Applied Linguistics Review 2017; 8(1): 101–129 Veronika Timpe-Laughlin* Adult learners’ acquisitional patterns in L2 pragmatics: What do we know? DOI 10.1515/applirev-2015-2005 Abstract: Language pedagogy designers are faced with the challenge of engi- neering learning experiences that are in harmony with how second and foreign languages (L2s) are developed. In the field of L2 pragmatics learning and teaching, this challenge has sparked a considerable amount of research on instructional methods, facilitative interventions, and input enhancements. To a lesser degree, researchers have also investigated L2 pragmatic learning progressions that might inform L2 instruction. This review paper canvasses empirical research into the acquisitional sequences of interlanguage prag- matics (ILP) in adult L2 learners conducted after 2002, the year in which Kasper and Rose’s seminal book, Pragmatic Development in a Second Language, was published. The paper synthesizes the findings of 16 system- atically identified empirical studies. Based on this synthesis of findings, new insights and tendencies in L2 pragmatic development are discussed, and areas in need of further research are identified. Keywords: L2 acquisition, pragmatics, learning trajectories 1 Introduction In recent years, the field of second and foreign language (L2) pragmatics teaching and learning research has witnessed a considerable upsurge in pub- lications providing suggestions and implications for L2 pragmatics instruction (for a detailed overview see Taguchi 2015). Several studies have examined the teachability of pragmatics, yielding results that support the effectiveness of L2 pragmatics instruction in different environments (e. g., Jeon and Kaya 2006; Kasper 1997; Takamiya and Ishihara 2008). Other research has provided evidence that pragmatics teaching has positive effects on the pragmatic devel- opment of L2 learners at all proficiency levels, from beginner to advanced (e. g., Alcón Soler and Safont Jorda 2008), and that explicit pragmatics *Corresponding author: Veronika Timpe-Laughlin, Center for English Language Learning and Assessment, Educational Testing Service, 660 Rosedale Rd, Princeton, NJ 08540-2218, USA, E-mail: [email protected] 102 Veronika Timpe-Laughlin instruction tends to result in more L2 pragmatic development than implicit pragmatics instruction (Jeon and Kaya 2006; Salazar Campillo 2007). Moreover, different types and lengths of pedagogical interventions have been found to yield different degrees of L2 pragmatic development (Bataller 2010; Cohen and Shively 2007). In contrast, research investigating the order of L2 pragmatics acquisition are still rare. Kasper and Schmidt (1996) and Cohen (1996) were among the first to emphasize the need to investigate the development of L2 pragmatics. Cohen (1996: 263), for instance, asked whether “adults go through developmental sequences in their acquisition of speech act ability in the same way as they have been found to do in the acquisition of morphemes and syntactic structures such as negation”. While several seminal studies have been published since 1996 (e. g., Kasper and Rose 2001), there is an ongoing need for L2 pragmatics research that focuses on “identifying and accounting for stages of development” (Bardovi-Harlig 2012: 159). The purpose of this article is to review studies conducted in the area of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) development after 2002, the year in which Kasper and Rose’s seminal book, Pragmatic Development in a Second Language, was published. Following Kasper and Rose (2002: 1), this article will report on the findings of 16 systematically identified, empirical investiga- tions into “acquisitional processes, conditions, and sequential patterns” in L2 pragmatics in order to provide a state-of-the-art overview of what we know about receptive and productive ILP development in adult L2 learners. 2 L2 pragmatics Crystal (1997) described pragmatics as “the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encoun- ter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication” (p. 301). This description characterizes pragmatics as focused on the language user in a particular con- text, encoding and decoding utterances in relation to a number of sociocultural factors. That is, a pragmatically competent language user has “the ability to control the complex interplay of language, language users, and language use contexts” (Taguchi 2008c, p. 204). Mastering the pragmatics of communication poses a challenge to all language users, and for L2 learners this challenge is particularly demanding. Adult learners’ acquisitional patterns in L2 pragmatics 103 When L2 learners do not fully comprehend the relationship between an utterance’s propositional meaning (i. e., the apparent meaning) and its intended illocutionary meaning (i. e., the intended effect), pragmatic failure may occur, leaving the hearer offended or making the speaker appear unin- telligent, rude, or impolite (Thomas 1983; Washburn 2001). In order to prepare L2 learners for pragmatic challenges in L2 contexts, researchers have called for increased L2 pragmatics instruction (Ishihara and Cohen 2010; Kasper 1997; Timpe 2013). Studies in the domain of L2 or interlanguage pragmatics have primarily investigated the use of pragmatic phenomena rather than the development of pragmatic abilities. Given the preponderance of language use studies, Bardovi-Harlig (1999) has suggested distinguishing between interlanguage pragmatics and acquisitional pragmatics. While ILP refers to the domain which “examines how nonnative speakers comprehend and produce action in a target language” (Kasper and Rose 2002: 5), acquisitional pragmatics describes the sub-domain of ILP dedicated exclusively to investigating how the L2 pragmatic system develops. Studies that focus on acquisitional pragmatics adopt a predominantly SLA-oriented perspective, focusing on L2 pragmatics learning progressions and (individual) learning trajectories. Thus, to borrow Bardovi-Harlig’s(2013:69)words:“[a]ll studies of L2 pragmatics belong to interlanguage pragmatics, but not all interlanguage pragmatics studies are acquisitional”. 3 L2 pragmatic development patterns A large number of L2 pragmatic research claims to be developmental in nature. Studies oftentimes report an increase in pragmatic competence as measured at two different points in time by means of data collection instruments intended to assess a given pragmatic phenomenon. Although these studies may account for the outcomes of pragmatic development, they rarely provide insight into the process(es) of L2 pragmatic acquisition, as they were not designed to investigate development. Kasper and Rose (2002: 61), for instance, argue that many studies only consider developmental sequences in “post hoc explanations of findings rather than serving as the motivating force of a study”. Thus, this review sought to identify works – both cross-sectional and longitudinal – whose original, primary focus was to explicitly investigate learning trajectories and levels of adult L2 pragmatic development. 104 Veronika Timpe-Laughlin 3.1 Methodology Following Timpe-Laughlin et al. (2015), this study employed a systematic biblio- graphic search1 to identify a body of empirical studies that investigated L2 pragmatic development. Five key terms – pragmatics, learning, acquisition, L2, and development – were employed in Boolean AND-OR search combinations across the following indices and databases, primarily selected from In’nami and Koizumi’s (2010) list of frequently used databases in applied linguistics: Academic Search Complete, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychInFO, and Google Scholar. Studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis based on the following four criteria: 1) The study was published between 2002 (the year of Kasper and Rose’s seminal publication) and March 2015 (when the present review was conducted). 2) The study had a clear developmental focus; it was conceptualized to observe and document stages and/or developmental aspects. 3) The study investigated the development of one or more L2 pragmatic phenomena. 4) The study observed adult (i. e., post-critical period) L2 learners. Based on these criteria, 16 studies were identified for analysis.2 The studies fell into three general categories: (a) receptive skills, (b) awareness, and (c) produc- tion. While Kasper and Rose (2002) only distinguish between the two categories of “pragmatic comprehension” and “pragmatic and discourse ability,” the latter category seems to combine pragmatics production, discourse ability, and meta- pragmatics awareness/knowledge. While the research available in 2002 may not have allowed for further parsing of this large category, Kasper and Rose high- lighted that “we also need to probe learner knowledge [i. e., meta-pragmatic awareness]” (134). At present, several studies have focused on production and knowledge, respectively, allowing for the more fine-grained and distinct cate- gorization employed in this review. 1 Note that, similar to Kasper and Rose (2002), this paper does not claim to provide an exhaustive review. The first 100 search results for each keyword combination were screened for relevance, and studies that met the criteria outlined above were included in the review process. Given this systematic approach, there may be some empirical studies that were not captured. Nevertheless, this approach