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. 2835)
• First language pragmatic development, which
  comprises a substantial literature (p. 28).
• Note studies on childrens development of
  requests (Gordon and Ervin-Tripp, 1984) and
  acquisition of politeness in L1 (Ervin-Tripp,
  Guo, Lampert, 1990, among others) (pp. 2829).
• 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. 2835)
• 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. 2835)
• IL pragmatics, cross-sectional studies (cont)
• Hill (1997), Japanese English learners, heavier
  reliance on direct requests in low-proficiency
  group than in high-proficiency group (p. 34).
• Roses 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. 2835)
• e. Questions (p. 35)

6
7

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Collection (pp. 3639)
• 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. 3639)
• 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. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• request strategies in English (Table 1, p. 40)

Direct Give me your notes. Conv.
indirectCan I borrow your notes?
9
10
10
11

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Analysis (pp. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• request strategies in Cantonese (Table 7, p. 46)

11
12
12
13
13
14

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Analysis (pp. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• 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. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• 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. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• supportive moves (p. 43)

16
17

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Analysis (pp. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• 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. 4055)
• requests (pp. 4047)
• 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. 4055)
• apologies (pp. 4751)

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. 4055)
• apologies (pp. 4751)
• apology adjuncts are a different story (p. 47).
• Adjuncts include intensifiers (Im very / so
  sorry), taking responsibility, offering
  explanation, offering repair, and so on. Table
  10, p. 48.

20
21
(No Transcript)
22

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Analysis (pp. 4055)
• apologies (pp. 4751)
• 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 offers 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. 4055)
• compliment responses (pp. 5155)
• 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. 4055)
• compliment responses (pp. 5155)

24
25

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Analysis (pp. 4055)
• compliment responses (pp. 5155)
• 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. 5253) see Table 15, p. 53.

25
26
26
27

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Data Analysis (pp. 4055)
• compliment responses (pp. 5155)
• situational variance / sociopragmatic competence
  there is little evidence of situational
  variation in the compliment responses (p. 54).
• conclusion the increase in frequency and range
  of complement response adjunct strategies used
  by the P-6 group adds to the evidence for
  development patterns in interlanguage pragmatics
  (pp. 5253).

27
28

• Interlanguage Development Pragmatics Rose
• Conclusion (pp. 5556)
• 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. 5556)
• 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