User:Luuuby/sandbox

Interlanguage pragmatics

Interlanguage pragmatics is a cross-cultural pragmatics. Interlanguage pragmatics (Interlanguage pragmatics, referred to as ILP), as the name suggests, involves two languages (Trosborg, 2011). Interlanguage (also known as interlanguage or interlanguage) between two languages is related to the acquisition of a second language (including foreign languages, the same below). In the interlingual study of second language acquisition, there have been interlingual phonology, interlingual morphology, interlingual syntax and interlingual semantics (Bardovi‐Harlig, 1999). Now, the topic of interlanguage pragmatics has also appeared. Interlanguage pragmatics is an area of second language acquisition research involving sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and language applications (Taguchi & Sykes, 2013).

Origination
Interlanguage Pragmatics, as a basis for the study of pragmatics in a relatively new interdisciplinary subject, is an important part of second language acquisition research. It was first proposed by Selinker in the early 1980s, and by the end of the 1980s, more and more people began to be interested in it (Özdemir & Rezvani, 2010). It is a discipline that studies pragmatic competence from the perspective of pragmatics and second language acquisition—pragmatic phenomena and characteristics in students' interlanguage language, and the formation and development of these phenomena and features. It is a study of the relationship between specific pragmatic behaviors in people's use of a second language and their mother tongue or second language. It is not only to help learners master linguistic knowledge such as grammar and vocabulary, but more importantly, to help people communicate in a communicative manner. Use language knowledge appropriately to improve pragmatic competence. Interlingual pragmatics is an area of second language acquisition research involving sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and language applications. It focuses on how people implement language behavior in a second language in a particular context and how to understand them (Özdemir & Rezvani, 2010).

Definition
Interlanguage pragmatics focuses on how people implement language behavior in a second language and how to understand them in a particular context. Interlanguage pragmatics is often defined as “the study of non-native second-language operators' patterns in the use and acquisition of second-language behavior (Trosborg, 2011).” According to this definition, interlanguage pragmatics belongs to cross-cultural pragmatics. Its research includes whether interlanguage is bound to be formed in intercultural communication; whether this interlanguage comes from verbal contact; whether it is an independent existential style. Of course, the study of interlanguage pragmatics is only too limited to focus on the interlanguage generated when using a second language in intercultural communication (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996).

Main content
Interlanguage pragmatics studies pragmatic understanding, focusing on the early understanding of language learners' understanding of words and actions and the recognition of politeness. The former must learn how to deal with indirect speech acts, understand the role of linguistic forms and contexts in understanding what is meant by words, and be proficient in the factors that lead to difficulties in understanding (Trosborg, 2011). Interlanguage pragmatics Studying language behavior in interlingual language Existing materials confirm that, regardless of whether students use a first language (native) or a second language, they adopt the same strategy for practicing their own language behavior as their native speakers (Trosborg, 2011). At this time, the language strategy chosen by the speaker is mainly limited by the context. However, when using a second language, their choices are subject to the knowledge of the second language they have mastered, or subject to their skill in using a second language (Trosborg, 2011).

Historical origins
Some scholars have investigated the situation of Israeli immigrants in Israel using source language (native language) and target language (second language-English) and found that when they communicate in their mother tongue or English, they are actually using an interlingual language (or an interlanguage) that is related to both the source and the target language, but whose style is different from the two languages (Özdemir & Rezvani, 2010). ). Then some scholars have discussed the pragmatics of intercultural communication and the pragmatic behavior differences between the young and the old immigrants in the discussion of social linguistics, and finally confirmed the existence of interlanguage (Taguchi & Sykes, 2013). They pointed out that the source of the younger generation of immigrants (native language) has obvious interlanguage characteristics. These young immigrants themselves admit that they no longer follow the accepted cultural standards in their native language when they speak their mother tongue. For example, when young Chinese immigrants living in foreign countries accept the invitation of others, they no longer face the traditional modesty (Bardovi-Harlig, 2010). Another example is when the Japanese speak in their native language, and now they are closer to the Western way of talking than before (Takimoto, 2012).

The above shows that interlanguage pragmatics not only studies the interlingual language produced when using a second language in intercultural communication, but also studies the use of interlanguage in the first language (native language). In short, interlanguage pragmatics can study how cross-cultural interlanguage formation is formed, study the conditions of interlanguage formation and change, study the relationship between interlanguage and source language, and the communicative effect of interlanguage (Kasper, 2010).

Application
Interlanguage is the result of the influence of the mother tongue and the mother tongue culture when students use a second language. There is a lot of discussion on this point, but the focus of research is mostly on the negative migration that affects successful communication, without paying attention to the problem of pragmatic forward migration (Özdemir & Rezvani, 2010). That is to say, scholars only pay attention to how the pragmatic knowledge of students in the first language (native language) affects the pragmatic competence of the second language (actually the interlingual language), that is, only pay attention to the negative migration. Without paying attention to the pragmatic behavior and other linguistic expressions that can be applied to the students themselves in the first language, the interlingual language and the second language, that is, not paying attention to the positive migration (Wijayanto et al, 2013).

Most of the current interlanguage pragmatics studies are non-native people who use a second language. This reflects the main feature of this discipline is the pragmatic study of the second language (Barron, 2012). Interlanguage pragmatics, like ordinary pragmatics, explores the process of language comprehension and production, and examines the use of discourse; however, the pragmatic communication strategies often encountered in ordinary pragmatics differ from the verbal communication strategies of interlanguage pragmatics: the verbal communication strategy of general pragmatics research is based on the psycholinguistic model in the cognitive process, while the speech strategies of interlanguage pragmatics, the theory and practice are purely derived from descriptive pragmatics, especially cross-cultural pragmatics (Wijayanto et al, 2013). The main part of the verbal communication strategy of general pragmatics is to examine how language learners determine what is referred to. The interlanguage pragmatics study of speech communication strategies focuses on the understanding and application of behaviors and politeness strategies (Özdemir & Rezvani, 2010).

Pragmatic competence can improve the foundation of sexuality
In recent years, the fruitful results of interlanguage pragmatics in the study of second language acquisition and pragmatic competence have provided quite strong theoretical support for our teaching practice. For a long time, the debate about whether pragmatic competence is teachable has hindered the process of pragmatic competence teaching to some extent. However, the academic community now basically agrees that pragmatic competence is teachable, and that the combination of explicit teaching and a wealth of practical opportunities will yield excellent results (Kasper, 2010). Foreign language teachers should pay attention to the number of students participating in social activities in the target language environment, or the target language obtained by learners and the effect of using target language communication (Trosborg, 2011). The other is the debate about the development sequence of pragmatic competence and grammatical competence, and the relationship between the two. Although there is still no consensus on the order of development of the two, the close relationship between the two is unquestionable. Grammatical ability is the basis for the effective and comprehensive implementation of pragmatic competence. The expression of pragmatic competence is the meaning of the existence of grammatical competence. Only a combination of organic and rational can make communication successful (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996).

Establish an effective teaching input mode to ensure input
Teaching mode is the framework of the language learning and practice, touching the whole process of language learning. Under the guidance of the theory of interlingual pragmatics, the improvement of pragmatic competence can start from cultural teaching and reduce pragmatic failure. This cultural introduction is not a simple language classroom indoctrination. It can form language explicit channels and watch English original film and television works, conduct online discussions, open Chinese and Western cultural comparison courses or hold relevant lectures regularly to increase students' pragmatic knowledge.

Create a full range of locales
Taguchi & Sykes (2013) believes that an important reason for the low ability to use English is that learners are separated from contextual English. Therefore, creating a good language learning and application environment is an effective way to develop students' language skills. Teachers should encourage and help students communicate with foreigners as much as possible. Teachers should also pay attention to the quality and quantity of basic classroom input.

Pay attention to individual differences of learners, and be good at using emotional factors to stimulate learning motivation
A large number of studies have shown that learning motivation is an important factor in successfully improving foreign language ability. Therefore, more emotional input should be taken as an important method of teaching. In English teaching, what is the motivation of students to learn, why he likes or dislikes English, and whether emotional factors such as self-confidence in his own learning greatly influence learning behavior and influence the improvement of pragmatic competence (Wijayanto et Al, 2013).

correcting errors in a timely and effective manner
Pragmatic failure is an objective phenomenon that foreign language learners exhibit in the interlanguage stage. We need to analyze the comparison carefully. As a teacher, it is necessary to accurately and timely communicate with students the place where the language is misunderstood. It is impossible to judge the right or wrong in general.

Reflection
We should not doubt the possibility of pragmatic development in the classroom, but rather how to arrange classrooms to make classroom activities and teaching materials most effective for pragmatic development. The author also compares pragmatic learning in a foreign language and a second language environment, and finds that the pragmatic development of learners studying abroad is uneven. In most cases, the overgeneralized informal speech style is learned. This shows that if students receive appropriate instructional counseling before or during their overseas studies, their pragmatic development will be closer to the target language specification (Wijayanto et al, 2013). In general, the learning environment affects whether learners can get relevant pragmatic input, whether pragmatic information is prominent and frequent, and the difficulties faced by learners of different backgrounds in learning different aspects of pragmatics. And all of this remains to be further studied. In fact, learners' pragmatic development and interactive communication skills are closely related to their own identity and identity construction in specific contexts (Barron, 2012). Therefore, any social psychology theory about social identity will help us understand the development of second language pragmatics. The analytical advantage of constructivist theory that is longer than micro-analysis is beneficial for researchers to grasp the details in communication, thus tracking and recording the process of pragmatic learning and identity construction (Kasper, 2010). Only an organic combination of macro and micro levels will allow us to truly understand how learners develop their pragmatic abilities in interactive communication.