Learning to Request in a Second Language: A Study of Child Interlanguage Pragmatics
240
Learning to Request in a Second Language: A Study of Child Interlanguage Pragmatics
240eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781788920223 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Multilingual Matters Ltd. |
| Publication date: | 02/07/2003 |
| Series: | Second Language Acquisition , #2 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 240 |
| File size: | 8 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.0 The Background of the Study
This study was occasioned by my coming to Australia with my daughter, Yao, in May 1992. During our stay, I observed her pragmatic development in a variety of contexts over a period of 17 months, as she gained command of English. For the purpose of this study, which was begun when Yao had had no prior learning of English, I gathered data in the particular context of play situations so that I was able to control the data gathering using both audio- and video-tape recording. The quantified data of the study comes from these recordings. In order to document her process of learning, I also kept a diary with notes on her utterances in English and the comments she made with regard to her language learning.
1.1 Interlanguage Pragmatics in Second Language Acquisition Research
Interlanguage pragmatics has been defined as 'the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language' (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 3). A growing interest in interlanguage pragmatics over the last two decades is reflected in the substantial body of research that has been undertaken (see Ellis, 1994; Kasper & Dahl, 1991; Kasper & Rose, 1999; and Thomas (in manuscript) for review). However, the bulk of the studies have focused on second language use rather than pragmatic development. That is, the great majority of research has been on the ways in which and the extent to which learners of a second language use pragmatic knowledge differently from native speakers of the target language. Consequently, the greater majority of the research has been cross-sectional and focused on adults. (Not surprisingly, the bulk of the studies with children have concentrated not on second language but first language acquisition.) There are only a few longitudinal studies that have investigated L2 pragmatic development (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993, on 10 adult learners of English; Ellis, 1992, on two child learners of English; Sawyer, 1992, on 11 adult learners of Japanese; Schmidt, 1983, on one adult learner of English). In contrast, among the mainstream second language acquisition studies, which are primarily concerned with the formal linguistic properties of the learner's interlanguage, there have been a great number of longitudinal studies on developmental patterns and sequences of specific syntactic features. This rich literature commences with Cazden et al. (1975), Hakuta (1976), Wong-Fillmore (1976), Itoh and Hatch (1978) and Pienemann (1980), and is continued by more recent studies such as those by Nicholas (1987), Liu (1991), Tarone and Liu (1995) and P. Clark (1996). Thus, we know a great deal about the development of a learner's linguistic features. But as pointed out by Ellis (1994), Kasper (l996), Kasper and Rose (1999), Kasper and Schmidt (1996) and Schmidt (1993), we know very little about how a learner's pragmatic aspects develop. What we need now are longitudinal studies that unravel pragmatic development by observing learners from the onset of their language acquisition process. It is the purpose of this study to contribute to the fulfilment of that need.
1.2 Speech Acts
As a means to investigate pragmatics, the speech act approach has been used effectively for both in first and second language acquisition research. This approach finds its origin in linguistic philosophy (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969; 1975; 1976). According to speech act theory, speakers perform illocutionary acts by producing utterances. An illocutionary act is a particular language function performed by an utterance. That is, through their utterances speakers convey communicative intentions, such as requests, apologies, promises, advice, compliments, offers, refusals, complaints and thanking. The study of speech acts provides a useful means of relating linguistic form and communicative intent. An utterance, here, is treated as the realisation of a speaker's intention and goal in a particular context.
Because there is no easy way to map the literal meaning of an utterance into its function, both the performance and the comprehension of an illocutionary act is a highly complex matter. One utterance can have a multitude of functions, and the speaker's intent is not always clearly perceived. For instance, an utterance like 'Can you reach that book?' can count as a request to pass the book when addressed to a person sitting close to it. However, when Yao broke her collarbone and was visiting the doctor for the second time, he used this utterance as an information question to determine the extent of her recuperation. The literal meaning of 'can you ...?' in both contexts is 'are you able to ...?' but only in the utterance in the latter context is this literal meaning central. Another example of this complexity is an utterance such as 'I'm hungry'. This can be a simple statement of fact but only rarely is. It can, on occasion, even be an attempt to be excused from piano practice when produced by a child who has been told by her mother to practise. As Fraser (1975: 189) suggests, a single utterance can and often does serve a number of illocutionary acts. An addressee has to draw pragmatic inferences to know why the speaker said what she or he said. This calls for considerable pragmatic as well as linguistic ability on the part of the addressee, especially when he or she is a learner.
1.3 The Choice of Speech Act for Research
The illocutionary act of requests has been chosen for the present study for several reasons. First, and most obviously, requests are useful and occur frequently, especially among learners of a new language. Learners may get along without performing other illocutionary acts, but without requests it would be difficult to function effectively. Secondly, among the different types of speech acts that have been studied in second language research, the illocutionary act of requests has been studied most. Therefore, there is a firm framework upon which to base further study. Thirdly, requests occur in particularly useful contexts for the investigation of the development of a learner's pragmatic competence. Because requests are realised by a variety of linguistic forms (e.g. imperatives, declaratives or interrogatives), express a variety of functions or intentions, and encode the relative status of the speaker and the addressee, they create an environment in which there is substantial opportunity to examine how linguistic forms are related to intentions. Fourthly, they make use of various direct and indirect forms in accomplishing successful communication. Fifthly, a request constitutes a face-threatening act, a term introduced by Brown and Levinson (1978; 1987), and so a speaker, in order to reduce the threat and to minimise the potential face damage, will need to make use of strategies and modification. Finally, it has been said that 'requesting is close to being the prototype case of a social transaction' (Bruner et al., 1982: 93). Requests thus provide insights into many different aspects of a learner's acquisition of pragmatic skills.
1.4 The Purpose of the Study
The present longitudinal case study investigates the developmental process of one illocutionary act – requests – in a child second language learner. It does so by observing systematically a Japanese child's use of English in natural settings in Australia over a period of 17 months from the onset of her second language learning.
The purpose of this study is to examine how and to what extent the child learns to realise requests in her second language over time. In so doing, it is hoped to contribute to our understanding of the pragmatic development of the learner's interlanguage, about which we know very little, as stated in Section 1.1.
1.5 The Organisation of the Book
After these introductory remarks, Chapter 2 will review the pertinent literature on pragmatic development, specifically as it is seen in requests. Much of the literature reviewed will be on L1 children's acquisition of requests, since there is a rich literature in this area. The chapter concludes with the research questions for this study. The following chapter describes the subject, the data collection procedures, and the coding scheme of the study.
In Chapters 4 through 8, the results are reported and discussed, with each chapter addressing a specific question. Chapter 4 traces the emergence of strategies and the various linguistic exponents used in the performance of requests. A detailed examination is made of direct and conventionally indirect strategies. Chapter 5 focuses on another strategic resource that forms a special category – the use of hints. In Chapters 6 and 7, we will look at variations in the use of requests, examining the extent to which Yao's requests vary with situational contexts, in particular with request goals and addressees. Chapter 6 attempts to identify the relationships between the goals of requests and their realisation, while Chapter 7 examines the relationships between addressees and request realisation. In Chapter 8, the focus shifts from strategies and linguistic forms to another dimension of request realisation – modification.
The final chapter synthesises the results detailed in Chapters 4 through 8 and presents the conclusions.
CHAPTER 2A Review of the Literature
2.0 Introduction
As noted in Chapter 1, most of the studies of interlanguage pragmatics have focused on second language use rather than pragmatic development. Consequently, much of the research on requests deals with the extent to which and the ways in which the pragmatic knowledge of L2 learners differs from that of native speakers of the target language; or it makes comparisons between learners with different languages and cultural backgrounds with respect to their pragmatic knowledge of requests. Much of the research has been cross-sectional and has not focused on the interlanguage development of requests. There have only been a few longitudinal studies and thus we know little about how L2 learners realise requests and what kind of developmental path their acquisition follows. In contrast, in first child language research, there is a comprehensive literature on the development of such pragmatic knowledge. It is on this literature, concerning L1 children, that we will concentrate in this chapter in order to provide a framework for investigating the L2 child's development of requests. The literature from cross-sectional studies on L2 adult learners will, however, be reviewed briefly, in order to document findings relevant to the present study. The longitudinal studies of children and of one adult acquiring an L2 will be looked at closely.
In this chapter, after defining requests and their direct and indirect strategies, we will review the relevant cross-sectional and longitudinal L2 studies. Then we will examine the development of L1 children's request realisations, including the variation in their request behaviour as they are influenced by social factors. Finally, two studies on the relationship between request behaviour and its goals will be looked at, one ethnographic, the other of a bilingual classroom.
2.1 Defining Requests
Since the terms 'request' and 'directive' have been used inconsistently in the literature, the term 'request', as it will be used in the present study, requires a careful definition.
Searle (1976), in his theoretical study, distinguishes five basic speech acts: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations. He defines 'directives', the most studied major category, as 'attempts by the speakers to get the hearer to do something' (1976: 11). The verbs that evoke this category, according to him, are 'ask', 'order', 'command', 'request', 'beg', 'plead', 'pray', 'entreat', as well as 'invite', 'permit', and 'advise'. These illocutionary verbs differ in the degree to which they mark the intensity of the act (e.g. 'I ask that you clean up the room.' vs. 'I order that you clean up the room.'). However, in Searle's taxonomy (1969), 'order' and 'command' are categorised under 'request'. There are others who have also treated these illocutionary verbs under the category of 'request' (e.g. Fraser (1975); House and Kasper (1987)).
The terms 'request' and 'directive' also have been inconsistently employed in empirical studies, some researchers equating requests with directives and using the terms interchangeably. For example, Ervin-Tripp (1976; 1977) employs a label 'directives' and divides directives into six types: need statements, imperatives, embedded imperatives, permission directives, question directives, and hints. Her classification scheme has been widely used in studies of L1 children's requests. Gordon and Ervin-Tripp (1984) adopt the same classification system but use the term 'request' instead of 'directive'. Wolfson (1989), citing Ervin-Tripp's classification, also equates directives with requests. However, many researchers see 'requests' as a subtype of 'directives' (e.g. Andersen, 1978; James, 1978; Schmidt, 1983), while yet others see 'directives' as a subtype of 'requests' and define directives as requests for action (e.g. Read & Cherry, 1978; McTear, 1980). A broader definition of requests is provided by Becker (1982):
... 'request' refers inclusively to an utterance that is intended to indicate the speaker's desire to regulate the behaviour of the listener – that is, to get the listener to do something. (Becker, 1982: 1)
According to this definition, what Searle (1976) has labelled a 'directive' is called a 'request'. Becker (1982), on the other hand, suggests, a 'request' is more common and less manipulative when compared with the term 'directive'. For this reason we will use the term 'request' instead of 'directive' for such a speech act and define 'requests' as 'attempts by the speakers to get the hearer to do something' (following Searle (1976: 11) and his definition of directives). They may range in illocutionary force from 'ordering' to 'begging'.
2.2 Direct Strategies, Conventionally Indirect Strategies and Nonconventionally Indirect Strategies
Requests, as defined above, can be made at different levels of directness.
2.2.1 Direct vs. indirect strategies
According to speech act theory the same act can be performed either directly or indirectly. Direct strategies are defined as utterances in which the propositional content (sentence meaning) of the utterance is consistent with the speaker's intent (speaker meaning) (Holtgraves, 1986), while indirect strategies are defined as utterances in which the speaker's meaning and the propositional content are not identical. Thus direct strategies convey only one meaning or illocutionary force, while indirect strategies convey more than one (H. Clark, 1979). For direct strategies a speaker's intention is explicit. In contrast, with indirect strategies his or her intention is conveyed implicitly. According to Holtgraves, intentions in direct strategies are conveyed more efficiently and unambiguously. However efficient and unambiguous such strategies might be, they can be awkward when used in ordinary conversation. For example, when you want to borrow money from a friend, you may seek an indirect way to pursue your illocutionary goal, saying, 'Could you lend me some money?' or 'Do you have any spare cash?' rather than using an imperative such as, 'Lend me some money'. It is generally agreed that indirect strategies are used for the sake of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1978; 1987; H. Clark, 1979; H. Clark & Schunk, 1980; R. Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983; Searle, 1975), with Searle (1975: 64) suggesting that 'politeness is the chief motivation for indirectness'. Leech (1983: 108) argues that 'indirect illocutions tend to be more polite' because of their optionality. However, Blum-Kulka (1987) and Gibbs (1983) have demonstrated that the indirect strategies that are conventional or formulaic have politeness values associated with them and are perceived as polite, noting that all the indirect strategies are not always so perceived.
2.2.2 The two types of indirect strategies
In the speech act literature we find two types of indirectness: one uses conventionally indirect strategies and the other makes use of nonconventionally indirect strategies. The latter are known as hints.
2.2.2.1 Conventionally indirect strategies
Searle (1975) states in relation to conventional indirectness:
... there can be conventions of usage ... I am suggesting that can you, could you, I want you to, and numerous other forms are conventional ways of making requests, ... but at the same time they do not have an imperative meaning. (Searle, 1975: 76)
H. Clark (1979) distinguishes between two types of convention in indirectness: conventions of means and conventions of form, which comprise what Searle (1975) calls conventions of usage. Conventions of means determine the semantic device by which an indirect request can be made. For example, a convention of means is used when a speaker makes a request indirectly by questioning the hearer's ability, such as in 'Can you close the door?'. The conventions of form specify the exact wording used for a particular indirect request: e.g. 'Can you close the door?' or 'Could you close the door?'. Note here that 'Are you able to close the door?' is not conventional. For conventional indirectness, both types of convention shape what the speaker can do to signal requestive force.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Learning to Request in a Second Language"
by .
Copyright © 2003 Machiko Achiba.
Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Tables, Figures and Appendices, viii,
Summary, xi,
Acknowledgements, xii,
1 Introduction, 1,
2 A Review of the Literature, 5,
3 Methodology, 27,
4 Development of Request Realisation, 42,
5 Requestive Hints, 74,
6 Variation in Use: Request Goals, 93,
7 Variation in Use: Addresses, 120,
8 Modification, 131,
9 Summary and Conclusions, 172,
References, 191,
Appendices, 200,
Index, 220,