2.4 Interlanguage pragmatics

Above we discussed the unique interlanguage system inside the learner’s mind, its characteristics and systematic variation. In this part, we will look at the ‘outside’ use of the interlanguage in a particular social context, the interlanguage pragmatics. Interlanguage pragmatics deals with both the acquisition and use of L2 pragmatic knowledge. As is known, learning a second language not only involves the learning of pronunciation, lexical items, sentence construction, but also involves the learning of the appropriate way of using these words and sentences in the second language. For example, when we hear Is George there? on the telephone, we know that this question is not only a request for information, but also a request to speak with that person. If an L2 learner responds to the question on the basis of an information request, saying Yes, without calling that person to the phone, it can be said that he or she has failed to understand the pragmatic force beyond the literal meaning of the utterance Is George there. Let’s look at another example:

Context: It is raining hard. Mary is leaving her office, but she doesn’t know where her umbrella is. She looks worried, saying: 

 

I can’t find my umbrella.

 

How do you respond to this utterance? Does Mary simply utter a fact that she can’t find her umbrella, or she has lost it, as is shown in the following conversation:

 

--- Can you find your umbrella?

--- No. I can’t find my umbrella.

 

If you think so, you have not understood the intention of Mary’s utterance. In this particular context, Mary’s utterance is a request for help rather than a statement of a fact. What she needs urgently is the hearer’s help of looking for the umbrella. Therefore, the following response proves to be socially ‘wrong’, though it is grammatically correct.

 

---I can’t find my umbrella.

---Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.  

 

2.4.1 Second language speech act

Much of the research in interlanguage pragmatics has been conducted within the framework of speech acts. Speech acts can be thought of as functions of language. For examples, requesting, inviting, complaining, thanking, apologizing, refusing are speech acts as well as functions of language. To communicate means to perform linguistic acts. It must be pointed out that all languages have a means of performing speech acts, and presumably speech acts themselves are universal, yet the form used in specific speech acts varies from culture to culture (Gass and Selinker 2008:288). Therefore, to study second language speech acts, we have to take into consideration whether there are linguistic forms available in language to realize speech acts, and how cross-cultural differences affect both second language performance and the interpretation by native speakers of second language speech acts.

If the form of speech act differs from culture to culture, miscommunication and misunderstandings will occur. We can see why the above assumed conversation is a failure through a brief analysis: Mary performs a speech act (requesting) by saying I can’t find my umbrella in a particular context. When one says Oh, I’m sorry to hear that, he or she only understands the literal meaning of Mary’s utterance, but fails to decode her real intention, i.e., asking for help. Therefore, miscommunication takes place. When breakdowns happen, native speakers do not usually attribute it to linguistic cause, but to individual or cultural causes, by thinking that the interlocutor is rather rude or uncooperative. This kind of misunderstanding can be best shown in the following conversation between a British tourist and a native Finnish speaker:

 

British tourist: We’re trying to find the railway station. Could you help us?

Native Finnish speaker: Yes.

                        (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 288)

 

As far as language learning is concerned, the area of pragmatics is perhaps one of the most difficult areas, because learners are generally unaware of this aspect of language; they might be equally unaware of the negative perceptions that native speakers may have of them as a result of their pragmatic errors. In cross-cultural communication, if a native speaker has a negative perception of a relatively proficient non-native speaker, the miscommunication is often serious in terms of personal relations. This is because the cause of breakdown is more likely to be attributed to personal defect or culture than to the non-native speaker’s inability to map correct linguistic forms onto corresponding pragmatic intentions. The most dangerous communicative situation is such that interlocutors assume that they understand each other, and because of this, they are less likely to question interpretations. As is described by Varonis and Gass (1985), when one interlocutor confidently (but inaccurately) interprets another’s utterance, it is likely that participants will run into immediate problems because they do not share a common discourse space.

 

2.4.2 Production of speech acts: differences between L2 learners and L1 speakers

To learn a language means to learn how to use the language. Learning to produce the right speech act is an important part of learning a second language. Evidence shows that native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs) have different systems of pragmatics. There are many ways in which NNSs differ from NSs in the production of speech acts. In this part, we will discuss four areas of differences: they may use different speech acts; if the same speech acts are used, they may differ in semantic formula, content, or form (Bardovi-Harlig, 2006:14).

 

1. Different speech acts

This may be a significant difference in language use between NSs and NNSs. Even in the same context, NNSs may perform different speech acts than the NSs. Alternatively, they may choose not to perform any speech act at all. For example, in the same context of deciding what courses to take, the NSs and NNSs prefer different speech acts. NSs tend to use more suggestions than NNSs, while NNSs produce more rejections than NSs. These two speech acts may serve the same function of control. While the NSs exercise control over their course schedules by making suggestions, NNSs control the course schedules through rejections, by blocking their advisors’ suggestions. Although the context is the same, such a difference in choosing speech act may cause different feelings of harmony in the hearts of advisors.

 

2. Semantic formulas

Formulas are those fixed expressions used in a particular situation. Semantic formulas refer to the means by which a particular speech act is accomplished in terms of the primary content of an utterance. For example, the speech act, apology, may contain the following various components:

 

an illocutionary force indicating device: I’m sorry;

an explanation or account of the situation: The bus was late;

an acknowledgment of responsibility: It’s my fault;

an offer of repair: I’ll pay for the broken vase;

a promise of forbearance: It won’t happen again.

 

A second way in which NSs and NNSs may differ is in the choice of semantic formulas. For example, in a study (Murphy and Neu, 1996, see Bardovi-Harlig, 2006, 17-18 ) in which both 14 NSs and 14 NNSs take a role of a student whose assignment was unfairly graded by his professor, all the NSs used a complaint, with only three NNSs did not, and the majority of the NNSs used a criticism instead of a complaint, as can be seen below:

 

NSs’ complaint: I think, uh, maybe it’s my opinion. Maybe the grade was a little low.

NSSs’ criticism: But you just look at your point of view and, uh, you just didn’t recognize my point.

 

3. Content

A third way in which NSs and NNSs may differ is in the content of their contribution. A semantic formula gives the type of information, content stands for the specific information given by a speaker. Even if the NSs and NNSs use the same semantic formulas, the content may be strikingly different. An example is the content of explanations, a semantic formula found in refusals. Uliss-Weltz (1990) has compared the explanations offered by Americans and Japanese ESL users, and characterized the Americans’ explanations as being more detailed, and the explanations of Japanese as being vague according to the American standard:

 

American: I have a business lunch that day.

Japanese speaker: I have something to do.

 

4. Form

The fourth way in which NNS production may differ from NS norm is in the form of a speech act. For example, in a longitudinal study of pragmatic development in the context of the academic advising session, it is found that in early sessions, NSs and NNSs differed in the speech acts, while in later sessions they produced the same speech acts, but in different forms. Learners often do not use the mitigators used by their NSs. What’s more, they often use aggravators which were never used by NSs. Compare the following two groups of suggestions made by NSs and NNSs (see Bardovi-Harlig, 2006:19 ):

 

NS1: Perhaps I should also mention that I have an interest in sociolinguistics and would like, if I can, to structure things in such a way that I might do as much sociolinguistics as I can.

NS2: I was thinking of taking sociolinguistics.

NS3: I have an idea for spring. I don’t know how it would work out, but …

…… 

NNS1: In the summer, I will take language testing.

NNS2: So, I, I just decided on taking the language structure.

 

2.4.3 Speech act research paradigm

1. Refusals

In this part, we are going to take the speech act of refusal as a way of illustrating the speech act research paradigm. In every culture or language, refusal occurs; however, not all cultures view the same event as allowing refusal. How does this affect L2 use? Refusals often involve long negotiations and face-saving strategies to accommodate the noncompliant nature of the speech act, so they are a complex speech act. If a speaker makes an oral refusal, he does not have much planning time.

A study by Beebe et al (1990) deals with L2 refusals. The subjects are four groups of native speakers of Japanese and English, two native speaker controls and two L2 groups. They are required to fill out a Discourse Completion Test with 12 situations, including refusals of requests, refusals of invitations, refusals of suggestions, and refusals of offers. When analyzing the results, the researchers took into consideration the order of semantic formulas, which consist of such factors as expressions of regret, excuses, offers of alternatives, and promises. For example, a refusal to a dinner invitation might have the following response:

 I’m sorry, I have theatre tickets that night. Maybe I could come by later for a drink.

 The order of formulas in this refusal can be described as:

 Expression of regret -à excuse -à offer of alternative

The range of semantic formulas used in refusal is the same from language to language, but the order in which the formulas are used is different from language to language. Thus, the data from  this research may indicate the evidence of pragmatic transfer. For example, in refusals of requests when the refuser is of a higher status, Japanese native speakers follow the order of semantic formulas: positive opinion / empathy -à excuse; Japanese ESL users: positive opinion / empathy -à excuse; the NSs of American English: positive opinion -à regret -à excuse.

In second language refusal situations, a complex and negotiated interaction may occur. Such a research (Gass and Houck, 1999) showed that refusals were often lengthy interactions between the participants. Look at the following example:

Context: The NNS is a guest in a family’s home. The family members have gone to a neighbor’s home for a few minutes, and told the NNS not to let anyone in. The NS in this role-play is playing the part of a cousin passing through town who would like to come in and wait for her cousin.

 

NS: Oh hi how are you doing?

NNS: oh fine thank you

NS: is uh is uh Quentin in

NNS: no uh no sh I’m not

NS: no he’s not in

NNS: uh no no he’s not in

NS: ahh where’d he go

NNS: ahh he goes to neighbor house

NS: ah well do you mind if - I’m I’m his cousin and I’m just passing through Lansing tonight and I’m I’m on my way to Detroit. I’m on a on a business trip and and uh I’d like to see him. I’ve got about half an hour or so. Would you mind if I come in and wait for a minute or so until he comes back

NNS: ah no wait wait I’m a guest to uh this home the – I can’t uh I don’t uh uh um I can’t I don’t know what uh I do this situation then eh

NS: I’m sorry?

NNS: uh he he don’t tell me uh

NS: ahh

NNS: if another person come in his home

NS: yeah yeah but I’m his cousin I’m sure it’s going to be ok

NNS: but I don’t know

NS: I I know it’ll be all right

NNS: my first time to meet you I don’t know you

NS: y’know actually this is the first time I’ve met you too how do you do

NNS: wait wait I think uh I think uh he came back uh not so late

NS: nice to meet you uh huh

NNS: yeh-uh please wait uh your car

 

As can be seen from this example, the two speakers are having a prolonged interaction on requests and refusals, and re-requests with further refusals and are involved in negotiating semantic, pragmatic, and social meaning. Such kind of interaction is rare among native speakers.

 

2. Acceptances

As can be seen from the above example, to refuse is not an easy job. To accept is also difficult in interlanguage pragmatics. Imagine such a situation in which a professor invites a number of students to lunch before their graduation, a NNS replies to the invitation in the following way:

 NNS: Thank you for the invitation. I would be willing to come.

 Such a response is considered rude, or at least strange to NSs of English. The utterance I would be willing to come implies a possible reluctance, and it makes the hearer feel embarrassed, because it sounds as if the student is doing the professor a favor.

In order to have a better understanding of L2 pragmatics, one should deal with a wide range of social variables such as the relationship between the two people in a speech event, their social status, sex, age, other people present, and their relationship to the speakers.

 

1. Research questions in interlanguage pragmatics

Interlanguage pragmatics deals with the study of non-native speakers’ use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language. It must take into account not only how language is used, but also what it is being used for and who it is being used with. Much research on interlanguage pragmatics has focused on pragmatic use rather than on acquisition. Therefore, some researchers such as Bardovi-Harlig (1999) and Kasper and Schmidt (1996) pointed out that there is a lack of studies on changes in or influences on pragmatic knowledge. Kasper and Schmidt also put forward a number of research questions regarding the acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge. Listed below are some of them:

 

1) Are there universals of pragmatics and how do these universals affect the acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge?

2) What are the issues relating to methodology and measurement?

3) What is the role of native language?

4) Is development of L2 pragmatic knowledge similar to the development of L1 pragmatic knowledge?

5) Is there a natural route of development?

6) What is the role of input? Instruction? Motivation? Attitude?

7) What are the mechanisms that drive development?

                            (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 292)

 According to Bardovi-Harlig (2004), at the heart of interlanguage pragmatics is the question of native-like attainment: whether, or to what extent, adults can acquire the pragmatics of a second language. Bardovi-Harlig (1999) also stressed the necessity of considering the relationship between L2 learners’ pragmatic knowledge and grammatical knowledge. If L2 learners do not have a variety of verbal forms in their minds, their use of verbal forms to express pragmatic functions will be limited. For example, it was found (Scarcella, 1979) that low level learners relied on imperatives when making requests in every situation. As their proficiency increased, they limited the use of imperatives appropriately to subordinates and intimates. Thus, it seems that there is a certain order L2 learners follow in acquiring pragmatic functions of verbal forms. Now let’s look at another example given by Bardovi-Harlig:

 

Context: Graduate students talking with a faculty advisor.

Advisor: OK, let’s talk about next semester.

NS: I was thinking of taking syntax.

NNS: I will take syntax.

 

This example suggests that the NNS has learned the core meaning of will as an indicator of the future, but he does not understand the subtlety of use of the progressive as a marker of the future. What’s more, he has not yet acquired the pragmatic function of the progressive as a means of mitigation in such a talk about a tentative selection of a course for the next semester. Compared with the NNS’s definite answer, the NS’s utterance sounds more flexible and more acceptable, because it allows further considerations and reconsiderations. Therefore, the pragmatic extension of progressives to refer to the future is a later developmental stage.

There is a broad range of issues in interlanguage pragmatics, including both comprehension and production studies. Some studies show that learners can achieve native-like performance and others just show the opposite. Still, there are other issues that remain to be explored such as the evaluation of success and detailed descriptions of interactions with a range of learners and in a range of contexts.