Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose

1. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Rose, K.R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,22, 27-67. Pragmatics: a branch of linguistics concerned with the meanings that sentences have in the particular contexts in which they are uttered. Speech act: an utterance conceived as an act by which the speaker does something. Example: you are watching television with your friend, and you are holding the remote. Your friend asks, “Can you hear it?” What is the speech act? What is your friend “doing with words”? 1

2. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Other speech acts: requesting, apologizing, complimenting. Pragmatic competence: being able to interpret the meanings of sentences within the contexts in which they are uttered. Pragmalinguistics / pragmalinguistic competence: being able to form requests, apologies, compliments, and so on. Sociopragmatics / sociopragmatic competence: being able to use requests, apologies, compliments, and so on, in appropriate situations, and to recognize the appropriateness of particular forms for particular situations. 2

3. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Literature Review (pp. 28–35) First language pragmatic development, which comprises “a substantial literature” (p. 28). Note studies on children’s development of requests (Gordon and Ervin-Tripp, 1984) and acquisition of politeness in L1 (Ervin-Tripp, Guo, & Lampert, 1990, among others) (pp. 28–29). Interlanguage pragmatics “lags far behind” L1 studies (p. 29). IL pragmatics, longitudinal studies: Schmidt (1983), Wes, requests in ENG (p. 29) Seigal (1994), deference in Japanese (p. 29). 3

4. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Literature Review (pp. 28–35) Effect of instruction on pragmatic development Billmyer (1990), instructed v. noninstructed learners of Japanese; compliments; some instructional effect, but not definitive (p. 30). IL pragmatics, cross-sectional studies (“looks at different learners at different moments in time and establishes development by comparing the successive states in different people” p. 31): Scarcella (1979), p. 33, participants acquired English politeness forms before rules of use (i.e., pragmalinguistics before sociopragmatics). 4

5. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Literature Review (pp. 28–35) IL pragmatics, cross-sectional studies (con’t): Hill (1997), Japanese English learners, heavier reliance on direct requests in low-proficiency group than in high-proficiency group (p. 34). Rose’s study (p. 34): true cross-sectional design (recognizing different learners at different moments in development) focus on IL pragmatic development (not IL pragmatic performance) e.Questions – end the lit review. A skillful lit review leads us inexorably to questions. 5

6. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Literature Review (pp. 28–35) e. Questions (p. 35): 6

7. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Collection (pp. 36–39) participants three groups of primary students in Hong Kong – age 7 (P-2), 9 (P-4), 11 (P-6). Each group broken into three groups 1) those who answered the initial questionnaire and suggested the various speech acts used in development of COPT; 15 students 2) those who answered the COPT in English (53 students) 3) those who answered COPT in Cantonese (45 students). 7

8. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Collection (pp. 36–39) COPT – cartoon oral proficiency test, see Appendix, p. 60. designed to elicit requests, apologies, and compliment responses. tape recorded; students asked to “say what they thought Siu Keung should say” (p. 39). 8

9. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) request strategies in English (Table 1, p. 40) Direct: “Give me your notes.” Conv. indirect:“Can I borrow your notes?” 9

10. 10

11. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) request strategies in Cantonese (Table 7, p. 46) 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) situational variation – i.e., the degree to which participants “exhibit sensitivity to social status and degree of imposition differences in their choice of request strategy”; sociopragmatic competence (Table 3): “There is virtually no situational variation in request strategy for these groups” (p. 42). 14

15. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) supportive moves (p. 43) pre-commitment: “Could you do me a favor?” grounders: “I missed class yesterday. Could I borrow your notes?” and others, p. 43. 15

16. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) supportive moves (p. 43) 16

17. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) supportive moves (Table 4) Highlighted statistics “may be indicative of some sort of developmental threshold that has been crossed by the P-6 participants” (p. 43). (Statistical analysis would make a stronger argument.) 17

18. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) requests (pp. 40–47) conclusion: “The higher frequency of directness in the P-2 requests [falling to P-4 and P-6; coupled with the lower frequency of conventional indirect strategies, rising to P-4 and P-6] is indicative of … pragmatic development sequences in English” (p. 46). 18

19. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) apologies (pp. 47–51) In terms of the “illocutionary force indicating device” (i.e., “sorry”) “there is little to distinguish across groups” (p. 47). See Table 9, p. 48. 19

20. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) apologies (pp. 47–51) apology adjuncts are “a different story” (p. 47). Adjuncts include intensifiers (“I’m very / so sorry”), taking responsibility, offering explanation, offering repair, and so on. Table 10, p. 48. 20

22. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) apologies (pp. 47–51) situational variance / sociopragmatic competence – there is “no clear pattern of variation according to social status or severity of offense” (p. 49). conclusion – the “distribution of apology adjuncts across groups … offer[s] some evidence of developmental trends, with a tendency for both a higher frequency and a wider range of apology adjuncts with P-6 participants” (p. 49). 22

23. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) compliment responses (pp. 51–55) compliment-response strategies: “there was considerable uniformity across groups in terms of main compliment-response strategy” (p. 52). The most common compliment response was acceptance: “Thanks” or “Thank you” in response to a compliment. 23

24. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) compliment responses (pp. 51–55) 24

25. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) compliment responses (pp. 51–55) compliment response adjuncts (thank you very much!). “There is a marked increase in both frequency and range of strategies used with the P-6 group” (pp. 52–53); see Table 15, p. 53. 25

26. 26

27. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Data Analysis (pp. 40–55) compliment responses (pp. 51–55) situational variance / sociopragmatic competence – there is “little evidence of situational variation in the compliment responses” (p. 54). conclusion – the “increase in frequency and rangeof [complement response adjunct]strategies used [by] the P-6 group … add[s] to the evidence for development patterns” in interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 52–53). 27

28. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Conclusion (pp. 55–56) Data “provide some evidence of pragmatic development, particularly in the movement from direct to conventionally indirect request strategies, and in the higher frequency of supportive moves, apology adjuncts and compliment-response adjuncts for the P-6 group.” Data suggest “little evidence of situational variation in any of the speech acts, which may indicate the precedence of pragmalinguistics over sociopragmatics in the early stages of pragmatic development in a second language.” 28

29. Interlanguage Development; Pragmatics – Rose Conclusion (pp. 55–56) evidence of pragmatic development little evidence of situational variation does he answer his questions? 29

30. Midterm Exam Review I. Research traditions 1. Know the difference between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Be familiar with the assumptions/orientations of each about discovery, variables, data collection, data analysis, and data use. Know the fundamentals of the different research methods we discussed: correlation, survey, experiment, case study, and ethnography. With which paradigm do the various methods associate? Why (re: discovery, variables, data collection, data analysis, and data use)? Be prepared to apply your knowledge of research traditions. 30

31. Midterm Exam Review II. History Understand Behaviorism and Nativism as it relates to second language acquisition. Be prepared to discuss these concepts in historical context. That is, be able to answer questions like, What ways of thinking dominated during what periods? With whom were these ways of thinking associated? With what movements in second language acquisition theory were these epistemological orientations associated? 31

32. Midterm Exam Review II. History Most specifically, be able to locate scholars like Robert Lado and Pit Corder and movements like Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis within the context of the epistemological (epistemology, the study of knowledge) history of second language acquisition research. 32

33. Midterm Exam Review III. Interlanguage Be prepared to define interlanguage, understand the epistemological assumptions upon which it operates, and discuss the ways it has been studied. More specifically, be able to explain scholars’ interest in systematicity / variation, development sequences, and first language influence. 33