CAS LX 400 Second Language AcquisitionInterlanguage pragmaticsAnecdotal examplesBreakdownPragmatic transferModals and mitigationSlide 7Pragmatic strategiesVariablesSome semantic formulas: refusalsRefusalsBeebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990)Overall patternsCategorizing errorsApologiesSome semantic formulas: apologiesPerception of linguistic distance?Slide 18RequestsSome semantic formulas: requestsDetermining pragmatic competenceDCT examplesAppropriateness ratingProblemsOther problemsCan pragmatic competence be taught?Slide 27Slide 28Academic writingCultural variationThe state of the fieldA guess at phases of pragmatic development (?)Week 14a. Interlanguage pragmaticsCAS LX 400Second Language AcquisitionInterlanguage pragmatics•Becoming a high-proficiency second language speaker requires knowledge of vocabulary, pronunciation, syntax…and knowing how to use it appropriately.•Languages differ in how they use different speech acts (requesting, apologizing, refusing, requesting, inviting, complaining, …)—what works in one’s L1 may very well not work in the L2.Anecdotal examples•Finnish L1–We’re trying to find the train station. Could you help us?–Yes.•Hebrew L1–I’m really upset about the book because I needed it to prepare for last week’s class.–I have nothing to say.Breakdown•Problems with interlanguage pragmatics can cause serious communication breakdown, particularly when other aspects of the L2’ers speech are highly proficient.•Grammatical errors are recognized as such; pragmatic errors are often not recognized as errors, but rather as rudeness.•Learning the pragmatic rules for an L2 is often very difficult, pragmatic errors persist even for otherwise very advanced learners.Pragmatic transfer•Lacking knowledge of the pragmatic rules of the target language, L2’ers commonly transfer the pragmatic norms from their native language.•Counterintuitively perhaps, the more proficient a L2’er is, the more transfer from the native language (non-TL pragmatics) seems to be observed.–The L2’er has the linguistic means to express more subtle and complex meanings, and can implement pragmatic strategies—then, draws on the L1.Modals and mitigation•Many studies have found that even when L2’ers are highly proficient by general measures, they don’t show native-like performance with the particular pragmatic domain under investigation.•Few studies have looked directly at the grammatical structures required specifically for the pragmatic domain under investigation.Modals and mitigation•One, Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig (in press) look at emergence of modals and use in mitigation.•Modals seem to emerge in a reliable order:–maybe < think < can < will < would < could•But “even learners with grammaticalized expressions of modality rely heavily on lexical forms to unambiguously mark their pragmatic intent”–(S&B-H, p. 16, cited by Kasper 2000)•So grammar seems to come first…Pragmatic strategies•Pragmatic strategies for illocutionary acts differ across cultures (here we do not seem to see the same degree of universal constraints as on syntax or phonology).•House and Kasper (1981) rated “directness” in complaints and requests, comparing German and English native speakers, and found that on a scale from 1-8, English speakers most frequently were fairly indirect (3), while German speakers most frequently were more direct (6). Using a German strategy in an English environment would often be perceived as impolite.Variables•There is no unified “English strategy for refusal”—even within a single language, strategies differ.–Difference in authority between speaker and hearer.–Differences (even subtle) in culture•socioeconomic status•gender•education level•…Some semantic formulas: refusalsType Semantic formula ExampleDirectPerformative I refuse.Non-performative statement I can’t.IndirectStatement of regret I’m sorry.Wish I wish I could help you.Excuse, reason, explanation I have a headache.Statement of alternative I’d prefer to…Set condition for past or future acceptanceIf you’d asked me earlier, I’d have…Promise of future acceptance I’ll do it next time.Statement of principle I never do business with friends.Statement of philosophy One can’t be too careful.Attempt to dissuade interlocutor I won’t be any fun tonight.Acceptance that functions as refusal Well, maybe.Avoidance (e.g., silence or hedging) I’m not sure.Refusals•Refusals are a complex speech act because they are high-risk—they could very easily cause offense to the hearer. Yet refusals work differently in different cultures.•Nelson et al. (1998): American English vs. Egyptian Arabic (L1’ers in L1 context). Similar use of formulas, but…–EA speakers used more direct refusals with peers than AE speakers.–For unequal status, AE = mitigate+excuse, EA=excuse+mitigate or refuse+reason (depending on status balance).Beebe, Takahashi, andUliss-Weltz (1990)•Refusals in Japanese, American English, and in the interlanguage of Japanese speakers learning American English.•Authors looked at the responses in terms of the order of semantic formulas, e.g. I’m sorry, I have theater tickets that night. Maybe I could come by later for a drink. (regret, excuse, alternative).Overall patterns•Native speakers of Japanese:–positive opinion/empathy (to higher status)–excuse (vague)•Native speakers of American English:–positive opinion (to higher or lower status)–regret–excuse (specific)–can’t•American English by native speakers of Japanese–positive opinion/empathy (to higher status)–excuse (vague)Categorizing errors•Sociopragmatic failure: Learner fails to respond with the correct speech act.–NS: You have such a lovely accent–NNS: (no response)•Pragmalinguistic failure: Learner responds with the correct speech act but with the wrong linguistic means.–NS: I like your sweater.–NS: This old thing? I got it at a rummage sale. ?–NNS: Thank you.Apologies•Converse of refusals, “face-threatening” to the speaker.•Cross-cultural differences are fewer than in requests, refusals.•Still, some “negative transfer” in terms of intensity (I’m sorry vs. I’m very sorry).•L1 Hebrew speakers of English tend to offer fewer excuses, accept responsibility less frequently than NSs; L1 Chinese speakers of English tend to offer more intense regret and more explanations than NSs.Some semantic formulas: