Learning goals

I can recognise selected idiom, understatement, humour, and pragmatic mismatch while distinguishing evidence from speculation.
I can express criticism, refusal, appreciation, and humour with language appropriate to relationship and context.
I can explain each participant’s likely intention neutrally and help them choose a workable next move.

What you will be able to do

I can recognise selected idiom, understatement, humour, and pragmatic mismatch while distinguishing evidence from speculation.
Skill
reception
I can express criticism, refusal, appreciation, and humour with language appropriate to relationship and context.
Skill
production
I can notice possible offence or confusion, check interpretation, apologise or clarify, and restore cooperative interaction.
Skill
interaction
I can explain each participant’s likely intention neutrally and help them choose a workable next move.
Skill
mediation
I can pause judgement, ask a neutral question, and reformulate when a pragmatic choice fails.
Skill
strategies
I can discuss cultural practices and values with nuance, recognise internal diversity, and avoid essentialising groups.
Skill
pluricultural competence

Core vocabulary

an indirect refusal

A response that declines without a direct no.

Do not assume every hesitation is an indirect refusal.

understatement

A deliberately restrained description.

The phrase a little rushed may be understatement.

pragmatic mismatch

A gap between intended meaning and how it is understood.

The pragmatic mismatch arose from different expectations about commitment.

check the intended meaning

Ask what someone meant before acting on an inference.

Let us check the intended meaning before changing the schedule.

save face

Avoid unnecessary embarrassment while resolving an issue.

A private clarification can help save face without hiding the problem.

a repair move

An utterance that restores shared understanding.

The repair move restates the request without blaming the listener.

context-dependent

Changing in meaning or effect with the situation.

Humour is context-dependent rather than universally obvious.

plausible deniability

Wording that leaves room to reject an implied interpretation.

Do not treat possible plausible deniability as proof of intention.

read as a commitment

Understand an utterance as a promise to act.

I read that as a commitment, but I should have checked.

a neutral paraphrase

A restatement that reduces evaluative or ambiguous wording.

Offer a neutral paraphrase and ask whether it captures the meaning.

Meaning through delivery

Compare stress on “AMBITIOUS” with stress on “THAT” in the same sentence. Describe the possible effect without claiming prosody proves irony.

Do not assume every hesitation is an indirect refusal.
The phrase a little rushed may be understatement.
The pragmatic mismatch arose from different expectations about commitment.
Let us check the intended meaning before changing the schedule.
A private clarification can help save face without hiding the problem.
The repair move restates the request without blaming the listener.
Humour is context-dependent rather than universally obvious.
Do not treat possible plausible deniability as proof of intention.
I read that as a commitment, but I should have checked.
Offer a neutral paraphrase and ask whether it captures the meaning.

Extended listening · A mixed project team interprets the same phrases differently

First listen for the situation and stance. Then record details, inference and uncertainty separately. Attempt the questions before revealing the transcript.

What gives the strongest evidence of the designer’s intention?
What distinction should follow “I will see what I can do”?
Why are national labels insufficient explanations?
What evidence should the role-play retain?

Listening notes

Transcript

The phrase 'That is an ambitious timetable' can sound like praise, concern or a mixture of both. In our first exchange, the designer later explains that it was a reservation. That clarification is stronger evidence of the intended meaning than a listener's initial confidence that the phrase was obviously positive or obviously negative.

This is why pragmatic competence involves checking, not memorising one translation for every expression. 'I will see what I can do' may commit the speaker to investigating an option without committing them to completing a task. A useful follow-up is not 'Why did you promise?' but 'Can I treat that as confirmed, or are you still checking your availability?' The question separates the operational issue from blame.

Humour creates a similar challenge. In the slide exchange, one listener laughs and another acts immediately. Neither response alone proves a general feature of that listener's culture. The team may have different familiarity with the speaker, different assumptions about the deadline or different levels of fatigue. A careful reflection considers alternatives rather than selecting a national stereotype as the explanation.

Repair does not mean eliminating every indirect expression. Relationships sometimes benefit from tact, and direct wording can still be ambiguous. The aim is to make the meaning clear enough for the next action while preserving the dignity of the people involved. A neutral paraphrase can help: 'I think there are too many separate points. Could we group them into three messages?'

For the role-play, try an apology, a refusal and a disagreement in three different relationships. Ask your partner what they understood and what they would do next. Where the received meaning differs, revise the wording and explain the change. Record the original attempt and the repair. The evidence is your ability to adapt to the actual interaction, not your ability to make confident claims about how a whole community communicates.

Reading and source dossier

Read all source cards. Track authorship, purpose, definitions and limitations. Cite source and paragraph IDs in the answers. All sources are fictional practice material.

All source people, organisations, figures and quotations in this pack are invented for learning.

S1 · Planning exchange

Project team transcript

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] Facilitator: Could we have a full draft by tomorrow morning? Designer: That is an ambitious timetable. Facilitator: Excellent. I am glad you like the challenge. Designer: I meant that I am concerned about the checking time. Facilitator: Thank you for clarifying. Which part cannot be completed reliably by tomorrow?

[2] The designer later explains that the opening response was intended as a reservation, not enthusiasm. The facilitator had heard the adjective ambitious as positive because the team had recently used it to praise a successful project. The same word therefore supported different interpretations within one team, without a national or cultural explanation being necessary.

[3] The repair succeeds when the participants stop debating whether the first sentence was obvious. They identify the intended concern and discuss a workable deadline. The transcript provides direct evidence of the designer's stated intention after clarification. It does not establish that the facilitator should always recognise that wording as an objection, or that the designer's style represents every person from a particular background.

S2 · Message exchange and follow-up

Volunteer pair

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] Coordinator: Can you organise the display before Friday? Volunteer: I will see what I can do. Coordinator: Thanks. I will tell the group that the display is covered. Volunteer: Please wait. I can check my availability tonight, but I cannot commit yet.

[2] Afterwards, the coordinator says they treated the phrase as a polite yes. The volunteer says it meant an undertaking to investigate, not an undertaking to finish the display. Both agree that the task and deadline should have been made explicit in the confirmation. The coordinator sends a corrected update explaining that coverage remains provisional.

[3] A later exchange is more precise: the volunteer will check availability by 20:00, and the coordinator will assign the task only after a definite response. This is not a rule that all indirect language should be removed. The purpose of the repair is to preserve the relationship while making the operational commitment clear. The evidence concerns these participants in this exchange, not a fixed politeness pattern shared by an entire country.

S3 · Reflection on an unsuccessful joke

Peer observation note

Invented for this course. Not a real organisation, study, quotation or public announcement. Cite the source ID within this exercise only.

[1] During a late rehearsal, a participant looked at a complicated slide and said, 'Only another forty boxes and it will be perfectly simple.' One listener laughed, another started deleting content immediately, and a third asked whether forty was an actual limit. The remark was intended as humour about overload, but the next action was not clear.

[2] The speaker repaired it by saying that the slide had too many separate ideas and suggesting three grouped messages. They apologised for making the feedback harder to interpret. The observer notes that humour can soften criticism for one listener while making it less usable for another. Familiarity, shared references, fatigue and the stakes of the task may all affect interpretation.

[3] The observer recommends a neutral paraphrase when an action depends on the joke: 'I think the slide needs fewer separate points. Could we try three groups?' This does not require every participant to find the joke funny. It lets them test the practical recommendation. The reflection should identify the observed effect and the revised wording without labelling a whole group as literal, indirect, sensitive or humourless.

Reading questions

What did “ambitious” mean for the designer in S1?
What commitment did the volunteer actually make in S2?
What practical recommendation emerges from the joke in S3?
What makes the repair non-stereotyped?

Language in use

Grammar and reformulation

Title

Indirect speech acts, defeasible inference, hedging, conditional interpretation and repair without stereotyping.

Examples

Do not assume every hesitation is an indirect refusal.
The phrase a little rushed may be understatement.
The pragmatic mismatch arose from different expectations about commitment.
Let us check the intended meaning before changing the schedule.

Local and daily-life application

Term
an indirect refusal
Thai
การปฏิเสธโดยอ้อม
Pronunciation
ɐn ˌɪndɚɹˈɛkt ɹɪfjˈuːzəl
Example
Do not assume every hesitation is an indirect refusal.
Term
understatement
Thai
การกล่าวให้น้อยกว่าความจริงเพื่อสื่อผลบางอย่าง
Pronunciation
ˌʌndɚstˈeɪtmənt
Example
The phrase a little rushed may be understatement.
Term
pragmatic mismatch
Thai
ความหมายตามเจตนาที่ไม่ตรงกับการรับสาร
Pronunciation
pɹæɡmˈæɾɪk mɪsmˈætʃ
Example
The pragmatic mismatch arose from different expectations about commitment.
Term
check the intended meaning
Thai
ตรวจว่าผู้พูดตั้งใจหมายถึงอะไร
Pronunciation
tʃˈɛk ðɪ ɪntˈɛndᵻd mˈiːnɪŋ
Example
Let us check the intended meaning before changing the schedule.

Place
Source workshop
Do not assume every hesitation is an indirect refusal.
Pronunciation
duːnˌɑːt ɐsˈuːm ˈɛvɹi hˌɛsɪtˈeɪʃən ɪz ɐn ˌɪndɚɹˈɛkt ɹɪfjˈuːzəl.
Tip
A response that declines without a direct no.
Place
Source workshop
The phrase a little rushed may be understatement.
Pronunciation
ðə fɹˈeɪz ɐ lˈɪɾəl ɹˈʌʃt mˈeɪ biː ˌʌndɚstˈeɪtmənt.
Tip
A deliberately restrained description.
Place
Source workshop
The pragmatic mismatch arose from different expectations about commitment.
Pronunciation
ðə pɹæɡmˈæɾɪk mɪsmˈætʃ ɚɹˈoʊz fɹʌm dˈɪfɹənt ɛkspɪktˈeɪʃənz ɐbˌaʊt kəmˈɪtmənt.
Tip
A gap between intended meaning and how it is understood.

Independent practice

Trace each material claim to a source ID and paragraph.
Complete the required performance task; keep the first attempt.
Review using the analytic criteria, revise and explain one important change.

Interaction model

Participant A

I thought “I will see what I can do” meant you had accepted the task.

Participant B

I can see why you read it that way. I meant that I would check my availability.

Participant A

Can we agree when I will have a definite answer?

Participant B

Yes. I can confirm by eight this evening.

Participant A

Thank you. I will keep the assignment provisional until then.

Participant B

That captures what I can commit to.

Synthesis studio

Organise by issues, not by source order. Distinguish genuine contradictions from differences in scope, population, purpose or definition. Perform an apology, a refusal and a disagreement for three relationships. Obtain listener interpretations, record repairs and explain the choices without national-character claims.

Output

Perform an apology, a refusal and a disagreement for three relationships. Obtain listener interpretations, record repairs and explain the choices without national-character claims.

Citation policy

Use [S1-P1] style local references. These invented sources must never be represented as external research. Clearly identify any permitted external source and its permission separately.

Your notes

Write, review, revise

Perform an apology, a refusal and a disagreement for three relationships. Obtain listener interpretations, record repairs and explain the choices without national-character claims.

Target words min

400

Target words max

600

Checklist

State the decision, audience and claim boundaries.
Trace factual claims and distinguish source evidence from interpretation.
Address the strongest relevant alternative fairly.
Revise a material weakness and explain the change.

Drafts

argument plan
first draft
peer feedback
revised final version

Revision focus

argument and inference
global structure
evidence and attribution
style and reader usability

Feedback cycle

Self-check → peer feedback → revise and explain your changes.

Your notes

Unrehearsed interaction

Read your role card separately. Make a bounded proposal, respond to an unexpected challenge, check one interpretation and seek a precise next step. Keep the disagreement visible when it remains unresolved.

Scenario

A mixed project team interprets the same phrases differently

Roles

Role
Evidence presenter
Brief
Explain the most defensible proposal from the dossier. State one limit you will not conceal.
Constraint
Do not invent an observation to close a gap.
Role
Critical reviewer
Brief
Choose a material definition, alternative explanation or source limitation and challenge the proposal.
Constraint
Acknowledge one valid part of the opposing case before challenging an inference.
Role
Recipient and mediator
Brief
Ask what the proposed action means for someone who has not read the sources. Test whether all participants attach the same meaning to a key term.
Constraint
Do not decide what someone intended without checking.
Role
Observer
Brief
Record exact moments of clarification, qualification, repair and recipient understanding.
Constraint
Assess the observed move, not confidence, accent identity or personality.

Goals

I can notice possible offence or confusion, check interpretation, apologise or clarify, and restore cooperative interaction.
I can explain each participant’s likely intention neutrally and help them choose a workable next move.

Negotiation moves

Acknowledge a supported point.
Name the particular inference you question.
Request a targeted clarification.
Offer a conditional next step.
Read back a shared understanding without forcing agreement.

Duration seconds

480

Your notes

Audience and pragmatic effect

Reformulate one important claim for a specialist colleague, a new participant and a decision-maker. Test the received effect and preserve the factual boundary.

Contexts

specialist peer review
new participant orientation
decision briefing

Target functions

qualify a claim
request clarification
disagree diplomatically
repair an unintended implication

formal and explicit
neutral and action-oriented
collegial but bounded

Repair

Ask what the recipient understood, acknowledge the effect, clarify the intended proposition, and test the revised wording.

Your notes

Make the evidence usable

Brief a recipient who has not read the dossier. Preserve critical qualifications, explain one difficult concept, invite a check-back and revise the explanation if the recipient misunderstands. Mediator statement and proposed next-step dialogue.

Source en

A mixed project team interprets the same phrases differently — Use the identified sources, not memory or invented facts.

Mode

text-concepts-and-communication

Audience

A peer decision group unfamiliar with this dossier; later repeat for a specialist reader.

Source ids

esl5-w08-S1
esl5-w08-S2
esl5-w08-S3

Constraints

Do not invent missing results or permissions.
Retain material uncertainty and disagreement.
Ask recipients to state a decision and what remains uncertain.
Do not speak for a cultural group or infer private motives.

Your notes

Timed speaking and defence

Perform an apology, a refusal and a disagreement for three relationships. Obtain listener interpretations, record repairs and explain the choices without national-character claims.

Prompt

Perform an apology, a refusal and a disagreement for three relationships. Obtain listener interpretations, record repairs and explain the choices without national-character claims.

Preparation seconds

120

Speaking seconds

180

Follow up

Which source most strongly supports your central claim, and why?
Which limitation would materially change your proposed action?
A recipient has misunderstood one condition. Reformulate it without adding a new promise.

Your notes

Spoken task prompts

Perform an apology, a refusal and a disagreement for three relationships. Obtain listener interpretations, record repairs and explain the choices without national-character claims.

I can notice possible offence or confusion, check interpretation, apologise or clarify, and restore cooperative interaction.

I can explain each participant’s likely intention neutrally and help them choose a workable next move.

Speaking secondsReady

◆ Intercultural pragmatics, humour, and repair

Learning goals

Core vocabulary

an indirect refusal

understatement

pragmatic mismatch

check the intended meaning

save face

a repair move

context-dependent

plausible deniability

read as a commitment

a neutral paraphrase

Meaning through delivery

Extended listening · A mixed project team interprets the same phrases differently

Transcript

Reading and source dossier

S1 · Planning exchange

S2 · Message exchange and follow-up

S3 · Reflection on an unsuccessful joke

Reading questions

Language in use

Interaction model

Synthesis studio

Write, review, revise

Unrehearsed interaction

Audience and pragmatic effect

Make the evidence usable

Timed speaking and defence

Spoken task prompts

Support and access

My portfolio

Check your interpretation