Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-02T13:50:25.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: Interlanguage Pragmatics in SLA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Gabriele Kasper
Gabriele Kasper
Affiliation:
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interlanguage pragmatics—the study of nonnative speakers' use and acquisition of L2 pragmatic knowledge—has hovered on the fringes of SLA research thus far. In theories of 12 acquisition, pragmatics may figure as a constraint on syntactic knowledge, for instance, but pragmatics is not usually recognized as a knowledge component whose development deserves theoretical consideration in its own right. There is thus a tension between SLA as a theoretical (in the sense of “nonapplied”) discipline and the theory and practice of second or foreign language pedagogy. In theories of communicative competence in L2 teaching and testing, pragmatic competence figures prominently (e.g., Bachman, 1990). Curricula and materials for L2 teaching developed in recent years include strong pragmatic components or even adopt a pragmatic approach as their organizing principle.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 145 - 148
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

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction?—A pilot study. In Bouton, L. F. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 4, pp. 88–109). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1981). Let's talk and talk about it. A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523–546.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203–231.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (in press). Interlanguage pragmatics. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in second language learning. Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C., & Bernstein, J. (1988). Natural conversation as a model for textbook dialogue. Applied Linguistics, 9, 372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, K. R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context. In Bouton, L. F. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 5, pp. 52–63). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S., & Roitblat, H. (1994). Comprehension of nonliteral utterances by nonnative speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 475–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar