’s purpose in performing the act is to commit himself to the belief
that the propositional content of the utterance is true. In Searle’s (1976: 3) words, the
speaker tries to make the words match the world. Directives refer to acts in which
the speaker’s purpose is to get the hearer to commit himself to some future course
of action. As Searle puts it, directives are attempts to make the world match the
words. The acts in which the speaker commits himself to some future course of
action are regarded as commissives. Expressives have the purpose of expressing the

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
speaker’s psychological state of mind about, or attitude towards, some prior action or
state of affairs. Finally, declarations are acts which require extralinguistic institutions
for their performance.
Although Searle’s theory of speech acts has had a tremendous influence on
functional aspects of pragmatic theory, it has also received very strong criticism.
According to Geis (1995), not only Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) but also many
other scholars based their work principally on their intuitions, focusing exclu-
sively on sentences isolated from the context where they might be used. In this
sense, one of the most important issues that some researchers have argued against
Searle’s (1976) suggested typology refers to the fact that the illocutionary force of
a concrete speech act cannot take the form of a sentence as Searle considered it.
Thus, Trosborg (1995) claims that the sentence is a grammatical unit within the for-
mal system of language, whereas the speech act involves a communicative function.
Similarly, Thomas (1995) also criticises Searle’s typology on the grounds that it
only accounts for formal considerations. In fact, she states that speech acts cannot
be regarded in a way appropriate to grammar as Searle tried to do and suggests that
these functional units of communication may be characterised in terms of prin-
ciples instead of formal rules. In line with Leech (1983), who focuses on meaning
and presents a functional perspective of speech acts against a formal viewpoint,
Thomas (1995) also refers to functional, psychological and affective factors influ-
encing speech acts. Additionally, as claimed by her, distinguishing among speech
acts in clear-cut categories following Searle’s rules is not always possible. For this
reason, although it may seem that some speech acts are in some sense related to
one another, according to Thomas (1995), they are by no means interchangeable
if contextual and interactional factors are taken into consideration. The author refers
particularly to speech acts that share certain key features, such as for example, asking,
requesting, ordering, commanding or suggesting, all of which involve an attempt
by the speaker to make the hearer do something. In fact, LoCastro (2003) also
claims there is a need to expand the analysis of speech acts in isolation to study
them in context, since the comprehension of the pragmatic meaning implied in a
speech act must take into consideration not only linguistic forms but all the other
factors mentioned earlier. In this regard, Kasper (2004, 2006) argues for the need
to analyse speech acts in interaction by applying a discursive approach to speech
act pragmatics. More specifically, the author defends conversation analysis as the
most suitable proposal to be applied in speech act research. Indeed, a number of
recent studies have followed this approach and have demonstrated its benefits for
learning a variety of speech acts, including compliments (Golato, 2003), apologies
(Robinson, 2004) or requests (Tateyama & Kasper, 2008), among others.
A further aspect to which attention has been paid is the distinction between
direct and indirect speech acts. It has been assumed that direct speech acts have

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
a direct relationship between structure and function, whereas an indirect speech
act involves an indirect relationship between structure and function (Yule, 1996).
Thus, a direct speech act would relate a declarative structure to a statement, whereas
an indirect speech act would refer to the use of the same declarative structure to
make a request. Put another way, with an indirect speech act, structure and speech
act are not matched (LoCastro, 2003). Specifically, the use of indirect and direct
pragmatic strategies are claimed by Kasper and Schmidt (1996) to be universally
available, since they are related to on-record and off-record politeness (Brown &
Levinson, 1987). However, the issue of universality has been regarded as a con-
troversial aspect on the grounds that it does not account for cultural differences
(Barron, 2003). In spite of this controversy, empirical research has shown that
there are a number of areas that can be regarded as universal, such as those
of the existence of indirect speech acts, the basic speech act categories, exter-
nal and internal modification, and the range of realisation strategies for speech
acts (Trosborg, 1995; Sifianou, 1999; Safont, 2005, 2008; Schauer, 2009). The
existence of these universals is of paramount importance in facilitating learners’
acquisition of speech acts in L2 and FL instructional settings. Therefore, a main
concern in these contexts is how to present speech acts so that learners are exposed
to a variety of pragmalinguistic forms with which to perform a range of speech act
sets depending on different sociopragmatic factors in particular social and cultural
contexts. In the following section, the essential conditions for the learning of
speech acts in those particular contexts are presented.
4. Theoretical conditions for the learning of speech acts
Learners’ overall ability to communicate successfully in a given TL is influenced
by three main conditions, namely appropriate input, opportunities for output and
provision of feedback. The importance of these conditions is also applied to learn-
ers’ development of their pragmatic competence and, consequently, to the learning
of different speech acts. In fact, as Kasper (2001a) points out:
Sustained focused input, both pragmatic and metapragmatic, collaborative practice
activities, and metapragmatic reflection appear to provide learners with the input
and practice they need for developing most aspects of their pragmatic abilities.
(from Kasper, 2001a, 57)
In order to analyse these three conditions, we devote the next subsections to explain-
ing each of them in relation to the acquisition of pragmatic competence in general
and the learning of speech acts in particular. We will start out by addressing the

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
importance of input. Then, we will focus on learners’ need for output and, finally,
we will deal with the role of feedback in the process of pragmatics learning.
4.1 Input
Input refers to the language samples learners are exposed to. Apart from this, it has
also been pointed out that learners need to understand this input for acquisition
to take place (Gregg, 1986). In this regard, learners’ opportunities to acquire the
TL in general and, more specifically, pragmatic competence differ significantly
depending on the setting in which the language is being learned or taught. In an
L2 setting, learners may be exposed to the TL outside the classroom as well as
experience opportunities for cross-cultural communication (Martínez-Flor, 2007;
Usó-Juan, 2007; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2008). This provides learners with
excellent opportunities to acquire the language and develop pragmatic compe-
tence. In contrast, in an FL setting learners’ opportunities to be in contact with
authentic situations in the TL are limited or absent and, therefore, the chance
to develop their pragmatic competence depends considerably on the pragmatic
input presented to them in the classroom. According to LoCastro (2003), learners
are exposed to three types of input in this particular context, namely those of
the teacher, the materials, and other learners. In what follows, we will pay atten-
tion to each of them in turn.
Regarding the first source of input, teacher talk has been addressed as a type
of special register that is modified and adapted to learners’ needs. As Trosborg
(1995) points out, this kind of adapted language involves a simplified register, syn-
tactic simplification, reduced length of utterances, and no ungrammatical speech.
However, regarding pragmatic aspects, the teachers themselves are considered to
be the model that provides learners with the rules of politeness, the appropriate
use of formulaic expressions or the importance of employing a variety of linguis-
tic forms depending on social parameters. Learners are thus dependent on the
teacher for an appropriate model of the TL, although several studies have shown that
input offered by teachers is hardly optimal for learning pragmatics in the classroom
(Lörscher & Schulze, 1988; Ohta, 1994; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1996; Nikula, 2002).
For instance, in their study on the academic advising session, Bardovi-Harlig and
Hartford (1996) pointed out that the requests teachers made to the students were
status-bound, so they could not serve as direct models for learners. Lörscher and
Schulze (1988) also analysed teachers’ talk in their study and found that their trans-
actional style did not provide learners with either appropriate models of politeness
markers or ways of mitigating and intensifying speech acts in English. Similarly, in
a longitudinal study conducted in the Japanese FL classroom, Ohta (1994) observed
that teachers employed a narrower range and lower frequency of affective particles

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
than would have been used in ordinary conversation. Set in a different FL classroom,
Nikula’s (2002) study examined the way in which the use of modifiers by Finn-
ish teachers in two different classrooms reflected pragmatic awareness. The author
found a high use of direct strategies and mentioned the authoritative role of the
teachers and their status as non-NSs as possible reasons. This could have been the
reason why they had a narrow repertoire of expressions to modify their talk and
were, therefore, too direct.
The use of appropriate teaching materials to develop pragmatic competence
has been regarded as the second source of input to learners in the classroom.
Research on the pragmatic input presented in textbooks has focused on a vari-
ety of speech acts and their realisation strategies, including complaints (Boxer &
Pickering, 1995), requests and their modifiers (Usó-Juan, 2007, 2008), suggestions
and advice (Mandala, 1999; Salazar & Usó-Juan, 2002), greetings (Kakiuchi, 2005)
or a range of different speech acts (Vellenga, 2004). It is evident from such an
examination that textbooks are a poor source of pragmatic input for learners in the
language classroom, since the speech act realisations presented rarely match those
used in authentic exchanges. A possible explanation for such a lack of presentation
of authentic language models in textbooks may be that such material relies heavily
on the intuitions of native textbook developers about speech act realisations rather
than on empirical research (Boxer, 2003; LoCastro, 2003).
In line with all the previous constraints, Boxer (2003) also claims that it would only
be when spontaneous speech is captured in authentic data for language materials that
we might begin to teach the underlying strategies of speech behaviour. Therefore,
we believe that there is a need to base materials and teaching practices on natural
language data if our aim is to provide the necessary conditions in the classroom to
make learners aware of communicatively appropriate patterns. Several researchers
have already proposed different alternatives to challenge this artificial presentation
of conversation in textbooks.
For example, the use of spoken corpora has been regarded as a useful instru-
ment to present authentic speaker input in the classroom. The studies which have
examined the potential of this resource for the acquisition of speech act competence
have focused on expressions of gratitude (Schauer & Adolphs, 2006), requests
(Safont & Campoy-Cubillo, 2003) and suggestions (Jiang, 2006), among others
(see Campoy-Cubillo, 2008, for how to exploit spoken corpora in the language
classroom). In the same vein, the use of new technologies such as synchronous
and asynchronous computer-mediated communication, may also play a key role in
designing activities that foster learners’ pragmatic ability (Kinginger, 2000; Belz &
Kinginger, 2002, 2003; González-Lloret, 2008).
Other suitable material that presents authentic pragmatic input involves the
use of audiovisual sources, such as video, films and TV. The studies analysing the

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
presentation of speech acts from these resources, which include apologies (Kite &
Tatsuki, 2005), compliments (Rose, 2001; Tatsuki & Nishizawa, 2005), requests
(Alcón, 2005), request mitigating devices (Martínez-Flor, 2007; Fernández-Guerra, 2008)
or suggestions and advice acts (Martínez-Flor & Fernández-Guerra, 2002), have
reported the benefits of employing this type of material for introducing authentic
language samples in which learners are exposed to speech acts in contextualised
situations. Additionally, this material has also been praised for motivating learn-
ers and activating their cognitive domains (Ryan, 1998), helping them visualise
words and meanings (Canning-Wilson, 2000), as well as changing the classroom
routines (Swaffar & Vlatten, 1997). Therefore, all these features are of crucial
importance when developing pragmatics in the FL classroom, since students
should be aware of the relationship between participants when performing spe-
cific speech acts and also of the contextual factors affecting their conversational
interaction (Thomas, 1995).
Finally, apart from teachers’ talk and presentation of different materials, learners
are also exposed to the input of their peers. According to LoCastro (2003), it is impor-
tant to take into consideration what learners bring to the classroom, their motivation
for learning the TL and their sociocultural backgrounds. Moreover, collaboration
and peer interaction also play an important role in the development of learners’
pragmatic knowledge (Ohta, 1995, 1997, 2001; Alcón, 2002). As Kasper (2001b)
claims, it has been demonstrated that learners can contribute and help each other
through collaboration. Ohta’s (1995, 1997, 2001) studies, for instance, showed that
learners working collaboratively were provided with opportunities to use Japanese
as the TL and that participation in pairs contributed to increasing learners’ appro-
priate use and application of pragmatic principles. Arguments in favour of learners’
active collaboration have also been put forward by Alcón (2002). She examined the
effects of collaboration by comparing two groups of students distributed into either
teacher-students or peer interaction conditions. Results illustrated that pragmatic
knowledge emerged from both types of interactions, but the peer interaction con-
dition favoured some of the functions of learners’ output, namely those of noticing
and hypothesis testing.
Apart from the type of input learners may be exposed to, these authors show
that learners’ active participation is a powerful force for the acquisition of prag-
matics in the classroom setting. Thus, providing learners with opportunities for
output is claimed to be the second necessary condition for acquiring pragmatics
in general and speech acts in particular.
4.2 Output
Pushing learners into language production, that is, providing them with opportunities
for output, including interaction, has also been regarded as necessary for language

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
acquisition (Swain, 1985, 2000). This pushed output refers to the production that is
characterised by precision, coherence, and appropriateness. In fact, Swain (2000)
argues that not only comprehending, but also producing the TL, is what makes
learners notice how the language is used in order to express their intended mean-
ing. Therefore, in order to acquire pragmatic competence, learners also need to
be provided with opportunities for practice. In fact, LoCastro (2003) reports that
second language acquisition (SLA) research has confirmed that practising what the
learners have been taught facilitates learning and fluency in all areas of language,
including pragmatic ability. The author considers that the organisation of the class-
room is essential in order to provide these opportunities and she distinguishes
between more teacher-controlled classrooms and group work organisation.
With respect to teacher’s control of the classroom, it has been argued that the
typical Interaction-Response-Feedback pattern, in which the teacher initiates the
discourse, the students respond and the teacher gives feedback, limits learners’
ability to get involved in productive practices (Kasper, 1997, 2001a). This structure
is, thus, completely inefficient to develop learners’ pragmatic competence, since
the teacher is the controller of the classroom and learners have few opportuni-
ties to participate in oral activities. However, teachers may serve as models and
providers of sociocultural information if they actively interact with students, thus
allowing them to produce appropriate output. An example of this may be observed
in Kanagy and Igarashi’s (1997) longitudinal study of English-speaking children’s
comprehension of pragmatic routines in Japanese. According to the researchers, by
initiating TL speech, the children created opportunities to produce output, which
then triggered additional input from the teacher including negative feedback.
Therefore, pragmatic needs were regarded as a significant factor in the language
production process, influencing what types of teacher input emerged as output in
the earliest stages of language acquisition.
Regarding the second type of classroom organisation, LoCastro (2003) claims
that working in groups offers a lot of advantages, since learners are active partici-
pants who ask for clarification and confirmation, take risks and use different ways
of expressing their own thinking, that is, they can put the three functions of output
into practice. In this line, Trosborg (1995) has pointed out that involving learners in
role interactions is a way of increasing their linguistic output. Hence, she supports
the use of role-plays in the FL classroom as an excellent exercise for enhancing
learners’ communicative competence with a focus on both pragmalinguistic and
sociopragmatic aspects. In fact, Trosborg (1995) states:
[…] when engaging learners in role-playing in pairs or in small groups, they are
offered the opportunities of experimenting, of repairing their own utterances when
negotiating the outcome of the conversation, and they engage in communication
practice which is very helpful in promoting procedural knowledge.
(from Trosborg, 1995, 473)

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
As we have mentioned above, working collaboratively allows learners’ output to
serve as a source of input for other learners. However, learners’ output may be
erroneous, so there is a need to receive correct conversational input from another
participant in the interaction, which may be either the teacher or a peer. This type
of correction is referred to as feedback, the third theoretical condition that we will
now examine.
4.3 Feedback
It has been claimed that apart from receiving positive evidence (i.e. being exposed
to comprehensible input and being provided with output opportunities), feedback
is also necessary if the teacher’s aim is to combine communication and accuracy.
Corrective feedback, the third condition for SLA in general and pragmatics in par-
ticular, has also been addressed as negative input (Pica, 1996) and refers to the data
learners receive with information about what is not allowed in the TL. By means
of this negative input, learners may reflect on their own output and incorporate
those aspects that have been corrected. As raised by Pica (1996), Lyster and Ranta
(1997) and Alcón (2000), research has shown that pushing language learners by
their interlocutors’ feedback can make them produce more sociolinguistically
appropriate and accurate (i.e. correct) TL. There are also two ways of providing
this feedback to students, that is, it can be done either explicitly, by overtly stating
that an error has occurred, or implicitly, by means of different techniques such as
recasts, clarification requests or confirmation checks.
In the area of general pragmatics, research on language socialisation has
shown that parents instruct their children in pragmatics by providing them with
negative feedback (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996). Thus, corrective feedback plays an
important role in developing learners’ pragmatic ability in the classroom and it
should be provided on both meaning and form. Omar (1992), for instance, found
two occurrences where NSs of Kiswahili corrected other NSs regarding choice of
forms in conversational openings, and this contributed to their pragmatic learning.
However, this is not the common pattern since, as Washburn (2001) notes, explicit
feedback on pragmatic language in conversational interaction is usually non-existent
or, if given, rarely direct, especially among adults. This fact makes the task of learning
pragmatic language usage in the TL especially difficult for learners, since they are not
made aware of their pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic failures. An example of this
situation can be illustrated with Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford’s (1993, 1996) studies
based on academic advising sessions, in which feedback could only be given on
the content and not on form. This limitation, according to the authors, restricted
learners’ pragmatic development, since they were not exposed to the appropriate
forms that would have allowed them to modify their output. Moreover, students

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
in this particular situation were at an additional disadvantage because they could
not observe other students who might have served as models performing the same
task (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1990).
Dealing with a different speech act, namely that of requesting, Alcón and
Codina (2002) also investigated whether the FL classroom offered learners oppor-
tunities to be exposed to requests and to make use of them. Apart from observing
that neither input directed towards the learners nor opportunities to practise the
speech act of requesting were provided, the authors also pointed out a lack of
appropriate feedback on the part of the teacher. Thus, corrective feedback is an
important condition that informs learners about their own output. This negative
input may cause changes in learners’ production that lead them to develop their
pragmatic competence. In fact, the importance of feedback has been highlighted
by researchers with the inclusion of this condition in their interventional studies
on pragmatics (Yoshimi, 2001; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Martínez-Flor & Fukuya,
2005; Takimoto, 2006). It is our belief that incorporating feedback, whether it be
explicit or implicit, in the language classroom is as essential as the other two theo-
retical conditions (i.e. input and output) to help learners develop their pragmatic
competence and their performance in speech acts.
5. Conclusion
After discussing the theoretical framework for understanding the learning of spe-
ech acts (i.e. speech act theory), this chapter has presented the essential conditions
needed for that learning to take place in an L2 or FL context, namely (1) exposure
to appropriate input, (2) opportunities for output, and (3) provision of feedback.
However, the context in which the language is learned is essential in terms of both
the quantity and quality of those conditions. Learners immersed in the SL com-
munity have more opportunities to be in contact with the TL, so exposure to it
and practice, with subsequent feedback, greatly facilitate the development of
their pragmatic ability. In contrast, learners in an FL context are in a disadvanta-
geous position, since they depend exclusively on the input that arises in the
classroom and the opportunities for practice and feedback that teachers provide
learners with.
Consequently, there is a need to conduct empirical research on those areas that
have a significant impact on the learning of speech acts in different instructional
settings including, the effect of individual-level variables, the difficulty of tasks
and the relationship between culture, context and speech act performance. In addi-
tion, the design of research-based pedagogical models for the teaching of speech
acts in different language learning contexts is essential to supplement the input of

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
textbooks with real-world materials as well as to develop learners’ awareness of the
sociopragmatic rules of the TL. By addressing these issues, the area of speech act
performance will grow and be notably enriched.
References
Alcón, E. 2000. The role of conversational interaction in the development of a second language:
Its application to English language teaching in the classroom. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 16: 135–154.
Alcón, E. 2002. The relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the devel-
opment of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research
37(3/4): 359–377.
Alcón, E. 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33(3):
417–475.
Alcón, E. & Codina, V. 2002. Practice opportunities and pragmatic change in a second language
context: The case of requests. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 3: 123–138.
Alcón, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.). 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learn-
ing, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. London: Clarendon Press.
Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2002. Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In The Oxford Handbook
of Applied Linguistics, R.B. Kaplan (ed.), 182–192. Oxford: OUP.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1990. Congruence in native and nonnative conversations:
Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning 40(4): 467–501.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal
study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(3): 279–304.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1996. Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 18(2): 171–188.
Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to do Things with Words
in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Belz, J.A. & Kinginger, C. 2002. The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecol-
laborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review
59(2): 189–214.
Belz, J.A. & Kinginger, C. 2003. Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence
by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning 53(4): 591–647.
Boxer, D. 2003. Critical issues in developmental pragmatics. In Pragmatic Competence in Foreign
Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández (eds.), 45–67. Castelló:
Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The
case of complaints. ELT Journal 49(1): 44–58.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP.
Campoy-Cubillo, M.C. 2008. Requests in spoken corpora: Some implications for corpus as input
source in the classroom. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning
Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 91–109. Bern: Peter Lang.

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
Canning-Wilson, C. 2000. Practical aspects of using video in the foreign language classroom.
The Internet TESL Journal Vol. VI: 11.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogi-
cally motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2): 5–35.
Cohen, A.D. 1996. Speech acts. In Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, S.L. McKay &
N.H. Hornberger (eds.), 51–84. Cambridge: CUP.
Cohen, A.D. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics
2(3): 275–301.
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Fernández-Guerra, A. 2008. Requests in TV series and in naturally occurring discourse: A com-
parison. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón
(ed.), 111–126. Bern: Peter Lang.
Geis, M.L. 1995. Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction: Toward a Theory of Conversational
Competence. Cambridge: CUP.
Golato, A. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of
naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1): 90–121.
Gónzalez-Lloret, M. 2008. Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In Investigating Prag-
matics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor
(eds.), 114–132. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gregg, K.R. 1986. Reviewed work(s): The input hypothesis: Issues and implications by
Stephen D. Krashen. TESOL Quarterly 20(1): 116–122.
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole &
J. Morgan (eds.), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press.
Hymes, D.H. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics, J.B. Pride & J. Holmes
(eds.), 269–293. Baltimore MD: Penguin Books.
Jiang, X. 2006. Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System 34(1): 36–54.
Kakiuchi, Y. 2005. Greetings in English: Naturalistic speech versus textbook speech. In Pragmat-
ics in Language Learning, Theory and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 61–85. Tokyo, JALT: The
Japan Association for Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group.
Kanagy, R. & Igarashi, K. 1997. Acquisition of pragmatic competence in a Japanese immersion
kindergarten. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 8, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 243–265.
Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? [Network 6]. Honolulu HI: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. <http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/
NetWorks/NW06/>.
Kasper, G. 2001a. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Pragmatics in Language
Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 33–60. Cambridge: CUP.
Kasper, G. 2001b. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22(4):
502–530.
Kasper, G. 2004. Speech acts in (inter)action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1):
125–133.
Kasper, G. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Pragmatics and
Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.),
281–314. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies on
Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169.
Kinginger, C. (ed.). 2000. Learning the Pragmatics of Solidarity in the Networked Foreign Lan-
guage Classroom. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kite, Y. & Tatsuki, D. 2005. Remedial interactions in film. In Pragmatics in Language Learning,
Theory and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 99–117. Tokyo: JALT-The Japan Association for
Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group.
Koike, D.A. & Pearson, L. 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of
pragmatic competence. System 33(3): 481–501.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
LoCastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Michigan
MI: Michigan Press.
Lörscher, W. & Schulze, R. 1988. On polite speaking and foreign language classroom discourse.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 26(3): 183–199.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation on form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(4): 459–481.
Mandala, S. 1999. Exiting advice. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 9, L.F. Bouton (ed.),
89–111. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Martínez-Flor, A. 2007. Analysing request modification devices in films: Implications for prag-
matic learning in instructed foreign language contexts. In Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning, E. Alcón & P. Safont (eds.), 245–280. Dordrecht: Springer.
Martínez-Flor, A. & Fernández-Guerra, A. 2002. Coursebooks and films in foreign language
teaching: A pragmatic approach. SELL: Studies in English Language and Linguistics 4:
181–206.
Martínez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y.J. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of
appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33(3): 463–480.
Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Nikula, T. 2002. Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-based
classroom settings. Pragmatics 12(4): 447–467.
Ohta, A.S. 1994. Socializing the expression of affect: An overview of affective particle use in the
Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Issues in Applied Linguistics 5(2): 303–326.
Ohta, A.S. 1995. Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-
learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied
Linguistics 6(2): 93–121.
Ohta, A.S. 1997. The development of pragmatic competence in learner-learner classroom
interaction. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 8, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 223–242.
Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ohta, A.S. 2001. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese
as a foreign language. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.),
103–120. Cambridge: CUP.
Omar, A. 1992. Conversational openings in Kiswahili: The pragmatic performance of native and
nonnative speakers. In Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 3, L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru
(eds.), 20–32. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pica, T. 1996. The essential role of negotiation in the communicative classroom. Japan Association
for Language Teaching Journal 18: 241–268.

Pragmatics and speech act performance 
Robinson, J.D. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring
English. Research on Language & Social Interaction 37(3): 291–330.
Rose, K.R. 2001. Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics
research and language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics 39(4): 309–326.
Rose, K.R. & Kasper, G. (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Ryan, S. 1998. Using films to develop learner motivation. The Internet TESL Journal Vol. IV: 11.
Safont, M.P. 2005. Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Safont, M.P. 2008. The speech act of requesting. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed
Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 41–64. Bern: Peter Lang.
Safont, M.P. & Campoy-Cubillo, M.C. 2003. Online pragmatic input: A focus on request acts
occurrence in NS and NNS oral corpora. In Internet in Language for Specific Purposes and
Foreign Language Teaching, J. Piqué-Angordans, M.J. Esteve & M.L. Gea-Valor (eds.), 369–383.
Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
Salazar, P. & Usó-Juan, E. 2002. The presentation of pragmatics in current Tourism texts: The
speech acts of suggesting and advising. In V Congrés Internacional sobre Llengües per a Final-
itats Específiques: Actes. [Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Languages for
Specific Purposes], F. Luttikhuizen (ed.), 311–318. Canet de Mar: Universitat de Barcelona.
Saussure, F. de 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York NY: Philosophical Library.
Schauer, G.A. 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London:
Continuum.
Schauer, G.A. & Adolphs, S. 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary,
formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34(1): 119–134.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Searle, J.R. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1–24.
Sifianou, M. 1999. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A Cross-cultural Perspective.
Oxford: OUP.
Stalnaker, R.C. 1972. Pragmatics. In Semantics of Natural Language, D. Davidson & G. Harman
(eds.), 315–332. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Swaffar, J. & Vlatten, A. 1997. A sequential model for video viewing in the foreign language cur-
riculum. The Modern Language Journal 81(1): 175–188.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and compre-
hensible output in its development. In Input and Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass &
C. Madden (eds.), 235–253. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. 2000. French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and
Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20(1): 199–212.
Takimoto, M. 2006. The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic profi-
ciency. Language Teaching Research 10(4): 393–417.
Tateyama, Y. & Kasper, G. 2008. Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning
Japanese pragmatics. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching
and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 45–71. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Tatsuki, D. & Nishizawa, M. 2005. A comparison of compliments and compliment responses in
television interviews, film, and naturally occurring data. In Pragmatics in Language Learn-
ing, Theory and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 87–97. Tokyo: JALT-The Japan Association for
Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112.

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Usó-Juan, E. 2007. The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in
textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning,
E. Alcón & P. Safont (eds.), 223–244. Dordrecht: Springer.
Usó-Juan, E. 2008. A pragmatic-focused evaluation of requests and their modification devices
in textbook conversations. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning
Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 65–90. Bern: Peter Lang.
Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards
acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. In Current Trends in the
Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills, E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor
(eds.), 3–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. 2008. Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests.
ELT Journal 64(4): 349–357.
Vellenga, H. 2004. Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL
Electronic Journal 8(2): 1–18.
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Washburn, G.N. 2001. Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning.
TESOL Journal 10(4): 21–26.
Yoshimi, D.R. 2001. Explicit instruction and the use of interactional discourse markers. In Prag-
matics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 223–244. Cambridge: CUP.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

section ii
Empirical foundations

The effect of individual-level variables
on speech act performance
Lisa M. Kuriscak
Ball State University
Many factors affect the realisation of speech acts, including sociocultural norms,
being a native or nonnative speaker, situational parameters of the exchange, and
individual differences in personal characteristics. This chapter focuses on findings
related to the last set of factors and specifically on personality (extraversion),
aptitude (and its related construct, proficiency), and motivation. These multi-
component traits are distinct constructs but are not entirely discreet from each
other. In a review of literature that incorporates second language acquisition and
interlanguage pragmatics, their dynamic relationship and their effects on speech
acts are described, with an eye toward discerning the relative contributions of
these variables to the expression (and interpretation) of second-language speech
acts and to offering suggestions for future research.
1. Introduction
On a daily basis, we engage in speech acts or utterance sequences that serve a specific
function in a communicative situation (e.g. greetings, requests, or apologies). Just
as not all speakers in their native language (L1) respond in the same way, second
language (L2) learners also show variation in how they perceive and carry out speech
acts. Much of the work done to describe this variation has examined how L2 learners
perform speech acts, relative to native speakers (NSs) (e.g. Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993;
Hinkel, 1994; Owen, 2002; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003; Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007) and
relative to other non-native speakers (NNSs) (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt, 1996;
Matsumura, 2003; Taguchi, 2007). Research by Bardovi-Harlig (1999, 2001) has
shown that grammatical competence does not necessarily correlate with pragmatic
competence, which leads to questions such as: What factors affect learners’ acqui-
sition of pragmatic competence? Is it the nature of the task or the type and length
of instructional period? Is it what learners bring to the language-learning table? Or
is it some combination thereof?
The study of speech act performance has revealed a complex set of variables
generally organised along two branches: (1) the situational features of the task or

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
communicative context, such as location of the interaction, age and social status
of the interlocutor, and level of familiarity with the interlocutor (e.g. Harlow, 1990;
Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Rodríguez, 2001; Félix-Brasdefer, 2002) and (2) the
individual-level variables that reflect differences among speakers, such as person-
ality measures, study abroad experience, motivation, and proficiency level in the
L2 (e.g. Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Owen, 2002; Félix-Brasdefer, 2004; Takahashi,
2005; Schauer, this volume; Takahashi, this volume). Overall, more attention has
been given to how pragmatic performance of speech acts varies according to the
former rather than the latter. As such, the purpose of this chapter is to describe
what we know about how individual differences (IDs) affect the expression (and
interpretation) of speech acts – specifically, to offer a review of the literature of
the most salient factors as well as to offer suggestions for future research. The L2
speech act studies reported here include both perception and production studies
and cover a range of languages and speech acts.
The organisation of this chapter proceeds as follows. I first outline how the term
individual differences has been conceived of in the literature and then I focus the
remainder of the chapter on three core concepts in the ID literature – personality,
aptitude, and motivation. These concepts are described each in separate sections
but should not be viewed as entirely discrete concepts. Rather, they are converging,
multi-component notions that may overlap each other, may influence an outcome
directly, or may influence an outcome indirectly through one another. They are
believed to shape the decisions that we make when interacting with others, one
may override another (i.e. motivation may override aptitude), and they are sensitive
to context and to change over time.
2. ID variables
Dörnyei has described IDs as: “dimensions of enduring personal characteristics
that are assumed to apply to everybody and on which people differ by degree.
…[T]hey concern stable and systematic deviations from a normative blueprint”
(Dörnyei, 2006: 42). Among the most commonly cited ID variables are personality,
aptitude, motivation, learning styles, and learning strategies. The relevance of
these variables in empirical studies spans not only L1 and L2 linguistic studies
but also psychology and education (for summaries, see Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003;
Ellis, 2004; Dörnyei, 2005). These variables tap into the cognitive, emotional, and
psychological factors that learners bring to the language-learning table and that
stimulate the decisions they make, the actions they take, and their performance
in the L2, such as: (1) their choice to study abroad or not (their length of stay, the
choices they make as to the use of their L1 and L2, their efforts to interact and

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 
identify with the local community, etc.), (2) their engagement in activities outside
of class in the L2, and (3) their working memory capacity and ability to pay atten-
tion to linguistic input. There are also other variables that individuals bring to the
language-learning table that may affect their pragmatic performance, such as gender
and age. Therefore, one can distinguish broadly between the set of psychological
ID variables (e.g. personality, aptitude, and motivation) that have been more
frequently included in psychological and educational studies and the related
set of variables that have been included more often in some speech act studies
as independent variables (e.g. L2 proficiency level; choices made with regard to
study abroad experiences; use of the L2 outside of class; and gender and age; see
Kasper & Rose, 2002). The former set should logically underlie the latter set, and
further examination of these variables as they relate to speech act performance
should help broaden and deepen our understanding of L2 speech act variation.
The expression individual differences, however, is not uniformly used in the
field to refer specifically to the psychological variables noted above. Rather, the
concept is applied to empirical articles in two different ways. First, there are stud-
ies that include one or more of the psychological ID variables (e.g. extraversion
or integrative motivation) as independent variables in the methodological frame-
work and collect specific measures to determine how the dependent variable
(whether from production or perception) varies as a result of changes in the value
of the independent variable (Kuriscak, 2006). This generally requires a larger sample
size in order to yield statistically sound results. Second, there are studies that use
the same expression to describe how participants vary in their developmental
production (Bardovi-Harlig, 2006). These studies generally have smaller sample
sizes and often take a qualitative approach to the description of this variation (or
use only descriptive statistics rather than inferential analyses) in the individual
differences in each learner’s path toward acquisition (in the case of Bardovi-Harlig’s,
2006, study, the acquisition of the future in L2 English). As such, they tend to
focus on differences in the learners’ production itself rather than the learner-level
variables (the focus of this chapter) that contribute to those differences. A subset
of these latter studies have extremely small sizes or are synchronic rather than
longitudinal and offer a glimpse of potential processes, whereas those with more
substantial samples and more data collection points over a period of time allow
us to draw more generalisable conclusions. In sum, both approaches are valid and
can help the field advance, but one must be aware of the polysemous nature of the
label individual differences and the accompanying methodological variation and
difference in contribution. This chapter deals with the former operationalisation
of IDs and focuses its discussion on three ID variables – personality, aptitude, and
motivation – and how they have informed research on L2 speech acts and can
shape future research agendas.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
2.1 Personality traits
Speech acts are inherently social acts in which individuals make choices, for
example, about whether to ask for something, how (in)direct to be, or which
conventions of politeness to use. These decisions reflect sociocultural norms of
the context as well as the individual’s interpretations of that context, which can
be greatly influenced by personality. Thus, speakers may make similar choices in
a given situation because their cultural vantage point is similar (e.g. see García,
2004, on reprimand use by Venezuelans, Peruvians, and Argentines; or Félix-
Brasdefer, 2008b, on refusal strategies by Dominicans and Mexicans). However,
they may also make dissimilar choices in the same situation due to differences in
their personality traits. Some are more outgoing, some avoid conflict, some are more
concerned with accuracy, and so forth. Being a monolingual or multilingual speaker
may also matter, as different dimensions of personality have been associated with
communicative competence for L1 versus L2 speakers of Dutch (Verhoeven &
Vermeer, 2002) and its effect may also vary from one L2 to another (for those who
learn two L2s at the same time, as reported in van Daele et al., 2006). Due to the
complex nature of personality, its interaction with other IDs, and differences in
theoretical framework and methodological approaches across studies, we do not
yet have a straightforward answer to the question of what the role of personality
is in second language acquisition (SLA) in general or in speech act performance
specifically. However, important advances have been made in this area, and, given
the scope of this chapter, I limit my discussion to a description of one of the most
commonly studied personality traits – extraversion (used here to refer to the scale
of extraversion – introversion) – and a review of literature relevant to language stud-
ies. Most of these studies have been conducted within an SLA framework more
broadly, though a few interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) studies of personality effects
have begun to emerge, as will be discussed.
Extraversion/introversion is the first component of one of the most commonly
accepted theoretical models of personality – namely, Eysenck’s (1990) model that
comprises: (1) extraversion with introversion, (2) neuroticism and emotionality
with emotional stability, and (3) psychoticism and tough-mindedness with tender-
mindedness. An expanded version of this model, referred to as the Big Five (e.g.
Goldberg, 1992) retains the first two of Eysenck’s points and adds conscientious-
ness, agreeableness, and openness to experience (see van Daele et al., 2006, for a
summary.) Extraversion ranks as one of the most often studied personality traits
in psychological, educational, and applied linguistics studies. In considering the link
between extraversion and learning in general, the literature suggests that the different
degrees of cortical arousal and reactive inhibition found in introverts and extraverts
(which cause differences in memory span and degree of mental distraction) lead

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 
extraverts to be at a disadvantage for learning. Eysenck and Eysenck (1985), as
reported in Kiany (1997), predicted that, starting at about age 13, introverts show
superior academic attainment compared to extraverts. However, the hypothesis
for L2 learning is the opposite:
Those who analysed the link between extraversion and language learning
expected extraverts to be better language learners because they are linguistically
more active outside the classroom than introverts, thus increasing the amount of
input (Krashen, 1985) and comprehensible language output (Swain, 1993), which
would allow them to test a greater number of hypotheses about the target language
and thereby acquire the language more rapidly than introverts. The extraverts’
first successful contacts in the target language were expected to further motivate
them. Extraverts were, in short, expected to be better language learners.
(from Dewaele & Furnham, 1999, 520)
However, the treatment of extraversion in linguistics research and the findings
associated with it have been far from uniform. Dewaele and Furnham (1999)
offered a history of extraversion in applied linguistics literature, which they dem-
onstrated was largely influenced by a critical misinterpretation in Naiman et al.
(1978). Reviews of similar literature by Griffiths (1991) corroborate the point that
methodological flaws and ill-conceived assumptions led to the marginalisation of
personality variables in L2 literature dealing with IDs. However, with increased
interest in accounting for psychological and emotional dimensions in L2 learning
(e.g. Dewaele, 1993; Dörnyei, 2005, 2006) has come an increase in the number of
SLA studies that have included extraversion as an independent variable (for further
reviews, see also Skehan, 1989; Furnham, 1990; Dewaele, 2005).
Findings vary according to the dependent variable under examination but
generally point to notable differences between introverts and extraverts. For example,
from a survey of human performance studies, Matthews et al. (2000: 283) highlight
the pattern that extraverts perform better in different task situations than intro-
verts, which reflects: “individual differences in adaptation to cognitively demanding
environments, including social environments”. In terms of SLA studies, Ehrman and
Oxford (1990) found that extraverts reported using more social strategies (than intro-
verts) in language learning, whereas introverts preferred metacognitive strategies.
Dewaele’s (2002) results showed that personality significantly predicted levels of
communicative anxiety in L3 production (for French L2 and English L3 learners
[Flemish L1]) such that those with high extraversion scores reported significantly
lower levels of communicative anxiety in English. Still other SLA studies have
examined the correlation between personality dimensions and language grades
(Dewaele, 2007), lexical composition differences from formal to informal styles
(Dewaele, 1996), lexical richness (Dewaele, 1993), and depth of vocabulary

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
knowledge (Morimoto, 2006); however, with the exception of Dewaele (1996),
these studies did not find significant differences between extraverts and introverts.
In contrast, van Daele et al. (2006), investigating the effect of extraversion on multi-
ple dimensions of L2 production (fluency, complexity, and accuracy of production)
over two years and for two L2s (L1 speakers of Dutch learning English and French
in secondary school), found that not only did the effect of extraversion vary over
time but also that it did not affect fluency, accuracy, and complexity in the
same way such that it affected lexical complexity in both languages but not
accuracy, syntactic complexity, or oral fluency.
Fewer L2 pragmatics studies have included personality as an independent
variable in their research designs, but among those that have done so, significant
results have been found, which supports calls by Kasper and colleagues (e.g. Kasper
& Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 2002) to dedicate more attention to this and other
ID variables in ILP studies. For example, in a study of the relationship between the
components of communicative competence and personality dimensions, Verhoeven
and Vermeer (2002) investigated correlations between personality dimensions and
communicative competence (organisational, pragmatic, and strategic competence)
for L1 and L2 speakers (Dutch children [L1] and children of immigrants in The Neth-
erlands [L2]). Their results show the multidimensionality of communicative compe-
tence as well as differences and similarities between the L1 and L2 children. For the
L2 results involving personality factors, they found significant correlations between
the following: openness with all measures of competence, conscientiousness with
organisational competence, and extraversion with strategic competence (the plan-
ning and monitoring of communicative behaviour). They further state that:
… extraversion is positively related to the strategic competence of both L1 and L2
learners but negatively related to their organizational competence. This suggests
that more extraverted learners may generally find strategies to compensate for
limited language skills more easily than introverted learners …
(from Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002, 373)
Kuriscak (2006) examined the effect of extraversion on the production of requests
and complaints by L2 university learners of Spanish. Data were collected from
advanced learners (N = 292) via surveys that measured personality, language
learning experience, morphosyntactic knowledge, and responses to a discourse
completion task (DCT). The data were submitted to two levels of analysis because
of the nested nature of the data – single-level models (different regression tests)
and multilevel models (hierarchical linear models). The regression analyses showed
that learners who scored higher on extraversion produced both more mitigating
supportive moves

and more upgraders, suggesting that they are linguistically more
active and employ more modifications to their speech acts than learners with lower

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 
scores for extraversion. However, the findings in the multilevel models showed that
the effect of extraversion on upgrader usage was spurious when situation-level
effects, including NS sex, were included. One possible explanation for this change
is that the sex of the NS may trump the importance of the speaker’s extraversion
in production: That is, although extraverts may produce more speech – and, by
increased chance, more mitigators – speakers (whether extraverted or not) also
produce more upgraders when addressing female interlocutors (which was another
significant finding in both the single- and multilevel models). Additionally, those
who scored higher on extraversion were more likely to have studied abroad. Future
research would be needed to determine if this is a cause or an effect of having studied
abroad, but this result is especially interesting when considered in conjunction
with another finding that remained significant in the multilevel models – that the
higher one scored on the extraversion scale, the more direct one’s request strat-
egies were. Thus, it appears that extraverts prefer more direct strategies when
making requests but modulate the impact of the directness of the head act by
using more mitigators.
In short, empirical findings in both SLA and ILP affirm that personality matters, but
the overall picture remains inconsistent and unclear in places. More has been done in
SLA than ILP studies to date, and results thus far indicate that we should investigate
this variable further within both frameworks. Dörnyei (2006) ascribes the lack of
a coherent picture of the role that personality variables play in education achieve-
ment (including SLA) as attributable to the following: (1) the nature of the task
may impose a personality bias; (2) some theoretical models may be too simplistic to
capture complex, nonlinear relationships, hence the need for theoretical models that
focus on layers and relationships between layers (e.g. MacIntyre et al., 1998); (3) dif-
ferences in theoretical models that present the Big Five as supertraits, further bro-
ken down in primary traits, raise questions as to whether the supertraits or primary
traits are the source of correlations between L2 performance and personality, and (4)
there is variation across studies in terms of measurement of variables, study design,
and sample composition, which leads to differences in outcomes and interpreta-
tions of findings. Dewaele and Furnham (1999: 521) also pointed out that “the
nature of the linguistic variable… appears to affect the possible link with extraver-
sion”. Specifically, significant correlations were found in results of oral communicative
speech, whereas none was found in results from written (i.e. grammar or vocabulary)
tests. It is important to draw attention to the fact that all of the written tests included
in their review involved tests of structural features (e.g. grades, number of words
produced in a given time span, and listening- and reading-comprehension scores),
and none included written DCTs for speech acts. Dewaele and Furnham (1999: 527)
also indicated that (1) “the more complex the verbal task, the higher the chance of
finding correlations between extraversion scores and linguistic variables” (emphasis

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
in original), and (2) differences in introversion – extraversion may not affect the
process of language learning but do seem to have an effect on speech production.
Van Daele et al. (2006) also offered suggestions for how task type, task conditions,
and the distribution of extraversion in the sample, among others, may influence
the results obtained. These issues underscore the need for speech act studies that
compare the effect of personality on learners’ performance collected via different
means (e.g. oral role play vs. written DCT) and with learners whose extraversion
scores are more normally distributed.
2.2 Aptitude
Language aptitude is typically understood as “ability or intelligence in general, and
for SLA, as the ability to learn an L2” (Dörnyei, 2006: 45). It is a broad concept
that captures other cognitive factors, and the examination of its subcomponents
has drawn the most interest (though not always agreement). Tests of aptitude (e.g.
Carroll & Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test, or MLAT) aim to measure
learners’ innate ability or talent for learning languages such that one could indicate
what a learner’s success in learning an L2 would be by measuring achievement
in phonemic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability,
and rote learning ability. Tests of proficiency on the other hand (e.g. the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, or ACTFL test) tend to measure
specific linguistic skills (rather than the structure of mental abilities) in terms of
one’s L2 skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. As such, one’s ability to
learn an L2 would correspond to aptitude, and one’s ability to use or understand
an L2 accurately and fluently would correspond to the related but not synonymous
term – proficiency. Most work done on aptitude has been carried out within the
framework of SLA in general, and I briefly summarise some of this work below.
Carroll (1981) proposed a theoretical model of language aptitude as consisting of
phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, rote learning ability, and inductive
language learning ability. Skehan (1989) subsequently proposed a three-part system
that combined and relabelled Carroll’s components as auditory ability, linguistic
ability, and memory ability. Greater interest in how aptitude relates to SLA as well
as advances in cognitive psychology that allow for “more accurate representation
of the various mental skills and aptitudes that make up the composite language
learning ability” (Dörnyei, 2006: 47) have promoted theoretical approaches that
continue to focus on the subcomponents of aptitude (Parry & Stansfield, 1990). These
include the impact that L1 literacy has on L2 abilities (Dufva & Voeten, 1999; Tarone &
Bigelow, 2005; Sparks et al., 2006) and working memory capacity, which is under-
stood as “temporary storage and manipulation of information that is assumed to be
necessary for a wide range of complex cognitive activities” (Baddeley, 2003: 189),

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 
including L2 production and comprehension skills. What is becoming clear is that
the subcomponents of aptitude do not function independently. Rather, as Robinson
(2001, 2002) has suggested, what matters for optimal L2 learning is the clustering of
ID traits (see also work by Skehan [1998, 2002; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003] that has
examined the relationship between aptitude components and phases of the SLA
process). In sum, over the years there has been movement away from a uniform,
hegemonic approach to language aptitude and toward more detailed examination of
the individual cognitive subcomponents as well as the clustering and relationships
among them.
In ILP, however, apparently no work has been done yet to measure the effect
of aptitude on L2 speech act performance. ILP studies instead have focused on the
effect of proficiency on speech act outcomes. Measures of L2 abilities in these stud-
ies have tended to be operationalised as morphosyntactic and lexical proficiency
in terms of reading/listening comprehension and/or written/oral expression – that
is, as the L2 production or comprehension outcomes of the cognitive subcompo-
nents of aptitude. Assessment measures of proficiency range from tests such as the
TOEFL (Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Taguchi, 2007) or Oral Proficiency Interviews
(Owen, 2002), to more holistic measures such as number of semesters of study or
class placement (Roever, 2006; Félix-Brasdefer, 2008a), to a combination of measures
to form a proficiency scale (Kuriscak, 2006; see also Thomas, 1994, for a review of
assessment measures.)
Research has shown that for many learners – even those at higher profi-
ciency levels – L2 pragmatic knowledge is incomplete (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt,
1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 1999), but the relationship between proficiency and speech
act performance is still far from clear. A number of L2 pragmatics studies have
reported effects of proficiency on many outcomes, such as: (1) request performance
in terms of utterance length (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986), (2) use of request
strategies (e.g. Takahashi & DuFon, 1989), (3) appropriateness ratings and speech
rate (Taguchi, 2007), (4) learners’ knowledge of speech acts (Roever, 2006), and
(5) directness levels of requests in terms of production (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007c)
and in terms of comprehension (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002). Furthermore, Kuriscak
(2006) found a significant effect of proficiency on the type of speech act produced
such that learners who scored higher on the proficiency scale produced signifi-
cantly more requests and fewer complaints to enhanced DCT scenarios, suggest-
ing that less proficient learners may find complaints to be more within their range
of ability than requests. On the other hand, there are studies that have reported
mixed effects of proficiency on the L2 outcome and have suggested that the effects
of proficiency on L2 speech act performance may be relative to other variables.
As examples, data collected by Owen (2002) suggest that study abroad experi-
ence alone, regardless of proficiency level, led to more nativelike request strategies.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
Similarly, Félix-Brasdefer (2004) found that length of stay in the target culture had
a stronger effect on pragmatic ability than proficiency level (see also Olshtain &
Blum-Kulka, 1985, and Matsumura, 2001). Takahashi (2005) examined the rela-
tionship between Japanese EFL learners’ awareness of pragmalinguistic (request)
features and motivation and proficiency. Results revealed that their noticing of
the features was associated with motivational factors (in particular, intrinsic moti-
vation) but not with L2 proficiency, suggesting that: “motivation and proficiency
operate on pragmalinguistic awareness independently rather than jointly, and…
motivation plays a more crucial role than proficiency in learners’ allocation of
attention to pragmatic input” (Takahashi, 2005: 113). Matsumura (2003) noted
that a study’s methodology and type of analyses can affect the results obtained and
that ID traits can directly or indirectly influence the dependent variable. In his
study, structural equation modeling was used to measure both the direct and
indirect effects of English proficiency level and amount of exposure to English
on the perception of speech acts (offering advice). A direct effect of proficiency
on pragmatic competence was not found. Instead there was an indirect effect
via exposure.
In general, pragmatic development is associated with proficiency level (for
further reviews, see also Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Kasper & Rose, 1999) such that the
L2 learner (or user) at higher proficiency levels tends to speak and react in more
targetlike ways but yet not entirely so. For example, higher proficiency learners
tend to be more indirect than their lower-proficiency counterparts (who tend to
be more direct in their strategies), they use more external modifiers and more
words (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986), more downgraders (Trosborg, 1987), and
may be less influenced by L1 transfer. However, not all studies have measured
proficiency in the same way, which makes the comparison of the results somewhat
more difficult. This variable is a frequent and important independent and control
variable in speech act studies, and the field is ripe for an even closer examination
by means of more detailed, consistent measures and larger sample sizes that allow
for more sophisticated, multilevel statistical analyses. Research into the effect of
aptitude would also broaden and deepen our understanding of L2 speech act per-
formance. Aptitude is receiving increased attention in conjunction with other ID
variables, especially motivation, which affects language learning achievement in
general as well as speech act performance and which can even override aptitude
effects (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Dörnyei, 2005).
2.3 Motivational factors
As with language aptitude, motivation is also a multi-faceted concept that has been
examined through several different theoretical lenses. One of the most well known

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 
is Gardner’s (1985) social-psychological perspective. Although his theory of SLA
more broadly describes how motivation and other ID variables affect successful
SLA, he is most often cited for two theoretical concepts – instrumental motivation
and integrative motivation. Instrumental motivation refers to the drive to learn
an L2 for the concrete benefits it may bring, whereas integrative motivation refers
to the desire to learn about the target community such that one could eventu-
ally become accepted as a member of that community (Gardner & Lambert, 1972).
Thus, those who score high for the integrative type identify positively with the
people and culture of the L2, and those who score high on the instrumental
type place more emphasis on advantages, such as professional advancement.
Gardner’s approach to motivation and his Attitude/Motivation Test Battery or
AMTB (Gardner, 1985) have been used widely in SLA and dominated the field
through the 1980s. The emphasis placed on integrative motivation in this approach
constitutes a more social facet behind motivation, contrasting with more recent
emphasis placed on both the cognitive and social dimensions of motivation (e.g.
Skehan, 1989, notes that external or internal sources can influence learners’ moti-
vation) and the recognition that identification with a specific L2 community may
not always be straightforward. Research in the 1990s generally became more
context-focused (Dörnyei, 2006), placing emphasis on how motivation changes
over time and by learning context and leading to these theoretical developments:
(1) process-oriented conceptualisations of motivation that account for daily
fluctuations in motivation (e.g. Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998), (2) reinterpretations of
Gardner’s integrative motive (as English is no longer a national language but now
a global language) such that what is proposed is virtual identification “with the
sociocultural loading of a language rather than with the actual L2 community”
(Dörnyei, 2006: 52), and (3) reframing of L2 motivation as part of a three-part
system – Ideal L2 self, Ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experience (for a more
detailed description, see Dörnyei, 2005, 2006).
Depending on the area of language studied and perhaps the instrument used,
motivation has been found to have varying effects on SLA outcomes. It is also
associated with other individual-level variables. For example, Brown et al. (2001)
adapted Gardner’s AMTB and found two motivational subscales were positively
correlated with extraversion. Freed (1990) found that overall motivation did not
affect the likelihood that learners of French pursued opportunities to use French
outside of class while abroad, but there was a positive relationship between
motivation and the likelihood of non-interactive contact (e.g. going to movies
in French). In general, motivation has been less studied in relation to speech
acts, but numerous SLA studies have investigated other effects of motivation (see
Dörnyei, 2006, for reviews), and the field of ILP is poised for further examination
of this variable.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
Extant pragmatics research has found a correlation between high levels of
motivation and pragmatic competence. For example, Schmidt’s (1983) study
revealed correlations between pragmatic competence and high levels of motivation.
Niezgoda and Röver (2001) concluded that high pragmatic awareness was associ-
ated at least partially with high levels of motivation in Czech learners of English,
and similarly, Cook (2001) found that learners’ with higher levels of motivation
better distinguished polite from impolite speech styles in Japanese. Takahashi (2005)
examined motivational and proficiency effects on pragmalinguistic awareness, and
her results suggest that, although motivation and proficiency are (independently)
associated with pragmalinguistic awareness, motivation plays a more crucial role
in learners’ attention to pragmatic input (in particular, their noticing of bi-clausal
complex request forms and other non-request features of the input) (see also
Takahashi, this volume). Kasper and Rose (2002: 287) emphasise that motivation
has been shown to be linked to attention, noticing, and psychological distance,
among other learner variables and suggest that future L2 pragmatics research
should investigate the possibility that “different aspects of L2 pragmatics may be
differentially noticeable to learners with different motivational profiles”. This is
especially important to consider in speech act studies because the carrying out of
speech acts involves noticing both social and linguistic details and filtering one’s
decisions (e.g. what strategies to take or how direct or indirect to be) through one’s
own individual lens of personality and motivation. Changes in motivation over
time can be spurred by many forces (both internal and external to the learner),
making it our challenge to capture and describe this dynamic process.
3. Conclusion
A review of the literature reveals that, for the most part, speech act studies have
devoted relatively little attention to exploring IDs. Instead, the field of ILP has
directed much of its attention to other matters, which are often descriptions of how
NNSs and NSs differ in their semantic formulas and strategies used for perform-
ing speech acts, such as: (1) how targetlike they are, (2) whether NNSs transfer L1
sociocultural strategies to their L2 behaviour (Al-Issa, 2003), (3) how they differ in
their use of mitigational devices and strategies (Kreutel, 2007) and their recognition
of speech acts (Holtgraves, 2007), or (4) how their responses vary when certain traits
of the addressee, such as gender and status, are varied (Yu, 2004). Speech act studies
have focused more heavily on (1) the effects of task- or situation-level variables
(Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Chen & Chen, 2007), (2) the negotiation of face with
speakers of different social status (Félix-Brasdefer, 2006), and (3) the outcomes
obtained via different data-collection methods (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007b; also this

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 
volume). Finally, there is growing interest in incorporating speech act instruction
into the classroom as well as online (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007a; Ishihara, 2007; work
at CARLA at the University of Minnesota) and in discerning and documenting
how the path of pragmatic development advances (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007c; Warga &
Scholmberger, 2007).
These contributions to the field would be complemented well by further
research into the effects of ID variables on speech act performance. The dynamic,
interrelated nature of IDs suggests the importance in future ILP studies of imple-
menting research designs that include more elaborate background questionnaires
(to collect more detailed data on the subcomponents of aptitude, for example)
and working for greater consensus in the measurement of these concepts, perhaps
by comparing the measures’ reliability and their utility in predicting theoretically
important outcomes. In addition, it would be fruitful to triangulate data sources
and use sufficiently large sample sizes and statistical models to be able to account
for the nested nature of much of the speech act data collected, as well as to account
for both direct and indirect effects of the ID variables on the dependent variable.
The nature of these variables also necessitates the collection of data at multiple
points (e.g. collection of motivation data not just at the beginning or end of a study
but also throughout the study to track how learners’ motivation levels change over
time) and as such, the implementation of longitudinal studies to better trace not
only learners’ developmental paths but also to describe the individual factors that
lead to the distinct paths they take.
References
Al-Issa, A. 2003. Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(5): 581–601.
Baddeley, A.D. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication
Disorders 36(3): 189–208.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research
agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49(4): 677–713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in
pragmatics? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 13–32.
Cambridge: CUP.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2006. Interlanguage development: Main routes and individual paths. AILA
Review 19: 69–82.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. 2007. Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness
among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology
11(2): 59–81.
Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects
of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 517–552.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1986. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8(2): 165–179.
Brown, J.D., Robson, G. & Rosenkjar, P.R. 2001. Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and
language proficiency of Japanese students. In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition,
Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (eds.), 361–398. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Carroll, J.B. 1981. Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Individual Dif-
ferences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude, K.C. Diller (ed.), 83–118. Rowley
MA: Newbury House.
Chen, S.C. & Chen, S.H. 2007. Interlanguage requests: A cross-cultural study of English and
Chinese. The Linguistics Journal 2(2): 33–52.
Cook, H.M. 2001. Why can’t learners of Japanese as a foreign language distinguish polite from
impolite speech styles? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.),
80–102. Cambridge: CUP.
Cook, M. & Liddicoat, A.J. 2002. The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics:
The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 25(1): 19–39.
Dewaele, J.-M. 1993. Extraversion and lexical richness in two styles of French interlanguage.
ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics 99–100: 87–105.
Dewaele, J.M. 1996. Lexical composition variation of oral styles. IRAL 34(4): 261–282.
Dewaele, J.M. 2002. Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety
in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism 6(1): 23–38.
Dewaele, J.M. 2005. Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed
language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal 89(3):
367–380.
Dewaele, J.M. 2007. Predicting language learners’ grades in the L1, L2, L3 and L4: The effect of
some psychological and sociocognitive variables. International Journal of Multilingualism
4(3): 169–197.
Dewaele, J.M. & Furnham, A. 1999. Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic
research. Language Learning 49(3): 509–544.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language
Acquisition. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. 2006. Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review 19: 42–68.
Dörnyei, Z. & Ottó, I. 1998. Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working
Papers in Applied Linguistics 4: 43–69.
Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. 2003. Individual differences in second language learning. In The Hand-
book of Second Language Acquisition, C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds.), 589–630. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Dufva, M. & Voeten, M.J.M. 1999. Native language literacy and phonological memory
as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics
20(3): 329–348.
Ehrman, M.E. & Oxford, R.L. 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive
training setting. The Modern Language Journal 74(3): 311–327.
Ellis, R. 2004. Individual differences in second language learning. In The Handbook of Applied
Linguistics, A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.), 525–551. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eysenck, H.J. 1990. Biological dimensions of personality. In Handbook of Personality: Theory
and Research, L.A. Pervin (ed.), 244–276. New York NY: Guilford.
Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, M.W. 1985. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science
Approach. New York NY: Plenum.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Graham's
Magazine, Vol. XXXI, No. 6, December 1847

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Graham's Magazine, Vol. XXXI, No. 6, December 1847
Author: Various
Editor: George R. Graham
Release date: February 26, 2019 [eBook #58969]
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Mardi Desjardins & the online Distributed
Proofreaders Canada team at
https://www.pgdpcanada.net
from page images generously made available by
Google Books.
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GRAHAM'S
MAGAZINE, VOL. XXXI, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1847 ***

GRAHAM’S MAGAZINE.
Vol. XXXI. Aug ust, 1847. N o. 2.
Table of Contents
Fiction, Literature and Articles

Love’s Last Supper
The Islets of the Gulf
The Darkened Hearth
Sophy’s Flirtation
The Widow and the Deformed
An Assiniboin Lodge
Review of New Books

Poetry and Fashion

Sonnet.—To Mary M. R. W.
The Last Tilt
Blind!
My Loved—My Own
The Wayside Dream
Sonnet
Thou’rt Not Alone
On a Sleeping Child
Stanzas for Music
Description of the Fashion Plate
Le Follet

Transcriber’s Notes can be found at the end of this eBook.

Figures from J. P. Davis. Dr awn with original scenery & Engraved by Geo. B. Ellis.
THE TROUBADOUR.
Engraved expressly for Graham’s Magazine.
GRAHAM’S MAGAZINE.

Vol. XXXI. PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER,
1847. No. 6.
LOVE’S LAST SUPPER.
OR THE TRUE STORY OF A TROUBADOUR.
A PROVENÇAL BIOGRAPHY.
———
BY WM. GILMORE SIMMS, AUTHOR OF “THE YEMASSE,” “RICHARD
HURDIS,” ETC.
———
In the first conception of the institution of chivalry it was
doubtless a device of great purity, and contemplated none but highly
proper and becoming purposes. Those very features which, in our
more sophisticated era, seem to have been the most absurd, or at
least fantastic, were, perhaps among its best securities. The
sentiment of love, apart from its passion, is what a very earnest
people, in a very selfish period, cannot so well understand; but it
was this very separation of interests, which we now hold to be
inseparable, that constituted the peculiarity of chivalry—the fanciful
in its characteristics rendering sentiment independent of passion,
and refining the crude desire by the exercise and influence of tastes,
which do not usually accompany it. Among the Provençal knights
and troubadours, in the palmy days of their progress, love was really
the most innocent and the most elevated of sentiments. It seems to
have been nursed without guile, and was professed, even when
seemingly in conflict with the rights of others, without the slightest
notion of wrong doing or offence. It did not vex the temper, or
impair the marital securities of the husband, that the beauties of his
dame were sung with enthusiasm by the youthful poet; on the

contrary, he who gloried in the possession of a jewel, was scarcely
satisfied with fortune unless she brought to a just knowledge of its
splendors, the bard who alone could convey to the world a similar
sense of the value of his treasure. The narrative which we have
gathered from the ancient chronicles of Provence, and which we
take occasion to say is drawn from the most veracious sources of
history, will illustrate the correctness of these particulars.
One of the most remarkable instances of the sentiment of love,
warmed into passion, yet without evil in its objects, is to be found in
the true and touching history of Guillaume de Cabestaign, a noble
youth of Roussillon. Though noble of birth, Guillaume was without
fortune, and it was not thought improper or humiliating in those
days that he should serve, as a page, the knight whose ancestors
were known to his own as associates. It was in this capacity that he
became the retainer of Raymond, Lord of Roussillon. Raymond,
though a haughty baron, was one who possessed certain generous
tastes and sentiments, and who showed himself capable of
appreciating the talents and great merits of Guillaume de
Cabestaign. His endowments, indeed were of a character to find
ready favor with all parties. The youth was not only graceful of
carriage, and particularly handsome of face and person, but he
possessed graces of mind and manner which especially commended
him to knightly sympathy and admiration. He belonged to that class
of improvisatori to whom the people of Provence gave the name of
troubadour, and was quite as ready to sing the praises of his
mistress, as he was to mount horse, and charge with sword and
lance in her defence and honor. His muse, taking her moral aspect
from his own, was pure and modest in her behavior—indulging in no
song or sentiment which would not fall becomingly on the most
virgin ear. His verses were distinguished equally by their delicacy and
fancy, and united to a spirit of the most generous and exulting life a
taste of the utmost simplicity and purity. Not less gentle than
buoyant, he was at once timid in approach, and joy-giving in society;
and while he compelled the respect of men by his frank and fearless
manhood, he won the hearts of the other sex by those gentle graces

which, always prompt and ready, are never obtrusive, and which
leave us only to the just appreciation of their value, when they are
withdrawn from our knowledge and enjoyment.
It happened, unfortunately for our troubadour, that he won too
many hearts. Raised by the Lord of Roussillon to the rank of
gentleman usher to the Lady Marguerite, his young and beautiful
wife, the graces and accomplishments of Guillaume de Cabestaign,
soon became quite as apparent and agreeable to her as to the
meanest of the damsels in her train. She was never so well satisfied
as in his society; and her young and ardent soul, repelled rather
than solicited by the stern nature of Raymond, her lord, was better
prepared and pleased to sympathize with the more beguiling and
accessible spirit of the page. The tenderest impressions of love,
without her own knowledge, soon seized upon her heart; and she
had learned to sigh as she gazed upon the person that she favored,
long before she entertained the slightest consciousness that he was
at all precious to her eyes. He himself, dutiful as devoted, for a long
season beheld none of these proofs of favor on the part of his noble
mistress. She called him her servant, it is true, and he as such, sung
daily in her praises the equal language of the lover and the knight.
These were words, however, of specific and conventional meaning,
to which her husband listened with indifferent ear. In those days
every noble lady entertained a lover, who was called her servant. It
was a prerogative of nobility that such should be the case. It spoke
for the courtliness and aristocracy of the party; and to be without a
lover, though in the possession of a husband, was to be an object of
scornful sympathy in the eyes of the sex. Fashion, in other words,
had taken the name of chivalry; and it was one of her regulations
that the noble lady should possess a lover, who should of necessity
be other than her lord. In this capacity, Raymond of Roussillon,
found nothing of which to complain in the devotion of Guillaume de
Cabestaign to Marguerite, his wife. But the courtiers who gathered in
her train were not so indulgent, or were of keener sight. They soon
felt the preference which she gave, over all others, to our
troubadour. They felt, and they resented it the more readily, as they

were not insensible to his personal superiority. Guillaume himself,
was exceeding slow in arriving at a similar consciousness. Touched
with a fonder sentiment for his mistress than was compatible with
his security, his modesty had never suffered him to suppose that he
had been so fortunate as to inspire her with a feeling such as he
now knew within himself. It was at a moment when he least looked
for it, that he made the perilous discovery. It was in the course of a
discussion upon the various signs of love—such a discussion as
occupied the idle hours, and the wandering fancies of chivalry—that
she said to him, somewhat abruptly,
“Surely thou, Guillaume, thou, who canst sing of love so tenderly,
and with so much sweetness, thou, of all persons, should be the one
to distinguish between a feigned passion and a real one. Methinks
the eye of him who loves truly, could most certainly discover from
the eye of the beloved one, whether the real flame were yet burning
in her heart.”
And even as she spoke, the glance of her dark and lustrous eye
settled upon his own with such a dewy and quivering fire, that his
soul at once became enlightened with her secret. The troubadour
was necessarily an improvisatore. Guillaume de Cabestaign was
admitted to be one of the most spontaneous in his utterance of all
his order. His lyre took for him the voice which he could not well
have used at that overpowering moment. He sung wildly and
triumphantly, inspired by his new and rapturous consciousness, even
while her eyes were yet fixed upon him, full still of the involuntary
declaration which made the inspiration of his song. These verses,
which embodied the first impulsive sentiment which he had ever
dared to breathe from his heart of the passion which had long been
lurking within it, have been preserved for us by the damsels of
Provence. We translate them, necessarily to the great detriment of
their melody, from the sweet South, where they had birth, to our
harsher Runic region. The song of Guillaume was an apostrophe.

Touch the weeping string!
Those whose beauty fires me;
Oh! how vainly would I sing
The passion that inspires me.
This, dear heart, believe,
Were the love I’ve given,
Half as warm for Heaven as thee,
I were worthy heaven!

Ah! should I lament,
That, in evil hour,
Too much loving to repent,
I confess thy power.
Too much blessed to fly,
Yet, with shame confessing,
That I dread to meet the eye,
Where my heart finds blessing.
Such a poem is beyond analysis. It was simply a gush of
enthusiasm—the lyrical overflow of sentiment and passion, such as a
song should be always. The reader will easily understand that the
delicacy of the tune, the epigrammatic intenseness of the
expression, is totally lost in the difficulty of subjugating our more
stubborn language to the uses of the poet. A faint and inferior idea
of what was said, sung at this moment of wild and almost
spasmodical utterance, is all that we design to convey.
The spot in which this scene took place was amid the depth of
umbrageous trees, in the beautiful garden of Chateau Roussillon. A
soft and persuasive silence hung suspended in the atmosphere. Not
a leaf stirred, not a bird chirruped in the foliage; and however
passionate was the sentiment expressed by the troubadour, it
scarcely rose beyond a whisper—harmonizing in the subdued
utterance, and the sweet delicacy of its sentiment with the exquisite
repose and languor of the scene. Carried beyond herself by the
emotions of the moment, the feeling of Marguerite became so far
irresistible that she stooped ere the song of the troubadour had
subsided from the ear, and pressed her lips upon the forehead of her
kneeling lover. He seized her hand at this moment and carried it to

his own lips, in an equally involuntary impulse. This act awakened
the noble lady to a just consciousness of her weakness. She at once
recoiled from his grasp.
“Alas!” she exclaimed, with clasped hands, “what have I done?”
“Ah, lady!” was the answer of the troubadour, “it is thy goodness
which has at length discovered how my heart is devoted to thee. It
is thy truth, and thy nobleness, dear lady, which I love and worship.”
“By these shalt thou know me ever, Guillaume of Cabestaign,”
was the response; “and yet I warn thee,” she continued, “I warn and
I entreat thee, dear servant, that thou approach me not so near
again. Thou hast shown to me, and surprised from me, a most
precious but an unhappy secret. Thou hast, too, deeply found thy
way into my heart. Alas! wherefore! wherefore!” and the eyes of the
amiable and virtuous woman were suffused with tears, as her
innocent soul trembled under the reproaches of her jealous
conscience. She continued,
“I cannot help but love thee, Guillaume of Cabestaign, but it shall
never be said that the love of the Lady Marguerite of Roussillon was
other than became the wife of her lord. Thou, too, shall know me by
love only, Guillaume; but it shall be such a love as shall work neither
of us trespass. Yet do not thou cease to love me as before, for, of a
truth, dear servant, the affections of thy heart are needful to the life
of mine.”
The voice of the troubadour was only in his lyre. At all his events,
his reply has been only preserved to us in song. It was in the
fullness of his joy that he again poured forth his melody.

Where spreads the pleasant garden,
Where blow the precious flowers,
My happy lot hath found me
The bud of all the bowers.
Heaven framed it with a likeness,
Its very self in sweetness,
Where virtue crowns the beauty,
And love bestows completeness.
Still humble in possessions,
That humble all that prove her,
I joy in the affections,
That suffer me to love her;
And in my joy I sorrow,
And in my tears I sing her,
The love that others hide away,
She suffers me to bring her.
This right is due my homage,
For while they speak her beauty,
’Tis I alone that feel it well,
And love with perfect duty.
It does not appear that love trespassed in this instance beyond
the sweet but narrow boundaries of sentiment. The lovers met daily,
as usual, secretly as well as publicly, and their professions of
attachment were frankly made in the hearing of the world; but the
vows thus spoken were not articulated any longer in that formal,
conventional phraseology and manner, which, in fact, only mocked
the passion which it affectedly professed. It was soon discovered
that the songs of Guillaume de Cabestaign were no longer the frigid
effusions of mere gallantry, the common, stilt style of artifice and
commonplace. There was life, and blood, and a rare enthusiasm in
his lyrics. His song was no longer a thing of air, floating, as it had
done, on the winglets of a simple fancy, but a living and a burning
soul, borne upward and forward, by the gales of an intense and
earnest passion. It was seen, that when the poet and his noble
mistress spoke together, the tones of their voices mutually trembled
as if with a strange and eager sympathy. When they met, it was
noted that their eyes seemed to dart at once into each other, with
the intensity of two wedded fires, which high walls would vainly

separate, and which, however sundered, show clearly that they will
overleap their bounds, and unite themselves in one at last. Theirs
was evidently no simulated passion. It was too certainly real, as well
in other eyes as their own. The world, though ignorant of the mutual
purity of their hearts, were yet quick enough to discern what were
their real sentiments. They saw the affections of which they soon
learned, naturally enough, to conjecture the worst only. The rage of
rivals, the jealousy of inferiors, the spite of the envious, the malice
of the wantonly scandalous, readily found cause of evil where in
reality offence was none. To conceive the crime, was to convey the
cruel suspicion, as a certainty, to the mind of him whom the
supposed offence most affected. Busy tongues soon assailed the
ears of the Lord of Roussillon, in relation to his wife. They whispered
him to watch the lovers—to remark the eager intimacy of their eyes
—the tremulous sweetness of their voices, and their subdued tones
whenever they met—the frequency of their meetings—the reluctance
with which they separated; and they dwelt with emphasis upon the
pointed and passionate declarations, the intensity and ardor of the
sentiments which now filled the songs of the troubadour—so very
different from what they had ever been before. In truth, the new
passion of Guillaume had wrought wondrously in favor of his music.
He who had been only a clever and dextrous imitator of the artificial
strains of other poets, had broken down all the fetters of convention,
and now poured forth the most natural and original poetry of his
own, greatly to the increase of his reputation as a troubadour.
Raymond de Roussillon hearkened to these suggestions in
silence, and with a gloomy heart. He loved his wife truly, as far as it
was possible for him to love. He was a stern, harsh man, fond of the
chase, of the toils of chivalry rather than its sports; was cold in his
own emotions, and with an intense self-esteem, that grew impatient
under every sort of rivalry. It was not difficult to impress him with
evil thoughts, even where he had bestowed his confidence; and to
kindle his mind with the most terrible suspicions of the unconsciously
offending parties. Once aroused, the dark, stern man, resolved to
avenge his supposed wrong; and hearing one day that Guillaume

had gone out hawking, and alone, he hastily put on his armor,
concealing it under his courtly and silken vestments, took his
weapon, and rode forth in the direction which the troubadour had
taken. He overtook the latter after a while, upon the edge of a little
river that wound slowly through a wood. Guillaume de Cabestaign
approached his lord without any misgiving; but as he drew near, a
certain indefinable something in the face of Raymond, inspired a
feeling of anxiety in his mind, and, possibly, the secret consciousness
in his own bosom, added to his uneasiness. He remembered that it
was not often that great lords thus wandered forth unattended; and
the path which Raymond pursued was one that Guillaume had taken
because of its obscurity, and with the desire to find a solitude in
which he might brood securely over his own secret fancies and
affections. His doubts thus awakened, our troubadour prepared to
guard his speech. He boldly approached his superior, however, and
was the first to break silence.
“You here, my lord, and alone! How does this chance?”
“Nay, Guillaume,” answered the other, mildly, “I heard that you
were here, and hawking, and resolved to share your amusement.
What has been your sport?”
“Nothing, my lord. I have scarcely seen a single bird; and you
remember the proverb—‘Who finds nothing, takes not much.’ ”
The artlessness and simplicity of the troubadour’s speech and
manner, for the first time, inspired some doubts in the mind of
Raymond, whether he could be so guilty as his enemies had
reported him. His purpose, when he came forth that morning, had
been to ride the supposed offender down, whenever he encountered
him, and to thrust his boar-spear through his body. Such was the
summary justice of the feudal baron. Milder thoughts had suddenly
possessed him. If Raymond of Roussillon was a stern man, jealous
of his honor, and prompt in his resentment, he at least desired to be
a just man; and a lurking doubt of the motives of those by whom
the troubadour had been slandered, now determined him to proceed
more deliberately in the work of justice. He remembered the former
confidence which he had felt in the fidelity of the page, and he was

not insensible to the charm of his society. Every sentence which had
been spoken since their meeting, had tended to make him hesitate
before he hurried to judgment in a matter where it was scarcely
possible to repair the wrong which a rash and hasty vengeance
might commit. By this time, they had entered the wood together,
and were now concealed from all human eyes. The Lord of
Roussillon alighted from his horse, and motioned his companion to
seat himself beside him in the shade. When both were seated, and,
after a brief pause, Raymond addressed the troubadour in the
following language:
“Guillaume de Cabestaign,” said he, “be sure I came not hither
this day to talk to you of birds and hawking, but of something more
serious. Now, look upon me, and as a true and loyal servant, see
that thou answer honestly to all that I shall ask of thee.”
The troubadour was naturally impressed by the stern simplicity
and solemnity of this exordium. He was not unaware that, as the
knight had alighted from his steed, he had done so heavily, and
under the impediment of concealed armor. His doubts and anxieties
were necessarily increased by this discovery, but so also was his
firmness. He left that much depended upon his coolness and
address, and he steeled himself, with all his soul, to the trial which
was before him. The recollection of Marguerite, and of her fate and
reputation depending upon his own, was the source of no small
portion of his present resolution. His reflections were instantaneous;
there was no unreasonable delay in his answer, which was at once
manly and circumspect.
“I know not what you aim at or intend, my lord, but, by heaven!
I swear to you that, if it be proper for me to answer you in that you
seek, I will keep nothing from your knowledge that you desire to
know!”
“Nay, Guillaume,” replied the knight, “I will have no conditions.
You shall reply honestly, and without reserve, to all the questions I
shall put to you.”

“Let me hear them, my lord—command me, as you have the
right,” was the reply of the troubadour, “and I will answer you, with
my conscience, as far as I can.”
“I would then know from you,” responded Raymond, very
solemnly, “on your faith, and by your God, whether the verses that
you make are inspired by a real passion?”
A warm flush passed over the cheeks of the troubadour; the
pride of the artist was offended by the inquiry. That it should be
questioned whether he really felt what he so passionately declared,
was a disparaging judgment upon the merits of his song.
“Ah! my lord,” was the reply, expressed with some degree of
mortification, “how could I sing as I do, unless I really felt all the
passion which I declare. In good sooth, then, I tell you, love has the
entire possession of my soul.”
“And, verily, I believe thee, Guillaume,” was the subdued answer
of the baron; “I believe thee, my friend, for unless a real passion
was at his heart, no troubadour could ever sing as thou. But,
something more of thee, Guillaume de Cabestaign. Prithee, now,
declare to me the name of the lady whom thy verses celebrate.”
Then it was that the cheek of our troubadour grew pale, and his
heart sunk within him; but the piercing eye of the baron was upon
him. He had no moment for hesitation. To falter now, he was well
assured, was to forfeit love, life, and every thing that was proud and
precious in his sight. In the moment of exigency the troubadour
found his answer. It was evasive, but adroitly conceived and
expressed.
“Nay, my lord, will it please you to consider? I appeal to your
own heart and honour—can any one, without perfidy, declare such a
secret? Reveal a thing that involves the rights and the reputation of
another, and that other a lady of good fame and quality? Well must
you remember what is said on this subject by the very master of our
art, no less a person than the excellent Bernard de Ventadour. He
should know—what says he?”

The baron remained silent, while Guillaume repeated the
following verses of the popular troubadour, whose authority he
appealed to:
“The spy your secret still would claim,
And asks to know your lady’s name;
But tell it not for very shame!

“The loyal lover sees the snare,
And neither to the waves nor air,
Betrays the secret of his fair.

“The duty that to love we owe,
Is, while to her we all may show,
On others nothing to bestow.”
Though seemingly well adapted to his objects, the quotation of
our troubadour was unfortunate. There were yet other verses to this
instructive ditty, and the Baron of Roussillon, who had listened very
patiently as his companion recited the preceding, soon proved
himself to have a memory for good songs, though he never
pretended to make them himself. When Guillaume had fairly
finished, he took up the strain after a brief introduction.
“That is all very right and very proper, Guillaume, and I gainsay
not a syllable that Master Bernard hath written; nay, methinks my
proper answer to thee lieth in another of his verses, which thou
shouldst not have forgotten while reminding me of its companions. I
shall refresh thy memory with the next that follows.” And without
waiting for any answer, the baron proceeded to repeat another
stanza of the old poem, in very creditable style and manner for an
amateur. This remark Guillaume de Cabestaign could not forbear
making to himself, though he was conscious at the same time that
the utterance of the baron was in singularly slow and subdued
accents—accents that scarcely rose above a whisper, and which were
timed as if every syllable were weighed and spelled, ere it was
confided to expression. The verse was as follows:

“We yield her name to those alone,
Who, when the sacred truth is shown,
May help to make the maid our own.”
“Now, methinks,” continued the baron, “here lieth the wisdom of
my quest. Who better than myself can help to secure thee thy
desires, to promote thy passion, and gain for thee the favor of the
fair? Tell me, then, I command thee, Guillaume, and I promise to
help thee with my best efforts and advice.”
Here was a dilemma. The troubadour was foiled with his own
weapons. The quotation from his own authority was conclusive
against him. The argument of Raymond was irresistible. Of his ability
to serve the young lover there could be no question; and as little
could the latter doubt the readiness of that friendship—assuming his
pursuit to be a proper one—to which he had been so long indebted
for favor and protection. He could excuse himself by no further
evasion; and having admitted that he really and deeply loved, and
that his verses declared a real and living passion, it became
absolutely necessary that our troubadour, unless he would confirm
the evident suspicions of his lord, should promptly find for her a
name. He did so. The emergency seemed to justify a falsehood; and,
with firm accents, Guillaume did not scruple to declare himself
devoted, heart and soul, to the beautiful Lady Agnes de Tarrascon,
the sister of Marguerite, his real mistress. At the pressing solicitation
of Raymond, and in order to render applicable to this case certain of
his verses, he admitted himself to have received from this lady
certain favoring smiles, upon which his hopes of future happiness
were founded. Our troubadour was persuaded to select the name of
this lady, over all others, for two reasons. He believed that she
suspected, or somewhat knew of the mutual flame which existed
between himself and her sister; and he had long been conscious of
that benevolence of temper which the former possessed, and which
he fondly thought would prompt her in some degree to sympathize
with him in his necessity, and lend herself somewhat to his own and
the extrication of Marguerite. After making his confession, he
concluded by imploring Raymond to approach his object cautiously,

and by no means to peril his fortunes in the esteem of the lady he
professed to love.
But the difficulties of Guillaume de Cabestaign were only begun.
It was not the policy of Raymond to be satisfied with his simple
asseverations. The suspicions which had been awakened in his mind
by the malignant suggestions of his courtiers, were too deeply and
skillfully infixed there, to suffer him to be soothed by the mere
statement of the supposed offender. He required something of a
confirmatory character from the lips of Lady Agnes herself. Pleased,
nevertheless, at what he had heard, and at the readiness and
seeming frankness with which the troubadour had finally yielded his
secret to his keeping, he eagerly assured the latter of his assistance
in the prosecution of his quest; and he, who a moment before had
coolly contemplated a deliberate murder, to revenge a supposed
wrong to his own honor, did not now scruple to profess his
willingness to aid his companion in compassing the dishonor of
another. It did not matter much to our sullen baron that the victim
was the sister of his own wife. The human nature of Lord Raymond
of Roussillon, his own dignity uninjured, had but little sympathy with
his neighbor’s rights and sensibilities. He promptly proposed, at that
very moment, to proceed on his charitable mission. The castle of
Tarrascon was in sight; and, pointing to its turrets, that rose loftily
above the distant hills, the imperious finger of Raymond gave the
direction to our troubadour, which he shuddered to pursue, but did
not dare to decline. He now began to feel all the dangers and
embarrassments which he was about to encounter, and to tremble at
the disgrace and ruin which seemed to rise, threatening and dead
before him. Never was woman more virtuous than the Lady Agnes.
Gentle and beautiful, like her sister Marguerite, her reputation had
been more fortunate in escaping wholly the assaults of the
malignant. She had always shown an affectionate indulgence for our
troubadour, and a delighted interest in his various accomplishments;
and he now remembered all her goodness and kindness only to
curse himself, in his heart, for the treachery of which he had just
been guilty. His remorse at what he had said to Raymond, was not

the less deep and distressing from the conviction that he felt, that
there had been no other way left him of escape from his dilemma.
We are bound to believe that the eagerness which Raymond of
Roussillon now exhibited was not so much because of a desire to
bring about the dishonor of another, as to be perfectly satisfied that
he himself was free from injury. At the Castle of Tarrascon, the Lady
Agnes was found alone. She gave the kindest reception to her
guests; and, anxious to behold things through the medium of his
wishes rather than his doubts and fears, Raymond fancied that there
was a peculiar sort of tenderness in the tone and spirit of the
compliments which she addressed to the dejected troubadour. That
he was disquieted and dejected she was soon able to discover. His
uneasiness made itself apparent before they had been long
together; and the keen intelligence of the feminine mind was
accordingly very soon prepared to comprehend the occasion of his
disquiet, when drawn aside by Raymond at the earliest opportunity,
she found herself cross-examined by the impatient baron on the
nature and object of her own affections. A glance of the eye at
Guillaume de Cabestaign, as she listened to the inquiries of the
suspicious Raymond, revealed to the quick-witted woman the extent
of his apprehensions, and possibly the danger of her sister. Her
ready instinct and equally prompt benevolence of heart, at once
decided all the answers of the lady.
“Why question me of lovers,” she replied to Raymond, with a
pretty querulousness of tone and manner, “certainly, I have lovers
enow, as many as I choose to have. Would you that I should live
unlike other women of birth and quality, without my servant to sing
my praises, and declare his readiness to die in my behalf?”
“Ay, ay, my lady,” answered the knight, “lovers, I well know, you
possess; for of these, I trow, that no lady of rank and beauty such
as yours, can or possibly should be without; but is there not one
lover over all whom you not only esteem for his grace and service,
but for whom you feel the tenderest interest, whom, in fact, you
prefer to the full surrender of your whole heart, and were this
possible or proper, of your whole person?”

For a moment the gentle lady hesitated in her answer. The
question was one of a kind to startle a delicate and faithful spirit;
but, as her eyes wandered off to the place where the troubadour
stood trembling—as she detected the pleading terror that was
apparent in his face—her benevolence got the better of her scruples,
and she frankly admitted that there really was one person in the
world for whom her sentiments were even thus lively, and her
sympathies thus broad and active.
“And now, I beseech you, Lady Agnes,” urged the anxious baron,
“that you deal with me like a brother who will joy to serve you, and
declare to me the name of the person whom you so much favor?”
“Now, out upon it, my Lord of Roussillon;” was the quick and
somewhat indignant reply of the lady, “that you should presume thus
greatly upon the kindred that lies between us. Women are not to be
constrained to make such confession as this. It is their prerogative to
be silent when the safety of their affections may suffer from their
speech. To urge them to confess, in such cases, is only to compel
them to speak unnecessary falsehoods. And know I not you
husbands all—you have but a feeling in common; and if I reveal
myself to you, it were as well that I should go at once and make full
confession to my own lord.”
“Nay, dearest Lady Agnes, have no such doubt of my loyalty. I
will assure you that what you tell me never finds its way to the ear
of your lord. I pray thee do not fear to make this confession to me;
nay, but thou must, Agnes,” exclaimed the rude baron, his voice
rising more earnestly, and his manner becoming passionate and
stern, while he grasped her wrist firmly in his convulsive fingers, and
drawing her toward him, added, in the subdued but intense tones of
half-suppressed passion, “I tell thee, lady, it behooves me much to
know this secret.”
The lady did not immediately yield, though the manner of
Raymond, from this moment, determined her that she would do so.
She now conjectured all the circumstances of the case, and felt the
necessity of saving the troubadour for the sake of her sister. But she
played with the excited baron awhile longer, and when his passion

grew so impatient as to be almost beyond his control, she admitted,
as a most precious secret, confided to his keeping only that he might
serve her in its gratification, that she had a burning passion for
Guillaume de Cabestaign, of which he himself was probably not
conscious. The invention of the lady was as prompt and accurate as
if the troubadour had whispered at her elbow. Raymond was now
satisfied. He was relieved of his suspicions, turned away from the
Lady of Tarrascon, to embrace her supposed lover, and readily
accepted an invitation from the former, for himself and companion,
to remain that night to supper. At that moment the great gates of
the castle was thrown open, and the Lord of Tarrascon made his
appearance. He confirmed the invitation extended by his wife; and,
as usual, gave a most cordial reception to his guests. As soon as an
opportunity offered, and before the hour of supper arrived, the Lady
Agnes contrived to withdraw her lord to her own apartments, and
there frankly revealed to him all that had taken place. He cordially
gave his sanction to all that she had done. Guillaume de Cabestaign
was much more of a favorite than his jealous master; and the
sympathies of the noble and the virtuous, in those days, were
always accorded to those who professed a love so innocent as, it
was justly believed by this noble couple, was that of the Lady
Marguerite and the troubadour. The harsh suspicions of Raymond
were supposed to characterize only a coarse and brutal nature,
which, in the assertion of its unquestionable rights, would abridge all
those freedoms which courtliness and chivalry had established for
the pleasurable intercourse of other parties. A perfect understanding
thus established between the wife and husband, in behalf of the
troubadour, and in misleading the baron, these several persons sat
down to supper in the rarest good humor and harmony. Guillaume
de Cabestaign recovered all his confidence, and with it his
inspiration. He made several improvisations during the evening,
which delighted the company—all in favor of the Lady Agnes, and
glimpsing faintly at his attachment for her. These, unhappily, have
not been preserved to us. They are said to have been so made as to
correspond to the exigency of his recent situation; the excellent
Baron Raymond all the while supposing that he alone possessed the

key to their meaning. The Lady Agnes, meanwhile, under the
approving eye of her husband, was at special pains to show such an
interest in the troubadour, and such a preference for his comfort,
over that of all persons present, as contributed to confirm all the
assurances she had given to her brother-in-law in regard to her
affections. The latter saw this with perfect satisfaction; and leaving
Guillaume to pass the night where he was so happily entertained, he
hurried home to Roussillon, eager to reveal to his own wife, the
intrigue between her lover and her sister. It is quite possible that, if
his suspicions of the troubadour were quieted, he still entertained
some with regard to Marguerite. It is not improbable that a
conviction that he was giving pain at every syllable he uttered
entered into his calculations, and prompted what he said. He might
be persuaded of the innocence of the parties, yet doubtful of their
affections; and though assured now that he was mistaken in respect
to the tendency of those of Guillaume, his suspicions were still lively
in regard to those of his wife. His present revelations might be
intended to probe her to the quick, and to gather from her emotions,
at his recital, in how much she was interested in the sympathies of
the troubadour.
How far he succeeded in diving into her secret, has not been
confided to the chronicle. It is very certain, however, that he
succeeded in making Marguerite very unhappy. She now entertained
no doubt, after her husband’s recital, of the treachery of her sister,
and the infidelity of her lover; and though she herself had permitted
him no privilege, inconsistent with the claims of her lord, she was
yet indignant that he should have proved unfaithful to a heart which
he so well knew to be thoroughly his own. The pure soul itself
entirely devoted to the beloved object, thus always revolts at a
consciousness of its fall from its purity and its pledges; and though
itself denied—doomed only to a secret worship, to which no altar
may be raised, and to which there is no offering but the sacrifice of
constant privation—yet it greatly prefers to entertain this sacred
sense of isolation, to any enjoyment of mere mortal happiness. To
feel that our affections are thus isolated in vain; that we have

yielded them to one who is indifferent to the trust, and lives still for
his earthly passions, is to suffer from a more than mortal
deprivation. Marguerite of Roussillon passed the night in extreme
agony of mind, the misery of which was greatly aggravated by the
necessity, in her husband’s presence, of suppressing every feeling of
uneasiness. But her feelings could not always be suppressed; and
when, the next day, on the return of the troubadour from Tarrascon,
she encountered him in those garden walks which had been made
sacred to their passion by its first mutual revelation, the pang grew
to utterance, which her sense of dignity and propriety in vain
endeavored to subdue. Her eyes brightened indignantly through her
tears; and she whose virtue had withheld every gift of passion from
the being whom she yet professed to love, at once, but still most
tenderly, reproached him with his infidelity.
“Alas! Guillaume,” she continued, after telling him all that she had
heard, “alas! that my soul should have so singled thine out from all
the rest, because of its purity, and should find thee thus, like all the
rest, incapable of a sweet and holy love such as thou didst promise.
I had rather died, Guillaume, a thousand deaths, than that thou
shouldst have fallen from thy faith to me.”
“But I have not fallen—I have not faltered in my faith,
Marguerite! I am still true to thee—to thee only, though I sigh for
thee vainly, and know that thou livest only for another. Hear me,
Marguerite, while I tell thee what has truly happened. Thou hast
heard something, truly, but not all the truth.”
And he proceeded with the narrative to which we have already
listened. He had only to show her what had passed between her lord
and himself, to show how great had been his emergency. The
subsequent events at Tarrascon, only convinced her of the quick
intelligence, and sweet benevolence of purpose by which her sister
had been governed. Her charitable sympathies had seen and favored
the artifice in which lay the safety equally of her lover and herself.
The revulsion of her feelings from grief to exultation, spoke in a gust
of tears, which relieved the distresses of her soul. The single kiss
upon his forehead, with which she rewarded the devotion of the

troubadour, inspired his fancy. He made the event the subject of a
sonnet, which has fortunately been preserved to us.
MARGUERITE.

That there should be a question whom I love,
As if the world had more than one so fair!
Would’st know her name, behold the letters rare,
God-written, on the wing of every dove!
Ask if a blindness darkens my fond eyes,
That I should doubt me whither I should turn;
Ask if my soul, in cold abeyance lies,
That I should fail at sight of her to burn.
That I should wander to another’s sway,
Would speak a blindnesss worse than that of sight,
Since here, though nothing I may ask of right,
Blessings most precious woo my heart to stay.
High my ambition, since at heaven it aims,
Yet humble, since a daisy’s all it claims.
The lines first italicized embody the name of the lady, by a
periphrasis known to the Provençal dialect, and the name of the
daisy, as used in the closing line, is Marguerite’s. The poem is an
unequivocal declaration of attachment, obviously meant to do away
with all adverse declarations. To those acquainted with the previous
history, it unfolds another history quite as significant; and to those
who knew nothing of the purity of the parties, and who made no
allowance for the exaggerated manner in which a troubadour would
be apt to declare the privileges he had enjoyed, it would convey the
idea of a triumph inconsistent with the innocence of the lovers, and
destructive of the rights of the injured husband. Thus, full of
meaning, it is difficult to conceive by what imprudence of the
parties, this fatal sonnet found its way to the hands of Raymond of
Roussillon. It is charged by the biographers, in the absence of other
proofs, that the vanity of Marguerite, in her moments of exultation—
greater than her passion—proud of the homage which she inspired,
and confident in the innocence which the world had too slanderously
already begun to question—could not forbear the temptation of

showing so beautiful a testimony of the power of her charms. But
the suggestion lacks in plausibility. It is more easy to conceive that
the fond heart of the woman would not suffer her to destroy so
exquisite a tribute, and that the jealousy of her lord, provoked by
the arts of envious rivals, conducted him to the place of safe-keeping
where her treasure was concealed. At all events, it fell into his
hands, and revived all his suspicions. In fact, it gave the lie to the
artful story by which he had been lulled into confidence, and was
thus, in a manner, conclusive of the utter guilt of the lovers. His
pride was outraged as well as his honor. He had been gulled by all
upon whom he had relied—his wife, his page, and his sister. He no
longer doubted Marguerite’s infidelity and his own disgrace; and
breathing nothing but vengeance, he yet succeeded in concealing
from all persons the convictions which he felt, of the guilt which
dishonored him, and the terrible vengeance which he meditated for
its punishment. He was a cold and savage man, who could suppress,
in most cases, the pangs which he felt, and could deliberately
restrain the passions which yet occupied triumphant places in his
heart and purpose. It was not long before he found the occasion
which he desired. The movements of the troubadour were closely
watched, and one day when he had wandered forth from the castle,
seeking solitude, as was his frequent habit, Raymond contrived to
steal away from observation, and to follow him out into the forest.
He was successful in his quest. He found Guillaume resting at the
foot of a shady tree, in a secluded glen, with his tablets before him.
The outlines of a tender ballad, tender but spiritual, as was the
character of all his melodies, were already inscribed upon the paper.
The poet was meditating, as usual, the charms of that dangerous
mistress, whose beauty was destined to become his bane. Raymond
threw himself upon the ground beside him.
“Ah! well,” said he, as he joined the troubadour, “this love of the
Lady Agnes is still a distressing matter in thy thoughts.”
“In truth, my lord, I think of her with the greatest love and
tenderness,” was the reply of Guillaume.

“Verily, thou dost well,” returned the baron; “she deserves
requital at thy hands. Thou owest her good service. And yet, for one
who so greatly affects a lady, and who hath found so much favor in
her sight, methinks thou seek’st her but seldom. Why is this, Sir
Troubadour?”
Without waiting for the answer, Raymond added, “But let me see
what thou hast just written in her praise. It is by his verses that we
understand the devotion of the troubadour.”
Leaning over the poet as he spoke, as if his purpose had been to
possess himself of his tablets, he suddenly threw the whole weight
of his person upon him, and, in the very same moment, by a quick
movement of the hand, he drove the couteau de chasse, with which
he was armed, and which he had hitherto concealed behind him,
with a swift, unerring stroke deep down into the bosom of the
victim. Never was blow better aimed, or with more energy delivered.
The moment of danger was that of death. The unfortunate
troubadour was conscious of the weapon only when he felt the steel.
It was with a playful smile that Raymond struck, and so innocent
was the expression of his face, even while his arm was extended and
the weight of his body was pressing upon Guillaume, that the only
solicitude of the latter had been to conceal his tablets. One
convulsive cry, one hideous contortion, and Guillaume de Cabestaign
was no more. The name of Marguerite was the only word which
escaped him with his dying shriek. The murderer placed his hand
upon the heart of the victim. It had already ceased to beat.
“Thou wilt mock me no more!” he muttered fiercely, as he half
rose from the body now stiffening fast. But his fierce vengeance was
by no means completed. As if a new suggestion had seized upon his
mind, while his hand rested upon the heart of the troubadour, he
suddenly started and tore away the garments from the unconscious
bosom. Once more he struck it deeply with the keen and heavy
blade. In a few moments he had laid it open. Then he plunged his
naked hand into the gaping wound, and tore out the still quivering
heart. This he wrapped up with care, and concealed in his garments.
With another stroke he smote the head from the body, and this he

also concealed, in fragments torn from the person of his victim. With
these proofs of his terrible revenge, he made his way, under cover of
the dusk, in secret to the castle. What remains to be told is still more
dreadful—beyond belief indeed, were it not that the sources of our
history are wholly above discredit or denial. The cruel baron,
ordering his cook into his presence, then gave the heart of the
troubadour into his keeping, with instructions to dress it richly, and
after a manner of dressing certain favorite portions of venison, of
which Marguerite was known to be particularly fond. The dish was a
subject of special solicitude with her husband. He himself
superintended the preparation, and furnished the spices. That night,
he being her only companion at the feast, it was served up to his
wife, at the usual time of supper. He had assiduously subdued every
vestige of anger, unkindness or suspicion from his countenance.
Marguerite was suffered to hear and see nothing which might
provoke her apprehensions or arrest her appetite. She was more
than usually serene and cheerful, as, that day and evening, her lord
was more than commonly indulgent. He, too, could play a part when
it suited him to do so; and, like most men of stern will and great
experience, could adapt his moods and manners to that livelier cast,
and more pliant temper, which better persuade the feminine heart
into confidence and pleasure. He smiled upon her now with the most
benevolent sweetness; but while he earnestly encouraged her to
partake of the delicacy specially put before her, he himself might be
seen to eat of any other dish. The wretched woman, totally
unsuspicious of guile or evil, undreaming of disaster, and really
conscious of but little self-reproach, ate freely of the precious meat
which had been placed before her. The eyes of Raymond greedily
followed every morsel which she carried to her lips. She evidently
enjoyed the dish which had been spiced for her benefit, and as she
continued to draw upon it, he could no longer forbear to unfold the
exultation which he felt at the entire satisfaction of his vengeance.
“You seem very much to like your meats to-night, Marguerite. Do
you find them good?”
“Verily,” she answered, “this venison is really delicious.”

“Eat then,” he continued, “I have had it dressed purposely for
you. You ought to like it. It is a dish of which you have always
shown yourself very fond.”
“Nay, my lord, but you surely err. I cannot think that I have ever
eaten before of any thing so very delicious as this.”
“Nay, nay, Marguerite, it is you that err. I know that the meat of
which you now partake, is one which you have always found the
sweetest.”
There was something now in the voice of the speaker that made
Marguerite look up. Her eyes immediately met his own, and the
wolfish exultation which they betrayed confounded her and made
her shudder. She felt at once terrified with a nameless fear. There
was a sudden sickness and sinking of her heart. She felt that there
was a terrible meaning, a dreadful mystery in his looks and words,
the solution of which she shrunk from with a vague but absorbing
terror. She was too well acquainted with the sinister expression of
that glance. She rallied herself to speak.
“What is it that you mean, my lord? Something dreadful! What
have you done? This food—”
“Ay, this food! I can very well understand that you should find it
delicious. It is such as you have always loved a little too much. It is
but natural that you should relish, now that it is dead, that which
you so passionately enjoyed while living. Marguerite, the meat of
that dish which you have eaten was once the heart of Guillaume de
Cabestaign!”
The lips of the wretched woman parted spasmodically. Her jaws
seemed to stretch asunder. Her eyes dilated in a horror akin to
madness. Her arms were stretched out and forward. She half rose
from the table, which she at length seized upon for her support.
“No!” she exclaimed, hoarsely, at length. “No! no! It is not true.
It is not possible. I will not—I dare not believe it.”
“You shall have a witness, Marguerite! You shall hear it from one
whom, heretofore, you have believed always, and who will find it

impossible now to lie. Behold! This is the head of him whose heart
you have eaten!”
With these dreadful words, the cruel baron raised the ghastly
head of the troubadour, which he had hitherto concealed beneath
the table, and which he now placed upon it. At this horrible
spectacle the wretched woman sunk down in a swoon, from which,
however, she awakened but too quickly. The wan and bloody aspect
of her lover, the eyes glazed in death, but full still of the tenderest
expression, met her gaze as it opened upon the light. The savage
lord who had achieved the horrid butchery stood erect, and pointing
at the spectacle of terror. His scornful and demoniac glance—the
horrid cruelty of which he continued to boast—her conscious
innocence and that of her lover—her complete and deep despair—all
conspired to arm her soul with a courage which she had never felt
till now. In the ruin of her heart she had grown reckless of her life.
Her eye confronted the murderer.
“Be it so!” she exclaimed. “As I have eaten of meat so precious, it
fits not that inferior food should ever again pass these lips! This is
the last supper which I shall taste on earth!”
“What! dare you thus shamelessly avow to me your passion?”
“Ay! as God who beholds us knows, never did woman more
passionately and truly love mortal man, than did Marguerite of
Roussillon the pure and noble Guillaume de Cabestaign. It is true! I
fear not to say it now! Now, indeed, I am his only and forever!”
Transported with fury at what he heard, Raymond drew his
dagger, and rushed to where she stood. But she did not await his
weapon. Anticipating his wrath, she darted headlong through a door
which opened upon a balcony, over the balustrade of which, with a
second effort, she flung herself into the court below. All this was the
work of but one impulse and of a single instant Raymond reached
the balcony as the delicate frame of the beautiful woman was
crushed upon the flag-stones of the court. Life had utterly departed
when they raised her from the ground!

This terrible catastrophe struck society every where with
consternation. At a season, when not only chivalry, but the church,
gave its most absolute sanction to the existence and encouragement
of that strange conventional love which we have sought to describe,
the crime of Raymond provoked an universal honor. Love, artificial
and sentimental rather than passionate, was the soul equally of
military achievement and of aristocratic society. It was then of vast
importance, as an element of power, in the use of religious
enthusiasm. The shock given to those who cherished this sentiment,
by this dreadful history, was felt to all the extremities of the social
circle. The friends and kindred of the lovers—the princes and
princesses of the land—noble lords, knights and ladies, all combined,
as by a common impulse, to denounce and to destroy the bloody-
minded criminal. Alphonso, King of Arragon, devoted himself to the
work of justice. Raymond was seized and cast into a dungeon. His
castle was razed to the ground, under a public decree, which
scarcely anticipated the eager rage of hundreds who rushed to the
work of demolition. The criminal himself was suffered to live; but he
lived either in prison or in exile, with loss of caste and society, and
amidst universal detestation!
Very different was the fate of the lovers, whom man could no
more harm or separate. They were honored, under the sanction of
Alphonso, with a gorgeous funeral procession. They were laid
together, in the same tomb, before the church of Perpignan, and
their names and cruel history were duly engraven upon the stone
raised to their memory. According the Provençal historians, it was
afterward a custom with the knights of Roussillon, of Cerdagne, and
of Narbonnois, every year to join with the noble dames and ladies of
the same places, in a solemn service, in memory of Marguerite of
Roussillon, and William of Cabestaign. At the same time came lovers
of both sexes, on a pilgrimage to their tomb, where they prayed for
the repose of their souls. The anniversary of this service was
instituted by Alphonso. We may add that romance has more than
once seized upon this tragic history, out of which to weave her
fictions. Boccaccio has found in it the material for one of the stories

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Speech Act Performance Theoretical Empirical And Methodological Issues 1st Edition Alicia Martnezflor Esther Usjuan

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Speech Act Performance Theoretical Empirical And Methodological Issues 1st Edition Alicia Martnezflor Esther Usjuan

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82

Slide 83

Slide 84

Slide 85