You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Pragmatic development describes how children learn to use language appropriately in social context — not merely what a sentence means, but what a speaker means by it, and when, where, how and to whom it is fitting to say it. Where phonology, lexis and grammar concern the form of language, pragmatics concerns its function and use. It is the strand that turns a grammatically competent child into a communicatively competent one — and the two do not automatically go together: a child can produce flawless sentences yet flout conversational rules, miss implied meaning, or fail to adjust to a listener. For AQA Paper 1 Section B this is a high-value area precisely because it foregrounds AO1 methods of spoken interaction analysis (turn-taking, adjacency pairs, repair) and AO2 critical understanding of interactionist theory (Halliday, Bruner). When the data is a transcript of conversation — which it very often is — pragmatics is where the marks live.
A foundational distinction is between communicative competence and purely linguistic competence. The American sociolinguist Dell Hymes coined communicative competence to capture exactly this: knowing not only the rules of grammar but the rules of use — which utterance is appropriate, polite, relevant and effective in a given situation. Pragmatic development is, in essence, the acquisition of communicative competence.
Key Definition: Pragmatics — the study of how language is used in context to achieve communicative goals. Pragmatic competence includes understanding implied (non-literal) meaning, observing conversational rules, judging social appropriateness, and commanding the range of functions language can serve.
The main components, each with its own developmental path, are:
Michael Halliday (1975) based a hugely influential framework on a detailed case study of his own son Nigel, identifying seven functions that early language performs. Memorising the seven — and being able to label them in data — is a specification staple. A common mnemonic is "I Realised I Pee H I R" (Instrumental, Regulatory, Interactional, Personal, Heuristic, Imaginative, Representational):
| Function | What it does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Instrumental | Satisfies needs/wants — the "I want" function | Want milk / Give teddy |
| Regulatory | Controls others' behaviour — the "do as I tell you" function | Go away / Pick up |
| Interactional | Builds and maintains relationships — the "me and you" function | Hello / Love you / Play me |
| Personal | Expresses feelings, opinions, identity — the "here I come" function | Me like it / Me cross |
| Heuristic | Explores and learns about the world — the "tell me why" function | What's that? / Why? |
| Imaginative | Creates pretend worlds in play and story — the "let's pretend" function | Let's pretend ... / Once upon a time ... |
| Representational | Conveys information and facts — the "I've got something to tell you" function | It's raining / Cat called Whiskers |
Key Definition: Halliday's functions of language — seven communicative purposes (instrumental, regulatory, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative, representational) identified by Halliday (1975) from his study of his son Nigel, describing what young children do with language.
Halliday observed that the first cluster — instrumental, regulatory, interactional and personal — emerges earlier (broadly from around 9–18 months), reflecting the infant's most basic needs to obtain things, direct others, connect and express self. The more cognitively demanding functions — heuristic, imaginative and representational — come on stream later (from around 18 months and into the second and third years) as cognition and grammar mature, with the representational function, the one most prized in formal schooling, being the latest to dominate.
John Dore (1975) offered a complementary scheme rooted in speech act theory (the idea, from Austin and Searle, that to say something is to do something). Dore catalogued children's early primitive speech acts:
| Speech act | What the child is doing | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Labelling | Naming an object or event | Doggy! (pointing) |
| Repeating | Echoing another's utterance | Adult: "Say bye-bye." Child: Bye-bye |
| Answering | Responding to a question | Adult: "What's that?" Child: Ball |
| Requesting action | Getting someone to do something | Up! (wanting to be lifted) |
| Requesting an answer | Asking a question | What dat? |
| Calling | Getting attention | Mummy! |
| Greeting | Using a social formula | Hello / Bye-bye |
| Protesting | Objecting | No! |
| Practising | Talking with no listener present | monologuing in the cot |
Halliday and Dore are best treated as two lenses on the same behaviour rather than rivals: Halliday classifies by broad purpose, Dore by the specific act performed. In an essay you can strengthen analysis by applying both — for example, a child's What dat? is Dore's requesting-an-answer and serves Halliday's heuristic function.
A central part of pragmatic competence is understanding meaning that is implied rather than stated — what the philosopher Paul Grice called implicature. Grice proposed that conversation runs on a cooperative principle and four maxims that speakers are normally assumed to follow: quantity (be as informative as required, no more), quality (be truthful), relation/relevance (be relevant) and manner (be clear and orderly). When a speaker appears to break a maxim, the listener infers an implied meaning. Asked "Is your homework done?", the reply "I've had a lot of practice this week" flouts the maxim of relation on the surface, prompting the inference that it is not done.
Young children are notoriously literal and only gradually master implicature, because it depends on a developing theory of mind — the understanding that other people have their own knowledge, beliefs and intentions that may differ from the child's. The classic index of theory of mind is the false-belief task (the "Sally–Anne" task), which most children pass at around 4 years: only then can a child reliably attribute to someone a belief the child knows to be false. Before this, children often assume the listener knows what they know, which is why their narratives can be hard to follow (they omit the information a listener actually needs) and why irony, sarcasm and many jokes fall flat with very young children. Linking a child's emerging (or absent) grasp of implied meaning to theory-of-mind development is a sophisticated, synoptic move that also connects pragmatics to the cognitive approach.
Key Definition: Implicature — meaning that is implied by an utterance rather than literally stated, inferred via Grice's cooperative principle and its maxims (quantity, quality, relation, manner). Grasping implicature is a late pragmatic achievement, dependent on theory of mind.
A richer framework for the politeness data you will meet is Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, built on the idea of face — a person's public self-image. Positive face is the desire to be liked and approved of; negative face is the desire not to be imposed upon. Many speech acts are face-threatening (a request imposes on the hearer's negative face; a criticism attacks positive face), and speakers soften them with politeness strategies — for example negative politeness through indirectness and hedging ("Could you possibly ...?"). Children's move from the bald imperative Give biscuit to the conventionally indirect Can I have a biscuit, please? is precisely the acquisition of face-saving negative politeness, and you can analyse it in those exact terms. This also explains why indirect requests are a relatively late achievement: producing them requires the child to recognise that a request threatens the listener's face and to choose a form that mitigates the imposition — again drawing on theory of mind.
Turn-taking — the principle that participants speak one at a time, exchanging the floor — is the structural skeleton of conversation, and its roots are astonishingly early:
| Age (approx.) | Turn-taking development |
|---|---|
| 0–6 months | Proto-conversations: the caregiver treats the baby's coos, gazes and gestures as turns, building a turn-taking frame before the child can speak |
| 6–12 months | More deliberate vocal turn-taking in babbling; the infant increasingly vocalises into the caregiver's pauses |
| 12–24 months | The child responds to questions and comments, though topic control is shaky |
| 2–3 years | Short, sustained exchanges on a topic, but abrupt topic shifts are common |
| 3–5 years | Longer conversations; emerging repair and feedback; fewer overlaps |
| 5+ years | More adult-like management of timing, listening and overlap |
Catherine Snow (1977) stressed the caregiver's role: by responding to a baby's babble as if it were a conversational contribution — asking questions and leaving "slots" for the infant to fill — caregivers effectively teach the structure of dialogue. This is a clear instance of interactionist scaffolding (compare Bruner's formats, below) and a strong piece of AO2 evidence.
A precise analytical term to deploy here is the adjacency pair — a paired sequence of turns such as question–answer, greeting–greeting, or request–compliance. Tracking whether a child can complete adjacency pairs (and produce the expected second part) is a concrete way to assess conversational competence in data.
Children gradually internalise the politeness conventions of their culture and learn to design their talk for the audience:
Can I have a biscuit? in place of the bald imperative Give biscuit — which require understanding that politeness is conveyed through form, not just words.Key Definition: Register — a variety of language selected to suit a particular social context, marked by characteristic vocabulary, grammar and style. Acquiring the ability to switch register according to audience and purpose is a central achievement of pragmatic development.
Deixis ("pointing" with words) covers expressions whose reference depends on who is speaking, where and when. Because their reference shifts, deictic terms are a notorious pragmatic challenge:
| Type | Examples | The difficulty for the child |
|---|---|---|
| Person deixis | I, you, me, he, she, we | I and you swap with the speaker; a child who hears "Do you want milk?" may echo You want milk to mean "I want milk" |
| Spatial deixis | here, there, this, that | here/there depend on the speaker's position, which keeps changing |
| Temporal deixis | now, then, yesterday, tomorrow | yesterday and tomorrow are frequently confused until around 4–5 years |
The classic error is pronoun reversal (saying you to mean I). It is a good error to find in data, because it shows the child working out shifting reference through exposure and context rather than from any fixed innate rule — evidence that some of language is genuinely learned from use, balancing the nativist picture drawn from grammar.
Repair is the set of strategies for fixing communication trouble — mishearings, misunderstandings, unclear utterances. It develops from blunt to subtle:
What?, Huh?) and offer more specific reformulations of their own unclear message.The distinction between self-repair (the child fixes their own turn) and other-initiated repair (the listener signals trouble and the child responds) is worth naming in analysis.
Control over topic — introducing it, sustaining it across turns, and shifting it — develops steadily:
Guess what?, You know what?) that flag a new topic for the listener.The ability to tell a story — to produce extended, structured discourse — develops markedly across the preschool and early-school years. Arthur Applebee (1978) described a progression in children's narrative structure:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.