The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

Naoko Taguchi, Naoko Taguchi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351164061
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics is a comprehensive critical survey of the field of L2 pragmatics, collecting a number of chapters that highlight the key theories, methods, pedagogies, and research findings throughout its development over the last four decades.

Demonstrating the ways in which pragmatics has long served as a lens through which to examine patterns of L2 development, the volume is divided into six parts which reflect the field's structure and evolution:

• Constructs and units of analysis

• Theoretical approaches

• Methodological approaches

• Pedagogical approaches

• Contexts and individual considerations

• L2 pragmatics in the global era

The handbook has a particular focus on covering not only traditional topics in the field, such as constructs of pragmatic competence (e.g., speech acts, implicature), teaching and assessment, and pragmatics learning in a study abroad program, but also emerging areas of study, including interactional pragmatics, intercultural pragmatics, usage-based approaches, corpus linguistics, and psycholinguistic experimentation.

Each chapter introduces the topic and follows with a description of its theoretical underpinnings, an overview of existing literature, appraisal of current practice, concluding with a discussion of future directions for research and key readings.

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics is an essential resource for those with an interest in second language acquisition, pragmatics, and language teaching.

1

Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics

An Overview

Naoko Taguchi

Both experts and lay people would agree that learning a second language (L2)¹ involves more than learning grammar and vocabulary. Learning sociocultural conventions and norms of language use—what to say or not to say in a certain situation, how to convey intentions in a contextually fitting manner, and how to achieve a communicative goal collaboratively with others—is a crucial part of becoming a competent speaker in L2. The field of L2 pragmatics addresses this fundamental yet often neglected area of L2 learning and teaching. L2 pragmatics encompasses two broader disciplines—pragmatics and second language acquisition (SLA)—which are complementary in defining the objectives and substances of the field. Pragmatics serves as a goal for L2 acquisition, and SLA provides frameworks and empirical methods to examine the process and impetus of the acquisition.

Pragmatics studies the connection between a linguistic form and a context, where that form is used, and how this connection is perceived and realized in a social interaction. Our linguistic choices (as it pertains to the use of form) are bound by several factors. Certainly, contextual factors such as settings, speakers’ relationships and their roles, and topics of conversation affect our way of speaking, but our linguistic choices are also shaped by agency and consequentiality. We choose to speak in a certain way depending on the type of ‘self’ that we want to project (Duff, 2012; LoCastro, 2003). We are also mindful of the consequences of our linguistic behavior—how it impacts others’ perceptions and reactions. These elements of pragmatics are reiterated in Crystal (1997), who defines pragmatics as ‘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’ (p. 301).

Given the intricacy involved in pragmatics, one can easily imagine that it can take a village to achieve full competency in pragmatics in L2—if it is ever possible. The challenge comes from many sources. One source is the influence coming from the first language (L1) (or any additional language in the system). Adult learners already have a foundation of pragmatic knowledge in L1 when they come to learn L2. Hence, they need to develop processing control over pre-existing pragmatic representations while re-learning new connections between linguistic forms and the social contexts in which they occur in L2 (Bialystok, 1993). Knowledge of how to express social and interpersonal concepts like politeness, formality, or solidarity in L1 does not directly transfer to L2 because linguistic expressions and strategies required in L2 are different. These concepts also vary in degrees across cultures.

Another challenge for L2 pragmatics acquisition is the sociocultural nature of pragmatics as a learning object. Because social norms and conventions of communication are not salient, it is often difficult for learners to notice what linguistic means are used to project appropriate levels of politeness or formality in a situation, or how meaning is conveyed indirectly with specific linguistic and non-linguistic means (Wolfson, 1989). Those means, and social conventions behind the means, also exhibit considerable variation even in a single community. This variable and tacit nature of forms and conventions further challenges pragmatics learning.

Finally, pragmatics involves wide-ranging dimensions that encompass linguistic and sociocultural language use, which makes learning pragmatics a challenging task. Thomas (1983) defined these dimensions in a distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. The former refers to linguistic resources for performing a communicative act, while the latter involves knowledge of sociocultural norms and conventions associated with the act. To become pragmatically competent, L2 learners need a range of linguistic resources, as well as the ability to evaluate contextual information, select appropriate resources, and use them efficiently in a real-time interaction. For instance, when learners want to ask someone a favor, they need to know what linguistic forms are available to convey such illocution. They also need to assess the nature and size of the favor and to whom it is directed in what occasion, as well as its likely outcomes. Learning pragmatics is taxing because of this combination of linguistic knowledge and sociocultural sensitivity required for a pragmatic act. The combination also indicates that grammar and pragmatics are distinct yet interdependent in L2 learning (Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Kasper & Rose, 2002). Knowledge of formal aspects of language (e.g., grammar, lexis) does not automatically lead to better pragmatic performance, but pragmatics learning does not occur without it. Threshold linguistic knowledge is pre-requisite and serves as a means for pragmatic performance.

These observations suggest that acquisition of L2 pragmatics is a long-term process shaped by multiple interweaving factors: L1 pragmatics, L2 proficiency, knowledge of social conventions and norms, context of language use, and experience in the target community. These factors involved in pragmatics learning also inform a larger field of SLA. SLA is a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary field in which numerous factors—linguistic, psychological, and sociological—need to be examined together all at once to understand the process of L2 development and influences on the process (Gass & Mackey, 2012). As a branch of SLA, L2 pragmatics is a field that investigates the construct of pragmatics and process of acquiring the construct.

The Routledge Handbook of SLA and Pragmatics illustrates the long-standing relationship between L2 pragmatics and SLA research. The starting point of the relationship goes back to the term interlanguage pragmatics, which was originally coined by Kasper in the 1980s and later defined in Kasper and Dahl (1991) as L2 learners’ pragmatic systems. Since this term debuted, L2 pragmatics has accumulated a critical mass of empirical findings that have enhanced our understanding of SLA from a pragmatics perspective. This handbook surveys this body of literature in six distinct areas: (1) constructs of pragmatic competence, (2) theoretical foundations, (3) research methods, (4) instruction and assessment of pragmatics, (5) contexts of learning and individual differences, and (6) L2 pragmatics in the global era. The handbook provides a critical review of the L2 pragmatics field by evaluating the existing literature, problematizing the current state, and identifying future directions.

As an introduction to the handbook, this chapter presents a historical background of the field in response to critical questions that have guided L2 pragmatics research thus far. My goal is to present an introductory overview of the field and encourage readers to leap into subsequent chapters so they can read further on the issues raised in this chapter. I will address questions in three major areas of L2 pragmatics research: construct, development, and instruction.

• Construct: What does it mean to be pragmatically competent? What elements are involved in the construct of pragmatic competence?

• Development: How does pragmatic competence develop over time? How do individual learner characteristics and contextual resources shape pragmatic development?

• Instruction: What is the role of instruction in pragmatic development?

In the following, I will present representative literature addressing these questions.

Background

Construct: What does it mean to be pragmatically competent? What elements are involved in the construct of pragmatic competence?

The definition of pragmatic competence has evolved over time corresponding to the changing view of L2 ability and to epistemology of the field of SLA. The early definition goes back to the theoretical models of communicative competence, which situated pragmatic competence as a fundamental component of L2 ability, distinct from grammatical, discourse, and strategic competences (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale & Swain, 1980). These models view pragmatic competence as involving two dimensions: functional and sociolinguistic knowledge. The former involves the use of proper linguistic forms for achieving a communicative function (e.g., what to say when greeting a colleague), while the latter involves understanding contextual characteristics and selecting appropriate forms to use in that context (e.g., how to greet a colleague in a business meeting vs. a roommate at a party). In these early models, pragmatic competence is postulated as the knowledge of form–function–context mappings—which forms to use for what communicative functions in what social contexts.

With a surge of discursive pragmatics (Kasper, 2006) and interactional competence (Young, 2011), the view of pragmatic competence has moved away from the one-to-one correspondence among a form, function, and context of use. It is now well accepted that the form–function–context associations are not stable or pre-existing within individuals. Rather, they are contingent upon an unfolding course of interaction and are jointly constructed among participants in discourse. The form–function–context associations also shift constantly, corresponding to changing contextual dynamics such as the speakers’ attitudes, affect, and directions of discourse. Hence, ability to adapt to dynamic interaction and achieve a communicative act collaboratively with others is a fundamental aspect of pragmatic competence. Critically, with interaction as part of the construct, pragmatic knowledge is now understood as interactional resources. As Young (2011) claims, participants draw on numerous interactional resources during interaction, including register-specific linguistic forms, speech acts, topic management, turn taking, and repair. These resources are shared among participants as they co-construct a communicative act.

More recently, the field of intercultural pragmatics has expanded our understanding of pragmatics-in-interaction. Intercultural pragmatics studies how people from different cultures communicate using a common language (Kecskes, 2014, 2016). Kecskes proposed the socio-cognitive approach as a theoretical foundation. This approach combines the cognitive–philosophical perspective, which views intention as pre-existing in the speaker’s mind before it is uttered, and the sociocultural-interactional perspective, which views intention as emergent and jointly constructed among participants in discourse. People draw on their own norms and expectations, but these L1 norms are negotiated and re-defined as they seek common ground during interaction. Hence, individuals’ prior norms eventually develop into new, hybrid norms, creating a ‘third culture that combines elements of each of the speakers’ L1 cultures in novel ways’ (Kecskes 2014, p. 13). These tenets of intercultural pragmatics are directly applicable to L2 pragmatics. Learners draw on their own knowledge of form–function–context associations from their L1 (or other prior experiences), but their individual-level knowledge transforms to shared knowledge with new standards of politeness, directness, and conventions emerging from interaction. Hence, learners’ willingness to suspend their own standards and seek mutual standards is a critical aspect of pragmatic competence. Also important is the skilled use of communication strategies, which directly affect the process of mutual understanding.

While interactional competence (Young, 2011) and the socio-cognitive approach (Kecskes, 2014, 2016) both capitalize on the concept of interacti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics
• Part I Constructs and Units of Analysis
• Part II Theoretical Approaches
• Part III Methodological Approaches
• Part IV Pedagogical Approaches
• Part V Contextual and Individual Considerations
• Part VI L2 Pragmatics in the Global Era
• Index