Interlanguage Pragmatics

Definition:

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is the branch of SLA research that examines how non-native speakers develop, deploy, and sometimes fail to develop the pragmatic competence required for appropriate, effective, and socioculturally sensitive communication in the L2—focusing on speech act performance (the production of requests, apologies, refusals, complaints, and compliments), conversational implicature, discourse coherence, and the sociolinguistic calibration of register and politeness strategies across interlocutors and contexts. Originally developed through cross-cultural speech act research (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper 1989 — the CCSARP project), ILP established that L2 learner pragmatic behavior systematically differs from native speaker norms in ways not reducible to grammatical error, that pragmatic development is separable from (and often lags behind) morphosyntactic development, and that L2 pragmatic competence is partly teachable through explicit pragmatic instruction.

In-Depth Explanation

What is pragmatic competence?

Competence in SLA has typically been analyzed following Hymes’ communicative competence (1972) and Canale & Swain’s (1980) expansion. Pragmatic competence includes:

Illocutionary competence: The ability to perform speech acts — requests, apologies, compliments, refusals, promises — in forms the target language community recognizes as appropriate.
Sociopragmatic competence: The ability to make appropriate choices about when and how to perform speech acts given social variables — power, social distance, imposition degree, cultural values.
Pragmalinguistic competence: Control of the specific linguistic forms available in the target language for performing speech acts — choosing among levels of directness, politeness strategies, mitigating and aggravating devices.

The distinction between sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic failure (Thomas 1983) is crucial:

Pragmalinguistic failure: Using a pragmatically inappropriate form even if the speaker’s social intent is appropriate — using the wrong linguistic formula for the context.
Sociopragmatic failure: Misjudging the social situation — performing a request where no request should be performed, or underestimating imposition.

The CCSARP project:

The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper 1989) was the landmark cross-linguistic ILP study:

Compared request and apology performance across eight languages and cultures using Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs).
Found systematic cross-linguistic variation in:
Level of directness (direct requests vs. conventionally indirect vs. non-conventional indirect)
Choice of supportive moves (grounders, acknowledgments, preparators)
Level of formality and politeness strategy selection
Established that pragmatic performance is cross-linguistically variable in principled ways and that L2 speakers show transfer from L1 pragmatic norms.

Speech act specific research:

Extensive ILP research has examined specific speech acts:

Requests: How direct/indirect are L2 requests? Do learners use target language request conventions or transfer L1 conventions? Japanese learners of English tend to make more indirect requests (reflecting Japanese directness norms) in some contexts; English learners of Japanese sometimes produce requests that are too direct.

Apologies: Olshtain & Cohen (1983) — apology strategy taxonomy; L2 learners under-apologize or over-apologize compared to native speaker norms.

Refusals: Beebe, Takahashi, & Uliss-Weltz (1990) — Japanese speakers refusing in English transferred Japanese refusal conventions (indirect refusals with detailed excuses) rather than using American English norms.

Compliments and compliment responses: Nelson et al. (1990) — L2 learners vary substantially from native speakers in both producing compliments and responding to them.

L2 Japanese interlanguage pragmatics:

ILP research in Japanese is rich, reflecting:

Keigo complexity: Japanese register calibration (teineigo, sonkeigo, kenjōgo) requires sophisticated sociopragmatic judgment — L2 learners systematically either over-use polite forms (using formal keigo in all contexts) or avoid them.
Request directness conventions: Japanese L1 speakers use highly indirect forms for requests imposing on superiors; learners calibrate directness to L2 norms or L1-transferred patterns.
Apology formulae: Japanese apologies have extensive formulaic inventory (申し訳ありません, 失礼しました, ごめんなさい, すみません) with clear register stratification; L2 learners over-rely on すみません as a universal apology/excuse marker.
Refusal strategies: Japanese refusals heavily use indirect strategies (silence, excuses, appreciation-then-excuse, ambiguous non-acceptance) while direct “no” is sociolinguistically marked; English L1 learners of Japanese may produce more direct refusals.

Teachability of pragmatic competence:

Can pragmatic competence be taught? Meta-analyses (Kasper & Rose 2002; Jeon & Kaya 2006):

Explicit pragmatic instruction is effective — explaining pragmatic norms, discussing cross-cultural comparisons, providing feedback on pragmatic appropriateness produces more target-like performance than exposure alone.
Input enhancement for pragmatics (raising awareness of pragmatic patterns in authentic input) also produces some benefit.
Spontaneous pragmatic development without instruction is slow and uneven — many learners fossilize at pragmatically inappropriate norms even with high grammatical proficiency.

History

1975: Searle — Speech Acts; Austin’s speech act philosophy.
1983: Thomas — pragmatic failure taxonomy.
1989: Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper — CCSARP project.
1990: Beebe et al. — refusal research; Japanese transfer.
1996: Kasper & Blum-Kulka — edited PRAGMATICS volume; ILP consolidated.
2002: Kasper & Rose — Pragmatic Development in a Second Language — synthesis.

Common Misconceptions

“High grammatical proficiency means good pragmatic competence.” Research consistently shows pragmatic competence developing independently from grammar — learners with near-native grammar may produce sociopragmatically inappropriate speech acts.

“Just immerse in the target language and pragmatics will come.” Pragmatic development through immersion alone is slower than with explicit intervention — pragmatic norms are often opaque to learners because native speakers do not correct pragmatic errors (unlike grammatical errors) in conversational contexts.

Criticisms

DCT methodology (Discourse Completion Tasks — written hypothetical scenarios) has been criticized for ecological validity — written production of pragmatic responses does not capture the real-time, prosodically rich nature of spoken pragmatic performance.
ILP research has been critiqued for an implicit native-speaker norm assumption — the target is “sound like a native speaker pragmatically,” which may import the native-speakerism problem into the pragmatics domain.

Social Media Sentiment

Interlanguage pragmatics is often discussed through the lens of “mistakes Japanese learners make” or “why Japanese L2 English sounds unnatural” — the pragmatic dimensions of cross-linguistic communication. The discovery that you can be grammatically correct but pragmatically inappropriate is a common learning milestone — learners who have been studying Japanese grammar discover they are producing technically correct but socially inappropriate requests.

Last updated: 2026-04

Practical Application

Teach speech act norms explicitly: Don’t assume learners will acquire the appropriate Japanese request formula (~をいただけますか vs. ~をください vs. ~をもらえますか) from grammar study — explicit comparison of form choices and their social implications is necessary.
Analyze authentic speech act examples: Bring authentic examples of Japanese apologies, refusals, and requests from dramas, conversation, or business contexts into the classroom and analyze the strategies used — DCT-style analysis of authentic input.
Discuss cross-cultural pragmatic contrasts: Explicitly teaching that Japanese refusals are systematically more indirect than English refusals (and why) enables learners to make informed adjustment rather than defaulting to L1 norms.
Provide feedback on pragmatic appropriateness: In speaking practice, address not only grammatical errors but register choice, directness level, and speech act strategy selection — learners need feedback on pragmatic dimensions to develop sociopragmatic competence.

Related Terms

Research

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex. [Summary: CCSARP project; eight-language comparison of request and apology strategies; directness levels; supportive moves; pragmatic transfer; landmark ILP cross-cultural methodology and findings.]

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. [Summary: Pragmatic failure taxonomy; pragmalinguistic vs. sociopragmatic failure distinction; cross-cultural examples; foundational conceptual framework for all subsequent ILP research.]

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55–73). Newbury House. [Summary: Japanese ESL speaker refusal strategies; L1 pragmatic transfer; detailed excuse sequences transferred from Japanese; divergence from American English norms; formative cross-linguistic refusal research.]

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell. [Summary: ILP developmental sequences; teachability of pragmatics; speech act acquisition research synthesis; role of instruction in pragmatic development; meta-analysis of ILP instruction studies.]

Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 165–211). John Benjamins. [Summary: Meta-analysis of pragmatic instruction research; explicit instruction significantly more effective than implicit; effect sizes for different speech acts; conditions for effective pragmatic instruction.]

Mikey Does