The question of “how second languages are learned” (Gass & Selinker 1994:1) is central to second language acquisition (SLA) research; however, although a number of longitudinal studies have been carried out examining second language (L2) grammatical development, very little attention has been devoted to L2 learners' development of pragmatic competence over time. As Achiba points out, the majority of previous studies on L2 (or interlanguage) pragmatics have observed the single-moment pragmatic realization of a group of L2 learners with similar proficiency levels and compared it with that of native speakers or L2 learners with different proficiency levels or first language (L1) backgrounds. The current paucity of knowledge regarding the developmental aspect of L2 pragmatic competence has led to calls for detailed longitudinal interlanguage pragmatic studies (cf. Kasper & Schmidt 1996, Kasper & Rose 1999). Achiba's study, which carefully observes the pragmatic development in English requestive realization of a seven-year-old Japanese girl over a period of 17 months, certainly meets these essential needs.

In chap. 1, Achiba defines what is meant by a “request” in the context of the study and explains three types of strategies for making requests: direct strategies, conventionally indirect strategies, and non-conventionally indirect strategies (hints or requestive hints). Chap. 2 provides a review of L1 and L2 English acquisition studies on the development of request realization. In spite of the extensive literature on request behaviors in L1 and L2 acquisition, Achiba concisely yet concretely presents relevant past studies and makes clear points on key issues associated with the pragmatic development of requestive performance.

Chap. 3 describes the methodology of the study. Here, Achiba outlines the significance of and need for longitudinal case studies of the development of pragmatic competence, and emphasizes that her study observes an L2 learner's pragmatic use of language from the onset of L2 acquisition. Achiba studied a seven-year-old Japanese girl (her daughter, Yao) over a period of 17 months, during which time they lived in Melbourne, Australia. Yao attended a primary school in a middle-class community with minimal ESL support at school. Yao continued to be exposed to Japanese spoken by her mother and in a once-a-week Japanese school.

Achiba collected Yao's spontaneous request speech through audio- and video-taping and diary-keeping. The tape-recorded data, on which Achiba based her analysis, include Yao's oral production while she played with friends at home after school. The interactions were performed on a one-to-one basis. Achiba played the role of participant observer. Yao's interlocutors, native speakers of English, are divided into three types: peer, teenager, and adult. One interlocutor of each type interacted with Yao for approximately one hour in each session, with sessions being separated by four to six weeks in most instances. Achiba analyzed a total of 42 hours of tape-recorded speech.

The tape-recorded data are supplemented by the diary data, which include Yao's spontaneous request utterances produced in contexts other than the play situation, along with detailed information on the manner and context of each request. The combination of tape-recording and diary-keeping is a methodological advantage of the current study. This approach greatly enhances the extent to which the study captures Yao's holistic speech ability in making requests, particularly in terms of her linguistic and strategic/pragmatic repertoire. Achiba comments that “an analysis from only one kind of data would have resulted in an underestimation of Yao's command of the pragmatics in English” (p. 186).

Achiba reports and discusses her research results in chapters 4–9, with chap. 9 concluding the study. Chap. 4 describes the overall developmental course of Yao's request realization, with a focus on the range of linguistic repertoire and pragmatic strategies. By analyzing the course of Yao's progress in making requests, Achiba identifies four phases, each with distinct characteristics. Phase 1 (the first 12 weeks) is characterized by the frequent use of routine formulas such as it's my turn, hang on, and imperative phrases. In Phase 2 (weeks 13 through 31) there is a marked shift from formulaic language to productive language, as evidenced by Yao's use of longer, more elaborate, and more specific sentences, such as can I have a look at that book please? rather than can I have a look? Achiba also reports a remarkable increase in conventionally indirect strategies during this phase. In Phase 3 (weeks 32 through 61) Yao showed dramatic development in her sociolinguistic competence. For example, she started to use a mitigation strategy by choosing the could you (I) … ? form rather than the can you (I) … ? form. In addition, Yao began to differentiate request expressions appropriately according to social contexts such as the addressee and the goal of the request. Moreover, in this phase Yao became able to reiterate her requestive intentions by employing different request forms rather than merely repeating the same form. Phase 4 (weeks 62 through 75) is characterized by increasing sophistication in Yao's social use of language, with Yao's repertoire of conventionally indirect strategies becoming noticeably richer. Another distinctive characteristic of this phase was Yao's frequent use of the past-tense modals, which function as mitigation devices.

Chap. 5 is concerned with Yao's use of hints. In the investigation of hints, the qualitative analysis seems more important than the quantitative analysis because the overall frequency of hints used by Yao was very low (2.6% of all requests produced) throughout the study period. Achiba observes that, although Yao specified the desired objects or actions in the early phases, she veiled them with no grammatical reference in the later phases. In addition, Achiba notes that “Yao's use of hints appears to be independent of other strategies” (92). This observation is interesting, considering that other studies (e.g. Ervin-Tripp 1977) suggest that the use of hints is related to the overall development in request strategies. Ervin-Tripp argues that the frequent use of hints appears when children learn effectively to “unmark” requests – that is, when they become adults.

In chaps. 6 and 7, Achiba investigates the relationships between variations in the use of request and two social factors, request goals (chap. 6) and addressees (chap. 7), which are generally considered to be the most influential social factors influencing variation in request behavior. Achiba also looks at the development of Yao's request production in relation to these social factors. Overall, it was found that Yao differentiated her request strategies and forms according to the request goal and addressee.

Chap. 6 includes probably the most intriguing finding of this study: that Yao's request realization shows different developmental patterns depending on the type of request goal. Yao's strong tendency to choose direct strategies when requesting cessation of action did not change throughout the course of her pragmatic development. Also, her strong preference for conventionally indirect strategies when requesting joint activity did not change over time. In contrast, however, her choice of strategies when requesting goods or the initiation of action changed considerably over time. Yao was very likely to use direct strategies to request goods in Phase 1, whereas from Phase 2 on she showed a clear preference for conventionally indirect strategies. Regarding the request strategies for the initiation of action, Yao's strong preference in Phase 1 for direct strategies was weakened from Phase 2 on by her increasing use of conventionally indirect strategies.

In chap. 8, Achiba shifts the focus of the study to modification employed in Yao's request production. Here, Achiba particularly focuses on lexical/phrasal modifiers, reiterations, and support moves, and analyzes them in relation to developmental phases, request strategy types, request goals, and addressees. Overall, Yao's use of request modification was refined over time, as seen in the facts that the mere use of attention getters and repetitions decreased, and in turn, the deployment of reasons and toners (e.g. just, maybe) increased across the developmental phases. Another important finding provided in this chapter is the apparent existence of interrelationships among the use of modifiers, request strategies, and request goals. One of the most distinctive patterns was that Yao predominantly used please with conventionally indirect strategies and for the goal of requesting goods.

Probably because of the longitudinal nature of this study, which pays particular attention to what the learner comes to be able to perform with the target language, and not necessarily why, the study does not consider the learner's L1 influence in terms of either L1 positive or negative transfer. This aspect deserves further study. In addition, Achiba mentions limitations of her study resulting from the use of the play situation as the setting for the core observations of the study. Because the study was based on play situations, which require less face-work than other interactions, the results showed a lesser effect of the addressee factor on the request variation than expected. Overall, however, this study provides a number of important and illuminating findings on the pragmatic development of the L2 learner and methodological insights that should be of great value to researchers in this area.