Abstract:
This thesis aims to explore how bilingual children could be in a situation of learning two different sets of pragmatic rules in a bilingual context, how those systems are operating, and what the implications are for children’s language learning. For a pragmatic study, we need to understand the culture and the context of language in use. Therefore, this thesis begins by reporting information about the language-learning environment for this population through a survey. One of the survey results was that home was the main source of exposure to Arabic and children’s main exposure to English was from attending kindergarten. The two contexts – home and kindergarten – are different in terms of the dominant language and culture in each, along with the relationships and the agendas contained in them, which are all relevant to considering pragmatic skills.
Data was collected from home for an Arabic speaking context and from kindergarten for an English-speaking context. Interviews were conducted with mothers and teachers, and video recordings of natural interactions between children and their Arabic speaking mothers and then with their English-speaking teachers.
The results show that while mothers were strongly motivated to maintain the use of Arabic at home and instituted strategies to achieve this, English was used there by the children and sometimes by the mothers also. Children used English mainly to close the gaps in their Arabic language and mothers also used English to express solidarity and to bond with their children. Children in both contexts received a large number of directives. Although there were similarities in the functions of these directives in the two contexts, the forms differed considerably, mainly in the degree of directness which was greater in Arabic and at home. Arabic speaking mothers frequently used imperative forms, whereas the English-speaking
teachers used modal verb questions. Children’s responses to those directives were more direct in the Arabic speaking context, as they sometimes responded with direct refusal statements. However, such direct forms of refusal were rarely used in the English-speaking context. The implications of such pragmatic differences could range from a communication breakdown to points of conflict and relationship breakdowns.