L2 Pragmatics Research and the Problem of L1 Norms

Abstract

L2 pragmatics refers to language learners' acquisition of appropriate linguistic and paralinguistic behaviors for a range of communicative functions, such as making a request or apologizing. In order to identify instructional targets and assess learners' pragmatic competence, the field has traditionally relied on the norms of L1 speakers as a standard. However, a number of problems have been associated with this practice related to the appropriateness of L1 norms for L2 learners and to the conception of those norms in the first place. L1 norms may be incompatible with L2 speakers' identities, inappropriate for their local communicative needs, or both. Moreover, the identification of L1 speaker norms has often overlooked pragmatic differences among L1 speakers, which occur as a result of micro‐ and macrosocial factors. Instead, an idealized and unrealistic view of pragmatic uniformity among L1 speakers is often presented. Given these problems, alternative approaches should be considered for teaching and assessing L2 pragmatic competence.

The Use of English Pragmatic Markers by Learners of English from Different Linguacultural Backgrounds

“…Although cia2 has been used for many years, native English speakers' use of English remains the norm in studies of esl or efl learners' use of English (Diskin, 2017;Öztürk and Köse, 2021). A few studies have compared the use of English by esl or efl learners from different linguacultural backgrounds without using native English speakers as the norm (Barron, 2019;Taguchi and Caprario, 2024), such as studies of request strategies (Ogiermann and Bella, 2020). However, research comparing the use of English pms by efl learners from different linguacultural backgrounds is scarce.…”

“…Several studies of the use of English pragmatic markers (pms) by learners of English as a second or foreign language (esl or efl) have compared their use of pms to that of native English speakers, with the results being described as "overuse" (Aijmer, 2011;Ament et al, 2020) or "underuse" (Alkhawaja et al, 2023;Müller, 2005). Despite the fruitful results, criticism of adopting native English speakers' use of English as the norm in esl or efl studies has increased (Barron, 2019;Taguchi, 2022;Taguchi and Caprario, 2024;Taguchi and Li, 2021) because esl and efl learners "do not always use the target language to mimic native speakers" (Taguchi and Li, 2021: 10), but use English to exchange information or to achieve mutual understanding. Gilquin (2020: 289) also contended that overuse and underuse "are not meant as being evaluative but purely descriptive".…”