Context, Individual Differences and Pragmatic Development: An Introduction

Introduction

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), analogous to interlanguage grammar or interlanguage lexicon, is a branch of study in second language acquisition (SLA) that focuses on second language learners' knowledge, use and development in performance of sociocultural functions in context. The original definition of ILP can be traced back to Kasper and Dahl, who stated that ' interlanguage pragmatics will be defined in a narrow sense, referring to non-native speakers' (NNSs') comprehension and production of speech acts, and how their L2-related speech act knowledge is acquired' (Kasper & Dahl, 1991: 216).

Two decades after this definition debuted in the field, we have accumulated a large, diverse body of international literature that has collectively expanded the scope of ILP research beyond 'comprehension and production of speech acts' and beyond an examination of pragmatic 'knowledge'. 'Ability to perform language functions' and 'knowledge of socially appropriate language use' are now defining characteristics of pragmatic competence in the theoretical models of communicative competence (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, 2010; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972). These features have been operationalized in a variety of ways as measurable constructs, and specific tasks and analytical methods have since been identified to elicit and examine these constructs. Target pragmatic features investigated to date are wide ranging, including: speech acts, conversational implicature, formal vs. informal speech styles, honorifics and politeness terms, terms of address, rituals of small talk and other discourse genres, routines and formulaic expressions and conversation management devices (e.g. reactive tokens, discourse markers and turn-taking). Learners' knowledge of these pragmatic features as well as their processing efficiency in using this knowledge in real time have been examined through a variety of methods, ranging from ethnographic studies that involve observation of naturalistic interaction to descriptive–experimental studies that use construct-eliciting instruments.

Numerous ILP studies introduced over the last few decades – whether descriptive, quasi-experimental, qualitative or quantitative – have centered on developmental issues of pragmatic competence. Such studies have addressed a range of questions about pragmatic development among individuals who have learned an additional language through various venues, such as formal schooling, sojourns or in naturalistic settings. These studies have posed many questions: Do learners register meaningful gains in pragmatic competence, outside of grammatical, lexical and phonological competence? Do they demonstrate an even pace in development across pragmatic functions, or do some functions develop more quickly than others? Does pragmatic competence develop naturally with 'time', or does its development require instructional intervention, feedback and modeling? Do L1–L2 similarities and differences in forms, conventions and cultural norms lead to positive or negative L1 transfer, consequently affecting the rate and patterns of development? Is pragmatic growth constrained by learners' grammatical knowledge and general proficiency? Does exposure to target language input and learners' amount of contact with native speakers facilitate pragmatic development, or do formal classroom settings afford ample sociocultural opportunities that lead to increased pragmatic abilities?

Accumulated research findings have, either individually or collectively, provided answers to these empirical questions. Particularly relevant to this monograph is a line of longitudinal studies, which, by definition, involve observation of the same participant(s) over an extended period of time. Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005) proposed four criteria by which to evaluate longitudinal investigation: (1) the length of the study, (2) the presence of multiwave data collection, (3) a conceptual focus on capturing change by design and (4) a focus on establishing antecedent–consequent relationships by tracking a phenomenon in its naturalistic context. By 2010, about two dozen ILP studies conformed to these criteria. These studies have brought to light relevant insights into learners' pathways in evolving pragmatic abilities, helping to establish causal relationships between change and time (see Chapter 2 for a review of these studies).

Development of pragmatic competence is best observed longitudinally for several reasons. First, pragmatic development is a long-term process because it requires abilities to manage a complex interplay of language, language users and context of interaction. This complexity is reflected in the distinction between the concept of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Pragmalinguistics refers to the linguistic resources available for performing language functions, while sociopragmatics refers to a language user's assessment of the context in which those linguistic resources are implemented (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983). Pragmatic development entails acquisition of both these knowledge bases and efficient control of each of them in spontaneous communication. Learners need to have a range of linguistic resources, as well as the ability to evaluate layers of contextual information, select the most appropriate resources and use them efficiently. For instance, when a speaker wants to refuse someone's invitation, they need to know what syntactic forms and lexis to use. They also need to know whether such a refusal is acceptable in this particular situation in the target culture, and if it is acceptable, they need to know what language to use to express refusal to whom under what circumstances. This combination of linguistic ability and sociocultural sensitivity that is involved in pragmatic competence takes time to acquire.

The distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics also indicates that pragmatic competence may not develop hand in hand with grammatical ability. Instead, these two abilities may follow separate trajectories toward their full development. In fact, previous literature showed that while a threshold level of grammatical ability (or general proficiency) is needed for a learner to encode pragmatic functions, a high level of grammatical competence does not always guarantee a corresponding high level of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2000). Empirical evidence has shown...