Pragmatic aspects of learner language

1. Pragmatic aspects of learner language

3. Introduction According to Crystal, "Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication" (Crystal 1985, p. 240). Pragmatics is the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context. Communicative action includes not only speech acts - such as requesting, greeting, and so on - but also participation in conversation, engaging in different types of discourse, and sustaining interaction in complex speech events.

4. Introduction When speakers perform utterances in context they accomplish two things: (1) interactional acts and (2) speech acts. Interactional acts impose structure on the discourse by ensuring that one utterance leads smoothly to another. Speech acts constitute attempts by language users to perform specific actions, in particular interpersonal functions.

5. Introduction Interlanguage Pragmatics is defined as the study of 'learners' use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in a second language (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Kasper, 1999; Rose, 2000). There is a basic premise in interlanguage pragmatics � that it is not enough just to know the equivalent words and phrases in a second language (L2). Learners need to determine the situationally-appropriate utterances, namely: what can be said, where it can be said, when it can be said, how to say it most effectively.

6. Introduction In social psychology, impression management is the process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them. It is usually synonymous with self-presentation. Impression management (IM) theory states that any individual or organization must establish and maintain impressions that are congruent with the perceptions they want to convey to their publics (Goffman, 1959).

7. Introduction From both a communications and public relations viewpoint, the theory of impression management encompasses the vital ways in which one establishes and communicates this congruence between personal or organizational goals and their intended actions which create public perception. The goal is for one to present themselves the way in which they would like to be thought of by the individual or group they are interacting with. This form of management generally applies to the first impression.

8. Introduction Impression management (IM) is the goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. If a person tries to influence the perception of his image, this activity is called self-presentation. Impression management in SLA�the way learners make use of their L2 resources in interaction to create social meanings favorable to themselves�as this relates closely to work on speech acts.

9. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning A speech act is an utterance which serves as a functional unit in communication. Utterances have a literal or propositional meaning (e.g., "Where was I when that cell phone rudely interrupted me?" as uttered by a speaker who was just distracted away from his talk). Utterances also have a functional or illocutionary meaning (i.e., the effect that the utterance or written text has on the reader or listener, in the cell phone instance serving as a complaint with the remedy that the participant turn it off so there will not be another similar interruption).

10. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning According to speech act theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969) the performance of a speech act involves the performance of three types of act: a locutionary act (the conveyance of propositional meaning), an illocutionary act (the performance of a particular language function), and a perlocutionary act (the achieving of some kind of effect on the addressee).

11. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning Searle (1975) distinguished �direct� and �indirect� speech acts. In a direct speech act, there is a transparent relationship between from and function as when an imperative is used to perform a request (e.g., �Pass me the salt.�). In an indirect speech act, the illocutionary force of the act is not derivable from the surface structure, as when an interrogative form serves as a request (e.g., �Can you pass me the salt?�).

12. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning Politeness, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), is the phrasing of one�s remarks in such a way so as to manage the face, or public identity (Goffman, 1967), of each interactant. There are assumed to be two universal face wants: negative face, the desire to have one�s actions unimpeded by others, and positive face, the desire for connection or closeness with others.

13. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning Many acts threaten the positive or negative face (or both) of the speaker and/or hearer (by imposing on him or her); disagreements threaten the hearer�s positive face. Acts threatening the face of an interactant can be made more polite (less face threatening) by performing them with one of Brown and Levinson�s politeness super-strategies.

14. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning For doing FTAs (Face Threatening Acts), Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) proposes 5 super-strategies: (1) do the FTA on record, without redressive action, baldly�referred to as �bald-on-record��when the FTA is of low face risk to the addressee. (2) do the FTA on record with redressive action�positive politeness, when the face risk is a little higher; (3) do the FTA on record with redressive action�negative politeness when the face risk is even higher; (4) do the FTA off record; and (5) don�t do the FTA when the face risk is too high to the addressee.

15. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning Speech acts, indirectness and politeness have received a great deal of attention in interlanguage pragmatics research, especially request (Blum-Kulka, 1982; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986; House & Kasper, 1987; F�rch & Kasper, 1989; Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Ellis, 1992; Hassall, 1997; Rose, 1998), apology (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Trosborg, 1987; Olshtain, 1989; Maeshiba, Yoshinaga, Kasper & Ross, 1996), refusal (Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Beebe, Takahashi & Uliss-Weltz, 1990), and complaint (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987, 1993; Trosborg, 1995).

16. Pragmatic Competence asAbility to Perform Speech Acts accepting accusing advising agreeing apologizing arguing asserting bragging changing the subject commanding commenting complaining complimenting congratulating criticizing demanding denying disagreeing evaluating flattering greeting insisting insulting interrupting inviting making excuses

17. A Website on Speech Acts for Teachers At the Center for Advanced Language Acquisition (CARLA), Noriko Ishihara and Andrew D. Cohen have developed over the last three years this source of information for language teachers, materials developers, learners, and researchers: http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/teaching.html. This website was created in response to a felt need expressed by a curriculum writer that basic information about speech acts was not readily available, and that he did not have time to seek it out in research reports. 

18. Speech acts and illocutionary meaning The study of speech acts in interlanguage has concentrated on illocutionary meanings, or language functions as they are commonly known. The questions that have been addressed are: (1) To what extent and in what ways do learners perform illocutionary acts in the L2 differently from native speakers of the target language? (2) How do learners lean to perform different illocutionary acts?

19. Illocutionary ForceThe Day After Tomorrow �??�????? vs. ????

20. Illocutionary Force ????????,????????????(??)??????,??????

21. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language Ideally, the study of illocutionary acts in learner language should involve the collection of three sets of data: (1) samples of the illocutionary act performed in the target language by L2 learners, (2) samples performed by native speakers of the target language, (3) samples of the same illocutionary act performed by the learners in their L1.

22. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language The study of learners� production of illocutionary acts had made use of (1) discourse completion tasks, (2) role play, and (3) naturally occurring speech. Discourse completion tasks (DCTs) have been extensively used. In the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989) a series of studies involving subjects from a variety of language backgrounds (for example, American, British, and Australian English, Canadian French, Hebrew, German, and Danish) made use of a questionnaire consisting of eight request and eight apology contexts.

23. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language Kasper and Dahl (1991) distinguish data collection methods according to the modality of the data elicited (perception/comprehension/intuition vs. production) and the degree of control over learners� speech (elicited vs. observational). They also point out that some of the most successful studies have employed combined methods of data collection.

24. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language As with any set of measures, there are trade-offs associated with using more open as opposed to more closed types of assessment. Open role play, for example, allows for the full operation of turn-taking, sequencing of moves, and negotiation of meaning (Kasper and Dahl, 1991: 228-9). Written response, on the other hand, may foster more thoughtful responses, possibly more indicative of a speaker's competence. 

25. How to Assess Speech Acts Perception of a Speech Act Rate the following responses according to whether they are "acceptable," "more or less acceptable," or "unacceptable" in an American English situation: (1) A student forgets to return a book to a professor. Student: a. ____ Oh, damn! I forgot it. b. ____ Sorry. I forgot. c. ____ Oh, I'm really sorry. I completely forgot. d. ____ Oh, well, I've had a lot on my mind lately. (2) A young woman bumps into your shopping cart at the supermarket and some of your groceries spill onto the floor. Aside from helping you pick them up, she says: a. ____ Sorry. b. ____ Please forgive me. c. ____ I'm very sorry. d. ____ I'm really sorry.

26. How to Assess Speech Acts Production of a Speech Act: Classical DCT (1) You promised you'd buy your neighbor medicine for her sick child while in town, but you forgot. Your neighbor: "Did you get the medicine?" You: _________________________ (2) You don't stop in time at a red light and bump into the car in front of you. The other driver and you get out and see that there is damage to the other car. The other driver is very upset. You: _________________________

27. How to Assess Speech Acts Production of a Speech Act: Multiple-Rejoinder DCT (1) You find a bargain air ticket to a city where you have great friends. In order to take advantage of this deal, you need to ask your instructor for an extension on a paper that you were supposed to hand in after the weekend. You: __________________________ Professor: Well, you know, you had plenty of time to work on this paper already. There was no need to wait until the last minute to prepare it. You: __________________________ Professor: I'm sorry, but I can't really agree to give you an extension on this paper. I don't think that going to visit some friends during the semester is a good enough reason for an extension. You: _________________________ Professor: Well, I'm not so thrilled about doing it. It's not my policy. You: _________________________ Professor: Ok, well, just this time.

28. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language A widely used and fruitful elicitation procedure is the Discourse Completion Test/Task (DCT), originally developed by Blum-Kulka (1982) and used by such researchers as Olshtain and Cohen in their study of apologies in Hebrew and English, Beebe in her work on refusals in Japanese and English, and Eisenstein and Bodman in their investigation of expressions of gratitude among native and nonnative speakers of English.

29. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language In most cases, the major aim of studies using this method of elicitation is to collect data which may be compared for the purpose of cross-linguistic study and also to investigate the sociolinguistic problems faced by second language learners. The use of naturally occurring speech as a basis for studying interlanguage pragmatics has been less common, partly because of the difficulty of assembling a sufficient corpus of data. Wolfson (1989), however, used this approach to investigate learners� complimenting behavior.

30. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language Discourse completion tests have become increasingly widespread in the collection of data on speech act realization both within and across language groups. Like all methods used in the collection of sociolinguistic data, they have disadvantages as well as advantages.

31. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language The Advantages of Elicitation Method One great advantage of this type of data collection is that it permits the researcher to control for specific variables of the situation, thus giving a coherence to the findings which may be very difficult to achieve otherwise. If, for example, the investigator wants to test the effect of the social status of the participants in a given speech act, it is possible to include this in the questionnaire descriptions, thus leading subjects to take this factor into account in their responses.

32. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language The Advantages of Elicitation Method Another great advantage of elicited data, and one which cannot ignored, is that they allow investigators to collect a considerable amount of data on a given type of speech behavior within a relatively short time. Not all speech acts occur with equal frequency, and some, which may provide valuable insight into cultural rules, may occur in situations which are inaccessible to the researcher. Even the collection of data on a speech act as commonly heard as apologies requires much less effort to accomplish through elicitation than by, for example, observation.

33. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language The Disadvantages (= Limitations) of Elicitation Method While it is true that the use of such questionnaires is a quick means of acquiring a large amount of data about a community�s perceptions regarding correct speech behavior, it is necessary to recognize that the data collected in this way cannot be expected to give us all the information we need about the ways in which a speech act is performed in spontaneous interactions.

34. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language The Disadvantages (= Limitations) of Elicitation Method In some respects, there is a high degree of convergence between subjects� responses to this sort of elicitation procedure and the actual behavior found to occur spontaneously, while in other respects, we must face the fact that the nature of the task will produce intrinsic differences. That is, it must always be recognized that responses elicited within a written frame are, by their very nature, not the same as spontaneous speech.

35. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language The Disadvantages (= Limitations) of Elicitation Method On the one hand, the conventional rules for speech differ considerably from those for written communication, and this cannot fail to have an effect on the results obtained. On the other hand, the simple fact that writing an answer permits more time to plan and evaluate it than one normally has while participating in an ongoing interaction must also be taken into account when comparing the results of these two modes of responding to a given situation.

36. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language A number of studies which have compared data obtained from discourse completion questionnaires with that from observational studies have found differences with regard to the actual wording used, the semantic formulas employed, the length of learners� responses, and the size of the discourse context created. These differences raise questions about the extent to which the elicited data can serve as evidence of learners� pragmatic competence, as they may not accurately reflect actual language use.

37. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language While DCT elicits speakers� performance data and focuses on speakers� point of view, the metapragmatic judgment task (MJT) is from hearers� point of view and to elicit hearers� judgment on whether a strategy is acceptable in a given situation.

38. Research methods for studying illocutionary acts in learner language With the intent of obtaining complementary data, many studies in interlanguage pragmatics have collected two sets of data on a particular politeness phenomenon. Often, at least one observational method is chosen to obtain data on the learner�s production and another method is used to elicit information about unobservable phenomena, that is, perceptions of metapragmatic judgments.

39. Description of paper extension situation in DCT and MJT An Example of DCT You are writing a term paper for one of your courses. You are working hard on the paper, but you have to stop because you also have to study for final exams in your other courses. The paper is due tomorrow, and you need a few more days to finish it. You decide to ask Professor Brown, whom you don�t know very well, for an extension. Professor Brown hesitates because it won�t be fair to other students in the class, but then he/she agrees to give you an extension. A few days later, when you turn in the paper, what would you say to Professor Brown?

40. Description of paper extension situation in DCT and MJT An Example of MJT A student is writing a term paper for a course. The student is working hard on the paper, but has to stop because the student also has to study for final exams in other courses. The paper is due tomorrow, but the student needs a few more days to finish it. The student decides to ask Professor Brown, whom the student doesn�t know very well, for an extension. Professor Brown hesitates because it won�t be fair to other students in the class, but then agrees to give the student an extension. A few days later, when the student turns in the paper to Professor Brown, the student says: 1 2 3 4 5 (A) �I�m really sorry for asking the extension.� Reason(s): _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

41. Illocutionary acts in learner language Thomas (1983) discusses the problem of sociolinguistic miscommunication. For Thomas, �pragmatic failure� is �the [in]ability to understand what is meant by what is said.� The term pragmatics is used for descriptions of patterns having to do with interpersonal interaction.

42. Illocutionary acts in learner language Pragmatic failure can be divided into two types: pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. Pragmalinguistic failure arises because of the language user�s ignorance or unfamiliarity with the linguistic strategies and conventional formulaic expression of foreign language, and he thus resorts to inappropriate direct language transfer from first language.

43. Illocutionary acts in learner language Sometimes NNS (Non-Native Speakers) use 'proper' grammar, but it doesn't sound natural, i.e., it doesn't sound natural like a NS (Native Speaker) would use language. a.� NNS:� It is another my essay. b.� NS:� It is another essay of mine. c.� NNS:� I sleep now. d.� NS:� I will go to sleep now.

44. Illocutionary acts in learner language Sociopragmatic failure is a failure that stems from the language user�s unawareness of the different sociocultural rules and different concepts of politeness in first-language and foreign language societies; the user applies inappropriate strategies in given social contexts. It is difficult to draw an absolute distinction between them; they form a continuum.

45. 45 Illocutionary acts in learner language Research into the use and acquisition of illocutionary acts has been somewhat limited. It has tended to concentrate on a fairly small set of speech acts. Many of these acts have two points in common. First, they constitute �relatively well-defined� acts in the sense that they are realized by means of a small set of easily recognizable linguistic elements (many formulaic). Second, these acts are face-threatening in nature different L1 backgrounds are able to use native-like politeness strategies.

46. Illocutionary acts in learner language Requests Nine sub-levels of strategy types (scale of indirectness) (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) Direct Strategies 1. Mood derivable (The grammatical mood of the verb in the utterance marks its illocutionary force as a request.) Leave me alone.Clean up this mess, please. 2. Explicit performatives (The illocutionary force of the utterance is explicitly named by the speakers.) I�m asking you to clean up the kitchen.I�m asking you not to part the car here.

47. Illocutionary acts in learner language Requests Direct Strategies 3. Hedged performatives (Utterances embedding the naming of the illocutionary force.) I�d like to ask you to clean the kitchen.I�d like you to give your lecture a week earlier. 4. Obligation statements (The illocutionary point is directly derivable from the semantic meaning of the locution.) You�ll have to clean up the kitchen.Ma�am, you�ll have to move your car. 5. Want statements (The utterance expresses the speaker�s intentions, desire or feeling vis � vis the fact that the hear do X.) I really wish you�d clean up the kitchen.I really wish you�d stop bothering me.

48. Illocutionary acts in learner language Requests Conventionally indirect strategies 6. Suggestory formulae (The sentence contains a suggestion to X.) How about cleaning up?Why don�t you get lost?So, why don�t you come and clean up the mess you made last night? 7. Query preparatory (The utterance contains reference to preparatory conditions, such as ability or willingness, the possibility of the act being performed, as conventionalized in any specific language.) Could you clean up the kitchen, please?Would you mind moving your car, please?

49. Illocutionary acts in learner language Requests Non-conventionally indirect strategies (hints) 8. Strong hints (The utterances contains partial reference to object or to elements needed for the implementation of the act, directly pragmatically implying the act) You have left the kitchen in a right mess. 9. Mild hints (Utterances that make no reference to the request proper or any of its elements but are interpretable through the context as requests, indirectly pragmatically implying the act) I�m a nun (in response to a persistent hassler). These subcategories of conventional indirectness vary across languages in conventions of form.

50. Illocutionary acts in learner language Apologies According to the Olshtain and Cohen�s analysis, the major strategies used to express an apology are the following: (1) expression of apology (formulaic) = I�m sorry, (2) expression of responsibility = It was my fault. Either of these two strategies could stand alone as an apology, but in addition it was found that three other strategies often occur in conjunction with them, depending on the speaker�s evaluation of the severity of the offense and also on the social distance and/or the status of the �victim.�

51. Illocutionary acts in learner language Apologies Speakers may employ the following additional three strategies intended to make amends for the offense, or use one or both of the first two along with any or all of the following: (3) explanation, (4) offer of repair, (5) promise of forbearance.

52. Illocutionary acts in learner language Refusals Classification of Refusals (Beebe et al. 1990: 72-73) I. Direct A. Performative (e.g., �I refuse�) B. Nonperformative statement 1. �No� 2. Negative willingness/ability (�I can�t.� �I won�t�. �I don�t think so.�)

53. Illocutionary acts in learner language Refusals Classification of Refusals II. Indirect A. Statement of regret (e.g., �I�m sorry . . .�; �I feel terrible . . . �) B. Wish (e.g., �I wish I could help you . . .�) C. Excuse, reason, explanation (e.g., �My children will be home that nigh.�; �I have a headache.�) D. Statement of alternative 1. I can do X instead of Y (e.g., �I�d rather . . . � �I�d prefer ��) 2. Why don�t you do X instead of Y (e.g., �Why don�t you ask someone else?�)

54. Illocutionary acts in learner language II. Indirect E. Set condition for future or past acceptance (e.g., �If you had asked me earlier, I would have . . .�) F. Promise of future acceptance (e.g., �I�ll do it next time�; �I promise I�ll . . .� or �Next time I�ll . . .��using �will� of promise or �promise�) G. Statement of principle (e.g., �I never do business with friends.�) H. Statement of philosophy (e.g., �One can�t be too careful.�)

55. Illocutionary acts in learner language II. Indirect I. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor 1. Threat or statement of negative consequences to the requester (e.g., �I won�t be any fun tonight� to refuse an invitation) 2. Gilt trip (e.g., waitress to customers who want to sit a while: �I can�t make a living off people who just order coffee.�) 3. Criticize the request/requester, etc. (statement of negative feeling or opinion); insult/attack (e.g., �Who do you think you are?�; �That�s a terrible idea!�) 4. Request for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding the request. 5. Let interlocutor off the hook (e.g., �Don�t worry about it.� �That�s okay.� �You don�t have to.�) 6. Self-defense (e.g., �I�m trying my best.� �I�m doing all I can do.� �I no do nutting wrong.�)

56. Illocutionary acts in learner language II. Indirect J. Acceptance that functions as a refusal 1. Unspecific or indefinite reply 2. Lack of enthusiasm K. Avoidance 1. Nonverbal a. Silence b. Hesitation c. Do nothing d. Physical departure 2. Verbal a. Topic switch b. Joke c. Repetition of part of request, etc. (e.g., �Monday?�) d. Postponement (e.g., �I�ll think about it.�) e. Hedging (e.g., �Gee, I don�t know.� �I�m not sure.�)

57. Illocutionary acts in learner language Impression Management The study of impression management has been informed by interactional sociolinguistics. This examines how speakers achieve communicative effects by manipulating their linguistic and nonlinguistic resources. When learners participate in conversation with native speakers and other learner�particularly if the encounters are of the unequal kind�they need to negotiate the impression they wish to create. Frequently, they lack knowledge of the relevant contextualization cues.

58. Illocutionary acts in learner language Impression Management One solution is to accept the social role allocated to them�a kind of avoidance strategy. Another is to substitute cues from their native language�a form of transfer. A third solution is to make creative use of their interlanguage resources to exploit their status as language learners. Little is currently known about how learners� use of contextualiztion cues develops over time and how they learn to manage impressions in a manner compatible with target-language norms.

59. Conclusion Although quite a lot is now known about how learner use an L2, very little is known about how �rules of speaking� are acquired. For this, longitudinal studies are needed. The studies to date suggest that three factors are of major importance in the acquisition of pragmatic competence. The first is the level of the learners� linguistic competence. The second is transfer. The third is the status of the learner.

60. Conclusion The study of interlanguage pragmatics acts in L2 acquisition has focused on the spoken medium and has paid little attention to writing. Although we know something about how �contextualized� acts such as requests, apologies, and refusals are acquired, we know little about how learners acquire the ability to perform acts found in decontextualized, written language. If the study of interlanguage pragmatics is to progress it will need to examine written as well as spoken learner language.