Efectos redistributivos de las finanzas distritales entre localidades

Historical discussion

Interlanguage pragmatics, unlike other areas treated in this Handbook, can be related to second language acquisition (SLA), but also exists apart from SLA research. This chapter focuses on the intersection of pragmatics and SLA research. To this end, this section considers definitions of pragmatics as practiced in SLA, the development of interlanguage pragmatics and its affiliations with fields of inquiry in applied linguistics, and a brief history of pragmatics in SLA.

Definitions of pragmatics

Interlanguage pragmatics has been defined as“the study of non-native speakers’ use and acquisi- tion of L2 [second language] pragmatic knowledge” (Kasper, 1996, p. 145); however, the definitions of pragmatics used in L2 pragmatics have changed over the years. Levinson (1983) defined pragmatics as deixis, conversational implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and con- versational structure. In practice, however, interlanguage pragmatics has focused largely on speech acts, with conversational structure and implicature trailing far behind and studies of deixis and presupposition rarely found. Interlanguage pragmatics has also included conversational manage- ment, discourse organization, and choice of address forms (Kasper and Dahl, 1991, p. 216), which are typically associated with sociolinguistics.

In their monograph on L2 pragmatic development, Kasper and Rose (2002) adopt definitions of pragmatics by Mey (1993) and Crystal (1997) which emphasize the social-interactional aspects of pragmatics:“the societally necessary and consciously interactive dimension of the study of language” (Mey, 1993, p. 315) and “the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication” (Crystal, 1997, p. 301).

Affiliation of interlanguage pragmatics within applied linguistics

Although pragmatics is now considered an independent area of investigation in second language studies, it was originally affiliated with sociolinguistics. An early venue for L2 pragmatics papers was the Sociolinguistics and TESOL Colloquium, which began at the TESOL conference in 1980. Several of the papers in Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, the landmark book edited by

Wolfson and Judd (1983), came from the 1981 colloquium. Neither the foreword, preface, nor introduction mention pragmatics, using instead the terms speech act, speech act theory, speech event, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics. Nevertheless, the titles of the papers reveal a distinctly prag- matic content. The papers themselves identify the ability to use speech acts as sociolinguistic competence (e.g., Schmidt, 1983). In 1987 co-organizers Lawrence Bouton and Yamuna Kachru launched the Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The first volume of the selected proceedings, Pragmatics and Language Learning, was published in 1990 and the twelfth is due out in 2010. The early volumes included descriptions of L1 and L2 use, cross-linguistic comparisons, and L2 acquisition.

Comparative interlanguage pragmatics studies have contributed to applied linguistics by providing cross-cultural and cross-linguistic documentation of pragmatics where none existed previously. In addition, the comparisons of a variety of features in a range of languages, although far from comprehensive, provide the basis for acquisitional inquiries and models for pedagogical materials.

Pragmatics in second language acquisition

Along with early alignment of pragmatics with sociolinguistics, pragmatics was also linked with L2 acquisition, reflecting contemporary theories and analyses. A case in point is Schmidt’s (1983) study of Wes which includes the first longitudinal study of the L2 pragmatics of an adult second language learner. A test of the acculturation model (Schumann, 1978), this study positioned pragmatics in mainstream SLA. By 1992, there had already been a noticeable bifurcation of the field—perhaps nonintegration of interlanguage pragmatics with SLA is more apt—as noted by Kasper (1992, p. 205) when she described interlanguage pragmatics as having studied“precisely the kinds of issues raised in comparative studies of different communities … Interlanguage pragmatics has predominantly been the sociolinguistic, and to a much lesser extent a psycholin- guistic [or acquisitional] study of NNS’ linguistic action.” Comparative studies typically compare the production of native speakers of the target language (L2), native speakers of the learners’ first language (L1), and L2 learners of the same L1.

Interlanguage pragmatics has become increasingly concerned with SLA, although it is not the dominant orientation in interlanguage pragmatics given continued interest in comparative studies. Nonetheless, significant research agendas have positioned pragmatics acquisitionally. Kasper and Schmidt (1996) reviewed research in L2 pragmatics by posing 14 questions relevant to SLA addressing such issues as measurement, stages of L2 pragmatic development, mechanisms of change, comparison of L1 aquisition and L2 aquisition, comparison of pragmatics to other areas of the linguistic system, and the influence of individual differences, environment, and instruction. Two additional orienting papers appeared in 1999, a research agenda for investigating the interlanguage development that occurs with pragmatic development (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999) and a survey of pragmatics and SLA (Kasper and Rose, 1999). Finally, a book-length treatment of pragmatic development in second language was published in the Language Learning monograph series (Kasper and Rose, 2002), further anchoring pragmatics research in SLA.

Core issues

This section addresses general issues that L2 pragmatics shares with SLA more broadly, namely, environment, instructional influence, L1 transfer, and two areas of special concern to L2 pragmatics, data elicitation, and the relation of grammar to pragmatic development.

Data elicitation

Perhaps because of its hybrid origins in ordinary language philosophy, comparative pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and SLA, interlanguage pragmatics researchers have always investigated and discussed data collection. This is in part due to, on the one hand, conflicting goals and traditions among the contributing fields and audiences, and on the other hand, the lack of a prescribed or inherited method for speech act research (which dominates the field to this day). There is, however, another interpretation: One of the factors that drives the almost constant reflection on data elicitation in L2 pragmatics is that most studies use facsimiles of spontaneous oral conversation, and thus must reflect on whether alternative data collection methods can illuminate characteristics of conversation itself. Data collection is taken up in detail below (see Data and common elicitation measures).

Grammar and pragmatics: The development of pragmalinguistic resources

The development of L2 pragmatic competence involves the development of both L2 socio- pragmatic sensibilities and L2 pragmalinguistic resources. The development of L2 sociopragmatic knowledge, “the link between action-relevant context factors and communicative action (e.g., deciding whether to request an extension, complain about the neighbor’s barking dog)” (Kasper, 2001, p. 51) has received more attention in the literature than the development of pragmalinguistic resources which include the various linguistic devices that allow speakers to implement their sociopragmatic knowledge. Investigating how pragmalinguistic resources develop involves investigating the development of L2 grammar and lexicon to understand how they interface with sociopragmatic knowledge; this is often referred to as the interface of grammar and pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). Although the specific concern of L2 pragmatics is pragmalinguistic knowledge, it is important to take into account that grammar (including prosody, morphology, syntax, semantics, and the lexicon) has important functions outside prag- matics. For example, although tense functions pragmatically as a mitigator, its primary function is referring to time; embedding pragmatically encodes conventional indirectness but primarily serves syntactic functions.

The segregation of pragmatic from grammatical inquiry in early work (Thomas, 1983) lent clarity to research in interlanguage pragmatics in its formative years. Nevertheless, even without focal research in the area, researchers observed the relationship between grammar and pragmatics reporting that L2 learners with high grammatical proficiency do not necessarily show equivalently high levels of L2 pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1993; Olshtain and Blum- Kulka, 1985). Instead L2 learners show a range of L2 pragmatic competence, from divergence to convergence on targetlike norms, suggesting that the conditions that foster L2 pragmatic development are not the same as those that foster L2 grammatical development.

It is important to note that in the case of adult L2 acquisition the agenda of investigating L2 grammatical development in light of L2 pragmatics does not constitute the claim that grammar precedes pragmatics or that pragmatics precedes grammar. Applying the same functionalist frame- work employed in much tense-aspect research (Bardovi-Harlig, 2007) provides a useful perspec- tive. A basic tenet of the concept-oriented approach to L2 acquisition is that adult learners of second or foreign languages have access to the full range of semantic concepts from their previous linguistic and cognitive experience. Von Stutterheim and Klein argue that“a second language learner—in contrast to a child learning his first language—does not have to acquire the underlying concepts. What he has to acquire is a specific way and a specific means of expressing them” (1987,

p. 194). This applies equally to pragmatics where adults come to L2 acquisition with knowledge of what Kasper and Rose (2002, p. 165) characterize as implicit universal pragmatic competence which includes knowledge of and ability to use systems constraints including turn taking, repairs, and sequencing; conversational and institutional talk; main categories of illocutionary acts; specific communicative acts; politeness; indexicality; directness levels; routine formulas; contextual variability; discursive construction of social identity; and accomplishment of activities.

Another basic tenet of pragmatics is that all speakers—native speakers, non-native speakers, and learners—make choices among available linguistic forms to convey social meanings. The choice of an address term (usted versus tú), the use of a request strategy (would you versus I was wondering if you would…), or the use of an aggravator rather than a mitigator (I just decided that I will take syntax versus I was thinking about taking syntax) all have meaning because there are other possible alternatives.

Examining a learner’s grammatical and lexical development reveals what linguistic devices are available to that learner. Because pragmatic value is derived from the choice of available linguistic devices, if a learner has only one form available, then the use of that form lacks pragmatic significance, revealing only the learner’s level of interlanguage development. Thus, the study of acquisition within the framework of interlanguage pragmatics is necessary because it is the study of the development of alternatives.

As an illustration of the interface between pragmatics and language development, consider L2 modality and conventional expressions (other areas of grammar are discussed in Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). The general prevalence of the modals“would” and “could” in American English contrasts with their relative absence in learner production at low to intermediate proficiency. A longitudinal investigation of modality in oppositional talk showed that the dearth of would and could was a result of late emergence in interlanguage (Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig, 2000). Whereas the modal expressions maybe and I think emerged early and were used widely by all learners, would and could emerged at least six months later in the interlanguage of only a few learners and accounted for less that 1 percent of modal expressions. The learners with the greatest range in inventory also showed contextualized use. Moreover, learners showed awareness of the sociopragmatics of oppositional talk by using the linguistic means at their disposal.

A second example is the acquisition of conventional expressions. Pragmaticists have suggested that differences in L1 and L2 production result from learners’ lack of access to or control of conventional expressions (Edmondson and House, 1991; Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993). Such hypotheses require direct investigation of both recognition and use of conventional expressions (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009). Comparing learner familiarity with conventional expressions to their production reveals that both knowledge of the conventional expressions (pragmalinguistics) and knowledge of their contexts of use (sociopragmatics) drive the production patterns that have been reported.

Environment: Second, foreign, and study abroad contexts

Once the general question addressed by L2 pragmatics, “Can L2 pragmatics be acquired?,” is answered (if there is any doubt, the answer is “yes”), it is a natural extension to ask “Can L2 pragmatics be acquired better, faster, or more efficiently under different conditions?” Two conditions that have received the most attention in L2 pragmatics are environment and instruction.

The role of learning environment has received noticeable attention in the last decade. At the time of this writing, there have been more pragmatic study-abroad studies published in the seven years since Kasper and Rose’s (2002) comprehensive review than the total number cited in their

review of nearly 25 years of research. Most pragmatics research has been situated in host environ- ments (countries in which the language is spoken by the population) and include studies of university students learning English in North America, for example. Foreign language contexts (in which learners study languages not spoken in the country) include the acquisition of languages other than English in the USA or English in non-English speaking countries (Cook, 2001, Japanese in Hawaii; Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001, French in Australia; Takahashi, 2005, English in Japan). The addition of study-abroad contexts to the literature began noticeably in the late 1990s and early 2000s with dissertations and later as published articles (see especially the thematic issue of Intercultural pragmatics, 4(2), 2007; DuFon and Churchill, 2006).

Adding the study abroad context brings the investigation of environment in pragmatics full circle (see Chapter 32). Many study-abroad studies focus exclusively on learners in the host environment (for French Warga and Schölmberger, 2007; for German, Barron, 2007; for Indonesian, DuFon, 2010; for Spanish, Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; and for Spanish and French, Cohen and Shively, 2007) whereas others compare learners doing the same tasks in the host and foreign environments (for English, Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei, 1998, and the replication studies by Niezgoda and Roever, 2001, and Schauer, 2006, pragmatic awareness; Davis, 2007, attitudes and willingness to communicate; Schauer, 2007, requests; T. Takahashi and Beebe, 1987, refusals; for French, Hoffman-Hicks, 1999, greetings, leave takings, and compliments; for Spanish, Rodriguez, 2001, perception of requests).

Learners in host environments typically show some aspect of pragmatic development that exceeds that of learners in foreign environments. For example, learners in France showed greater sensitivity to sociopragmatics of French compliments, greetings and leave-takings than classmates in the USA (Hoffman-Hicks, 1999) and Taiwanese learners of English in the USA showed greater sociopragmatic gains in using acceptances as compliment responses than classmates in Taiwan who used rejections (Yu, 2004). Pragmalinguistics also shows gains: Study-abroad learners used a boarder repertoire of external request modifiers at the end of their sojourn than the at-home learners (Schauer, 2007). The advantage of comparisons is noted by Hoffman-Hicks who characterizes the study-abroad group’s progress as modest, but nevertheless significant in light of the fact that the at-home group showed no development during the same semester. In contrast, when study-abroad and at-home learners were compared only in academic contexts fewer differences were evident (Rodriguez, 2001).

Different results in a series of replications emphasizes the importance of viewing the environ- ment as a set of features rather than as a single variable. Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) and Schauer (2006) reported higher awareness of pragmatic infelicities by English as a second language (ESL) learners in host environments than English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in foreign environments. Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei interpreted this as due to the cross-cultural interaction experienced in the host setting. In contrast, using the same task, Niezgoda and Roever (2001) reported that EFL learners in the Czech Republic were better able to identify pragmatic infelicities than ESL learners in Hawaii. The conflicting findings may be due to differences among learners. The Czech learners were the top 5 percent of university students training to be English teachers, and the ESL learners in Hawaii may not have been as academically oriented as learners in other studies. Taken together, these studies emphasize the interaction of the environment with other variables including contact with native speakers, proficiency, aptitude, engagement, profi- ciency and experience of teachers (in the case of instructed learners), and access to NS other than teachers.

Investigating length of stay is closely linked to studying host environments (Félix-Brasdefer, 2004). Highly salient conversational functions such as greetings and discourse markers appear to respond to relatively short lengths of stay as illustrated by L2 development of American learners of

Kiswahili who had visited Tanzania (Omar, 1992) and students of French who lived abroad for a semester (Hoffman-Hicks, 1999). In contrast, other areas take much longer to develop without instruction. The acceptance of positive request strategies and directness by Hebrew NNS increased as length of stay increased, but targetlike judgments developed only after ten years of residence (Olshtain and Blum-Kulka, 1985). Similarly, ESL learners enrolled at an American university without specific training in implicature became increasingly targetlike in their interpretations as length of stay increased, although some resolved only after three–four years (Bouton, 1994).

Influence of instruction

The interest in the effect of instruction on L2 pragmatics reflects the general interest in instruc- tional effects in SLA and the specific demonstration that native and non-native pragmatics systems can vary significantly. The latter have encouraged researcher-teachers to undertake experiments in teaching pragmatics, both to test the efficacy of instruction and to develop means by which to assist learners gain knowledge in L2 pragmatics. (Comprehensive reviews can be found in Kasper and Rose, 2002; Kasper, 2001; Rose, 2005).

Instruction on a range of pragmatic targets has been investigated including discourse markers and pragmatic routines (House, 1996; Tateyama, 2001), speech acts (including compliments and compliment responses, Huth, 2006; Rose and Kwai-fun, 2001; directives, Pearson, 2006; requests, Safont Jordà, 2003; Takahashi, 2005; Takimoto, 2007), greetings (Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001), mitigators (Fukuya and Clark, 2001), lexical phrasal downgraders (Salazar, 2003), workplace speech events (Gibbs, 2005), terms of address including pronouns (Vyatkina and Belz, 2006), and strategies (Cohen and Shively, 2007).

Rose (2005, p. 239) characterizes research on instructional effects on L2 pragmatics as addres- sing three main questions, each of which have their own design. Studies addressing the first question—“Is the targeted pragmatic feature teachable at all?”—employ pre-test/post-test designs with intervening treatment (e.g., Huth, 2006; Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001; Vyatkina and Belz, 2006). In each of these studies learners responded favorably to instruction. Huth’s learners compared authentic examples of American English, and German and received explicit informa- tion about, and practice on, compliment-response sequences. Role plays showed modest produc- tion gains in German compliment responses but follow-up interviews suggest that learners gained explicit knowledge about German compliment-acceptances. Vyatkina and Belz (2006) report the most robust results, but also had the most extensive intervention over the longest period which combined awareness-raising, explanation, and practice with form-focused instruction on modal particles in German over nine weeks. In seven weeks learners went from using four modal particles to using 89 at 84 percent accuracy.

Studies in the first group show that pragmatic features can be learned from instruction, but they do not test the possibility that learners at the same proficiency could make equivalent progress without instruction, which forms Rose’s second question: “Is instruction in the targeted feature more effective than no instruction?” Studies in this group compare a control group that receives no specific pragmatic input to the treatment group. Bouton (1994) showed that implicatures that took up to four years to develop without instruction responded quickly to instruction.

Studies of this type suggest that instruction has an advantage, but leave open the question of whether another type of intervention would have produced different outcomes. Thus, studies addressing the third question—“Are different teaching approaches differentially effective?”— compare two or more interventions (often explicit and implicit conditions) and may include a control group with no pragmatics instruction (Pearson, 2006; Takimoto, 2007).

Takimoto (2007) evaluated the relative effectiveness of three types of input-based approaches for teaching polite request forms in an EFL setting. Performance of learners receiving (a) structured input tasks with explicit information, (b) structured input tasks without explicit information, or (c) problem-solving tasks was compared with control group performance on pre-tests, post-tests eight–nine days after instruction, and post-tests four weeks after instruction. These consisted of a discourse completion test, a role play test, a listening test, and an acceptability judgment test. The three treatment groups performed significantly better than the control group on all the measures, but there were no significant differences among the treatment groups. In contrast, Pearson (2006)