Interlanguage pragmatics 1

This is the accepted version of the article referenced below.

This article may be used for non-commercial purposes.

Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (eds.),

The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 153–167). Oxford/New York: Routledge.

Introduction Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), a branch of second language acquisition (SLA),

examines second language (L2) learners' knowledge, use, and development in performing

sociocultural functions. L2 learners need linguistic forms and skills to perform everyday social

functions in the target language. At the same time, because our way of speaking is determined by

context – to whom we are talking and under what circumstances, learners need to know which

forms are appropriate to use in what situations. Hence, linguistic knowledge and sociocultural

knowledge of social conventions, customs, and norms of interaction are two layers of pragmatic

competence. The process of learning these knowledge bases, individual variation between

learners in the process, and factors affecting the process are the focal objects of inquiry in ILP

research.

The original definition of ILP goes back to Kasper and Dahl (1991: 216), who stated that

‘interlanguage pragmatics will be defined in a narrow sense, referring to non-native speakers’

(NNSs’) comprehension and production of speech acts, and how their L2-related speech act

knowledge is acquired’. This definition has since evolved to reflect a more holistic concept of

language use in social interaction. Kasper and Rose (2003), for instance, claim that ILP examines

how nonnative speakers comprehend and produce actions in a target language, and how L2

learners develop the ability to understand and perform actions in a target language. More

recently, Bardovi-Harlig (2010: 219) underlines that pragmatics and pragmatic acquisition in ILP
 Interlanguage pragmatics 2

encompasses both form and use . She writes: ‘[pragmatics] bridges the gap between the system

side of language and the use side, and relates both of them at the same time. Interlanguage

pragmatics brings the study of acquisition to this mix of structure and use’

Corresponding to the increasing body of definitions of ILP, the scope and number of empirical

studies in the field has expanded over time. This article surveys major findings from the 1980s to

2015. It first describes changes in the theoretical construct of pragmatic competence and

illustrates the shift in the conceptualisation of pragmatic abilities from an individual- to an

interaction-oriented view. This section concludes with a new conceptualisation of pragmatic

competence, which reflects the notion of the intercultural speaker. Following this, a historical

sketch of ILP research since the 1980s is presented by surveying common research topics across

time periods. I will explain in this section how cross-linguistic studies dominated the field in the

1980s and 1990s, and how the research focus in the 1990s shifted to the instruction and

assessment of pragmatic competence. In the same period, the body of longitudinal studies

directly addressing acquisitional pragmatics expanded and moved away from the dominant

practice of cross-sectional investigation prominent up to that time. The first decade and a half of

this century saw a further growth of instructional, assessment, and acquisitional research,

characterised as a more explicit application of mainstream SLA theories to ILP studies. These

changes will be illustrated by summarising key studies in each period, and the paper will

conclude with directions for future research.

 Interlanguage pragmatics 3

Definitions of pragmatic competence This section describes how the conceptualisation of

pragmatic competence has evolved over time, shifting from the individualistic view to more

interactional and intercultural understanding of that competence.

Pragmatic competence in models of communicative competence The concept of pragmatic

competence originated in Dell Hymes’ theoretical model of communicative competence. Hymes

(1972) claimed that language knowledge entails both grammatical knowledge and sociocultural

knowledge that determine the appropriateness of language use in context. Drawing on Hymes’

insight, several models of L2 communicative competence emerged in the field in the 1980s and

1990s (Bachman 1990; Bachman and Palmer 1996, 2010; Canale and Swain 1980). These

models emphasised the multidimensionality of language ability, and situated pragmatic

competence as a requisite component within the model. Canale and Swain’s (1980) model was a

forerunner in this trend, maintaining that successful communication entails an efficient

integration of grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competencies.

Canale and Swain’s model, however, did not sufficiently distinguish between sociolinguistic and

pragmatic competence, nor did it explicitly articulate pragmatic competence within the model.

Pragmatic competence was part of sociolinguistic competence, which involves the ability to

interpret and produce an utterance in context. Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996,

2010) more fully developed pragmatic competence as a competence in its own right. In Bachman

and Palmer's (1996, 2010) framework, language knowledge consists of organisational knowledge

and pragmatic knowledge. Organisational knowledge in this framework dealt with formal aspects

of language (grammar and textual aspects), whereas pragmatic knowledge concerned language
 Interlanguage pragmatics 4

use in relation to language users and language use settings. Two types of pragmatic knowledge

were distinguished, namely functional knowledge, which enables us to interpret relationships

between utterances and the communicative goals of language users (e.g., knowledge of how to

perform the speech act of request), and sociolinguistic knowledge, which enables us to interpret

or create utterances that are appropriate to specific language use settings (e.g., which forms to

use to make a request in situation).

Pragmatic competence in interaction

A characteristic of these early models of communicative competence is that they treated

pragmatic competence as a psycholinguistic ability that exists within individuals as a stable trait,

independent from context. In later research, pragmatic competence has been incorporated into a

broader conceptual framework that focuses on the dynamic and dialogic aspects of

communication. Most notable in this trend is the emergence of interactional competence as an

alternative to the traditional models of communicative competence (Young 2011). Interactional

competence views language knowledge and ability as locally situated and jointly constructed by

participants in discourse. To this end, ability and context are connected. Learners’ resources are

not set in advance but are dependent on the specifics of the dynamic social context.

Traditionally, research in pragmatics assumed a one-to-one correspondence between an utterance

and force. For instance, the speech act of request is often associated with conventional forms,

such as ‘could you’ and ‘may I’. Traditional ILP practice has been to identify those linguistic

forms and semantic moves that convey illocutionary force in a particular language, and compare

these with learners’ forms in order to determine a learner’s level of pragmatic competence. An
 Interlanguage pragmatics 5

example of this trend is seen in the popularity of the discourse completion test (DCT) used to

assess pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig 2010, 2013). In the DCT, participants read a

situational scenario and produce a speech act (e.g., request) given in the scenario. Hence, the

DCT can elicit participant’s knowledge of normative speech act expressions, but it does not tell

us much about their speech act performance.

In contrast to what is assumed in the DCT task, in reality, a speech act is not a pre-planned

action, nor does it occur in isolation from discursive context. It arises in the course of

conversation through participants' mutual understandings of the topic and through reactions to

each other's contribution to the ongoing discourse. Indeed, the conventional forms of request

may or may not appear in the speech act, depending on how a conversation unfolds. Instead,

non-linguistic forms (e.g., facial expressions, intonation and pause) may convey the request

intention. Or the intention may be negotiated among participants over multiple turns and jointly

constructed in interaction. Traditionally, ILP has disregarded the interactive and dynamic nature

of a speech act that emerges from the interplay of context, action and linguistic resources. In

general, learners’ pragmatic competence has been examined only in predictable contexts by

using an instrument such as DCT, with the focus only on the linguistic forms used to convey a

particular illocution. Learners’ ability to adapt and reciprocate in a changing context has been

simply discounted.

The notion of a changing and sequential context is, however, fundamental to the understanding

of interactional competence. Interactional competence involves a variety of resources that

learners bring to the joint construction of discourse and meaning making. These resources
 Interlanguage pragmatics 6

include knowledge of rhetorical scripts, lexis and syntax specific to the practice, the turn-taking

system, topic management, repair and recognition and production of boundaries between speech

activities (e.g., Kasper 2006; Young 2011).

The contribution of interactional competence to ILP is evident in the recent use of

Conversational Analysis (CA) to study action, meaning and context. CA utilises the emic

approach to analyse talk-in-interaction to reveal how participants co-construct an action

sequentially in turns, and design their turns to jointly accomplish the activity at hand (Kasper

2006). CA has started to make inroads into ILP, as seen in a growing number of studies that have

analysed L2 pragmatics behaviour from a CA perspective (e.g., Al-Gahtani and Roever 2014;

Flores- Ferrán and Lovejoy 2015; also see Ross and Kasper 2013, on assessment of L2

pragmatics in interaction).

Indeed, the concept of interactional competence closely aligns with contemporary definitions of

pragmatics, the other parent discipline of ILP besides SLA. For instance, LoCastro (2003: 15)

defines pragmatics as ‘the study of speaker and hearer meaning created in their joint actions that

include both linguistic and non-linguistic signals in the context of socioculturally organised

activities’. This definition points to the primary object of study in pragmatics – speaker-hearer

interaction in a socioculturally-bounded act. Interactional competence compliments this practice

by providing concrete frameworks and empirical means to analysing a pragmatic act in a situated

interaction.

Pragmatic competence in intercultural communication

 Interlanguage pragmatics 7

Up to this, I have discussed pragmatic competence within SLA, focusing on the origin of the

theoretical construct and its evolution from ‘pragmatics-within-individuals’ to ‘pragmatics-in-

interaction-in-context.’ However, the more recent view of pragmatic competence in social

interaction also has a synergy with the field of intercultural communication, which studies

intercultural interaction as a cultural practice (Kecskes 2014) (for a review, see Taguchi and

Roever, 2017). In intercultural interaction, communication is always a dynamic process wherein

collaboration and negotiation constantly take place to the goal of mutual understanding among

speakers from different cultures. Interactants’ interactional competence is at stake, and

conversation skills including knowledge of turn-taking and adjacency pairs, topic management,

repairs, and paralinguistic activities are directly related to the goal of mutual understanding.

The complexity of intercultural interaction lies in the fact that these skills are often culturally

specific, and speakers bring their own norms to communication. Recent research on lingua

franca communication has revealed that participants constantly negotiate interactional norms,

standards of politeness and directness, communication styles and cultural conventions as

interactions unfold (e.g., Kecskes 2014, Cogo and House this volume). Participants either

interpret others based on their own L1 conventions or create a whole new standard of

communication.

Intercultural competence is broadly defined as ‘a complex of abilities needed to perform

effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally

different from oneself’ (Fantini 2006: 12). Some models of intercultural competence focus on

stages of development by defining intercultural competence as the ability to move from an

 Interlanguage pragmatics 8

ethnocentric to an ethnorelative worldview (Bennett and Bennett 2004). Others emphasise a

specific set of elements that form the basis of one’s potential to succeed in intercultural

encounters. For example, Byram (1997) proposes five aspects of intercultural competence:

attitudes, knowledge, skills of interpreting and relating, skills of discovery and interaction and

critical cultural awareness.

Language competence is recognised as the core of intercultural competence, as shown in its

explicit mention in many of the models. Fantini (2012), for instance, stresses the importance of

language proficiency in intercultural competence, arguing that developing intercultural

competence with language competence promotes full access to a new culture. Similarly, under

the term intercultural speaker, Byram (2012: 89) emphasises that being and acting interculturally

involves ‘both intercultural competence and linguist/communicative competence, in any task of

mediation where two distinct languacultures are present.’

Despite this recognition, curiously, the fields of intercultural studies and linguistic studies have

developed separately. None of the models of intercultural competence provide detailed

descriptions or linguistic analyses of intercultural interaction to point out what linguistic abilities

are needed for successful intercultural communication. Similarly, despite the extensive literature

on the models of communicative competence, the concept of intercultural competence is largely

absent from linguistic research. Recent literature has noted this separatism and called for more

explicit integration of linguistic and intercultural competences in research and teaching (Byram

2012; Fantini 2012; Spencer-Oatey 2010).

 Interlanguage pragmatics 9

As Spencer-Oatey (2010) argues, the study of intercultural competence is clearly an area to

which pragmatics research can contribute. Pragmatics research into intercultural interaction and

lingua franca communication has revealed characteristic communication patterns in intercultural

exchanges. Pragmatic studies can provide authentic interaction data to illustrate a successful

cross-cultural interaction.

At the same time, the framework of intercultural competence can be useful for ILP in advancing

our conceptualisation of pragmatic competence. The characteristic of pragmatic competence

(e.g., ability to interact and perform language functions in context) can be situated within some

of the core constructs of intercultural competence such as communicative awareness and

intercultural empathy. Such a conceptualisation would go beyond the traditional scope of

pragmatic competence focused on how learners perform a pragmatic act in the L2 and extend the

concept to an understanding of how learners successfully participate in intercultural interaction.

Situating ILP in a broader scope of intercultural studies is timely, because in today’s multilingual

society, the goal of language learning is not to become a native speaker, but to become an

intercultural speaker who is linguistically and interculturally competent – a person who is

sensitive to other cultures and aware of his/her own cultural position to mediate across linguistic

and cultural boundaries (Byram 2012; Wilkinson 2012). Pragmatic competence can serve as a

resource that assists in this process of mediation. Reconceptualising pragmatic competence to

reflect this notion of the intercultural speaker will elevate the practice of ILP research from SLA

matters alone to the area of global citizenship. At the same time, pragmatic insights into

intercultural interaction will help move beyond the current practice of description of intercultural
 Interlanguage pragmatics 10

competence to the analysis of acquisition of that competence. We look forward to future

interdisciplinary research in this area.

Historical sketch of ILP research

This section presents a walkthrough of ILP studies from the 1980s to 2015. By reviewing the

field chronologically, I illustrate changes in primary research topics over time. My focus is on

cross-linguistic analyses of pragmatic behaviours, longitudinal studies, and instructional studies

in ILP.

Cross-linguistic and cross-sectional comparisons of pragmatic behaviours

Without question, cross-linguistic studies of pragmatics dominated in the early years of ILP as

seen in a bulk of studies produced in the 1980s and 1990s that analysed pragmatic behaviours

across languages. Such studies were based on a premise that different cultures have different

ways of encoding pragmatic notions of politeness or directness into linguistic behaviours.

Although in principle all aspects of pragmatics are subject to cross-cultural comparisons,

scholarly interest in this area has concentrated on two areas, namely speech acts and politeness.

Studies compared linguistic expressions used in speech acts, and variation in the use of these

expressions corresponding to the contextual parameters of interlocutor relationships, power and

degree of imposition.

A milestone project that set a trend in this practice was the Cross-Cultural Speech Act

Realisation Project (CCSARP) by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989). The CCSARP

analyzed requests and apologies in seven languages using the discourse completion test (DCT).

By categorising speech act expressions across languages using a single coding framework, the

researchers were able to reveal culturally specific features of speech acts by investigating
 Interlanguage pragmatics 11

contrastively how many types of expressions exist in a language, which expressions are

considered direct or indirect and how they vary in different situations. The coding framework

and DCT instrument facilitated many replication studies, which provided empirical descriptions

of speech acts across cultures. This trend continues today (cf., e.g. Chen 2010; Netz and Lefstein,

2016).

These cross-linguistic findings were informative for interlanguage pragmatics analysis because

they identified areas in which L1 (first language) pragmatic behaviours differ from L2

behaviours. In fact, a major contribution of the CCSARP was that it collected data from multiple

L2 groups and analysed similarities and differences between L2 patterns and those of native

speakers. Results revealed that learners were more verbose and direct in making a request, and

used fewer syntactic downgraders than native speakers. The findings highlighted potential areas

of pragmatic failure stemming from L1-L2 differences, but also revealed a nuanced picture of L1

transfer, showing learners also to avoid transferring language-specific patterns to the L2 (Blum-

Kulka, et al., 1989).

Following this practice, subsequent studies in this period described differences between native

speakers and L2 learners in speech acts, many of which appeared in seminal books and review

articles in the 1990s (e.g., Kasper and Rose 1999). In the same period, this comparative-

descriptive practice expanded to include L2 groups of different levels of proficiency, length of

formal study and duration of residence in a target country. These in turn contributed to the

popularity of cross-sectional inquiries into pragmatic development, cross-sectional studies

contrasting data from two or more groups based on differences in proficiency level or length of
 Interlanguage pragmatics 12

residence. Any differences between groups were attributed to ‘changes’ that the learners exhibit

at different stages of their L2 learning and thus provide developmental insights. Findings

generally suggested a positive effect of proficiency and length of residence on increased

pragmatic competence (see Kasper and Rose 1999 for a review of these studies).

The scope of cross-sectional investigation has expanded over time with an addition of pragmatic

features other than speech acts, e.g. formulaic expressions (Bardovi-Harlig 2009), interactional

discourse markers (Wei 2011) and the sequential organisation of argumentative discourse

(Dippold 2011). Dippold (2011) compared the sequential organisation of argumentative

discourse between three L2 German groups of different lengths of study. Learners of lower

proficiency levels used a short, two-or three-turn discourse structure including only one

adjacency pair of an opinion followed by an agreement or disagreement. In contrast, higher-

proficiency learners were able to engage in an extended discourse by relating each turn to the

preceding turn.

Longitudinal investigations in ILP

While cross-sectional studies have some interesting insights to offer to researchers interested in

the development of pragmatic competence, true development can be observed only through a

longitudinal design that traces the same participant(s) over an extended period of time. Despite

its importance, longitudinal investigation remains relatively unexplored in the field. In fact, the

first longitudinal study in ILP was Schmidt (1983), and it was almost a decade later before the

second study appeared in the field (Ellis 1992). Schmidt conducted a case study of a Japanese

artist, Wes, who was naturalised in Hawaii. He analysed Wes’ development on four sub-
 Interlanguage pragmatics 13

competencies of Canale and Swain’s communicative competence model over a period of three

years and found a marginal development in Wes’ sociolinguistic competence, as seen in an

increased use of formulaic expressions and lexical items to convey intentions (e.g., ‘please’ for a

request and ‘maybe’ for a suggestion). Ellis (1992), on the other hand, examined two ESL

learners’ developments in performing requests in a classroom setting. He observed change in

three stages: (1) A pre-basic stage where learners conveyed a request intention in a context-

dependent, minimalistic manner; (2) A formulaic stage where learners performed requests with

unanalysed formulas; And (3) an unpacking stage where formulas were incorporated into

productive language use with the use of conventional request forms.

Although in documenting changes in L2 pragmatic acts, these early studies established a model

for longitudinal investigation, only a small number of studies followed this lead, resulting in a

general consensus that ILP research has primarily focused on pragmatic use, rather than on

acquisition (Bardovi-Harlig 2000; Kasper and Rose 2003; Taguchi 2010). Indeed, Kasper and

Rose’s (2003) review of development in ILP listed only nine longitudinal studies. A subsequent

overview of development by Bardovi-Harlig (2000) listed less than a dozen. The most recent

review by Taguchi (2012) found 23 unique studies over five languages (11 English, 4 Japanese,

3 French, 3 German, and 2 Indonesian) in three areas: comprehension of implicature (4 studies),

perception/recognition of pragmatic features (5) and production of pragmatic functions (14).

In the area of implicature comprehension, findings largely support the notion that learners

progress from the stage where implied meaning is marked via strong signals (e.g., universal or

shared conventionality between L1 and L2) to the stage where meaning does not involve those
 Interlanguage pragmatics 14

signals and thus requires more extensive inferencing (e.g., Bouton 1994; Taguchi 2012). Taguchi

(2012), for instance, examined the comprehension of indirect refusals (conventional implicature)

and indirect opinions (non-conventional implicature) among Japanese learners of English.

Learners’ comprehension was tracked over two semesters using a multiple-choice listening test.

Comprehension was faster and more accurate, and development more profound for conventional

indirect refusals than for non-conventional indirect opinions.

In the area of pragmatic perception, all studies were conducted in a study abroad context (e.g.,

Kinginger 2008; Matsumura 2001). They reveal learners’ gains over time but also find individual

variation due to different qualities and quantities of experience.

The area of pragmatic production reveals a slow development of L2 pragmalinguistic forms.

Research shows that learners usually begin with overgeneralisation of a few forms over a range

of functions. They gradually expand their pragmalinguistic repertoire by adopting new form-

function mappings into their systems. These findings are illustrated in studies in two major

categories: form-to-function studies and function-to-form studies. The former studies examine

how a particular form becomes target-like in function over time, by tracking changing (or

expanding) functions of one form over time (e.g., Hellermann 2009; Ishida 2011), while the

latter examine how a particular function becomes target-like in form over time, by analysing

changing forms in performing the same function (e.g., Barron 2003; Nguyen 2011).

An example of a form-to-function analysis is Hellermann’s (2009) study of one L2 English

learner’s use of the word no over 50 weeks. Video recordings of the learner’s classroom
 Interlanguage pragmatics 15

interaction showed that the learner first used the unmitigated no in direct correction, but later she

expanded the function of no, using it in repair and humor. She also started to mitigate no with

hesitation and hedging (e.g., well) to demonstrate her orientation toward dispreferred response.

In a function-to-form analysis, on the other hand, Nguyen (2011) examined an L2 English

learner’s change in the function of response over five weeks. Videotaped student-professor

meetings showed that as the student’s role shifted from a passive meaning receiver to an active

meaning contributor, her response action changed from using minimal responses in a delayed

manner to using expanded responses in an immediate manner, and eventually to initiating a topic

herself.

While these longitudinal studies summarised above have primarily analysed changing patterns in

the pragmatic system, a recent trend in the longitudinal practice is to present a more context-

oriented account of learners’ changes in conjunction with individual and contextual factors. This

practice corresponds to the current epistemological shift in SLA to focus on the dynamicity and

complexity of language development in a social context. Dynamic Systems Theory (Verspoor, de

Bot and Lowie 2011) and chaos/complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2009) are

major proponents of this new epistemological trend. They share the following views:

(1) Language development is a non-linear, non-static process shaped by socially co-regulated

interactions of multiple influences;

(2) Language development is inseparable from context. Language emerges via interactions

between agents (individuals) and with their environments;

 Interlanguage pragmatics 16

(3) Language development entails intra- and inter-variability. Variability data provide

idiosyncratic details of individual learners’ developmental trajectories that are otherwise

masked out in the analysis of group-level means.

In my view, only a few ILP studies conform to some of the methodological principles of

dynamic, complexity systems research. Those studies are Ohta (2001), Barron (2003), Kinginger

(2008) and Taguchi (2012). Using naturalistic recordings of classroom interactions, Ohta

investigated two L2 Japanese learners’ development of acknowledgement and alignment

expressions. She identified developmental patterns of these expressions and revealed classroom-

specific experiences (e.g., teacher input, peer-to-peer talk) that affected the patterns. Barron

(2003) examined the development of the speech act of requests, offers and refusals of offers in

L2 German over a 14-month study-abroad program. DCT data revealed only modest progress in

learners’ ability, which was closely related to individual experiences. Kinginger (2008)

examined the development of the awareness of sociolinguistic forms (e.g. address terms,

colloquial expressions) in L2 French during a semester abroad in France. Pre-and-post test

comparisons revealed considerable individual variation in learners’ changes. Qualitative data

from interviews, journals, and diaries showed the variation to come from differences in the

amount and intensity of the sociocultural contact learners experienced. These three studies are all

book-length longitudinal studies that used a mixed methods approach – the combination of

qualitative and quantitative methods. By collecting the individual- and contextual-level data,

these studies illustrated how the developmental paths converge or diverge across individuals.
 Interlanguage pragmatics 17

Taguchi (2012) attempted a more explicit application of the complex, dynamic systems

perspective to pragmatic development. The study showed that Japanese ESL students’

production of high-imposition speech acts (making a high-stake request of a teacher or

expressing an opinion to a teacher on a serious matter) showed little progress after a year. This

was displayed in the students’ interaction styles with native speaker instructors. In the real-life

pragmatics of expressing disagreement with their teachers about course assignments, students

often used strong modals (e.g., ‘should’) and used an explicit expression of dislike (‘I don’t like

X.’). The interview data revealed that teachers were often so keen on getting students’ feedback

that they did not care much about the direct manner of speech, either neglecting to correct

students’ misuse of pragmalinguistic forms or feeling no need to correct them. These findings are

in line with the dynamic, complexity systems’ views of language development. The restricted

improvement with high-imposition speech acts was a product of the intricate interaction among

the subsystems, elements, agents, and processes. Agents (teachers, students) and elements

(learning expectations, bilingual context) in the environment co-adapted to each other, giving

rise to students’ slow progress toward sociolinguistic norms of interaction in formal speech acts.

These findings emphasise the strength of longitudinal design in understanding pragmatic

development. Longitudinal studies that combine systematic data collection on quantitative

change with qualitative analyses of context and individuals can provide an account of the

intricate relationship between pragmatic change, individual differences and context. A mixed

methods approach can shed light on the complexity and dynamicity of pragmatic development in

which multiple factors – learners’ subjectivity, stance, affect, resources and interaction in the
 Interlanguage pragmatics 18

target language – are interconnected and jointly influence the evolving pathways toward

increased pragmatic competence.

Instructional studies in ILP

In the final sub-section of the historical sketch, I outline key findings in instructional studies in

ILP. Similar to cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, instructional studies are concerned with

change and factors affecting the change, but more precisely, they focus on direct teaching as the

independent variable and measure its impact on learning outcomes. In other words, they focus on

changes in pragmatic knowledge from pre- to post-test. Studies are largely quasi-experimental,

comparing learners who received instruction to those who did not, or examining two or more

groups under different treatment conditions. Some studies almost give rise to longitudinal

research by examining instructional effects over an extended observation period (Alcón-Soler

2015).

Instructed ILP is a growing area of research, supported by mounting empirical studies published

since the 1990s, as well as edited volumes focusing on instructed pragmatics (Taguchi and

Roever, 2017). Jeon and Kaya (2006) located 34 instructional studies, of which 13 were

subjected to a quantitative meta-analysis. Takahashi (2010) found a total of 49 studies. The most

recent review, Taguchi (2015) found 58 studies over six target languages (38 English, 4 Spanish,

9 Japanese, 3 French, 2 German, and 2 Chinese) in a range of pragmatic targets (e.g., speech

acts, implicature, routines, reactive tokens, discourse markers, address forms, hedging and

epistemic markers).
 Interlanguage pragmatics 19

Studies in the 1990s revealed that most pragmatic features are teachable, meaning that

instruction helps boost learners’ pragmatic development. The next decade evolved around a

question of efficacy: what instructional methods best promote pragmatics learning? This

question was taken up by a line of intervention studies that compared the effects of certain

teaching methods over others by measuring the degree of learning from pre- to post-instruction.

The comparison between explicit and implicit teaching has generated by far the most empirical

findings. The former typically involves explicit metapragmatic explanation followed by focused

practice, while the latter withholds explanation but tries to develop learners’ implicit

understandings of the targets through consciousness-raising tasks and implicit feedback. These

studies were motivated by Schmidt’s (2001) Noticing Hypothesis which claims that learners’

attention to linguistic forms, their functions and relevant contextual features, is necessary for

pragmatic input to become intake, leading to acquisition. Explicit/implicit teaching is a way of

promoting this awareness of the target form-function-context mappings and subsequent

internalisation of them.

An example of the explicit-implicit comparison is found in Fordyce’s (2014) study. He compared

the effect of explicit and implicit treatment on Japanese EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance

markers (modal expressions that convey speakers’ psychological states). This study is unique in

two aspects. First, it examined the long-term instruction effect by giving a delayed posttest five

months after the treatment. Second, the study compared the effects among three L2 groups of

different proficiency to see if they benefit from instruction differently. Explicit treatment in this

study involved teacher explanation of epistemic markers, along with exposure to the targets via

enhanced input (forms in bold type or in a larger font), consciousness-raising activities, feedback
 Interlanguage pragmatics 20

on students’ epistemic forms and a quiz. In contrast, implicit treatment did not attempt to draw

learners’ attention to the forms: rather students were exposed to texts that contained epistemic

forms. Both groups improved after the treatment, but the explicit group outperformed the

implicit group on the frequency and range of the epistemic forms they used in the posttest essays,

supporting the Noticing Hypothesis. There was no effect of proficiency: all groups improved.

Previous studies have generally confirmed the superiority of the explicit over implicit method,

although the length of instruction, types of pragmatic targets and outcome measures moderated

the observed learning benefits (Jeon and Kaya 2006; Taguchi 2015; Takahashi 2010). However,

the problem with the explicit-implicit comparison is that studies have operationalised the

explicit/implicit dichotomy differently. While availability of metapragmatic explanation was one

of the criteria in many explicit treatments, operationalisation of implicit treatment differed across

studies: some studies used only input flood like Fordyce’s study, while others used tasks to draw

learners’ attention to the pragmatic targets via consciousness-raising tasks (Derakhshan and

Eslami 2015). As a result, the implicit condition itself formed a continuum from absolute implicit

to more explicit end of implicit treatment. In addition, explicit treatment typically involved more

than just metapragmatic explanation, often combined with implicit activities such as

consciousness-raising tasks (Félix-Brasdefer 2008). As a result, we do not know whether the

observed benefits of explicit over implicit treatment are solely due to the explicit method.

Glaser (2014) recently reinforced this observation. She claimed that the explicit-implicit

opposition simplifies the approach to teaching pragmatics because the explicit teaching is

automatically equated with the provision of pragmatic explanation and the implicit teaching with
 Interlanguage pragmatics 21

a lack of explanation. However, a further approach that combines the explicit explanation with

inductive rule discovery is also possible. Glaser argued for the benefit of the explicit-inductive

approach in which the instructor provides language examples first, encouraging learners to

discover regularities among the examples, and later addresses underlying rules explicitly.

Another shortcoming of the explicit-implicit opposition is that findings are inconclusive

depending on the type of outcome measures. In Takahashi’s (2010) review of 21 studies on

explicit/implicit treatment, 11 studies reached mixed findings, of which eight used multiple

outcome measures. For instance, Fukuya and Martínez-Flor (2008) revealed a contrast between

online and offline tasks in moderating the instructional effects of the speech act of suggestion.

The explicit group received metapragmatic information, whereas the implicit group did role play

with recasts. Results revealed an advantage for the explicit instruction. It outperformed the

implicit counterpart on the phone message task (a suggestion recorded on the answering

machine), but both groups gained in the email task (a suggestion sent via email).

While the Noticing Hypothesis and explicit-implicit comparison have dominated the field for a

long time, we have witnessed a gradual expansion of intervention studies adopting different

theoretical frameworks, including: Li’s (2012) study using skill acquisition theory (DeKeyser

2007), Van Compernolle’s study (2014) under the framework of socioculural theory (Vygotsky

1978), Taguchi and Kim’s study (2015) within Swain and Lapkin’s (1998) concept of

collaborative dialogue, and Kim and Taguchi’s study (2015) using Cognition Hypothesis

(Robinson, 2011) (for a review, see Taguchi 2015). It is hoped that this diversity in theoretical

backgrounds will continue with more empirical findings.

 Interlanguage pragmatics 22

Conclusion and directions of future ILP research

In this review article, I have presented a summary of the rapid development of ILP literature over

the last few decades. I have illustrated the shift in the view of pragmatic competence in ILP from

pragmatic competence as an individual trait to pragmatics as a co-construction of a

socioculturally-bounded act in interaction and pointed out that since such interactions are

situated in intercultural settings, gains in pragmatic competence contribute to intercultural

competence and to interactants’ ability to function effectively and appropriately in a new culture.

Parallel to such changes in the conceptualisation of pragmatic competence in ILP, empirical

interests have also shifted over time, namely from cross-linguistic/cross-sectional studies that

primarily focus on pragmatic use to longitudinal studies that focus on acquisition. In the same

period, the field has fully embraced the instructional practice of ILP. After surveying the

literature I see five main directions for future research.

Future direction (1): Expanding the scope of pragmatic competence

Traditional models of communicative competence define pragmatic competence as the ability to

perform language functions appropriately in a social situation, contending that learners need to

possess a range of linguistic forms and semiotic resources in their repertoire, choose appropriate

forms according to the situation, and use them effectively to achieve communicative goals.

Although the problem of the treatment of static contexts is noteworthy in these models (see

above on pragmatic competence in the models of communicative competence), this definition

collaborates with some of the often-cited dimensions of multicultural competence and

intercultural competence, namely adaptability, flexibility and variability. For instance,

 Interlanguage pragmatics 23

Canagarajah (2007: 932) states that, ‘[M]ultilingual competence is open to unpredictability. It

refers to the ability to find a fit or an alignment between the linguistic resources they bring and

the context of communication’. The flexibility and adaptability aspect, however, has not been

fully incorporated into ILP research, because most studies assign fixed variables to context

(power, distance and degree of imposition), and draw a one-to-one correspondence between

context and forms, neglecting multiplicity and dynamicity of context. Future research can be

more creative in designing tasks that reveal learners’ ability to move between multiple contexts

and to adapt, align and reciprocate their pragmatic behaviors in a dynamic, changing context.

Future direction (2): Longitudinal studies in a language other than English

In the current landscape, the majority of longitudinal and instructional studies are focused on L2

English (see Taguchi 2010, 2015). There is no doubt but that the weighty influence of L2 English

studies in the field needs to be remedied in the future by looking at pragmatic development and

instructional treatment in languages other than English. To this end, the growing scope of cross-

linguistic analysis into rather under-studied languages (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese) will

be useful in the future. Correspondingly, future research might pay more attention to features of

pragmatics-specific-to-languages. Many previous studies have applied a top-down procedure and

employed previously existing speech act categories and implicature coding schemes to

investigate patterns of development or to design instructional materials. However, future studies

would benefit from a bottom-up analysis, identifying pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic

features that are unique to a specific language and crucial for learning that language. Individual

languages have different pragmatic devices in their structure and discourse. They use different

linguistic means to convey appropriate levels of politeness or to communicate meaning

 Interlanguage pragmatics 24

indirectly. Future research should explore central characteristics of the construct of pragmatic

competence specific to individual languages, and link these to empirical methods through which

pragmatic development can be observed.

Future direction (3): Individual differences and instructional outcomes

Following the call in recent reviews (Takahashi 2010), a dynamic interaction of learnability,

pragmatic targets, instructional methods and learning outcomes is needed in future instructed ILP

research. So far, only Fordyce (2014) compared learning outcomes among learners of different

proficiency levels. Further research should address what kinds of target features should be taught

to what kinds of learners (in terms of proficiency or individual difference factors) using what

kinds of methods (e.g., implicit or explicit; input-based or output-based). This line of research

will advance our understanding of the relationship between pragmatic learnability and

instructional intervention.

Future direction (4): Advanced pragmatic competence

A relatively under-explored area of research is the investigation into advanced pragmatic

competence. The majority of the previous ILP studies dealt with L2 learners at low- to

intermediate-levels enrolled in language courses for one to four years. As such, the level of

pragmatic competence targeted in these studies is limited to the low- to mid-level pragmatic

behaviours, such as production of speech acts in a few utterances, comprehension of implicature

in short, artificial dialogues, use of basic turn-taking structure and minimum interaction devices

and knowledge of one or two forms of sociolinguistic variation. As a result, we do not know the

types of pragmatic tasks that very advanced speakers can handle or the types of challenges still
 Interlanguage pragmatics 25

left for them in their development of pragmatic competence.

Advanced pragmatic competence is an important concept in the current era of global mobility,

because language learning goes beyond the classroom and directly impacts on career success in

international assignments and participation in global virtual teams. In these high-stake situations,

advanced proficiency, characterised by the ability to handle a variety of communicative tasks in

formal and informal exchanges, or the ability to cope with linguistic challenges stemming from

unexpected turns of events, is crucial. The ILP field can make a contribution to the

understanding of advanced proficiency and cross-cultural adaptability if it can find ways to

operationalise advanced pragmatic competence, and design methods to elicit and examine the

construct. There are several examples of advanced L2 pragmatics, such as Ikeda’s (2009) study

on Japanese honorifics and Dippold’s (2011) study on argumentative discourse in German.

Louw, Derwing and Abbott (2010) use a pedagogical intervention on complex pragmatic skills in

job interviews via simulation. Future expansion is to be seen in this line of study.

Future direction (5): Native speaker variation in pragmatic behaviours

On the same topic of advanced pragmatics, we have to be aware that native speaker variation

typically exists in any pragmatic behaviours, and the degree of variation might be large in

advanced pragmatic competence. Although to my knowledge no studies have empirically

compared the extent of native speaker variation over different pragmatic functions and tasks, it is

plausible that the more complex the pragmatic act is, the greater the variation becomes among

people who perform the act. An example is Japanese honorifics. Honorifics systems are complex

linguistically but more so socioculturally because they reflect social actions that speakers

accomplish with polite language. Speakers use honorifics not just to conform to socially agreed
 Interlanguage pragmatics 26

norms in a situation, but they also use them strategically in order to construct their social identity

(e.g., Geyer 2013). In other words, the degree of honorifics which speakers use is a reflection of

the social selves that they want to project – how polite or casual they want to sound in a certain

situation, which in turn leads to considerable situational and individual variation in their use (cf.

Van De Mieroop this volume).

In today’s society, where multiple ethnic groups and languages constitute the demographic

make-up of one place, uniform native speaker standards do not exist, nor are they relevant to the

evaluation of pragmatic competence (cf. Barron this volume). Yet using monolingual norms

remains the mainstream practice in traditional ILP research. A fruitful direction would seem to

be to investigate the degree of variation in pragmatic behaviours among local speakers, and

cultivate ways to incorporate variation into the analysis of interlanguage pragmatics. For

example, researchers might establish an assortment of acceptable target pragmatic behaviours in

a given community, rather than just single norms, and interpret learners’ pragmatic behaviours in

consideration of these variable behaviours.

These future directions will move ILP research forward and contribute to the accumulated

knowledge about L2 learning and development in the broader field of SLA.

Suggestions for further reading

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013) ‘Developing L2 pragmatics’, Language Learning, 63: 68-86.

This paper links L2 pragmatics research and the larger field of SLA research by

surveying literature in five areas: (1) The design and evaluation of pragmatic tasks; (2)
 Interlanguage pragmatics 27

The task design for implicit and explicit pragmatic knowledge; (3) The measurement of

pragmatic development; (4) The interface between grammar and pragmatics; And (5) the

effect of learning context on pragmatic development.

Barron, A. (2012) ‘Interlanguage pragmatics: From use to acquisition to second language

pedagogy’, Language Teaching, 45: 44-63.

This paper presents a historical timeline of L2 pragmatics research by surveying the key

publications that have advanced the field. References and summaries of 57 studies are

presented in four categories: (1) Use and acquisition; (2) Pedagogy; (3) Social-affective

factors; And (4) appropriateness of an L2 pragmatic norm for learners.

Taguchi, N. (2015) ‘“Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class,

and online’, System, 48: 3-20.

This paper synthesises key findings in these three contexts, and compares and contrasts

the opportunities and challenges involved in each context with the overall aim of

revealing how each context supports pragmatic learning and development.

References

Alcón-Soler, E. (2015) ‘Instruction and pragmatic change during study abroad email

communication’, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9: 34-45.

Al-Gahtani, S. and Roever, C. (2014) ‘Preference structure in L2 Arabic requests’, Intercultural

Pragmatics, 11: 619-643.

Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S. (1996) Language Testing in Practice: Designing and

 Interlanguage pragmatics 28

Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S. (2010) Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000) ‘Pragmatics and second language acquisition’, in R. B. Kaplan (ed.)

Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 182-192.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013) ‘Developing L2 pragmatics’, Language Learning, 63: 68-86.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009) ‘Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource:

Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics’, Language

Learning, 59: 755-795.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010) ‘Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by

design’, in A. Trosborg (ed.) Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics across Languages

and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 219-260

Barron, A. (2003) Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning How to Do Things with

Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Barron, A. (this volume), ‘Variational pragmatics’, in: A. Barron, A, Y. Gu and G. Steen, G

(eds.) Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge.

Bennett, J. M. and Bennett, M. J. (2004) ‘Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative

approach to global and domestic diversity’, in D. Landis, J. M. Bennett and M. J. Bennett

(eds) Handbook of Intercultural Training. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 147-165.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and

Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bouton, L. (1994) ‘Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved

through explicit instruction? A pilot study’, Pragmatics and Language Learning

 Interlanguage pragmatics 29

Monograph Series, 5: 89-108.

Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.

Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (2012) ‘Conceptualizing intercultural (communicative) competence and intercultural

citizenship’, in J. Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural

Communication. Oxford: Routledge. 85-98.

Canagarajah, S. (2007) ‘Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language

acquisition’, Modern Language Journal, 91: 923-939.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) ‘Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics, 1: 1-47.

Chen, R. (2010) ‘Compliment and compliment response research: A cross-cultural survey’, in A.

Trosborg (ed.) Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures.

New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 79-101.

Cogo, A. and House, J. (this volume) ‘Intercultural Pragmatics’, in: A. Barron, A, Y. Gu and G.

Steen, G (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge.

DeKeyser, R. (2007) Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and

Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Derakhshan, A. and Eslami, Z. (2015) ‘The effect of consciousness-raising instruction on the

pragmatic development of apology and request’, TESL-EJ, 18(4): 1-24.

Dippold, D. (2011) ‘Argumentative discourse in L2 German: A sociocognitive perspective on the

development of facework strategies’, Modern Language Journal, 95: 171-187.

Ellis, R. (1992) ‘Learning to communicate in classroom: A study of two language learners’

requests’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14: 1-23.

 Interlanguage pragmatics 30

Fantini, A. E. (2006) Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. Available from:

<http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/feil_research_report.pdf> (accessed 15 February

2012).

Fantini, A. E. (2012) ‘Language: An essential component of intercultural competence’, in J.

Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication.

Oxford: Routledge. 263-278.

Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008) ‘Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic

competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16:

49-84.

Fordyce, K. (2014) ‘The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’

use of epistemic stance’, Applied Linguistics, 35: 6-28.

Flores- Ferrán, N. and Lovejoy, K. (2015) ‘An examination of mitigating devices in the

argument interactions of L2 Spanish learners’, Journal of Pragmatics, 76: 67-86.

Fukuya,Y. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2008) ‘The interactive effects of pragmatic-eliciting tasks and

pragmatics instruction’, Foreign Language Annuals, 41: 478-500.

Geyer, N. (2013) ‘Discernment and variation: The action-oriented use of Japanese addressee

honorifics’, Multilingua, 32: 155-176.

Glaser, K. (2014) ‘The neglected combination: A case for explicit-inductive instruction in

teaching pragmatics in ESL’, TESL Canada, 30: 150-163.

Hellermann, J. (2009) ‘Practices for dispreferred responses using no by a learner of English’,

International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47: 95-126.

Hymes, H. D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds)

Sociolinguisitics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269-293.

 Interlanguage pragmatics 31

Ikeda, K. (2009) ‘Advanced learners’ honorific styles in emails and telephone calls’, in N.

Taguchi (ed.) Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 69-100.

Ishida, M. (2011) ‘Engaging in another person’s telling as a recipient in L2 Japanese:

Development of interactional competence during one-year study-abroad’, in G. Pallotti

and J. Wagner (eds) L2 Learning as Social Practice: Conversation-Analytic Perspectives.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Jeon, E.-H. and Kaya, T. (2006) ‘Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic

development’, in N. John and L. Ortega (eds) Synthesizing Research on Language

Learning and Teaching . Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 165-211.

Kasper, G. (2006) ‘Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA’, AILA Review,

19: 83-99.

Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991) ‘Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics’, Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 13: 215-247.

Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (1999) ‘Pragmatics and SLA’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

19: 81-104.

Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (2003) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. (Language

Learning Monograph Series vol 3). Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kecskes, I. (2014) Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kim, Y. and Taguchi, N. (2015) ‘Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom

context: The role of task complexity’, Modern Language Journal, 99: 656–677.

Kinginger, C. (2008) ‘Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France’,

The Modern Language Journal, 92: 1-124.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2009) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
 Interlanguage pragmatics 32

Oxford University Press.

Li, S. (2012) ‘The effect of input-based practice on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese’,

Language Learning, 62: 403-438.

LoCastro, V. (2003) An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Ann

Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Louw, K. J., Derwing, T. M. and Abbott, M. L. (2010) ‘Teaching pragmatics to L2 learners for

the workplace: The job interview’, The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66: 739-

758.

Matsumura, S. (2001) ‘Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second

language socialization’, Language Learning, 51: 635-679.

Netz, H. and Lefstein, A. (2016) ‘A cross-cultural analysis of disagreements in classroom

discourse: Comparative case studies from England, the United States, and Israel’,

Intercultural Pragmatics, 13: 211-255.

Nguyen, H. T. (2011) ‘A longitudinal microanalysis of a second language learner’s

participation’, in G. Pallotti and J. Wagner (eds) L2 Learning as Social Practice:

Conversation-Analytic Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign

Language Resource Center. 17-44.

Ohta, A. (2001) Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Robinson, P. 2001. ‘Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning

conditions in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 17: 368–392.

Ross, S. J. and Kasper, G. (2013) Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke:

Palgrave MacMillan.
 Interlanguage pragmatics 33

Schmidt, R. (1983) ‘Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative

competence’, in N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language

Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 137-174.

Schmidt, R. (2001) ‘Attention’, in P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language

Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-32.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2010) ‘Intercultural competence and pragmatics research: Examining the

interface through studies of intercultural business discourse’, in A. Trosborg (ed.)

Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter. 189-218.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) ‘Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent

French immersion students working together’, Modern Language Journal, 82: 320-337.

Taguchi, N. (2010) ‘Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics’, in A. Trosborg (ed.)

Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter. 333-361.

Taguchi, N. (2012) Context, Individual Differences, and Pragmatic Competence. New

York/Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Taguchi. N. (2015) ‘Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and

should be going’, Language Teaching, 48: 1-48.

Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. (2015) ‘Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-

related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making’, Applied Linguistics,

2014: 1-23. Available from: <

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/07/29/applin.amu039.full.pdf+html>

(accessed 13 June2015).
 Interlanguage pragmatics 34

Taguchi, N. and Roever, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Takahashi, S. (2010) ‘Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics’, in A. Trosborg

(ed.) Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter. 391-421.

Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014) Sociocultural Theory and Instructed L2 Pragmatics.

Bristol/New York: Multilingual Matters.

Van De Mieroop, D. (this volume) ‘Identity and membership’, in: A. Barron, A, Y. Gu and G.

Steen, G (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London/New York: Routledge.

Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. and Lowie, W. (2011) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language

Development: Methods and Techniques. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Wei, M. (2011) ‘Investigating the oral proficiency of English learners in China: A comparative

study of the use of pragmatic markers’, Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 3455-3472.

Wilkinson, J. (2012) ‘The intercultural speaker and the acquisition of intercultural/global

competence’, in J. Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural

Communication. Oxford: Routledge. 296-309.

Young, R. (2011) ‘Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing’, in H.

Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Language Learning and Teaching. New York:

Routledge. 426-443.