interlanguage pragmatics l.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
國科會人文學研究中心 『 中介語研究典籍讀書會 』 Interlanguage Pragmatics

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 118

國科會人文學研究中心 『 中介語研究典籍讀書會 』 Interlanguage Pragmatics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 630 Views
  • Uploaded on

國科會人文學研究中心 『 中介語研究典籍讀書會 』 Interlanguage Pragmatics. 中山大學外文系 林玉惠 「語言行為」研究室: 陳香伶、侯怡君、李家慧、何博欽 陳妙慈、施向怡、余秀敏、張舜齡. Outline. Interlanguage Pragmatics — Definition History and Rationale Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics Studies in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Interlanguage Pragmatics — Definition.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '國科會人文學研究中心 『 中介語研究典籍讀書會 』 Interlanguage Pragmatics' - theodora


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
interlanguage pragmatics

國科會人文學研究中心『中介語研究典籍讀書會』Interlanguage Pragmatics

中山大學外文系 林玉惠

「語言行為」研究室:

陳香伶、侯怡君、李家慧、何博欽

陳妙慈、施向怡、余秀敏、張舜齡

outline
Outline
  • Interlanguage Pragmatics—Definition
  • History and Rationale
  • Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics
  • Studies in Interlanguage Pragmatics
interlanguage pragmatics definition
Interlanguage Pragmatics—Definition
  • “the study of nonnative speakers’ use of and acquisition of linguistic action pattern in a second language (L2). (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 3)
interlanguage pragmatics history rationale
Interlanguage Pragmatics—History & Rationale

Dates back from the 1980s

  • Negative transfers in the production of speech acts found among nonnatives(Loveday, 1982; Riley, 1981, Schmidt & Richards, 1981)
  • Realization that pragmalinguistic/ sociopragmatic competence is important in L2 communication,--sometimes more important than other aspects of linguistic competence. (e.g, Boxer, 1995; Cohen, 1996; Koike, Nelson et al, 2002; 1995; Shih, 1986; Thomas, 1983; Wolfson, 1981, 1989)
slide5
Nelson et al, 2002: 164

“While native speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic, and lexical errors made by L2 speakers, they are less likely to forgive pragmatic errors. Native speakers typically interpret pragmatic errors negatively as arrogance, impatience, rudeness, and so forth.”

interlanguage pragmatics history rationale6
Interlanguage Pragmatics—History & Rationale
  • L2 speakers tend to have difficulty with the rules of speaking of the target language.
  • This phenomenon holds even for
    • Fairly advanced L2 learners (House, 1996; Eisentein and Bodman, 1993; Takahashi, 1996)
    • NNSs (non-native speaker) who have resided in the U.S. for long periods (Hinkel, 1994)
    • Even NNS EFL teachers (Shih, 1986)
    • Few contrastive studies were systematically undertaken in order to characterize such phenomena.
    • )
interlanguage pragmatics history rationale7
Interlanguage Pragmatics—History & Rationale
  • A number of studies have reported on the positive effects of instruction in the use of a variety of speech acts.

(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Billmyer, 1990; Cohen, 1996; Cohen & Olshtain, 1993; Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993; Ellis, 1992; Hinkel, 1994; Ishihara, 2001; Goldschmidt, 1996; Holmes and Brown, 1987; Kasper, 1997, 2001; King and Silver, 1993; Koike, 1989; LoCastro, 1997; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983; Rose, 2001; Takahashi, 1996, 2001; Takahashi and Beebe, 1986; Tateyama, 2001).

interlanguage pragmatics history rationale8
Interlanguage Pragmatics—History & Rationale
  • L2 teachers often do not teach pragmalinguistic information because
    • They are not consciously aware of it themselves(e.g., Helt, 1982; Marain, 1983; Seelye, 1993, Shih, 1986; Wolfson, 1989)
    • Teaching guidelines and materials on speech acts are rare(LoCastro, 1997; Kasper, 2001; Peng, 2000).
    • Pragmatic competence:
      • "the most difficult aspect of language to master in learning a second language" (Blum-Kulka and Sheffer 1993: 219).
      • "without some form of instruction, many aspects of pragmatic competence do notdevelop sufficiently" (Kasper 1997: 3).
slide9
Wolfson (1989):

Inadequacy of native speaker intuition

    • Wolfson (1983): invitation
    • Wolfson (1979, 1982): verb tense use
    • Pica (1983): articles
issues in interlanguage pragmatics
Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics
  • Politeness
  • Transferability
  • Pragmatic Ability and Awareness
  • Grammatical vs.Pragmatic Components
  • Pedagogical Issues
  • Methodological Issues
issues in interlanguage pragmatics politeness
Issues in Interlanguage PragmaticsPoliteness
  • The Universal Notion of Politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
  • Universality vs. Cultural-specificity (Fraser, 1985; Wierzbicka, 1991; Kachru, 1994)
issues in interlanguage pragmatics transferability
Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics—Transferability
  • Pragmatic Failure
  • Intercultural Style Hypothesis
pragmatic failure sociopragmatic vs pragmalinguistic failure
Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure

Hymes (1972), Wolfson (1983, 1989):

Social Rules of Speaking

pragmatic failure sociopragmatic vs pragmalinguistic failure14
Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure
  • Sociocultural choices (Cohen, 1996)
    • Speakers’ability to determine whether it is acceptable to perform the speech act at all in the given situation and, if so, to select one or more semantic formulas that would be appropriate in the realization of the given speech act.
  • The sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic rules that constrain the realization of complaining are cultural specific.
slide15
semantic formulas(Cohen, 1996)
    • A word, phrase, or sentence that meets a particular semantic criterion, any one or more of which can be used to perform the act in question.
pragmatic failure sociopragmatic vs pragmalinguistic failure16
Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure
  • Sociocultural choices (Cohen, 1996)
    • Speakers’ability to determine whether it is acceptable to perform the speech act at all in the given situation and, if so, to select one or more semantic formulas that would be appropriate in the realization of the given speech act.
  • The sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic rules that constrain the realization of complaining are cultural specific.
pragmatic failure sociopragmatic vs pragmalinguistic failure17
Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure

Thomas, 1983:

  • Sociopragmatic failure: has to do with knowing what to say to whom
    • misunderstandings caused by differences in evaluations regarding
      • size of imposition
      • taboo
      • different assessments of relative power or social distance
pragmatic failure sociopragmatic vs pragmalinguistic failure18
Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure

Thomas, 1983:

  • Pragmalinguistic failure:
    • when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2.
      • CFL “豈有此理”as a compliment response
      • EFL “sorry sorry” for “I’m very sorry.”
pragmatic failure sociopragmatic vs pragmalinguistic failure19
Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure

Kasper, 1992: 209

  • Pragmalinguistic transfer

“the illocutionary forceor politeness value assigned to particular linguistic material in L1 influences learners' perception and production of form-function mappings in L2.”

  • Sociopragmatic transfer

“when the social perceptions underlying language users' interpretation and performance of linguistic action in

L2 are influenced by their assessment of subjectively equivalent L1 contexts”

transferability intercultural style hypothesis
Transferability—Intercultural Style Hypothesis

Blum-Kulka, 1991; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993

  • “…similarities in the production of speech acts in the L1 and L2 can be explained in terms both of uni-directional influence from the L1 to the L2 and of bi-directional interaction between the two languages.
    • Spanish EFL learners’ request in Spanish (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Ceno & Valencia, 1996)
    • “Fluent in English” vs. “Non-fluent in English” Spanish speakers’ use of indirect strategies and downgraders in Spanish request are significantly different from each other.
issues in interlanguage pragmatics pragmatic ability and awareness
Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics—Pragmatic Ability and Awareness
  • Factors conditioning L2 Pragmatic Ability and Awareness
    • Proficiency
    • Motivation
    • Length of Residence in the Target Language Community
pragmatic ability and awareness proficiency
Pragmatic Abilityand Awareness—Proficiency
  • Higher overall L2 proficiency yielded more target-like performance (Maeshiba, et al, 1996)
  • Beginners’ poor IL performance was due to inadequate L2 proficiency

(e.g., Beebe and Tahahashi, 1989a, 1989b; Blum-Kulka, 1982; Cohen and Olshtain, 1981; Koike, 1989; Olshtain and Chen, 1989; Maeshiba et al. 1996; Scarcella and Brunak, 1981; Trosborg, 1987)

  • L2 proficiency was also found to positively correlate with (negative L1) pragmatic transfer

(Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Blum-Kulka, 1982; Olshtain and Cohen, 1989; Takahashi and Beebe, 1987, 1993; Takahashi, 1996)

pragmatic ability and awareness motivation
Pragmatic Abilityand Awareness—Motivation
  • Pragmalinguistic awareness is associated with the learners’ motivation but not with their proficiency. (Takahashi, 2005: Japanese EFL)
slide24
Takahashi, 2005: Japanese EFL
  • Learners are more likely to notice on discourse markers (e.g., you know) and idiomatic expressions than complex request head acts (e.g., bi-clausal request head act).
pragmatic ability and awareness length of residence lr
Pragmatic Abilityand Awareness—Length of Residence (LR)
  • Longer LR  More target-like judgment and performance

(Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985; Bouton, 1999; Matsumura, 2001; Felix-Brasdefer, 2004)

  • Felix-Brasdefer (2004): “variables of proficiency and length of residence should be considered independently.” (587)
issues in interlanguage pragmatics grammatical vs pragmatic components
Issues in Interlanguage PragmaticsGrammatical vs. Pragmatic Components

Kasper (2002)

  • Learners demonstrate knowledge of a particular grammatical structure or element while not adopting it to express or modify illocutionary force.

(Bardovi-Harlig’s, 1999; Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Karkkainen, 1992; Takahashi, 1996, 2001)

  • Grammatical knowledge enables non-target-like pragmalinguistic use:
    • Learners know a grammatical structure and use it to express pragmalinguistic functions that are not dedicated to conventionalized target usage: e.g., (Bodman and Eisenstein, 1988; Takahashi and Beebe, 1987)
issues in interlanguage pragmatics grammatical vs pragmatic components27
Issues in Interlanguage PragmaticsGrammatical vs. Pragmatic Components

Kasper (2002)

  • Learners know a grammatical structure and its pragmalinguistic functions yet use the structure in non-target-like fashion (Beebe and Takahashi, 1989a, 1989b; Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1991).
issues in interlanguage pragmatics pedagogical issues
Issues in Interlanguage PragmaticsPedagogical Issues
  • Positive effects of instruction in the use of a variety of speech acts.

(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Billmyer, 1990; Cohen, 1996; Cohen & Olshtain, 1993; Eisenstein and Bodman, 1993; Ellis, 1992; Hinkel, 1994; Ishihara, 2001; Goldschmidt, 1996; Holmes and Brown, 1987; Kasper, 1997, 2001; King and Silver, 1993; Koike, 1989; LoCastro, 1997; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983; Rose, 2001; Takahashi, 1996, 2001; Takahashi and Beebe, 1986; Tateyama, 2001).

issues in interlanguage pragmatics methodological issues
Issues in Interlanguage PragmaticsMethodological Issues
  • MCQ: Multiple-Choice Questionnaire
  • DCT: Discourse Completion Test
  • Scaled-Response Questionnaire
  • Role-play
  • Recall Protocol
  • Natural Occurring Data
methodological issues mcq
Methodological Issues--MCQ
  • Multiple-Choice Questionnaire:
    • The choice of responses is provided for selection by participant.
    • In Rose and Ono (1995), Hinkel(1997), MCQ were used to elicit production data, in comparison with the data elicited by DCTs.
methodological issues mcq example
Methodological Issues—MCQ Example

Today is Sunday. You are going to see your friend at the Umeda Station at noon. You are ready to leave home now, but you think you are probably going to be late if you walk to the nearest station. You see your father looking at a magazine in the living room. What would you say or do? ( Rose & Ono, 1995, pp. 220-221)

a. I would say, "Please drive me to the train station."

b. I would say, "Could you drive me to the station?"

c. I would say, "I'm meeting my friend at the Umeda

Station, and I'm going to be late."

d. I would walk quickly to the station even though I

expect to be late.

methodological issues dct
Methodological Issues--DCT
  • Discourse Completion Test: The best instrument to
    • Collect a large amount of data in a short period of time (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Beebe et al., 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, Johnston, Kasper, & Rose, 1998; Wolfson, 1989)
methodological issues dct33
Methodological Issues--DCT
  • Discourse Completion Test: The best instrument to
    • Collect a large amount of data in a short period of time (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Beebe et al., 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, Johnston, Kasper, & Rose, 1998; Wolfson, 1989)
methodological issues dct34
Methodological Issues--DCT
  • Discourse Completion Test: The best instrument to
    • Collect a large amount of data in a short period of time (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Beebe et al., 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, Johnston, Kasper, & Rose, 1998; Wolfson, 1989)
    • Obtain prototypical responses needed for cross-cultural comparison (DeCapua, 1998; Hill et. al., 1986; Kasper et al, 1989; Kwon, 2004; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989)
methodological issues dct35
Methodological Issues--DCT
  • Discourse Completion Test: The best instrument to
    • Collect a large amount of data in a short period of time (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Beebe et al., 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, Johnston, Kasper, & Rose, 1998; Wolfson, 1989)
    • Obtain prototypical responses needed for cross-cultural comparison (DeCapua, 1998; Hill et. al., 1986; Kasper et al, 1989; Kwon, 2004; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989)
methodological issues dct36
Methodological Issues--DCT
  • Discourse Completion Test: The best instrument to
    • Collect a large amount of data in a short period of time (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Beebe et al., 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, Johnston, Kasper, & Rose, 1998; Wolfson, 1989)
    • Obtain prototypical responses needed for cross-cultural comparison (DeCapua, 1998; Hill et. al., 1986; Kasper et al, 1989; Kwon, 2004; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989)
    • Gather a consistent body of data with the contextual factors well controlled
methodological issues dct37
Methodological Issues--DCT
  • Discourse Completion Test: The best instrument to
    • Collect a large amount of data in a short period of time (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Beebe et al., 1990; Cohen & Olshtain, Johnston, Kasper, & Rose, 1998; Wolfson, 1989)
    • Obtain prototypical responses needed for cross-cultural comparison (DeCapua, 1998; Hill et. al., 1986; Kasper et al, 1989; Kwon, 2004; Rintell & Mitchell, 1989)
    • Gather a consistent body of data with the contextual factors well controlled(Blum-Kulka et al, 1989; Johnston et al, 1998; Kasper, 2000; Kwon, 2004)
methodological issues srq
Methodological Issues--SRQ
  • Scaled-Response Questionnaire:
    • 5 point rating scale to examine sociopragmatic values
    • To elicit participants’ perception about the weights of contextual variables such as status, distance, gender, etc. ( Kasper & Rose, 2002)
slide39

--Chinese L1

狀況1

你正在為明天的期末考作準備。這堂課你平時都認真出席做筆記,而一位和你不太熟的男同學則常常缺席。現在他希望向你借筆記,但是你不想借他。

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

明翰:「不好意思,我可以再向你借一下上個禮拜的筆記嗎?」

(1)拒絕對方的困難度 --高-- 5 4 3 2 1 --低--

(2)拒絕對方不恰當的程度 --高-- 5 4 3 2 1 --低--

若一定要拒絕時,你會說 :

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

嗯,抱歉喔!因為我今天恰好要先準備這個科目,所以不好意思唷,可能不方便借給你

slide40

--English L1

Situation 1

You are preparing for the final exam tomorrow. You attend every class and take good notes. John, a classmate who you are not so familiar with, frequently misses classes. Now he comes over and wants to borrow your notes again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John: You know I missed the last class, may I borrow the note from you?”

(1) The degree of difficulty of the refusal is --high-- 5 4 3 2 1 --low--

(2) The degree of inappropriate is --high-- 5 4 3 2 1 --low--

If youmustsay something to refuse, you would say:

_____________________________________________________ _

No, I’m sorry but I’m not lending my notes out any more.

I’m afraid they will get lost and I need them to study.

slide41

--English EFL

Situation 1

You are preparing for the final exam tomorrow. You attend every class and take good notes. John, a classmate who you are not so familiar with, frequently misses classes. Now he comes over and wants to borrow your notes again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John: You know I missed the last class, may I borrow the note from you?”

(1) The degree of difficulty of the refusal is --high-- 5 4 3 2 1 --low--

(2) The degree of inappropriate is --high-- 5 4 3 2 1 --low–

If youmustsay something to refuse, you would say:

_____________________________________________________ _

Sorry, I will prepare it this afternoon. So I can't borrow the note for you.

previous studies on interlanguage pragmatics
Previous Studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics
  • Refusal
  • Apology
  • Complaint
  • Disagreement
  • Request
  • Gratitude
  • Compliment/Compliment Responses
previous studies on interlanguage pragmatics refusal
Previous Studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics—Refusal
  • Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Welts, R. (1990)
  • Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Al-Batal, M., & El Bakary W (2002)
  • Al-Issa (2003)
  • Kwon (2004)
refusal beebe et al 1990
Refusal—Beebe etal, 1990
  • Language:
    • Japanese native speakers
    • Japanese speakers of English
    • American English native speakers
  • 12 DCT situations
    • Refusals to requests
    • Refusals to invitations
    • Refusals to offers
    • Refusals to suggestions
refusal beebe et al 1990 evidence of negative transfer
Refusal—Beebe et al, 1990Evidence of negative transfer
  • Three areas:
    • the order of semantic formulas
    • the frequency of semantic formulas
    • the content of semantic formulas
refusal beebe et al 1990 the frequency of semantic formulas
Refusal—Beebe et al, 1990the frequency of semantic formulas
  • Frequency counts of semantic formulas provided evidence of pragmatic transfer:
refusal beebe et al 1990 the content of semantic formulas
Refusal—Beebe et al, 1990the content of semantic formulas
  • Semantic formulas used by Japanese not found in American English Data:
refusal nelson et al 2002
Refusal—Nelson et al, 2002
  • Egyptian vs. American English
  • 12 DCT situations based on Beebe et al. (1990)  spoken elicitation
refusal nelson et al 2002 results
Refusal—Nelson et al, 2002Results
  • Frequency of direct and indirect strategies used
  • Types and frequencies of indirect strategies
  • Refusal strategy use relative to interlocutor status
refusal nelson et al 200251
Refusal—Nelson et al, 2002
  • Frequency of direct and indirect strategies used
    • Both the US and Egyptian utilized substantially more indirect refusal strategies than direct refusal strategies.
refusal nelson et al 200252
Refusal—Nelson et al, 2002
  • Types and frequencies of indirect strategies
    • Reasons & statement of regret are used more often by Egyptian than Americans.
    • Americans used the strategy indicating a consideration of interlocutor’s feeling more than did the Egyptians.
refusal nelson et al 200253
Refusal—Nelson et al, 2002
  • Refusal strategy use relative to interlocutor status
    • In both the US and Egyptian groups, fewer indirect strategies were elicited in refusals to equal status interlocutors than in refusals to lower or higher status interlocutors.
    • Americans
      • used the strategy of consideration of interlocutor’s feelings more frequently than Egyptian in all status situations
      • used strategy of suggestion of willingness more frequently in the lower and higher status situations.
refusal kwon 2004
Refusal—Kwon (2004)
  • Korean vs. American English
  • 12 DCT situations based on Beebe et al. (1990)
  • Compare:
    • the frequency of semantic formulas
    • the content of semantic formulas
refusal kwon 2004 results
Refusal—Kwon (2004)Results
  • Korean speakers hesitated more frequently and used direct refusal formulas much less frequently than did English speakers. Thus, Korean speakers’ refusals at times sounded less transparent and more tentative than those of English speakers.
refusal kwon 2004 results56
Refusal—Kwon (2004)Results
  • Korean speakers frequently paused and apologized before refusing

English speakers often stated positive opinion and expressed gratitude for a proposed action.

  • The two language groups differed in terms of the types of reasons used in their refusals:
    • Korean speakers typically used reasons (e. g., referring to a father’s 60th birthday when refusing a boss’s invitation), which were not found in the English data.
previous studies on interlanguage pragmatics apology
Previous Studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics—Apology
  • Cohen & Olshtain (1981)
  • Cohen & Olshtain (1983)
  • Cohen, Olshtain, & Rosenstein (1986)
  • Trosborg (1994)
apology cohen olshtain 1981
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1981)
  • Languages: English vs. Hebrew
  • Subjects:
    • 12 English L1 + 12 Hebrew L1 + 20 English L2
  • Instrument:
    • 8 role-play situations
    • Factors: severity & status, familiarity
  • Compare
    • 4 semantic formulas
    • 4 subformulas within one certain formula
    • Stylistic appropriateness & intensity of regret
apology cohen olshtain 1981 semantic formulas of apology
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1981)Semantic Formulas of Apology
  • An expression of apology
    • An expression of regret (I’m sorry.)
    • An offer of apology (I apologize.)
    • A request for forgiveness (Forgive me.)
    • An expression of an excuse
  • An acknowledgement of responsibility
  • An offer of repair
  • A promise of forbearance
apology cohen olshtain 1981 results
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1981)Results
  • The negative transfer from Hebrew to English
    • (the deviation b/w natives & non-natives)
  • Lack of proficiency in English
    • (English L1 = Hebrew L1 ≠ English L2)
  • Avoid negative transfer
    • (English L1 = English L2 ≠ Hebrew L1)
  • Deviation in the degree of intensity
  • Negligible stylistic deviation b/w natives & non-natives
apology cohen olshtain 1983
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1983)
  • Speech act set (Hymes, 1972)
  • 5 semantic formulas of apology
  • Issues in studying non-natives’ speech acts
  • Methodological issues
  • Review of apology studies
  • Applications
apology cohen olshtain 1983 semantic formulas of apology
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1983)Semantic Formulas of Apology
  • An expression of apology
    • An expression of regret (I’m sorry.)
    • An offer of apology (I apologize.)
    • A request for forgiveness (Forgive me.)
  • An explanation or account of the situation
  • An acknowledgement of responsibility
  • An offer of repair
  • A promise of forbearance
apology cohen olshtain 1986
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1986)
  • Languages: English vs. Hebrew
  • Subjects:
    • 96 English L1 + 84 advanced English L2
  • Instrument:
    • Questionnaire with 14 questions ( 8 apologies and 6 other speech acts)
    • Factors: severity & familiarity
  • Compare
    • 5 apology strategies
    • Modification of apology strategies
apology cohen olshtain 1986 modification of apology strategies
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1986)modification of apology strategies
  • Intensity of apology --really, very, so, terribly, truly
  • Minimizing responsibility --Didn’t I tell you…
  • Denial of responsibility --It’s not my fault.
  • Emotionals --Oh, Oops, God, Jesus
  • Minimizing offence --It’s OK. No harm done.
  • Comment --How could I? / Are you OK?
apology cohen olshtain 1986 results
Apology—Cohen & Olshtain (1986)Results
  • There were not many differences b/w the natives and the non-natives with regard to the main apology strategies.
  • There were striking differences b/w the natives and the non-natives with regard to the modifications of main strategies.
apology trosborg 1995
Apology—Trosborg (1995)
  • Language:
    • Native English speakers (NS-E)
    • Native Danish speakers (NS-D)
    • Danish learners of English
  • Task:
    • Role playing
  • Social parameters:
    • Dominance and social distance
  • Compare:
    • Sociopragmatic competence (selection of the appropriate strategy)
    • Internal Modification
apology trosborg 1995 results69
Apology—Trosborg (1995)Results
  • In the selection of Cat. 1, 2, 3, and 5, there was a significant effect of the variable dominance.
  • The influence of the parameters was not significant for the selection of main apologies, nor in the intensifications of these apologies when the performance of NS-E was compared to that of NS-D.
  • The findings show that the use internal modification, as well as the appropriate selection of apology strategies are indeed difficult areas for foreign language learners.
previous studies on interlanguage pragmatics complaint
Previous Studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics—Complaint
  • House & Kasper (1981)
  • Olshtain and Weinbach (1993)
  • Trosborg (1995)
  • Lee (1999)
  • Shea (2003)
complaint house and kasper 1981
Complaint—House and Kasper (1981)
  • German vs. English native speakers
  • 24 role-play conversations
  • Compare
    • The directness levels
    • Use of modality markers in complaints
complaint house and kasper 1981 levels of directness for complaints
Complaint—House and Kasper (1981)Levels of Directness for Complaints

1. X implies that he knows that P has happened and he implies that Y did P

2. By explicitly asserting that P has happened, X implies that Y did P

3. By explicitly asserting that P is bad for himself, X implies that Y did P

4. By explicitly asking Y about the conditions for the execution of P, or stating that Y was in some way connected with such conditions, X implies that Y did P

5. X explicitly asserts that Y did P

6. By explicitly asserting that P is bad, and that Y is responsible for P, X implies that Y is bad/or by explicitly stating that a preference for an alternative action not chosen by Y, X implies that Y is bad

7. X explicitly asserts that Y's doing P is bad

8. X explicitly asserts that Y himself is bad

complaint house and kasper 1981 modality markers
Complaint—House and Kasper (1981)Modality Markers

I. Downgraders

a. Politeness marker: e.g., please/bitte

b. Play-down: e.g., past tense, modal auxiliaries

c. Consultative devices: e.g., Would you mind if…

d. Hedge: kind of, sort of

  • Understater: a little bit, not very much

….

II. Upgraders

a. Overstater: e.g., absolutely, purely, terribly

b. Intensifier: e.g., very, so, such, quite

c. +Committer: I’m sure, certainly, obviously,

  • Lexical intensifier: e.g., swear words

….

complaint house and kasper 1981 results
Complaint—House and Kasper (1981)Results
  • German speakers are more direct than English speakers
  • German speakers used upgraders4.6 times as often as the English speakers
  • English speakers employed downgraders 1.5 times as frequently as their German counterparts
complaint olshtain and weinbach 1993
Complaint—Olshtain and Weinbach (1993)
  • Languages:
    • British speakers of English
    • American speakers of English
    • Israeli speakers of Hebrew.
  • Task: Discourse Completion Test (DCT)
  • Compare: Level of face-threat of the utterances
complaint olshtain and weinbach 1993 levels of face threat
Complaint—Olshtain and Weinbach (1993)Levels of Face-Threat
  • Below the level of reproach: e.g., Such things happen.
  • Expression of annoyance or disapproval: e.g., Such lack of consideration.
  • Explicit complaint: e.g., You’re inconsiderate!
  • Accusation and warning: e.g., Next time I’ll let you wait for hours.
  • Immediate Threat: e.g., You’d better pay the money right now.
complaint olshtain and weinbach 1993 results
Complaint—Olshtain and Weinbach (1993)Results
  • Hebrew speakers tend to cluster around the three central strategies, disapproval, complaint, and warning
  • The choices of strategies was affected by the relative status of the complainer and the complainee.
  • All the three groups tended to express censure than choosing to opt-out.
complaint trosborg 1995
Complaint—Trosborg (1995)
  • Languages:
    • Native English speakers (NS-E)
    • Native Danish speakers (NS-D)
    • Danish learners of English
  • Task:
  • Compare 4 main strategies
complaint trosborg 1995 results
Complaint—Trosborg (1995)Results
  • No great differences in strategy use between the NS-E and NS-D groups, but
  • NS-Ds tend to give less consideration to the authority figures than NS-Es
    • NS-Es employed
      • more embedding phrases and more supportive moves to authority figures and friends than to strangers
      • NS-Ds only exerted more supportive moves to authority figures than to friends.
complaint lee 1999
Complaint—Lee (1999)
  • Languages:
    • Korean speakers
    • Native English speakers
    • Korean learners of English
  • Tasks:
complaint lee 1999 strategies
Complaint—Lee (1999)Strategies
  • Five main categories on the basis of Trosborg's (1995) classifications
    • Avoidance
    • Precomplaint
    • Minimizing
    • Disapproval
    • Accusation
complaint lee 1999 results
Complaint—Lee (1999)Results
  • Similar range of complaint strategies between the two cultures compared
  • They also differed in the ways contextual factors (power relations and social distance) affected their preference for certain strategies
complaint shea 2003
Complaint—Shea (2003)
  • Languages:
    • Japanese speakers of English living in America (JEAs)
    • Japanese speakers of Japanese living in Japan (JJJs)
    • American speakers of English living in America (AEAs)
  • Task:
complaint shea 2003 strategies
Complaint—Shea (2003) Strategies
  • Justification
  • Problem
  • Request for Repair
  • Request for Explanation
  • Disapproval
  • Expression of Empathy
  • Warning
  • Request for Information
  • Offering Repair
  • Apology.
complaint shea 2003 results
Complaint—Shea (2003) Results
  • Similar range of complaint strategies between the two cultures compared
  • AEAs and JJJs differed greatly in their frequency, order, and content of several strategies as well as how the contextual factors affected the frequency of certain strategy use
    • AEAs: more Justification, Disapproval and Expression of Empathy,
    • JJJs and JEAs: more Apology
previous studies on interlanguage pragmatics disagreement
Previous Studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics-Disagreement
  • Beebe and Takahashi (1989)
  • Takahashi and Beebe (1993)
disagreement beebe and takahashi 1989
Disagreement—Beebe and Takahashi (1989)
  • Languages: 15 native speakers of English, 15 native speakers of Japanese in English (high-intermediate to advanced levels)
  • Task:
    • Natural speech collected in notebooks
    • DCT (unequal status, executive and assistant)
  • Compare: semantic formulas of disagreement (directness)
disagreement beebe and takahashi 1989 semantic formulas
Disagreement—Beebe and Takahashi (1989)Semantic Formulas
  • Criticism
    • A: I agree with you, but….
    • J: I don’t think that’s a good idea.
  • Suggestion
    • A: I have a few ideas that I’d like to toss out as well, so let’s set aside some time to go through this.
    • J: Frankly speaking, I don’t think it is fine. I will submit my plan better than this.
  • Positive remark
    • A: I like the idea that…., but….
  • Gratitude
    • A: I really appreciate your giving so much thought to this matter.
    • J: Thank you for giving me your proposal. (formulaic)
  • Empathy
    • A: I see what you mean, …..
    • J: I recognize your concern.
disagreement beebe and takahashi 1989 results
Disagreement—Beebe and Takahashi (1989)Results
  • Natural data: Japanese are indirect and Americans are direct
    • Americans and Japanese have different strategies for expressing disagreement
  • DCT: higher to lower
    • Japanese used more explicit criticism than Americans (85%: 50%)
    • Americans used more positive remarks (57%: 0) or expressions of gratitude. (33%: 15%) than Japanese
    • Americans used suggestion to talk further, reconsider while Japanese to express disagreement.
disagreement beebe and takahashi 1989 results91
Disagreement—Beebe and Takahashi (1989)Results
  • DCT: lower to higher
    • the Americans used more positive remarks, more softeners, and most importantly, fewer explicit criticisms to a higher-status interlocutor. (J: 67%, A: 33%)
disagreement takahashi and beebe 1993
Disagreement—Takahashi and Beebe (1993)
  • Languages: Americans in English, Japanese in English (high-intermediate to advanced levels), and Japanese in Japanese
  • Task:
    • DCT (unequal status, professor and student)
  • Compare: use of positive remarks, softeners, and other similar formulas. (correction)
disagreement takahashi and beebe 199393
Disagreement—Takahashi and Beebe (1993)
  • Positive remark
  • Softeners
    • “I believe”, “I think”, “you may have (the wrong date)”
    • Questions: “When did that happen?”
    • “You made one small error in the date.”
disagreement takahashi and beebe 1993 results
Disagreement—Takahashi and Beebe (1993)Results
  • Higher to lower
    • Prefaced positive remark: AE > JE > JJ (79%: 23%: 13%)
    • Softeners used: AE > JE > JJ (71%: 50%: 26%)
  • Lower to higher
    • No groups used positive remark to a higher-status.
    • Opt out: JJ > JE > AE (40%: 20%: 13%)
    • Softeners used: JJ > JE > AE
    • A: various and original softeners (I may be mistaken, but…)

JE: formulaic (I’m afraid, I think, I understand)

disagreement takahashi and beebe 1993 results95
Disagreement—Takahashi and Beebe (1993)Results
  • Two correction situations compared
    • Style shifting of softeners, expressions of regret, and positive remarks and token agreements:

JJ > JE > AE (native language transfer)

    • J are more conscious of status than A
previous studies on interlanguage pragmatics request
Previous Studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics—Request
  • Blum-kulka (1989)
  • Trosborg (1995)
  • Hassall (1997)
  • Liao (1995)
  • Yu (1999)
request blum kulka 1989 ccsarp
Request-Blum-kulka (1989, CCSARP)
  • Australian English British English;Canadian French;Danish;German;Hebrew;Russian
  • Discourse Complete Task ( DCT): 16 items
  • Compare-the similarities and differences
    • Address term
    • Request strategies
    • Internal modification
    • External modification
request blum kulka 1989 ccsarp address term
Request-Blum-kulka (1989, CCSARP)Address Term

a. Hearer oriented

  • Could you tidy up the kitchen soon?

b. Speaker oriented

  • Do you think I could borrow your notes from yesterday's class?

c. Speaker and hearer oriented

  • So, could we please clean up?

d. Impersonal (The use of people/they/one as neutral agents, or the use of passivation)

  • So it might not be a bad idea to get it cleaned up.
request blum kulka 1989 internal modification
Request-Blum-kulka (1989)Internal modification
  • a. Interrogative
    • Could you do the cleaning up?
  • b. Negation
    • Look, excuse me. I wonder if you wouldn't mind dropping me home.
  • c. Past tense
    • I wanted to ask for a postponement.
  • d. Embedded “if “clause
    • I would appreciate it if you left me alone
request blum kulka 1989 internal modification102
Request-Blum-kulka (1989)Internal modification

e. Consultative devices.

  • Do you think I could borrow your lecture notes from yesterday?

f. Understates.

  • Could you tidy up a bit before I start?

g. Hedges.

  • It would really help if you did something about the kitchen

h. Downtoner.

  • Will you be ableperhaps to drive me?
request blum kulka olshtain 1984 external modification supportive move
Request-Blum-kulka, & Olshtain (1984)External modification( Supportive move)

a. Checking on availability.

  • Are you going in the direction of the town? And if so, is it possible to join you?

b. Getting a precommitment.

  • Will you do me a favor? Could you perhaps lend me your notes for a few days?

c. Grounder

  • Judith, Imissed class yesterday, could I borrow your notes?
request blum kulka olshtain 1984 external modification supportive move104
Request-Blum-kulka, & Olshtain (1984)External modification( Supportive move)

d. Sweetener.

  • You have beautiful handwriting, would it be possible to borrow your notes for a few days?

e. Disarmer

  • Excuse me, I hope you don't think I'm being forward, but is there any chance of a lift home?

f. Cost minimizer.

  • Ex: Pardon me, but could you give me a lift,if you're going my way, as I just missed the bus and there isn't another one for an hour
request blum kulka 1989 result
Request-Blum-kulka (1989)Result
  • The universality of the category of conventional indirectness is supported.
  • The only strategy which exhibits similarity across languages is Preparatory( Can you…?)
  • The realization of requests by Hebrew, Danish, German learners of English are systematically longer by using external modifications than those of native speakers.
  • With regard to Perspective
    • Hearer oriented: Australian English, Hebrew, Canadian French and Argentinian Spanish
    • Speaker oriented: English and French
request blum kulka 1989 result106
Request-Blum-kulka (1989)Result
  • English speakers use twice as many downgraders with conventional indirectness than the speakers of Canadian French, Hebrew, Argentinian Spanish.
request trosborg 1995
Request—Trosborg(1995)
  • Languages:
    • Native English speakers (NS-E)
    • Native Danish speakers (NS-D)
    • Danish learners of English
      • Group I: Low English proficiency ( LEP)
      • Group II: Advanced English proficiency ( AEP)
      • Group III: High advanced English proficiency ( HAEP)
  • 40 role play situations
  • Compare

( The classification is same as CCSARP mention earlier)

    • Strategy
    • Internal modification
    • External modification
request trosborg 1995 result
Request—Trosborg (1995)Result
  • Group I (LEP) and Group II (AEP) produces fewer direct strategies than NS-E. Only Group III ( HAEP) produced more direct strategies than NS-E, but the tendency did not reach statistical significant.
  • Group III ( HAEP) overrepresentation of the structure I wonder if. Overall, Danish learners perform slightly lower on conditionals than NE-E.
  • Learners provide much less support than native speakers
request hassall 1997
Request—Hassall(1997)
  • Australian learners of Indonesian vs. Indonesian native speakers
  • 24 role-pla
  • y situations
  • Compare

( Strategies are defined same as CCSARP)

    • 3 main strategies

( Direct, conventional indirect, non-conventional indirect)

    • 9 strategies
request hassall 1997 result
Request—Hassall (1997)Result
  • Australian learners of Indonesian strongly favour a direct sub-strategy which native speakers seldom use.
  • Learners use more Want statement strategy than native speakers.
  • Learners use less imperatives than native speakers due to their L1 (English) transfer.
  • The choice of the query preparatory by Australian learners of Indonesian as their main strategy is native-like.
request liao 1995
Request—Liao(1995)
  • Language
    • Chinese vs. English
  • DCT: 12 situations
  • Compare

( The classification is same as CCSARP mention earlier.)

    • 9 request strategies
request liao 1995112
Request—Liao (1995)
  • The direct strategy—mood derivable ( imperative) is suitable for all occasions for the Mandarin request, but not for Anglo-American request.
  • Chinese speakers use more tokens than native speakers while making request.
reqeust yu 1999
Reqeust— (Yu, 1999)
  • Language
    • Native Mandarin Chinese speaker
    • Chinese learners of English
    • Native English speakers
  • DCT: 8 situations
  • Comapre

( Strategies and modifications are defined same as CCSARP)

    • 3 main strategies
    • Internalmodification
    • External modification
requests yu 1999 result strategy
Requests— (Yu, 1999)Result—Strategy
  • Chinese speakers used more direct forms than that of native speakers of English.
  • Chinese were not necessarily less polite than native speakers.
    • The result that Chinese supportive moves precede the core request supported Zhang‘s (1995) study – Chinese indirectness cannot be really perceived without small talk or supportive moves preceding the request.
requests yu 1999 result strategy115
Requests— (Yu, 1999)Result—Strategy
  • ESL learners' use of direct forms did not approximate that of English speakers and might reflect the influence of LI strategies.
  • All learners’ direct requests were issued through “performative” and “want statement” sub-strategies, with tag structures attached sometimes, that were rarely used by Americans.
reqeust yu 1999 result external modification
Reqeust— (Yu, 1999) Result—external modification
  • Support moves:
    • ESL learners:
      • using grounders frequently
      • Utterances constructed in longer sequences than those of the Americans.
reqeust yu 1999 result internal modification
Reqeust— (Yu, 1999) Result—Internal modification

Learners:

(1) Rarely employ past tense forms of verbs or modal verbs to mitigate the imposing force of their requests. ( Americans frequently did)

(2) Used a much narrower range of internal modifiers.