Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:36:38.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

35 - Second Language Pragmatics

from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

By
Elly Ifantidou
Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access

Summary

Starting from its early conception as a pragmalinguistic/sociopragmatic model of non-native users’ pragmatic development in L2, this chapter suggests a novel approach to second language pragmatics, and to sociopragmatics in particular. The proposed view encompasses inferential mechanisms and effects which are intrinsic in real-life verbal and non-verbal communication but have been left largely untouched. Following a historical review of sociopragmatic competence in terms of ‘interlanguage pragmatics’ and ‘intercultural communicative competence’, I focus on pragmatic inference within second language pragmatics as it becomes manifest in figurative speech. Emphasis lies on recent available evidence in support of the impact of metaphor comprehension on second language pragmatic development.

Keywords

applied pragmaticsinterlanguage pragmaticsL2 pragmaticssociopragmatic competenceinferencefigurative speech
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 758 - 779
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnlund, D. C. (1989). Communicative Styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and Realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2006). Interlanguage development: Main routes and individual paths. AILA Review, 19, 69–82.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In Kaplan, R. B., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182–92.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in SLA. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition London: Routledge, pp. 147–62.Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M. (eds.). (2009). Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. and Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M., Madden, C., Preston, D. and Selinker, L., eds., Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics, Vol. 1. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 103–25.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS-NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 192–218.Google Scholar
Bell, N. D. (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13, 241–58.Google Scholar
Billmyer, K. (1990a). The effect of formal instruction on the development of sociolinguistic competence: The performance of compliments. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Billmyer, K. (1990b). “I really like your lifestyle”: ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 6, 31–48.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1988). A cross-cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 17, 183–96.Google Scholar
Bouton, L. (1994). Conversational implicature in the second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157–67.Google Scholar
Bradley, M. M. and Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical Report C-1, Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Bromberek-Dyzman,  K., Rataj, K. and Dylak, J. (2010). Mentalizing in the second language: Is irony online inferencing any different in L1 and L2? In Witczak-Plisiecka, I., ed., Pragmatic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics, Vol. I, Speech Actions in Theory and Applied Studies. New Castle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Carston, R. and Wilson, D. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–8.Google Scholar
Cave, T. and Wilson, D. (eds.). (2018). Reading beyond the Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cenoz,  J. and Valencia,  J. F. (1996). Cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics: American vs. European requests. In Bouton, L. and Kachru, Y., eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning 7. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
Chang, W.-L. M. and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion among second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C., eds., Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 267–86.Google Scholar
Citron, F. and Goldberg, A. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2585–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Citron, F., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N. and Goldberg, A. (2016). Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage, 139, 218–30.Google Scholar
Citron, F. and Zervos, E. (2018). A neuroimaging investigation into figurative language and aesthetic perception. In Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R. and Sandford, J., eds., Epistemology, Embodiment, and Language: Sensory Perceptions and Representations. Berlin: Springer, pp. 77–94.Google Scholar
Clouet, R. (2013). Understanding and assessing intercultural competence in an online environment: A case study of transnational education program delivery between college students in ULPGC, Spain, and ICES, France. Resla, 26, 139–57.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. and Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J. (2012). Why do Korean listeners have difficulty recovering the meaning of casual speech in English? A study in pragmatics. Asian Social Science, 8, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In de Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A. and Taguchi, N. (2018). Second Language Pragmatics: From Theory to Research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1361–85.Google Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., Soteriadou, L. and Taxitari, L. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence in an instructed setting: The effectiveness of pedagogical intervention in Greek EFL learners’ request production. L2 Journal, 10(3), 3–30.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forman, R. (2011). Humorous language play in a Thai EFL classroom. Applied Linguistics, 32, 541–65.Google Scholar
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ, 8, 1–15.Google Scholar
Gass, S. and Neu, J. (2006). Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
González-Lloret,  M. and Lourdes, O. (2018). Pragmatics, tasks and technology: A synergy. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y. J., eds., Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 191–214.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2004). Mind, Metaphor and Language Teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Ifantidou,  E. (2014). Pragmatic Competence and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou,  E. (2017). Pragmatic transfer, relevance and procedural meaning in L2. International Review of Pragmatics, 9, 82–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2019). Relevance and metaphor understanding in a second language. In Scott, K., Clark, B. and Carston, R., eds., Relevance: Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–30.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E., (in press). Metaphor comprehension: Meaning and beyond. In E. Ifantidou, E., L. de Saussure and T. Wharton, eds., Beyond Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. and Hatzidaki, A. (2019). Metaphor comprehension in L2: Meaning images and emotions. Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 78–90.Google Scholar
Kasper,  G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203–31.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215–47.Google Scholar
Kasper,  G. and Rose,  K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149–69.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2010). Dual and multilanguage systems. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 91–109.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System, 45(1), 92–102.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (2014). How Korean EFL learners understand sarcasm in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2018). Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research, 22, 208–29.Google Scholar
Lee, J. S. (2002). Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of Korean learners of English. Korea TESOL Journal, 5, 1–26.Google Scholar
Lee, C. (2018). Researching and Teaching Second Language Speech Acts in the Chinese Context. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: A possible language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35, 459–91.Google Scholar
Littlemore,  J. (2003). The effect of cultural background on metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 273–88.Google Scholar
Liu, J. (2006). Measuring Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge of EFL Learners. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Low, G. (2008). Metaphor in education. In Gibbs, R., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–31.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Wolfram, B. and Norrick, N. R., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). The effectiveness of explicit and implicit treatments on EFL learners’ confidence in recognizing appropriate suggestions. In Bardovi-Harlig, K., Félix-Brasdefer, C. and Omar, A., eds., Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp. 199–225.Google Scholar
Martínez-Flor, A. and Usó-Juan, E. (eds.). (2010). Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nilsenová, M. and Swerts, M. (2012). Prosodic adaptation in language learning. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 77–96.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, M. (2010). Teaching interjections in the ESL/EFL class: A pragmatic approach. In Pérez Ruiz, L., Parrado Román, I. and Tabarés Pérez, P., eds., Estudios de metodología de la lengua inglesa, Vol. V. Valladolid, Spain: Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. A. (2004). Human emotion and memory: Interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 198–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Conversational analysis. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W., eds., Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 117–54.Google Scholar
Roever, C., Fraser, C. and Elder, C. (2014). Testing ESL Sociopragmatics: Development and Validation of a Web-Based Test Battery. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roever, C. and Ikeda, N. (2020). Testing pragmatic competence in a second language. In Schneider, K. and Ifantidou, E., eds., Handbook of Developmental and Clinical Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 475–95.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). (2012). Pragmatics and Prosody in English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. and Newell, J. (2012). Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics, Prosody and English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 117–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. J. and Kasper, G. (eds.). (2013). Assessing Second Language Pragmatics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardegna, V. G. and Molle, D. (2010). Videoconferencing with strangers: Teaching Japanese EFL students verbal backchannel signals and reactive expressions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7, 279–310.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied linguistics, 10, 209–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shively, R., Menke, M. and Manzón-Omundson, S. (2008). Perception of irony by L2 learners of Spanish. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 101–32.Google Scholar
Spees, H. (1994). A cross-cultural study of indirectness. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5, 231–53.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1972). Pragmatics. In Davidson, D. and Harman, G., eds., Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 380–97.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, B. (2004). Turn-final intonation in English. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Ford, C., eds., Sound Patterns in Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Tada, M. (2005). Assessment of EFL pragmatic production and perception using video prompts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Temple University.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (ed.). (2009). Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature: What response times tell us. In Taguchi, N. and Sykes, J., eds., Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In Barron, A., Grundy, P. and Gu, Y., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 153–67.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Sykes, J. (eds.). (2013). Technology in Interlanguage Pragmatics Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. and Roever, C. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 191–12.Google Scholar
Togame, N. (2016). Irony in a second language: Exploring the comprehension of Japanese speakers of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Middlesex University.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2012). Prosody and meaning: Theory and practice. In Romero-Trillo, J., ed., Pragmatics, Prosody and English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 97–116.Google Scholar
Wijayanto, A., Prasetyarini, A. and Hikmat, M. H. (2017). Impoliteness in EFL: Foreign language learners’ complaining behaviors across social distance and status levels. SAGE Open, 7(3), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2018). Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In T. Cave and D. Wilson, eds., Reading Beyond the Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, R. L. and Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural Communication Competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ziegler,  N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×