Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T08:54:44.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Input in an Institutional Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig  and
Beverly S. Hartford
Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Beverly S. Hartford
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper investigates the nature of input available to learners in the institutional setting of the academic advising session. The advisory session, an unequal status encounter that by nature is a private speech event and cannot be observed by other learners, provides a starting point for the investigation of real and perceived availability of input. Evidence for the realization of speech acts as well as appropriate content and form, positive evidence from peers and status unequals, the effect of stereotypes, and limitations of a learner's pragmatic and grammatical competence are factors that may influence the course of development of interlanguage pragmatics in the institutional setting.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 171 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agar, M. (1985). Institutional discourse. Text, 5, 147–168.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (in press). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 7). Urbana: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40, 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying “No”: Native and nonnative rejections in English. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 41–57). Urbana: University of Illinois, Division of English as an International Language.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag?: Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (Discourse and Pragmatics, Vol. 1, pp. 103–128). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1995, 03). Pragmatics and language learning. Plenary address presented at the Ninth International Conference on Pragmatic and Language Learning, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 85–97). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1981). “Poison to your soul”: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 69–91). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners' requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 221–247). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gleason, J. B., & Perlmann, R. Y. (1985). Acquiring social variation in speech. In Giles, H. & Clair, R. N. St. (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 86–111). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hartford, B. S. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Closing the conversation: Evidence from the academic advising session. Discourse Processes, 15, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157–185). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. & Fowler, R. (1979). Interviews. In Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 63–80). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Linde, C. (1988). The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Language in Society, 17, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omar, A. S. (1992a). How learners greet in Kiswahili. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 59–73). Urbana-Champaign: Department of English as an International Language, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Omar, A. S. (1992b). Opening and closing conversations in Kiswahili: A study of performance of native speakers and learners. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. A. (1992). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In Kasper, G. (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as a native and target language (pp. 27–82). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, N., & Naotsuka, R. (1982). Polite fictions: Why Japanese and Americans seem rude to each other. Tokyo: Kinseido.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood, Smith M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E., Perlmann, R. Y., Gleason, J. B., & Hooshyar, N. (1990). Developmental perspective of politeness: Sources of children's knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, N. (1991). Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English. JALT Journal, 9, 81–102.Google Scholar
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar