下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Above we have 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 .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'tfind 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 youfind your umbrella ？
—No.I can'tfind 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'tfind my umbrella .
— Oh ， I'm sorry to hear that .
According to speech act theory， the performance of a speech act involves the performance of three types of act：a locutionary act（the act of saying），an illocutionary act（the performance of a particular language function by what is said）and a perlocutionary act（the achieving of some kind of effect on the addressee）.The term speech act is generally used to refer exclusively to“illocutionary 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 example， 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'tfind 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 tofind 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.
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）.
Different speech acts 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，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.
A second way in which NSs and NNSs may differ is in the choice of 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 myfault ；
an offer of repair： I'll payfor the broken vase ；
a promise of forbearance： It won't happen again .
In a study of complaints（Murphy and Neu，1996） in which both 14 NSs and 14 NNSs take a role of a student whose assignment was unfairly graded by his professor，it was found that all the NSs and only three NNSs used a complaint.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.
NNSs'criticism： But you just look at your point of view and，uh，you just didn't recognize my point.
A third way in which NSs and NNSs may differ is in the content of their contribution.While 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.
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 do not often 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（Bardovi-Harlig，2006：19）：
NS1： Perhaps I should also mention that I have an interest in sociolinguistics and would like，ifI can，to structure things in such a way that I might do as much sociolinguistics as I can.
NS2： I was thinking oftaking sociolinguistics.
NS3： I have an ideafor spring . I don't know how it would work out ， but …
……
NNS1： In the summer ， I will take language testing .
NNS2： So ， I ， Ijust decided on taking the language structure .
We can distinguish two ways of examining illocutionary acts in SLA.The first way belongs to error analysis and thus focuses on learners'failure to perform acts in native-like ways.The second way reconceptualizes illocutionary acts as part of communicative competence.Two kinds of failure were distinguished by Thomas（1983）：socio-pragmatic failure and pragma-linguistic failure.The former takes place when a learner fails to perform the illocutionary act required by the situation，while the latter occurs when a learner tries to perform the right speech act but uses the wrong linguistic means.The alternative view of illocutionary acts involves viewing them in terms of knowledge rather than failure.Kasper（2001），for example，reformulated Thomas'distinction in the following way：
Pragma-linguistic knowledge requires mappings of form， meaning， force， and context…Socio-pragmatics refers to the link between action-relevant context factors and communicative action and does not necessarily require any links to specific forms at all.
Seen in this way the ability to perform illocutionary acts constitutes part of communicative competence.This ability is included in sociolinguistic competence，which is defined as“the extent to which utterances are produced and understood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts”（Canale，1983：7）.Canale continued to point out that appropriateness involves both appropriateness of meaning and appropriateness of form.The former constitutes sociopragmatic competence and the latter pragma-linguistic competence.Research has begun to cover the use and acquisition of a number of illocutionary acts.Much of the research focused on requests，apologies，refusals，complaints，thanking，invitations， suggestions， compliments， greetings， criticisms， and disagreements.Ellis（2013：171－172）summarized two common characteristics shared by many of these acts：First，they constitute relatively well-defined acts in the sense that they are realized by means of a small set of easily recognizable linguistic elements（formulaic expressions）．Second，many of these acts are face-threatening in nature and，therefore，provide a means of studying to what extent L2 learners with different L1 backgrounds are able to use native-like politeness strategies.
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.There have now been a considerable number of studies of L2 learners’perceptions and performances of a range of speech acts.However most of these studies have been cross-sectional，making it difficult to reach reliable conclusions about developmental sequences.Below are some general conclusions supported by the current studies：
（1）Learners make pragmatic errors just as they make linguistic errors.These errors fall into two types：sociopragmatic errors and pragmalinguistic errors.It appears that learners are better able to overcome their pragmalinguistic than their sociopragmatic errors.Learners make rapid progress in developing strategies for performing illocutionary acts and in learning how to perform them using different linguistic means.However，it takes a long time to learn the sociocultural rules and many learners may never do so.
（2）A linear relationship does not seem to exist between how learners perform specific speech acts and their general proficiency.For example，Matsumara's（2003） study of Japanese university students'advice-giving in English showed that proficiency had only a weak effect.Advanced learners are more native-like but tend to be verbose in giving advice.
（3） L1 transfer is also a major factor identified.It is hypothesized that the more proficient the learner the more likely transfer occurs.Another hypothesis is that the more proficient the learner the greater the positive transfer but the less the negative transfer.
（4） It is disputable whether staying longer in L2 environment assists learners to approximate more closely to native-speaker pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic norms.Some studies（for example，Matsumara，2003） found that the length of stay or amount of exposure to the L2 has a greater effect than linguistic proficiency.However，some researchers（for example，Rose，2002） did not find length of residence a reliable predictor of L2 pragmatic ability.
（5） Learners'ability to encode illocutionary acts in socially appropriate ways may depend on psycholinguistic factors.According to research（Kasper，1984a），when learners were under communicative pressure they tended to engage in modality reduction.That is，they omitted grammatical features such as modal verbs and adverbials associated with the expression of modal meanings like possibility and tentativeness.
Despite the abundant research mentioned above，what is not clear about interlanguage pragmatics is the extent to which the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge is different from or related to the acquisition of linguistic knowledge.This raises the key question of the relationship between pragmalinguistic development and grammatical development： Do learners acquire grammar and then put this to use to convey pragmatic meanings？Or do these two types of developments take place simultaneously with each supporting the other？It is not easy to answer such questions because the majority of the studies have been comparative rather than acquisitional.That is，they compared L2 and native-speaker pragmatic behavior rather than investigated how learners develop pragmatic competence over time.
However，relevant research provides important evidence and food for thought for us to find tentative answers to the above-mentioned key question.There are two assumptions regarding the relationship between linguistic and pragmatic development： pragmaticsprecedes-grammar sequence and grammar-precedes-pragmatics sequence.
First，there is evidence to support the separateness of pragmatic and grammatical development in second language context.Schmidt's（1983） longitudinal study of Wes documented considerable development in pragmatic competence without any equivalent development in linguistic competence.Wes was a 33-year-old Japanese artist，who left school at 15 and had little formal instruction in English.It was only when he began to visit Hawaii that he had opportunities to use English.Thus，he is an example of a naturalistic learner who learns an L2 at the same time as learning to communicate in it.Schmidt commented that Wes“developed considerable control of the formulaic language that acts as social grease in interaction”.This enabled him to show pragmatic development while not advancing much linguistically.In another longitudinal study， Ellis（1992） found that ESL classroom learners relied extensively on formulaic expressions especially in the early stages of their pragmatic development of L2 requests.These and other studies of naturalistic learners suggest that the early stage of acquisition is essentially pragmatic rather than grammatical.Learners grab at the slender linguistic resources at their disposal，such as formulaic sequences，simple lexis，and intonation，to perform the illocutionary acts that are communicatively important to them.If lexis， and formulaic sequences serve as the foundation for the development of grammar， then， at least in the case of learners in L2 context， the development of some minimal pragmatic competence can be seen as the basis for the subsequent development of grammar.This development pattern can be called the pragmaticsprecedes-grammar sequence.
Second，there is also evidence indicating that acquisition of grammar serves as the condition for pragmatic development.Learners with very advanced overall proficiency may still be lacking in pragmatic skills.Takahashi's（1996） study showed that unlike native speakers who preferred biclausal request formulas（for example，“I was wondering if you could…”），Japanese university students chose monoclausal formulas.This finding can be easily explained by the fact that they had not yet acquired the biclausal constructions involved.Grammar serves as a resource for encoding different kinds of meaning—semantic meaning as well as pragmatic meaning.For example，the modal verb can serves to convey ability（semantic meaning）as in I can swim one hundred meters and to perform a request（pragmatic meaning）as in the formulaic expression Can I have a …？When learners acquire new grammatical forms they may do so either in conjunction with their symbolic/semantic meaning or indexical/pragmatic meaning.In the later stages of development，grammatical forms may be first acquired in relation to their core semantic meanings and only take on a pragmalinguistic function later.If this argument is accepted，then，it can be said that grammatical development precedes pragmatic development.Such a development pattern is the grammar-precedes-pragmatics sequence.
In spite of the above two assumptions，it is still too early to reach any definite conclusion about the relationship between grammatical and pragmatic competence.In order to have a clear picture of the issue， we should take into consideration the context of acquisition.In a second language context，where learners are exposed to communicative uses of the L2，the pattern of development may be described above.However，in a foreign language context，learners may have both limited opportunity and limited need to develop pragmatic competence while the type of instruction they receive may prioritize grammar.In such a context，grammatical development is likely to precede pragmatic development even in the early stages.These learners acquire grammar and only later learn how to put this to use pragmatically.Therefore，differences might exist in the kind of competence demonstrated by second and foreign language learners.
Bardovi-Harlig and Drnyei's（1998）study investigated whether this is the case.They elicited judgements of English utterances from high-and low-proficiency ESL and EFL learners.The judgements required the participants to indicate whether each utterance was appropriate or correct and in the case of negative judgements to assess the severity of the deviation.Clear differences were found in the judgements of the ESL and EFL learners.The ESL learners identified more pragmatic errors and rated them as more severe than the grammatical errors，whereas the EFL learners found more grammatical errors which they rated as more serious than the pragmatic errors.We also might expect differences in the kind of competence revealed by naturalistic learners and foreign language learners.In naturalistic learners，pragmatic development precedes grammatical development in the early stages but subsequently grammatical development is required to perform in pragmatically sophisticated ways.However，in foreign language learners， grammatical development may precede pragmatic development from the beginning.
The problem of the relationship between pragmatic and grammatical competence has not been fully solved.However，clear answers will only be forthcoming when there are more studies of beginning-level learners，when elicitation procedures appropriate to such learners are available，when there are more longitudinal studies，and when researchers specifically set out to integrate the study of emergent grammar and pragmatic ability.
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.
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.There is also the necessity to consider 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.It was found that low level learners relied on imperatives when making requests in every situation.As their proficiency increased，however，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.
Another example given by Bardovi-Harlig is the context where graduate students talk with a faculty advisor about what course to take the next semester，the NNS says I will take syntax while the NS says I was thinking oftaking 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 using 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.
Another attention that should be given in the future research is the role that the acquisitional context plays in learners'pragmatic development.The effects of acquisitional context need to be explored at the micro-rather than macro-level，that is，in terms of the specific types of input and interaction learners are exposed to.In this respect，the study of pragmatic development lags behind that of linguistic development.So far interlanguage pragmatics research has focused more or less exclusively on learners'perceptions and productions.
A final suggestion for future interlanguage pragmatics research is that more attention should be paid to writing instead of spoken medium （Ellis，2013：198）.This is particularly the case with illocutionary acts.Although we know something about how contextualized acts such as requests，apologies，and refusals are acquired，we know little about how learners acquire the ability to perform acts found in decontextualized，written language.Research suggests that the ability to perform speech acts like requests，apologies，and refusals in face-to-face interaction may be distinct from the ability needed to perform speech acts like definitions in writing.
1.Questions for self-study.
（1）What is interlanguage？What are the characteristics of interlanguage？
（2）What are the five psycholinguistic processes of the latent psychological structure used by adult L2 learners in shaping interlanguage，according to Selinker's hypothesis？
（3）What's the difference between free variation and systematic variation in interlanguage development？Give examples to illustrate.
（4）Give examples to show that interlanguage grammar is dynamic.
（5）Give examples，or find examples in your or somebody else's utterances to illustrate that interlanguage is a reduced system.
（6）What are the factors（contexts） which affect the systematic change of interlanguage？
（7）What is the difference between the acquisition order and the sequence of acquisition？Give examples to illustrate.
（8）How does L1 influence the learner's interlanguage？
（9）What is second language speech act？
（10）How does L1 and L2 speech act production differ from each other？
（11）What is the relationship between linguistic competence and pragmatic competence？
2.Fill in the blanks in the following short passage with proper words.
Errors are evidence of the state of a learner's knowledge of the L2.An error is different from what we call a“mistake”.A mistake is akin to____of the tongue.They are generally one-time-only events.The speaker who makes a___is able to recognize it as a mistake and correct it if necessary.An error，however，is_.That is，it is likely to occur repeatedly and is not recognized by the learner as an error.The learner in this case has incorporated a particular erroneous form （from the perspective of the TL）into his own___.Errors are not only systematic；many of them are also_.
3.Open discussion for pair or group work.
（1）Have you ever reached a stage of fossilization or stabilization of progress，where you seemed to just stall for weeks or more？If so，describe that experience to your classmates.Then tell about what propelled you out of those doldrums，or determine what might have helped you if you stayed there or are still there.
（2）Think about the phenomenon of avoidance we discussed in this chapter.It has been primarily investigated in syntax.Why do you think such an emphasis has occurred？Can avoidance take place in phonology？In vocabulary？Why or why not？
（3） There are many speech acts in verbal communications，such as complaining，insulting，thanking，apologizing，requesting，refusing，complimenting，suggesting，and so on.These speech acts can be studied as part of second language use.Choose one of the above speech acts，and gather data from L2 speakers in their use of it.While you are gathering data，take into account such factors as gender，status，and familiarity.Give an analysis of how these factors affect your results？
（4） Speech acts are of interest to language teachers and learners because there are multiple ways to accomplish one particular speech act．How you accomplish a speech act can also be different from language to language．Think of how many different ways you can refuse a dinner invitation in English．The following factors can be taken into consideration：
—the person who made the invitation
—the reason why you could not，or did not want to，attend
—different levels of formality
—consequences for refusal
—expression of regret
—length of utterances
（5）One reason why speech acts can be challenging for L2 learners is that the function of the speech acts does not always match the syntactic structure．Learners are generally taught that declarative sentences are statements，interrogative sentences are questions，imperatives are commands，and exclamatives are exclamations．However，a declarative speech act does not always use declarative syntax，and a questioning speech act does not always appear in the form of a question．To understand the differences between speech acts and syntactic structures，choose one speech act，such as“command”，and brainstorm together as many different ways as you can to command somebody to do a particular task（for example，close the door）．The brainstorm can range from delicately polite to downright offensive ways to command someone．Then，identify the different syntactic structures used，grouping them together into categories．After discovering about the vast array of syntax that can accomplish the same speech act，answer the following questions：
—Does using more words sound more polite？
—Does commanding someone using a question sound more polite than a straightforward one？
—Does this differ between your mother tongue and the target language？