Learning and teaching: how the development of pragmatic ability is articulated in L2

Learning and teaching: how the development of pragmatic ability is articulated in L2

This article aims to focus on how we can take action to speed up the learning process knowing that use and learning are not the same thing. In fact, those who use L2 use the language to live their lives here and now, the learner pretends to shop, look for work, follow lessons at school, understand the doctor, read the newspaper, negotiate a mortgage, draw up a contract. The learner must construct the code by extrapolating from the message (Cook, 2002). However, use and learning are two interrelated phenomena in that even the learner aspires one day to use the language. The ultimate goal in pragmatic teaching remains complex because the person's identity and values ​​are hidden behind the pragmatic. Between the conformity to the model of the native speaker and the misunderstanding it is necessary to position one's own person.


The development of pragmatics by learners in this work is presented around the linguistic act of the request understood as a very useful macro-act for the learning and typical phenomenon of social transaction (Brunery, 1982). The act of the request is interesting both on the pragmalinguistic (various ways to achieve it) and sociopragmatic (as it codifies the social position of the interacting). It is also an act that threatens the face and therefore requires careful mitigation calibration. Let's look at the crucial aspects considered:

These observations will allow us to discuss whether the emergence of pragmatics precedes or follows that of grammar.

With Searle (1976) the act of request was defined as a directive with which the speaker tries to direct the action of the interlocutor, who is called to bear a 'cost' (effort seems to me to be a less economist terminology ) more or less high in terms of time, effort or material goods. In fact, various things can be requested, verbal, information or non-verbal, such as giving an object or providing a service:


- a che ora vuoi partire?
- potresti passarmi il sale?
- dammi un bacio


For Trosborg (1995), the request can turn into a suggestion, advice or even threat such as:

- che ne diresti dell'idea di potare le rose?
- sarebbe bello che tu potassi le rose prima che arrivi la primavera
- se non poti le rose non ti faccio il dolce di mandorle.

In all cases of request, the context will disambiguate the illocutionary value of an act. In Brown and Levinson's theory (1987), the request is an act of threat to the negative side of the interlocutor because it invades the territory of the other. On the other hand, in making the request, the speaker puts his positive face at stake because the recipient can react with a refusal.

In the case of the request, the weight of the threat is the result of the interaction of three main factors:

- the power relationship between the participants in the communication

- their social distance

- the assessment of the degree of taxation of the request


The degree of taxation also depends on the subject of the request as well as on the context that establishes a contract in terms of rights and duties between speakers (Kebrat-Orecchioni, 2001) related to specific skills and occasions (Goffman, 1971).

Regarding the grammatical form, the most explicit way to convey the illocutionary force of an act in Italian is the use of a performative verb. The most obvious verb is 'to ask':

- ti chiedo di potare le rose

For requests it is certainly more suitable to use a question:

potresti/ puoi potare le rose?

To have a request you always need a benefit for the applicant and a cost for the interlocutor.

If, on the other hand, the benefit belongs to the listener and the cost belongs to the speaker, it can be an offer:


- scegli la rosa più bella.


Formulating a request therefore means performing an act which is in some measure dangerous for the relationship between the two actors of communication. In practice, those who submit the request try to reduce the risk by using linguistic means capable of mitigating the weight of the threat.

Such as:

- vorrei sapere se avete i prodotti omeopatici.

- avete storia della linguistica del Robins del Mulino mi sembra?

Or the linguistic means of attenuation verify in advance if the conditions exist for the interlocutor to have the possibility to do what is asked of him.


- non e' che per caso hai l'orologio?


The strategies for the expression of requests can be direct or indirect.


They are directed when the illocutionary force is indicated in the utterance through grammatical, lexical or semantic elements which are specialized in this function (Blum-Kulka, 1987). Indirect requests leave open the possibility of conveying a different type of illocutionary force. There are indirect 'conventional' and 'unconventional' strategies.

Example of conventional indirect request:  :

1. potresti potare le rose?
2. poteresti le rose?
3. puoi potare le rose adesso?
4. mi piacerebbe che tu potassi le rose

Non-conventionally indirect strategies are open, unlimited and unpredictable.

For example: I'm tired now = so prune the roses

today I have already sawn the lawn = so it's up to you to prune the roses

tomorrow the uncles are coming = you have to look good, prune the roses.

Much has been said about the greater or lesser courtesy of direct strategies since the theoretical framework was the linguistic behavior of the British upper class and therefore the more indirect a strategy, the more educated it is. In that culture, good education serves to express distance (negative courtesy) and not as a means of expressing solidarity (positive courtesy).

After the works of Wierzbicka (1985) we know that this matter is very complicated and depends on many pragmatic elements (you / she, use of relievers, attenuators, justifications, excuses, intensifiers). In addition, there are socio-pragmatic parameters such as social distance, the relationship of power between speakers, the degree of imposition of requests).


Example of strategies for the expression of the act of the request in Italian taken from the scheme proposed by Trosborg (1995).

The initial situation is that of a speaker asking to borrow the car.


Strategy 1 (slight hint) ---- devo andare all'aeroporto tra mezz'ora / dovrei essere all'aeroporto tra mezz'ora

 (heavy) --- la mia macchina 'e dal meccanico, potrei usare la tua per stasera?


Category 2 Conventional listener-oriented requests

ability ---- mi presteresti la tua macchina?
will ----- vorresti prestarmi la tua macchina? ti andrebbe di prestarmi la tua macchina
advice ------ che ne dici di prestarmi la tua macchina?



Category 3 conventional indirect requests oriented on the speaker

Wish ---- vorrei che tu mi prestassi la tua macchina.

I want/ need  ------ ho bisogno che tu mi presti la tua macchina



Category 4 direct requests


obbligation ------ mi devi prestare la tua macchina
performative----- vorrei chiederti in prestito la tua macchina. Ti chiedo di prestarmi la tua macchina.

imperative ----- dammi la tua macchina

ellipsis ----- prendo la macchina, grazie

In a situation like the imminence of lunch and mom is still working in her room:

 indirectly --- mi sa che vado a comprarmi una pizza fuori

  directly--- dai smetti di lavorare e metti la tavola
When a teacher examines a student, the request is not imposing or not polite because it is part of the teacher's job to ask questions:

- vorrei che lei uscisse da queste generalizzazioni e mi parlasse di un personaggio in un luogo preciso del testo.

In didactic terms, the first problem remains that of understanding the act itself since it is impossible to reproduce what has not been understood. The relationship between grammatical and pragmatic development as well as interpretations of implications is problematic. According to Cook and Liddicoat (2002), the difficulties for an L2 learner to understand the illocutionary force depend on cognitive factors since native speakers having achieved a high degree of automation in linguistic processing, have the ability to process contextual information.

Learners are focused on linguistic tasks and have little ability to process contextual knowledge. We should try to focus on some lexical elements to make students understand their illocutionary strength in order to help them understand indirect strategies. The degree of linguistic competence interacts directly with the pragmatic understanding of the implications. Often the problem is also due to the lack of cultural knowledge of the L2 in question.

The works of Kasper and Rose (2002) on the stages of development in learning the request are very interesting.

We can see that at the 1st stage called pre-basic ----- the characteristics are highly dependent on the context, no syntax, no goals 'I don't blue' relationships (I don't have a blue pencil)

2 formulaic stage --- reliance on unanalyzed formulas and imperatives 'let's play, don't look'

3. unpacking --- formulas incorporated in productive use, transition to conventional indirect strategies ----- can you please pencil me? can you do this for me?


4. pragmatic expansion ---- addition of new forms to the pragmalinguistic repertoire, increase in the use of mitigation, more complex syntax ----- I could ask you for another chocolate because my son is young.


5. fine-tuning ---- fine-tuning of the strength of the demand, according to the participants, the purpose and context. ------ by chance there is some coffee left?


In the case of Italian for advanced speakers, the use of conventional indirect requests as well as justifications is typical. In Nuzzo (2005) we found these examples to formulate the request:

1. mica avresti qualche soldo da prestarmi perché non ho niente per prendere il caffè alla macchinetta?
2. eh mi scusi, mi potrebbe prendere gentilmente quella bottiglia di vino in alto che non c'arrivo?
3. adesso: sono venuta a prendere un caffè ma i mi sono resa conto che non ho portato nessuna moneta. ce l'hai una per me per piacere?
4. eh mi può passare quella bottiglia che c'è e' troppo in alto per me visto che lei e' un po' alto io sono troppo piccola.

From these studies it is noted that the greatest difference between natives and learners lies in the use of internal modifiers in the main act. The use of the conditional, of the negative interrogative (not, not at all), with lexical elements (perhaps, some, a little), kindly (barker) are all very common elements for indirectly producing a request in Italian .

For the more advanced learners, despite possessing many pragmalinguistic tools to express a request, they continue to struggle in acquiring socio-pragmatic competence to activate them in the appropriate situations.