Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragmaJournal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80

Early stages of trilingual pragmatic development. A longitudinalstudy of requests in Catalan, Spanish and English

Maria-Pilar Safont-Jordà *

English Studies Department, Universitat Jaume I, Avgda. Sos Baynat s/n, 12071 Castello, Spain

Received 30 October 2012; received in revised form 16 January 2013; accepted 19 January 2013

Abstract

The present paper deals with the requestive development of a consecutive trilingual boy from ages 3.6 to 5.6. To the best of ourknowledge, no previous study has accounted for the requestive development (i.e. use of directives) of successive trilinguals in earlychildhood. Yet, in previous analyses of our data involving years 2.6--3.6, we identified an increase in the use of conventionally indirectforms and a decrease in the production of direct request types coinciding with the introduction of a third language. On account of ourresults, we wondered whether the act of requesting would evolve differently or similarly in the three languages involved. The goal of thepresent paper is thus to further examine the direct, conventionally indirect and indirect forms employed during preschool years, that is,from ages 3.6 to 5.6. We hypothesized that while the three pragmatic systems were closely linked during ages 2.6 and 3.6 (e.g.indirectness in English requests affected Catalan and Spanish request forms) (i) requestive behaviour would vary across languages inline with Pau’s sociolinguistic development (Barnes, 2001, 2006), and (ii) the addressee’s perceived status will affect the choice ofpragmalinguistic routines employed (Peccei, 1999, 2006). Data were obtained from audio and video-recordings while Pau was playing athome and there was interaction with the mother-researcher. The corpus we have analyzed includes 45 scripts of 30--60 min each. Thetime period between recordings was 30 days. Results from our analysis confirm our two hypotheses and they shed new light on earlymultilingual pragmatic development by providing a multilingual focus.© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Early multilingual pragmatics; Early requestive behaviour in three languages; Emergent trilingualism

1. Introduction

The present study aims to contribute to research on child pragmatics by focusing on multilingual requestivedevelopment. Although a substantial corpus of studies on the pragmatic development of multilingual children has beenpublished (Kazzazzi, 2011; Montanari, 2009; Quay, 2001, 2008), very few studies have accounted for requestivedevelopment (Barnes, 2001) and none of them have considered consecutive trilinguals. On that account, this paper dealswith the requestive development of a consecutive trilingual boy from ages 3.6 to 5.6. As argued by Quay (2011), resultsfrom case studies may have implications not only for understanding differences and similarities between trilinguals,bilinguals and monolinguals, but also for understanding language acquisition processes. On the basis of results fromprevious research and findings obtained from previous analyses of our participant’s performance related to ages 2.6--3.6,we wondered how the three pragmatic systems involved would develop from age 3.6 to 5.6. In order to provide an answerto this question and to enable some comparison with previous results, we focused on the speech act of requesting and theuse of particular routines.

* Tel.: +34 964729611; fax: +34 964729261.E-mail addresses: mariapilar.safont@ang.uji.es, safontj@ang.uji.es.

0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.007

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80 69

1.1. Request forms

For the purposes of our study, we have focused on the request head act and, thus, those pragmalinguistic routinesinvolved in its production. Three main subtypes of formulations relate to the request head act, namely those of direct,conventionally indirect and indirect forms. Direct and conventionally indirect forms are described in detail in Safont-Jordà(2011:258--259). Indirect request strategies are examples of opaque expressions employed by the requester when optingfor not showing his/her intention explicitly. These vague expressions are assumed to be interpreted by the hearer asutterances conveying an additional content to that expressed by their surface structure. For instance, when using theexpression It’s hot in here, isn’t it?, the requester would actually be asking his interlocutor to open a window or to turn offthe heater. Bearing the nature of these expressions in mind, the speaker should know the other person to the extent ofhaving information about his/her background knowledge in order to predict the possibility of achieving his/her ownobjectives by means of hints. Another important factor that would allow the speaker to predict potential outcomes derivingfrom his/her request refers to the routinized experience in using these hints within a specific social group or between twoindividuals (Safont-Jordà, 2008).

As argued in Safont-Jordà (2011:257), we have chosen these routines because they have been the focus of awide amount of studies on L1 and Interlanguage Pragmatic development (Searle, 1979; Brown and Levinson, 1987;Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Alcon, 2008) which have dealt with a great variety of languages. No previous study hasaccounted for Catalan, Spanish and English in one single mind. Yet, early requestive development is well documentedfrom a monolingual perspective.

1.2. Requestive development in children

Ervin-Tripp (1977) provided a classification of directives on the basis of her own findings from child discourse. Asargued by Ervin-Tripp, request forms emerge at different stages of the child development as follows. From 0.9 to 2.4,children make use of direct forms (e.g. Give me X) and some limited routines (e.g. I need the pencil). More complex formsinvolving indirect requests (e.g. can I have the doll?; Why don’t we play my game?) emerge from 2.4 to 4.0; while moreopaque directives like hints (e.g. I can’t do that), and desires (e.g. I wish I had an ice-cream) take place from 4.0 to 5.0.

Results from research on monolingual requestive development (Ervin-Tripp, 1977; Ervin-Tripp et al., 1990; Garvey,1975; Gordon and Ervin-Tripp, 1984) are best described in Safont-Jordà (2011:262--263). Yet, we may summarizefindings by pointing out the idea that the use of conventionally indirect requests and modification items increases with age.Children below 8--9 years (i) hardly ever modify their requests, (ii) want statements are widely used and (iii) conventionallyindirect forms are reduced to ability and permission routines.

Pre-literate children’s use of requests is also discussed in Becker-Bryant’s (2009) overview on existing research on thetopic. According to her, two and three-year-olds may use questions including particle please. Nevertheless, it is not untilage 5.0 that children include more elaborated mitigators in their requests (Becker, 1982, 1986). These findings are in linewith those milestones reported by Brandone et al. (2006) as far as language use is concerned. According to them, two-year-olds may use particle please, while three-year-olds may use permission routines (e.g. Can I have the ball?) as well asability (e.g. Can you give me the ball?) and willingness (e.g. Will you pass me the ball?) strategies. In addition to that, asargued by the Brandone et al. (2006), this age period illustrates a decrease in the use of direct request forms. It is by age4.0 that children use indirect requests (e.g. hints). From age 4.0 to 5.0 hints still include the specific desire or object ofrequesting, while it is after 5.0 that elaborated oblique strategies (Fletcher, 1988) lack explicitness and, thus, child’s desireis not mentioned.

As reported by research adopting a developmental perspective, we may state that pre-literate requestive behaviourinvolves the use of direct and some conventionally indirect forms. More specifically, the studies reported above coincide inreporting on the use of ability, willingness and permission routines, while there are some discrepancies as to the age inwhich children may use wish and desire forms. The use of interrogative conventionally indirect routines increases with agewhile there is a decrease in the use of direct forms (Ervin-Tripp, 1977). Mitigation items accompanying request formulasare not widely employed until age 5.0 (Becker, 1982, 1986) or even beyond 8--9 years (Ervin-Tripp et al., 1990). Hints orindirect requests seem to develop by age 4 (Brandone et al., 2006) and their use is closely linked to the perceivedrelationship that the child has with his/her interlocutor (Gordon and Ervin-Tripp, 1984). Yet, elaborated oblique strategiesare employed after age 5.0 (Fletcher, 1988).

One aspect that is often highlighted is the effect of the power relation between the child and his/her interlocutor.According to Ervin-Tripp (1977) and Peccei (1999, 2006), children’s directives are more indirect and elaborated in theirasymmetrical power relationship with their interlocutors, including talking to an older child, a teacher or parents. In additionto that, findings lead to the role of the addressee in choosing the most appropriate request routine. Children in Ervin-Trippet al.’s study (1990) distinguished between parents and other interlocutors. As argued by Ervin-Tripp et al., suchdifference could be related to the expected response from parents as suppliers of food and/or goods. Such an awareness

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--8070

seems to be present even as early as 2.6 years and continues during pre-school days. Peccei (2006) also points to the factthat children are more direct when requesting to their peers of a similar age range. In addition to that, it is also said (Harrisand Coltheart, 1986) that they adapt their speech when referring to a child younger than they are, and make it clearer whenaddressing older adults. Yet, it is argued that the analysis of the interlocutors’ effect in child’s discourse is complicated inyoung children as they may still lack linguistic skills and social and cognitive maturity. Furthermore, results on theinfluence of the mother as interlocutor in child’s speech are inconclusive as she is not always considered as part of anasymmetrical power relationship by all children.

Related to this idea, is Piaget’s (1974) theory that early stages of children’s pragmatic development involve egocentriclanguage use. As stated by Piaget, it is not until age 7.0 that children take into account the interlocutor (Piaget, 1974:139).Nevertheless, children may also behave in a non-egocentric way in certain situations depending on their immediate gains,pragmatic effort and expected outcomes. Hence, pragmatic development seems highly context-sensitive. Similarly,speech acts theory (Becker-Bryant, 2009) stresses the relevance of the context in understanding and producinglanguage. As argued by Becker-Bryant (2009), children’s pragmatic development is difficult to describe due to its context-sensitivity, as they may perform differently depending on the interlocutor or the situation.

Besides, as argued by Ninio and Snow (1999), in understanding children’s pragmatic development, we should bear inmind the fact that the greatest challenge is not to be familiar with politeness rules, rather with the subtle linguistic variationsthat relate to these rules. Due to this fact, we believe that the challenge may even be greater for trilingual children whomust cope with three different ways of realizing the politeness orientation attached to their languages and cultures.

1.3. Request production in trilinguals

As argued by Nicholas and Lightbown (2008), young child second language acquisition should be distinguished fromother learner groups. Furthermore, the knowledge of more than one language may also influence children’s use ofrequests as it has been the case of adult learners (Safont-Jordà, 2005; Safont-Jordà and Alcon, 2012). In that sense, wecould further consider young child third language learners as a distinct entity. Recent research on early trilingualismidentifies specific characteristics that distinguish it from bilingual first language acquisition and monolingual contexts(Barnes, 2011; Kazzazzi, 2011; Quay, 2011; Safont-Jordà, 2011).

In fact, as has been mentioned before, a previous analysis of Pau’s pragmatic development related to years 2.6--3.6(Safont-Jordà, 2011, 2012), showed that the introduction of the third language in Pau’s linguistic repertoire affected hispragmatic systems. This fact is illustrated by the decrease in the use of direct requests and an increase in the use ofconventionally indirect forms in the three languages. In addition to that, our results (Safont-Jordà, 2012) showed thatunlike predicted by SLA (i.e. Second Language Acquisition) studies, Pau regularly modified the request head act beforeage 3 in his L1 and L2. In so doing, Pau resorted to both internal and external modification items. Therefore, his productioninvolved the presence of a wider variety of mitigation items than that of other monolingual children of a similar age range(Ervin-Tripp, 1977; Gordon and Ervin-Tripp, 1984). Therefore, we may state that the difference between Pau’s requestivebehaviour and that of other monolingual or bilingual pre-literate children was not only quantitative but also qualitative.

This idea is best illustrated by pointing to the notion ‘multilingual proficiency’ as opposed to the monolingual-biasedterm ‘proficiency-level’. According to Herdina and Jessner (2002), multilingual proficiency may be defined as includingseveral linguistic systems (LS1, LS2, LS3. . .), interaction among them (CLI), cross-linguistic interaction (CLIN), andMultilingualism factor (M-factor). Herdina and Jessner propose a dynamic model of multilingualism which applies theDynamic Systems Theory to L3 acquisition and use. The multilingual speaker is regarded as a complex psycholinguisticsystem comprising individual subsystems that interact among them. On that account, multilingual proficiency cannot beanalyzed from a monolingual perspective. In fact, the M-factor mentioned above refers to those linguistic and cognitiveskills that multilingual speakers display. These skills contribute to the development of multilingual awareness. FollowingJessner (2006, 2008), we understand that all linguistic systems of our multilingual subject interact. His previous languagelearning experience, and the skills developed like that of code-switching in Catalan--Spanish will affect his pragmaticproduction and development. Previous findings related to ages 2.6--3.6 pointed out the existing interaction among thethree pragmatic systems. We believe that these results may be an exemplification of the M-factor, and thus, of themultilingual proficiency as defined by Herdina and Jessner (2002).

The qualitative difference between trilinguals, bilinguals and monolinguals is also put forward by Hoffmann andStavans (2007). According to them, early trilinguals may represent a distinct entity which is manifested by their languages,the existing interaction between attitudinal and sociocultural factors and their selection of specific forms in language use.Hoffmann and Stavans also mention the idea that communicative sensitivity is part of the trilingual’s overall metalinguisticawareness and language competence. This sensitivity and acknowledgement of the communicative situation seemsmore developed in multilingual children.

In an attempt to further examine the development of multilingual proficiency in early childhood, we have focused onone consecutive trilingual boy and his requestive behaviour during a two-year period. On the basis of previous results

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80 71

(Safont-Jordà, 2011, 2012), we wondered whether the consecutive development of the child’s three languages would leadto differences in the type and complexity of requests produced for each language. In light of the above research question,the hypotheses guiding the study are as follows:

HYP1: The amount and type of request forms used will vary for each language according to cross-linguistic differencesin politeness orientation (Herdina and Jessner, 2002; Marquez Reiter et al., 2005; Pinto and Raschio, 2007).

Existing contrastive analyses relate Catalan and Spanish to a positive-politeness orientation while a negativepoliteness orientation underlies the English language (Marquez Reiter et al., 2005; Pinto and Raschio, 2007). Hence,while direct forms may well represent appropriate requestive behaviour in Catalan and Spanish, conventionally indirectroutines are preferred in English requests.

HYP2: The requestee’s perceived status will exert some influence on the selection of pragmalinguistic routines(Ervin-Tripp, 1977; Peccei, 1999, 2006).

2. The method

Our study focuses on the requestive behaviour of an early third language learner, Pau, during a two-year period.Limitations of case studies as reported by several authors (Deuchar and Quay, 2000; Barnes, 2006) refer to the inability togeneralize results. Nevertheless, they may provide us with data that challenge existing generalizations or add newhypothesis to test those frameworks related to language acquisition processes. In addition, as stated by Cruz-Ferreira(2006), they are an important source of information for testing existing paradigms and for accounting for developmentalprocesses.

Furthermore, as argued by Genesee (2009), case studies provide ample hypothesis for further research and they alsoprovide the opportunity for multiple perspectives on development. We agree with Genesee in the sense that a case studyapproach enables us to present a rich and in-depth analysis of single language learners. In our particular case, we havefocused on a consecutive third language learner of English whose characteristics are presented as follows.

2.1. Participant

The longitudinal analysis reported here focuses on two-year recordings of mother--child interaction including ages3.6--5.6 years. The child, Pau, is a consecutive third language learner as he learnt his mother tongue, Catalan (L1) frombirth, became bilingual in Spanish (L2) at 2, and started receiving formal instruction in English (L3) at 2.11.

The linguistic policy at home differs from that of other multilingual children who have been examined in previousresearch (Barnes, 2006; Montanari, 2009). In this case, we follow the one parent = two languages policy in the caseof the mother, while the father addresses the child in Catalan exclusively. The objective of this policy is two-fold as itaims (i) at providing more input in the languages that are least present in Pau’s linguistic soundscape (De Houwer,2009) and (ii) at promoting the idea of bilingualism and multilingualism as the norm, not the exception, even athome. Yet, exposure to the L3 (i.e. English) is restricted to playtime, TV Cartoons at home and formal instruction atschool.

2.2. Data collection procedure

We present data from a quantitative analysis which shows rate and frequency of particular routines during a 24 monthperiod and in three different languages. From a qualitative point of view, we shall also describe the trend along this time-frame with particular examples in which Pau made use of specific request forms.

Data were collected for the purposes of a wider research project related to pragmatic development in threelanguages. For the purposes of the present study, we have selected data obtained from audio and video-recordingswhile Pau was playing at home. The corpus we have analyzed for the present study refers to Pau’s production during atwo-year period related to ages 3.6--5.6. It includes 45 scripts of 30--60 min each. Our analysis has particularly focusedon the use of (i) direct, (ii) conventionally indirect and (iii) indirect request forms. These strategies and forms wereselected with a view to compare results with those of previous studies on monolingual and multilingual requestivebehaviour.

In order to codify our data, we made use of the typologies of request head act forms (Safont-Jordà, 2008) adapted bythe LAELA research group (Alcon, 2008). As included in those typologies and mentioned before, direct requestrealisations involve the requester in explicitating his illocutionary intent by means of performatives, imperative orobligation statements. In the case of conventionally indirect requests, the requester specifies his/her goal whileconsidering the threatening nature of their request. These include hearer-oriented (i.e. ability, willingness, permissionand suggestory formulae), and speaker-oriented (i.e. wishes and desires) request forms. The third request form

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--8072

examined in our study is that of indirect requests (e.g. hints or opaque strategies) which may include elaborate obliquestrategies in which the desire might be mentioned at some point in discourse (Fletcher, 1988) or those in which it is notmentioned.

Statistical analysis of our data were carried out by means of Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests as our datawere not normally distributed according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test ( p = 0.005). In addition to that, descriptivestatistics were also employed in order to perform a qualitative analysis of Pau’s requestive development in the threelanguages under study.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Results related to hypothesis 1

As has been previously mentioned, hypothesis 1 of the present study predicted that the amount and type of requestforms used would vary for each language according to cross-linguistic differences in politeness orientation. In order to testthis first hypothesis, we examined Pau’s use of direct, conventionally indirect and indirect request forms in his threelanguages from ages 3.6 to 5.6. Fig. 1 below shows our results as far as the use of direct request forms is concerned.

As illustrated above, while the use of direct request forms in the three languages presents an increasing trend fromages 3.6 to 4.1, a sudden drop in English direct forms may be observed from ages 4.4 to 5.6. This decreasing tendencycoincides with a more frequent use of direct requests in Catalan and Spanish during that same age period. Therefore, wemay state that direct requesting was closely linked in Catalan and Spanish but it was completely different in English. Inorder to find out whether this reported difference was significant, we applied a Friedman test to our data. Results related toages 5--5.6 show that the difference in direct requests produced in Catalan or Spanish (m.r. = 2.50) and English (m.r. = 1)is statistically significant (x2 = 23.520; p = 0.000) while results related to ages 3.6--4.0 do not report statistically significantdifferences across languages (x2 = 2.250; p = 0.190).

The above reported decrease in the use of direct forms in English coincides with Ervin-Tripp et al.’s results (1990)related to the same age period (i.e. 3.5--5.6). As argued by Ervin-Tripp et al. direct forms including ‘want’ decreasedmarkedly with age. Example 1 below shows Pau’s use of direct forms in making requests.

Example (1)Age: 3.8

Pau: MAMÁ! vine:! (2.0) >ajuda’m <a posar açò. . . (mum! come here! help me to put this. . .)Mother: >on va?< (where?)Pau: NO, NO 8aixina8, no: (3.0) FIca’l ahí (3.0) és que: no trobe l’altra peça (not this way, no. . .put it there, the thing is Icannot find another piece)

Fig. 1. Direct request forms employed.

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80 73

Example (2)Age: 5.3

Mother: OK who’s that? [Who’s that?]Pau: [Bu:zzLightyear!]Mother: >you like that?<Pau: 8yes8Mother why?Pau: because he flies and he attacks ve:ry good >and he can< (2.0) >and he has< wi:ngs >and he has< this. . .look((presses a button)) and look ((presses another button)). . . and look ((presses another button and makes a differentnoise))Mother: u huPau: <did you SEE THAT?!> (2.0) That’s why I like him,Mother: [mhm]Pau: OK?Mother: OK, [what’re.]Pau: [Let’s] go to supper, please?Mother: <Ok> let’s go.

Examples 1 and 2 illustrate Pau’s use of direct forms in Catalan and English. Direct requests are here realized byimperative verbs (e.g. vine, ajuda, fica, look) and they are also accompanied by a softening device or modification item.The reason provided in Example 1 (e.g. és que no trobe l’altra peça) mitigates the impositive nature of the precedingimperative form fica’l ahi while it also serves as a justification for the whole request.

Example 2 also includes a conventionally indirect request form, namely that of a suggestory formulae which isaccompanied by mitigator please. According to the literature on child monolingual pragmatic development (Ervin-Trippet al., 1990), modifiers are regularly employed beyond 8--9 years. Yet, there were scant instances of grounders in thelongitudinal study of 4-year old boy (Gordon and Ervin-Tripp, 1984) and please may be employed as early as age 2.0(Brandone et al., 2006). Hence, we may state that our participant’s pragmatic development relates to other English-speaking monolingual children of a similar and even older age period. As indicated in a previous study (Safont-Jordà,2012) Pau already made use of a wide range of modifiers at age 3.5 and they are regularly present from ages 3.6 to 5.6 inmitigating both direct and conventionally indirect forms.

The use of conventionally indirect requests is best illustrated in Fig. 2 below. Interestingly, it shows the opposite trendpresented in Fig. 1 above.

The use of conventionally indirect request forms in Catalan and Spanish decrease from age 3.7 years (m.r. = 2.75) to5.6 years (m.r. = 1.50), while the use of these forms in English shows a steady increase during that same age period

Fig. 2. Conventionally indirect forms employed.

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--8074

(m.r. = 3.00; m.r. = 6.50). According to our results from the Friedman test, that difference is not significant in ages 3--3.6( p = 0.250). On the contrary, the amount of request forms used from age 5 to 5.6 years in each language leads tostatistical significant differences (x2 = 24.500; p = 0.000).

Interestingly, as illustrated in Fig. 1, requesting in Spanish and Catalan differs from requesting in English as far as thechoice of particular routines are concerned. In our opinion, the child’s acknowledgement of appropriate pragmaticbehaviour in his three languages may be related to his multilingual proficiency as defined by Herdina and Jessner (2002).Hence, an exemplification of his linguistic and cognitive skills as well as the interaction among his languages may be hisown requestive development which not only introduces mitigation in requesting even at early stages, but alsoacknowledges the politeness orientation involved in each language. Figs. 1 and 2 clearly show Pau’s preference forconventionally indirect routines in English and direct request forms in Catalan and Spanish requests. The use ofconventionally indirect routines is also illustrated in Example 3 below.

Example (3)Age: 5.4

Mother: This can be a supermarket and you can use[leaves for].Pau: [DO you] wanna see how I pick >petals from flowers?< (2.0) Come and see: (3.0) First I 8pick the petal8 and pullthen, (2.0) this can be a present for Joel ((walks towards his brother)) Joel, joel. . .(. . .)Pau: esta vaquita quiere una florita. Toma, pontela en la cabeza o en el cuerno. (this little cow wants a little flower. Take it,punt it on your head or on your horn)Cow: 8Gracias!8 (thank you)Mother: a que jugues? (what game are you playing?)Pau: Vols jugar? ((showing parts of a small toy car that has to be built)) farem una cosa (3.0) mentres tu vas a buscar lapart que ens falta, jo acabe de [construir esta] (would you like to play? Let’s do something, while you bring that piece thatis missing, I’ll finish building this one)Mother: [ara vinc] (I’ll be back) (4.0)Pau: >mum, mum<, wouldn’t it be: great 8if we could8 build more cars like this one?,Mother: >but you haven’t finished<Pau: I’m SURE 8Joel8 would love that too:Mother: well (2.0) but [we don’t]Pau: [AND] it’s so fun ((gesture like asking for something))Mother: another kinder chocolate egg? Is THATwhat you [are asking for?]Pau: PLEASY, 8plea:sy8 mummy

Example 3 above shows Pau’s use of conventionally indirect forms in English (e.g. Do you wanna see how I pick?). Wealso find an instance of an indirect request strategy in which the child is trying to get another chocolate egg, but instead ofasking for it explicitly, starts referring to how fun it is to play together and makes several attempts (e.g. wouldn’t it be great ifwe could? I’m sure Joel would love too, it’s so fun). Indirect request forms have also been analyzed in our corpus.

As illustrated in Fig. 3 below, Catalan and Spanish indirect request follow a similar tendency through time, while Englishindirect requests present a different pattern.

Unlike in the previous cases involving direct and conventionally indirect forms, we cannot refer to a decreasing orincreasing trend but to a different pattern. Interestingly, when comparing data related to age periods 5--5.6 we also findstatistical significant differences (x2 = 13.317; p = 0.001) in the amount of indirect requests produced in Catalan(m.r. = 1.90), Spanish (m.r. = 1. 43) and English (m.r. = 2.61).

Taking into account findings reported so far, we may state that our first hypothesis is confirmed, as the amountand type of request forms used vary for each language according to cross-linguistic differences in politenessorientation. More specifically, requestive behaviour in Catalan and Spanish are very similar while a differentbehaviour is found in English requests which are more indirect. In our opinion, the differences reported above, whichshow a divergent trend in the pragmatic systems of English, on the one hand, and Spanish and Catalan on theother, relate to the politeness orientation of each language (Marquez Reiter et al., 2005; Pinto and Raschio, 2007).As has been previously mentioned in this paper, both Spanish and Catalan are positive politeness-orientedlanguages and thus using direct forms in requests is not considered as offensive or rude, as it would be the case ofEnglish requests. The negative-politeness orientation of the English language makes it necessary for interlocutors topreserve their own territories and thus make use of more indirect forms that soften the threatening nature of therequest. Hence, we may state that Pau’s pragmatic systems seem to develop in line with appropriateness criteria oflanguage use.

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80 75

Fig. 3. Use of indirect request strategies.

As illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2 above, we may see how the three languages coincide in their use of conventionallyindirect and direct forms in ages 3.6 to 4.0 and they start differentiating from ages 4.3 to 4.10. The main difference being inages 4.11--5.6, where Catalan and Spanish include more direct strategies and English requests are performed by meansof conventionally indirect routines. At this point, we would like to mention one fact that might have influenced these results:Pau changed from a monolingual Spanish-medium to a bilingual Catalan-medium school at age 4.0. It might be worthrecalling the sociolinguistic context in which the study is conducted as Spanish is the majority language, Catalan aminority language and English is scarcely present and still considered a foreign language. Therefore, a monolingualSpanish-oriented programme would not foster bilingual development in Catalan and Spanish. In addition to that, the lackof Catalan instruction in school during the early years may affect psycholinguistic development of children as well as theirown linguistic self-esteem (García and Sylvan, 2011).

In fact, we believe that sociolinguistic factors do influence language development. As stated by Hoffmann and Stavans(2007:58), children acquire communicative competence through acculturation and socialization, both are processes inwhich language plays a crucial role. Actually, an important part of the children’s socialization process takes place inschool. Related to this view, Becker-Bryant (2009) highlights the importance of these processes for they may determineintegration and educational development, having consequences even for literacy skills. Hence, as Hoffmann and Stavans(2007) argue, the linguistic environment of developing multilinguals is likely to have consequences for theircommunicative competence. We believe that the change of linguistic environment in the case of our subject and thepresence of his L1 in the school may have affected the development of his pragmatic systems.

3.2. Results related to hypothesis 2

Another important social factor is that of the requestee. Our second hypothesis predicted some variation in the choiceof requests formulas when addressing the mother or a toy (i.e. a teddy cow). Results related to hypothesis 2 are bestillustrated as follows. We have subdivided our findings in terms of the type of request routine produced. Regarding directrequest forms, our results show that our subject was more direct to the toy than to his mother, thus confirming previousstudies that call for the effect of the interlocutor in child requestive behaviour (Peccei, 1999).

Results from the Wilcoxon signed ranks test also point to the statistical significance of these findings (Z = �4.140;p = 0.000), which is also illustrated in Fig. 4 below.

The use of conventionally indirect routines also varied depending on the addressee of Pau’s requests. In line withresults reported above and previous studies on the topic (Peccei, 2006), he was more conventionally indirect with hismother than with the toy As in the case of direct request production, the difference between the amount of routines directedto each interlocutor is statistically significant (Z = �4.499; p = 0.000). Similarly, a wider amount of indirect strategies wereemployed with the mother than with the toy, being such difference statistically significant (Z = �4.297; p = 0.000). As hasbeen previously mentioned in section 1.2 of the present paper, indirect routines involve some kind of acknowledgementthat your interlocutor will understand your request even though it is not explicitly formulated. Here the child shows

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--8076

Fig. 4. Direct requests produced.

confidence in the fact that a hint may be enough for requesting to his mother, but not in the case of the toy, as it representssomebody else: probably a younger child.

Example (4)Age: 5.4

Pau: >This is< the be:st day eve:r (3.0) >it’s the< best day EVE:R. . .(singing) Mummy! Don’t you want to know WHY:?Mother: Why?Pau: [because] I can have my favourite SNACK,Mother: really?Pau: sure (2.0) YOU are the best Mum in the world (3.0) you know what’s my FAVourite (2.0) [So today is the best day],Mother: [Ok are you hungry] then?Pau: please?

Example (5)Age: 4.9

Pau: C1 tienes que beber la leche porque si no (2.0) no te harás mayor (2.0) a qué no? ((C1 stands for Cow 1))(C1 you have to drink your milk, otherwise you will not grow up)Toy: 8pero8 (2.0) 8quiero con cola-cao8 ((changing voice and pitch)) (but I want it with cocoa)Pau: bue:no (3.0) aHOra >siéntate ahí<, así, (2.0) ui (3.0) que (1.0) espera aixina. Ara. (2.0) why not? Why not?. . .8digues--li a C2 que vinga8, >DI -li-ho< ((well, now sit down there oops wait like this now. Tell C2 to come, tell her))Toy: C2, C2 come here! Sit down! (2.0) her, here ((changing voice and pitch))Pau: Ok >my little ones< (5.0) bebem la lleteta (3.0) TOTA (let’s drink the milk all of it)Toy: yummy! ((changing voice and pitch))Pau: eh! (2.0) Acaba’t la lleteta o no voràs la tele, (2.0) no. no,.(eh finish your milk or you will not watch TV)

Examples 4 and 5 above show Pau’s requests addressing his mother and a teddy cow. The toy represents somebodyyounger than him as may be inferred from Example 5 above. In fact, Pau is here acting like a grown-up by giving directionsto the teddy cow and promise of reward on her behaviour (e.g. otherwise or you will not watch TV). We may observe thatwhile Pau uses direct formulas in requesting to the Toy (e.g. Tienesquebeber, siéntate, espera, acaba’t la lleteta), hemakes use of indirect forms or hints when addressing his mother (e.g. this is the best day ever, you are the best mother inthe world) by providing her with clues on his wish (e.g. you know what my favourite snack). It is only when his mothermakes his request explicit (e.g. are you hungry then?) that Pau makes it explicit too by using the particle please.

The global amount of indirect forms employed by Pau is subdivided in terms of the addressee of the request produced.As stated above, a wider amount of indirect request forms were employed when requesting to his mother than whenasking his teddy cow to do something. As has been previously mentioned in section 1.1 of this paper, the use of hints may

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80 77

Table 1Non-significant differences in English and Spanish requests to two requestees.

Wilcoxon signed ranks test statistics

English directrequests toToy vs Mother

Spanish conventionallyindirect requests toToy vs Mother

English conventionallyindirect requests toToy vs Mother

Spanish indirectrequests to Toyvs Mother

Z �.577 �.408 �2.418 �.447Asymp. sig. (2-tailed) .564 .683 .016 .655

be influenced by a previous routinized experience in using them with a particular interlocutor (Safont-Jordà, 2008). Webelieve that this had an effect on our participant as he had previous experience in using indirect requests with his motherand could predict the potential outcome, while that was not the case of the toy. In addition to that, as in the case of Ervin-Tripp et al.’s (1990) study, Pau differentiated among interlocutors and thus distinguished between the one from whom hewould get help (e.g. Mother) in case of need (i.e. mum! I’m thirsty I’d like some water please, Mummy!?) and the one fromwhom he would not probably get (e.g. Toy) any.

In light of our findings we may state that our second hypothesis which predicted that request forms selected would beinfluenced by the requestee’s perceived status is also confirmed by our findings. Statistical significant differences havebeen reported as far as the use of direct, indirect and conventionally indirect routines were concerned.

In order to further examine our data, we were interested in identifying whether the ascertained role of the interlocutorwould be equally present in all languages, that is, whether the child would be more direct to the toy than to his mother inCatalan, Spanish and English. Results from the Wilcoxon signed ranks test show that while Pau was more direct to the toythan to his mother on the whole, that was not always the case in English and in Spanish.

As shown in Table 1 above, there were not statistical significant differences concerning the use of (a) English directrequest forms, (b) English and Spanish conventionally indirect routines or (c) Spanish indirect requests. We wonderwhether the language policy at home might have influenced these results. Although Pau uses his three languages whileplaying at home, his mother only reports back to him in English or Catalan. Furthermore, we wonder whether results woulddiffer if both interlocutors were real, as his toy (i.e. teddy cow) is a pretend partner in his imaginary conversations.

The results described above show that different findings would have been obtained if we had only focused on onelanguage, which has been the case of previous research on children’s requestive behaviour. Due to this fact, we believethat further research is needed that accounts for early multilingual pragmatic development and that adopts a holisticperspective in the analysis of requestive behaviour. As raised by Jessner (2006), multilingual approaches should beemployed in examining multilingual populations.

4. Conclusion

The present study dealt with requestive development of a consecutive trilingual boy during a two-year period involvingages 3.6--5.6. Our attempt was to contribute to existing research on child pragmatics and early multilingual development.As suggested by recently published research agendas (Aronin and Hufeisen, 2009; Aronin and Singleton, 2012), there isa need for studies on successive multilingualism and for the adoption of multilingual approaches in current research. Onthat account, we have analyzed the requestive behaviour of a successive multilingual boy in his three languages, namelythose of Catalan, Spanish and English.

According to previous findings and research on child requestive development, our first hypothesis predicted thatrequest forms produced for each language would vary according to their politeness orientation. We then expected Pau’srequests in Catalan and Spanish to be more direct while these forms should be more conventionally indirect in English.Secondly, hypothesis 2 predicted that the requestee’s perceived status would have an effect on the pragmalinguisticroutines chosen. According to previous findings on the issue (Peccei, 2006), we expected Pau to be more direct whenrequesting a teddy cow than when addressing his mother. Results from our study confirm our two hypotheses while theyalso point out interesting issues on multilingual pragmatic development.

Previous findings on Pau’s requestive development (Safont-Jordà, 2011) including ages 2.6--3.6 raised the complexnature of multilingual development by pointing to (i) the influence of English (L3) on the Catalan (L1) and Spanish (L2)pragmatic systems. The introduction of a third language (i.e. English) in Pau’s linguistic repertoire promoted the use ofconventionally indirect forms in the three languages. Therefore, both a quantitative and a qualitative change took place inthe child’s requestive behaviour which made it different from that of other monolingual and bilingual children (Becker-Bryant, 2009). We wondered to what extent the interaction among these three languages in ages 2.6--3.6 would prevent or

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--8078

facilitate Pau’s pragmatic development later on (i.e. ages 3.6--5.6), as the politeness orientation in Catalan and Spanish (i.e. positive) is different to that of English (i.e. negative).

The inherent complexity of multilingualism is exemplified in the present study by the way in which the three languagesdevelop and the use of specific request forms that both coincide but also differ from those of other pre-literate children. Asin previous research on English-speaking monolingual children (Ervin-Tripp, 1977), and coinciding with previous results ofan earlier age period reported above (Safont-Jordà, 2011), the amount of direct request forms decreases and the use ofconventionally indirect forms increases along the time-frame involved (3.6--5.6). Nevertheless, our subject already maderegular use of mitigation items; he widely employed elaborated interrogative pragmalinguistic routines and he made use ofindirect request forms. This last aspect coincides with those milestones that relate to monolingual pragmatic developmentof older English-speaking children (beyond 7--8 years). Furthermore, and most importantly, the three languages of oursubject develop in line with their politeness orientation as predicted by our first hypothesis and clearly illustrated in Figs. 1and 2.

We believe that these findings illustrate the qualitative difference between monolinguals and multilinguals reported byHoffmann and Stavans (2007). Pau’s multilingual requestive development may have illustrated the interaction betweenhis languages, attitudes and sociocultural factors. We have signalled out how changing from a Spanish (L2 and majoritylanguage) to a Catalan (L1 and minority language) instructed school coincided with differing patterns in pragmaticproduction. More specifically, Pau started being more direct in Spanish and Catalan and more conventionally indirect inEnglish after that change took place. In line with García and Sylvan (2011), we believe that the presence of his mothertongue in the school together with his other two languages might have influenced his linguistic self-esteem, attitudestowards languages, and his pragmatic and sociolinguistic development.

Besides, we have shown that the approach adopted in the analysis of multilingual production might affect the resultsobtained. From a holistic perspective, Pau was more direct to the toy than to his mother. However, such difference was notthat clear when examining each language separately. Due to this fact, we would like to raise the need for more studiesdealing with multilinguals from a multilingual perspective. In so doing, findings may vary from those already published. Inour view, those milestones related to monolingual pragmatic development (Ervin-Tripp, 1977; Peccei, 2006) may becompleted by considering multilingual pragmatic performance. In fact, this is the case of most children in this multilingualand globalized world (Cenoz, 2009; Cenoz and Jessner, 2009).

Finally, further research on early multilingual pragmatic development is needed in order to generalize those findingsreported here. We believe that our findings are significant to the extent that they challenge existing milestones onpreliterate requestive development. Nevertheless, more studies should be conducted by including other successivetrilinguals of various linguistic backgrounds and by dealing with other pragmatic issues. As argued by Stoll (2009), theextent to which children learn specific language routines from forms directed to them and from their linguistic soundscapeis still unknown. Examining the role of mother input and the linguistic environment in multilingual pragmatic productioncould thus contribute to that research gap. In so doing, we could identify and further understand those processesunderlying early multilingual pragmatic development.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their most useful and valuable comments and suggestions.This study has been conducted within the framework of a research project funded by Fundacio Universitat Jaume I and

Caixa Castello-Bancaixa (P1.1B2011-15), and by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, co-funded byFEDER (FFI2012-38145).

Appendix A. Appendix 1

Transcription conventions

. Falling intonation ? Rising intonation ! Exclamation talk , Comma indicates a level, continuing intonation; suggesting non-finality. [ ] Brackets indicate overlapping utterances (.) Period within parentheses indicates micropause (2.0) Number within parentheses indicates pause of length in approximate seconds ye:s Colon indicates stretching of sound it follows yes Underlining indicates emphasis

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--80 79

YES

Capital letters indicate increased volume 8yes8 Degree marks indicate decreased volume of materials >yes< Speeded-up talk <yes> Slow-down talk ((laugh)) Aspects of the utterance, such as whispers, coughing, and laughter, are indicated with double parentheses

References

Alcon, Eva, 2008. Investigating pragmatic language learning in foreign language classrooms. International Review of Applied Linguistics inLanguage Teaching (IRAL) 46, 173--195.

Aronin, Larissa, Hufeisen, Britta, 2009. The Exploration of Multilingualism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Aronin, Larissa, Singleton, David, 2012. Multilingualism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Barnes, Julia, 2001. Politeness in English, Basque and Spanish: evidence from a trilingual child. Jakingarriak 45, 40--45.Barnes, Julia, 2006. Early Trilingualism. A Focus on Questions. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Barnes, Julia, 2011. The influence of child-direct speech in early trilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism 8, 42--62.Becker, Judith, 1982. Children’s strategic use of requests to mark and manipulate social status. In: Kuczaj, S. (Ed.), Language Development:

Language, Thought and Culture. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1--35.Becker, Judith, 1986. Bossy and nice requests: children’s production and interpretation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32, 393--413.Becker-Bryant, Judith, 2009. Pragmatic development. In: Bavin, E.L. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, pp. 339--354.Blum-Kulka, Soshana, House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabrielle, 1989. Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: an introductory overview. In: Blum-Kulka,

S., House, J., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex, New Jersey, pp. 1--34.Brandone, Amanda, Salkind, Sara, Golinkoff, Roberta, Hirsh-Pasek, Kathryn, 2006. Language development. In: Bear, G., Minke, K. (Eds.),

Children’s Needs: Development, Prevention, and Intervention. National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC, USA, pp.499--514.

Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Cenoz, Jasone, 2009. Towards Multilingual Education. Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Multilingual Matters,

Toronto.Cenoz, Jasone, Jessner, Ulrike, 2009. The study of multilingualism in educational contexts. In: Aronin, L., Hufeisen, B. (Eds.), The Exploration of

Multilingualism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 121--138.Cruz-Ferreira, Madalena, 2006. Three is a Crowd? Acquiring Portuguese in a Trilingual Environment. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.De Houwer, Annick, 2009. Bilingual First Language Acquisition. MMTextbooks. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Deuchar, Margaret, Quay, Suzanne, 2000. Bilingual Acquisition. Theoretical Implications of a Case Study. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Ervin-Tripp, Suzanne, 1977. Wait for me, roller skate! In: Ervin-Tripp, S., Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds.), Child Discourse. Academic Press, New York,

pp. 165--188.Ervin-Tripp, Suzanne, Guo, Jiansheng, Lampert, Martin, 1990. Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14,

307--331.Fletcher, Paul, 1988. A Child’s Learning of English. Blackwell, Oxford.García, Ofelia, Sylvan, Claire, 2011. Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language

Journal 95, 385--400.Garvey, Catherine, 1975. Requests and responses in children’s speech. Journal of Child Language 2, 41--63.Genesee, Fred, 2009. Prologue. In: Cenoz, Jasone (Ed.), Towards Multilingual Education. Multilingual Matters, Bristol.Gordon, David, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, 1984. The structure of children’s requests. In: Schiefelbusch, R.L., Pickar, J. (Eds.), The Acquisition of

Communicative Competence. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp. 295--321.Harris, Margaret, Coltheart, Max, 1986. Language Processing in Children and Adults. Routledge, London.Herdina, Philip, Jessner, Ulrike, 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Hoffmann, Charotte, Stavans, Anat, 2007. The evolution of trilingual codeswitching from infancy to school age: the shaping of trilingual

competence through dynamic language dominance. International Journal of Bilingualism 11, 55--72.Jessner, Ulrike, 2006. Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Jessner, Ulrike, 2008. Teaching third languages: findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching 41, 15--56.Kazzazzi, Kerstin, 2011. Ich brauche mix-cough: cross-linguistic influence involving Farsi, German and English. International Journal of

Multilingualism 8, 63--79.Marquez Reiter, Rosin a, Rainey, Isobel, Fulcher, Glenn, 2005. A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness. Evidence from

British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics 26, 1--31.Montanari, Simona, 2009. Pragmatic differentiation in early trilingual development. Journal of Child Language 36, 597--627.Nicholas, Howard, Lightbown, Patsy, 2008. Defining child second language acquisition, defining roles for L2 instruction. In: Philp, J., Mackey, A.,

Oliver, R. (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition and the Young Learner. Child Play? John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 27--52.Ninio, Anat, Snow, Catherine, 1999. The development of pragmatics: learning to use the language appropriately. In: Bhatia, T.K., Ritchie, W.C.

(Eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition. Academic Press, New York, pp. 347--383.Peccei, Jean, 1999. Child Language, 2nd ed. Routledge, London.Peccei, Jean, 2006. Child Language. A Resource Book for Students. Routledge, Abingdon.Piaget, Jean, 1974. The Child and Reality. Muller, London.

M.-P. Safont-Jordà / Journal of Pragmatics 59 (2013) 68--8080

Pinto, Derrin, Raschio, Richard, 2007. A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish and L1 English. InternationalJournal of Bilingualism 11, 135--155.

Quay, Suzanne, 2001. Managing linguistic boundaries in early trilingual development. In: Cenoz, J., Genessee, F. (Eds.), Trends in BilingualAcquisition. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp. 149--199.

Quay, Suzanne, 2008. Dinner conversations with a trilingual two-year old: language socialization in a multilingual context. First Language 28, 5--33.Quay, Suzanne, 2011. [Guest editor of special issue] Trilingual children in the making: data-driven insights. International Journal of Multilingualism

8, 1--79.Safont-Jordà, Maria-Pilar, 2005. Third Language Learners. Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Safont-Jordà, Maria-Pilar, 2008. The speech act of requesting. In: Alcon, E. (Ed.), Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning

Context. Peter Lang, Berlin, pp. 41--64.Safont-Jordà, Maria-Pilar, 2011. Early requestive development in consecutive third language learning. International Journal of Multilingualism 10,

1--21.Safont-Jordà, Maria-Pilar, 2012. A longitudinal analysis of Catalan, Spanish and English request modifiers in early third language learning. In:

Gabrys-Barker, D. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic Influences in Multilingual Language Acquisition. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 99--114.Safont-Jordà, Maria-Pilar, Alcon, Eva, 2012. Teachability of request acts peripheral modification devices in third language learning contexts. In:

Kogetsidis, M., Woodfield, H. (Eds.), Request Modification Devices. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 275--314.Searle, John, 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Stoll, Sabine, 2009. Crosslinguistic approaches to language acquisition. In: Bavin, E.L. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 89--104.

Maria Pilar Safont Jordà is associate professor of Sociolinguistics and Multilingualism and Director of the Multilingual Education Unit at theUniversitat Jaume I in Castello (Spain). Her research interests involve the development of pragmatic competence by third language learners ofEnglish, and factors influencing third language use and early multilingualism. She has carried out various studies on the acquisition and use ofspecific speech acts by third language learners of English, and she has published part of her work in international journals like The InternationalJournal of Multilingualism or The International Journal of Bilingualism. She has authored the book Third Language Learners. Pragmatic productionand awareness (2005) published by Multilingual Matters, and has co-edited the volume Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning(2007) published by Springer. More recently, her publications include Pragmatic Competence in Multilingual Contexts (2013) In Chapelle, C.A.(Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley-Blackledge and Early pragmatic development in consecutive third language learning (2011)in The International Journal of Multilingualism, and A longitudinal analysis of Catalan, Spanish and English request modifiers in early thirdlanguage learning (2012) chapter of the book by Gabrys-Barker published by Springer. She is also a reviewer of the following journals: TESOLQuarterly, the Modern Language Journal, International Journal of Multilingualism and International Journal of English Studies.