Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Developing L2 Pragmatics
Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig
Indiana University

This article positions research on the acquisition of pragmatics as an inquiry in the

greater field of second language acquisition research. Viewing pragmatics from this
intersection, I consider five areas of research that are of interest in both fields and have the
potential to make significant contributions to second language pragmatics research. They
are: the design and evaluation of pragmatics tasks as simulations of conversation; task
design for the study of implicit and explicit knowledge; the measurement of pragmatic
development; the interface of the development of grammar and lexicon with pragmatics;
and the effect of environment on pragmatic development.

Keywords task design; explicit pragmatic knowledge; measurement of pragmatic

development; grammar-pragmatic interface; study abroad

Introduction
As its title suggests, this article is concerned with both the developing field of
second language (L2) pragmatics and the study of how L2 pragmatics develops.
To better understand how L2 pragmatics develops, it is imperative to develop
the field of study and it is this intersection that is the focus of this paper. To
this end, I discuss five areas that have the potential to make significant con-
tributions to L2 pragmatics research: the design and evaluation of pragmatics
tasks as simulations of conversation; task design for the study of implicit and
explicit knowledge; the measurement of pragmatic development; the interface
of the development of grammar and lexicon with pragmatics; and the effect of
environment on pragmatic development.

Definitions
I like to say that pragmatics is the study of how-to-say-what-to-whom-when
and that L2 pragmatics is the study of how learners come to know how-to-say-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, Depart-

ment of Second Language Studies, Indiana University, Memorial Hall 315, 1021 E. Third St.,
Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: bardovi@indiana.edu

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 68


C 2013 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

what-to-whom-when. This is my cocktail party definition, and although it is

fairly accurate in spirit, it is lacking in the detail required for academic work.
Formal definitions of pragmatics have evolved since researchers in L2 studies
first took an interest in the pragmatics of L2 learners and users (Bardovi-Harlig,
2001, 2010a, 2010b, 2012b; Kasper, 2009; Kasper & Rose, 1999, 2002); I will
provide only a basic sketch here.
In their Language Learning monograph, Kasper and Rose (2002) adopt
Crystals (1997) definition of pragmatics as the study of language from the
point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they
encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of
language has on other participants in the act of communication (p. 301; italics
added by Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 2). Interlanguage pragmatics could then be
defined by expanding the term users to include non-native speakers (NNS; a
designation that includes a range of L2 speakers, including, but not limited to
L2 learners and L2 users). An earlier definition of pragmatics found in Kasper
and Dahl (1991) names specific areas of investigation included in pragmatic
inquiry (1991); interlanguage pragmatics was described as referring to NNS
comprehension and production of speech acts and how their L2-related speech
act knowledge is acquired and as also including conversational management,
discourse organization, or sociolinguistic aspects of language use such as choice
of address terms (p. 216). Taken together the definitions give a sense of what
pragmatics is and what we study.
Because the study of use (rather than learning) dominates interlanguage
pragmatics (Kasper, 1992; see also Bardovi-Harlig, 1999), I began to use the
term acquisitional pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999), for which I use a short-
ened L2 pragmatics in this article, to designate the area of investigation
devoted exclusively to the development of the L2 pragmatic system. Thus, in-
terlanguage pragmatics includes the study of the L2 acquisition of pragmatics:
All studies of L2 pragmatics belong to interlanguage pragmatics, but not all
interlanguage pragmatics studies are acquisitional.
Since Kaspers (1992) observation that interlanguage pragmatics is more
comparative than acquisitional, there have been at least two published research
agendas for studying developmental issues (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Kasper &
Schmidt, 1996) as well as reviews of progress in the field (Kasper & Rose,
1999, 2002). This article attempts to further the development of L2 pragmatics
by discussing currents in five areas where research in pragmatics aligns with
research in second language acquisition (SLA) and which I think are especially
promising areas for further research.1

69 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Tasks as Conversation
L2 pragmatics attempts to balance the sometimes conflicting and sometimes
compatible research traditions and goals of SLA and pragmatics. Nowhere in the
study of L2 pragmatics is there greater potential conflict of values from the two
research traditions than in collecting or eliciting language samples. On the one
hand, controlling variables known to influence language development has high
disciplinary value in acquisition studies; in L2 pragmatics this includes knowing
relevant characteristics of participants as individuals (of all speakers, but for
acquisition studies, most especially learners, including language proficiency,
first language, and exposure to the host environment), relevant characteristics of
participants relative to other speakers, and the content of the talk. On the other
hand, if researchers want to study aspects of conversation, spontaneous language
samples (or talk) is the most obvious focus of investigation, but the hardest
to control. One chief disadvantage is lack of comparability of conversations;
no two conversations are exactly alike, and this in turn limits generalizability
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2012b; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005; Kasper & Dahl,
1991; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
In L2 pragmatics, as in interlanguage pragmatics, attempts to resolve this
conflict have led to the development of simulations of conversation to allow
manipulation of participant, social, and content variables; at the same time there
has beenand, importantly for this look forward, will continue to bealmost
constant review of the language samples and the means of collecting them (see,
e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005; Bardovi-Harlig, 2012b; Kasper, 2008;
Kasper & Rose, 2002).
One means of evaluating production tasks in L2 pragmatics is to ask how
well they illuminate the features attributed to pragmatics by current definitions
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2010a). Following Crystals (1997) definition of pragmatics,
the most highly valued forms of data collection should be those that promote the
investigation of users, choices, constraints, social interaction, effects on other
participants, and acts of communication. A second means is to evaluate authen-
ticity, consequentiality, and comparability (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005).
(A third means is to evaluate tasks by standard SLA criteria, which is taken
up in the next section.) The four major types of language samples considered
here are conversation (including institutional talk), role plays, oral discourse
completion tasks (DCTs), and written DCTs (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012b). Role
plays are performed by two or more speakers and are elicited through the pre-
sentation of a context called a scenario which typically includes information
about speaker characteristics and setting (Felix-Brasdefer, 2004, 2007). Oral

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 70

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

DCTs (also known as closed role plays) provide aural and/or written scenarios
to which individual participants respond orally. Written DCTs are written pro-
duction questionnaires which provide scenarios to which participants respond
in writing as in (1) from Johnston, Kasper, and Ross (1998, p. 163):
(1) Discourse completion task (DCT)
You were in a hurry to leave on a trip, and you asked your roommate to
mail an express letter for you. When you get back a few days later, the letter is
still lying on the table

You: _____________________________________

Table 1 organizes these common production tasks, from most to least au-
thentic according to the relevant characteristics. Moving from left to right,
the tasks decrease in conversation-like features. Using role plays as a means
of data collection in place of conversation results in the loss of real-world
consequences and authenticitythe perspective of how what we say affects
outcomes (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005)but retains the other features of
interaction. In the first published review of research methods in interlanguage
pragmatics Kasper and Dahl (1991) claimed that role plays represent oral
production, full operation of the turn-taking mechanism, impromptu planning
decisions contingent on interlocutor input, and hence negotiation of global and
local goals, including negotiation of meaning (p. 228). The position was re-
iterated more recently by Kasper and Rose (2002) and Felix-Brasdefer (2004,
2007, 2008), as well as other studies (e.g., Bataller, 2010) that employ role
plays to maintain interaction while controlling variables. The local effects of
individual turns remain in role plays, but these too fall away when we move to
simulated oral conversation in oral DCTs. In oral DCTs there is no interaction,
although there may be a turn to which participants respond. Finally, not even
mode remains in written-for-oral DCTs. Cohen and Shively (2007) describe
written DCTs as an indirect means for assessing spoken language in the form
of a written production measure (p. 196).
These comparisons do not tell the whole story because the costs of not
using conversation in research are offset by the benefits of controlling the
topic, participants, contexts, and in some cases even rate of response (as in
timed oral DCTs). The fifth row of Table 1 (comparison across speakers)
provides an estimate of control and comparability of the tasks. Moving from
left to right across Table 1, the tasks increase in researcher control. DCTs and
other controlled tasks continue to evolve as researchers investigate questions
in acquisition that require contexts that can be finely manipulated. In addition

71 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886


Table 1 Tasks as approximations of conversation
Conversation and
Task Institutional Talk
Authenticity Authentic, consequential
Interaction Interactive
Effects on/of participants Users, social interactions,
(Crystal, 1997) effects of other
Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886
participants, effects on
other participants, and
act of communication
Comparison across No for conversation; yes
speakers for institutional talk
Mode Oral
72
Bardovi-Harlig
Open Role Plays and Closed Role Plays, Oral Written DCTs, Written
Simulated Tasks DCTs Production tasks
Authentic in turn Neither authentic nor Neither authentic nor
construction (but not consequential consequential
consequential)
Interactive Noninteractive Noninteractive
Effects of other Effect of simulated turn; Single user
participants, immediate but single live user, so
effects on other no effect on interlocutor
participants
Yes (greater comparability Yes (greater comparability Yes (equal comparability
than conversation, than role plays) to oral DCTs)
similar to institutional
talk)
Oral Oral Written (mismatch)
Developing L2 Pragmatics
Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

to eliciting spoken responses, oral DCTs have recently used pictures (Nickels,
2006; Schauer, 2007) or aural turns to which participants respond in order to
increase naturalness (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009).

Pragmatics Tasks From an SLA Perspective: Windows Into Explicit

Knowledge
While tasks can be evaluated for fidelity as facsimiles of conversation, tasks
may also be evaluated by criteria typically found in SLA, namely mode, time
pressure (timed/untimed), and focus (on form or on communication), and how
these characteristics of tasks relate to implicit and explicit knowledge. Implicit
knowledge is taken to be procedural and unconscious whereas explicit knowl-
edge is thought to be analyzed knowledge that can be articulated (declarative
knowledge) and may involve metalanguage (R. Ellis, 2004, 2009).
While the emphasis on conversation and simulations of conversation under-
scores the fields interest in implicit pragmatic knowledge, explicit pragmatic
knowledge has been largely overlooked in the development of tasks designed
to elicit language samples for empirical studies. This may be due in part to
two reasons: Native speakers are not aware of much of their own pragmatic
behavior (Wolfson, 1986, 1989) and there is no tradition of explicit pragmatic
teaching the way there is in grammar teaching. Although relatively infrequent,
discussions of explicit pragmatic knowledge have appeared in papers that po-
sition pragmatics conceptually in larger cognitive frameworks of SLA (e.g.,
Bialystok, 1993; Schmidt, 1993). Nevertheless, the general absence of dis-
cussion concerning explicit knowledge in L2 pragmatics research makes it
important to consider that tasks commonly used in pragmatics research may
activate explicit knowledge (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012b; Ellis, 2004). In his seminal
Language Learning article Ellis (2004) observes:

L2 researchers have not specifically set out to investigate explicit

knowledge of L2 pragmatic features. However, many of the instruments
that have been used to investigate learners knowledge of illocutionary
acts, such as the discourse completion questionnaire (see Kasper & Dahl,
1991), are arguably more likely to tap explicit than implicit knowledge.
(pp. 243244)

Of interest to researchers who advocate for the use of authentic talk as

the primary source of pragmatic data is that the tasks that are closest to spon-
taneous conversation are also the most likely to reveal implicit knowledge.
As Ellis (2004) observes, explicit knowledge may not be readily available in

73 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

spontaneous language use where there is little opportunity for careful on-line
planning (p. 238), and that seems to describe conversation very well. However,
as tasks move away from spontaneous conversation, opportunities for the use
of explicit knowledge increase. The closest elicitation tasks to conversation
are role plays, even though role plays often have a planning stage. However,
even if one speaker is able to plan his or her first turn, speakers are generally
unable to plan subsequent turns and role plays generally exhibit characteristics
of spontaneous speech. Timed aural-oral computer-delivered tasks that play
prerecorded conversational turns delivered over headsets and elicit oral pro-
duction in response (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig, 2009) may be experimental rather
than spontaneous, but such tasks require rapid response to speech and may not
leave much time for learners to call on explicit knowledge.2
Written production tasks provide greater opportunity for learners to draw
on explicit knowledge. Ellis (2004) identified DCTs as tasks that likely draw
on explicit knowledge, and to these I add variations on DCTs with rejoinders
in which a follow-up turn is supplied allowing participants to read ahead and
calculate a response that fits both preceding and following turns (Johnston et al.,
1998) and Free DCTs (FDCTs; Barron, 2003) in which learners compose both
sides of a conversation, like script writing. Most DCTs are given as untimed
tasks, further increasing the likelihood that a respondent might draw on explicit
knowledge. Time pressure does not guarantee use of implicit knowledge and
even lack of time pressure does not guarantee use of explicit knowledge.
If such production tasks potentially yield production mediated by explicit
knowledge, pragmatic judgment tasks may also do so. Ellis (2004) observes
that the favored method of investigating L2 explicit knowledge as conscious
awareness is the grammaticality judgment task (p. 249). Tasks asking learn-
ers to judge grammaticality or acceptability of target-language sentences or
texts are more likely to tap explicit knowledge if they are untimed and encour-
age learners to deliberate carefully before making a judgment. Untimed tasks
that may promote the use of explicit knowledge in pragmatics include card
sorting (ranking of politeness levels of various expressions), identification of
speech acts, judgment tasks, judgment tasks with corrections or retrospective
reflections, or talking about pragmatics in groups.3
Changing the features of a task may promote the use of learners explicit
pragmatic knowledge, as illustrated by comparing an audio-video pragmatic
judgment task (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998) to replications with variations
(Niezgoda & Roever, 2001; Schauer, 2006) and instructional use of the same
task (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005), arranged in ascending order of potential
use of explicit knowledge in Table 2.

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 74

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Table 2 The potential for explicit pragmatic knowledge in an audio-visual judgment

task
Bardovi-Harlig & Niezgoda & Roever Bardovi-Harlig &
Dornyei (1998) Schauer (2006) (2001) Griffin (2005)

Audio-visual Replication (of B-H Replication (of B-H Use of original task
acceptability & D) plus & D) with subset in classroom;
judgment task semi-structured of learners who learners rated
with written post hoc were trained on utterances then
target utterance; interviews pragmatic vs. were given the
listened twice; focusing on grammatical list of infelicitous
timed learners errors; learners utterances in
judgments and then rated each context, and
reasons for them test utterance as asked to correct.
either a Discussed
pragmatic or corrections with
grammar error partner, planned
repairs, and acted
out the scenes in
class and were
video-recorded
Note. Abbreviations refer to the authors last names.

Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei (1998) investigated learner judgments of prag-

matic infelicities and ungrammaticality by presenting interactions on video that
learners and native speakers evaluated. The judgment task was timed, each scene
was played twice, and the utterance to be judged was printed in isolation on
the answer sheet. Participants decided whether a sentence was good or bad
and then rated the bad utterances along a continuum from not bad at all to
very bad.
In the replications, each study added a component that increased the po-
tential for activation of explicit knowledge. Schauers (2006) replication addi-
tionally interviewed learners to determine how they had classified each error;
learners were told how they had responded to each item and then were asked
to explain why. Niezgoda and Roever (2001) replicated the judgment task
then trained participants to identify grammatical and pragmatic errors. They
completed the task a second time, classifying each error as either pragmatic
or grammatical. Thus, both studies invited the use of explicit knowledge to
a greater extent than the original. The study by Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin
(2005) used the video judgment task as the basis for classroom instruction over

75 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

four classroom sessions. Students viewed the task, identified the errors and
infelicities individually, and then met as a class to report on their judgments.
Students were next given a script with the pragmatically infelicitous utterances
in context and asked to work with a partner to correct the conversations. Fi-
nally, students performed their repaired conversations in front of classmates
and were video-recorded. The results show what learners can do in a situ-
ation open to drawing on explicit knowledge through reflection, discussion,
and input from others in an untimed condition. (Some infelicities still went
unrepaired!)
The investigation of the degree to which results in L2 pragmatics unin-
tentionally reflect explicit knowledge due to task construction could start by
dividing tasks that may encourage learners to draw on implicit knowledge from
tasks that encourage learners to draw on explicit knowledge, and analyzing the
relative degree of explicit knowledge involved in tasks as illustrated in this
section. As Ellis (2004) observes, no task is foolproof as there are likely to be
learners who always respond by feel and others who can very quickly access
explicit knowledge.
Pursuing this avenue of investigation also entails determining the types
of explicit knowledge that learners have about L2 pragmatics. Additional re-
sources for the proposed investigation include studies that discuss explicit or
metapragmatic knowledge as an outcome of instruction (House, 1996; Huth,
2006), self-reports of pragmatic knowledge by researchers-as-L2-learners
(Hassall, 2006; Schmidt & Frota, 1986), retrospective verbal reports (for one
of the first studies, see Cohen & Olshtain, 1993; also, Felix-Brasdefer, 2004;
Shively, 2011),4 and studies of explicit knowledge in instruction (for a review,
see Alcon & Safont, 2008).
As we look forward, distinguishing between explicit and implicit knowl-
edge in the interpretation of tasks may help resolve some of the conflicts in
empirical results and may lead to a clearer understanding of what we have
called pragmatic competence.

Measuring Developing L2 Pragmatics

Measurement is closely related to task, but has not been discussed in pragmatics
to the same degree as task has. On one hand, measurement is straightforward:
We measure what we test. On a judgment task, for instance, we may measure
accuracy and reaction times, on a multiple-choice task, selection of the correct
option. But in conversation and the various conversation simulations, measure-
ment is not determined by the task. Because studies of pragmatics investigate

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 76

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

language use in context, almost any aspect of language, context, interaction,

setting, or consequence is relevant for measurement.
As early as 1981, Cohen and Olshtain asked Can a rating scale be de-
veloped for assessing sociocultural competence? (p. 115). In 1996, Kasper
and Schmidt asked How can approximation to target language norms be mea-
sured? (p. 155). They speculated that the lack of any common metric by which
development can be measured (p. 155) may have held pragmatics back from a
developmental focus. However, a review of L2 pragmatics research in the last
20 years shows that researchers have not sought a common metric by which
development can be measured, but rather have utilized multiple measures. As
in L2 research more generally, development occurs in multiple acquisitional
arenas. Instead of seeking global proficiency measures for pragmatics, acqui-
sition studies have utilized measures of development that are appropriate to the
research questions posed and the research designs used to investigate them. De-
velopment has been assessed by a range of measures including, but not limited
to, mitigation (e.g., Barron, 2003), upgrading (Barron, 2007), pragmalinguis-
tics (e.g., conventional expressions and general grammatical knowledge, as
in Barron, 2003; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007), intensification (Shardakova,
2005), turn structure and realization of speech acts across turns (Bardovi-Harlig
& Salsbury, 2004; Felix-Brasdefer, 2004, 2007), and continued investigation of
speech acts and semantic formulas (Sabate i Dalmau & Currell i Gotor, 2007;
Shardakova, 2005).
It is important to decouple types of language samples and specific analy-
ses. Speech act analysis may be pursued in conversation to learn how speech
acts unfold across turns and across speakers; equally, a microanalysis may be
performed on a role play, although discourse analysis originated for use with
natural data. The collection of conversation, institutional talk (including service
encounters), role plays, and other types of turn-taking communication is inde-
pendent of theory, and can be analyzed in multiple ways relevant to pragmatics
or the development of pragmalinguistic resources.
Nonproduction tasks often ask learners for interpretation, metapragmatic
judgments, ranking, rating, comprehension, identification, and calculation of
implicature. The measurement of performance on nonproduction tasks tends
to be more straightforward with their analysis following from the design
of the task. This is less controversial than the analysis of the production
data.
The question of measurement, then, has been reframed from looking for a
common metric in L2 pragmatics to identifying areas of change and developing
corresponding measures that capture that change.

77 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

How Interlanguage Development Influences Pragmatic

Development
Research in pragmatics often distinguishes between pragmalinguistics
the language resources speakers use for pragmatic purposesand
sociopragmaticsthe rules that guide use of language in context. Understand-
ing the development of interlanguage is of direct importance to pragmalin-
guistics because it examines what in essence are the parts of language used to
realize pragmatic intent. Although modals and honorific systems are frequently
identified as grammatical systems of prime pragmalinguistic importance, most
aspects of language are pragmalinguistic resources, including but not limited to
verbal morphology (tense, aspect, mood, person, and number), nominal mor-
phology including person and number, embedding, lexicon, and phonology
including prosody.
One of the questions that pragmatics addresses is how form is used in con-
text. Different contexts call for different forms. The use of an imperative such
as open the window, a declarative, its hot in here, or a question with embed-
ding, Would you mind opening the window? in one situation or another requires
sufficient grammatical and lexical development for these to be alternatives in
the same linguistic system. A choice between shut up and be quiet requires
at the very least that both be in the learners interlanguage, otherwise even an
expression such as shut up is entirely neutral in a system without an alternative;
the stronger version of a request to stop talking gets its strong reading only in
contrast to an alternative.
The study of interlanguage development as the study of the development
of pragmalinguistic resources, then, is a study of emergent contrasts, how
they come about, and how learners manage them. In early stages of SLA,
learners often start with one form for one functionthis is known as the
one-to-one principle (Andersen, 1984, 1990)before expanding to multiple
forms for one function (or multiple functions for one form), a stage known as
multifunctionality (Andersen, 1990). A learner who has one functional reply
to thank you, such as youre welcome, may not be in the market for another
such as no problem. Adding no problem to the repertoire does not just involve
the addition of another expression, but rather remapping. Youre welcome may
start as the only reply to thank you. If no problem is added, however, it may
be mapped to the function of deflecting the thanks, while youre welcome is
remapped to accepting thanks (Bardovi-Harlig, 2009).
Studying the development of grammar and lexicon in pragmatics is not a
question of determining whether pragmatics or grammar develops first (Kasper

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 78

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

& Rose, 2002), but rather of explaining how the emergent systems interact, and
how one supports the other. Some speakers and learners can do amazingly well
with strategic use of very little grammar, restricted vocabulary, and intonation
(Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig, 2000) and other speakers can do quite poorly with
a full repertoireeveryone knows native speakers who seem to lack pragmatic
sensibilities. That may be part of the story, but what should interest researchers
adopting the disciplinary perspective of SLA is the twinned development of
grammar and pragmatics and how growth in one leads to expanded expression
in the other.
As an illustration of the interface between pragmatics and language devel-
opment, consider L2 modality (see in L2 English, Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig,
2000; in L2 German, modal particles, Vyatkina & Belz, 2006; in L2 Spanish,
conditional and past subjunctive, Bataller, 2010; Shively & Cohen, 2008; other
areas of grammar are discussed in Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). The general preva-
lence of the modals would and could in American English contrasts with their
relative absence in learner production at low to intermediate proficiency. A lon-
gitudinal investigation of modality in oppositional talk showed that the dearth
of would and could was a result of late emergence in interlanguage (Salsbury
& Bardovi-Harlig, 2000). Whereas the modal expressions maybe and I think
emerged early and were used widely by all learners, would and could emerged
at least 6 months later in the interlanguage of only a few learners and accounted
for less that 1% of modal expressions.
In addition to development in grammar, development of formulaic lan-
guage has also been investigated (e.g., House, 1996; Tateyama, 2001; also
Bardovi-Harlig, 2009; Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011). The interest in the
use of formulaic language in linguistics and applied linguistics (as evidenced
by the 2012 issue of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics on formulaic
language), in SLA (including two edited volumes, Barfield & Gyllstad, 2009;
Schmitt, 2004), and in pragmatics in particular (Bardovi-Harlig, 2012a) will
lead to additional investigations in this area in L2 pragmatics.
Across all types of data, it is revealing to consider how interlanguage
development affects pragmatic development. Oral production data also invite
the analysis of L2 phonological attributes, including pronunciation, hesitations,
and prosody. In addition, the ability to take a turn in conversation assumes a level
of development of aural comprehension as well as production. Understanding an
implicature in conversation involves a general level of listening comprehension
as well as the ability to calculate implicature (Taguchi, 2005, 2008), just as oral
production draws on general fluency such as speech rate (Taguchi, 2007).

79 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

The Effect of Environment: Study Abroad

Increased interest in the potential for study-abroad environments to positively
impact SLA (see, e.g., the 2004 thematic issue of Studies in Second Language
Acquisition) has led to a number of studies in L2 pragmatics in study-abroad
contexts (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011; Barron, 2003, 2007; Bataller,
2010; Cohen & Shively, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2004; Kinginger & Blattner,
2008; Kinginger & Farrell, 2004; Schauer, 2006, 2007; Shively, 2011; Shively
& Cohen, 2008; Taguchi, 2008, 2011). Study abroad is one type of host environ-
ment experience (e.g., in contrast to immigration or vacation) where students
at secondary or university level attend classes in a country that speaks the tar-
get language. Intuitively, it seems that the development of L2 pragmaticsan
aspect of language acquisition and use that is particularly sensitive to linguistic
and nonlinguistic context including users and placewould benefit from time
in the target-language environment such as language-focused study-abroad so-
journs provide.5 However, study-abroad research in L2 pragmatics has revealed
that both the study-abroad environment and the investigation of it are complex.
It is in the sorting out of these complexities in which the next advances in the
study of L2 pragmatics in study-abroad environments will lie.
There are at least four sets of variables that must be taken into account in
study-abroad inquiries concerning pragmatics: variables concerning the envi-
ronment, the learner (proficiency, previous linguistic and nonlinguistic experi-
ence, and individual differences), the pragmatics (including pragmalinguistics
and sociopragmatics), and the learners interaction with the environment (and
the environments interaction with the learner). Environment in itself is a com-
plex variable that determines other variables including the quantity and quality
of the input available to learners and the opportunities that learners have to use
the language communicatively and consequentially.
The classic measure of study abroad is length of stay (LOR, length of
residence, in early SLA studies). It is easy to measure and learner self-reports
are reliable; however, the relevance of length of stay as a meaningful variable
has been severely criticized. Dietrich, Klein, and Noyau (1995) concluded that
[d]uration of stay is an uninteresting variable. What matters is intensity, not
length of interaction (p. 277). And indeed, the results from investigations of
length of stay are generally quite mixed for L2 pragmatics. Although early
studies such as Olshtain and Blum-Kulka (1985) suggested that length of stay
was more important to pragmatics than proficiency, Kasper and Rose (2002,
p. 230) concluded that length of residence is not a reliable predictor for
developing pragmatic abilities in L2.

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 80

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Taken in the aggregate, existing studies suggest that a number of relevant

factors may compete with length of stay in the target-language environment
to determine success. Among them are proficiency, the aspects of pragmatics
that are being investigated, and actual experiences during the study abroad pe-
riod, including intensity of interaction (Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011). Where
length of residence is concerned, longer is not better when the situation is not
conducive to language learning, such as when the learners are not interacting
with the host environment (see, e.g., Adolphs & Durow, 2004). Learners may
also be less able to take advantage of the host environment at lower levels of
proficiency. In addition, it appears that a single learner may demonstrate dif-
ferent outcomes on different facets of pragmatics. The challenge is to separate
the variables for investigation.
Recent work in pragmatics has begun to explore variables that impact
linguistic development during study abroad experiences. Shively and Cohen
(2008) developed the Intercultural Development Inventory, a 50-item instru-
ment, designed to measure intercultural sensitivity; Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos
(2011) investigated the effect of proficiency, length of stay, and intensity of in-
teraction on the acquisition of L2 learners acquisition of conventional expres-
sions and their ability to use them; and Shively and Cohen (2008) and Taguchi
(2008, 2011) used reduced forms of the Language Contact Profile developed by
Freed, Dewey, Segalowitz, and Halter (2004). Shively (2011) employed a data
collection innovation by having learners audio-tape their own service encoun-
ters during their semester-long sojourn resulting in 113 exchanges for seven
learners.
A review of the issues in investigating the acquisition of L2 pragmatics
during study-abroad sojourns encompasses in microcosm many of the issues
discussed for L2 pragmatics at large. At this stage, making progress in under-
standing the acquisition process in study-abroad settings will involve refining
the means used to collect relevant language samples, the type of knowledge
that is tapped, the measurement of pragmatic development, and proficiency,
including the interface of the development of grammar and lexicon with
pragmatics.

Conclusion
The study of the development of L2 pragmatics is a vibrant area of investiga-
tion. As a relatively new field in SLA, acquisitional pragmaticswhat I have
called L2 pragmatics in this articlehas significant room for growth as it fully
takes its place in SLA research. Evaluation of tasks from familiar perspectives

81 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

(considering their fidelity to conversation) and from new perspectives (consider-

ing the type of knowledge they promote), further identification of measurement
as it relates to pragmatic development, investigation of the interface of prag-
matic and linguistic development, researching the role of environment in terms
of how learners interact with people and resources within it, and the interaction
of these with the others, are some of the currents that will carry L2 pragmatics
forward.
Revised version accepted 3 September 2012

Notes
1 I approach the intersection of pragmatics and second language acquisition from
the perspective that Kasper (2009) identifies as pragmatic learning as individual
cognition.
2 See Taguchi (2007) for an investigation of the influence of planning time on oral
production in pragmatics.
3 Ellis (2004) argues that explicit knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge are not
the same, but rather related.
4 Verbal reports are not exclusively tuned to explore explicit knowledge; the
excerpts included in Shively (2011), for example, show that retrospective reports
by learners include a range of topics including noticing, attitudes toward learning
L2 pragmatics, and explicit knowledge.
5 This term is to distinguish language-focused study-abroad programs from
culture-focused study abroad programs that have no language component.

References
Adolphs, S., & Durow, V. (2004). Social-cultural integration and the development of
formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition,
processing and use (pp. 107126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alcon, E., & Safont, M. P. (2008). Pragmatic awareness in second language
acquisition. In J. Cenoz & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and
education (Vol. 6, pp. 193204). New York: Springer.
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction.
Language Learning, 34, 7795.
Andersen, R. W. (1990). Models, processes, principles and strategies: Second language
acquisition inside and outside the classroom. In B. VanPatten & J. F. Lee (Eds.),
Second language acquisitionForeign language learning (pp. 4578). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 82

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). The interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research

agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan
(Ed.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 182192). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource:
Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics.
Language Learning, 59, 755795.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010a). Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics:
Definition by design. In W. Bublitz, A. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider (Series Eds.), &
A. Trosborg (Vol. Ed.), Handbooks of pragmatics: Vol. 7. Pragmatics across
languages and cultures (pp. 219259). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2010b). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan
(Ed.), The handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 232243). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012a). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in
pragmatics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 206227.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012b). Pragmatics in SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147162). New York:
Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bastos, M.-T. (2011). Proficiency, length of stay, and intensity
of interaction and the acquisition of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 8, 347384.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic
violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 233259.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the
ESL classroom. System, 33, 401415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (2005). Institutional discourse and interlanguage
pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. S. Hartford (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics: Exploring institutional talk (pp. 736). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Salsbury, T. (2004). The organization of turns in the
disagreements of L2 learners: A longitudinal perspective. In D. Boxer & A. D.
Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 199
227). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Barfield, A., & Gyllstad, H. (Eds.). (2009). Researching collocations in another
language: Multiple interpretations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barron, A. (2003). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barron, A. (2007). Ah no honestly were okay: Learning to upgrade in a study
abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 129166.

83 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Bataller, R. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development

in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 160175.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic
competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.
4359). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural
competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113134.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 3356.
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in
Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention.
Modern Language Journal, 91, 189212.
Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Dietrich, R., Klein, W., & Noyau, C. (1995). The acquisition of temporality in a second
language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language
Learning, 54, 227275.
Ellis, R. (2009). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In
R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Phelp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and
explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and teaching (pp. 3164).
Bristol, UK. Multilingual Matters.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length
of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54, 587653.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom:
A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253286.
Felix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Politeness in Mexico and the US: A contrastive study of
the realization and perception of refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact
profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 349356.
Hassall, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M.
A. Dufon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts
(pp. 3158). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language:
Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18, 225252.
Huth, T. (2006). Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners realization of L2
compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 38,
20252050.
Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Effect of rejoinders in production
questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19, 157182.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203231.

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 84

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Kasper, G. (2008). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.),

Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.,
pp. 279303). London: Continuum.
Kasper, G. (2009). L2 pragmatic development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.),
New handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 259295). Leeds, UK: Emerald.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 215247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 19, 81104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149169.
Kinginger, C., & Blattner, G. (2008). Histories of engagement and sociolinguistic
awareness in study abroad. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study
of advanced L2 capabilities (pp. 223246). New York: Routledge.
Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic
awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 10, 1942.
Nickels, E. L. (2006). Interlanguage pragmatics and the effects of setting. In K.
Bardovi-Harlig, C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language
learning (Vol. 11, pp. 253280). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
Niezgoda, K., & Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function
of the learning environment? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 6379). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions
to native speech act behavior. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 303325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sabate i Dalmau, M., & Curell i Gotor, H. (2007). From Sorry very much to Im
ever so sorry: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of
English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 287315.
Salsbury, T., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Oppositional talk and the acquisition of
modality in L2 English. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, &
E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition:
Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 5776).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and
development. Language Learning, 56, 269318.
Schauer, G. A. (2007). Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The
development of German learners use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 4, 193220.

85 Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886

Bardovi-Harlig Developing L2 Pragmatics

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.

Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 2142). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second
language: A case study of a learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn
(pp. 237326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners
of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics,
2, 423451.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study
of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 18181835.
Shively, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (2008). Development of Spanish requests and apologies
during study abroad. Ikala, 13, 57118.
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign
language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543562.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics,
28, 113135.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic
comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58, 3371.
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on
pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61, 136.
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. Rose,
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200222). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vyatkina, N., & Belz, J. A. (2006). A learner corpus-driven intervention for the
development of L2 pragmatic competence. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, C.
Felix-Brasdefer, & A. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11,
pp. 293329). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Warga, M., & Scholmberger, U. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic
behaviour in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 221252.
Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL
Quarterly, 20, 689699.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.

Language Learning 63:Suppl.1, March 2013, pp. 6886 86