2.4 Interlanguage Pragmatics

In learning a new language，learners build up a language system which is to some extend different from their first language（L1），second language（L2），or third language（L3）systems. This new system built up in the process of language learning is what “interlanguage” about（Selinker，1972）. Interlanguage puts an emphasis on the structurally intermediate status of the learner’s language system between his mother tongue and the target language. Interlanguage refers to the following（Larsen-Freeman & Long，2000，p. 60）：

…a continuum between the L1 and L2 along which all learners traverses. At any point along the continuum，the learners’ language is systematic，i.e. rule-governed，and common to all learners，any difference being explicable by differences in their learning experience.

As a point along a continuum，although a learner’s interlanguage is neither identical to L1 or L2，it shares some characteristics of both. Elements of the mother tongue，including politeness rules and formulae may be transferred to the interlanguage. Interlanguage operates by approaching to an incomplete and developing hypothesis of appropriate L2.Although systematic，it is also naturally transitory.

The learner language has aroused a growing interest for linguists. A new inter-discipline，interlanguage pragmatics，is born with the heated studies on the pragmatic perspective on the learner language. Arising in the 1980s，interlanguage pragmatics is considered as a second-generation hybrid of two different disciplines，second language acquisition（SLA）and pragmatics，and both of them are interdisciplinary.

Ma（2010）argued that interlanguage pragmatics is one of the several specializations in interlanguage studies，contrasting with interlanguage phonology，interlanguage morphology，interlanguage syntax，and interlanguage semantics. Interlanguage phonology cares about the factors which are relevant to language learning in general as well as to the development of phonological skills in L2（Major，1994）. Interlanguage morphology concerns the knowledge of how accurately a morpheme is used and how early it is learned（Dulay & Burt，1974）. Interlanguage syntax is the study concerning the understanding of the processes involved in acquiring the syntax structures of L2，in which the generalizations and approximations of target language（TL），language transfer，and language universals need to be paid attention to（Gass，1984）. Interlanguage semantics covers the studies in the five aspects：1）understanding “information packaging” and how it works in interlanguage；2）understanding “conversational implicature”；3）understanding the ability to perform referential tasks；4）understanding how “semantic networks” are created and persisted in interlanguage；5）paraphrasing relations in interlanguage（Selinker，2016）. As a subset of pragmatics，interlanguage pragmatics is regarded as a sociolinguistic，psycholinguistic，or simply linguistic enterprise，depending on how people define the scope of pragmatics.

Interlanguage pragmatics investigates L2 learners’ developing knowledge and ability in the use of pragmatic rules and conventions as well as practices of the target language（Kasper，1998）. Interlanguage pragmatics denotes the systematic but transient nature of language learners’ pragmatic knowledge of the target language. It implies the factors that have been identified to have influence on SLA research may affect interlanguage systems：transfer，simplification，overgeneralization，amount and quality of input，attention，awareness，motivation，aptitude，and so on（Selinker，1972；Kasper，1995；Kasper & Schmidt，1996）.

2.4.1 Definition of Interlanguage Pragmatics

Interlanguage pragmatics is “the study of nonnative speakers’ comprehension，production and acquisition of linguistic action in L2，or，put briefly，interlanguage pragmatics investigates ‘how to do things with words’ in a second language”（Kasper，1998，p.184）.

The definition of interlanguage pragmatics indicates that the main concern of it has been on “linguistic action” in L2.Interlanguage pragmatics is normally concerned with nonnative speakers and emphasizes the L2 learners’ acquisition of the target language. In addition，it cares about language learners’ comprehending，producing and conducting of speech acts and other linguistic actions.

2.4.2 Domains of Interlanguage Pragmatics

Generally speaking，the studies on interlanguage pragmatic are composed of the following four domains：pragmatic comprehension，development of pragmatic competence，pragmatic transfer and communicative effect（Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993）.

（1）Pragmatic Comprehension. Studies on pragmatic comprehension can be found in language learners’ attribution of illocutionary force and their perception of politeness（Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993）. The former is the central concern of SLA in the end of 70s and 80s. The center of the research on the attribution of illocutionary force has been on the comprehension of indirect speech acts，the role of linguistic form，context information，factors contributing to pragmatic comprehension，and learner variables affecting illocutionary force attribution. Correl（1979）pointed out that good L2 learners can make full use of their inferential ability in comprehending indirect speech acts. The findings expose that linguistic forms，learner variables，context，and cultural background are the factors which have influence on language learners’ pragmatic comprehension（Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993）. The latter focuses on the learners’ comprehension of pragmalinguistic information and sociolinguistic information，especially the level of politeness in conducting different speech acts. Kasper & Blum-Kulka（1993）mentioned that advanced language learners can distinguish the level of politeness based on the rules of the target language，but the difference between them and native speakers does exist.

（2）Development of Pragmatic Competence. The relationship between language proficiency and pragmatic competence is a major concern to the development of pragmatic competence. In previous studies，some studies did not find the proficiency affects learners’ pragmatic competence（Hoffman-Hicks，1992；Liu，2004，2012；Takahashi，2005），whereas others did（Yamanaka，2003；Garcia，2004；Xu，Case & Wang，2009；Soo，2013；Naoko，2013）. However，developmental effects are observable in language learners’ repertoires of modality markers and pragmatic routines（Scarcella，1979；Trosborg，1987）.

（3）Pragmatic Transfer. Pragmatic transfer refers to the process by which language learners choose certain forms and strategies from their mother tongue in their interlanguage. Two types of pragmatic transfer can be found：pragmalinguistic transfer and sociopragmatic transfer. Pragmalinguistic transfer refers to the influence of the illocutionary force or politeness value embedded in a particular linguistic material of native language on the learners’ production and perception of forms in the target language（Kasper，1992）. Sociopragmatic transfer focuses on how the learners’ perceptions of contextual variables and social relationships in native language decide whether to perform a particular illocution or not. Although the distinction is clear by the definitions，the two concepts are interrelated and normally difficult to identify in practice（Kasper，1992）.

Learners’ native language and their cultural background can influence performance in learning the target language either positively or negatively. Positive influence may occur when specific conventions in language use are non-universally accepted but shared between the native language and the target language（Kasper，1992）；Negative influence may occur when the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge based on the native language is projected onto the contexts of the target language and different from the pragmatic behaviors and perceptions of the target language（Kasper，1992）. Ellis（1999）mentioned that errors，facilitation，avoidance and overuse are the manifestations of language transfer. Thus，positive transfer has received little attention while negative transfer has been frequently noticed and studied.

（4）Communicative Effect. Communicative failure can be caused by the deviations from target language norms. Learners with higher levels of L2 proficiency may achieve a success in communication，but they still have possibilities of pragmatic failure（Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993）. “Pragmatic failure is neither easily recognizable by interlocutors without training in pragmatics，nor explained away by recognizing the speaker as nonnative”（Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993，p.13）.

Blum-Kulka & Olshtain（1986）pointed out that pragmatic failure is closely related to cultural variability while implementing conversations. Pragmatic failure reveals the inability to use language appropriately and to understand correctly what is meant by what is said（Thomas，1983）. Thomas（1983）indicated that the possibility of pragmatic failure could be on any occasion if the forces of the speaker’s utterances are perceived by the hearer in a way different from the speaker’s intention. Research from the acquisitional perspective has revealed that internal factors，including pragmatic overgeneralization，interlingual influence and teaching-induced errors，external factors including learning context，learner-specific input and the like，may cause pragmatic failure（Ma，2010）.

Thomas（1983）distinguished two kinds of “pragmatic failure”—pragmalin-guistic failure and sociopragmatic failure，based on the distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics（Leech，1983）. Pragmalinguistic failure refers to the deviation from the target norm for a specified speech act，and sociopragmatic failure is the failure in performing the required speech act in a certain context（Thomas，1983）. According to Thomas（1983），pragmalinguisitc failure is basically a linguistic problem，resulting from the differences in the linguistic interpretation of pragmatic force，while sociopragmatic failure stems from the cross-cultural differences in perceptions related to appropriate linguistic behavior.

There is no clear-cut in the distinction between pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. The same pragmatic failure may include both a pragmalinguistic failure and a sociopragmatic failure from different perspectives. Thomas（1983）demonstrated that even advanced language learners cannot avoid pragmatic errors in communicative acts；they may not succeed in conveying the expected politeness values or illocutionary force.

Indeed，research on interlanguage pragmatics aims to understand and explain what stands in the middle of learners’ ability to comprehend and produce pragmatic meaning. Studies have focused on such features as the following（Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993，pp.4-9）：

1.Attribution of illocutionary force；

2.Perception of politeness and of indirectness；

3.The role of linguistic form versus contextual information；

4.The impact of the L1 background and of stereotypes of L2 language behavior；

5.The processing of conventional and conversational implicature；

6.The perception of such sociopragmatic features as social status and weight of imposition.

In general，ILP researches have made some achievements in the past 30 years. The previous researches have investigated the following topics：1）the development of ILP competence（Ellis，1992；Sawyer，1992；Weizman，1993；House，2013），2）pragmatic transfer（Kasper，1992；Takahashi，1992），3）the teachability of L2 pragmatics（Kitao，1990；Kasper，1997；Judd，1999；Kasper & Rose，2001；Koike & Pearson，2005；Takimoto，2008），4）the relationship between the individual variables，such as age（Bialystok，1993；Kasper，1996），gender（Kereks，1992），characteristics（Kasper，1996），motivation and attitudes（Thompson，1991；Ehrman & Oxford，1995；Tremblay & Gardner，1995），language proficiency（Matsumura，2003）and ILP competence，5）web-based learning and teaching of pragmatics（Belz & Vyatkina，2005；Belz，2007），and 6）ILP research methods（Kasper & Dahl，1991；Rose，1994b；Hudson，Detmer and Brown，1995；Kasper，1995，Rover，2005；Duan，2012）.