Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T03:51:13.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning the Rules of Academic Talk

A Longitudinal Study of Pragmatic Change

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]

Abstract

This paper is a longitudinal study of the acquisition of pragmatic competence. Advanced adult nonnative speakers of English were taped in advising sessions over the course of a semester. Two speech acts, suggestions and rejections, were analyzed according to their frequency, form, and successfulness and compared with similar data gathered for native speakers. The nonnative speakers showed change toward the native speaker norms in their ability to employ appropriate speech acts, moving toward using more suggestions and fewer rejections, and became more successful negotiators. However, they changed less in their ability to employ appropriate forms of the speech acts, continuing to use fewer mitigators than the native speakers. Furthermore, unlike native speakers, they also used aggravators. We claim that these results may be explained by the availability of input: Learners receive positive and negative feedback from the advisor regarding the desirability and outcome of particular speech acts, but they do not receive such feedback regarding the appropriateness of the forms of such speech acts.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 279 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

REFERENCES

Agar, M. (1985). Institutional discourse. Text, 5, 147–168.Google Scholar
Banerjee, J., & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language Learning, 38, 313–347.CrossRefGoogle 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: DEIL, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Scarcella, R., Andersen, E., & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–73). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29–59.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 47–61.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
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3 pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992a). Closing the conversation: Evidence from the academic advising session. Discourse Processes, 15, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992b). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 3 pp. 33–52). Urbana: DEIL, University of Illinois.Google 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
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In Lörscher, W. & Schulze, R. (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance: Festschrift for Werner Hüllen (pp. 1250–1288). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1989). Variation in interlanguage speech act realization. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (pp. 37–58). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google 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
Lyuh, I. (1992). The art of refusal: Comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. In Verschueren, J. & Bertucelli-Papi, M. (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 195–208). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omar, A. S. (1991). How learners greet in Kiswahili. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 2 pp. 59–73). Urbana: DEIL, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Omar, A. S. (1992). Opening and closing conversations in Kiswahili: Comparing pragmatic performance of native and nonnative speakers. In Bouton, L. & Kachru, Y. (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 3 pp. 20–32). Urbana: DEIL, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In Yorio, C. A., Perkins, K., & Schachter, J. (Eds.), On TESOL '79 (pp. 275–287). TESOL: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1986). Three approaches to the study of input. Language Learning, 36, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In Judd, E. & Wolfson, N. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 9, 213–243.Google Scholar
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131–155.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.Google Scholar
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989). Performance variation in NS–NNS interactions: Ethnolinguistic difference, or discourse domain? In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (pp. 228–244). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar