Ch.+15+by+Kathleen+Bardovi-Harlig

** PRAGMATICS AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION **
by //KATHLEEN BARDOVI-HARLIG//

The domain of pragmatics, within the framework of SLA, encompasses three areas of study. They are as follows: the study of //speech acts// (the main area), //conversational structure//, and //conversational implicature//. Speech acts are divided into 5 classes: //representatives// (explaining), //directives//, (requesting), //commissives// (promising), //expressives// (apologizing), and //declarations// (hiring/firing someone from a job) and every speech act has two forces :

1. the intended force of an utterance (the illocutionary force) 2. the actual effect on the hearer (the perlocutionary force)

The second area of pragmatics in SLA studies conversational structure the study of which includes the investigation of turn taking, back changing, adjacency pairs and conversational boundaries. And the last but not least is conversational implicature which plays a vital role in pragmatics. According to Grice (1975) there is a //cooperative principle// and four related maxims: //quality//, //quantity//, //relation//, and //manner////.// //Quality - making contribution which is true// //Quantity - making contribution as informative as necessary// //Relation - making contribution relevant// //Manner - making contribution clear, brief, precise, and orderly// //Cooperative principle - making contribution such as is required//

Kasper and Schmidt (1996) called L2 pragmatics interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). It includes two domains of research: comparative-sociolinguistic and acquisitional. Using its comparative studies, ILP has also focused on speech acts. It has mainly observed and compared speech acts of native and non-native speakers. All the comparisons made serve various functions such as ‘primary research into L2 pragmatics, a type of pragmatic error analysis, as models for pedagogical materials’ (Bardovi-Harlig, n.d.).
 * TRANSITION TO SLA STUDIES: INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS**

In comparative studies great deal of research has been carried out which included the following topics: development and elicitation tasks, description of L1 speech acts, description of L2 speech acts, and the comparison of L1 and L2 production by native and nonnative speakers. The introduction of the discourse completion task (DCT) to study speech acts (Blum-Kukla 1982) had a great effect on the further development of applied linguistics. DCT was able to compare the performance of speech acts cross-culturally and cross-linguistically. The comparative studies of ILP influenced greatly the further development of the field. According to Bardovi-Harling (1996) nonnative speakers differ from native speakers in at least four main ways:

1. In the same context native and nonnative speakers can perform //different speech acts// or even one group can not perform any speech act. 2. Native and nonnative speakers may use different //semantic formulas//. For example **I’m really sorry** [head act], //it’s all my fault// [statement of responsibility], //I’ll buy you a new one// [redress], //it won’t happen again// [promise of forbearance] 3. Sometimes speakers use the same semantic formulas, but the //content// of the semantic formulas are different. For example for explaining why an assignment was not done different speakers can use different content: "//My printer doesn't work//" or "//I didn't feel like doing the assignment//". 4. The //form// of a speech act of speakers may also differ. For example nonnative speakers prefer monoclausal request formulas "Would you join me?" and native speakers prefer biclausal "Would it be possible for you to join me".


 * Framing the Questions of Acquisition **

According to M. Long (1990) description and explanation are dual goals for SLA theory. Therefore, investigations of the acquisition of interlanguage pragmatics would describe the development of L2 pragmatics. Kasper and Scmidt (1996) posed 14 guiding questions, which were arranged by topic.


 * Measurement **
 * 1.** How can approximation to target language norms be measured? (Kasper and Scmidt (1996) noticed that there is a lack of common means to measure pragmatic development)


 * Development**
 * 2.** Is there a natural route of development as evidenced by difficulty or acquisition orders or discrete development?
 * 3.** Does perception precede production in acquisition?
 * 4.** Does chunk learning play a role in acquisition?
 * 5.** Does L1 influence L2 pragmatics?

Comparisons between L1 and L2 pragmatics lead to differentiation of the universals of acquisition of pragmatics from the particulars of adult SLA.
 * Comparisons**
 * 6.** Is the development of L2 pragmatics similar to learning L1?
 * 7.** Are there universals of pragmatics and do they play a role in interlanguage pragmatics?


 * Variables**
 * 8.** Do children enjoy an advantage over adults learning a second language?
 * 9.** Does foreign versus second language input make a difference?
 * 10.** Does instruction make a difference?
 * 11.** Do motivation and attitudes influence level of acquisition?
 * 12.** Does personality play a role?
 * 13.** Does a learner’s gender play a role?


 * Mechanisms of Change**
 * 14.** What mechanisms drive development from stage to stage?


 * INVESTIGATING THE PRAGMATICS OF GRAMMATICALLY LOWER PROFICIENCY LEARNERS**

Some issues cope with the studies of learners with low-level of proficiency. Though there is a linguistic component in pragmatic competence, it seems it does not deal with acquisition studies. As Blum-Kulka belives, there is a three-way division: //social acceptability// //linguistic acceptability// //pragmatic acceptability// By social acceptability the author means to determine when to perform a speech act, as well as sequencing, adequacy, and degree of directness. Linguistic acceptability lets learners produce utterances grammatically accurate, but fails to adapt to L2 in terms of the use of idioms. Due to pragmatic acceptability learner can recognize if the utterance has the desired incentive force. Blum-Kulka claims that this unintended illocutionary force is the most serious consequence of nonnative speech act realization. Thomas (1983) spoke about this consequence identifying "sociopragmatic failure". Utterances that was caused by a misunderstanding of social standard was called sociopragmatic failure by Thomas (1983). Here it is important to identify the difference between sociolinguistic and sociocultural abilities of language learners. Cohen refers the sociocultural ability to a speaker’s ability to decide if a given utterance is acceptable to perform in a particular situation or not. In contrast sociolinguistic ability is the speaker’s ability to select correct language forms used to realize a speech act.