ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 12, Issue 1, February 2024 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 373 EXPLORING PRAGMATIC DEVELOPMENT IN 4-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN: AN INTERACTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Siti Salamah Indonesian Language and Literature Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia E-mail: siti.salamah@pbsi.uad.ac.id, Zultiyanti Indonesian Language and Literature Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia E-mail: zultiyanti@pbsi.uad.ac.id APA sCitation: Salamah, S. & Zultiyanti. (2024). Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective. sEnglish sReview: sJournal sof sEnglish sEducation, s12(1), 373- 384. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v12i1.9355 Received: 29-10-2023 Accepted: 24-12-2023 Published: 28-02-2024 Abstract: In Indonesia, the exploration of pragmatic development has primarily centered on speech acts, indicating a gap in comprehensive research into the wider dimensions of pragmatic acquisition in children. This study, adopting a qualitative descriptive methodology, seeks to elucidate the primary facets of pragmatic acquisition in 4-year-old children. Conducted at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten, data collection was achieved through systematic observation, incorporating recording and note-taking as key methods. Analysis proceeded according to the Miles & Huberman flow model, with data validity reinforced through both method and theory triangulation. Data triangulation involved compiling insights from three distinct sources: detailed classroom observations, audio recordings of interactions, and reflective field notes analysis. Theoretical triangulation compared the collected data against existing theoretical frameworks to mitigate potential researcher bias in the findings. The investigation into pragmatic acquisition among 4-year-olds at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten unveiled that children have developed various pragmatic dimensions, including Joint Attention, Common Ground, Conventions and Contrast, Feedback and Repair, and Speech Acts. Keywords: interactionalist; pragmatic acquisition; pragmatic aspects. INTRODUCTION Pragmatic knowledge is essential to understanding and applying language usage standards based on variables including the target audience, communication objectives, and social conventions within the language community (Puri & Baskara, 2023). The acquisition of pragmatic knowledge is contingent upon learners' capacity to use their grammatical and structural knowledge in context-appropriate real-world discussions, as noted by Al-Obaydi (2023), Marasabessy et al. (2023), and Schidelko (2022). This compilation of research provides a nuanced look into the realm of pragmatic language development in children, touching upon various factors, disorders, and bilingualism's effects. These contributions deepen our understanding of how children acquire the necessary pragmatic skills for effective communication within their respective linguistic and social contexts (Abdulrahman & Ayyash, 2019). Ninio (2018) establishes a foundational discussion on the spectrum of pragmatic development, paving the way for detailed investigations into specific elements of pragmatic language learning. However, in its development, issues like research boundaries and imprecise definitions remain unclear and unresolved, posing perplexing and contentious challenges (Niu, 2023). Research by Vassiliu et al. (2023) examines pragmatic and structural language abilities in children with ADHD, shedding light on the distinct developmental paths and challenges faced by this group. Complementarily, Bohn et al. (2023) look at the variability in pragmatic abilities among preschoolers from an individual differences standpoint, emphasizing the diversity in children’s contextual language usage. In a similar vein, Kay et al. (2021) investigated the early pragmatic language skills of preschool- aged children who were normally developing (TD), those who had language impairment (LI), mailto:zultiyanti@pbsi.uad.ac.id Siti Salamah & Zultiyanti Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective 374 and those who had autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Another study by Socher et al. (2019) investigates why children who are deaf or hard of hearing frequently score lower on pragmatic language aptitude tests than their hearing peers. Mazzocconi and Ginzburg (2023) explore how understanding and producing humor, or "laughables," plays into pragmatic development from 12 to 36 months, illustrating the complex link between humor comprehension and pragmatic language capabilities. Pereira and Lousada (2023) scrutinize the reliability of tools designed to assess pragmatic intervention outcomes in children with developmental language disorders, calling for dependable methods to measure the effectiveness of these interventions accurately. Zhang et al. (2023) delve into how processing and discourse-pragmatic factors compete in the use of adverbial when-clauses by both children and adults, offering insight into the underlying cognitive and linguistic mechanisms of pragmatic development. The study by Sánchez et al. (2023) investigates the development of pragmatic knowledge in heritage bilingual children, focusing on how language dominance, experience, and interaction affect their understanding and use of null and overt subjects in Spanish and English. Beauchamp et al. (2023) examine the effect of being raised bilingual on narrative, social, and pragmatic skills in school-aged children with autism, pointing out the complex implications of bilingualism in autistic populations. Children with social communication impairments find it difficult to communicate successfully in social situations, as noted by Murphy et al. (2021). Fernandes (2021) also proposes an assessment protocol for the pragmatic communication skills of autistic children to verify whether its results can be associated the FCP since both instruments are based on the same communication notions for children diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Robinson et al. (2023) reflect on the methodologies, ethical considerations, and practical aspects of including children and youth with disabilities in research related to domestic and family violence, advocating for research practices that are inclusive. The gender disparities in pragmatic development studied by Bialecka-Pikul et al. (2019) show significant differences favoring girls. Andrés-Roqueta et al. (2024) present PleaseApp, a novel digital assessment tool for children with neurodevelopmental disorders' receptive pragmatic abilities, showcasing advancements in evaluation techniques. Prasanna et al. (2024) also investigate teachers' views and usage of storytelling in preschool development, emphasizing storytelling's role in enhancing pragmatic language skills across diverse ethnic groups. Collectively, this body of work presents a comprehensive view of the factors influencing pragmatic development in children, covering assessment challenges, the impact of neurodevelopmental disorders and bilingualism, and the significance of adopting culturally and linguistically informed support methods for children’s pragmatic language progress. Children utilize language as an interactive tool to guide and regulate their behavior as they commence their educational journey, as highlighted by Vygotsky in 1987. Youngsters quickly pick up societal norms. For instance, when their language develops, the infant learns to employ vocal expressions after initially learning to use non-verbal information and making eye contact for interaction (Bahrami & Fekar- Gharamaleki, 2021). However, there exists a notable gap in research focusing on language acquisition through the lens of interactionalism theory, making it a compelling area for study. Previous research in the realm of children's language acquisition within educational settings, such as the works of Wulandari (2018), Asri, Syahrul, and Suardi (2019), and others, primarily concentrated on the structural aspects of language, including phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics, predominantly through the behaviorist perspective. These studies did not delve into interactionalism theory nor thoroughly explore how children acquire language, the sequence and patterns of this acquisition, or the application of pragmatic strategies in language development. Furthermore, investigations into pragmatic aspects by researchers like Wahab (2013) and others have been confined to the forms of pragmatic acquisition without focusing on the strategies children employ in acquiring pragmatic skills. This indicates a gap in understanding the pragmatic strategies used by children in language acquisition, underscoring the necessity for further research in this direction. This gap signifies the importance of advancing research on children's language acquisition from the perspective of interactionalism theory and exploring pragmatic acquisition strategies. Such Nama Penulis: Judul Artikel 375 research could enrich theoretical concepts for application in psycholinguistics courses. Numerous studies have addressed language acquisition in children, covering both linguistic structures and pragmatic aspects. Yet, these investigations have largely leaned towards behaviorism and cognitivism, neglecting interactionalism theory. Studies like those by Salamah, Murtadho & Yumna (2022), and Scheidnes (2020) have focused on language stimulation techniques and the repetition of linguistic elements in children, respectively. Children mimic what their speakers say at first to increase their comprehension of the speech, and later they start to employ the repetition for different communication objectives (Sudartinah, 2022). Similarly, research by Pontikas et al. (2022), and Diessel & Monakhov (2022) has examined aspects such as the processing speed of interrogative sentences in bilingual versus monolingual children and the acquisition of demonstrative words across different languages. It has been observed that children begin employing pragmatic strategies from their first year in school. Research from an interactionalism perspective, such as Darong's (2020) study, has investigated pragmatic strategies and types of questions used by English teachers, highlighting the necessity for pragmatic strategies to manage classroom interactions effectively. This underscores the need for more nuanced research that not only explores language acquisition from an interactionalism viewpoint but also delves into the pragmatic strategies children utilize, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of language development in educational settings. Language, as a medium of interaction, is crucial for children, especially as they begin school, to navigate and control their behavior, a concept highlighted by Vygotsky in 1987. Despite numerous studies on language acquisition in Indonesia focusing predominantly on speech acts, there's a gap in research exploring the broader scope of pragmatic development in children, warranting a deeper investigation. Research to date, including works by Wulandari (2018), Asri, Syahrul, and Suardi (2019), among others, has mainly concentrated on structural language aspects like phonology and syntax, applying behaviorist theories. These studies have not ventured into interactionalism theory, leaving a gap in understanding children's language acquisition processes, sequences, and patterns. Furthermore, while studies by Wahab (2013) and others have delved into pragmatic forms in children, they've largely overlooked the strategies children employ in pragmatic development. This research aims to fill these gaps by focusing on children's language acquisition from an interactionalism perspective and examining the strategies children use in acquiring pragmatics. This is crucial for providing a more nuanced theoretical framework for psycholinguistics and understanding pragmatic development in children. Past studies have largely applied behaviorist and cognitivist theories to explore language acquisition in children, examining linguistic structures and pragmatic aspects. However, there's a noted lack of research from an interactionalism standpoint, which considers the relationship between cognitive abilities and environmental interaction in language development. Eriksson (2019), for instance, investigates how joint attention correlates with vocabulary and syntax development in young children, underscoring the importance of interactive engagement for linguistic growth. Clark (2014) posits that pragmatic understanding is central to first language acquisition, with children learning through context-rich interactions with adults, which include feedback on language use and adherence to conversational norms. In Indonesia, research by Trisna, Husein, and Pulungan (2020) highlights how three-year-old children employ pragmatic strategies in everyday conversations, indicating early development of pragmatic understanding. Clark (2014) further categorizes children's pragmatic development into aspects such as Joint Attention, Common Ground, and others, each playing a unique role in how children interact and communicate. This research seeks to expand on these findings, using Clark's interactionalism approach to explore both structural and pragmatic language acquisition in children, offering a comprehensive view of how children navigate and develop linguistic competencies. METHOD This study employs a qualitative descriptive research design aimed at understanding phenomena as experienced by the subjects, such as behaviors and descriptive methods in words and language, within a natural setting. Following Moleong (2007), this approach focuses on capturing the lived experiences of individuals through various naturalistic methods. Consistent with Sugiyono (2006), our study does not define a Siti Salamah & Zultiyanti Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective 376 population but rather investigates a social situation characterized by synergistic interactions among place, actors, and activities. The subject of this research is the process of language acquisition among children, with the object being the children attending ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten. Data collection is conducted through listening to recordings and taking notes on the utterances spoken by the children, thereby recording and noting their language use. This method aligns with the qualitative nature of the study, emphasizing the importance of capturing verbal expressions directly from the participants. The data collection method involves listening to recordings and employing note-taking techniques to document children’s utterances. This technique allows for the detailed observation and recording of natural language use among the children in the kindergarten setting. The research on language acquisition among children at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten is methodically structured to delve deeply into the pragmatic development of young learners. This study meticulously follows a series of steps beginning with the identification of linguistic phenomena of interest, which sets the direction of the research. Subsequently, the process involves identifying and formulating the specific problems to be investigated, thereby laying the groundwork for the inquiry into children's language acquisition. Data collection is a critical phase where observations, audio recordings, and note-taking play pivotal roles in gathering comprehensive information on the children's linguistic interactions. Following collection, data undergoes reduction and tabulation, a meticulous process that distills vast amounts of raw information into a concise and analyzable format. This step is crucial for managing the complexity of linguistic data and preparing it for in-depth analysis. Employing the Miles & Huberman (1992) Flow Model, the study advances into the data analysis phase, which is characterized by three integral components: data reduction, data presentation, and verification or conclusion drawing. Data reduction is an ongoing process that filters and focuses the collected information, making it manageable and relevant for the study’s objectives. Data presentation then organizes this refined data into coherent formats, such as descriptions, charts, and graphs, making it accessible and interpretable. The final step of verification involves scrutinizing the data to identify patterns and draw credible conclusions, which are then cross-verified with additional data collection to ensure reliability and trustworthiness. To ensure the validity of the research findings, a dual approach of method and theory triangulation is employed. Data triangulation enhances the study’s credibility by sourcing information from a mix of classroom observations, audio recordings, and reflective notes. Theoretical triangulation serves to align the study’s findings with existing theoretical frameworks, thereby minimizing individual researcher bias and grounding the conclusions in a broader academic context. This comprehensive research flow, from the initial identification of phenomena to the final verification of data, is crafted to shed light on the intricate process of pragmatic development in children. By scrutinizing how young learners acquire language in interactive settings, the study aims to contribute significantly to the fields of psycholinguistics and interactionalism theory. Ultimately, this research endeavors to inform educational strategies and enrich psycholinguistics course content, enhancing our understanding of language acquisition in early childhood. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of data collection on children aged 4-5 years at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten show that there is a pragmatic acquisition which is categorized based on Clark's (2014) Pragmatic Acquisition theory. The results of a study of the acquisition of pragmatics in children show that children aged 4 years at ABA Nikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten have acquired the aspects of Joint attention (JA), Common Ground (CG), Convention and Contrast (CC), Feedback and Repair (Fr), and Speech Act (SA). The distribution of acquisition for each pragmatic aspect is presented in the diagram below. Figure 1. Pragmatic acquisition distribution Nama Penulis: Judul Artikel 377 The pragmatic acquisition distribution of children aged 4 years at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten consists of: (1) Aspect of Joint Attention (JA) by 4%; (2) Aspect of Common Ground (CG) by 9%; (3) Aspect of Convention and Contrast (CC) by 11%; (4) Aspect of Feedback and Repair (FR) by 9%; and (5) Aspect of Speech Act (SA) by 67%. Pragmatic acquisition obtained by 4-year-old children at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten includes the five aspects mentioned above. The distribution of aspects of pragmatic acquisition by each child is explained in table 1 below. Table 1. Distribution of pragmatic acquisition of 4 year old children in ABA Nitikan Kindergarten No. Child’s Name JA CG CC FR SA 1. Afifah 0 2 2 1 11 2. Sila 0 1 2 2 10 3. Farah 0 1 2 2 12 4. Hilya 2 2 3 2 14 5. Bella 0 1 2 3 14 6. Al 3 3 2 3 9 7. Rumaisah 0 1 1 3 10 8. Aqila 0 1 1 4 11 Total 5 12 15 13 92 The exploration of pragmatic development in 4-year-old children at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten indicates the acquisition of all examined pragmatic aspects. Notably, the Joint Attention (JA) aspect is observed the least frequently in the children's interactions, in contrast to the Speech Act (SA) aspect, which is the most common. The order of frequency for the appearance of these pragmatic strategies is JA- CG-FR-CC-SA. A closer examination of these five pragmatic aspects reveals the following insights. Joint Attention (JA) Aspect Joint Attention represents the foundational pragmatic skill children acquire to communicate with others. This skill is characterized by children initially focusing their attention on adults through facial expressions (Hyde, Jones, Flom, & Porter, 2011), establishing a crucial early developmental stage known as joint attention. This stage underpins children’s ability to engage and learn language within their social environments. Meaningful communication can only be formed when the pragmatic knowledge aligns with the practical context (Yan, 2022). According to Pivio and Begg in Trisna et al. (2020), kids pick up on social cues from others around them, including dress rules, body language, and language usage. This tendency usually starts with the things that children say to themselves, followed by peers from their school, neighborhood, or family. Between the ages of one and five, most children acquire verbal or nonverbal pragmatic skills (Mathew & Varghese, 2021). By the time they are two years old, children use language to ask questions, make requests, inform others, and engage in conversation—but only for a certain number of turns (Ramya et al., 2022). Three years old is when proper interaction starts to develop through communication (Fatima, 2022). By the ages of 4-5 years, instances of Joint Attention are less frequent, primarily appearing between 9 months to 1.5 years. From 12 to 15 months, their gaze following becomes more accurate, and they can more precisely locate targets. Infants begin directing the attention of adults around 9 to 10 months, with the frequency of Joint Attention behaviors peaking between 12 to 15 months (Butterworth and Morissette, 1996). Consistent with the above observations, Joint Attention forms were seldom identified in this study, given that 3-4-year-old children are typically developing more complex sentence structures. In this investigation, the JA form was observed only 5 times, exemplified by certain interactions noted during the research. Mrs. Ning : “Who’s birthday today?” Bella : “Me!” (while looking around and raising hands) Mrs. Ning : Is Bella birthday?” (Bella nodded) Mrs. Ning : “Whoa, friends! Bella is birthday today. Happy birthday, Bella!” Bella : (covered her face while smiling) The data illustrates that Bella demonstrates her Joint Attention (JA) capabilities by providing brief answers, looking around, and nodding. While JA usage is less common at Bella's age of 4 years, due to the evolution of communication into more complex forms, it's notable that as children mature, they increasingly adopt intricate verbal expressions. Common Ground (CG) Clark (2014) identifies the Common Ground (CG) as a crucial aspect of pragmatic development, representing shared knowledge between communicators, often rooted in cultural similarities. Children between the ages of 2 and 4 begin to exhibit CG, albeit with knowledge that varies based on their environmental exposure. Siti Salamah & Zultiyanti Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective 378 This period is characterized by children offering new information when it's apparent that their parents lack certain knowledge, facilitated through meaningful interactions within their environment, particularly with parents and other significant adults. CG enables children to achieve a mutual understanding with adults, adjusting their communication based on the perceived knowledge of their conversational partners. Research by O'Neill and Topolovec (2001) found that older toddlers are adept at assessing the informativeness of their pointing gestures, often adding verbal labels to their points in contexts where pointing alone may be insufficient. For instance, by the age of 2 years and 9 months, children begin to consistently label objects during pointing gestures, particularly when the visibility of their pointing may be in question. However, younger toddlers, around 2 years and 4 months, do not show this discernment, suggesting an evolving ability to evaluate the effectiveness of their communicative gestures (Pechmann and Deutsch, 1982). This progression underscores the development of CG as children grow, emphasizing the importance of interactive experiences in shaping their pragmatic skills. Mrs. Ning : “What are you playing, Hilya?” Hilya : “Pairing bunnies.” Mrs. Ning : “Oh, you mean puzzle??” Hilya : “Yes, Hilya forgets. It is puzzle, right, Ma’am?” Mrs. Ning : “That’s right.” In the conversation highlighted above, the primary point of connection sought is the lexical meaning that identifies the type of game being discussed. The community typically has a specific term for this game, yet in the given context, the children lack the precise terminology, referring to it as "pairing bunnies" based on their understanding. The Common Ground (CG) aspect underscores the importance of accurate mutual understanding between the speaker and the listener about the topic at hand, essentially forming shared knowledge. The correct term for the game is a puzzle, and in the dialogue, the teacher introduces foundational concepts or basic information about the common terms used to describe the game. This introduction aims to build upon the child's existing knowledge base, enriching it with new information for accurate repetition. When a child is unfamiliar with the game's name, they share what information they have, solidifying their understanding as they further acquire language and align with the societal common knowledge (Clark, 2014). Language conventions, encompassing phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax, are governed by societal norms and are learned through adult language use and the feedback provided for errors. Through this process, children learn to identify and use the correct lexical terms. Convention and Contrast (CC) Aspect Convention refers to established norms that are collectively understood and adhered to within a society. It underpins how speakers choose words, ensuring mutual understanding is achievable. Concurrently, the concept of contrast involves distinguishing between different entities. Words carry not only conventional meanings but also differ in significance, implying that a speaker's selection of a particular term over another conveys a unique meaning or perspective (Clark, 1993). From a young age, children learn from their parents, caregivers, and siblings about the pragmatic principles of conventionality, which involves the expectation of using certain forms of language within society. This could encompass words, phrases, idioms, constructions, or combinations thereof. The manifestation of Convention and Contrast is evident in the provided data, showcasing how children navigate these linguistic principles in their first language acquisition journey. Mrs. Dewi : “ Next, Al”. Al : “It was raining at my house yesterday.” Mrs. Dewi : “Is it heavy?” Al : “Yes, so I went to school by motorcycle with my mother and wore an umbrella.” Mrs. Dewi : “Oh,it was this morning, not yesterday” Al : “Ma’am, yesterday I bought a mouse.” Mrs. Dewi : “Where did you buy it?” Al : “At the fair.” Mrs. Dewi : “Oh, it was a hamster, not a mouse.” Al : “But it looks like a mouse.” The given example illustrates instances of Convention and Contrast within a conversation. Initially, Mrs. Dewi inquires, "Is it heavy?" and Al responds, “Yes, so I went to school by motorcycle with my mother and wore an umbrella”. Given the context, Mrs. Dewi Nama Penulis: Judul Artikel 379 understands the event occurred recently, leading her to correct Al's temporal reference from "yesterday" to "just now" to accurately reflect the recency of the event. In Indonesian, "yesterday" suggests a past event, but since Al's journey to school occurred recently, "just now" is the appropriate term. Following this, the conversation shifts to a conventional misunderstanding when Al mentions he bought a rat. Mrs. Dewi, puzzled by this unusual purchase, inquires about its location, pointing out the community's norms do not typically associate rats with pets for purchase. When Al clarifies he bought rats at the fair, Mrs. Dewi corrects him, explaining what he purchased was likely a hamster, not a rat, as fairs commonly sell hamsters. This scenario underscores that young children may not always select the most accurate words or phrases, making their expressions challenging to interpret due to brevity or ambiguity due to their phrases' brevity or ambiguity for their idea of signs, which is unavoidably brought about by the convergence of pragmatic and pragmatist thought (Niu, 2022). From an early age, children engage with the principles of convention and contrast, learning to specify their desires or correct misunderstandings through interaction, gradually refining their word choice through observation and practice. Feedback and repair aspect The acquisition of language in children is facilitated through dialogue with surrounding speakers. Initially, children may possess a basic understanding of how to use words to communicate but might struggle to find the correct terms to express understood meanings. In these instances, adults provide comprehensive feedback, aiming to grasp the children's intended messages. Beyond offering feedback or contrasting statements, adults may guide corrections using targeted questions, such as those formed with "WH" words. An example from this study of feedback and repair involves an adult providing corrective feedback to a child’s misuse of terms, guiding the child towards the conventional expression of their intent, thus facilitating a clearer understanding and use of language. Mrs. Dewi : “Who can make a butterfly?” Afifah : “Ma’am, I can make a butterfly from a cardboard.” Mrs. Dewi : “Ooh..making a butterfly from a cardboard, right, Afifah?” Afifah : “Yes, it can stick to my shirt.” Mrs. Dewi : “Oh Masya Allah, Afifah have been able to make a butterfly toy, not the real butterfly. Butterfly is made by Allah. Creation is artificial.” (Afifah is silent and nods) Mrs. Dewi : “Humans cannot make butterflies, but only toy that are the same as butterflies, because the butterfly animal is created by Allah.” Afifah : “But I can make a toy like butterfly, Ma’am.” Mrs. Dewi : “Yes, Afifah is very smart. Humans can only make a toy, not create a butterfly.” In the conversation above, the utterance contains the feedback and repair aspects given by Mrs. Dewi. This happened when Afifah did not understand the meaning of making a butterfly which refers to one of Allah’s creatures, so Afifah answered “I can make a butterfly from a cardboard.” The meaning of the word ‘make’ asked by Mrs. Dewi refers to non-object creatures in the form of toys. Then, feedback was given by Mrs. Dewi when Afifah answered Mrs. Dewi “Who can make a butterfly?” Afifah answered: “Ma’am, I can make butterfly from a cardboard.” Mrs. Dewi gave a feedback in form of question. Mrs. Dewi: “Ooh..making a butterfly from a cardboard, right, Afifah?” Next, Mrs. Dewi gave repair by saying, “Oh Masya Allah, Afifah have been able to make a butterfly toy, not the real butterfly. Butterfly is made by Allah. Creation is artificial.” In the example conversation above, the adult speaker (Mrs. Dewi) made corrections to correct various misunderstandings and disturbances that occurred in the conversation with Afifah. This can be seen most clearly in adult-child conversational exchanges, as children are beginners in the process of acquiring a first language and they know very little about the forms of language or how to use it. We can also observe the feedback made by Mrs. Dewi in the conversation above is to (1) check after the child's initial speech with questions to ask for clarification. In response, the child (Afifah) still tries to defend her words by adding information “Yes, it can stick to my shirt.” In the example sentence above, children often cannot understand the meaning of improvements made by adults, because children sometimes have difficulty understanding them. Children are in the process of learning language, capturing words and phrases, and storing them in memory for that Siti Salamah & Zultiyanti Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective 380 adults still serve children in two ways during their acquisition: (a) They give kids conventional versions of what they seem to mean, and (b) They provide additional checks on child production against any form of child storage; (Clark & Wong, 2002). The corrections made by Afifah show that children are aware of and they monitor their own speech so that they can make corrections when they notice a discrepancy with the form they intended to produce. To respond to improvements made by adults, children are not enough just to form questions or statements given by adults. Adults need to use reformulations so that children can understand and do the corrected forms that are offered in the following utterances. The improvements children make can also reflect how much they know about different aspects of language when they try to come up with the right pronunciation or the right choice of words or constructions (Clark, 2014). Speech Act (SA) aspect The Emergence of Speech Acts in Children, investigating the acquisition of verbal communicative actions (speech acts) by children has traced how very young children, starting from the preverbal stage, use linguistic means to perform social actions and examine the pragmatic goals they achieve. In particular, even when toddlers use one-word speech, they can make requests for action and information and to generate statements, responses, and acknowledgments, combining these utterances with nonverbal means. At the age of 2.5 years, children's pragmatic abilities develop in communicating. Children's abilities are spread more widely in communicative actions that are gradually becoming more sophisticated. Over time, children learn the pragmatic means of communication that allow full realization of verbal communication and previously acquired aspects of situations, such as justifications, promises, prohibitions, challenges, apologies, explanations, denials, and disagreements (Ninio & Snow, 1996). Assertive Function of Speech Acts (SA) The Assertive Function of Speech Acts) in this research encompasses sentence forms that demonstrate assertive actions, such as stating, reporting, describing, presenting, and naming. Here is a paraphrased example of the assertive reporting function observed in the study: Sila : “Ma’am, I’ve just seen a goat being slaughtered.” Mrs. Dewi : “Which part is being slaughtered?” Sila : “Its head, and there was so much blood.” Mrs. Dewi : “Whoa, it must be hurt, right?” Sila : “Sure, then I began to cry.” The following is an example of an assertive conveying function. Afifah : “Yesterday I bought so many toys.” Mrs. Ning : “Where did you buy them?” Afifah : “In the fair.” Mrs. Ning : “What did you buy in the fair, Afifah?” Afifah : “There were so many, Ma’am. I bought dolls, kitchen set toy, and car toy for my brother.” Mrs. Ning : “Whoa, you must be very happy, Afifah.” The form of the assertive function of conveying speech acts is shown in the sentence “Ma’am, I’ve just seen a goat being slaughtered.” Then, the information conveyed is detailed again with sentences “There were so many, Ma’am. I bought dolls, kitchen set toy, and car toy for my brother.” Expressive function of SA Regarding the Expressive Function of Speech Acts (SA), these encompass expressions like praising, criticizing, thanking, accusing, and apologizing. Within this study, instances of praising and thanking, along with accusing and apologizing were identified, while examples of criticizing were not observed. Here is a paraphrased description of expressive forms discovered in the research. Bella : “Here is a surprise for you, Rumaisha.” Rumaisha : “Thank you, Bella. I’ll open it later.” Sila : “Bella, is your veil new? It looks good.” Bella : “Yes, I bought it yesterday with my mother.” Farah : “What do you want to buy?” Rumaisha : “It is still hot” Farrah : “It’s okay. I want to buy this.” Rumaisha : “Thank you, Farrah”. Hilya : “Your voice is good”. Sila : “Isn’t it cool?” Hilya : “Yes, it’s good.” In the example sentence above, there is an expressive speech act function in the form of "Thank you", showing thanks, and the word "good" showing praise. Nama Penulis: Judul Artikel 381 Declarative function of SA The forms of speech acts found in this study include the speech acts of deciding, prohibiting, and canceling. The following are examples of declarative speech acts found in this study. Rumaisha : “I want snacks.” Hilya : “You can only pick one. Don’t take too much.” Bella : “Aqila, you should not be there, it is dangerous.” Aqila : “I’m sitting far from the power source.” Mrs. Ning : “I want to buy the eggplant, please.” Sila : “You may not buy it, Ma’am!” Bella : “I’m not going to your home tomrrow.” Aqila : “Why?” Bella : “Because I am asked to go with my mother to my grandmother’s home.” Aqila : “It’s okay. I will go to the mall with my mother too.” The form of the sentence above is a declarative form of prohibition which is marked by the negation words should not and may not. Commissive function of SA The function of commissive speech acts can be in the form of threatening, offering, promising, and expressing willingness. Bella : “Do you want to go with me taking my police costume?” Sila : “No, I don’t. I just want to stay here.” Sila : “Don’t bring my toy home!” Bella : “I’m just borrowing and going to bring it back tomorrow.” Aqila : “Do you want the cake?” Sila : “I don’t like chocolate, I want the cheese one.” Aqila : “My mother just made this, if you don’t want then no problem.” The form of commissive speech acts is shown in the sentence “Do you want to go with me” which is a form of offering commissive and in the sentence “I’m just borrowing and going to bring it back tomorrow.” that shows a promising commissive form. Directive function of SA The form of directive speech acts can be: ordering, asking, demanding, and begging. The following is an example of the form of directive speech acts found in this study. Sila : “Could you please tie up my pant, Ma’am?” Mrs. Ning : “Come here and let me help you tie it up.” Sila : “My pant is too big.” Rumaisha : “Please draw it for me, Ma’am!” Mrs. Ning : “What drawing?” Rumaisha : “A picture of a cow.” Afifah : “Let’s open it.” Sila : “Pull up the rope, Bella!” Bella : “I can make it hard.” The form of a directive speech act is shown by the word "please" which is a category of asking and a form of ordering speech in a sentence “Pull up the rope, Bella!” The form of the directive function speech act above is in the form of asking for help marked by the word "please" in the sentence “Could you please tie up my pant, Ma’am?”. Furthermore, the directive function of ordering tends to be mentioned directly, as in the utterance “Pull up the rope, Bella!” Based on the description above, children's pragmatic acquisition is obtained by several strategies as stated by Clark (2014), namely aspects of Joint attention (JA), aspects of Common Ground (CG), aspects of Convention and Contrast (CC), aspects of Feedback and Repair (FR), and aspects of Speech Act (SA). CONCLUSION From an interactionalist perspective, children's language acquisition, including pragmatic aspects, is facilitated through their social interactions with the environment. This study, focusing on 4-year- old children at ABA Nitikan Yogyakarta Kindergarten, reveals that children's pragmatic development can be categorized into various strategies as outlined by Clark (2014), including the aspects of Joint Attention (JA), Common Ground (CG), Convention and Contrast (CC), Feedback and Repair (FR), and Speech Act (SA). Initially, young children predominantly use the JA strategy for pragmatic acquisition, which tends to significantly diminish as they age. Subsequently, they navigate through CG, CC, FR, and finally to SA strategies in their conversational engagements. The CG strategy is highlighted when children share or recognize shared knowledge with their communication partners. CC becomes relevant when children understand the accuracy of forms and meanings in their speech and recognize discrepancies to correct any errors. The FR strategy is utilized by children to seek and rectify misunderstandings or incorrect language use with the help of their interlocutors. Siti Salamah & Zultiyanti Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective 382 The SA aspect is particularly prevalent as it encompasses children's efforts to achieve specific objectives within their communication. This prevalence is due to children's natural inclination to engage in various speech functions such as making requests, expressing needs, or sharing information. The study further indicates that the SA aspect encompasses a range of functions including assertive, directive, expressive, commissive, and declarative, reflecting the diverse ways in which children use language to interact with their world. REFERENCES Abdulrahman, N. C., & Ayyash, E. (2019). Linguistic competence, communicative competence and interactional competence. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 10(1), 1600–1616. Al-Obaydi, L. H., Pikhart, M., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). The possibilities of implementing pragmatic instruction with mental grounding techniques in EFL college students’ context. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(3), 1197-1215. Andrés-Roqueta, C., Flores-Buils, R., & Igualada, A. (2024). Validation of PleaseApp: a digital tool for the assessment of receptive pragmatic abilities in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1329022. Bahrami, B., & Fekar-Gharamaleki, F. (2021). The pragmatic assessments in children: A narrative review. J Res Rehabil Sci, 17, 1-8. Beauchamp, M. L., Rezzonico, S., Bennett, T., Duku, E., Georgiades, S., Kerns, C., & Elsabbagh, M. (2023). The influence of bilingual language exposure on the narrative, social and pragmatic abilities of school-aged children on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(12), 4577-4590. Bialecka-Pikul, M., Filip, A., Stepièn-Nycz, M., Kus, K., & O’Neill, D. (2019). Ratunku! or just Tunku! Evidence for the reliability and concurrent validity of the language use inventory-polish. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 62. 2317-2331. Bohn, M., Tessler, M. H., Kordt, C., Hausmann, T., & Frank, M. C. (2023). An individual differences perspective on pragmatic abilities in the preschool years. Developmental Science, 26(6), e13401. Butterworth, G., and Morissette, P. (1996). Onset of pointing and the acquisition of language in infancy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 14(3), 219-23. Clark, E. V. & Kurumada, C. (2014). ‘Be brief’: necessity or choice? In L. Goldstein (ed.). Oxford University Press. Fatima, A. (2022). Assessment of pragmatic language skills in children. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 10(4), 682-696. DIP:18.01.066.20221004, DOI:10.25215/1004.066 Fernandes, F. D. M. (2021). Assessment of pragmatic abilities of children with autism spectrum disorders. Audiology Communcication Research, e2378. Huberman, A.M., Miles, M.B. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis second edition. Sage Publications. Hyde, D. C., Jones, B. L., Flom, R., & Porter, C. L. (2011). Neural signatures of facevoice synchrony in 5-month-old human infants. Developmental Psychobiology, 53(4), 359-370. Kay, H. Y. W., Kathy, Y. S. L., Sharon, C. Y. T., Wilson, S. Y., Iris, H. Y. Ng., Michael, C. F. T. Thomas, L. (2022). Comparing early pragmatics in typically developing children and children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52, 3825- 3839. Marasabessy, F. Y., Sailuddi, S. P., & Anwar, I. W. (2023). Pragmatic awareness in efl context: an assessment on English literature students. Edukasi, 21(1), 272-283. Mathew, A., & Varghese, A. (2021). Pragmatics in 5- 10 years old children in down syndrome. Global Scientific Journals, 9(10), 1897-1954. Mazzocconi, C., & Ginzburg, J. (2023). Growing up laughing: Laughables and pragmatic functions between 12 and 36 months. Journal of Pragmatics, 212, 117-145. Murphy, S., Joffe, V., Donald, L., Radley, J., Sunthararajah, S., Welch, C., Bell, K., Messer, D., Crafter, S., Fairhurst, C., Corbacho, B., Rodgers, S., & Torgerson, D. (2021). Evaluating ‘Enhancing Pragmatic Language skills for Young children with Social communication impairments’ (E-PLAYS): a feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 7(5), 1-18. Ninio, A. (2018). Pragmatic development. Routledge. Niu, M. (2022). Chinese translation of ‘pragmatics’ based on semiotics. Journal of Yichun University 44(5). 81–88. Niu, M. (2023). The origin and development of pragmatics as a study of meaning: semiotic perspective. Lang. Semiot. Stud, 9(1), 54-78. Pereira, T., & Lousada, M. (2023). Psychometric properties of standardized instruments that are used to measure pragmatic intervention effects in children with developmental language disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(5), 1764-1780. Prasanna, A., Anakkathil Anil, M., Bajaj, G., & Bhat, J. S. (2024). Teacher's practice and perception of the influence of stories during preschool child development: A cross-sectional study from ethnically diverse South Indian city. Child Nama Penulis: Judul Artikel 383 Language Teaching and Therapy, 02656590241228419. Puri, A. D., & Baskara, F. R. (2023). Enhancing pragmatic knowledge with ChatGPT: Benefits and considerations. Unika Atma Jaya, 21, 18- 23. Ramya, P., Goud, K. M. K., Singh, S., & Ramanjulu, G. (2022). Pragmatic abilities in children with different socioeconomical status. Acta Scientific Otolaryngology, 4(8), 33-46. Robinson, S., Foley, K., Moore, T., Valentine, K., Burton, J., Marshall, A., & Brebner, C. (2023). Prioritising children and young people with disability in research about domestic and family violence: Methodological, ethical and pragmatic reflections. Journal of family violence, 38(6), 1191-1204. Sánchez, L., Goldin, M., Hur, E., Jimenez, A., Otero, J. C. L., Thane, P., & Rojas, J. M. (2023). Dominance, language experience, and increased interaction effects on the development of pragmatic knowledge in heritage bilingual children: Acceptance of null and overt subjects in Spanish and English. Heritage Language Journal, 20(1), 1-39. Schidelko, L. P., Proft, M., & Rakoczy, H. (2022). How do children overcome their pragmatic performance problems in the true belief task? The role of advanced pragmatics and higher- order theory of mind. PLoS ONE 17(4): e0266959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266959 Socher, M., Lyxell, B., Ellis, R., Gärskog, M., Hedström, I., and Wass, M. (2019). Pragmatic language skills: A comparison of children with cochlear implants and children without hearing loss. Fronties in Psychology, 10, 2243. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02243 Suardi, I.P., Ramadhan, S., Asri Y.(2019). Pemerolehan bahasa pertama pada anak usia dini. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 3(1), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v3i1.160 Sudartinah, T. (2022). Spontaneous verbal repetitions in child language: A pragmatic perspective. Icon Laterals. 10.4108/eai.5-11-2022.2329606 Trisna, A., Husein, R., Pulungan, A.H. (2020). Learning pragmatic aspects acquired by a three- year-old Indonesian child. Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2020). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Volume 488. Atlantis Press SARL. Vassiliu, C., Mouzaki, A., Antoniou, F., Ralli, A. M., Diamanti, V., Papaioannou, S., & Katsos, N. (2023). Development of structural and pragmatic language skills in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 44(4), 207-218. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky), Problems of General Psychology 13(1) 239-285. New York: Plenum Press. Wulandari, D.I. (2018). Pemerolehan Bahasa Indonesia anak usia 3-5 Tahun di PAUD Lestari desa blimbing kecamatan paciran kabupaten lamongan. Lingua Franca: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 2(1), 74–83. Yan, Y. (2022). The effect of pragmatic competence on the communicative competence of second language learners. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 673, 368- 372. Zhang, S., Junge, B., Lieven, E., Brandt, S., & Theakston, A. (2023). The competition between processing and discourse-pragmatic factors in children's and adults' production of adverbial when-clauses. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(12), 5048-5060. Siti Salamah & Zultiyanti Exploring pragmatic development in 4-year-old children: an interactionalist perspective 384