國科會人文學研究中心『中介語研究典籍讀書會』 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 • Interlanguage Pragmatics—Definition • History and Rationale • Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics • Studies in Interlanguage Pragmatics

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 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)

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 & 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 & 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 & 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).

Wolfson (1989): Inadequacy of native speaker intuition • Wolfson (1983): invitation • Wolfson (1979, 1982): verb tense use • Pica (1983): articles

Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics • Politeness • Transferability • Pragmatic Ability and Awareness • Grammatical vs.Pragmatic Components • Pedagogical Issues • Methodological Issues

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 • Pragmatic Failure • Intercultural Style Hypothesis

Pragmatic Failure—Sociopragmatic vs. Pragmalinguistic Failure Hymes (1972), Wolfson (1983, 1989): Social Rules of Speaking

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 • Factors conditioning L2 Pragmatic Ability and Awareness • Proficiency • Motivation • Length of Residence in the Target Language Community

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 Abilityand Awareness—Motivation • Pragmalinguistic awareness is associated with the learners’ motivation but not with their proficiency. (Takahashi, 2005: Japanese EFL)

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 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 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 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 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 PragmaticsMethodological Issues • MCQ: Multiple-Choice Questionnaire • DCT: Discourse Completion Test • Scaled-Response Questionnaire • Role-play • Recall Protocol • Natural Occurring Data

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 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 • 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--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--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--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 • 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)

--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

--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.

--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 • Refusal • Apology • Complaint • Disagreement • Request • Gratitude • Compliment/Compliment Responses

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 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, 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, 1990the order 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, 1990the content of semantic formulas • Semantic formulas used by Japanese not found in American English Data:

Refusal—Nelson et al, 2002 • Egyptian vs. American English • 12 DCT situations based on Beebe et al. (1990)  spoken elicitation

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

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