2.2　Interlanguage pragmatics

The study of the learner language has been a growing concern in pragmatics.The pragmatic perspectiveon the learner language leads to the birth of a new interdiscipline，interlanguage pragmatics (ILP).As a newly arising subject in the 1980s，interlanguage pragmatics(ILP)was then regarded as a second-generation hybrid of two different disciplines，SLA[1]and pragmatics，both of which are interdisciplinary.As a branch of SLA，ILP is one of several specializations in interlanguage studies，contrasting with interlanguage phonology，morphology，syntax，and semantics.As a subset of pragmatics，ILP figures as a sociolinguistic，psycholinguistic，or simply linguistic enterprise，depending on how one defines the scope of pragmatics.Below are some definitions：

1.ILP is the investigation of nonnative speakers' comprehension and production of speech acts，and the acquisition of L2-related speech act knowledge(Kasper & Dahl，1991：215).

2.ILP is the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language(Kasper & Blum-Kalka，1993：3).

3.ILP is the study of nonnative speakers' comprehension，production and acquisition of linguistic action in L2，or，put briefly，ILP investigates“how to do things with words”in a second language(Kasper，1998：184).

4.ILP is the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge(Kasper & Rose，1999：81).

Underlying thefour definitions above are three basic points.First，ILP is universally concerned with nonnative speakers，which implicates the existence of interference(both negative transfer and positive transfer)in the target language learning and intercultural communication.Second，it is concerned with language in use，i.e.with linguistic actions and speech acts，which has noted the focus and trend of ILP research.Third，as the term itself sug-gests，ILP research should concentrate on both learner's use and acquisition of pragmatic knowledge or the teachability of pragmatics.

ILP has thus far made some achievements in investigating the IL performance with either intercultural or developmental focus，for example，the CCSARP(Cross-Cultural Speech Acts Realization Projects)(1989)，Kasper & Blum-Kulka(1993)，Rose & Kasper(2001)，Kasper & Rose(2002)，Barron(2003)，to cite a few.In brief，ILP research in the 1990s covers eight topics：(1)learners' target language(TL)pragmatic comprehension；(2)their pragmatic production in TL；(3)the formulation and development of TL pragmatic competence；(4)L1-L2 pragmatic transfer；(5)the communicative effects of L1-L2 pragmatic transfer；(6)the choice of a pragmatic norm；(7)the role of teaching in the development of L2 pragmatic competence；and(8)the methodology of ILP research.There have been concerns about all the outlined dimensions in mainstream ILP research，yet not all the issues have been investigated with the same profundity and adequacy.Derived from the above cited eight issues，ILP researchers in the past few years have looked into as many as 12 research questions，i.e.(1)pragmatic universals underlying crosslinguistic varieties and its role in ILP(Kasper，1994；Maeshiba et al.，1996)；(2)the approximation testing between IL and TL (Kasper & Dahl，1991；Rose，1994；Hudson et al.，1995；Kasper，1995)；(3)the influence of L1 pragmatic knowledge on the acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge(Kasper，1992；Takahashi，1992)；(4)the contrast between adults' and children's SL pragmatic acquisition(Bialystok，1993；Kasper，1996)；(5)the issue of development order in SL pragmatic acquisition (Beebe et al.，1990；Robinson，1992；Ellis，1992；Sawyer，1992；Weizman，1993)；(6)the relation of language input types in teaching to SL pragmatic acquisition(Kitao，1990)；(7)the related study of the influence of classroom teaching on SL pragmatic development(Sharwood-Smith，1994；Wildner-Bassett，1994)；(8)the relation of learners' motivation and attitudes to L2 pragmatic development(Thompson，1991；Ehrman & Oxford，1995；Trembley & Gardner，1995)；(9)the relation of learners' individual characteristics to L2 pragmatic acquisition (Kasper，1996)；(10)the influence of gender differences on L2 pragmatic acquisition(Kereks，1992)；(11)the order issue between L2 pragmatic interpretation and production(Schmidt，1993；Kasper，1996)；and(12)the influence of the conventional expression forms on the formation and development of L2 pragmatic knowledge(Ellis，1992；Sawyer，1992；Kasper，1994；Wildner-Bassett，1994).And it has been repeatedly reported that(1)inadequate comprehension about the conventions of forms in TL performance of linguistic action occurs to all learners regardless of their TL proficiency；(2)the differences between learners' and native speakers' sociopragmatic perceptions of comparable speech events are systematically correlated to their differences in performing a speech act；(3)pragmatic transfer is evident among all learners regardless of their TL pragmatic proficiency；(4)learners turn out to be more indirect and verbose in less controlled speech situations；and(5)there is a need to study the instrument for data collection.

The past two decades have witnessed an increase in ILP research and a shift of research focus from use to acquisition.And it is obvious that most research questions and the earlier methodology of ILP have stemmed from cross-cultural pragmatics rather than from second language research.As Kasper & Blum-Kulka admit，“the bulk of ILP research focuses on nonnative speakers' use of pragmatic knowledge in comprehension and production，rather than on development”(1993：10).Similar comments on such a bias can be found in relevant literature below：

...compared to the large body of research on nonnative speakers' use of pragmatic knowledge，few studies have examined the acquisition of pragmatic competence by adult nonnative speakers ...To date，ILP has been primarily a study of second language use rather than second language learning.

——Kasper & Schmidt，1996：149 -150

The study of how L2-related speech act knowledge is acquired is more of desideratum than a reality ...Not only，［is］interlanguage pragmatics not fundamentally acquisitional，but it ［is］in fact，fundamentally not acquisitional ...

——Bardovi-Harlig，1999a：678 -679

...the pragmatics of nonnative speakers has predominantly been studied as an issue of second language use，not development.

——Kasper & Rose，2002：1

...development issues have remained largely neglected in interlanguage pragmatics.

——Barron，2003：27

Several reasons may account for the state of affairs.First of all，this bias may be partly due to the theoretical root of ILP.The mature methodology of contrastive and intercultural(its denotation different from“cross-cultural”will be discussed in section 2.3)pragmatics which bases themselves on the universality and cultural differences may provide convenience for pragmatic comprehension and production studies.Secondly，the research focuses in SLA have long been the formal properties of language in which universal grammar has a significant role rather than language use in communication.In addition，the difficulty in collecting developmental data may be partly responsible.A longitudinal research，which involves long-period observations of the same participants，is ideal but time-consuming；while cross-sectional studies，though quick to conduct，is difficult to control the subject variations.Thus the pragmatic study of interlanguage development is still in its infancy (Yang，2006：8).

However，in recent years，increasing importance has been attached to the understanding of interlanguage developmental patterns and factors influencing interlanguage pragmatic development(Trosberg，1995；Rose，2000；Rose & Kasper，2001；Kasper & Rose，2002；Barron，2003).The issues of acquisitional ILP research cover a series of questions different from intercultural studies.For instance，Kasper and Schmidt(1996)proposed 14 questions about ILP，which include L2 norms，development stages and route，the role of L1 influence，input，instruction and individual factors，etc.So far，these issues have been addressed in literature to different degrees.For instance，Kasper & Rose(2002)have systematically addressed the issue of pragmatic comprehension，the relationship between pragmatic transfer and development，the relationship between interlanguage pragmatic and grammatical development，pragmatic development in different learning contexts，the role of instruction，and finally，the role of individual factors in pragmatic development which has received little attention.

ILP research has also demonstrated two basic distributional features.One is that most researches have been launched in the United States，Israel，Germany，and the United Kingdom.The other is that most reported studies have based their findings on a meticulous examination of a limited number of speech acts.In contrast with the global ILP research，ILP studies in China appear late on the scene，though there have been sporadic discussions before the introduction of interlanguage pragmatics as either a term or an independent field of learning，and the weaknesses in China's ILP research can be illustrated by limited research findings and research topics(Liu，1997a).However，China's prospect in ILP research is also prebestowed with advantages in terms of its research environment and conditions.Considering that the majority of the researches are conducted in ESL setting from the theoretical perspective，this research attempts to investigate in detail Chinese ethnic English majors' ILP competence and to establish its development model with corresponding strategies.