Inter-language Pragmatics

Inter-language pragmatics (ILP) refers to a second language (L2) learner's comprehension and use of linguistic forms within differing contexts. The study of ILP draws on its parent fields of pragmatics (the study of language within context) and second language acquisition. Researchers seek to understand how language learners' pragmatic use of language is different from that of native speakers. This is important because breakdowns in pragmatic competence that occur due to failures in pragma-linguistic and sociolinguistic knowledge can lead to an L2 learner being perceived as rude or negatively stereotyped. ILP also attempts to understand how pragmatics are acquired by investigating whether certain stages of pragmatic learning are common to all learners and whether such stages occur in a particular order. ILP research holds important implications for foreign language classrooms because research supports direct and explicit instruction of pragmatic knowledge. This paper provides an overview of the basic principles and research of inter-language pragmatics.

Keywords Cross-cultural communication; Cross-cultural pragmatics; Inter-language pragmatics; Languages; Linguistics; Pragmatics; Second language acquisition; Speech act

English as a Second Language > Inter-language Pragmatics

Overview

Interlinguage Pragmatics (ILP) or Inter-language pragmatics refer to a second language (L2) learner's comprehension and use of linguistic forms within differing contexts. ILP is derived from two disciplines: second language acquisition and pragmatics, the study of language within content. From second language acquisition studies, the term 'interlingua' refers to the language that a second language learner uses on his or her way from beginning to learn a second language to being proficient in that language. At any point of development, interlingua is assumed to be systematic and rule-governed (Selinker, 1972 as cited in Barron, 2003). The term pragmatics refers to a special field within linguistics that focuses on how speakers use language to achieve their purpose. A brief introduction to pragmatics follows in order to lay a foundation for understanding ILP.

The basic principle underlying the discipline of pragmatics is that communication involves interactions between a speaker and hearer who make judgments about what to say given their understanding of the purpose of the interaction and the context of the situation. A significant contextual variation that affects the decisions the speaker and hearer make is the perceived relationship between speaker and hearer. Differences in power between the speaker and hearer (e.g., boss vs. employee) and the level of social distance between interactants (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status) result in different language choices (Garcia, 2004). For instance, a college student making a request to a professor, who has more power and is socially distant from the student, is likely to use formal, direct language such as "Would it be possible for me to make up the exam?" However, the same college student, in making a request to a peer may speak with less formality and politeness, "Hey, close the door. It's cold." The difference in the relationship is conveyed through the language and manner that the speaker chooses to use: "Would it be possible" - use of a polite modal to soften the request posed in an interrogative sentence - vs. "Close the door" - a command issued with only the reason "It's cold" to soften the statement.

Inherent to understanding pragmatics is to understand the concept that the same utterances - language that a speaker or listener produces - can have different meanings in different contexts. For instance, the statement, "its cold in here" can be a speaker's descriptive statement of a fact or it can be a request for a listener to do something such as close a window or a door. In order to understand and reply to the intended meaning of the utterance, a hearer or listener must have pragmatic competence. In other words, the listener must know the meaning of the linguistic forms issued in the utterance and the hearer must be able to infer - given the rules governing language use and the context of the situation - what the speaker's intention must be (Bialystok, 1993).

The field of pragmatics pays particular attention to understanding what language individuals deem to be polite within specific contexts. Brown and Levinson (1987) posit that individuals use politeness strategies to preserve "face" where face is an individual's image of one's social approval. They posit two types of face: positive face - which involves' one's desire for approval and negative face - one's desire to be unimpeded in one's actions. When social protocols are followed, individuals are able to mitigate threats to face, but when social norms are violated, individuals lose face and experience negative feelings (Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993).

Applications

Understanding differences in how individuals perceive situations requiring politeness or other formal communication strategies is important for facilitating communication and is the basis of one aspect of ILP research. ILP researchers seek to understand how individuals from different cultures use a second language differently from a native speaker when faced with a specific language task. This area of research stems from the broader field of cross-cultural pragmatics and is conducted to increase and improve cross-cultural understanding and communication. It is especially important for contexts such as foreign language classrooms where differences in pragmatics may lead members of one culture to perceive another as rude or to create negative stereotypes.

Speech Act Theory

The foundational theory for cross-cultural pragmatic research is Speech Act Theory. Speech Act Theory is a pragmatic concept that divides what people say into five categories of speech acts. These are:

1. Representatives / Assertives- Where the speaker's statement indicates that the speaker believes what is said
2. Directives - The speaker tries to get the person listening (hearer) to do something
3. Commissives - The speaker commits to doing something in the future
4. Expressives - The speaker states an attitude towards a previous action or state of affairs
5. Declarations - The speaker indicates a correspondence between something stated and the world (Austin, 1976 as cited in Barron, 2003)

Studies based on Speech Act Theory have led to the discovery of several universal pragmatic principles. For instance, it is generally believed, based on available evidence, that the existence of the classes of speech acts is universal. Furthermore, it has been found that: 1) speakers do not always state their needs explicitly; 2) speakers use "pragmatic routines;" 3) speakers change their language based on the context of the situation; 4) speakers can choose from a broad range of language uses to meet their needs (Fraser/Nolen, 1981; Searle, 1969 as cited in Barron, 2003).

Negative Pragmatic Transfer

On the other hand, many areas of pragmatic differences have also been identified and can cause communication breakdowns as language learners inappropriately apply knowledge of their first language pragmatics to the new language. Negative pragmatic transfer, as this process is called, can occur because of pragma-linguistic interference. For instance, learners may choose linguistic forms from their first language to incorporate into their inter-language (e.g., a speaker from a language that uses have instead of to be for age says "How many years have you?" instead of "How many years are you?). It can also occur because learners have a culturally-bound and differing perception of the social context in which they are speaking. Some common differences in socio-pragmatic knowledge include:

1. Perceptions of status relationships
2. Appropriateness of carrying out refusals
3. The need to apologize
4. The need to express gratitude
5. Complimenting, responding to compliments and responding to invitations
6. Choice of politeness style

(Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993)

Common areas of investigation using speech acts include thanking, complimenting, correcting, apologizing, requesting, complaining and refusing. For instance, in a study that examined expressions of gratitude in American English and compared L2 learners understanding and use of such expressions, Eisenstein & Bodman (1993) found that differences in language values and customs affected the learner's ability to appropriately thank someone in English. Nonnative speakers had difficulty replicating the warm tone of gratitude of native speakers, and therefore, sounded insincere. The amount of time they spent thanking someone was as much as 50% less than native speakers, and they did not always indicate reciprocity when needed or did so in a way that sounded abrupt and demanding. In addition, several differences in thanking behavior were noted. For instance, some study participants reported that in their culture expressing thanks to a family member for something he or she is expected to do is considered insulting or rude. In other cultures, participants explained that expressions of thanks must be accompanied by expressions of modesty and humility.

Eisenstein & Bodman highlighted the misunderstandings that can occur from socio-pragmatic differences by describing an American family who hosted a relative from Argentina in their home. In Argentina, families are expected to be generous without needing to be thanked while in America, thanks are generally expected after each offer of generosity. The American family became annoyed at their relative for what they perceived to be ungrateful and rude behavior.

Much research has been done to identify cultural differences in request strategies based on Blum-Kulka and Olshtain's (1984) model for studying Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns. A brief sample of studies that have been conducted in the area of requests alone is included below to indicate the breadth of the research available, but a more extensive list is included in the Speech Act Bibliography cited at the end of this paper (University of Minnesota, 2007).

• Zhang (1995) studied differences in strategies for making requests between Chinese and Western cultures. While Western cultures tend to view requests as an imposition on personal space, Chinese culture may view a request as an indication of a good relationship and respect.

• Francis (1997) studied adult ESL learners with nine levels of proficiency in three different settings. The study found that the use of more complex request strategies increased with higher levels of proficiency.

• Garcia (1989) compared disagreeing and requesting by female native English-speaking Americans and female Venezuelans. The study showed differences in the use of confrontational and non-confrontational and personal and impersonal devices based on whether the speaker used the first or second language.

• Koike (1996) examined beginning learners of Spanish and compared the politeness levels of requests, apologies and commands to the politeness levels of native speakers. The native language speakers used more politeness markers than the L2 speakers.

• Kubota (1996) compared the request-making speech of native Japanese speakers, American learners of Japanese and Americans speaking English. The study found differences in whether speakers stated their reasons for making a request. Cultural differences were transferred to the L2. Participants reported that they did not always try to imitate native-speaker cultural rules even when they were aware of them.

• Rinnert & Kobayaski (1999) studied the use of requestive hints by Japanese and English speakers. They found that the use of requestive hints built solidarity in different ways in the two cultures.

A second important area of ILP research is related to how pragmatic knowledge is acquired. As with other areas of second language acquisition research, ILP researchers seek to discover whether all learners move through similar stages of language development and if the order of development is predictable. No order of acquisition has been definitely identified. However, one common and important stage of pragmatic development that all L2 learners appear to move through is a period when they over-generalize pragmatic knowledge. For instance, Blum-Kulka (1991) found that learners of Hebrew were overly direct in making requests as the result of an overgeneralization of the stereotype that all Israelis are direct (as cited in Barron, 2003).

Barron (2003) describes three reasons for pragmatic overgeneralization including

1. "Strategies of least effort" (p. 40) where the learner chooses language that is familiar and automated instead of choosing a more complex form that might be more appropriate but is harder to produce

• 2. "Play it safe strategies" (p. 41) where learners try to be as explicit and as clear as possible to increase confidence
• 3. "Meta-linguistic Moves" (p. 41) where learners choose language because it sounds target-like.

Another stage of acquisition that has been noted is that in certain situations language learners tend to be more verbose than native speakers. This is especially true of learners with intermediate to advanced levels of proficiency (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993).

Similar to other studies of language acquisition, the question arises as to what similarities, if any, exist between the acquisition of first and second language pragmatics. Bialystok (1993) proposes one theory of pragmatic development that suggests children learning a first language and adults learning a second language engage in very different processes. Whereas children are being socialized to the idea that different situations require different language uses at the same time that they are learning pragmatic strategies, adults already understand the context-sensitivity of communication. Thus, the task for adults is to attend to the process of gaining control of their knowledge of literal and intended meanings and become proficient at choosing the correct meaning for the situation.

Other findings in developmental pragmatics indicate that grammatical proficiency and individual differences play a role in the development of pragmatic competence. For instance, research indicates that a lack of grammatical knowledge can restrict an individual's ability to produce pragmatically appropriate language (Hassell, 1997 as cited in Barron, 2003). Additionally, individual differences in motivation and confidence attribute to one's awareness and acquisition of pragmatics (Takahashi, 2005).

Viewpoints

Critical to language teachers is the issue of how pragmatics should be taught in the classroom. Should pragmatics be taught explicitly through direct instruction or implicitly by exposing language learners to correct forms without pointing them out? So far, research supports explicit instruction as being more effective than exposure to implicit input (House, 1996; Takahashi, 2001, Tateyama, 2000 as cited in Takahashi, 2005).

Kasper (1997) lists ten studies involving classroom based research that investigated whether pragmatics can be taught and/or the best methods for teaching them. The studies encompassed a variety of teaching goals such as teaching the use of appropriate discourse markers, strategies for getting in and out of conversations, methods for making introductions, sustaining conversation and taking turns. Some studies examined whether students benefit from lessons on specific speech acts. In general, the research supported explicit pragmatic instruction. Research also indicated that pragmatics could be taught to learners at all levels of proficiency. The kinds of activities that were most helpful were those that raised pragmatic awareness (e.g., observation of authentic data involving pragmatic routines) and those that offered opportunities for communicative practice.

Schmidt's (1993) Noticing Hypothesis is frequently cited as providing the rationale for why explicit instruction is effective. This hypothesis states that for language forms to be acquired, learners must first notice the information that is to be learned. Schmidt defines noticing as registering the occurrence of an event (1993). In addition to noticing, he states that some levels of understanding of general rules or patterns that are noticed are important to gaining pragmatics. For learning a new pragmatic system, he points to three factors that must be noticed:

1. Linguistic forms
2. Functional meanings of the forms
3. The contextual features of the situation

Without explicit instruction, Schmidt argues that many learners fail to gain pragmatic principles because the function of the language use may be unclear to the learner or the contextual factors of the situation may be viewed differently by a learner than a native speaker. He points to the body of evidence on first language pragmatic research on adult-child interactions that shows that adults make a conscious effort to teach children appropriate forms of speaking politely (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Gleason & Perlmann as cited in Schmidt, 1993). Like children, he reasons, L2 learners need explicit instruction to help them gain pragmatic competence.

While research generally supports direct instruction in pragmatics, direct instruction does not always lead to an increase in pragmatic performance. Schmidt suggests that this could be because a learner's attention is focused elsewhere at the time of instruction, because the information is too complex to be processed or the information is presented too quickly to be consciously seen or heard. An alternate theory is purported by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993), who suggest that individuals who speak two languages may develop an intercultural style that is related to but distinct from either language. In developing this style, speakers may seek to preserve their identities as foreigners by purposefully speaking differently from the target culture. Thus, while they may be aware of the appropriate pragmatic uses, they choose not to use them.

The study of inter-language pragmatics involves cross-cultural research of how individuals use language to achieve their intended purposes. While pragmatic knowledge involves some universal principles, research tends to focus on the differences, because differences can lead to breakdowns in communication which may have negative consequences. Learners' acquisition of pragmatic knowledge involves a few commonly recognized stages, but no order of acquisition has been identified. Thus far, the most important theory related to acquisition is the Noticing Hypothesis which emphasizes the need for individuals to notice language forms before they learn them. This holds implications for teachers in the classroom for it supports the need for direct instruction of pragmatic information.

Terms & Concepts

Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The study of how individuals with different cultural backgrounds use language to achieve their purposes within specific contexts.

Intercultural Style: Refers to the unique style of language use that a language learner develops that is related to his or her first and second languages but is unique from both of them as well.

Inter-Language or Interlingua: The term used to describe the language that a second language learner uses as he or she moves from a beginning level to an advanced level of proficiency.

Noticing Hypothesis: Schmidt's Noticing Hypothesis proposes that for any language form to be learned, the learner must first notice the information that is to be learned.

Pragmatics: The study of how individuals use language to achieve their purposes given various contextual factors.

Pragmatic Overgeneralization: Occurs when learners inappropriately generalize their understanding of a particular linguistic form or routine and use it in the wrong situation.

Pragmatic Transfer: refers to the process that learners uses when they transfer knowledge of their first language pragmatics into their interlanguage.

Second Language Acquisition: The broad term for the study of how language learners acquire second languages. It involves research from a diverse range of disciplines including cognitive science, psychology, linguistics and applied linguistics.

Speech Act Theory: A pragmatic concept that classifies utterances into five basic categories of speech acts.

Bibliography

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamin's Publishing Company.

Barron, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatics: From use to acquisition to second language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 45, 44-63. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=67486067&site=ehost-live

Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2012). In this issue. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 1-5. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=72954632&site=ehost-live

Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64-81). New York: Oxford University Press.

Francis, C. (1997). Talk to me! The development of request strategies in non-native speakers of English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 13 , 23-40.

García, C. (1989). Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. Linguistics and Education, 1, 299-322. Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8, A-1. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from tesl-ej.org/ej30/al.html

Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6) [HTML Document], Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved May 13, 2007 from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: an introduction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 3-17). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 144-169.

Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 73 , 279-289.

Kubota, M. (1996). Acquaintance or fiancee: Pragmatic differences in requests between Japanese and Americans. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12 , 23-38.

Rinnert, C. & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1173-1201.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42).

Tajeddin, Z., & Moghadam, A. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic motivation: Its construct and impact on speech act production. RELC Journal, 43, 353-372. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84392849&site=ehost-live

Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics in Instructed Language Learning, 33, 437-461.

Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26, 90-120.

University of Minnesota. (2007). Speech act bibliography: requests. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/bibliography/request.html

Zhang, Y. (1995). Strategies in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language (pp. 23-68). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.

Suggested Reading

Achiba, M. (2003). Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.).(1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

University of Minnesota. (2007) Speech act bibliography. Center for Advanced Research on Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.carla.umn.edu