Teaching and Learning (Im)Politeness 9781501501654, 9781501508424

Citation preview

Barbara Pizziconi, Miriam A. Locher (Eds.) Teaching and Learning (Im)Politeness

Trends in Applied Linguistics

Edited by Ulrike Jessner Claire Kramsch

Volume 22

Teaching and Learning (Im)Politeness

Edited by Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

ISBN 978-1-5015-0842-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0165-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0167-8 ISSN 1868-6362 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. 6 2015 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Berlin/Boston Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong Printing: CPI buch bücher.de GmbH, Birkach ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements This collection of chapters on teaching and learning (im)politeness would not have been possible without the exemplary openness and willingness to engage in dialogue shown by the contributors. We thank all of them for their admirable patience when we editors came up with yet another round of questions in an attempt to further the dialogue between the disciplines of language acquisition, pedagogy and interpersonal pragmatics. We are equally grateful to Aline Bieri and Sixta Quassdorf for help with editing and the Mouton team for their support. October 2014, London and Basel Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

Table of contents Acknowledgements

v

1

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

I

(Im)politeness in L2 instructional contexts

2

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou, Angeliki Tzanne 23 Teaching politeness?

1

3

Eiko Gyogi Voices from the Japanese language classroom: Honorifics do far more than 53 politeness

4

Caroline L. Rieger (Im)politeness and L2 socialization: Using reactions from online fora to a 79 world leader’s ‘impolite’ behavior

5

Barbara Pizziconi Teaching and learning (im)politeness: A look at the CEFR and pedagogical 113 research

II ‘Teaching’ and ‘learning’ (about) (im)politeness in L1 and L2 6

Rachel Mapson Paths to politeness: Exploring how professional interpreters develop an understanding of politeness norms in British Sign Language and 155 English

7

Miriam A. Locher “After all, the last thing I wanted to be was rude”: Raising of pragmatic 185 awareness through reflective writing

8

Matthew Burdelski Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in 211 Japanese

9

Juliane House Epilogue: Impoliteness in learning and teaching

255 Bionotes 259 Author index 264 Subject index

247

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

1 Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness Abstract: This chapter outlines the editors’ conceptualization of the key terminology that gives the collection its title, such as (im)politeness, ‘teaching’ and ‘learning.’ It describes the relationship between the field of (im)politeness research and various strands of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies, highlights important developments in these respective domains, and advocates an enhanced dialogue between them that can lead to positive cross-fertilization. It then outlines selected issues raised in individual chapters, as well as a theme that emerged consistently across the contributions, i.e. the role of ‘awareness’; its presence or absence is seen as variously affecting individuals’ ability to achieve accurate representations of (im)politeness notions, offsetting difficulties in language learning and the development of intercultural competence, or enabling the very perception of some facets of interpersonal relationships. Keywords: (im)politeness, second language acquisition, pragmatic transfer, interlanguage pragmatics, intercultural competence, interpersonal pragmatics

1 Setting the research interface This collection on ‘Teaching’ and ‘Learning’ (Im)Politeness (the inverted quote marks will be explained at the end of this section) combines research from the field of politeness studies with research on language pedagogy and language learning. Our aim is to fill the unfortunate gap between these research traditions in an endeavour to enrich the outlook of both constituencies, and to further engender a useful dialogue between (im)politeness theorists, language teachers, and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers. Throughout the collection, we use the term ‘(im)politeness’ as a shorthand for a broad range of semiotic phenomena which index and regulate social relations. We are interested in politeness and impoliteness phenomena and, more generally, in the interpersonal side of communication1 and its relation to ‘teaching’ and ‘learning.’ It is well known that the field of politeness has experienced 1 On ‘relational work,’ see Locher and Watts (2005, 2008); on ‘rapport management,’ see Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2005, 2011); on ‘interpersonal pragmatics,’ see Locher and Graham (2010; Haugh, Kádár and Mills 2013).

2

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

a dramatic boom in the last 40 years. Studies which pioneered a scientific approach (Lakoff 1973; Leech 1983; Brown and Levinson 1978 [later reprinted and enhanced in 1987]) provided conceptual frameworks to discuss politeness as a pragmatic phenomenon; all of them attempted to highlight broad, even universal pragmatic mechanisms of production and interpretation, but at the same time had to tackle the question of culturally specific realizations which could account for variation. From the vast sea of research which set out to apply and test these frameworks in various linguistic and cultural contexts, some studies began to appear which addressed the natural pedagogical implications of this variation – e.g. how speakers of one language would go about learning and negotiating politeness in another, and whether or how politeness could be taught. However, with some exceptions, which tackled politeness issues/theory directly (House and Kasper 1981; Davies 1986; Lörscher and Schulze 1988; Geis and Harlow 1995; Meier 1997; Snow et al. 1990), the vast majority of studies which emerged from the field of second language acquisition gave politeness theory a minor role, or discussed politeness almost perforce, as (sometimes unproblematized) explanatory principles for interlanguage pragmatic difficulties, typically in speech acts realizations (e.g. Scarcella 1979; Blum-Kulka and Kasper 1989; Kasper 1992; Bouton 1995; Marriott 1995; Kasper and Schmidt 1996; Rose and Kasper 2001). The same applies to studies that looked at L1 acquisition within the field’s broader interest in language socialization and caretaker induction practices (Schieffelin and Ochs 1986; Clancy 1985; Snow et al. 1990). The applied fields of first and/or second language acquisition and language pedagogy were more concerned with the operationalization of the Hymesian concept of “communicative competence” and saw politeness as one of many indices of that competence. Critiques and further developments in the theory of politeness which broadened the scope of research further began to appear from within the field of politeness theory in the last decade of the past century (concise reviews can be found in Pizziconi, this volume, chapter 4; Locher 2012, 2014). These developments targeted the restrictive interpretation of politeness as an abstract, a-social, pragmatic principle, and focused intensely on its socially constructed and indexical nature. Broad sociological parameters such as status differential or social distance increasingly came to be seen as overgeneralizing determinants, which were themselves subject to a great deal of subjective ‘interpretation’ and manipulation in context. Users’ variable evaluations of these categories, the negotiation of identities, positions and stances enacted in situated contexts were put under the spotlight. Politeness theory of this kind (Watts 1989, 1992; Watts et al. 1992; Eelen 2001), opened up new avenues of investigation such as the discursive nature of politeness (Watts above and 2003; Locher 2004, 2006, 2008; Locher and Watts 2005, 2008; Mills 2011) and the strategic nature of

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

3

honorific usage (Pizziconi 2003; Cook 1998, 2013), the pro-social character of polite behaviour (Sifianou 1992) as well as deliberately confrontational impolite behaviour (Culpeper 1996, 2011; Culpeper, Bousfield and Wichmann 2003; Locher and Bousfield 2008; Bousfield 2008, 2010). These trends also showed many synergies and the contributions of different disciplinary traditions, from theories of identity to social cognition, conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and others (see Locher 2012 for a review). This interdisciplinarity is an inevitable development in view of the fact that (im)politeness considerations are always potentially triggered in communication. Those strands of SLA with a more “sociocultural” orientation have also started to discuss (im)politeness from an increasing variety of disciplinary perspectives and in different contexts of use, beyond the language classroom. While some studies extend the previous tradition (i.e. studies of speech acts) even in recent times (Takahashi 1996; Pearson 2006; Spencer-Oatey 2000; Barron 2003; Shimizu 2009; Tateyama 2009; Félix-Brasdefer and Hasler-Barker 2012), a few also tackle (im)politeness in L2 users’ performance from newer angles: gender construction in intercultural encounters (Siegal 1994, 1995, 1996; Siegal and Okamoto 2003; Thomson and Otsuji 2003; Ishihara and Tarone 2009), self presentation and social identity (Cook 2001, 2006, 2008; Mori 2003; Iwasaki 2010); the negotiation of interactional stances in classroom contexts (Ohta 1999, 2001a, 2001b), or a number of these overlapping themes in Taguchi’s (2009) collection, as well as the role of honorific markers in children socialization (Burdelski 2013). Much less work has focused on the teaching aspect: a theoretical study (Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003), some reviews of instructional material (Matsumoto and Okamoto 2003; Brown 2010) and a few empirical studies on the effects of specific instructional treatments and metapragmatic awareness (Ishida 2009; Tateyama 2009). Incidentally, the presence of so many works on Japanese language in these new developments is not a coincidence: as noted by Kasper (2009: xiii), while work on other languages tends to focus on speech act realization, Japanese constitutes a case in which indexicals of various kinds, among which honorifics, play a conspicuous role in the communication of other meanings not necessarily related to politeness (e.g. political or affective stances, identities) in interaction. An indexical view of language can of course highlight how these meanings are achieved in honorific-poor languages (Ochs 1992; Eckert 2003) but, to the best of our knowledge, this approach has not received much attention in the pedagogical literature. While these and other studies testify to the omnirelevance of “(im)polite” considerations in interaction, they have left only a minor mark in the field of politeness theorizing, arguably because they are driven mostly by the disciplinary interest of SLA researchers in which (im)politeness is often presented as an aspect of communicative competence development and language/culture-

4

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

specific pragmatic development. With rare exceptions (e.g. Burdelski, 2013, as can be noted by the works referenced above), they are scattered in journals and volume series targeting the SLA audience. However, we understand the notions of learning and teaching in a broader sense than in the field of SLA and feel that many of the questions raised in this volume have a legitimate place in (im)politeness theorization. For example, questions regarding the affordances of different theoretical frameworks for (im)politeness pedagogy, the role of metalanguage in the development of linguistic (and sociocultural) awareness (or simply ‘maturity’), the tension between universal (innate?) vs. culture-specific aspects of (im)politeness ‘knowledge’ (cf. House 2005; further developed and revised in House 2010: 566), not to mention the translation of theoretical, scientific constructs into emically meaningful constructs – all of which are imperative questions arising from pedagogical contexts –, clearly have much broader implications which the field of (im)politeness theory ought to discuss. Moreover, especially at a time when the field of (im)politeness theorizing appears to be moving away from a purely cognitive understanding of language use to one which privileges its social dimensions, discussing matters of ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ can bring the role of the ‘social,’ or rather the ‘sociocognitive,’ right to the centre of the debate. Indeed some scholars (e.g. Atkinson 2002: 526) have explicitly called for a more integrated view of SLA which can reconcile in one complex ecology learners and teachers, acquisitional contexts and social practices, products, and tools. The following compelling metaphor shows the advantages of a sociocognitive perspective: A recurring image comes to mind when I read much second language acquisition (SLA) research and theory. It is the image of a single cactus in the middle of a lonely desert – the only thing except sand for miles around. The cactus sits there, waiting patiently for that rare cloud to pass overhead and for that shower of rain to come pouring down. Like the solitary cactus, the learner in mainstream SLA research seems to sit in the middle of a lonely scene, and, like the cactus, the learner seems to wait there for life-giving sustenance (or at least its triggering mechanism) – input – to come pouring in. At that point, the real action begins, and we watch the learner miraculously grow and change. A contrasting image sometimes also occurs to me, though more often when reading in fields other than SLA, such as language socialization and cultural anthropology. This is the image of a tropical rainforest, so densely packed and thick with underbrush that it would be hard to move through. This forest is constantly wet with humidity and teeming with life, sounds, growth and decay – a lush ecology in which every organism operates in complex relationship with every other organism. Each tree grows in and as a result of this fundamentally integrated world, developing continuously and being sustained through its involvement in the whole ecology. And this image satisfies me at a deeper level, because it corresponds to how I (and others) believe language acquisition “really works.” (Atkinson 2002: 525–526).

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

5

What the “tropical rainforest” scene describes, however, is no more than the conditions of language use, a flexible and adaptive process taking place constantly in the real world, an environment which language affects and is affected by (as noted in theories of indexicality and constructivism). From this perspective, language learning is another name for the “permanent process of dynamic adaptivity” (Atkinson et al. 2007: 171), and hence should be the purview of any theory which deals with pragmatic, interactional phenomena. Our intent in this collection is to foreground the relevance of ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ understood as broad labels for issues of cultural transmission and acculturation in many diverse contexts. We wish to start unpacking the multiple, sometimes unsuspected, and at times disputed social trajectories in which transmission and acculturation processes occur, and the ways in which educational contexts of various kinds reflect them. We discuss the complex relations of ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ with professional, national and cross-cultural identities and the political avenues they travel on, and also the systemic (e.g. honorifics) as well as the affective and sociocultural aspects involved. Using this broad understanding of ‘learning and teaching’ as a starting point allows us to juxtapose, under the umbrella of (im)politeness, phenomena of various kind such as L1 vs. L2 learning and socialization; pragmatic as well as metapragmatic aspects; broad policy recommendations vs. practical suggestions for classroom implementation; conceptualizations of politeness vs. impoliteness; spoken vs. signed modalities.

2 Structure of the collection The collection opens with chapters discussing (im)politeness issues in the language classroom, which focus on teaching and learning in a conventional sense (Part 1). Chapter 2 addresses foreign language teachers, discusses the pros and cons of alternative methodological frameworks, and suggests general guidelines for the pedagogy of (im)politeness. Chapters 3 and 4 present classroom activities which target evaluative behaviour and report on intermediate and advanced learners’ performances, and chapter 5 ties up this first part with a commentary on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and an overview of (im)politeness-related issues in the fields of SLA and (im)politeness theory. In part 2, three more chapters (6, 7 and 8) discuss other contexts and user types – students doing a medical degree in the UK, children in Japanese household and preschool contexts, and interpreters of English/British Sign Language – and explores different modalities of ‘teaching’ and ‘learning,’ in

6

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

the broad sense adopted in this collection. Finally, the epilogue gives centre stage to the discussion of impoliteness in its own right. ‘Teaching’ and ‘learning’ are of course interdependent, and although some chapters focus more specifically on one or the other, all chapters in this collection make reference to both and some address the question of their interrelation directly. Each chapter in the collection – unsurprisingly when discussing a pragmatically complex phenomenon such as (im)politeness and its learning or teaching – raises a considerable number of issues which is not possible to summarize concisely. The following overview highlights only some of these, and in particular the common evaluation of “awareness” as a crucial component of competence, or an emergent feature of linguistic development. Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne’s chapter opens with the straightforward observation that if there is no such thing as an innate mechanism for generating a fully-fledged “polite competence,” then there can be little doubt that, in the L2 classroom, (im)politeness must be taught. Nevertheless, they note that the existence of quite different perspectives on the very conceptualization of (im)politeness makes decisions on how to teach it less straightforward. They outline merits and alleged demerits of existing theoretical frameworks, propose some practical guidelines for teachers, and present an example of how these can be implemented in a Greek university project. While they identify the merit of the “traditional” framework (Brown and Levinson 1987; B&L henceforth) with its descriptive convenience, they see the recent discursive and postmodern perspectives as equally valuable for their nuanced and critical problematization of normativity. They propose to reconcile the apparent incompatibility of these approaches by recognizing that both may have a role to play in the L2 classroom, which one could possibly characterize as enabling both more encompassing and more fine-grained descriptions. B&L’s descriptive apparatus and its interest in generalizable principles seems advantageous as it can provide broad-ranging explanations and a motivation for determined linguistic forms, and the more recent, relativist approaches seem advantageous in characterizing identifiable tendencies as the preferred patterns of specific social groups, who hold beliefs and values which may or may not overlap with those of other groups. However, they unashamedly (re)claim a role in pedagogical contexts for generalizations, of which decades of critical analyses have perhaps made us too sceptical. They encourage teachers to pursue the pedagogically much needed generalizations without feeling compelled to provide accounts of potentially infinite variations observable in individual behaviour; these, they argue, are not necessarily useful to learners, especially at the early stage of the process of building new representations. Indeed their review of merits and demerits of different approaches takes the learner’s limited (or L1-biased) appre-

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

7

ciation of relevant contextual parameters as the starting point, and this allows them to re-value the aspects of B&L’s approach which have been deemed excessively simplistic by their critics, such as their account of context in terms of three broad sociological variables (social distance [D], relative power [P] and degree of imposition [R]), which, instead, they consider sufficient enough for first characterizations. Their chapter does not at all minimize the significance of the criticism of B&L, but repeatedly stresses that the detailed knowledge that teachers may have or need to have about the complexity of variables affecting socially appropriate usage does not need to be conveyed unfiltered to learners. On a methodological level, they advocate (as Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003 do) metapragmatic instruction of (im)polite meanings, tightly tied to the linguistic realizations that B&L’s taxonomy can highlight. While this is in line with the recommendation of most interlanguage pragmatics studies, they maintain that this is an advantageous technique not only at advanced stages, but also at early ones, in order to prevent fossilization of misconstrued formfunction mappings. Their detailed suggestions for language instructors emphasize the role of awareness-raising techniques for the teaching of (im)politeness, and in particular that of a metapragmatic awareness of the target language’s sociopragmatic norms through a “focus on grammatical/pragmalinguistic devices that attain politeness values according to specific situational and contextual factors” (Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne, this volume: p. 35). They consider such an approach necessary because, arguably, while some principles regulating (im)politeness can be transferred from one’s L1 knowledge, many parameters must be set afresh. Assumptions about relational dynamics (cf. Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003: 9) or basic notions such as power, distance, age or degree of imposition, represent principles of variation which socially mature individuals have learned to appreciate as relevant (cf. Escandell-Vidal 2004) and hence these broad sociocognitive categories can be thought of as already available from the start. However, the L2 forms which realize particular linguistic functions and the relevant L2 sociopragmatic norms whose indexing they serve may or may not be noticed: forms may be opaque or their function misrepresented; pragmatic norms are generally implicit (and only made explicit in particular contexts, which may not emerge naturally or be easy to reproduce in a classroom). In a nutshell, Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne (following Schmidt’s 1995 Noticing Hypothesis) maintain that form-focused instruction and awareness-raising techniques can enhance the salience of forms and/or sociopragmatic norms and facilitate their appreciation. The following two chapters offer concrete examples of classroom activities which stimulate metapragmatic reflection on the multiple meanings of (im)politeness. The chapters by Gyogi and Rieger, respectively on Japanese and

8

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

German L2, are case studies reporting on instructional treatments aimed at enhancing the learner’s awareness of both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of L2 usage. Both propose guided activities which can broaden the learners’ appreciation of the social dimension of language use in evaluative behaviours, and both illustrate how this can be achieved through a process of self-discovery on the part of the learners. The use of the word “appreciation” here and above is not accidental: when talking about “(im)politeness” prescriptivism is clearly to be avoided, and both studies illustrate interesting ways to present and discuss variability in the classroom. Eiko Gyogi presents an original task focusing on Japanese honorifics. These are lexico-grammatical devices stereotypically associated to the expression of deference, but in fact indexing a much wider range of meanings (see Cook 2013; Pizziconi 2011; Burdelski 2013). Stereotypical as well as non-stereotypical meanings naturally emerge from the contextual conditions of their use, but the latter are often overlooked in teaching material (of which Gyogi provides an overview) and in the economy of classroom activities. Her intermediate learners engage in the translation of a written text from a BBC report on the Japanese imperial couple, and in the preparatory phase are directed to focus on various elements of the context: the fact reported and the purpose of the text, the relationships between participants, the target audiences, etc. The comparison of various rhetorical styles in the Japanese media creates an opportunity to reflect on competing normative models in the linguistic treatment of reports about the emperor. The learners are then assigned the task of translating the English news into Japanese and simulating a report of the event to different audiences (a Japanese host-father and a Korean friend); they must therefore reflect on the appropriateness of different formulations to these different targets. Their diaries provide an insight on the factors at play in these judgments of appropriateness, and show, among other things, that the variability observed in L2 production has as much to do with the learner’s very personal background and general knowledge as with their linguistic proficiency. Gyogi notes, for example, that students majoring in Japanese and Korean – who would therefore have gained a deeper knowledge of Korean history and culture than single subject students – appeared to be more sensitive than other students to the potential effects of their linguistic choices on the Korean friend. Although textbook descriptions of honorifics emphasize their referential properties (e.g. their indexing of speaker deference towards the referent), the interactional effects, in the utterance’s here and now, of the choice of a referent honorific are treated much more casually, if not confusingly. Gyogi’s data, from classroom discussions and learner diaries, show that a focused activity can promote an awareness of the many other meanings simultaneously indexed by a honorific form, such as its effects on the

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

9

audience or the construction of a specific speaker identity. Although the learners’ translations demonstrate their struggle with the systemic complexities of various types of honorifics (various inconsistencies are observable, more numerous than those which could be discussed in her chapter), they also demonstrate that this kind of awareness is possible, if trained appropriately, at a post-beginner level, just a month after learners have been introduced to referent honorifics. This would suggest that much training-induced stereotypification, often evident in honorific usage at higher levels of proficiency, could well be prevented with appropriate pedagogical techniques and activities. Caroline Rieger’s study equally laments the neglect of (im)politeness considerations in pedagogical contexts, this time in advanced German language classes in Canada, and shows how resources easily available online can provide the pragmatically rich learning environment necessary to appreciate the nuances of (im)polite meanings. Learners are initially shown a silent video clip of a an incident in 2006 during which President Bush gives Chancellor Angela Merkel a “shoulder rub” at a meeting and, subsequently, are shown several entries of a discussion of the incident in online fora. Rieger uses this input to highlight the multiple linguistic strategies utilized in evaluations of behaviour, the critical role of the socio-cultural context and speakers’ ideologies in interpreting linguistic expressions to sensitize the learners to the (cultural and intracultural) variability in interpretations and evaluations. The learners’ assessments of the incident invoke ideologies regarding gender or institutional roles, but also the specificities of the context in which the incident takes place or speculations about the posters’ intentions, showing once again the broad range of beliefs and hypotheses that learners (and generally users) draw on when assessing others’ behaviour – far from being just a matter of linguistic competence, entire frames of interpretations need to be examined. Interestingly, a comparison of the assessments reveal that what differs across individuals is not only their interpretations and evaluations of the event, but also the very aspect of the event the evaluators focus on from the start. This confirms the critical importance of interpretation “frames,” which affect our very perceptions of reality and not just how perceived (allegedly objective) “facts” are subsequently evaluated (Goffman 1974). Finally, Rieger observes a notable variance between the learners’ simplistic definitions of (im)politeness prior to the reflective task, and their more sophisticated argumentations in on-task comments, as well as in a delayed post-test carried out four weeks later. Assumptions about the universality of (im)politeness norms transform themselves into more cautious qualifications about their relativity, and some of the learners’ comments suggest the beneficial effects of reflective tasks: these stimulate not only a more nuanced appreciation of situated uses of language, but also an increased awareness of one’s own relative assumptions and beliefs, a necessary ingredient of genuine intercultural competence.

10

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

Barbara Pizziconi’s chapter concludes this section with more theoretical considerations on the resources available to language instructors on the teaching of (im)politeness. She juxtaposes the conceptualizations of (im)politeness that have emerged from theoretical as well as applied studies with the one emerging from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in its two main components: a general description of language competence, and scaled descriptors of learners’ abilities at different proficiency levels. Like Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne, she also finds that the categorization of (im)politeness in the CEFR is tied rather closely to Brown and Levinson’s formulation. She, however, notes that this characterization falls somewhat short of the full possible ramifications of the sociocultural approach that the Framework nominally embraces, and which in fact informs much of applied linguistics and politeness theoretical studies. The document does not necessarily prevent a practitioner from understanding (im)politeness as a socially disputed, situationally emergent, dialogic and indexical concept, but it also does not particularly encourage practitioners to appreciate these features. Nor, in fact, does it promote an understanding of (im)politeness as a pervasive indexical phenomenon which engages not only closed systems of honorific devices or linguistic strategies, but potentially any (linguistic) behaviour conventionally associated with norms of social conduct (Agha 2007). Unlike the specific set of recommendations produced by Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne, the purpose of the CEFR, a document which aims to guide language policy, curriculum and task design, has a broader remit, and its relatively unadventurous characterization of (im)politeness is seen by Pizziconi as unprofitable and reductive when teachers are not also familiar with the relevant scholarly literature. Other documents also produced by the Council of Europe, which provide more effective guidelines for teachers and explicitly call for awareness-raising activities, are also briefly reviewed in this chapter. Part 2 moves the focus away from the language classroom and to contexts of use in which (im)politeness realizations or norms are not the specific target of instruction, but whose understanding is rather an incidental, implicit outcome of language use and language learning. Rachel Mapson’s contribution addresses the question of the different pathways followed in first and second language acquisition to an understanding and conscious representation of (im)polite norms. British Sign Language (BSL) and English occupy the same geographical space (in the UK), and hence it could be argued that the Deaf community lives and operates in the same cultural context as those of non-Deaf users, but important socialization may take place in rather different circles. While Deaf people are acquainted with the dominant non-Deaf culture, the opposite is not necessarily true. BFL/English bilinguals have of

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

11

course the ability to identify and illustrate register differences or norms for specific sociopragmatic behaviours, but apparently struggle both to verbalize explicit notions of (im)politeness, and also, interestingly, to distinguish BSL from English norms. This curiously contrasts with folk wisdom that these can be quite different in signed and spoken languages: BSL is generally characterized as more informal and direct than the spoken language(s) used in the concomitant hearing community (Pizziconi can anecdotally report the same about Japanese Sign Language), and ‘solidarity’ is said to take precedence over formality in these communities because of their minority status. This remains an empirical question to be addressed elsewhere, but allows the author to suggest that pragmatic knowledge is not necessarily easier to articulate explicitly when two languages are involved. Mapson observes that non-native users of BSL equally struggle to articulate their understanding of politeness, having had not only a shorter history of learning and use (and hence a reduced amount of implicit pragmatic knowledge), but also no exposure to explicit instruction. The lack of a metalanguage on the part of highly experienced professional interpreters, which Mapson puts down to a dearth of research on BSL (im)politeness, is arguably mirrored in teaching material and even instructors’ awareness, and would seem an area worthy of further effort on the part of (im)politeness scholars. Miriam Locher offers further thoughts about the benefits of awarenessraising techniques. She details aspects of the learning process that medical students at an English University undergo during a compulsory course on communication skills. She uses a reflective writing task on their interactions with patients to describe how they achieve an awareness of pragmatic matters and (im)politeness. What is particularly interesting is the fact that, although the course itself focused generally on communication skills (including both transactional and interpersonal skills), the themes that the students chose to isolate in their reflective assignments frequently refer to concerns about (im)politeness, with explicit metapragmatic comments about negative communicative effects such as “rude” or “patronizing” stances. In these students’ writings, these allude to the potential pitfalls of clumsy performances, but correspond quite neatly to what the theoretical literature calls mismatches between participants expectations, or between discourse systems (Scollon and Scollon 2001). The complex bundle of layers involved – e.g. the significance of verbal as well as non-verbal signalling, the potential transactional and interpersonal function of any utterance, or the possibility of variable readings of the same sign by participants following different discourse systems – adds to the difficulty of managing these rather delicate types of encounters. Acts of self-disclosure of sensitive physical or mental weaknesses and the tension between the ideologies of empathy and professional

12

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

distance prompt powerful emotional responses, which also appear among the themes highlighted by the students. The balancing act that a skilful performance requires is a particularly significant worry in view of the personal as well as professional consequences of miscommunication in such encounters, and it is not surprising that medical students are tangibly concerned about these matters. However, as the author notes, such awareness is not only the result of experiences of troubled communication, but partially the outcome of the very reflective task the students were assigned – reflecting and reporting about a memorable encounter with a patient – and may have remained under the radar otherwise. The study once again provides concrete evidence that the discourses of (im)politeness need to be noticed and focused on to be positively learned, even when not in interlanguage contexts. It could be argued that “awareness” (at least in the sense of capacity for introspection) is not in play at all when observing children’s interactions, the object of Matthew Burdelski’s chapter. In fact, when discussing children’s (im)polite behaviour, the question arises of whether theoretical models which conceptualize (im)politeness as facework apply at all: to what extent can we attribute to children the reflexivity or metapragmatic expertise required in possessing a “face” (cf. O’Driscoll 2011; Sifianou 2011), i.e. “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman 1967: 5, our italics)? However, children are extremely sensitive to social norms from a very early age (2–3 years of age), and research suggests that “there may be an innate cognitive bias toward identifying breaches of social norms” (Ingram and Bering 2010: 946). They are in fact, in some ways more than adults, champions of prescriptivism, more prone to criticism than positive comments and not unlikely to make their criticism within earshot of the target (Ingram and Bering 2010: 946). It is therefore very much possible to talk of awareness in children, even in the reduced scope of their more limited cognitive capacity and smaller degree of social experience. While providing some evidence that sensitivity to social normativity may be innate, Burdelski’s data shows that such metapragmatic awareness is a direct function of the child’s previous experiences. Although it may not be accessible to introspection or elaboration, metapragmatic awareness is latent nevertheless and can be mobilized, when necessary, for argumentative purposes, or, in other words, to construe ideologies of normativity. His chapter shows Japanese children between 1 and 5 years of age to be extremely sensitive to the normative function of politeness routines, and skilfully socialize kin and peers to community norms through a range of linguistic and non-linguistic behaviours. Children appear to be capable of defending their individual interactional wants and desires, but they are also observed to monitor those of other children, when these have been

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

13

breached, and intervene in conflicts among their peers. This interactional negotiation thus is not just a way to learn and instruct other children to the use of specific politeness routines, but also a very site of cultural reproduction, a training camp for socialization techniques, which sustains the community’s social and moral order. The collection is rounded off with an epilogue written by Juliane House, who highlights the themes emerging from a number of contributions of metapragmatic awareness and (guided) reflection on politeness phenomena, zooming in on the importance – and the challenges – of teaching impoliteness in its own right. The works presented in this collection provide food for thought and some possible answers to the questions highlighted above. With regards to the affordances of different theoretical frameworks, for example, Pizziconi argues that, when producing overarching guidelines for teaching, the full implications of embracing a sociocultural approach need to be consistently spelled out. Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne on the other hand, show how different perspectives can coexist in the design of specific classroom activities. They argue that their incompatibility can be reconciled for this specific purpose, while noting that awareness of their different characteristics, advantages and disadvantages must always be a necessary component of teacher competence. Mapson observes that the question of the metalanguage used to talk about (im)politeness (or the lack of it) can be crucial for the users’ very ability to conceptualize this dimension of language in the abstract (i.e. not in situated contexts); this also raises the question of the extent to which such metalanguage potentially biases the user’s language ideologies. The flawed assumption, on the part of language learners in Gyogi’s study, that the expression of “respect” is the only meaning regulating the use of honorific verbal forms in Japanese appears to be driven by the very metalanguage used in pedagogical grammars and broader discourses about Japanese politeness (cf. on this also Pizziconi 2011: 17), and seems to create unnecessary misgivings. Other chapters (Locher, Rieger) provide further empirical data on users’ own metalanguage, i.e. first-order conceptualizations of (im)politeness such as “patronizing” (interestingly noted in data from both chapters, and corroborating observations made in corpus studies, see Culpeper 2011), and the behaviours associated with these. The importance of ideologies and normative beliefs in discourses of (im)politeness emerges from a number of papers in the collection. The speaker’s evaluations of someone’s stance in relation to their assumed political views (in Gyogi’s data) or their institutional or professional capacity (in Rieger’s and Locher’s data) or the evaluations of others’ linguistic conduct (in Burdelski’s data) can be alluded to or explicitly invoked in metapragmatic comments. They

14

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

may be classified as assumptions on sociopragmatic norms that constrain speaker behaviour, but at the same time, being always oriented to some social effect, they are inherently “interested” and “argumentative” (Eelen 2001: 37–40). This dual nature of linguistic behaviour, its being at once constrained and enabling, must be explored in the pedagogy of (im)politeness, as the inescapable, emergent, and elaborate indexing of social personae and social relations. The chapters in this collection begin a dialogue between the fields of politeness studies and research on language pedagogy and language learning, which, we hope, will inspire further research on this interface.

References Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, Dwight. 2002. Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 86(4). 525−545. Atkinson, Dwight, Eton Churchill, Takako Nishino & Hanako Okada. 2007. Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91(2). 169−188. Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1989. Crosscultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes XXXI). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bou Franch, Patricia & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2003. Teaching linguistic politeness: A methodological proposal. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41(1). 1−22. Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Bousfield, Derek. 2010. Researching impoliteness and rudeness: Issues and definitions. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 101−134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bouton, Lawrence F. 1995. Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series 6). Urbana: Illinois University Press. Brown, Lucien. 2010. Questions of appropriateness and authenticity in the representation of Korean honorifics in textbooks for second language learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum 23(1). 35−50. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burdelski, Matthew. 2013. Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction. Multilingua 32(2). 247−273. Clancy, Patricia M. 1985. The acquisition of Japanese. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volume 1: The data, 373−524. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

15

Cook, Haruko M. 1998. Situational meaning of the Japanese social deixis: The mixed use of the masu and plain forms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(1). 87−110. Cook, Haruko M. 2001. Why can’t learners of JFL distinguish polite form from impolite speech styles? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 80−102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, Haruko M. 2006. Joint construction of folk beliefs by JFL learners and Japanese host families. In Margaret A. DuFon & Eton Churchill (eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (Second Language Acquisition 15), 120−150. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, Haruko M. 2008. Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, Haruko M. 2013. A scientist or salesman? Identity construction through honorification in a Japanese shopping channel program. Multilingua 32(2). 177−202. Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 349−367. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. “It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it!”: Prosody and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 8), 57−83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield & Anne Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10−11). 1545−1579. Davies, Eirlys E. 1986. Politeness and the foreign language learner. Anglo-American Studies 6. 117−130. Eckert, Penelope. 2003. The meaning of style. Texas Linguistic Forum 47. 41−53. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2004. Norms and principles. Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Rosina Márquez Reiter & María Elena Placencia (eds.), Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 123), 347−371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J. César & Maria Hasler-Barker. 2012. Complimenting and responding to a compliment in the Spanish FL classroom: From empirical evidence to pedagogical intervention. In Leyre Ruiz de Zarobe & Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), Speech acts and politeness across languages and cultures (Linguistic Insights 132), 241−273. Bern: Peter Lang. Geis, Michael L. & Linda L. Harlow. 1995. Politeness strategies in French and English. In Susan M. Gass & Joyce Neu (eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (Studies on Language Acquisition 11), 129−153. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár and Sara Mills. 2013. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 1−11. House, Juliane. 2005. Politeness in Germany: Politeness in Germany? In Leo Hickey & Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe, 13–28. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. House, Juliane. 2010. Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4). 561−595.

16

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

House, Juliane & Gabriele Kasper. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech acts and politeness across languages and cultures (Rasmus Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics 2), 157−185. The Hague, NL: Mouton Publishers. Ingram, Gordon P. D. & Jesse M. Bering. 2010. Children’s tattling: The reporting of everyday norm violations in preschool settings. Child Development 81(3). 945−957. Ishida, Kazutoh. 2009. Indexing stance in interaction with the Japanese desu/masu and plain forms. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 41−67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ishihara, Noriko & Elaine Tarone. 2009. Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 101−128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Iwasaki, Noriko. 2010. Style shifts among Japanese learners before and after study abroad in Japan: Becoming active social agents in Japanese. Applied Linguistics 31(1). 45−71. Kasper, Gabriele. 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3). 203−231. Kasper, Gabriele. 2009. (Instead of) a foreword. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), viii−xxi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kasper, Gabriele & Richard Schmidt. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 149−170. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1973. The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society 9. 292−305. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25(3). 249−267. Locher, Miriam A. 2008. Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In Gerd Antos & Elja Ventola in cooperation with Tilo Weber (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (Handbooks of Applied Linguistics 2), 509−540. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 36−60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Locher, Miriam A. 2014. The relational aspect of language: Avenues of research. In Silvia Mergenthal & Reinard Nischik (eds.), Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Locher, Miriam A. & Derek Bousfield. 2008. Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 1−13. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. & Sage L. Graham. 2010. Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 1−13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9−33.

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

17

Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 77−99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lörscher, Wolfgang & Rainer Schulze. 1988. On polite speaking and foreign language classroom discourse. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 26(3). 183−199. Marriott, Helen. 1995. The acquisition of politeness patterns by exchange students in Japan. In Barbara F. Freed (ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (Studies in Bilingualism 9), 197−224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shigeko Okamoto. 2003. The construction of the Japanese language and culture in teaching Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37(1). 27−48. Meier, Ardith J. 1997. Teaching the universals of politeness. ELT Journal 51(1). 21−28. Mills, Sara. 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 8), 19−56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mori, Junko. 2003. The construction of interculturality: a study of initial encounters between Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(2). 143−184. Ochs, Elinor. 1992. Indexing gender. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 11), 335−358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Driscoll, Jim. 2011. Some Issues with the concept of face: When, what, how and how much? In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 17−41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ohta, Amy Snyder. 1999. Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 31(11). 1493−1512. Ohta, Amy Snyder. 2001a. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 103−120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ohta, Amy Snyder. 2001b. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pearson, Lynn. 2006. Patterns of development in Spanish L2 pragmatic acquisition: An analysis of novice learners’ production of directives. Modern Language Journal 90(4). 473−495. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2003. Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10−11). 1471−1506. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2011. Honorifics: The cultural specificity of a universal mechanism in Japanese. In Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills (eds.), Politeness in East Asia, 45−70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, Kenneth R. & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scarcella, Robin. 1979. On speaking politely in a second language. In Carlos A. Yorio, Kyle Perkins, & Jacquelyn Schachter (eds.), On TESOL ‘79, 275−287. Washington, DC: TESOL.

18

Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam A. Locher

Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Elinor Ochs (eds.). 1986. Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, Richard. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Richard Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1−63. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Shimizu, Takafumi. 2009. Influence of learning context on L2 pragmatic realization: A comparison between JSL and JFL learners’ compliment responses. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 167−198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Siegal, Meryl. 1994. Looking East: Identity construction and white women learning Japanese. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation, unpublished. Siegal, Meryl. 1995. Individual differences and study abroad: Women learning Japanese in Japan. In Barbara F. Freed (ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (Studies in Bilingualism 9), 225−244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siegal, Meryl. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3). 356−382. Siegal, Meryl & Shigeko Okamoto. 2003. Toward reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of gendered speech styles in Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37(1). 49−66. Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sifianou, Maria. 2011. On the concept of face and politeness. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 42−58. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Snow, Catherine E., Rivka Y. Perlmann, Jean Berko Gleason & Nahid Hooshyar. 1990. Developmental perspectives on politeness: Sources of children’s knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 289−305. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen SpencerOatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11−46. London: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95−119. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2011. Conceptualising ’the relational’ in pragmatics: insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3565−3578. Taguchi, Naoko (ed.). 2009. Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takahashi, Satomi. 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 189−223. Tateyama, Yumiko. 2009. Requesting in Japanese: The effect of instruction on JFL learners’ pragmatic competence. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 129−166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Thomson, Chihiro Kinoshita & Emi Otsuji. 2003. Evaluation of business Japanese textbooks: Issues of gender. Japanese Studies 23(2). 185−203. Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2−3), 131−166.

Introducing the ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ of (im)politeness

19

Watts, Richard J. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 59), 43−69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.). 1992. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

I (Im)politeness in L2 instructional contexts

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

2 Teaching politeness? Abstract: Despite the tremendous expansion of research on politeness over the last thirty-five years and impoliteness more recently, comparatively little has been done on the teaching of politeness. This state of affairs raises a number of issues including the possibility and the ways of teaching politeness. The main assumption of this chapter is that politeness has to be taught. The need to teach politeness holds particularly true in the context of teaching foreign languages since, unlike native speakers who may be socialised into politeness in their native language, learners of foreign languages will have to learn how to behave politely. Despite the attested shortcomings of Brown and Levinson’s ([1978] 1987) theory, research on interlanguage pragmatics and language teaching in the past decade appears to have relied heavily on this model in order to meet the practical needs of the language classroom. Therefore, in this chapter, we argue that instead of discarding wholesale older approaches to politeness in favour of novel ones, an eclectic approach can provide realistic guidelines for language practitioners. This eclecticism should cater for the differing needs of teachers and learners, and we offer some suggestions as to what each of these groups needs. We conclude with some activities which focus on teaching solidarity devices in L2 and reflect the eclectic approach we espouse. Keywords: (im)politeness, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), pragmatics, Greek, Brown and Levinson

1 Introduction Despite the tremendous expansion of research on politeness, comparatively little has been done on the teaching of it. Our main assumption is that politeness has to be taught since it is not something innate (Watts 2003: 9). The need to teach politeness holds particularly true in the context of teaching foreign languages since, unlike native speakers who may be socialised into politeness in their native language, learners of foreign languages need to learn how to express themselves in a polite way. In such contexts, the danger of becoming unwittingly impolite or interpreting others’ behaviour as impolite increases.

24

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

Issues of politeness fall squarely under ‘pragmatic competence’ (Thomas 1983; Kasper 1997a: 115–116; García-Pastor 2012: 14), which is “the most difficult aspect of language to master in learning a second language” (Blum-Kulka and Sheffer 1993: 219). Besides this, however, it is also a very difficult subject for teachers to teach, as they may not know what to teach or how to teach it. Teachers, who may be native or non-native speakers of the target language, are not politeness researchers and need to be provided with relevant information enriching their resources and enabling them to consciously select what to use in their teaching of politeness. In this chapter, we argue that instead of discarding wholesale older approaches to politeness in favour of novel ones, an eclectic approach on two levels may have more to offer in attempts at teaching politeness (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2010). This eclecticism should cater for the needs of both teachers and learners, which are not identical. Our first aim in this chapter is to consider which aspects of Brown and Levinson’s theory could be fruitfully combined with tenets from recent approaches to politeness. On the basis of this, our second aim is to tease out what such a combination, also informed by recent developments in interlanguage pragmatics, could offer to the teaching of politeness. The teaching environment we are concerned with involves students from various ethnic backgrounds learning Greek as a second or foreign language in Greece. We will start with a brief consideration of issues related to the traditional and current approaches to politeness.

2 Approaching the teaching of politeness 2.1 Traditional approaches The systematic study of politeness phenomena in linguistics was introduced by Lakoff (1973), Brown and Levinson (1987 [1978]) and Leech (1983). These seminal studies have been termed ‘traditional’ or, by now, ‘classic.’ Brown and Levinson’s work, in particular, has been extremely influential and has received extensive support, attempts at modification and a lot of criticism. We will not go into any of the details of the attested weaknesses which are discussed in many publications (see, e.g., Eelen 2001; Mills 2003; Watts 2003; Sifianou 2010), but rather concentrate on its merits especially in relation to research on second language acquisition and interlanguage pragmatics which has been greatly influenced by this model. Besides well-known dictionaries of applied linguistics which base their definitions of politeness on Brown and Levinson’s theory (see, e.g., Richards,

Teaching politeness?

25

Platt and Platt 1992: 281; Thornbury 2006: 169–170), recent approaches to pragmatic instruction base the teaching of politeness on this model (see, e.g., Maíz Arévalo 2009; Velasco Sacristán 2009; Usó-Juan 2010). Moreover, some of its key concepts and terminology have even crept into the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe 2001) under the rubric of ‘politeness conventions.’ Thus a strong connection seems to have already been established between Brown and Levinson’s model, interlanguage pragmatic research and language teaching research, which cannot be accidental. Not surprisingly, it has been suggested that the model itself could be taught to second/foreign language learners (see, e.g., Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003). In view of the above, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Brown and Levinson’s theory has attained the status of an enduring doctrine within foreign language pedagogy. The popularity of this theory in applied linguistics probably stems from the fact that it offers an incisive and unrivalled description of linguistic strategies (Pizziconi 2003: 1474; Locher 2006: 250). Despite the fact that Brown and Levinson have been charged with blending ‘behaviour’ (e.g. “Avoid disagreement”) with ‘linguistic’ (e.g. “Nominalise”) strategies (Ide 1989: 239), they offer a number of means of relating linguistic form and social function. Recent politeness research however often underestimates the contribution of older approaches to “our understanding of the links between language form and meaning in interactions” (Grainger 2013: 29). This, of course, should not be taken to suggest a simple and straightforward mapping of linguistic form to social function. However, it is a significant relationship for language pedagogy. This significance is evident in the recent shift emphasizing the importance of grammar in foreign language instruction.1 The teaching of grammar was relegated to a secondary position with the advent of communicative language teaching probably due to strong reactions against traditional grammar-oriented teaching methods along with a misreading of what communicative competence really meant. As Pizziconi (2006: 120) rightly argues, grammatical, sociolinguistic, pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic skills should not be treated as separate entities because their boundaries are fuzzy.

2.2 Current approaches In contrast to the earlier approaches to politeness which were rule-, maxim- or strategy-based, the more recent discursive or postmodern ones, even though not 1 Here we adopt Bardovi-Harlig’s (1999: 686) definition of grammar which includes lexicon.

26

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

a unified category (Haugh 2007; Mills 2011; Locher 2012), are all discourse-based and share the conviction that politeness is situated, an evaluation rather than a static given. Eelen’s (2001: 119) seminal criticism, challenging all previous models of politeness, is encapsulated in his “triple conceptual bias” of the theories which: (a) bend towards the polite end of the polite/impolite distinction, (b) favour the speaker (and neglect the hearer and the dyad) and (c) consider the production rather than its evaluation. These are important observations but in the language classroom they take on a different significance which we will try to illustrate in what follows. If we assume that politeness amounts to what each individual evaluates as polite in a specific context or is simply seen as an emergent property of interaction, very little is left for any teacher to teach. Evidently, left to their own devices, language learners will depend on intuitions based mainly on their own L1 and will not be able to make informed assessments in L2, especially if they have limited communicative experience. If we want to raise our learners’ sociocultural awareness and enable them to make unbiased judgements and perform politely (if they so wish), we have to provide them with some linguistic tools to do so. In other words, to make effective selection and informed assessment, it is significant that learners are equipped with the background knowledge against which they can evaluate what occurs around them whether in the classroom or in real-life occasions (cf. O’Driscoll 2013; Grainger 2013). Teachers are expected to provide information and guide discussions and conclusions on politeness (Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003). However, there is no guarantee that even those teachers who are native speakers of the target language will be able to provide accurate information that is not based on fallible native speaker intuitions (see Schmidt 1993). Kasper (1997a) suggests that native speakers are not fully conscious of their pragmatic competence and Wolfson (1986: 693) goes even further to argue that native speakers’ intuitions do not necessarily reflect observed speech behaviour.2 It follows from the above that not only students but also teachers should be aided in re-constructing this necessary background which will enrich their available resources. One major claim of this chapter is that the information provided to learners and teachers should not be the same. Teacher trainers, textbook writers and finally teachers themselves have to be eclectic as to what will be useful to their respective audiences. The issue of evaluation is also significant for the language classroom from another perspective. As evaluations are subjective and varied, the suggestion 2 Besides, especially in relation to the teaching of English, there are concerns as to exactly what ‘native speaker’ means (see, e.g., Leung 2005).

Teaching politeness?

27

is that “the age of grand theorising and perhaps by implication predictive, allencompassing models, is over” (Mills 2011: 34; see also Watts 2005: xlii). Yet, if this is the case, generalisations are rendered rather impossible. Even though generalisations at a universal level have been challenged from the early stages of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, researchers were prompted by this theory to investigate various speech acts at the discourse level in different sociocultural contexts and suggest ways of teaching them to non-native speakers. Sceptics of such approaches suggest that neat patterns are useful but they cannot capture reality accurately since in many instances people can compliment or apologise, for instance, in ways that do not follow any pre-patterned formulas. However, as Arndt and Janney (1985: 283) contend, even though teaching second language learners how to be polite in all situations may be impossible, it is possible to provide them with a number of useful supportive techniques. The assumption was and still is (see, e.g., Mills and Kádár 2011: 43) that by analyzing a wide range of data from various genres we may be able to draw generalisations. The difference is that in the past these would be interpreted as revealing general patterns of use, while in current research they are viewed as revealing the resources available to a certain group and their tendencies to use particular forms to express politeness or impoliteness. What is important to keep in mind is that L2 users are bearers of different lingua-cultural systems who need, on the one hand, familiarisation with the basics before proceeding with the particularities of the target language and, on the other, assistance in enriching their available resources. Discrediting generalisations as a tool in the language classroom is related to the expressed suspicion of some early postmodern theories of the sharedness of norms (Eelen 2001: 233; Terkourafi 2005: 243), arguing that they are not static, pre-existing entities, as viewed by older theories, but rather dynamic constructs. This again places the language teacher on very insecure ground. However, as Culpeper (2008: 29) argues, though evaluations may be subjective and may relate to local events, individuals draw from their repository of “experiential” and “social” norms. The former refer to “each individual’s total experience” and the latter to “the structures of society.” Even though these norms may differ from one situation to the next and change over time, they overlap. “Recurrent patterns of use may be identified in different types of interaction” (Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003: 6), especially if one considers the social practices of sub-groups rather than whole cultural groups (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2010). Along similar lines, Locher (2012: 54) contends that extant norms of particular communities of practice should be explored, especially in relation to first and second language acquisition. It is such recurrent patterns that facilitate communication (Culpeper 2008: 29) and indicate that generalisations can be

28

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

drawn, a sine qua non in language teaching. As Mills (2011: 49 and elsewhere) argues, generalisations are possible but these should be seen as generalisations of tendencies which may be just the dominant ones within language sub-groups. The problem is that although “tendencies can be described . . . and the complexity of the overall range of politeness strategies used across language groups recognised” (Mills 2011: 49), this project is not complete yet. What is available may reflect the speech styles and ideologies of dominant groups (Mills 2009), but even this is useful for language teachers. In the same way that language teachers try to concentrate on the standard rather than any local or colloquial varieties of the language, they cannot but concentrate on the dominant forms of expressing politeness in specific contexts. This does not suggest any superiority or exceptional authority of the standard but indicates the need for a more-or-less stable measure against which students’ performance can be based and assessed especially at the early stages of language learning. One can use examples from various genres to explain to students that there is context-sensitive variation but merely installing a sense that variation may be endless may be demotivating. Pedagogic guidelines and principles require a certain degree of stability, transparency and certainty in existing knowledge (Leung 2005: 125).

2.3 Politeness as appropriateness and formality A substantial body of criticism against Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework relates to their exploring politeness phenomena at the utterance level privileging the speaker and ignoring the addressee and the dyad, as mentioned earlier.3 This significant issue has been addressed in more recent literature (see, e.g., Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005; Eelen 2001; Mills 2003; Watts 2003; Terkourafi 2005; Arundale 2006), which espouses the use of longer stretches of naturally-occurring discourse. However, this has been taken care of in language teaching theory by one of the basic tenets of the communicative approach, which has been with us for almost forty years, and has emphasised the significance of contextualised speech over isolated utterances. The emphasis on situated discourse has brought to the surface a number of issues, such as the significance of the dyad and the context. Brown and Levinson account for the context by incorporating in their model three broad social

3 Brown and Levinson (1987: 10, 233) acknowledge their neglect of longer linguistic units (a shortcoming they attribute to speech act theory) and propose, even though they do not expand on it, the concept of ‘face-threatening intention’ (instead of FTA), “since FTAs do not necessarily inhere in single acts.”

Teaching politeness?

29

variables (i.e. social distance [D], relative power [P] and weight of imposition [R]). Despite widespread criticism that these variables have been treated as rather static entities, inadequate to capture the immense complexity of context, Brown and Levinson (1987: 74–80) clarify that these are not stable valuations. As they (1987: 79) illustrate, situational factors are involved in their value, so any related assessments hold only for the specific interlocutors performing a specific face-threatening act in a particular context (see also Kasper 2006). This is a significant observation, because, for instance, the relationship regarding the status between an employee and his/her employer who is also his/her cousin is not the same in the office and at family gatherings. However, when dealing with learners, especially at lower levels of proficiency, we have to start with the basics and Brown and Levinson’s variables constitute such basic, familiar knowledge. When considering interactions (rather than individual utterances), we cannot ignore the fact that interlocutors are involved in what has been called “relational work” (Watts 1989, 2003: 23; Locher 2004; Locher and Watts 2005), i.e. “the ‘work’ individuals invest in negotiating relationships with others” (Locher and Watts 2005: 10) or “rapport management” (Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005), i.e. “the management (or mismanagement) of relations between people” (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 96). This necessarily entails not only cooperative polite behaviour but also conflictual/aggressive behaviour. As Locher (2006: 250) observes, these terms are closely related to the widely-used term ‘facework,’ which indicates that facework is broader than politeness (see, e.g., Haugh 2013: 51). However, the way Brown and Levinson’s theory has been implemented may lead one to assume that facework is coterminous with politeness and Watts (2003: 89) warns us against such a reading. In fact, Brown and Levinson (1987: 22, 130) themselves hint at this when they say that their strategies do not serve only politeness needs but may also be used as a social brake or a social accelerator in social relationships. Such an understanding indicates that most of Brown and Levinson’s strategies are linguistic devices which are meant to facilitate social relationships. However, if this is so, the term ‘politeness’ itself may not describe all of these strategies accurately. Of the first to address concern with this term were Arndt and Janney (1985: 282) who suggested the idea of ‘interpersonal supportiveness’ to replace that of ‘politeness.’ The problems involved with the notion of politeness (see, e.g. Watts 2003; Haugh 2007: 296; Pizziconi 2009: 706; Locher 2012: 51) have led some scholars to suggest that politeness should be seen and described as (social) appropriateness since lay speakers evaluate linguistic and nonlinguistic behaviour more frequently in terms of (in)appropriateness than in

30

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

terms of (im)politeness and use the terms ‘appropriateness’ and ‘politeness’ interchangeably in some contexts (Schneider 2012: 1026). In relation to language teaching, Meier (1997) argues for replacing the term ‘politeness’ with that of ‘appropriateness,’ a view shared by Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2003). However, just like politeness, appropriateness is an elusive, slippery concept since different participants in an interaction, and also an analyst of it, may evaluate differently the same behaviour in exactly the same situation (Mills 2003: 4, 70–71; Dewaele 2008; Schneider 2012). In fact, appropriateness seems to be a broader concept than politeness, as there is behaviour which could be perceived as inappropriate but not necessarily as impolite (Culpeper 2011: 99). Another serious problem that teacher trainers and teachers should be aware of when employing the term ‘appropriateness’ as a pedagogical tool is that appropriateness seems to be related solely to the avoidance of inappropriateness, i.e. to eschewing pragmatic failure. Thus a dichotomy between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour is implied that falls short of what happens in actual social encounters. This is reminiscent of other dichotomies such as politeness/ impoliteness and formality/informality which, as Hymes (1986: 50) succinctly observes, do us the service of naming diversity but the disservice of reducing it to polar opposites. In our case, one may wonder if the aspiration of teaching pragmatics, in general, or of politeness, in particular, should be restricted solely to avoiding impoliteness or pragmatic failure more generally. Avoiding such failure would definitely be a first step, but we suggest that the teaching of politeness (like the teaching of pragmatics) should aspire to aid students to become pragmatically successful, i.e. to help them use language in ways that go beyond just ‘not failing’ to use it appropriately. To clarify things, a parallel could be drawn between teaching pragmatics and teaching vocabulary. Obviously, when teaching vocabulary, the first aim is to provide students with the ‘right’ words to meet their communicative needs. However, most teachers do not stop there; they provide synonyms, stylistic information, or collocations and tend to assess particularly positively not simply the ‘correct’ use of vocabulary, but also its efficient use. By the same token, not failing pragmatically should not be enough. Teaching has to aim at a ‘good,’ elaborate use of pragmatic markers that will help students not just ‘survive’ in the target community, but operate as well integrated social beings. Teachers have to provide students with the means to achieve this, so that they are fully aware of the consequences of their choices. As Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (2003: 11) rightly argue, we cannot expect learners to make assessments of social appropriateness without first providing them with the specific linguistic tools to do so.

Teaching politeness?

31

In addition to the problems involved with the concept of ‘politeness’ at a theoretical level, there is an additional problem for the language classroom. Politeness is frequently perceived in everyday discourse as referring to the use of relatively formal and deferential language (Spencer-Oatey 2008: 2; Sifianou 2013). Historically, formality has been so closely associated with politeness (see, e.g., “the social-norm view,” Fraser 1990: 221) that the two concepts have frequently been treated as equivalent. For Brown and Levinson (1987: 130), it is formal, negative politeness that springs to mind when one thinks of politeness. Such a deep-rooted link, which has relegated the role of positive politeness in human communication to a secondary position (cf. Pizziconi 2003: 1473), is evident in language classrooms where learners tend to associate politeness with formality and fail to produce appropriate discourse in cases where there is limited or no social distance. For instance, second and foreign language learners of Greek have been found to be more successful in expressing deference/formality than in expressing solidarity (Bella 2012a, 2012b), despite the fact that relatively intimate relationships constitute the prototypical relational context (O’Driscoll 2013: 171). This may signify that the term ‘politeness’ itself may not be very useful in language teaching. Having discussed some of the basic tenets of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) model on the one hand and more recent approaches to politeness on the other and their repercussions in language teaching, we would like to proceed with more concrete suggestions as to what is necessary in order for learners to become effective foreign language users.

3 Proposals for the teaching of politeness As already mentioned, a main thesis of this chapter is that the information that should be provided to teachers and the information that finally reaches learners in the language classroom should be differentiated. Against this backdrop, we will start with suggestions as to what a teacher-training programme should include and proceed with specific suggestions for learners of lower-intermediate and intermediate level. Unlike most previous proposals which focus on English as an L2, we concentrate on Greek L2 learners in Greece. One of the reasons for this choice is that focus on Greek as an L2 highlights the solidarity aspect of politeness which is rather neglected in similar treatments of politeness. This choice entails a further difference from much current research. The indisputable advantage of aiding learners to become aware of their own L1 pragmatic norms

32

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

and subsequently of cultural variation before proceeding to raising their L2 pragmatic awareness is of restricted applicability in our case.4 This approach is particularly useful when learners share the same L1 (Ishihara and Cohen 2010: 203). Yet, its effectiveness is rather limited in our case since Greek L2 learners typically come from various L1 backgrounds. Even though one could argue that such diversity could constitute a rich source for extensive discussions and awareness raising, classroom time is so limited that it does not allow for anything more than a chance comparison. This indicates that the setting is of crucial importance for the success of any teaching activities.

3.1 Suggestions for teachers We believe that teacher training courses should include an elaborate pragmatic component involving issues of politeness and research findings from interlanguage pragmatics. A point of criticism frequently made of Brown and Levinson refers to their view of culture as a static concept. Admitting that this is a serious issue, most recent research attempts to avoid such pitfalls by providing mitigated, context-specific statements of findings in order to develop a descriptive framework which will include some of the preferred patterns or the tendencies of a specific group in specific situations. Foreign language teachers do not have the means or the tools to do that, especially if they live outside the target language community and are not native speakers of its language. According to Kasper (1997b: 113), the most obvious reason for the incorporation of such a component is that information about the relationship of pragmatics to language instruction “enables teachers to identify the pragmatic abilities in the L2 that second language learners need, incorporate pragmatic goals and objectives in curricula and syllabuses, and design appropriate activities to implement instructional plans.” In relation to politeness, such information could include some of the theoretical problematisation presented above and, in our view, special attention should be paid to Brown and Levinson’s model because as Watts (2010: 59) states “[w]e are still far from a paradigm change in politeness theory.” From Brown and Levinson’s model, we deem useful:

4 In this line of research, a wide range of activities has been proposed, including teachers’ narrations of their own pragmatic failures, translation of L2 pragmatic behaviours into the learners’ L1 in order for the differences to surface and be noticed and explicit teaching of the differences on the appropriateness of particular speech acts in similar L1 and L2 contexts (see, e.g., Eslami 2010; Ishihara 2010; Ishihara and Cohen 2010; Kondo 2010).

Teaching politeness?

1.

2.

33

The linguistic devices they identified, since these devices have the potential to express and highlight solidarity, common ground and involvement but also distance, formality and deference as well as rudeness and aggression. The three social variables (power, distance, rank of imposition), which to a certain extent can explain why exactly the same utterance can be perceived as politic, polite or impolite and inappropriate in different situations. Such sensitisation will make it clear that these are not objective, static entities but subjective perceptions evidenced, among other things, in the sequential organisation of interactions (cf. Kasper 2006). The fact that we focus on power, distance and rank of imposition as useful variables for teachers does not mean that we ignore the complexities of interaction and the variety of other social (e.g. gender, age and ethnicity) and contextual (e.g. formality of the event) factors that may be involved (see Holmes 2009: 719) but rather that we assume these to be the main focus.

Furthermore, as regards interlanguage pragmatics, teacher trainees should be provided with a thorough overview of research findings regarding both interlanguage use and development, background knowledge which we deem of utmost importance. Interlanguage pragmatics research has focused mainly on the use and development of speech acts in the learners’ interlanguage. Matters of politeness are always addressed in such research either implicitly or explicitly, providing important information on the problems learners may face when trying to employ pragmatic and politeness devices in different situations involving the social parameters as defined by Brown and Levinson (1987). For instance, research on the use of requests in vertical and horizontal distance situations has shown that, due to negative pragmatic transfer, Greek EFL learners employ the politeness marker ‘please’ significantly less than native speakers of English (Economidou-Kogetsidis 2008, 2009). Along similar lines, research on the interlanguage of second and foreign language learners of Greek has shown that learners are more successful in expressing deference/formality than expressing solidarity, probably due to the equation of formality with politeness underscoring textbook treatments of these phenomena (Bella 2012a, 2012b) and views which are in circulation in society as discussed earlier. Furthermore, it has been shown that even advanced learners lag far behind NSs in the use of several solidarity devices when performing requests between intimates and friends. Typical examples of such devices from Greek are the present indicative interrogatives (e.g. μου δανείζεις το βιβλίο; [lit. me you-lendpresent indicative, 2nd person singular the book?] ‘Can you lend me the book?’), the negative-interrogative present indicative (e.g. Δεν καθαρίζεις λίγο την κουζίνα; [lit. not you clean uppresent indicative 2nd person singular the kitchen a bit?] ‘Why don’t you clean up the kitchen a bit?’), and solidarity

34

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

markers (diminutives, first name+possesive pronoun, e.g. Μαρία μου ‘My Maria’) and untranslatable particles normally expressing solidarity like ρε and μωρέ).5 In addition, research on interlanguage pragmatic development can inform teachers about possible paths that pragmatic acquisition follows and, therefore, help them design lesson plans and activities that conform to and, possibly, accelerate observed developmental patterns. Although there is a considerable lack of longitudinal studies, various cross-sectional studies have examined learners’ pragmatic production at different proficiency levels and have reached conclusions that are worth taking into consideration for the teaching of pragmatics in general and of politeness in particular. For instance, it has been shown that, whereas learners at initial stages have adequate sociolinguistic awareness in the sense that they understand the different politeness considerations that different situations invoke, their pragmalinguistic means are particularly limited. At these initial stages they appear to rely on a pragmatic mode making do with whatever linguistic means they have at their disposal, resorting mainly to directness and ‘packed’ prefabricated speech. As their proficiency level increases, they seem to turn more frequently to indirectness, ‘unpacking’ of formulas and pragmatic expansion (see, e.g., Ellis 1992; Achiba 2003; Félix-Brasdefer 2007; Bella 2012a). It has to be pointed out, however, that even at advanced levels of proficiency, factors such as pragmalinguistic transfer or sociopragmatic conflict (see Béal 1994) may adversely affect learners’ pragmatic competence. Therefore, there is considerable space for pedagogical intervention, in order to help these learners accelerate this procedure. In our view, teacher trainees should be encouraged to adopt an eclectic teaching approach from the resources provided to them. An indispensable component of this approach is to embrace ways and means that will aid learners to develop metapragmatic awareness, i.e. to facilitate what Schmidt (1990, 1993, 1995) calls ‘noticing’ (registering the simple occurrence of some linguistic event and storing of linguistic material in memory) and ‘understanding’ (recognition of a general principle, rule or pattern, i.e. how the material is organised into a linguistic/communicative system) of pragmatic input. According to Schmidt (1990), these procedures require conscious attention to input and constitute two vital steps in language learning. Applying these concepts in the field of pragmatic learning, Schmidt (1993) contends that learners first need to notice the specific relevant pragmalinguistic and contextual features of an event in 5 Tsoulas and Alexiadou (2006: 47) contend that even though re (ρε) is typically considered a particle of address (limited to spoken discourse), this characterisation does not do justice to the complexity of its use. Karachaliou and Archakis (2012) see it as a multifunctional pragmatic marker whose core function is the indexing of a presumably unexpected piece of information.

Teaching politeness?

35

order to trigger encoding. Understanding refers to a deeper level of abstraction related to the way in which the noticed features fit into the communicative system. In Schmidt’s (1995) own words: In pragmatics, awareness that on a particular occasion someone says to their interlocutor something like, ‘I’m terribly sorry to bother you, but if you have time could you look at this problem?’ is a matter of noticing. Relating the various forms used to their strategic deployment in the service of politeness and recognizing their co-occurrence with elements of context such as social distance, power, level of imposition, and so on, are all matters of understanding. (Schmidt 1995: 30)

The relevance of Schmidt’s views to the teaching of politeness is obvious. Learners first have to notice the different pragmalinguistic devices and then make abstractions related to the various clusterings of these devices to meet specific sociopragmatic goals. Brown and Levinson’s model seems to be in perfect harmony with these views, since it both provides access to an inventory of pragmalinguistic devices and relates them to the very social considerations named by Schmidt, i.e. social power, distance and level of imposition. According to Schmidt (1990: 44), one of the major factors facilitating noticing and understanding is language instruction whose major contribution would be to direct learners’ attention to linguistic elements that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. Therefore, a type of instruction emphasizing attention to politeness can benefit considerably from teachers designing activities that facilitate noticing and train learners to notice politeness devices. This suggests that the teaching of politeness could be assisted by two current trends in the language teaching practice: explicit (as opposed to implicit) teaching of the relevant phenomena, and focus on form instruction (see Long 1991), i.e. instruction that will direct learners’ attention to the lexico-grammatical form through tasks and activities whose main focus is on meaning or communication. This is in line with the recent trend for the re-introduction of grammar in communicative language teaching. In the case of teaching politeness, it could be understood as designing activities that would aid learners to focus on grammatical/pragmalinguistic devices that attain politeness values according to specific situational and contextual factors.

3.2 Suggestions for the lower intermediate/intermediate level The proposal put forward here requires teachers to acquire background knowledge along the lines described above and focuses, contrary to most relevant proposals that presuppose an advanced proficiency level, on lower intermediate

36

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

and intermediate learners. It is our belief that the teaching of pragmatics, in general, and of politeness, in particular, should be introduced at the earlier stages of language learning and go hand-in-hand with the learners’ grammatical development. Presenting politeness markers for the first time to advanced learners might be unfruitful, since it is often the case that form-function mappings have already been automatised and fossilisation has taken place at these levels. The main guidelines for approaching politeness in the classroom at this level could be the following: 1.

2.

Employ a speech act approach Speech acts are understood as the minimal units of discourse involving not just isolated utterances or even adjacency pairs but longer sequences possibly including renewals or modifications of the original speech act (Schneider 2012: 1027) and thus constituting the cornerstone of pragmatic competence. Barron’s (2003: 10) definition of pragmatic competence: “knowledge of the linguistic resources available in a given language for realizing particular illocutions, knowledge of the sequential aspects of speech acts and knowledge of the appropriate contextual use of the particular language’s linguistic resources” is indicative of their importance (cf. Bachman 1990: 87; Kasper 2006). For the specific proficiency level, speech act sets and speech act sequences (e.g. request – refusal sequences) can form manageable linguistic units which provide a valid and reliable basis for examining pragmatic patterns. In our view, any sociopragmatic/politeness patterns represented by speech act based texts should be drawn as much as possible from situated interactions (cf. Cohen 2008: 214). Use not only authentic corpus data but also research-elicited data for instructional purposes As Cohen (2008: 216) argues, “whereas elicited data may be less authentic than corpus data, such data are conveniently condensed and accessible, since they are focused on specific speech acts.” Furthermore, this data is often contextualised according to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) variables of distance, power and level of imposition and they have been shown to reflect politeness patterns that tend to emerge regularly enough to warrant instruction.6 Finally, elicited research-based data “are likely to serve as a more authentic instructional model in the L2 classroom than what are presented as examples of pragmatic behaviour in the intuitively-derived instructional materials” (Cohen 2008: 216).

6 See Cohen (2008: 216) for a similar argument as regards pragmatic patterns in general.

Teaching politeness?

37

Use a ‘production – awareness raising – production’ model Unlike most proposals for teaching speech acts recommending a two-phase ‘awareness raising – production’ model, we suggest that a three-phase ‘production – awareness raising – production’ approach would be beneficial, since it could reveal the extent to which particular students’ problems coincide with those highlighted by research findings and highlight problems that have not been spotted before. In addition, it could show that areas that appear to be problematic in the research are not so for specific learner groups. Finally, the data provided in the first phase could be used as measures of comparison in the following phases. 4. Avoid introducing the notions of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ politeness In the classroom, their use would require elaborate explanations and even false generalisations and possible misunderstandings given the evaluative nuances of the terms. In fact, it has been argued that the distinction between negative and positive politeness is useful but also problematic (see, e.g., Brown and Gilman 1989; O’Driscoll 2007; Sifianou 2010; Grainger 2013). At this level, such terminology and even the term ‘politeness’ itself may not be necessary. It may suffice to present politeness to students as both ‘appropriateness’ and ‘linguistic ways in which learners can achieve, maintain or enhance desired social relationships’ and enable them to understand the type of relationship that speakers pursue. 5. Aim at generalisations and autonomous learning It is important that activities not only make students ‘notice’ the various sociopragmatic devices for expressing politeness, but also ‘train them to notice’ such devices and understand the various parameters that encourage or prohibit their use. 3.

In what follows, we propose some activities which focus on teaching solidarity devices in L2 and reflect the eclectic approach we espouse.7 The activities are focused on requests and how they are granted or rejected, but with appropriate adaptation such activities could be used to teach politeness in relation to various speech acts. Like all material on teaching pragmatics, there are at least two ways in which the activities proposed here can be incorporated into the L2 curriculum: as an add-on to an extant curriculum or as part of a new curriculum focusing on pragmatics (see, Ishihara and Cohen 2010: 202). Since the latter option is not feasible in all educational settings, we suggest that with careful planning 7 The activity types we present are not meant to be exhaustive. For activities that focus on the teaching of both positive and negative politeness devices, see O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs (2011: 143–150).

38

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

any communicative curriculum (and syllabus) design (including task-based and focus-on-form instruction) can incorporate this kind of pragmatically-oriented activities. In our view, any syllabus design should include a pragmatic component “aiming to raising learners’ awareness of the pragmatic use of language that will enable them to take the initiative in developing their own pragmatic ability over time”; that is, “teaching them how to fish in addition to feeding them fish” (Ishihara and Cohen 2010: 206). The specific activity types to be used and the order in which they are presented to learners depend on individual teachers and their estimation of the needs of their class. a.

Production

Activity: Learners are asked to perform requests and request – refusal/acceptance interactions through different elicitation tasks involving different situations varying as regards power, distance and level of imposition between interlocutors. Learners’ production can be recorded by the teacher and used together with other research-based data as a measure for comparison. b.

Awareness-raising

Activity 1 The teacher provides students with short texts like:8 Yesterday three different people asked Sophia to do three different things: 1. Her brother: Μια και κάθεσαι, δεν με βοηθάς να πλύνω λίγο το αυτοκίνητο; Since you are doing nothing, [why] don’t you help me wash the car a little? 2. Her mother: Σοφάκι μου, πας μέχρι το περίπτερο να μού πάρεις ένα πακέτο τσιγάρα; Sofiadim. love, gopresent indicative to the kiosk and get me a packet of cigarettes, will you? 3. Her friend Anna: Το αυτοκίνητό μου έχει χαλάσει. Μήπως μπορείς να περάσεις να με πάρεις να πάμε μαζί στο Πανεπιστήμιο; My car has broken down. Think you could come by and pick me up to go to the University?

Students may have to answer questions like: – How would you characterise Sophia’s relationship with these three people? – Look at the underlined requests. What are their differences as regards their structure?

8 The data used in the activities come from Bella’s personal corpus.

Teaching politeness?

–

39

Do you think the choice of these particular structures has something to do with Sophia’s relationship with these people? Can you think of relationships/situations in which the use of one or more of these structures would be inappropriate for a request?

Commentary This activity aims at highlighting syntactic structures that are very common in requests between intimates in Greek but have been shown to go unnoticed and thus not easily acquired by learners. It also aims at the understanding of the social parameters that would encourage or bar the use of these constructions. In terms of a more extended metapragmatic discussion, the teacher could introduce other speech acts that could be formed with similar structures. For instance, besides requests, the present indicative negative-interrogative construction can be used to construct suggestions, advice and invitations in informal situations. Activity 2 This is a ‘spot the problem’ activity. Students listen to the description of a situation and then to a request that is made in the context of this situation. They are told that the language used for the request is not ‘in harmony’ with the participants’ relationship and are asked to construct it in ways that would highlight this relationship. The following example is indicative: Maria and Alexandra are very close friends and always study together. At some point Maria needs a pencil and says to Alexandra: Με συγχωρείς πάρα πολύ, αν σε ενοχλώ. Θα μπορούσες, αν σου είναι εύκολο, να μου δώσεις ένα μολύβι, σε παρακαλώ; I am terribly sorry to bother you. Could you please give me a pencil, if it is not too much trouble for you?

Commentary In the above example the language used is obviously too formal creating a distance effect between close friends who interact everyday – and for something as trivial as asking for a pencil.9 This activity can be implemented in different formats, like multiple choice, or appropriateness judgements (see Tatsuki and Houck 2010). What is important for teachers is to help students understand that any judgement of appropriateness in these cases does not relate to ‘grammatical 9 As one of the referees pointed out, this can of course be an intended effect (sarcasm or jocularity). Spotting these implicatures could be an additional objective of this kind of activity.

40

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

correctness’ but to the maintenance and/or enhancement of the social relationships that such speech acts involve. Moreover, the activity provides students with the opportunity to try different versions of requests until they reach a satisfactory outcome concerning the best form-function pairings depending on the different social parameters. Activity 3 Students listen to a series of dialogues, like (1) which is a phone conversation. They have the dialogue transcripts and are asked to underline the points in the dialogues, where the interlocutors ask for something. (1)

1

E:

Έλα! Hello!

2

A:

Τι νέα; What’s new?

3

E:

Τα ίδια. Πνίγομαι στη δουλειά. Πώς και με θυμήθηκες; Nothing much. I’m up to my eyeballs with work. How come you thought of me?

4

A:

Ρε συ, θέλω μια χάρη. Re10 you, I need a favour.

5

E:

Να ακούσω. . . Let me hear it. . .

6

A:

Ο πατέρας σου δεν είναι φίλος του Γιαννόπουλου στην Εθνική; Isn’t your father a friend of Giannopoulos at the National Bank?

7

E:

Τον ξέρει. . .συμμαθητές ήταν. Τι θες; He knows him. . .they used to be classmates. What is it you want?

8

A:

Μωρέ, τον παίρνετε ένα τηλέφωνο να του δώσετε το όνομά μου; Θέλω κάτι πληροφορίες για ένα δάνειο, αλλά, ξέρεις τώρα, θέλω να ρωτήσω κάποιον που εμπιστεύομαι. More,11 [can you] callpresent indicative him and give him my name? I need some information about a loan, but, you know, I want to ask someone I trust.

10 On re see note 5. 11 more is an untranslatable particle denoting solidarity.

Teaching politeness?

9

E:

41

Να σε συστήσω θες δηλαδή, να ξέρει ποιος είσαι όταν πάρεις; So you want me to introduce you, so that he knows who you are when you call?

10

A:

Ναι βρε πουλάκι μου, αυτό μόνο. Yes, vre12 my birddim., just that.

11

E:

Δεν υπάρχει πρόβλημα παιδάκι μου. Θες να σου κλείσω ένα ραντεβού; No problem my childdim. Do you want me to make an appointment for you?

12

A:

Όχι, όχι δεν χρειάζεται, ένα τηλέφωνο φτάνει. No, no, that’s not necessary, a call is enough.

13

E:

ΟΚ, θα τον πάρω και θα σε πάρω να σου πω. OK, I’ll call him and I’ll let you know.

14

A:

Είσαι κούκλα. . . . κερνάω ποτό την άλλη βδομάδα! You are a doll. . .I’ll buy you a drink next week!

15

E:

Ναι, καλά! Θα σε πάρω αργότερα με νέα. Φιλάκια. Yeah right! I’ll get back to you later. Kissesdim.

16

A:

Φιλιά ρε, και θενκς. Kisses re, and thanks.

After completing the first part of the activity, students may be asked to answer questions, such as: – At which point in the dialogue does A ask for what he wants? What are his exact words? Can you think of other ways he could have used to ask for the same thing in this specific situation? – Which points in the dialogue make obvious that A is going to ask for something? – A provides a reason for his request saying θέλω κάτι πληροφορίες για ένα δάνειο ‘I need some information about a loan.’ Is this necessary? Does he provide any other explanations for his requests? Can you think of situations where such explanations for a request would be redundant?

12 vre is an untranslatable particle denoting solidarity.

42 –

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

What is the relationship between the two interlocutors? Are there specific words/phrases in the dialogue which indicate the nature of their relationship?

Commentary Learners must be able to work with as many different dialogues as possible involving both requests and their granting or rejection. Yet, we suggest that more attention should be paid to rejections than to acceptances, since the former, being dispreferred seconds, require considerably more facework by the speaker. In this way they will have the opportunity to notice different head acts, supporting moves and lexical/phrasal downgraders for expressing requests and reactions to them and make connections between social variables and specific pragmalinguistic means. The use of questions facilitates metapragmatic discussions and exploration of alternative means of expressing similar communicative actions. After completing the activity, the teacher can help students produce their own inventories of strategies (the ones observed in the dialogues and the ones proposed as alternatives) and classify them according to the parameters of power, solidarity, and level of imposition. Activity 4 1. Learners listen to a series of dialogues, like (2). They have the dialogue transcripts and are asked to note down what the participants do in each turn (request, refuse, explain, apologise, etc.) Dialogue (2) is a fragment of a phone call between two close friends. A calls B to request a loan of 150 euro. (2)

1

A:

Ξέρεις πώς είναι, όλα χάλια. Γι’ αυτό σε παίρνω. . .έλεγα μήπως μπορείς να μου δανείσεις 150 ευρώ γιατί αύριο πρέπει να πληρώσω το ενοίκιο και έχω ξεμείνει τελείως. You know, everything is a mess. That’s why I am calling. . .I was wondering if you can lend me 150 euro because tomorrow I have to pay the rent and I am completely broke.

2

B:

Πω, πω ρε παιδί μου, σε δύσκολη εποχή με πετυχαίνεις. . . Το θέμα είναι ότι δεν έχω πληρωθεί ακόμα και ούτε ξέρω πότε. Μακάρι να μπορούσα να σε βοηθήσω, αλλά δεν υπάρχει φράγκο αυτή την εποχή. . .ξέρεις πώς είναι. . .

Teaching politeness?

43

Oh, man [lit. po, po13 re my child], you have caught me in tight corners. The thing is, I have not been paid yet and I don’t know when I will. I wish I could help you, but I am completely broke right now. . .you know how it is. . . . 3

A:

Ναι, μωρέ το ξέρω είναι πολλά λεφτά. . .Δεν πειράζει [θα] Yes, more I know it’s a lot of money. It’s all right [I’ll]

4

B:

[Δεν] ξέρω, δεν ξέρω, είναι δύσκολο. . .Στενοχωριέμαι τώρα. . . κάτσε λίγο να δω τι μπορώ να κάνω, αλλά δεν το βλέπω. Κρίμα ρε παιδί μου, έχουν δυσκολέψει όλα τόσο πολύ. [I don’t] know, I don’t know, it’s difficult, I feel really bad now. . . hang on a sec, let me see what I can do, but I don’t really think I can make it. It’s a pity [re my child] everything has become so hard.

5

A:

Καλά, δες το. . . OK, look into it. . .

6

B:

Ναι, ναι θα δω μήπως μπορώ να εξοικονομήσω τίποτα, και θα σε πάρω μέσα στην ημέρα. Yes, yes I’ll see if I can spare something, and I will get back to you later today.

2.

3.

Students are asked to focus on how the refusal is realised across turns. They can discuss the following questions in pairs or in larger groups: – Obviously B cannot comply with A’s request. Does he refuse directly or indirectly? – What linguistic expressions does B use to convey the refusal? – With what kinds of expressions does B express support and understanding for A? After completing the second part of the activity, students are asked to look at the transcript of dialogue (3) below. They are told that participant B is a nonnative speaker and that his refusal was perceived as rude by A, who was a native speaker. Students are asked what might have been the problem and how they could modify the dialogue in order to avoid it.

13 po, po is an exclamation.

44 (3)

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

1

A:

Όλα καλά μωρέ, μόνο ένα προβληματάκι έχω. . .ήθελα να σε ρωτήσω μήπως έχεις να μου δανείσεις 150 ευρώ για καμιά δεκαπενταριά μέρες. Δεν θέλω να ζητήσω πάλι από τον πατέρα μου και πρέπει να πληρώσω κάτι λογαριασμούς τώρα. Everything is OK, just a small problem. . .I wanted to ask you if you could lend me 150 euro for fifteen days or so. I don’t want to ask my father again and I have to pay some bills.

2

B:

Συγγνώμη. Δεν μπορώ να δίνω λεφτά. Δεν έχω καθόλου λεφτά τώρα. I am sorry. I can’t give money. I don’t have any money right now.

3

A:

Θα στα δώσω πίσω σε λίγες μέρες. I will give it back in a few days.

4

B:

Όχι, όχι συγγνώμη πολύ. Δεν μπορώ. Δεν έχω. No, no, I am very sorry. I can’t. I don’t have (any money)

Commentary This activity adopts a conversation analytic “why this now?” perspective (see Félix-Brasdefer (2006) for an excellent sample lesson based on the incorporation of conversation analysis in teaching pragmatics). As such, it gives learners the opportunity to notice different politeness features such as supporting moves for refusals, lexical/phrasal downgraders and turn-taking mechanisms. It also exploits the discursive approach to politeness helping learners understand how each utterance is related to the previous one and foreshadows the forthcoming one. For instance, learners’ attention can be drawn to the way that A’s letting the interlocutor off the hook in turn 2 prompts further negotiation by the requester (turn 3) and the requestee (turn 4), who produces indefinite replies and promises to try to comply (turn 4). The third part of the activity has a production component that will give learners the opportunity to select different strategies in order to serve the communicative goals of the specific situation, i.e. to refuse ‘politely.’ c.

Production

In this phase, the learners should be presented with opportunities for communicative practice in oral (e.g. role plays) and written mode (e.g. e-mails) based on scenarios that involve different sociopragmatic features (cf. Usó-Juan 2010: 250).

Teaching politeness?

45

In conclusion, we presented a number of activities which, in line with Brown and Levinson’s model, highlight specific linguistic strategies (both lexical and syntactic) focusing mainly on low P and low D contexts. In addition, we presented speech acts and their reactions as situated in chunks of discourse, making use of basic tenets of conversation analysis. In our view the contextualisation of these strategies can help learners become pragmatically aware of the L2 politeness system as well as provide them with specific means to realise aspects of this system if they choose to do so.

4 Concluding remarks What we have tried to argue in this chapter is that Brown and Levinson’s model and the research that was inspired by it may serve as the basis for a useful framework for foreign language teachers especially since recent research does not aim at constructing a model of politeness that could replace it (Watts 2005: xlii; Mills 2011: 34–35). The need for such a framework is obvious because its lack has led some applied linguists “to become arbiters of appropriacy, prescribing politeness forms intuitively and hoping by this means to produce polite nonnative speakers” (Arndt and Janney 1985: 281). Despite the shortcomings of the model itself and of some of its applications in language teaching, Brown and Levinson have provided a useful framework for “cross-cultural analysis, for which no alternative has been offered so far” (Ogiermann 2009: 210). Recent research on im/politeness (see, e.g., Locher 2006) has suggested that politeness should be seen as part of the broader “relational work” between interlocutors. This is not very different from the position of second language acquisition researchers who place the teaching of politeness within a kind of broader sociopragmatic competence, that is, the ability to use language to achieve specific purposes and to understand language in context (see Thomas 1983: 92; Kasper 1997b: 115–116; Usó-Juan 2010: 237; Ifantidou and Tzanne 2012) and advocate the use of naturally-occurring data. The eclectic approach we espouse promotes an understanding of specific politeness strategies in their sequential context by invoking relevant details of the social variables involved. We have also argued that both teachers and learners need relevant information but that what is provided to teachers and what finally reaches learners in the foreign language classroom should be differentiated. This holds particularly true for lower intermediate and intermediate level learners but at any level teachers should use their knowledge with caution, not as a set of prescriptive rules or as reified inventories, but as options available in specific contexts. In

46

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

other words, learners should not be presented with lists of strategies to memorise or out-of-context generalisations like “frankness is impolite” (CEFR, Council of Europe 2001: 119). In the same way that indirectness does not signal politeness in all contexts, frankness does not signal impoliteness in all contexts. As Brown and Levinson (1987: 21) themselves note, their strategies were never meant as an exhaustive list of utterance styles, but rather as an open-ended set of procedures for message construction: “To provide a list of such exponents is neither to claim that the list is exhaustive (there are always, of course, other ways of doing X) nor to claim that X is the only thing the listed exponents can do” (O’Driscoll 2013: 173). Evidently politeness is situated, as current politeness theories espouse, but language learners cannot be expected to make informed assessments without the necessary background knowledge, and teachers are not politeness researchers who can simply point out instances which may be open to interpretation as polite or impolite. Teachers need training and information about (multiple and coexisting) norms of appropriate, polite behaviour in specific genres against which classroom discussion can take place. These norms change over time and may differ from one context to the next and even from individual to individual, but an informed teacher can thus have a base from which to start explaining, expanding and sensitising students on issues of polite and impolite behaviour. An informed teacher can serve as a valuable source of input, especially for FL learners who are exposed to rather limited authentic target-language input (Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei 1998; Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan 2006; Bella 2012a).

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the editors for their invitation to contribute to this volume and for their detailed and perceptive comments on the chapter itself. Thanks are also due to Eleni Antonopoulou and the anonymous reviewer for making useful suggestions.

References Achiba, Machiko. 2003. Learning to request in a second language: A study of child interlanguage pragmatics. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Arndt, Horst & Richard W. Janney. 1985. Politeness revisited: Cross-modal supportive strategies. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 23(1−4). 281−300. Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2). 193−216.

Teaching politeness?

47

Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49(4). 677−713. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 13−32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen & Zoltán Dörnyei. 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 32(2). 233−262. Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Béal, Christine. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1−2). 35−58. Bella, Spyridoula. 2012a. Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13). 1917−1947. Bella, Spyridoula. 2012b. Length of residence and intensity of interaction: Modification in Greek L2 requests. Pragmatics 22(1). 1−39. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Hadass Sheffer. 1993. The metapragmatic discourse of AmericanIsraeli families at dinner. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 196−223. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bou Franch, Patricia & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2003. Teaching linguistic politeness: A methodological proposal. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41(1). 1−22. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18(2). 159−213. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf (24 September 2014). Cohen, Andrew D. 2008. Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching 41(2). 213−235. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 17−44. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2008. “Appropriateness” in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theoretical, methodological and ethical considerations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 46(3). 245−265. Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2008. Internal and external mitigation in interlanguage requests production: The case of Greek learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research 4(1). 111−138.

48

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2009. Interlanguage request modification: The use of phrasal/ lexical downgraders and mitigating supportive moves. Multilingua 28(1). 79−112. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Ellis, Rod. 1992. Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(1). 1−23. Eslami, Zohreh R. 2010. Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In Alicia Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (Language Learning & Language Teaching 26), 217−236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2006. Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the FL classroom. In Kathleen BardoviHarlig, J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning Vol. 11, 165−196. Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center University of Hawai’i. Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2007. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2). 253−286. Fraser, Bruce F. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 219−236. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2006. Interlanguage pragmatics: A response to Andrew Cohen’s ‘‘Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts’’ Intercultural Pragmatics 3(2). 213−223. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics 2. 46−94. García-Pastor, María Dolores. 2012. EFL teaching with a view to the classroom. In María Dolores García-Pastor (ed.), Teaching English as a foreign language: Proposals for the language classroom, 11−26. València: Perifèric Edicions. Grainger, Karen. 2013. Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics 58. 27−38. Haugh, Michael. 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 295−317. Haugh, Michael. 2013. Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(1). 46−73. Holmes, Janet. 2009. Politeness strategies as linguistic variables. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 2nd edn., 711−722. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hymes, Dell H. 1986. Discourse: Scope without depth. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 57. 49−89. Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2−3). 223−248. Ifantidou Elly & Angeliki Tzanne. 2012. Levels of pragmatic competence in an EFL academic context: A tool for assessment. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(1). 47−70. Ishihara, Noriko. 2010. Compliments and responses to compliments: Learning communication in context. In Alicia Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (Language Learning & Language Teaching 26), 179−198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ishihara, Noriko & Andrew D. Cohen. 2010. Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (Longman Applied Linguistics). Harlow: Longman.

Teaching politeness?

49

Karachaliou, Rania & Argiris Archakis. 2012. Το ρε ως δείκτης του απροσδόκητου: ανάλυση δεδομένων από συνομιλιακές αφηγήσεις [Re as a marker of the unexpected: Analysing data from conversational narratives]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 32. 172−183. Kasper, Gabriele. 1997a. Can pragmatic competence be taught? http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/ NetWorks/NW06/. (15 March, 2009.) Kasper, Gabriele. 1997b. The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Beverly Hartford (eds.), Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education (The McGraw-Hill Second Language Professional Series), 113−136. Indiana: McGraw-Hill. Kasper, Gabriele. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Alwiya Omar (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning Vol. 11, 281−314. Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center University of Hawai’i. Kondo, Sachiko. 2010. Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness. In Alicia MartínezFlor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (Language Learning & Language Teaching 26), 145−162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, 292−305. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Leung, Constant. 2005. Convivial communication: Recontextualising communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2). 119−144. Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25(3). 249−267. Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 36−60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9−33. Long, Michael H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Kees de Bot, Ralph Ginsberg & Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in crosscultural perspective (Studies in Bilingualism 2), 39−52. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Maíz Arévalo, Carmen. 2009. Learning how to promise: A didactic approach to the teaching of speech acts. In Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Lucía Fernández Amaya & María de la O Hernández López (eds.), Pragmatics applied to language teaching and learning, 128−140. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Esther Usó-Juan. 2006. Learners’ use of request modifiers across two University ESP disciplines. Ibérica 12. 23−41. Meier, Ardith J. 1997. Teaching the universals of politeness. ELT Journal 51(1). 21−28. Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

50

Spyridoula Bella, Maria Sifianou and Angeliki Tzanne

Mills, Sara. 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5). 1047−1060. Mills, Sara. 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 8), 19−56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mills, Sara & Dániel Z. Kádár. 2011. Politeness and culture. In Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills (eds.), Politeness in East Asia, 21−44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Driscoll, Jim. 2007. Brown & Levinson’s face: How it can—and can’t—help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4). 463−492. O’Driscoll, Jim. 2013. The role of language in interpersonal pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 170−181. Ogiermann, Eva. 2009. Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research 5(2). 189−216. O’Keeffe, Anne, Brian Clancy & Svenja Adolphs. 2011. Introducing pragmatics in use. London: Routledge. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2003. Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10−11). 1471−1506. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2006. Learning to reframe: Japanese benefactives, metalinguistic beliefs and the identities of L2 users. In Asako Yoshitomi, Tae Umino & Masashi Negishi, (eds.), Readings in second language pedagogy and second language acquisition: In Japanese context (Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics 4), 119−153. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2009. Politeness. In Jacob L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 2nd edn., 706−710. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Richards, Jack C., John T. Platt & Heidi Platt. 1992. Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics, 2nd edn. Essex: Longman. Schmidt, Richard. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 129−158. Schmidt, Richard. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 21−42. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, Richard. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Richard Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1−63. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Schneider, Klaus P. 2012. Appropriate behaviour across varieties of English. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9). 1022−1037. Sifianou, Maria. 2010. Linguistic politeness: Laying the foundations. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 17−41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sifianou, Maria. 2013. The impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 55. 86−102. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen SpencerOatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11−46. London: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95−119.

Teaching politeness?

51

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Introduction. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 2nd edn., 1−8. London: Continuum. Tatsuki, Donna H. & Noël R. Houck. 2010. Pragmatics: Teaching speech acts (TESOL Classroom Practice Series). Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association. Terkourafi, Marina. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 237−262. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91−112. Thornbury, Scott. 2006. An A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts in English language teaching (Macmillan Books for Teachers). Oxford: Macmillan. Tsoulas, George & Artemis Alexiadou. 2006. On the grammar of the Greek particle re: A preliminary investigation. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 30(1). 47−56. Usó-Juan, Esther. 2010. Requests: A sociopragmatic approach. In Alicia Martínez-Flor & Esther Usó-Juan (eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (Language Learning & Language Teaching 26), 237−256. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Velasco Sacristán, María Sol. 2009. Pragmatics and ESP teaching: Politeness in EnglishSpanish business correspondence. In Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Lucía Fernández Amaya & María de la O Hernández López (eds.), Pragmatics applied to language teaching and learning, 321−336. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2−3). 131−166. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis? In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 2nd edn., xi−xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J. 2010. Linguistic politeness theory and its aftermath: Recent research trails. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 43−70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfson, Nessa. 1986. Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly 20(4). 689−699.

Eiko Gyogi

3 Voices from the Japanese language classroom: Honorifics do far more than politeness Abstract: This chapter illustrates a practical attempt to integrate recent trends in politeness studies into the classroom. In this two-hour experimental class, ten intermediate learners of Japanese engaged in the task of translating a BBC news article on the Japanese imperial couple from English to Japanese. The analysis of classroom audio/video recording, students’ learning diaries and translation homework evidences students’ awareness of a multiplicity of meanings that emerged through the use of honorifics other than the indexing of respect. As one of the students noted in her diary: “I feel it makes the use of keigo [Japanese honorifics] far more important and difficult to use than simply to be polite!” It is hoped that this small-scale case study of Japanese will have relevant implications for the teaching of (im)politeness in other languages as well. Keywords: honorifics, Japanese, politeness, language learning

1 Introduction Japanese honorifics have long been a favourite subject of study for researchers and one of the most challenging items in the acquisition of the language. They are often described in pedagogical textbooks as expressions of respect encoded in linguistic forms. However, recent studies have pointed out that the use of honorifics (in any language) is neither necessary nor sufficient for paying respect or deference to others (Agha 2007: 301), and its interpretation involves other variables in the form of co-occurring signs in context (Agha 2002: 23–24). The inattention to these other variables may result in oversimplification and the overlooking of many interactional meanings, which ideologies of respect cannot describe. As argued by Pizziconi (2011: 56), it is necessary to regard Japanese honorifics as a deictic form, abandoning the view that considers deference as a constant, inherently coded meaning of honorifics, and examining other variables that affect its interpretation. This chapter will provide a practical attempt to integrate recent trends in politeness studies into the classroom. The data discussed

54

Eiko Gyogi

was gathered during a single class for ten intermediate learners studying Japanese at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. In the class, students engaged in the task of translating a BBC news article on the Japanese imperial couple from English into Japanese. The chapter will analyse how this translation task helped to inform the learners of the indexical properties of honorific usage. The chapter begins by giving a brief overview of previous studies on honorifics, followed by a review of three major Japanese textbooks. After describing classroom design, it analyses classroom interactions, students’ translation homework and learners’ diaries in detail. Despite some limitations, the findings from this class demonstrate students’ awareness of a multiplicity of meanings that emerged through the use of honorifics, such as the author’s relationship with the target audience and his/her political stance. Although this chapter focuses on Japanese honorifics, it is hoped that the findings will have implications for teaching (im)politeness in other languages as well.

2 Previous studies Brown and Levinson’s work on linguistic politeness has dominated the field since the late 1970s. They emphasise the importance of “face” in social interactions, which is defined as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (1987: 61). They identify two dimensions of “face” across cultures, the first a “positive face,” or the desire to be approved of by others, and the other a “negative face,” the desire not to be impeded by others (1987: 13). According to Brown and Levinson, the use of honorifics is oriented toward the interlocutor’s negative face, to avoid coercing the listener by giving deference (1987: 179). However, a number of researchers have challenged Brown and Levinson’s view of honorifics as a negative politeness strategy. For example, Matsumoto (1988) questions the universality of their theory, claiming that what is important in Japanese culture is one’s position in relation to others in a group and one’s acceptance by others, rather than one’s desires as an independent individual. Ide (1989) also argues against Brown and Levinson, maintaining that the use of honorifics in Japanese is governed by socially agreed-upon rules or wakimae (discernment) rather than individual volition. She maintains that the use of honorifics is selected on the basis of social conventions such as a hierarchical relationship or a low degree of intimacy, rather than on the speaker’s rational intention. According to Ide, the linguistic form systematically encodes

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

55

the speaker’s perception of a certain situation, and this is socio-pragmatically obligatory when talking to a person in a higher position or formal setting. Both Matsumoto and Ide criticise Brown and Levinson for the non-applicability of their theory to Japanese society, which is more group-oriented and has more pressures to comply with socially imposed rules. Their arguments stress the importance of pre-existing static relationships (such as group membership, social position and intimacy) in the use or non-use of honorifics. However, recent studies have demonstrated a more complicated picture of the use of honorifics, both theoretically and empirically, which cannot be fully explained by wakimae (discernment) or socially agreed-upon rules. Agha (2002, 2007) argues that the meanings of honorifics (such as showing respect) emerge in specific contexts or with co-occurring signs in context, rather than being inherent in their linguistic form. Honorific speech serves many interactional agendas other than that of paying respect, such as control, domination and irony (Agha 1998: 153). For example, some people may use more honorifics than is normatively required in order to express sarcasm. Recent studies challenge the notion of a one-to-one relationship between honorifics and respect, and increasingly consider honorifics as indexing multiple social meanings and identities formed in interaction, rather than reflecting preexisting social relationships (Burdelski 2013; Cook 2011, 2013; Okamoto 2011, 2013). For example, from an observation of a committee meeting in a Japanese company, Cook (2011) argues that referent honorifics are primarily used to index the speaker’s institutional identity, rather than showing respect. An increasing number of studies have documented the frequent style shifts between honorific and non-honorific forms during the same interaction involving the same participants (Cook 2006; Geyer 2013; Okamoto 2011), which cannot be explained by a static understanding of social relationships. Furthermore, the speaker’s relationship to the addressee also constitutes a factor affecting the use of referent honorifics (Kumai 1988; Okamoto 1998; Yamaji 2000). For instance, Kumai’s (1988) study of university students shows that referent honorifics are used to display the speaker’s consideration toward the listeners rather than toward the referent him/herself. In other words, the determinant for the use of referent honorifics in this study was whether the speaker considered the listener to be of higher status than him/herself, rather than his/her respect for the referent. In conclusion, honorifics seem to be deployed not only to show respect but also to index various interactional and social agendas. The very use of honorifics can be an index of the speaker’s own social cultivation and higher status (Agha 2002: 49). As noted above, referent honorifics can be manipulated to convey

56

Eiko Gyogi

addressee-oriented effects, negotiated and created in interaction. Ignoring indexical properties of honorifics, such as the indices of speakerhood and relationship with the listener in the moment-by-moment unfolding of the interaction, may lead to oversimplification of honorific use by learners. As argued by Pizziconi (2011), it is necessary to look at other variables that affect the interpretation of honorifics, in addition to intentions of deference.

3 Japanese honorifics and current textbooks Similar to other languages such as Korean, Tibetan and Javanese, Japanese has a rich lexical repertoire and grammatical structure instantiating honorific meanings. Japanese honorifics can be categorised into two types: addressee honorifics (taisha keigo) and referent honorifics (sozai keigo). The former are for use toward the listener/addressee and are often referred to as desu/masu forms. The latter are used to refer to a referent, and are further subdivided into deferential forms (sonkeigo) and humble forms (kenjōgo). Deferential forms are said to elevate the referent, whereas humble forms are to lower the referent, either the speaker him/herself, or other referents belonging to the speaker’s in-groups (when speaking to out-groups) (Pizziconi 2011: 48). Deferential forms can be formulated by adding the suffix (r)areru; for example, hanasareru for hanasu (‘speak’). These can also be constructed using a series of suppletive forms, such as ossharu for iu (‘say’), or the grammatical structure [o-verb stem ni naru], e.g. o-kaeri-ni-naru for kaeru (‘go back’). Humble forms can be created by using a series of suppletive forms such as mōsu for iu (‘say’), or the grammatical pattern [o/go-verb stem suru], e.g. o-mochi-suru for motsu (‘hold’) (See Table 1). Table 1: Japanese Referent Honorifics Referent honorifics

Forms

Example

Deferential forms (sonkeigo)

-(r)areru - o-verb stem ni naru - suppletive form

hanasareru (‘speak’) o-kaeri-ni-naru (‘go back’) ossharu (‘say’)

Humble forms (kenjōgo)

- o/go-verb stem suru - suppletive form

o-mochi-suru (‘hold’) mōsu (‘say’)

Example (1) illustrates how the English sentence “The teacher said” can be expressed in four different ways in Japanese. [+A HON] and [+R HON] indicate addressee honorifics and referent honorifics, respectively.

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

(1)

a.

先生が言った。 Sensei ga itta.

b.

先生が言いました。 Sensei ga iimashita [+A HON].

c.

先生がおっしゃった。 Sensei ga osshatta [+R HON].

d.

先生がおっしゃいました。 Sensei ga osshaimashita [+R HON] [+A HON]. The teacher said.

57

(1a) shows the plain form itta (‘said’) without honorifics. (1b) shows the use of honorifics toward the addressee by means of the [+A HON] suffix –mashita (past tense of –masu). (1c) does not use honorifics toward the addressee, but toward the subject of the sentence, the teacher, by adopting the deferential form osshatta (‘said’). Lastly, (1d) uses honorifics toward both the subject of the sentence and the addressee by combining the addressee and referent honorifics. One of the most popular textbooks for learning Japanese, Minna no Nihongo (Three A Network 1998), explains honorifics, keigo, as follows:1 [Honorifics are] expressions used to show the speaker’s respect for the listener or the person being referred to. The speaker is expected to show respect depending on his/her relationship with the listener or the person being referred to. There are the following three factors that should be considered in deciding the use of keigo: (1) When the speaker is junior or lower in social status, (s)he uses keigo to show respect to the person senior or higher in social status. (2) When the speaker does not have a close acquaintanceship with the listener, as is typical when the speaker first meets the listener, (s)he uses keigo to show respect to the listener. (3) The uchi [in-group] – soto [out-group] relationship should also be taken into consideration with regard to the use of keigo. The speaker’s group such as his/her family & company, etc., are considered as uchi [in-group], and other groups are considered as soto [out-group]. (Three A Network 1998: 146, translation of the Japanese words provided by the author)

1 The second version was published in December 2013 while I was writing this chapter. The explanation in the revised version includes some notes on the situational use of honorifics. It states: “keigo (honorific expressions) are used to show respect to the listener or the person being referred to. Whether or not to use them is determined by who the listener or person referred to is, and the situation.” (Three A Network 2013: 150, emphasis mine).

58

Eiko Gyogi

This explanation seems to be based on a static understanding of social relationships and a one-to-one mapping between honorifics and politeness. It indicates in the first sentence that honorifics are “expressions used to show the speaker’s respect.” In other words, it assumes that the meaning of honorifics is linguistically encoded in the verb form. The factors that motivate the use of honorifics are also based on static conceptualisations of social variables such as social status, speaker membership and the relationship between the listeners, which pre-exist outside of the interaction itself. Another well-known textbook, Genki (Banno 2011), seems to characterise honorifics in a very similar way. The description below is an explanation of respectful verbs: We use special verbs to describe the actions of people whom you respect. These special verbs are called honorific verbs, because they bestow honor on, or exalt, the person performing the activities. [. . .] When we use an honorific verb instead of a normal verb, we will have sentences which mean that somebody graciously does something. (Thus we never use these verbs to describe our own actions.) We use them when we talk about what is done by (1) somebody higher up in the social hierarchy, or (2) somebody whom you do not know very well, especially when addressing them directly. (Banno 2011: 168)

As with Minna no Nihongo, this normative description links just two contextual factors (vertical and horizontal distance) to these linguistic forms, and therefore describes the showing of respect as the default meaning of honorifics. Furthermore, it seems to consider the use of honorifics as ‘discernment’ or as compliance with a set of socially imposed rules. It prescribes the use of honorifics as obligatory, rule-governed and uniform, rather than as an individual choice, as can be seen from expressions such as “we never use these verbs” and “we use them when we talk about what is done.” Furthermore, the use of “we” assumes the existence of a homogeneous social group. It is not clear from this excerpt who this “we” refers to (it presumably means Japanese native speakers or textbook designers). However, this suggests an arguable widespread consensus within this social group, which, moreover, is ascribed legitimate power to explain and prescribe the normative use of honorifics. Unlike the other two textbooks, another major and relatively new textbook, Japanese for Busy People (AJALT 2012) seems to avoid directly relating the meaning of honorifics to linguistic forms. Honorific language, or honorifics, conveys speakers’ perceptions of the circumstances and interpersonal relationships prevailing within a conversation. One basic principle is that speakers employ honorific expressions to elevate their listeners, and thereby show respect for them, while using humble expressions to talk humbly about themselves. (AJALT 2012: 174, emphasis in original)

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

59

The first sentence seems to indicate situated use of honorifics by mentioning circumstances and interpersonal relationships, and avoids explaining it as a sign of respect. However, it does not provide much detail of what aspects of “circumstances” or “interpersonal relationships” are relevant; nor does it explain how to find out the “interpersonal relationships prevailing within a conversation.” One can easily imagine that this sentence might leave learners puzzled on the use of honorifics. When the function of honorifics is mentioned in the next sentence, the textbook states “one basic principle,” leaving space for “non-basic usage” and thereby avoiding definitive description. However, there is no mention of “non-basic usage” of honorifics, and the paragraphs that follow go on to explain factors affecting its use, such as in-group/out-group relationships and degrees of familiarity. It is highly likely that learners will only recall the “basic principle,” without paying attention to various other usages. Needless to say, the stereotypical meaning or default interpretation is useful and even indispensable for learners. However, the lack of consideration for many other contextual variables may lead to an over-simplified understanding of honorifics. This is especially true for foreign language learners without much exposure to the target language. My intention is not to add to the description of honorifics in these textbooks with many examples of contextual variables. Such lengthy and complicated descriptions may result in unnecessary burdens on learners and may adversely affect their learning. Textbook descriptions are also constrained by space limitations. Rather, I argue that it is the role of teachers to cover these limitations of the textbook and incorporate the findings of recent research on honorifics into the classroom. In concrete terms, it would be necessary to make learners aware of not only stereotypical meanings but also multiple and variable contextual factors that affect their interpretation. This chapter reports on my experience with one such attempt.

4 Classroom design An experimental class was held in November 2012 to direct learners’ attention to the indexical properties of honorifics. Ten second-year intermediate students majoring in Japanese at SOAS, University of London participated in this study. At the time of the research, they were taking an intensive Japanese course with eight contact hours a week, using the textbook Integrated Approach to Intermediate Japanese (Miura and McGloin 2008). In the first year, they had had Japanese classes for eight or ten contact hours a week (depending on their previous knowledge) using the textbook Minna no Nihongo (Three A Network

60

Eiko Gyogi

1998). They had been introduced to referent honorifics in regular classes at the beginning of the second year, about one month before this class. In this lesson, in addition to the learning and exercise of deferential and humble forms, based on Minna no Nihongo (Three A Network 1998), students had discussed the role of honorifics in society, such as its role to express the relationship with others (according to informal discussions with the teacher in charge and the PowerPoint presentation used in class). Out of ten students, two have languages other than English as mother tongue. Most have experience of learning various languages other than Japanese at home or through formal classes (See Table 2). Table 2: Profile of Students Name (Pseudonym)

Degree

Languages other than Japanese (based on self-declaration during the interview. Their mother tongue is italicised.)

Lucy

BA Japanese and Korean

English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean

Irene

BA Japanese

English

Nathan

BA Japanese

English, French, German

Nadhia

BA Japanese and Korean

English, Hindi, Gujarat, Malayalam, French, Korean

Hassan

BA Japanese and Economics

English, Bengali, Persian

Alice

BA Japanese and Economics

English, Spanish, Chinese

Michelle

BA Japanese

English

Mary

BA Japanese

English, Tagalog

Tom

BA Japanese and Linguistics

English, German, Italian

Sarah

BA Japanese

English

The experimental class was organised around the translation of a BBC report, taken from the BBC website, on the Japanese imperial couple’s visit to the tsunami evacuation centre on 30 March 2011 (“Japan’s Emperor Akihito visits tsunami evacuation centre” 2011). Although the webpage includes both a video and a short written text, only the written text was used in class, with the following task objective: You are now in Japan and are reading a BBC news article, and your host father, who is Japanese, and your friend from Korea have asked you what the article is about.

The emperor was chosen as a topic because of competing ideologies between newspapers with regard to the use of honorifics. The degree of use of honorifics

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

61

regarding the imperial family varies across newspapers (Kimura, Hannarohg and Itamura 2006), and the Japanese news media give careful consideration to the use of honorifics toward the imperial family. Their style manuals normally have a section which provides guidelines on the use of honorific terms and titles applied to the imperial family (Satoh 2001: 173). Indeed, the use of honorifics differed considerably in the articles from the three major Japanese newspapers used in class on the visit to the tsunami evacuation centre of 30 March 2011: Nikkei (“Ryōheika, tonai no hinanjo o imon [The imperial couple visit an evacuation centre in Tokyo]” 2011), Yomiuri Shimbun (“Ryōheika, hinanjo hōmon. . . hizatsukinagara hisaisha hagemasu [The imperial couple visit an evacuation centre – Kneel down and encourage evacuees]” 2011) and Asahi Shimbun (“‘Kazoku wa gobuji? ’ ryōheika ga tōkyō eno hinansha mimau” [‘Is your family safe?’ The imperial couple visits evacuees in Tokyo]” 2011). While the first two newspapers use honorifics for the actions of the imperial couple, Asahi Shimbun uses the plain form. This co-existence of competing language forms provides students with an intellectually stimulating task when choosing suitable expressions to refer to the emperor’s actions in their Japanese translations from English. In order to make students aware of the competing ideologies, these three newspaper articles were presented to students as an in-class preparatory activity, before the translation task. Furthermore, the task was designed to be suitably challenging and as authentic as possible to mirror what intermediate learners might face in daily life. All students must undertake a year of study in Japan in their third year, so the Japanese setting was considered appropriate and meaningful. Furthermore, they were asked to translate for two different target audiences: a Korean friend and a Japanese host father. The Korean friend was chosen because of the recent political tensions over territorial disputes, notably the former Korean president Lee’s demand for an apology from the Japanese emperor in 2012 (Taylor 2012). Before the class was assembled, it was not certain whether all students were aware of these political issues; however, I assumed that at least some of them should be familiar with them because of the presence of two joint-degree students in Japanese and Korean, and five BA Japanese (single degree) students who had taken a Japanese modern cultural history course, covering the relationship with Korea, as a compulsory unit in the first year. This political sensitivity surrounding the emperor and the different addressees would provide students with a good opportunity to consider and discuss how the use and meaning of honorifics is affected by contextual factors such as the target audience. Moreover, talking to a Korean friend in Japanese would constitute a familiar and realistic situation that they may encounter in Japan. The Japanese host father was chosen to present a realistic and contrastive target audience to the Korean friend.

62

Eiko Gyogi

The analysis of the texts was informed by the principles of systemic functional linguistics (Halliday and Hasan 1985; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) in order to draw the students’ attention to contextual factors surrounding the text. Before the task of translating the BBC news article, students were explicitly asked to analyse contextual factors: ‘field’ (what is going on and is being talked about), ‘tenor’ (the social roles and relationships between the participants) and ‘mode’ (channels of communication such as written and oral), as well as the purpose of the text. These contextual factors are not static, and language use is not a mere reflection of situations but involves the creation of different social identities and relationships (Cook 2006). For example, the choice of honorification devices may be considered a deliberate strategy to construct, negotiate and redefine the speaker’s social identity (vis-à-vis the interlocutor). As the students were asked to orally translate the text for two target audiences, I was able to observe how these contextual factors (such as the social relationship to the interlocutor) are dynamically negotiated. The analysis of contextual factors that exist prior to the interaction might carry the risk of overlooking the abovementioned dynamic interactional process. Nevertheless, the analysis seems necessary to avoid reducing this translation task to a straightforward language exercise of word-for-word translation. This two-hour class was not a regular class and students participated on a voluntary basis. All class interactions were audio- and video-recorded and later transcribed. In addition, students were assigned homework after the class: the same translation task, using a similar BBC news article on the Japanese emperor, as well as a self-analysis sheet describing their reasons and justification for the translation, which they could complete in Japanese, English or a mixture of both. Furthermore, students were asked to write a learning diary about what they had learnt from this class in Japanese, English or a mixture of both. There was no specific guideline for writing the learning diary, and students were free to write anything related to their learning in this class.

5 Results This section will illustrate the outcomes of the activity by dividing them into (1) classroom interactions, (2) homework, and (3) learning diaries. The classroom interactions document classroom discussion, in the form of the transcription of the video/audio recordings. The homework and learning diaries section shows the students’ awareness of the multiple issues at stake when using honorifics.

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

63

5.1 Classroom interactions Before the class, students were assigned preparatory homework: to collect information on three major Japanese newspapers: Nikkei, Yomiuri Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun. These three newspapers were chosen for their popularity in Japan as well as their availability to the students (the university has electronic access to these newspapers). The class began by asking students to share their preparatory homework. Students assessed Yomiuri Shimbun as slightly right-wing, Asahi Shimbun as more left-wing, and Nikkei mainly focused on the economy and business. After that, students were given three Japanese newspaper articles (from Yomiuri Shimbun, Asahi Shimbun and Nikkei), reporting the same news on the imperial couple’s visit to the tsunami evacuation centre. This preparatory exercise was to raise their awareness of competing ideologies among Japanese newspapers before moving to the main task of translating the BBC article. Since the vocabulary and grammar used in the articles are beyond the level of intermediate learners, the content of the article was explained beforehand, and students were informed that all these newspapers were reporting the same news. The students were asked to detect which verb forms were used for referring to the imperial couple, by working in pairs and making lists. After this activity, students were asked the following three questions: (1) What have you noticed? (2) What is the reason for the differences? and (3) If you want to convey this difference in the use of honorifics in English, how would you do it? For the first question, all groups noticed that competing models of normativity coexist in Japanese newspapers: Nikkei and Yomiuri Shimbun use honorifics, whereas Asahi Shimbun uses plain forms to refer to the actions of the imperial couple, despite the same vocabulary choices by all three newspapers. For the second question, one student proposed that the reason for the differences was whether they hold the emperor in higher regard, and that their viewpoint on the emperor is different, a view with which many others agreed. Based on the shared preparatory homework earlier, students mentioned that Nikkei and Yomiuri Shimbun might have more conservative views than Asahi Shimbun, and this difference was reflected in the use of honorifics toward the emperor. For the third question, that is, the translation of this difference into English, many students mentioned the lack of equivalence in English and the consequent difficulty in conveying such nuances. However, Nathan suggested inserting adverbs that show respect, such as “kindly” or “graciously.” Tom said that the difference in politeness could be expressed by changing a person’s title, such as “Her Majesty the Queen” to simply “the queen.” This discussion provided metalinguistic reflection on English and Japanese: while Japanese displays distinct

64

Eiko Gyogi

grammaticalised honorific forms for many parts of speech, including verbs and pronouns, English lacks them. Despite the linguistic restraints, students attempted to mediate between the two languages through the use of titles and adverbs. After this preparatory exercise, the students were given the task of translating the above-mentioned BBC news article, reporting the same imperial couple’s visit to the tsunami evacuation centre, into Japanese. After reading the article together, students were asked to consider the purpose, target audience and mode (channel of communication) of the original and of their translated text. As described above, the purpose of this explicit attention to contextual factors was to avoid reducing this task to a word-for-word translation exercise. Students characterised the purpose of both the original text and their translation as informational. They understood the likely audience of the BBC news article to be reasonably well-educated people, people who speak English, or the general public. They noted that their translation was for a Japanese host father and a Korean friend. As for the mode, they answered that the original text was written in formal, or neutral-to-formal, language, which should be rendered in casual spoken language in the translations. After considering these contextual factors, students were asked to tentatively translate the article. Due to time limitations, students translated only the following title in class: Japanese emperor Akihito visits tsunami evacuation centre After translating it individually, they were then asked to compare their translations in pairs, and some students/groups presented their results in front of the class. Each student was asked to consider the following questions when translating: (1) How would you refer to the emperor? (2) Would you or would you not use honorifics to refer to the emperor, and why? and (3) Would you change the way you speak, depending on your listener? If so, why? Lucy’s answer, before starting the translation, was “depending on how well you know him [Japanese host father]. If he likes the emperor you would use keigo, if he doesn’t, then don’t use keigo.” Nadhia also added that she would or would not use keigo “depending on what newspaper he reads.” After a discussion of their responses, the students started their translation. Although their use of addressee honorifics also gives an interesting insight into their language choices, this chapter will only focus on the referent honorifics used for the emperor, that is, mainly the verb forms that they use to describe the actions of the emperor. In class, Tom was the first to present his translation (see [2]). KF means “translation to Korean friend” and HF means “translation to host father,” respectively. The transcription reproduces faithfully the original spelling:

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

(2)

[KF]

天皇が津波のひなん所を訪ねられた。 Tennō ga tsunami no hinanjo o tazunerareta. The emperor visited [+R HON] the tsunami evacuation centre.

[HF]

天皇が津波のひなん所を訪問されました。 Tennō ga tsunami no hinanjo o hōmon saremashita. The emperor visited [+R HON] [+A HON] the tsunami evacuation centre.

65

Tom used honorifics irrespective of the target audience, but chose different lexemes for the verb ‘to visit’ to suit his target audience: a Japanese native word (wago): tazuneru, for the Korean friend and a Sino-Japanese word (kango): hōmon suru, for the Japanese host father. Tom explained his translation as follows (all oral features are retained in the transcriptions, and “. . .” indicates pause): (3)

I thought that if he had a really specific view to the emperor, it would probably be more standard, less controversial thing. . .just use keigo for both. . .and then, I used a more formal word with the host father. . .because I just thought that he might feel. . .actually I would be more formal.

Tom’s use of honorifics for both audiences is based on the assumption that the use of honorifics is a safe option and less controversial. As for the vocabulary choice, Sino-Japanese words are generally considered more formal and abstract than native Japanese words. He effectively used these lexemes as a resource for differentiating the level of formality between the two target audiences. After his translation, another group, Lucy and Nadhia, raised their hands and presented their translation as below. (4)

[KF]

日本の天皇（のあきひと）は津波のひなんじょをみまった。 Nihon no tennō (no Akihito) wa tsunami no hinanjo o mimatta. Japanese emperor (Akihito) visited the tsunami evacuation centre.

[HF]

日本のあきひと天皇は津波のひなんじょをいもんされた。 Nihon no Akihito tennō wa tsunami no hinanjo o imon sareta. Japanese emperor Akihito visited [+R HON] the tsunami evacuation centre for consolation.

Lucy said in a strong tone that “I wouldn’t really speak too highly of them [imperial couple] if your friend is Korean” considering “the relationship between Japan and Korea” and to “avoid offending her [Korean friend].” Lucy and Nadhia

66

Eiko Gyogi

are both majoring in Japanese and Korean, and this familiarity with Korean might have made them more sensitive than Tom when talking about the emperor to the Korean friend. The rest of the students were also divided regarding the use of honorifics. Nathan and Sarah said that they would use honorifics to refer to the actions of the emperor regardless of the target audience, arguing that the emperor seems to be an important person. On the other hand, Alice, Michelle and Mary said that they would not use honorifics for the emperor when talking to the Korean friend but would use them when addressing the Japanese host father. They did not clarify the reasons for their non-use of honorifics when talking to the Korean friend. However, they said the reason for using honorifics when talking to the Japanese host father was because “he is a Japanese person, maybe he likes the emperor.” The difference in translations between the students demonstrates the students’ awareness of the indexical properties of honorifics: honorifics are chosen not only due to the students’ own respect toward the imperial couple, or the assumed respect or lack of respect for them by the addressees, but also because of other contextual factors such as the students’ relationship with the target audience. Classroom discussion seems to have provided an opportunity for students to share their opinions, reflect upon possible meanings that emerge through the use of honorifics, and consider their own stance in these two particular situations.

5.2 Homework The homework was the same task, with a similar BBC news article reporting the emperor’s public comments on the earthquake (“Japan earthquake: Emperor ‘deeply worried’” 2011). I asked students again to translate to two different audiences (Korean friend and Japanese host father), and also to submit a selfanalysis sheet, explaining and justifying their translation. Nine out of the ten students submitted the homework. However, two of them translated the article without thinking about the two different audiences, and these were thus omitted from the analysis. Table 3 shows the use of honorifics for the emperor, depending on the target audience. It should be noted that this categorisation is based on students’ comments in the self-analysis sheet, and not on the researcher’s own judgment of their translation.

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

67

Table 3: Use of honorifics for the Emperor

1 2 3

Nathan, Hassan, Alice, Nadhia Sarah Irene, Tom

Korean friend

Japanese host father

No honorifics Honorifics Basic honorifics

Honorifics Honorifics Formal/polite version of honorifics

Note: The terms “basic honorifics” and “formal/polite version of honorifics” were invented by these two students, and not taught in the classroom (see explanations below).

Four students said that they would not use honorifics for the emperor when speaking with the Korean friend but would use them with the host father. One student said that she used honorifics irrespective of the target audience. Two said that they would use “basic honorifics” when speaking with the Korean friend but the “formal/polite version of honorifics” with the Japanese host father. Due to space limitations, this section will only look at the translation of the following sentence, focusing especially on the use/non-use of referent honorifics in the students’ report of the emperor’s actions (but not marked when in direct quotes of the emperor’s own words). Japanese Emperor Akihito has said he is “deeply worried” about the crisis his country is facing following last Friday’s earthquake and tsunami.

The following are excerpts from the translations of the four students who chose not to use honorifics when speaking with the Korean friend but did choose to use them with the host father. The first one is Hassan’s translation: (5)

[KF]

天皇、[. . .]「深く心配です」と言った。 Tennō, [. . .] “fukaku shimpai desu” to itta. The emperor said [. . .]: “I am deeply worried.”

[HF]

天皇、[. . .]「深く心配です」と言われた。 Tennō, [. . .] “fukaku shimpai desu” to iwareta. The emperor said [+R HON] [. . .]: “I am deeply worried.”

Hassan differentiated his translations through the use/non-use of honorifics with the verb ‘say.’ He justified his choice for the translation directed to the Korean friend with a political reason: “Japan-Korea relations are strained, so keigo could be seen as offensive/too respectful.” Although he did not explicitly give his opinion during class, his reason for the non-use of honorifics resembles those given by Lucy and Nadhia during class, noted in 5.1.

68

Eiko Gyogi

Example (6) is Nathan’s translation. (6)

[KF]

あきひとてんのうは [. . .] 非常に心配していると言った。 Akihito tennō wa [. . .] hijō ni shimpai shiteiru to itta. The emperor Akihito said [. . .] that he was extremely worried.

[HF]

てんのうさまは、[. . .] 非常に心配されている2と言われてい ました。 Tennō sama wa [. . .] hijō ni shimpai sareteiru to iwarete imashita. The emperor [+R HON] has said [+R HON] [+A HON] [. . .] that he was extremely worried.

Nathan also explained that he would “avoid using too many honorifics to refer to the emperor so as not to offend the listener,” with regard to his non-use of honorifics to the Korean friend. Although Nathan said in class that he would use honorifics for both, he seems to have changed his opinion, probably agreeing with other students’ remarks on potentially offending the listener through the use of honorifics. He further changed the title for the emperor between the two target audiences: あきひとてんのう (Akihito tennō, ‘the emperor Akihito’) for the Korean friend and てんのうさま (tennō sama3, ‘emperor [+R HON]’) for the Japanese host father. Although sama is not a commonly used title for the emperor (天皇陛下 tennō heika, ‘His Majesty the Emperor’ being the conventional title), he intentionally negotiated and manipulated the level of speech in the title and the verbal form, based on the target audience, to show his consideration to the listener, rather than his own respect for the emperor. Example (7) is Alice’s homework: (7)

[KF]

日本のてんのうあきひとは[. . .]とても心配だと言っていました。 Nihon no tennō Akihito wa [. . .] totemo shimpai da to itte imashita. The Japanese emperor Akihito has said [+A HON] [. . .] that he is very worried.

[HF]

てんのうは、[. . .]非常に心配だと言われていました。 Tennō wa [. . .] totemo shimpai da to iwarete imashita. The emperor has said [+R HON] [+A HON] [. . .] that he is extremely worried.

Although Alice did report on the choices she made to tailor the text to a specific recipient (such as adding the emperor’s name for the Korean friend, who may 2 His use of the deferential form of the verb ‘to worry’ is not accurate as it is used by the emperor in reference to himself. 3 Sama is an honorific suffix attached to names and status terms.

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

69

not have known it), she did not comment on her discriminating use of honorifics. The last translation is from the homework of Nadhia, a very skilled multilingual user: (8)

[KF]

日本の天皇明人4は[. . .]「深く心を痛めています」と言いました。 Nihon no tennō Akihito wa [. . .] “fukaku kokoro o itamete imasu” to iimashita. The Japanese emperor Akihito said [+A HON] [. . .]: “I have been deeply grieved at heart.”

[HF]

日本の天皇明人陛下は[. . .]「深く心を痛めています」と発表された。 Nihon no tennō Akihito heika wa [. . .] “fukaku kokoro o itamete imasu” to happyō sareta. His Majesty the Emperor of Japan Akihito announced [+R HON] [. . .]: “I have been deeply grieved at heart.”

Just as in class, Nadhia’s use of honorifics varies depending on the target audience. She further utilised different verbs in the two versions: whereas she used iimashita (‘said’) to the Korean friend, she chose happyō sareta (‘announced’), a Sino-Japanese word, to the Japanese host father. Although she did not comment on the reasons for these choices, she did mention that “if the host father has an opinion that we need to use keigo to the emperor, non-use probably causes trouble.” Although the students’ translations differ from each other, a common reason affecting their use/non-use of honorifics and other vocabulary changes seems to be to avoid potentially offending the listener and to maintain a good image of themselves toward the listener and/or avoid conflict, rather than showing any degree of respect to the emperor himself. One student, Sarah, said she would use referent honorifics irrespective of the two target audiences, as follows: (9)

[KF]

天皇は[. . .]「本当に心配なさた」とおっしゃた。 Tennō wa [. . .] “hontō ni shimpai nasata” to osshatta.5 The emperor said [+R HON] [. . .]: “I was really worried.”

[HF]

天皇は[. . .]「本当に心配なさた」とおっしゃいました。 Tennō wa [. . .] “hontō ni shimpai nasata” to osshaimashita. The emperor said [+R HON] [+A HON][. . .]: “I was really worried.”

4 The kanji transcription of Akihito should be “明仁.” 5 There are two inaccuracies in the text: spelling mistakes (nasata for nasatta and osshata for oshatta) and the use of the referent honorific for the verb ‘to worry.’ As this is used by the emperor in reference to himself, it should not appear in a deferential form.

70

Eiko Gyogi

While the propositions used are the same, as well as the use of referent honorifics, she also manipulates the verb by adding an addressee honorific suffix to the host father version, and comments as follows: (10) I kept keigo as I feel it is respectful to honour the emperor, especially when he is not your own figurehead. That the friend is also not Japanese does not matter I think, because I think both should adopt that attitude – as other nationalities should about other countries’ figure heads. While the four students above have adapted their choices of verbs depending on the target audience, Sarah seems to consider it necessary to pay respect to the emperor, regardless of the nationalities of the addressees. Her translation was not a simple word-for-word translation. After careful thought, she decided to index her own view toward the emperor through the use of referent honorifics. Lastly, there were two other students, Tom and Irene, who said that they would use “basic honorifics” when referring to the emperor with their Korean friend, and “formal/polite version of honorifics” when talking to their host father. These two students differentiate the deferential register by considering the suffix (r)areru as a “basic keigo,” and the structure [o-verb stem ni naru] or the suppletive form as the “formal/polite version of keigo.” It should be noted that the terms “basic keigo” and “formal/polite version of keigo” were not taught in regular classes and were invented by these two students. They might have been guided in that usage by the description in the textbook Minna no Nihongo (Three A Network 1998: 146), which states that [o-verb stem ni naru] and the suppletive form are “considered politer than the respectful verbs (r)areru.” Example (11) is Tom’s homework. (11)

[KF]

あきひとてんのうは[. . .]「大変心配と感じます」といわれた。 Akihito tennō wa [. . .] “taihen shimpai to kanjimasu” to iwareta. The emperor Akihito said [+R HON] [. . .]: “I feel very worried.”

[HF]

てんのうは[. . .]「心配深いと感じます」とおっしゃえました。 Tennō wa [. . .] “shimpai bukai to kanjimasu” to osshaemashita. The emperor said [+R HON] [+A HON] [. . .]: “I feel deep worry.”

Tom said that he used “basic keigo” iwareta (‘said’) and the (r)areru construction of the verb iu (‘say’) to the Korean friend, stating that “it’s still polite and it’s less controversial. Maybe my friend will think I can’t use keigo otherwise.” As for the host father, he used what he calls the “formal version of keigo” osshaemashita

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

71

(‘said’),6 which is a suppletive form of iu (‘say’), stating that it is “more neutral when talking to (a) Japanese person.” He negotiated the appropriate use through differentiation within honorific repertoires, probably hypothesising that the suppletive form is more formal than the suffix (r)areru. Furthermore, Tom consciously uses honorifics to construct his identity as a competent Japanese user. The use of honorifics for the construction of social identities has been noted in other studies (e.g. Cook 2013). As mentioned by Tom himself, the non-use of honorifics might make him subject to assessment by others as a less proficient learner who is not able to use honorifics. The mastery of honorifics itself entitles him to claim the image of a highly proficient learner and thereby enables him to receive deference from others. His use of honorifics serves not only as a means of avoiding conflicts with the target audience and indexing his political stance, but also as a self-presentation of his mastery of honorifics. Irene also claimed that she deliberately changed the level of politeness with deferential forms. She advocated the use of “basic keigo [to Korean friend] in the emperor’s acting as he is still an important person,” and justified the “use [of] polite version of keigo” to the host father because “middle-aged Japanese are more likely to want to express a higher level of respect to the emperor.” However, her translation does not seem to reflect her above-mentioned remarks. (12)

[KF]

日本の天のうは[. . .]「非常に気かっています」とおっしゃった。 Nihon no tennō wa [. . .] “hijō ni kikatte imasu” to osshatta. The emperor said [+R HON] [. . .]: “I am extremely concerned.”

[HF]

日本の天のうは[. . .]「非常に気かっています」とおっしゃい ました。 Nihon no tennō wa [. . .] “hijō ni kikatte imasu” to osshaimashita. The emperor said [+R HON] [+A HON] [. . .]: “I am extremely concerned.”

Her translation is similar to Sarah’s, with the use of the honorific verb ossharu (‘say’) to refer to the action of the emperor in both translations. Her attempt to differentiate “basic keigo” and the “polite version of keigo” is found in other places: in her translation of the article’s heading, she uses 気かわれている7 (kikawareteiru), the (r)areru construction, to the Korean friend, and お気かい 6 It should be おっしゃいました (osshaimashita). 7「気かっています」(kikatte imasu) is incorrect; the arguably intended forms could be either 「気にかかっています」(ki ni kakatte imasu, ‘be concerned’) or「気遣っています」(kizukatte imasu, ‘show concern’)

72

Eiko Gyogi

になります (o-kikai-ni-narimasu), the [o-verb stem ni naru] form, to the host father.8 It is uncertain why she differentiated these two in the heading but not within the main sentences above. However, like Tom, she ostensively attempted to examine the layers of politeness and negotiate to find a balance between her own stance toward the emperor and her relationship with the listener. As described above, the choice of the use of honorifics by most of the students is influenced not only by their sense of respect for the emperor but also the need to maintain a relationship with the target audience. Some of the students avoid using honorifics to refer deferentially to the emperor’s actions when addressing the Korean friend in order to avoid possible offence. Less consideration is paid toward their own view of the emperor, probably due to their lack of emotional attachment to the emperor. For example, Nadhia notes in her learning diary: “I don’t have much strong opinion on the imperial couple, I thought of using honorifics when talking to a person who thinks the use of honorifics is necessary in order to respect such a person.” This detachment makes them flexible about their choice of politeness level, depending on the interlocutor. Others, such as Tom and Irene, try to negotiate, within the honorifics, a way in which they can index both their own stance and their awareness for the listener at the same time. All students defer to the emperor when addressing the Japanese host father, assuming his positive attitude toward the emperor. Except for some students such as Sarah, the overall tendency was to act safely, i.e. attempting to avoid trouble or to produce negative judgments on the part of the interlocutor, rather than indexing their own view toward the emperor. This task makes students realise that the use of honorifics relates not only to the expression of respect but is also associated with other factors such as their relationship with the interlocutor and an image of their own personhood.

5.3 Learning diary Eight students submitted a learning diary. These texts clearly demonstrated the students’ awareness of the indexical properties of honorifics. For example, four students mentioned the importance of the interlocutor in the use of honorifics. Lucy states as follows:

8 There are lexical and pragmatic inaccuracies in her translation: her vocabulary choice is inaccurate (see Footnote 7). Furthermore, deferential forms do not normally appear when used by the emperor in reference to himself.

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

73

(13) This time, I felt that I learnt that depending on the situation, you may need to take into consideration the listener/reader’s point of view and feelings on a topic whilst making a translation of keigo. This is important to avoid insulting or upsetting someone. Similar remarks were also found in other students’ learning diaries. For example, Hassan and Nathan also record that “it is necessary to consider the opinion of the interlocutor carefully when talking about the emperor. If not, it might sound offensive,” and “it seems you must take the political standing of your proposed audience into account when using a particular style!” They are clearly aware of the fact that the use of honorifics is not simply a display of respect to a person, but is also affected by the person to whom they are talking, and their own political view. Sarah explicitly states the function of honorifics beyond being polite, as follows: (14) For this lesson what stood out the most for me was how political views, and how one writes is based on the level of politeness in language than the word choice. I hadn’t considered this before so it was very instructive. [. . .] I feel it makes the use of keigo far more important and difficult to use than simply to be polite! She states that one’s political views can be indicated not only through what one says (word choice) but also by how one uses honorifics, which she has not considered before. This awareness of other contextual factors leads to reflection on their own general use of language, not limited to honorifics, as found in Nadhia’s learning diary: “it is necessary to carefully think about the importance of language choice.” Irene also mentioned that she had thought for a long time about what kind of language she should use for each target audience. Although the importance of the indexical properties of honorifics has been pointed out in previous studies (e.g. Agha 2007), it is often underestimated in Japanese pedagogical materials. As described above, they often explain honorifics as linguistic forms which encode the meaning of showing respect, based on a static understanding of social relationships. These students’ learning diaries demonstrate that this task was effective in directing students’ attention to interactional agendas, other than that of respect, which honorifics can convey.

74

Eiko Gyogi

6 Discussion and conclusions The lesson and the follow-up exercises described were conducted as an attempt to introduce the indexical properties of honorifics in classroom. The lesson design was successful in directing students’ attention to multiple and variable contextual factors affecting the use of honorifics. For example, as shown in the homework and learning diaries, students came to notice how one’s political stance is indexed through the use of honorifics for the emperor. Students also realised the importance of their use of honorifics and other vocabulary choices in maintaining their relationship with the target audience and how they present themselves. Some students avoided using honorifics when a Korean friend was the addressee, being concerned about possibly causing offence. Some students decided to use honorifics to both the Korean friend and the Japanese host father, indexing their attitude toward the emperor. There were also students who attempted to creatively negotiate their politeness level within honorific repertoires. Honorifics are treated not only as a way to show respect to an “honorable” referent but also as a way of indexing the speaker’s social identity and relationship to addressees. One of the advantages of the translation task shown above is that it made the learners act in a particular context as active users of the language, rather than as third-party observers. The indexical properties of honorifics, beyond the showing of respect, may be introduced in the classroom through the teacher’s explicit explanation in lecture style, possibly with observation of naturally occurring or artificially created discourse. However, in that case, students may end up concluding rather generally that they “need to think about contexts,” without necessarily having the opportunity to practice how to manipulate honorifics in particular contexts. As detailed in the Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001; see Pizziconi, this volume), one of the most influential language-learning frameworks in Europe, learners are increasingly viewed as social agents who can act and perform in society. This translation task is set in a specific context: translate and convey the news article to two different audiences. It requires learners to act in this situation as participant users, rather than just being passively observing bystanders. Moreover, this task allows students to negotiate and choose their own stance on language use. It is often taken for granted in language classrooms that students are expected to become “idealised native speakers,” creating an unattainable goal for L2 learners (Cook 1999). In many classrooms, students are explicitly and implicitly expected to follow the “native speaker” as a genuine or worthy model. However, recent studies against this background have attempted

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

75

to consider learners as speakers in their own right, rather than viewing them as deficient native speakers (e.g. Cook 1999; Kramsch 1993; Coste, Moore and Zarate 2009). For example, Kramsch (1993) puts forward the notion of “third place” between languages and cultures, where language learners can occupy a position as learners in their own right. Coste, Moore and Zarate (2009) also emphasise the role of learners as linguistic and cultural intermediaries and mediators, rather than viewing them as learners striving to reach the standards of monolingual native speakers. As there are competing ideologies in the use of honorifics toward the emperor in Japanese newspapers, this task allowed students to decide on their language use as language users of Japanese in their own right. They did not simply follow an idealised native speaker model, but were placed in a position where they could reflect upon their own usage of honorifics, in relation to the target audience, by themselves, using their linguistic repertoires. The classroom discussion also provided a valuable opportunity for students to share their opinions as well as to define and redefine their language choices. Although this task seems to have been effective in bringing about students’ awareness of the indexical properties of honorifics and making them consider their language use, further improvements are suggested for future research. Firstly, more contextualisation will be needed on the two target audiences. The Korean friend and the Japanese host father were based on essentialised images of a “Korean friend” and a “Japanese host father,” without considering diversity within cultures. For this reason, the discussion was also conducted based on their stereotypical image of “Korean” or “Japanese.” The contextualisation of these two target audiences, with pictures or more background information, would be necessary to make the discussion more concrete. Furthermore, the instructions for the task also need clarification. Without a clear explanation of the translation method to be used, most of the students just manipulated the verbal forms in the sentences. However, oral translation to a person would have more spoken linguistic features, such as sentence-final particles and modality expressions, which could also contribute to audience design. The task instructions could have been contextualised more so that students could approach this task with a more specific objective in mind. Considering the fact that non-linguistic signs (such as gesture and prosody) are also an integral part of the sign value of honorifics (Agha 2002: 23), tasks that would prompt the use of these should also be considered. Secondly, further critical reflection could have been encouraged. For example, many seem to think that the use of honorifics is a safe option for Japanese people. This taken-for-granted assumption could have been questioned so that students could discuss the grounds and motivations for such an assumption and its validity. Thirdly, more examples could have

76

Eiko Gyogi

been introduced beyond that of the imperial couple. The purpose of this lesson design is to familiarise students with the indexical properties of honorifics through the translation task, and not to ask them to show any political view toward the imperial couple or to take this example as an exceptional case. Other examples could be introduced to show the multiple interactional agendas that are indexed through the use of honorifics in different contexts. This chapter has shown a practical example of an activity which aims at raising awareness of politeness and pragmatic choices in the use of honorifics beyond the showing of respect. The adoption of recent theories and research findings in classroom practice is a challenging task for language teachers. Despite some limitations, this practical example demonstrated that this activity, reflecting a new approach in the theoretical conceptualisation of honorifics, is effective in familiarising intermediate learners who have recently learnt about honorifics with their indexical properties. Although this chapter presented a Japanese case study, it is hoped that the discussion may also point to significant pedagogical implications for other languages.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors of this book, Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam Locher, for their constructive and insightful comments on various versions of this paper. I also express my thanks to Noriko Iwasaki for her support throughout this project. This project is supported by SOAS Research Scholarship, Meiji Jingu Japanese Student Research Scholarship, British Association for Japanese Studies (BAJS) Postgraduate Studentship, Japan Foundation Endowment Committee Grant, and British Council Japan Association (BCJA) Scholarship.

References Agha, Asif. 1998. Stereotypes and registers of honorific language. Language in Society 27(2). 151−193. Agha, Asif. 2002. Honorific registers. In Kuniyoshi Kataoka & Sachiko Ide (eds.), Culture, interaction and language, 21−63. Tokyo: Hituzisyobo. Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asahi Shimbun. “Kazoku wa gobuji?” Ryōheika ga tōkyō eno hinansha mimau [“Is your family safe?” The imperial couple visits evacuees in Tokyo]. 30 March 2011. Asahi Shimbun. http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201103300406.html (5 December 2013). AJALT, Association for Japanese Language Teaching. 2012. Japanese for busy people III, 3rd edn. New York: Kodansha USA. Banno, Eri. 2011. Genki: An integrated course in elementary Japanese II, 2nd edn. Japan Times.

Voices from the Japanese language classroom

77

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burdelski, Matthew. 2013. Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction. Multilingua 32(2). 247−273. Cook, Haruko M. 2006. Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua 25(3). 269−291. Cook, Haruko M. 2011. Are honorifics polite? Uses of referent honorifics in a Japanese committee meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 43(15). 3655−3672. Cook, Haruko M. 2013. A scientist or salesman? Identity construction through honorification in a Japanese shopping channel program. Multilingua 32(2). 177−202. Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2). 185−209. Coste, Daniel, Danièle Moore & Geneviève Zarate. 2009. Plurilingual and pluricultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geyer, Naomi. 2013. Discernment and variation: The actionoriented use of Japanese addressee honorifics. Multilingua 32(2). 155−176. Halliday, Michael. A. K., & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Halliday, Michael A. K., & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold. Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2−3), 223−248. Japan earthquake: Emperor ‘deeply worried’. BBC News. 16 March 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/world-asia-pacific-12755739 (7 December 2013). Japan’s Emperor Akihito visits tsunami evacuation centre. BBC News. 30 March 2011. http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12905383 (5 December 2013). Kimura, Yohji G., Charn Hannarohg & Hidenori Itamura. 2006. Nihon no yondai shimbun ni okeru kōshitsu hōdō no hikaku kenkyū – kōtaishi sama no “jinkaku hitei” hatsugen o jirei to shite. [A comparative study of the Japanese major newspapers reporting the unexpected statement of Prince Naruhito concerning the royal family]. Bulletin of the Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University 37(3). 55−106. Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kumai, Hiroyuki. 1988. Gendai nihongo ni okeru ‘keigo yūhatsu’ ni tuite. [On ‘induced politeness’ in contemporary Japanese]. Kokugogaku 152. 31−46. Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4). 403−426. Miura, Akira & Naomi Hanaoka McGloin. 2008. An integrated approach to intermediate Japanese, Rev. edn. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Okamoto, Shigeko. 1998. The use and non-use of honorifics in sales talk in Kyoto and Osaka: Are they rude or friendly? In Noriko Akatsuka, Hajime Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki, Sung-Ock Sohn & Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, volume 7, 141−157. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

78

Eiko Gyogi

Okamoto, Shigeko. 2011. The use and interpretation of addressee honorifics and plain forms in Japanese: Diversity, multiplicity, and ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 43(15). 3673−3688. Okamoto, Shigeko. 2013. Variability in societal norms for Japanese women’s speech: Implications for linguistic politeness. Multilingua 32(2). 203−223. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2011. Honorifics: The cultural specificity of a universal mechanism in Japanese. In Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills (eds.), Politeness in East Asia, 45−70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ryōheika, tonai no hinanjo o imon [The imperial couple visit an evacuation centre in Tokyo]. Nikkei. 30 March 2011. http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASDG3003Z_Q1A330C1CR8000/ (5 December 2013). Ryōheika, hinanjo hōmon. . .hizatsukinagara hisaisha hagemasu [The imperial couple visit an evacuation centre – Kneel down and encourage evacuees]. Yomiuri Shimbun. 30 March 2011. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110330−OYT1T00855.htm (5 December 2013). Satoh, Akira. 2001. Constructing imperial identity: How to quote the imperial family and those who address them in the Japanese press. Discourse & Society 12(2). 169−194. Taylor, Brendan. 2012. Japan and South Korea: The limits of alliance. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 54(5). 93−100. Three A Corporation. 1998. Minna no nihongo shokyū II: Honyaku, bunpōkaisetsu eigo-ban [Japanese for everyone beginners II: Translation and grammatical notes English edition]. Tokyo: 3A Corporation. Three A Corporation. 2013. Minna no nihongo shokyū II: Honyaku, bunpōkaisetsu eigo-ban [Japanese for everyone beginners II: Translation and grammatical notes English edition], 2nd edn. Tokyo: 3A Corporation. Yamaji, Harumi. 2000. Addressee-oriented nature of referent honorifics in Japanese conversation. Texas Linguistic Forum 44(1). 190−204.

Caroline L. Rieger

4 (Im)politeness and L2 socialization: Using reactions from online fora to a world leader’s ‘impolite’ behavior Abstract: (Im)politeness is socio-culturally and socio-pragmatically relative and is also a significant and ever-present aspect of human interaction that affects the construction, maintenance, reproduction and transformation of our relationships. It should therefore be a prominent part of the L2 curriculum. In German language classes at North American colleges and universities, it is, however, a neglected area. Furthermore, pragmatically rich target language usage − which is necessary in order to teach (im)politeness at higher levels of proficiency − is conspicuously absent from the German teaching materials used in these institutes. Instructors usually have to create their own learning activities, drawing examples from authentic interactions. This chapter discusses why the Internet is a good source of such authentic discourse and reports on a German class activity which makes use of a video clip containing a controversial incident with respect to (im)politeness, together with a handful of English and German comments taken from online fora. These comments refer to the “shoulder rub” President George W. Bush gave to German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2006. More specifically, as evaluations of the (in)appropriateness of Bush’s behavior, they focus on (im)politeness. The analysis shows variation in the perceptions of (im)politeness both within and between larger speech communities, which makes the comments ideal material for teaching and learning (im)politeness in university-level language classes. By learning to pay attention to the pivotal role socio-cultural and socio-pragmatic aspects play in the perception and interpretation of interactional behavior, the learners in this study appear to achieve an enhanced awareness of the complexity and the omnipresent nature of (im)politeness in (intercultural) encounters. Most importantly, they grasped that it is the interpretation of the use of verbal and nonverbal behavior in a specific socio-cultural context that is (im)polite, not the (non)verbal behavior itself. Keywords: interpersonal pragmatics, relational work, interlanguage pragmatics, L2 pragmatic instruction, learning politeness, learning impoliteness

80

Caroline L. Rieger

1 Introduction In this chapter I discuss how the guided study of authentic interactions and language in use facilitates language learners’ enriched understanding of (im)politeness,1 its socio-cultural relativity, its emergent and evaluative makeup, and possibly a basic grasp of its impact on the mutual, situated negotiation of interpersonal relationships and identities in interactions. Section 2 introduces the theoretical background of this study, including key concepts from interpersonal pragmatics and politeness theory, a summary of how politeness is currently taught in language classes, and of the challenges that users of additional languages2 face with regard to (im)polite behavior in intercultural encounters. In Section 3, I present activities aimed at teaching (im)politeness to L2 learners in an advanced German language class at an Anglo-Canadian university, and introduce the original data used for these activities. The learning material is taken from the Internet: a YouTube clip that shows an incident at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2006, involving U.S. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in which Bush gave Merkel a quick and unexpected shoulder rub. This clip generated a wealth of reactions posted on Internet fora, which were used in the teaching of (im)politeness. In Section 4, the data obtained from learners in the teaching session is analyzed and discussed in relation to the learners’ perception of the incident, their L2 pragmatic competence and the learning outcome. The findings reveal that the learners gained a deeper understanding of (im)politeness in (intercultural) interactions. They came to realize that (im)politeness is not inherent in words, utterances, speech acts or behaviors themselves, but that their usage in a particular socio-cultural context is what is interpreted as (im)polite. Accordingly, the learners grasped how crucial the role of the socio-cultural context is. Furthermore they increased their awareness of the communicative and intercultural complexities of verbal interaction in general, and the pervasive nature of (im)politeness in interaction in particular.

1 In this chapter the term ‘(im)politeness’ or ‘(im)polite behavior’ refers to behavior that is regarded as polite, impolite, over-polite or anything in between, by either interactants or researchers. This approach was chosen to avoid repetition of the cumbersome listing of several terms that can be used to label, judge or evaluate social behavior or language use with regard to their perceived degree of politeness or impoliteness. In contrast, if I do not use the bracketed prefix, i.e., if I use the lexemes ‘polite’/‘politeness’ or ‘impolite’/‘impoliteness,’ I do refer to those terms literally. 2 In this chapter I will refer to all users and learners of additional languages as either L2 users, language learners, or L2 learners and use the latter two terms interchangeably to mean anyone who is learning a language other than his or her first language in an instructional context.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

81

2 Theoretical background 2.1 Interpersonal pragmatics and relational work The analysis of the material used to teach (im)politeness is undertaken from the perspective of interpersonal pragmatics, following Watts (1989, 2003, 2005, 2008), Locher (2004, 2006, 2011, 2012), Locher and Watts (2005, 2008), and Locher and Graham (2010). Locher and Watts refer to ‘relational work’ as an integral part of every human interaction. It is the work that the interactants undertake in order to construct, maintain, reproduce and transform their relationships during the course of a social encounter (Locher and Watts 2008: 96). Locher and Watts equate relational work to facework, whereby facework is understood to be ever present in all verbal interactions, i.e. not merely when dealing with a threat to one’s face, as in Brown and Levinson’s (1987 [1978]) renowned politeness theory. Further, the authors stress that while Goffman’s (1967) concept of face focuses on social aspects and Brown and Levinson’s focuses on psychological aspects, “relational work understands face as combining the two, in that what an individual develops as his/her continual construction of self depends on social interaction, and social interaction takes place between individuals” (Locher and Watts 2008: 96). A clear advantage of using an interpersonal pragmatics approach to (im)politeness lies in the fact that such an approach borrows from different theories and disciplines (cf. Locher 2012), such as the concept of Community of Practice (CoP), first developed by Lave and Wenger (1991) and introduced into sociolinguistics by Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992, 1998). A CoP is a collective of people who get together to participate in a shared enterprise or project. Social practices, including rules, values, roles, communicative and interactive behavior, etc., are said to come into existence and to be known to the collective during their joint endeavor (cf. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992, 1998). The world leaders coming together at a G8 Summit can be regarded as a CoP. They come together with their knowledge, expectations, values and views based on previous experiences with other CoPs, and with pre-existing relationships to all or some of the participating leaders. During the course of the Summit, they negotiate and re-negotiate the rules they obey, the roles they play, the ways they communicate and interact with each other, and their relationships. Research on gender and (im)politeness is also included because observers’ comments on the incident at the G8 Summit highlight the relevance of gender to this incident, involving Chancellor Merkel as the only female leader at the event, and President Bush. Research on the relationship between gender and (im)politeness (cf. Beebe 1995; Holmes 1995; Mills 2003, 2005, 2010) has shown

82

Caroline L. Rieger

that in any given situation, whether someone’s behavior is judged as appropriate or inappropriate is “informed by beliefs about gender” (Mills 2010: 60). Judging from the observers’ comments, we can see that they hypothesize that the relational work Bush engaged in with Merkel was shaped by his views on gender, among other beliefs, and by how he felt that the opposite gender should be treated. Furthermore, commentators hypothesize that Bush’s behavior was judged as (im)polite by Merkel based on her own views on gender, on how she felt people should be treated by those of the opposite gender in a professional setting, and a number of other views. It is worth noting that the world leaders getting together at such public events are first and foremost public figures (representatives of their states), although they are also individuals with private identities. Therefore, any relationships negotiated between these leaders are by extension relationships between their nations. The relational negotiations between Bush and Merkel were thus arguably also informed by their expectations for the relationship between Germany and the U.S.3 Furthermore, as public figures whose behavior is on full display, their actions at such events also have to take account of its reception ‘back home.’ It is quite possible that these actions are partly designed to take account of these ‘bystanders’ (Goffman 1981).

2.2 (Im)politeness in the context of an L2: Intercultural (im)politeness Although interactants from different communities do not (necessarily) share the same norms, expectations, perceptions and interpretations of interactional behavior, they typically presume that they do. Carbaugh (2005) indicates that such assumed sharing of a frame of reference might go unnoticed (2005: xxii) and lead to misunderstandings. If the interactional behavior of a participant in an interaction differs from what another interactant has come to expect, the other interactant is likely to judge that behavior as inappropriate. If the behavior in question is negatively marked it is perceived as impolite, rude or even overpolite (cf. Watts 2005: xliv; Locher and Watts 2008: 78–81). Moreover, when interactants interpret other interactants’ behavior as impolite, they also tend to

3 It seems relevant that Merkel and Bush had other official encounters, i.e. state visits prior to the Summit − in fact, on his way to the G8 Summit, Bush visited Germany. Their respective visits included stays in their “home” states, i.e. Texas and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and informal barbeque-style dinners. Officially both leaders had indicated that they have a good and friendly working relationship.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

83

assume it to be deliberately impolite. In other words, they seldom assume that their interactional norms, expectations, perceptions and/or interpretations may simply differ, and they also seldom assume that what they view as negatively marked behavior may neither be seen nor intended as such by the interactant displaying that behavior. This is probably due to the above-mentioned presumed shared norms and to the mostly implicit nature of pragmatic behavior. Citing Wolfson (1986, 1989), Bardovi-Harlig (2013: 73) states that interactants “are not aware of much of their own pragmatic behavior.” Although claims to teach communicative competence abound, in many language classrooms socio-cultural or socio-pragmatic aspects of language usage are all too rarely or incompletely and inadequately taught. Kasper and Rose (2002: 237) point out that it is necessary to teach pragmatics to users of additional languages because “pragmatic functions and relevant contextual factors are often not salient to learners and so not likely to be noticed despite prolonged exposure.” Citing Siegal (1994, 1996), Kasper and Rose (2001: 3) indicate that learners need to know what the consequences of their pragmatic behavior are. “The danger of not using pragmatically appropriate language is that speakers appear uncooperative at the least, or more seriously, rude” (Grant and Starks 2001: 41). Exposure to, reflection on, discussion and awareness of pragmatically accurate target language usage, as well as practice in such usage, is essential for L2 learners. L2 users face a number of challenges when it comes to (im)polite behavior in interactions. (1) The first is linked to teaching materials: little reflection is encouraged, and few socio-cultural and/or socio-pragmatic aspects that go beyond the formulae are presented (see the discussion in section 2.3; BardoviHarlig 2001, 2013; Grant and Starks 2001; Padilla Cruz 2013; Rieger 2007a). (2) Linguistic competence insufficient to support pragmatic competence is often misunderstood by L1 interactants as (intentionally) inappropriate behavior, and is therefore judged negatively (see below). (3) The tendency to assume shared knowledge, norms and values even in intercultural encounters (see above; Carbaugh 2005) may lead to inappropriate behavior. These challenges reveal that the potential to offend interactants is higher for L2 interactants than for L1 interactants.

2.3 (Im)politeness and language teaching Language classes rarely focus on (im)politeness, as certain behaviors associated with politeness, such as turn-taking, are often thought of as universal. However, research on features such as pause length and turn-taking suggests differently

84

Caroline L. Rieger

(see, e.g., Sugawara 2012; Tryggvason 2006). Typically, (German) language classes address linguistic formulae relating to politeness. For example, English learners of German may be taught that ‘danke’ corresponds to ‘thank you’ or ‘bitte’ to ‘please,’ but are not shown that these formulae do not necessarily correspond in all contexts of use, nor that not all German speakers would use them in a similar way. With the exception of conventionalized formulae, most L2 learners hear about (im)politeness rather rarely and/or inadequately. Many German textbook series include a chapter on etiquette in textbooks for advanced learners but do not consider what constitutes (im)polite behavior throughout the syllabus, as Scialdone (2009: 283) advocates. Given that the potential for (im)politeness is so pervasive, including questions, reflections and suggestions on (im)polite behavior with a focus on what constitutes (im)polite behavior in the context of each chapter’s topic, as well as practice materials, seems a reasonable objective. Occasionally, textbooks refer to specific differences in social behavior between “the learner’s culture” and “the target culture.” However, this is often approached too simplistically: the fact that there is neither a homogeneous target culture nor a homogeneous culture of the learner group(s) is ignored, which potentially reinforces cultural stereotypes. For example, Scialdone (2009: 286) criticizes one textbook for presenting Germans as uninterested in small talk and in doing so stereotypifying the Germans as people who do not value the relational aspect of communication. Pragmatic manuals too seem to encourage a decontextualized understanding of matters of politeness. For example, in a twenty-page section devoted to teaching politeness, O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs (2011) present a number of useful examples of tasks and exercises for the teaching of English, but with little attention to intraculturally different perceptions of (im)polite behavior, or reflection on the importance of interpretation in context. Furthermore, O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs (2011: 143) seem to assume a uniform approach by native speakers of English. While arguing that it is futile to lecture “on positive and negative politeness,” they state that it is not an unattainable goal to communicate consistently across what we teach, from beginners’ level upwards, that we show politeness in English [emphasis added] in two ways: (1) Showing people that we respect and value them (positive politeness); (2) Making what you say or write less direct so as not to sound too forceful (negative politeness). (O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs 2011: 143)

O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs’ (2011) description of that first way of displaying politeness is so general that it could be almost universal. At the same time, it seems devoid of information − and tautological for those learners who equate

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

85

politeness with respect. More importantly, the meaning of ‘respecting’ and ‘valuing’ people differs greatly from one community to another. Therefore, such a statement would not help a learner still unfamiliar with the target community’s norms. To be fair, the authors do go on to present a large table of formulaic expressions used to address others in spoken and written contexts, differentiated by relational context as well. They also stress that “language varies according to [the] social relationship between speaker and listener, and writer and reader, and we need to be ever-sensitive to these contextual variables” (O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs 2011: 144, emphasis added). When it comes to the teaching of pluricentric languages in particular, of which English is a prominent example, it is also necessary to be sensitive to regional variables. Further, there are contexts in which the value of indirectness does not apply, such as when making emergency calls or the like (see the analytical discussion of such cases in Brown and Levinson [1987: 94–101] as well as their observations on ‘bald on record’ strategies). The second way of displaying politeness suggested by O’Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs (2011) is certainly useful, especially in combination with the listed examples of linguistic forms and with the tasks provided, in particular to learners who value a more direct way of communicating and would not describe direct communication as forceful (cf. Blum-Kulka 1987; Yu 2011). To those who value it, direct communication is clear, unambiguous and concise – in other words, consistent with Grice’s maxims of manner and quantity (Grice 1975). Additionally, learners whose socialization has led them to an appreciation of direct communication will need more than generic principles and tasks to recognize and produce indirect phrasings. All of this might neither help them to change their appreciation of more indirect interactions, nor facilitate their comprehension of someone else’s appreciation of indirect communication. Learners also need activities to explore and comprehend why ‘indirect’ equates to ‘polite’ when that is not the norm in their own communities. Furthermore, avoiding oversimplification is of the utmost importance – at least when teaching advanced levels – so that L2 users do not equate (im)politeness only with specific linguistic forms and formulae, or even speech acts. Encouragement to pay regular attention to the interpretation of verbal and nonverbal behavior as (im)polite by L1 interactants raises L2 users’ awareness of contextual cues and differences in norms, ideologies and perceptions as related to (im)politeness. Failing that, a playful, sarcastic, mocking or exaggerated usage of elements that might be regarded as (im)polite in a certain sociocultural context might go unnoticed and lead to pragmatic misunderstandings.

86

Caroline L. Rieger

3 Classroom activity: teaching awareness of (im)politeness through the use of Internet sources This section describes an instructional activity aimed at teaching (im)politeness to a group of fifteen adult learners, mostly in their early twenties, in an advanced German language class at an anglophone Canadian university. The learner group was small and quite diverse, including students of seven different nationalities on four continents. The learners were either native speakers of English or very proficient bilinguals (C1 or C2 according to CEFR, Council of Europe 2001). For all of them, German is an L2 and they perform at a B2 to C1 level. The lesson was part of a series that focused on (im)politeness in intercultural contexts. In 3.1, the aims and organization of the class is described. In 3.2, detailed information is given on the video clip “Bush Creeps Out German Chancellor, Controversial Footage” that constitutes the original data input that triggered the comments by Internet users. These comments are described in 3.3, and represent a further resource for the class activity.

3.1 Overview of the lesson The overarching learning objectives with regard to the teaching of (im)politeness using the video clip mentioned above (see details in 3.2) and the commentators’ reactions (see details in 3.3) were: 1. to raise the learners’ awareness of their own, as well as others’ understanding(s) of (im)polite behavior; 2. to sensitize the learner to differences in the views, judgments and negotiations of what constitutes polite or impolite behavior between as well as within larger speech communities; and finally, 3. to raise the learners’ awareness that (im)politeness is negotiated between interactants. The desired learning outcome that was communicated to the learner in German, at the beginning of the lesson, is presented here in English: “At the end of this lesson you will be able to discuss and write in German about polite/impolite behavior in different situations.” At the beginning of an 80-minute advanced German language class, the learners were asked to choose a pseudonym to use on written tasks. This measure was taken for ethical reasons, but also to create a sense of anonymity, similar to

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

87

the one that posters experience when contributing to online fora. The learners were invited to take a few minutes to reflect on what they think politeness or impoliteness is and to record their personal definitions or descriptions. This was followed by a short whole class conversation that served as a bridge-in and pre-assessment of the learners’ views on (im)politeness. As the guiding theme of the discussion I chose the statement: What is considered (im)polite changes over time. As a case in point, learners reflected on and then discussed the following: Do you consider texting in the presence of others (im)polite? Do your parents? Have you/they always felt this way? Can you think of situations when you would find texting in the presence of others impolite, and other situations when you would consider the same behavior polite, or neither polite nor impolite? The discussion was given a German vs. Canadian focus with a question about whether the learners believed that a German-speaking people or community, such as the germanophone Swiss, had a different view on what constitutes polite or impolite behavior from that held by Anglo-Canadians. Following the class discussion, the learners were given a handout with the following instructions in German: We will watch a very short video clip together. It shows a scene from the 2006 G8 Summit in St. Petersburg. After we have watched: – Imagine watching the clip on YouTube. Write a short comment about it in German. What do you think about the behavior depicted? – Remember that you are doing this anonymously because you are using your pseudonym.

Orally, learners were asked to focus on content, not on the accuracy of their language, especially with regard to grammatical features such as case markers. Learners were not explicitly asked to evaluate the actors’ behavior, but this was implicitly suggested by the learning objectives already communicated. I was mostly interested in their own perceptions and qualifications of (im)politeness. The clip was presented twice, hence learners saw ‘the massage’ scene four times. They were then given twelve minutes to write their comments in German. Once comments were collected, another handout was distributed, this time asking for comments in English, before the clip was shown one more time. The purpose of collecting comments in both the learners’ L2 (German) and their L1/ lingua franca (English) was to explore whether different languages could be linked to different attitudes being expressed, and whether comments would be more detailed and nuanced in L1, given that previous studies have shown a link between limited linguistic competence and pragmatic inappropriateness (see Section 4.1 and reviews in Kasper and Roever 2005). This task was followed by a collaborative activity. Learners were provided with a list of actual comments about the behavior caught on tape from different

88

Caroline L. Rieger

Internet fora (see Section 3.3 and Appendices). About half of the comments distributed to all learners were in English, the other half were in German (with no accompanying translation). Their handout also contained the following instructions: – Read the comments on your handout. – Compare and discuss the comments. – Write down your ideas.

When the first collaborative task was completed, the learners received one more handout that asked them to do the following: – Have another look at the comments and reflect on their degree of politeness. Which comments do you find polite? Which ones are impolite? Give reasons. – Write down your ideas.

The lesson concluded with a brief summary that the learners and the instructor discussed together.

3.2 The G8 incident as a negotiation of relationships For the same reason that “online interaction is such an exciting research field because we have access to written records on the negotiation of norms” (Locher 2010: 3), it also provides inspiring examples of authentic communication that can be used in the study of (im)politeness in an L2 context. Online discussion fora are virtual spaces where people from all walks of life post messages about a topic that is often prescribed. Some of these fora form the core of a website, others are part of a site that has a different purpose, such as reporting the news, and the forum is meant for readers to voice their opinion, for example on a specific news report. In the latter case, Ehrhardt (2009: 174) compares them to the Letter-to-the-Editor section in newspapers and magazines. Unlike the print media version, these fora can be regarded as a community (cf. Arendholz 2013; Ehrhardt 2009); however, it is a community where most members only know the others’ Internet personae. Ehrhardt (2009: 174) stresses that, compared to other computer-mediated communication, such as online chatrooms, fora focus more on the topic and less on phatic communication, while Arendholz (2013: 262) remarks that “at times, purely phatic communication could be witnessed, even containing passages of mutual flattering.” This is not surprising given that the purpose of posting on these fora, according to Arendholz (2013: 260), is sharing and “being part of a group” – i.e. the postings fulfill a social purpose.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

89

The incident chosen from the internet for the lesson on (im)politeness is now described in more detail. At the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2006, the then U.S. President George W. Bush gave German Chancellor Angela Merkel a quick and unexpected shoulder rub. The incident happened during a closed-door meeting, or rather what appears to have been a break, and lasted less than five seconds, as can be deducted from a twelve-second video posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) that depicts the occurrence twice. The clip is entitled “Bush Creeps Out German Chancellor, Controversial Footage” and shows a small round table at which some of the chairs are empty. The camera captured three individuals sitting at this table: Chancellor Merkel, with the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi to her right, and to his right the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso. President Bush appears to be returning to his seat located somewhere to the left of Merkel, who now seems to be talking to Prodi. She then catches sight of Bush, who is approaching her from behind. In passing, Bush pauses, puts both hands on Merkel’s shoulders and kneads them briefly. She hunches her shoulders instantly and, in a quick motion, raises her arms with her hands forming loose fists. At that point, Bush lets go of her shoulders and moves on. It looks as if Chancellor Merkel’s face is displaying a tight grimace during the brief incident. The clip is neither sharp nor clear and Bush’s facial expression is unrecognizable the entire time, i.e. while approaching, massaging and walking away. The clip lacks an audio track, therefore no one can hear what words are exchanged. Merkel’s glance at Bush, very shortly before he reaches and touches her, could indicate that he addressed her as he approached, or that he was announcing his return to the table.

Screenshot 1: Merkel’s reaction to Bush’s shoulder rub

To show the potential of this clip for triggering considerations of (im)politeness, a brief analysis is presented here. With no evidence for the existence of a practice of mutual massaging among world leaders, it is fair to assume that there are no shared norms within that CoP that demand massaging other members. Therefore Bush’s behavior can be linked to Merkel personally, to her gender, to her

90

Caroline L. Rieger

status as a newcomer,4 or to a combination of these factors. It is possible that Bush thought of this as a supportive, face-enhancing gesture and that he assumed that Merkel needed symbolic support, either as the only woman or as the newcomer. Of course, if support is not needed and/or not welcome it can be seen as patronizing. Furthermore, the gesture suggests that Bush is negotiating a close and friendly relationship with Merkel − unless one assumes that he is mocking her. To evaluate how Merkel perceived Bush’s behavior, we focus on her orientation to his action as appropriate, inappropriate, or anything in between (cf. Hutchby 2008). Merkel did not lean into the massage, the way a person welcoming it would. Instead she immediately hunched her shoulders and raised her arms to fend off Bush. This suggests that she did not perceive the massage as face-enhancing or face-maintaining, but rather as face-challenging if not facedamaging. At the very least, the incident violated her expectations. I would argue that fending off Bush constitutes a rejection and is to be regarded as face-challenging to Bush. On the other hand, Merkel did not make any grand gestures that would indicate indignation, and this allowed Bush to maintain face. Her reactions imply that she perceives this kind of physical contact as inappropriate. It is not possible to evaluate how Bush saw Merkel’s behavior in response to his massage, due to the quality and length of the video clip. From subsequent public statements we can deduct that neither Bush’s behavior nor Merkel’s reactions had a negative effect on their relationship. Although the video clip of the incident has no audio track it is ideally suited to teaching (im)politeness to adult language learners because it depicts an international incident between people of different backgrounds. The incident is thus an intercultural encounter, like those the learner is likely to experience when using his/her L2. The lack of sound (or dialogue) can be seen as an advantage since textbooks addressing (im)politeness mostly concentrate on linguistic aspects. This silent clip illustrates instead that there is a lot more to polite behavior than formulae or speech acts, and that more than language usage is culturally mediated and warrants attention, reflection and sensitivity. There is a wealth of information that can be inferred from this incident, lasting less than five seconds, and there are numerous tasks and activities that can be designed to facilitate the deciphering of (some of) that information. These activities include discussions about learner perspectives of the (im)politeness of

4 Like Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Merkel was new to this particular CoP.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

91

Bush’s behavior, of Merkel’s reaction to that behavior, of the norms underlying their actions and reactions, and of how the context might be modified and the impact these modifications would have on the perceived (im)politeness etc.

3.3 Reactions to the clip as teaching material In addition to the clip, reactions to the incident, i.e. the German and English postings from online fora are suited to teaching and learning (im)politeness in (university) language classes. The topic of the postings revolves around the question of what (im)polite behavior is, and what is (im)polite among world leaders. The learners can observe how the posters present and defend their perception of norms, their expectations regarding the implementation of these norms, and the violation of both. Most importantly they witness how the commentators agree and disagree on such norms. This is a refreshing change from textbooks that oversimplify pragmatic aspects of language (in use) and ignore individual differences in perception and usage in favor of a monolithic representation of cultural norms. The latter neither reflects reality nor adequately prepares the learner for intercultural encounters. The benefit to the learner, especially when used with tasks that encourage analysis and reflection, is the realization that when it comes to the perception and interpretation of (im)politeness, there are intra-cultural variations in addition to intercultural ones. The German and English comments used were selected from several hundred copied from different online fora. They can be found in the Appendices. The posts were presented to the learner exactly as they were posted on the Internet − with all their quirks and imperfections. Out of ethical considerations, the comments were quoted without a user name and without a URL. All comments used were made by different users, they were randomly sequenced, and did not refer to each other explicitly − with a single exception. The posts used were chosen for the sake of illustrating the variety of possible evaluations rather than being representative of any pragmalinguistic strategies which may be statistically significant. Posts were selected for the following reasons: – They show that on both sides of the pond, there are different interpretations of Bush’s behavior ranging from completely appropriate to utterly inappropriate. It is of course not always possible to identify with certainty the origin of the contributors to online fora. However, some comments do provide direct evidence of the poster’s nationality, and in others Bush or Merkel are acknowledged as the poster’s own president or chancellor; at least we can therefore assume that most of the postings were by Americans and Germans.

92

–

– –

–

Caroline L. Rieger

The different interpretations thus confirm that there is variation in the perception of (im)politeness both between and within larger speech communities (see also Culpeper 2011; Eelen 2001; Holmes 1995; Mills 2009; Pizziconi 2003; Rieger 2007b). The posts themselves can be analyzed for their degrees of (im)politeness, to the extent that they can be perceived as appropriate or inappropriate commentaries on the incident with regard to different factors, including lexical choices, conversational implicatures, sarcasm, etc. The posts provide authentic examples of a wide range of strategies that can be used for discussion purposes. Some of the comments – such as the one suggesting that whether Bush’s behavior is appropriate is not for the poster to decide, but for Merkel – provide a glimpse into how (im)politeness can be seen as an emerging interactive evaluation linked to different norms and values that vary between individuals as well as between cultural contexts or situations, and that depend on the particular relationships of the interactants. Some of the comments are indicative of how the poster’s views on gender and/or political ideology inform notions of appropriateness.

4 Analysis: The learners’ comments This section presents and discusses the learners’ written reactions to the video clip and their interpretation of Bush and Merkel’s behavior, their definitions of (im)politeness, and also excerpts from a delayed test written four weeks after the lesson. Learners’ comments are reproduced verbatim, including inaccuracies in punctuation, grammar and spelling, but these are ignored in the English translations. Idiosyncrasies of punctuation are maintained whenever possible. In this study most learner comments do not display any significant (pragma)linguistic limitations that would hamper the communication of the learners’ pragmatic intent. Whenever there are no critical differences between the German and the English comments I present examples from the English comments here; I will present both versions where variation in their contributions can be observed, especially if it can be attributed to a lack of (pragma)linguistic competence.

4.1 Comparison of the English and German comments In the comments provided in the learners’ L1/lingua franca and in their L2, few differences in attitude can be identified, but we can observe that their English

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

93

comments tend to be slightly more elaborate and to some extent more clearly phrased than their German observations (see the reasoning for collecting data in both languages in 3.1). Example (1) illustrates an obvious case: (1)

[Maite: German Comment] George Bush hat sich bei dem G-8 Gipfel ziemlich schlecht benommen. Er sollte wissen, dass Kameras und Handys überall sind. Vielleicht noch wichtiger hat er die Bundeskanzlerin schlecht behandelt. Er würde der Präsident Chinas nicht so anfassen. Er sollte mit allen gleich umgehen und sich professioneller benehmen. (‘George Bush behaved rather badly at the G8 Summit. He should know that cameras and smart phones are everywhere. Perhaps more importantly, he treated the Chancellor badly. He would never touch the President of China in such a way. He should treat everybody the same and behave in a more professional manner.’) [Maite: English Comment] Wow – just watched that video of George Bush at the G-8 summit. Acting like a jerk is nothing new for George Bush. It wouldn’t be nearly as bad if he treated everyone the same, but he doesn’t. Hopefully he’ll learn to behave himself in the near future.

The first example is distinct from most other learner comments because of a very noticeable difference between Maite’s5 English and German contributions. While her English contribution is a truly evaluative comment, most of her German observation reads more like a description than a personal opinion. The difference in register is noticeable in the usage of “hat sich ziemlich schlecht benommen” (‘behaved rather badly’) versus “acting like a jerk,” as well as “er sollte sich professioneller benehmen” (‘he should [POLITE ] behave in a more professional manner’) versus “Hopefully he’ll learn to behave himself.” Moreover, negative pragmalinguistic transfer is obvious in Maite’s verbatim translation of ‘perhaps more importantly.’ Verbatim translations from English are observable in other learner comments as well. To various extents other learners also use somewhat more neutral language in their L2 compared to their L1 or lingua franca. This suggests a reduced command of L2 registers and a limited knowledge of discourse markers and 5 Out of ethical considerations, all names used here are pseudonyms chosen by the researcher, i.e. the learners’ own pseudonyms were changed again to avoid any risk of exposing anyone’s identity.

94

Caroline L. Rieger

emphatic language. These learners would thus need to develop their linguistic and pragmalinguistic skills further in order to communicate their pragmatic intentions. While pragmatic competence does not “emerge from grammar,” the studies that found a link between linguistic proficiency and pragmatic mastery “isolate grammar as a strong constraint on pragmatic development” (Kasper and Roever 2005: 320). Inadequate command of registers is bound to have an impact on (im)politeness. However, L2 linguistic shortcomings are but one aspect explaining poor pragmatic performance. Béal (1994), for example, has investigated syntactic and lexical differences in English request strategies used by French and Australian coworkers. The study found three concomitant reasons that accounted for the said variations, which contributed to “negative stereotyping and resentment on both sides” (Béal 1994: 54). In addition to a lack of L2 linguistic competence, Béal singles out negative pragmalinguistic transfer as well as socio-cultural differences in the perception and realization of pragmatic strategies. These findings stress the importance of instruction and confirm how crucial it is to collect L1 data in addition to L2 data when examining learners’ evaluations of (im)politeness.

4.2 Evaluations, their strength and rationales A majority of the learners − eleven out of fifteen − stated in remarkably explicit, openly evaluative metapragmatic comments in both their English and their German observations that Bush’s behavior was inappropriate. Some stressed that it was very inappropriate, like Belle, who comments: “what Bush did was very impolite” or Colette, who wrote, “Ich glaube dass die Actions von Präsident Busch sehr unhöfflich waren.” (‘I think that President Bush’s actions were very impolite.’), and qualifies the behavior as “extremely impolite” in her English comments as well. Similarly, Dusty notes: (2)

[Dusty:] I think it is very inappropriate what the President did. He would never do that to a man. And he’s not respecting the equal position Merkel holds as the leader of Germany. She clearly finds it awkward & uncomfortable. It’s very strange.

It is noteworthy that Dusty’s evaluation hinges on an ideology of gender equality. Five other learners name gender as a factor influencing their evaluation. Maite used a similar remark in her German contribution when pointing out that Bush ‘should treat everybody the same.’ Nole mentions Bush’s lack of respect for Merkel and for women generally (Example (5) below) and he concludes his

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

95

English comment with a similar thought: “It shows Bush’s lack of respect for others (esp. women).” Mila also commented on the gender aspect through the usage of the terms “sexist” and “chauvinist” (7), and Malina through the usage of the term “Machismo” in her German comment, the final line of which reads: “Hier sehe ich das als Machismo, unhöfflich, respektlos.” (‘In this context I regard this [Bush’s behavior] as machismo, impolite, disrespectful.’) Finally, Cosmos also stresses Merkel’s gender among other factors: “[. . .] one would hope the President of the United States would have enough cultural/social awareness to anticipate such a reaction, in that Merkel is not only German, but also a woman.” Like Cosmos, other learners identify Bush’s institutional position as a determining factor for their negative evaluation. Michael, for example, writes: “Wenn man berücksichtigt, das er Präsident war, dann scheint es sogar unhöflicher zu sein.” (‘When considering that he was president it seems even more impolite.’) Chan also points this out in her German comment: “[. . .] aber wenn man Präsident ist, soll man mehr bewusst über ihre Verhalten sein” (‘but as president one should be more aware of one’s behavior’). To some extent Malina’s comment also stresses the fact that Bush was President, as can be seen in (3): (3) [Malina:] How can a President like Bush behave like that toward a Chancellor in the official setting in which they found themselves is unbelievable! If he was on his Ranch or some other more relaxed situation it might be different. In this case it was patronizing and disrespectful. Moreover, Malina is one of six learners who mention a context-specific condition, i.e. that the behavior is inappropriate in the context of the G8 meeting, which is also linked to cultural differences, as in (4) from Alex. Others mention that it is the relationship that dictates whether the massage is acceptable, as in Nole’s German comment in (5). (4) [Alex:] I think that this behavior is unacceptable at the G8 summit. It seems unprofessional and too personal/familiar for this kind of setting. It is especially important to be as respectful as possible (ie. respecting personal space and boundaries) when dealing with people from other countries and cultures, as they may have different values and may find what your own culture deems acceptable to in fact be offensive. (5)

[Nole:] – Die Beziehung zwischen Merkel und Bush ist nicht gut genug, dass Bush diese Aktion machen kann. – Bush hat kein Respekt für Merkel (und für Frauen).

96

Caroline L. Rieger

– Merkel hat Bush gesehen, bevor er diese Aktion gemacht habe. (She cowars [sic] a little when Bush walks towards her.) Ist diese Situation vorher auch passiert? – (‘The relationship between Bush and Merkel isn’t good enough for Bush to do what he did. – Bush has no respect for Merkel (and for women). – Merkel saw Bush before he acted. (She cowers a little when Bush walks towards her.) Did this happen before?’) Compared to some of the Internet posters the learners seem more guarded. They use (almost) no coarse language and very few conversational implicatures, word plays and the like. The classroom context and the simulated nature of the task compared to the authentic postings might account for this. Very slight departures from cautious comments are examples (1), (6) and (7). In (6) Michael offers a fairly sarcastic comment: (6) [Michael:] I’m not sure what Bush was thinking, but then I’m not sure he’s ever done much of that anyways. Squeezing the neck of the German chancellor doesn’t seem like a good idea under any circumstances. Pretty funny reaction though. In (7) Mila provides a comment that is closer to those found on the fora − both in structure, for example through the usage of one-word sentences, as well as in content. She alternates between addressing an imagined audience and addressing Bush, and she does so using no flattering terms and still avoiding taboo language. Moreover, she creates rapport with her audience by mentioning the relief she gets from venting, an affective remark typical of intimates. (7) [Mila:] It is mind blowing how childish Bush behaves at such an official event and how superior he feels, walking around like he owns the place – and the people. I wonder how Chancellor Merkel must have felt??? I would have been furious. Capital F. Her? Not so much. Well, there is that first instinctual arm raise, but then she’s all calm, friendly even. That’s classy. Bush however no class W-H-A-T-S-O-E-V-E-R ! This is neither your ranch nor a bar, you patronizing, sexist CHAUVINIST you-know-what! There! Now I feel better ☺ Her comment in German, similar in content, does however not demonstrate the same level of linguistic sophistication: the affective remark is missing in this

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

97

version. Still she integrates a number of strategies to reach her pragmatic goal; for example she refers to the contrast in “class” and underlines the term “gar” in “gar keine” (‘no/none at all’) twice: “Kanzlerin Merkel ist überrascht, aber freundlich. Das zeigt Klasse. Bush auf der anderen Seite hat gar keine Klasse.” (‘Chancellor Merkel is surprised, but friendly. That shows class. Bush on the other hand has absolutely no class.’)

4.3 Code-switching and other communication strategies Example (5) displays a strategy found in a number of German comments, i.e. code-switching into English − a strategy the instructor encourages in classroom discourse. In our context, code-switching is used when learners are looking for appropriate L2 concepts to express their meta-pragmatic comments in the L2 and, failing to manage the translation, resort to the use of L1 expressions. While Nole includes an entire English sentence in his German comment, other learners code-switch at the word level only, as the following comments by Jenn (8) and Colette (9) show: (8) [Jenn:] Herr Busch hat die Schulter der Frau Bundeskänzlerin Merkel massiert wenn er hat hinter ihrem Stuhl vorbeigegangen. Sie waren in einer offizialen Sitzung und er Benehmen war inappropriate. (‘Mr Bush massaged the shoulders of Chancellor Merkel when he passed behind her chair. They were in an official meeting and his behavior was inappropriate.’) (9) [Colette:] Ich glaube dass die Actions von Präsident Busch sehr unhöfflich waren. Wenn man Es gab eine sehr Formal unterhalten? (meeting), und denn man muss die anderen Personen respectieren. Dass ist nicht aceptiveable wenn man die andere Leute zu (touch)! (‘I think that President Bush’s actions were very impolite. If one There was a very formal talk? (meeting) and because one has to respect others. It is not acceptable to (touch) others!’) While code-switching (which the learners mark graphically in different ways and hence appear to be aware of) serves varied functions in learner speech (cf. Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain 2007), all the examples in this data seem to serve as a compensation strategy for when the learner does not know or remember the equivalent German term(s). It is noteworthy that the learners whose German displays the most linguistic inaccuracies, namely Belle, Colette and Jenn, are

98

Caroline L. Rieger

among the five learners who code-switch. The linguistic challenges arguably lead them to adopt another strategy − avoidance. All three express ideas in their English commentary that are absent from their German observations. Other learners do this as well. While avoidance might be seen as the most common strategy when learners struggle to express their ideas in an L2, the German versions also contain comments that are absent from the English version. Hence invariably equating the absence of comments in either version with the positive adoption of an avoidance strategy would be injudicious. In some case(s) it might be the different language that prompts the different comments, or simply a desire to avoid repetition. Only learner interviews could shed light on this question. Other strategies which could be called ‘compensation strategies’ (cf. Oxford 1990) found in the German data are substitutions, such as “sehr” (‘very’) for “extremely” (as seen in the discussion of Colette’s comments in Section 4.2, first paragraph) and paraphrasing, such as “[. . .] dass Merkel das gar nicht mag” (‘[. . .] that Merkel does not like it at all’) in Dusty’s German comment (not shown), compared to “She clearly finds it awkward & uncomfortable.” in his English comment (Example 2). Compensation strategies suggest limited (pragma)linguistic skills, while simultaneously confirming the existence of L2 communication skills.

4.4 Different saliences of events The analysis also revealed that while the majority of anglophone posters do not see Merkel’s reaction as the salient event, German-speaking posters commented in larger numbers on it, either exclusively or in addition to writing about Bush’s behavior. Since learners did comment too, their comments are worth highlighting. This provides supportive evidence for the claim that evaluators differ not merely in terms of cognitive understanding, internalization and the emergent realization of a CoP’s situated socio-cultural and socio-pragmatic norms, but also in terms of what aspect of the event they focus on. What they take into account and what exactly they evaluate must be linked to their identity beyond or apart from political affiliations and other ideologies (cf. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2012). For example, personal interests − such as an interest in leaders from German-speaking countries when studying German − seem to intercept at the perception level and influence what the evaluator sees. This might explain why eight out of fifteen learners of German comment on Merkel’s reaction, not just Bush’s behavior. Both Cosmos and Michael call Merkel’s reaction “funny,” while Jenn notes the unfavorable slant: “Ms. Merkel’s reaction was one of shock – her arms flew up” and Nole comments: “clearly Merkel is not happy

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

99

with it.” Belle writes that Merkel was “überrascht” (surprised) and that it was good that she did not make a scene (“es ist gut, dass die Bundeskanzlerin keine ‘scene’ machen”). Mila mentions Merkel’s collected reaction (example [7]) while Cameron thinks that “the German Chancellor took it [Bush’s behavior] the wrong way.” The quotes illustrate that while just over 50 percent of the learners focus on Merkel’s reaction, they do not necessarily evaluate it uniformly.

4.5 Assessment of interactants’ intentions A few students also write about intentions, a topic often discussed in the literature on (im)politeness (e.g. Locher and Bousfield 2008: 3). For example, Alice, who is among the four learners providing mixed evaluations of the incident, writes: “Were his intentions bad or was he just playful? Probably the latter, but that doesn’t justify it.” Cameron too mentions Bush’s intentions, as shown in (10): (10) [Cameron:] I think that Bush’s intention was to be friendly but the German Chancellor took it the wrong way. I don’t find any part of the clip to be “impolite”, rather I find it as an invasion of personal space or privacy. Like me, there are people in the world that don’t like to be touched. Incidentally, Cameron distinguishes between impoliteness and invasion of privacy, but the latter qualifies as a face-threatening act in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) terms, which has the potential to be rendered in an impolite manner. This suggests that researchers’ and lay interactants’ notion of (im)politeness may differ, which supports calls for the analysis of (im)politeness from multiple perspectives (cf. Kádár and Haugh 2013). In addition, it is noteworthy that Cameron’s German comment reveals her appreciation of multiple perspectives: “Ich denke, dass George Bush für sich höfflich war, aber für die deutsche Frau war es unhöfflich.” (‘I think that from his perspective George Bush was polite, but for the German woman it was impolite’). This suggests that Cameron believes behavior to be impolite only when it is the interactant’s intention to be impolite and when both interactants view it as impolite. While not specifically using the term ‘intention,’ a number of students seem to refer to it nevertheless. Simon writes that “the shoulder grab seemed inappropriate and Bush possibly did not even realize it. Maybe Bush thought he was actually treating her with respect.” Similarly, Cosmos and Chan see Bush as well-meaning (“he seems to wish to be friendly,” “Bush wollte bestimmt nur freundlich sein” [‘Surely Bush only wanted to be friendly’]), and relate that to

100

Caroline L. Rieger

his nature or personality. While Cosmos thinks this is no excuse, as “one would hope the President of the United States would have enough cultural/social awareness,” Chan focuses on the fact that “actions can easily be misinterpreted by others,” and therefore speakers must be aware of this possibility. What the four out of fifteen learners who did not clearly identify Bush’s behavior as inappropriate have in common is their belief that Bush acted in good faith. There is disagreement about the role of intentions in the literature (see Bousfield 2008; Culpeper 2011; Haugh 2008, 2010), but from first order evaluations, including those provided by the learners here, it seems that behavior will only be judged as impolite if the target of that behavior − or other observers − consider it intentional.

4.6 Learners’ conceptualizations of (im)politeness At the beginning of the teaching session described, the learners had reflected on (im)politeness. Their definitions were for the most part short and simple, as illustrated in (11) by Dusty and (12) by Michael: (11)

[Dusty:] Augenkontakt, Bitte u. Danke, (‘Eye contact, please a[nd] thank you,’) Respectful body language

(12)

[Michael:] Wenn man Respekt zeigt, egal mit wem man spricht. Beispiele davon sind natürlich “bitte” und “danke” zu sagen, aber auch gut anzuhören, etc. (‘When you show respect no matter to whom you speak. Examples thereof are of course the usage of “please” and “thank you,” but also listening closely, etc.’)

While a vast majority equated politeness with respect and gave no consideration to differences in perception or interpretation of (im)politeness − whether linked to socio-cultural or socio-pragmatic aspects − the learner comments on the incident presented above signal a more sophisticated understanding. Arguably the theme and guiding questions of the discussion had raised the learners’ awareness of more nuanced understandings of (im)politeness. Their evaluations of Bush and Merkel’s behavior point to a number of factors that influence their judgment, such as the gender, relationship, cultural background, position or function of the interactants, the context of the interaction, the degree of (in)formality, the intentions of the actors, etc. This suggests that the learners came to

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

101

recognize that (im)politeness is socio-culturally and socio-pragmatically relative and that (im)politeness is not inherent in (verbal/non-verbal) behavior − an important learning goal that was (at least temporarily) achieved by the learners in this study, if to varying degrees. This conclusion is confirmed by the delayed post-lesson test. The test, performed four weeks after the lesson, served as an additional assessment of the learners’ L2 progress. They were instructed to write, in German, an informal letter or e-mail to a friend on the topic of (im)politeness. The following is an excerpt from Michael’s letter, showing an interesting contrast with his much simpler definition in L2 above: (13) [Michael:] [. . .] Als Kanadier soll ich mich mit Höflichkeit wirklich gut auskennen, aber ich habe in meinem Deutschkurs festgestellt, dass das nicht der Fall war. Bei dem Begriff Höflichkeit verstehe ich, dass es darum geht, wie man sich mit anderen verhalten soll. Ich hatte immer gedacht, dass es überall das gleiche sein sollte. Dann haben wir das Thema in meinem Kurs besprochen. Wir haben verschiedene Situationen betrachtet, in denen wir uns entschieden haben, wie wir dabei höflich wären. Dadurch ist mir klar geworden, dass man sich anders höflich verhaltet, je nach der Situation etc. Ich habe gelernt, dass Höflichkeit subjektiv ist. [. . .] (‘[. . .] As a Canadian I should be very familiar with politeness, but I discovered in my German course that was not the case. Politeness is how one should interact with others. I used to think that would be the same everywhere. Then we discussed the topic in my course. We looked at different situations and decided how we would behave politely in each of them. That is how it became clear to me that politeness is dependent on context etc. I learned that politeness is subjective. [. . .]’) Even shorter excerpts from other students, when contrasted with their pretreatment understandings, provide further evidence of the positive effects of this activity. For instance, Chan writes: (14) [Chan:] [. . .] Die Kommentare waren so interessant, weil es verschiedene Meinungen gibt. Schließlich glaube ich, es ist wichtig zu verstehen, dass was höflich in einer Kultur ist, könnte in einer anderen Kultur als unhöflich sein. [. . .]. (‘[. . .] The comments were so interesting because they consisted of different opinions. Finally, I think it is important to understand that what is considered polite in one culture could be considered impolite in another culture. [. . .]’)

102

Caroline L. Rieger

Cosmos also focuses on the (inter)cultural aspect of politeness: (15)

[Cosmos:] [. . .] Höflichkeit ist eigentlich was Kulturelles, und deswegen ist es immer so schwer zu wissen, wie man sich verhalten soll, [. . .] Hier haben wir Leute, die aus aller Welt kommen. Jeder hat eine einzigartige Beschreibung fürs Wort “Höflichkeit.” (‘[. . .] Politeness is really something cultural and therefore it is always so difficult to know how to behave, [. . .] Here are people from all over the world. Everyone has a unique description of the term “politeness.”’)

Finally, Cameron remarks on the pervasiveness of politeness: (16) [Cameron:] [. . .] Ich denke, dass die Höflichkeit sehr wichtig für alles ist. [. . .]. (‘[. . .] I think politeness is very important for everything. [. . .]’) Overall the test confirmed that the majority of the learners had achieved a more diverse and detailed view on (im)politeness. However, it is arguable that more learning activities, especially more authentic practice opportunities, are necessary in order to further improve their pragmatic and socio-cultural competence.

5 Concluding remarks In an increasingly multicultural, interconnected and globalized world, it is more important than ever to promote acceptance and tolerance of negatively marked behavior, especially in intercultural encounters. This includes (1) a deeper understanding and enhanced awareness of the socio-cultural and socio-pragmatic relativity of (im)politeness; (2) an enhanced awareness of non-shared norms and practices; and (3) a systematic questioning of one’s own understanding of what constitutes (im)polite behavior. The teaching activity described in this chapter aimed to provide a step in the process of developing such awareness. It exposed advanced language learners to linguistic practices surrounding interactional incidents, notions of (im)politeness and the negotiation of norms and meaning. The analysis of the learners’ contributions showed their different levels of ability in the expression of evaluations in German. All learners made use of a variety of strategies to compensate for their challenges, such as avoidance,

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

103

code-switching, substitutions and paraphrasing. Among the pragmatic shortcomings observed were direct and not always effective translations from the L1, insufficient command of registers and limited knowledge of pragmatic markers. The findings also suggest that the instruction was successful, as learners showed a more elaborate metapragmatic and metalinguistic knowledge necessary to communicate about (im)politeness in their L2. They developed an increased understanding of how a word, utterance, speech act or behavior per se is not polite or impolite, but the interpretation of its usage in a particular sociocultural context is. As a result, they grasped the central role of the socio-cultural context and recognized the communicative and intercultural complexities of verbal interaction in general and the pervasive nature of (im)politeness in interaction in particular. Through participatory learning and reflection on (im)politeness and on an intercultural incident the learners gained a deeper understanding of (im)politeness, its socio-cultural relativity and its emergent and evaluative makeup. It must be stressed that a single lesson cannot guarantee that in their intercultural interactions L2 learners will be able to avoid being unintentionally polite or impolite. A systematic approach that uses authentic language and activities that are similar to those described above, that promotes reflection, builds noticing strategies, and raises awareness “combined with ample practice opportunities” (Kasper and Roever 2005: 322) is needed to develop that advanced pragmatic competence for which the learner strives. Current textbooks provide insufficient context to promote enhanced awareness, and teachers may be left to devise their own material for this purpose. This activity has shown how authentic material easily available on the Internet can be adapted to the classroom. Additional activities (such as role plays, simulations, journals, etc.) can be designed as further follow-ups which target the learners’ awareness of intercultural norms of (im)polite behavior.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Miriam Locher and Barbara Pizziconi for their many perceptive and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. Any remaining shortcomings are of course my own.

104

Caroline L. Rieger

Appendices List of English comments used Kommentare Anderer vom Internet (Comments by Third Parties from the Internet) Von YouTube und anderen Webseiten (From YouTube and Other Websites) 1. To any Germans reading this. I am so sorry. signed America. 2. (A president ought to know enough not use an expletive in a fairly open meeting)6 and almost any male alive today knows that you don’t offer uninvited massages to any female, much less the chancellor of Germany. 3. He’s such an asshole and a bully. It’s just insane that so much of the country would rather have a (mostly fake) “regular guy” as president, rather than someone who knows enough not to make the country a laughingstock on a regular basis. 4. Bush is a Texan. Texans hug one another, kiss one another, place their hands on other’s shoulders, and give hand squeezes all the time. You libs are always talking about understanding the culture of others and it’s time for you to start understanding Texas culture. We’re not cold and frigid like you Yankees are. 5. This isn’t a Sigma Chi kegger, it’s the G8 Summit, for hell’s sakes, and these are two heads of state having a meeting, interrupted by the Frat Boy in Chief acting like a juvenile goober. 6. I just can’t find the words to describe what Bush did with that neck massage. An idiot by true definition of the word. 7. Speaking as a female, I have to say that I hate being in the position at a party or at a business gathering and there is an obnoxious male who doesn’t know the appropriate boundaries toward other humans. They say inappropriate things or touch inappropriately. 8. Another thought re the Merkel grope: she was way too fawningly chummy with him in Germany and failed to establish boundaries (doubtless not fully realizing the extent of his true psychopathy). I am sure she now realizes the need for such with this drugged-up psycho and won’t get fooled again (as they say). NOT blaming the victim – just sayin. 9. last night, a commenter had in English what AngieBabes shoulda said to the Preznit − in German it can be loosely rendered as Erhalten Sie Ihren schmutzigen Tatzen das Bumsen weg von mir bevor I cockpunch Sie in 6 These parentheses were added to indicate to the learner that this part refers to another incident.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

105

folgende Woche und schieben Sie diese Wasserflasche herauf Ihren Esel, Sie betrunken wenig Stichel!7 PS − this the English original: “get your filthy paws the fuck off of me before I cockpunch you into next week and shove this water bottle up your ass, you drunken little prick.” 10. OMG it was nothing, it’s so sad that being human is becoming “inappropriate”. (I VOTED AGAINST BUSH IN BOTH ELECTIONS TOO!) List of German comments used [English translations are provided here for the benefit of the reader. They were not made available to the learners.] Kommentare Anderer vom Internet (Comments by Third Parties from the Internet) Von YouTube und anderen Webseiten (From YouTube and Other Websites) 1. Hallo, ich finde, daß George W. Bush einfach nicht weiß, wie man sich benimmt. So etwas Bescheuertes kann auch nur er tun!Aber sexuelle Belästigung ist das noch lange nicht, eher unpassende aber “gut” gemeinte Freundlichkeit zur falschen Zeit am falschen Ort. Ist doch aber ganz gut, daß die Amerikaner immer wieder präsentiert bekommen, wen sie da verdammtnochmal leider gewählt haben! Gruß, [Name] (Hello, I think George W. Bush just doesn’t know how to behave properly. Only he can do something so stupid! But it is not sexual harassment, not by a long shot, rather inappropriate, but “well” intended friendliness at the wrong place at the wrong time. It is however a very good thing that the Americans get to see on a regular basis whom the hell they have voted for unfortunately! Greetings, [name]) 2. Weder das eine, noch das andere. Aber man sollte vielleicht Angela Merkel fragen, wie sie es empfunden hat. Für mich war es eine Geste unter Freunden. (Neither one nor the other [as a response to the question of whether Bush’s behavior can be seen as an error of judgment or as sexual harassment]. Maybe Angela Merkel should be asked how she felt about it. For me, it was a friendly gesture [literally: a gesture among friends].) 7 The German in this comment must have been machine translated because it completely disregards German syntax as well as the context and therefore no one can make sense of it unless he or she has access to the English original as well. Here is how that comment was given to the learner: “what AngieBabes shoulda said to the Preznit: ‘get your filthy paws the fuck off of me before I cockpunch you into next week and shove this water bottle up your ass, you drunken little prick.’”

106

Caroline L. Rieger

3. Stimme dem zu. Ich sehe das auch als freundschaftliche Geste. Frau Merkel hätte da nicht so geschockt reagieren brauchen. (Agreed. To me it is also a friendly gesture. Ms. Merkel didn’t need to react so shocked though.) 4. . . .aber eine recht plumpe “Geste” wie ich finde. Frau Merkel sah im übrigen nicht so glücklich aus, wie man beobachten konnte. Schade das sie Bush nicht gleich eine gescheuert hat (. . .but a very insensitive “gesture” I find. By the way, Ms. Merkel did not look so happy, as one could observe. Too bad she did not slap Bush at that point) 5. auf den Gedanken das dass eine Frau sein könnte was uns da regiert bin ich in der Tat noch nicht gekommen. Alles eine Geschmacksfrage. Auf jedenfall zeigt das Verhalten Bushs das er die Merkel nicht ernst nimmt, geschweige denn Respektiert. Beim Schrödi hätte er das nicht gewagt, genau wie er es bei Blair nicht wagen wird (so far the thought has indeed not yet crossed my mind that which [depersonalized relative pronoun] is governing us is a woman. All a question of taste. In any case, Bush’s behavior shows that he does not take Merkel [literally the Merkel, emphasizing the missing title, Chancellor, or address, Frau/Ms.] seriously let alone respect her. He would not have dared to do this to Schrödi [nickname for former Chancellor Schröder] just like he won’t dare to do this to Blair.) 6. ein sexueller übergriff auf frau merkel? soll das ein witz sein? welcher mensch würde vesuchen sich sexuell an frau merkel zu vergreifen? ein gestörter? der amerikanische präsident – ein gestörter? na wenn das so ist. . . (sexual harassment of ms. merkel? is that supposed to be a joke? which human would try to sexually harass ms. merkel? an insane one? the american president is insane? oh okay then. . .) 7. Die Geste war unangemessen, jedenfalls in dem Rahmen in dem sie stattgefunden hat. Wie gut das persönliche Verhältnis zwischen Merkel und Bush ist weiss ich nicht, aber es kann durchaus ein freundschaftliche Geste gewesen sein. (The gesture was inappropriate, at least in that context it was. I do not know how good the personal relationship between Merkel and Bush is, but it is quite possible that it was a friendly gesture.)

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

107

8. In kulturspezifischen Verhaltensfragen ist GWB recht unsicher. Um bei Merkel zu punkten, hat er sich gründlich mit den deutschen Ritualen des Frohsinns beschäftigt. Dabei konnte ihm das deutsche Standard-Werk der ausgelassenen Heiterkeit, die “Polonäse Blankenese” nicht verschlossen bleiben. “Wir ziehen los mit ganz großen Schritten, und Erwin fasst die Heidi von hinten an die Â. . . Schulter, das hebt die Stimmung, ja da kommt Freude auf”. Leider hat er die Passage mit der Schulter nicht ganz richtig verstanden. Eigentlich schade, sonst hätten wir jetzt bestimmt genügend Stoff, um damit die nächsten 10 Sommerlöcher abzudecken. (GWB is quite insecure when it comes to issues of culturally appropriate behavior. To score with Merkel he studied German rituals of cheerfulness quite extensively. In doing so he must have come across the mother of all jolly songs: “Polonäse Blankenese” “We set off with very large steps, and Erwin is touching Heidi’s . . . uh shoulder from behind, that lightens the mood yes, it’s a joy to see.” Unfortunately he didn’t quite get the part about the shoulder. Which is actually too bad, or else we would surely have enough material to fill 10 silly seasons.) 9. Jede Wette, der Kerl hat wieder ordentlich gesoffen. Da er sich dann verbal eh net mehr ordentlich ausdrücken konnte, hat er sich halt gedacht “So jetzt drück ich dich mal so richtig du duftes Mäddel du” . . . ich versteh nur net, warum Angie da so schüchtern reagiert – während der WM hat sie schließlich noch jeden abgeknutscht, der ihr vor die Schnüss kam 8) (I’ll bet you anything that guy was on the booze again. Then he can’t properly communicate anymore and so he just thought to himself “Well I will just hug you tight you smashing gal you” . . . I just don’t understand why Angie is so shy about it – after all during the World Cup she was canoodling with anyone who came close to her 8))

References Arendholz, Jenny. 2013. (In)appropriate online behavior: A pragmatic analysis of message board relations (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 229). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

108

Caroline L. Rieger

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instructions in pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, 13−32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2013. Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning 63(1). 68−86. Béal, Christine. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1−2). 35−58. Beebe, Leslie M. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger & Maggie Ronkin (eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic Aspects (Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics 1995), 154−168. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11(2). 131−146. Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8), 56−289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bush creeps out German chancellor, controversial footage. YouTube. 19 July 2006. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=eTQY1Aw9zcs (1 June 2014). Carbaugh, Donal A. 2005. Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf. (1 June 2014). Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 461−490. Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1998. Communities of practice: Where language, gender and power all live. In Jennifer Coates (ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader, 484−494. Oxford: Blackwell. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Ehrhardt, Claus. 2009. Netiquette zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit Höflichkeit in deutschen und italienischen Internetforen. In Claus Ehrhardt & Eva Neuland (eds.), Sprachliche Höflichkeit in interkultureller Kommunikation und im DaF-Unterricht (Sprache – Kommunikation – Kultur 7), 171−189. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2012. Politics, “lies”, and YouTube: A genre approach to assessments on im/politeness on Obama’s 9/9/2009 presidential address. In Lucía FernándezAmaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 62−90. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interactional rituals: Essays on face–to–face behavior. New York: Doubleday. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

109

Grant, Lynn & Donna Starks. 2001. Screening appropriate teaching materials. Closings from textbooks and television soap operas. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 39(1). 39−50. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, 41−58. New York: Academic Press. Haugh, Michael 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2). 99−110. Haugh, Michael 2010. When is an email really offensive?: Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1). 7−31. Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, men and politeness. London & New York: Longman. Hutchby, Ian. 2008. Participants orientation to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2). 221−241. Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Carsten Roever. 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 317−334. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2001. Introduction. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 1−9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language (Language Learning 52). Oxford: Blackwell. Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Liebscher, Grit & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain. 2007. Interculturality and code-switching in the German language classroom. In Christoph Lorey, John L. Plews & Caroline L. Rieger (eds.), Intercultural Literacies and German in the Classroom. Festschrift für Manfred Prokop (Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik), 49−67. Tübingen: Narr. Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25(3). 249−267. Locher, Miriam A. 2010. Introduction: Politeness and impoliteness in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1). 1−5. Locher, Miriam A. 2011. Situated impoliteness: The interface between relational work and identity construction. In Bethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (eds.), Situated Politeness, 187−208. London: Continuum. Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 36−60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Locher, Miriam A. & Derek Bousfield. 2008. Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 1−13. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. & Sage L. Graham. 2010. Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 1−13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

110

Caroline L. Rieger

Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9−33. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 77−99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mills, Sara. 2005. Gender and impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 263−280. Mills, Sara. 2009. Impoliteness in a cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5). 1047−1060. Mills, Sara. 2010. Impoliteness. In Patrick Griffiths, Andrew John Merrison, & Aileen Bloomer (eds.), Language in use: A reader, 59−68. London: Routledge. Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2013. An integrative approach to teach the pragmatics of phatic communication in ESL classes. Intercultural Pragmatics 10(1). 131−160. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2003. Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10−11). 1471−1506. O’Keeffe, Anne, Brian Clancy & Svenja Adolphs. 2011. Introducing pragmatics in use. London: Routledge. Oxford, Rebecca L. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Rieger, Caroline L. 2007a. Artificial versus authentic textbook dialogues: Reviewing conversation in the intercultural foreign language classroom. In Christoph Lorey, John L. Plews & Caroline L. Rieger (eds.), Intercultural Literacies and German in the Classroom. Festschrift für Manfred Prokop (Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik), 249−278. Tübingen: Narr. Rieger, Caroline L. 2007b. Shopping is not for conversation − or is it? Intra-culturally different perceptions of small talk at the supermarket checkout. In Thomas Salumets & Marketa Goetz-Stankiewicz (eds.), A transatlantic gathering. Essays in honour of Peter Stenberg, 208−223. München: Iudicium. Scialdone, Maria Paola. 2009. Sprachliche Höflichkeit in interkulturellen DaF-Lehrwerken deutsch-italienisch: Ein kritischer Überblick. In Claus Ehrhardt & Eva Neuland (eds.), Sprachliche Höflichkeit in interkultureller Kommunikation und im DaF-Unterricht (Sprache – Kommunikation – Kultur. Soziolinguistische Beiträge 7), 283−299. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Siegal, Meryl. 1994. Looking East: Identity construction and white women learning Japanese. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation, unpublished. Siegal, Meryl. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3). 356−382. Sugawara, Kazuyoshi. 2012. Interactive significance of simultaneous discourse or overlap in everyday conversations among |Gui former foragers. Journal of Pragmatics 44(5). 577−618. Tryggvason, Marja-Terttu. 2006. Communicative behavior in family conversation: Comparison of amount of talk in Finnish, SwedishFinnish, and Swedish families. Journal of Pragmatics 38(11). 1795−1810. Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2−3), 131−166. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Teaching (im)politeness through online fora

111

Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis? In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 2nd edn., xi−xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J. 2008. Rudeness, conceptual blending theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 4(2). 289−317. Yu, Kyong-Ae. 2011. Culture-specific concepts of politeness: Indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(3). 385−409.

Barbara Pizziconi

5 Teaching and learning (im)politeness: A look at the CEFR and pedagogical research Abstract: This chapter explores how the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) conceptualizes (im)politeness, broadly understood here as aspects of linguistic behaviour with consequences for a social self and for social relations, and the implications of its conceptualization for language teachers perusing it. A number of currently topical issues are highlighted from the pedagogical literature on both (im)politeness and the nature of language learning processes, and compared with the view emerging from the CEFR’s formulations. It is found that the Framework’s ambitious programmatic statements – laid out in its “descriptive scheme” – are not invariably consistent, but more importantly do not emerge transparently in its (more practical) “proficiency descriptors.” In light of the observation that teachers engaging in syllabus (re)design tend to be more concerned with the latter, this chapter notes the potential risk of reductive interpretations and recommends teachers to pursue a more comprehensive scrutiny, both of the Framework’s theoretical stance, and of current research in the field of (im)politeness. Keywords: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), (im)politeness; Second Language Acquisition (SLA), sociocultural approach, language pedagogy

1 Introduction The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is a guideline produced by the Council of Europe’s Language Policy Division for the description of foreign language achievement levels, which has provided, since its publication in 2001 (referred to henceforth as CoE 2001a or Framework; but see also 2001b), not only a common reference for European users, but also a canon of current thinking about language learning and teaching in which non-European countries have shown increasing interest. The framework intends to facilitate and promote plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, outlines a corresponding view of the language learner’s competences, and offers a descriptive scheme for different

114

Barbara Pizziconi

levels of proficiency. It does not recommend specific methodologies and it does not intend to set an absolute European standard to which all institutions must abide by, but rather aims to provide flexible and adaptable guidelines for diverse contexts and various categories of users, e.g. language learners as well as professionals involved in teaching or assessment. Although European in inspiration and purpose (cf. Little 2011 for a concise introduction, and CoE 2001a: 1–6), its usefulness for outlining language policies, and its authoritativeness for the description of language competences have been recognized beyond European boundaries.1 In the UK, many Higher Education institutions have elected to formulate language curricula in terms of its guidelines, and teachers of all languages, including non-European ones, are expected to familiarize themselves with it. Although the CEFR has received some criticism even within Europe, not surprisingly some scepticism has been voiced by teachers and educational specialists of Asian languages, and Japanese in particular, maintaining that the framework underestimates the challenges posed by, among other things, teaching and learning politeness. Many feel that the linguistic features of the Japanese honorific system as well as the sociocultural distance of this language from the European ones militate against the achievement, over comparable periods of instruction time, of levels of proficiency comparable to those of other European languages. As a Japanese specialist, I have been curious to explore whether this criticism is justified and a sufficient reason not to adapt the CEFR to the teaching of non-European languages. However, in the course of my investigation I also discovered broader concerns, shared by teachers of European languages too, that call into question the Framework’s descriptive apparatus. Some of these concerns impinge on topical and controversial issues debated not only in the field of language pedagogy but also theoretical (im)politeness, such as the understanding of the learner as a social actor, or of language use as a social activity that has consequences for social identities and social relationships. While the CEFR is unambiguous about its programmatic commitment to a sociocultural perspective, it also appears somewhat inconsistent in its description of the competences required to enable a social actor to manage (im)politeness. I use the term of ‘(im)politeness’ here – while noting some arguments against it (Meier 2004: 12–13) – as a shorthand for various kinds of phenomena,2 which have also been variably referred to in the literature as “relational work” (Locher 1 The CEFR has been formally tested or applied in Canada, US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, Japan (Valax 2011: 4–11; Tanaka et al. 2005). 2 Accordingly, I refer to ‘politeness’ or ‘impoliteness’ when necessary, but always in the general sense of the language used in relational work.

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

115

and Watts 2005; Locher 2006) or “rapport management” (Spencer-Oatey 2000, 2005, and 2011 on various strands of works focusing on “relational” aspects), i.e. a broad range of semiotic phenomena which index and regulate social relations. Thus the purpose of this chapter is to explore whether the CEFR’s conceptualization of (im)politeness mirrors (or not) the understanding of it which a sociocultural perspective mandates, and how the CEFR assists the teacher in syllabus or task design at various proficiency levels with regards to the relational aspects of language use. As a background to my evaluation of the CEFR, which I deal with in section 3, I review the language pedagogy literature on a number of issues concerning (im)politeness in section 2, and on the basis of this juxtaposition, I outline some concluding recommendations for teachers in section 4.

2 Understandings of (im)politeness in language pedagogy This section reviews various understandings of (im)politeness in the pedagogical literature through an overview of theoretical conceptualizations (2.1), a discussion of how these have informed the notion of competence in language acquisition (2.2), and what instructional treatments are thought to facilitate its development (2.3).

2.1 The conceptualization and definition of (im)politeness in SLA studies The field of ‘interlanguage pragmatics’ (cf. Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993), initially mostly concerned with “the illocutionary and politeness dimensions of speech act performance” (Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993: 4), considered (im)politeness as a component of “communicative competence” (Hymes 1972; Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983; Bachman 1990). This conceptualization crucially distinguished linguistically correct from sociolinguistically appropriate uses, and this translated into a shift of focus from the language itself to language learners and their needs, purposes and practices, including culturally motivated patterns exhibited in their L1 and L2 behaviour (a shift that, however, seems to have never been fully completed, judging from the critical opening passages in many scholarly papers, e.g. Taguchi 2009: 301 or Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2001). Many early studies (e.g. Scarcella and Brunak 1981; Lörscher and Schulze 1988; Olshtain 1989; Bergman and Kasper 1993; Béal 1994; Trosborg 1995; Huang

116

Barbara Pizziconi

1996 [reported in Bouton 1996: 4]) investigate learners’ as well as teachers’ production based on the then influential Brown and Levinson framework (1987; B&L henceforth). Such studies explicitly adopt B&L’s definition and their conceptualization of politeness as a systematic mechanism of linguistic manipulation which mediates an individual’s concern with face, and of mitigation, necessary to resolve communicative tensions. The well known theoretical criticism of B&L’s model, however, also spilled onto research in the applied domain (e.g. Meier 1995). A few selected points are discussed here, as a background to both the discussion of how (im)politeness is taught/learnt (sections 2.2, 2.3) and of the CEFR (section 3). B&L’s conceptualization of politeness is an abstract (second-order) idealization, superimposed, as it were, on participants’ (first-order) evaluations of behaviour (Watts, Ide and Ehlich 1992; Eelen 2001; Watts 2003), and as such not obvious to the language learner. Moreover, when talking of politeness not as an expressed line of behaviour, but a metapragmatic phenomenon, i.e. a ‘commentary’ on people or their behaviour in real life, other issues ensue from the view point of communication in a second language: although some corresponding notion of ‘(im)politeness’ can arguably be found in all cultures, the semantic and pragmatic non-equivalence of lexemes such as “polite,” “rude,” etc. turns out to be a first obvious problem. Even when corresponding lexemes exist, their cultural valorization as well as their linguistic distribution may differ; networks of associated terms (e.g. kind, friendly, distant, etc.) create non-overlapping language-specific semantic domains for ‘(im)politeness’ concepts, so that one of such terms, which may be canonically linked to politeness in one language, may not suggest politeness at all to users of other languages. “Friendly” is one of them, arguably associated to politeness in English but not in Japanese (Pizziconi 2007; Iwasaki 2011). Finally, it was noted that speakers would very likely use such evaluative qualifications not so much with a descriptive as with an argumentative intention, e.g. to achieve some ulterior associative, dissociative, prescriptive, or censoring goal (Eelen 2001), a very social dimension of use not captured by B&L’s model, but that is arguably of utmost importance to a language learner (cf. Huth 2006: 2042). Although as abstract concepts relationship/status variables like Power or Distance can indeed be seen as universal (Terkourafi 2007; O’Driscoll 2011), their actual instantiations are of course likely to require a great deal of culturespecific qualification, as is the degree of social acceptability of an act (the Ranking of its ‘degree of imposition’ in B&L’s model), as well as the specific requirement to mark power and distance relations linguistically, and the type of linguistic marking required. So while it is always possible to find some instantiation of B&L’s strategies in any language, their sociocultural motivation, as

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

117

well as their contextual effects – in other words their norms of usage – need to be established independently (Hymes 1986: 79), and are unlikely to be straightforwardly transferable from one language to another, as much research on misunderstandings in intercultural encounters demonstrates (e.g. Nakane 2006 on the different “meanings” of the strategy of “silence” for Japanese and Australian students). Adopting B&L’s model and their strategies uncritically in the classroom may therefore be potentially risky. For example, while B&L (see also Searle 1975: 76; Leech 1983: 131–132) maintain that indirectness is motivated by politeness (i.e. that conventional indirect formulae have evolved from strategies that maximize the speaker’s tentativeness and optionality for the hearer), Blum-Kulka and Sheffer (1993) note that indirect strategies convey politeness only when indirectness is conventional, but not necessarily when it is non-conventional (e.g. in hints), in which case contextual factors may cancel out the polite implicature. Thus positing and teaching – as an abstract and general rule – that ‘indirectness’ realizes a ‘polite’ strategy may result in contextual inappropriateness, e.g. when politeness is expressed but of the ‘wrong type,’ or in the wrong degree (see Grainger 2011: 178 for a review). The limits of generalizations based on strategy type can also be observed with ‘honorification’:3 this functions as a polite strategy only in specific, canonical contexts. Its stereotypification as a polite strategy is risky, if due consideration is not given to the specifics of the encounter, including contextual and co-textual variables (cf. Gyogi, this volume). In fact, a great deal of confusion is generated by the observation – often made by learners in study abroad experiences or other immersion contexts (Schauer 2006: 303; Iwasaki 2011) – that linguistic markers stereotypically associated in the classroom to politeness, e.g. honorifics or style markers, are used in apparently much more idiosyncratic ways in authentic contexts of use, sometimes with little obvious relation with polite attitudes at all (Cook 1997). In spite of the above criticism, B&L’s approach remains the most influential politeness theory informing the field of L2 pragmatics, continuing to provide terminology and conceptualizations even in more recent research with a considerably different orientation. Their taxonomy and inventory of mostly sentencelevel devices is relatively easy to operationalize to measure linguistic performance – although they do not measure communicative competence.4 As formal features 3 I use the term ‘honorification’ in contrast to (im)politeness to refer to closed systems of grammaticalized devices whose (stereo)typical interpretation is associated to some dimension of social relations (cf. Pizziconi 2011, on Japanese). 4 Scarcella and Brunak (1981) for example investigate the “politeness features” in L1 Arabic speakers in L2 English by means of pre-set analytical categories (B&L’s strategies) against which data from natives’ and learners’ performance in role-plays is measured. Discourse level (im)politeness therefore falls under the radar.

118

Barbara Pizziconi

(e.g. pronouns, hedges, pre-sequences, etc.) which are assumed to inherently convey some form of polite attitude, they are easily identifiable and quantifiable, analogous to language textbook entries in structural or functional syllabuses, and therefore presumably also “teachable.” Likewise, their relatively broad abstract parameters of Power and Distance are easy heuristics in the classroom. Leech’s framework for Politeness5 (his 1983 “maxims,” or 2007 “pragmatic constraints”), to this author’s knowledge, although arguably more suitable to intercultural communication studies as it can better account for cross-cultural variation of impoliteness norms, has been applied far more rarely (exceptions being Chen 1993; Schneider 1999; Barron 2003) though it is routinely referenced. Triggering the criticism sketched out above (for the field of politeness theory cf. Eelen 2001; Mills 2003; Watts 2003; Locher 2004, 2006; Locher and Watts 2005; Arundale 2006; Sifianou 2010) was, arguably, the strong influence during the ‘90s of developments in discourse analysis, conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, research on language and identity, and social cognition (Locher 2012), all of which showed an enhanced concern for the social, cultural and historical dimensions of language use, an interest in language as a social practice and as a mediating tool in the joint achievement of social action. Concurrently, L2 studies, also reacting to the predominantly cognitive approach which had previously dominated the field (Zuengler and Miller 2006; Kasper 2009; Hulstijn et al. 2014; Holmes 2012 on politeness), became more receptive to socioculturally oriented paradigms (Firth and Wagner 1997; Atkinson 2002: 526), which led to a very different conceptualization of the factors affecting language acquisition. For Atkinson (2002), language acquisition is – just as language – a fundamentally social enterprise, and its study requires reintegrating elements and perspectives that the ‘mentalist’ approach had programmatically neglected: the micro (situational) and macro (sociocultural) contexts in which language use takes place (and hence the inherent social indexicality of not just deictic forms but all language uses), participation structures, turntaking, speech as an interactional rather than individual accomplishment, and finally, issues of politeness, identity and presentation of self, in other words the ways in which language is used to “negotiate and maintain relationships between people” (2002: 527). Thus the sociocultural approach shows an increased attention to interactional dynamics, mirroring politeness studies’ enhanced interest in ‘interpersonal pragmatics’ (Locher 2012: 3). 5 Leech’s Politeness Principle includes multiple Maxims (Tact, Approbation, Modesty, Generosity, Agreement, Sympathy) which enable a more nuanced analysis of why speakers depart from efficiency and the CP, and can be used to characterize cultural tendencies (Leech 1983: 83); these were later reformulated as “pragmatic constraints” (2007: 181).

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

119

(Im)politeness, as a phenomenon germane to social interaction, is therefore a natural concern in this paradigm. Somewhat paradoxically, however, in the course of this paradigmatic shift explicit reference to theoretical politeness models seems to disappear from the L2 literature, and politeness tends to be discussed as an aspect of general pragmatic competence. Some researchers refer back to B&L’s definitions while at the same time proposing ‘new’ analyses and methods, which led some to call for caution in methodological choices (Meier 2004: 11; Mori 2009: 345). This apparently hybrid allegiance, problematic when at least some of the theoretical assumptions in these different frameworks are incompatible, has arguably somewhat to do with the lack of a ‘dominant’ theoretical framework and the different facets highlighted in different domains of linguistic analysis. Some politeness theorists propose to move away from the polite/impolite dichotomy and consider the whole of “relational work” (Locher and Watts 2005; Locher 2006), or “rapport management” (Spencer-Oatey 2005: 96) instead. Using dichotomic concepts such as polite and impolite appears to obscure the point that when we behave as expected, we don’t actually communicate either, and are just being appropriate. Thus in many studies of L2 pragmatic behaviour reference to ‘appropriateness’ replaces reference to (im)politeness (e.g. Shea 1994; Meier 1995: 387; Taleghani-Nikazm 2002; Taguchi 2007; van Compernolle 2014). This concept is, however, not necessarily more transparent than ‘politeness,’ especially in the language classroom. Those who support the use of B&L’s apparatus in language instruction do so on the grounds that linguistic strategies tie abstract statements about “culture” to the way in which culture is expressed, conveyed, and perhaps contested, through the use of language (Bou Franch and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2003; see also Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne, this volume). In other words, given the weaknesses of B&L’s framework as a predictive model (cf. Turner 1996: 5), it would seem nevertheless possible and useful to use it retrospectively instead, i.e. (a) to provide a principled motivation as to why one linguistic expression may, in specific contexts, sound more or less polite than another (e.g. expression x gives H more options and is less pushy; y fails to show H due appreciation, etc.), or (b) to show the similarity in L1 and L2 of one overarching strategy, instantiated by different specific devices in the two languages (e.g. a grammaticalized form in one language, lexical means in another). Even so, one should pay heed to Hymes’s (1986: 83) early observation that “[B&Ls’] model can serve as a source of explanation for the presence of devices and dimensions, but not as an explanation for the organization of devices and the significance of dimensions in particular settings and societies” (my italics). When commonalities in the superficial realization of a strategy actually belong to differently valorized systems (e.g. indirectness in different societies), a different kind of explanation is called for, which B&L cannot account for.

120

Barbara Pizziconi

2.2 Constraining and enabling factors in the learning/ acquisition of (im)politeness6 In this section I discuss how the recent conceptualization of (im)politeness has also transformed the way in which its learning/acquisition has been approached. I revisit a number of key concepts in language acquisition such as ‘transfer’ or ‘pragmatic failure,’ and consider the role of native speakers (NS) and the status of non-native speakers (NNS) in (im)politeness socialization. When (im)politeness is understood more broadly as relational work, and as an indexical meaning relevant to social relationships, social stances, or social personae (Agha 2007), and which plays a part in the management (the creation, maintenance, challenge or liquidation) of interpersonal relationships, it is clear that phenomena that can fall under the radar of ‘politeness studies’ can be found everywhere (cf. Lo and Howard 2009: 213). However, generally speaking, in languages with grammaticalized honorific systems (im)politeness is stereotypically associated with the knowledge of such systemic features, whereas in other languages it has been mostly investigated in speech act studies, and this is generally the case also for L2 studies.7 An authoritative criticism of (im)politeness as a meaning ‘encoded’ in specific lexical items or grammatical constructions (and at best at sentence level) and communicated by an independent speaker to an independent hearer in the guise of a tennis match-like exchange, originated from a new, discursive approach that also influenced the field of L2 pragmatics acquisition. This sees pragmatic meanings, including relational work, as emerging contingently from the dynamics of interaction, i.e. in the organization of talk over extended stretches of discourse (e.g. Shea 1994; Marriott 1995; Cook 2008), chains of actions and reactions, responses to previous turns, and the participants’ ongoing interpretations of joint, situated and co-constructed activities (Kasper and Rose 2002). This new conceptualization of what constitutes pragmatic competence shifted the teacher’s attention from learners’ misuses of linguistic structures in isolation to acquisitional difficulties with the sequential organization of talk (Taleghani-Nikazm 2002; Golato 2002; Ishida 2009: 259). The emphasis on the co-construction of pragmatic meanings and their social situatedness lead to 6 For ease of reading, and with only some exceptions, the references provided in the text are mostly from the field of L2 pragmatics studies, but, as noted above, they mirror orientations and findings in the theoretical (im)politeness literature as well. For a review of the latter, see Locher (2012). 7 Of course, being polite in Japanese, for example, does not stop with using honorific forms in place of non-honorific forms (or vice versa when aiming at informality or rudeness), and (im)polite stances can be conveyed through strategies which are common to other languages as well (cf. Pizziconi 2003 and 2011).

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

121

an increased focus on the way learners engage, as more or less experienced novices, in interactions with other more experienced participants: it is learners’ socialization into particular communities – such as those peculiar to conventional educational contexts (Ohta 1999, 2001a, 2001b) or study abroad contexts (Siegal 1995; Yoshimi 1999; Shively 2008) – through language-mediated activities that enhances their linguistic (as well as personal) development into competent members of those communities (for a review see Kasper 2009: 273 and Zuengler and Cole 2005). Thus in socialization studies, and more generally in the sociocultural approach, a “participation” metaphor has risen to complement the “acquisition” metaphor (Swain and Deters 2007: 823). Borrowing a Vygotskyan conceptualization, Ohta (2001b: 9) argues that learning occurs collaboratively in a zone of proximal development, or the area of “potential development as determined through language produced collaboratively with a teacher or peer,” whose expertise can therefore assist acquisition by providing the necessary scaffolding for the learner to develop beyond his/her current level. Before new knowledge becomes utilizable, learners ‘cope’ by relying on whatever existing resources they possess; L1 systems, and their hypotheses about L2. As noted, the ontological status of the notion of “transfer” (Kasper 2009: 282 for a review) belongs to a cognitive tradition which the sociocultural approach has been challenging, but sociocognitive perspectives have given the concept new relevance, maintaining that habits developed in our primary socialization are durable and hard to shred (Strauss and Quinn 1997; Escandell-Vidal 2004). Such established practices and representations (e.g. discourse management strategies, use of contextualization cues), together with assumptions on participant roles, identities, ideologies of normative behaviour, etc. generate different interactional expectations which guide interpretation (and can, less fortunately, hinder it), and, when frustrated, can cause various degrees of communication hiccups, or complete breakdowns. This can explain why even advanced level students with sufficient pragmalinguistic knowledge may struggle to ‘adjust’ to target sociopragmatic norms8 (e.g. Omar 1991, quoted in LoCastro 2011: 336). 8 L2 pragmatics literature commonly discusses communication problems on the basis of Leech’s (1983) and Thomas’s (1983) classic distinction between pragmalinguistic vs. sociopragmatic failure. The former refers to lack of sufficient knowledge of the linguistic means necessary to accomplish social action (e.g. which specific structures conventionally realize requests, or invitations; for language learners often a form-function mapping problem), the latter to insufficient knowledge of the social norms which mediate a speaker’s choice among those pragmalinguistic resources, in other words facts about social organization and the conventions regarding what counts as ‘appropriate’ behaviour. For teachers, the line between the two is notoriously difficult to draw on the spot, especially if a collaborative concept of proficiency entails that a learner’s proficiency may be context- (and interactants-) dependent (Shea 1994).

122

Barbara Pizziconi

The tendency to “transfer” grammatical or pragmatic knowledge9 from L1 is however not indiscriminate. Kasper and Rose (2002: 190) note that, at least in in non-tutored settings, a “pragmatic mode” is likely to support communication when grammatical competence is insufficient – hence at early stages in language learning – whereas the task is reversed when learners’ grammatical competence increases, for they may (a) know a linguistic structure, but be unable to use it functionally, (b) map it to pragmalinguistic functions that are nonconventional in the target language, or (c) utilize the pragmalinguistic function in a non-target-like sociopragmatic use (cf. Béal 1994). Another possibility could be added: that sociopragmatically appropriate meanings are conveyed through non-native like pragmalinguistic means. Ikeda’s (2009) study of email and phone role-plays, for example, reports that advanced learners of Japanese appear to convey appropriate polite stances (“appropriate degrees of formality, modesty, deference and demeanor,” 2009: 92), but do so with various types of discourse markers rather than the more conventional honorifics. Overall, however, findings in this area may be difficult to generalize as they may be category-specific (i.e. depending on whether a lexical, prosodic, syntactic, discoursal, or broadly sociocultural feature is investigated), activity- or genrespecific; moreover, attention to co-construction requires that the contribution of other participants is also considered, making generalizations more tentative. Studies of negative transfer greatly outnumber those of positive transfer (Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993: 10), given the greater interpersonal consequences, for intercultural encounters, of communication breakdowns (Golato 2002; Taleghani-Nikazm 2002; House 1989). Affecting factors have been attributed to systemic or environmental features (e.g. degree of conventionality, perceived distance between L1 and L2; instruction, or time in the target community), or – particularly relevant to (im)politeness – in terms of B&L’s variables: degree of imposition, power and distance (Takahashi 1996; Sasaki 1998; Taguchi 2007), or face considerations (Nakane 2006). More global, top-down factors can also of course be a main source of miscommunication in intercultural encounters. For example, participants’ very understanding of the type of activity under 9 Probing the relationship between linguistic and pragmatic competence, i.e. whether one precedes the other, or how they support or hinder one another, has proved challenging (Kasper and Rose 2002: 159). Many studies (for a review: Schauer 2009: 22) note that improvements in linguistic proficiency support improved pragmatic ability, as well as judgments of appropriateness (e.g. Takahashi 1996; Cook 2001; Bella 2012), while others describe acquisition patterns that do not develop linearly toward the target language: underproduction of certain features at beginner level, overproduction at intermediate level, and approximation to natives’ performance at advanced level; some note that structurally simple forms appear only at advanced levels while beginners are extremely verbose (Kasper and Roever 2005: 319).

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

123

way and the different expectations regarding participant roles or status, or the canonical organization of discourse in these activities (Ross 1998; Tyler 1995). The cognitive units of “frame,” “schema/schemata,” or “scripts” (cf. e.g. Bond, Žegarac and Spencer-Oatey 2000: 61; Locher 2004; Locher and Watts 2005; Newby 2011 for differences across these terms; also “occasions” in Goffman 1963 and “activity type” in Levinson 1979) carry information about regularities in the structuring of a communicative interaction, allowing a potential link between (a) broad cultural, (b) activity-specific, and (c) linguistic patterns. However, frames are yet to receive sufficient attention in studies of L2 (im)politeness development (and generally language teaching, Newby 2011: 19). The term schema is used also in the broader sense of “cultural schema” (e.g. Strauss and Quinn 1997), such as religious beliefs (Al-Issa 2003), or education ideologies (Nakane 2006). A schema “rooted in certain cultural-spiritual traditions of Iranian society,” i.e. shekasteh-nafsi ‘modesty,’ is invoked by Sharifian (2008)10 to illustrate the L2 English of speakers of L1 Persian. Even these broad constructs however, no matter how persistent their influence may be across an individual’s life, should not be seen as rigidly governing all behaviour, whether in L1 or L2, and appear to be drawn upon contingently to the requirements of determined contexts. This is true also of the even broader concept of “culture,” often invoked as a blanket explanatory concept for linguistic phenomena. Although there is little doubt that some kind of regularities in the way (im)politeness is conceptualized can be observed at the level of “culture” any broad generalization can smack of essentialising stereotypes (as noted by Bond, Žegarac and Spencer-Oatey 2000; Scollon and Scollon 2001a: 135; also Eelen 2001: 158). In view of much observed internal variation in “cultural” patterns of behaviour, which culture should constitute the learner’s target culture? Which language does that particular culture speak? Not only has much variation been documented intra-culturally, naturally including variable evaluations of (im)politeness, but also intra-individually. Since the same individual is capable of behaving in rather different manners in different contexts (Scollon and Scollon 2001b: 544), resorting to culture as a heuristic in the classroom appears too blunt an instrument, presented as a mistakenly “stable, undifferentiated and transcendental influence” (Blommaert 1991: 17; see also Sarangi 1994).11 10 A limitation of this study is its methodological choice of a DCT format (cf. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2006). 11 Moreover, while in many cases (and most commonly in educational contexts) target cultures are defined in the geopolitical terms of national boundaries, not only is this not possible for many languages/cultures but additional issues regarding global flows of migration and new contact situations also affect our views of (im)politeness (Sifianou 2013) and add to the challenge of easy definitions.

124

Barbara Pizziconi

Just like the essentialist simplification of “culture,” generalist descriptions of “language X” which neglect the appreciation of the tensions between standards and other varieties, the power of hegemonic discourses, language ideologies, etc. are also seen as problematic in the pedagogical context. A now familiar critique of NS “standards” or “NS-like” behaviour questions the stability of NS’s norms (Mori 2009: 350), suggests that the “spoken grammar of the NS suspiciously resemble[s] linguists’ standardized grammar of the written language and the etiquette conventions of middle-class verbal behaviour” (Kramsch and Whiteside 2007: 908), and warns that the same normative variety is often the sole model provided in language textbooks (Ando 2005; Etienne and Sax 2009). Teachers are generally well aware of intralinguistic variation – in fact it is this very awareness that motivates their sometimes unquestioning defense of “standards” – and may resort to standards because of ideologically-driven assumptions about “correctness,” or in order to provide economical (and “safe,” if not useful) instructions. Kasper (2009: 275) notes that while “studies of pragmatic socialization in (predominantly foreign) language classrooms emphasized collaborative assistance, facilitation, and uncontested acceptance of “appropriate” L2 use, defined by the pragmatic norms of target language native speakers,” looking outside of educational contexts one finds that learners may come to interact with far less collaborative “expert” NS. In the best scenario, a NS’s tactful stance may deny the learner useful corrective feedback; in others the NS may just be outright confrontational and uncooperative (Pavlenko 2002: 287). Natives and non-natives may hold different perspectives (presuppositions about what is right, proper etc.) and have different degrees of interactional authority. These factors, informed by ideological discourses (Cameron 2002: 318; Brown 2011), can trouble intercultural communication more deeply than the mere mismatches in systemic features such as contextualization cues, and result in the reproduction of inequality which penalize the NNS (Shea 1994; Pavlenko 2002: 285; Kumagai and Sato 2009). The analysis of a broader range of contexts other than the classroom has also highlighted less acquiescent, more conflicted aspects of secondary socialization processes, i.e. NNS’ acts of resistance to perceived behavioural and relational normativity (cf. Polanyi 1995; Siegal 1995; Pavlenko 2002: 285; Pizziconi 2006; Cook 2006; Ishihara and Tarone 2009; Kasper 2009: 277).

2.3 Implications for the teaching of (im)politeness A repertoire of pragmatic abilities (some of which, understood as abstract commonalities in skills underpinning linguistic practices, are arguably universal)12

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

125

is thought to be carried over, as it were, from L1, and enable participation in L2 from early on. However, while L1 acquisition research on politeness has noted that children have access to a great deal of metapragmatic induction from their caretakers – generally not in the form of underlying ‘principles,’ but as specific prescriptions on what to say/what not to say (Clancy 1985, 1986; Ochs 1986; Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo 1986; Snow et al. 1990) – as noted above, the same naturalistic contexts may not make such explicit modeling available to adult L2 learners, due to sociocultural concerns with tact, or even tacit acts of exclusion which give foreigners “dispensations” from acting target-like. Moreover, mere exposure to rich input in both naturalistic or instructional contexts appears in many cases to be just ineffective (Kasper and Rose 2002). Schmidt (1993: 36) offers an explanation in terms of psycholinguistic constraints, i.e. that the linguistic realizations of pragmatic functions (pragmalinguistic matters) are often opaque to language learners, and relevant contextual factors (sociopragmatic matters) may not be salient (or may be differently defined by them). His Noticing Hypothesis states that input must be noticed to become acquisitionally meaningful, and moreover, that, without noticing of surface phenomena, understanding, i.e. deeper level(s) of abstraction related to semantic/syntactic/communicative meaning, is also not possible (Schmidt 1995: 29, quoted in Kasper and Roever 2005: 318; cf. also Bella et al, this volume section 3.1. for an example of this distinction in a politeness-relevant context). Most studies confirm this conclusion and make strong cases for the teachability of pragmatic features (e.g. House 1996; Tateyama 2001; Rose 2005), as well as for the positive benefits of instruction in various pragmatic domains, including politeness (see for reviews: BardoviHarlig 2001; Garces-Conejos 2001; Takahashi 2001; Silva 2003; Kasper and Roever 2005: 323; Huth 2006; Ishihara 2007; Kasper 2009: 268; Ishihara and Tarone 2009). The “transfer of training,” i.e. the internalization of rules biased by specific instructional treatments (Selinker 1972) is also a well known potentially negative effect of instruction widely reported (e.g. Hassall 2003), generally in connection with (careless) stereotypical representations in teaching practices. This also applies to the overtraining of polite to the expense of non-polite or impolite forms (Brown 2013).

12 Kasper and Rose (2002: 165) list the following: principles and practices of turn-taking, the sequential accomplishment of actions, preference organization, specific communicative acts, conversational implicature, inferencing heuristics and indirectness, indexicality as an implicit expression of epistemic, affective and social stance, routine formulae for managing recurrent communicative events, contextual variability, discursive construction of social identities and relations, and politeness as a mutual face-saving strategy.

126

Barbara Pizziconi

On the other hand, none of these researchers would claim that the role of “practice,” i.e. actual and prolonged experience of authentic target contexts, can be ignored. Its role can be conceptualized in terms of the pragmatically rich humus required to “reset” or “modify” a “social categorization system” which has been established during primary socialization, and which inevitably affects representations (Escandell-Vidal 2004: 16). Explicit teaching enhances salience, but it is practice (actual participation, hypothesis testing in situated contexts of use) that facilitates the processing required for understanding. While the great majority of pedagogical works are concerned with teaching politeness, impoliteness – broadly speaking, language used to ‘cause offence’ (cf. Culpeper 2011: 23) – is mentioned mostly as inadvertent effects of intercultural miscommunication (pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic failures); as far as I am aware there are no interventional studies of it. Impoliteness doubtlessly tends to be shunned in language classrooms over the world, though teachers are well aware of its ludic appeal for many learners; however, given the likelihood that L2 learners will encounter instances of impoliteness as much as they will of politeness (cf. Polanyi 1995), it is indeed quite surprising that this domain has not been explored to a comparable extent; how to manage it is arguably a fairly critical skill to develop in L2, and one better rehearsed in a safe classroom environment (Mugford 2008: 381). Moreover, in matters of impoliteness, as noted by Culpeper (2010) (though not with regards to L2 learning) “indirect experience of impoliteness, especially via metadiscourse, does much to shape what counts as impolite and thus what may be conventionalised as impolite”; this means that simple regularities in occurrence are not sufficient to account for speakers’ competence. The implication for the language classroom is that, even more so than for politeness, learners may need exposure to instances of metapragmatic comments in order to fully appreciate the moral order they underpin (see also House, this volume, section 3, for further suggestions). One final note should be made with regards to how (im)politeness is conceptualized and presented in instructional material, most typically textbooks. Although research is scarce, most concur in observing hidden and not so hidden agendas biased toward hegemonic ideologies of language use and rigid notions of correctness (Matsumoto and Okamoto 2003; Shardakova and Pavlenko 2004; Heinrich 2005), “playing it safe” (Brown 2010), postponing the introduction of informal language or authentic formal language, or neglecting phatic (“social and interactive”) discourse (Padilla-Cruz 2013: 133). In line with the other works reviewed, all call for a broader representation of the diverse voices, identities and linguistic practices that exist in any society.

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

127

In conclusion, there is considerable consensus about the necessity of explicit metapragmatic instruction in matters of (im)politeness that makes salient to learners linguistic devices and overarching cultural values. The latter task raises the question of whose standards should be adopted to enable “appropriate behaviour,” given the contemporary disenchantment with the notion of nativespeakerhood or ideological notions of “correctness.” Only few concrete examples of instructional procedures or teaching material are available (e.g. Padilla-Cruz 2013; Ishihara 2007; van Compernolle 2014): all agree that multiple models must be made available to learners, and that teachers too have to exercise selfawareness of their own values and beliefs.

3 (Im)politeness in the CEFR The CEFR purports to offer a comprehensive descriptive scheme of the competences involved in language use, and a description of the knowledge and abilities required at various levels of proficiency. (Im)politeness is recognized as part of such knowledge and abilities, and in this section I report on how it is formulated in the general “descriptive scheme,” i.e. the account of the Framework’s theoretical stance and of the notion of competence (section 3.1) as well as in the proficiency levels, the “illustrative scales” (section 3.2). As an explicit category and circumscribed concept, (im)politeness is first mentioned in the “descriptive scheme” as an aspect of sociolinguistic competence, whose status in the overall account of communicative competence and relation to linguistic and pragmatic competence is outlined in Table 1 below. Since the Framework attempts to capture universal principles of communication – or at least principles which apply commonly in a comparative European framework – its conceptualization of (im)politeness should be seen as secondorder, and is indeed abstract and comprehensive. However, the Framework’s programmatic stance is certainly not merely idealistic: The approach adopted here, generally speaking, is an action-oriented one in so far as it views users and learners of a language primarily as ‘social agents’, i.e. members of society who have tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action. While acts of speech occur within language activities, these activities form part of a wider social context, which alone is able to give them their full meaning. (CoE 2001a: 9)

This approach therefore purports to go beyond an intra-psychological cognitivist view of the learner, fully recognizing their social membership, as well as the social embeddedness of language use.

128

Barbara Pizziconi

3.1 Contextualization of (im)politeness in the descriptive scheme The CEFR characterizes language as a “sociocultural phenomenon,” and the learner as a “social agent.” Due to its allegiance to an “intercultural approach,” it maintains that the “central objective of language education [is] to promote the favourable development of the learner’s whole personality and sense of identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture” (CoE 2001a: 1). Thus, language is seen only as a part of proficiency development, together with other cognitive, affective and social dimensions, and as a tool to ‘relate.’ In line with its action-oriented approach, competences are defined as “knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow a person to perform actions” (CoE 2001a: 9). Communicative competence (2001a: 13, 108, summarized in Table 1) is characterized as the specific knowledge and abilities mobilized in communicative acts. Other general competences are, however, also called upon in language learning, including for example an existential competence concerning the learner’s self-image and his/her willingness to engage with others in interaction (2001a: 11). The description of the general and communicative competences depicts the learner as a social individual with a heritage, already endowed with a degree of social knowledge, a personal history, previous experiences and a habitus which interact with the new learning tasks, as well as an ability to engage, learn from and understand new contexts and other people’s worldviews, and many other abilities. However, although these factors are consistently referred to throughout the document, they are given variable prominence, and the interrelations between these competences are necessarily less obvious in the sections detailing the proficiency level descriptors, a potential problem that I will return to below. As shown above, communicative competence is broken down into linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. It is in the description of sociolinguistic competence that we find the first mention of politeness, which therefore is listed as one, communication-specific, competence among many. Sociolinguistic competences refer to the sociocultural conditions of language use. Through its sensitivity to social conventions (rules of politeness, norms governing relations between generations, sexes, classes and social groups, linguistic codification of certain fundamental rituals in the functioning of a community), the sociolinguistic component strictly affects all language communication between representatives of different cultures, even though participants may often be unaware of its influence. (CoE 2001a: 13)

As a sociolinguistic phenomenon, politeness is listed as one of many conventions (or rules, in the passage quoted), together with other normative conventions

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

129

Table 1: Synopsis of the CEFR’s descriptive categories for general and communicative competences, and selected, paraphrased categorial examples

Declarative knowledge (savoir)

knowledge of the world

factual knowledge of geographical, environmental, demographic, economic and political features of target L’s country/ies.

sociocultural knowledge

everyday living; living conditions; interpersonal relations (including power and solidarity relations); values, beliefs and attitudes, body language, social conventions, ritual behaviour.

intercultural awareness

knowledge and understanding of source and target worlds (and their internal social and regional diversity).

General competences

social skills practical skills and know-how Skills and know-how (savoir-faire)

living skills vocational and professional skills leisure skills ability to bring L1 and L2 into relation

intercultural skills and know how

cultural sensitivity ability to act as intermediary ability to overcome stereotypes

attitudes motivations Existential competence (savoir être)

values beliefs cognitive styles personality factors

Ability to learn (savoir-apprendre)

130

Barbara Pizziconi

Table 1: (continued) lexical grammatical Linguistic competences

semantic phonological orthographic

Communicative language competences

orthoepic linguistic markers of social relations

introductions/leave-taking greetings, formal/ informal forms of address or ritual insults, turn-taking conventions, expletives

politeness conventions

positive/negative politeness (e.g. showing interest, expressing admiration, gratitude, avoiding face-threatening behaviour); appropriate use of formulae (e.g. please, thank you); impoliteness: deliberate flouting of politeness conventions (e.g. bluntness, frankness, venting anger, asserting superiority)

expressions of folk wisdom

proverbs; idioms; expressions of belief, attitude and values

register differences

frozen, formal, neutral, informal, familiar, intimate ‘keys’

dialect and accent

as indices of social class, regional or national provenance, ethnicity, occupational group

discourse competence

coherence and cohesion, style and register, rhetorical effectiveness, co-operative principle, text design

functional competence

micro- and macro functions (= speech acts and their sequences); interaction schemata

Sociolinguistic competences

Pragmatic competences

pertaining to relations between differently constituted social groups, rituals, etc., and receives a definition à la Leech: Politeness conventions provide one of the most important reasons for departing from the straightforward application of the ‘co-operative principle’ [. . .]. They vary from one culture to another and are a frequent source of inter-ethnic misunderstanding, especially when polite expressions are literally interpreted. (CoE 2001a: 119)

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

131

Politeness conventions are said to include ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ politeness (e.g. Brown and Levinsonian macro strategies), polite formulae (e.g. “please,” “thank you”) and, notably, impoliteness, a “deliberate flouting of politeness conventions” (CoE 2001a: 119). Sociolinguistic competence includes other conventions under the rubrics of linguistic markers of social relations (e.g. greetings, terms of address, turn-taking conventions, expletives) and registers (context-dependent language varieties, including levels of formality; CoE 2001a: 119). These too are of course linguistic phenomena commonly discussed in (im)politeness studies, and the fact that these are not explicitly categorized as “(im)politeness” phenomena in the framework is not necessarily a problem. What is more significant is that the CEFR characterizes “sociolinguistic competence” as a formulaic, indeed conventional, rather than pragmatic, strategic, or emergent type of knowledge. I will return to this below. Given the Framework’s emphasis on accessibility to practitioners, the mention of the “departure from the co-operative principle” as a defining property of politeness is an unusual deviation from its rather more practical take, and one which is not helped by its use of the term “co-operative” in two different senses elsewhere: interpersonal (e.g. “to cement the collaboration in the task and keep the discussion on course”) and ideational (e.g. “to help mutual understanding and maintain a focused approach to the task at hand”) (CoE 2001a: 84–85). Since the Framework sees the whole of its content as highly relevant to sociolinguistic competence, and claims to list under the rubric of sociolinguistic competence merely what is “not dealt with elsewhere” (CoE 2001a: 118), the reason why politeness is discussed as a circumscribed category is arguably because classes of conventionalized expressions (formulaic routines of various kinds), as well as an abstract dual (positive/negative13) orientation are considered to be crosslinguistically recognizable. However, unless the readers recognize this, and if their reading of “politeness” is a non-technical one, the specific items listed in this category, and the isolation of the category in this way are likely to invite a rather simplistic, if traditional, understanding (cf. on this Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne in this volume: 3.2. [4]). The framework cannot of course deal with

13 Positive/negative politeness does not seem to refer to B&L’s (there is a single passing mention of face-threatening behaviour) but to abstract (even primal, Terkourafi 2007: 322) tendencies of approach/withdrawal, or culture-general connectedness/separateness (Arundale 2006: 204). See also O’Driscoll (2007) for a detailed discussion of these polar terms in relation to studies on interaction across cultures.

132

Barbara Pizziconi

emergent features of a situation14 but the recognition of this dynamic in its programmatic statements would have provided the users with useful food for thought. Together with the linguistic competence, the other major component of competence is: Pragmatic competences[:] the functional use of linguistic resources (production of language functions, speech acts), drawing on scenarios or scripts of interactional exchanges. It [sic] also concerns the mastery of discourse, cohesion and coherence, the identification of text types and forms, irony, and parody. For this component even more than the linguistic component, it is hardly necessary to stress the major impact of interactions and cultural environments in which such abilities are constructed. (CoE 2001a: 13)

CEFR’s distinction between sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence may strike as surprising, suggesting an understanding of the latter as a comparatively a-social concept (despite the final statement in the last quote). It seems to account for speech acts, style or register, or interactional schemata merely as functional types of knowledge, which can operate independently from social contexts. An argument in favor of this distinction comes from pedagogical research, with Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell’s observation (1995: 19, contra Bachman and Palmer 2010, who include sociolinguistic competence in pragmatic competence) that learners can demonstrate command of a linguistic repertoire to execute actional patterns, e.g. a certain speech act, without an awareness of contextual variables, or lacking appropriateness. Although the distinction may be useful to the language teacher in assessing specific weaknesses, it does not particularly invite an understanding of pragmatic competence as a skill rooted in a sociocultural context, and depicts sociolinguistic competence as a more static type of knowledge than research suggests. Remarkably, the CEFR does not have much to say about culture, treating it as a self-explanatory concept but also in rather different senses throughout the document. Cultural variation is of course acknowledged; for example, the statement that politeness conventions “vary from one culture to another and are a frequent source of inter-ethnic misunderstanding, especially when polite expressions are literally interpreted” (CoE 2001a: 119) makes reference to cultural idiosyncrasy in the valorization of social meanings. It is however noteworthy that while the framework sensibly notes that “no European language communities

14 Besides the meanings which obtain from the sequential development of discourse, contextspecific user evaluations cannot be diagrammed either: for example, register types are listed according to the classic categorization “formal, frozen, neutral, informal, familiar” but these would be qualified differently at a first-order level: stiff, vulgar, sophisticated, overfamiliar, etc. The “social” is therefore conceptualized rather narrowly.

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

133

are entirely homogenous,” it appears to qualify variability mostly in terms of culture-wide conventions (as above, and elsewhere, e.g. p. 133 on “uneven competence”) or geographical location (as in the following passage in the section on “dialect and accent” – my italics), linking variability to the limits of a users’ spatial, rather than more generally practice-based, domain of activity: Different regions have their peculiarities in language and culture. These are usually most marked in those who live purely local lives and therefore correlate with social class, occupation and educational level. Recognition of such dialectal features therefore gives significant clues as to the interlocutor’s characteristics. Stereotyping plays a large role in this process. It can be reduced by the development of intercultural skills [. . .]. Learners will in the course of time also come into contact with speakers of various provenances. Before themselves adopting dialect forms they should be aware of their social connotations and of the need for coherence and consistency. (CoE 2001a: 121)

The Framework includes (2001a: 102) the mention of a number of “features distinctively characteristic of a particular European society and its culture” in a section on sociocultural knowledge, here seen as a part of declarative knowledge (savoir) (and hence presumably amenable to introspection). These features are said to relate, among other things, to interpersonal behaviour (class structure, family structures, relations between classes, genders, generations, etc.), values, beliefs and attitudes (in relation to social class, occupational groups, wealth, minorities, national identity, politics, religion, etc.), social conventions (e.g. with regards to giving or receiving hospitality), ritual behaviour, and body language, but they appear to be a property of societies rather than groups within them. Searching the document for other factors which may account for variability, we may possibly find them in the section devoted to “contexts” (2001a: 44). The framework distinguishes between an external context, which is “highly organized independently of the individual” and a user/learner’s mental context, which “filters” and interprets the external context. This internal context however seems to include merely cognitive, and a-social mechanisms (perceptual and cognitive abilities, noticing, memory, and a rather neutral mention of “experience,” 2001a: 50), while the role of a sociocultural kind of experience (e.g. that deriving from socialization practices, and an individual’s participation in various communities of practice) goes unmentioned. This conceptualization of “contexts” would appear to downplay the role of personal values, ideologies, or identities, which necessarily interact with the content and the modalities of learning (including, among other things, the possibility of forms of resistance discussed above; in other words, elements that support a learner’s “agency”). A description of such personal factors must be found in a separate section on “existential competence”: “selfhood factors connected with [learners’] individual personalities,

134

Barbara Pizziconi

characterized by the attitudes, motivations, values, beliefs, cognitive styles and personality types which contribute to [the learners’] personal identity” (2001a: 105). The document does not offer further elaboration, limiting itself to highlighting the issues this existential competence raises for teachers, such as to what extent personality development can be an explicit educational objective, or how to reconcile cultural relativism with ethical and moral integrity (2001a: 106). These cursory remarks understate the importance of this kind of experiential, schematic knowledge (Newby 2011: 20) in shaping a learners’ unique response to new linguistic and social contexts and his/her ability to develop a confident voice.15 Moreover, they neglect the interlocutors’ role in the interaction. Not surprisingly for a pedagogical framework, the CEFR does not devote much space to the description of impoliteness, which it characterizes negatively, as “deliberate flouting of politeness conventions” (my italics), as evident in “bluntness, frankness; expressing contempt, dislike; strong complaint and reprimand; venting anger, impatience; or asserting superiority” (CoE 2001a: 119–120; and distinguishing these strategies from use of expletives, listed in the section on markers of social relations). Defining impoliteness as a “flouting of politeness conventions” is no doubt suitable to the inspiration of a pedagogical framework aiming at training intercultural understanding, and prioritizing collaborative rather than confrontational language use, but it is nevertheless reductive (as perceptions of impoliteness can derive from mismatches in normative ideologies, in NS-NNS interactions as well as NS-NS ones; cf. Huth 2006). It also falls short of recommending teachers/learners to consider that (a) teaching politeness is not possible without also teaching impoliteness and that (b) familiarity with cultural insensitivities (if not racist remarks: Mugford 2008: 378–379) can actually promote learners’ overall competence (cf. Polanyi 1995).

15 The Framework recognizes that different purposes in language learning require emphasis on different aspects of competence, hence sociocultural competence of the kind discussed here is not seen as an invariably necessary learning objective. Even so, statements such as the following seems to me to be greatly at odds with contemporary views of language, as well as language learning: while in some cases the main aim of learning a foreign language is said to be the development of learners’ general competences (e.g. a way to develop his or her personality), it may also be “mastery of the linguistic component of a language (knowledge of its phonetic system, its vocabulary and syntax) without any concern for sociolinguistic finesse or pragmatic effectiveness. In other instances the objective may be primarily of a pragmatic nature and seek to develop a capacity to act in the foreign language with the limited linguistic resources available and without any particular concern for the sociolinguistic aspect” (CoE 2001a: 136, my italics). Compare this with the equally general but practical advice to engage with intercultural stereotyping in the L2 classroom, and “challenge ideas [though] not the people who express the ideas” in Byram, Gribkova and Starkey (2002: 27).

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

135

Interestingly, the CEFR’s descriptive scheme lists, in the section detailing the Communicative tasks and purposes pursued in communication, a separate entry on ludic uses and one on aesthetic uses but not one on phatic uses (i.e. use for creation and maintenance of personal relationships; cf. Padilla-Cruz 2013).

3.2 (Im)politeness in the proficiency level descriptors The descriptors outline six levels of communicative proficiency or attainment, but are described as “flexible, open, non-dogmatic” and not indicative of prescribed developmental paths, which can be unique for each individual. These descriptive scales have been criticized for their lack of empirical grounding, and indeed they have been generated through teachers’ perceptions of language proficiency (North 2007: 657) on the basis of the knowledge and skills considered necessary to perform specific communicative behaviours, and not on attested acquisitional trajectories. The authors defend their choice (North 2007: 643) by observing that the descriptors must resolve the tension between the requirement to be context-free, and generalizable, but also context-relevant, i.e. “relatable and translatable into each and every relevant context” (2001a: 21), and our current understanding of L2 development does not allow more specific guidelines (Alderson 2007: 661). Communicative proficiency is articulated in terms of “can do” statements, which define six levels in three bands (cf. the “global scale,” CoE 2001a: 24): Basic user: A1, A2; Independent user: B1, B2; Proficient user: C1, C2. These broad categories are detailed further in other grids (e.g. for the separate aspects of reception, production, and, crucially, interaction in speaking, listening, writing and reading). Broadly speaking, the progression through the three bands A, B and C is described in terms of a development from simple and formulaic to complex and nuanced, hesitant16 and other-reliant to fluent and self-controlled, and descriptive to expressive. Scaled descriptors are offered for some but not all aspects of competence. One is available for “sociolinguistic appropriateness” (2001a: 121), which the 16 This general formulation of development would generally ring true with most teachers, though a criticism has been raised – and acknowledged by one of the authors, that “fluency is conceptualized largely in terms of hesitation, which sits uneasily with the fact that native speakers (NSs) may hesitate frequently in the production of what remains undeniably fluent speech” (Little 2007: 648). An anonymous reviewer further notes that hesitancy is variably valued cross-culturally, and refers to H.D. Lawrence’s poem The Oxford Voice as an example of its social value in English culture; indeed hesitancy can allow speakers to hold the floor, thereby indexing power or authority.

136

Barbara Pizziconi

authors note having proved problematic. In line with the progression described above, the scale for “sociolinguistic appropriateness” illustrates the abilities of basic users mostly in terms of knowledge of markers of social relation and politeness conventions, which at this level are used in a formulaic manner, e.g. A1: “Can establish basic social contact by using the simplest everyday polite forms”; A2: “Can handle very short social exchanges, using everyday polite forms of greeting and address.” At level B1 the learner is “aware of the salient politeness conventions and acts appropriately. Is aware of, and looks out for signs of, the most significant differences between the customs, usages, attitudes, values and beliefs prevalent in the community concerned and those of his or her own.” From level B2 the learner “can express him or herself confidently, clearly and politely in a formal or informal register, appropriate to the situation and person(s) concerned.” Moreover, at this level, learners “Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native speaker.” This progression sensibly recognizes that establishing “social contact using everyday polite forms,” “or being aware of salient politeness conventions” are not the ultimate achievement points, and appropriate behaviour emerges with the ability to adapt flexibly to the requirements of specific situations. At Level C1, the learner “can use language flexibly and effectively for social purposes, including emotional, allusive and joking usage;” at C2 s/he “appreciates fully the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used by native speakers and can react accordingly.” Of course the CEFR levels do not a priori equate with any particular proficiency level (e.g. beginner/intermediate/advanced), but that the ability to act “appropriately” is expected in the mid-point of the six levels is what teachers of Asian languages in European contexts are likely to find particularly unconvincing, in view both of the structural complexity of honorific systems, but also of the re-orientation to fundamentally different value systems. At which exact point in the learning process a learner is likely to achieve a specific level depends of course on the specific nature of the behaviour observed, the learning context, a range of learner-specific factors, the learner’s purposes, and of course the distance between L1 and L2; hence the following rather bold statement by Little (2007: 646) surely requires empirical validation: “the CEFR is not language-specific. [. . .] It thus assumes that any communicative task requires a comparable level of proficiency from language to language.” The point about the progression, however, raises the more general question of whether “awareness” and “appropriateness” can only develop, in a cumulative fashion (resonant of structuralist assumptions), out of basic skills covering mostly command of “simplest everyday polite forms,” which therefore seem to

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

137

be intended as no more than mere mimicry performances – in other words at the independent (B) rather than basic (A) level. The CEFR sees the emergence of awareness as something achieved at Independent level: “The metaphor is that, having been progressing slowly but steadily across the intermediate plateau, the learner finds he [sic] has arrived somewhere, things look different, he/she acquires a new perspective, can look around him/her in a new way” (CoE 2001a: 35). The designers of the New Zealand Curricula for French and German (Ministry of Education New Zealand 2002a, 2002b, quoted in Valax 2011: 234), in significant contrast, place these abilities at the very early stages as well, and their proficiency statement for the levels corresponding to the CEFR’s Basic reads: “[Learners] are aware of and understand some of the typical cultural conventions that operate in interpersonal communication. Learners are developing an awareness of the language learning process.” This thus qualifies even the early stages of language learning as involving a consciousness of conventions and presumably their relativity, and not just an indiscriminate use of any form of language at the learners’ disposal. We have seen that consciousness-raising techniques are indeed advocated in most studies of pragmatic development, and empirical studies on the effects of instructional treatments at different proficiency levels are necessary to answer this question in full. Qualifying proficiency levels in terms of an ability to act “appropriately” or “effectively” says nothing of course about the parameters for appropriateness, or effectiveness. The Framework routinely rounds up descriptive scales with a separate box which invites users to make such decisions in relation to the particular constituencies concerned. With regards to this scale, it invites teachers to state “which greetings/address forms/expletives/forms of impoliteness users should be expected to recognize/evaluate/use themselves, and in which situations,” or “which social groups in the target community the learners should be able to recognize by use of language.” The charge of explicating the meaning of what is “appropriate” or “effective,” when and with which interlocutors, etc., then rests entirely with the teachers. However, when the CEFR does offer a qualification (“Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritating them”) the parameter of reference appears to be a generically competent NS, problematic as this notion has been shown to be (cf. Rampton 1990). The evaluative connotations of terms such as “appropriate” or “effective” are likely to be socially contested, but there is little elaboration on this in the document (but cf. Padilla-Cruz 2013: 149; van Compernolle 2014 on pedagogical presentations). The use of some other qualifications, such as “neutral” or “simple,” also seems problematic: (B1) “can perform and respond to a wide range of language functions, using their most common exponents in a neutral register.” Is there

138

Barbara Pizziconi

such a thing as a neutral register, when everything we do and say not only indexes our social, epistemic and affective stances toward others, towards political positions, etc., but also says different things to different people? Conceivably, being ‘neutral’ (Watts’ 2003 “politic behaviour”) is not a minimal skill, but a fairly sophisticated one,17 and if we think of registers as “a “meaning potential” that enables members of a community of practice to interpret and produce the texts of the social practice” (Mohan 2011: 59), then surely further qualifications about the specificities of any language function – including the “neutral” ones – appear to be necessary to learners from the very start. The norming NS appears again in the explanation of registers: In early learning (say up to level B1), a relatively neutral register is appropriate, unless there are compelling reasons otherwise. It is this register that native speakers are likely to use towards and expect from foreigners and strangers generally. Acquaintance with more formal or more familiar registers is likely to come over a period of time, perhaps through the reading of different text-types, particularly novels, at first as a receptive competence. Some caution should be exercised in using more formal or more familiar registers, since their inappropriate use may well lead to misinterpretation and ridicule. (CoE 2001a: 120).

While the CEFR does not equate ultimate achievement with NS-like competence,18 it also falls short of distinguishing interculturally competent NS from not competent ones, or monolingual and plurilingual ones. The idealized NS hovers over the whole of the document (in spite of a feeble disclaimer on p. 169 about a “utopian, ‘ideal native speaker’”), and is not sufficiently problematized. This is also suggested by the timid formulation of social variation that I highlighted before. Other terms are vague. For instance, in the “Basic user” category above, the description: “the simplest everyday polite forms,” assumes a relation between structural simplicity and every day contexts, which is unwarranted. The New Zealand Curricula for French and German again offer a nice comparison, expressing the concept with the phrasing “language that contains well rehearsed sentence patterns and familiar vocabulary” sensibly linking ability to practice rather than language features.

17 The Framework (2001a: 44) notes elsewhere that “language is not a neutral instrument of thought like, say, mathematics” but is always affected by context, and this line is in fact developed in a fairly elaborate chapter. 18 The Framework states that “Level C2, whilst it has been termed ‘Mastery,’ is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language which typifies the speech of those who have been highly successful learners.” (CoE 2001a: 36).

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

139

Finally, some comments on methodology. The CEFR purports to be methodologically neutral (2001a: 142), but this has been corrected elsewhere, for example noting its commitment to an action-oriented approach with the user – a social agent – at its center, and an emphasis on L2 use. However, its non-prescriptive stance, at least with regards to pragmatic and intercultural issues, looks underwhelming in light of the fairly consensual view in research that adult learners benefit from explicit metapragmatic instruction in these areas. The ability to move from formulaic usage in a few limited contexts to appreciation of nuances in many different contexts, and from dependence to autonomy, is consistently linked, in the literature, to suitable exposure to varied contexts, including authentic ones (inside and outside of periods of study abroad), through ‘scaffolding’ as well as explicit awareness-raising practices.19 More specifically for our theme, the political aspect of the L2 user identity, the modalities of acculturation, and also the notion of meaning co-construction20 should have an important role to play in defining L2 learning outcomes, all of which does not transpire from the CEFR’s statements sufficiently clearly.

3.3 Supporting documents A number of other documents have been published to complement the CEFR, and two designed specifically for teachers will be mentioned here, both of which I see as critical readings which address the weaknesses highlighted in the discussion so far (all italics are mine in the quotes below). Byram, Gribkova and Starkey (2002) opens with clear disclaimers about the interpretation of “culture” as stereotypical national cultures; it defines a true intercultural competence as something “based on perceiving the interlocutor as an individual whose qualities are to be discovered, rather than as a representative of an externally ascribed identity” (p. 9), and an awareness that “social identities” related to cultures are just some of many aspects of identity that all speakers

19 Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne (this volume, section 3) note that awareness-raising techniques are not particularly useful in classrooms where learners have different backgrounds, and indeed discussing norms of appropriateness in multiple sociocultural contexts may conflict with time constraints. Here however I refer to the enhanced focus on the sociopragmatic import of linguistic constructions and the awareness of the social dimension of every instance of language use, which is a precondition to develop the sociocognitive sensibility that the independent user level is alleged to possess. 20 Even the description of “interactive activities” (CoE 2001a: 73) does not explicitly state that these involve monitoring the interpersonal dimension, but only turn-taking and -giving, framing the issue and establishing an approach.

140

Barbara Pizziconi

display (p. 10). Knowledge, (“not primarily knowledge about a specific culture, but rather knowledge of how social groups and identities function and what is involved in intercultural interaction”), is defined as deriving from both “knowledge of social processes, and knowledge of illustrations of those processes and products; the latter includes knowledge about how other people are likely to perceive you, as well as some knowledge about other people” (p. 10). Notwithstanding the natural possibility of negative responses to unfamiliar value systems (since values and behaviours “are deeply embedded”) intercultural speakers/mediators “need to become aware of their own values and how these influence their views of other people’s values” (p. 13), both as positive or negative biases. Teaching this intercultural dimension is explicitly and primarily linked to the ability to ask the right questions rather than possessing a determined kind of knowledge, and the “development of a critical awareness, which is fostered through “experiential learning,” such as the reflective ability to assess the gaps between, for example, a learner’s experience of one’s own country, and the representations of it available in “travel guides or in tourist brochures” (p. 14–15). Other important points that cannot be quoted extensively here have to do with the “authority” of natives in matters of language and culture, reflections about the way in which language exercises can either reinforce or challenge stereotypes (p. 21); practical advice on how to select authentic materials which promote a critical perspective (p. 23) and how to assess “intercultural experience” (p. 30); finally, general suggestions on how to prioritize processes over products: e.g. developing skills of “group communication” (p. 33). The European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL, Newby et al. 2007) has been produced to support students undergoing initial teacher education, and as an aid to reflection and self-monitoring. This document does not offer specific recommendations, but it does single out the teaching of culture and its relationship with language as an aspect which “will require specific methodological insights” (Newby et al. 2007: 20), different from those employed in teaching linguistic matters. It also isolates some points for reflection which appear more finely tuned to the issues raised above from SLA research. For examples, teachers are asked to consider whether they “can evaluate and select a variety of texts, source materials and activities which make learners aware of similarities and differences in sociocultural ‘norms of behaviour’”; or “make learners aware of the interrelationship between culture and language” (Newby et al. 2007: 29). It also notes that some terms such as ‘meaningful’ or ‘appropriate’ can have variable interpretations, and that answers “will emerge from reflection, dialogue among students, between students and their educators and between students and their mentors in school” (2007: 87).

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

141

Both documents seem to go much further than the Framework itself in encouraging a critical and, importantly, dialogic definition of socially significant meanings, and the priority of critical awareness over knowledge of specific cultural products.

4 Conclusions As a broad framework of reference which aims at comprehensiveness rather than exhaustiveness, and a taxonomic work which must present sequentially phenomena which in reality interact holistically, it would be unfair to criticize the CEFR with regards to specific details, or some omissions in specific parts. However, many have noted that “all too frequently [the bulk of CEFR is] couched in language that is not easy to understand, often vague, undefined, and imprecise” (Alderson 2007: 661; see also Valax 2011). This chapter noted the same with regards to the way abilities relevant to the handling of relational work are described, such as the conceptualization of the phenomenon of (im)politeness and how it is learned in an L2, its relation to sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence, or even the notion of culture. The CEFR is reportedly based “only on the perceptions of language teachers, not even of trained assessors or of expert applied linguists from a range of disciplines” (Alderson 2007: 662). The conceptualization offered in this document thus suggests some familiarity with traditional assumptions about the location of (im)politeness in language (e.g. in discrete conventions rather than diffused in discourse or emerging in interaction). However, other critical issues, such as the role of sociocultural schemas or ideologies in the reception or production of language, intracultural variability, or the role of interlocutors in meaningmaking (more prominent in the work of the roughly coeval Byram, Gribkova and Starkey 2002, in section 3.3. here), are not adequately appreciated. Much more research has of course been produced, in the last fifteen years, that has developed these themes in and outside of the field of language pedagogy even further, and today some aspects of the framework seem inadequate to represent these understandings. The difficulties noted in the Framework with the formulation of sociocultural competence may also suggest a lack of consensus across language teachers about what competences are observed at different proficiency levels, and although generalizations are likely to be difficult, one cannot rule out the possibility that lack of consensus may derive from different established practices in the pedagogical handling of sociocultural aspects. Although statements about the role of culture and social contexts can be found throughout

142

Barbara Pizziconi

the Framework, they do not appear to systematically inform its categorization (e.g. how the relationship between sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence is formulated), or the conceptualization of (im)politeness (mostly in terms of universals of positive/negative poles, and the closed systems of linguistic conventions); much more could have been made from the findings of conversation analytic or language socialization perspectives, that would have highlighted the discursive and dynamic aspects of social practices, the learners’ social agency and the negotiated nature of “culture,” in conjunction with the cognitive aspects detailed more extensively in the Framework. Many commentators lament that the Framework’s “descriptors,” i.e. the “illustrative scales” of competence levels, are the aspect of the framework best known by teachers – in fact the only one known and discussed – while the underlying theoretical and philosophical inspiration detailed in the general descriptive scheme is often neglected (e.g. Newby 2011: 24, 27). This is indeed unfortunate, as the descriptors raise a number of questions that cannot be answered, nor their significance appreciated, without an understanding of theoretical assumptions. For example, the programmatic statement about understanding the learner as social actor forces us to consider how this ought to be operationalized consistently, at all proficiency levels. There is no reason why awareness of the scope of appropriateness for conventional formulae (limited as these may be at an early level) should not be expected from the start, nor for neglecting the awareness of the social embeddedness of language at the lowest proficiency levels. At the same time, references to register control (formal, neutral, informal) in the level descriptors should be not taken too literally when teaching languages with rich honorific systems (whose register switches require high levels of processing control of complex structural features), and recognition and awareness prioritized over production. Pavlenko (2002: 294) sees the poststructuralist SLA inquiry as a shift from concerns with “individual attitudes,” “motivation” and “personality” to “socially constituted ideologies,” “investment,” and “agency and identity.” Along the same lines, views of (im)politeness have shifted from the mastery of linguistic strategies or honorifics and of allegedly homogeneous sociopragmatic norms to the appreciation of the dynamic, contested, negotiated, and pervasive nature of relational work. The Framework does not positively and consistently call forth this refined characterization. Charging teachers with the responsibility to implement the guidelines appropriately, act as educated informants and assist learners in developing and managing the many competences involved in communication is a legitimate stance for a pan-European framework of reference, but its capacity to promote an enhanced conceptualization of L2 pragmatic competence – and (im)politeness in particular – is inadequate if not sustained

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

143

by the teacher’s willingness to pursue the matter further (and note Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne in this volume for a recommendation that teachers do engage with research). Making findings accessible to the community of practitioners is an urgent imperative for the field of theoretical applied linguistic research.

Acknowledgements A hearthfelt thanks is due to Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Miriam Locher and the anonymous reviewers for their attentive reading and perceptive comments on the manuscript.

References Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alderson, J. Charles. 2007. The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 659−663. Al-Issa, Ahmad. 2003. Socio-cultural transfer in L2 speech behaviours: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(5). 581−601. Ando, Yuka. 2005. Japanese language instruction and the question of “correctness.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175−176. 271−284. Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2). 193−216. Atkinson, Dwight. 2002. Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 86(4). 525−545. Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman, Lyle. F. & Adrian Palmer. 2010. Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 13−32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Béal, Christine. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1−2). 35−58. Bella, Spyridoula. 2012. Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13). 1917−1947. Bergman, Marc L. & Gabriele Kasper. 1993. Perception and performance in native and nonnative apologizing. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 82−107. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

144

Barbara Pizziconi

Blommaert, Jan. 1991. How much culture is there in intercultural communication? In Jan Blommaert & Jef Verschueren (eds.), The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication (Pragmatic & Beyond New Series 6.3), 13−51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Hadass Sheffer. 1993. The metapragmatic discourse of AmericanIsraeli families at dinner. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 196−223. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bond, Michael Harris, Vladimir Žegarac & Helen Spencer-Oatey. 2000. Culture as an explanatory variable: Problems and possibilities. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 47−71. London: Continuum. Bou Franch, Patricia & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2003. Teaching linguistic politeness: A methodological proposal. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 41(1). 1−22. Bouton, Lawrence F. 1996. Pragmatics and language learning. In Lawrence F. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series 7), 1−20. Urbana: Illinois University Press. Brown, Lucien. 2010. Questions of appropriateness and authenticity in the representation of Korean honorifics in textbooks for second language learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum 23(1). 35−50. Brown, Lucien. 2011. Korean Honorifics and ‘revealed,’ ‘ignored’ and ‘suppressed’ aspects of Korean culture and politeness. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 106−127. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, Lucien. 2013. Teaching ‘casual’ and/or ‘impolite’ language through multimedia: The case of non-honorific panmal speech styles in Korean. Language Culture and Curriculum 26(1). 1−18. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byram, Michael, Bella Gribkova & Hugh Starkey. 2002. Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cameron, Deborah. 2002. Globalization and the teaching of ’communication skills.’ In David Block & Deborah Cameron (eds.), Globalization and language teaching, 67−82. London & New York: Routledge. Canale, Michael. 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Jack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication (Applied Linguistics and Language Study), 2−27. New York: Longman. Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1). 1−47. Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Zoltán Dörnyei & Sara Thurrell. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2). 5−35. Chen, Rong. 1993. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20(1). 49−75. Clancy, Patricia M. 1985. The acquisition of Japanese. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volume 1: The data, 373−524. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Clancy, Patricia M. 1986. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

145

Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 213−250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Compernolle, Rémi A. van. 2014. Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics (Second Language Acquisition 74). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, Haruko M. 1997. The role of the Japanese -masu form in caregiver-child conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28(6). 695−718. Cook, Haruko M. 2001. Why can’t learners of JFL distinguish polite form from impolite speech styles? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 80−102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, Haruko M. 2006. Joint construction of folk beliefs by JFL learners and Japanese host families. In Margaret A. DuFon & Eton Churchill (eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (Second Language Acquisition 15), 120−150. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, Haruko M. 2008. Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CoE (Council of Europe). 2001a. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf (12 March 2014). CoE (Council of Europe). 2001b. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2010. Conventionalized impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12). 3232−3245. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2004. Norms and principles. Putting social and cognitive pragmatics together. In Rosina Márquez Reiter & María Elena Placencia (eds.), Current trends in the pragmatics of Spanish (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 123), 347−371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Etienne, Corinne & Kelly Sax. 2009. Stylistic variation in French: Bridging the gap between research and textbooks. The Modern Language Journal 93(4). 584−606. Firth, Alan & Johannes Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81(3). 285−300. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2001. The teaching of pragmatic aspects in the ESL/EFL classroom: A critical review. In Hang Ferrer Mora, Barry Pennock Speck, Patricia Bou Franch, Carmen Gregori Signes & María del Mar Martí Viaño (eds.), Teaching English in a Spanish setting, 79−94. Valencia: Universitat de València. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2006. Interlanguage pragmatics: A response to Andrew Cohen’s ‘‘Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts’’ Intercultural Pragmatics 3(2). 213−223. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press. Golato, Andrea. 2002. German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34(5). 547−571. Grainger, Karen. 2011. Indirectness in Zimbabwean English: A study of intercultural communication in the UK. In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 171−193. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hassall, Timothy. 2003. Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics 35(12). 1903−1928.

146

Barbara Pizziconi

Heinrich, Patrick. 2005. Language ideology in JFL textbooks. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175−176. 213−232. Holmes, Janet. 2012. Politeness in intercultural discourse and communication. In Christina Bratt Paulston, Scott F. Kiesling & Elizabeth S. Rangel (eds.), The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 205−228. Oxford: Blackwell. House, Juliane. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of “please” and “bitte.” In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Crosscultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes XXXI), 96−119. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. House, Juliane. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 225−252. Huang, Mei-chen. 1996. A contrastive study of American and Chinese requests. UrbanaChampaign, IL: University of Illinois PhD dissertation. Hulstijn, Jan H., Richard F. Young, Lourdes Ortega, Martha Bigelow, Robert DeKeyser, Nick C. Ellis, James P. Lantolf, Alison Mackey & Stephen Talmy. 2014. Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36(3). 1−61. Huth, Thorsten. 2006. Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 compliment-response sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 38(12). 2025−2050. Hymes, Dell H. 1972. On communicative competence. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected readings, 269−293. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hymes, Dell H. 1986. Discourse: Scope without depth. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 57. 49−89. Ikeda, Keiko. 2009. Advanced learners’ honorific styles in emails and telephone calls. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 69−100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ishida, Midori. 2009. Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ’ne’ in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In Hahn thi Nguyen & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Talk-inInteraction: Multilingual perspectives, 351−385. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Ishihara, Noriko. 2007. Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness 16(1). 21−40. Ishihara, Noriko & Elaine Tarone. 2009. Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 101−128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Iwasaki, Noriko. 2011. Learning L2 Japanese “politeness” and “impoliteness”: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature 45(1). 67−106. Kasper, Gabriele. 2009. L2 pragmatic development. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition, 2nd edn., 259−294. Bingley: Emerald Group. Kasper, Gabriele & Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 196−223. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Carsten Roever. 2005. Pragmatics in second language learning. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 317−334. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

147

Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language (Language Learning 52). Oxford: Blackwell. Kramsch, Claire & Anne Whiteside. 2007. Three fundamental concepts in SLA and their relevance in multilingual contexts. The Modern Language Journal 91(5). 907−922. Kumagai, Yuri & Shinji Sato. 2009. ‘Ignorance’ as a rhetorical strategy: How Japanese language learners living in Japan maneouver their subject positions to shift power dynamics. Critical Studies in Education 50(3). 309−321. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide?. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 167–206. Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17. 365−399. Little, David. 2007. The common European framework of reference for languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policies. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 645−655. Little, David. 2011. The common European framework of references for languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching 44(3). 381−393. Lo, Adrienne & Kathryn M. Howard. 2009. Mobilizing respect and politeness in classrooms. Linguistics and Education 20(3). 211−216. LoCastro Virginia. 2011. Second language pragmatics. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning 2 (ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series), 279−303. New York & London: Routledge. Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2006. Polite behavior within relational work: The discursive approach to politeness. Multilingua 25(3). 249−267. Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 36−60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9−33. Lörscher, Wolfgang & Rainer Schulze. 1988. On polite speaking and foreign language classroom discourse. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 26(3). 183−199. Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shigeko Okamoto. 2003. The construction of the Japanese language and culture in teaching Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37(1). 27−48. Meier, Ardith J. 1995. Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 24(4). 381−392. Meier, Ardith J. 2004. Has ‘politeness’ outlived its usefulness? Vienna English Working Papers 13(1). 5−22. http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views/O4_1/0401ALL.PDF. (2 April 2014). Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mohan, Bernard A. 2011. Social practice and register. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning 2 (ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series), 57−75. New York & London: Routledge.

148

Barbara Pizziconi

Mori, Junko. 2009. The social turn in second language acquisition and Japanese pragmatics research: Reflection on ideologies, methodologies and instructional implications. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 335−358. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mugford, Gerrard. 2008. How rude! Teaching impoliteness in the second-language classroom. ELT Journal 62(4). 375−384. Newby, David. 2011. Competence and performance in learning and teaching: Theories and practices. In Eliza Kitis, Nikos Lavidas, Nina Topintzi & Tasos Tsangalidis (eds.), Selected papers from the 19th international symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics [ISTAL], 15−32. Thessaloniki: Monochromia Publishing. http://www.enl.auth.gr/symposium19/19thpapers/002_Newby.pdf (20 March 2014). Newby, David, Rebecca Allan, Anne-Brit Fenner, Barry Jones, Hanna Komorowska & Kristine Soghikyan (eds.). 2007. European portfolio for student teachers of languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.ecml.at/tabid/277/PublicationID/16/Default.aspx (20 March 2014). Ministry of Education (New Zealand). 2002a. French in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. http://www.tki.org.nz/r/language/PDF_Guidelines/french.pdf (27 September 2014). Ministry of Education (New Zealand). 2002b. German in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. North, Brian. 2007. The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. The Modern Language Journal 91(4). 656−659. Ochs, Elinor. 1986. From feelings to grammar: A Samoan case study. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 251−272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Driscoll, Jim. 2007. Brown and Levinson’s face: How it can—and can’t—help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4). 463-492. O’Driscoll, Jim. 2011. Some Issues with the concept of face: When, what, how and how much? In Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini & Dániel Z. Kádár (eds.), Politeness across cultures, 17−41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ohta, Amy Snyder. 1999. Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 31(11). 1493−1512. Ohta, Amy Snyder. 2001a. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 103–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ohta, Amy Snyder. 2001b. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Olshtain, Elite. 1989. Apologies across languages. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Crosscultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes XXXI), 155−174. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Omar, Alwiya. S. 1991. How learners greet in Kiswahili. In Lawrence F. Bouton & Yamuna Kachru (eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series 2), 59−73. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2013. An integrative approach to teach the pragmatics of phatic communication in ESL classes. Intercultural Pragmatics 10(1). 131−160.

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

149

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (Second Language Acquisition 1), 275−302. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2003. Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10−11). 1471−1506. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2006. Learning to reframe: Japanese benefactives, metalinguistic beliefs and the identities of L2 users. In Asako Yoshitomi, Tae Umino & Masashi Negishi, (eds.), Readings in second language pedagogy and second language acquisition: In Japanese context (Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics 4), 119−153. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2007. The lexical mapping of politeness in British English and Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 207−241. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2011. Honorifics: The cultural specificity of a universal mechanism in Japanese. In Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills (eds.), Politeness in East Asia, 45−70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polanyi, Lidia. 1995. Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field. In Barbara F. Freed (ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (Studies in Bilingualism 9), 271−291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rampton, Ben. 1990. Displacing the “native speaker”: expertise, affiliation and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44/2. 338−43. Rose, Kenneth R. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragamatics. System 33. 385−399. Ross, Steven J. 1998. Divergent frame orientations in oral proficiency interview discourse. In Richard Young and Agnes Weiyun He (eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency, 333−353. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sarangi, Srikant. 1994. Intercultural or not? Beyond the celebration of cultural differences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics 4(3). 409–427. Sasaki, Miyuki. 1998. Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4). 457−484. Scarcella, Robin & Joanna Brunak. 1981. On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27. 59−75. Schauer, Gila A. 2006. Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning 56(2). 269−318. Schauer, Gila A. 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Continuum. Schmidt, Richard. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Gabriele Kasper & Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, 21−42. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, Richard. 1995. Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In Richard Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1−63. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Schneider, Klaus P. 1999. Compliment responses across cultures. In Maria Wysocka (ed.), On language in theory and practice: In honour of Janusz Arabski on the occasion of his 60th birthday Vol. 1, 162−172. Katowice: Wydawnitcwo Unywersytetu Ślaskiego. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001a. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

150

Barbara Pizziconi

Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001b. Discourse and intercultural communication. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 538−547. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, John. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, 59−82. New York: Academic Press. Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10(1−4). 209−231. Shardakova, Marya & Aneta Pavlenko. 2004. Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 3(1). 25−46. Sharifian, Farzad. 2008. Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research 4(1). 55−80. Shea, David P. 1994. Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation across cultural borders. Pragmatics 4(3). 357−389. Shively, Rachel Louise. 2008. Politeness and social interaction in study abroad: Service encounters in L2 Spanish. University of Minnesota PhD Dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/ 11299/91505 (May 2014). Siegal, Meryl. 1995. Individual differences and study abroad: Women learning Japanese in Japan. In Barbara F. Freed (ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (Studies in Bilingualism 9), 225−244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sifianou, Maria. 2010. Linguistic politeness: Laying the foundations. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 17−41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sifianou, Maria. 2013. The impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 55. 86−102. Silva, Antonio José Bacelar da. 2003. The effects of instruction on pragmatic development: Teaching polite refusals in English. Second Language Studies 22(1). 55−106. Snow, Catherine E., Rivka Y. Perlmann, Jean Berko Gleason & Nahid Hooshyar. 1990. Developmental perspectives on politeness: Sources of children’s knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 289−305. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2000. Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Helen SpencerOatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 11−46. London: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2005. (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95−119. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2011. Conceptualising ’the relational’ in pragmatics: insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3565−3578. Strauss, Claudia & Naomi Quinn. 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, Merrill & Ping Deters. 2007. “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal 91. 820−836. Taguchi, Naoko. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28(1). 113−135. Taguchi, Naoko. 2009. Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language: Introduction. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.). 2009. Pragmatic competence (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 5), 1−18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takahashi, Satomi. 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 189−223.

(Im)politeness in the CEFR and pedagogical research

151

Takahashi, Satomi. 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 171−199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. 2002. A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12). 1807−1832. Tanaka, Kazumi, Hiroko Oshima, Saeko Ogiso, Naoko Sakurai, Noriko Sato, Kaoru Matsuo, Sawako Sulzberger-Miki & Keiko Yoshioka (eds.). 2005. Yōroppa ni okeru nihongo kyōiku to common European framework of reference for languages [Learning and teaching Japanese language in Europe and the common European framework of reference for languages]. Tokyo: The Japan Foundation. http://www.jpf.go.jp/j/publish/japanese/euro/ pdf/ceforfl.pdf (October 2011). Tateyama, Yumiko. 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese Sumimasen. In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 200−222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terkourafi, Marina. 2007. Toward a universal notion of face for a universal notion of cooperation. In Istvan Kecskes & Laurence R. Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 1), 313−344. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91−112. Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 7). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Turner, Ken. 1996. The principal principles of pragmatic inference: Politeness. Language Teaching 29(1). 1−13. Tyler Andrea. 1995. The co-construction of cross-cultural miscommunication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(2). 129−152. Valax, Philippe. 2011. The common European framework of reference for languages: A critical analysis of its impact on a sample of teachers and curricula within and beyond Europe. University of Waikato PhD dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/10289/5546 (30 January 2014). Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann & David W. Gegeo. 1986. Calling-out and repeating routines in Kwara’ae children’s language socialization. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 17−50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.). 1992. Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Yoshimi, Dina Rudolph. 1999. L1 language socialization as a variable in the use of ne by L2 learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 31(11). 1513−1525. Zuengler, Jane & Kim Cole. 2005. Language socialization and L2 learning. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 301−316. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zuengler, Jane & Elizabeth R. Miller. 2006. Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 35−58.

II ‘Teaching’ and ‘learning’ (about) (im)politeness in L1 and L2

Rachel Mapson

6 Paths to politeness: Exploring how professional interpreters develop an understanding of politeness norms in British Sign Language and English Abstract: This chapter explores how bimodal bilinguals acquire and develop their awareness of politeness in British Sign Language (BSL). Drawing on data collected through semi-structured group discussions involving eight highly experienced BSL/English interpreters the chapter focuses on how the participants learned about linguistic politeness in BSL and how this contrasts with their acquisition of English politeness norms. The data indicate how different paths to the acquisition of linguistic politeness might affect understanding of it. The experience of interpreters from Deaf family backgrounds, who acquired BSL as their first language, contrasts with those who learned BSL formally, as an additional language, as adults. Although both groups of participants acquired knowledge of politeness in similar arenas, the languages they were exposed to in these environments differed and intra-group experiences were heterogeneous. The data highlight the difficulty of learning politeness norms in an L2, with participants reporting a lack of explicit focus on politeness in BSL classes and interpreter training programmes. This may reflect the lack of literature on politeness in signed language, and on BSL in particular. Both groups of interpreters reported experiences involving the negative transfer of L1 politeness norms. Data indicate that the different modalities of BSL and English may facilitate transferability rather than restrict it, with one affordance being the ‘blended transfer’ of non-manual politeness features associated with BSL which may be performed simultaneously with spoken English. Keywords: signed language, interpreters, bimodal bilinguals, cultural norms, pragmatic transfer, code-blending, blended transfer

1 Introduction The extensive literature on linguistic politeness in spoken languages is not mirrored within sign linguistics, though existing studies on American Sign Language (Roush 1999, 2007; Hoza 2001, 2007), Japanese Sign Language (George

156

Rachel Mapson

2011) and British Sign Language (BSL; Mapson 2013) all concur that non-manual features form key politeness markers. These non-manual features relate to use of facial expression, particularly the mouth, eyes and brows, and to the use of the head and upper-body. Many of the cultural norms associated with BSL and other signed languages differ significantly from those of the dominant non-Deaf communities that surround them and these include consideration of (im)politeness. However, to date there has been little focus on how these politeness norms are acquired by native signers, or how these aspects of signed language are formally taught to L2 learners. In spoken language research, the study of pragmatic development has been approached in a number of ways. Kasper (2001) summarises the four main perspectives involved as being: information processing, communicative competence, sociocultural and language socialisation. The latter two perspectives are frequently combined (Duff 2007) due to their complementary focus on assisted and experiential learning, and form a useful framework with which to consider the experiences of the interpreter participants involved in the present study. In contrast to the explicit instruction on L1 politeness norms provided by mothers to young children in Japan (Clancy 1986) and a continuing focus on explicit instruction within the pre-school environment there (Burdelski 2010), research suggests that an implicit approach is more prevalent in Western cultures (see Wolfson 1989; Snow et al. 1990; Blum-Kulka 1997; Kasper 2001). Lack of explicit instruction has also been identified within formal L2 teaching, though more explicit approaches are noted as beneficial (for example Thomas 1983; Béal 1994; House 1996; Jeon and Kaya 2006; Martínez-Flor and Alcón Soler 2007; Takahashi 2010; Woodfield and Economidou-Kogetsidis 2010). The distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983) may be relevant within the context of L2 tuition; though the two are interrelated (Béal 1994). Teaching the lexical and grammatical components of politeness (pragmalinguistics) is easier to effect in the classroom; Béal (1994) suggests that learners will readily correct such errors when they are pointed out. In contrast, the cultural and social norms (sociopragmatics) of the L2 are more difficult to convey in formal learning environments and L2 learners may be more resistant to adopting values that contrast with those of their L1 (Thomas 1983). Research shows that the intersection of second language acquisition and pragmatics studies, described as ‘interlanguage pragmatics’ (e.g. Kasper and Blum-Kulka 1993; Kasper 1996; Bou Franch 1998), is a rich area of study. This chapter adds the additional layer of contrasting language modality to this discussion by examining the experiences of bilingual development of two languages in contrasting modalities; the aural/oral modality of English and the visual/spatial one of BSL.

Paths to politeness

157

One manifestation of interlanguage pragmatics is pragmatic transfer. Like linguistic transfer more generally this relates to the transference of knowledge about one language into another. Sometimes knowledge can be successfully transferred (positive transfer) while on other occasions transference of L1 pragmatic knowledge into L2 is inappropriate (negative transfer). However, negative transfer does not necessarily result in ‘pragmatic failure’ (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983) as L1 speakers may make allowances for the lack of awareness in L2 use (Žegarac and Pennington 2008). Pragmatic transfer can be considered as either pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic (Kasper 1992; Béal 1994) though these distinctions may be somewhat blurred (Žegarac and Pennington 2008). The study of pragmatic transfer in sign/speech bilinguals adds a new perspective on the potential for both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer. The present study looks at how this process relates to the acquisition of politeness in hearing bimodal bilinguals, exploring the experiences of those who acquired English as L1 and learned BSL formally as L2, and those with Deaf 1 parents who acquired BSL as their L1 and English as L2. The latter group are referred to throughout this chapter as CODA (children of Deaf adults). First, I examine the literature relating to acquisition and formal learning of politeness and general issues concerning pragmatic transfer. I then relate this to the experiences of the professional sign language interpreters involved in my study and discussion around their understanding of politeness as being “about negotiation” and “the oil that enables us to live together peaceably.” This chapter explores acquisition of politeness with particular focus on BSL, and the potential for negative pragmatic transfer. Their developmental journeys will be related to the order and circumstances in which their languages were acquired to explore the influence of the two languages on each another and highlight the heterogeneous nature of interpreters’ experiences.

2 Background 2.1 British Sign Language and the Deaf community It may be helpful to start by contextualising the use and transmission of BSL. BSL is the visual-gestural language used by the Deaf community in the United Kingdom.2 Brennan (1992) describes the strength of community members’ identification with one another and their shared language, even though they are 1 The capitalised word Deaf is used to refer to deaf people who prefer to communicate in signed language and identify as members of a linguistic and cultural minority. 2 For further discussion about the membership and characteristics of the Deaf community see Kyle and Woll (1985).

158

Rachel Mapson

spread throughout the UK rather than residing in a discreet geographic area. BSL is totally independent from and unrelated to English. However, as English is the dominant majority language of the UK, it exerts considerable language contact influence on BSL (Sutton-Spence 1999); Deaf and non-Deaf (hearing) people interact with one another regularly and the majority of Deaf people have some knowledge of English. In contrast with other linguistic minorities, transmission of language within the Deaf community is rarely from parent to child, and the language is more commonly acquired from peers, or other adults, at school.3 This is because an estimated 90 to 97 per cent of Deaf people are raised in non-Deaf families (Mitchell and Karchmer 2004).4 Though Deaf children may be exposed to English within home and school environments the language is not generally accessible to them in its spoken form, nor is written English always accessible to Deaf adults; there is evidence to suggest that the literacy skill of the majority of Deaf people is significantly lower than that of the general population (Conrad 1979; Powers, Gregory and Thoutenhoofd 1998). The communication barriers that Deaf people encounter with hearing people motivate their preference for socialising, using BSL, amongst their own community members. Deaf clubs, where BSL users gather socially, have traditionally been a focus for Deaf community members and have been recognised as an important setting for the transmission of their language and culture (Brennan 1992). The majority of Deaf parents have hearing children. These children, often known as CODAs, are one set of the bilinguals involved in the present study. Unlike most of their parents, these CODAs acquired BSL as their first language from their parents. While the Deaf community may share some of the cultural norms of the majority population (Pietrosemoli 2001), they do not share all of them. This may stem from the inaccessibility of those norms and the different modalities of the languages involved; Deaf people operate in a visual and tactile world rather than one where sound and spoken language are often prioritised. These differences are exemplified in the cultural norms associated with turn-taking which in BSL is signalled through eye gaze5 (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999). Cultural norms associated with attracting attention are also necessarily different from those generally used in spoken language, and physical touch for this purpose may be more common than within the British non-Deaf population.

3 Educational provision for Deaf pupils is now changing with a move towards educating Deaf children within mainstream education rather than at residential schools with other Deaf pupils. 4 Though this figure refers to data from the USA, it may be considered equally relevant to the UK, as percentages of genetically related deafness are the same within both populations. 5 Eye gaze in BSL has numerous other functions, as discussed in Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999).

Paths to politeness

159

Differences relating to Deaf and hearing cultural norms associated with directness or indirectness have been discussed (e.g. Mindess 2006; Hoza 2007). These discussions suggest that direct requests that might be considered impolite by English-speakers and comments regarding personal appearance that hearing people would consider blunt and offensive might be judged very differently, and as culturally appropriate, by Deaf people. One significant difference between signed and spoken languages is that the former makes use of the face and body in a number of ways that carry systematic meaning (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999). This use of articulators other than the hands is referred to throughout this chapter as use of non-manual features. Nonmanual features are particularly relevant to politeness in signed language and have been acknowledged as key components of politeness in several signed languages (see Roush 1999, 2007; Hoza 2001, 2007; George 2011; Mapson 2013, 2014b). Mapson (2014b) indicates that lexical politeness markers, or manual signs, are non-essential for politeness in BSL as politeness can be conveyed entirely through non-manual features.

2.2 Acquisition of politeness in L1 Though the majority of research has been inclined towards the performance rather than the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge (Bardovi-Harlig 2001), Rose (2000) suggests that sociopragmatic development starts in the L1 of children by the age of around three years in contrast with a slower process of development of politeness norms for children learning an L2. Other studies indicate that ability to perform politeness continues to develop until around the age of eight (Ervin-Tripp and Gordon 1986; Ervin-Tripp, Guo and Lampert 1990) and Snow et al. (1990) suggest that this development continues through to adolescence. The generalised language socialisation processes described by Ochs (1996) as a means of children acquiring appropriate use of language, are related specifically to the development of ‘pragmatic socialisation’ by Blum-Kulka (1997) in her exploration of the communication and cultural behaviours of Israeli and Jewish-American families. Blum-Kulka’s observations are based on dinner-table conversation, described as a rich environment for the development of pragmatic knowledge, presenting parents with the opportunity to model, correct and instruct children on language use. She relates her observation of family control styles to the work of Bernstein (1971) and his categorisation of the visible ‘positional’ control style and the more subtle ‘personal’ style; the former relates to the ‘because I said so’ mode of direction, while the latter involves a greater degree of negotiation. Blum-Kulka observes both styles during her own research and suggests that the

160

Rachel Mapson

style adopted is motivated both by cultural preferences and the purpose of the utterance, though middle-class parents demonstrated a preference for invisible ‘personal’ control. Snow et al. (1990) found that the language modelling of parents was similarly reflected in the language practices of extended family members. This assumes that all members of the extended family use the same language, which may not always be the case. For example, the vast majority of Deaf parents have non-Deaf (hearing) children, a figure estimated, as noted above, at between 90–97 per cent by Mitchell and Karchmer (2004). Similarly, most Deaf children are born to hearing parents, and therefore families where all members are Deaf are uncommon. While the process of pragmatic acquisition is generally implicit (Snow et al. 1990; Kasper 2001), Blum-Kulka (1997) suggests that parents sometimes offer explicit instruction in the form of metapragmatic comments. These comments are made in a way that is reflective of the language culture and highlight the in/appropriateness of language use. How frequently comments are made may therefore relate to cultural norms. Snow et al. (1990) observed that even when explicit instruction on politeness was given by parents, this related mainly to what was appropriate in the context, and lacked any explication of the underlying ‘rules’ that inform appropriateness. It would therefore seem that, despite the complexity of politeness, children are largely left to deduce the rule system for themselves. Additionally, Blum-Kulka (1997) suggests that metapragmatic comments (e.g. a reminder to say ‘please’) are less common than metalinguistic ones that relate to language use in general, and relates this to a general lack of self-awareness about pragmatic issues, evidenced through observation and also in interviews with the parents. Similarly, Wolfson (1989) describes how the pragmatic knowledge of native speakers is usually implicit, rather than explicit, and therefore not easily described by them.

2.3 Pragmatic development in L2 Much of the literature on the teaching of pragmatics in L2 centres on the issue of implicit versus explicit tuition in formal learning situations. Taguchi (2011) describes explicit instruction as involving explanations about pragmatic features, alongside practice of them. While some authors indicate that pedagogical approaches may be better described as positioned along an implicit/explicit continuum (Jeon and Kaya 2006; Takahashi 2010) there is widespread agreement that explicit instruction is beneficial (e.g. Thomas 1983; House 1996; Martínez-Flor and Alcón Soler 2007; Taguchi 2011), facilitating the development of L2 pragmatic norms (Kasper 2001). Woodfield and Economidou-Kogetsidis

Paths to politeness

161

(2010) suggest that this applies not only to those in the earlier stages of L2 development, but is also beneficial to advanced L2 users. However, the explicit tuition of pragmatic norms is further problematised by a lack of codification on the subject, unlike grammar which may be taught on the basis of codified rules. The distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics is useful in this regard. Of the two, pragmalinguistics is easier to convey in the classroom (Kasper and Rose 2001) where pragmalinguistic failure can be remedied with instruction about grammar and conventional language use (Thomas 1983). For example, Béal (1994) describes how French employees using English as an L2 in Australia can be made aware of common errors, such as the use of ‘sorry’ (transferred from their L1) when ‘pardon’ or ‘excuse me’ would be more appropriate in English. However, sociopragmatics is a more complex subject as it is far more dependent on subjective evaluations, more difficult to convey in a classroom setting (Kasper and Rose 2001). For example, the context-dependent element of these cultural expectations may create difficulty when teaching how imposition of a request may be perceived or how gratitude should be expressed appropriately. Adopting different cultural norms may be perceived by L2 learners as a challenge to their individual identity (Béal 1994) or their belief systems (Thomas 1983). Though pragmalinguistic correction may be readily accepted by the learner (Béal 1994), Thomas (1983) advocates that sociopragmatic errors should be identified and discussed rather than eliminated since learners may be more sensitive to issues concerning their social judgement. However, Béal (1994) indicates how pragmalinguistic errors may derive from sociopragmatic transfer, problematizing the distinction between these two categories, and both Thomas (1983) and Taguchi (2011) discuss how tutors may also consider correction of inappropriate politeness a sensitive issue, potentially resulting in students’ ongoing misconceptions about language use. One key component of the L2 learning experience within higher education establishments is the concept of the year abroad, during which students spend a prolonged period of residence amongst native speakers to facilitate experiential learning through interaction with native speakers. Understanding of L2 pragmatic norms develops in the process of interaction, and Shea (1994) discusses how learners are able to use the responses they get from native speakers during conversation to inform their own language development. Although study-abroad opportunities do not necessarily resolve all the difficulties in L2 pragmatic development (Bou Franch 1998; Kasper 1992), research conducted by Matsumura (2003) indicates that it is the amount of language exposure rather than the duration of stay in the L2 environment that is beneficial. These benefits are more difficult to achieve for L2 learners of a signed language. There is no ‘country’ for learners to visit and the potential for exposure is limited; Deaf signers form a linguistic

162

Rachel Mapson

minority dispersed within the general population, with current estimates of the Deaf population in the UK varying between 18,000–70,000.6 The majority of studies have focused on the production of politeness in L2, rather than on the perception and judgement of it (Bardovi-Harlig 2001), but studies indicate that L1 speakers may perceive the politeness forms used by L2 learners in ways other than the speaker intends. Tanaka and Kawade (1982) indicate that ability to judge politeness is distinct from the ability to produce contextually appropriate politeness strategies, leading to Bardovi-Harlig’s (2001) suggestion that this should be a focus of explicit instruction. She emphasises that linking these explications to context should be an integral part of this process. Lack of appreciation of how politeness may be perceived by others potentially leads to some of the issues identified by other researchers, such as the negative reactions to the misuse of ‘please’ by Japanese learners of English (White 1993). These problems may result from the reduced range of politeness strategies deployed by L2 learners (Tanaka and Kawade 1982; Thomas 1983), and noted by Rose (2000) specifically in relation to an over-reliance on politeness markers such as ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ in young L2 learners of English. L2 learners may adopt the sociopragmatic norms of the L2 and/or rely on transfer of their L1 norms. Both Bardovi-Harlig (2001) and Taguchi (2011) indicate that, ultimately, the decision for a learner to adopt L2 sociopragmatic norms is a personal choice, recommending that these choices should be informed (Bardovi-Harlig 2001: 67) rather than unconscious actions resulting from lack of awareness (Thomas 1983; Taguchi 2011: 304).

2.4 Pragmatic transfer The transfer of politeness norms from one language to another, whether done consciously or unconsciously, can lead to communication problems where interlocutors are unaware of cultural and linguistic differences which may affect how an L2 speaker is perceived (Kasper 1992). Greater understanding of pragmatic transfer can help with the identification and solution of problems in intercultural communication (Žegarac and Pennington 2008) and may therefore be an important consideration for those working as interpreters and translators. 6 Historically the number of Deaf BSL users in the UK has been estimated at between 50,000 and 70,000 (http://www.scod.org.uk/faqs/statistics/). However, the 2011 Census has generated some contradictory figures due to the differential wording of questions used in Scotland and England/Wales. The analysis of the Census data by the UK Council on Deafness now suggests a figure of 27,000 deaf BSL users in the UK (http://deafcouncil.org.uk/news/2013/11/18/2011census-data-on-number-of-bsl-users/). Sites accessed 31/07/2015.

Paths to politeness

163

Bou Franch (1998) describes pragmatic transfer along a language/culture continuum, with pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics at either end, but suggests that these two types cannot account for all pragmatic transfer. Bou Franch (1998) adopts the additional category of non-linguistic transfer proposed by Riley (1989) as a third type. This non-verbal form of transfer might relate to use of gestures, acceptable in one spoken-language culture but not in another, such as pointing with the index finger. However, categorising transfer as linguistic or non-linguistic may be problematic when this transfer occurs between languages in different modalities, and exemplifies potential differences between language production and perception. In Pietrosemoli’s (2001) study of Deaf Venezuelans’ use of politeness strategies when interacting with non-Deaf (hearing) people, she observes how Deaf people adopt gestures commonly used among the hearing population, in what she describes as a form of code-switching. One example is a sign that in Venezuelan Sign Language (LSV) means ‘to die’ but which, when used by hearing people has a far more colloquial meaning, comparable to ‘kick the bucket.’ These gestures are used by hearing people only in informal contexts and are considered inappropriate in situations involving a greater degree of formality or social distance, as is frequently the case in Deaf/hearing interactions. Pietrosemoli (2001) suggests that Deaf people’s use of these borrowed signs is motivated by a concern for positive face maintenance with their hearing interlocutors. However, this intent is misunderstood by hearing people who perceive them as face-threatening gestures. This example of pragmatic transfer indicates that during bimodal interactions lexico-grammatical production in one language may be perceived as paralinguistic in the other. Here, the borrowing of hearing gestures results in negative sociopragmatic transfer. The relationship between context and pragmatic transfer is discussed by Takahashi (2000), who indicates that familiarity with context may impact on an L2 speaker’s thought processes making it easier for them to plan an utterance in L2. This research suggests that L2 utterances planned in L1 will exhibit greater L1 transfer. In contrast, those planned in L2 show a reduction of L1 transfer, a process that is facilitated by greater familiarity with the interactional context. Another perspective on L1/L2 influence is Cook’s (2003: 10) comparison of bilingualism as akin to the operation of a mixer tap. He describes how both languages are always available to the speaker with the combination of the two languages adjusted according to context. It is therefore a question of how much of each of the two languages a speaker chooses to employ. This notion is an interesting one in relation to sign/speech bilinguals for two reasons. Firstly, because use of signed language may already exhibit some influence from the dominant spoken languages that surround them (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999; Johnston and Schembri 2007), which may manifest in either the grammar or

164

Rachel Mapson

lexicon of the signed language. And secondly, because the constraints and affordances of bimodal bilingualism may affect the type and amount of transfer that occurs. However, language transfer does not only occur from L1 into L2. Pragmatic transfer can also operate in the other direction, with L2 influencing L1 (BlumKulka 1991; Bou Franch 1998; Cenoz 2003; Pavlenko 2003). The bi-directional pragmatic transfer observed by Blum-Kulka (1997) included incidents of codemixing of L1/L2 at the lexical level, and code-switching at phrasal levels. Bou Franch (1998) describes ‘transferability constraints’ as conditions that promote or inhibit transfer. When considering pragmatic use in sign/speech bilinguals the bimodality of the language pair may actually afford less constraint in relation to transfer than might be expected, generating additional avenues of language transfer. For example, in a comparative study of sign/speech bilinguals and monolingual English speakers in the USA, Pyers and Emmorey (2008) found significant differences in the use of facial expressions associated with grammatical features in American Sign Language (ASL) during speech. The sign/ speech bilinguals involved in their study were all CODAs who had grown up with ASL as their L1. These participants made significantly more use of raised and furrowed brows in wh-questions and conditionals than the English-speaking monolinguals. Moreover, the timing of their use indicates they are being used in a grammatical way that carries over from their use in ASL in what is described as ‘code-blending’ (Pyers and Emmorey 2008). Where the monolingual English speakers used the same expressions, they did so for affect, with a wider range of idiosyncratic differences between them. While ASL and BSL are different languages, the use of brows as syntactic markers is common across sign languages (Zeshan 2004), and therefore a similar behaviour might therefore be anticipated in sign/speech bilinguals elsewhere.

2.5 Summary The process of pragmatic acquisition is acknowledged as being predominantly implicit (Kasper 2001) and articulating this knowledge may therefore be difficult for research participants. There may be a relationship between the implicit nature of pragmatic socialisation and the lack of explicit instruction within formal teaching contexts. For L2 learners, this lack of explicit instruction may result in a lack of pragmatic understanding, and lead to a tendency to transfer cultural behaviours from L1 into the L2. The benefits of extended exposure to L2 cultural norms offered by study-abroad opportunities are not available to those studying signed languages, which may exacerbate the transfer of L1 sociopragmatic behaviours that are also problematic to address within formal tuition.

Paths to politeness

165

Likewise, the degree of transferability (Bou Franch 1998) afforded to sign/speech bilinguals may influence the amount of linguistic transfer they produce. The present study examines participants’ development of linguistic politeness and explores how the bimodal nature of their bilingualism impacts on bi-directional pragmatic transfer, reinforcing the discrepancies observed in earlier studies between the production and perception of linguistic politeness in intercultural contexts.

3 Method 3.1 Participants Eight highly experienced BSL/English interpreters took part in the study; all come from white-British family backgrounds, are over 30 years of age, grew up in the UK and currently live in the South-East of England. These participants were divided into two groups shown in Table 1 and are referred to throughout this chapter by pseudonyms they selected for themselves. One group comprised four CODA interpreters from Deaf family backgrounds who acquired BSL naturally, as a first language, in early childhood. They also acquired English in childhood through exposure to hearing adults, siblings and peers in their home and community environments. Prior to the 1970s the vast majority of sign language interpreters were CODAs (Moody 2007) and they still represent a significant proportion, approximately 13 per cent, of those in the profession (Mapson 2014a). The other group are non-CODA participants who come from non-Deaf families and learned BSL formally, within adult education and university settings. Participant selection was not designed to be representative of the wider population. Table 1: Participant groups CODA

Non-CODA

Jean Pippi Henry Maurice

Emma Vivienne Angus Olly

A purposive selection was made following pilot studies which indicated that more experienced interpreters would provide richer data as they would be able to draw on more extensive professional experience. Seven of the interpreters have worked as professional interpreters for more than 15 years, while the

166

Rachel Mapson

remaining participant has over ten years of experience. Interpreters with this level of experience represent approximately 30 per cent of the total BSL/English interpreters in the UK while over 50 per cent of interpreters have less than five years’ of professional experience (Mapson 2014a). My own identity as a professional BSL/English interpreter assisted with the selection of suitable participants, and enabled me to recruit interpreters who knew one another and felt comfortable talking as a group.

3.2 Data collection Data were generated in a series of semi-structured discussions with the two participant groups; pilot studies indicated that one session did not allow adequate time for in-depth discussion on such a complex topic. Each group therefore met on three occasions, with all sessions taking place within a six-month period at approximately two-monthly intervals, and sessions were scheduled at the convenience of the participants. Participants were aware that the topic of discussion was politeness in relation to their interpreting work, but no formal definition of linguistic politeness was given to them; they discussed their own notions of politeness and their personal experiences of it. Each discussion lasted just under two hours and included open questions regarding recognition of linguistic politeness in BSL and acquisition of politeness in BSL and English. In the second and third sessions these conversations were stimulated with a series of brief video clips of Deaf signers performing two speech acts commonly associated with politeness research, requests and apologies. Further discussion explored how these speech acts might be interpreted into spoken English and what contextual factors might influence their choices. Kasper (2000/2008) suggests that metapragmatic interviews such as this can be useful for initial explorations, as is the case in this study, particularly when a reflexive approach is involved. A semi-structured approach was adopted in order to ensure that key points were covered while facilitating the ‘real conversation’ described by Fontana and Frey (1998: 67). The familiarity already extant between group members encouraged lively debate and richer data generation than might have been achieved through individual interviews or in a more formal group situation. Data were video recorded to capture richer data (Silverman 2000) including the use of both gesture and BSL. Often BSL signs were used alongside speech to support, exemplify or emphasise what was being spoken, while very occasionally they were used alone. The video recording additionally facilitated the transcription of the multiple voices involved, as pilot data exemplified how referencing to earlier comments is frequently made non-verbally.

Paths to politeness

167

3.3 Analysis Data were transcribed into written English and, whilst it is impossible to capture visual data entirely (Flewitt 2006), the transcription includes as much nonverbal detail as I perceived to be relevant to the discussion. These descriptions are written within square brackets following the text to which they refer. Likewise these brackets also incorporate transcription of BSL use represented in simplistic form, using a capitalised gloss, following the conventions described by Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999: xi). Politeness, both in relation to BSL and to interpreting, is an under-researched topic. This study is therefore exploratory in nature and a thematic analysis was adopted as it is described as a valuable tool for this type of research (Braun and Clarke 2006). This approach allows for the incorporation of both theory-driven and data-driven coding; the latter is invaluable in a field where little theory exists. Initial coding was both theory and data-driven. This resulted in the creation of a thematic network (Attride-Stirling 2001) which allowed a visual representation of the data. The iterative process of data generation facilitated both inter and intra-group triangulation of the data. However, following the main discussion sessions, further time was spent with each of the participants to present back initial findings from the data and obtain their feedback.

4 Discussion The data discussed here were generated during the first two sessions with each of the interpreter groups. Discussion included participants’ reflections on learning about politeness, and their understanding of politeness in BSL. These data can be viewed from both sociocultural and language socialisation perspectives (Kasper 2001), and elements of each of these approaches will be drawn into this discussion. Although the present study is not the ethnographic model recommended by Kasper (2001) for the study of pragmatic development, the retrospective exploration about their experiences highlights participants’ different journeys through pragmatic socialisation (Blum-Kulka 1997). What emerged from the data was a sense of the different arenas in which knowledge of politeness was acquired and developed, namely: home, school, experiential learning, formal sign language tuition and interpreter training. Though these arenas were similar for both groups, there were inter-group differences in the general pattern of learning and a lack of homogeneity within intragroup experiences. The following discussion examines participants’ paths to

168

Rachel Mapson

language acquisition and how this may relate to their knowledge and articulation of linguistic politeness in BSL. The data reveal differences in the way the CODA and non-CODA participants were able to articulate their knowledge of linguistic politeness in BSL, and in the depth of knowledge displayed. These differences may result from the different paths in their acquisition of linguistic politeness in BSL; CODA participants experienced bilingualism from early childhood, while for the non-CODA group the dual pathway didn’t commence until adulthood. I then explore the various issues relating to pragmatic transfer experienced by all participants and how language transfer between BSL and English may be perceived by others.

4.1 Acquisition of politeness as children Both groups described how their knowledge of politeness norms was acquired through their parents modelling the language, correcting their use of it, and sometimes explicitly instructing them on language use. Though the process was the same for each group, the language of the home was different; for the CODA group the language of the home was BSL, while for the other group the language was English. Data from this study confirm previous observations that the implicit nature of pragmatic socialisation makes it a challenging topic for discussion; though the CODA participants were able to identify the pragmalinguistic features of BSL they were uncertain where or how that knowledge was acquired, as comment (1) indicates. (1)

“I remember being a little child and thinking is it please [PLEASE ending in closed hand] and thank you [THANK-YOU ending with open hand]. I remember inventing rules for myself.” (Henry)

Wolfson (1989) observed how, even with native speakers, knowledge about pragmatics is implicit rather than explicit and therefore not easily described; similarly Scollon and Scollon (2001) describe how the acquisition of cultural discourse mirrors the acquisition of language grammar and phonology. The CODA group discussion suggests that this tacit knowledge may be even harder to explicate when two languages and different cultural norms are involved as comments (2) and (3) indicate. (2)

“I think that I was taught how to be polite in this country, rather than about it being in English or BSL.” (Pippi)

Paths to politeness

(3)

169

“I think it’s really hard to unpick what seems to be related to sign language per se and what relates to being a sign language user in England, or in a working class neighbourhood, or a middle class neighbourhood. There’s so much overlap there that it’s extremely difficult to work out what belongs to sign language.” (Maurice)

The difficulty in teasing apart tacit knowledge about politeness in both languages may relate in part to the language use within the extended family, most of whom would be non-Deaf, and the extent to which these family members were involved in the upbringing of the CODA participants. Despite this complexity, all CODA participants acknowledged their parents as being a source of pragmatic knowledge, especially in relation to polite requests and expressions of gratitude. Though implicit within much of the participants’ discussion, they indicated that parents used metapragmatic comments such as those described by Blum-Kulka (1997) as a means of highlighting in/appropriateness. However, while dinner table interactions might provide a good introduction to conventional politeness in spoken languages, people using signed language are confronted with logistical issues which may influence interaction; it is not possible to hold a knife and fork and sign at the same time. So, for example, participants described leaning across the table to get items placed out of reach, or getting up in order to fetch something rather than ask for it to be passed to them which they would consider the norm with hearing people. Logistical considerations were also observed to influence parents’ language use in other contexts; they would not, for example be able to thank a supermarket cashier in the same way that a hearing customer would. If a Deaf person is fiddling around with their purse they won’t even have eye contact with the cashier, and CODA participants described how they automatically compensate for this when accompanying their parents by expressing gratitude on their behalf. Styles of parental control varied, with both Pippi and Maurice describing strict home values that displayed a “Victorian” influence, equating with the more visible, or positional control styles described by Blum-Kulka (1997). For the CODA participants, a lack of group homogeneity is evident here in relation to the language use of extended family members, and this shows how consistency of language modelling by parents and extended family members (as observed by Snow et al. 1990) may not be a common experience for CODAs. For three participants their extended family were non-Deaf, or hearing, and they experienced a mix of BSL and English use within their home environment and early childhood socialisation. These bilingual experiences make it hard for participants to separate acquisition of one language from the other; alluding back to the metaphor created by Cook (2003) this struggle might be likened to

170

Rachel Mapson

the difficulty in separating hot and cold water that has been run through a mixer tap. However, the fourth participant had a rather different experience, again emphasising the lack of homogeneity within the CODA group. (4) “I didn’t have any hearing family members, like relatives, close by when I grew up, it was just the four of us, so for me anything to do with how hearing people behaved it was school. School was where I picked it up.” (Henry) The two groups of participants had contrasting experiences of school. For the non-CODA group, school was very much a continuation of their learning about English politeness forms, though extending their socialisation into a more hierarchical setting in which interaction was more rule-bound and where particular forms of address were expected that were very different from communication at home. But the contrast with the home environment was much starker for the CODA group. For Henry, who grew up without the presence of any hearing extended family, attending school was his first exposure to “hearing behaviour.” Observation of appropriate behaviour and language was extended outside the home to experiential learning in early childhood interactions with others. For the CODA participants the home environment was not the only one where BSL politeness norms were acquired. Participants attended local Deaf Clubs with their parents, where their understanding of appropriate use of BSL developed further. These were social clubs that were attended regularly, often more than once a week, and were very much the heart of the Deaf community. Deaf clubs have now significantly declined in number and popularity, as opportunities for socialising have become more diverse (both face-to-face and online), but when the participants were growing up they were the key meeting place for Deaf people. Pragmatic socialisation occurred in these clubs, with participants describing how observation of interactions developed their knowledge about meaningful and appropriate language use. These clubs afforded Deaf people a rare opportunity to converse in BSL in a social setting outside the home. They were therefore an environment that allowed the CODAs to observe language use that varied from that of their parents due to the heterogeneous nature of the community, as exemplified in comment (5). (5)

“The Deaf world, in a sense, it’s homogenous from the point of view that everybody is Deaf, but it is a very disparate group, you know particularly if you go to you know an event, let’s say at the Deaf Club, where you’ve got Deaf people, maybe social workers right down to people who’ve never had a day’s work in their lives and who can’t read, and yet they are able to co-exist in that space.” (Maurice)

Paths to politeness

171

Participants appreciated the contrast between norms in BSL and English, with BSL characterised in terms of an involvement culture (Scollon and Scollon 2001; Mindess 2006). The participants discussed how intimacy within the Deaf community is much more immediate than it would be with non-Deaf people, but this degree of directness is not perceived as impolite. For example in (6) Henry describes how he is frequently greeted at the Deaf Club with a comment asking how his parents are, which contrasts with the conversational opener he would expect in a spoken interaction. (6) “Well, a good example is when Deaf people meet up with me they’ll say ‘mother father well?’ [he signs MOTHER FATHER WELL as he speaks] and you don’t normally expect that kind of question at the very beginning of a conversation.” (Henry) However, despite growing up as a member of the Deaf community, Henry described an underlying resentment to this style of greeting, later adding “well, I’ll have your name first, then I’ll tell you” which suggests that CODAs may experience some tension between the contrasting cultural norms of English and BSL.

4.2 Experiential learning as adults Experiential learning about politeness continued for both groups into adulthood. The CODA participants described how they continued to learn about politeness in English through observation and interaction with others. However, they related how interactions with English speakers feel less natural for them, involving a degree of discomfort. Data suggest that the discomfort described when interacting with non-Deaf people may have deep psychological roots, which Maurice described as “an interplay between your innate personality and your persona as someone who occupies an English-speaking culture most of the time.” Three participants revealed that they adopt a different persona when interacting in each of their two languages. For Henry and Maurice, this involved a more passive and introvert persona when speaking English; they described themselves as quiet and shy in this context rather than extrovert when communicating in BSL. Henry described himself as feeling “a bit swamped” within the hearing community, while Maurice described feeling he is “fencing” in these situations and forced into applying an un-natural set of rules. Interestingly, for the other participant this situation was reversed, again highlighting the heterogeneous nature of the group. Pippi described herself as being “much more outgoing and funny in spoken English than I am in BSL.” All of these comments,

172

Rachel Mapson

regardless of the distinctions expressed, perhaps suggest different perceptions of naturalness/markedness in the norms regulating the two languages. All four non-CODA interpreters learned BSL as adults, and experiential learning at this stage was a key component of their learning experience. Their experiential learning ran in parallel to their formal tuition on the language, and again they described how observation of appropriate language use played a key part in their learning experience. However, the heterogeneous nature of individual experiences was again evident. Experiential learning as an adult was one participant’s first exposure to BSL. Angus started learning about appropriate language use in BSL through saturation in a predominantly Deaf work environment, before commencing formal sign language tuition. In (7) he compared his work situation to a family environment, whereby his Deaf colleagues took on a parental role in correcting and instructing his language use. (7)

“Kind of similar to when you’re with your family, you know. And you’re out on holiday and you just say something, in the wrong way, and then I’d be corrected. But sometimes quite harshly [mock sobbing]. But that was a good thing. Like in your family, you need to know, this is the wrong method, this is the right method.” (Angus)

Angus went on to comment on how the motivation behind these corrections was to ensure he was using “the right behaviour for the Deaf world” suggesting that these comments related both to pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic norms. He said he could “be really quite upset sometimes” for getting “the rules so badly wrong,” reinforcing the sensitivity involved in shifting belief systems embedded in the sociopragmatic norms of L1 when learning an L2 (Thomas 1983). Thomas suggests that corrections about language are more easily received than those to do with social judgement. Angus added that fortunately his colleagues would not dwell on his mistakes, so having been “told off” he was able to recover his composure quickly. However, Angus’s experiences were unique within the group. The other group members started learning BSL formally prior to, or in parallel with, socialising with Deaf people.

4.3 Formal learning of BSL Discussion around participation in BSL classes and interpreter training indicates experiences of politeness being implicit within other topics rather than something that was explicitly taught. Like the non-CODA interpreters, three of the CODA group had some involvement in formal BSL tuition though for them the

Paths to politeness

173

purpose was to ratify their language knowledge as a pre-requisite for formal interpreting qualifications rather than to learn the language. CODA participants recognised that politeness would have been addressed implicitly within curriculum topics such as register, language modification and in the way introductions are made within BSL culture. Similarly the non-CODA group reported that linguistic politeness was not explicitly taught. Formal BSL tuition was taught by Deaf tutors; so, while there was no explicit instruction on politeness, modelling of appropriate language would have occurred. Participants considered that these tutors may have been more reluctant to correct their students’ mistakes, due to the nature of tutor/student interactions within higher education, experiences that resonate with Taguchi’s findings (2011: 302). In comment (8), Olly contrasts his experiences of studying BSL at University with those at school, suggesting how the different relationships impacted on the giving of correction. (8) “I think if you, even in an adult learning environment, you are rude or impolite, your adult instructors will respond to you quite differently to if you were a child and you’re rude and impolite.” (Olly) Though Kasper (2001: 520–521) suggests that explicit socialisation can occur in second language teaching, this appears not to have been the case for these participants. This may also reflect a more general lack of awareness and explicit knowledge about politeness in BSL in those who teach the language. The difficulties inherent in teaching sociopragmatics in particular (Kasper and Rose 2001) may be compounded by the deficit in literature on politeness in signed languages. BSL tutors’ own implicit understanding and lack of awareness about politeness in BSL may influence how pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics are taught. In addition, a dynamic involving tutors from a linguistic minority instructing students from the dominant language population may influence classroom interaction and further inhibit tutors from correcting mistakes. These issues add to the sensitivities involved in instigating changes to sociopragmatic behaviours (Thomas 1983) particularly as the classroom is not ideal for dealing with sociopragmatic knowledge (Kasper and Rose 2001). The lack of explicit tuition about politeness in BSL may have been more problematic for those learning BSL as an L2, particularly as the same lack of explicit tuition was reported by both groups of participants in relation to interpreter training programmes. The formal training programmes undertaken by participants were all based in UK higher education establishments. While the issues covered within these training programmes included register, cultural mediation and how to reflect the intent of the speaker/signer, none of the participants in this study recalled any explicit discussion about politeness or how this

174

Rachel Mapson

could be conveyed in BSL. However, participants described how politeness would have been referred to implicitly within the detailed discussions about how BSL could be reflected appropriately in English. These discussions often related to video material of interactions in BSL and Olly described how students were asked “to look at not just what they’re saying but how they’re saying it, when they say it and when they pass turns.” Issues concerning eye-contact, turn-taking and the use of facial expression were frequently included in these analyses, particularly in relation to differences between formal and informal interactions. (9) “I remember when there were video clips of Deaf people who they, themselves were introducing themselves to an audience, to give a presentation for example, how they did that, those opening seconds of getting people’s attention, letting them know they were ready to begin, greeting them, introducing themselves, introducing the topic. The way it was done was broken down when we did practical work to produce our own English renditions of that material.” (Olly) The CODA interpreters had already developed their knowledge of linguistic politeness in both BSL and English before they commenced interpreter training, and commented on the assumption that this knowledge was already developed for all students. Conversation about the difficulties that non-CODA interpreters might experience with this centred on the importance of developing this knowledge within social contexts rather than solely in formal tuition. Duration of exposure to BSL was perceived as important, with participants expressing concern that students who enter interpreting programmes with no prior knowledge of BSL would struggle to develop the pragmatic knowledge necessary for effective interpreting.

4.4 Understanding politeness The different learning pathways of the two participant groups may be reflected in their understanding and articulation of issues relating to politeness in BSL. The non-CODA group learned BSL as adults, but the lack of explicit tuition on politeness became evident in the lack of detail they were able to articulate about the pragmalinguistic resources of that language. Discussion about polite BSL in this group was very hesitant, and although participants clearly appreciated that it is conveyed mainly through non-manual features, they were unforthcoming in providing more specific detail on this even when video prompts of BSL were used to stimulate discussion.

Paths to politeness

175

It is possible that, as a result of the lack of formal input within the learning environment, the non-CODA participants based their understanding of politeness in BSL on their L1 knowledge. In comment (10), Vivienne succinctly makes this point. (10) “I think when you’re an adult you’ve got the groundings of politeness and manners and etiquette before you even learn a new language, whether that’s Spanish or BSL or whatever. So you kind of think well, right, this is a new language but I know that if I do that or speak like that, that’s rude, because you’ve got those rules already.” (Vivienne) This comment resonates with similar suggestions about sociopragmatic norms made by Thomas (1983) and Kasper (1992) and suggests an underlying assumption that politeness rules are universal. Participants indicated that direct observation of impoliteness was crucial in piecing together their understanding of politeness. Frequently, it was seeing impolite use of the language that helped them appreciate what could be considered polite. However there is some contradiction between Vivienne’s suggestion of universal politeness rules in comment (10) and participants’ acknowledgement of the differences between politeness in the two languages. This may result from differences between participants’ awareness of pragmalinguistic resources and sociopragmatic norms. Because BSL and English co-exist in the same geographic area, L2 learners of BSL may be more inclined to consider sociopragmatic norms as being shared between the two languages. Alternatively, the participants may be describing the resistance towards L2 sociopragmatic norms described in earlier studies (Bardovi-Harlig 2001; Taguchi 2011). The adult L2 learning and bilingualism of the non-CODA participants contrasts with the life-long bilingualism of the CODA group. The CODA participants were more articulate about their knowledge of linguistic politeness in BSL. However, the difficulties experienced by this group lay in the untangling of their understanding of politeness in BSL from their knowledge of English, and British culture. Though BSL is the L1 of these participants they also acquired English as children and grew up as bilinguals. During discussion they found it hard to separate knowledge of one language and culture from the other and it took time to unravel these issues. CODA participants were able to draw on the benefit of this extended exposure to the two languages when articulating their knowledge of how politeness is performed in BSL. Their discussion generated spontaneous recognition of specific pragmalinguistic features in BSL, though they lacked the metalanguage to describe them, and therefore resorted to demonstration along with creative

176

Rachel Mapson

language use and metaphor to aid their descriptions. This is evident in Jean’s description of the ‘tight lips’ mouth gesture, a pragmalinguistic feature used for mitigation in both BSL (Mapson 2013, 2014b) and ASL (Roush 1999, 2007; Hoza 2001, 2007). (11)

“I was thinking this week, and everything I could think of is all about facial expression. Like if you’re interrupting someone. Maybe at most you’d be like [SORRY with slight polite duck and tight lips] but it’s this like [points to her mouth] something going on there, just an apologetic mouth shape that comes out, that’s kind of [tight lips] for the camera!” (Jean)

CODAs’ knowledge of politeness in BSL was also reflected in discussions about the differences between the two languages, and in their recognition of the problems these differences sometimes generate within intercultural communication between Deaf and non-Deaf people. (12)

Henry:

The way Deaf people ask a question, let’s say if you’re with a hearing person and they ask a hearing person a question, their face can sometimes come across as quite aggressive, but they’re not aware of it, because of the inquisitive face like [questioning face, frown] ‘what are you talking about?’ but it’s just not meant, it’s meant like ‘hmm, I’m just trying to make sense of what..’

Maurice:

You wouldn’t perceive that as impolite though?

Henry:

Well, there’s sometimes when it does feel like, ‘tone the facial expression down a bit [with ‘calm-down’ gesture] because this hearing person won’t . . . you can see this person getting a bit [leans back] ‘that’s a bit rude!’

Henry’s comments in this extended extract evidence his bicultural knowledge. While he understands the intent of the Deaf signer, he is also able to appreciate how that comment might be perceived negatively by an English speaker who may associate that facial expression with displays of anger.

4.5 Language transfer The relationship between politeness in English and BSL was a recurring theme in the data for both groups of participants (as already shown in examples (2),

Paths to politeness

177

(3) and (10)), and I now explore this issue of language transfer in more depth. The discussion focuses on transfer of sociopragmatic norms in relation to eye contact, the use of facial expression and lexical politeness markers, and concludes with an exploration of pragmatic transferability between the two languages. CODA participants related how the sociopragmatic norms associated with eye-contact in BSL could be transferred inappropriately when interacting in spoken English, resulting in negative perceptions by their interlocutors. In comment (13), Maurice described the feedback he received from a teacher when he moved to high school. (13) “The teacher I had, my class teacher in the first year, kind of took me on as a project, they knew my parents were Deaf. And he said something like, ‘you look at people very intently.’ As though it was a negative thing.” (Maurice) In BSL, maintaining eye contact with your interlocutor is a sociopragmatic norm and is a key indicator in the regulation of turn-taking. So while the need for eye contact might be considered a necessity due to the modality of the language it is also polite behaviour. When eye contact is not maintained this will be considered rude or indicate lack of interest and in effect is the equivalent of walking away in the middle of a spoken conversation. The non-CODA group appreciated the contrasting cultural norm relating to eye contact in English and BSL. Many British English speakers might consider the amount of eye contact essential for politeness in BSL quite intrusive. For those learning BSL as L2, avoidance of eye contact may be exacerbated by assumptions regarding universality of English cultural norms. Bou Franch (1998) suggests that sociopragmatic transfer is likely to happen when L2 speakers believe their L1 sociopragmatic norms to be universal, even though these assumptions may be mistaken (Kasper and Schmidt 1996). Assumptions regarding shared sociopragmatic norms for co-existing indigenous languages like BSL and English may be widespread. The different amount of eye contact required in polite BSL and English may therefore present something of a challenge to L2 learners of either language. Maurice’s negative experience was far from unique and specific incidents were recalled by two other CODA interpreters who received critical feedback about their use of facial expression and body language. One of these was Jean who in (14) describes how the features used to convey politeness in BSL are frequently misinterpreted by non-signers.

178

Rachel Mapson

(14) “I remember once when I was 19, somebody said I should learn how to sort of put a mask on? Because I didn’t realise that everybody could read everything on my face.” (Jean) CODA participants’ comments suggest that the ‘volume’ or intensity of facial expression used is greater than non-signers would expect, and may be perceived negatively during spoken interaction. This concurs with the experimental study conducted by Pyers and Emmorey (2008), who found that American CODAs use significantly more non-manual features during speech than non-signers; their use reflected the grammaticalised production of these features in ASL rather than idiosyncratic expression of affect. Though their research focused only on the use of raised and furrowed brows, data from the present study indicate that the grammaticalised use of other non-manual features may also occur during speech. These data, and those from the Pyers and Emmorey (2008) study, suggest that there may be some interesting discrepancies between production and perception. The comments of the CODA interpreters in the present study suggest that non-manual politeness markers (and the associated sociopragmatic norms relating to eye-contact in BSL) may be negatively transferred into English. This type of language transfer originates from the different modalities of the two languages in question. Some pragmalinguistic features of BSL can be produced concurrently with speech, and their use may be motivated by a desire to be polite. However, the same features may be perceived very differently by nonsigning English speakers. Further contrasts may exist between the production and perception of these features. Production of BSL pragmalinguistic markers during speech will not be perceived as linguistic transfer by non-signers, but simply as inappropriate facial expression. Similarly, use of BSL sociopragmatic politeness norms such as maintenance of eye-contact may not be perceived as relating to language. This relationship between how linguistic features are produced and the contrasting way they may be perceived extends the notion of non-linguistic pragmatic transfer described by Bou Franch (1998). Another language transfer issue that emerged from the non-CODA discussion was the potential for inappropriate L1 transfer from English into BSL through the use of overly lexicalised forms of politeness. Those learning BSL as an L2 may be more inclined to use lexical forms of politeness such as the signs PLEASE and THANK-YOU, rather than using non-manual expression of politeness through use of facial expression and the upper body. Lexical politeness markers are non-essential in BSL as ‘please’ can be conveyed through a combination of non-manual politeness markers. However, the lack of explicit tuition identified earlier may result in L2 reliance on lexical markers, although as Vivienne illustrates in (14), the non-CODA participants recognised that polite signs such as

Paths to politeness

179

PLEASE and THANK-YOU in BSL are used infrequently and that over-use of these signs is both un-necessary for politeness and may look strange. (15)

“For me it’s not so much using the ‘please’ and ‘thank yous,’ that’s almost too hearing, too English.” (Vivienne)

There is some resonance here with the perceived over-use of ‘please’ by Japanese L2 learners of English, generating unexpected responses from native-speakers (White 1993). The tendency for L2 learners of BSL to over-rely on signed lexicon rather than use of non-manual politeness markers may also reflect the over-use of specific politeness strategies for L2 learners in other languages (Rose 2000). However, it is not only transfer from L1 that occurs. The non-CODA group reported what was described as “leakage” from their L2 into use of English. (16) “I think there can be leakage. I probably do it, but I can certainly see it in other people who are interpreters. You see that, it spills. Some of those behaviours that are typically used when we’re using sign language with Deaf people spill into your behaviour with people who are not Deaf.” (Olly) For example, although identification of pragmalinguistic features in BSL was problematic for them, one participant demonstrated them while speaking about non-manual features generally. Some non-manual features can be produced concurrently with speech without interference to spoken English. This ‘blended transfer’ is possible due to the different modalities used by the two languages. This use mirrors the experience of L1 transfer described by the CODA group, which is again related to use of non-manual politeness markers and use of eyecontact. Though the blended nature of this transfer may be peculiar to sign/ speech bilinguals, the influence of L2 on L1 is not. Transfer of L2 use back into L1 has been noted in other studies (Blum-Kulka 1991; Cenoz 2003) and reflects the fluid nature of the L1/L2 relationship presented in Cook’s (2003) ‘mixer-tap metaphor.’ Data therefore suggest that the L1 transfer described by the CODA participants may be shared as L2 transfer by the non-CODA interpreters. Pyers and Emmorey (2008) suggest that complete inhibition of the non-selected (signed) language during speech is very difficult for sign/speech bilinguals to achieve. Constraints on transferability (Bou Franch 1998) are less restrictive for bimodal bilinguals, because elements of signed and spoken languages can be produced concurrently. This ‘blended transfer’ may occur when either manual signs or non-manual

180

Rachel Mapson

grammatical features are performed during speech and is a particular affordance of bimodal bilingualism.

5 Conclusion The linguistic backgrounds of the two participant groups in this study, coupled with the bimodal nature of their bilingualism, present an interesting focus for exploration on the development of politeness. Though participants experienced different paths to their acquisition of politeness norms in their two working languages, the contexts associated with these learning opportunities were broadly similar. Both groups of participants found their experiences of politeness hard to articulate. For the CODA group this stemmed from their intuitive (and unconscious) knowledge and lifelong bilingual experience. For the non-CODA group it related to their lack of explicit learning about linguistic politeness in BSL. Neither group possessed the metalanguage with which to describe politeness in BSL, though the CODA participants were better able to compensate for this through demonstration and metaphorical description. A lack of formal tuition on linguistic impoliteness was identified by all participants both in relation to BSL teaching and interpreter training programmes, although participants were able to identify implicit learning opportunities within these arenas. Participants’ learning experiences reinforce earlier studies which highlight the sensitivities involved in the teaching of sociopragmatic behaviours (Thomas 1983). When sociopragmatic norms in the L2 contrast with those of the L1, as is the case with the un/acceptability of eye contact in English and BSL, this potentially creates difficulties, both for L2 learners of BSL and L2 English speakers, as a result of negative pragmatic transfer in either direction. The data highlight the transferability (Bou Franch 1998) of pragmalinguistic features, as some pragmalinguistic features of BSL may be produced concurrently with speech in a form of blended transfer, a possibility afforded by the different language modalities. Participants’ experiences suggest that these features may not always be perceived positively by non-signers. Furthermore, facial expressions used linguistically by a bimodal bilingual during speech may be perceived as non-linguistic by a monolingual speaker. These data therefore add to existing debates over the differences between production and perception of politeness as well as typology of pragmatic transfer. Additionally, the bi-directionality of transfer between BSL and English as both L1 and L2 provides further evidence for Cook’s (2003) ‘mixer tap’ metaphor of the L1/L2 relationship in bilinguals. The data discussed in this chapter were generated in a small-scale qualitative study with no intention of creating generalisations. As highly experienced

Paths to politeness

181

interpreters, the participants do not represent the general BSL/English interpreting population within the UK. Pilot studies informed the selection of participants in order to facilitate the capture of richer data. Even so, the intuitive nature of participants’ knowledge about linguistic politeness reinforces earlier comments on the difficulty of exploring the topic in interviews (Wolfson 1989; Blum-Kulka 1997). Data, even from such a small participant group, also reflects the heterogeneity of individuals’ experiences. However, this study may form a useful foundation for further investigation in a number of areas. For example, the data in the present study usefully builds on the code-blending observed by Pyers and Emmorey (2008) in ASL/English bilinguals and one avenue could be a more detailed study into the blended transfer of linguistic politeness afforded to bi-modal bilinguals through the study of naturally occurring data.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who have participated in the various stages of my research, and to Rachel Sutton-Spence, Helen Woodfield, Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam Locher for their encouragement and the insightful comments they provided on earlier versions of this chapter.

References Attride-Stirling, Jennifer. 2001. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1(3). 385−405. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series), 13−32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Béal, Christine. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1−2). 35−58. Bernstein, Basil. 1971. Class, codes and control. Volume 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1991. Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In Robert Phillipson, Eric Kellerman, Larry Selinker, Michael Sharwood Smith & Merrill Swain (eds.), Foreign/ second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch, 255−272. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1997. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bou Franch, Patricia. 1998. On pragmatic transfer. Studies in English Language and Linguistics 0. 5−20. Braun, Virginia & Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2). 77−101.

182

Rachel Mapson

Brennan, Mary. 1992. The visual world of British sign language: An introduction. In David Brien (ed.), Dictionary of British sign language/English, 2−133. London: Faber & Faber. Burdelski, Matthew. 2010. Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6). 1606−1621. Cenoz, Jasone. 2003. The intercultural style hypothesis: L1 and L2 interaction in requesting behaviour. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (Second Language Acquisition 3), 62−80. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Clancy, Patricia M. 1986. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 213−250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conrad, Reuben. 1979. The deaf schoolchild: Language and cognitive functioning. London: Harper & Row. Cook, Vivian. 2003. The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (Second Language Acquisition 3), 1−18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Duff, Patricia A. 2007. Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching 40(4). 309−319. Ervin-Tripp, Susan & David P. Gordon. 1986. The development of children’s requests. In Richard L. Schiefelbusch (ed.), Communicative competence: Assessment and intervention, 61−96. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Jiansheng Guo & Martin Lampert. 1990. Politeness and persuasion in children’s control acts. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 307−331. Flewitt, Rosie. 2006. Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication 5(1). 25−50. Fontana, Andrea & James H. Frey. 1998. Interviewing: The art of science. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials 2nd edn., 47−78. London: Sage Publications. George, Johnny Earl. 2011. Politeness in Japanese sign language (JSL): Polite JSL expression as evidence for intermodal language contact influence. Berkeley, CA: University of California doctoral dissertation. House, Juliane. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 225−252. Hoza, Jack Eugene. 2001. The mitigation of face-threatening acts in interpreted interaction: Requests and rejections in American Sign Language and English. Boston: Boston University doctoral dissertation. Hoza, Jack Eugene. 2007. It’s not what you sign, it’s how you sign it: Politeness in American sign language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Jeon, Eun Hee & Tadayoshi Kaya. 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In John M. Norris & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (Language Learning & Language Teaching 13), 165−211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian sign language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele. 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3). 203−231. Kasper, Gabriele. 1996. Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 145–148.

Paths to politeness

183

Kasper, Gabriele. 2001. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22(4). 502−530. Kasper, Gabriele. 2008. Data collection in pragmatics research. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory 2nd edn., 279−301. London: Continuum. Kasper, Gabriele and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.) 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Richard Schmidt. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 149−170. Kyle, Jim G. & Bencie Woll. 1985. Sign language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Mapson, Rachel. 2013. Politeness in British sign language: the effects of language contact. In Alasdair N. Archibald (ed.), Multilingual theory and practice in applied linguistics: Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the British association for applied linguistics [BAAL], 167−170. London: Scitsiugnil Press. Mapson, Rachel. 2014a. Who are we? Newsli 87. 13−15. Mapson, Rachel. 2014b. Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British sign language. Journal of Politeness Research 10(2). 157−184. Martínez-Flor, Alicia & Eva Alcón Soler. 2007. Developing pragmatic awareness of suggestions in the EFL classroom: A focus on instructional effects. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1). 47−76. Matsumura, Shoichi. 2003. Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24(4). 465−491. Mindess, Anna. 2006. Reading between the signs: Intercultural communication for sign language interpreters 2nd edn. Boston: Intercultural Press. Mitchell, Ross E. & Michael A. Karchmer. 2004. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies 4(2). 138−163. Moody, Bill. 2007. Literal vs. liberal: What is a faithful interpretation. The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1(2). 179−220. Ochs, Elinor. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 17), 407−437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2003. ‘I feel clumsy speaking Russian’: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (Second Language Acquisition 3), 32−61. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pietrosemoli, Lourdes. 2001. Politeness and Venezuelan sign language. In Valerie Dively, Melanie Metzger, Sarah Taub & Anne Marie Bauer (eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, 63−79. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Powers, Stephen, Susan Gregory & Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd. 1998. The educational achievements of deaf children: A literature review. London: Department for Education & Employment. Pyers, Jennie E. & Karen Emmorey. 2008. The face of bimodal bilingualism grammatical markers in American sign language are produced when bilinguals speak to English monolinguals. Psychological Science 19(6). 531−535.

184

Rachel Mapson

Riley, Philip. 1989. Well don’t blame me! On the interpretation of pragmatic errors. In Wieslaw Oleksy (ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 3), 231−250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rose, Kenneth R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1). 27−67. Roush, Daniel. 1999. Indirectness strategies in American sign language: Requests and refusals. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University MA dissertation. Roush, Daniel. 2007. Indirectness strategies in American Sign Language requests and refusals: Deconstructing the Deaf-as-Direct Stereotype. In Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood (eds.), Translation, Sociolinguistic and Consumer Issues in Interpreting (Studies in Interpretation Volume 3), 103−156, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Shea, David P. 1994. Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation across cultural borders. Pragmatics 4(3). 357−389. Silverman, David. 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications. Snow, Catherine E., Rivka Y. Perlmann, Jean Berko Gleason & Nahid Hooshyar. 1990. Developmental perspectives on politeness: Sources of children’s knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2). 289−305. Sutton-Spence, Rachel. 1999. The influence of English on British sign language. International Journal of Bilingualism 3(4). 363−394. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British sign language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taguchi, Naoko. 2011. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 289−310. Takahashi, Satomi. 2000. Transfer in interlanguage pragmatics: New research agenda. Studies in Languages and Cultures 11. 109−128. Takahashi, Satomi. 2010. Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In Anna Trosborg (ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (Handbook of Pragmatics 7), 391−423. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tanaka, Shigenori & Saiki Kawade. 1982. Politeness strategies and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5(1). 18−33. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91−112. White, Ron. 1993. Saying please: Pragmalinguistic failure in English interaction. ELT Journal 47(3). 193−202. Wolfson, Nessa. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. Woodfield, Helen & Maria Economidou-Kogetsidis. 2010. ‘I just need more time’: A study of native and non-native students’ requests to faculty for an extension. Multilingua 29(1). 77−118. Žegarac, Vladimir & Martha C. Pennington. 2008. Pragmatic transfer. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 2nd edn., 141−163. London: Continuum. Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 80(1). 7−39.

Miriam A. Locher

7 “After all, the last thing I wanted to be was rude”: Raising of pragmatic awareness through reflective writing Abstract: This study reports how pragmatic knowledge surfaces and is reflected in a corpus of reflective writing texts written by medical students at a British university in connection with a communication skills course (N = 189). The questions pursued are ‘which communication skills are taught?’; ‘what communication skills surface in the students’ texts?’; and ‘what is the link to interpersonal pragmatics’? The methodology employed consists of critical close readings of the texts with an interpersonal pragmatics lens within the framework of relational work. The study reveals that the students choose to write about interpersonal (e.g. empathy, rapport) and transactional (e.g. how to formulate questions) communication skills and they identify relational issues that overlap to a striking degree with issues that are currently debated in (im)politeness research: the importance/value of rapport and empathy; the presentation of self and the interpersonal consequences of communication on relationships; the challenge of finding the right level of relational work; and the role of emotions. The chapter ends with a discussion of the potential of the reflective writing task for awareness raising of pragmatic rules in teaching about (im)politeness. Keywords: reflective writing, socialization, relational work, metapragmatic comments, empathy, rapport

1 Introduction “After all, the last thing I wanted to be was rude” is a comment written by an English medical student on his communication skills in a reflective writing task. It expresses a concern about how he did not want to come across in the (novice) doctor-patient interaction that he describes and zooms in on interpersonal issues. This metapragmatic comment on (in)appropriate behaviour and many others of its kind are the impetus for us1 to explore with an interpersonal 1 I use the first person plural pronouns when referring to the author of this paper because, while this is a single-auhored work, the insights I present here build on many research steps that were taken jointly by the team working on the Swiss National Science Foundation project ‘Life (beyond) Writing’: Illness Narratives (2009−2012). See acknowledgments.

186

Miriam A. Locher

pragmatics lens the corpus of 189 reflective writing texts by medical students from an English university that constitutes the data for this study. During their training, the students take a compulsory course on clinical communication skills where they learn the importance of taking medical histories, listening to patients, using open and closed questions, keeping eye contact, showing adequate empathy and creating rapport and trust among other skills. The students were asked to submit a written text of two to three pages in which they should first recall a memorable encounter with a patient, then reflect on their communication skills during that episode and finally conclude by formulating aims for future conduct (cf. Branch and Paranjape 2002; Hampton 2010a, 2010b on reflective writing). While the teaching of the clinical communication skills does not explicitly include raising awareness of politeness issues on a theoretical level as discussed in linguistics, the students nevertheless themselves raise concerns about relational and interpersonal issues in their reflections, which are of interest to (im)politeness scholars. What we witness, then, is that the students become aware of recognizing and developing their own Community of Practice norms (Wenger 1998; Eckert and McConell-Ginet 1992) with respect to relational work. In this chapter, I thus do not explore how students learn how to express themselves politely in a second language, but rather focus on how young professionals gain knowledge of pragmatics that they acquire with a fairly straightforward teaching method, and how the students themselves link their insights to (im)politeness concerns. The chapter first positions the study theoretically (section 2) and then moves to a more detailed description of the data (section 3). Section 4 deals with establishing further what the students have been taught concerning communication skills (section 4.1), what communication skills they choose to discuss in their texts (section 4.2) and how these discussions are linked to relational work and interpersonal pragmatics (section 4.3). The chapter concludes with observations on reflective writing as a tool to raise awareness of pragmatic issues and skills.

2 Theoretical background and positioning of the study This study explores the reflective writing texts against the background of the acquisition of pragmatic knowledge. Robin Lakoff (1973: 296), as the earliest linguist to specifically put politeness on the research agenda, stated quite clearly that “[j]ust as we invoke syntactic rules to determine whether a sentence is to be considered syntactically well- or ill-formed, and in what way it is ill-formed if it

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

187

is, and to what extent, so we should like to have some kind of pragmatic rules, dictating whether an utterance is pragmatically well-formed or not, and the extent to which it deviates if it does.” This led her to combine Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle with a Politeness Principle. In the same vein, Brown and Levinson ([1978] 1987) and Leech (1983) later also build on the Cooperative Principle (see Kádár and Haugh 2013; Locher 2012, 2013 for recent overviews of the history of politeness research). Important for my observations here is the fact these theories point out that pragmatic knowledge is closely tied to context. Scholars have also pointed out that we are not born with pragmatic competence; instead people need to learn it in socialization processes (see, e.g., Ochs 1988, 1999; Rose 2000: 28–29). This assumption can easily be brought in line with Scollon and Scollon’s (1990, 2001) work on what they term the ‘discourse system,’ with the idea of communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Eckert and McConell-Ginet 1992), and with work on identity construction (Bucholtz and Hall 2005), as I will explain in what follows. Scollon and Scollon (1990), like Lakoff (1973) above, argue that people acquire rules of conduct through socialization that are often subconscious. This is analogous to the acquisition of grammar rules in one’s first language that can also often not be phrased on a meta-level by all native speakers alike. Importantly, Scollon and Scollon (1990: 285) highlight that these rules are deeply ingrained and closely tied to a person’s understanding of self. This observation has also been made with respect to the notion of frames (Tannen 1993) or activity types (Levinson 1992), the knowledge of which is entailed in a discourse system: in socialization processes people learn about ways of behaving and from these past experiences they develop expectations about action sequences and rights and obligations of conversational partners. Typically, people become more aware of these expectations about appropriate behaviour in intercultural communication situations or in situations of conflict where people are at crosspurposes. Such awareness may also surface in situations where people are specifically asked to reflect on communication, as is the case in the data for this study. Scollon and Scollon (1990: 261) identify a number of discourse areas in which different patterns for different groups of people can be observed: “the presentation of self, the distribution of talk, information structure, and content organization.” They then report how Athabaskan-English speakers (i.e. speakers who have been socialized as Athabaskans) and speakers of English socialized in the “dominant, mainstream American and Canadian English-speaking population” (Scollon and Scollon 1990: 261) potentially misunderstand each other on an interpersonal level because they adhere to different discourse systems (both parties striving to maintain and adhere to their own discourse systems) despite

188

Miriam A. Locher

the fact that both speak English. For example, they mention that there are different tolerance thresholds between the two groups for pauses, for self-praise, or for making predictions. The argument is that both groups have developed expectations about how to behave and they notice when their conversational partners do not follow the same norms. Without a conscious awareness that there are equally valid discourse systems among different people, this might lead to negative assessments of the conversational partners and to stereotyping (see also the work by Gumperz and Roberts 1978, on ‘developing awareness skills for interethnic communication’). In fact, in the approach to (im)politeness studies proposed by Locher and Watts (2005, 2008), these judgments are a key element of the proposed theoretical framework. It is argued that judging others about their use of relational work results in assessments of people being rude, impolite, uncouth, polished, polite, etc. These assessments are linked to judgments about the person as such so that we can detect a close link to identity construction (Locher 2008, 2012; Spencer-Oatey 2007; see also the insights gained in anthropological linguistics on the link between metapragmatic comments and personhood, Agha 2007; Lo and Howard 2009). Scollon and Scollon (1990: 285) argue that, because the discourse system is closely tied to a person’s understanding of self, people cannot easily shed expectations about how interaction should ensue when they are engaged in different practices. This retaining of expectations on behavioural and linguistic patterns is a phenomenon that has also been described in terms of pragmalinguistic transfer and socio-pragmatic failure (e.g. Béal 1994). García-Pastor (2012) reports that Pragmatics in language learning has typically been conceived as pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Pragmalinguistics has been identified with a set of linguistic resources [e.g. indirectness, routines, hedges] for conveying illocutionary and interpersonal meanings (Leech 1983; Thomas 1983). In turn, sociopragmatics has been equated with the socio-cultural factors underlying the use of these resources across contexts (ibid.). (García-Pastor 2012: 13, italics in original)

So, when L2 learners transfer pragmatic strategies from their L1 into their L2 usage, they have not yet acquired the understanding that the pragmatic strategies differ (let alone having acquired the knowledge of L2 pragmatic strategies). Misunderstandings are likely when the different discourse systems differ (e.g. giving different importance and weight to different types of face-threatening acts, or assessing distance and closeness differently; Béal 1994). However, we do not even have to move to intercultural situations in order to find clashes of discourse systems. One can also make a case for arguing that

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

189

different communities of practice2 may develop different norms and expectations about roles and adequate behaviour. These differences might be barely perceptible or rather large (see, e.g., Culpeper 2008: 30, on different types of norms). Making the link to the data studied here, one could state that becoming a professional health practitioner in Britain also entails learning how to comport oneself in a particular way in the British health system and this suggests that the struggle experienced by the medical students in this study has to do with their negotiating different identities as students and novice doctors (see Gygax, Koenig, and Locher 2012). One means employed in medical education to raise awareness and understanding of how a practice works is ‘reflective writing.’ This type of writing involves “consideration of the larger context, the meaning, and the implications of an experience or action” (Branch and Paranjape 2002: 1185). Typically, the texts are structured into three steps: description, interpretation (or reflection) and outcome (or conclusion) (Hampton 2010a, 2010b; for an extended version, see Watton, Collings and Moon 2001). While reflective writing is often used during the education phase in medical schools (and elsewhere), it is recommended as a life-long tool for professionals of any kind to keep learning from their experience (Brady, Corbie-Smith and Branch 2002; Mann, Gordon and MacLeod 2009; Monash University 2012; Shapiro, Kasman and Shafer 2006). Watton, Collings and Moon (2001) quote Gibbs (1988) on the importance of reflection: It is not sufficient simply to have an experience in order to learn. Without reflecting upon this experience it may quickly be forgotten, or its learning potential lost. It is from the feelings and thoughts emerging from this reflection that generalisations or concepts can be generated. And it is generalisations that allow new situation to be tackled effectively. (Gibbs 1988: 9)

As a practice which can serve to reveal insights on all levels of interaction, reflective writing has the potential to raise practitioners’ awareness of relational issues. In what follows I study such reflective writing texts from an interpersonal pragmatics perspective.3 This means that I assume that the texts will show 2 Scollon, Scollon and Jones (2012: 9) argue that the concept of ‘communities of practice’ refers “to bounded groups of people (defined respectively by the texts they use and by the practices they engage in together), whereas discourse systems refer to broader systems of communication in which members of communities participate.” 3 The label ‘Interpersonal Pragmatics’ is not meant to designate a new theory or a fixed set of methodologies but refers to a perspective (Locher and Graham 2010: 2). We propose to use it for the interdisciplinary field that gives the relational/interpersonal centre stage in its research endeavours; studies in interpersonal pragmatics “explore facets of interaction between social actors that rely upon (and in turn influence) the dynamics of relationships between people and how those relationships are reflected in the language choices that they make” (Locher and Graham 2010: 2; see also Haugh, Kádár and Mills 2013: 9).

190

Miriam A. Locher

evidence of relational work, i.e. “all aspects of the work invested by individuals in the construction, maintenance, reproduction and transformation of interpersonal relationships among those engaged in social practice” (Locher and Watts 2008: 96), which is part of pragmatic competence, and closely tied to the presentation of self (see Bucholtz and Hall 2005; Locher 2008, 2012; SpencerOatey 2007). Without denying the importance of reflections on the numerous topics raised and the transactional patterns discussed by the students, the focus on interpersonal issues allows me to isolate metapragmatic comments on relational work and to observe what kind of issues the students raise.

3 Data The data for this study was collected for an interdisciplinary project entitled ‘Life (beyond) Writing’: Illness Narratives (funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation 2009–2013), which involves literary studies, linguistics and transfer to teaching in the medical humanities (see Gygax et al. 2013). In this chapter we report on the linguistics side of the project and in particular on a corpus of 189 texts of one to four pages in length (i.e texts of around 1,300 words on average, for a total of 249,708 words). These texts were composed by medical students from the University of Nottingham in 2010 and 2011 in connection with a clinical communication skills course run by Victoria Tischler (see also Oyebode and Tischler 2015). The texts were collected by Tischler for the project but the task was optional for the students.4 The students were assured anonymity and gave consent to being part of the study. They also provided background information about themselves: The students were between 19 to 22 years old, 63 per cent were female and 88 per cent indicated English as their first language. Languages in addition to English were often indicated, but no single language group was larger than eight people (4 per cent).5 Eighty-four per cent reported having grown up in the UK, so that the vast majority of the students in this study were familiar with British interactional norms. The texts are written in English. The students were in their second year of a five-year medical training degree at the time of writing. They gained experience with clinical interaction during regular hospital and general practice visits. In addition, they had completed a 4 In addition the students had to write a narrative text in which they were encouraged to be creative as a compulsory part of the course for Tischler. These texts are not part of the study reported in this chapter (see Oyebode and Tischler 2015). 5 Fifty-four people (29%) indicated more than one language. The languages most mentioned were: Malay (8), Thai (7), Gujarati (5), Urdu (5), Arabic (4), Cantonese (4), Hindu (4), Punjabi (4) and Tamil (4). In addition to these, 18 more languages were indicated.

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

191

clinical communication skills module in the first year of the course, which introduced them to a number of topics about challenging communication situations in the British health system (see next section). As explained in the previous section, engaging in reflective writing is an established professional practice. The wording and design of the task was adopted from a course at the University of Basel, where Alexander Kiss, who is a research team member, was instrumental in implementing reflective writing as a compulsory part of the education of medical students. The didactic aim of the task is to introduce students to this means of learning for the first time (in the hope that they will adopt it throughout their career) and to embed this introduction within a course on clinical communication skills in order to improve awareness of such skills and health communication in general. The students received in-class explanations on the task and detailed written instructions on how to compose their text. These instructions suggest following the classic three parts of reflective writing (description, reflection, conclusion) and can be summarized as follows (see also Locher, Koenig, and Meier 2015): – The students write about a conversation/encounter with a patient that impressed them most during their attachment at a GP surgery or clinical surgery. – They are invited to introduce/describe the situation and the characters of the chosen episode and to represent direct speech in the form of drama dialogue for key passages. – They are asked to reflect on their communication skills, on their emotional reactions and to draw conclusions about future behaviour. The detailed instructions also particularly invite the students to focus on communication skills and to include reflections on the feelings and emotions that were part of the experience. Since these triggers are particularly important for this chapter, the relevant sections are quoted here in full (the asterisk * identifies compulsory parts that must be addressed): Situation * Describe the patient (age, relevant diagnosis, first impression – appearance, posture, language, anything else noticeable, etc.) * What was the reason for the encounter? * Describe what you talked about by using verbatim speech (the exact words) as much as possible. If you cannot remember the exact wording, reconstruct the dialogue for the crucial moments as well as possible. 1. Describe how you felt after the encounter. 2. Try to describe how the patient might have felt after the encounter.

192

Miriam A. Locher

Reflections on communication with a patient * [1. The uniqueness of the encounter. . .] * 2. Communicative aspects a) Did I communicate with the patient as I intended to? b) Did the conversation proceed as planned? c) If yes, why and in what ways have I achieved this? d) If no, what went wrong and what could I have done differently? Aims * What have I learnt from this encounter? * What would have helped me to manage/shape the encounter in a better way? * What aspects of my behaviour and language will I change in order to improve my next encounter with a patient with a similar problem? The texts in this corpus can be studied from many different angles. So far we have explored the importance of emotions in the described interactions (Locher and Koenig 2014), the emergence of linguistic identity construction (Gygax, Koenig and Locher 2012), and the role of narrative elements within the text composition (Locher, Koenig, and Meier 2015). In this chapter, I turn to metapragmatic comments on relational work against the backdrop of what the students have been taught concerning clinical communication skills and what they choose to write about.

4 The surfacing of relational work in reflective writing: Analysis As the medical students were asked to specifically reflect on their communication skills and how they felt during or after the interaction (see section 3), this data lends itself to a study of metapragmatic comments on relational work. The methodology employed consists of close readings of the texts with an interpersonal pragmatics lens (cf. Locher and Graham 2010) within the framework of relational work (cf. Locher and Watts 2005, 2008; Locher 2012). We first discuss which communication skills are taught as input during the communication skills course in order to establish the backdrop for the second step in which we establish which communication skills surface in the texts. Finally, we will turn to the interpersonal pragmatics themes that we can detect in the compositions.

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

193

4.1 Teaching input on clinical communication skills The medical students wrote their texts in connection with the clinical communication skills module that they took in their second year of a five year medical degree. In this second module, the students were introduced to more challenging forms of clinical communication (communication with patients with mental health problems, learning difficulties or hearing impairment, and explaining medical information to lay people). In the previous year they had completed a clinical communication skills module during which they were exposed to topics such as how to structure a clinical interview, to use different question types, to signal empathy, to build rapport, to use non-verbal communication, and they received input on the roles of doctor and patient. During this first year module, they also received input on the importance of reflective writing and they learnt how to identify types of communication skills from a transcript and to reflect on communication skills. In addition to input from these courses, the students also gained hands-on experience of clinical interaction through attachment to a GP and regular hospital visits. Next to course internal requirements that the students have to fulfil, they also need to pass an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), in which students demonstrate communication skills whilst being assessed by an examiner. In discussion with Tischler, the clinical communication skills listed in Table 1 were identified as being part of the core teaching aims for the medical students in this module (see also Maguire and Pitceathly 2002).6 For this study, they have been organized into groups that differ in their general pragmatic orientation. Group (1) deals with a general stance that the students should be able to adopt flexibly. The skills in group (2) focus on transactional skills such as delivering information, structuring the consultation, listening, mirroring and summarising the patient’s positions (in order to trigger confirmation or further information). The skills in group (3) highlight relational and interpersonal issues such as creating rapport and building trust, or showing empathy and sympathy. Finally, group (4) lists non-verbal skills that are also taught as being important for successful doctor-patient interaction and which can serve both interpersonal and transactional purposes.

6 Some of these clinical communication skills may well be culture-dependent. For example, with respect to keeping eye contact that the students often mention in their texts, Pizziconi (2009: 232) reports an episode where a Japanese nurse avoided maintaining eye contact with her patient, which appears to have been a respectful way of comportment. Awareness raising of cultural differences is, however, not part of the teaching aims of this module.

194

Miriam A. Locher

Table 1: Clinical communications skills taught at Nottingham (1) General skills − adapt/be flexible

(3) Interpersonal skills − create rapport/build trust − empathize − sympathize − reassure and reinforce − involve the patient − use (social) chit chat

(2) Transactional skills − deliver information/explain − structure/signpost − use questions − listen − mirror − summarize − give patient time/conversational space

(4) Non-verbal skills − use non-lexical utterances − use body language/tone of voice − respond to verbal and non-verbal cues − spatial arrangement (e.g. moving chairs so that there are no barriers)

The skills listed in all four groups serve as an orientation for the next step in the analysis when we are looking for what communication skills the students choose to write about in their reflective writing texts.

4.2 The communication skills chosen for reflection In order to understand the importance of the discussion of communication skills within the composition of the texts, the research team established what the main themes of the student texts were by answering the question ‘what is this text about?’. The coders (Regula Koenig and three student interns) could choose between one to three themes per text from a previously established set of finegrained topics.7 Since a text could raise many issues in passing and the question was about the ‘main themes’ raised, the team decided to reach a consensus about one to three important themes per text by discussion rather than independent coding (see, MacQueen et al. 2008; Namey et al. 2008). Table 2 shows the 7 The topics were developed bottom-up and went through several testing periods until the team of coders (Regula Koenig as a core team member plus two to three interns) reached a coder agreement above 75 per cent for the main topic categories. The difference between the term topic and theme as we use it in this study is purely instrumental. Theme refers to the main point of the texts, while topic is any mention of a particular issue, even if it was just done in passing. There were 29 themes to choose from (while the topic categories were much more fine-grained containing many sub-categories, leading to a total of 92 topics).

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

195

main theme choices for the entire 189 texts comprised in the Nottingham reflective writing corpus. Not surprisingly, communication skills ranked highly, since the task description clearly asked the students to write about them. In 135 of 189 texts (71%) communication skills were one of the main concerns of the texts. The other categories were less prominent and chosen in below 23 per cent of the texts. It is noteworthy that the emotions of the patient (in 23 per cent of the texts) and the emotions of the student (in 17 per cent of the texts), which arguably constitute a topic that has to do with interpersonal issues rather than transactional or general issues, appears among the top themes the students choose to write about. This is a finding I will return to below. Table 2: Thematic analysis of the Nottingham corpus (only categories of more than 10% are displayed)

Communication skills explicitly discussed Emotions patient Other Emotions student Special medical conditions Impact of illness on patient’s life Setting (e.g. several participants/people, home visit)

In # of texts

% of N = 189

135 43 41 33 33 29 26

71 23 22 17 17 15 14

Since the overall topic orientation of the texts is not the focus of this chapter, we will directly move on to a discussion of the communication skills mentioned. All 189 texts were tagged with respect to 16 communication skills listed in section 4.1. The categories ‘reassurance and reinforcement’ and ‘spatial arrangement’ did not occur, while ‘sympathy’ was mentioned numerous times but was not systematically differentiated from empathy in the coding process (mainly because the students did not separate the two concepts consistently). ‘Responding to verbal and non-verbal cues’ was subsumed under the other non-verbal categories. We added the category ‘be patient’ (group 2) bottom-up since the students raised this transactional skill as pertinent to the communication process. We also allowed the open category ‘other’ for issues that did not match any of the taught skills or that did not warrant to be turned into a bottom-up category of its own. Example (1) serves as an illustration to show how students reflect on their communication skills and displays the categories in diamond brackets (all examples are quoted verbatim; no corrections have been made to the texts apart from bold highlighting).

196 (1)

Miriam A. Locher

I feel I communicated well with Mr X and I feel the conversation proceeded as planned. As I mentioned earlier, depression is a unique condtion and can very easily give individuals a sense of helplessness. Routine tasks become intolerable as concentration fades and unhappy thoughts intrude on our lives. I sensitvely listened to Mr X, recognised his sadness and attempted to show empathy towards him by leaning forward whilst talking to him and by maintaining eye contact thoughout the encounter. I also used empathetic language such as – “That must have been dificult for you.” to make Mr X feel that I was listening to what he had to say. After the encounter I realised that patients are invividuals with individual needs and emotional responses. What maybe be normal for someone may be the opposite for somone else. Therefore it is important to be prepared and spend time over a consultation especially with patients as vulnerable as Mr X, to gain all the important signs and symptoms. (N-006, highlighting and tagging added)

The passage is taken from the reflection part where the student discusses how she communicated with a person who suffers from depression. The lexemes highlighted in bold were assigned to one of the clinical communication skills introduced above. While the text clearly enlists the skills taught, the student stresses what she has learnt. Our quantitative analysis recorded the presence or absence of mention of clinical communication skills in each text but did not tally how often a skill was mentioned per text. Firstly, we find that the students usually reflect on more than one communication skill in their texts: 88 per cent of the texts reflect on 2 to 7, while 44 per cent alone reflect on either 4 or 5 skills. This in itself means that the students are aware of the complexity of their interactional encounters. Secondly, turning to the type of communication skills mentioned, we see in Table 3 that among the many options that the students can choose to write about, they particularly focus on empathy and rapport/building of trust from the interpersonal skills and the use of questions and structuring/signposting in the case of transactional skills. Furthermore, the use of body language and tone of voice (serving both interpersonal and transactional purposes) occurs as often as the mention of the two interpersonal skills. Looking at the distribution, empathy and rapport/building trust and use of body language/tone of voice are mentioned in 60 per cent of all the texts; in the case of using questions and structuring/signposting this is the case in 54 per cent. This quantitative result

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

197

gives us an impression of the importance that the students give to both interpersonal and transactional communication skills. That the two top ranking skills are from the interpersonal group warrants looking more closely at evidence of relational work in the corpus. Table 3: Occurrence of mention of communication skills in the Nottingham corpus, ordered according to frequency of occurrence Type

Communication skills

Interpersonal Interpersonal Non-verbal Transactional Transactional

empathize create rapport/build trust use body language/tone of voice use questions structure/signpost other (active) listening adapt/be flexible use non-lexical utterances be patient deliver information/explain involve the patient use (social) chit chat give patient time/conversational space summarize mirror

Transactional General Non-verbal Non-verbal Transactional Interpersonal Interpersonal Transactional Transactional Transactional

Total

% in 189 texts

115 114 112 103 103 97 44 36 23 19 16 8 8 5 4 3

60.85 60.32 59.26 54.5 54.5 51.32 23.28 19.05 12.17 10.05 8.47 4.23 4.23 2.65 2.12 1.59

4.3 Evidence of awareness of interpersonal concerns and (im)politeness Using the quantitative analysis to obtain a first impression about the importance of interpersonal issues, we then turned to a close reading of the first 50 texts in the corpus. One of our student interns (Andrea Wüst) and myself read the texts and highlighted passages in which relational issues were discussed. From these passages we then developed a number of recurrent themes, which illustrate what the students report as having learnt with respect to relational issues. This analysis has not been quantified and, at this stage, serves the function of theme identification. From this qualitative close reading of 50 texts, three major issues emerge: (1) The importance/value of rapport and empathy; (2) The presentation of self; (3) The role of emotions. In many cases the students did not discuss these issues in isolation but in combination. This will also be visible in the examples chosen for illustration.8 8 In some instances, we draw on examples taken from texts beyond the first 50 in the corpus, when a point can be particularly well illustrated.

198

Miriam A. Locher

The first theme deals with reporting on awareness raising about the value of empathy and rapport. In clinical communication, signalling empathy (rather than just feeling it) is portrayed as a tool for enhancing rapport and therefore relationship building with patients, and clinicians are advised to develop ways of showing empathy for its therapeutic benefits such as encouraging disclosure and reducing anxiety, its positive impact on adherence to treatment, but also because “patients’ emotional needs” should be seen as a “core aspect of illness and care” (Halpern 2003: 673). Example (2) is taken from a text in which the student gives the following reason for choosing the described encounter: “I remember this encounter because of the way the patient came into the surgery room looking perfectly fine with no outward signs of illness and then proceeded to break down in front of me as she explained how long she had been feeling under the weather” (N-019). He then explains how he was asked to see the patient on his own in order to take her history and report it to the GP. He starts his reflection part in the following way: (2)

The thing I think is unusual about this interview is how empathy is such a powerful tool at both eliciting a person’s true emotions and establishing a rapport with them. [. . .] I also think my facial expression played a major role in how the conversation proceeded as when I mirrored the patient her true feeling came out. Also when I reassured the patient, I smiled which in turn made her smile and feel more secure in the fact people cared. [. . .] I also used empathy to great effect, I think my facial expressions and eye contact were key in this. (N-019)

The passage shows that this student does not simply report that he established rapport and signalled empathy, but there is also an attempt at explaining how this was achieved (facial expression, smiling, eye contact).9 (This is in contrast to quite a number of students who did not go beyond the mentioning of key concepts.) Crucially, however, the student also evaluates the strategies and informs the reader that empathy is a “powerful tool at both eliciting a person’s true emotions and establishing a rapport with them.” 9 It is not discernable whether empathy is a genuine feeling in this example. In their text on vital clinical communication skills, Maguire and Pitceathly (2002: 698) introduce empathy under the label of being supportive: “Use empathy to show that you have some sense of how the patient is feeling (‘the experiences you describe during your mother’s illness sound devastating’). Use educated guesses too. Feed back to patients your intuitions about how they are feeling (‘you say you are coping well, but I get the impression you are struggling with this treatment’). Even if the guess is incorrect it shows patients that you are trying to further your understanding of their problem.” This discussion leaves open the possibility that the practitioner does not actually feel for the patient.

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

199

This same learning experience is also reported by the student who composed N-056, in which she describes a history taking experience with a “72 year old caucasian female,” who was particularly mistrustful of doctors. (3)

I was quite shocked and concerned as to the lack of trust that the patient had in doctors after the remarks that the patient kept making and the feelings that she was expressing. However, although the patient seemed to dislike doctors on the whole, she seemed to be very friendly towards me and another colleague who also took the patient’s history after me. It seemed that she was very pleased by the fact that we came across to her a lot more friendlier and caring as she kept remarking that we were ‘very nice girls’ and said ‘I don’t mind talking to you’. Although I previously knew that establishing rapport with a patient was one of the most important things that a doctor should do when taking a history and talking to a patient, I do not think that until this encounter with this patient, I realised quite how important it was. I also did not realise how much impact the way in which a doctor comes across to a patient impacts on the way they think about other doctors on the whole, and how trusting or untrusting of other doctors they may become. It was also scary to think how much this trust would impact upon a patient’s treatment and how they respond in terms of compliance to a doctor’s advice. It is worrying to think that this patient may refuse to have essential vaccinations such as the flu vaccine, especially due to her old age, in the future due to these past encounters with doctors, whose intentions she probably just misunderstood. (N-056, emphasis added)

In (3), we see that the student grasps the importance of rapport not only because she went through the experience at the time, but, and this is the didactic purpose of reflective writing, this knowledge is made conscious by reflecting and reporting on it. This reporting on understanding why rapport matters goes beyond knowledge reported from textbooks and was a recurring theme in this and other texts. It is further illustrated by a number of students who explicitly make a link between creating rapport and patient compliance, and thus adhere to a rational means-end assessment of rapport as an interpersonal clinical communication skill: (4) From my past experience I have found patient’s can be quite guarded of the information I want, and only after I had developed a sufficient rapport with them were they willing to divulge this information. [. . .] From this encounter I have learnt the importance of keeping a conversation flowing to aid the development of rapport with the patient and therefore to elicit the information I needed from him. (N-021)

200 (5)

Miriam A. Locher

Therefore in future even though doctors have limited time to spend with each patient in a consultation, I will aim to develop a good rapport with patients since this will both make it easier to take a history and increase the likelihood of adherence in patients because the patient will want to discuss their problem with me and allow plenty of time for them to ask questions. (N-045)

(6) This encounter was very memorable because I built a genuine relationship with the patient. I have learnt that building a good rapport with a patient can greatly improve the detail and accuracy of the information elicited from an interview. (N-029) In examples (4) to (6), the students report that building rapport or building a “genuine relationship” ultimately allows them as doctors to pursue their objective as information gatherers better – information which they need to form their diagnosis and to pursue with treatment. While these students seem to imply that information gathering is the main purposes of history taking (and some doctors would probably agree, but see Halpern 2006 above), they report on their insights that an interpersonal communication strategy facilitates their task. Example (3) above also serves to illustrate the second main interpersonal issue: the presentation of self (see Scollon and Scollon 1990), which is connected to interpersonal consequences of communication on relationships and the challenge of finding the right level of relational work (see section 2 for pointers on linguistic identity construction and relational work). The author of N-056 writes that “I also did not realise how much impact the way in which a doctor comes across to a patient impacts on the way they think about other doctors on the whole, and how trusting or untrusting of other doctors they may become” (directly after the highlighting). What she stresses here is that she became aware that how one speaks and behaves has an impact on how one is seen and, in addition, that people assign values on how one speaks and behaves to an entire occupational group (this process may easily result in stereotyping; see Pizziconi 2009). This awareness can go in both directions: the student’s own behaviour as a future doctor has an impact on how doctors will be seen and the student is judged in light of how doctors were perceived in the past. Interestingly, the student writes that the patient is quite happy to talk to her and implies that this was because she and her colleague were still considered to be “very nice girls” rather than mistrusted doctors. As discussed above, the student makes a direct link between creating rapport and patient compliance and thus also gives a rational rather than emotional reason for creating rapport. All in all, example

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

201

(3) nicely illustrates that the student becomes aware of issues around the presentation of self, membership categorization, and the dynamics of identity construction in this new community of practice into which she is being socialized. This leads her to the realization that finding the right level of relational work is an achievement and has consequences for future interactions. Worrying about the presentation of self and establishing a professional identity is a recurring theme in the corpus and is often accompanied by explicit metapragmatic comments on relational work, including comments about (im) politeness. Examples (7) to (10) illustrate some of these instances. (7)

Certain aspects of my own non-verbal communication could also have been changed to build rapport and come across as a open figure – examples include, smiling, looking interested and nodding. (N-012)

(8) In Part 3, I laughed politely when she said that she has Indian blood in her. I did that just to maintain the rapport between us. She did not mind me doing that but maybe some other patients would. [. . .] I will try to keep it to a nice polite smile next time just to avoid patient feeling that I was laughing at them. (N-005) (9) I will also try and adapt my language to mirror words used by the patient to build rapport and help keep us on the same level. I must find the balance between empathetic and patronising responses for example by refraining from phrases like “poor you” when the patient describes something negative and use something like “That must have been hard for you.” This will show empathy yet not demean the patient. (N-008) (10) I have learnt how difficult and how emotionally demanding some consultations can be. I wasn’t aware of how much of an effect the patient’s upset would have on me; in the future I will try to remain empathic but I must also be aware of maintaining a professional amount of distance. (N-85) In (7) the author of N-012 reports that he will strive to create an “open figure” in the future. The author of N-005 uses meta-language about relational work (“laughed politely,” “a nice polite smile”) to describe her past and future behaviour in an endeavour to make sure that the patient might not feel she is being made fun of through potentially inappropriate laughter. This shows that she is aware of the risk of being misunderstood when striving to “maintain rapport.” A similar awareness is demonstrated in (9), where the student explains that the same sign can be interpreted as empathic or patronizing, so that how she behaves can result in positive or negative evaluations. In (10) the student

202

Miriam A. Locher

contrasts showing empathy with maintaining professional distance, which reveals the underlying ideology that maintaining distance, rather than showing empathy, is a key element of a professional stance (see Locher and Koenig 2014, for a discussion of this text). The students in examples (7) to (10) thus also report on how they realize that their comportment has consequences for their presentation of self and that finding an adequate way of expressing oneself is challenging. The third theme identified in the 50 texts is the role of emotions. While it was to be expected that the students would reflect on emotions since the instructions explicitly asked them to report on their feelings, it is nevertheless noteworthy that the students often choose ‘memorable encounters’ that specifically deal with their own and the patients’ emotions (see section 4.2) and that they recurrently report on emotions in connection with interpersonal issues. For example, in (10) above, the student reports on an encounter with a patient whose emotional reaction affected the student to the point that she became emotional as well and struggled between showing empathy and keeping distance.10 There are many other examples in which the students discuss their feelings of unease and distress, or their worrying about not behaving appropriately, as exemplified in (11) to (13). (11) I felt like I was explaining something to a child, although it was effective, I was scared he might feel patronized and so it was a challenge for me to perceive whether or not he felt this way. In the end I realized he had taken no offence in the way I explained it. (N-022) (12) This was slightly frustrating as I didn’t feel I was being rude or was acting in any way that would make the patient act so defensively and distant. (N-009) (13) The first thing that struck me was that the patient sort of mumbled when speaking due to his illness. This made the encounter tricky, but also rather awkward for me as I wasn’t sure whether to keep asking him to repeat things or just nod in a clueless manner. After all, the last thing I wanted to be was rude, and unfortunately this played on my mind throughout the interview. (N-144)

10 Also in example (3) above, the reported insights on the value of rapport and empathy is embedded within a discussion of how “shocked” and “concerned” the student was about the lack of trust in doctors that the patient displayed.

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

203

What we see in examples (11) to (13) is that the students report negative feelings11 (being scared, frustrated, insecure) and link this to projected assessments of their behaviour by the patient. In other words, they assume that their comportment will be judged by the patient and that their particular behaviour might be assessed negatively as patronizing or rude. This connection between emotions and the act of judging one’s own and other people’s relational work has been argued to be a crucial element in interpersonal pragmatics, since emotions are key in arriving at an assessment (Culpeper 2011; Locher and Langlotz 2008; Langlotz and Locher 2012, 2013; Locher and Koenig 2014; Spencer-Oatey 2007, 2011). The examples also give further evidence of the link between the presentation of self and metapragmatic comments on relational work and nicely illustrate how the interactants take their own and the addressees’ perspectives into account. While ‘politeness’ or ‘rudeness’ are not explicitly mentioned in teaching, the students bring up these concepts in connection with the mention of emotions and identity construction in the form of metapragmatic comments. A lexical search in the entire corpus shows 29 occurrences of ‘patronizing’ where the students report wanting to avoid appearing in this manner; rudeness (n = 19) is mainly mentioned with respect to self, i.e. wishing to avoid to appear so, rather than talking about rude patients; mention of polite behaviour occurs in 17 cases; and impoliteness is not mentioned at all. Culpeper (2011) made similar observations about the prevalence of patronizing and rude as first order lexemes in his collection of reports on incidences that caused offence. What the discussions of the examples in this section shows is how intricately intertwined the emerging themes of the importance of rapport and empathy, the presentation of self and the role of emotions are, and how they inform the students’ awareness of (im)politeness norms.

5 Discussion and conclusions In this chapter I explored reflective writing texts produced by medical students at an English university with an interpersonal pragmatics lens. Despite the fact that the course in which these texts were written does not teach pragmatics or issues of (im)politeness explicitly on a meta-level, the focus on communication skills nevertheless allows students to address and learn about pragmatic issues 11 The student also write about positive encounters and thus do not exclusively report on problematic experiences.

204

Miriam A. Locher

that are pertinent to norms of behaviour in their community of practice. The discussion of the texts shows that concerns about (im)politeness arise naturally during this reflection process on relational work. Lexemes such as rude or patronizing, etc. are used in the texts as metapragmatic comments on relational work that ultimately designate speakers’ assessments as to whether they have treated others appropriately or whether they have been treated themselves according to their expectations of the appropriate norms of the interaction in question. The texts also reveal that the students feel insecure about the very norms of the doctor-patient interaction, in which they find themselves for the first time in the role of doctors rather than patients. The choice of topics reveals that the students do not perceive doctor-patient interactions to be focused only on the transactional side of communication. They choose to report most on rapport and empathy among the clinical communication skills discussed, and make their own and their patients’ emotions a topic in its own right. They thus reflect that, as future doctors, they will not only be confronted with the biomedical side of their profession, but they will also have to learn to become good communicators and to handle the considerable emotional strain that their profession entails. The role of emotions has long been recognized as an important aspect of a doctor’s profession. The students are both encouraged to use empathy and to create rapport (see, e.g., Maguire and Pitceathly 2002) but are also warned about the possibility of ‘compassion fatigue’ which might lead to burn-out (see, e.g., Pfifferling and Gilley 2000). Drawing on Hochschild’s (1979, 1983) work, Erickson and Grove (2008: 707) reveal that there are conflicting norms at play: “we generally expect that our doctors and nurses approach our health care with a certain level of empathic concern,” and on the other hand, “emotional detachment, neutrality, and/or emotional control” are taught as “fundamental to providing quality care and to preserving their own health and well-being.” Some of the examples above described exactly this dilemma with which the students are confronted from the very beginning so that the importance of making ‘emotional labor’ (Erickson and Grove 2008; Hochschild 1979, 1983) an explicit teaching object is confirmed by the texts in the corpus (Locher and Koenig 2014). Next to and intertwined with the role of emotions and the use of empathy and the creation of rapport, the students also discussed the presentation of self. The data revealed rich emic understandings of relational processes and their connection to identity construction. The students reflect on the difficulty of striking a balance between appearing professional and appearing genuinely involved (just as pointed out by Erickson and Grove above) and on avoiding the appearance of being patronizing or rude. It is argued that these real-life

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

205

examples are more pertinent than any text-book example to develop understanding of interpersonal pragmatic processes. To conclude from this case study, reflective writing tasks can be considered a good first step to make people aware of their subconscious expectations about their roles and their behaviour in different communities of practice. By writing about an encounter that they experienced themselves, the writers are put into the position of experts, which empowers them. The issues that emerge can then be discussed with a supervisor or in class, depending on the context in which the task is performed. Becoming aware of one’s discourse system, of the assumptions about rights and obligations that pertain to roles that we take for granted in daily lives, is argued to be the first step in learning about relational work and (im)politeness. Learning about (im)politeness is thus not a task that we can tick off after having managed to acquire the grammar system of our first language, nor does it only apply in intercultural contexts in which a second language is involved. Instead the process of learning about (im)politeness is closely intertwined with social interaction in different contexts. Each individual is constantly challenged throughout their lifetime to adapt to new situations and to engage in relational work which serves the interpersonal and transactional goals of the encounter in question.

Acknowledgments My sincere thanks go to Swiss National Science Foundation (126959, 144541) for funding the early research phases of this project (‘Life (beyond) Writing’: Illness Narratives, 2009−2012) and to all the Nottingham medical students and their teacher Victoria Tischler, who have allowed the research team to use their texts for this study. I also thank Victoria Tischler and Regula Koenig for their constructive feedback on this chapter. In addition, I express my sincere thanks to the project member Regula Koenig (responsible for supervising the topic and theme analysis) and the interns who helped us with data analysis at various stages of the project: Ellen Brugger, Olga Brühlmann, Florence Bühler, Evelyne Iyer-Grüniger, Dino Kuckovic, Nathalie Meyer, Ruth Partl, and Andrea Wüst. Andrea Wüst also gave valuable input on the qualitative analysis in section 4.3. Finally, I thank Barbara Pizziconi and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism.

206

Miriam A. Locher

References Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Béal, Christine. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1−2). 35−58. Brady, Donald W., Giselle Corbie-Smith & William T. Branch, Jr. 2002. “What’s important to you?”: The use of narratives to promote self-reflection and to understand the experiences of medical residents. Annals of Internal Medicine 137(3). 220−223. Branch, William T., Jr. & Anuradha Paranjape. 2002. Feedback and reflection: Teaching methods for clinical settings. Academic Medicine 77(12). 1185−1188. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8), 56−289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4−5). 585−614. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 17−44. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eckert, Penelope & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. Communities of practice: Where language, gender, and power all live. In Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz & Birch Moonwomon (eds.), Locating power. Proceedings of the second Berkeley women and language conference, 89−99. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Erickson, Rebecca J. & Wendy J. C. Grove. 2008. Emotional labor and health care. Sociology Compass 2(2). 704−733. García-Pastor, María Dolores. 2012. EFL teaching with a view to the classroom. In María Dolores García-Pastor (ed.), Teaching English as a foreign language: Proposals for the language classroom (Estratègies 6), 11−26. Valencia: Perifèric. Gibbs, Graham. 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London: Further Education Unit. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts, 41−58. New York: Academic Press. Gumperz, John J. & Celia Roberts. 1978. Developing awareness skills for interethnic communication. Middlesex: National Centre for Industrial Language Training. Gygax, Franziska, Regula Koenig & Miriam A. Locher. 2012. Moving across disciplines and genres: Reading identity in illness narratives and reflective writing texts. In Rukhsana Ahmed & Benjamin R. Bates (eds.), Medical communication in clinical contexts: Research and applications, 17−35. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Gygax, Franziska, Regula Koenig, Miriam A. Locher & Victoria Tischler. 2013. Interdisziplinäres Forschungsprojekt: «Life (Beyond) Writing: Illness Narratives». Bulletin SAGW [Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften] 3. 60−61.

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

207

Halpern, Jodi. 2003. What is clinical empathy? Journal of General Internal Medicine 18(8). 670−674. Hampton, Martin. 2010a. Reflective writing: A basic introduction. http://www.port.ac.uk/media/ contacts-and-departments/student-support-services/ask/downloads/Reflective-writing— a-basic-introduction.pdf (3 February 2014). Hampton, Martin. 2010b. Basic essay structure. http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-anddepartments/student-support-services/ask/downloads/Basic-essay-structure.pdf (3 February 2014). Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills. 2013. Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 1−11. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 85(3). 551−575. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1973. The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society 9. 292−305. Langlotz, Andreas & Miriam A. Locher. 2012. Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 44(12). 1591−1606. Langlotz, Andreas & Miriam A. Locher. 2013. The role of emotions in relational work. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 87−107. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman. Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 8), 66−100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo, Adrienne & Kathryn M. Howard. 2009. Mobilizing respect and politeness in classrooms. Linguistics and Education 20(3). 211−216. Locher, Miriam A. 2008. Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In Gerd Antos & Elja Ventola in cooperation with Tilo Weber (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (Handbooks of Applied Linguistics 2), 509−540. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. 2012. Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández-Amaya, Maria de la O Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias Borrero & Mariana Relinque Barranca (eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness and interpersonal communication, 36−60. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Locher, Miriam A. 2013. Politeness. In Carol E. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, n.p. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Locher, Miriam A. & Sage L. Graham. 2010. Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Miriam A. Locher & Sage L. Graham (eds.), Interpersonal pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 6), 1−13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam A. & Regula Koenig. 2014. ‘All I could do was hand her another tissue’ – Handling emotions as a challenge in reflective writing texts by medical students. In Andreas Langlotz & Agnieszka Soltysik Monnet (eds.), Emotion, affect, sentiment: The language and aesthetics of feeling (Swiss Papers in English Language and Literatue 30), 121–141. Tübingen: Narr.

208

Miriam A. Locher

Locher, Miriam A., Regula Koenig & Janine Meier. 2015. A genre analysis of reflective writing texts by English medical students: What role does narrative play? In Franziska Gygax & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Narrative matters in medical contexts across disciplines (Studies in Narrative 20), 141−164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Locher, Miriam A. & Andreas Langlotz. 2008. Relational work: At the intersection of cognition, interaction and emotion. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée 88. 165−191. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 9−33. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 77−99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. MacQueen, Kathleen M., Eleanor Mclellan-Lemal, Kelly Bartholow & Bobby Milstein. 2008. Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. In Greg Guest & Kathleen M. MacQueen (eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research, 119−136. Lanham: Altamira Press. Maguire, Peter & Carolyn Pitceathly. 2002. Key communication skills and how to acquire them. British Medical Journal 325. 697−700. Mann, Karen, Jill Gordon & Anna MacLeod. 2009. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Science Education 14(4). 595−621. Namey, Emily, Greg Guest, Lucy Thairu & Laura Johnson. 2008. Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In Greg Guest & Kathleen M. MacQueen (eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research, 137−162. Lanham: Altamira Press. Monash University. 2012. What is reflective writing? http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/ writing/medicine/reflective/1.xml (28 September 2014). Ochs, Elinor. 1988. Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor. 1999. Socialization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1−2). 203−233. Oyebode, Femi & Victoria Tischler. 2015. Applying narrative to medical education: Medicine and storytelling. In Franziska Gygax & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Narrative matters in medical contexts across disciplines (Studies in Narrative 20), 183−205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2009. Stereotyping communicative style in and out of the language and culture classroom: Japanese indirectness, ambiguity and vagueness. In Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Lucía Fernández Amaya & María de la O Hernández López (eds.), Pragmatics applied to language teaching and learning, 221−254. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Pfifferling, John H. & Kay Gilley. 2000. Overcoming compassion fatigue. Family Practice Management 7(4). 39−44. Rose, Kenneth R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1). 27−67. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1990. Athabaskan-English interethnic communication. In Donal C. Carbaugh (ed.), Cultural communication and interactional contact, 261−290. Hilldsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pragmatic awareness through reflective writing

209

Scollon, Ron, Suzanne Wong Scollon & Rodney H. Jones. 2012. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Shapiro, Johanna, Deborah Kasman & Audrey Shafer. 2006. Words and wards: A model of reflective writing and its uses in medical education. Journal of Medical Humanities 27(4). 231−244. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4). 639−656. Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2011. Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3565−3578. Tannen, Deborah. 1993. What’s in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse, 14−56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91−112. Watton, Pete, Jane Collings & Jenny Moon. 2001. Reflective writing: Guidance notes for students. http://www.exeter.ac.uk/fch/work-experience/reflective-writing-guidance.pdf (28 September 2014). Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matthew Burdelski

8 Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese Abstract: This chapter examines ways in which Japanese-speaking children instruct other children in politeness routines. Based on audio-visual recordings of naturally occurring interaction in households and a preschool, it shows how older siblings model the routines for younger siblings to imitate, and how children use elicited imitation (e.g. Arigatoo tte ‘Say, “Thank you”’) to prompt peers and kin what to say either back to the child doing the prompting (dyadic prompting) or to a third party peer (triadic prompting). In particular, the analysis shows how caregivers activate older children as instructors by directing them to ‘give teaching’ to younger children, leading to an instructional sequence in which the older child provides modeling until the younger child accomplishes the routine. It also shows how children prompt peers to perform particular social actions, namely apologies and requests in relation to violations of social norms. It points out similarities and differences in instruction between caregivers and children, children in the home and preschool, and within the same child in relation to form, participant arrangements, stances, social actions, and non-verbal resources. The data is discussed in relation to what is potentially being learned in these instructional sequences beyond the routines themselves. The findings suggest that children are agents in the process of socialization who both reproduce and transform socialization strategies in interaction with kin and peers. Keywords: Children, Japanese, language socialization, politeness routines, prompting

1 Introduction A growing body of research over the last decade has examined politeness in situated interaction (e.g. Arundale 2006; Cook 2006; Sirota 2004). Politeness is defined by Leech (2007: 173) as communicative behavior used to “avoid communicative discord or offence, and maintain communicative concord.” In communities across the globe, such forms of communicative behavior are an organizing force of children’s socialization. Although there has been a good deal of research on the role of adults in this socialization (e.g. Lo and Howard

212

Matthew Burdelski

2009), there has been relatively little research on the role of children in socializing other children to politeness. Yet, a focus on children as agents of this socialization can offer an important perspective on the teaching and learning of (im)politeness − the focus of this volume. This chapter examines ways Japanese-speaking children informally instruct kin and peers in politeness routines.1 Japanese is a good case in which to examine this instruction as it has a large stock of formulaic expressions (e.g. Coulmas 1981), which have honorific and non-honorific forms (e.g. Yoroshikuonegaishimasu/Yoroshiku ‘Please favor [me/my request, etc.]’ +/- HONORIFIC’) (Takekuro 2005). As Coulmas (1981: 11) argues, “the more tradition-oriented a society, the more its members seem to make use of situational formulae.” While formal instruction in Japanese honorific expressions has recently received some attention in the case of L1 adults (e.g. Dunn 2013) and L2 adults (e.g. Gyogi, this volume), the present study focuses on informal instruction of non-honorific expressions, used especially among ‘in-group’ (miuchi) members such as kin and peers. In various situations in and around the home and preschool, caregivers socialize children to use non-honorific expressions to perform social actions such as greetings, gratitude, apologies, offers, and requests among kin and peers (e.g. Burdelski 2012; Clancy 1986). The analysis suggests that children’s instruction of other children in politeness routines reflects children’s understanding of the importance of these routines in their everyday lives for constructing and reproducing the moral and social order. The chapter addresses the following questions: 1. In what situations, for what social actions, and with what verbal and nonverbal resources and strategies do children instruct other children in politeness routines? Also, what kinds of stances do they display in the instruction? Do they shift stance during the course of instruction? 2. How does the instructed child respond to the instruction? That is, is the instruction immediately successful? If not, how does the child doing the instructing respond next? How do nearby adults or peers respond to the instruction and/or accomplishment of the routine? 3. What similarities and differences in instruction are observed between caregivers and children, children in the home and preschool, and within the same child? 4. What is potentially being learned in these sequences other than the routines themselves? 1 In addition to politeness routines, several terms have been used over the last few decades to discuss similar interactional phenomenon, such as politeness formulas (Ferguson 1976), linguistic routines (Saville-Troike 1982: 44–45), and conversational routines (Aijmer 1996).

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

213

In this chapter, section 2 discusses the framework of language socialization and prior research on politeness routines. Section 3 presents the setting, data, and methods of the study. Based on naturally occurring Japanese data, section 4 examines ways children informally instruct other children in politeness routines, focusing on the above research questions. Section 5 summarizes the findings and discusses implications for learning politeness routines in various settings in a changing society.

2 Language socialization Children’s instruction of kin and peers in politeness routines is viewed here as part of the process of language socialization (e.g. Ochs and Schieffelin 1984; Schieffelin and Ochs 1986), a theoretical framework concerned with the acquisition of habitus (Bourdieu 1977), or ways of being in the world (Kulick and Schieffelin 2004). Language socialization investigates areas beyond the acquisition of communicative competence (i.e. social knowledge concerning how and when to use language) (Hymes 1972). In particular, it explores the ways language is used in constituting social practices, activities, morality, beliefs, values, identities, and ideologies of a social group. According to Ochs (1996: 410), any feature of language (e.g. prosody, words, grammar, formulaic expressions, register, and gestures) can index (e.g. Silverstein 1976) one or more of the following contextual dimensions: 1. social act (i.e. goal-directed behaviors such as a request or apology), 2. social activity (i.e. a sequence of at least two social acts), 3. stance, including affective stance (i.e. mood, attitude, feeling, disposition, and emotional intensity), and epistemic stance (i.e. knowledge or belief about some focus of concern, including degrees of certainty), and 4. social identity (i.e. dimensions of social personae including roles, relationships, group, and rank). Thus, as children acquire language they come to associate particular language features with particular social actions, activities, stances, identities, and the like. Such meanings, moreover, are co-constructed, which refers to the “joint creation of a form, interpretation, stance, action, activity, institution, skill, ideology, emotion, or other culturally meaningful reality” (Jacoby and Ochs 1995: 171). For instance, in terms of social actions and activities, caregivers may explicitly instruct children to respond to another’s greeting with a greeting. In this way, caregivers socialize children to co-construct the greeting exchange with others.

214

Matthew Burdelski

In relation to socio-cultural meaning, Kulick (2003) argues in favor of a view that language is endowed with a dual indexicality (adapted from Hill 1995) in which utterances and features of language “manifest both their surface propositional content and the simultaneous inverse of that content” (Kulick and Schieffelin 2004: 358). For instance, as the discursive psychologist Michel Billig (1999) points out in relation to parental instruction of politeness: each time adults tell a child how to speak politely, they are indicating how to speak rudely. ‘You must say please’. . . ‘Don’t say that word.’ All such commands tell the child what rudeness is, pointing to the forbidden phrases. (Billig 1999: 94, cited in Kulick and Schieffelin 2004: 357)

This suggests that as children come to associate particular language features (e.g. using ‘please’ in requests in English) with particular stances (e.g. being polite, polished, respectful, well-mannered, or appropriate), they come to understand that the nonoccurrence of such communicative behaviors (e.g. not saying the magic word ‘please’) can evoke the inverse of those meanings (e.g. being impolite, rude, disrespectful, uncouth, or inappropriate). Of particular concern to language socialization theory is “how cultures organize children of different ages as speakers, particularly as authors of utterances” (Ochs and Schieffelin 1995: 176). Previous research has drawn upon Goffman’s (1981: 124-159) more refined notion of speaker, discussed in his essay on footing. In this essay Goffman describes a participation framework in which he deconstructs the traditional roles of speaker and hearer. In relation to the speaker, Goffman describes a production format of an utterance consisting of four roles: animator (i.e. one who physically produces the sounds of language), author (i.e. one who originally selects the words or ideas), principal (i.e. one who is responsible for the words), and figure (i.e. the protagonist or character in a described scene). While a speaker can occupy all of these roles at once, in some cases the production format is split into two or more roles (e.g. the current speaker is the animator, whereas another is the original author). In contexts of socialization, prior research in various communities, such as Tzotzil Mayan (de León 1998), Wolof (Rabain-Jamin 1998), and Japanese (e.g. Takada 2013), shows how caregivers split the production format of an utterance in various ways, such as by speaking for a child (child = principle; caregiver = animator and author) and prompting a child what to say (caregiver = author; child = animator and principle). In particular, speaking for a child is related to phenomena described elsewhere as ventriloquizing (Bakhtin 1981; Tannen 2010), glossing after the fact (Scollon and Scollon 1981), and revoicing (Moore 2012). Similar to these, in speaking for a child, a caregiver does not necessarily attempt to reflect the child’s actual

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

215

intentions, but rather to socialize the child to the caregiver’s expectations about what should be said in the given context. As Moore (2012: 212) points out in relation to revoicing, “a speaker does not necessarily repeat another’s speech accurately, and they may animate, rephrase, or invent speech in ways that express a particular stance towards the talk and/or the person who (is presented as having) produced it” (based on Maybin 2006). Another way that caregivers split the production format is by prompting a child what to say to another (Say, “Thank you”). In this case, the caregiver is the author and the child is the animator who is expected to repeat the caregiver’s speech. In the present data, it is not only caregivers but also children who participate in the organization of other children as speakers, and more generally as verbal and/or non-verbal performers of social and communicative practices in everyday interaction. Language socialization research focuses a great deal on interactional routines (e.g. Peters and Boggs 1986; Shohet 2013; Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo 1986), or repetitive, formulaic, and/or conventionalized ways of carrying out social actions and activities (e.g. greeting, praying, and instructing). In spite of their repetitiveness, formulaicity, and the like, such routines are “contingent, co-constructed products of sequentially organized communicative acts, both verbal and non-verbal” (Garrett and Baquedano-López 2002: 343). That is, even the seemingly simplest routines (e.g. telephone call openings) are an interactional achievement between the participants (Schegloff 1986). Among various routines, politeness routines have received a considerable amount of attention in socialization studies (e.g. Burdelski 2010, 2012; Demuth 1986; Gleason, Perlmann and Greif 1984). Here these routines are considered as formulaic expressions and/or embodied behaviors (e.g. bowing) deployed in performing social actions (e.g. greeting, request, and apology) that help construct the moral and social order. Politeness has been viewed in language socialization and many other frameworks that focus on interaction as an affective stance, particularly in managing face (i.e. public self-image: the way in which individuals would like others to see them, Goffman 1974) and face wants (i.e. the desire to have face supported by others [positive], and the desire to not be imposed upon [negative]) (Brown and Levinson 1987). This view of politeness − in relation to individual face wants − has been criticized by a number of scholars, particularly those working on Asian languages such as Japanese (e.g. Ide 2006; Matsumoto 1989). For instance, Ide (2006) argues that linguistic politeness in Japanese is based less on individual wants and desires (i.e. volition), and more on speakers’ ‘discernment’ (wakimae) of what language is expected in a given situation. That is, in Japanese the use of certain linguistic forms and expressions is socially obligatory, rather than based on the individual choices of speakers.

216

Matthew Burdelski

Furthermore, she argues that not using the appropriate expressions (e.g. using plain forms when honorifics are expected, or not speaking when speaking is expected) may result in a negative ‘evaluation’ (hyooka) of the self by others (Ide 2006: 116). While Ide is primarily concerned with honorifics, the notion of discernment is also applicable to non-honorific expressions (as examined here). As Pizziconi (2011) observes more broadly, Ide’s notion of discernment applies to all aspects of language and not just to Japanese, as speakers everywhere attune their communicative behavior to the immediate context, such as the setting, social relationships, and roles. The position taken here is that in socializing children to politeness routines, Japanese caregivers effectively amplify both of these models of politeness (face wants and discernment) to varying degrees, depending on the situation and the expression being instructed. According to Ochs, Solomon and Sterponi (2005: 548), cultural amplification (based on Bruner, Oliver and Marks Greenfield 1966: 320–321) refers to the idea that “cultures selectively ‘amplify’ certain intellectual, social, and emotional potentialities of human beings.” For instance, in terms of face wants, prior research shows that Japanese caregivers repeatedly attune children to what other individuals might desire and need (or not desire or not need) in terms of the child’s next communicative action (e.g. offering them something to drink or eat, not bothering them) (Clancy 1986). Clancy describes this as empathy training, but such socialization is linked to politeness in terms of learning to predict and recognize others’ interactional needs and emotional desires (as part of what it will eventually mean to have face wants). In terms of discernment, Japanese caregivers evaluate children’s communicative behavior in positive and negative ways. For instance, they provide negative assessments (e.g. dame ‘no good’) when children do not respond when spoken to (Clancy 1986) or do not comply with another’s request (e.g. to use a toy) (Burdelski 2010). That is, they repeatedly evaluate children’s failure to speak in a negative way. Conversely, they also praise children who have performed politeness routines (e.g. request-compliance exchanges) with other children, using terms such as orikoo ‘well-behaved/good’ and yasashii ‘kind’ (Burdelski 2010). In these ways, politeness routines become highly associated with what is expected and “good” in a particular context. That is, for children, politeness routines are linked to particular demeanors and stances such as being kind and considerate of others, which resonates with ways that Japanese adults also understand politeness (Pizziconi 2007). More specifically, as do caregivers in many communities, Japanese caregivers explicitly socialize children to politeness routines by prompting them what to say (e.g. Demuth 1986). In particular, they often use elicited imitation (Hood and Schieffelin 1978) by providing an utterance to a child followed by

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

217

a directive to say it (e.g. Arigatoo tte ‘Say, “Thank you”’) (e.g. Burdelski 2012). Elicited imitation is linked to preferred ways of teaching in Japanese across the lifespan. In particular, modeling and imitation have been widely discussed as a highly valued form of teaching and learning (e.g. Kojima 1986; Rohlen and LeTendre 1996). For instance, apprenticeship into the traditional arts (e.g. tea ceremony, calligraphy) entails modeling of a kata ‘form’ by an expert that is to be observed and practiced by the novice until “perfectly executed” (Kondo 1987: 262). In socialization contexts, Hendry (1986: 101) points out that Japanese caregivers engage in “ceaseless, patient demonstration for children to imitate.” Caregivers also activate older children as models, such as by praising their behavior, which conveys to younger children “be like that model child” (Lebra 1976: 152). In these ways, as in many other societies, in Japan modeling and imitation are highly valued forms of teaching and learning. While prompting has been characterized as either dyadic (i.e. to say an utterance back to the caregiver) or triadic (i.e. to say an utterance to a third party) (Schieffelin 1990), Japanese caregivers prefer to use triadic prompting.2 This suggests that instruction in politeness routines in Japanese is a key site for socializing children to the social world beyond the caregiver-child dyad (Burdelski 2012). In other words, in Japanese, prompting is a strategy for socializing children to the cultural value of other-orientation (e.g. Kuwayama 1992). Moreover, in prompting children what to say, caregivers repeatedly provide them with a model on how to elicit these routines from others, which, as I will be suggesting in the analysis to follow, shapes children’s instruction of peers and kin. In these ways, the frequent use of explicit instruction of politeness routines in Japanese socializes children to the socio-cultural knowledge that particular expressions are highly expected in certain social situations (discernment), and it also provides them with a model of how to elicit these routines from others. Finally, in relation to the above, although language socialization research has traditionally focused on caregiver-child interaction, and this continues to be a robust area (e.g. Duranti, Ochs and Shieffelin 2012), recent research has examined a range of expert-novice interactions, including those among peers and siblings (see Goodwin and Kyratzis 2012, for a review), second language learners (see Duff 2012, for a review), and heritage language learners (see He 2012 for a review). Research on children as agents in socializing other children is not new (e.g. Rogoff 1981), but more attention is needed to the linguistic and embodied resources and strategies that children deploy in instructing other 2 In Burdelski (2012), triadic prompting accounted for 98% in the family data (1037 of 1058 tokens) [data set 2] and 99% in the preschool data (478 of 480 tokens) [data set 3]. See section 3 in this chapter for explanations on the data sets.

218

Matthew Burdelski

children in politeness and other pragmatic behaviors across genres, activities, communities, and languages. The present study focuses on the ways Japanesespeaking children living in Japan or the United States socialize kin and peers to politeness routines.

3 Setting, data, and methodology The analysis draws upon four sets of data of audiovisual recordings of naturally occurring interaction in and around a total of 14 Japanese households and a preschool (Table 1). The data are linked by the goal to observe and document Japanese language socialization of young children learning Japanese (as a first, second, or heritage language, depending on the data set) in and around household and preschool, and to examine similarities and differences in socialization practices across activities and settings. These four sets underscore the centrality of socialization to politeness routines in various Japanese-speaking settings both in Japan and abroad. The first two data sets are from studies of 13 Japanese families, all with a two-year old child residing in the Kansai region of Japan (in urban areas of Osaka, Kobe, and Kyoto). All of the children are monolingual speakers of Japanese. These studies were conducted together with research assistants as part of the author’s doctoral dissertation research. Families were recruited through colleagues and acquaintances in Japan. In six of these families there was a younger sibling (one family) or older sibling (five families). The third data set is from a study in a Japanese preschool (hoikuen) in Saitama, a suburban area near Tokyo. These data were collected as part of a child language project at Saitama University).* The author was a post-doctoral researcher at the time of the study, and participated in all of the data collections. The goal of the study was to examine Japanese language socialization of children learning Japanese as a first or second language. In the present study, only first language speakers of Japanese were observed initiating instruction to others of politeness routines. In this preschool, which is play-oriented, the children are divided into two groups (and rooms) based on age (Group 1: 0–2 years, Group 2: 2–5 years). The recordings focused on Group 2. The fourth data set is based on a study of a Japanese family with two children (5 year-old male, 1 year-old female) residing

* The primary investigator is Keiichi Yamazaki.

219

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

in Philadelphia (United States). The goal of this study was to examine EnglishJapanese bilingual children’s socialization in and around the household. The family spoke primarily in Japanese in the home. In all of the aforementioned studies, participants were asked to conduct their regular activities in the course of their daily lives, which included eating meals and snacks, playing inside and outside, visiting a park, doing errands in the neighborhood, and visiting a temple or shrine (Japan only). Children were shadowed with a video camera as they interacted with family members (data sets 1, 2, and 4), teachers (data set 3) and peers (data sets 1, 2, and 3). All focal participants agreed through written consent to allow their audiovisual recordings to be used for educational and academic purposes. Table 1: Four data sets of children’s interactions with other children in Japanese

Data Set

Age of focal child(ren) in yrs;mns

Age of sibling (other kin) in yrs;mns

1. Six families

1;10–2;11

2. Seven families

Location

Year (Duration)

Hours of data

0;7–0;8 5;0–5;1 5;7–5;8 7;3 (cousin)

Osaka, Kyoto (Japan)

2003 (2 months)

37

1;10–2;6

4;1–4;7 5;7–6;1 9;10–10;4

Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe (Japan)

2004–2005 (6 months)

126

3. Preschool

2;0–5;6

–

Saitama (Japan)

2006–2007 (10 months)

48

4. One family

5;3–5;7

0;11–1;3

Philadelphia (US)

2009–2010 (4 months)

10

The examples to be analyzed here were originally identified as part of a larger sample of explicit teaching of politeness routines (data sets 2 and 3) (e.g. Burdelski 2010, 2012). Following methods of data analysis in language socialization, I played back the audio-visual recordings a number of times in order to identify recurring patterns and strategies of socialization. I worked with Japanese native-speaking assistants on a number of occasions to clarify interactions that were unclear to me. I also played back portions of the audiovisual recordings to caregivers in order to ask clarification questions (e.g. if the interactions observed were typical). One of the strategies identified during this process was explicit instruction of children in what to say, using particular linguistic formats (e.g.

220

Matthew Burdelski

X tte ‘Say X’; X wa? ‘What about saying X?’; Nan tte iu no? ‘What do you say?’ (Burdelski 2012). In total, I transcribed 1058 tokens of prompting in the families (data set 2) and 480 tokens of prompting in the preschool (data set 3). Among these tokens, I also examined the kinds of social actions children were being socialized to perform (e.g. greetings, requests, offers, apologies). In those studies the main focus was on caregiver instruction, but, as has also been observed in other language socialization studies (e.g. Demuth 1986), I noted a number of examples in which children explicitly instructed other children (and even at times adults) what to say, and have discussed them to various degrees in previous work (Burdelski 2012, 2013). In comparison to caregivers, children’s explicit socialization of other children in politeness routines is infrequent, as there were only a handful of examples. Nevertheless, I believe these examples are important for discussing and understanding children’s roles as agents who reproduce and transform the process of socialization. In particular, these examples shed light not only on children’s emergence of pragmatic behaviors that are a cornerstone of Japanese communication but also on their ability to deploy strategies to socialize others to those behaviors in ways that are both adult-like and child-like. Lastly, following the research in Japan, I had the opportunity to examine language socialization practices of Japanese-speaking children in the United States, and I have decided to include a part of this data, as there were similarities to the data collected in Japan.

4 Data analysis 4.1 Older child as instructor: ‘Give teaching,’ scaffolding, and identities Caregivers in the home and preschool often encourage older children to model and instruct younger children how to do things the older child is more capable at doing (e.g. clapping hands, building something with blocks, and performing politeness routines). In particular, caregivers may direct an older child to ‘give teaching’ (oshiete agete)3 to a younger child, leading to an instructional sequence. Such sequences are a site for learning not only the task at hand, but also a range of instructional skills and socio-cultural knowledge. By taking on 3 There are variations in the force of this directive in these data (e.g. Teacher: oshiete agetara? ‘How about giving teaching?’; Teacher: oshiete agereba ii n ja nai? ‘Wouldn’t it be good if (you) give teaching?’) [data set 3].

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

221

the role of instructor, older children learn how to model the routine and provide scaffolding (Bruner 1978), which includes adjusting their instructional techniques and strategies based on the younger child’s level of competence and response until he or she accomplishes the routine. For example, in excerpt (1) from a Japanese family in the US, a mother, father, older brother (Kooki4), and younger sister (Risa) are in the kitchen where the children are seated at the table eating a snack. Just prior to the excerpt, Risa had finished her snack and began to make verbalizations. In response, the father put his hands together (similar to a prayer) while prompting her what to say/do (Gochisoosan shite ‘Do “Thank you [for the food/drink]”: literally, ‘It was a feast’),’ a routine that marks the end of the food-related activity and performs the social action of expressing gratitude.5 As Risa is pre-verbal, she is expected to perform only the non-verbal portion of the routine, but the father models both the verbal and non-verbal as one package. When the father and the mother (at the kitchen sink, off camera), prompt Risa several times what to say and do and Risa does not respond, the mother directs the older brother Kooki to ‘give teaching’ (line 1). (Transcription conventions are shown in the appendix; English glosses attempt to follow the original Japanese wherever possible). Excerpt (1). Japanese family [Data Set 4]: Mother, father, older brother (Kooki, 5;5), younger sister (Risa, 1;1) (January 16, 2010; 3:27pm) 1→

Mom:

2 3

Koo: Dad:

4 5→

Koo: Koo:

6

Koochan, oshiete agete. ‘Koo-chan6, give teaching (to Risa).’ ((standing up from chair, moves towards Lisa)) (2.4) Gochisoosan. ‘Thank you (for the food/drink).’ ((standing in front of Risa)) (1.6) Gochisoosan. ((brings hands together making clapping sound: Figure 1)) ‘Thank you (for the food/drink).’ (1.2)

4 All names of children are pseudonyms. 5 Gochisoosan (a shortened version of Gochisoosama, which is the non-honorific version of the expression Gochisoosama-deshita) is typically conveyed to those who had a hand in providing the food and drink such as a dinner host or server/cook at a restaurant. In the home, the implied addressees are the parents but can also include gods, heaven, the sun, and farmers. For instance, in the present data [data set 2], a father explained to his 2;5 year-old son, ‘It’s an expression of tha:nks to the gods’ (Kamisama ni ka:nsha no kotoba to). 6 The use of suffix –chan is a diminutive often attached to names of boys and girls, and is associated with positive affect and close relationships.

222

Matthew Burdelski

7 8 9

Dad:

10 → 11 12→

Koo: Risa: Koo:

13

Dad:

14

Mom:

15 16

Koo: Risa:

Mom:

( ) (1.8) Koochan ite ureshisoo a h h h °h°. ‘(She) seems happy Koo-chan is there ah h h °h°.’ [((bringing hands together making soft clapping sound: Figure 2))] [ ((bringing hands together, without clapping sound)) ] Gochi[soosan.] ‘Thank you (for the food/drink).’ [Hai ] Go[chisoosan. ] ‘Yes. Thank you (for the food/drink).’ [Hai::::: ]:. ‘Yes:::::.’ [((puts hands down)]] ((keeps hands together for several seconds))

Following his mother’s directive to ‘give teaching,’ Kooki stands up from his chair and models the verbal and non-verbal routine for Risa to observe (line 5, and Figure 1). When Risa gazes attentively towards Kooki but does not imitate the routine (Figure 1), the mother comments on this as Risa displaying positive affect towards her brother (line 9: ‘[She] seems happy Koo-chan is there ah h h °h°’). This comment, which is followed by laughter tokens, has multiple addressees. For Kooki, it seems to provide encouragement to repeat the instruction. He repeats the instruction but in a slightly different way, which leads to Risa imitating the routine. In particular, after he rearranges his body closer to Risa and prepares to model the routine again, Risa brings her hands together (lines 10–12, and Figure 2). Thus, when Kooki repeats the verbal and non-verbal model closer to his sister, Risa imitates the non-verbal portion of the routine. In this way, the older child seems to learn to adjust his instructional techniques so that the younger child accomplishes the routine. The parents provide instructional support and affective encouragement to the children before, during, and after the routine. In addition to learning instructional skills, older children learn to embody an identity linked to traditional cultural values and the family. In particular, in settings such as school clubs and workplaces in Japan, teaching and learning are often organized within koohai-sempai (senior-junior) relationships. In these relationships, sempai are expected to contribute to the apprenticeship of koohai, and koohai are expected to depend upon sempai for guidance (Nakane 1970). Parents socialize siblings to social hierarchy in various ways (e.g. by referring to the older sibling with a title oneechan ‘older sister’ or oniichan ‘older brother’)

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

Figure 1: Kooki (left) models to Risa (right) how to perform the Gochisoosama routine.

223

Figure 2: Kooki, having moved closer to Risa, models the routine again as Risa performs the non-verbal portion.

(Takahashi 2001). Here, in modeling politeness routines for the younger sibling to imitate, the older sibling learns to embody the role of sempai that structures traditional pathways to teaching and learning across the lifespan. The younger sibling also gains experience in inhabiting the role of koohai, who learns to observe and depend upon the older sibling as a role model. The older sibling also learns to take a degree of responsibility for socializing the younger sibling, which helps define the kin relationship and construct a family identity. This example is interesting from the perspective of heritage language socialization, as these children were born in the US of native-speaking Japanese parents. Since these children do not have daily access to other native speakers of Japanese, older sibling instruction encouraged by parents may be especially important in maintaining the heritage language.

4.2 Elicited imitation among children As discussed earlier (Section 2), Japanese caregivers frequently use elicited imitation in instructing children in politeness routines, which provides children with a model on how to elicit these routines from others. Thus, perhaps not surprisingly, children in the home and preschool use elicited imitation with kin and peers, some from a fairly young age (2;5, as observed in the preschool). Such elicited imitation displays a metapragmatic awareness (Silverstein 1993), which includes a speaker’s views of the social use of language and the ability

224

Matthew Burdelski

to talk about them. In these data, children’s elicited imitation displays a sociocultural understanding that not initiating certain politeness routines or not displaying the proper feeling or attention in the routine is a social and moral transgression. The next sections examine these issues, first in the preschool and then in the household, and discuss similarities and differences in these settings.

4.2.1 Violations of norms, social actions, and moral assessments in preschool Children in the preschool use elicited imitation in response to another child’s violation, defined as “an act or event that breaches a norm or behavioral code” (Kampf and Blum-Kulka 2007: 15; e.g. physically hurting a child or damaging a toy, taking a toy from another). As shown in Table 2, among the 48 hours of data collected in the preschool (data set 3, see Table 1), children primarily elicited apologies (11 tokens) and requests (4 tokens). That is, even though teachers use elicited imitation to prompt children to perform a wider range of social actions (e.g. greetings, offers, requests/ compliance with requests, apologies/acknowledgment), children seem to be primarily concerned with these two social actions, which in part reflects the play-oriented nature of the preschool and thus the ever-present potential for conflict. In traditional politeness theory, requests and apologies are related to the addressee’s negative face wants (i.e. desire to be “free from imposition and distraction and to have her personal prerogatives and territory respected,” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 66). Here, rather than face wants, I prefer to conceptualize these two social actions as used in the present data in terms of “interactional” needs and desires, such as the desire to not have one’s toys taken away, or be physically harmed by another child or touched in an inappropriate way. In terms of these two social actions, Japanese caregivers socialize children to use apology expressions as a post-event act (i.e. after an offense has occurred in displaying recognition and taking responsibility), and perform requests as a pre-event act (i.e. prior to carrying out a face-threatening act) (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984: 206). When children do not initiate these routines in such situations, they may create a noticeable event (Schegloff 1968) that is attended to by teachers (more frequently) and children (less frequently) using explicit instruction. It is over the process of socialization involving explicit instruction in these two social actions that children may develop a more full-fledged notion of negative face. Yet, as part of this process, a major difference between caregiver and children’s prompting in these data is the following. As mentioned earlier (Section 2), Japanese caregivers in both the home and preschool typically prompt children

225

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

in triadic arrangements. In contrast, as shown in Table 2, these children preferred to use elicited imitation in dyadic arrangements (14 of 16 tokens), suggesting that children are highly concerned with preserving their own interactional needs and desires (involving negative face). Even so, children at times use elicited imitation in triadic arrangements, suggesting that they are also able to notice when other children’s interactional needs and desires in this regard have been violated. Here, we will consider both dyadic and triadic prompting. Table 2: Preschool children’s elicited imitation of social actions [Data Set 3] Participant arrangement Social action

Expressions elicited

Tokens

(dyadic)

(triadic)

1. Apology

Gomen ne ‘(I)’m sorry’ Gomennasai ‘(I)’m sorry’

11

(11)

(−)

2. Request

Kashite ‘Lend it (to me)’ Nosete ‘Let (me) ride’ Irete ‘Let (me) in (to play)’

4

(2)

(2)

3. Appreciation

Arigatoo ‘Thanks’

1

(1)

(−)

16

(14)

(2)

Total

Excerpt (2) illustrates how two preschool girls (Ai and Mao) prompt a female peer (Saori) to make requests (Ai: dyadic and Mao: triadic). Prior to the beginning of the excerpt, Saori had picked up a toy stethoscope off the floor, drawing a loud protest from Ai who asserted she had been using it. When a teacher comes over to intervene, she repeats Ai’s assertion to Saori (line 1). Excerpt (2). Preschool [data set 3]: Elicited imitation of request (dyadic and triadic). (T = teacher, Ai 3;1; Saori 2;11; Mao 3;0) (December 19, 2007; 10:08am) 1

T:

2 3 4

T:

5 6

T:

Ne, Aichan ga tsukatteta n da kara, ((taking stethoscope away from Saori)) ‘Right, Ai-chan was using (it) so,’ kiite minakucha dame desho, Saorichan. ‘(you) have to ask (her), right?, Saori-chan.’ (.) Kore ii? tsukatte tte ((gives stethoscope back to Ai)) ‘Say, “May (I) use this?”’ (0.5) Ne, tsukatte i[i:?] ‘Right, “May (I) use (it)?”’

226

Matthew Burdelski

7→

Ai:

8

T:

9

Sao:

10

Ai:

11

T:

12

T:

13

T:

14 15

Mao: T:

16 17

T:

18 →

Mao:

19

T:

20 21 22 23

[Ka]shite tte iwa[nai n da kara] ((holds toy away from Saori)) ‘It’s that (you/she) won’t say, “Lend it (to me), so. . . .’ [Un, Kashi]te tte iwa[nakya dame.] ‘Yeah, it’s no good if (you) do not say, “Lend it (to me)”.’ [Ka:shi]te. ‘Le:nd: it (to me).’ Ii [yo. ((hands toy to Saori)) ‘Okay (literally, ‘It’s good’).’ [A so:::: rikoo da ne. ‘Ah right:::: (you)’re well-behaved, right.’ Aichan ((pats Ai on head)) Saochan ((pats Saori on head)) ne. ‘Ai-chan ((pats Ai on head)) Sao-chan ((pats Saori on head)), right.’ [Chanto dekimashita:. ‘(You both) were: able to do it (=request and give) properly.’ [((comes over to the girls)) (0.5) Ne ja chotto mite agete. ((to Saori who is holding the stethoscope)) ‘Right, well, examine (Mao) a bit (with the stethoscope).’ (1.1) Ne doo ka [shira.] ‘Right, (I) wonder how (Mao is feeling today)?’ [Ne ](.) [ka]shite tte i[wa]nai to dame da kara ne. ‘‘Right (.), (you) have to say, “Lend it (to me),” right? (literally, ‘If [you] do not say “Lend it [to me],” it’s no good, right?’) [un] [un] ((nods head)) ‘Yeah’ ‘yeah’ Un ima demo yutte kureta no. ‘Yeah, but now (it’s that) (Saori) said it.’ Ne Mao sensei::::::. ‘Right, Teacher Mao:::::.’ Yutte kurete erai desho? ‘(She)’s great having said it, right?’ Saorichan mo Aichan mo oneechan ni natta no yo. ‘Both Saori-chan and Ai-chan have become big girls (literally, older sisters).’

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

227

In this excerpt, we observe ways that politeness routines (in the form of a request-compliance exchange) are related both to (1) interactional needs and desires (and the respective face wants), and (2) social norms of communicative behavior (discernment). First, Ai displays that her interactional needs (and emotional desires) have been violated (by Saori). In this case, the desire is to use the toys that she has taken out without another child coming up and grabbing them away, which is implicitly conveyed to Saori by Ai and the teacher. In particular, when the teacher intervenes in the girl’s conflict, she reiterates to Saori that Ai was using the toy (line 1) and then prompts Saori to make a request (lines 4 and 6) (which Saori does not repeat). Then, Ai prompts Saori to make a request in her own way (line 7). In particular, while the teacher’s first prompt (line 4) ends with the quotative marker tte, in this context a directive meaning ‘say’ (an abbreviation of the directive tte7 iinasai ‘[you] must say’ [quotative marker tte + imperative iinasai ‘[you] must say’]), Ai’s prompt (line 7) embeds the quotative marker in an explanation clause (i.e. using a noda clause: ‘It’s that [you/she] won’t say X, so. . .’). By using an explanation clause, Ai strategically conveys to Saori the reason why she will not lend her the toy, which is located in Saori’s not prefacing her act of taking the toy with a request. In these ways, Ai’s prompt can be heard as conveying a conditional relationship between Saori performing the request and Ai lending her the toy. In fact, it is heard in just this way, as Saori eventually uses (or animates) the request expression in addressing Ai (line 9), and Ai complies with it (line 10), which co-constructs the routine. In these ways, this excerpt suggests that Japanese children are learning politeness routines in relation to peers’ individual wants and desires. Second, this excerpt also sheds light on the notion that children learn to associate certain politeness routines, in this case making a request with the expression kashite, with moral and social norms, or the obligatory use of language, which is at the heart of the wakimae (discernment) model of politeness. In particular, when Saori and Ai complete the request-compliance exchange, the teacher responds by praising the girls (lines 11–13). At this point another child, Mao, who has been in Goffman’s (1981) terms an unratified participant (observer), comes up to them and prompts Saori what to say again (line 18: ‘Right, [you] have to say, “Lend it [to me],” right’: literally, ‘If [you] do not say, “Lend it (to me),” it’s no good, right?’). Similar to findings on German-speaking children (Stude 2007), here Mao displays a metapragmatic awareness on the social use 7 The quotative marker or quotative particle tte is also used in Japanese adult conversation (e.g. Hayashi 1997) and with children (e.g. Burdelski 2012) to report speech of self or others. This marker has been described as a colloquial variant of the quotative particle to (Nihongo Kokugo Jiten 1975, cited in Hayashi 1997: 566).

228

Matthew Burdelski

of language that reflects the voice of a teacher. In particular, similar to adults, Mao’s prompt occurs in a triadic arrangement. Also, it is linguistically formulated as a deontic conditional (Clancy, Akatsuka and Strauss 1997), a frequent type of directive in caregiver speech in which a behavior is specified followed by an explicit evaluation of it (i.e. If you do/do not do X, it’s no good/good).8 Here, Mao specifies the behavior of not speaking and evaluates it with a negative moral assessment (dame ‘no good’). Moreover, as do teachers on occasion, here Mao uses elicited imitation after-the-fact, that is, upon completion of the routine. In this way, it can also be heard as reiterating a social norm, rather than as a directive to immediately repeat the expression. That is, Mao uses elicited imitation in a way that reminds Saori of a norm she had presumably forgotten. Furthermore, by using the pragmatic particle ne ‘right?’ at the end of this prompt, Mao attempts to solicit Saori’s alignment (Morita 2005) by hinting at the norm. The teacher orients to Mao’s utterance in relation to two possible actions it is doing. First, as a prompt to repeat the utterance, she tells Mao, ‘but now (it’s that) (Saori) said it’ (line 20), implying that Saori does not need to repeat the utterance. Second, as a statement of a norm she addresses Mao as Mao sensei ‘Teacher Mao’ (line 21), which functions as praise for articulating the norm and links it to a specific identity tied to teacher authority and knowledge. The teacher then praises the girls again, using the person reference term oneechan ‘older sister-chan,’ which implies that they can be looked up to as role models of appropriate behavior. At the same time, this reference term evokes an affective relationship among the girls through the use of the diminuitive –chan. In these ways, as children instruct other children in politeness routines with teacher support, children potentially learn the meaning of such communicative exchanges in relation to morality and identity.

4.2.2 Teacher non-intervention in peer conflict and children’s elicited imitation In the preceding excerpt, the children’s prompting occurred following teacher intervention in peer conflict. In their research in a Japanese preschool, Tobin and his colleagues (1989, 2009) report that teachers tended to prefer a handsoff approach to peer conflict in order to encourage children to work out solutions on their own, as part of learning to get along as a member of a social group. In the present data, teachers at times took a hands-off approach to 8 In examining directives in caregiver speech, Clancy, Akatsuka and Strauss (1997) show that Japanese (and Korean) caregivers often use deontic conditionals as above, whereas Englishspeaking caregivers prefer to use modal and modal-like constructions (e.g. should, must, have to).

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

229

children’s conflicts, depending in part on the type of conflict, children involved, and individual teachers. In such situations, children use elicited imitation and other strategies (e.g. assessments, reasons) in asserting their own solutions. Half the tokens of children’s elicited imitation (8 of 16 tokens) occurred when a teacher was not immediately present, which was due to one or more teachers either seemingly not being aware of a conflict (e.g. as the conflict was relatively quiet) or being aware of it but choosing not to (substantially) intervene. What is particularly interesting is that in such situations children used elicited imitation and other strategies to assert their own solutions in both aggravated (excerpt [3]) and benign ways (excerpt [4]). In both of these excerpts, teachers were seemingly aware of conflict but did not intervene in a substantial way. In excerpt (3), a female child (Hina) had been riding in a rowboat (that rocks back and forth like a seesaw) with a female playmate (Kana) when a teacher had asked the girls to get out in order to move it away from the wall (as it had been banging up against it). After the teacher moved the boat and Hina was about to re-enter it, a boy sat down in the seat Hina had been occupying. In response, Hina pointed towards the boat while sobbing and saying several times that she wants to ride in it ‘next to’ him (as in line 1). When a nearby teacher does not intervene (although she is ostensibly aware of what is happening through her gaze), a female peer (Mao) goes over to Hina and prompts her what to say (line 3). Excerpt (3). Preschool [data set 3]: Elicited imitation of request (triadic). Hina (female, 3;1), Mao (female, 2;6) (June 29, 2007; 3:32pm). 1

Hina:

2 3→

Mao: Mao:

4 5

Mao: Hina:

Hinachan tonari ni norita::::::i. ((sobbing, points to boat)) ‘Hina-chan9 (=I) want to ride:::::: next (to him).’ (1.5) ((comes over and leans in closely towards Hina’s face)) NOSETE TTE IWANAKUCHA. ‘(You) have to say (to him/them), “LET (ME) RIDE”.’ ((pushes Hina)) ((falls to the floor and cries more loudly))

In this excerpt, Mao, who is again an observer of a conflict in which she is not involved, fills a gap created by the teacher’s non-intervention by going over to Hina and using elicited imitation to prompt her what to say (line 3: ‘[You] HAVE TO SAY [to him/them] “LET [ME] RIDE”’). In comparison to excerpt (2), 9 As does Hina here, it is not uncommon for preschool children to refer to themselves using their name followed by the diminutive suffix –chan.

230

Matthew Burdelski

here Mao uses elicited imitation in verbally and non-verbally aggressive ways. In particular, as she prompts Hina what to say, Mao leans towards Hina and touches her shoulder. Then, after prompting Hina in a loud voice (even though she is physically close to Hina), Mao pushes Hina who falls to the floor. While verbal and non-verbal aggressive strategies have been well documented in preschool children (e.g. McCabe and Lipscomb 1988), this excerpt suggests that children may code a typically benign instructional sequence as an aggressive activity. Here, in attempting to provide instruction, Mao seems to, from the analyst’s perspective, cross a line from merely instructing to punishing the norm violator. That is, children may overdo the display of power and authority implied in caregiver’s elicited imitation, particularly through the use of imperatives and other forceful directives. Here, Hina is not given a chance to repeat the request (or refuse or ignore it) as she winds up in an even more aggravated state, so from this perspective the instruction is not immediately successful. Moreover, Mao’s aggressive action leads to the nearby teacher coming over to intervene and prompting Mao to apologize to Hina. While elicited imitation of politeness routines may result in various kinds of physical behavior between children (excerpt (3) representing a particularly aggravated case), children often assert their own solutions to conflict in more benign ways. For instance, in excerpt (4),10 two girls (Hina, Kana) had been playing with matchbox cars on the floor when Hina rolls a car across Kana’s foot and leg, albeit in a non-aggressive, playful manner. In response, Kana seems to take this as an offense. In particular, rather than directly speaking to Hina, she goes over to a nearby teacher and reports what Hina did (Kana no ashi o (0.3) naka ni ireta:: ‘[She] put:: [it] into Kana’s [=my] foot/leg’11). In response, the teacher asks Kana several questions regarding ‘what’ (Nani o?), ‘where’ (Doko?), and ‘who’ (Dare ga?). After the teacher displays an understanding of what seemed to have occurred, she initially attempts to dismiss it (Daijobu desho ‘It’s fine, right’), but then asks Kana whether it hurt (Nanka itakatta no? ‘It’s that something hurt?’). When Kana nods her head in response, the teacher uses elicited imitation to prompt her what to say to Hina (lines 1 and 3: ‘Say, “Risa, it hurt”’), but does not attempt to intervene in the conflict any further.

10 This excerpt is also analyzed in Burdelski (2013: 72–74). 11 Kana’s use of ireru ‘to put in,’ which is not an ordinary verb choice in this context, may have been pragmatically intended to emphasize that the car went into Kana’s leg, thus causing pain.

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

231

Excerpt (4). Preschool [data set 3]: Kana (3;3), Hina (3;1), Mao (2;7) (July 24, 2007; 11:47am) 1

T:

2 3

Kana: T:

4→

Kana:

5

Hina:

6 7

Kana:

8

Kana:

9 10

Hina: Kana:

11→

Kana:

12 13

Hina: Mao:

14

Mao:

15 16

Mao:

17

Kana:

Ja sooiu toki nan tte iu no? Kana. ‘Well then, when that happens, what do you say? Kana.’ ((turns towards Risa and starts to walk towards her, 0.4)) Risa tte, itaka[tta yo tte.] ‘Say, “Risa, it hurt”.’ [Hina ] gomen ne shite. ‘Hina, do “(I)’m sorry”.’ °Ya da° ((looking down, playing with toy car)) ‘°No°.’ (1.7) Datte (0.3) Hina ga (2.1) Hinachan ga (waru-) ‘Since (0.3) Hina (2.1) Hina-chan (ba-).’ Hinachan waru- waru- (0.9) wara- ( ) wara‘Hina-chan ba- ba- (0.9) ba- ( ) ba-’ ((playing with toy)) (4.6) Wara- warukatta kara, ‘ba- since Hina was bad.’ gomen ne shite. ‘Do, “(I)’m sorry”.’ ((playing with toy)) (2.3) Ima ne chotto yooji shiteru kara, ‘Now right, (Hina) is doing things a bit so,’ ima chotto gomennasai iwanai n da yo. ‘now (she) won’t say, “(I)’m sorry” a bit.’ (0.5) Ne, Kana. ‘Right, Kana.’ ((goes back to playing))

When Kana goes back over to Hina, instead of repeating what the teacher had prompted her to say, Kana attempts to assert her own solution by using elicited imitation to prompt Hina to ‘do’ (=say) an expression of apology (line 4: ‘Hina, do “[I]’m sorry”’). That is, instead of repeating the teacher’s indirect method of urging Hina to apologize (“It hurt”) − what Ely and Gleason (2006: 606) refer to as an indirect prompt to the offender for an apology − Kana attempts to assert her own solution by using a more direct strategy. In her directive to Hina to repeat the apology expression, Kana uses the verb suru conjugated as shite

232

Matthew Burdelski

meaning ‘do.’ In relation to this, in prompting children what to say, Japanese caregivers typically use the quotative marker tte (say) (see excerpt (2), line 4), or less frequently a verb of speaking such as yuu ‘say’ or kiku ‘ask’ or the topic particle wa (X wa ‘What about [saying] X?’), and on occasion they employ the directive shite ‘do’ when prompting pre-verbal children to perform politeness routines (e.g. Gochisoosan shite ‘Do, “Thank you (for the meal)”’ (IMPLIED: ‘Put your hands together’) (Burdelski 2012). As also described in excerpt (1) above, in using shite, caregivers imply that the child is expected to perform the non-verbal part of the routine, as the child cannot yet speak. Here, as Hina is well beyond the pre-verbal stage, Kana’s use of shite in prompting Hina to apologize evokes the roles of caregiver and pre-verbal child, or a dependent nurturing relationship. In this way, it indexes the close relationship between Kana and Hina, as they frequently play together and can be described as best friends. This strategy might be expected to persuade Hina to repeat the apology, but here it does not as Hina explicitly refuses (line 5). Kana responds by conveying a moral reason to Hina for apologizing (lines 7, 8, and 10: ‘. . .since Hina was bad’) and then prompts her again (line 11). When Hina responds to Kana’s second prompt by ignoring her (line 12), it brings their conflict to an impasse. At this moment, a third party peer (Mao), who has again been an observer of a conflict in which she is not involved, intervenes by conveying to Kana a reason why Hina will not apologize to her (lines 13 and 14: ‘Now right, [Hina] is doing things a bit so, now [she] won’t say, “[I]’m sorry” a bit’). On a cultural level, Mao’s intervention suggests an early understanding of the traditional Japanese value of mediated communication in which one party serves as a negotiator of “delicate issues” between two other parties (Lebra 1976: 122). Here, this mediation attempts to move the girls beyond the impasse in order to return them to interpersonal harmony. While caregivers model mediated communication whenever they intervene in peer conflict, here Mao intervenes in a way that provides her own (child-like) account of Hina’s actions (‘. . .[Hina] is doing things a bit. . .’), rather than attempting to elicit the apology expression from Hina. This intervention does not seem to take either Hina’s or Kana’s side, but rather places Mao in a neutral position. This intervention, which again is child-like in its formulation, seems to satisfy Kana as she goes back to playing with Hina, and thus restores the interpersonal harmony. The previous two excerpts suggest that when teachers take a hands-off approach to peer conflict, children may assert their own solutions using elicited imitation and other resources and strategies (e.g. negative assessments, reasons) that are both similar to and different from their teachers. While children do not necessarily create situations that lead to peers imitating the elicited expressions, they are potentially learning how to try out their own solutions in order to get along as a member of a social group.

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

233

4.2.3 Repeating apologies, displaying appropriate feeling and embodiment, and shifting key from seriousness to play among kin in the household As discussed earlier (Section 4.2.1), in these data apologies are the most frequent social action that children prompt other children to say. Apologies occupy a somewhat unique position among politeness routines, as social actions that typically display responsibility for an offense, express regret, and even request forgiveness. Japanese caregivers often apologize on behalf of children who cannot yet speak for themselves (Burdelski 2014), and may prompt older children to apologize on behalf of younger children (Burdelski 2013). Once children pass the pre-verbal stage, caregivers prompt them to produce apologies for their own offenses. While there are a number of apology expressions in Japanese, the two main expressions explicitly taught to children are gomen ne and gomennasai. As in adult conversation (Ide 2006: 110–111), the former expression typically evokes close relationships, whereas the latter expression typically evokes distant relationships and/or offenses that are more serious (e.g. physically hurting a peer or kin member) (Burdelski 2013). Gomen ne is composed of an apology word gomen followed by the pragmatic particle ne, which seeks the addressee’s alignment (Morita 2005), whereas gomennasai is composed of the same apology word followed by the imperative marker nasai (a bound morpheme) that, when attached to the apology word gomen, invokes a request for the addressee’s forgiveness (e.g. Sugimoto 2002). In these ways, as in many other languages, these apology expressions do more than just convey regret, responsibility and the like, but also seem to explicitly solicit the addressee’s acknowledgment or forgiveness. In addition to the above observations, Japanese caregivers also on occasion prompt children to repeat an apology expression even when they have already produced it once (Burdelski 2013). Repeating an apology for an offense is related to displaying heightened affective stance (e.g. intensification, sincerity) towards the addressee, or correcting a problem with the way the child produced the apology the first time. For instance, caregivers may use prompting to correct children’s lack of feeling (e.g. through facial expression, tone of voice) or displayed embodied behavior (e.g. not facing or gazing towards the addressee). What is especially interesting in this regard for the present analysis is that older children seem to acquire the understanding that apologies have to display the proper feeling and embodiment by directly and indirectly prompting kin and peers to repeat them even when they have said them once, as illustrated in excerpt (5). Also of interest here is that children in the home may shift the stance or key (Gumperz 1982) of the prompting sequence from serious to play. In this way, instruction in politeness routines among children who are kin can become

234

Matthew Burdelski

a play activity. Here, in an example from family data, a focal child (Ichiro) and his older cousin (Kaito) are playing on a small jungle gym in the family room where their mothers (I-Mom and K-Mom) (and a younger male cousin) are also present. When the boys’ play turns rough, Kaito stops to claim that Ichiro ‘spit’ (tsuba haita) in his hair, which Ichiro’s mother responds to by sanctioning Ichiro (kitanai ‘It’s dirty’) and prompting him to say ‘[I]’m sorry’ (Gomen ne) to his cousin. When Ichiro produces the apology while looking towards his mother, his mother prompts him to say the apology again while ‘properly looking at Kaito’s face’ (Chanto Kai-kun no kao mite, gomen ne tte iinasai). In response, Ichiro says the apology again while facing towards his cousin (line 1). (In this excerpt, in addition to elicited imitation marked with an arrow, other types of turns that Ichiro responds to as prompts to say the apology again are marked with an asterisk *). Excerpt (5). Japanese Family [data set 1]: Ichiro (male, 2;8), Ichiro’s cousin Kaito (male, 7;3) (August 6, 2003; 12:35pm) 1

Ichi:

2

*Kai:

3 4

Ichi: *Kai:

5

Ichi:

6 7

Kai:

8 9→

Kai:

10 11 12

Ichi: Ichi:

13 14

*Kai:

Gomen ne:::. ((gazing towards Kaito)) ‘(I)’m sorry:::.’ Sonna kao ja dame da ne. ‘It’s no good with that kind of face, right.’ ((stands up and goes over to Kaito on the jungle gym: 1.7)) Mada yurushite[nai ( ).] ‘(I) haven’t forgiven (you) yet.’ [ Go]mennasa:::i. ‘(I)’m sorry:::.’ (0.4) Ya da. ‘No way.’ (1.1) Go[men ne iwanai] kagiri wa da:me. ‘It’s no good unless (you) say, “(I)’m sorry” (=Gomen ne, instead of Gomennasai).’ [( )] (0.6) GOMEN NE:::::. ‘(I)’M SORRY:::::.’ (0.4) Waratteru kara dame dame. ((smiling, shaking fingers)) ‘(You)’re smiling so, no good, no good.’

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

15

I-Mom:

16 17

K-Mom: Ichi:

18

K-Mom:

19 20

*Kai: Ichi:

21 22

Kai:

23 24 25 26

Ichi: Ichi:

27→

Kai:

28

Ichi:

29 30 ?: 31

Ichi:

32

Kai:

33 34 35

Ichi: Ichi: *Kai:

36

Ichi:

37

235

D(h)o(h)o sh(h)it(h)ara i(h)in da y(h)o. ((to Kaito’s Mom)) ‘What should (he = Ichiro) say (to Kaito)?’ ((sarcastically, while laughing)) .hh GO[ME:NNA::SA::I.] ((climbing on jungle gym)) ‘(I)’M SO::RRY:::.’ [( ) itsumo-] iwareteru. ‘( ) is always being told that (by Kaito).’ [( )] Gomen ne. ((touches Kaito’s back and neck)) ‘(I)’m sorry.’ (0.4) Ya da. ‘No way.’ (0.3) ( ) ((puts hand on Kaito’s head)) (1.7) Subette yo::. ‘Slide down (the ladder)::.’ Cha- Chanto gomen ne tte iinasai, an[ta wa.] ((smiling)) ‘Prop- Properly say, “(I)’m sorry,” you.’ [hh ] hhh::h .h Gomen ne:. ‘hh hhh:h .h (I)’m sorry:.’ (0.6) ( ) Gomen ne::. ‘(I)’m sorry::.’ Nanka ima ( [ ) kao wa] gorira mitai. ‘(Your) face now ( ) looks like a gorilla.’ [ hh hh ] hhh[h. [Hai moo ikkai. ((see Figure 3)) ‘Okay, (say “[I]’m sorry”) once more!’ ((head back and smiling)) Gomen n(h)e hhhhhhh. ‘(I)’m sorry’ hhhhhhh. ((prompting sequence continues for several more turns))

236

Matthew Burdelski

In this excerpt, the older cousin Kaito prompts Ichiro several times to repeat the apology by refusing to accept it and instructing him what to say. In particular, in response to Ichiro’s re-done apology, Kaito invokes a problem with Ichiro’s facial expression (line 2) and then states that he has not forgiven him yet (line 4). Here, Kaito’s use of mada ‘not yet’ implies that forgiveness/acknowledgment is forthcoming, but only if Ichiro expresses the proper feeling in the apology. Ichiro orients to this by repeating the apology in a more emphatic way (line 5: Gomennasa:::i. ‘(I)’m sorry:::’). In particular, in addition to vowel elongation, he uses the stereotypically formal (and distal) apology expression gomennasai. In response, Kaito again finds fault with Ichiro’s apology, this time in his choice of apology expression (gomennasai). In particular, Kaito prompts Ichiro to repeat the apology using the less formal expression gomen ne (line 9: ‘It’s no good unless [you] say, “[I]’m sorry” [=gomen ne instead of gomennasai]’). Thus, Kaito rejects Ichiro’s formal apology and conveys to him that the appropriate apology term to use is gomen ne. This rejection, which, on the one hand, suggests that Kaito is simply giving Ichiro a hard time, on the other hand reflects an understanding that gomen ne is the more appropriate choice of apology expression among kin (and peers), particularly for less severe offenses. In response, Ichiro repeats this apology expression using a loud voice and vowel elongation, which again displays a heightened affect that can be heard as displaying a degree of sincerity and remorse and implicitly making a request for Kaito’s acknowledgement and forgiveness (line 12). Seemingly having exhausted the number of times he can prompt Ichiro to apologize, Kaito attempts to shift the key from serious to playful in continuing the sequence. In their analysis of Hebrew-speaking children’s apologies, Kampf and Blum-Kulka (2007: 20) define key as the “interpretive frame of the utterance marked often through tone of voice in terms of its ‘color’ or mood, such as ironic, sincere, playful or subversive.” Here, keying is done through both verbal and non-verbal means including tone of voice and laughter (paralinguistic resources), facial expression and bodily comportment. In particular, similar to line 2, Kaito rejects Ichiro’s apology by finding fault with Ichiro’s facial expression (line 14: ‘[You]’re smiling so, no good, no good’). However, he keys the rejection as playful through tone of voice, facial expression, and repetition of the moral assessment dame ‘no good.’ This use of this assessment term is thus different from previous uses both in this excerpt (lines 2 and 9) and previously (excerpt [2], lines 2, 8, and 18) in which the term was keyed in a more serious affective key. Ichiro’s mother displays an orientation to this shift in affective key by making a laugher-filled comment to Kaito’s mother (line 15). However, Ichiro does not immediately align as he apologizes again using a serious stance (lines 17

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

237

and 20), and then attempts to close down the sequence by requesting Kaito slide down the ladder (line 26). In response, Kaito ignores this request by continuing the prompting sequence in a playful way (line 27: ‘Prop- Properly say, “[I]’m sorry,” you’). Although Kaito’s adverbial choice (Chanto ‘properly’) and imperative form (iinasai ‘say’) − which echo Ichiro’s mother’s earlier directive to Ichiro to ‘properly say gomen ne’ to Kaito − as well as his choice of the second-person pronoun anta ‘you’ suggest a strong illocutionary force, Kaito keys the directive as playful using tone of voice and facial expression (smiling). Kaito’s use of anta at the end of this elicited imitation prompt is intriguing given that in Japanese conversation personal pronouns are often omitted, but when they are used index speaker-hearer identities (e.g. relative status, age, gender). In particular, middleaged and elderly Japanese male speakers have been observed using anta in addressing close male associates of similar age, as an index of affect and intimacy (SturtzSreetharan 2009). In the present data, although caregivers and older children do not often use anta with young children, when they do use it they typically evoke negative affect (e.g. Father to 2-year old female child who is not speaking clearly: Nani yutteru, anta ‘What are [you] saying, you’; 4-year old male sibling to 2-year old male who is lying on the floor: Mata neteru, anta: ‘[You]’re sleeping again, you’). While these uses of anta are often negative, the speaker’s tone of voice often borders on sounding a bit sarcastic. In considering these observations, Kaito’s use of anta (rather than the second-person pronoun omae ‘you’ which is more typical of elementary school boys, see Nakamura 2001) seems to voice an older male persona (such as a father)12 in doing various relational and affective work. While on the one hand it seems to add to the illocutionary force of the directive, on the other hand together with laughter it invokes a playful frame that borders on sarcasm. This latter point is supported, as in response Ichiro aligns with this playful stance and the action it is doing by laughing and re-doing the apology expression twice (lines 28 and 31). In this way, the playful key becomes co-constructed by the boys. It then reaches a climax as Kaito recycles the link between the apology expression and lack of feeling displayed in the apologizer’s (Ichiro’s) facial expression by relating 12 In examining conversations among three different age groups of Japanese men, SturtzSreetharan (2009) shows that the middle-aged “company men” (in their 40s) and older “retirees” (in their 60s) on occasion used anta to refer to the addressee, but the younger “students” (in their 20s) never did. She claims these men’s use of anta is “friendlier, more intimate” (p. 272), but at the same time “distal” (p. 274), particularly in comparison to their use of second-person pronoun omae ‘you’ (which was used on occasion by men in all three groups, but especially among the “students” [in their 20s]). Moreover, SturtzSreetharan claims that the postposition of anta (as it is also used in line 27 above) “gives extra emphasis by indicating the target of the utterance” (p. 272).

238

Matthew Burdelski

Ichiro’s face to an animal (line 32: ‘[Your] face now [ ] looks like a gorilla’). Kaito then prompts Ichiro to say the apology expression ‘Once more’ in full embodied and verbal play (Figure 3). While the instructional sequence continues for several more turns, it winds down in a fit of co-laughter. It is noteworthy that even though Kaito does not explicitly accept Ichiro’s apology (i.e. by producing the formulaic token forgiveness/acknowledgment ii yo ‘It’s okay’), their interpersonal harmony is restored in a child-like way. In these ways, informal instructional sequences of politeness routines between kin can at times shift from serious to playful, which can be argued mark a quality of relationships as especially close. In the preschool, in comparison, peer relationships may not have (yet) achieved such closeness, and so this kind of play frame in prompting sequences surrounding interactional needs and desires (including face wants) may not have been possible. In particular, children in the preschool were not observed shifting the frame of prompting sequences to play, as they always carried it out in a serious (or even aggressive) affect key. The present excerpt also builds on the previous analysis by showing ways children learn to display the appropriate feeling and bodily orientation in expressions of apology.

Figure 3: Shifting key through verbal language and facial expression: Kaito (left) smiles while prompting Ichiro (right), who is also smiling, to say the apology expression ‘Once more!’

5 Conclusion This chapter has examined children’s informal instruction of other children in politeness routines. It has shed light on how children participate in the organization of other children as speakers (animators) and more broadly as verbal

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

239

and/or non-verbal performers of the routines. The introduction posed a number of questions, which I will attempt to answer in the following summarizing remarks. First, the analysis has shown that children instruct kin and peers in politeness routines in various situations within the home and preschool, particularly in activities such as mealtime (home) and play (home and preschool). Moreover, children instruct children in the immediate presence of caregivers (home and preschool), and outside their immediate presence (preschool). That is, in the family data, I did not observe children instructing children outside the presence of caregivers. In this instruction, children use modeling and elicited imitation to encourage kin and peers to use language to perform social actions, particularly gratitude, apology, and request. They also use other strategies such as assessments, reasons, conditional statements, as well as a range of verbal and nonverbal resources such as prosody (e.g. loud voice, vowel elongation), laughter, facial expression, and somatic means (e.g. touch). These resources index an affective stance towards the instruction and addressee, such as seriousness, aggression, or humor. In the household, in particular, children may shift the stance (or key) during the course of instruction from serious to humorous, which can be argued characterizes the quality of the kin relationship as particularly close. Second, the analysis has also examined how the instructed child responds to the instruction, such as by imitating the non-verbal portion of the routine and repeating the elicited expression. Instructed children, of course, also display their own agency by refusing to repeat the elicited expressions, or by ignoring the children doing the instruction. (These types of responses are not particular to child-child instruction as they also occur in response to instruction initiated by adults). It has also examined how adults and other children in the immediate scene respond to the instruction and/or the instructed child’s response (including the accomplishment of the routine by the two children), such as by offering acknowledgement or praise (adults), providing further prompting or articulating a norm (children, but adults also do this too), and providing a reason why the child will not repeat the prompted expression (children). In these ways, the analysis has examined instruction as implicating a range of participants who may observe and provide support. Third, the analysis has also examined similarities and differences in instruction between caregivers and children, children in the home and preschool, and within the same child. In particular, a major difference between children and caregivers in instruction is that children prefer to use elicited imitation in dyadic arrangements (examples [2]-[5]), that is to say an utterance back to the child doing the prompting rather than to a third party (as is the case with adults). This suggests that children at this age (two to five years) are highly oriented to

240

Matthew Burdelski

preserving their own interactional wants and desires among peers, particularly as manifested in requests (e.g. taking a toy without asking for it) and apologies (e.g. physically causing harm to another child). In some cases, however, children use triadic prompting and other strategies to intervene in other children’s conflicts when interactional wants and desires have been breached. In this way, children at times monitor the conflicts of children around them and intervene in both adult and child-like ways. In relation to this, politeness routines are not solely about interactional wants and desires, as we also observe children instructing children in politeness routines as social norms by using imperatives and assessments (e.g. ‘You have to say X,’ Not saying X is no good’) in both dyadic and triadic arrangements. In these ways, the process of socialization to politeness routines in Japanese involves learning to predict and consider others’ interactional needs and learning to use certain expressions when performing particular social actions. Such process is likely key to developing a full-fledged understanding of the use of language in relation to face and discernment, as both of these models are important in politeness in Japanese. As suggested in this chapter, this learning not only occurs in adult-child socialization, but also among children’s interactions with peers and kin. Finally, the analysis has also addressed what is potentially being learned in these sequences other than the routines themselves. In particular, in addition to the above comments concerning face and discernment, children are also learning the instructional techniques or strategies for socializing others (and to adjust them in relation to the instructed child’s response), and they are also learning language − to reiterate a central point of language socialization theory − as an index of a range of socio-cultural meanings including identities (e.g. instructor or teacher, older sibling, older child), affective stance (e.g. kind, considerate), social actions (e.g. apology, request), and activities (e.g. play, meal or snack time). In sum, Japanese-speaking children are learning politeness routines and the strategies for socializing others to these routines as a means of maintaining the moral and social order. In concluding, through the Japanese case study we have observed a unique cultural profile of instruction to politeness routines, but more work is needed in a range of settings and other societies and languages. The findings have implications for a changing society, and the teaching and learning of politeness in first, heritage, and second languages. In particular, caregivers can encourage children’s acquisition of politeness routines (and potentially other aspects of language) by encouraging older children or first language speakers to model language for younger children or second language speakers to imitate, and by providing them situations to socialize other children.

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

241

Acknowledgements I want to thank the families, preschool teachers, and children for their participation in the research, two assistants (Shito Kudo and Haruko Matsumoto) and a number of students at Saitama University for their help. I also want to thank the editors, Barbara Pizziconi and Miriam Locher, and the anonymous reviewers, for their incisive comments that helped shaped the form of this chapter. Any mistakes are mine alone.

Appendix The following transcription conventions are used: [Wo]rd Brackets indicate overlapping talk. Wo::rd Colon marks phonological lengthening (each colon is approx. 0.1 sec.). WoHyphen indicates sound cutoff. Word Underlying indicates emphatic stress. ((bows)) Non-verbal actions and comments are shown in double parenthesis. .h Period followed by the letter h indicates an in-breath sound. (h) An h inside a parenthesis indicates breath within a word. (1.2) Number in parenthesis indicates silence in seconds and tenths of a second. (.) Period inside parenthesis indicates a micro-pause (less than 0.2 second). . Period marks falling intonation. , Comma marks a continuing intonation. ? Question mark indicates a rising intonation. (Word) Word in parenthesis indicates transcriber uncertainty of hearing and a tentative reconstruction. ( ) Empty parenthesis indicates an inaudible word. °Word° Circles around an utterance mark reduced volume.

References Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity (Studies in Language and Linguistics). London & New York: Longman. Arundale, Robert B. 2006. Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2). 193−216.

242

Matthew Burdelski

Bakhtin, Mikhail Michajlovič. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays (University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1; M. Holquist, V. Liapunov & K. Brostrom, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Billig, Michael. 1999. Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5(3). 196−213. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. (Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 16; R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruner, Jerome S. 1978. The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In Anne Sinclair, Robert J. Jarvell & Willem J. M. Levelt (eds.), The child’s concept of language (Springer Series in Language and Communication 2), 241–256 . New York: Springer-Verlag. Bruner, Jerome S., Rose R. Oliver & Patricia Marks Greenfield. 1966. Studies in cognitive growth: A collaboration at the center for cognitive studies. New York: Wiley. Burdelski, Matthew. 2010. Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6). 1606−1621. Burdelski, Matthew. 2012. Language socialization and politeness routines. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The handbook of language socialization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 275−295. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Burdelski, Matthew. 2013. “I’m sorry flower”: Socializing apology, relationships, and empathy in Japan. Pragmatics and Society 4(1). 54−81. Burdelski, Matthew. 2014. Gengoshakaika no katei: Oyako sannin no kaiwa ni okeru shazai hyoogen o chuushin ni [Language socialization: Apology expressions in caregiver-child triadic interaction]. Handai Nihongo Kenkyuu [Osaka University Japanese Linguistics Research] 25. 33−49. Clancy, Patricia M. 1986. The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 213−250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clancy, Patricia M., Noriko Akatsuka & Susan Strauss. 1997. Deontic modality and conditionality in discourse: A cross-linguistic study of adult speech to young children. In Akio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 36), 19−57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cook, Haruko M. 2006. Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua 25(3). 269−291. Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Conversational routines (Rasmus Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics 2). The Hague, NL: Mouton Publishers. Demuth, Katherine. 1986. Prompting routines in the language socialization of Basotho children. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 51−79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duff, Patricia A. 2012. Second language socialization. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The handbook of language socialization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 564−586. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

243

Dunn, Cynthia Dickel. 2013. Speaking politely, kindly, and beautifully: Ideologies of politeness in Japanese business etiquette training. Multilingua 32(2). 225−245. Duranti, Alessandro, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.). 2012. The handbook of language socialization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ely, Richard & Jean Berko Gleason. 2006. I’m sorry I said that: Apologies in young children’s discourse. Journal of Child Language 33(3). 599−620. Ferguson, Charles A. 1976. The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society 5(2). 137−151. Garrett, Paul B. & Patricia Baquedano-López. 2002. Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology 31. 339−361. Gleason, Jean Berko, Rivka Y. Perlmann & Esther Blank Greif. 1984. What’s the magic word: Learning language through politeness routines. Discourse Processes 7(4). 493−502. Goffman, Erving. 1974 [1955]. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Ben G. Blount (ed.), Language, culture and society: A book of readings, 224−249. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, Marjorie H. & Amy Kyratzis. 2012. Peer language socialization. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The handbook of language socialization socialization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 365−390. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayashi, Makoto. 1997. An exploration of sentence-final uses of the quotative particle in Japanese spoken discourse. In Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 6, 565−581. Stanford: CSLI Publications. He, Agnes Weiyun. 2012. Heritage language socialization. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The handbook of language socialization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 587−609. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Hendry, Joy. 1986. Becoming Japanese: The world of the pre-school child. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Hill, Jane H. 1995. Mock Spanish: A site of the indexical reproduction of racism in American English. http://language-culture.binghamton.edu/symposia/2/part1/ (29 September 2014). Hood, Lois & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1978. Elicited imitation in two cultural contexts. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development 2(1). 4−12. Hymes, Dell H. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In John J. Gumperz & Dell H. Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35 −71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ide, Sachiko. 2006. Wakimae no goyooron [Pragmatics of discernment]. Tokyo: Taishukan shoten. Jacoby, Sally & Elinor Ochs. 1995. Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3). 171−184. Kampf, Zohar & Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 2007. Do children apologize to each other? Apology events in young Israeli peer discourse. Journal of Politeness Research 3(1). 11−37. Kojima, Hideo. 1986. Child rearing concepts as a belief-value system of the society and the individual. In Harold W. Stevenson, Hiroshi Azuma & Kenji Hakuta (eds.), Child development and education in Japan, 39−54. New York: W. H. Freeman. Kondo, Dorinne K. 1987. Creating an ideal self: Theories of selfhood and pedagogy at a Japanese ethics retreat. Ethos 15(3). 241−272. Kulick, Don. 2003. No. Language & Communication 23(2). 139−151.

244

Matthew Burdelski

Kulick, Don & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2004. Language socialization. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (Blackwell Companions to Anthropology 1), 349−368. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kuwayama, Takami. 1992. The reference other orientation. In Nancy R. Rosenberger (eds.), Japanese sense of self, 121−151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lebra, Takie Sugiyama. 1976. Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 167−206. León, Lourdes de. 1998. The emergent participant: Interactive patters in the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8(2). 131−161. Lo, Adrienne & Kathryn M. Howard. 2009. Mobilizing respect and politeness in classrooms. Linguistics and Education 20(3). 211−216. Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1989. Politeness and conversational universals. Multilingua 8(2–3). 207−221. Maybin, Janet. 2006. Children’s voices: Talk, knowledge, and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. McCabe, Allyssa & Thomas J. Lipscomb. 1988. Sex differences in children’s verbal aggression. Merill-Palmer Quarterly 34(4). 389−410. Moore, Leslie C. 2012. Language socialization and repetition. In Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.), The handbook of language socialization (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 209−226. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Morita, Emi. 2005. Negotiation of contingent talk: The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 137). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nakane, Chie. 1970. Japanese society. London: Penguin. Nakamura, Keiko. 2001. Gender and Japanese language use in Japanese preschool children. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(1). 15−44. Nihongo Kokugo Jiten [The dictionary of the Japanese language]. 1975. Tokyo: Shogakkan. Ochs, Elinor. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 17), 407−437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1984. Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In Richard A. Shweder & Robert A. LeVine (eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion, 276−320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor & Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1995. The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), The handbook of child language (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 2), 73−94. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ochs, Elinor, Olga Solomon & Laura Sterponi. 2005. Limitations and transformations of habitus in child-directed communication. Discourse Studies 7(4−5). 547−583. Peters, Ann M. & Stephen T. Boggs. 1986. Interactional routines as cultural influences upon language acquisition. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 80−96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2007. The lexical mapping of politeness in British English and Japanese. Journal of Politeness Research 3(2). 207−241. Pizziconi, Barbara. 2011. Honorifics: The cultural specificity of a universal mechanism in Japanese. In Dániel Z. Kádár & Sara Mills (eds.), Politeness in East Asia, 45−70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Children instructing kin and peers in politeness routines in Japanese

245

Rabain-Jamin, Jacqueline. 1998. Polyadic language socialization strategy: The case of toddlers in Senegal. Discourse Processes 26(1). 43−65. Rogoff, Barbara. 1981. Adults and peers as agents of socialization: A highland Guatemalan profile. Ethos 9(1). 18−36. Rohlen, Thomas P. & Gerald K. LeTendre (eds.). 1996. Teaching and learning in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saville-Troike, Muriel. 1982. The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Baltimore: University Park Press. Scollon, Ron & Suzanne B. K. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6). 1075−1095. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1986. The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9(2–3). 111−151. Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1990. The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli children (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Elinor Ochs. 1986. Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology 15. 163−191. Shohet, Merav. 2013. Everyday sacrifice and language socialization in Vietnam: The power of a respect particle. American Anthropologist 115(2). 203−217. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Keith H. Basso & Henry A. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology (School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series), 11−56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In John A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33−58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sirota, Karen Grainer. 2004. Positive politeness as discourse process: Politeness practices of high-functioning children with autism and Asperger Syndrome. Discourse Studies 6(2). 229−251. Stude, Juliane. 2007. The acquisition of metapragmatic ability in preschool children. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 199−220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. SturtzSreetharan, Cindi L. 2009. Ore and omae: Japanese men’s uses of first- and secondperson pronouns. Pragmatics 19(2). 253−278. Sugimoto, Naomi. 2002. Japaneseness manifested in apology styles. In Ray T. Donohue (ed.), Exploring Japaneseness: On Japanese enactments of culture and consciousness, 357−367. Wesport, CT: Ablex. Takada, Akira. 2013. Generating morality in directive sequences: Distinctive strategies for developing communicative competence in Japanese caregiver-child interactions. Language & Communication 44(4). 420−438. Takahashi, Minako. 2001. Hierarchical socialization process in caregiver-child interaction. Ryuukyuu Daigaku Kyooikubu Kiyoo [Annals of University of the Ryukyus Department of Education] 59. 171−190. Takekuro, Makiko. 2005. Yoroshiku onegaishimasu: Routine practice of the routine formula in Japanese. In Robin Tolmach Lakoff & Sachiko Ide (eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 139), 89−97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

246

Matthew Burdelski

Tannen, Deborah. 2010. Abduction and identity in family interaction: Ventriloquizing as indirectness. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2). 307−316. Tobin, Joseph J., David Y. H. Wu & Dana H. Davidson. 1989. Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tobin, Joseph J., Yeh Hsueh & Mayumi Karasawa. 2009. Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann & David W. Gegeo. 1986. Calling out and repeating routines in the language socialization of Basotho children. In Bambi B. Schieffelin & Elinor Ochs (eds.), Language socialization across cultures (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3), 17−50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Juliane House

9 Epilogue: Impoliteness in learning and teaching Abstract: In the rich literature on interlanguage pragmatics and pragmatics in language learning and teaching since the 1980s, awareness as well as receptive and productive competence with regard to politeness were often included. What has been consistently missing, however, is discussions about learning and teaching of impoliteness. Although the title of this new volume with its brackets around the (im) implies that it will also cover impoliteness, explicit suggestions with reference to impoliteness do not feature prominently. In this epilogue, I will first comment on individual chapters of this volume, and then make a few suggestions about learning and teaching impoliteness. Keywords: impoliteness, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), culture, social practice

1 Introduction: Some comments on the chapters in this volume The present volume is a timely attempt to bring together theoretical considerations of (im)politeness and the teaching and learning of (im)politeness, thus linking newer ideas on politeness and impoliteness with the literature on developing pragmatic competence in applied linguistics and SLA. The chapters in this volume refer to a variety of languages (English, Greek, Japanese, German, British Sign Language) and contexts for acquisitional and instructional actions ranging from university language departments, children’s interactions, British Sign Language interactions, and a communication course for medical students. There are a number of interesting, albeit not always new, suggestions for the teaching and learning of politeness such as supporting meta-pragmatic awareness and (guided) reflection on politeness phenomena. What is particularly commendable is that this volume features not only oral interactions but also reflective writing and translation tasks. The idea that meta-pragmatic awareness is latent and needs to be mobilized is an important conclusion in most of the chapters. It is often coupled with suggestions as to the usefulness of form-focused learning and teaching making learners notice salient forms, i.e. those exhibiting differential ways of matching

248

Juliane House

forms and functions in learners’ mother tongue and a foreign language. This has, of course, been emphasized for a long time in the tradition of speech actand discourse-centered research à la Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) and many others. The tasks suggested in many chapters in this volume with regard to noticing, focusing and reflecting on salient forms also follow the tradition of the pedagogical literature on acquiring pragmatic competence (including, of course, politeness) that aimed at providing learners with an appropriate meta-language (cf. e.g. already Edmondson and House 1981), in order to facilitate and inform explicit teaching of pragmatics (House 1996). The two editors state in their introduction that their intent is “to foreground the relevance of ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ understood as broad issues of cultural transmission and acculturation” (p. 5). I totally agree with this objective, but would like to stress that such an aim implies, of course, that learners are permitted to choose between resisting native foreign norms, adopting a ‘third way,’ or approximating L2 pragmatic norms – with due concern about the effects and consequences of their choices. In what follows I will briefly comment on the individual chapters in this volume. The first article by Bella, Sifianou and Tzanne rightly emphasizes at the very outset that learning and teaching of (im)politeness is not at all a straightforward affair. Their compromise position of not completely abandoning the otherwise much maligned Brown and Levinson (1987) tradition in favour of merging it with a more discursive and postmodern view is a sensible and timely approach. The authors’ emphasis on awareness raising and noticing is important in that it refrains from insisting on learners necessarily adopting L2 politeness preferences. The next chapter by Gyogi presents a case study on learning and teaching Japanese honorifics, recommending learners’ awareness of the variability of Japanese native (im)polite behaviour. The fact that the author stresses awareness and appreciation rather than a prescriptive approach where learners actively use L2 norms, is highly commendable. Interestingly, Gyogi reports on translations of written texts used to direct learners’ attention to the text-context nexus in all translation activities as well as the necessity in translation to reflect on different (obligatory or optional) choices of linguistic forms and their variable effects. Gyogi’s contribution is exemplar in its multi-method approach including translation tasks, classroom discussions and learner diaries. Her approach shows that with sensible pedagogic intervention cliché notions of the use of Japanese honorifics can be overcome making way for a more differentiated view of the richness of interactional effects the use of honorifics affords. The chapter by Rieger deals with the learning and teaching of German in Canada. The author rightly criticizes the neglect of issues to do with (im)politeness in pedagogic contexts, despite the fact that there is occasional treatment of

Epilogue: Impoliteness in learning and teaching

249

learning and teaching (im)politeness in the context of developing pragmatic competence and fluency (see, for instance, the volumes by Rose and Kasper 2001; Kasper and Rose 2002; Alcón Soler and Safont Jordà 2007; Alcón Soler and Martínez-Flor 2008). Like the authors of the two previous chapters, Rieger also stresses the benefits of noticing and reflection in making learners aware of the non-universality of politeness norms and the relativity of one’s own cultureconditioned assumptions. The following chapter by Pizziconi looks at the influential conceptualization of (im)politeness in the Common European Framework, which closely adheres to Brown and Levinson’s ideas. The author criticizes this approach for not explicitly setting out to enhance understanding the nature of (im)politeness as an omnipresent indexical phenomenon, and for reducing the complexity of (im)politeness to certain easily applicable strategies and devices. Like the authors of previous chapters, Pizziconi again suggests awareness-raising activities. This seems to be a theme regularly emerging from the individual and quite diverse studies, which indeed confirm earlier observations in the field of pragmatics learning and teaching, but which evidently have not been widely followed, as several of the contributors to this volume have pointed out. The next chapter by Mapson has a totally different focus: British Sign Language (BFL) as it is used alongside English in many contexts, and where bilingual English-BFL speakers find it difficult to establish differences between English and BFL norms of (im)politeness. The author is right in bemoaning a dearth of research in this area, and the consequent lack of a meta-language that might assist interpreters in their socially important activity. The chapter by Locher once again emphasizes the benefits of introspective awareness-raising tasks. Locher examines the role (im)politeness plays in an L1 (English) course on communication skills taught to British medical students. Locher discusses the use of writing tasks where medical students reflect on interactions with patients, and are led to achieve a heightened awareness of what they are actually doing. Not unexpectedly, issues of (im)politeness were found to matter most in these reflections, and here in particular their effect on incidents involving miscommunication. Locher is to be commended on examining highstakes interactions where the misuse of (im)politeness norms are of potentially great consequence for the participants involved in these interactions. The final chapter by Burdelski looks at children’s socialization to the norms of politeness. He shows how children at a very early age (up to 5 years of age) are surprisingly aware of these norms in interactions. The emphasis here is rightly on the development of meta-pragmatic awareness, a theme which is underrepresented in the literature on children’s socialization. The chapter documents children’s capacity of observing and explaining normative (im)polite

250

Juliane House

behaviour in self and others and of negotiating breaches of these norms. This chapter, with its focus on children’s socialization into a society, is one of the most interesting and innovative ones of this volume in that it suggests that at least some parts of the human capacity for polite behaviour is innate with another part being wide open for culture-specific development. Despite the title of this volume, with its bracketed (im) before politeness, impoliteness is only discussed in three of the eight chapters in this volume in greater detail. Locher, Rieger and Burdelski’s chapters deal squarely with impoliteness which originates in participants’ observations on behaviours perceived as (potentially or actually) impolite. In addition, Pizziconi raises the issue that the European ‘framework of reference’ seems to forget impoliteness altogether. The relative under-representation of issues to do with impoliteness in this volume seems to be an implication of the fact (indeed noted by Pizziconi) that when it comes to language pedagogy, being polite seems to be valued (by teachers) as a much more important skill than being impolite. Given the recent interest in impoliteness, it seems necessary to question this neglect of impoliteness. So in what follows I will look a bit deeper into the phenomenon of impoliteness including some pedagogic considerations.

2 Impoliteness The idea that all human interaction is governed by a mega-maxim of cooperation has recently been relativized by a more realistic view of communication, which includes impoliteness, aggression and conflict. Initial conceptualizations of impoliteness were grounded in speech act approaches focused on de-contextualized, often made up, utterances, rather than authentic data. These approaches were criticized since Eelen’s (2001) comprehensive Critique of Politeness Theories, and also by Kádár and Haugh (2013). More recent strands of theorising propose conceptualizations of impoliteness as a dynamic, cultural and contextually embedded phenomenon, situated in interaction (Mills 2011) and categorized under the umbrella term ‘discursive approaches’ (cf. Bousfield and Locher 2008; Mills 2011). The study of actual manifestations of impoliteness defined as “language used to cause offence” (Culpeper 2011) and based on authentic data is one of the key aspects of recent discursive approaches. Analyses of impoliteness according to normative understandings in different cultures were also criticized as misleading, with two important questions remaining: How can we relate the notion of normativity to the study of impoliteness? What is the connection between normativity and impoliteness? Normativity

Epilogue: Impoliteness in learning and teaching

251

can be seen as situated not only in social units (localised groups, such as workplace groups, or cultural groups), but also in the relational histories between groups or individuals, including the dimensions of time and space. These practices are not necessarily governed by explicitly stated rules, but are often the product of implicit socialization (Bucholtz 1999). It is important to recognize that linguistic behaviour cannot be considered “inherently polite or impolite” (Locher and Watts 2008: 78). The universality of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) has by now been widely criticized, giving way to approaches that distinguish between politeness as a universal concept, referring to societal norms of appropriate or inappropriate behaviour and cultural and linguistic instantiations of (im)politeness (see Meier 1995; Waters 2012). This idea has also been taken up by House (2010, 2012), who proposed an integrated multilevel model of (im)politeness capturing universal dimensions of (im)politeness, such as the fundamental drives to come together and stay apart, the manifestation of these drives as principles or maxims at a theoretical level, and a distinction between these principles and maxims and culturally specific practices and their linguistic instantiations operating at an empirical level (see House 2012: 288–289). In this context it is necessary to revisit the notion of culture-specificity and to problematize ‘culture’ as a unit of analysis, foregrounding the situatedness of any cultural phenomenon and the relational histories of individuals or groups participating in interactional events (see Kádár and Haugh 2013: 64). Most importantly, the conceptualization and application of the notion of culturespecificity is not pre-existent but emerges in an interaction, often co-constructed by participants. The construction of individual and group identities and collectivities (cf. Bucholtz and Hall 2005: 588) emerges and unfolds in an interaction, which is also the case for impoliteness. This points to a view of impoliteness as social practice (see also Upadhyay 2010; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Bou Franch and Lorenzo-Dus 2013). It also highlights the role of impoliteness as serving sociability functions by strengthening participants’ sense of belonging to specific communities of practice. These collectivities are often pertinent to the relational histories of participants and are situated in the wider socio-cultural context. The use of impoliteness as a tool of social engagement discussed in previous studies of impoliteness and flame-wars (e.g. Perelmutter 2013) appears to be a crucial feature in polylogic online spaces, often employed to compensate for the lack of face-to-face interaction. If we view impoliteness as an important form of social practice, it clearly needs to be among the components of the learning and teaching of impoliteness in specific interactional contexts.

252

Juliane House

3 Teaching and learning impoliteness in interaction We may start with assuming that impoliteness is not necessarily a marked phenomenon – an observation consistent with relational frameworks (cf. Watts 2005; Haugh and Schneider 2012). Learning how to do impoliteness in interaction involves first of all a critical awareness of the salience of the context of the interaction in terms of the temporal, spatial as well as social dimensions. Considerations of the classic dimensions of Power, Social Distance and Imposition may help make interactional moves ‘appropriately impolite,’ i.e. these actions may not always and necessarily cause offence but may well be received as nothing out of the ordinary, as something to be expected in a particular context and thus treated with a tolerant ‘let it pass’ (Firth 2009) attitude. Impoliteness can then be regarded as a powerful strategic tool for preserving or subverting the social order, as well as a tool for social engagement. With reference to linguistic instantiations on the lowest level of the politeness and impolitenesss model suggested by House (see above), one needs to emphasize the importance of enhancing the linguistic repertoire of non-L1 interactants for realizing impolite moves. Relying on a more differentiated linguistic repertoire can empower learners to be more ‘creatively impolite’ for better effect. This means that foreign language learners might also be made aware of the power of using non-lexical strategies such as ‘rhetorical questions.’ Such questions are powerful argumentative tools and effective instruments for preventing one’s interactant from immediately responding. The manipulation of the use or non-use of honorifics and address forms might also be added to the linguistic manifestations of doing impoliteness in an effective way. Another useful means of learning and teaching impoliteness is the use of translation, a classic procedure for meta-pragmatic awareness raising, which is described in detail in House (2008). Such a use of translation is most beneficial at advanced levels of competence in an L2. Translation has, in the past, often been misused as a means of easy testing and quick meaning access in glossing tasks. Its full potential for pragmatic awareness raising, alerting learners to differences in form-function mapping in different languages needs yet to be fully exploited. In highlighting the importance of learners’ rich L1 knowledge, translation tasks are in line with recent interests in an individual’s multilingual competence. This competence is conceived as a continuum of linguistic–cultural development in which the full complexity of an individual’s road to capability in languages is recognized, and exploited to the full in translation activities.

Epilogue: Impoliteness in learning and teaching

253

Insights from impoliteness research can inform the learning and teaching of impoliteness in intercultural communication courses, in business studies, studies of mediation in conflict resolution, conflict management, peace studies, as well as advanced second, foreign and lingua franca language courses that do not aim at (near) native speaker competence, but rather at ‘intercultural speaker competence’ (House 2007). Impoliteness needs to be learnt and taught as an interactionally situated social practice which may be extremely useful for learners in many real-life situations. Materials used in the above mentioned courses need to be informed by empirical research and be based on authentic datasets drawn from various genres, contexts and languages. ‘Grammars’ of impoliteness (Kádár and Haugh 2013) are, of course, never static phenomena, but rather dynamic and emergent, and they need to be learnt and taught as such. Taken together, this is an important new volume on the teaching and learning of (im)politeness. It succeeds in showing readers how pedagogical issues of (im)politeness are of crucial relevance in many different contexts of language use.

References Alcón Soler, Eva & Maria Pilar Safont Jordá (eds.). 2007. Intercultural language use and language learning. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Alcón Soler, Eva & Alicia Martínez-Flor (eds.). 2008. Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Second Language Acquisition 30). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 1989. Crosscultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Advances in Discourse Processes XXXI). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bousfield, Derek & Miriam A. Locher (eds.). 2008. Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness. Some universals in language usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28(2). 203–223. Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4−5). 585−614. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmondson, Willis J. & Juliane House. 1981. Let’s talk and talk about it: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg. Eelen, Gino. 2001. A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Firth, Alan. 2009. The lingua franca factor. (In Juliane House (ed.), special issue: The pragmatics of English Lingua Franca). Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 147−170.

254

Juliane House

Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, Patricia Bou Franch & Nuria Lorenzo-Dus. 2013. Identity and impoliteness: The expert in the talent show Idol. Journal of Politeness Research 9(1). 97−121. Haugh, Michael & Klaus P. Schneider. 2012. Im/politeness across Englishes. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9). 1017−1021. House, Juliane. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2). 225−252. House, Juliane. 2007. What is an ‘intercultural speaker?’ In Eva Alcón Soler & Maria Pilar Safont Jordà (eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning, 7−22. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. House, Juliane. 2008. Using translation to improve pragmatic competence. In Eva Alcón Soler & Alicia Martínez-Flor (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (Second Language Acquisition 30), 135−152. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. House, Juliane. 2010. Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(4). 561−595. House, Juliane. 2012. (Im)politeness in cross-cultural encounters. Language and Intercultural Communication 12(4). 284−301. Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Gabriele & Kenneth R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden: Blackwell. Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language. Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (Language, Power and Social Process 21), 77−99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Meier, Ardith J. 1995. Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 24(4). 381−392. Mills, Sara. 2011. Discursive approaches to politeness and impoliteness. In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.), Discursive approaches to politeness (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 8), 19−56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Perelmutter, Renee. 2013. Klassika zhanra: The flamewar as a genre in the blogosphere. Journal of Pragmatics 45(1). 74−89. Rose, Kenneth R. & Gabriele Kasper (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Upadhyay, Shiv R. 2010. Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1). 105−127. Waters, Sophia. 2012. “It’s rude to VP”: The cultural semantics of rudeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44(9). 1051−1062. Watts, Richard J. 2005. Linguistic politeness research. Quo vadis?. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 2nd edn., xi−xlvii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bionotes Spyridoula Bella is Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Athens. Her research interests include pragmatics, second language acquisition and teaching. She has published papers on pragmatics, interlanguage pragmatics and second language acquisition in journals and edited volumes. Her recent work focuses on L2 pragmatic awareness (Multilingua 2012), L2 pragmatic development and the grammar/pragmatics interface ( Journal of Pragmatics 2012, 2014) and pragmatic transfer (Pragmatics in press). She is also the author of a book on second language acquisition theories and their implications for language teaching (in Greek). Matthew Burdelski is Professor of Applied Japanese Linguistics in the Faculty of Letters at Osaka University. His primary research interests are in language socialization in adult-child and child-child interaction of Japanese as a first, second, and heritage language. His work has appeared in edited volumes (The handbook of language socialization, 2011, edited by A. Duranti, E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin) and journals including the Journal of Pragmatics, Pragmatics and Society, Language in Society (co-authored), Multilingua, and Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (co-authored). He is also currently working on a collaborative project on storytelling in English and Japanese in guided museum tours and robot-human interaction in various settings. Eiko Gyogi is a PhD candidate in linguistics at SOAS, University of London. She obtained an MA degree in applied linguistics and language pedagogy at SOAS, University of London with distinction, and then went on to teach undergraduate Japanese language courses there as a teaching fellow/graduate teaching assistant from 2010 to 2014. Her recent work includes studies on English-Japanese bilingual children in London based on her MA dissertation (2014, “Children’s agency in language choice: A case study of two Japanese-English bilingual children in London,” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism). Juliane House is Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics at Hamburg University, founding member of the German Science Foundation’s Research Centre on Multilingualism and Director of Programs in Arts and Sciences at the Hellenic American University in its Athens campus. Her research interests include contrastive pragmatics, discourse analysis, politeness, translation, English as a global lingua franca, and intercultural communication. Her book publications include A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Misunderstanding in Social Life, Translation, Multilingual Communication, and Subjectivity in Language and Discourse.

256

Bionotes

Miriam A. Locher is Professor of the Linguistics of English at the University of Basel, Switzerland. She works in the field of politeness and relational work research (Power and Politeness in Action, 2004; Impoliteness in Language, 2008, ed. with D. Bousfield), and on advice-giving (Advice Online, 2006; Advice in Discourse, 2012, ed. with Holger Limberg). She further edited collections on Standards and Norms of the English language (2008, with J. Strässler), on CMC and politeness/relational work ( Journal of Politeness Research and Pragmatics, with B. Bolander and N. Höhn), Narrative Matters in Medical Contexts across Disciplines (2015, with F. Gygax) and edited the handbook of Interpersonal Pragmatics (2010, with S. Graham). She is currently working on an SNF project on Language and Health Online, linguistic identity construction in Facebook with B. Bolander, and on the connection between emotional display and relational work with A. Langlotz. Rachel Mapson trained as a BSL/English interpreter at the University of Bristol and has worked as a professional interpreter since 1994. She is registered with the National Registers of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People (NRCPD) and is a member of the Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI). Rachel currently lives in Edinburgh where she interprets on a self-employed basis in a variety of settings including healthcare, social services and higher education. She commenced part-time study towards a doctorate in 2010 through the Graduate School of Education at the University of Bristol, supervised by Dr Rachel Sutton-Spence and Dr Helen Woodfield. Barbara Pizziconi is Reader in Japanese Applied Linguistics at SOAS (the School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London. Her recent work on the Japanese language includes studies on politeness (Japanese honorifics: the cultural specificity of a universal mechanism, in Politeness in East Asia – Theory and Practice, 2011, S. Mills and D. Z. Kádár eds., Cambridge University Press: 45–70), modality ( Japanese Modality, 2009, edited with M. Kizu, Palgrave), and vocabulary acquisition (2013, Japanese vocabulary development in Study Abroad – the timing of the year abroad in a language degree curriculum, Journal of Language Learning). She continues to work on the implications of an indexical view of language for the conceptualization of (im)politeness. Caroline L. Rieger is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. She has published on L2 communication and the teaching of conversational features, on self-repair of bilinguals, on self-repair of language learners, on politeness, on laughter in interaction, on intercultural competence (Intercultural Literacies and German in

Bionotes

257

the Classroom, 2007, ed. with C. Lorey and J. L. Plews), and on language assessment. More recently she has ventured into translation studies, and into translation. With Camille Wallace she has translated Verkehrt!, a German youth novel by Thorsten Nesch, from German into English. She continues to work on interlanguage pragmatics, on language assessment, and on (im)politeness. Maria Sifianou is Professor at the Faculty of English Language and Literature, University of Athens. Her publications include Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Oxford University Press, 1992/1999/ 2002), Discourse Analysis (Hillside Press, 2006) and a number of articles in edited books and journals. She has co-edited Themes in Greek Linguistics (Benjamins, 1994) and Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish (John Benjamins, 2001) among others. Her main research interests include politeness phenomena and discourse analysis in an intercultural perspective. She is on the editorial board of a number of international linguistics journals and co-editor of the Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (John Benjamins). Angeliki Tzanne is Associate Professor in Linguistics at the Faculty of English Language and Literature, University of Athens. Since 1999 she has been teaching on the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes of the Faculty. Her research interests include Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis, with particular emphasis on academic and media discourse. She has reviewed manuscripts for international linguistics journals and has also been on the editorial board of Pragmatics for several years. She is the author of a book (Talking at Cross-Purposes, 2000, John Benjamins) and of a number of articles which have appeared in international journals and edited volumes. She is currently working on a co-authored book on Academic Discourse (John Benjamins, forthcoming).

Author index Achiba, Machiko 34 Adolphs, Svenja 37, 84–85 Agha, Asif 10, 53, 55, 73, 75, 120, 188 Aijmer, Karin 212 Akatsuka, Noriko 228 Alcón Soler, Eva 156, 160, 249 Alderson, J. Charles 135, 141 Alexiadou, Artemis 34 Al-Issa, Ahmad 123 Ando, Yuka 124 Archakis, Argiris 34 Arendholz, Jenny 88 Arndt, Horst 27, 29, 45 Arundale, Robert B. 28, 118, 131, 211 Atkinson, Dwight 4–5, 118 Attride-Stirling, Jennifer 167

Brady, Donald W. 189 Branch, William T., Jr. 186, 189 Braun, Virginia 167 Brennan, Mary 157–158 Brown, Lucien 3, 124–126 Brown, Penelope 2, 6, 10, 23–25, 27–29, 31–33, 35–36, 45–46, 54–55, 81, 85, 99, 116, 131, 187, 215, 224, 248–249, 251 Brown, Roger 37 Brunak, Joanna 115, 117 Bruner, Jerome S. 216, 221 Bucholtz, Mary 187, 190, 251 Burdelski, Matthew 3–4, 8, 12–13, 55, 156, Ch. 8, 249–250, 255 Byram, Michael 134, 139, 141

Bachman, Lyle F. 36, 115, 132 Bakhtin, Mikhail Michajlovič 214 Banno, Eri 58 Baquedano-López, Patricia 215 Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 25, 46, 83, 125, 159, 162, 175 Barron, Anne 3, 36, 118 Béal, Christine 34, 94, 115, 122, 156–157, 161, 188 Beebe, Leslie M. 81 Bella, Spyridoula 6–7, 10, 13, Ch. 2, 119, 122, 125, 131, 139, 143, 248, 255 Bergman, Marc L. 116 Bering, Jesse M. 12 Bernstein, Basil 159 Billig, Michael 214 Blommaert, Jan 123 Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 2, 24, 85, 115, 117, 122, 156, 159–160, 164, 167, 169, 179, 181, 224, 236, 248 Boggs, Stephen T. 215 Bond, Michael Harris 123 Bou Franch, Patricia 3, 7, 25–27, 30, 119, 156, 161, 163–165, 177–180, 251 Bourdieu, Pierre 213 Bousfield, Derek 3, 99, 100, 250, 256 Bouton, Lawrence F. 2, 116

Cameron, Deborah 124 Canale, Michael 115 Carbaugh, Donal A. 82–83 Celce-Murcia, Marianne 132 Cenoz, Jasone 164, 179, Chen, Rong 118 Clancy, Brian 37, 84–85 Clancy, Patricia M. 2, 125, 156, 212, 216, 228 Clarke, Victoria 167 Cohen, Andrew D. 32, 36–38 Cole, Kim 121 Collings, Jane 189 Compernolle, Rémi A. van 119, 127, 137 Conrad, Reuben 158 Cook, Haruko M. 3, 8, 55, 62, 71, 117, 120, 122, 124, 211 Cook, Vivian 74–75, 163, 169, 179, 180 Corbie-Smith, Giselle 189 Coste, Daniel 75 Coulmas, Florian 212 Culpeper, Jonathan 3, 13, 27, 30, 92, 100, 126, 189, 203, 250 Dailey-O’Cain, Jennifer 97 Davies, Eirlys E. 2 Demuth, Katherine 215–216, 220 Deters, Ping 121

260

Author index

Dewaele, Jean-Marc 30 Dörnyei, Zoltán 46, 132 Duff, Patricia A. 156, 217 Dunn, Cynthia Dickel 212 Duranti, Alessandro 217, 255 Eckert, Penelope 3, 81, 186–187 Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria 33, 156, 160 Edmondson, Willis J. 248, Eelen, Gino 2, 14, 24, 26–28, 92, 116, 118, 123, 250 Ehrhardt, Claus 88 Ellis, Rod 34 Ely, Richard 231 Emmorey, Karen 164, 178–179, 181 Erickson, Rebecca J. 204 Ervin-Tripp, Susan 159 Escandell-Vidal, Victoria 7, 121, 126 Eslami, Zohreh R. 32 Etienne, Corinne 124 Félix-Brasdefer, J. César 3, 34, 44 Ferguson, Charles A. 212 Firth, Alan 118, 252 Flewitt, Rosie 167 Fontana, Andrea 166 Fraser, Bruce F. 31 Frey, James H. 166 Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar 3, 7, 24–27, 30, 98, 115, 119, 123, 125, 143, 251 García-Pastor, María Dolores 24, 188 Garrett, Paul B. 215 Gegeo, David W. 125, 215 Geis, Michael L. 2 George, Johnny Earl 155–156, 159 Geyer, Naomi 55 Gibbs, Graham 189 Gilley, Kay 204 Gilman, Albert 37 Gleason, Jean Berko 215, 231 Goffman, Erving 9, 12, 81–82, 123, 214–215, 227 Golato, Andrea 120, 122 Goodwin, Marjorie H. 217 Gordon, David P. 159 Gordon, Jill 189

Graham, Sage L. 1, 81, 189, 192, 256 Grainger, Karen 25–26, 37, 117 Grant, Lynn 83 Gregory, Susan 158 Greif, Esther Blank 215 Gribkova, Bella 134, 139, 141 Grice, H. Paul 85, 187 Grove, Wendy J. C. 204 Gumperz, John J. 188, 233 Guo, Jiansheng 159 Gygax, Franziska 189–190, 192, 256 Hall, Kira 187, 190, 251 Halliday, Michael A. K. 62 Halpern, Jodi 198, 200 Hampton, Martin 186, 189 Hannarohg, Charn 61 Harlow, Linda L. 2 Hasan, R. 62 Hasler-Barker, Maria 3 Hassall, Timothy 125 Haugh, Michael 1, 26, 27, 99, 100, 187, 189, 250–253 Hayashi, Makoto 227 He, Agnes Weiyun 217 Heinrich, Patrick 126 Hendry, Joy 217 Hill, Jane H. 214 Hochschild, Arlie Russell 204 Holmes, Janet 33, 81, 92, 118 Hood, Lois 216 Houck, Noël R. 39 House, Juliane 2, 4, 13, 122, 125–126, 156, 160, Ch. 9, 255 Howard, Kathryn M. 120, 188, 212 Hoza, Jack Eugene 155, 159, 176 Huang, Mei-chen 115–116 Hulstijn, Jan H. 118 Hutchby, Ian 90 Huth, Thorsten 116, 125, 134 Hymes, Dell H. 2, 30, 115, 117, 119, 213 Ide, Sachiko 25, 54–55, 116, 215–216, 233 Ifantidou Elly 45 Ikeda, Keiko 122 Ingram, Gordon P. D. 12 Ishida, Kazutoh 3

Author index

Ishida, Midori 120 Ishihara, Noriko 3, 32, 37–38, 124–125, 127 Itamura, Hidenori 61 Iwasaki, Noriko 3, 76, 116–117 Jacoby, Sally 213 Janney, Richard W. 27, 29, 45 Jeon, Eun Hee 156, 160 Johnston, Trevor 163 Jones, Rodney H. 189 Kádár, Dániel Z. 1, 27, 99, 187, 189, 250– 251, 253, 256 Kampf, Zohar 224, 236 Karachaliou, Rania 34 Karchmer, Michael A. 158, 160 Kasman, Deborah 189 Kasper, Gabriele 2–3, 24, 26, 29, 32–33, 36, 45, 83, 87, 94, 103, 115, 118, 120–122, 124–125, 156–157, 160–162, 164, 166– 167, 173, 175, 177, 248–249 Kawade, Saiki 162 Kaya, Tadayoshi 156, 160 Kimura, Yohji G. 61 Koenig, Regula 189, 191–192, 194, 202–205 Kojima, Hideo 217 Kondo, Dorinne K. 217 Kondo, Sachiko 32 Kramsch, Claire 75, 124 Kulick, Don 213–214 Kumagai, Yuri 124 Kumai, Hiroyuki 55 Kuwayama, Takami 217 Kyle, Jim G. 157 Kyratzis, Amy 217 Lakoff, Robin Tolmach 2, 24, 186–187 Lampert, Martin 159 Langlotz, Andreas 203, 256 Lave, Jean 81 Lebra, Takie Sugiyama 217, 232 Leech, Geoffrey 2, 24, 117–118, 121, 130, 156–157, 187–188, 211 León, Lourdes de 214 LeTendre, Gerald K. 217 Leung, Constant 26, 28

261

Levinson, Stephen C. 2, 6, 10, 23–25, 27– 29, 31–33, 35–36, 45–46, 54–55, 81, 85, 99, 116, 123, 131, 187, 215, 224, 248–249, 251 Liebscher, Grit 97 Lipscomb, Thomas J. 230 Little, David 114, 135–136 Lo, Adrienne 120, 188, 212 LoCastro Virginia 121 Locher, Miriam A. Ch. 1, 25–27, 29, 45, 76, 81–82, 88, 99, 103, 114–115, 118–120, 123, 143, 181, Ch. 7, 241, 249–251, 256 Long, Michael H. 35 Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria 251 Lörscher, Wolfgang 2, 115 MacLeod, Anna 189 MacQueen, Kathleen M. 194 Maguire, Peter 193, 198, 204 Maíz Arévalo, Carmen 25 Mann, Karen 189 Mapson, Rachel 10–11, 13, Ch. 6, 249, 256 Marks Greenfield, Patricia 215 Marriott, Helen 2, 120 Martínez-Flor, Alicia 46, 156, 160, 249 Matsumoto, Yoshiko 3, 54–55, 126, 215 Matsumura, Shoichi 161 Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 62 Maybin, Janet 215 McCabe, Allyssa 230 McConnell-Ginet, Sally 81 McGloin, Naomi Hanaoka 59 Meier, Ardith J. 2, 30, 114, 116, 119, 191, 192, 251 Miller, Elizabeth R. 118 Mills, Sara 1–2, 24, 26–28, 30, 45, 81–82, 92, 118, 189, 250, 256 Mindess, Anna 159, 171 Mitchell, Ross E. 158, 160 Miura, Akira 59 Mohan, Bernard A. 138 Moody, Bill 165 Moon, Jenny 189 Moore, Leslie C. 75, 214–215 Mori, Junko 3, 119, 124

262

Author index

Morita, Emi 228, 233 Mugford, Gerrard 126, 134 Nakamura, Keiko 237 Nakane, Chie 117, 122–123, 222 Namey, Emily 194 Newby, David 123, 134, 140, 142 North, Brian 135 O’Driscoll, Jim 12, 26, 31, 37, 46, 116, 131 O’Keeffe, Anne 38, 84–85 Ochs, Elinor 2–3, 125, 159, 187, 213–214, 216–217, 255 Ogiermann, Eva 45 Ohta, Amy Snyder 3, 121 Okamoto, Shigeko 3, 55, 126 Oliver, Rose R. 216 Olshtain, Elite 115, 224 Omar, Alwiya. S. 121 Otsuji, Emi 3 Oxford, Rebecca L. 98 Oyebode, Femi 190 Padilla Cruz, Manuel 83, 126–127, 135, 137 Palmer, Adrian 132 Paranjape, Anuradha 186, 189 Pavlenko, Aneta 124, 126, 142, 164 Pearson, Lynn 3 Pennington, Martha C. 157, 162 Perelmutter, Renee 251 Perlmann, Rivka Y. 215 Peters, Ann M. 215 Pfifferling, John H. 204 Pietrosemoli, Lourdes 158, 163 Pitceathly, Carolyn 193, 198, 204 Pizziconi, Barbara Ch. 1, 25, 29, 31, 53, 56, 74, 76, 92, 103, Ch. 5, 181, 193, 200, 205, 216, 241, 249–250, 256 Platt, Heidi 25 Platt, John T. 25 Polanyi, Lidia 124, 126, 134 Powers, Stephen 158 Pyers, Jennie E. 164, 178–179, 181 Rabain-Jamin, Jacqueline 214 Rampton, Ben 137 Richards, Jack C. 24

Rieger, Caroline L. 8–9, 13, Ch. 4, 248–250, 256 Riley, Philip 163 Roberts, Celia 188 Roever, Carsten 87, 94, 103, 122, 125 Rogoff, Barbara 217 Rose, Kenneth R. 2, 83, 120, 122, 125, 159, 161–162, 173, 179, 187, 249 Ross, Steven J. 123 Roush, Daniel 155, 159, 176 Safont Jordá, Maria Pilar 249 Sarangi, Srikant 123 Sasaki, Miyuki 122 Sato, Shinji 124 Satoh, Akira 61 Saville-Troike, Muriel 212 Sax, Kelly 124 Scarcella, Robin 2, 115, 117 Schauer, Gila A. 117, 122 Schegloff, Emanuel A. 215, 224 Schembri, Adam 163 Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2, 213–214, 216–217, 255 Schmidt, Richard 2, 7, 26, 34–35, 125, 177 Schneider, Klaus P. 30, 36, 118, 252 Schulze, Rainer 2, 115 Scialdone, Maria Paola 84 Scollon, Ron 11, 123, 168, 171, 187–189, 200, 214 Scollon, Suzanne W. 11, 123, 168, 171, 187– 189, 200, 214 Searle, John 117 Selinker, Larry 125 Shafer, Audrey 189 Shapiro, Johanna 189 Shardakova, Marya 126 Sharifian, Farzad 123 Shea, David P. 119–121, 124, 161 Shimizu, Takafumi 3 Shively, Rachel Louise 121 Shohet, Merav 215 Siegal, Meryl 3, 83, 121, 124 Sifianou, Maria 3, 6–7, 10, 12–13, Ch. 2, 118–119, 123, 131, 139, 143, 248, 257 Silva, Antonio José Bacelar da 125 Silverman, David 166

Author index

Silverstein, Michael 213, 223 Sirota, Karen Grainer 211 Snow, Catherine E. 2, 125, 156, 159–160, 169 Solomon, Olga 216 Spencer-Oatey, Helen 1, 3, 28–29, 31, 115, 119, 123, 188, 190, 203 Starkey, Hugh 134, 139, 141 Starks, Donna 83 Sterponi, Laura 216 Strauss, Claudia 121, 123 Strauss, Susan 228 Stude, Juliane 227 SturtzSreetharan, Cindi L. 237 Sugawara, Kazuyoshi 84 Sugimoto, Naomi 233 Sutton-Spence, Rachel 158–159, 163, 167, 181, 256 Swain, Merrill 115, 121 Taguchi, Naoko 3, 115, 119, 122, 160–162, 173, 175 Takada, Akira 214 Takahashi, Minako 223 Takahashi, Satomi 3, 122, 125, 156, 160, 163 Takekuro, Makiko 212 Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen 119–120, 122 Tanaka, Shigenori 114, 162 Tannen, Deborah 187, 214 Tarone, Elaine 3, 124–125 Tateyama, Yumiko 3, 125 Tatsuki, Donna H. 39 Taylor, Brendan 61 Terkourafi, Marina 27–28, 116, 131 Thomas, Jenny 24, 45, 121, 156–157, 160– 162, 172–173, 175, 180, 188 Thomson, Chihiro Kinoshita 3 Thornbury, Scott 25 Thoutenhoofd, Ernst D. 158 Thurrell, Sara 132

263

Tischler, Victoria 190, 193, 205 Tobin, Joseph J. 228 Trosborg, Anna 115 Tryggvason, Marja-Terttu 84 Tsoulas, George 34 Turner, Ken 119 Tyler Andrea 123 Tzanne, Angeliki 6–7, 10, 13, Ch. 2, 119, 131, 139, 143, 248, 257 Upadhyay, Shiv R. 251 Usó-Juan, Esther 25, 44–46 Valax, Philippe 114, 137, 141 Velasco Sacristán, María Sol 25 Wagner, Johannes 118 Waters, Sophia 251 Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann 125, 215 Watton, Pete 189 Watts, Richard J. 1–2, 23–24, 27–29, 32, 45, 81–82, 115–116, 118–119, 123, 138, 188, 190, 192, 251–252 Wenger, Etienne 81, 186–187 White, Ron 162, 179 Whiteside, Anne 124 Wichmann, Anne 3 Wolfson, Nessa 26, 83, 156, 160, 168, 181 Woll, Bencie 157–159, 163, 167 Woodfield, Helen 156, 160, 181, 156 Yamaji, Harumi 55 Yoshimi, Dina Rudolph 121 Yu, Kyong-Ae 85 Žegarac, Vladimir 123, 157, 162 Zeshan, Ulrike 164 Zuengler, Jane 118, 121

Subject index acculturation 5, 139 action-oriented approach 127, 128, 139 activity type see frame addressee honorific(s) see honorific(s) advanced learners see learner proficiency levels affect 164, 178, 221, 222, 236, 237 – key 236, 238 affective – dimension 128 – remark 96 – stance see stance agent (social) 74, 127, 128, 139 aggression 29, 33, 230, 238, 239, 250 alignment 228, 233 apology see speech acts appropriate see also inappropriate, (in)appropriate – as evaluative term 140 – behaviour 46, 82, 90, 91, 107, 119, 121, 127, 136, 137, 170, 187, 202, 228, 233, 251 – commentaries 92 – discourse 31 – impoliteness 251 – expression 216 – language 83, 173, 236 – meaning 122 – norms 204 – politeness strategy 162 – register 138 – stance 122, 214, 238 – usage 7, 8, 36, 71, 115, 124, 130, 159, 160, 161, 170, 172 appropriateness 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 39, 92, 119, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139fn, 142, 160 – judgements of 39, 122, 159 – see also inappropriateness, (in)appropriateness attitude 70, 72, 74, 87, 92, 117, 118, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 142, 213 assessment 9, 26, 29, 30, 46, 71, 188, 199, 203, 204, 216, 224, 228, 229, 232, 236, 239, 240

– see also evaluation audience – design 68, 73, 75 – imagined 73, 96 – target 54, 61, 62, 64–75 authentic – data 36, 79, 80, 250, 253 – language/communication/contexts of use 46, 80, 88, 92, 103, 117, 126, 139 – pedagogic material 61, 79, 80, 88, 103, 140 autonomous learning see learning avoidance strategy see strategy awareness 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 30, 31, 35, 54, 59, 61, 62, 66, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 100, 102, 103, 124, 127, 132, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 155, 157, 162, 173, 187, 188, 196, 197, 200, 201, 203, 205, 249, 252 – intercultural 80, 129 – metapragmatic 3, 7, 12, 13, 34, 223, 227, 247, 248 – pragmatic 8, 32, 38, 45, 160, 175, 252 – raising 32, 37, 38, 63, 76, 103, 139, 139fn, 186, 189, 193, 198, 249, 252 – raising activities/techniques 7, 10, 11, 249 – sociolinguistic 34, 128 – sociocultural 26 behaviour 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 80, 80fn, 81–84, 86, 89–91, 94–95, 97–103, 116, 121, 123, 124, 130, 133, 164, 170, 191, 192, 200–201, 203, 205, 213 217, 228, 250, 251 – communicative 159, 211, 214, 216, 227 – embodied/physical 215, 230, 233 – (in)appropriate 30, 46, 76, 83, 121fn, 127, 136, 170, 172, 185, 187, 188, 189, 228, 251 – impolite 3, 46, 80, 83, 86, 87 – non-verbal/non-linguistic 12, 29, 85, 101, 236 – norms of 140, 204 – offensive 72–74, 95, 126, 250, 252 – polite 3, 86, 46 87, 90, 177

Subject index

– – – – –

politic 138, 140 pragmatic 32, 36, 83, 119, 218, 220 ritual 129, 133 sociopragmatic 11, 164, 180 verbal/linguistic 14, 29, 85, 101, 113, 115, 124, 236 beliefs 6, 9, 13, 82, 123, 127, 129, 133, 134, 136, 213 bilingual see speaker bilingualism 163 – bi-modal 164, 168, 169, 175, 180 bi-modal bilingual see speaker blended transfer see transfer British Sign Language (BSL) 5, 10, 11, Ch. 6, 247, 249 Brown and Levinson’s politeness model see models of politeness CEFR see Common European Framework of Reference for Languages code-blending 164, 181 code-switching 97, 163, 164 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 5, 10, 25, 46, 74, Ch. 5 communication – intercultural 118, 124, 162, 176, 253 – interethnic 188 – non-verbal 193, 201 – phatic 88 communication skills Ch. 7 – interpersonal 11 – transactional 11, 185, 193–197 communicative competence see competence Community of Practice (CoP) 81, 138, 186, 201, 204 competence – communicative 2, 25, 83, 115, 117, 128, 129, 135 – grammatical 122 – intercultural 1, 9, 139, 253 – linguistic 83, 87 – pragmalinguistic 92 – pragmatic 24, 36, 94, 119, 120, 122fn, 128, 130, 132, 141, 142, 187, 190 – sociocultural 102, 134fn, 141

265

– sociolinguistic 127, 128, 130, 131, 132 – sociopragmatic 45 conflict 227, 228–230, 231, 240 correctness 40, 124, 126, 127 co-construction 120, 122, 139, 213, 215, 227, 237, 251 cross-cultural variation 118, 135 cultural – amplification 216 – norms see norms – schema see schema – values see values culture 8, 10, 32, 54, 75, 84, 119, 123, 128, 130, 131fn, 132, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 158, 160, 163, 171, 173, 175, 193fn, 214, 216, 217, 249, 250, 251 – target 84, 123, 123fn culture-specificity 4, 116, 250, 251 deference 8, 31, 33, 53, 54, 56, 71, 122 deferential – forms 31, 56, 47, 60, 68fn, 69fn, 71, 72fn – language 31 – register see register directness 34, 159, 171 – see also indirectness discernment 54, 55, 58, 215, 216, 217, 227, 240 discourse 27, 28, 36, 45, 79, 117fn, 130, 132 – cultural/ideological 124, 168 – marker 93, 122 – system 11, 187, 188, 189fn, 205 discursive approach, see models of politeness distance 2, 7, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 58, 116, 118, 122, 163, 188, 202, 252 elicited imitation 216, 217, 223–225, 228– 232, 234, 237, 239 emergent nature of (im)politeness 10, 14, 26, 80, 132, 253 emotions 191, 192, 195, 197, 198, 202–204 empathy 185, 186, 193, 196, 197, 198, 198fn, 202, 202fn, 204, 216

266

Subject index

English 5, 8, 10, 11, 53, 60, 63, 64, 87, 91– 95, 97, 98, 104, 116, 132, 158, 159, 166, 168, 170, 171, 175–180, 185, 186, 187, 188, 214, 219, 228fn – as L1 84, 86, 94, 157, 164, 165, 190 – as L2 117, 123, 157, 161, 162, 165 epistemic stance see stance evaluation 2, 5, 9, 13, 26, 27, 80, 91, 92, 94, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 116, 132fn, 161, 201, 216, 228 – see also assessment evaluative metapragmatic comments 93, 94, 116 eye contact 174, 177, 178, 180, 186, 193fn experiential learning see learning expert–novice interaction see interaction explicit – instruction see instruction – teaching/tuition see instruction expressions of gratitude see speech acts, thanks face 12, 28fn, 54, 81, 116, 122, 125fn, 163, 215, 216, 224, 225, 227, 238, 240 – challenging 90 – maintaining 90, 163 – saving 125fn – threatening 29, 99, 130, 163, 188, 224 face-to-face interaction see interaction facework 12, 29, 81 facial expression 156, 164, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 198, 223, 236, 237, 238, 239 foreign language – learning 23, 134fn – learners 25, 31, 33, 45, 59, 252 – teachers 32, 45 – teaching/instruction 23, 25, 31, 152 formal – language forms 31, 39, 64, 117, 126, 130, 236 – register 65, 67, 70, 71, 131, 132fn, 136, 138, 142 formality 11, 28, 30, 31, 33, 55, 65, 100, 122, 163 formula 34, 83, 84, 85, 90, 125fn, 130, 131, 142, 212

formulaic – expression 85, 212, 213, 215, 238 – routine 131, 135, 136, 139, 215 form-function mapping 36, 40, 121fn, 252 frame 9, 123, 187 – see also schema gender 3, 33, 81, 82, 89, 92, 94, 95, 100, 133, 237 German 60, Ch. 4, 137, 138, 227 gesture 75, 90, 163, 166, 176, 213 grammar, in foreign language instruction 13, 25, 35, 94, 124 grammatical competence see competence gratitude see speech acts, thanks Greek Ch. 2 greetings see speech acts heritage language learner 217, 223 honorific system see honorific(s) honorification 117 honorific(s) Ch. 3, 122 – marker 3, 117 – indexical properties of 3, 8, 54-56, 59, 66, 72, 73, 74–76, 232, 237, 239, 240 – system 3, 5, 8, 9, 114, 117, 120, 136, 212, 216, 252 humble form/expression 56, 58 identity – construction 9, 187, 188, 192, 201, 203, 204, 213, 251 – institutional 55, 228 – national 133 – personal 82, 128, 133, 134, 142, 161 – professional 201 – social 3, 55, 62, 71, 74, 80, 114, 118, 121, 125fn, 139, 140, 189, 213, 222, 223, 228, 237, 240 ideology 9, 11, 12, 13, 28, 53, 63, 85, 98, 121, 123, 124, 133, 134, 141, 142, 202, 213 – gender 9, 92, 94 – language 13, 60, 61, 75, 124, 126, 127 – political 92 inappropriate see also (in)appropriate, appropriate

Subject index

– as evaluative term 94, 97, 99, 104, 105, 106 – behaviour 82, 83, 90, 91, 95, 100, 251 – commentaries 94 – facial expressions 178 – gestures 163 – laughter 201 – register 138 – stance 214 – transfer see transfer – use 157 inappropriateness 87, 117, 161 (in)appropriateness 30, 160, 169 (in)appropriate – behaviour see behaviour – utterance 33 imagined audience see audience implicit socialization see socialization impoliteness 27, 30, 46, 87, 99, 118, 126, 130, 131, 134, 137, 175, 180, Ch. 9 – teaching of 126, 134, 137 imposition 7, 29, 33, 35, 36, 38, 42, 122, 161, 224, 252 indexical – nature of politeness 1, 2, 10, 120 – properties of honorifics, see honorific(s) indexicality 3, 5, 7, 14, 115, 118, 125fn, 135fn, 138, 213, 214, 240 indirectness 34, 46, 85, 117, 119, 125fn, 159, 188 – see also directness informal – language forms 11, 126, 130, 236, 238 – register 101, 132fn, 136, 138, 142 – instruction see instruction informality 30, 39, 100, 120fn, 163 instruction 156, 160, 161, 164, 167, 172, 173, 178, 180 – formal 156, 157, 160, 164, 165, 167, 172, 173, 175, 180, 212, 213 – explicit 32fn, 35, 62, 64, 87, 125, 126, 127, 139, 156, 160, 161, 162, 164, 168, 173, 174, 178, 180, 204, 213, 216, 217, 220, 224, 233, 248 – informal 212, 238 – see also teaching

267

intention ((im)polite) 9, 28fn, 54, 56, 83, 99, 100, 103, 136 interaction – caregiver–child Ch. 8 – child–sibling Ch. 8 – child–child Ch. 8 – expert–novice 121, 124, 217 – face-to-face 170, 251 – naturally occurring 211, 218 – native speaker–non-native speaker 124, 134, 136, 137, 161 – sequential organization of 33, 36, 45, 120, 125fn, 132fn, 215 interactional – needs 216, 224, 225, 227, 238, 240 – routine 215 – wants 12, 240 intercultural – approach 128 – communication see communication – competence see competence – context 86, 165 – encounter 3, 80, 83, 90, 91, 102, 117, 122 – interaction 140 – miscommunication 126 – skills 133 – stereotyping 134fn interethnic communication see communication interlanguage – context 12 – pragmatics 2, 7, 23, 24–25, 32, 33, 34, 115, 156–157 interpersonal – communication skills Ch. 7, see communication skills – pragmatics 1fn, 80, 81, 118, 189, 192, 203 interpretation frames see frame intracultural variability 9, 84, 91, 141 in-group 56, 59, 212 Japanese 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 114, 116, 117, 120fn, 122, 162, 179, 193fn, 248 – as L1 Ch. 3, Ch. 8 – bilingual Ch. 8 – Sign Language 11, 155

268

Subject index

knowledge – metalinguistic 103 – pragmalinguistic 121, 121fn – pragmatic 11, 186, 188, 103 – sociopragmatic 173 L2 curriculum 10, 37–38, 79, 173 language – first 80fn, 155, 158, 165, 187, 190, 205, 218, 240 – second 24, 27, 32, 116, 186, 205, 217, 218, 240 – heritage 217, 218, 223 – ideology 13, 124 – learning 1, 5, 10, 14, 23, 28, 34, 36, 74, 113, 122, 128, 134fn, 137, 161, 188, 247 – socialization see socialization language acquisition 115, 118 – first 2, 10, 27, 168 – second 1, 2, 4, 10, 24, 27, 45, 156 learner proficiency levels 10, 34, 114, 115, 127, 128, 135–139, 141, 142 – advanced 9, 34, 85, 121, 122fn, 252 – beginner 122fn – intermediate 35–45, 63, 122fn – low 29, 31 – lower intermediate 31, 35–45 – post-beginner 9 learning – autonomous 37, 139 – experiential 140, 156, 161, 167, 170, 171, 172 level of imposition see imposition lingua franca 87, 92, 93, 253 linguistic – competence see competence – strategy see strategy – transfer see transfer marker – discourse 93, 122 – honorific see honorific(s) – non-manual 156, 19, 174, 178, 179 – of social relation 131, 134, 136 – politeness 33, 36, 117, 156, 159, 162, 177, 178, 179

– pragmalinguistic 178 – pragmatic 30, 34fn, 103 – quotative 227, 232 – solidarity 34 – syntactic 164 mediated communication 232 membership categorization 201 metalinguistic knowledge see knowledge metalinguistic reflection 63 metapragmatic – awareness see awareness – comment 11, 13, 94, 126, 160, 169, 185, 188, 190, 192, 201, 203, 204 – induction 125 – reflection 7 miscommunication 121fn, 122, 126, 162 models of politeness – Brown and Levinson 6, 7, 10, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 45, 46, 54, 55, 116–117, 119, 122, 131, 187, 215, 224, 248, 249, 251 – discursive approach 44, 120, 188, 250 – Leech 2, 24, 117, 118, 130, 187 – multilevel 251 modesty 118fn, 122, 123 monolingual speaker see speaker moral – assessment 224–228, 236 – norms see norms – order 13, 126, 212, 215, 240 – transgression 224 morality 213, 228 multilevel model of (im)politeness see models of politeness native – signer 156 – speaker (NS) 23, 26, 33, 58, 74–75, 84, 86, 120, 124, 135fn, 136, 137, 160, 161, 168, 179, 187, 223, 253 native speaker–non-native speaker interaction see interaction naturally occurring interaction see interaction negative politeness see politeness negative stereotyping see stereotyping

Subject index

negative pragmalinguistic transfer see transfer negative transfer see transfer negotiation of – culture 142 – identity 2, 62, 189 – norms 102, 250 – politeness 2, 13, 74, 86, 157 – relational work 142 – relationships 29, 62, 80, 82, 88–91, 118 – roles 81 – style 159 non-honorific forms 55, 120fn, 212, 216, 221fn non-linguistic – sign 75 – transfer see transfer non-manual politeness marker see marker non-native speaker (NNS) 11, 24, 27, 32, 120, 124, 134 non-verbal – behaviour see behaviour – communication see communication non-use of honorifics see honorific(s) normative – behaviour 121, 249 – beliefs 8, 13 – convention 128 – function 12 – ideology 134 – understanding 250 – use 58 – variety 124 norms – cultural 91, 103, 156, 158, 159–161, 168, 171, 177 – moral 227, see also moral order – non-shared 102 – (im)politeness 9, 118, 155, 156, 159, 162, 168, 170, 178, 180, 203, 249 – pragmalinguistic 172 – pragmatic 31, 124, 160, 161, 248 – social 12, 27, 31, 121fn, 156, 211, 227, 228, 240 – sociopragmatic 7, 14, 98, 121, 142, 162, 172, 175, 177, 178, 180

269

– target culture/community 7, 46, 82, 83, 85, 103, 12, 124, 140, 155, 156, 139 160, 161, 162, 164, 168, 171, 175, 177, 178, 180, 189, 248 – violation of 91 Noticing Hypothesis 7, 125 observation (as means of acquiring cultural norms) 74, 117, 170, 171, 172, 175 offence see behaviour, offensive offer see speech acts other-orientation 217 out-group 56, 59 over-polite 80fn paraphrasing 98, 103 patterns of behaviour see behaviour persona 14, 88, 120, 171, 213, 237 personal – identity see identity – ideology see ideology – values 133 personality 100, 128, 133–134, 142, 171 phatic communication see communication plurilingualism 113 politeness – conventions 25, 130–132, 134, 136 – definition of 9, 24, 87, 92, 100–102, 115– 119, 130, 166 – marker see marker – model see models of politeness – negative 31, 37, 54, 84, 131 – positive 31, 37, 84 – routine see routine – strategy 28, 45, 54, 162, 163, 179 political ideology see ideology polylogic online spaces 251 positive transfer see transfer postmodern approach 6, 25–27, 248 power 7, 33, 35, 36, 38, 58, 116, 118, 122, 135fn, 230, 252 – relative 7, 29 – social 35 pragmalinguistic – competence see competence – error 161

270

Subject index

– failure 121fn, 126, 161 – feature 34, 168, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180 – function 122, 125 – knowledge see knowledge – limitation 92 – marker see marker – norms see norms – resource 121fn, 174, 175 – skills 25, 94, 98 – strategy 8, 34, 42, 91 – transfer see transfer pragmalinguistics 156, 161, 163, 173, 188 pragmatic – awareness see awareness – behaviour see behaviour – competence see competence – development 4, 34, 94, 137 – failure 30, 32fn, 120, 157 – knowledge see knowledge – marker see marker – misunderstanding 85 – norms see norms – socialization see socialization – transfer see transfer pragmatics – teaching of 30, 34, 36, 160, 248 – in language teaching 188, 247 – interlanguage 7, 23, 24, 32, 33, 115, 156, 157, 247 prefabricated speech 34 prescriptive rules 45 presentation of self 118, 187, 190, 197–203 productive competence see competence proficiency level see learner proficiency levels prompting Ch. 8 – triadic 211, 217, 225, 240 raising awareness see awareness rapport 96, 186, 193, 196, 197–200, 202, 203, 204 – management 1fn, 29, 115, 119 receptive competence see competence referent honorifics see honorific(s) refusal see speech acts

register 11, 93, 94, 103, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 142, 173, 213 – deferential 70, 77 relational work 1fn, 29, 45, 81–82, 114, 119, 120, 141, 142, 186, 188, 190, 192, 197, 200, 201, 203–205 relative power see power request see speech acts resistance 124, 133, 175 respect 13, Ch. 3, 85, 94, 95, 99, 100, 193fn, 214 role-play see task routine – politeness 12, Ch. 8 rude as evaluative term 11, 82, 83, 116, 173, 175, 176, 188, 202, 203, 204 sarcasm 39fn, 55, 92, 237 scaffolding 121, 139, 221 schema 123, 132, 134, 141 scenario see script script 132 sequential organization of interactions see interaction social – action 118, 121fn, 212, 213, 215, 220, 221, 224, 233, 239, 240 – actor 114, 142, 189fn – agent see agent – distance see distance – hierarchy 58, 222 – identity see identity – norms see norms – order 212, 215, 240, 252 – persona see persona – power see power – practice 4, 27, 81, 118, 138, 142, 190, 213, 251, 253 – relationships 1, 14, 29, 37, 40, 55, 58, 62, 73, 85, 113-115, 117fn, 120, 125fn, 129, 131, 134, 136, 189fn, 216, 222, 233 – status 58 – variable 33, 42, 45, 58 socialization – implicit 251

Subject index

– language 2, 4, 142, 156, 159, 167, 213– 218, 219, 220, 240 – pragmatic 124, 159, 164, 167, 168, 170 – practices 133, 218, 220 sociocultural – approach 10, 13, 118, 121 – competence see competence – ideology see ideology – schema see schema sociolinguistically appropriate see appropriateness sociopragmatic 161, 188 – behaviour see behaviour – conflict 34 – competence see competence – development 159 – error 161 – failure 121fn, 126 – goal 35 – knowledge see knowledge – norms see norms – skills 25 – transfer see transfer sociopragmatics – teaching of 173, 180 solidarity 11, 23, 31, 33, 34, 37, 42 speaker – bilingual 86,181, 219, 249 – bi-modal bilingual 57, 163–165, 175, 179, 181 – membership 58 – monolingual 75, 138, 164, 180, 218 – plurilingual 138 speech acts – apologies 212, 220, 224, 225, 231, 232– 238, 240 – greetings 131, 136, 171, 212, 213, 215, 220, 224 – offers 212, 216, 220 – refusals 36, 38, 43, 44 – requests 33, 35–45, 94, 121fn, 159, 161, 166, 169, 211–218, 220, 224, 225, 227, 230, 233, 236, 237, 239 – thanks 84, 100, 131, 162, 168, 169, 178, 179, 215, 217, 221, 225, 232 speech community 79, 86, 92

271

stance 2, 3, 11, 13, 54, 71, 72, 74, 114, 120, 122, 124, 125fn, 138, 139, 202, 212, 213, 214, 215, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240 – affective 3, 125fn, 138, 213, 215, 233, 239, 240 – epistemic 213 – negotiation of 3, 72, 74 standard 28, 75, 124, 127 stereotyping 8, 9, 59, 75, 84, 94, 117, 120, 123, 125, 133, 134fn, 139, 140, 188, 200, 236 strategy – avoidance 98, 102, 177 – politeness see politeness study abroad 117, 121, 139, 161, 164 subjective perceptions 33 substitutions 98, 103 systemic functional linguistics 62 target audience see audience task – reflective writing 11, Ch. 7, 247 – role-play 44, 103, 117fn, 122 – translation 8, 9, 32fn, Ch. 3, 247, 248 teaching see also instruction – impoliteness see impoliteness – material 8, 11, 79, 83, 91–92, 127 – of politeness routines Ch. 8 – politeness see politeness textbook 8, 26, 33, 53, 56–59, 70, 84, 90, 91, 103, 118, 124, 126, 199 thanks see speech acts turn-taking 44, 83, 125fn, 130, 131, 139fn, 158, 174, 177 training-induced stereotypification see stereotyping transactional communication skills see communication skills transfer – blended 155, 179, 180–181 – linguistic 157 – negative 122, 157, 177, 178 – non-linguistic 163 – positive 122, 157 – pragmatic 1, 33, 155, 157, 162–164, 165, 168, 177, 178, 180

272

Subject index

– pragmalinguistic 34, 93, 94, 188 – sociopragmatic 157, 161, 163, 177 transferability constraints 164 translation see task triadic prompting see prompting 211, 217, 225, 240 tuition see instruction, teaching

universals 2, 4, 9, 27, 54, 83, 84, 116, 124, 127, 142, 175, 177, 249, 251 values 6, 12, 81, 83, 92, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 140, 156, 169, 213, 217 – cultural 127, 217, 222, 232 year abroad see study abroad