Second Language Pragmatics

From Theory to Research

Jonathan Culpeper, Alison Mackey, Naoko Taguchi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138911765
• eBook ISBN: 9781317432951
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Historical & Comparative Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Second Language Pragmatics: From Theory to Research aims to reinvigorate this field, pointing the way forward to new methodologies that can drive, or be driven by, new theoretical developments. With a unique combination of leading international expertise in general pragmatics, L2 pragmatics, and research methodology, the authors describe in detail the methods, including the most recent techniques, by which pragmatics of all types can be pursued in L2 contexts. This volume argues that L2 pragmatics research needs to expand from its initial base by drawing from a wider range of sources, such as Corpus Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. Clear, accessible, and practical, Second Language Pragmatics will be valuable to novice and seasoned researchers alike in second language pragmatics, general pragmatics, and second language acquisition courses.

1

INTRODUCTION TO SECOND LANGUAGE PRAGMATICS

1.1 What is Second Language Pragmatics?

Second language pragmatics (henceforth L2 pragmatics) is a field of study that unites two broader disciplines, second language acquisition (SLA) and pragmatics. Kasper and Schmidt (1996) originally defined L2 pragmatics as the “study of the development and use of strategies for linguistic action by nonnative speakers” (p. 150). More recently, Bardovi-Harlig (2010) pointed to the connections between use and acquisition in L2 pragmatics, noting that pragmatics “bridges the gap between the system side of language and the use side, and relates both of them at the same time,” and that it “brings the study of acquisition to this mix of structure and use” (p. 1). In other words, L2 pragmatics is the study of “how learners come to know how-to-say-what-to-whom-when” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013, p. 68). In this book, we go a step further and add an important dimension to these definitions by arguing that it is equally important to study how learners come to understand or comprehend meaning, as well as how they negotiate and co-construct meaning. To this end, we view comprehension, production, and interaction as central to L2 pragmatics.

Pragmatics is often discussed in terms of two subareas: sociopragmatics (the contextual features of pragmatics) and pragmalinguistics (the linguistic structure of pragmatics) (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983). Conceiving pragmatics in terms of these two subareas has shaped the nature of L2 pragmatics, as we will see. Although the definitions of L2 pragmatics have evolved, the primary inquiry remains the same: What is the nature of L2 learners’ language actions in a social context?

In the next few sections, we consider how this inquiry has led to various research agendas within L2 pragmatics. There are communicative competence, interactional competence, and intercultural pragmatics. Next, we examine the development of L2 pragmatics research over time.

• L2 pragmatics investigates the developmental stages of L2 learners in learning pragmatics of their target language.

• L2 pragmatics combines the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and pragmatics.

• Pragmatic competence is divided into two sub categories: sociopragmatics which is concerned with the contextual features of pragmatics, and pragmalinguistics, which is concerned with the linguistic structure of pragmatics.

We now turn to an example. A new Mandarin-speaking student has arrived at a UK university, and presents her advisor with a Chinese painting on a scroll by way of saying hello.

[1] British Professor: Wow! Really, you shouldn’t have.

Chinese Student: Oh, sorry.

British Professor: No, I mean, it’s lovely, thanks.

There is clearly no problem here with vocabulary or grammar. The problem lies with the interpretation of the words and grammar in context. In the context of gift giving in Britain, “you shouldn’t have” is one of the conventional and formulaic ways of acknowledging and accepting gifts. Taken literally, it could be a statement that the gift giver ought not to have done something, an implied criticism. However, it is not intended literally. It is intended as a polite way to accept the gift. For example, it implies that the gift giver should not have gone to the trouble of giving the gift, and acknowledges that they did in fact go to trouble, and also professes the desire that they be trouble-free. However, if the gift giver does not understand that “you shouldn’t have” does not literally mean that, but is rather conventional polite gift acceptance talk, an alternative interpretation is readily available, namely, that the gift should not have been given, and thus they have made a mistake. This may or may not have been the case here. The Mandarin-speaking student may well have understood that the British English-speaking professor was not literally telling her that she should not have brought a gift, but she may not have had the linguistic resources to say, “oh it’s only something small” or “oh it was no trouble” or one of the other British English responses to “you shouldn’t have.” Instead, “sorry” covers a multitude of scenarios. But the professor assumes that his original acceptance utterance has been misunderstood (that the Chinese visitor took it literally), and attempts to clarify the meaning (“I mean”). Multiple ambiguities involved in exchanges like this are what constitutes the field of L2 pragmatics. L2 pragmatics investigates the speakers’ meanings, especially their intended meaning (e.g., accepting the gift politely); the hearers’ interpretations (e.g., here, that the speaker did not want the gift); conversational actions (e.g., performing an acceptance); routinized expressions that are conventionally associated with certain social contexts (e.g., “you shouldn’t have”); social activities (e.g., gift giving); politeness (e.g., the maintenance or promotion of social harmony); and the negotiation of meanings between interactants (e.g., “I mean”).

Such components are not working independently of each other. Some definitions of pragmatics already highlight the fact that speakers and hearers jointly construct meanings. LoCastro (2003), for example, defines pragmatics as “the study of speaker and hearer meaning created in their joint actions that include both linguistic and non-linguistic signals in the context of socioculturally organized activities” (p. 15). In Example [1], an acceptance of a gift only makes sense after a gift has been proffered, and the gift receiver’s repair (“No, I mean, …”) only makes sense after the Chinese visitor’s apology (“Oh, sorry”). Their actions jointly create understandings in context. In a nutshell, the focus of pragmatics research is meanings that arise from the use of communicative resources in context, and in particular, the meanings implied by speakers, inferred by hearers, and negotiated between them in interaction.

Communicative Competence

The development of ideas and models of communicative competence have impacted and influenced the area of L2 pragmatics in terms of theoretical foundations and, hence, research methodology. The origins of the concept of communicative competence are typically traced to Dell Hymes. Hymes (1972b) proposed a two-sided conceptualization of language knowledge, with grammatical knowledge on one side and sociocultural knowledge on the other. Hymes claimed that these two types of knowledge jointly determine how one can use language appropriately and effectively in a social context. Building on Hymes’s (1972b) framework, theoretical models of L2 communicative competence emerged (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980). These models situated pragmatic competence among several interrelated components of language knowledge that enable learners to perform a communicative act in a social situation. Canale and Swain’s (1980) model is one of the earliest lines of work in this area. Their model emphasizes that a successful communicative act involves an efficient integration of four sub-competencies: grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic. While grammatical competence involves the knowledge of linguistic systems (e.g., syntax, lexis), sociolinguistic competence refers to the knowledge of socially appropriate language use. Discourse competence is concerned with coherence and cohesion of a text. Strategic competence involves compensatory strategies that help prevent or manage communication problems.

Canale and Swain’s model did not distinguish between sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. Pragmatic competence was assumed to be part of sociolinguistic competence, whereas subsequent research, for example, by Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996, 2010), developed a model that viewed pragmatic competence as a competence in its own right. Bachman’s (1990) model has three sub-components: language competence, strategic competence, and psychophysiological mechanisms. Pragmatic competence in this model (subsumed under language competence) involves illocutionary competence (knowledge of conventions for performing language functions) and sociolinguistic competence (knowledge of social rules of appropriateness).

• Communicative competence includes both grammatical knowledge and knowledge about social situations and cultures. These two types of knowledge together enable speakers to decide how to use language appropriately and effectively in social contexts.

Bachman and Palmer’s (1996, 2010) work divided pragmatic knowledge into two dimensions: functional and sociolinguistic knowledge. Functional knowledge enables us to interpret relationships between utterances and communicative functions (e.g., knowing a variety of forms that perform a speech act of refusal), while sociolinguistic knowledge enables us to create utterances that are appropriate in context (e.g., knowing which forms to use when refusing a friend’s invitation to a party). Hence, Bachman and Palmer’s (1996, 2010) work conceptualizes pragmatics within the dynamic relationship that exists among language, language users, and language use settings.

As elaborated in section 2.2, a key distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics was introduced in foundational work by Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983), and later applied to L2 pragmatics by Kasper (1992b). Functional knowledge determines the range of linguistic resources available to perform language functions (pragmalinguistics), while sociolinguistic knowledge enables us to understand features of context and select the most appropriate linguistic resource in a given context (sociopragmatics). As Leech (1983) argues, pragmalinguistics is applied to the study of the more linguistic and grammatical end of pragmatics, while sociopragmatics is applied more toward the socio-cultural end. Hence, pragmalinguistics encompasses the organizational and functional knowledge in Bachman and Palmer’s model, while sociopragmatics belongs to the domain of sociolinguistic knowledge.

Similar to these early models, more recent work by Celce-Murcia (2007) maintains a componential view of L2 communicative competence, but with a notable change: the explicit inclusion of interaction as the fundamental constituent of communicative competence. In her model, interactional abilities entail three components: action competence, conversation competence, and paralinguistic competence. Action competence involves knowledge of how to perform a communicative act in context, while conversational competence refers to knowledge of conversation mechanisms that help realize communicative acts such as turn-taking. Paralinguistic competence involves non-verbal language such as gestures (Figure 1.1). These three components together explain how learners co-construct a communicative act with their interlocutors during an interaction.

FIGURE 1.1 The Vulcan salute from Star Trek

Interactional Competence

Interaction is also seen as central in a more recent, discourse-oriented model, known as interactional competence, which considers meaning as emerging from socio-semiotic systems (Hall, 1993, 1995; Hall, Hellermann, & Doehler, 2011; Young, 2008a, 2008b, 2011a, 2011b). Interactional competence deviates from the componential view of communicative competence by conceptualizing competence in a dynamic social interaction. This echoes Hymes’ original framework on which early models by Canale and Swain and Bachman and Palmer were based. While these early models viewed language ability as a psycholinguistic trait that exists within individuals independent from a social context, interactional competence views language ability as fundamentally situated within a social context. Research on interactional competence emphasizes the importance of analyzing “socioculturally-conventionalized configurations of face-to-face interaction by which and within which group members communicate” (Hall, 1993, p. 146).

• Interactional Competence is the knowledge of various language abilities that are necessary for successful interactions in social contexts.

In the interactional competence model, a communicative act is co-constructed and negotiated among participants, and emerges from the sequential organization of talk. Young (2008a, 2008b) defines interactional competence as follows:

[A] relationship between the participants’ employment of linguistic and interactional resources and the contexts in which they are employed; the resources that interactional competence highlights are those of identity, language, and interaction … Interactional competence, however, is not the ability of an individual to employ those resources in any and every social interaction; rather, interactional competence is how those resources are employed mutually and reciprocally by all participants in a particular discursive practice.

(2008b, p. 101)

In other words, interactional competence views language ability as locally situated and jointly constructed by all participants in discourse. Participants draw on a variety of resources in interaction, such as knowledge of register-specific linguistic forms, speech acts, turn-taking, and repair (Young, 2008a, 2008b). These resources are shared among participants in their process of joint meaning making.

Communicative competence as a theory, model, and paradigm has expanded our understanding of what it means to be pragmatically competent. The knowledge of the relationships among forms, functions, and contexts of use (i.e., pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge) is a significant element in pragmatic knowledge, but suffices only as a partial explanation. Interactional competence is equally significant for pragmatic language use, which is situated in social interaction. During interaction, pragmatic knowledge is not stable or pre-determined; rather, it is emergent and contingent upon unfolding disco...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction to Second Language Pragmatics
• 2 Language Production: Conceptual Background
• 3 Data Elicitation Methods in L2 Pragmatic Production
• 4 Language Comprehension and Awareness: Conceptual Background
• 5 Data Elicitation Methods in L2 Pragmatic Comprehension and Awareness
• 6 Interaction: Conceptual Background
• 7 Data Elicitation Methods in L2 Pragmatic Interaction
• 8 Conclusions
• Glossary
• References
• Index