Speech Act Performance : Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues [1 ed.] 9789027288363, 9789027219893

Citation preview

Speech Act Performance

Language Learning & Language Teaching (LL<) The LL< monograph series publishes monographs, edited volumes and text books on applied and methodological issues in the field of language pedagogy. The focus of the series is on subjects such as classroom discourse and interaction; language diversity in educational settings; bilingual education; language testing and language assessment; teaching methods and teaching performance; learning trajectories in second language acquisition; and written language learning in educational settings.

Editors Nina Spada

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl Center for Language Study Yale University

Volume 26 Speech Act Performance. Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues Edited by Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

Speech Act Performance Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues Edited by

Alicia Martínez-Flor Esther Usó-Juan University Jaume I, Castelló

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Speech act performance : theoretical, empirical and methodological issues / edited by Alicia Martínez-Flor, Esther Usó-Juan. p. cm. (Language Learning & Language Teaching, issn 1569-9471 ; v. 26) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Speech acts (Linguistics) I. Martínez Flor, Alicia. II. Usó Juan, Esther. P95.55.S625   2010 401’.452--dc22 2009051897 isbn 978 90 272 1989 3 (Hb ; alk. paper) / isbn 978 90 272 1990 9 (Pb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8836 3 (Eb)

© 2010 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

To our loving children, David, Gerard, Javier and Ferran.

Table of contents Acknowledgements

ix

List of contributors

xi

Preface

xiii

section i.  Theoretical groundings Pragmatics and speech act performance Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

3

section ii.  Empirical foundations The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance Lisa M. Kuriscak Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTS, role plays, and verbal reports J. César Félix-Brasdefer

23

41

Conversation analysis and speech act performance Marta González-Lloret

57

Culture and its effect on speech act performance Ardith J. Meier

75

Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance Gila A. Schauer

91

Speech act performance in workplace settings Lynda Yates

109

The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance Satomi Takahashi

127

section iii.  Methodological innovations Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness Sachiko Kondo

145

 Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues

Complaints: How to gripe and establish rapport Diana Boxer Compliments and responses to compliments: Learning communication in context Noriko Ishihara

163

179

Disagreement: How to disagree agreeably Lewis H. Malamed

199

Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies Zohreh R. Eslami

217

Requests: A sociopragmatic approach Esther Usó-Juan

237

Suggestions: How social norms affect pragmatic behaviour Alicia Martínez-Flor

257

Index

275

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the reviewers for their time, comments and thoughtful suggestions on the chapter being asked to review. In alphabetical order, they are: Anne Barron (University of Bonn, Germany), Winnie Cheng (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong), Andrew D. Cohen (University of Minnesota, USA), Andrea Golato (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA), Myra M. Goldschmidt (The Pennsylvania State University, USA), Sandra Harris (Nottingham Trent University, UK), Timothy Hassall (The Australian National University, Australia), Noel Houck (California State Polytechnic University, USA), Juliane House (University of Hamburg, Germany), Kazutoh Ishida (University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, USA), Dale A. Koike (University of Texas at Austin, USA), Shoichi Matsumura (Ryukoku University, Japan), Tarja Nikula (University of Jyväskylä, Finland), Maria Sabaté i Dalmau (University of Barcelona, Spain), Andy Seto (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong), Julie M. Sykes (University of New Mexico, USA), Yumiko Tateyama (University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA), Donna Tatsuki (Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Japan) and Sayoko Yamashita (Meikai University, Japan). Thanks also go to the research project we are involved in funded by (a) the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI2008-05241/FILO) and (b) Fundació Universitat Jaume I and Caixa Castelló-Bancaixa (08I447.01/1).

List of contributors Diana Boxer Department of Linguistics University of Florida 4131 Turlington Hall, Box 115454 Gainesville, FL 32611 USA [email protected] Zohreh R. Eslami Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-4232 USA [email protected] J. César Félix-Brasdefer Department of Spanish and Portuguese Indiana University Ballantine Hall 858 1020 East Kirkwood Ave. Bloomington, IN 47405 USA [email protected] Lewis H. Malamed General Education Center Tokai University 3-20-1 Orido Shimizu-ku, Shizuoka-shi 424-8610 Shizuoka-ken Japan [email protected] [email protected]

Marta González-Lloret Department of Languages and Literatures of Europe and the Americas University of Hawai‘i at Manoa 1890 East-West Rd. Moore Hall 483 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA [email protected] Noriko Ishihara Faculty of Business Administration Hosei University Fujimi 2-17-1, BT1707 Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8160 Japan [email protected], [email protected] Sachiko Kondo Department of English Language Sophia Junior College 999 Sannodai, Kamiohzuki, Hadano-shi Kanagawa-ken 257-0005 Japan [email protected] Lisa M. Kuriscak Department of Modern Languages and Classics Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 USA [email protected]

 Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues Alicia Martínez-Flor Department of English Studies Universitat Jaume I Campus Riu Sec, s/n 12110 Castelló Spain [email protected] Ardith J. Meier English Department University of Northern Iowa Baker Hall 117 Cedar Falls, IA 50613-0502 USA [email protected] Gila A. Schauer Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University Bowland College LA 1 4 YT UK [email protected]

Satomi Takahashi Department of Intercultural Communication Rikkyo University 3-34-1 Nishi-Ikebukuro, Toshima-ku 171-8501 Tokyo Japan [email protected] Esther Usó-Juan Department of English Studies Universitat Jaume I Campus Riu Sec, s/n 12110 Castelló Spain [email protected] Lynda Yates Department of Linguistics Macquarie University North Ryde 2109 Australia e-mail address: [email protected]

Preface Pragmatics examines how speakers use and interpret language in various contexts while interacting with different hearers. In the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and language pedagogy, the predominant theoretical framework for pragmatics is the speech act, an utterance that performs a particular function. Researchers in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have focused on learners’ production and comprehension of speech acts in target languages. In addition, they have expanded their agenda to investigate developmental patterns. The SLA studies provide a wealth of information for educators wishing to develop materials to teach speech acts to learners in second language (L2) and foreign language (FL) courses. At present, there exist a variety of resources in print and on the Internet about speech acts for educators and students. Readers who are unfamiliar with the field of ILP may ask Why are speech acts important? and Why do we need to teach speech acts in target languages? To answer the first question, one needs only to think about the language used in daily interactions to request things, compliment, complain, etc. When formulating a particular speech act, speakers take into consideration various factors such as the hearer(s), the context and motivations for the utterance. For example, an apology for a minor offense to a stranger, such as bumping into someone unintentionally, may merit a brief utterance of Excuse me or Sorry. In contrast, a speaker who apologises for a major offense to a close friend will likely include more strategies beyond the apology expression of I’m sorry, such as a reason for the offense (e.g. I wasn’t thinking) or promising not to offend in the future (e.g. It won’t happen again). By examining the varying formulations of speech acts, it is obvious that speakers make numerous decisions when undertaking a particular act in order to make it appropriate for the context and the hearer(s). With regard to the second question about the reasons for teaching speech acts, research on learners’ realisations and comprehension of these utterances has shown that the acquisition of pragmatics is not automatic as linguistic competence expands. In fact, studies of advanced learners, with more control of target language grammatical and lexical items and long-term immersion in target language environments, still have gaps in their pragmatic knowledge. While some similarities exist between languages for formulation of speech acts, there are also many differences about what to say and when to say it. Learners who apply the pragmatic rules of their native language and culture in interactions in a target language may,

 Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues

at the very least, create minor misunderstandings. In other more extreme cases, their utterances can lead to hard feelings and prejudice as native speaking hearers interpret the learners’ talk as rude or otherwise inappropriate. Instruction about speech acts is crucial for alleviating potential problems in cross-cultural encounters. In first language acquisition, children are taught explicitly about pragmatics (e.g. say please) and have countless opportunities for observation and feedback in order to learn how to realise speech act in their native languages. Investigations of pedagogy to teach speech acts indicate that L2/FL learners also benefit from explicit instruction in order to acquire pragmatic competence. This volume presents research on pragmatics and speech acts in L2/FL from multiple perspectives. The first section, Theoretical groundings, describes the field of pragmatics, with special attention to speech act theory. It outlines the necessary conditions for speech act learning in the classroom, namely those of input, output and feedback. The second section, Empirical foundations, focuses on research on speech act performance from various perspectives: (1) factors affecting speech act production by nonnative speakers (e.g. personality, aptitude, motivation, proficiency, culture and learning environments, including both study abroad and workplace settings), (2) issues related to instructional interventions, such as the teachability of pragmatics, the effects of strategy-based instruction and explicit and implicit pedagogical techniques, and (3) methods for analysing speech act data across multiple turns in interactions. The third section, Methodological innovations, offers descriptions of several speech acts and specific strategies to teach learners how to use them appropriately. The variety of speech acts include some widely studied functions, such as apologies or requests, along with others less common in ILP research (e.g. indirect complaints or disagreements). The chapters in this section propose various methods and instructional techniques to develop cross-cultural speech act competence in a target language, including exposure to input, awareness raising, data collection, analysis by learners, reflection and communicative practice. Suggestions are also given for creating materials for speech act instruction based on ethnographic research and language corpora. Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues is a welcome resource to help increase teaching of speech acts in L2/FL instructional contexts. It is a worthy contribution to the SLA and language pedagogy fields by providing an extensive overview of speech acts for researchers, language educators and teacher candidates. This book will be an invaluable reference for teaching language use to foster pragmatic competence. Lynn Pearson Bowling Green State University

section i

Theoretical groundings

Pragmatics and speech act performance Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan Universitat Jaume I

Pragmatics, a branch of linguistics which studies communicative actions in their sociocultural context, has been the focus of attention of a number of scholars over the last few decades (Rose & Kasper, 2001). Given the importance of this area of research to develop competent users of a given language, the present chapter first outlines its main defining characteristics. Then, among the different subareas included within this field, a detailed description of speech act theory is provided. The reminder of the chapter addresses the theoretical conditions needed for the learning of particular speech acts in instructed settings, namely exposure to pertinent input, opportunities for communicative practice and feedback.

1.  Introduction Pragmatics, the branch of linguistics devoted to examining language use in communication including speakers’ intentions when producing utterances in particular contexts, has aroused the interest of a number of scholars over the last four decades (Stalnaker, 1972; Leech, 1983; Levinson, 1983; Mey, 1993; Yule, 1996; Crystal, 1997; Verschueren, 1999; LoCastro, 2003). An interest in this particular discipline initially appeared as a reaction to Chomsky’s (1965) use of language as an abstract construct based on a competence theory in which grammar was paramount and should be mastered independently from the actual functions of language use. Leech (1983) encouraged a shift of direction within linguistics by proposing this new area of research (i.e. pragmatics) that paid attention to meaning in use rather than meaning in the abstract. In other words, language should be used as a means of communication and, consequently, performance rather than competence should be the main target goal for acquiring a particular target language (TL). In this respect, pragmatics has also been regarded as one of the grounding linguistic approaches for developing the notion of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), a construct in which pragmatic competence has been highlighted as one of its main components, as reported in a series of models (Bachman, 1990; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2006). The different models of communicative competence proposed by these authors have claimed that, in order to make learners communicatively competent in a



Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

second (L2) or foreign language (FL), not only does their grammatical knowledge need to be fostered, but also their pragmatic competence. This competence has been defined as the speaker’s ability to employ different linguistic resources in an appropriate way for a given context (Kasper, 2001a). Specifically, both pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, that is, the two areas of pragmatics that refer to specific local conditions of language use (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1983), need to be mastered by learners in their process of achieving full communicative competence in a TL. Among the different pragmatic aspects examined within this area of pragmatics, there is no doubt that speech acts have been the most widely studied feature (Bardovi-Harlig, 2002). The reason lies in the fact that language learners are continuously faced with the need to use a variety of speech acts and speech act sets in order to communicate appropriately in the TL (Cohen, 1996, 2005). Consequently, providing learners with the opportunities to develop their ability to perform and understand speech acts in both L2 and FL contexts is nowadays recognised as the ultimate goal of language teaching. Given such a need, this chapter1 first presents a brief overview of the main defining characteristics of pragmatics. Then, it discusses speech act theory, a subfield of pragmatics, and finishes by addressing those theoretically motivated conditions needed for the learning of speech acts in instructed settings.

2.  Pragmatics In recent years, pragmatics has become an important branch of linguistics, as the inadequacies of purely formalist and abstract approaches to the study of language became more evident. In this sense, the specific area of research known as pragmatics has aroused the interest of a number of scholars over the last three decades. Specifically, it was in the 1970s when the field of pragmatics, or the study of language in use, came to be regarded as a discipline in its own right. This fact is grounded in the work of a series of philosophers of language such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975), who developed what was to become a science of language of enormous relevance. Until that time, researchers such as Saussure (1959) or Chomsky (1965) had only paid attention to isolated linguistic forms and structures. Both Saussure’s concepts of langue and parole from the paradigm of structuralism and Chomsky’s generative-transformational

1.  This study is part of a research project funded by (a) the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (FFI2008-05241/FILO) and (b) Fundació Universitat Jaume I and Caixa Castelló-Bancaixa (08I447.01/1).



Pragmatics and speech act performance

grammar based on the notions of competence and performance merely accounted for an ideal grammatical knowledge shared by native speakers (NSs) of a given language. Neither of the two paradigms took into consideration the real use of language in a particular context. In other words, they did not regard the notion of communication. Levinson (1983) argued that the interest in pragmatics appeared as a reaction to Chomsky’s use of language as an abstract construct, on the one hand, and as a necessity to bridge the gap between existing linguistic theories of language and accounts of linguistic communication, on the other. By the same token, regarding the fact that Chomsky’s (1965) theory of mental faculty was a competence theory based on the independence of a grammar from the users and functions of language rather than a performance theory, Leech (1983) encouraged a shift of direction within linguistics away from competence towards performance with the creation of a fresh paradigm. This new paradigm, that is to say pragmatics, pays attention to meaning in use rather than meaning in the abstract, and its main defining characteristics include: (1) the use of language as a means of communication; (2) the importance of language use focusing on functions rather than on forms; (3) the study of the processes which occur in communication; (4) the importance of context and authentic language use; (5) the interdisciplinary nature of pragmatics; and (6) the application of linguistic theories based on the concept of communicative competence. From all these characteristics, we may observe two important aspects that differentiate pragmatics from other linguistic disciplines, such as syntax or semantics. On the one hand, particular attention is devoted to users of language and, on the other hand, great emphasis is given to the context in which these users interact. In this sense, Yule (1996) assumes that pragmatics is primarily concerned with the study of both speaker meaning and contextual meaning. Verschueren (1999) also considers pragmatics as the study of meaning in context, since meaning is not regarded as a static concept but as a dynamic aspect which is negotiated in the process of communication. Apart from the previous considerations about pragmatics, we believe that one of the most elaborate definitions was proposed by Crystal (1997), who considered pragmatics as: The study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication. (from Crystal, 1997, 301)

This definition indicates that apart from users and context, interaction also plays a very important role when dealing with pragmatics, since the process of communication does not only focus on the speakers’ intentions, but also on the





Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

effects those intentions have on the hearers. In fact, Thomas (1995) regards pragmatics as meaning in interaction. According to this author, pragmatics involves three main processes, namely (1) those of the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer, (2) the context of utterance, whether physical, social or linguistic, and (3) the meaning potential of an utterance. In the same line, LoCastro (2003) also advocates that pragmatics is related to meaning in interaction instead of forms of analysis that only deal with levels of sentence meaning. Up to this point, we have dealt with pragmatics as a general discipline by providing appropriate definitions of this term and outlining its main defining characteristics. We have stated that it pays attention to language use in communication and the speaker’s intentions when saying utterances in particular contexts. Thus, concepts such as users, context, interaction, real language use or communication are applied to pragmatics. Nevertheless, this area of language is not a unitary field – rather it includes different theoretical and methodological approaches which depend on certain aspects of human communication. In this line, Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) made a distinction between general pragmatics and the areas of pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Whereas general pragmatics is regarded as “the study of linguistic communication in terms of conversational principles” (Leech, 1983: 10–11), pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics belong to more specific local conditions of language use. On the one hand, pragmalinguistics refers to the grammatical side of pragmatics and addresses the resources for conveying particular communicative acts. Such resources include pragmatic strategies like directness and indirectness, pragmatic routines, and a range of modification devices which can intensify or soften the communicative act. On the other hand, sociopragmatics deals with the relationship between linguistic action and social structure, since it refers to the social factors such as status, social distance and degree of imposition that influence what kinds of linguistic acts are performed and how they are performed. These two areas of pragmatics are particularly relevant in the field of L2 learning. In fact, as recently claimed by Alcón and Martínez-Flor (2008), it is necessary to view these two components in interaction in language learning, that is, to deal with the relationships between the forms of particular speech acts and the contextual factors that shape those particular speech act forms. In order to understand this assumption, in the next section, we will address the pros and cons of speech act theory, since it provides the theoretical framework for understanding the learning of speech acts.

3.  Speech act theory While it is true that speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, this theory has been established as perhaps the most relevant in this field. The first known



Pragmatics and speech act performance

study on speech acts was conducted by Austin (1962) and later complemented by Searle (1969, 1976), who were working in the area of the philosophy of language. Austin (1962) has been regarded as the father of speech act theory with his famous assumption that people use language not just to say things, but to do things. According to his performative hypothesis, Austin claimed that when people use language, they do more than just make statements, that is, they perform actions. However, Austin (1962) soon discovered that not only performative verbs could perform actions. In fact, Thomas (1995) argues that Austin’s assumptions about the direct correlation between doing things with words and the existence of a corresponding performative verb is clearly erroneous, since there are many acts in real language use where it would be impossible, or very unusual, to use a performative verb. Hence, Austin (1962) developed his three-fold classification of utterances into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. The former refers to the acts of saying something, that is, the actual words uttered. The illocutionary acts represent what is done in saying something or, in other words, the force or intention behind the words. Finally, the perlocutionary acts imply what is done by saying something, that is, the effect of the illocution on the hearer. Austin (1962) focused on the second type of speech acts by developing a taxonomy of five types of illocutionary acts, which included verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives and expositives. Verdictives involve the giving of a verdict or judgment (i.e. acquit, convict, diagnose). Exercitives refer to the exercising of power, right or influence (i.e. appoint, order, name). Commissives are illocutionary acts that entail the assuming of obligation or the giving of an undertaking (i.e. promise, agree, bet). Behabitives relate to the adopting of an attitude (i.e. apologise, compliment, welcome), and as regards expositives, these speech acts address the clarifying of reasons, arguments and expounding of views (i.e. deny, inform, concede). On the basis of this taxonomy, Searle (1969) distinguished between propositional content and illocutionary force, which in Austin’s (1962) terms referred to locution and illocution. Focusing on the illocutionary purpose of the act from the speaker’s perspective, Searle (1976) developed a taxonomy of illocutionary acts, grouped according to common functional characteristics. This taxonomy includes five major categories, namely those of representatives, directives, expressives, commissives, and declarations (Searle, 1976: 1–16). Representatives are linguistic acts in which the speaker’s purpose in performing the act is to commit himself to the belief that the propositional content of the utterance is true. In Searle’s (1976: 3) words, the speaker tries to make the words match the world. Directives refer to acts in which the speaker’s purpose is to get the hearer to commit himself to some future course of action. As Searle puts it, directives are attempts to make the world match the words. The acts in which the speaker commits himself to some future course of action are regarded as commissives. Expressives have the purpose of expressing the





Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

speaker’s psychological state of mind about, or attitude towards, some prior action or state of affairs. Finally, declarations are acts which require extralinguistic institutions for their performance. Although Searle’s theory of speech acts has had a tremendous influence on functional aspects of pragmatic theory, it has also received very strong criticism. According to Geis (1995), not only Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) but also many other scholars based their work principally on their intuitions, focusing exclusively on sentences isolated from the context where they might be used. In this sense, one of the most important issues that some researchers have argued against Searle’s (1976) suggested typology refers to the fact that the illocutionary force of a concrete speech act cannot take the form of a sentence as Searle considered it. Thus, Trosborg (1995) claims that the sentence is a grammatical unit within the formal system of language, whereas the speech act involves a communicative function. Similarly, Thomas (1995) also criticises Searle’s typology on the grounds that it only accounts for formal considerations. In fact, she states that speech acts cannot be regarded in a way appropriate to grammar as Searle tried to do and suggests that these functional units of communication may be characterised in terms of principles instead of formal rules. In line with Leech (1983), who focuses on meaning and presents a functional perspective of speech acts against a formal viewpoint, Thomas (1995) also refers to functional, psychological and affective factors influencing speech acts. Additionally, as claimed by her, distinguishing among speech acts in clear-cut categories following Searle’s rules is not always possible. For this reason, although it may seem that some speech acts are in some sense related to one another, according to Thomas (1995), they are by no means interchangeable if contextual and interactional factors are taken into consideration. The author refers particularly to speech acts that share certain key features, such as for example, asking, requesting, ordering, commanding or suggesting, all of which involve an attempt by the speaker to make the hearer do something. In fact, LoCastro (2003) also claims there is a need to expand the analysis of speech acts in isolation to study them in context, since the comprehension of the pragmatic meaning implied in a speech act must take into consideration not only linguistic forms but all the other factors mentioned earlier. In this regard, Kasper (2004, 2006) argues for the need to analyse speech acts in interaction by applying a discursive approach to speech act pragmatics. More specifically, the author defends conversation analysis as the most suitable proposal to be applied in speech act research. Indeed, a number of recent studies have followed this approach and have demonstrated its benefits for learning a variety of speech acts, including compliments (Golato, 2003), apologies (Robinson, 2004) or requests (Tateyama & Kasper, 2008), among others. A further aspect to which attention has been paid is the distinction between direct and indirect speech acts. It has been assumed that direct speech acts have



Pragmatics and speech act performance

a direct relationship between structure and function, whereas an indirect speech act involves an indirect relationship between structure and function (Yule, 1996). Thus, a direct speech act would relate a declarative structure to a statement, whereas an indirect speech act would refer to the use of the same declarative structure to make a request. Put another way, with an indirect speech act, structure and speech act are not matched (LoCastro, 2003). Specifically, the use of indirect and direct pragmatic strategies are claimed by Kasper and Schmidt (1996) to be universally available, since they are related to on-record and off-record politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, the issue of universality has been regarded as a controversial aspect on the grounds that it does not account for cultural differences (Barron, 2003). In spite of this controversy, empirical research has shown that there are a number of areas that can be regarded as universal, such as those of the existence of indirect speech acts, the basic speech act categories, external and internal modification, and the range of realisation strategies for speech acts (Trosborg, 1995; Sifianou, 1999; Safont, 2005, 2008; Schauer, 2009). The existence of these universals is of paramount importance in facilitating learners’ acquisition of speech acts in L2 and FL instructional settings. Therefore, a main concern in these contexts is how to present speech acts so that learners are exposed to a variety of pragmalinguistic forms with which to perform a range of speech act sets depending on different sociopragmatic factors in particular social and cultural contexts. In the following section, the essential conditions for the learning of speech acts in those particular contexts are presented.

4.  Theoretical conditions for the learning of speech acts Learners’ overall ability to communicate successfully in a given TL is influenced by three main conditions, namely appropriate input, opportunities for output and provision of feedback. The importance of these conditions is also applied to learners’ development of their pragmatic competence and, consequently, to the learning of different speech acts. In fact, as Kasper (2001a) points out: Sustained focused input, both pragmatic and metapragmatic, collaborative practice activities, and metapragmatic reflection appear to provide learners with the input and practice they need for developing most aspects of their pragmatic abilities.  (from Kasper, 2001a, 57)

In order to analyse these three conditions, we devote the next subsections to explaining each of them in relation to the acquisition of pragmatic competence in general and the learning of speech acts in particular. We will start out by addressing the



 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

importance of input. Then, we will focus on learners’ need for output and, finally, we will deal with the role of feedback in the process of pragmatics learning. 4.1  Input Input refers to the language samples learners are exposed to. Apart from this, it has also been pointed out that learners need to understand this input for acquisition to take place (Gregg, 1986). In this regard, learners’ opportunities to acquire the TL in general and, more specifically, pragmatic competence differ significantly depending on the setting in which the language is being learned or taught. In an L2 setting, learners may be exposed to the TL outside the classroom as well as experience opportunities for cross-cultural communication (Martínez-Flor, 2007; Usó-Juan, 2007; Usó-Juan & Martínez-Flor, 2008). This provides learners with excellent opportunities to acquire the language and develop pragmatic competence. In contrast, in an FL setting learners’ opportunities to be in contact with authentic situations in the TL are limited or absent and, therefore, the chance to develop their pragmatic competence depends considerably on the pragmatic input presented to them in the classroom. According to LoCastro (2003), learners are exposed to three types of input in this particular context, namely those of the teacher, the materials, and other learners. In what follows, we will pay attention to each of them in turn. Regarding the first source of input, teacher talk has been addressed as a type of special register that is modified and adapted to learners’ needs. As Trosborg (1995) points out, this kind of adapted language involves a simplified register, syntactic simplification, reduced length of utterances, and no ungrammatical speech. However, regarding pragmatic aspects, the teachers themselves are considered to be the model that provides learners with the rules of politeness, the appropriate use of formulaic expressions or the importance of employing a variety of linguistic forms depending on social parameters. Learners are thus dependent on the teacher for an appropriate model of the TL, although several studies have shown that input offered by teachers is hardly optimal for learning pragmatics in the classroom (Lörscher & Schulze, 1988; Ohta, 1994; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1996; Nikula, 2002). For instance, in their study on the academic advising session, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1996) pointed out that the requests teachers made to the students were status-bound, so they could not serve as direct models for learners. Lörscher and Schulze (1988) also analysed teachers’ talk in their study and found that their transactional style did not provide learners with either appropriate models of politeness markers or ways of mitigating and intensifying speech acts in English. Similarly, in a longitudinal study conducted in the Japanese FL classroom, Ohta (1994) observed that teachers employed a narrower range and lower frequency of affective particles



Pragmatics and speech act performance

than would have been used in ordinary conversation. Set in a different FL classroom, Nikula’s (2002) study examined the way in which the use of modifiers by Finnish teachers in two different classrooms reflected pragmatic awareness. The author found a high use of direct strategies and mentioned the authoritative role of the teachers and their status as non-NSs as possible reasons. This could have been the reason why they had a narrow repertoire of expressions to modify their talk and were, therefore, too direct. The use of appropriate teaching materials to develop pragmatic competence has been regarded as the second source of input to learners in the classroom. Research on the pragmatic input presented in textbooks has focused on a variety of speech acts and their realisation strategies, including complaints (Boxer & ­Pickering, 1995), requests and their modifiers (Usó-Juan, 2007, 2008), suggestions and advice (Mandala, 1999; Salazar & Usó-Juan, 2002), greetings (Kakiuchi, 2005) or a range of different speech acts (Vellenga, 2004). It is evident from such an examination that textbooks are a poor source of pragmatic input for learners in the language classroom, since the speech act realisations presented rarely match those used in authentic exchanges. A possible explanation for such a lack of presentation of authentic language models in textbooks may be that such material relies heavily on the intuitions of native textbook developers about speech act realisations rather than on empirical research (Boxer, 2003; LoCastro, 2003). In line with all the previous constraints, Boxer (2003) also claims that it would only be when spontaneous speech is captured in authentic data for language materials that we might begin to teach the underlying strategies of speech behaviour. Therefore, we believe that there is a need to base materials and teaching practices on natural language data if our aim is to provide the necessary conditions in the classroom to make learners aware of communicatively appropriate patterns. Several researchers have already proposed different alternatives to challenge this artificial presentation of conversation in textbooks. For example, the use of spoken corpora has been regarded as a useful instrument to present authentic speaker input in the classroom. The studies which have examined the potential of this resource for the acquisition of speech act competence have focused on expressions of gratitude (Schauer & Adolphs, 2006), requests (Safont & Campoy-Cubillo, 2003) and suggestions (Jiang, 2006), among others (see Campoy-Cubillo, 2008, for how to exploit spoken corpora in the language classroom). In the same vein, the use of new technologies such as synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication, may also play a key role in designing activities that foster learners’ pragmatic ability (Kinginger, 2000; Belz & Kinginger, 2002, 2003; González-Lloret, 2008). Other suitable material that presents authentic pragmatic input involves the use of audiovisual sources, such as video, films and TV. The studies analysing the



 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

presentation of speech acts from these resources, which include apologies (Kite & Tatsuki, 2005), compliments (Rose, 2001; Tatsuki & Nishizawa, 2005), requests (Alcón, 2005), request mitigating devices (Martínez-Flor, 2007; Fernández-Guerra, 2008) or suggestions and advice acts (Martínez-Flor & Fernández-Guerra, 2002), have reported the benefits of employing this type of material for introducing authentic language samples in which learners are exposed to speech acts in contextualised situations. Additionally, this material has also been praised for motivating learners and activating their cognitive domains (Ryan, 1998), helping them visualise words and meanings (Canning-Wilson, 2000), as well as changing the classroom routines (Swaffar & Vlatten, 1997). Therefore, all these features are of crucial importance when developing pragmatics in the FL classroom, since students should be aware of the relationship between participants when performing specific speech acts and also of the contextual factors affecting their conversational interaction (Thomas, 1995). Finally, apart from teachers’ talk and presentation of different materials, learners are also exposed to the input of their peers. According to LoCastro (2003), it is important to take into consideration what learners bring to the classroom, their motivation for learning the TL and their sociocultural backgrounds. Moreover, collaboration and peer interaction also play an important role in the development of learners’ pragmatic knowledge (Ohta, 1995, 1997, 2001; Alcón, 2002). As Kasper (2001b) claims, it has been demonstrated that learners can contribute and help each other through collaboration. Ohta’s (1995, 1997, 2001) studies, for instance, showed that learners working collaboratively were provided with opportunities to use Japanese as the TL and that participation in pairs contributed to increasing learners’ appropriate use and application of pragmatic principles. Arguments in favour of learners’ active collaboration have also been put forward by Alcón (2002). She examined the effects of collaboration by comparing two groups of students distributed into either teacher-students or peer interaction conditions. Results illustrated that pragmatic knowledge emerged from both types of interactions, but the peer interaction condition favoured some of the functions of learners’ output, namely those of noticing and hypothesis testing. Apart from the type of input learners may be exposed to, these authors show that learners’ active participation is a powerful force for the acquisition of pragmatics in the classroom setting. Thus, providing learners with opportunities for output is claimed to be the second necessary condition for acquiring pragmatics in general and speech acts in particular. 4.2  Output Pushing learners into language production, that is, providing them with opportunities for output, including interaction, has also been regarded as necessary for language



Pragmatics and speech act performance 

acquisition (Swain, 1985, 2000). This pushed output refers to the production that is characterised by precision, coherence, and appropriateness. In fact, Swain (2000) argues that not only comprehending, but also producing the TL, is what makes learners notice how the language is used in order to express their intended meaning. Therefore, in order to acquire pragmatic competence, learners also need to be provided with opportunities for practice. In fact, LoCastro (2003) reports that second language acquisition (SLA) research has confirmed that practising what the learners have been taught facilitates learning and fluency in all areas of language, including pragmatic ability. The author considers that the organisation of the classroom is essential in order to provide these opportunities and she distinguishes between more teacher-controlled classrooms and group work organisation. With respect to teacher’s control of the classroom, it has been argued that the typical Interaction-Response-Feedback pattern, in which the teacher initiates the discourse, the students respond and the teacher gives feedback, limits learners’ ability to get involved in productive practices (Kasper, 1997, 2001a). This structure is, thus, completely inefficient to develop learners’ pragmatic competence, since the teacher is the controller of the classroom and learners have few opportunities to participate in oral activities. However, teachers may serve as models and providers of sociocultural information if they actively interact with students, thus allowing them to produce appropriate output. An example of this may be observed in Kanagy and Igarashi’s (1997) longitudinal study of English-speaking children’s comprehension of pragmatic routines in Japanese. According to the researchers, by initiating TL speech, the children created opportunities to produce output, which then triggered additional input from the teacher including negative feedback. Therefore, pragmatic needs were regarded as a significant factor in the language production process, influencing what types of teacher input emerged as output in the earliest stages of language acquisition. Regarding the second type of classroom organisation, LoCastro (2003) claims that working in groups offers a lot of advantages, since learners are active participants who ask for clarification and confirmation, take risks and use different ways of expressing their own thinking, that is, they can put the three functions of output into practice. In this line, Trosborg (1995) has pointed out that involving learners in role interactions is a way of increasing their linguistic output. Hence, she supports the use of role-plays in the FL classroom as an excellent exercise for enhancing learners’ communicative competence with a focus on both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects. In fact, Trosborg (1995) states: […] when engaging learners in role-playing in pairs or in small groups, they are offered the opportunities of experimenting, of repairing their own utterances when negotiating the outcome of the conversation, and they engage in communication practice which is very helpful in promoting procedural knowledge.  (from Trosborg, 1995, 473)

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

As we have mentioned above, working collaboratively allows learners’ output to serve as a source of input for other learners. However, learners’ output may be erroneous, so there is a need to receive correct conversational input from another participant in the interaction, which may be either the teacher or a peer. This type of correction is referred to as feedback, the third theoretical condition that we will now examine. 4.3  Feedback It has been claimed that apart from receiving positive evidence (i.e. being exposed to comprehensible input and being provided with output opportunities), feedback is also necessary if the teacher’s aim is to combine communication and accuracy. Corrective feedback, the third condition for SLA in general and pragmatics in particular, has also been addressed as negative input (Pica, 1996) and refers to the data learners receive with information about what is not allowed in the TL. By means of this negative input, learners may reflect on their own output and incorporate those aspects that have been corrected. As raised by Pica (1996), Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Alcón (2000), research has shown that pushing language learners by their interlocutors’ feedback can make them produce more sociolinguistically appropriate and accurate (i.e. correct) TL. There are also two ways of providing this feedback to students, that is, it can be done either explicitly, by overtly stating that an error has occurred, or implicitly, by means of different techniques such as recasts, clarification requests or confirmation checks. In the area of general pragmatics, research on language socialisation has shown that parents instruct their children in pragmatics by providing them with negative feedback (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996). Thus, corrective feedback plays an important role in developing learners’ pragmatic ability in the classroom and it should be provided on both meaning and form. Omar (1992), for instance, found two occurrences where NSs of Kiswahili corrected other NSs regarding choice of forms in conversational openings, and this contributed to their pragmatic learning. However, this is not the common pattern since, as Washburn (2001) notes, explicit feedback on pragmatic language in conversational interaction is usually non-existent or, if given, rarely direct, especially among adults. This fact makes the task of learning pragmatic language usage in the TL especially difficult for learners, since they are not made aware of their pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic failures. An example of this situation can be illustrated with Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford’s (1993, 1996) studies based on academic advising sessions, in which feedback could only be given on the content and not on form. This limitation, according to the authors, restricted learners’ pragmatic development, since they were not exposed to the appropriate forms that would have allowed them to modify their output. Moreover, students



Pragmatics and speech act performance 

in this particular situation were at an additional disadvantage because they could not observe other students who might have served as models performing the same task (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1990). Dealing with a different speech act, namely that of requesting, Alcón and Codina (2002) also investigated whether the FL classroom offered learners opportunities to be exposed to requests and to make use of them. Apart from observing that neither input directed towards the learners nor opportunities to practise the speech act of requesting were provided, the authors also pointed out a lack of appropriate feedback on the part of the teacher. Thus, corrective feedback is an important condition that informs learners about their own output. This negative input may cause changes in learners’ production that lead them to develop their pragmatic competence. In fact, the importance of feedback has been highlighted by researchers with the inclusion of this condition in their interventional studies on pragmatics (Yoshimi, 2001; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005; Takimoto, 2006). It is our belief that incorporating feedback, whether it be explicit or implicit, in the language classroom is as essential as the other two theoretical conditions (i.e. input and output) to help learners develop their pragmatic competence and their performance in speech acts.

5.  Conclusion After discussing the theoretical framework for understanding the learning of speech acts (i.e. speech act theory), this chapter has presented the essential conditions needed for that learning to take place in an L2 or FL context, namely (1) exposure to appropriate input, (2) opportunities for output, and (3) provision of feedback. However, the context in which the language is learned is essential in terms of both the quantity and quality of those conditions. Learners immersed in the SL community have more opportunities to be in contact with the TL, so exposure to it and practice, with subsequent feedback, greatly facilitate the development of their pragmatic ability. In contrast, learners in an FL context are in a disadvantageous position, since they depend exclusively on the input that arises in the classroom and the opportunities for practice and feedback that teachers provide learners with. Consequently, there is a need to conduct empirical research on those areas that have a significant impact on the learning of speech acts in different instructional settings including, the effect of individual-level variables, the difficulty of tasks and the relationship between culture, context and speech act performance. In addition, the design of research-based pedagogical models for the teaching of speech acts in different language learning contexts is essential to supplement the input of

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan

textbooks with real-world materials as well as to develop learners’ awareness of the sociopragmatic rules of the TL. By addressing these issues, the area of speech act performance will grow and be notably enriched.

References Alcón, E. 2000. The role of conversational interaction in the development of a second language: Its application to English language teaching in the classroom. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 16: 135–154. Alcón, E. 2002. The relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research 37(3/4): 359–377. Alcón, E. 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33(3): 417–475. Alcón, E. & Codina, V. 2002. Practice opportunities and pragmatic change in a second language context: The case of requests. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada 3: 123–138. Alcón, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.). 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. London: Clarendon Press. Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2002. Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, R.B. Kaplan (ed.), 182–192. Oxford: OUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1990. Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning 40(4): 467–501. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(3): 279–304. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1996. Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 171–188. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belz, J.A. & Kinginger, C. 2002. The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59(2): 189–214. Belz, J.A. & Kinginger, C. 2003. Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning 53(4): 591–647. Boxer, D. 2003. Critical issues in developmental pragmatics. In Pragmatic Competence in Foreign Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández (eds.), 45–67. Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal 49(1): 44–58. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Campoy-Cubillo, M.C. 2008. Requests in spoken corpora: Some implications for corpus as input source in the classroom. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 91–109. Bern: Peter Lang.



Pragmatics and speech act performance 

Canning-Wilson, C. 2000. Practical aspects of using video in the foreign language classroom. The Internet TESL Journal Vol. VI: 11. Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z. & Thurrell, S. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2): 5–35. Cohen, A.D. 1996. Speech acts. In Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (eds.), 51–84. Cambridge: CUP. Cohen, A.D. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3): 275–301. Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Fernández-Guerra, A. 2008. Requests in TV series and in naturally occurring discourse: A comparison. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 111–126. Bern: Peter Lang. Geis, M.L. 1995. Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction: Toward a Theory of Conversational Competence. Cambridge: CUP. Golato, A. 2003. Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1): 90–121. Gónzalez-Lloret, M. 2008. Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 114–132. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gregg, K.R. 1986. Reviewed work(s): The input hypothesis: Issues and implications by Stephen D. Krashen. TESOL Quarterly 20(1): 116–122. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Hymes, D.H. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics, J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), 269–293. Baltimore MD: Penguin Books. Jiang, X. 2006. Suggestions: What should ESL students know? System 34(1): 36–54. Kakiuchi, Y. 2005. Greetings in English: Naturalistic speech versus textbook speech. In Pragmatics in Language Learning, Theory and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 61–85. Tokyo, JALT: The Japan Association for Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Kanagy, R. & Igarashi, K. 1997. Acquisition of pragmatic competence in a Japanese immersion kindergarten. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 8, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 243–265. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? [Network 6]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. . Kasper, G. 2001a. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 33–60. Cambridge: CUP. Kasper, G. 2001b. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22(4): 502–530. Kasper, G. 2004. Speech acts in (inter)action: Repeated questions. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1): 125–133. Kasper, G. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.), 281–314. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies on Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Kinginger, C. (ed.). 2000. Learning the Pragmatics of Solidarity in the Networked Foreign Language Classroom. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kite, Y. & Tatsuki, D. 2005. Remedial interactions in film. In Pragmatics in Language Learning, Theory and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 99–117. Tokyo: JALT-The Japan Association for Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Koike, D.A. & Pearson, L. 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System 33(3): 481–501. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. LoCastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Michigan MI: Michigan Press. Lörscher, W. & Schulze, R. 1988. On polite speaking and foreign language classroom discourse. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 26(3): 183–199. Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation on form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17(4): 459–481. Mandala, S. 1999. Exiting advice. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 9, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 89–111. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Martínez-Flor, A. 2007. Analysing request modification devices in films: Implications for pragmatic learning in instructed foreign language contexts. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, E. Alcón & P. Safont (eds.), 245–280. Dordrecht: Springer. Martínez-Flor, A. & Fernández-Guerra, A. 2002. Coursebooks and films in foreign language teaching: A pragmatic approach. SELL: Studies in English Language and Linguistics 4: 181–206. Martínez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y.J. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33(3): 463–480. Mey, J. 1993. Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Nikula, T. 2002. Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings. Pragmatics 12(4): 447–467. Ohta, A.S. 1994. Socializing the expression of affect: An overview of affective particle use in the Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Issues in Applied Linguistics 5(2): 303–326. Ohta, A.S. 1995. Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learnerlearner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2): 93–121. Ohta, A.S. 1997. The development of pragmatic competence in learner-learner classroom interaction. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 8, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 223–242. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ohta, A.S. 2001. A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in Japanese as a foreign language. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 103–120. Cambridge: CUP. Omar, A. 1992. Conversational openings in Kiswahili: The pragmatic performance of native and nonnative speakers. In Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 3, L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (eds.), 20–32. Urbana-Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Pica, T. 1996. The essential role of negotiation in the communicative classroom. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal 18: 241–268.



Pragmatics and speech act performance 

Robinson, J.D. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language & Social Interaction 37(3): 291–330. Rose, K.R. 2001. Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics 39(4): 309–326. Rose, K.R. & Kasper, G. (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Ryan, S. 1998. Using films to develop learner motivation. The Internet TESL Journal Vol. IV: 11. Safont, M.P. 2005. Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Safont, M.P. 2008. The speech act of requesting. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 41–64. Bern: Peter Lang. Safont, M.P. & Campoy-Cubillo, M.C. 2003. Online pragmatic input: A focus on request acts occurrence in NS and NNS oral corpora. In Internet in Language for Specific Purposes and Foreign Language Teaching, J. Piqué-Angordans, M.J. Esteve & M.L. Gea-Valor (eds.), 369–383. Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Salazar, P. & Usó-Juan, E. 2002. The presentation of pragmatics in current Tourism texts: The speech acts of suggesting and advising. In V Congrés Internacional sobre Llengües per a Finalitats Específiques: Actes. [Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Languages for Specific Purposes], F. Luttikhuizen (ed.), 311–318. Canet de Mar: Universitat de Barcelona. Saussure, F. de 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York NY: Philosophical Library. Schauer, G.A. 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum. Schauer, G.A. & Adolphs, S. 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System 34(1): 119–134. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. Searle, J.R. 1976. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1–24. Sifianou, M. 1999. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A Cross-cultural Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Stalnaker, R.C. 1972. Pragmatics. In Semantics of Natural Language, D. Davidson & G. Harman (eds.), 315–332. Dordrecht: Reidel. Swaffar, J. & Vlatten, A. 1997. A sequential model for video viewing in the foreign language curriculum. The Modern Language Journal 81(1): 175–188. Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input and Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), 235–253. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. 2000. French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20(1): 199–212. Takimoto, M. 2006. The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research 10(4): 393–417. Tateyama, Y. & Kasper, G. 2008. Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 45–71. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tatsuki, D. & Nishizawa, M. 2005. A comparison of compliments and compliment responses in television interviews, film, and naturally occurring data. In Pragmatics in Language Learning, Theory and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 87–97. Tokyo: JALT-The Japan Association for Language Teaching, Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112.

 Alicia Martínez-Flor and Esther Usó-Juan Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Usó-Juan, E. 2007. The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, E. Alcón & P. Safont (eds.), 223–244. Dordrecht: Springer. Usó-Juan, E. 2008. A pragmatic-focused evaluation of requests and their modification devices in textbook conversations. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 65–90. Bern: Peter Lang. Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. In Current Trends in the Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills, E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 3–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. 2008. Teaching learners to appropriately mitigate requests. ELT Journal 64(4): 349–357. Vellenga, H. 2004. Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL Electronic Journal 8(2): 1–18. Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Washburn, G.N. 2001. Using situation comedies for pragmatic language teaching and learning. TESOL Journal 10(4): 21–26. Yoshimi, D.R. 2001. Explicit instruction and the use of interactional discourse markers. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 223–244. Cambridge: CUP. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

section ii

Empirical foundations

The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance Lisa M. Kuriscak Ball State University

Many factors affect the realisation of speech acts, including sociocultural norms, being a native or nonnative speaker, situational parameters of the exchange, and individual differences in personal characteristics. This chapter focuses on findings related to the last set of factors and specifically on personality (extraversion), aptitude (and its related construct, proficiency), and motivation. These multicomponent traits are distinct constructs but are not entirely discreet from each other. In a review of literature that incorporates second language acquisition and interlanguage pragmatics, their dynamic relationship and their effects on speech acts are described, with an eye toward discerning the relative contributions of these variables to the expression (and interpretation) of second-language speech acts and to offering suggestions for future research.

1.  Introduction On a daily basis, we engage in speech acts or utterance sequences that serve a specific function in a communicative situation (e.g. greetings, requests, or apologies). Just as not all speakers in their native language (L1) respond in the same way, second language (L2) learners also show variation in how they perceive and carry out speech acts. Much of the work done to describe this variation has examined how L2 learners perform speech acts, relative to native speakers (NSs) (e.g. Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Hinkel, 1994; Owen, 2002; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003; Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007) and relative to other non-native speakers (NNSs) (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Matsumura, 2003; Taguchi, 2007). Research by Bardovi-Harlig (1999, 2001) has shown that grammatical competence does not necessarily correlate with pragmatic competence, which leads to questions such as: What factors affect learners’ acquisition of pragmatic competence? Is it the nature of the task or the type and length of instructional period? Is it what learners bring to the language-learning table? Or is it some combination thereof? The study of speech act performance has revealed a complex set of variables generally organised along two branches: (1) the situational features of the task or

 Lisa M. Kuriscak

communicative context, such as location of the interaction, age and social status of the interlocutor, and level of familiarity with the interlocutor (e.g. Harlow, 1990; Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Rodríguez, 2001; Félix-Brasdefer, 2002) and (2) the individual-level variables that reflect differences among speakers, such as personality measures, study abroad experience, motivation, and proficiency level in the L2 (e.g. Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Owen, 2002; Félix-Brasdefer, 2004; Takahashi, 2005; Schauer, this volume; Takahashi, this volume). Overall, more attention has been given to how pragmatic performance of speech acts varies according to the former rather than the latter. As such, the purpose of this chapter is to describe what we know about how individual differences (IDs) affect the expression (and interpretation) of speech acts – specifically, to offer a review of the literature of the most salient factors as well as to offer suggestions for future research. The L2 speech act studies reported here include both perception and production studies and cover a range of languages and speech acts. The organisation of this chapter proceeds as follows. I first outline how the term individual differences has been conceived of in the literature and then I focus the remainder of the chapter on three core concepts in the ID literature – personality, aptitude, and motivation. These concepts are described each in separate sections but should not be viewed as entirely discrete concepts. Rather, they are converging, multi-component notions that may overlap each other, may influence an outcome directly, or may influence an outcome indirectly through one another. They are believed to shape the decisions that we make when interacting with others, one may override another (i.e. motivation may override aptitude), and they are sensitive to context and to change over time.

2.  ID variables Dörnyei has described IDs as: “dimensions of enduring personal characteristics that are assumed to apply to everybody and on which people differ by degree. …[T]hey concern stable and systematic deviations from a normative blueprint” (Dörnyei, 2006: 42). Among the most commonly cited ID variables are personality, aptitude, motivation, learning styles, and learning strategies. The relevance of these variables in empirical studies spans not only L1 and L2 linguistic studies but also psychology and education (for summaries, see Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 2004; Dörnyei, 2005). These variables tap into the cognitive, emotional, and psychological factors that learners bring to the language-learning table and that stimulate the decisions they make, the actions they take, and their performance in the L2, such as: (1) their choice to study abroad or not (their length of stay, the choices they make as to the use of their L1 and L2, their efforts to interact and



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

identify with the local community, etc.), (2) their engagement in activities outside of class in the L2, and (3) their working memory capacity and ability to pay attention to linguistic input. There are also other variables that individuals bring to the language-learning table that may affect their pragmatic performance, such as gender and age. Therefore, one can distinguish broadly between the set of psychological ID variables (e.g. personality, aptitude, and motivation) that have been more frequently included in psychological and educational studies and the related set of variables that have been included more often in some speech act studies as independent variables (e.g. L2 proficiency level; choices made with regard to study abroad experiences; use of the L2 outside of class; and gender and age; see Kasper & Rose, 2002). The former set should logically underlie the latter set, and further examination of these variables as they relate to speech act performance should help broaden and deepen our understanding of L2 speech act variation. The expression individual differences, however, is not uniformly used in the field to refer specifically to the psychological variables noted above. Rather, the concept is applied to empirical articles in two different ways. First, there are studies that include one or more of the psychological ID variables (e.g. extraversion or integrative motivation) as independent variables in the methodological framework and collect specific measures to determine how the dependent variable (whether from production or perception) varies as a result of changes in the value of the independent variable (Kuriscak, 2006). This generally requires a larger sample size in order to yield statistically sound results. Second, there are studies that use the same expression to describe how participants vary in their developmental production (Bardovi-Harlig, 2006). These studies generally have smaller sample sizes and often take a qualitative approach to the description of this variation (or use only descriptive statistics rather than inferential analyses) in the individual differences in each learner’s path toward acquisition (in the case of Bardovi-Harlig’s, 2006, study, the acquisition of the future in L2 English). As such, they tend to focus on differences in the learners’ production itself rather than the learner-level variables (the focus of this chapter) that contribute to those differences. A subset of these latter studies have extremely small sizes or are synchronic rather than longitudinal and offer a glimpse of potential processes, whereas those with more substantial samples and more data collection points over a period of time allow us to draw more generalisable conclusions. In sum, both approaches are valid and can help the field advance, but one must be aware of the polysemous nature of the label individual differences and the accompanying methodological variation and difference in contribution. This chapter deals with the former operationalisation of IDs and focuses its discussion on three ID variables – personality, aptitude, and motivation – and how they have informed research on L2 speech acts and can shape future research agendas.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak

2.1  Personality traits Speech acts are inherently social acts in which individuals make choices, for example, about whether to ask for something, how (in)direct to be, or which conventions of politeness to use. These decisions reflect sociocultural norms of the context as well as the individual’s interpretations of that context, which can be greatly influenced by personality. Thus, speakers may make similar choices in a given situation because their cultural vantage point is similar (e.g. see García, 2004, on reprimand use by Venezuelans, Peruvians, and Argentines; or FélixBrasdefer, 2008b, on refusal strategies by Dominicans and Mexicans). However, they may also make dissimilar choices in the same situation due to differences in their personality traits. Some are more outgoing, some avoid conflict, some are more concerned with accuracy, and so forth. Being a monolingual or multilingual speaker may also matter, as different dimensions of personality have been associated with communicative competence for L1 versus L2 speakers of Dutch (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002) and its effect may also vary from one L2 to another (for those who learn two L2s at the same time, as reported in van Daele et al., 2006). Due to the complex nature of personality, its interaction with other IDs, and differences in theoretical framework and methodological approaches across studies, we do not yet have a straightforward answer to the question of what the role of personality is in second language acquisition (SLA) in general or in speech act performance specifically. However, important advances have been made in this area, and, given the scope of this chapter, I limit my discussion to a description of one of the most commonly studied personality traits – extraversion (used here to refer to the scale of extraversion – introversion) – and a review of literature relevant to language studies. Most of these studies have been conducted within an SLA framework more broadly, though a few interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) studies of personality effects have begun to emerge, as will be discussed. Extraversion/introversion is the first component of one of the most commonly accepted theoretical models of personality – namely, Eysenck’s (1990) model that comprises: (1) extraversion with introversion, (2) neuroticism and emotionality with emotional stability, and (3) psychoticism and tough-mindedness with tendermindedness. An expanded version of this model, referred to as the Big Five (e.g. Goldberg, 1992) retains the first two of Eysenck’s points and adds conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience (see van Daele et al., 2006, for a summary.) Extraversion ranks as one of the most often studied personality traits in psychological, educational, and applied linguistics studies. In considering the link between extraversion and learning in general, the literature suggests that the different degrees of cortical arousal and reactive inhibition found in introverts and extraverts (which cause differences in memory span and degree of mental distraction) lead



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

extraverts to be at a disadvantage for learning. Eysenck and Eysenck (1985), as reported in Kiany (1997), predicted that, starting at about age 13, introverts show superior academic attainment compared to extraverts. However, the hypothesis for L2 learning is the opposite: Those who analysed the link between extraversion and language learning expected extraverts to be better language learners because they are linguistically more active outside the classroom than introverts, thus increasing the amount of input (Krashen, 1985) and comprehensible language output (Swain, 1993), which would allow them to test a greater number of hypotheses about the target language and thereby acquire the language more rapidly than introverts. The extraverts’ first successful contacts in the target language were expected to further motivate them. Extraverts were, in short, expected to be better language learners.  (from Dewaele & Furnham, 1999, 520)

However, the treatment of extraversion in linguistics research and the findings associated with it have been far from uniform. Dewaele and Furnham (1999) offered a history of extraversion in applied linguistics literature, which they demonstrated was largely influenced by a critical misinterpretation in Naiman et al. (1978). Reviews of similar literature by Griffiths (1991) corroborate the point that methodological flaws and ill-conceived assumptions led to the marginalisation of personality variables in L2 literature dealing with IDs. However, with increased interest in accounting for psychological and emotional dimensions in L2 learning (e.g. Dewaele, 1993; Dörnyei, 2005, 2006) has come an increase in the number of SLA studies that have included extraversion as an independent variable (for further reviews, see also Skehan, 1989; Furnham, 1990; Dewaele, 2005). Findings vary according to the dependent variable under examination but generally point to notable differences between introverts and extraverts. For example, from a survey of human performance studies, Matthews et al. (2000: 283) highlight the pattern that extraverts perform better in different task situations than introverts, which reflects: “individual differences in adaptation to cognitively demanding environments, including social environments”. In terms of SLA studies, Ehrman and Oxford (1990) found that extraverts reported using more social strategies (than introverts) in language learning, whereas introverts preferred metacognitive strategies. Dewaele’s (2002) results showed that personality significantly predicted levels of communicative anxiety in L3 production (for French L2 and English L3 learners [Flemish L1]) such that those with high extraversion scores reported significantly lower levels of communicative anxiety in English. Still other SLA studies have examined the correlation between personality dimensions and language grades (Dewaele, 2007), lexical composition differences from formal to informal styles (Dewaele, 1996), lexical richness (Dewaele, 1993), and depth of vocabulary

 Lisa M. Kuriscak

knowledge (Morimoto, 2006); however, with the exception of Dewaele (1996), these studies did not find significant differences between extraverts and introverts. In contrast, van Daele et al. (2006), investigating the effect of extraversion on multiple dimensions of L2 production (fluency, complexity, and accuracy of production) over two years and for two L2s (L1 speakers of Dutch learning English and French in secondary school), found that not only did the effect of extraversion vary over time but also that it did not affect fluency, accuracy, and complexity in the same way such that it affected lexical complexity in both languages but not accuracy, syntactic complexity, or oral fluency. Fewer L2 pragmatics studies have included personality as an independent variable in their research designs, but among those that have done so, significant results have been found, which supports calls by Kasper and colleagues (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 2002) to dedicate more attention to this and other ID variables in ILP studies. For example, in a study of the relationship between the components of communicative competence and personality dimensions, Verhoeven and Vermeer (2002) investigated correlations between personality dimensions and communicative competence (organisational, pragmatic, and strategic competence) for L1 and L2 speakers (Dutch children [L1] and children of immigrants in The Netherlands [L2]). Their results show the multidimensionality of communicative competence as well as differences and similarities between the L1 and L2 children. For the L2 results involving personality factors, they found significant correlations between the following: openness with all measures of competence, conscientiousness with organisational competence, and extraversion with strategic competence (the planning and monitoring of communicative behaviour). They further state that: … extraversion is positively related to the strategic competence of both L1 and L2 learners but negatively related to their organizational competence. This suggests that more extraverted learners may generally find strategies to compensate for limited language skills more easily than introverted learners …  (from Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002, 373)

Kuriscak (2006) examined the effect of extraversion on the production of requests and complaints by L2 university learners of Spanish. Data were collected from advanced learners (N = 292) via surveys that measured personality, language learning experience, morphosyntactic knowledge, and responses to a discourse completion task (DCT). The data were submitted to two levels of analysis because of the nested nature of the data – single-level models (different regression tests) and multilevel models (hierarchical linear models). The regression analyses showed that learners who scored higher on extraversion produced both more mitigating supportive moves and more upgraders, suggesting that they are linguistically more active and employ more modifications to their speech acts than learners with lower



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

scores for extraversion. However, the findings in the multilevel models showed that the effect of extraversion on upgrader usage was spurious when situation-level effects, including NS sex, were included. One possible explanation for this change is that the sex of the NS may trump the importance of the speaker’s extraversion in production: That is, although extraverts may produce more speech – and, by increased chance, more mitigators – speakers (whether extraverted or not) also produce more upgraders when addressing female interlocutors (which was another significant finding in both the single- and multilevel models). Additionally, those who scored higher on extraversion were more likely to have studied abroad. Future research would be needed to determine if this is a cause or an effect of having studied abroad, but this result is especially interesting when considered in conjunction with another finding that remained significant in the multilevel models – that the higher one scored on the extraversion scale, the more direct one’s request strategies were. Thus, it appears that extraverts prefer more direct strategies when making requests but modulate the impact of the directness of the head act by using more mitigators. In short, empirical findings in both SLA and ILP affirm that personality matters, but the overall picture remains inconsistent and unclear in places. More has been done in SLA than ILP studies to date, and results thus far indicate that we should investigate this variable further within both frameworks. Dörnyei (2006) ascribes the lack of a coherent picture of the role that personality variables play in education achievement (including SLA) as attributable to the following: (1) the nature of the task may impose a personality bias; (2) some theoretical models may be too simplistic to capture complex, nonlinear relationships, hence the need for theoretical models that focus on layers and relationships between layers (e.g. MacIntyre et al., 1998); (3) differences in theoretical models that present the Big Five as supertraits, further broken down in primary traits, raise questions as to whether the supertraits or primary traits are the source of correlations between L2 performance and personality, and (4) there is variation across studies in terms of measurement of variables, study design, and sample composition, which leads to differences in outcomes and interpretations of findings. Dewaele and Furnham (1999: 521) also pointed out that “the nature of the linguistic variable… appears to affect the possible link with extraversion”. Specifically, significant correlations were found in results of oral communicative speech, whereas none was found in results from written (i.e. grammar or vocabulary) tests. It is important to draw attention to the fact that all of the written tests included in their review involved tests of structural features (e.g. grades, number of words produced in a given time span, and listening- and reading-comprehension scores), and none included written DCTs for speech acts. Dewaele and Furnham (1999: 527) also indicated that (1) “the more complex the verbal task, the higher the chance of finding correlations between extraversion scores and linguistic variables” (emphasis

 Lisa M. Kuriscak

in original), and (2) differences in introversion – extraversion may not affect the process of language learning but do seem to have an effect on speech production. Van Daele et al. (2006) also offered suggestions for how task type, task conditions, and the distribution of extraversion in the sample, among others, may influence the results obtained. These issues underscore the need for speech act studies that compare the effect of personality on learners’ performance collected via different means (e.g. oral role play vs. written DCT) and with learners whose extraversion scores are more normally distributed. 2.2  Aptitude Language aptitude is typically understood as “ability or intelligence in general, and for SLA, as the ability to learn an L2” (Dörnyei, 2006: 45). It is a broad concept that captures other cognitive factors, and the examination of its subcomponents has drawn the most interest (though not always agreement). Tests of aptitude (e.g. Carroll & Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test, or MLAT) aim to measure learners’ innate ability or talent for learning languages such that one could indicate what a learner’s success in learning an L2 would be by measuring achievement in phonemic coding, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability, and rote learning ability. Tests of proficiency on the other hand (e.g. the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, or ACTFL test) tend to measure specific linguistic skills (rather than the structure of mental abilities) in terms of one’s L2 skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. As such, one’s ability to learn an L2 would correspond to aptitude, and one’s ability to use or understand an L2 accurately and fluently would correspond to the related but not synonymous term – proficiency. Most work done on aptitude has been carried out within the framework of SLA in general, and I briefly summarise some of this work below. Carroll (1981) proposed a theoretical model of language aptitude as consisting of phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, rote learning ability, and inductive language learning ability. Skehan (1989) subsequently proposed a three-part system that combined and relabelled Carroll’s components as auditory ability, linguistic ability, and memory ability. Greater interest in how aptitude relates to SLA as well as advances in cognitive psychology that allow for “more accurate representation of the various mental skills and aptitudes that make up the composite language learning ability” (Dörnyei, 2006: 47) have promoted theoretical approaches that continue to focus on the subcomponents of aptitude (Parry & Stansfield, 1990). These include the impact that L1 literacy has on L2 abilities (Dufva & Voeten, 1999; Tarone & Bigelow, 2005; Sparks et al., 2006) and working memory capacity, which is understood as “temporary storage and manipulation of information that is assumed to be necessary for a wide range of complex cognitive activities” (Baddeley, 2003: 189),



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

including L2 production and comprehension skills. What is becoming clear is that the subcomponents of aptitude do not function independently. Rather, as Robinson (2001, 2002) has suggested, what matters for optimal L2 learning is the clustering of ID traits (see also work by Skehan [1998, 2002; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003] that has examined the relationship between aptitude components and phases of the SLA process). In sum, over the years there has been movement away from a uniform, hegemonic approach to language aptitude and toward more detailed examination of the individual cognitive subcomponents as well as the clustering and relationships among them. In ILP, however, apparently no work has been done yet to measure the effect of aptitude on L2 speech act performance. ILP studies instead have focused on the effect of proficiency on speech act outcomes. Measures of L2 abilities in these studies have tended to be operationalised as morphosyntactic and lexical proficiency in terms of reading/listening comprehension and/or written/oral expression – that is, as the L2 production or comprehension outcomes of the cognitive subcomponents of aptitude. Assessment measures of proficiency range from tests such as the TOEFL (Takahashi & DuFon, 1989; Taguchi, 2007) or Oral Proficiency Interviews (Owen, 2002), to more holistic measures such as number of semesters of study or class placement (Roever, 2006; Félix-Brasdefer, 2008a), to a combination of measures to form a proficiency scale (Kuriscak, 2006; see also Thomas, 1994, for a review of assessment measures.) Research has shown that for many learners – even those at higher proficiency levels – L2 pragmatic knowledge is incomplete (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig, 1999), but the relationship between proficiency and speech act performance is still far from clear. A number of L2 pragmatics studies have reported effects of proficiency on many outcomes, such as: (1) request performance in terms of utterance length (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986), (2) use of request strategies (e.g. Takahashi & DuFon, 1989), (3) appropriateness ratings and speech rate (Taguchi, 2007), (4) learners’ knowledge of speech acts (Roever, 2006), and (5) directness levels of requests in terms of production (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007c) and in terms of comprehension (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002). Furthermore, Kuriscak (2006) found a significant effect of proficiency on the type of speech act produced such that learners who scored higher on the proficiency scale produced significantly more requests and fewer complaints to enhanced DCT scenarios, suggesting that less proficient learners may find complaints to be more within their range of ability than requests. On the other hand, there are studies that have reported mixed effects of proficiency on the L2 outcome and have suggested that the effects of proficiency on L2 speech act performance may be relative to other variables. As examples, data collected by Owen (2002) suggest that study abroad experience alone, regardless of proficiency level, led to more nativelike request strategies.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak

Similarly, Félix-Brasdefer (2004) found that length of stay in the target culture had a stronger effect on pragmatic ability than proficiency level (see also Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985, and Matsumura, 2001). Takahashi (2005) examined the relationship between Japanese EFL learners’ awareness of pragmalinguistic (request) features and motivation and proficiency. Results revealed that their noticing of the features was associated with motivational factors (in particular, intrinsic motivation) but not with L2 proficiency, suggesting that: “motivation and proficiency operate on pragmalinguistic awareness independently rather than jointly, and… motivation plays a more crucial role than proficiency in learners’ allocation of attention to pragmatic input” (Takahashi, 2005: 113). Matsumura (2003) noted that a study’s methodology and type of analyses can affect the results obtained and that ID traits can directly or indirectly influence the dependent variable. In his study, structural equation modeling was used to measure both the direct and indirect effects of English proficiency level and amount of exposure to English on the perception of speech acts (offering advice). A direct effect of proficiency on pragmatic competence was not found. Instead there was an indirect effect via exposure. In general, pragmatic development is associated with proficiency level (for further reviews, see also Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Kasper & Rose, 1999) such that the L2 learner (or user) at higher proficiency levels tends to speak and react in more targetlike ways but yet not entirely so. For example, higher proficiency learners tend to be more indirect than their lower-proficiency counterparts (who tend to be more direct in their strategies), they use more external modifiers and more words (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986), more downgraders (Trosborg, 1987), and may be less influenced by L1 transfer. However, not all studies have measured proficiency in the same way, which makes the comparison of the results somewhat more difficult. This variable is a frequent and important independent and control variable in speech act studies, and the field is ripe for an even closer examination by means of more detailed, consistent measures and larger sample sizes that allow for more sophisticated, multilevel statistical analyses. Research into the effect of aptitude would also broaden and deepen our understanding of L2 speech act performance. Aptitude is receiving increased attention in conjunction with other ID variables, especially motivation, which affects language learning achievement in general as well as speech act performance and which can even override aptitude effects (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Dörnyei, 2005). 2.3  Motivational factors As with language aptitude, motivation is also a multi-faceted concept that has been examined through several different theoretical lenses. One of the most well known



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

is Gardner’s (1985) social-psychological perspective. Although his theory of SLA more broadly describes how motivation and other ID variables affect successful SLA, he is most often cited for two theoretical concepts – instrumental motivation and integrative motivation. Instrumental motivation refers to the drive to learn an L2 for the concrete benefits it may bring, whereas integrative motivation refers to the desire to learn about the target community such that one could eventually become accepted as a member of that community (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Thus, those who score high for the integrative type identify positively with the people and culture of the L2, and those who score high on the instrumental type place more emphasis on advantages, such as professional advancement. Gardner’s approach to motivation and his Attitude/Motivation Test Battery or AMTB (Gardner, 1985) have been used widely in SLA and dominated the field through the 1980s. The emphasis placed on integrative motivation in this approach constitutes a more social facet behind motivation, contrasting with more recent emphasis placed on both the cognitive and social dimensions of motivation (e.g. Skehan, 1989, notes that external or internal sources can influence learners’ motivation) and the recognition that identification with a specific L2 community may not always be straightforward. Research in the 1990s generally became more context-focused (Dörnyei, 2006), placing emphasis on how motivation changes over time and by learning context and leading to these theoretical developments: (1)  process-oriented conceptualisations of motivation that account for daily fluctuations in motivation (e.g. Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998), (2) reinterpretations of Gardner’s integrative motive (as English is no longer a national language but now a global language) such that what is proposed is virtual identification “with the sociocultural loading of a language rather than with the actual L2 community” (Dörnyei, 2006: 52), and (3) reframing of L2 motivation as part of a three-part system – Ideal L2 self, Ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experience (for a more detailed description, see Dörnyei, 2005, 2006). Depending on the area of language studied and perhaps the instrument used, motivation has been found to have varying effects on SLA outcomes. It is also associated with other individual-level variables. For example, Brown et al. (2001) adapted Gardner’s AMTB and found two motivational subscales were positively correlated with extraversion. Freed (1990) found that overall motivation did not affect the likelihood that learners of French pursued opportunities to use French outside of class while abroad, but there was a positive relationship between motivation and the likelihood of non-interactive contact (e.g. going to movies in French). In general, motivation has been less studied in relation to speech acts, but numerous SLA studies have investigated other effects of motivation (see Dörnyei, 2006, for reviews), and the field of ILP is poised for further examination of this variable.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak

Extant pragmatics research has found a correlation between high levels of motivation and pragmatic competence. For example, Schmidt’s (1983) study revealed correlations between pragmatic competence and high levels of motivation. Niezgoda and Röver (2001) concluded that high pragmatic awareness was associated at least partially with high levels of motivation in Czech learners of English, and similarly, Cook (2001) found that learners’ with higher levels of motivation better distinguished polite from impolite speech styles in Japanese. Takahashi (2005) examined motivational and proficiency effects on pragmalinguistic awareness, and her results suggest that, although motivation and proficiency are (independently) associated with pragmalinguistic awareness, motivation plays a more crucial role in learners’ attention to pragmatic input (in particular, their noticing of bi-clausal complex request forms and other non-request features of the input) (see also Takahashi, this volume). Kasper and Rose (2002: 287) emphasise that motivation has been shown to be linked to attention, noticing, and psychological distance, among other learner variables and suggest that future L2 pragmatics research should investigate the possibility that “different aspects of L2 pragmatics may be differentially noticeable to learners with different motivational profiles”. This is especially important to consider in speech act studies because the carrying out of speech acts involves noticing both social and linguistic details and filtering one’s decisions (e.g. what strategies to take or how direct or indirect to be) through one’s own individual lens of personality and motivation. Changes in motivation over time can be spurred by many forces (both internal and external to the learner), making it our challenge to capture and describe this dynamic process.

3.  Conclusion A review of the literature reveals that, for the most part, speech act studies have devoted relatively little attention to exploring IDs. Instead, the field of ILP has directed much of its attention to other matters, which are often descriptions of how NNSs and NSs differ in their semantic formulas and strategies used for performing speech acts, such as: (1) how targetlike they are, (2) whether NNSs transfer L1 sociocultural strategies to their L2 behaviour (Al-Issa, 2003), (3) how they differ in their use of mitigational devices and strategies (Kreutel, 2007) and their recognition of speech acts (Holtgraves, 2007), or (4) how their responses vary when certain traits of the addressee, such as gender and status, are varied (Yu, 2004). Speech act studies have focused more heavily on (1) the effects of task- or situation-level variables (Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Chen & Chen, 2007), (2) the negotiation of face with speakers of different social status (Félix-Brasdefer, 2006), and (3) the outcomes obtained via different data-collection methods (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007b; also this



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

volume). Finally, there is growing interest in incorporating speech act instruction into the classroom as well as online (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007a; Ishihara, 2007; work at CARLA at the University of Minnesota) and in discerning and documenting how the path of pragmatic development advances (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007c; Warga & Scholmberger, 2007). These contributions to the field would be complemented well by further research into the effects of ID variables on speech act performance. The dynamic, interrelated nature of IDs suggests the importance in future ILP studies of implementing research designs that include more elaborate background questionnaires (to collect more detailed data on the subcomponents of aptitude, for example) and working for greater consensus in the measurement of these concepts, perhaps by comparing the measures’ reliability and their utility in predicting theoretically important outcomes. In addition, it would be fruitful to triangulate data sources and use sufficiently large sample sizes and statistical models to be able to account for the nested nature of much of the speech act data collected, as well as to account for both direct and indirect effects of the ID variables on the dependent variable. The nature of these variables also necessitates the collection of data at multiple points (e.g. collection of motivation data not just at the beginning or end of a study but also throughout the study to track how learners’ motivation levels change over time) and as such, the implementation of longitudinal studies to better trace not only learners’ developmental paths but also to describe the individual factors that lead to the distinct paths they take.

References Al-Issa, A. 2003. Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(5): 581–601. Baddeley, A.D. 2003. Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders 36(3): 189–208. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49(4): 677–713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 13–32. Cambridge: CUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2006. Interlanguage development: Main routes and individual paths. AILA Review 19: 69–82. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. 2007. Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology 11(2): 59–81. Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 517–552.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1986. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8(2): 165–179. Brown, J.D., Robson, G. & Rosenkjar, P.R. 2001. Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and language proficiency of Japanese students. In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (eds.), 361–398. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Carroll, J.B. 1981. Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude, K.C. Diller (ed.), 83–118. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Chen, S.C. & Chen, S.H. 2007. Interlanguage requests: A cross-cultural study of English and Chinese. The Linguistics Journal 2(2): 33–52. Cook, H.M. 2001. Why can’t learners of Japanese as a foreign language distinguish polite from impolite speech styles? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 80–102. Cambridge: CUP. Cook, M. & Liddicoat, A.J. 2002. The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 25(1): 19–39. Dewaele, J.-M. 1993. Extraversion and lexical richness in two styles of French interlanguage. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics 99–100: 87–105. Dewaele, J.M. 1996. Lexical composition variation of oral styles. IRAL 34(4): 261–282. Dewaele, J.M. 2002. Psychological and sociodemographic correlates of communicative anxiety in L2 and L3 production. International Journal of Bilingualism 6(1): 23–38. Dewaele, J.M. 2005. Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal 89(3): 367–380. Dewaele, J.M. 2007. Predicting language learners’ grades in the L1, L2, L3 and L4: The effect of some psychological and sociocognitive variables. International Journal of Multilingualism 4(3): 169–197. Dewaele, J.M. & Furnham, A. 1999. Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning 49(3): 509–544. Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dörnyei, Z. 2006. Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review 19: 42–68. Dörnyei, Z. & Ottó, I. 1998. Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4: 43–69. Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. 2003. Individual differences in second language learning. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds.), 589–630. Oxford: Blackwell. Dufva, M. & Voeten, M.J.M. 1999. Native language literacy and phonological memory as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics 20(3): 329–348. Ehrman, M.E. & Oxford, R.L. 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal 74(3): 311–327. Ellis, R. 2004. Individual differences in second language learning. In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.), 525–551. Oxford: Blackwell. Eysenck, H.J. 1990. Biological dimensions of personality. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, L.A. Pervin (ed.), 244–276. New York NY: Guilford. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, M.W. 1985. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach. New York NY: Plenum.



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2002. Refusals in Spanish and English: A Cross-cultural Study of Politeness Strategies among Speakers of Mexican Spanish, American English, and American learners of Spanish as a Foreign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003. Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua 22(3): 225–255. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2004. Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning 54(4): 587–653. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2006. Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 38(12): 2158–2187. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2007a. Discourse pragmatics: language and culture resources for instructors, students, and researchers of Spanish linguistics. . Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2007b. Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context 4(2): 159–185. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2007c. Pragmatic development in Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 253–286. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008a. Perceptions of refusals to invitations: exploring the minds of foreign language learners. Language Awareness 17(3): 195–211. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008b. Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research 4(1): 81–110. Freed, B.F. 1990. Language learning in a study abroad context: The effects of interactive and noninteractive out-of-class contact on grammatical achievement and oral proficiency. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990, J.E. Alatis (ed.), 459–477. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Furnham, A. 1990. Language and personality. In Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, H. Giles & W.P. Robinson (eds.), 73–95. New York NY: Wiley. García, C. 2004. Pragmatic Variation: Similarities and Differences Among Peruvians, Venezuelans, and Argentineans when Reprimanding and Responding to a Reprimand. Ms, Arizona State University. Gardner, R.C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Goldberg, L.R. 1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment 4(1): 26–42. Griffiths, R. 1991. Personality and second-language learning: Theory, research, and practice. In Language Acquisition and the Second/foreign Language Classroom, E. Sadtono (ed.), 103–135. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Harlow, L.L. 1990. Do they mean what they say? Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal 74(3): 328–351. Hinkel, E. 1994. Pragmatics of interaction: Expressing thanks in a second language. Applied Language Learning 5(1): 73–91. Holtgraves, T. 2007. Second language learners and speech act comprehension. Language Learning 57(4): 595–610. Ishihara, N. 2007. Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness 16(1): 21–40. Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 3–17. Oxford: OUP.

 Lisa M. Kuriscak Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 1999. Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 81–104. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Kiany, G.R. 1997. Personality and language learning: The contradiction between psychologists and applied linguists. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics 115–116: 111–136. Krashen, S.D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. Kreutel, K. 2007. “I’m not agree with you.” ESL learners’ expressions of disagreement. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 11(3). Kuriscak, L. 2006. Pragmatic Variation in L2 Spanish: Learner and Situational Effects. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. MacIntyre, P.D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R. & Noels, K.A. 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82(4): 545–562. Matsumura, S. 2001. Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning 51(4): 635–679. Matsumura, S. 2003. Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24(4): 465–491. Matthews, G., Davies, D.R., Westerman, S.J. & Stammers, R.B. 2000. Human Performance: Cognition, Stress, and Individual Differences. Hove: Psychology Press. Morimoto, S. 2006. On the relationship between extroversion, introversion, and depth of vocabulary knowledge. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 12(1): 82–97. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H. & Todesco, A. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Niezgoda, K. & Röver, C. 2001. Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of learning environment? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 63–79. Cambridge: CUP. Olshtain, E. & Blum-Kulka, S. 1985. Degree of approximation: Normative reactions to native speech act behavior. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S.M. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), 303–325. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Owen, J.S. 2002. Interlanguage Pragmatics in Russian: A Study of the Effects of Study Abroad and Proficiency Levels on Request Strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr College. Parry, T.S. & Stansfield, C. (eds.). 1990. Language Attitude Reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents. Robinson, P. 2001. Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17(4): 368–392. Robinson, P. 2002. Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfield and Hernstadt (1991). In Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, P. Robinson (ed.), 211–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rodríguez, S. 2001. The Perception of Requests in Spanish by Instructed Learners of Spanish in the Second- and Foreign-Language Contexts: A Longitudinal Study of Acquisition Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Roever, C. 2006. Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing 23(2): 229–256.



The effect of individual-level variables on speech act performance 

Schmidt, R. 1983. Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, E. Judd & N. Wolfson (eds.), 137–174. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP. Skehan, P. 2002. Theorising and updating aptitude. In Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, P. Robinson (ed.), 69–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sparks, R.L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N. & Javorsky, J. 2006. Native language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia 56(1): 129–160. Swain, M. 1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(1): 158–164. Taguchi, N. 2007. Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics 28(1): 113–35. Takahashi, S. 2005. Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics 26(1): 90–120. Takahashi, T. & DuFon, P. 1989. Cross-linguistic Influence in Indirectness: The Case of English Directives Performed by Native Japanese Speakers. Ms, Honolulu, University of Hawai‘i. Tarone, E. & Bigelow, M. 2005. Impact of literacy on oral language processing: Implications for second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 77–97. Thomas, M. 1994. Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning 44(2): 307–336. Trosborg, A. 1987. Apology strategies in natives/nonnatives. Journal of Pragmatics 11(2): 147–167. van Daele, S., Housen, A., Pierrard, M. & Debruyn, L. 2006. The effect of extraversion on oral L2 proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook 6: 213–236. Verhoeven, L. & Vermeer, A. 2002. Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 23(3): 361–374. Warga, M. & Scholmberger, U. 2007. The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 221–251. Yu, M.C. 2004. Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior. The Modern Language Journal 88(1): 102–119.

Data collection methods in speech act performance DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports* J. César Félix-Brasdefer Indiana University

This chapter takes a speech-act perspective and examines the degree of validity and reliability of three data collection methods used in speech act research: discourse completion tasks, role plays, and verbal reports. Various formats of these instruments and the type of data they produce under experimental conditions are reviewed and illustrated with examples taken from learners and native speakers. In addition, ways for refining the instrument by focusing on the contextual information of the situation are discussed. This chapter shows how role-play data can be analysed sequentially and across multiple turns in controlled settings. It also highlights the significance of using verbal reports as a means of validating experimental data by gaining access to the learners’ cognitive and sociocultural perceptions during speech act performance. It concludes with practical recommendations for refining the instruments used in speech-act research.

1.  Introduction Researchers in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have the responsibility of evaluating the methods available for data collection and selecting the one that best measures the intended hypothetical construct, namely, pragmatic competence, and that will allow for the appropriate interpretation and consistency of the results. Since pragmatic competence cannot be measured directly among second language (L2) learners, the researcher must utilise indirect measures to assess one aspect of pragmatic competence. According to Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983), pragmatic

*I would like to thank the internal and external reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, as well as the editors of this volume, Dr. Usó-Juan and Dr. Martínez-Flor, for their editorial assistance. I also thank Dr. Greenslade and Maria Hasler Barker for their suggestions. Of course, any errors in this study remain my own.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

competence is comprised of two components: pragmalinguistic knowledge refers to the conventions of language use or the linguistic resources available in a given language used to convey “particular illocutions” (Leech 1983: 11), whereas sociopragmatic knowledge refers to the appropriateness of social norms in specific situations such as knowing “when to speak and when to remain silent […] how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles […] how to request, how to offer or how to decline assistance […]” (Saville-Troike, 1996: 363). Although the methods commonly utilised to collect data for experimental purposes in second language acquisition (SLA) (Mackey & Gass, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007; Cohen & Macaro, in press) and pragmatics research ( Kasper & Dahl, 1991; Kasper, 2000) have been well documented, this chapter adopts a speech-act perspective and focuses on the design and use of three measures used in speech act research: discourse completion tasks (DCTs), role plays, and verbal reports. Second, it analyses the degree of validity and reliability of these measures among learners in a foreign language (FL) context where input is not always authentic and is not as frequent and varied as in natural settings. Finally, this chapter concludes with practical recommendations for refining the instruments commonly used in speech act performance studies. 2.  Collecting speech-act data in ILP research Wolfson’s (1981) seminal work on naturally-occurring speech acts (compliments and invitations) was among the early studies in the 1980’s that showed that speechact data need to be gathered “through [direct] observation and participation in a great variety of spontaneously occurring speech situations” (1981: 9) and speech acts “must be observed in naturalistic settings in order for any analysis to be valid” (1981: 7). However, natural data are not error-free, especially when data are collected for the sake of research. As many authors in the field of interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics have observed, collecting speech act data in naturallyoccurring settings poses some challenges for the researcher (e.g. Kasper & Dahl, 1991; Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Kasper, 2000; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003a, 2007a; Cohen, 2004; Boxer, this volume). These include: (1) the difficulty of controlling sociolinguistic variables such as gender, age, educational level, ethnic group, and social class in comparable situations, (2) a series of speech acts may be difficult to observe outside of the classroom in learner-native speaker interactions, (3) a particular speech act cannot be captured with relatively high frequencies, and (4) the inability to find native speakers (NSs) of the target language to interact with nonnative speakers (NNSs) in a wide variety of settings. Overall, simulated data, if elicited with care, offer an alternative for speech act performance studies in a FL context.



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

2.1  DCTs and role plays: Some issues of validity and reliability Written discourse completions tasks (WDCTs) (also referred to as DCTs) and role plays represent two instruments that are commonly employed in interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics research to elicit (simulated) speech act data in the written and oral modalities, respectively. Of the 39 studies in ILP which reported on production, comprehension, and authentic data evaluated in Kasper and Dahl (1991), 49% (19 of 39 studies) were conducted with a WDCT instrument and 33% (13 of 39 studies) were carried out using role plays (open or closed). Of the 51 studies on refusals and rejections conducted in cross-cultural, single-moment studies, and ILP research examined in Félix-Brasdefer (2008a), 49% (25 of 51 studies) utilised a WDCT and 31% used role plays (open or closed) (16 of 51 studies). And, in a volume dedicated to requests in an instructed language learning context (Alcón, 2008), 50% of the papers (5 of 10 studies) elicited data from English as a foreign language (EFL) learners with WDCT (2 studies), role plays (2 studies), and a combination of WDCTs and role plays (1 study). In general, these instruments are employed in quasi-experimental research in educational contexts with intact groups (non-random assignment) and to a lesser degree in (true) experimental research where random assignment of the participants is crucial. One advantage of these instruments is that different variables can be controlled among the participants of one group or between two or more groups, such as two learner groups with different proficiency levels and a group of NSs, where various levels of social power and distance can be observed, and in symmetrical and asymmetrical communicative contexts. Despite the popularity of these methods, two issues that have been repeatedly addressed in both WDCTs and role plays is the amount of contextual information that should be provided in the situational prompt. Another issue is whether WDCTs should be used to measure knowledge of certain speech acts (e.g. refusals) that, due to their interactive nature, are more appropriately elicited via a role-play instrument (Brown, 2001, 2008; Hudson, 2001; Cohen, 2004; Roever, 2004). The aforementioned issues are worth investigating because they are related to the validity and reliability of the instrument. Broadly speaking, validity refers to the degree to which an instrument (e.g. WDCTs or role plays) measures what it intends to measure, and consequently allows adequate interpretation of the results. Three types of validity are often discussed in the literature: (1) content, (2) criterionrelated, and (3) construct validity. Content validity refers to the degree to which the instrument measures the content area in two ways: item and sampling validity (Gay et al., 2009). Item validity refers to how well the items of the instrument measure the intended content area; for example, if the content of the situations employed in WDCTs and role plays is relevant for measuring the intended aspect

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

of pragmatic competence, namely, pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic knowledge. Sampling validity refers to the representativeness of the content of the items included in the overall instrument, such as inclusion of different types of situations to measure performance of one or two speech acts, and in symmetrical and asymmetrical contexts. Criterion-related validity examines whether the results of a production of a test correlate with the findings obtained from another instrument that measures the same aspect of pragmatic competence, as done in Brown (2001) who used six different instruments to measure requests, refusals, and apologies. Finally, construct validity is the most difficult form of research validation, as it refers to the internal structure of the instrument and what aspect of pragmatic competence it intends to measure (e.g. production, perception, interaction). Overall, identifying the aspect of pragmatic competence that is the intended unit of analysis is an important methodological decision that needs to be made prior to the selection of the instrument. Unlike validity, which is concerned with the appropriateness or trustworthiness of the content of the instrument, reliability has to do with the degree to which an instrument consistently measures the intended hypothetical construct. In particular, the reliability of a group of test scores, for example, reflects the “consistency of measurement whether across time, forms, raters, items, etc.” (Brown, 2008: 228). It is well known that reliability is calculated with a value that ranges from 0.00 (zero reliability) to 1.0 (100% strong reliability). Using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, Brown elegantly demonstrates how this formula can assist the researcher in making decisions about research design for pragmatic tests for increasing or reducing the number of “items, roleplays, raters, scoring categories, subsets, etc.” (2008: 236). And while the Spearman-Brown prophetic formula analyzes one variable at a time, Brown also shows how generalisability theory can help researchers handle two or more variables to examine variance across several pragmatic tests, including WDCTs, role plays (closed and open), and role play self-assessments. One aspect of reliability common in ILP research is inter-rater reliability. This refers to the degree to which two or more independent raters or coders offer consistent ratings or coding of the data. For example, Hudson (2001) reported that inter-rater reliability across the ratings obtained from the WDCTs (0.86), role plays (0.75), and language labs (0.78) was moderate, thus providing a measure of reliability of the scores assigned by each rater. Moreover, Brown (2008) showed that the scores assigned by four raters separately to Korean FL students’ role play responses were reliable with regard to different variance components (e.g. persons, raters, functions [refusals, requests, apologies], and item types). In general, validity and reliability are crucial methodological concepts that every researcher needs to keep in mind during the conceptualisation of the research design.



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

2.1.1  WDCT: Measurement of offline (pragmatic) knowledge WDCTs represent the most frequently used instrument in ILP and cross-cultural pragmatics research. The instrument elicits experimental (simulated) speechact data under controlled conditions so as to measure offline pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic knowledge in a non-interactive format. That is, WDCTs ­measure what the participants know, rather than how they use their ability to interact with an interlocutor. While there are various formats of and ways to administer this instrument (e.g. paper and pencil, via the internet [Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; Pinto 2005]), the classic WDCT was initially used in ILP research to elicit four types of directives with 17 items among learners and NSs (BlumKulka, 1982) and was based on the DCT used for examining lexical features in interlanguage (Levenston & Blum, 1978). Example (1) shows a situation from one of the early studies that used a highly-controlled WDCT instrument in speech act research: (1) 

1 2 3 4 5

Driver and the policeman Policeman: Is that your car there? Driver: Yes, I left it there only a few minutes. Policeman: ______________________________? Driver: O.K. I’m sorry. I’ll move it at once. (from Blum-Kulka, 1982, 56)

This format inspired the Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Research Project in which requests and apologies were elicited in five different languages (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). In general, a WDCT consists of “scripted dialogs that represent socially differentiated situations. Each dialog is preceded by a short description of the situation, specifying the setting, and the social distance between the participants and their status relative to each other, followed by an incomplete dialog” (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989: 13–14). With this instrument, participants are asked to imagine the situation and to respond in writing according to how they believe they would respond in a real-life situation. It should be noted that unlike the limited situational description offered in Example (1) (line 1 Driver and the policeman), the situations in Blum-Kulka et al. included a slightly more developed description of the situation (e.g. Ann missed a lecture yesterday and would like to borrow Judith’s notes [1989: 14]) and also provided a rejoinder, such as line 5 in Example (1) above. Adding a rejoinder is an issue that has been debated in the literature: on the one hand, the participant is provided with an imaginary turn which questions the credibility of this fabricated turn; on the other, it represents the uptake which is needed for the completion of the speech act (Roever, 2004). Rose (1992) concluded that inclusion of a hearer response (i.e. rejoinder) in WDCTs did not yield significant differences in request

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

production when compared to the WDCT without a hearer response. As a result, other studies eliminated the rejoinder and used an open questionnaire (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993: 144; Hudson 2001: 287; Félix-Brasdefer 2003a: 243). In an attempt to obtain more interactional features commonly observed in natural speech act performance, other researchers have refined the WDCT. For example, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) compared the open questionnaire (description of situation + space to respond) to the dialogue completion task (description of situation + one turn that prompts the participant’s response + space to respond), and concluded that the latter “clearly defines the situation for the participants causing the NS and the non-native speakers to use semantic formulas more similarly with respect to distribution in many cases” (1993: 159). The WDCT has also been modified to elicit free dialogue, as in the free discourse completion task (FDCT) (Barron, 2003), also referred to as the dialogue production task (DPT) in pragmatic variation research (Schneider, 2008). Unlike the WDCT where each participant produces one turn, in the FDCT or DPT each participant has “to produce a short dialogue involving two participants” (Schneider, 2008: 106). In addition, unlike the aforementioned formats which elicit written data, either in one turn or in dialogue form, this instrument has been adapted to the oral mode. Here, participants are asked to listen to a situation and to respond orally. Yuan (2001) compared the WDCT to the oral discourse completion task (oral DCT) in eliciting compliments and compliment responses and concluded that, in comparison to the WDCT, the oral DCT elicits data that approximates natural conversation (e.g. repetitions, exclamation particles, inversions). Cohen and Olshtain (1981) initially used the oral DCT instrument in the early 1980’s to elicit oral apologies from NSs and EFL learners. One additional modification of the traditional WDCT was introduced by Billmyer and Varghese (2000) who developed a content-enriched DCT that adds more contextual information regarding the situation, specifically, time and place. The authors used two versions (2000: 522–523): version one included a classic WDCT (music situation, taken from Rose, 1992) (38 words) and in version two the situation was enhanced with specific contextual information (153 words). As a result of this enhancement the data showed “more robust external modification and elaboration than do the archetypal content-poor prompts which most DCT studies to date have used” (Billmyer & Varghese, 2000: 543). That is, adding additional information to the prompt yielded a significant effect on the richness of the data elicited. In a recent dissertation that examined L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic development, Flores-Salgado (2009) adapted Rose’s (2000) cartoon oral production task (COPT) to elicit requests and apologies among adult learners of English as a FL in Mexico. One advantage of the COPT instrument is that it provides a visual context for the situation (i.e. pictures representing different social situations) and the data are recorded orally (as an oral DCT). Finally, as a means of increasing



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

the degree of validity of the WDCT and by providing rich audiovisual and contextual information in the situation prompt, Schauer (2004) designed the computer-based multimedia elicitation task (MET) to examine ILP development in requests in 16 scenarios among German learners of English during a year-long study abroad program in Great Britain. The MET controls the time and the nature of the audio and visual input, guarantees equal conditions for every participant, elicits oral data, and is delivered by means of a computerised presentation format with visual (photographic images) and audio input (description of the situation). Unlike the traditional WDCT, the COPT and the MET represent interactive formats, with different stimuli, that increase the degree of construct validity. Yet, despite efforts to elicit oral data in one turn under highly controlled conditions which insures comparability, these instruments cannot capture the dynamics of social (face-to-face) interaction that allow us to examine speech act sequences across multiple turns as role plays do. 2.1.2  Role plays: Measurement of online (pragmatic) knowledge Role plays are simulations of communicative encounters (Kasper, 2000) that elicit spoken data in which two interlocutors assume roles under predefined experimental conditions. Role plays can be of two types: closed and open (Kasper & Dahl, 1991). In the closed role play, the participant responds to a role-play situation without a reply from an interlocutor (as in the oral DCT described in the previous subsection). Open role plays (also called “discourse roleplay tasks” [Brown, 2008: 232]), on the other hand, specify the actor’s roles, but the course and outcome of the conversation is not predetermined. During a role play task, participants are often asked to read a situational description and to respond orally as they would in a real situation with an interlocutor in face-to-face interaction. With role plays one can also control for a series of contextual parameters: the situation, the degree of social distance and social power between the interlocutors, the weight of imposition, gender and age of the participants, learning environment (FL vs SL), and proficiency level. Unlike the WDCT, the COPT, and the MET, the (open) role-play technique has the advantage of including interaction in a face-to-face format with another participant. Role plays are generally tape or video recorded. Once the situations have been recorded, the data are carefully transcribed according to a system of transcription notations in order to capture the sequential organisation of discourse (e.g. Jefferson, 2004). The data gathered by means of open role plays will depend on whether sufficient contextualised information is included in the description of the situation. For example, the role play situations used in the pilot study in Félix-Brasdefer (2008a) were tested for content validity with two groups of NSs, 10 Americans and 10 Mexicans. Using a classic role play, the participants in each group were instructed to role play nine situations (three distracters and six refusals to invitations, suggestions, and requests) with another NS of English or Spanish (the mean number of words

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

in the situations was 51.6 words). An example of a traditional (unenhanced) role play prompt is shown in (2) (36 words):

(2) Refusing a friend’s invitation to attend a birthday party

A friend of yours invites you to his birthday party next Friday evening. He is inviting a select group of friends over to his house, and you are one of them, but you can’t make it.

Immediately after the participants completed the nine role play situations, they were asked about the validity of their responses during the interactions. Regarding the content of the situation as in Example (2), participants commented that more specific information was needed in each situation, such as detailed information with respect to the situation, time, place, and more information regarding the degree of formality of the relationship such as distant or close friends and the degree of social power between the interlocutors in situations which involved a boss or professor and an employee or student. In fact, most participants mentioned that their responses in the role play interaction would have varied based on whether their relationship with the friend, boss or professor was close or distant. Thus, in light of the observations of the participants, the descriptions of the situations were enhanced to include enriched-role play scenarios (the mean number of words for the situations was 130.5 [Americans] and 146.5 [Mexicans]). The role play in (2) was enhanced with contextual information about the setting, the relationship between the participants, gender, and time of the event. The enhanced role play is shown in Example (3) (138 words) and a sample of the response to that situation between two American college students, taken from Félix-Brasdefer and Bardovi-Harlig (in press), is given in Figure 1 below.1

(3) Refusing a friend’s invitation to attend a birthday party

You are walking across campus when you run into a good friend of yours whom you haven’t seen for about a month. You and he have been studying in the same program at the University for three years, and have studied and written papers together in the past, but you don’t have any classes together this semester since you have been doing an internship off-campus. He invites you to his 21st birthday party at his house next Friday night at 8:00 p.m. He tells you that a group of mutual friends that you both used to hang out with and whom you haven’t seen since the semester started will also be there. You know that this would be a good opportunity to see everyone again and to celebrate this special occasion with him. Unfortunately, you cannot make it.

1.  Erin and Paul are two college students at an American University in the South. Erin invites Paul to her birthday party and Paul declines. You can listen to this role play interaction on the following website (http://www.indiana.edu/~discprag/spch_refusals.html). Go to “Listen to Refusals” => Refusing in English → “A friend’s birthday invitation – female-male”.



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin:

Hey Paul – how’s it going? hey, Erin how are you? I’m fanta::stic = = I haven’t seen you in a long time – [where you been? [I – I’ve just been working – going to class Paul: [oh good – good Erin: [the usual –

Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul:

I’m so glad that I saw you – I’ve been – trying to figure out how to get in touch with you cuz –um – I just turned 21 – yesterday – and I’m gonna have a party this Friday night and I’m just trying to get in touch with everybody –um – from last semester – that we were all in class together and everything and I really wanted you to come – it’s gonna be at eight o’clock at my house ooh – this Friday? yeah ohh – my goodness – it’s my grandmother’s birthday this weekend you’re kidding and my grandmother lives out of town – too oh [no::: [and normally, you know, my parents go of course – you know umhm so – when we go, we spend the weekend with ‘em yeah because I live so far away – we just can’t come back and forth on [a day [yeah when are you leaving? Thursday night oh man:: and we’re gonna get there Friday morning and stay until Sunday

Erin: and – there’s no way you can – like = Paul: = oh, I wish I could – I – I wish I could make it because, you know – I haven’t seen you for such a [long time [yeah Erin: Paul: and I’d like to get – you know – I’d like to get back with you but –

Erin: Paul: Erin: Paul:

um – maybe next – are you busy next week? I mean – I’ll take out for dinner or = = ohh ((laughs)) that’s nice of you – um yeah we can just – we can get together – that’s cool would that work? yeah ok

Erin: well, I’m sorry you can’t come, but have a good time with your grandmother Paul: alright – I’m sorry too – Erin: alright Paul: happy birthday Erin: thank you.

Opening sequence

Invitationrefusal sequence

Insistenceresponse

Suggestionresponse

Closing sequence

Figure 1.  Role play interaction: Declining a friend’s invitation to attend a birthday party. Erin issues invitation; Paul declines invitation

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

In this role play interaction, there are five sequences commonly used in American refusals to invitations from a friend (Félix-Brasdefer, 2008a): an opening sequence (lines 1–8), the invitation-refusal sequence (lines 9–32), the insistence-response sequence (lines 33–38), the suggestion-response sequence (lines 39–45), and the closing of the interaction (lines 46–51). After the invitation (lines 9–15), a pre-refusal response is realised in one turn (line 16, ooh – this Friday?’) followed by the refusal response which is accomplished by means of various turn-constructional units (TCUs) (Schegloff, 2007) (lines 18, 20, 22, 24, 26–27). Notice that the insistence-refusal response (lines 33–38) is shorter that the initial invitation-refusal sequence (lines 9–32). One can also appreciate several instances of overlap (lines 21–22, 27–28), interruption (lines 40–41), and laughter particles to reinforce the links of solidarity between the participants (line 41). Finally, with role play data researchers can examine the pragmatic effect of prosodic elements employed in an interaction to express tentativeness, politeness, or degrees of directness or indirectness (e.g. intonation, stress, duration) (Wichmann, 2004). 2.2  Verbal reports: Accessing cognitive and sociocultural information This section examines two types of introspection methods, namely, think-aloud protocols and retrospective verbal reports in ILP speech act research. As stated by Mackey and Gass (2005: 77), verbal reporting “is a special type of introspection and consists of gathering protocols, or reports, by asking individuals what is going through their minds as they are solving or completing a task”. Verbal reporting was grounded in Psychology research within the Processing Model that interprets human cognition as information processing with limited capacity, namely, short-term (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Under this framework, the authors (1993: 11) indicate that “it is assumed that information recently acquired (attended to or heeded) by the central processor is kept in STM, and is directly accessible for further processing (e.g. for producing verbal reports), whereas information from LTM must be first transferred (transferred to STM) before it can be reported”. In think-aloud protocols, participants are instructed to think aloud or to voice their thoughts while performing a task (e.g. WDCTs). On the other hand, retrospective reporting consists of verbal reports obtained from the participants immediately after the completion of a task (e.g. role plays or WDCTs) while much information is still in STM and can be directly reported. Overall, in speech act research both types of verbal reports have been used to draw inferences during the production or after the completion of WDCTs or role plays. Verbal reports are instrumental in determining speech act performance because “one may learn what the respondents actually perceived about each situation (e.g. what they perceived about the relative role status of the interlocutors) and how



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

their perceptions influenced their responses” (Cohen, 2004: 321). For example, using a WDCT, Robinson (1992) examined the effects that concurrent (singlesubject think-aloud) and retrospective verbal reporting had on refusals among learners of English as a L2. Results showed that while concurrent reporting elicits specific information about the planning of the speech act, retrospective reporting aids at generating and investigating hypotheses. Using video-taped role plays and retrospective reporting, Widjaja (1997) examined the sociocultural perceptions that female EFL Tawainese learners have of their L1 when refusing a date in English, and concluded that retrospective reporting draws inferences on the learners’ pragmatic knowledge. In order to examine sociocultural perceptions of L2 target norms, retrospective verbal reports collected by Félix-Brasdefer (2003b) showed that although advanced American learners of Spanish as a FL showed high levels of pragmalinguistic competence when declining an invitation in formal and informal situations, their perceptions of sociocultural target norms often differed from those of the L1 culture. Further, Cohen and Olshtain (1993) examined the cognitive processes involved in the production of apologies, complaints and requests among EFL learners. It was found that the selection of the language of thought during the planning and execution of a speech act was a complex matter and that learners did not attend much to grammar or pronunciation. Finally, using retrospective reporting immediately after the completion of two open role plays, Félix-Brasdefer (2008b) examined the perceptions of refusals to two invitations (friend-friend and employee-boss) among 20 advanced learners of Spanish as a FL. Results showed that retrospective reporting was instrumental in accessing information about cognition (i.e. the planning and execution of the refusal and the selection of the language of thought) and perception of sociocultural knowledge (social status differences in L1 and L2 and the perception of an insistence in Spanish and English). Both concurrent and retrospective reporting serve to validate the instrument, thus, increasing both content and construct validity. For example, as mentioned with respect to the pilot study reported on in the subsection devoted to examining role plays, retrospective verbal interviews conducted immediately after the completion of the role play task allowed the researcher to notice certain limitations of the role play instrument, namely, a lack of contextual information and clarity of the instructions of the role play. Similarly, Woodfield (2008) used pair think aloud and retrospective reporting (three pairs of NSs of British English) to explain issues of validity noticed during the reconstruction of requests in 18 WDCTs. Specifically, the author found that the six participants in her study noticed deficiencies in the WDCT instrument, namely, attending to the interactive nature of the request situation (resisting the written task), a lack of contextual detail in the situations, and inauthenticity of the instrument and of the discourse context, thus, raising questions of construct validity of the instrument.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

Overall, verbal reporting can be used to increase the degree of content validity of the instrument, namely, face validity, and thus ensure trustworthiness of the results. Most importantly, if carried out with care, verbal reporting can be instrumental in analysing the learners’ sociocultural perceptions of the target culture such as notions of politeness and respect, directness and indirectness, and speech act perception in formal and informal contexts. Gathering sociocultural perceptions in FL settings would also provide the researcher with insights about the teaching of pragmatics in the classroom and show how learners perceive notions of social power and social distance in the target language. In addition, with verbal reports one can also obtain native speaker sociocultural perceptions of certainty and uncertainty, as shown in post-event interviews gathered after performing conventionally indirect requests among Spaniards and Britons (Márquez Reiter et al., 2005) and judgements on impoliteness or rapport management in Chinese-British business interactions (Spencer-Oatey, 2005).

3.  Conclusion This chapter examined issues of validity and reliability in the design and use of three types of data collection methods employed in studies of speech act performance, namely, DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. Specifically, the current study adopted a speech-act perspective, mainly in a FL context, and centered on ways to refine the instrument in order to measure the hypothetical construct in question, pragmatic competence. Since the quantity, quality, frequency, and modality (e.g. oral vs. written) of pragmatic input that FL learners are afforded inside and outside of the classroom differs considerably from what SL learners are exposed to in naturalistic contexts (Kasper & Rose, 2002: 217–230), the design of the instrument needs to be improved to fit the needs of learners in the appropriate learning environment. On the ethical side, it should be noted that collecting simulated data in FL contexts may require approval of the Institutional Review Board from the institution where the data are collected for the protection of the rights of human subjects and this information must be reported in the study. With regard to DCTs, the selection of the appropriate format depends on the research objectives under investigation. While it is known that the archetypal WDCT allows the researcher to collect pragmalinguistic speech act data with different situations (approximately 12–18 situations), adding sufficient contextual information to the situation (i.e. content-enriched WDCTs) ensures a higher degree of validity of the results. With this format, however, the number of enhanced situations included in the instrument is often fewer than in the classic WDCT. Further, while oral DCTs do represent an improvement over the WDCT in that they elicit oral data that



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

may contain some features found in natural discourse (Yuan, 2001), the speech-act data should be interpreted with caution as they are also simulated, lack the presence of the interlocutor, and do not reflect the dynamics of social interaction where speaker’s intentions are negotiated and constructed. Also, both the COPT and the MET formats attempt to enhance the contextual information providing the learner with visual and audio input to produce oral responses in controlled settings. Unlike the archetypal WDCT, the COPT and the MET instruments ensure higher degrees of content (sampling and item) and construct validity. However, this needs to be validated by additional studies that use these instruments with different speech acts and in other SL and FL settings. Role-play data that are collected in face-to-face interaction allow the researcher to examine pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic data and to analyse speech-act data across the interaction. Since role play interactions are tape-recorded, transcription and coding of the data may be time consuming, especially if the purpose is to examine two or more learner groups with different degrees of proficiency and at various stages of development, as in previous studies that used role play data in interventional and non-interventional research (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007b; 2008c; Martínez-Flor, 2008). Further, enriching the role play prompt with appropriate and contextual information increases the degree of validity of the instrument. Nevertheless, it should be noted that as a result of enriching the content of the role play prompt, it may be necessary to reduce the number of situations in which data are collected at one time, which consequently may influence the representativeness of the items included in the instrument. One of the main advantages of using role-play data is that they permit the analysis of speech act strategies across the interaction. For example, role-play data allow the researcher to analyse how the strategies that constitute the speech act set of refusals or requests evolve across the interaction, over various turns, and with presence of prosodic features such as intonation and stress. The use of concurrent or retrospective reporting allows the researcher to draw inferences on the learners’ cognitive processes and sociocultural knowledge during the execution or after the completion of a task. With regard to cognition of heeded grammatical information, in speech-act research that employs WDCTs or role plays (in combination with retrospective reporting) the data can be triangulated in order to analyse how learners reconstruct the pragmalinguistic information they use to plan and deliver the speech act. Moreover, verbal reports can be instrumental in allowing the researcher to draw inferences regarding the perception of polite and impolite behaviour and with respect to how FL learners perceive differences in social distance and social power in the L1 and L2. In general, although DCTs and role plays have been shown to be reliable and valid to a degree (Sasaki, 1998; Hudson, 2001; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003a, 2007a), simulated data, oral or written, are mainly used for research purposes, not assessment of learners’

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer

linguistic proficiency, and can hardly be equated to speech act data drawn from natural discourse. And verbal reports should be used to validate data obtained from DCTs (concurrent reporting) or role plays (retrospective reporting) so as to increase the level of trustworthiness of the results. Finally, although this chapter focused on instruments for experimental purposes, the researcher should also consider the possibility of analysing natural data in FL contexts as a means of validating simulated data. One way to examine speech act data in their natural habitat is through institutional discourse; this type of discourse is goal oriented, recurrent, and interactional (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 2005: 14–36; Yates, this volume). For example, with approval of the Institutional Review Board for the protection of the Human Subjects, learner data in FL contexts can be collected in the following natural contexts: professor-student advising sessions, learner-learner interactions in classroom settings or requests for information in coffee shops or other commercial venues. Independent of the research goals of any project, it is important that the researcher make constant attempts to refine the instrument and to consider the possibility of examining speech act data in naturalistic settings.

References Alcón, E. (ed.). 2008. Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context. Bern: Peter Lang. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 1993. Redefining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In Pragmatics and Language Learning (vol. 4), L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (eds.), 143–165. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an Intenational Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B.S. 2005. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Exploring Institutional Talk. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Beebe, L.M. & Cummings, M.C. 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, S.M. Gass & J. Neu (eds.), 65–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Billmyer, K. & Varghese, M. 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21(4): 517–552. Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3(1): 29–59. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Brown. J.D. 2001. Pragmatic tests: different purposes, different tests. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 301–325. Cambridge: CUP.



Data collection methods in speech act performance 

Brown, J.D. 2008. Raters, functions, item types and the dependability of L2 pragmatics tests. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 224–248. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A.D. 2004. Assessing speech acts in a second language. In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, D. Boxer & A.D. Cohen (eds.), 302–327. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A.D. & Macaro, E. 2010. Research methods in second language acquisition. In Contin-uum ­Companion to Second Language Acquisition, E. Macaro (ed.), 107–133. London: Continuum. Cohen, A.D. & Olshtain, E. 1981. Developing a measure of sociolinguistic competence: The case of apology. Language Learning 31(1): 112–134. Cohen, A.D. & Olshtain, E. 1993. The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 27(1): 33–56. Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. 1993[1984]. Protocol Analysis. Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003a. Validity in data collection methods in pragmatics research. In Theory, Practice, and Acquisition. Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium and the 5th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese, P. Kempchinsky & C.E. Piñeros (eds.), 239–257. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2003b. Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in Latin American Spanish and American English. Multilingua 22(3): 225–255. Felix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2007a. Natural speech vs. elicited data: A comparison of natural and role play requests in Mexican Spanish. Spanish in Context 4(2): 159–185. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2007b. Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A crosssectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 253–286. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008a. Politeness in Mexico and the United States: A Contrastive Study of the Realization and Perception of Refusals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2008b. Perceptions of refusals to invitations: Exploring the minds of foreign language learners. Language Awareness 17(3): 195–211. Félix-Bradefer, J.C. 2008c. Pedagogical intervention and the development of pragmatic competence in learning Spanish as a foreign language. Issues in Applied Linguistics 16(1): 49–84. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. In press. “I’m sorry. Can I think about it?” The negotiation of refusals in academic and non-academic contexts. In Pragmatics from Research to Practice: Teaching Speech Acts, D. Taksuki & N. Houck (eds.). Alexandria VA: TESOL. Flores-Salgado, E. 2009. A Pragmatic Study of Developmental Patterns in Mexican Students­ Making English Requests and Apologies. Ph.D. dissertation, Macquarie University, Australia. Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E. & Airasian, P. 2009. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications, 9th edn. Upper saddle River NJ: Pearson Education. Hudson, T. 2001. Indicators for pragmatic instruction: Some quantitative tools. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 283–300. Cambridge: CUP. Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, G. Lerner (ed.), 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kasper, G. 2000. Data collection in pragmatics research. In Culturally Speaking: Managing ­Rapport through Talk across Cultures, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 316–369. London: Continuum. Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2): 215–247.

 J. César Félix-Brasdefer Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden MA: Blackwell. Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levenston, E. & Blum, S. 1978. Discourse – completion as a technique for studying lexical features in interlanguage. Working Papers in Bilingualism 15: 13–21. Mackey, A. & Gass, S. 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Márquez, Reiter, R., Rainey, I. & Fulcher, G. 2005. A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics 26: 1–31. Martínez-Flor, A. 2008. The effect of an inductive-deductive teaching approach to develop learners’ use of request modifiers in the EFL classroom. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 191–225. Bern: Peter Lang. Pinto, D. 2005. The acquisition of requests by second language learners of Spanish. Spanish in Context 2 (1): 1–27. Robinson, M.A. 1992. Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In Pragmatics of Japanese as a Native and Target Language [Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center Technical Report #3], G. Kasper (ed.), 27–82. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Roever, C. 2004. Difficulty and practicality in tests of interlanguage pragmatics. In Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning, D. Boxer & A.D. Cohen (eds.), 283–301. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rose, K.R. 1992. Speech acts and questionnaires: The effect of hearer response. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1): 49–62. Rose, K.R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(1): 27–67. Sasaki, M. 1998. Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role-plays. Journal of Pragmatics 30(4): 457–484. Saville-Troike, M. 1996. The ethnography of communication. In Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, S. McKay & N. Hornberger (eds.), 351–382. Cambridge: CUP. Schauer, G. 2004. May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook 4: 253–272. Schegloff, E.A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, K. 2008. Small talk in England, Ireland, and the U.S.A. In Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages, K. Schneider & A. Barron (eds.), 97–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spencer-Oatey, H. 2005. (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112. Wichmann, A. 2004. The intonation of please-requests: A corpus based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9): 1521–1549. Widjaja, C. 1997. A study of date refusal: Taiwanese females vs. American females. University of Hawai‘i Working Papers in ESL 15(2): 1–43. Wolfson, N. 1981. Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native speakers. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 24(4): 7–22. Woodfield, H. 2008. Problematising discourse completion task: Voices from verbal report. Evaluation and Research Education 21(1): 43–69. Yuan, Y. 2001. An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33(2): 271–292.

Conversation analysis and speech act performance* Marta González-Lloret

University of Hawai‘i at Manoa Conversation analysis offers the potential for useful contribution to the study of speech act performance by microanalysing the sequential organisation of natural data of participants carrying out social action through talk. This paper outlines some of the similarities and main differences between speech act theory and conversation analysis, focusing mainly on the concept of speakers’ intent, the importance of the sequential organisation of data, and the value of naturally occurring data. The chapter presents previous research which has studied speech act sequences form a conversation analysis perspective in a variety of settings and contexts, including the second/foreign language classroom. Finally, the chapter proposes lines of investigation of speech act performance that could benefit from a conversation analysis approach.

1.  Introduction Several researchers have drawn attention to the advantages of conversation analysis (CA) for the study of pragmatics. Most recently Kasper (2006a, 2006b, 2009) has advocated a discursive approach to pragmatics based on theories “that view meaning and action as constituted not only in but through social interaction” (Kasper, 2006a: 282). The following two examples epitomise radically different approaches to pragmatics as a discipline. Example 1 portrays a traditional representation of inquiry into speech acts while Example 2 presents a natural occurring action sequence, the type of data favoured by CA.

*I would like to thank Gabriele Kasper and David Brett for comments on an earlier draft of this article, as well as the two reviewers that provided helpful suggestions and comments.

 Marta González-Lloret



(1) You completely forgot a crucial meeting with your boss. An hour later you call him to apologize. The problem is that this is the second time you’ve forgotten such a meeting. Your boss gets on the line and asks, “What happened to you?” NS: “I’m really sorry I was being negligent I understand that I missed a meeting um I will try to do better in the future” (from Linnell et al., 1992, 40) (2)

01 a→ LES: A:re you thinking (.) o:f coming (.) to thuh 02 a→ meeting toni:ght. 03 b-> MYR: >Do you know〈 I’m te:rribly sorry. 〉I was 04 going da ring you in a short while,< .hh I 05 had = a phone call from Ben. (he’s/whose) down 06 in Devon. ‘n he’s not going to get back 07 toni:ght, .h [h 08 LES: [Yes. = 09 MYR: = And mommy’s going to this k- k-=uh: (.) that 10 [ca:rol [〈concert.〉] 11 LES: [(y)- Yes [of cou:rse. ] I think my husband’s 12 going to that too:.= 13 a’> MYR: = I’m dreadfully sorry, 14 b’> LES: ↑That’s a’ri:ght,↓ (from Robinson, 2004, 299)

This chapter closely follows Kasper’s (2006a, 2009) idea of how speech act research can benefit from CA. It will first explore the relationship between pragmatics and CA. Then, the relationship between CA and speech act theory will be addressed by focusing on three main differences between these two: (1) the speakers’ intent, (2) the view of speech acts as actions-in sequence, and (3) the importance of the data collection methodology. Some studies of speech act sequences from a CA perspective will be reviewed and finally, the chapter will propose lines of investigation of speech act performance that could benefit from a CA approach.1

2.  CA and pragmatics According to Schegloff et al. (2002), CA offers the potential for useful contribution to intercultural communication studies and interlanguage pragmatics. In their own words, “CA studies of speaking practices across languages and cultures can provide a basis for comparison of L2, or language learner, speaking practices

1.  I would also like to underline that this chapter does not purport to be a complete presentation of CA but rather to present a few issues that need to be considered when applying CA to the study of speech acts. For more detailed comparisons of speech act theory and CA, see Kasper (2006a, 2009), and Márquez Reiter and Placencia (2005).



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

with L1 speaker norms in both L1 and L2” (Schegloff et al., 2002: 16). Similarly, Seedhouse (2004: 234, my emphasis) points out that “although CA’s main interest has been in how social acts are performed through language, it has always been interested in the reflexive relationship between grammar and interaction and the domain of pragmatics.” More recently, Kasper (2006a) has underlined the potential of CA for the study of pragmatics from a discursive perspective, including the study of speech acts. Of the different proposals for the analysis of speech acts in interaction, conversation analysis (CA) has accrued by far the largest and most coherent cumulative body of research, lending high credibility to its theoretical foundations and methodology. CA therefore recommends itself not only as a lens for critical scrutiny of speech act research but provides a well documented alternative.  (from Kasper, 2006a, 285)

CA emerged in the mid 1960’s as a subfield of sociology and it is closely related to ethnomethodology. Initially, CA concentrated on the description of the organisation of ordinary, mundane conversation (Sacks et al., 1974), expanding later on to encompass interaction in institutional contexts (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Drew & Heritage 1992; Firth, 1995), including contexts involving second language speakers (Markee, 2000; Gardner & Wagner, 2004; Richards & Seedhouse, 2005).2 CA is mainly concerned with how interaction is structurally and systematically organised by participants, since it is through this engagement in interaction that every day (or not-so-frequent) social activities are accomplished. Interaction is the site where cognition is constituted as a socially shared phenomenon (Schegloff, 1991). According to CA, the ability of the speaker to participate in an activity (such as a speech act) entails the speaker’s orientation to the sequential development of the interaction, understanding and making sense of the actions initiated by the other participants as well as his/her own, contributing in this way to the construction of the activity. Hence, CA addresses two main analytical questions: (1) How do ­participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, and (2) how are sequences of actions generated? (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). In order to discover such sequential patterns, it is essential to carry out bottom-up, inductive, data-driven analysis in which such patterns are not the results of preformulated theoretical conceptions but rather what the participants produce in situ (ten Have, 2007). In this way, CA takes an emic perspective to the data, explicating “meaning in terms of the local context of talk-in interaction” (Markee & Kasper, 2004: 495), and uncovering how the speakers themselves

2.  See Heritage (1989), Have (2007), and Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008), for further details on the development of CA.

 Marta González-Lloret

orient to sequentially emergent turns of talk in order to collaborate in the construction of an activity. Speech acts are examples of such an activity and thus, the following section will explore the connections between CA and the main theories that have examined speech acts.

3.  CA and speech act theory Speech act theory was developed by philosopher John Austin in an effort to explain how particular utterances operate within natural language. As a reaction to logical positivism, Austin (1962) became interested in how words could be used not only to present information but also to carry out action. In common with speech act theory is the interest of CA in studying language as action. In CA, speech acts are viewed as actions constituted in and through interaction and understood as such by the participants of the interaction. It is what Schegloff (2007) terms the action-formation problem, a generic organisational issue that helps defining and organising the interaction through the resources of the language, the body, and the environment of the interaction itself. However, in speech act theory, action is viewed as static and dependent mainly on the speaker, rather than constituted through the interaction, with the respondent in a passive role as recipient of the ongoing action. In CA, the action is not located in the speaker’s intention, but rather emerges during the talk as sequential action, in that precise moment, in that precise context. Therefore, in order to investigate a speech act, it is necessary to investigate it in its naturally occurring context, through naturally occurring data. The following three subsections outline the main differences between CA and speech act theory (i.e. the speakers’ intent, the view of speech acts as actions-in sequence and the data collection methodology). 3.1  Speaker intent The first main difference between a speech act theory and the CA view of speech acts is the concept of speaker’s intent. In speech act theory, intentions are crucial. The concepts of illocutionary and perlocutionary acts are used to describe the intention of the speaker and the effect caused on the hearer. According to Austin (1962: 101), “saying something will often, or even normally, produce certain consequential effects upon the feelings, thought, or actions of the audience, or of the speaker, or of other person: and it may be done with the design, intention, or purpose of producing them” (emphasis added). After Austin, Searle (1969, 1975) developed speech act theory into a more cognitivist theory, relying strongly on



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

Grice’s (1975) intentionalist account of meaning. For him “on the speaker’s side, saying something and meaning it are closely connected with intending to produce certain effects on the hearer. On the hearer’s side, understanding the speaker’s utterance is closely connected with recognizing his intentions” (Searle, 1969: 48, emphasis added). Along the same line, intention is a basic concept in two of the most influential theories dealing with speech acts: Grice’s (1975) principles of cooperation and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory (see Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, this volume). The idea of speaker’s intention is rooted in a mentalist view of knowledge in which ideas/actions are encoded and transmitted from speaker to hearer through language. CA, on the contrary, states that actions do not reside in the mind, but are socially and sequentially constructed by the participants of the interaction, during the interaction, as it unfolds turn by turn, resulting “from participants’ ongoing, contingent interpretive work during jointly pursued practical activities” (Kasper, 2009: 36). As Kasper (2006a) points out, most traditional speech act and politeness theories, as well as many other areas of applied linguistics and second language studies, are based on a rationalist model in which intent is accepted. CA can contribute to the field of SA research with a distinct perspective on interaction, in which action is not dependent on speaker’s intention, but constructed in and through the interaction. Such a perspective helps to answer questions such as why two expressions which are identical perform different actions and therefore constitute different speech acts? without appealing to speaker’s intention. The following two extracts (Extracts 3 and 4), from personal data, exemplify how an utterance estás delgadísima! (you are so thin!), which would most likely be classified as a compliment if observed in isolation, can actually perform two different speech acts and how CA can explain the sequence as understood by the participants without invoking or guessing the speaker’s intention. The participants are all Spanish speakers in Spain.

(3) Nuria & Luis #1- After years of not seeing each other

1 N: e:::cuanto tie:[mpo! He::y so long! 2 L: [coño. Nuria (.) hace siglos! wow. Nuria (.) it’s been centuries! ((kissing)) 3 L:→ estás delgadísima! you are so thin! 4 N: gracias. mucha lechuga y poco pan, thank you. lots of lettuce and little bread,

 Marta González-Lloret



(4) Julia, Tere & Nuria #5- Buying jeans with Feli

1 2 3 4

T:→ estás delgadísima! ((looking at Feli up and down)) you are so thin! N: oye. no te pases!= hey. come on! T: =no, si es por la talla= =no, I am talking about the size= J: =le va a quedar grande. =it is going to be too big ((Feli walks into the fitting room mumbling))

In Extract (3) Nuria and Luis see each other after a long time. Following a greeting sequence (line 1 and line 2), Luis utters the exclamation estás delgadísima!. Nuria’s response in line 4, displays her orientation to estás delgadísima! as a compliment. She accepts the compliment with an appreciation token (gracias) which recognises the status of the preceding turn as a compliment and is placed in its normative position at the beginning of the turn immediately following the compliment (Pomerantz, 1978). Her appreciation token is also followed by a referent shift (mucha lechuga y poco pan) that refocuses the praise away from the recipient and on the diet method itself, avoiding self-praise. In contrast, in Extract (4), what seems to be a compliment on the surface (estás delgadísima!), identical in linguistic form and intonation to the utterance in Extract (3), is actually not oriented to as such by the other participants. Julia, Tere, Nuria, and Feli are at a clothes shop. Feli is buying Jeans and she selects two pairs she wants to try on and lifts them up from the rack to show them to the group. After Tere’s exclamation in line 1 estás delgadísima! Nuria produces, in line 2, a token of disapproval (oye) followed by a reprimand (no te pases!), suggesting that Nuria is understanding estás delgadísima! to be criticism of, and not a compliment to, Feli. In line 3, Tere attempts a third position repair of the meaning of her previous utterance, refocusing the topic away from Feli to the size of the jeans. In line 4, Julia aligns with Tere producing an assessment which qualifies and completes Tere’s turn. As Schegloff (2007) underlines, seemingly equal expressions, such as those in Extracts 3 and 4, gain their meaning through the development of the interaction, rather than carrying static meaning as speaker’s intention. Therein lies the importance of looking at speech acts not as isolated utterances but rather as sequential evolving actions. 3.2  Speech acts as actions-in-sequence Speech act theory is based on the central notion of language as action, in which language is examined at the level of the utterance. According to Austin (1962: 5), “the uttering of the sentence is, or is part of, the doing of an action.” However,



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

the realisation of an utterance is unlikely to take place in a vacuum, but rather as part of a sequence. Several researchers have highlighted the problems that arise from identifying and labelling speech acts a priori from pre-established categories (Schegloff et al., 2002), not only because it is impossible to see what is inside of the speaker’s head to be sure of his/her intentions, but also because as Márquez Reiter and Placencia (2005) point out, an utterance may be differently understood according to variations in intonation, it may perform multiple acts simultaneously and the speech act can evolve through repetition in the sequence. It is therefore useful, and important, to analyse actions as part of the sequence in which they are embedded. According to CA, one of the devices essential to the organisation of talk-ininteraction is the turn-taking apparatus (Schegloff, 1968, 2007; Sacks et al., 1974). Turn-taking is the basic form of organisation for conversation and it is invariant to parties so that “whatever variations the parties brought to bear in the conversation would be accommodated without change in the system” (Sacks et al., 1974: 700). This implies that for the turn-taking system as such, participants’ social category membership (such as class, age, gender or any other social factors) is inconsequential. In a turn-taking system, a turn3 can be a lexical item, a phrase, clause, or sentence, and it projects its completion in what is called a transition-relevance place. It is at these key points in conversation that a transfer of speaker may occur according to some basic rules to minimise overlap and gaps in the conversation, allowing the conversation to flow in accordance with the interactional rule of one speaker at a time. This does not mean that overlapping and silence do not occur, but rather that they have special significance for the interaction when they do. This system is what Sacks et al. (1974) termed an Interactionally Managed System.4 An instance where the turn-taking system can be clearly seen to be operating is the case of adjacency pairs (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) which include greeting-greeting, invitation-acceptance/refusal question/answer etc. Adjacency pairs are multi-turn units constituted by a first pair part and a second pair part. In such a sequence, a first pair part produced by speaker A is followed by an utterance from speaker B in the next turn. B’s utterance constitutes a second pair part insofar as it belongs to the same type of paired action sequence as the first pair part. By uttering an adjacently

3.  Although it is common to refer to turns, turn-constructional units (TCUs) are the basic building block in CA, and often one turn will be made up of multiple TCUs. TCUs constitute recognisable actions in context, with a basic grammatical shape and informed by intonation. 4.  The description of the Interactional Management System by Sacks et al. (1974) refers to everyday conversation and for many forms of institutional interaction the rules of speaker change do not apply in the same way.

 Marta González-Lloret

positioned second a speaker displays understanding of the aim of the preceding turn and willingness, or reluctance, to accept it. Also, “by virtue of the occurrence of an adjacently produced second, the doer of a first can see that what he intended was indeed understood, and that it was or was not accepted” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973: 297–298). By implication, adjacency pairs enable researchers to see how participants reach shared understanding through the organisation of their talk. In speech act theory the idea that utterances may have an effect on the hearer (perlocutionary act) and that many acts conventionally invite a certain response is somewhat parallel to the CA’s concept of adjacency pairs, where a first-pair part may conventionally elicit a second-pair part (greeting-greeting, summons-answer, invitation-acceptance/refusal…).5 Adjacency pairs illustrate how the speakers orient to each others’ actions, and how the recipient understands the other speakers through the uttering, or not, of a second pair-part to the act performed in the first pair-part. As seen above in Extract (3) Nuria orients to Luis previous turn (estás delgadísima! you are so thin!) as a compliment through her answer, while in Extract (4), Tere’s turn (estás delgadísima!) is constructed through Nuria’s response as a criticism. 3.3  Data collection methodology Another aspect in which CA and speech act research differ is their data collection methodology. CA, following its ethnomethodological origins, relies on naturally occurring data, since experiments are different social events with different activities, and the data collected through them cannot be extrapolated to other nonexperimental settings.6 In contrast, most data collected for the study of speech acts is elicited through role-plays, discourse completion tests (DCTs), multiple choice questions and rating scales. Less frequent methods include interview data, think aloud protocols and field observation. For in depth descriptions and comparison of different research methods to collect sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic data see Kasper and Rose (2002), Golato (2005), Márquez Reiter and Placencia (2005), Kasper (2008) and Félix-Brasdefer (this volume). Of these methods, DCTs are probably the most widely employed. Several researchers have compared data collected through DCTs with natural data

5.  It is important to note that many actions are not organised as adjacency pairs, but recipients nevertheless show how they understand the previous speaker’s turn. Adjacency pairs are used here as the unit for sequence construction (Schegloff, 2007) and the most salient place in which the absence of a second pair part is highly accountable. 6.  See Speer (2002), however, for the idea that all data are researched-prompted and therefore artificial.



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

(Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993; Golato, 2003; Bou Franch & Lorenzo-Dus, 2008). Their results suggest that DCTs do not always provide reliable data since they do not elicit the extended negotiations found in the natural data (Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993; Beebe & Cummings, 1995) and participants tend to expand their responses to compensate for a lack of interlocutor, including more background, a wider combination of strategies and even more response strategies (Golato, 2003). It is important however to note that DCTs have also obtained data which are remarkably similar to that of naturally occurring data, their main limitation therefore does not lie in the validity of the method, but rather in their focus on a one-turn response instead of a sequential, interactive response. In the absence of naturally occurring data, role-plays seem to be the second preferred option, especially open spontaneous role plays, since they provide data which is interactive, and can be easily collected and controlled (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Walters, 2004). It is important to bear in mind that many variables need to be considered when developing, implementing, and analysing the role-plays. I am not trying to suggest here that the methods of data collection outlined above are not valuable. They may well be, depending on the research question under investigation. As Kasper and Rose (2002) point out, the research method should match the task at hand, arguing also in favour of a multiplicity of methods. However, for the study of actual language use, audio or video-recorded non-elicited natural data (which is then transcribed in detailed for analysis) cannot fail to contribute to our knowledge of the behaviour of speakers and hearers while engaged in interaction. As an example of how naturally occurring data may help the investigation of SAs, the following extract from Wootton (1981) (see Extract 5) is one of several examples in his data which shows the importance of non-responses as a procedure in request sequences employed by the parents as a dispreferred action (not granting the request).

(5) Ga/m/24 Mother and daughter conversation



01 Ch: Mummy (please I want mo:::re)= 02 =I’ve o:nly go:t three pipers 03 (0.8) 04 M: Have you? 05 (1.7) 06 Ch: Can you ( ) me another 07 (2.7) 08 ↑Can ye mummy 08 (.8) 09 M: No: ( ) (from Wootton, 1981, 65, numbers added)

 Marta González-Lloret

Wootton describes how children employ a variety of repair techniques in their next turns after a non-response. They understand the non-response as doing something in the interaction. His analysis suggests that children orient to this non-responses as indicative of the parents not having made up their minds, and progressively learn to interpret them as a form of not granting a request. It would be almost impossible to find non-responses in DCT data, and it is improbable that they should arise in role-plays where participants feel they are under pressure to perform and produce language. Therefore, naturally occurring data combined with a CA approach may indeed facilitate the study of speech acts.

4.  CA studies of speech act sequences CA studies of SA sequences investigate the linguistic construction and sequential placement of turns for the production of the SA, exploring the connections between grammar and social interaction by analysing how the linguistic structure of each turn is shaped by the context of previous turns and establishing at the same time a context for the next turn (Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006). Conversation analysts have been interested in speech act sequences since the 1970s, with early works carried out mainly by Pomerantz on compliment sequences (1978) and blaming (1978). To date there have been CA studies on advice giving (Heritage & Sefi, 1992; He, 1994; Hutchby, 1995; Leppanen, 1998; Nguyen, 2003), agreeing and disagreeing sequences (Pomerantz, 1984; Mori, 1999), apologies (Robinson, 2004), blaming (Pomerantz, 1978; Watson, 1978), making complaints (Drew & Holt, 1988; Darsley & Wotton, 2000; Schegloff, 2005; Monzoni, 2008), compliments and compliment responses (Pomerantz, 1978; Golato, 2002, 2005; Huth 2006), invitations (Drew, 1984), greetings/openings (Schegloff, 1968, 1979; Coronel-Molina, 1998; Baker et al., 2001; Rintel et al., 2001; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002; Arminen & Leinonen, 2006), questions (such as requests, complaints, and information seeking) (Koshik, 2002, 2003; Kasper 2006b; Kasper & Ross, 2007; Egbert & Vöge, 2008; Steensig & Larsen, 2008), rejections (Davidson, 1984) and requests (Wooton, 1981; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2005, 2006; Tateyama & Kasper, 2008). Most of these studies have investigated speech act sequences as they take place mainly in everyday natural conversation and telephone conversations among friends and family (Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002, 2005, 2006), as well as in institutional settings (Watson, 1978; Baker et al., 2001; Monzoni, 2008). Recently, we have witnessed increasing interest in cross-institutional comparison of speech acts through CA. Two studies have investigated how the same speech act sequence is accomplished in different institutional contexts. The study by Egbert and Vöge (2008) compared questions (information requests versus complaints) formulated



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

during regular conversations with those appearing in business meetings, whereas Monzoni (2008) compares complaint sequences in everyday conversations with those made in the context of ambulance calls. In addition to those speech acts available to common sense and which consequently have performative verbs attached to them, CA has discovered previously undescribed social actions, such as confirming allusions (Schegloff, 1996). To date most studies have focused on English although recently, several studies have also investigated cross-cultural interactions, comparing how two or more cultures and languages engage in the same speech act (Coronel-Molina, 1998; Golato, 2002; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002; Robinson, 2004; Egbert & Vöge, 2008) and intercultural interactions, where one or more speakers in the interaction use a language other than their native tongue (Golato, 2002; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002; Kasper, 2006b; Kasper & Ross, 2007). Furthermore, one study has looked at the development of pragmatic competence producing compliment sequences in the institutional context of the classroom (Huth, 2006). The latter work is an excellent example of an interventional classroom study to investigate the development of a speech act sequence (compliment responses) in the foreign language classroom context through CA, and employing CA data as the instructional tool. In his study, Huth investigated the effect of the instruction of compliment responses to American learners of English was analysed by: (1) reflecting on this conversational practice in class, (2) providing the students with examples of authentic data, and (3) engaging the students in role-plays to practice compliment sequences and reflection on the cultural significance of the structures (this part was conducted in their first language). To investigate whether the teaching had any effect, Huth pre and post tested students (at a distance of 9 weeks) using telephone conversations in which one of the students knew s/he had to compliment the other, but the second one was not aware this was going to happen.7 Huth then transcribed and analysed the conversations to see how the students were engaged in the sequential co-construction of the compliment and especially the compliment response. The data obtained suggest that the instruction had an effect on students’ production since the students incorporated several of the linguistic and sequential features taught during the intervention as evident in several repair sequences in which the students oriented to their own pragmatic transfer while trying to co-construct a compliment sequence. Huth also found

7.  As one of the students was uninformed of the content of the interaction and hence did not know that he was going to receive a compliment, the data of the respondent is more natural than in a traditional role-play, where both participants are aware of the content of the conversation.

 Marta González-Lloret

that, although students were using the new sequential structure for compliment responses, they had a number of problems and they were interpreting the German sequences on the basis of the framework of American English pragmatic rules. They thought the answers given in German were curt, rude, arrogant, and impolite, and they expressed discomfort in using them, displaying in this way their own cultural identity during the interaction, as shown in Extract (6).

(6) L2 learners complimenting

01 libby: du hast uh ein ( . ) schönes jacke you have uh a ( . ) nice coat 02 lind: ach danke well thank you 03 libby: [( ) [( ) 04 lind: [i mean ja ich weiss he [he he i mean yes i know he [he he 05 libby: [he he he 06 ist ei:n uh gutes:: uh ( . ) color is a: uh goo::d uh ( . ) color 07 lind: ja [ja yes [yes 08 libby: [an an du [on on you 09 lind:  _ wirklich? really? 10 libby: ja yes 11 lind: ah ja ich weiss .hhh es ist sehr warm ah yes I know .hhh it is very warm 12 libby: ja yes 13 lind: mhm mhm 14 libby: hhh ja uhm uh ich trage mein hut und uh ( . ) .hhh yes uhm uh I wear my hat and uh ( . ) 15 mein : : : e ( . ) warmes sachen am tag= m : : : y ( . ) warm clothes during the day=  (from Huth, 2006, 2040)

In Extract (6), Libby and Lindsey are talking about the cold weather and Libby compliments Lindsey for the warm coat she is wearing. Huth points out that although ja ich weiss (I know) in line 11 was never taught as an acceptable compliment-response, Lind is assuming that German speakers respond to compliments



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

with self-praise. In addition they engage in overt and exaggerated response behaviour, marked by laughter (line 4, line 5, line 7) and prosody (from line 4 to line 11), signalling that the behaviour is not serious or authentic. Huth’s study shows the pedagogic possibilities of using CA data in the language classroom for the instruction of pragmatics. In addition, it demonstrates how a CA of students’ data can illuminate not only whether the teaching was effective, but also, by looking into the sequences in which they are constructed, what other issues may be at stake in the learning of speech acts in the language classroom.

5.  Conclusion This article has attempted to demonstrate that CA can be an effective tool for the study of speech acts in conversation, based on the attention it pays to the sequential development of the speech act in and through the interaction, and to how the participants orient to and construct the interaction itself, without having to resort to reliance on the participant’s intention or state of mind. The examples above illustrate how the same utterance is oriented to by the hearer as a compliment in Extract (3) and as criticism in Extract (4). In addition, the chapter points out how CA advocates for the use of naturally occurring data for the analysis of conversation in which the entire sequence can be analysed, including silences and those places in which non-responses may be relevant for the construction and understanding of the speech acts. Finally, this chapter has presented some of the research which has employed CA for the study of speech act sequences in regular conversation between native speakers, in intercultural communication, and in the second language classroom. There are many lines of research to be explored connecting speech act theory and CA. In line with Huth (2006), it is important to explore the use of CA for interventional classroom research, both by incorporating CA data as a form of instruction (Félix-Brasdefer, 2006; Huth, 2006; Huth & Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006) and by investigating pragmatic development through CA (Huth, 2006). Following cross cultural and intercultural communication studies (Coronel-Molina, 1998; Golato, 2002; Taleghani-Nikazm, 2002; Robinson, 2004; Kasper, 2006b; Kasper & Ross, 2007; Egbert & Vöge, 2008), another area of investigation that could benefit from CA is pragmatic transfer (i.e. which pragmatic practises speakers typically transfer, how speakers orient to this transfer and whether there is any misunderstanding or misalignments, as well as how these may be repaired and resolved should they occur). Finally, an important area in which CA has just started to make a contribution is developmental pragmatics. In the field of interlanguage pragmatics more investigation of the development of speech act production is needed, and from a

 Marta González-Lloret

CA perspective, to my knowledge, only two studies have dealt with the development of a speech act: Huth (2006) on compliment sequences, and Nguyen (2003) on advice giving. This is undoubtedly an area which is shortly to undergo rapid development, as CA becomes a more common practice in the field of applied linguistics in general, and pragmatics and speech act research in particular.

References Arminen, I. & Leinonen, M. 2006. Mobile phone call openings: Tailoring answers to personalized summonses. Discourse Studies 8(3): 339–368. Atkinson, M.J. & Heritage, J. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP. Baker, C., Emmison, M. & Firth, A. 2001. Discovering order in opening sequences: calls to a software helpline. In How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: a Casebook of Methods, A. McHoul & M. Rapley (eds.), 41–56. London: Continuum. Beebe, L. & Cummings, M. 1995. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Speech Acts Across Cultures, S. Gass & J. Neu (eds.), 65–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bou Franch, P. & Lorenzo-Dus, N. 2008. Natural versus elicited data in cross-cultural speech act realizations. Spanish in Context 5(2): 246–277. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Coronel-Molina, S.M. 1998. Openings and closings in telephone conversations between native Spanish speakers. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 14(1): 49–68. Darsley, I. & Wotton, A. 2000. Complaint sequences with antagonistic argument. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 375–406. Davidson, J.A. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J.M Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), 102–128. Cambridge: CUP. Drew, P. 1984. Speakers’ reporting in invitation sequences. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), 129–151. Cambridge: CUP. Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (eds.). 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: CUP. Drew, P. & Holt, E. 1988. Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35(4): 398–417. Egbert, M. & Vöge, M. 2008. Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. Discourse Studies 10(1):17–36. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J. 1993. Expressing gratitude in American English. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 64–81. Oxford: OUP. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2006. Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts: Using conversationanalytic tools to teach pragmatics in the FL classroom. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.), 165–196. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center.



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

Firth, A. (ed.). 1995. The Discourse of Negotiation: Studies of Language in the Workplace. Oxford: Pergamon. Gardner, R. & Wagner, J. (eds.). 2004. Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum. Golato, A. 2002. German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34(5): 547–571. Golato, A. 2003. Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1): 90–121. Golato, A. 2005. Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grice, P. 1975. Logic in conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts 3, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Hartford, B.A. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1992. Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 3, L.F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (eds.), 33–52. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Have, ten P. 2007. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. He, A.W. 1994. Withholding academic advice: Institutional context and discourse practice. Discourse Processes 18(3): 297–316. Heritage, J. 1989. Current developments in conversation analysis. In Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, D. Roger & P. Bull (eds.), 21–47. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. 1992. Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In Talk at Work, P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), 359–417. Cambridge: CUP. Hutchby, I. 1995. Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Process 19(2): 219–238. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. 2008. Conversation analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press. Huth, T. 2006. Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 complimentresponse sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 2025–2050. Huth, T. & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2006. How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research 10(1): 53–79. Kasper, G. 2006a. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.), 281–314. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kasper, G. 2006b. When once is not enough: Politeness of multiple requests in oral proficiency interviews. Multilingua 25: 323–350. Kasper, G. 2008. Data collection in pragmatics research. In Culturally Speaking, 2nd edn, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 279–303. London: Continuum. Kasper, G. 2009. L2 pragmatic development. In New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (eds.). Bingley: Emerald. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, G. & Ross, S.J. 2007. Multiple questions in oral proficiency interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 39(11): 2045–2070. Koshik, I. 2002. A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12): 1851–1877. Koshik, I. 2003. Wh-questions as challenges. Discourse Studies 5(1): 51–77. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 Marta González-Lloret Leppanen, V. 1998. The straightforwardness of Advice: Advice-giving in interactions between Swedish district nurses and patients. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(2): 209–239. Linnell, J., Porter, F.L., Stone, H. & Chen, W.-L. 1992. Can you apologize me? An investigation of speech act performance among non-native speakers of English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 8(2): 33–53. Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Markee, N. & Kasper, G. 2004. Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Language Journal 88(4): 491–500. Márquez Reiter, R. & Placencia, M.E. 2005. Spanish Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Monzoni, C. 2008. Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of “pre-sequences”? Discourse Studies 10(1): 73–87. Mori, J. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nguyen, H.T. 2003. The Development of Communication Skills in the Practice of Patience Consultation among Pharmacy Studies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pomerantz, A. 1978. Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, J.N. Schenkein (ed.), 79–112. New York NY: Academic Press. Pomerantz, A. 1978. Attributions of Responsibility: Blaming. Sociology 12: 115–121. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP. Richards, K. & Seedhouse, P. 2005. Applying Conversation Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rintel, S., Mulholland, J. & Pittam, J. 2001. First things first: Internet relay chat openings. JCMC 6(3). . Robinson, J.D. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(3): 291–330. Sacks, H.E., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. Schegloff, E.A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6): 1075–1095. Schegloff, E.A. 1979. Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, G. Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York NY: Irvington. Schegloff, E.A. 1991. Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (eds.), 150–171. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Schegloff, E.A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Towards an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 104: 161–216. Schegloff, E.A. 2005. On complainability. Social Problems 52(3): 449–476. Schegloff, E.A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: CUP. Schegloff, E.A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S. & Olsher, D. 2002. Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 3–31.



Conversation analysis and speech act performance 

Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H.E. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4): 289–327. Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Speech Acts, P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), 59–82. New York NY: Academic Press. Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: a Conversational Analysis Perspective. Malden MA: Blackwell. Speer, S.A. 2002. “Natural” and “contrived” data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies 4(4): 511–525. Steensig, J. & Larsen, T. 2008. Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions. Discourse Studies 10(1): 113–132. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2002. A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12): 1807–1832. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2005. Contingent requests: Their sequential organization and turn shape. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 159–179. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2006. Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tateyama, Y. & Kasper, G. 2008. Talking with a classroom guest: Opportunities for learning Japanese pragmatics. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 45–71. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Walters, F.S. 2004. An Application of Conversation Analysis to the Development of a Test of Second Language Pragmatic Competence. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Watson, D.R. 1978. Categorization, authorization and blame – Negotiation in conversation. Sociology 12(1): 105–113. Wootton, A.J. 1981. The management of grantings and rejections by parents in request sequences. Semiotica 37(1/2): 59–89.

Culture and its effect on speech act performance Ardith J. Meier

University of Northern Iowa The premise that underlying cultural values and beliefs play an important role in speech act performance as mediated by perceptions of context forms the foundation of this chapter. The relationship between culture, context, and speech act performance is explained. Where there is less overlap between interactants’ underlying cultural values and beliefs, misunderstandings are more apt to arise. In order to identify cross-cultural differences that have the potential to cause such misunderstandings, relevant speech act studies are presented and their findings examined in terms of cultural dimensions and orientations used as heuristic tools. It is argued that an awareness of underlying cultural variables and their potential influence on speech act performance will contribute to more effective negotiation of meaning and identity.

1.  Introduction Claims of a connection between culture and speech act performance are not especially new. Indeed, a great many investigations of speech acts (e.g. apologies, requests, compliments) have been cross-cultural studies that explicitly or implicitly proceed from the following assumptions: (1) norms of speech act performance will differ across cultures, (2) such differences can cause misunderstandings, and (3) an identification of the differences can lead to improved intercultural communication1 (e.g. Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Wolfson, 1989; Cenoz & Valencia, 1996; Lwanga-Lugu, 2005). There is, however, an important link missing between the identification of differences in speech act performance and improved intercultural communication. That link is culture viewed as underlying values and beliefs, often referred to as subjective or small ‘c’ culture (Bennett, 1998), which can be defined as follows: “a pattern of 1.  Intercultural communication does not necessarily refer to communication between those belonging to different nation-states, but can also occur between different groups within one nation or between transcultural communities of practice.

 Ardith J. Meier

learned, group-related perceptions – including both verbal and non-verbal language, attitudes, values, belief systems, disbelief systems and behaviours – that is accepted and expected by an identity group” (Singer, 1998: 6). It is such a construal of culture that is at issue in this chapter. Insights into subjective culture can contribute to a more effective negotiation of meaning and identity and to improved intercultural communication (e.g. FitzGerald, 2003; Meier 2003). Mere identification of differences in choices regarding speech act performance, without an awareness of the role of culture in informing these choices, may, in fact, actually encourage otherisation, which Holliday (1999: 245) describes as “the process whereby the ‘foreign’ is reduced to a simplistic, easily digestible, exotic or degrading stereotype.” Deviations from one’s expectations regarding speech act performance in communicative interactions can be more readily dealt with if one understands possible reasons underlying the behaviour, thereby placing one in a position to consider meanings other than those one might have initially assigned. In other words, the goal is to understand what is meant by what is said, and an awareness of how underlying cultural values and beliefs may affect speech act performance is critical in facilitating this understanding. The ultimate goal, of course, is to avoid misunderstandings which can lead to various degrees of dissatisfaction, irritation, negative personal attributions, or even negative national stereotyping. Such reactions, according to House (1996), can obviate any considerations of differences in cultural values and norms. A vicious circle of sorts is thereby created, one that can lead to deterioration of further communication and interpersonal relationships. Not all differences in speech act performance, however, result in misunderstanding (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Singer, 1998; Žegarac & Pennington, 2000). While Bremer (1996) views misunderstanding as a misinterpretation of a listener’s intention, Clyne (1977: 130) distinguishes between communication breakdown, which corresponds to Bremer’s view of misunderstanding, and communication conflict, which refers to cases of interpersonal friction. Meeuwis (1994: 398), noting that conflict can be avoided if breakdowns are negotiated, demonstrates that the willingness to engage in negotiation can be affected by “institutionalized prejudice.” Whether some cultural values and their effect on speech act performance are more likely than others to result in conflict is a question that remains at issue. It is the purpose of this chapter to attempt to identify dimensions of culture that have the potential to precipitate misunderstanding and/or conflict in speech act performance as realised in intercultural communication. First, more detailed consideration will be given to the relationship between small ‘c’ culture and speech act performance. Next, heuristic tools in the form of cultural dimensions and orientations will be presented, and finally, relevant speech acts studies will be examined to identify underlying cultural differences that appear to have a notable effect on speech act performance. It is “rich points” (Agar, 1994: 100) that are being



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

sought, namely, salient differences in speech act behaviour that reflect a difference in cultural underpinnings, which, in turn, signal a concomitant need for caution and increased negotiation of meaning.

2.  The speech act-culture connection The figure 1 below presents a general outline of the relationship between underlying cultural values and beliefs and linguistic choices as mediated by context. As presented, underlying cultural values and beliefs inform perceptions of the context and its variables (e.g. age, gender, relationships) which in turn may lead to particular communicative choices (e.g. whether to use a certain speech act or not, how to realise a certain speech act). The choices that are made further reinforce the underlying cultural values and beliefs that inform them, which is represented by the arrow leading from the bottom box to the top box in the figure. UNDERLYING CULTURAL VALUES & BELIEFS

PERCEPTIONS OF CONTEXT

LINGUISTIC CHOICES Figure 1.  Culture, context, language connection

Context in this framework is viewed as consisting of “dynamic and constitutive properties” (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992: 5). This goes beyond a construal of context as consisting of fixed social relationships, topics, or individual variables to include the talk itself, which, as it emerges, helps to shape the context for subsequent talk (e.g. Banks et al., 1991; Goodwin & Duranti, 1992; Kramsch, 1993; Roberts, 1996). As Kramsch (2000: 139) explains, “we do not just use language in context; we shape the very context that shapes us.” She then goes on to cite Holquist (1990: 63), who observes that “each time we talk, we literally enact values in our speech through the process of scripting our place and that of our listener in a culturally specific

 Ardith J. Meier

social scenario.” A “sliding scale” analogy is used by Glover (1995: 141) to depict how changes in context can result in changes in linguistic behaviour that differ according to the meanings different interactants assign to the same context. Cultural orientations play an active role in assigning this meaning. In the process of interaction, an interactant may recognise that a particular linguistic choice was ineffective. This may result in a reframing of the context, which involves a re-examination of one’s perceptions of the contextual variables, considering alternative perceptions, and enlisting them in the process of further negotiation. In Goodwin and Duranti’s (1992: 31) words, this calls upon the interactants to “recontextualize” and consider “a new set of relationships and expectations.” Such a process is likely to be more necessary in intercultural communication, which typically entails less shared background and more divergent expectations. A recognition and understanding of perspectives other than one’s own is a mark of the flexibility and sensitivity of the successful communicator. This points to an open-mindedness that Bruner (1990: 31, 32) views as “a willingness to construe knowledge and values from multiple perspectives without the loss of commitment to one’s own values.” However, if cross-cultural contact is intense enough, one’s underlying values and beliefs could conceivably undergo either a temporary or long-term adjustment. As Thorne (2000: 235) points out, “practices of use in communicative activity have effects on the thinking and speaking that is done there”; hence, the bi-directional arrows in the figure, which reflect the reflexivity and lack of a rigid, deterministic relationship between culture, context, and linguistic choices. In sum, the quest is to ascertain not only who says what to whom, when, and where, but also why. The why resides, in part, in underlying cultural values and beliefs as they are situationally and discursively enacted. This places language within its broader social and cultural context, and thus calls for emic approaches to speech act studies, ones that seek the meanings the interactants may assign to the context and utterances and the possible consequences when these meanings are not shared. Tools designed for this endeavour are presented in the next section.

3.  Heuristics: Cultural orientations and dimensions Cultural orientations and dimensions, as identified in the intercultural literature, constitute patterns of values and beliefs that provide a heuristic lens through which one can explore the relationship between culture and speech act performance. Such orientations and dimensions have not been immune to controversy (see e.g. Schwartz, 1994; Hofstede, 2002; McSweeney, 2002). However, it is the way they are used that is critical. As rigid labels for homogeneous groups of people they are



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

indeed questionable. As tools to investigate cultural influences in situationalised contexts, on the other hand, they can prove useful. As O’Driscoll (1996: 30) notes, “What is particularly useful is knowledge about the possible parameters along which such [cultural] norms may vary.” The proposed orientations and dimensions represent such parameters. Even within interactional approaches focusing on the negotiation of power and distance, one must consider that the culture that interactants have been socialised into will, to some extent, inform such negotiation; interactants are not blank slates.2 The major distinction in cultural dimensions, and the most comprehensive one, is between collectivistic and individualistic tendencies (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). This dimension appears to roughly correlate with Hofstede’s other dimensions as well as with Hall’s (1976). Individualistic tendencies are characterised by a greater concern for autonomy and individual needs and rights. Collectivistic tendencies, in contrast, are characterised by giving priority to one’s identity as a member of a group; in-group concerns take priority over individual needs.3 Another distinction made by Hofstede includes small and large power distance. A small power distance orientation involves a relatively high value placed on egalitarianism, whereas a large power distance orientation entails greater acceptance of and sensitivity to an unequal distribution of power. Small power distance is generally associated with individualistic groups and high power distance with collectivistic groups. Hofstede also distinguishes between weak and strong uncertainty avoidance. Weak uncertainty avoidance refers to a relatively greater comfort with ambiguity, lack of structure, and unpredictability and seems to correlate with individualism. This contrasts with strong uncertainty avoidance, which characterises those who are relatively uncomfortable with ambiguity and seek consensus and absolute truth. This appears to be related to collectivism. Finally, Hall (1976) identifies the cultural dimensions of high-context versus low-context communication and monochronic versus polychronic time. In highcontext groups the message is often indirect, being implicit and inferred from context or shared experiences. This is regarded as more typical of collectivistic groups. In low context groups, in contrast, information tends to be more explicitly and directly articulated, which is correlated with individualism. A monochronic time orientation is also often associated with individualism and refers to a linear and segmented view of time that results in ascribing relatively greater value to

2.  See Scollon & Scollon (1995) regarding the inseparability of individuals’ identities and their cultures. 3.  Triandis (1995) further distinguishes between vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism.

 Ardith J. Meier

punctuality and scheduling. Those who exhibit a more polychronic orientation to time, on the other hand, are associated with collectivism and view time as relatively unstructured; relationships and interactions take priority over schedules and appointments. It must be emphasised that the relationship between such cultural dimensions and speech act performance is not to be viewed as monolithic or deterministic. Generalisations regarding cultural orientations and their effect on speech act performance are made with the understanding that they will not apply to all individuals or to all domains. One may, for example, be relatively more individualistic in one’s work domain or more collectivistic in one’s religious domain. Interactionist and constructionist views lead us away from an essentialist view of culture and language. Thus, the view ascribed to here is neither essentialist nor purely constructivist. Rather, it involves an amalgam of the individual as socialised in her particular culture, her unique life experiences, and her co-constructed interaction with another. What is being sought then is a probabilistic relationship that points to aspects of underlying cultural values and beliefs that have a greater potential to lead to negative repercussions in speech act performance in intercultural encounters. Value and belief systems are active in the performance of speech acts, many of which serve highly interactional functions. Apologies, for example, while being employed to resolve violations of social norms, are themselves subject to crosscultural differences (e.g. Meier, 1996; Suszczyńska, 1999; Kondo, this volume). Thus, although cultural values and beliefs may not be sufficient for explaining speech act performance, they do constitute a necessary factor in doing so and can, I believe, be considered without succumbing to a reductionist view. It would be a serious omission to ignore the effect that culture might have on speech act performance. FitzGerald (2003) has, in fact, aptly demonstrated that cultural awareness leads to fewer misunderstandings in intercultural communication. The studies discussed in the following section contribute to such an awareness in regard to speech act performance.

4.  Speech acts studies In 1999, Meier demonstrated the relative paucity of speech act studies that had explored small ‘c’ culture and argued for the need for more such studies. A decade later, the number of such studies has yielded a somewhat richer set of data.4 The

4.  Although a further decade has yielded additional studies, those that seek to relate underlying values and beliefs to speech act performance across cultures are still in the minority. Hence, a relative paucity of current studies that qualify for review in this chapter still exists.



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

ideal data, of course, would be based on speech act studies that document and analyse actual misunderstandings in discourse; in other words, data resulting from a discursive approach applying conversational analysis, as advocated by Kasper (2006) and González-Lloret (this volume). These are, however, understandably rare, which is likely more a function of logistical problems of data collection than of theoretical stance (see Félix-Brasdefer, this volume). Nevertheless, the selection of studies summarised below provides evidence for drawing at least tentative conclusions regarding underlying cultural values and beliefs and their potential effect on speech act performance in intercultural communication. 4.1  Requests Hofstede’s dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance were used to explain the negative correlation found between social distance and indirectness in a study of peninsular Spanish and Uruguayan Spanish using unstructured role plays (Marquéz-Reiter, 2002). The author also suggested that the Uruguayans’ more tentative and deferential conventional indirect requests, compared to those of the Spaniards, might explain the Uruguayan perception of Spaniards as “quite direct and rather abrupt” (Marquez-Reiter, 2002: 136). Different perceptions of power distance also appeared to be responsible for American speakers of Japanese being viewed as annoying and arrogant in a role-play in which they played a student asking a professor to write a letter of recommendation at the last minute (Nakahama, 1999). The Americans typically made judgments about the situation (e.g. I know you are real busy…) that the Japanese judges felt to be an inappropriate invasion of the professor’s domain, due to his higher status. The American students were also seen as making excessive excuses, given the status of the professor. Power distance as related to directness was also cited as a major factor in a study comparing requests by French English as a second language (ESL) speakers to those by Australian English speakers in workplace recordings and interviews in a multinational company (Béal, 1994). Overall, the French informants were relatively more direct in asking for information, using fewer softeners than the Australians. The French were likewise direct when asking a superior for advice or permission. The author attributed this to an acceptance of hierarchical structure, which obviated the need to protect their face by being indirect. The author also believed that the French directness, in part, reflected the greater value the French placed on the content of an interaction as compared to its interpersonal aspects. The Australian informants’ impressions of the French included attributions of authoritarianism, impatience, bluntness, and arrogance. The French, on the other hand, found the Australians to be too indirect, to the point of being “wishy-washy”, and even

 Ardith J. Meier

“hypocritical” (Béal, 1994: 6), equating the Australians’ conventional indirectness with a lack of confidence and leadership. Differences in both the dimensions of collectivism-individualism and highversus low-context were identified as informing Koreans’ and US Americans’ judgments regarding the effectiveness of requests (Kim & Wilson, 1994). The Koreans showed a preference for requests that involved attention to relational aspects (related to collectivism), and the US Americans judged clearer request strategies (related to low-context) to be more effective than did the Koreans. 4.2  Directives Both individualism and collectivism and power distance were related to differences in directive behaviour between US Americans and Colombians as represented in interviews, participant observation, and audio-taped conversation (Fitch, 1994). Directives, while including requests, have a wider scope, encompassing, for example, commands and suggestions as well. Frequent in the American data was a denial of a directive intent (e.g. I’m not trying to tell you what to do…), which, however, never occurred in the Colombian data. This was interpreted as signalling the Americans’ reticence to inhibit the free agency of the individual, a reflection of their relatively greater valuation of individualism. Further support for this was found in the interview data where the Americans made frequent reference to the importance of individual empowerment. Absent in the American data, but found frequently in the Colombian data were “intermediate directives” (Fitch, 1994: 195), whereby someone with the right combination of confianza (closeness and trust) and jerarquía (authority) helped to relay a directive. This was related to collectivistic tendencies in which interpersonal relationships are a strong motivating force. 4.3  Apologies Both individualism and power distance were ascribed a role in explaining different apology behaviour in a study comparing Polish, Hungarian, and US American English in an eight-item discourse completion test (DCT) (Suszczyńska, 1999). The Poles and especially the Hungarians made more remarks about themselves (e.g. self-dispraise, non-intentionality) than did the Americans and also did not avoid direct public confrontation, in contrast to the Americans. Suszczyńska (1999: 1063) suggested that this difference could be related to the Americans’ greater concern with invasion of their individual domain, a reflection of egalitarian and individualistic tendencies, as opposed to the less rigid personal domain of the Poles and Hungarians which made them “more publically available to each other.”



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

Individualism and collectivism were again invoked, along with power distance, in explaining differences in apology behaviour between Austrians and US Americans in twelve closed role-play situations (Meier, 1996). The Americans demonstrated a more frequent use of strategies that reflected a greater value placed on individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, as compared to the Austrians, who more frequently used strategies that placed responsibility on the hearer to understand the situation, in some cases pleading a lack of control over a situation. Statements of self-deficiency were also used more by the Austrians, which the author suggested conveyed reduced power, which in turn assured the hearer that the speaker did not pose a threat. Belief in equality under the law was also used to explain why the Americans rarely admitted to have knowingly committed a parking violation, in contrast to the Austrians, who frequently did so. In the same situation, the Austrians also used a lack of control over the situation as a frequent reason for being forced to park where they did; the Americans did so infrequently, indicating their belief in free choice and individual responsibility. In another situation, differences in power distance between a professor and students resulted in the Americans, in the role of professor, engaging in more apology work for arriving late than the Austrians did, which was explained by the relatively greater power distance between professors and students in Austria as compared to the US. Individualism and collectivism were also associated with differences in Japanese and US American apology behaviour as elicited by a questionnaire (Sugimoto, 1997). The author attributed the Americans’ more frequent use of an excuse invoking lack of control to individualistic tendencies associated with autonomy and control over a situation. Since control of a situation was expected, lack thereof was unusual and thus served as a valid excuse. For Japanese, on the other hand, for whom lack of control was explained to be more expected, this would not qualify as an effective excuse. Additionally, a desire to protect autonomy was cited as an explanation for the Americans’ infrequent commitment to reparation, whereas the frequent promise of reparation by the Japanese was explained by a collectivistic concern for attending to others’ needs, which superseded a desire to protect autonomy. The Japanese also made more frequent use of apologies, used greater elaboration, and were relatively more direct in requests of forgiveness and in assuring the hearer that there was no hostile intent, all of which might point to a perceived need for increased facework, as related to collectivism. Individualism and collectivism were similarly related to US American and Japanese apologies in another study involving twelve critical incidents with accompanying response scales (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990). The Japanese showed a preference for offers of reparation whereas the Americans preferred explanation. This difference was explained by a collectivistic concern with restoring balance and

 Ardith J. Meier

harmony in interpersonal relations compared to a higher value placed on autonomy and self-esteem, respectively. A collectivistic tendency was also viewed to be reflected in the way the Japanese varied their apologies according to interactant status more than the Americans did. Finally, differences in time orientation, namely, between monochronic Malagasy and polychronic Westerners, were used by Dahl (1995) to explain why a Malagasy would typically not provide an excuse for coming late, whereas a Westerner would. 4.4  Compliments Individualism and collectivism were invoked to explain why US American informants complimented more frequently than did Japanese informants, according to recall interviews (Barnlund & Araki, 1985). The authors explained that elevating an individual’s status in the form of a compliment was less threatening for the individualistic American than for the collectivistic Japanese, for whom the group takes priority over the individual. Power distance played an explanatory role in Yu’s (2005) ethnographic observations of Chinese and US American compliments. The author argued that the tension between Americans’ beliefs in equality in the face of the reality of hierarchy explained their more frequent use of compliments, the function of which is to negotiate solidarity. The function assigned to Chinese compliments, on the other hand, was to assess or to convey admiration. In light of these different functions, Yu noted that Chinese would be likely to suspect ulterior motives behind American compliments. Furthermore, the American’s relatively low power distance orientation was viewed as contributing to their more frequent complimenting of those of higher status, demonstrating greater comfort with interacting across social distance. In terms of compliment topic, the Americans’ preference for appearance and possessions was explained by the value they place on newness, in contrast to the Chinese placement of greater value on individual integrity. Suspicion of ulterior motives was also voiced in Chinese immigrants’ reports of their interactions with US Americans (Fong, 1998), whose compliments were seen as insincere, thereby signalling that the complimenter wanted something from the complimentee. The Chinese informants found Americans to be overly generous and direct in their complimenting and to employ adjectives that were too strong. The Chinese observed that American compliments were often meant to encourage and to build self-esteem, which was not a function of compliments for Chinese. In fact, the Chinese informants noted that Chinese teachers and parents view strong adjectives (e.g. excellent) to be de-motivating for their respective pupils or children. Weaker adjectives were instead deemed to be more effective in maintaining humility and motivating others to do better.



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

4.5  Compliment responses A high value placed on humility and modesty along with a concomitant desire to avoid self-praise were reported as underlying Thai ESL responses in data from recorded interviews and participant observation (Cedar, 2006). The Thai ESL informants, for example, never responded to compliments with acceptance or positive elaboration, which comprised 80% of the US Americans’ responses. Additionally, a smile, interpreted by the author as a sign of discomfort, would often constitute the sole Thai response. The author reported that this sometimes made the Americans feel uncomfortable, as they misinterpreted it as flirtation. The Thais, on the other hand, viewed the Americans’ elaborated responses as indications of boastfulness and arrogance, which stand in stark opposition to Thai values of modesty and humility, which can be related to collectivistic tendencies. Differences in solidarity preferences were viewed as informing differences in compliment responses between British and Peninsular Spanish respondents in a nine-item DCT (Lorenzo-Dus, 2001). The frequent Spanish solicitation of a repetition or expansion of the compliment was interpreted as a desire to create rapport and solidarity. These were atypical responses by the British and, according to the author, could be viewed by the British as signalling a lack of self-esteem and a need for constant reassurance. The Spanish male informants also made frequent use of ironic upgrades (absent in the British data). The author explained this as a way to create rapport by avoiding self-praise without explicit disagreement, which the British, however, might interpret as a sign of overconfidence and boastfulness. The British informants, on the other hand, engaged in a form of self-effacement by indirectly questioning the veracity of a compliment, thereby questioning the complimenter’s relational solidarity. Golato (2002) cites a greater transactional concern by Germans as opposed to a greater interactional concern by US Americans to explain the following typical German compliment responses with family and friends: a confirmation marker (e.g. yes), a further equally strong positive assessment, and an elicitation of a further compliment. The author documents a case in which a transfer of this German pattern of response into English resulted in a disruption of smooth discourse. A preference for eloquence, attributed to a high value placed on education, was used to explain the significantly longer Syrian compliment responses compared to those of the US Americans in a study by Nelson et al. (1996). A mere thank you was found to be an insufficient response for the Syrians, who also associated longer responses with greater sincerity. 4.6  Promises The high-versus low-context dimension as reflected in directness may help explain different perceptions of what constitutes a promise in a documented

 Ardith J. Meier

misunderstanding between a male Hispanophone Spanish speaker and a small group of Zapotec (Schrader-Kniffki, 2004). The Zapotec, according to the author, place a high value on avoidance conflict in regard to out-groups. Thus, in order to comply with a request, they directly stated they would, as a group, complete a task that the Hispanophone asked them to complete, despite the fact that they were not in a position to do so. The Zapotec did not perceive this as the same sort of commitment that the Hispanophone did and as a result, the latter felt betrayed and angry when only a few Zapotec appeared to work on the task. An interesting aspect of this study is that the Zapotec’s behaviour with out-groups (e.g. the Hispanophone) was reported to be different from that with their in-group. Thus, perception of group identity was part of the context that informed the linguistic choice made by the Zapotec. The value placed on interpersonal concerns also contrasted with the value placed on telling the truth in an examination of West African and Western promises (Egner, 2006). In fact, the author questions whether what looks like a promise in the African data actually qualifies as a promise in the Western sense. A so-called serious promise in West Africa demands lengthier negotiation, according to the author, than does a non-serious promise, which expresses cooperation but not commitment. As in the case of the Zapotec and the Hispanophone, a difference was found in the interpretation of the propositional content of an utterance. 4.7  Complaints Individualism is contrasted with what might be viewed as a type of collectivism in a study comparing US Americans’ complaints with German and German ESL complaints in a written DCT depicting five service encounters (DeCapua, 1998). The German complaints were viewed as relatively more direct than the American complaints and addressed the offense in terms of the servers not fulfilling their societal obligations. The American complaints, on the other hand, placed a greater emphasis on the offense against the customer as an individual. 4.8  Summary The studies presented above represent seven different speech acts and nineteen different countries. The dimensions of individualism-collectivism and high- and low power distance5 clearly predominate in terms of informing differing speech act performance and in terms of their relationship to other dimensions and to

5.  Note that FitzGerald (2003: 23) suggests that “the most useful dimension for explaining communicative behaviour is the power distance dimension”.



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

directness, solidarity, and interactional versus transactional conversational focus. Both individualism-collectivism and power distance inform perceptions of interactant rights and obligations, which are instrumental in explaining speech act performance. Misinterpretations of what was meant by what was said led to feelings of annoyance, anger, and betrayal as well as attributions of arrogance, dishonesty, unfriendliness, and lack of integrity, conviction and self-esteem.

5.  Conclusion The point of this chapter was not to identify particular cultural orientations and affix them to a particular nation-state or subgroup therein. Rather, the goal was to demonstrate ways small ‘c’ culture can inform expectations, interpretations, and choices relating to speech act performance. A different “hierarchical ordering” of cultural values (Wierzbicka, 1985: 173) is often responsible for different linguistic choices. Thus, any attempt to investigate and understand patterns of effective contextualised communicative interaction must include an emic approach that includes cultural analysis. It is such an approach that alerts us to underlying differences that have the likelihood of causing problems and helps us to understand how they do so. In focusing on differences, one should not, of course, lose sight of the fact that many similarities also exist. However, it is not the similarities but the differences that present a greater potential for misunderstandings. These misunderstandings can be better negotiated if interactants are armed with an awareness of possible ways cultural values and beliefs inform perceptions of context, and in turn, speech act performance.

References Agar, M. 1994. Language Shock. New York NY: William Morrow and Company. Banks, S.P., Ge, G. & Baker, J. 1991. Intercultural encounters and miscommunication. In ‘Miscommunication’ and Problematic Talk, N. Coupland, H. Giles & J.M. Wiemann (eds.), 103–120. London: Sage. Barnlund, D.C. & Araki, S. 1985. Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 16(1): 9–26. Barnlund, D.C. & Yoshioka, M. 1990. Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14(2): 193–206. Béal, C. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1–2): 5–24. Bennett, M.J. 1998. Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication M.J. Bennett (ed.), 1–34.Yarmouth ME: Intercultural Press.

 Ardith J. Meier Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics 5(3): 196–213. Bremer, K. 1996. Causes of understanding problems. In Achieving Understanding, K. Bremer, C. Roberts, M.-T. Vasseur, M. Simonot & P. Broeder (eds.), 37–64. London: Longman. Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cedar, P. 2006. Thai and American responses to compliments in English. The Linguistics Journal 1(2): 6–28. Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J.F. 1996. Cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics: American vs. European requests. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 7, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 41–53. Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Clyne, M. 1997. Intercultural communication breakdown and communication conflict: Towards a linguistic model and its exemplification. In Deutsch im Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen: German in Contact with Other Languages, C. Molony, H. Zobl & W. Stölting (eds.), 129–146. Kronberg: Scriptor. Dahl, O. 1995. When the future comes from behind: Malagasy and other time concepts and some consequences for communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 19(2): 197–209. DeCapua, A. 1998. The transfer of native language speech into a second language: A basis for cultural stereotypes? Issues in Applied Linguistics 9(1): 21–35. Egner, I. 2006. Intercultural aspects of the speech act of promising: Western and African practices. Intercultural Pragmatics 3(4): 443–464. Fitch, K.L. 1994. A cross-cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance-gaining research. Communication Monographs 61(3): 185–209. FitzGerald, H. 2003. How Different Are We? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fong, M. 1998. Chinese immigrants’ perceptions of semantic dimensions of direct/indirect communication in intercultural compliment interactions with North Americans. The Howard Journal of Communications 9(3): 245–262. Glover, K.D. 1995. A prototype view of context and linguistic behavior: Context prototypes and talk. Journal of Pragmatics 23(2): 137–156. Golato, A. 2002. German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34(5): 547–571. Goodwin, C. & Duranti, A. 1992. Rethinking context: An introduction. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), 1–42. Cambridge: CUP. Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City NY: Doubleday. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. 2002. Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations 55(11): 1355–1361. Holliday, A. 1999. Small cultures. Applied Linguistics 20(2): 237–264. Holquist, M. 1990. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge. House, J. 1996. Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding: The case of German and English. In Contrastive Sociolinguistics, M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (eds.), 345–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kasper, G. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards a discursive pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.), 281–314. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.



Culture and its effect on speech act performance 

Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA 18(2): 149–169. Kim, M.-S. & Wilson, S.R. 1994. A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs 61(3): 210–235. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP. Kramsch, C. 2000. Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, J.P. Lantolf (ed.), 133–153. Oxford: OUP. Lorenzo-Dus, N. 2001. Compliment responses among British and Spanish university students: A contrastive study. Journal of Pragmatics 33(1): 107–127. Lwanga-Lugu, J.C. 2005. A cross-cultural investigation of apology realization patterns in Luganda and English. Journal for Language Teaching 39(2): 227–242. Marquéz-Reiter, R. 2002. A contrastive study of indirectness in Spanish: Evidence from Uruguayan and peninsular Spanish. Pragmatics 12(2): 135–151. McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – A failure of analysis. Human Relations 55(1): 89–118. Meier, A.J. 1996. Two cultures mirrored in repair work. Multilingua 15(2): 149–169. Meier, A.J. 1999. Identifying and teaching the underlying cultural themes of pragmatics: A case for explanatory pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph Series, Vol. 9, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 113–127. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Meier, A.J. 2003. Posting the banns: A marriage of pragmatics and culture in foreign and second language pedagogy and beyond. In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández-Guerra (eds.), 185–210. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I. Meeuwis, M. 1994. Leniency and testiness in intercultural communication: Remarks on ideology and context in interactional sociolinguistics. Pragmatics 4(3): 391–408. Nakahama, Y. 1999. Requests in L1/L2 Japanese and American English: A crosscultural investigation of politeness. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph Series, Vol. 9, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 1–29. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Nelson, G.L., Al-Batal, M. & Echols, E. 1996. Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 17(4): 411–432. O’Driscoll, J. 1996. About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics 25(1): 1–32. Roberts, C. 1996. A social perspective on understanding: Some issues of theory and method. In Achieving Understanding, K. Bremer, C. Roberts, M-T. Vasseur, M. Simonot & P.B. Roeder (eds.), 9–36. London: Longman. Schrader-Kniffki, M. 2004. Speaking Spanish with Zapotec meaning: Requests and promises in intercultural communication in Oaxaca, Mexico. In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, R. Marquez-Reiter & M.E. Placencia (eds.), 157–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwartz, S.H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism. In Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications, U. Kim, H.C. Triandi, C. Kâğitçbaşi, S.C. Choi & G. Yoon (eds.), 85–119. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 1995. Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Singer, M.R. 1998. Perception and Identity in Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth ME: Intercultural Press. Sugimoto, N. 1997. A Japanese-U.S. comparison of apology styles. Communication Research 24(4): 349–370.

 Ardith J. Meier Suszczyńska, M. 1999. Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 31(8): 1053–1065. Thorne, S.L. 2000. Second language acquisition theory and the truth(s) about relativity. In Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition, J.P. Lantolf (ed.), 219–243. Oxford: OUP. Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder CO: Westview Press. Wierzbicka, A. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9(2): 145–178. Wolfson, N. 1989. Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York NY: Newbury House. Yu, M.-C. 2005. Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speakers: A mirror of cultural value. Language and Speech 48(1): 91–120. Žegarac, V. & Pennington, M.C. 2000. Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication. In Culturally Speaking, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 165–190. London: Continuum.

Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance Gila A. Schauer

Lancaster University Although the effect of the study abroad environment on foreign language learners’ speech act performance had been underexplored for many years, a number of studies have been published in the last decade that help to shed light on the impact of study abroad sojourns on language learners’ pragmatic competence. In this chapter, I will review and discuss investigations examining the effect of study abroad on language learners in a variety of study abroad contexts (e.g. Canada, United States of America, Latin America, France, Germany, Great Britain) and involving a variety of native and target language combinations (e.g. Chinese – English, English – French, English – German, English – Spanish, German – English, German – French, Japanese- English). The speech acts investigated are: advice, apologies, leave-taking, offers, refusals, requests and suggestions.

1.  Introduction That staying in a foreign country can improve language learners’ competence in their target language (L2) and also make them more aware of cross-cultural differences between their native and host country was recognised as far back as the middle ages, when exchanges of a more informal nature were conducted in Europe (Grote, 1913). As these informal arrangements were primarily made between members of the nobility, the number of language learners taking part in study abroad sojourns was relatively small. In more recent times, international exchange programmes funded and promoted by a large number of participating countries have allowed students from a wider variety of backgrounds to study in a foreign country. The European Erasmus/Socrates programme, for example, has enabled 1.9 million students from 31 countries to study at a foreign university since it was founded in 1987 (European Commission Education and Training website). From an interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) perspective, L2 learners’ performance of speech acts before, during and after study abroad sojourns is particularly interesting, as longitudinal investigations focusing on the impact of study abroad on L2 learners’ speech act choices can help to answer questions such as: (1) To what extent does L2 learners’ speech act production during study abroad sojourns

 Gila A. Schauer

become similar to that of native speakers? (2) To what extent does L2 learners’ speech act performance remain unaffected by the study abroad context? (3) If L2 learners’ pragmatic competence regarding speech acts improves during study abroad, when do these developments take place? (4) Do all L2 learners develop in a similar way with regard to their speech act skills in the target country? (5) Does exposure to the L2 have a greater effect than learners’ overall L2 proficiency on learners’ pragmatic development in the study abroad context? (6) Does pre-departure instruction result in a higher level of speech act competence than no instruction? (7) Does explicit or implicit instruction in speech acts during study abroad improve L2 learners’ pragmatic competence? In the following I will review speech act studies that can help shed light on the questions above. I will focus on studies that: 1. Examine study abroad learners’ development in the study abroad context (for single moment studies that compare study abroad and at home learners’ pragmatic competence in speech acts see for example Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Schauer, 2001; Yu, 2004; for single moment studies that examine the influence of study abroad learners’ first language on their pragmatic performance see for example Papaspyratou, 2008; Woodfield, 2008), 2. Focus on university students (for longitudinal studies examining the effect of a sojourn in the target country on adult and child L2 learners’ speech act competence see for example Achiba, 2003; Ellis, 1992; Hassall, 2006; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985; Schmidt, 1983) and 3. Provide a detailed analysis of one or more individual speech act/s (for a general comparative analysis of study abroad learners’ awareness of pragmatic and grammatical infelicities in apologies, requests, refusals and suggestions see for example Schauer, 2006a, 2009). In the next section, I will review studies examining the effect of the study abroad sojourn on L2 learners’ pragmatic competence by focusing on the following speech acts (presented in alphabetical order): (1) advice, (2) apologies, (3) leave-taking, (4) offers and refusals, (5) requests, and (6) suggestions. Subsequent to this, I will summarise the findings of these studies and provide some concluding remarks.

2. Review of studies investigating the effect of study abroad on L2 learners’ speech act performance 2.1  Advice Matsumura’s (2003, 2007) research on advice is of particular importance for ILP study abroad research, because he collected data from his Japanese learners of



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

English prior to, during and following their study abroad sojourn in Canada. It therefore is one of the very few investigations that provide a detailed, longitudinal analysis of the effects of study abroad on learners’ pragmatic development in both the study abroad and home context. The data for the 2003 study were gathered in 3-month intervals. The initial data elicitation session took place before the L2 learners left Japan, followed by a second session about 1 month after their arrival in Canada, and a third session after they had spent 4 months in the target environment. Data for the 2007 study were elicited 1 month, 6 months and 1 year after his L2 learners’ return to Japan. Due to participant attrition over time, the number of learner participants in both studies differs significantly. While 137 Japanese learners of English took part in the 2003 investigation, only 15 learners provided complete data sets for the 2007 study. All learners were undergraduate students. Their data were compared to controls provided by 71 native speakers of English, who were also studying for undergraduate degrees. In contrast to most of the other studies reviewed in this chapter, the data used in Matsumura’s investigations are not based on learners’ production of a particular speech act in discourse completion tasks (DCTs), role plays or in naturally occurring conversation, but on participants’ advice strategy preferences in a multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ). Therefore his studies examine language learners’ performance in a judgement type task that shares some similarities with the task used by Kinginger (2008), whose study is reviewed below. The MCQ used in both investigations contained 12 scenarios and 4 possible options for each scenario. In addition to the data elicited with the MCQ, Matsumura’s learners also completed a self-report questionnaire about their degree of exposure to the L2 in their daily life and provided their TOEFL scores. In the final data collection session of the 2007 study, data were also collected with a group interview. The statistical analysis of the 2003 investigation revealed that the one single factor in the study that determined the pragmatic development of the L2 learners was their exposure to the target language. Matsumura’s analysis showed that those students who had a greater amount of exposure to English displayed a higher degree of competence when choosing contextually appropriate advice strategies. Concerning the learners’ different proficiency levels in the L2, the study showed that proficiency on its own did not have a significant effect on the learners’ pragmatic development. Instead, the results revealed that proficiency only had an indirect effect on learners’ pragmatic development in combination with exposure to the L2. The results further showed that increases in L2 learners’ pragmatic competence regarding advice were particularly notable in the period between the first and second data collection session. In his subsequent study, Matsumura (2007) compared his L2 learners’ advice strategy choices over six data collection sessions (i.e. before, during and after

 Gila A. Schauer

their study abroad sojourn). The analysis of the data showed that learners’ pragmatic competence increased in advice scenarios involving an equal status interlocutor. In scenarios involving a higher status interlocutor, however, learners’ pragmatic competence seemed to decrease over time, because learners made more use of the opting out option. L2 learners’ explanations for why they selected the opting out strategy more frequently after their return to Japan revealed that this was a conscious and deliberate choice based on their reassessment of what constitutes appropriate language towards a higher status interlocutor. Thus, the researcher argues that these changes in strategy use should not be regarded as pragmatic regression. The explanation of one of Matsumura’s learners on why she decided to opt out in the later sessions provides interesting insights into her decision making rationales: Before I left for Canada, I chose not to give advice in all items relating to a professor, because I didn’t know what to say. In Canada, I realized that unlike Japanese professors, Canadian professors were very friendly. They allowed me to address them on a first name basis. So I felt it was OK to talk to them the way I did to my roommates. (…) As time has gone by after returning to Japan, I have started to think that my way of talking to Canadian professors might have been wrong. You know, a professor is a professor.  (from Matsumura, 2007, 179–180)

Matsumura also investigated how his learners had succeeded in increasing their pragmatic competence regarding advice directed at equal status interlocutors in Japan after their study abroad sojourn. He found that although his L2 learners’ exposure to English in the university context was limited, all 15 learners had sought out opportunities to use their L2 skills in other contexts, for example, by teaching Japanese to foreign students, staying in contact with their Canadian friends or attending social gatherings frequented by English native speakers. Thus, as the results of Matsumura’s (2003) study had also shown, a high amount of exposure to the target language is one of the key factors that help language learners maintain and increase their pragmatic competence in their L2. 2.2  Apologies 2.2.1  American English university students learning French or Spanish Cohen and Shively’s (2007) study and Halenko’s (2009) investigation reported in the next sub-section differ from the other studies reviewed in this chapter, as they not only explore the effect of a study abroad sojourn on university students’ pragmatic competence, but also examine whether pragmatic instruction leads to an



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

increase in L2 learners’ pragmatic competence. Participants in Cohen and Shively’s investigation were 67 learners of Spanish and 19 learners of French attending an American university who spent 4–5 months in the target environment. The majority of them were native speakers of American English, while four were native speakers of Bosnian, French, Hmong and Russian. The L2 learners were assigned to either an experimental group, whose members received instruction in pragmatics, or a control group, whose members did not receive instructions in pragmatics. Learners in the experimental group took part in a pre-departure instruction session and were given the guide: Maximising Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use (Paige et al., 2002). In addition, experimental group members also had to complete e-journal entries during their study abroad sojourn. Data for the study were collected with a multiple rejoinder DCT that contained five apology and five request scenarios. The learners completed the DCTs twice: about 2 weeks before they left for their study abroad sojourn and about 2 weeks after they had returned to the United States. Two native speakers of French and four native speakers of Spanish subsequently rated the appropriateness of the apologies and requests made by the L2 learners. The results of the statistical analysis of the scores given by the native speaker raters showed that L2 learners’ performance of apologies and requests before and after their stay abroad was significantly different, with the data collected in the latter session being more appropriate than the data collected in the earlier session. Concerning differences regarding the effect of instruction on learners’ performance, Cohen and Shively (2007: 199) noted that “although the E[xperimental] group showed more gain than the C[ontrol] group (E = 3.94, C = 2.34) (…), the difference was not statistically significant at the .001 level of confidence”. Thus, their investigation has shown that a study abroad of 4–5 months has a positive impact on L2 learners’ ability to formulate appropriate apologies and requests. While additional pre-departure instruction and guide books may be helpful for language learners studying abroad, they did not lead to a significantly better performance of instructed versus uninstructed learners in Cohen and Shively’s study. 2.2.2  Chinese university students learning English While Cohen and Shively examined the effect of pragmatic instruction prior to L2 learners’ departure to the study abroad country, Halenko (2009) investigated the effect of pragmatic instruction during her learners’ study abroad sojourn. Her participants were 29 Chinese undergraduate students whom she taught in two groups over a period of 12-weeks at the British university they attended. The instruction took place in her learners’ first semester and was designed for participants

 Gila A. Schauer

of an upper-intermediate proficiency level in English (equivalent to IELTS  6.0). The researcher was interested in the impact of implicit and explicit teaching approaches on the development of learners’ pragmatic competence and designed the materials for the 17 learners in her explicit and the 12 learners in her implicit group herself. While lessons for the latter group focused predominantly on exposing learners to relevant input, the former group also received explicit pragmatic instructions. Halenko’s methodology is similar to Cohen and Shively’s (2007) study, as the data were also elicited with a DCT, which contained six apology situations in her investigation. A further similarity is that the data were rated by a group of native speakers, which comprised three raters in Halenko’s study. The DCT was administered to the participants as a pre-test in September and as a post-test in January. Halenko found that learners of both groups improved in their overall ability to formulate appropriate apologies following implicit and explicit instruction in this speech act. T-test analyses of the groups’ scores on individual scenarios revealed that the pragmatic competence of the explicit group had increased significantly following the 12-week instruction in four of the six DCT scenarios, while the changes in the implicit groups’s data were not significant in any of the scenarios. The researcher summarised the discussions about the groups’s progress with the raters as follows The raters concluded that the explicit instruction had played a facilitative role in raising the EXP[licit] group’s awareness of the pragmalinguistic features of language in particular. This, in turn, had a positive affect on students’ pragmatic language production as demonstrated in the EXP[licit] group’s post tests. Although the IMP[licit] group had also made improvements, these were more general and erratic and they had clearly not mastered the use of formulaic sequences used in apologies, for example, to the same degree as the EXP[licit] group.  (from Halenko, 2009, 48)

Overall, Halenko’s results are encouraging. They suggest that instruction can facilitate pragmatic development, although explicit teaching may yield better results than implicit teaching (see Takahashi, this volume). 2.2.3  Austrian university students learning French Also focusing on apologies but examining a different native language (L1) – target language combination, Warga and Schölmberger (2007) investigated apologetic utterances produced by seven Austrian learners of French in Canada. Similar to the two apology studies reviewed above, data for their investigation were elicited with a DCT, which contained four apology situations. The DCT was administered to the L2 learners in 2-month intervals during their 10 months sojourn in Canada and also 2 months after their return to Austria. The first session took place in the



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

target context. The L2 learners’ data were subsequently compared to DCT data provided by 20 native speakers of French and 17 native speakers of Austrian German. The researchers found that their learners mainly used the upgrader trés (very) throughout their stay, although this upgrader was employed with a very low frequency by the French native speakers, who predominantly used vraiment (really). However, they also found some developments towards the native speakers’ apology use, such as a decreasing employment of the adverbial expression malheureusement (unfortunately). Warga and Schölmberger’s (2007) learner group was very heterogeneous. Some of their learners had studied French for 3 and others for 11 years. In addition, some learners had spent up to 11 months in a French speaking context prior to taking part in the study, whereas other had not previously lived in the target environment. Because of the considerable differences regarding length of L2 instruction and exposure to the L2 in the French speaking context, it would have been helpful to provide an analysis of the individual learners instead of a group analysis. This would have been possible given the small participant number and could have provided interesting insights into the effect of previous sojourns and short-term/long-term instruction on individual learners’ pragmatic development in the study abroad country. 2.3  Leave-taking Kinginger (2008) examined several aspects of L2 learners’ competence in the larger language (e.g. use of address forms, general academic proficiency, use of colloquial words) in her investigation of the effect of the study abroad sojourn on North American undergraduates of French in France. In this chapter, I will concentrate on her findings concerning developments in her learners’ leave-taking skills. Participants in her study were 23 undergraduates, 22 of whom were English native speakers, while one was a bilingual English and Spanish speaker. All learners’ fulfilled the language conditions for study abroad at their American home university. Data for the investigation of her learners’ leave-taking skills were collected with a task that asked learners to match 11 leave taking formulas to 11 different leave-taking scenarios involving a variety of different interlocutors (e.g. host mother, orator at funeral, job applicant). Participants completed the task prior to their departure and several months after they had returned to their university in the US. The data collected from the learners before their study abroad sojourn showed that several of the L2 learners selected leave-taking formulas that were too informal in formal situations and/or too formal in informal situations. In the delayed post-test, learners tended to show a better understanding of formulas that are

 Gila A. Schauer

appropriate in different contexts, although Kinginger also found some instances of inappropriate formula use. The researcher concluded that As a group, they appear to have developed sensitivity to the dimension of formality in its relation to choice of speech acts. Specifically, they became more aware that au revoir is appropriate for business-related or service encounters; they learned that je t’embrasse or gros bisous index intimate relationships; they appear to have developed some appreciation of how the use of adieu is restricted to formal and/or final good-byes. (from Kinginger, 2008, 57)

While it is encouraging that the post-test indicates that the study abroad sojourn led to improvements in the L2 learners’ pragmatic competence regarding leavetaking formulas, it is regrettable that the post-test was administered several months after the learners’ return to their home university and not immediately after they recommenced their studies in the US. Asking the participants to complete an immediate and a delayed post-test would have provided interesting insights into the long-term effect of study abroad on learners’ pragmatic competence and could have addressed whether and to what extent attrition occurrs. 2.4  Offers and refusals 2.4.1  Irish university students learning German Barron (2003, 2007) examined the effect of the study abroad environment on L2 learners’ performance of three speech acts: offers, refusals and requests. Due to Barron’s integrated analysis approach of offer-refusal sequences, both offers and refusals will be discussed in this section. Her findings regarding requests, however, will be reviewed in the following subsection. Participants in her study were 33  Irish learners of German, whose data were compared to 34 German native speakers and 53 Irish English native speaker controls. The learners’ data were elicited with two production questionnaires, one of which was based on a multiplerejoinder format. Six of the production questionnaire scenarios intended to elicit offers and a further six scenarios intended to elicit refusals of offers. The production questionnaires were administered over a 15-month period with the first data collection taking place in Ireland and the subsequent two collections taking place in Germany, one in the middle of the L2 learners’ stay and one towards the end of their sojourn. Barron (2003, 2007) found that her L2 learners’ use of complex offer-refusal sequences decreased towards the German native speaker norm within the first two months in the study abroad context. This is a particularly interesting result, as it seems to confirm Matsumura’s (2003) finding concerning considerable increases in study abroad learners’ pragmatic competence in the initial months of their study



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

abroad sojourn. Further evidence of the positive effect of the study abroad sojourn on L2 learners’ speech act competence were that learners decreased their use of non L2-like routines such as the use of Ich wundere mich (I wonder), while increasing their employment of upgraders in initial refusals and therefore became more native-speaker like. However, Barron also found some developments away from the native speaker norm, such as inappropriate use of Kein Problem (no problem). Based on her findings the author concluded that this study revealed that exposure to second language input triggered some important developments in the present informants’ L2 pragmatic competence in the investigated areas of discourse structure, pragmatic routines and internal modification. While many of these developments led to an increasingly L2-like pragmatic competence, the analysis also revealed that not all changes in learners’ pragmatic knowledge or ability over the year abroad necessarily represented development towards the L2 norm. (from Barron, 2003, 238).

2.4.2  American English university students learning Spanish In contrast to the other studies included in this chapter, not all of Felix-Brasdefer’s (2004) learner participants had lived in the L2 context to study at university and improve their competence in their foreign language. Three of his 24 American English learners of Spanish had stayed in a Latin American country because they were taking part in a religious mission. Although the experiences of these missionaries may have been somewhat different from those of more typical study abroad participants, this study is included here, as it is one of very few investigations that examine the effect of different lengths of sojourns in the L2 context on learners’ performance of speech acts. Felix-Brasdefer’s (2004) participants were 24 advanced learners of Spanish studying at an US-American university. The L2 learners participants were assigned to four different groups based on their length of residence in the target context: group (1): 1–1.5 months, group (2): 3–5 months, group (3): 9–13 months, and group (4): 18–30 months. Data were collected with role-plays examining six refusal situations and retrospective verbal protocols. Controls were provided by 20 native speakers of Mexican Spanish and 20 native speakers of American English. The researcher found that although some limited benefit of shorter study abroad sojourns could be observed [i]n general, the results of the present study consistently showed that the learners’ ability to negotiate a refusal (sequential organization) and their ability to mitigate a refusal (lexical and syntactic mitigation) approximated NS levels (L1 Spanish) after 9 months of residence in the target community.  (from Félix-Brasdefer, 2004, 634–635).

 Gila A. Schauer

Felix-Brasdefer, however, also noted that although his learners who resided in the target environment for 9 months or more produced refusals that generally resembled those produced by his Spanish native speaker participants in a variety of aspects, there were still instances in which even those learners deviated in their pragmatic choices from those of the native speakers (e.g. regarding the content and form of two indirect apology strategies). This again supports Barron’s (2003, 2007) results. 2.5  Requests 2.5.1  Irish university students learning German In her 2003 publication, Barron examined the effect of a study abroad sojourn on L2 learners’ pragmatic competence in offers, refusals, and requests. The results of the offer and refusal investigation and background information on her participants as well as the sequencing of her data collection are reported above. Data for the study were elicited with production questionnaires that contained eight request scenarios. Barron mainly concentrated on an analysis of internal modifiers and in particular on the analysis of the politeness marker bitte (please) in her investigation of requests. This is unfortunate, as an investigation covering all aspects of requests that are commonly analysed (i.e. request strategies, internal and external modification) could have provided interesting insights. Barron found that her learners increased their use of lexical/phrasal modifiers towards that of the German NSs during their stay. Concerning syntactic modifiers, the findings did not indicate a marked development towards the native speaker norm. This suggests that lexical/ phrasal modifiers are acquired more easily and probably also earlier in the study abroad environment than syntactic modifiers. 2.5.2  German university students learning English Schauer (2004, 2006b, 2007, 2008, 2009) studied the use of request strategies and internal and external modifiers by nine German learners of English enrolled at a British university. None of the study abroad group members had lived in an English speaking country before. Although all learners had fulfilled the necessary conditions for studying at the British university, regrettably, no standardised data on the study abroad learners’ general proficiency level, such as IETLTS scores, were available to the researcher. In addition to the study abroad learners, 13 German learners of English studying at a higher educational institution in Germany and 15 British English native speakers enrolled at a British university took part in the study and provided controls.



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

Data were collected at three distinct points of the study abroad learners’ sojourn in the target environment: (1) shortly after their arrival in Great Britain in late October, early November, (2) in the middle of their stay in February of the following year, and (3) shortly before their return to Germany in May. Thus, the intervals between the sessions were roughly three months. The data elicitation instrument used in the study was the multimedia elicitation task (MET), which has similarities with closed role plays and provides participants with audiovisual input. The MET contained 16 request scenarios, which differed regarding the status of the interlocutors the students were talking to (higher/equal) and the degree of imposition (high/low). Concerning request strategies, Schauer (2007, 2008, 2009) found that study abroad learners did not use the direct request strategies imperatives and unhedged performatives in the final data collection session that they had employed in the earlier sessions. This suggests that the sojourn in the target context and exposure to the L2 had a positive impact on members of the study abroad group. The results, however, also revealed that the study abroad learners continued to use the direct strategy hedged performatives in high imposition scenarios throughout their stay, particularly in scenarios that involved a higher status interlocutor. While none of the English native speakers used hedged performatives in any of the 16 MET scenarios, this strategy was also employed by the German learners in Germany in high imposition interactions. Thus, the consistent use of this strategy by the study abroad group seems to be a result of negative L1 transfer (for a detailed discussion see Schauer, 2009). The analysis of the students’ use of internal and external request modifiers showed that individual learner differences seemed to play an important role with regard to the effect the study abroad sojourn had on L2 learners’ pragmatic competence in requests. For example, while all learners increased their internal modifier repertoire during their residence in the target country, not all learners also increased their external modifier repertoire and those who did increase their repertoire did not all do so to the same extent (e.g. of two learners who initially used four different external modifiers, one added 1 in a subsequent session, while the other one added 4). The modifier data did, however, indicate that certain modifier types seem to have been acquired during certain stages of the study abroad sojourn, such as the external modifiers smalltalk (e.g. Good to see you, study abroad learner, session 2) and considerator (e.g. Only if you’ve got the time of course, study abroad learner, session 2) that were exclusively employed in sessions 2 and 3 by the study abroad learners, but were not used by any of the learners in the home EFL context. Supporting Barron’s (2003) findings regarding internal modifiers, Schauer’s data also

 Gila A. Schauer

suggested that L2 learners in the study abroad context use a greater variety of lexical/phrasal modifiers earlier on than syntactic modifiers. Thus, the results of Schauer’s (2007, 2008, 2009) studies indicate that a study abroad sojourn can lead to gains in L2 learners’ speech act performance. The findings also highlight, however, that not all learners may benefit from a stay in the target environment to the same extent and that further investigations are necessary that examine individual learners’ progress and do not only follow a group-based approach in their analysis (see Kuriscak, this volume). 2.5.3  American university students learning French or Spanish As reported earlier, Cohen and Shively (2007) investigated whether receiving instruction prior to the study abroad sojourn had an impact on L2 learners’ speech act performance. The statistical analysis of the pre-sojourn and post-sojourn appropriateness scores given to the L2 learners by the French and Spanish native speaker raters had revealed that learners’ pragmatic competence regarding apologies and requests had increased significantly following their stay in the target environment irrespective of whether the L2 learners had received pragmatic instruction or not. The authors offer the following interpretation of their results: (…) the fact that only eight pages of the Guide specifically dealt with speech acts (Paige et al., 2002, 207–214) may help to explain why its impact was not significant, for the most part. It may be that the intervention in this specific area was not long enough, not intensive enough, not effective enough in terms of its content, or not deemed important enough to pay attention to in the moment of production (from Cohen & Shively, 2007, 202).

In addition to the quantitative analysis, Cohen and Shively (2007) also conducted a qualitative analysis of their L2 learners’ requests and found that both groups employed more downgraders after their sojourn than before. However, even though both groups increased their downgrader use, the more marked increase was observed in the data of the instructed group members. Thus, there does appear to be some evidence of a positive effect of instruction on L2 learners’ speech act performance following study abroad. 2.6  Suggestions Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) investigated the use of suggestions by 10 learners of English and 6 American English native speakers enrolled on postgraduate programmes at a US American university. Members of their learner group represented six different native languages (Arabic, Catalan/Spanish, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean). The data for the study were collected in two authentic academic



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

advising sessions that were attended by the students and native English speaking academic staff. The two advising sessions took place within a period of 7 to 14 weeks from each other. Participants’ suggestions were assigned to three major categories: (1) responses to questions, (2) responses to prompts, and (3) initiated. In addition, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford also analysed their students’ use of mitigators and aggravators when making suggestions. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) found that their learners used fewer suggestions than the native speaker students in the initial advising session at the beginning of their stay, which put them into a reactive position. In the second session, however, the learners increased their use of suggestions, which put them in a more active position. Concerning the suggestion type employed by the learners and native speakers, the native speakers used a considerably higher number of initiated suggestions than the learners in the first session (67 % and 31 % respectively). In the later sessions, learners’ use of initiated suggestions increased to 48 %, while their response based suggestions decreased. The researchers attributed the improvements in learners’ use of suggestions to two factors: (1) explicit input provided by the advisor in the session, which showed the learners that a more active role was expected, and (2) subsequent discussions with fellow students, which provided their learners with further insights into the pragmatics of advising sessions. However, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) also noted that although the learners increased their use of suggestions and initiated suggestion types, they still displayed some non-native like use of aggravators and mitigators at the end of the observation period. Due to the non-public nature of academic advising sessions, learners generally cannot observe interactions between advisors and NS students in this context. Thus, even though they may receive general guidelines and feedback from academic staff and advice from fellow students, they will probably not receive detailed instructions on which linguistic forms to use or not use. This finding therefore seems to support Schmidt’s (1990, 1993) noticing hypothesis in that learners first need to receive relevant and specific input before a change in their pragmatic behaviour can occur. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford’s (1993) study has shown that on the macro-level language learners’ pragmatic performance with regard to suggestions increases within 2 to 4 months in the study abroad context. On the micro-level, however, it seems that learners need more time to approximate native speakers’ use of mitigators in suggestions. Unfortunately, Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford did not provide background information on their individual learners, such as the length of previous instruction in English and possible earlier sojourns in the L2 context. This information would have been helpful. They also did not present an individual analysis of the 10 learners, which again is regretful. An individual analysis would have been extremely interesting, as it could have provided insights into whether

 Gila A. Schauer

individual learner differences and learners’ native language have an impact on L2 learners’ pragmatic development in the study abroad context.

3.  Discussion The studies reviewed in the previous section have provided the following answers to the questions posed in the introduction: 1. To what extent does L2 learners’ speech act production during study abroad sojourns become similar to that of native speakers? A sojourn in the study abroad context helped to improve L2 learners’ competence when giving advice to equal status interlocutors (Matsumura, 2003), lead to an increased use of modifiers (Barron, 2003; Cohen & Shively, 2007; Schauer, 2007, 2009) and resulted in learners decreasing their employment of non-native-like routines, strategies or lexical items (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993; Barron, 2003, 2007; Felix-Brasdefer, 2004; Kinginger, 2008; Warga & Schölmberger, 2007; Schauer, 2008, 2009). It needs to be noted, however, that these findings are based on a small number of studies. 2. To what extent does L2 learners’ speech act performance remain unaffected by the study abroad context? Learners may continue to use non-native like aggravators and mitigators (Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993), adverbials, mitigators and routines not preferred by native speakers (Barron, 2003; Felix-Brasdefer, 2004; Kinginger, 2008; Warga & Schölmberger, 2007), as well as strategies that are not employed by native speakers (Schauer, 2008, 2009). L2 learners’ language use that deviates from native speakers’ language use often seems to be a result of negative transfer from learners’ L1s (e.g. Barron, 2003; Schauer, 2009). 3. If L2 learners’ pragmatic competence regarding speech acts improves during study abroad, when do these developments take place? Some developments in L2 learners’ speech act competence seem to take place early on. Studies by Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1993) and Barron (2003) showed that some positive changes occur in offer-refusals and suggestions in the first 2–3 months of study abroad. This is also supported by Matsumura’s (2003) findings regarding advice. Cohen and Shively (2007) found that significant changes in L2 learners’ performance of apologies and requests occurred after 4–5 months. Felix-Brasdefer’s (2004) results regarding refusals indicated that even though some changes may take place following a shorter period abroad, significant changes only occurred after 9 months.



4.

5.

6.

7.

Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

Therefore the data seem to suggest that the longer a L2 learner stays in the target context, the more progress he or she is likely to make. Do all L2 learners develop in a similar way with regard to their speech act skills in the target country? Studies by Matsumura (2003) and Schauer (2009) indicate that not all L2 learners in the study abroad context will improve their pragmatic skills to the same extent. Thus, returning to question 3 above, even if a group of L2 learners spends a similar length of time in the target country, there is no guarantee that they will all make the same progress. This is because individual learner differences, such as the degree of exposure to the L2 that an individual seeks in the host environment, play an important role in L2 learners’ speech act development. Does exposure to the L2 have a greater effect than learners’ proficiency on L2 learners’ pragmatic development in the study abroad context? To date there is very little data available on this. However, according to Matsumura’s (2003, 2007) investigation, exposure was the one single factor that determined his L2 learners’ pragmatic development. Does pre-departure instruction result in a higher level of speech act competence than no instruction? There is very little information available on this and further research is needed. Cohen and Shively (2007) found no significant difference in the performance of instructed and uninstructed L2 learners following their study abroad sojourn. Does explicit or implicit instruction in speech acts during study abroad improve L2 learners’ pragmatic competence? Similar to the previous question, only very limited information is available on this and further research is needed. Halenko (2009) found that both of her groups, the implicit and explicit, improved to some extent regarding their ability to formulate appropriate apologies. The statistical analyses of the group scores based on the assessement by native speaker raters revealed that the explicit group’s improvements were statistically significant in the majority of the scenarios tested, whereas the implicit groups’ were not. This suggests that explicit instruction during study abroad may benefit students more than implicit instruction.

4.  Conclusion In summary, the studies reviewed in this chapter have shown that a sojourn in the study abroad context has a positive impact on L2 learners’ pragmatic performance,

 Gila A. Schauer

even though L2 learners may not become native-like in all aspects and may not all make the same progress. It needs to be noted, however, that the results of this review are based on a rather small number of studies. Further research is needed to provide a more detailed picture of the effects of study abroad on language learners’ use and comprehension of speech acts in their target language. Additional studies on the speech acts reviewed in this chapter could help us obtain more in-depth insights into learners’ progress in the L2 context regarding the speech acts of advice, apologies, leave-taking, offers, refusals, requests and suggestions. As the review has shown, some of the speech acts, such as suggestions, leave-taking and advice have only received limited attention from researchers so far. Clearly, more research on these speech acts and others, such as compliments, complaints, and expressions of gratitude are needed. Regarding the methodology used in the studies reviewed in this chapter, the majority of investigations employed a group-based analysis of the data. This can be a useful approach. However, an analysis of individual L2 learners’ speech act performance would allow researchers to examine which factors lead to good progress in L2 learners’ use and comprehension of speech acts and which individual learner differences are the most salient in L2 learners’ development in the study abroad context. To obtain more insights on this, data collection methods frequently used in interlanguage pragmatic investigations (such as DCTs, role-plays and multimedia tasks) could be supplemented with questionnaires, diaries and interviews eliciting data on L2 learners’ motivation, willingness to communicate and perception of self in the study abroad context (see Félix-Brasdefer, this volume). Kinginger (2008) is a useful model, although instruments and tasks would have to be adapted for investigations intending to explore speech acts in depth. While additional data collection instruments were used in some studies reviewed here (e.g. Matsumura, 2003, 2007; Schauer, 2009), they should become the norm rather than the exception in ILP developmental research in the study abroad context, as they can help uncover what the factors are that may result in students progressing well or not so well in the target environment. Once we have a better idea of what these factors are, it should be easier to prepare students for their study abroad experience by painting a realistic picture of what the highs and lows of study abroad sojourns can be, what previous sojourners have and have not achieved, and which actions are likely to help learners achieve their own objectives and also result in a study abroad experience that is enjoyable and fulfilling for learners. Providing L2 learners with empirical information can help to avoid exaggerated expectations and subsequent disappointments on their part, while at the same time making them aware of what to do or what not to do in order to make the most of their study abroad sojourn.



Study abroad and its effect on speech act performance 

References Achiba, M. 2003. Learning to Request in a Second Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Dörnyei, Z. 1998. Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 32(2): 233–259. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. 1993. Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(3): 279–304. Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barron, A. 2007. “Ah, no honestly we’re okay”: Learning to upgrade in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 129–166. Cohen, A.D. & Shively, R.L. 2007. Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy building intervention. The Modern Language Journal 91(2): 189–212. Ellis, R. 1992. Learning to communicate in the classroom: A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14(1): 1–23. European Union Publication on Erasmus success stories. . Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2004. Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning 54(4): 587–653. Grote, W. 1913. Internationaler Kinderaustausch. [International exchange of children] In Lexikon der Paedagogik, E. Roloff (ed.), 1185–1187. Freiburg im Breisgrau: Herdersche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Halenko, N. 2009. ‘How sorry can a person be?’ Teaching the Speech Act of Apology in the ESL Classroom. MA thesis, Lancaster University. Hassall, T. 2006. Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts, M. DuFon & E. Churchill (eds.), 31–58. Clevedon: Multitlingual Matters. Kinginger, C. 2008. Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France [Modern Language Journal 92 Monograph]. Oxford: Blackwell. Matsumura, S. 2003. Modelling the relationship among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24(4): 465–491. Matsumura, S. 2007. Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 167–192. Olshtain, E. & Blum-Kulka, S. 1985. Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behaviour. In Input in Second Language Acquisition, S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (eds.), 303–325. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Paige, R.M., Cohen, A.D., Kappler, B., Chi, J.C. & Lassegard, J.P. 2002. Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minneapolis MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Papaspyratou, M. 2008. Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Exploratory Study of the Internal and External Modification of Requests by Chinese and Greek learners of English. MA thesis, Lancaster University. Schauer, G.A. 2001. English/German Cross-cultural Differences in the Use of Expressions of Gratitude and Responses to These. MA thesis, University of Nottingham.

 Gila A. Schauer Schauer, G.A. 2004. May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. In EUROSLA Yearbook 4, S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Sharwood Smith, A. Sorace & M. Ota (eds.), 253–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schauer, G.A. 2006a. Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning 56(2): 269–318. Schauer, G.A. 2006b. The development of ESL learners’ pragmatic competence: A longitudinal investigation of awareness and production. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, J.C. Félix-Brasdefer & A. Omar (eds.), 135–163. Honolulu HI: National Foreign Language Resource Centre University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Schauer, G.A. 2007. Finding the right words in the study abroad context: The development of German learners’ use of external modifiers in English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 193–220. Schauer, G.A. 2008. Getting better in getting what you want: Language learners’ pragmatic development in requests during study abroad sojourns. In Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-cultural perspectives, M. Puetz & J. Neff van Aertselaer (eds.), 399–426. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schauer, G.A. 2009. Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context. London: Continuum. Schmidt, R. 1983. Consciousness, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition, N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.), 137–174. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2): 129–158. Schmidt, R. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 21–42. Oxford: OUP. Warga, M. & Schölmberger, U. 2007. The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 221–252. Woodfield, H. 2008. Interlanguage requests: A contrastive study. In Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-cultural Perspectives, M. Puetz & J. Neff van Aertselaer (eds.), 231–264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Yu, M.-C. 2004. Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behaviour. The Modern Language Journal 88(1): 102–119.

Speech act performance in workplace settings Lynda Yates

Macquarie University This chapter explores how research on speech act performance can inform language teaching for workplace communication. It argues for an approach to instruction that draws on empirical evidence from a range of perspectives so that non-native speakers can understand patterns of language use, how these relate to cultural values and how individuals actually draw on them in context. Using directives and disagreements as examples, it is argued that while quantitative interlanguage and cross-cultural speech act research studies give valuable insight into how acts are performed in routine situations, speech act studies broadly conceived are needed to provide learners with insight into the rich repertoire of devices and strategies native speakers have at their disposal and how these might be used to negotiate identities at work.

1.  Introduction Behind the cliché that organisations and workplaces are becoming increasingly global and multicultural in character is the reality that more and more of us now communicate in English on a daily basis with speakers from different language backgrounds. While this interaction is now frequently in English as a lingua franca, particularly in Europe and parts of Asia, in this chapter I focus on what we can draw from research on speech act performance to assist non-native speakers (NNSs) to interact successfully in workplaces where English native speakers (NSs) predominate. Since both groups are likely to draw on different (often unconscious) expectations of appropriate communicative behaviour based on first language norms, this is an area of language instruction urgently in need of accurate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic empirical evidence on which to base both curricula and pedagogical practice. Because adult learners have already been socialised into different communities of practice, they can find it challenging to understand or even notice the norms underlying expectations in another, so that such pragmatic issues are best taught reflectively on the basis of models drawn or constructed from empirical research from a range of perspectives. Programmes therefore need to offer not only relevant models based on authentic sources, but also activities that help

 Lynda Yates

learners notice various sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic features together with a combination of explicit metapragmatic comment and the space to reflect upon and experiment with new ways of interacting. Since no programme can teach everything there is to know about how to handle speech acts in different situations, and each individual will want to draw on available resources according to their own personal style and goals, an important aim of teaching is also to equip learners with the analytical tools to research interactive practices for themselves (see Yates, 2004). In considering the evidence base for language instruction in this chapter, I will first briefly consider how workplace language might relate to language use more generally and the importance of attention to interpersonal dimensions of talk, orienting to power structures and understanding the cultural context of a workplace setting. Focusing on two face-threatening acts that can be particularly challenging for learners, directives (Usó-Juan, this volume) and disagreements (Malamed, this volume), I will then review the findings from studies of NS and NSS language use conducted from a range of perspectives for the insights that they can provide. In doing this I will argue that while quantitative studies of elicited data can suggest patterns and trends that can guide instruction, these need to be supplemented by insights from qualitative studies which can provide rich insight into both the repertoire of devices at the disposal of NSs and how they can be used dynamically by individuals in interaction. Finally, I will consider how these might be included in language programs and reflect on future directions in the investigation of speech acts in the workplace and their impact on language learning and teaching practice.

2.  What is workplace language? Much of the literature on language in workplace settings has focused on functions which are front of house, that is, on communication that takes place between members of the public in some way, such as patient-doctor interactions, reception and customer service discourse and so on (see for example, Sarangi & Roberts, 1999; Harris, 2003), or on formal events in institutional discourse such as boardroom discourse or presentations (see for example, Locher, 2004). In this chapter I am interested primarily in the non-technical talk that occurs behind the scenes during less public interactions. Such language use at work is both institutional, in that it occurs in a setting where organisational roles and values are likely to play an important role, and interpersonal in that it is the means through which individuals enact their professional identities. It is therefore likely to vary enormously according to cultural and organisational context, setting and individual communicative style,



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

that is, interactions on the shop floor of an automotive manufacturer are likely to be very different from those in the office of a government department and so on. There can therefore be no one single body of language we can describe as the basis for instruction. Nevertheless, we can identify some dimensions of communication that are shared by different settings. Workplaces are communities of practice that, at some level, are task-oriented (Wenger, 1998). They exist because there is something that needs to be accomplished by a group. Interactions at work may therefore draw very heavily on the background knowledge shared by the speakers, and this will include not only understandings of processes and goals, but also expected ways of doing – and saying – things. These shared understandings of how things should be said extend beyond the use of specialised vocabulary or turn-taking systems to assumptions about appropriate ways of approaching and performing a wide range of acts. Thus, even within cultures there is considerable variation, not only from industry to industry, but from organisation to organisation, workplace to workplace and even work station to work station, and each of these communities of practice will have their own communicative requirements. For the NNS in particular, the “inferential frameworks and procedures that are particular to specific institutional contexts” (Koester, 2006: 4) may not be evident, and newcomers need to learn how to work within them. Despite this task orientation, there is also a strong interpersonal dimension to communication at work. At times, talk may be primarily social, as when we meet up with colleagues at the photocopier or engage in small talk during coffee breaks. In fact, most interactions at work, as elsewhere, will be both transactional and interpersonal. This is because even though our primary focus may be on a particular task, every time we speak (or write) we signal something about ourselves and our attitudes through the way we approach an act or the words we choose. Since relationships with colleagues are built and maintained incrementally over time, this interpersonal dimension is crucial to long-term effective communication at work. While such long-term misunderstandings certainly occur in monolingual workplaces, it is more likely that there may be serious consequences where cross-cultural assumptions underpinning what is regarded as appropriate communicative behaviour are not shared. Thus, even misunderstandings that do not lead to serious short-term communication breakdown can impede good working relations in the long-term by helping to fuel unhelpful stereotypes which may then consistently undermine effective communication (Beal, 1994; Bilbow, 1997). As Miller (2008: 238) warns, even where underlying structures for the performance and mitigation of an act are similar in different cultures, “misinterpretations sometimes bubble up into the tiny crevices of talk”. And tiny crevices, over time, can become yawning chasms.

 Lynda Yates

Power differences are also a feature of most workplaces, and these can be quite challenging for speakers from different backgrounds to negotiate successfully. For example, in many parts of Asia, hierarchy and social position tend to be signalled more overtly (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Pan, 1995) such that greater deference to ­superiors may be expected and more directness may be legitimated when interacting with those of lower rank. Of course, power differences still exist in Anglo corporate environments, but they may be enacted differently, and even very proficient NNSs may have difficulty recognising them and enacting power in ways that are well-received by colleagues. Speakers from Asia, for example, may be rather shocked by the communicative ethos found in Australia, where flatter management structures and communicative values that tend towards the fiction of egalitarianism (Wierzbicka, 1997; Goddard, 2006) favour an informal and solidary tone even in relatively formal contexts. Workplace language use has been investigated from a number of perspectives (see Koester, 2006). Despite taxonomic difficulties, from a research perspective speech acts offer a useful starting point, even for researchers working within other approaches to discourse (for example, advice-giving in Heritage & Sefi, 1992; requests in Li, 2000). From an applied perspective, what they lack in theoretical rigour, they make up for in practical transparency (Bilbow, 1997: 470). That is, speech acts have a face-validity to the end-users of research – to learners and users of language – as an easily recognisable way of understanding how people do things with language. They therefore offer a very useful platform from which to explore both the forms used to do things at work and the cultural values, assumptions and expectations underpinning them in ways which are readily useable in the teaching profession (see Yates, in press). Quantitative studies of elicited speech acts have been very useful in highlighting pragmalinguistic differences between populations and indicating trends towards communicative norms such as directness (see, for example, the considerable work arising from the Cross Cultural Speech Act Research project) or values, such as modesty (Chen, 1993). However, work on elicited data needs to be complemented by insights from a range of approaches to speech acts in order to provide a richer and more nuanced picture of the sociopragmatic underpinnings and pragmalinguistic repertoires relevant to the performance and interpretation of speech acts at work.

3.  Two examples: Directives and disagreements Face-threatening acts can be particularly difficult to perform at work, and this is perhaps why there is a particular emphasis on directives in the speech act in



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

the workplace literature, and, to a lesser extent, disagreements. However, although both carry the potential to threaten the hearer’s face, the extent of this risk to face as well as the nature of the relational work needed to address this may vary across cultures and contexts. At work it can be particularly important to understand who can tell whom what to do, under what circumstances and how they do it. Disagreements are bound to arise in many work situations, but may be viewed differently in different contexts. In some cultures it may be unwise to disagree with a boss, for example, while in others, an apparent reluctance to disagree at work may show a lack of initiative or independence of thought. 3.1  NS directives at work and the challenges for NNSs Although various researchers have tried to systematically distinguish between a request and a directive on various grounds (see Vine, 2004 for a discussion of some of these), I would argue that they cannot be reliably identified other than on contextual grounds. Thus they can only really be distinguished through reference to context and the nature of the power relationship between the interlocutors. It therefore makes more sense to talk of a single speech act, directive, which may be more or less forceful depending on the rights and obligations of the speakers in the context (Thomas, 1995). In the following analysis I will therefore use the more general term, directives, that is, “attempts of varying degrees […] by the speaker to get the hearer to do something” (Searle, 1969: 1), where the required action always relates to the future. Directives are ubiquitous in workplaces. In her investigation of workplace language collected in eight offices in different organisations in the U.K. and the U.S.A., Koester (2006) found that procedural and directive genres were the second most frequent. Yet directives are not only challenging for learners to perform, they can also be difficult to recognise. Both the forms that are used to make and mitigate directives and the circumstances under which mitigation or indirectness may be necessary can be confusing. Yet speaking clearly is one of the major communication skills emphasised in preparation for workplace communication, and there may be serious consequences for organisations where directives are not clear (Vine, 2004). Although the results of early speech act studies using elicited data drew attention to the prevalence in English of conventionally indirect interrogative forms of requests such as can you or could you (Blum-Kulka & House, 1989), more recent studies of naturally-occurring data illustrate the variety of forms used at work. In some workplace contexts, for example, such as farms (Weigel & Weigel, 1985) or factories (Brown, 2000; Newton, 2004), imperatives seem to be common, while in others they seem to be less acceptable. In her sample of

 Lynda Yates

naturally-occurring data collected in government offices, in contrast, Vine (2004) found that only 38% of explicit directives given downward in rank and 30% of those given upward or to equals took an imperative form. However, an even smaller per cent were in interrogative form (11% to juniors and 30% to equals or seniors) (Vine, 2004: 93–76). Thus a large number of explicit directive acts are expressed in ways that were neither in the interrogative nor the imperative. In fact, Vine found that directives were most often in the declarative, particularly when offered downward in rank. Of these, the majority were either modal, as in you can go through this way or marginal modal as in you need to just check… or conditional in form, as in if you could follow up with Kevin (Vine, 2004: 79–82). This is an interesting insight for learners who are likely to be familiar with the use of imperative forms and may also be well-schooled in more conventional polite request forms, but may be unaware of the wide range of other forms that are routinely used to make directives in English. In addition to the level of directness chosen for the head act itself, the impact of a directive can be mitigated in a variety of ways, through syntactic or lexical modifications and also through the use of support moves, such as reasons or apologies. In the interlanguage pragmatics literature, it is largely those which address negative face (such as the use of modals to distance the speaker from the act or politeness markers like please) that have received the most attention. These are also likely to be the most salient to learners because of their traditional and transparent association with politeness. However, devices which soften the impact of a directive through address to positive face needs and solidarity also seem to be important, yet these have been somewhat neglected in both research and instruction (Yates, 2000). Recent qualitative work on NS office data in Japan, New Zealand and the U.K., however, is illuminating how the establishment of solidarity may be an important strategy for mitigating directives, particularly for female managers. Both Takano (2005) and Holmes (2006) identify solidarity strategies as an important part of the resources employed by females in positions of authority. In a study of the directives given by nine female and four male managers in Japan, Takano explored how the females negotiated the communicative task of maintaining authority in workplace roles in a culture where women were traditionally assigned less powerful roles. Like Holmes (2000), Takano concluded that women need to do power less explicitly, and that they did this by making directives that were appropriately feminine in their indirectness and deference, but which morpho-syntactically neutralised gender and built solidarity. They made use of a range of strategies, including support moves (grounders and preparators), alerters, humour, inclusion and hints which were clear in their intent because of the closed networks in which they worked. While the men had access to discourses traditionally associated with power, the



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

women emphasised egalitarian collaborative relationships to gain compliance (Takano, 2005: 653). Similar strategies seem to be used in English by female managers in New Zealand (Holmes, 2000, 2006) and the U.K. (Mullany, 2004). Mullany (2004), for example, shows how a female manager used humour and a smiling voice to mitigate the potentially face-threatening directive given to staff at departmental meeting that they would have to stay at work until 1.00 p.m. on Christmas Eve. By suggesting that they will be going to the pub and joking that they would not be welcome back at work (thereby suggesting that they might want to come back to work), she manages to be clear about her directive in a way that defuses potential disgruntlement: I’m telling you now one o’clock will be the time (.) and that way ((smile voice)) if you go to the pub then you’re not welcome back ((laughter from many)) (from Mullany, 2004, 28)

Such qualitative studies allow insight into the various devices used by both females and males in the exercise of their power at work, and suggest the wide range of features that need to be included in not only our investigation of how speech acts are performed in context, but also how we can assist learners to draw on this repertoire to develop a directive style and negotiate their own workplace identity. There have been a number of studies which have explored how NNSs use English in the workplace. these can help programme developers gain insight into some of the differences between NS and NNS usage, how these differences might contribute to the development of negative stereotypes, and therefore what features might need to be included in language teaching curricula. In a study of naturally-occurring interaction in a French company in Australia, Beal (1994: 37) found that English NSs sometimes found the French employees to be somewhat blunt or arrogant, while the latter were seen as wishy-washy and even hypocritical. Through a comparison of directives, she traces some elements that might have contributed to these impressions. She found, for example, that while only 40% of those given by Australians did not contain any softening device, 60% of those given by the French speakers were unmitigated, and while 25% of the Australia directives contained two or more softeners, only 14% of those by the French speakers of English were softened to this extent. Predictably, the French speakers tended to use softeners that were simple and avoided those that were complicated or unfamiliar in their role as mitigators. Thus they used single lexical items like so relatively frequently, but hardly ever used tags and minimalisers such as hedges, downtoners and understaters. They also seemed to find it difficult to combine different softeners together in the same directive. These difficulties seemed to relate not only to their level of proficiency, but also to pragmalinguistic transfer and sociopragmatic issues.

 Lynda Yates

Similarly, Bilbow (1997) explored some of the features of directives that may have helped to reinforce the unhelpful stereotypes he found among management in an organisation located in Hong Kong. These included views by Chinese managers that expatriates were more aggressive, rude and direct than Chinese staff members, and by western managers that Chinese staff were cautious, evasive and non-confrontational. He investigated the use and features of directives in business meetings in the MAW (Meetings at Work) corpus, and found that the Chinese participants were less likely to make use of directing acts and generally spoke much less often than their western counterparts. Bilbow (1997: 476) also found other differences in that only westerners used extremely direct forms. They also used a much wider range of intonation patterns, less formality, more personalisation, indefiniteness, emphasis, minimisation and what Bilbow calls bad language. The Chinese background speakers more frequently placed support moves after the directive, and tended to be more group-oriented. While such differences may simply reflect the exciting variety found among human beings more generally, he suggests that some of these at least may reinforce negative views. He notes, for example, that the limited range of intonation used by the Chinese was associated with judgements by Westerners that they lacked emotional expression, and that their formal use of lexis contributed to impressions that they were staid. As he also notes, such differences between native and Chinese background speakers, might be of particular consequence where the latter are highly proficient speakers of English. The naturally-occurring directives of relatively high proficiency Chinese background learners were also compared to those of NSs in a study of teacher trainees teaching various subjects in Australian secondary classrooms (Yates, 2000, 2005). A major finding of this study was that, although those with higher proficiency levels used mitigating devices which addressed negative face as frequently as the NS trainees, they did not make as frequent use of devices that built solidarity through a reduction in social distance. Yates argued that the NSs built solidarity through the use of solidary address terms like guys, and language that was informal and often deliberately vague as a way of softening the impact of a directive. In Example (1), the use of fillers such as like and the general extender that sort of thing dynamically reduces social distance, while in Example (2), the use of the social leveller address term mate softens the impact of a direct form:

(1) OK. /Now like beside that /I’m sorry I’ve (there’s not) not much room on the board /you can put something like/ ‘if the store has a run down look and stock looks like shop worn’ /[..] that sort of thing



(2) Get out of the pool mate,/ your nose is all bloody

(from Yates, 2005, 84)



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

They would also, on the other hand, sometimes add deference and therefore social distance if they wanted to signal irritation. In Example (3), a teacher first uses a routine direct imperative form to get his students to come into the classroom. He then reinforces this with an elliptical directive when they are too noisy and finally resorts to the formal, conventionally indirect form could you reinforced by the ostensibly deferent form excuse me as a way of showing his displeasure at their behaviour and directing them to repeat the requested action: (3) –So come in quietly. –Quietly year seven –Excuse me year seven could you go back outside and line up please.  (from Yates, 2005, 83)

The Chinese background trainee teachers, on the other hand, did not make much use of devices which reduced social distance or of solidary terms of address terms as the Anglo background trainees did. Rather, they used more distancing address terms such as kids and class, and softening devices such as expressions of approval which addressed positive face without reducing social distance, as shown in Example (4). Here the teacher is indicating encouragement and personal interest without compromising the power distance between them:

(4) yes,/ that’s correct, /just try it.

(from Yates, 2000, 160)

While it could be argued that learners who have largely learned English in formal educational contexts where formal, precise modes of expression are generally taught and practised, these Chinese participants had been in Australia for a number of years and had had experience in a number of less formal contexts. Yates concludes that they may have been less familiar – or less comfortable – with the use of these kinds of solidarity-building strategies in the particular context observed. That is, even if the participants had noticed the softening effect of such strategies, they may not have deemed them appropriate for the teacher role they were adopting in the classroom. Such work underlines the need for learners to understand and reflect, not only on the forms used in various speech acts, but why they may be appropriate in a context. Learners should be encouraged to explore beyond the safety of formal considerations into the murky world of the cultural values underlying what we say and why we say it that way. Even where learners appropriately identify the need for mitigation in a situation, identifying and then manipulating the exact syntactic modifications used to soften requests can be challenging for NNSs (Yates, 2000). Here speech act studies of role play data can be useful as they can allow direct comparison of NS and NNS performance in the same situation and thus highlight what learners can and cannot (or do not) do and therefore what language programmes targeting pragmatics should

 Lynda Yates

include. In her study using role play data on work-relevant situations, Yates (in press) found that intermediate level immigrant learners were much less likely than nativespeakers to use a range of syntactic devices to soften their requests. While some of these were syntactically complex, such as embedding and modals, others were grammatically much more straightforward for learners at this level. For example, the NNSs used considerably fewer past and continuous forms in their mitigating function than the NSs. That is, the NSs more often distanced themselves from the requested action syntactically using these forms as illustrated in Examples 5 and 6: (5) I just wanted to ask you about my leave (past) (6) I was hoping we could make it the following the following even the following week (past and continuous) (from Yates, in press)

Since they used these forms in other contexts, it does not seem to be the forms themselves that were unfamiliar, but rather, their use in these mitigation functions. Similarly, the NNSs used far fewer tokens of even quite simple lexical mitigators, such as just or hedges, whereas the NSs used them frequently, as shown in Examples 7 and 8:

(7) I’m just wondering if we can change it to 2 o’clock the day after? (8) I ahm I’m kind of hoping that we’ll be able to ah (from Yates, in press)

Again, this is not likely to be because they were unfamiliar with the words themselves, but rather that they were insufficiently aware of their use to soften directives. Such studies raise our awareness that it is often not the form that is challenging for learners, but their use in a mitigating function or the fact that mitigation may be expected at all in a particular context. An important way in which NNSs gain an awareness of how speech acts are performed is through language socialisation, and so studies from within this research perspective can also contribute much to our understanding of what a NNS might need to know in order to function effectively in the workplace. Li (2000), for example, illustrates how Ming, a Chinese immigrant, gains understanding of how directives are done differently in the U.S. workplace, from a cultural as well as from a linguistic standpoint. Initially, Ming was reluctant to make requests and approached them with the kind of discourse indirectness typical of Chinese speakers (Zhang, 1995). Only after a few months observing how Americans tackled issues in the workplace did she begin to see how they tackled directives rather differently in what she perceived as “the American way”, that is in ways which were “directly, truthful” but mitigated with “things a little bit sweet” (Li, 2000: 75). These cultural understandings empowered her to take more control of everyday situations and gain in confidence as a result. It is therefore critical that pedagogical interventions also tackle these sociocultural issues.



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

[E]ven though it was essential for her to know about the linguistic conventions of requesting forms to express her needs and wants, what was vital for her success in her requesting events was to know about her rights and the pragmatic expectations of others in the workplace, which are conditioned by cultural convention and social order. (from Li, 2000, 82)

Although attention to such issues is crucial for learners, as noted above, cultural values often relate to a person’s fundamental views of right and wrong, and it is an important insight for instruction that they must be approached sensitively, avoiding any suggestion that one set of values is better than another. NNSs should be regarded as adding skills to their repertoire of behaviours rather than assimilating to host norms, as Ming notes: I feel I am more adjusted to America, but I am still Chinese. And I feel right now, I don’t know in the future, I don’t want to change some part of me because I feel that’s good (from Li, 2000, 80)

3.2  NS disagreements and the challenges for NNSs A disagreement involves some kind of clash or conflict between interlocutors on the level of content. While in certain contexts at work as elsewhere, such conflicts may be tolerated or even invited, disagreeing can often appear as a challenge to face and is frequently dispreferred in British English-speaking environments. They can therefore require considerable relational or face work if offence is not to be taken (Locher, 2004). Leech (2007) argues that they are therefore often introduced by the kind of delays, hesitations and discourse markers such as well, or partial agreements such as Do you really think so? I would have thought … Yes, but don’t you think …? I agree, but … are used instead (Leech, 2007: 187). However, there can be considerable cross-cultural differences in how much conflict can be tolerated and how it is best managed in discourse. Moreover, potential differences in expectations relating to the level of directness and confrontation that might be appropriate with those of different rank mean that disagreements can be particularly difficult to do at work (Bilbow, 1997). In some cultures, for example, communicative values which emphasise harmony may discourage overt disagreements or make their performance more elaborate in situations where they might be tolerated by English-NSs. In his work on disagreements in the workplace, Paramasivam (2007) argues that a combination of an orientation towards hierarchy and an emphasis on interdependence in social relationships results in a cultural ethos among Malays that favours the avoidance of overt disagreement such that where they occur they are often implicit, elaborate and mitigated. Leech (2007)

 Lynda Yates

notes a similar reluctance to disagree openly by a Japanese student speaking to someone he perceived to be more senior. When interacting in an English-speaking environment, therefore, there may be a tendency for such speakers to transfer their sociopragmatic understandings of their rights and obligations in a context into their use of English. In a study of disagreements among Japanese learners of English in New Zealand, Walkinshaw (2007) found that, although linguistically competent, the Japanese learners were reluctant to perform disagreements with higher status NSs of English. While speech act studies such as that by Walkinshaw (2007) can highlight these general trends, studies of naturally-occurring discourse are able to highlight the range of devices that native-speakers actually use to manage their relationships through disagreement. In her influential work on disagreements among friends and in a business meeting, Locher (2004) identifies a number of NS strategies. If a major aim of instruction is raising awareness of how disagreement can be mitigated in English, then the following subset could serve as a useful starting point for learner reflection on the pragmalinguistics of disagreements in English: 1. Hedges, such as: well, just, uhm, uh, I think, I don’t know 2. Use of personal or emotional reasons 3. Modal auxiliaries, such as: may, might, could, would, and should, as in the example: It might mean something [meaning it probably wouldn’t] 4. Shifting responsibility for a conflicting view by attributing it to another source, as in they told us… 5. Objections in the interrogative form, such as can it be the prejudice of the job giver? 6. Use of but to introduce contentious information, as in but Roy, what was the aim of the study…[meaning I disagree with your view of it]  (adapted and summarised from Locher, 2004, 113–142) On the basis of her analysis of disagreements in these contexts, she argues that there is a wide repertoire of devices available to undertake the relational work entailed in managing disagreements, but that individuals use these in different ways in a style that is distinctive. Her analysis was also able to highlight the very dynamic nature of disagreements and how they are managed in the discourse. As discourse contexts change, so do the relative rights of the speakers and thus the kinds of strategies that they use. Thus direct disagreement can be legitimated by a framing move calling for disagreements or inviting debate, or by considerable relational work to introduce a topic of disagreement. Thus, for instance, in Example (9), Locher illustrates how Karl first uses considerable care to disagree with the proposal made by a fellow leader, Ron, by using reference to his status as newcomer and considerable hedging. Later, he is able to be much more direct on this issue (see Example 10):





Speech act performance in workplace settings 

(9) Karl: Since I’m kind of new uh, I can ask a stupid and innocent question uhm we, through the uh user liaison office, have been in sort of a strict deadline, march 10, to submit, beam time requests, for a basically new beam time requests for the first half of the year…uhm if I would be, not intimate, uh uh, say with the inner goings of uh uh of [continues]

(10) Karl: so what are the reasons for changing the preliminary schedule for the second half of this year so drastically? Ron: Well, one can gain back a lot more running time Karl: but you should have known that six months ago  (adapted from Locher, 2004, 240–242)

The analysis by Holmes and Stubbe (2003) of four disagreement events in English NS professional workplace meetings also illustrates how disagreements can be handled differently, and how they relate to different styles of management and workplace cultures. In two of the events discussed, direct expressions of bald on record disagreement were tolerated among a highly competitive team, as in the excerpt included in Example (11): (11) 

1 Collum: what we’v- what we’ve actually decided to do is 2 er test it by asking by losing some data or pretending to lose some 3 something significant like everything that’s in [technical term] 4 like all our documents and all our code 5 Barry: [laughs] 6 Eric: yeah but d7 Collum: and then asking them to restore it 8 Eric: no don’t do that 9 Collum: we won’t really lose it 10 Eric: yeah right and what you’re going to do is have a file that’s three weeks 11 old overwritten over the top of all your um stuff that’s um current 12 Barry: mm 13 Eric: don’t do that at all 14 Collum: no we’re going to protect some 15 Eric: [laughs] 16 joke: that we’re not that we haven’t updated 17 Eric: don’t do it 18 Jake: no? 19 Eric: no 20 Jake: you don’t tr- (you you don’t\ trust them 21 Eric: (please please put it\ 22 please put it in the minutes 23 that Eric does not think this is [laughs]: a good idea: 24 All: [laugh] 25 Eric: you don’t miss with mess with those people (from Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, 58–59)

 Lynda Yates

Here, Eric has the most expertise in the area. First he uses a common device, yeah but to signal disagreement in line 6, before disagreeing directly in line 8 no don’t do that, and reinforcing this in lines 10–11 after some explanation of his reasons. He then continues to state his opposition to the proposal directly (lines 13 and 17) before asking for his disagreement to be minuted. Holmes and Stubbe argue that this directness is licensed not only by Eric’s expertise and the formality of the meeting, but also through the use of humour which defuses the tensions around such overt expressions. This can be seen in what they refer to as the pseudo-dramatic nature of his warnings in line 13, his semi-serious request that his views be minuted, and his use of the third person to refer to himself in line 23. In contrast, disagreements may be negotiated over a much longer period and end in something closer to agreement. In another example, Holmes and Stubbe illustrate the range of devices and strategies used by two females, Zoe and her manager Leila, to reach resolution over a 40 minute discussion involving conflicting views. In Example (12) below, Zoe first opposes her manager’s suggestion to bring in extra staff for filing functions, and uses the yes but strategy twice. She then uses a question regarding other options in order to introduce one of these, the use of Hannah for filing. (12) Zoe: Leila: Zoe: Leila:

mm /but\ /mm \ okay but hang on what are our other options here um we’ve also got Hannah yeah… (from Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, 66)

Some ten minutes is taken to discuss this proposal and the staffing problem more generally before the confrontation between the two on this issue re-emerges. Leila takes some time to disagree with Zoe, responding positively at first to allow Zoe to express her point of view, only using a positive confrontation strategy of pointing out the problems with Zoe’s proposal after some ten minutes of discussion. Zoe is careful to mitigate her statements of opposition, as in the excerpts in Examples (13–15) below: (13) Zoe: (14) Zoe: (15) Zoe: Leila: Zoe: Leila:

/right\ well it just seems to me um a bit silly to bring in the flying filers I just don’t I just don’t think it’s worth it for two weeks I mean mm I don’t know why I just mm I d- I suppose it’s just that I sort of think it’s extra extra money but you say that that’s not we can afford it (from Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, 67–69)



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

Zoe uses devices similar to those used to mitigate requests discussed in the previous section. These include hesitation markers such as um, I d-I, and repetition that that’s, extra extra, as well as minimisers such as a bit, just and hedges such as I suppose, I just don’t think, I mean and sort of. Although technically Zoe’s superior, Leila also takes care to attenuate the force of her disagreement, not only by attentively listening to her employee’s position, but also through the use of mitigation. In the example below (see Example 16), she uses the yeah but strategy and gives a reason that shows her concern to make life easier for Zoe, by arguing that she has no need to struggle on: (16) Zoe: I just don’t I just don’t think it’s worth it for two weeks I mean Leila: no yeah but there’s no need to struggle on okay  (from Holmes & Stubbe, 2003, 68)

Analyses such as these serve as interesting examples of the relational work that might be done at length over many turns in order to preserve face. What might be of particular interest to learners who may be used to the more overt exercise of hierarchical power at work is not only the way in which the boss carefully manages the disagreement, but also the fact that she should put so much relational effort into managing this way at all, particularly with someone of lower rank. Such insights are therefore useful for learners, not only in highlighting some of the specific forms that can be used in the conduct of such workplace interactions, but also in illustrating the individual differences that exist between workplaces in how things are done. These examples yet again point to the necessity of exploring the cultural bases as well as the forms that may be used in any situation (see Meier, this volume). Miller’s (2008) study of naturally-occurring disagreements in an office where both Japanese and English were used by native and L2 speakers of both, clearly illustrates the need for such insights. She found that, although many of the devices used in Japanese and English to signal disagreement are similar, cross-cultural assumptions about the purpose or the roles of the speakers in an exchange can impact how direct and threatening speakers are perceived to be, even when they make appropriate use of routine mitigation devices. Indirect expressions of disapproval by a Japanese account executive, for example, were misinterpreted by an American copywriter because they had different understandings of the communicative task they were engaged in. Because the copywriter had seen the meeting as an opportunity to discuss his ideas, but the Japanese executive had seen it as an occasion to tell his subordinate that his ad had not been selected for use, the face-saving mitigation strategies were misinterpreted and misunderstanding followed.

 Lynda Yates

4.  Conclusion In this chapter I have argued that in order to provide a suitable evidence base for language programmes preparing learners for the workplace we need research from a range of approaches to speech act performance. While quantitative studies of elicited data can provide an indication of general trends in speech act performance across cultures, qualitative studies of naturally-occurring data allow a greater focus on the actual devices and strategies that can be found in the repertoire of the NSs, and how these might be deployed by individuals in different contexts. Role play data from studies comparing NSs and learners can highlight the pragmatic aspects of language use that learners at different stages of proficiency might need to focus on. I have also stressed the importance of research approaches which allow insight into the sociocultural as well as the pragmalinguistic aspects of the performance and interpretation of speech acts. This diversity in approaches to the investigation of and therefore the range of different insights into speech act performance enables the development of approaches to the teaching and learning of pragmatics which can pay more attention to the individual and how they might engage differently with pragmatic aspects of language programmes. As noted earlier, it can be confronting for learners to tackle the pragmalinguistic and particularly the sociopragmatic dimensions of language use. NNSs do not necessarily want to – and frequently cannot – interact in the same way as NSs (Hinkel, 1996; Siegal, 1996). They have their own voice and their own values, which may remain very different from those of NSs. As a participant on a business English course put it I don’t want people to forget that I’m not a native speaker; we come from different cultures and ways of thinking; if my language sounds too good people won’t remember that (from St. John, 1996, 5)

Because individual NSs need to find their own ways of interacting, a third place (Kramsch, 1993), they need to construct new identities for themselves at work. Future research must not only be able to provide an evidence base that documents these resources and strategies, but also illustrate how they can be used dynamically in context. We therefore need to both broaden the scope of what features we focus on in our research and acknowledge the complexity of identity construction in context when drawing conclusions and making recommendations for instruction. Our perspectives on speech acts need therefore to expand beyond their philosophical roots to make broad connections with the contexts in which we communicate. This involves embracing the political reality of many NNSs that “intercultural communication is as much about how much one gets to be heard as about how much one



Speech act performance in workplace settings 

can talk appropriately” (Sunaoshi, 2005: 188). Our focus is therefore not only on how speakers can conform to expectations of appropriate behaviour, but also how they can challenge stereotypical norms and negotiate new identities in new roles. By opening up to more dynamic and critically informed approaches to discourse, speech act studies can inform approaches to instruction that move beyond deficit models to offer insight into how speakers can project themselves in particular ways and at particular times. On the basis of such resources, language learners can become familiar with the many various ways in which they can construct effective English-speaking identities in the workplace.

References Beal, C. 1994. Keeping the peace: A cross-cultural comparison of questions and requests in Australian English and French. Multilingua 13(1–2): 35–58. Bilbow, G.T. 1997. Cross-cultural impression management in the multicultural workplace: The special case of Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics 28(4): 461–487. Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. 1989. Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour. In Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), 123–154. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Bond, M.H. & Hwang, K. 1986. The Psychology of the Chinese People. Oxford: OUP. Brown, T.P. 2000. ‘Might be worth getting it done then’: Directives in a New Zealand Factory. MA thesis, Victoria University, Wellington. Chen, R. 1993. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 49–75. Goddard, C. 2006. “Lift your game Martina”: Deadpan jocular irony and the ethnopragmatics of Australian English. In Ethnopragmatics, C. Goddard (ed.), 65–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Harris, S. 2003. Politeness and power: Making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings. Text 23(1): 27–52. Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. 1992 Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and perception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), 359–417. Cambridge: CUP. Hinkel, E. 1996. When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 51–70. Holmes, J. 2000. Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies 2(2): 159–185. Holmes, J. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work. Constructing Gender Identity Through Workplace Discourse. Malden MA: Blackwell. Holmes, J. & Stubbe, M. 2003. Doing disagreement at work: A sociolinguistic approach. Australian Journal of Communication 30(1): 53–77. Koester, A. 2006. Investigating Workplace Discourse. London: Routledge. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: OUP. Leech, G. 2007. Politeness: Is there and East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Pesearch 3: 167–206.

 Lynda Yates Li, D. 2000. The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review 57(1): 58–87. Locher, M.A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Miller, L. 2008. Negative assessment in Japanese-American workplace interaction. In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd edn, H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 240–254. London: Continuum. Mullany, L. 2004. Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: Humour as a tactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings. Multilingua 23(1/2): 13–37. Newton, J. 2004. Face-threatening talk on the factory floor: Using authentic workplace interactions in language teaching. Prospect 19(1): 47–64. Pan, Y. 1995. Power behind linguistic behaviour: Analysis of politeness phenomena in Chinese official settings. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14(4): 462–481. Paramasivam, S. 2007. Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree: Polite disagreement in negotiation discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36(2): 91–116. Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (eds.). 1999. Talk Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. Siegal, M. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3): 356–382. Sunaoshi, Y. 2005. Historical context and intercultural communication: Interactions between Japanese and American factory workers in the American South. Language in Society 34(2): 185–217. Takano, S. 2005. Re-examining linguistic power: Strategic uses of directives by professional Japanese women in positions of authority and leadership. Journal of Pragmatics 37(5): 633–666. Thomas, J.A. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. Vine, B. 2004. Getting Things Done at Work: The Discourse of Power in Workplace Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Walkinshaw, I. 2007. Power and disagreement: Insights into Japanese learners of English. RELC 38(3): 278–301. Weigel, M.M. & Weigel, R.M. 1985. Directive use in a migrant agricultural community: A test of Ervin-Tripp’s hypotheses. Language in Society 14(1): 63–79 Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German and Japanese. Oxford: OUP. Yates, L. 2000. Ciao, Guys!: Mitigation Addressing Positive and Negative Face Concerns in the Directives of Native-speaker and Chinese Background Speakers of Australian English. Ph.D. dissertation, La Trobe University, Melbourne. Yates, L. 2004. The ‘secret rules of language’: Tackling pragmatics in the classroom. Prospect 19(1): 3–21. Yates, L. 2005. Negotiating an institutional identity: Individual differences in NS and NNS teacher directives. In Exploring Institutional Talk, K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford (eds.), 67–98. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yates, L. In press. Dinkas downunder: An evidence base for pragmatic instruction. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 12. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Zhang, Y. 1995. Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language, G. Kasper (ed.), 69–118. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.

The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance* Satomi Takahashi Rikkyo University

This chapter reviews previous research on pragmatic intervention by exploring the extent to which the teachability of second-language speech acts is constrained by the nature of intervention and learner-attributable factors. The superiority of explicit pragmatic intervention over implicit treatment is confirmed overall, particularly in the teaching of the sociopragmatic features of speech acts. However, evidence suggests that such positive effects of explicit intervention are not always assured; moreover, some forms of implicit intervention are equally effective. Such variations in the findings are best explained in terms of an explicit/implicit continuum rather than a dichotomous explicit versus implicit framework. The current review also suggests that higher levels of linguistic proficiency and learner motivation may be prerequisites for maximally enhancing pragmatic teachability.

1.  Introduction On the basis of research findings on pragmatic instruction in the 1980s and 1990s, Kasper (1997) explored the teachability of the pragmatic features of second language (L2) and concluded that certain pragmatic aspects such as routine formulae can be taught, particularly when metapragmatic information is provided. Inspired by these pioneering studies, an increasing number of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) researchers have been further investigating the effects of pragmatic instruction by employing research methodologies that are firmly grounded in theories of attention and awareness in second language acquisition (SLA), such as Schmidt’s (1993, 2001) noticing hypothesis (e.g. Rose & Kasper, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003; Martínez-Flor et al., 2003; Alcón & Martínez-Flor, 2005, 2008; Alcón, 2008; see also Jeon & Kaya, 2006, for a meta-analysis). The findings of

*I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the series editors for their insightful comments that enabled me to considerably improve the existing version.

 Satomi Takahashi

these studies corroborate Kasper’s assertion on pragmatic teachability. Moreover, favourable learning outcomes are also observed in the recently increasing number of pragmatic instructional studies undertaken in foreign-language contexts, where learners have limited opportunities for exposure to the target language (TL) input or to try out the newly-learned L2 pragmatic strategies outside the classroom (e.g. Alcón, 2008; Alcón & Martínez-Flor, 2008). This chapter aims to provide an overview of the empirical findings accumulated during the past two and a half decades with respect to the effects of instruction on the learning of various types of speech acts. In particular, in order to explore the scope of pragmatic instruction and the conditions necessary to maximise the learning of L2 pragmatics, this review will examine the following two aspects that may affect pragmatic teachability: (1) the nature of pragmatic instruction, and (2) the characteristics of learners. Further, new approaches will be recommended for ascertaining the possible avenues of future research necessary for developing learners’ L2 pragmatic competence in instructional settings. Further, note that this review deals with interventional studies, rather than observational studies, of L2 speech act performance (Kasper, 2001a). These studies are experimental or quasi-experimental and feature a pretest-posttest design. Furthermore, throughout this chapter, explicit intervention refers to any treatment that includes the provision of metapragmatic information, whereas implicit intervention implies a treatment in which the reliance on such information is not evident in any form. Implicit intervention is categorised further into two types of intstructions (Kasper & Rose, 2002). The first type of implicit intervention is triggered by problems encountered by learners in the course of meaningful communication; thus the intervention is reactive in nature. In the second type of implicit intervention, the target pragmatic features are predetermined, and treatments are designed to direct learners’ attention to these features through communicative activities; thus the intervention is essentially proactive. In interventional pragmatics research, implicit interventions that adopt a reactive stance with overriding focus on meaning, or those that employ some planned typographical enhancement techniques, are specifically treated as Focus on Form (FonF) conditions; this is part of efforts to incorporate the FonF paradigm in SLA into L2 pragmatics (corre­ sponding explicit interventions are specifically referred to as Focus on FormS (FonFS) conditions) (see Long & Robinson, 1998, for FonF research in SLA).1 On the other hand, the relationships of many of the second-type interventions with

1.  Tateyama et al. (1997) propose that FonF in pragmatics might better be termed FonFF – a focus on form and function, namely,  “the mappings of form, function, and contextual distribution of pragmatic information” (p. 5).



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

FonF are less clear, and they are simply referred to as implicit conditions (Kasper & Rose, 2002). For either type of implicit intervention, it is crucial that the treatment draws the learners’ attention to the target pragmatic features. It must also focus on helping learners work out the rules by themselves while they are engaged in the designated communicative tasks, rather than merely exposing learners to positive evidence (Kasper, 1997, 2001a, 2001b; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Rose, 2005; see also Doughty, 2003).2 2.  Pragmatic teachability and the nature of intervention Previous studies on pragmatic instruction have been implemented in the frameworks of three strands of research (Takahashi, in press): (1) studies examining the effectiveness of explicit intervention (vs. control) (hereafter, explicit) (e.g. Cohen & Ishihara, 2005; Tateyama, 2007a, 2007b), (2) those focusing on the effectiveness of implicit intervention (vs. control) (hereafter, implicit) (Fukuya & Zhang, 2002), and (3) those comparing the effectiveness of explicit intervention with that of implicit intervention (hereafter, explicit vs. implicit) (see Pearson, 2001; Rose & Ng, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Koike & Pearson, 2005). From these strands, the following three claims – with respect to the nature of pedagogical interventions constraining pragmatic teachability – are elicited: (1) large effects of explicit intervention are not ensured in every aspect of pragmatic learning, (2) sociopragmatic knowledge is less likely to be acquired through implicit intervention, and (3) some forms of implicit intervention are as effective as explicit intervention. These points are explained below. 2.1  Inconclusiveness of the effect of explicit intervention On the whole, the findings of the explicit vs. implicit studies demonstrate that explicit intervention ensures the development of learners’ pragmatic competence to a greater extent than implicit intervention (Takahashi, 2001; Martínez-Flor & Fukuya, 2005). These studies suggest an important role of metapragmatic information in increasing the learnability of targeted speech acts. Similar observations are 2.  In the inductive/deductive – implicit/explicit dimensions, as illustrated in DeKeyser (2003), the implicit intervention in this study (and interventional pragmatics research) is essentially characterised by the inductive – explicit category. Further, some previous studies reviewed here apparently treated the provision of metapragmatic information as an essentially deductive instruction and the non-provision of such information as inductive instruction. Therefore, they used the term deductive for explicit intervention and the term inductive for implicit intervention.

 Satomi Takahashi

obtained from a number of explicit studies (e.g. Billmyer, 1990; Cohen & Tarone, 1994; Lyster, 1994; Morrow, 1995; Silva, 2003; Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2004; Safont, 2004, 2005; Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008; Kondo, 2008).3 Notably, Jeon and Kaya’s (2006) meta-analysis of pragmatic instruction, which covered 13 studies published until 2003, indicated that, on an average, explicit intervention yielded larger effects than implicit intervention. However, despite these findings, we should be cautious while arguing in favour of the large effects apparently observed in the cases of explicit intervention for the following reasons. First, some of the explicit and explicit vs. implicit studies reported mixed results (i.e. both positive and negative outcomes in a single research context) with respect to the effectiveness of explicit intervention in the posttest stage (e.g. Pearson, 2001; Fernández-Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2006), while this phenomenon was also observed in implicit studies (e.g. Fukuya & Zhang, 2002; Safont, 2003). Furthermore, inconclusive results were also obtained (e.g. King & Silver, 1993; LoCastro, 1997; Fukuya, 1998). It appears that teachability through pragmatic intervention may also depend on the types or the nature of target features (House, 1996; Pearson, 2001; Salazar, 2003; Alcón, 2005, 2007; Cohen & Ishihara, 2005), which is related to learners’ L2 proficiencies (see below). Specifically, Cohen and Ishihara (2005) found that all the speech acts were not equally teachable to learners of Japanese as a foreign language through explicit intervention; for example, a request was reported to be more amenable to learning in the explicit condition. In another study investigating the acquisition of Spanish expressions of gratitude, apology, command, and polite request by English-speaking learners of Spanish, Pearson (2001) reported that learners who received explicit intervention performed better than those who received implicit intervention only with respect to the use of intensifiers in expressing apologies. Researchers’ judgements of pragmatic teachability are also influenced by the types of assessment measures adopted in interventional research (Rose & Ng, 2001; Tateyama, 2001; Witten, 2002; Alcón, 2005, 2007; Koike & Pearson, 2005; Takimoto, 2007) and by the data analysis methods employed (Olshtain & Cohen, 1990). Specifically, Rose and Ng (2001) were unable to identify any significant effect of either explicit or implicit intervention on a self-assessment and a metapragmatic assessment task – two tasks that were quantitatively analysed using ANOVA (for

3.  Many of the explicit studies included various forms of awareness-raising tasks (e.g. dialogue/conversation analysis, discussions, role-plays, video viewing, translation exercises, and self-reflection), in addition to metapragmatic explanations. Therefore, it is difficult to detect the aspects of the treatment that contributed to the positive effects of the intervention (Lyster, 1994).



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

the latter task, also MANOVA) . However, nonparametric analyses of learner performance on the discourse completion test (DCT) data showed a marked increase in the use of the compliment formula for both interventions. Olshtain and Cohen (1990) reported a case in which they observed that while quantitative analysis did not indicate a definite improvement in learners’ apologies, qualitative analysis indicated learners’ approximation of native-like performance for some of the targeted features. Second, the results of the delayed posttests adopted in some of the explicit and explicit vs. implicit studies indicated that the positive effects of explicit intervention identified at the posttest phase were not retained at the delayed posttest. In other words, the durability of the effects of some explicit interventions is questionable. For example, Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) – one of the explicit studies – explored the effects of intervention on Australians learning to respond to a particular greeting in L2 French. The greeting manifested the French interactional norm that requires an elaborate response, as opposed to the routinised one that is conventional in Australian society. Liddicoat and Crozet confirmed the effectiveness of the intervention in the immediate posttest; however, the positive effect on the pragmalinguistic aspect of the targeted feature was found to have dissipated by the time the delayed posttest was administered one year later. Within the explicit vs. implicit framework, as mentioned earlier, Pearson (2001) reported that the explicit group outperformed the implicit group in the use of intensifiers and appropriateness of apologies in the immediate posttest. However, this effect disappeared in the delayed posttest administered six months after the treatment. Likewise, by targeting English-speaking learners of Spanish, Koike and Pearson (2005) examined the effects of explicit and implicit interventions on the learning of Spanish suggestions and responses to suggestions. They created four experimental groups based on whether metapragmatic information was provided at the beginning and whether such information was explicitly presented through feedback during the treatment. Their posttest results revealed that learners who received metapragmatic information and explicit feedback as well as those who received only implicit feedback showed greater learning gains. However, such effects had dissipated by the time the delayed posttests were administered four weeks after the treatment. Third, the possibility of gaining a greater degree of confidence in learners producing the target speech-act features is not assured in the case of explicit intervention. Takahashi (2001) examined the effects of one explicit intervention (the explicit teaching condition) and three implicit interventions (the form-comparison, form-search, and meaning-focused conditions) on Japanese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL), who were learning complex bi-clausal request forms. The learners receiving explicit intervention showed the greatest learning gains; however, the same learners were unable to formulate their expressions of request

 Satomi Takahashi

with substantial confidence, as was the case with learners who were subjected to implicit conditions. Similar results are reported in Rose and Ng (2001) (see the conflicting results of Martínez-Flor, 2006, with respect to the increase in confidence in the judgements of pragmatic appropriateness). To recapitulate, previous studies on pragmatic instruction on the whole demonstrate relatively large effects of explicit intervention on learning targeted speech acts; it is suggested that such large effects are attributable to the provision of metapragmatic information, available only in this particular instructional condition. However, a closer examination of the studies leads us to be cautious in arguing for such large effects. Previous studies, in fact, report both positive and negative outcomes with respect to the effectiveness of explicit intervention. It is also indicated that the durability of the effects of some explicit interventions is questionable. Moreover, learners receiving explicit intervention do not produce the targeted pragmatic features with substantial confidence. All these suggest that explicit intervention is not robust enough to assure the development of pragmatic competence in all respects. It is noteworthy that, on the basis of their meta-analysis results, Jeon and Kaya (2006) provide us with an insightful interpretation with respect to the apparently larger effect of explicit intervention than that of implicit intervention as follows: in case a certain implicit condition is extremely poor, then the paired explicit condition may be seen to produce the seemingly prominent effect. Although this may not be applicable in all cases of explicit vs. implicit studies, such a possibility should be empirically explored in future research. Moreover, in order to conclusively claim the role of explicit intervention in pragmatics, it is definitely neccessary to conduct a more systematic and rigorous review of the findings, namely, a meta-analysis, as conducted by Jeon and Kaya. As admitted by Jeon and Kaya (2006), their meta-analysis targeted a relatively small number of studies; a large number of pragmatic instructional studies conducted up to 2003 failed to employ systematic quantitative data suitable for meta-analysis. Future research thus should aim for more pragmatic instructional studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in a meta-analysis. 2.2  Sociopragmatic knowledge and the explicitness of intervention Sociopragmatic knowledge is difficult to acquire through implicit or less explicit interventions. Fukuya et al. (1998) attempted to apply FonF (implicit intervention) to teaching the sociopragmatics of request-making. Specifically, during roleplay interaction with a learner, the instructor held up a sad face to indicate the instances of sociopragmatic failure in request realisation, accompanied by the instructor’s repetition of the learner’s inappropriate utterance; this was followed by meaning-focused activities in which the instructor had the learners discuss



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

the communicative goals and the contextual factors involved. The findings of this FonF condition were compared with those of the FonFS condition (explicit intervention), in which the same sad face technique was employed during interactions, followed by a session in which explicit sociopragmatic information was provided to learners. Fukuya and Clark (2001) also employed the FonF technique to teach the sociopragmatic features affecting request mitigation. They highlighted the targeted mitigators, and the effect of such input enhancement (FonF) was compared with the effect of an explicit explanation for the same mitigators (FonFS). Neither of the abovementioned studies identified any conclusive learning gains for the target features under the FonF condition; no significant differences were found among the implicit, explicit, and control groups. Further, Rose and Ng (2001) reported that sociopragmatic knowledge of appropriate responses to compliments was more likely to be acquired in the deductive (explicit) condition. Moreover, the results of the delayed posttest conducted by Liddicoat and Crozet (2001) indicated that explicit intervention enabled sociopragmatic knowledge (the content of the appropriate response to the French greeting) to be sustainable for a duration as long as one year. Notably, according to Shaw and Trosborg (2000), some sociopragmatic rules, as stipulated in the Golden Rules for handling business complaints in English, were learned by Danish learners of English through the inductive (implicit) method to the degree equivalent to that obtainable through the deductive (explicit) method. The authors attributed these findings to the presence of TL sociopragmatic conventions that have equivalents in the everyday handling of complaints in their native language (L1). We could claim this as a case of L1 transfer constraining the effects of pragmatic intervention at the sociopragmatic level. 2.3  Potentiality of implicit intervention Some forms of implicit intervention are as effective as explicit intervention, at least at the pragmalinguistic level. Fukuya and Zhang (2002) demonstrated that Chinese EFL learners who received recasts – a type of implicit (FonF) feedback provided during ongoing interactions – were able to construct pragmatically appropriate and grammatically accurate requests in the posttest phase. In the framework of FonFS (explicit) vs. FonF (implicit), Martínez-Flor and Fukuya (2005) also reported that Spanish EFL learners in the FonF condition (featuring a combination of input enhancement and recast techniques) were able to successfully provide the suggestion modification devices in the post-treatment tasks, although the FonFS group tended to outperform the FonF. Likewise, Alcón (2007) examined the effects of the two conditions on the increased awareness of English request realisation by Spanish EFL learners. The posttest results of this

 Satomi Takahashi

study revealed that implicit intervention yielded the same degree of effectiveness as explicit intervention (see also Koike & Pearson, 2005, for similar findings on their implicit group in the posttest phase). Notable findings also emerged from a series of studies conducted by Takimoto (2006a, 2006b, 2007), who attemped to apply processing instruction (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993) to L2 pragmatics. Specifically, Takimoto (2007) targeted Japanese EFL learners and investigated the effects of the following three types of input-based interventions: (1) structured input tasks with explicit information, (2) problemsolving tasks, and (3) structured input tasks without explicit information. The explicit information was provided through a teacher-fronted explanation of the target request features. Structured input and problem-solving tasks are both implicit in nature. The major procedures of the structured input task were as follows: (1) after reading the dialogue for the given situation, learners would be asked to choose the more appropriate request forms out of the two offered, (2) they would listen to an oral recording of the dialogue and underline the correct request form, and (3) after reading and listening to the dialogues, they would rate the appropriateness of the designated requests. The structured input activities, thus, essentially pushed learners to process the target features that had been manipulated in advance; these activities did not require learners to produce the target forms. With respect to the problem-solving tasks, the following two subtasks constituted the major activities: (1) learners compared the underlined request forms for two designated dialogues while looking for differences between the two forms and (2) they answered analytical questions on sociopragmatic factors and offered suggestions on ways to make the requests more polite. These subtasks required cognitively demanding conscious efforts by the learners. The major findings were that no significant differences were observed among the three interventions in the posttest stage, and only the effect of the structured input tasks along with explicit information was not retained for the listening test – one of the four delayed posttest measures. Takimoto thus suggested the following: (1) explicit metapragmatic information may not be crucial, and (2) if learners push themselves to process the target pragmatic features and are assured of deeper levels of processing or analysis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), they are more likely to acquire and consolidate the TL pragmatic knowledge, irrespective of the explicitness of the treatment input. 2.4  Reconsidering the nature of explicitness and reinterpreting the findings As illustrated above, there are mixed and inconclusive outcomes for the effects of instruction, whether explicit or implicit. Although explicit instruction may appear to be advantageous, some forms of implicit intervention (targeting pragmalinguistic features) were found to be as effective as explicit intervention, as demonstrated



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

in Takimoto (2006a, 2006b, 2007). This suggests that both explicit and implicit interventions have potentially the same beneficial effects, further impelling us to reconsider the nature of the explicitness of intervention. It could be claimed that the binary distinctions between explicit and implicit may represent the reductionist view. Rather, interventions need to be reformulated on the explicitness (or implicitness) continuum; some explicit intervention tasks may essentially share more features with the implicit tasks and vice versa. Let us recall here that inducing rules for target pragmatic features is the ultimate objective of implicit intervention (as indicated in the abovementioned definition of this condition), which is essentially shared by explicit intervention. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the researchers’ (or instructors’) perception of the explicitness of intervention differs from that of the participants (or learners). All these factors might constitute the causes for the inconclusive and inconsistent results for pragmatic interventions in the previous studies.

3.  Pragmatic teachability and learner characteristics 3.1  Proficiency/grammatical knowledge Previous research on pragmatic intervention attests that TL speech acts can generally be taught to learners with various levels of L2 proficiency. However, there also exist some observable differences between less proficient learners and more proficient learners with respect to the teachability and learnability of target pragmatic features. Previous studies have revealed that under certain pedagogical interventions, learners with lower L2 proficiency were able to learn only parts of the target speech-act features: for example, request and/or request modification (Safont, 2003, 2004, 2005;  Alcón, 2005, 2007), suggestion (Fernández-Guerra & Martínez-Flor, 2006), suggestion and responses to suggestion (Koike & Pearson, 2005), opening and closing (Edwards & Csizér, 2004), and multiple speech acts (Pearson, 2001; Witten, 2002; Cohen & Ishihara, 2005). Specifically, Safont (2003) identified a case in which Spanish learners of English (from the beginner to the intermediate levels) learned about only specific request modification devices with less syntactical complexity through implicit intervention. As they learned only the use of intensifiers for apologies in the explicit condition, the tendency demonstrated by Pearson’s (2001) English-speaking learners of Spanish (beginner level) was considered to be attributable to the learners’ limited linguistic proficiencies. Furthermore, the evidence of beginner-level L2 learners’ learning of pragmatic routines related to the acts of apology and gratitude (Tateyama et al., 1997; Tateyama, 2001) also indicates that less proficient learners with limited abilities in syntactical analyses direct

 Satomi Takahashi

their attention to chunked linguistic features as the more accessible targets. This suggests that the formulation of more complex speech acts should be preceded by the development of the L2 grammatical competence of learners (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Martí-Arnándiz, 2008). A question arises here as to whether there is any specific threshold level of L2 linguistic proficiency or grammatical knowledge that may be considered as a prerequisite for intervention on certain pragmatic features to have a positive effect. In order to identify such a threshold level, we need to investigate the effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency or grammatical knowledge on pragmatic intervention. It should be noted that such an approach has not been incorporated into pragmatic intervention research, which is centred on examining whether a particular speech act can be taught to learners characterised with a single level of L2 proficiency under certain pedagogical interventions. Codina-Espurz (2008) challenged this research agenda in her study involving Spanish EFL learners learning about mitigation devices in requests. Under the conditions of explicit intervention, the performances of two experimental groups – the high-proficiency (lower-intermediate to advanced) and low-proficiency (beginner to elementary) groups – were compared with each other as well as with that of the control group. Codina-Espurz found that the high-proficiency group could attain a more balanced use of the internal and external mitigation devices in both the posttest DCT and the delayed posttest DCT in comparison with the low-proficiency group. This suggests that pragmatic teachability is constrained by the learners’ linguistic proficiencies or grammatical knowledge, lending further empirical support to Bardovi-Harlig’s (1999) contention that grammatical competence may be a necessary condition for pragmatic development. 3.2  Learner motivation Among the learner-attributable variables, motivation is considered to be one of the potential factors that may greatly influence the development of pragmatic competence (Schmidt, 1993; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001; Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008; Kuriscak, this volume). However, to my knowledge, no empirical study has directly investigated the potential link between motivation and the effects of pragmatic intervention. Takahashi (2005) examined the relationship between Japanese EFL learners’ motivation (trait motivation) and their attentional allocation under the form-search condition – one of the implicit input conditions dealt with in Takahashi (2001). Takahashi (2005) was a process-oriented study with an exclusive focus on implicit input and did not aim to examine the effect of motivation on learning outcomes; however, her research findings offer several valuable insights on the manner in and extent to which motivation is related to pragmatic teachability and learnability.



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

According to Takahashi (2005), the following three motivational factors influenced learners’ noticing of the target request forms: (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) positive attitudes towards the TL community, and (3) the affiliative motive. In other words, learners who are interested in the TL and enjoy learning activities that enable them to acquire skills for more successful L2 communication (intrinsic motivation), those who have relatively positive attitudes towards the TL community, and those who make an effort to maintain good relationships with their teachers (affiliative motive) may gain greater learning outcomes from pragmatic intervention. In view of the significant though weak correlation found between intrinsic motivation and pragmatic awareness (the largest r = .369), learners’ genuine interest in learning the TL may be the key to successful teaching and learning of pragmatics in classrooms. Takahashi’s findings also implied that learners who have negative attitudes towards the TL community may be less likely to acquire the target pragmatic features, and this might be related to the issue of sociocultural norms (Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2004; Kondo, 2004, 2008; Alcón, 2005; see also Judd, 1999; House, 2003; Trosborg, 2003; Barron, 2005; DuFon, 2008). Teachers, therefore, need to be sensitive enough while selecting the normative variety (Barron, 2005). Further, learners should be allowed to make their decisions on whether and to what extent they would like to conform to the sociocultural norms of the TL, a stance adopted by a vast majority of ILP researchers. Notably, creating classroom environments that facilitate good teacher-student relationship should be a priority for maximal teachability through pragmatic intervention. 4.  Conclusion On the whole, this review indicates that explicit pragmatic intervention yields positive outcomes for teaching and learning various speech acts; in particular, its effectiveness surpasses that of implicit intervention in learning the sociopragmatic aspects of target speech acts. These suggest that the provision of metapragmatic information plays an important role in enhancing teachability through intervention. However, when we closely examine the findings of explicit intervention, the apparent advantages of this instructional condition are not as clear as they seem. Evidence for explicit intervention is, in fact, inconclusive in that: (1) mixed (positive and negative) results are often reported for this intervention, (2) the effects of some explicit interventions are not sufficiently durable, and (3) this intervention does not allow learners to acquire substantial confidence in performing target speech acts. Moreover, some forms of implicit intervention are as effective as explicit intervention. Such variations observed in the findings of previous research can be reasonably accounted for only when we conceptualise the two forms of pragmatic intervention on the explicitness continuum, rather than treating them

 Satomi Takahashi

as binary and distinct concepts. Both forms of interventions may essentially share a lot of features; in light of its definition, implicit intervention is assumed to lead learners to pragmatic rules by directing their attention to target pragmatic features. However, in order to conclusively assert the nature of explicit and implicit interventions, a more rigorous investigation of the effects of these pragmatic interventions is required, and we contend that this can be accomplished by a meta-analysis. Future research thus warrants an inclusion of a meta-analysis of pragmatic instruction, as an extension of Jeon and Kaya’s (2006) research. The current review also demonstrates the likelihood of learners’ linguistic proficiencies and motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, which influence pragmatic teachability and learnability. With respect to motivation, it should also be noted that learners’ attitudes towards the TL community may constrain their pragmatic development. This view apparently recommends teachers to select the normative variety in a relatively sensitive manner, and I would like to reemphasise that learners determine whether and to what extent they follow the TL sociocultural norms. On the whole, the effects of learner-attributable variables on pragmatic teachability are still underexplored. Therefore, future research should focus on ascertaining how these variables interact with the nature of the various forms of pedagogical intervention to maximally develop the pragmatic competence of learners in L2.

References Alcón, E. 2005. Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33(3): 417–435. Alcón, E. 2007. Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, M.P. García-Mayo (ed.), 221–241. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Alcón, E. 2008. Pragmatics in instructed language learning contexts. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 17–39. Bern: Peter Lang. Alcón, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.). 2005. Pragmatics in instructed language learning. System 33(3). (Special issue). Alcón, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.). 2008. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49(4): 677–713. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R. (eds.). 2003. Teaching Pragmatics. Washington DC: US Department of State Office of English Language Programs. . Barron, A. 2005. Variational pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. System 3(3): 519–536. Billmyer, K. 1990. “I really like your lifestyle”: ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6(2): 31–48.



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

Codina-Espurz, V. 2008. The immediate vs. delayed effect of instruction on mitigators in relation to the learner’s language proficiency in English. In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 227–256. Bern: Peter Lang. Cohen, A.D. & Tarone, E. 1994. The effects of training on written speech act behavior: Stating and changing an opinion. MinneTESOL Journal 12: 39–62. Cohen, A.D. & Ishihara, N. 2005. A Web-based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts. Minneapolis MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. . Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671–684. DeKeyser, R. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds.), 313–348. Oxford: Blackwell. Doughty, C. 2003. Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds.), 256–310. Oxford: Blackwell. DuFon, M.A. 2008. Language socialization theory and the acquisition of pragmatics in the foreign language classroom. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 25–44. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Edwards, M. & Csizér, K. 2004. Developing pragmatic competence in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum: 16–21. Eslami, Z.R. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. 2008. Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 178–197. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A. & Fatahi, A. 2004. The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ 8(2): 1–12. Fernández-Guerra, A. & Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. Is teaching how to suggest a good suggestion? An empirical study based on EFL learners’ accuracy and appropriateness when making suggestions. Porta Linguarum 5: 91–108. Fukuya, Y. 1998. Consciousness-raising of downgraders in requests. Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Fukuya, Y. & Clark, M.K. 2001. A comparison of input enhancement and explicit instruction on mitigators. In Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, Vol. 10, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 111–130. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Fukuya, Y. & Zhang, Y. 2002. Effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies 21(1): 1–47. Fukuya, Y, Reeve, M., Gisi, J. & Christianson, M. 1998. Does Focus on Form Work for Teaching Sociopragmatics? Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 225–252. House, J. 2003. Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: The case of English as a lingua franca. In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández-Guerra (eds.), 133–159. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.

 Satomi Takahashi Jeon, E.H. & Kaya, T. 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.), 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Judd, E.L. 1999. Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, E. Hinkel (ed.), 152–166. Cambridge: CUP. Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? NFLRC Network #6. Honolulu HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. . Kasper, G. 2001a. Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 33–60. Cambridge: CUP. Kasper, G. 2001b. Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22(4): 502–530. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden MA: Blackwell. King, K.A. & Silver, R.E. 1993. “Sticking points”: Effects of instruction on NNS refusal strategies. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 9(1): 47–82. Koike, D.A. & Pearson, L. 2005. The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System 33(3): 481–501. Kondo, S. 2004. Raising pragmatic awareness in the EFL context. Sophia Junior College Faculty Bulletin 24: 49–72. Kondo, S. 2008. Effects of pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 153–177. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Liddicoat, A.J. & Crozet, C. 2001. Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 125–144. Cambridge: CUP. LoCastro, V. 1997. Pedagogical intervention and pragmatic competence development. Applied Language Learning 8(1): 75–109. Long, M.H. & Robinson, P. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), 15–41. Cambridge: CUP. Lyster, R. 1994. The effects of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15(3): 263–287. Martí-Arnándiz, O. 2008. Grammatical and pragmatic competence in EFL contexts: Do they really go hand in hand? In Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context, E. Alcón (ed.), 163–189. Bern: Peter Lang. Martínez-Flor, A. 2006. The effectiveness of explicit and implicit treatments on EFL learners’ confidence in recognizing appropriate suggestions. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, J.C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.), 199–225. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Martínez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y. 2005. The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System 33(3): 463–480. Martínez-Flor, A., Usó-Juan, E. & Fernández-Guerra, A. (eds.). 2003. Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching. Castellón: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Morrow, C.K. 1995. The Pragmatic Effects of Instruction on ESL Learners’ Production of Complaint and Refusal Speech Acts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New York at Baffalo.



The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance 

Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. 1990. The learning of complex speech act behaviour. TESL Canada Journal 7(2): 45–65. Pearson, L.E. 2001. Pragmatics in Foreign Language Teaching: The Effects of Instruction on L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Spanish Expressions of Gratitude, Apologies, and Directives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Rose, K.R. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33(3): 385–399. Rose, K.R. & Kasper, G. (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Rose, K.R. & Ng Kwai-fun, C. 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 145–170. Cambridge: CUP. Safont, M.P. 2003. Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners. In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández-Guerra (eds.), 211–232. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Safont, M.P. 2004. An analysis of EAP learners’ pragmatic production: A focus on request forms. Ibérica 8: 23–39. Safont, M.P. 2005. Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Salazar, P. 2003. Pragmatic instruction in the EFL context. In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández-Guerra (eds.), 233–246. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Schmidt, R. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 21–42. Oxford: OUP. Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, P. Robinson (ed.), 3–32. Cambridge: CUP. Shaw, P. & Trosborg, A. 2000. Sorry does not pay my bills: Customer complaints in a crosscultural setting. In Heritage and Progress: From the Past to the Future in Intercultural Understanding, D. Lynch & A. Pilbeam (eds.), 204–213. Bath: LTS Training ad Consulting in association with SIETAR Europa. Silva, A. 2003. The effects of instruction on pragmatic development: Teaching polite refusals in English. Second Language Studies 22(1): 55–106. Takahashi, S. 2001. The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 171–199. Cambridge: CUP. Takahashi, S. 2005. Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics 26(1): 90–120. Takahashi, S. In press. Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In The Handbooks of Pragmatics, Vol. VII, A. Trosborg (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Takimoto, M. 2006a. The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System 34: 601–614. Takimoto, M. 2006b. The effects of explicit feedback on the development of pragmatic proficiency. Language Teaching Research 10(4): 393–417. Takimoto, M. 2007. The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics 30(1): 1–25. Tateyama, Y. 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 200–222. Cambridge: CUP.

 Satomi Takahashi Tateyama, Y. 2007a. The effects of instruction on pragmatic awareness. In JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings, K. Bradford-Watts (ed.). Tokyo: JALT. . Tateyama, Y. 2007b. JFL learners’ pragmatic development and classroom interaction examined from a language socialization perspective. In Selected Papers from Pragmatics in the CJK Classroom: The State of the Art, D.R. Yoshimi & H. Wang (eds.), 181–202. . Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L.P., Tay, H. & Thananart, O. 1997. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph Series, Vol. 8, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 163–177. Urbana-Champaign IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Trosborg, A. 2003. The teaching of business pragmatics. In Pragmatic Competence and Foreign Language Teaching, A. Martínez-Flor, E. Usó-Juan & A. Fernández-Guerra (eds.), 247–281. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 225–243. Witten, C.M. 2002. The Effects of Input Enhancement and Interactive Video Viewing on the Development of Pragmatic Awareness and Use in the Beginning Spanish L2 Classroom. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

section iii

Methodological innovations

Apologies Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness Sachiko Kondo

Sophia Junior College The present paper focuses on teaching the speech act of apologising based on previous research findings on the use, acquisition, and teaching of this particular speech act. The paper provides practical suggestions as to how pragmatic awareness can be raised by first presenting apology strategies and then showing how learners can be engaged in analysing their own performance, and comparing it with that of speakers of the target language. Suggestions will also be made about ways of providing learners with authentic input, a variety of pragmatic options and with ample opportunity to practice in various apology situations. Such training will allow learners to develop their own interlanguage through optimal convergence to target language norms rather than total convergence (Kasper, 1997).

1.  Introduction In any speech community, people often need to engage in remedial actions, namely apologies, to save face and restore social harmony when they commit an offense against others (Brown & Levinson, 1987). However, realisation of these speech acts can be problematic for second language (L2) learners because of difficulties assessing what constitutes an offense and the severity of the offense, and choosing appropriate output strategies when they interact in different speech communities (Bergman & Kasper, 1993). Therefore, in an effort to avoid miscommunication while apologising in English, explicit pragmatic instruction regarding both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects of language use (Thomas, 1983) and awareness-raising concerning similarities and differences between English and the L2 learners’ respective native languages become important elements in the classroom. Most of the interlanguage pragmatic studies adopt a normative approach, and indeed findings in such studies are useful in providing information to learners about the target behaviours. However, in the actual performance of relevant speech acts, learners should be able to make their own choices based on the knowledge they have acquired.

 Sachiko Kondo

The present paper begins by providing a definition of apologies. Then, research on the use, acquisition and teaching of this particular speech act is presented. Finally, based on the findings from this research, I will provide suggestions on how the speech act of apologising can be taught, especially in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. 2.  Definition of apologies In this chapter, apology is defined following Bergman and Kasper (1993: 82) as “compensatory action to an offense in the doing of which S (the speaker) was causally involved and which is costly to H (the hearer)”. This definition of apology is supported by Goffman (1971), who views apologies as remedial interchanges, or remedial work serving to reestablish social harmony after a real or virtual offense. According to Goffman (1971), remedial interchanges serve to prevent the worst possible interpretation of events from being made. An apology involves different aspects of the face, involving both speakers and hearers (Brown & Levinson, 1987). First, an offense that necessitates apology is a face-threatening act (FTA) to the hearer (the offended party). Next, by doing the speech act of apologising, the speaker attempts to restore the face of the hearer. Finally, the apology itself is a FTA to the speaker, especially if the apology is simultaneously a confession to the hearer about the offense. The system of classifying apology strategies was initially proposed by a number of researchers (Fraser, 1981; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Owen, 1983), and it received empirical validation in several studies, such as the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realisation Project (CCSARP) (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989a). These studies confirmed that apologies can be conducted by employing a finite set of conventions of means, or strategies. The speech act set proposed by Olshtain and Cohen (1983), which is widely used to compare apologies in interlanguage pragmatic studies, is shown in Table 1. Table 1.  The speech act set for apologies (information and examples taken from Olshtain & Cohen, 1983) Strategies

Examples

1. An expression of an apology    a. expression of regret    b. offer of apology    c. request for forgiveness

I’m sorry. I apologise. Excuse me. / Please forgive me. / Pardon me.

2. A  n explanation or account of the situation

The bus was late.

(Continued)



Apologies 

Table 1.  (Continued) 3. An acknowledgement of responsibility    a. accepting the blame    b. expressing self-deficiency    c. r ecognising the other person as deserving apology    d. expressing lack of intent

It’s my fault. I was confused. / I wasn’t thinking. / I didn’t see you. You are right. I didn’t mean to.

4. An offer of repair

I’ll pay for the broken vase. / I’ll help you get up

5. A promise of forbearance

It won’t happen again.

The major strategies in the speech act set for apologies consist of (1) an explicit expression of an apology, (2) an explanation, (3) an acknowledgement of responsibility, (4) an offer of repair, and (5) a promise of forbearance. The first strategy, an expression of an apology, involves apologising explicitly by means of an illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) such as (be) sorry, apologise, regret and excuse. IFIDs can be intensified, if the apologiser deems necessary, by adding intensifiers such as very, terribly, so, and really. The second strategy is an explanation or account of the situation, which involves self-justification by explaining that the cause of the offense was beyond the speaker’s control. The third strategy is an acknowledgement of responsibility for the offense, whereby the offender recognises fault in causing the offense. The degree of recognition by apologisers can range from total acceptance of the blame (It’s my fault) to just the expression of lack of intent (I didn’t mean to). The fourth strategy is an offer of repair, whereby the apologiser makes a bid to do something about or pay for the damage caused by the offense. The fifth strategy, a promise of forbearance, is where the apologiser promises that the offense will not be repeated. The first two strategies can be used across all apology situations, and the latter three strategies are situationspecific (see Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Cohen et al., 1986; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989b for detailed explanations of each strategy of the apology speech act set). A similar categorisation is supplied in the CCSARP coding manual (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989b). A modified version of this list is used by others, such as Trosborg (1987), Bergman and Kasper (1993), and Maeshiba et al. (1996).1 Such studies have given further support to the claim that these realisation strategies are “stable across ethnolinguistically distant speech communities” (Rose & Kasper, 2001: 5). That is, the speech act of apologising is carried out by a finite set of strategies across cultures and languages, although researchers have not reached a unified

1.  Bergman and Kasper (1993) and Maeshiba et al. (1996) list the following categories as apology strategies: (1) IFID, (2) upgrader, (3) taking on responsibility, (4) downgrading responsibility or severity of offense, (5) offer of repair, and (6) verbal redress.

 Sachiko Kondo

consensus as to which ones should be categorised as main strategies and what types of strategies should be subcategorised under each main strategy. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory predicts that the weightiness of FTAs, computed by adding the values of social distance, dominance, and degree of imposition as perceived by actors in a given context, determines the type and amount of redress. According to them, the assessments of distance, power, and severity of offense vary cross-culturally, and such differences in the assessments affect the actual production of speech acts. Therefore, Bergman and Kasper (1993: 86) point out that in cross-cultural studies of apologies, it is important “to establish what constitutes an offense, how members of different cultures perceive offense contexts, and how these perceptions are reflected in output strategies”.

3.  Research on apologies 3.1  Research on the use of apologies Although the strategies in the speech act set of apology explained in the previous section are available across different languages and cultures, cross-cultural and crosslinguistic differences in the use of apology strategies have been empirically ascertained in other cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatic studies (Edmondson, 1981; Fraser, 1981; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983; Cohen et al., 1986; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989a; Olshtain, 1989; Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Trosborg, 1995; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Kondo, 1997a; Suszczynska, 1999; Márquez Reiter, 2000; Sabate i Dalmau & Curell i Gotor, 2007; Nureddeen, 2008). Interlanguage pragmatic studies generally suggest that cross-linguistic differences exist in the use of apology strategies, and in many cases, learners were found to transfer strategies from their native languages. Bergman and Kasper (1993), in their study of Thai learners of English, report that more than half of the differences in apology suppliance can be tentatively attributed to pragmatic transfer from Thai apology patterns. Maeshiba et al. (1996), in their similar study of Japanese learners of English, find that negative transfer occurs in contexts with a high power differential between the interlocutors, reflecting Japanese sensitivity to the relative status of interlocutors. Cohen and Olshtain (1981) report on learners’ negative transfer from Hebrew in apologising in L2 English. They detail cases where Hebrew learners of English use a semantic formula considerably less frequently than native English speakers, and where use of the formula among native Hebrew speakers in Hebrew is low as well. They have found such cases in the learners’ use of expression of apology and offer of repair. For example, in the situation of forgetting a meeting with their boss, while 92% of natives used offer of repair strategy, only 10% of nonnatives



Apologies 

used it, consistent with the low use of this formula by native Hebrew speakers in Hebrew. Although interlanguage pragmatics studies generally report L2 learners’ pragmatic transfers from their L1, there is still controversy as to when and why the transfer occurs (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Cohen and Olshtain (1981) find cases where non-native speakers of English differ in their use of apology formulae from native speakers of English because of their lack of grammatical competence, rather than because of negative transfer from their native language. In such cases, the frequency of use of apology strategies by native English and Hebrew speakers looks similar, and yet the non-natives tend to use these strategies less frequently. Olshtain and Cohen (1989) again confirm that learners’ limited L2 knowledge prevents them from transferring complex conventions of means and forms from L1. Olshtain and Cohen (1989) suggest three types of deviations resulting from gaps in linguistic competence: (1) overt errors, when the learner is evidently trying to apologise but produces a linguistic error; (2) non-overt errors, when the learner’s apology is linguistically correct but is inappropriate; and (3) faulty realisation of a semantic formula, when the learner has chosen an appropriate formula but phrases it incorrectly. As predicted by Brown and Levinson (1987), the assessments of distance, power, and severity of offense are found to vary cross-culturally, and such differences in the assessments affect the strategy choices made by members of different cultures (Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Kondo, 1997b). Bergman and Kasper (1993) administered an assessment questionnaire of contextual factors (severity of offense, offender’s obligation to apologise, likelihood of apology acceptance, offender’s face loss, offended party’s face loss, social distance, and social dominance), together with a discourse completion task (DCT). Their results show that in each of the 20 apology situations, Thais and Americans differed in their perception of at least one contextual variable, with the greatest difference on obligation to apologise, and the smallest on likelihood of apology acceptance. Similarly, Kondo (1997b) finds that there are significant differences between Americans and Japanese, including Japanese learners of English, in the assessment of contextual factors, especially concerning the severity of offense. Wolfson et al. (1989: 180) surmise that “a crosslinguistic study of apologies may well reveal that offense and obligation are culturespecific and must, therefore, become an object of study in themselves”. 3.2  Research on the acquisition of apologies Cross-sectional studies on pragmatic development that compare learners at different language proficiency levels find proficiency effects in the frequency and contextual distribution of realisation strategies (Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Trosborg, 1987; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Rose, 2000; Sabate i Dalmau & Curell i Gotor, 2007).

 Sachiko Kondo

Maeshiba et al. (1996) found that advanced Japanese learners of English were better equipped to approximate American apology behaviour than intermediate learners. Trosborg (1987), in her study of apology strategies performed by Danish learners of English found that learners did not always appear as polite as native speakers even when using the same apology strategy. Native speakers included more modality markers (e.g. downtoners, understaters, hedges, and intensifiers) in their responses and thereby achieved an elevated level of politeness. In addition, the use of modality markers also increased relative to an improvement in the linguistic competence of Danish learners. These two studies indicate that, in general, learners converge with native speakers both sociopragmatically and pragmalinguistically as their linguistic levels improve. Another cross-sectional study by Sabate i Dalmau and Curell i Gotor (2007) reports how Catalan learners of English at three English proficiency levels (i.e. proficiency, advanced, and intermediate) respond to apology situations in DCT. Their findings suggest that a higher L2 proficiency results in an overall decrease in pragmalinguistic non-L2-like performance. However, they also report that even advanced-level learners sometimes produce non-target-like explicit apology expressions such as I’m sorried, which shows that development is neither linear nor straightforward. Moreover, the learners at proficiency (highest) level showed more sociopragmatic transfer, whereas advanced and intermediate groups showed more pragmalinguistic problems. Sabate i Dalmau and Curell i Gotor (2007: 308) explain that “a native-like command of the English language triggers an increase in pragmatic transfer.” Rose (2000) reports the results of a cross-sectional study of pragmatic development among three groups of primary school students in Hong Kong. Cartoon oral production tasks (COPT) focusing on requests, apologies, and compliment responses were completed by students at three developmental levels. With regard to apologies, Rose reported that, although some developmental patterns were observed, especially in the use of adjuncts, such as more frequent use of intensifiers, taking responsibility, and offer of repair, little evidence of sensitivity to situational variation or pragmatic transfer from Cantonese was observed.2 Kondo (1997a, 1997c) and Cohen and Shively (2007) have conducted longi­ tudinal studies on apologies in study abroad contexts. Kondo (1997a, 1997c) administered DCT to Japanese high school students in nine apology situations both before and after their one-year study abroad. The study reports that the comparison

2.  Rose (2000) categorises all the other strategies besides the main strategy (mostly IFID) as adjuncts. Adjuncts include intensifiers, taking responsibility, explanations, offers of repair, and promises of forbearance.



Apologies 

of baseline data between Japanese and Americans shows cross-cultural differences in apology realisations. For example, Japanese use IFIDs more than Americans, while Americans offer explanations of situations more than Japanese. An analysis of L2 learners’ data indicates that in general less transfer in the use of apology strategies was observed after one year of studying abroad, resulting in usage patterns closer to that of Americans. However, new types of transfer appeared after studying abroad, especially in expressing concern for the hearer. This shows that the developmental pattern does not always converge with the target norms. Cohen and Shively (2007) investigated acquisition of requests and apologies by learners of Spanish and French after one semester of study abroad. The participants received a brief orientation and self-study guidebook, which included learning speech acts. A comparison of pre- and post-test results indicated that the students as a whole improved their request and apology performance over one semester. However, in making apologies, students’ intensifications of apologies and acknowledgement of responsibility still tended to be lower than those of native speakers. The findings in these longitudinal studies suggest that, although studying abroad has a general impact on learners’ development of pragmatic abilities, some sociopragmatic norms will not be fully acquired unless they are explicitly taught (see Schauer, this volume). 3.3  Research on teaching apologies As for instructions of apologies, Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin (2005) report on the results of a pragmatic awareness activity conducted with 43 learners from 18 language backgrounds, including Asian and European languages, before they received formal instruction on pragmatics. The participants in their study viewed video-taped scenarios and worked in pairs to identify pragmatic infelicities. The video clips included the speech act of apologising, along with the acts of requests, suggestions, and refusals. The participants were then asked to remedy infelicities that they noticed and to role-play the repaired scenarios. For example, in the arriving late scenario, a pragmatically required apology was missing. Five out of seven student pairs provided the missing apologies when they performed the repaired role-plays, and all seven responses included explanations. Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin conclude that although learners generally know what to repair, they seem to have more difficulty providing the appropriate content and form. As far as content is concerned, learners need to know what speech communities consider to be appropriate, relevant, or convincing content in various situations. On the other hand, form is dependent on a learner’s level of linguistic development. They suggest that learners might benefit from explicit instruction especially in the areas of content and form.

 Sachiko Kondo

Eslami-Rasekh et al. (2004) report the effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act comprehension of Iranian advanced EFL students. Their 12-session explicit metapragmatic instruction on requesting, apologising, and complaining includes teacher-fronted discussions and provision of forms and functions of different speech acts, and small-group discussions by students to compare and contrast the realisation patterns of the speech acts in L1 and L2. In addition, Eslami-Rasekh et al. (2004) have provided teaching materials based on the available literature on the speech acts; furthermore, sociopragmatic or paralinguistic deviations observed in students’ role-plays are used for teaching points together with the teaching materials. Pre-tests and post-tests using a multiple choice pragmatic comprehension test indicate that the students who received metapragmatic instruction improved significantly compared to the control group, who received no such instruction. Their study indicates that pragmatics is indeed teachable and that methodologies which rely on providing explicit metapragmatic information, raising L2 learners’ awareness about pragmatic features and engaging students in productive class activities can enhance their pragmatic abilities. Exploring the use of films as authentic inputs to teach apologies, Kite and Tatsuki (2005) compared apologies in 20 films with apologies in a naturally occurring corpus. Results showed moderate to strong similarities in the use of apology strategies, offense types, and syntactic-semantic patterns. They conclude that “teachers can be a bit more confident in using film extracts to illustrate these syntactic forms in their classrooms and as a basis to develop instructional materials” (Kite & Tatsuki, 2005: 111). It is clear from this review of some representative studies on the use, acquisition and teaching of apologies that “learners who have received no specific instruction in L2 pragmatics have noticeably different L2 pragmatic systems than native speakers of the L2” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001: 29), and explicit pragmatic instructions help learners to enhance their pragmatic acquisition. In the next section of the chapter, some concrete pedagogical recommendations will be provided. 4.  Teaching the speech act of apologies In this section of the chapter, I will introduce some specific pedagogical methods geared towards teaching the speech act of apologising, especially in an EFL context. These methods are based on previous findings about the use, acquisition, and teaching of apologies (see Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, this volume). For learners to acquire abilities to successfully perform apologies to remedy offenses, I propose a methodology consisting of the following steps: (1) a warm-up activity to raise awareness, (2) explicit teaching of the speech act set, (3) raising cross-cultural pragmatic awareness, (4) authentic input, and (5) output and interaction.



Apologies 

4.1  Warm-up to raise awareness Before teaching apology strategies explicitly, it is useful for teachers to sensitise learners to apology situations and strategies they might use to apologise both in their native language and in English. First, two apology situations should be provided, such as the ones shown in Example (1):

(1) 1. You promised a friend of yours to go to a movie together and to meet at 7 p.m. You are 30 minutes late. 2. You have an appointment with a professor concerning a letter of reference for your job application. You are 30 minutes late.

Following the introduction of these scenarios, instructors should ask learners to write down what they would say in these situations first in their native language and then in English. Next, the students would be asked to conduct a role-play in English. After this, teacher-fronted discussion can be conducted to compare the use of strategies and linguistic expressions they have used, not in technical terms but in lay terms. Some possible discussion points are given in Example (2): (2) 1. How were your responses different in the two situations? 2. Were there any differences in severity of offense and interlocutor’s closeness and social power? What contextual factors affected your responses? 3. Were your responses different in your native language and in English?

In this warm-up phase, learners will become aware of differences in the apology performances according to contexts and languages. 4.2  Explicit teaching of speech act set Subsequently, the speech act set (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983), presented in Table 1 above, or modified/simplified versions of it can be introduced. A list with each strategy (semantic formula) and examples should be provided so that the students can understand the types of expressions which fall into each category and will thus be able to assimilate new pragmalinguistic information. This list can also be used for various pragmatic analysis tasks in the subsequent teaching stages. As a first step, instructors should ask learners to try to determine which strategies they used in the two situations during the warm-up phase. Learners should check the list included in Example (3) for all the strategies they used for each scenario: (3)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Explicit apology ( ) + Intensifier ( ) Explanation ( ) Acknowledgement ( ) Offer of repair ( ) Promise of forbearance ( )

 Sachiko Kondo

Instructors can assist them if they encounter difficulties categorising the expressions they have used into the given strategies. By analysing their own performance using Example (3), learners can realise that apologies are indeed performed using a finite set of means and will thus gain a better understanding of the speech act set. 4.3  Raising cross-cultural awareness 4.3.1  Use of research data for cross-cultural comparison After the explicit teaching of the speech act set, one way of doing cross-cultural comparison of the use of strategies is to display research data in the form of graphs. For example, Yoshida et al. (2000: 54), in a textbook aimed at teaching English speech acts to Japanese EFL learners, show a graph in the apology chapter that comes from a DCT administered to three groups of participants: 50 Americans speaking English (A), 50 Japanese learners of English speaking English (JE) and 50 Japanese speaking Japanese (J) in a situation of being late for meeting a friend (see Figure 1 below).3

Apology Make-up

A JE

Care

J

Explanation 0

20

40

60

80

Figure 1.  Apology types used by Americans (A), Japanese students learning English (JE), and Japanese (J) for the situation of being late for meeting a friend (adapted from Yoshida et al., 2000: 54) *One person may use more than one apology type.

In order to acquire data produced by learners with the same native language as the students being taught, instructors can administer a DCT to their own students using the same hypothetical situations that have been used in these studies, and the results should be compared with the baseline target language data in those

3.  This type of data can be found in many studies on the use of apology strategies, such as those cited in the section on research in the present chapter.



Apologies 

studies. Students should be asked to write down their analyses of the data, which will be used later in the discussion. Rather than listening to teacher-fronted explanations or passively reading descriptions about cultural differences, learners can be involved in active and critical thinking by analysing such data themselves. This also has the merit of helping the students to avoid overgeneralisations, since the data may show certain tendencies rather than one or zero phenomena. 4.3.2  Pragmatic discussion After analysis of the research data, small-group discussions focusing on what students have learned and noticed during the preceding exercises will have the effect of raising their pragmatic awareness. Specifically, instructors can ask learners to discuss the points included in Example (4):

(4) 1. What similarities and differences did you notice when you analysed research data comparing the speech of the native speakers of the target language, native speakers of your native language and learners speaking in the target language? 2. Why do you think there are differences in the choices of strategies among those groups? 3. How do your DCT responses differ from those given by native speakers of the target language? 4. How do contextual factors affect the choice of strategies? Are there any cross-cultural differences? 5. Can there be cross-cultural misunderstandings in performing apologies?

After discussions in small groups, each group representative may be asked to present the discussion they participated in, and the teacher can then summarise important points and lead them to a fuller class discussion. Kondo (2008) reports that, in the same type of group discussions conducted in teaching refusals to Japanese learners of English in an EFL context, learners expressed their awareness of various pragmatic aspects of language use, such as politeness strategies, possibility of pragmatic transfer, their lack of knowledge concerning the speech act in the target language, and the limitations of their linguistic abilities. Kondo (2008: 173) concludes that “learners are able to make metapragmatic analyses and can become linguists and discoverers themselves”. 4.3.3  Pragmatic information about content and form In the teacher-fronted class discussion, teachers should provide information not only about strategies but also about the content and form of each strategy. For example, the content of the explanation strategy used by Japanese learners is

 Sachiko Kondo

reported to be less specific compared to native speakers’ responses (Beebe et al., 1990; Kondo, 1998). Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin (2005: 408) point out that “it is with content that things appear to get more difficult for learners”. Teacher-fronted explicit explanations or discussions of such aspects of pragmatic appropriateness in the target language can be conducted in class. Compared to requests, which are manifested with varied degrees of directness, forms for apology strategies are relatively less complex. However, it would be useful for learners to know some forms that can strengthen the force of apologies, thus making them sound more sincere. For instance, learners should have access to examples showing that instead of using the minimal apology, sorry, using the fully realised form I’m sorry (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005) and intensifiers such as very and extremely can enhance the force of the apology. Even when learners know which strategy to use in certain situations, they can still make pragmalinguistic mistakes. I have heard a Japanese learner say I am bad instead of It’s my fault to acknowledge responsibility. I am bad is a direct translation of Japanese watashi ga warui (I/subject marker/bad), which is an appropriate expression to admit responsibility in Japanese apologies. Learners would not know expressions like It’s my fault unless they are explicitly taught. 4.4  Authentic input In the subsequent phase of the instructions, learners should receive ample input about how apologies are interactionally performed in various contexts. 4.4.1  Use of films as authentic input First, instructors should show their students excerpts from films or TV dramas that include apologies (see Kite & Tatuski, 2005 for the films that can be used for teaching apologies). For instance, Example (5) is from the film Notting Hill. It is a scene where William and Anna are at the kitchen table, and Anna is apologising to William for her boyfriend’s unexpected visit when William was invited to her apartment.

(5) Anna’s apology to William



01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06.

Anna: I’m really sorry about last time. William: (pause) Oh. Anna: He just flew in. William: Uh:. Anna: I had no idea. In fact, I had no idea if he’d ever fly in again. William: No, that’s fine. It’s not often one has the opportunity to adios the plates of a major Hollywood star. It was a thrill for me. (from Notting Hill, transcription made by the author of the present chapter)



Apologies 

Instructors should ask students to analyse the transcript. For example, in line 01 an explicit apology is made with the intensifier really. In line 03 an explanation is given, and in 05 the strategy of the expression of lack of intent is used. 4.4.2  Interactional data as authentic input Analysis of interactional data using conversation analysis (CA) can help learners to understand how to negotiate speech acts over several turns (Félix-Brasdefer, 2006; González-Lloret, this volume). A transcribed excerpt of an apology in a naturally occurring conversation can be provided, and learners can be asked to analyse it in terms of not only the strategies but also the actions conducted, how they are designed and delivered, and how turns are organised. For instance, Example (6) from Robinson (2004), a conversation between a doctor and a patient, can be used for this type of analysis.

(6) CHRONIC-ROUTINE VISIT



01. DOC: Hello: s[sorry I’m running] late. 02. PAT: [Hi : ] 03. (.) 04. DOC: ‘T’s a typical monday. 05. PAT: Oh you’re not running (late)= 06. DOC: =(N)ot doin’ too ba :d 07. PAT: No ::::

(from Robinson, 2004, 309)

The analysis shown in Table 2 can be carried out using Example (6). Table 2.  The analysis of Example 6 (modified analysis based on Robinson, 2004) Lines

Analysis

01

The utterance s[sorry I’m running] late is the first pair-part of apology, consisting of strategies of IFID and admission of fact. Although an immediate response as a second pair-part is expected, it is delayed by a micro-pause. The doctor orients to this delay and pursues a response by producing an offense excuse (account). The patient responds to the doctor’s apology by producing a disagreement that the doctor is running late. The patient is denying the necessity for the doctor to apologise. The doctor shows an agreement to the assertion made by the patient that he is not running late.

03 04 05 06

Although an explicit apology such as I’m sorry as a first pair-part can be responded to with an action of absolution, such as That’s alright, it can also be responded to with a response delay, as we have observed in Example (6). Analysis of such naturally occurring conversations can show learners that responses by co-conversants affect how apology sequences unfold.

 Sachiko Kondo

Kasper (2006), citing an apology sequence from Robinson (2004), recommends CA to analyse speech acts because it enables us to see how apologies are accomplished as social actions with a co-conversant, unlike analyses using a set of semantic formulae. She contends that “it is only by including the coparticipant in the analytical equation that the presence and absence of apology-relevant actions can be accounted for” (Kasper, 2006: 297). 4.5  Output and interaction in various situations In addition to input, ample opportunities for output and communicative practice in various situations are necessary for pragmatic development (House, 1996; Yoshimi, 2001). Instructors should provide apology scenarios with varied contextual factors, such as severity of offense, offense types (Holmes, 1989; Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990), and power and dominance (see Appendix for scenarios). They can also ask students to develop their own scenarios that enable them to practise in situations in which they might often find themselves. In role-play production, specifically, the directions included in Example (7) can be given:

(7) 1. Based on what you have learned, how would you respond in these situations? Make your own choices that you feel comfortable with in creating dialogues. Plan your responses before production. 2. Role-play as naturally as possible so that several turns take place, where negotiations of meanings naturally occur. 3. Use prosodic and non-verbal strategies, such as stress, intonation, gestures, and nodding naturally, to convey your intentions. 4. Pay attention to contextual factors, such as who you are apologising to and for what.

For students with low English proficiency, additional practice with model dialogues might be needed for them to acquire the target linguistic expressions, and writing down their responses or creating dialogues in written form before oral production might help them to role-play smoothly. Towards the end of such communicative practice, it is important that students create their own dialogues based on the knowledge they have acquired rather than simply memorising and repeating model dialogues. Although the input we provide learners with should be authentic and representative of the native norms, in language production learners should have the freedom to make their own choices, balancing the sociocultural rules of their L1 and L2. In other words, pragmatic instructions provide learners with the power to make an informed choice (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Eslami-Rasekh  et  al.,  2004), in which they do not necessarily have total convergence to target norms but rather preserve their identities with optimal convergence (Kasper, 1997).



Apologies 

5.  Conclusion In this chapter, several practical methods for teaching apologies have been presented based on findings on the use, acquisition, and teaching of this particular speech act. The suggested methodology leads learners, step by step, through the following process: (1) warm-up to raise awareness, (2) explicit teaching of the speech act set, (3) cross-cultural awareness-raising, and (4) opportunities to consolidate their learning through practice with input, output, and interaction. Opportunities to learn how apologies are performed in different languages and to become aware of possible cross-cultural misunderstandings will certainly help learners to become better communicators. However, we should always be careful not to force learners to totally converge to the target norms, because pragmatic behaviours are closely connected with their identities. Learners should be able to make use of the knowledge they have acquired and to make choices that enable them to achieve their communicative goals and at the same time preserve their identities. One complication stems from the fact that, as English has many varieties and is used all over the world by both natives and non-natives, it is difficult to determine whose norms we should teach. Although in most interlanguage pragmatic studies, native speakers of American English or British English are used as base-lines, EFL learners in particular will have more opportunities to interact with speakers of other varieties of English. In such cases, I hope that their meta-pragmatic awareness, raised through instruction that sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic differences do exist across cultures and languages, will help them to adapt to whatever variety they might encounter.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors of this volume, Dr. Martínez-Flor and Dr. Usó-Juan, as well as the internal and external reviewers for their valuable suggestions. I am also grateful to Fr. Frank Scott Howell and Prof. Timothy B. Gould for proofreading the manuscript. Of course, any errors remaining in the manuscript are solely my own responsibility.

References Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2001. Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Pragmatics in Language Teaching. K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 13–32. Cambridge: CUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Griffin, R. 2005. L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System 33(3): 401–415.

 Sachiko Kondo Barnlund, D.C. & Yoshioka, M. 1990. Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14: 193–206. Beebe, L.M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language, S.D. Krashen, R. Scarcella & E. Andersen (eds.), 55–73. New York NY: Newbury House. Bergman, M.L. & Kasper, G. 1993. Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 82–107. Oxford: OUP. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds.). 1989a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds.). 1989b. Appendix: The CCSARP coding manual. In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), 273–94. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realisation patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5(3): 196–213. Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Cohen, A.D. & Olshtain, E. 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning 31: 113–134. Cohen, A.D, Olshtain, E. & Rosenstein, D. 1986. Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 62: 51–74. Cohen, A.D. & Shively, R.L. 2007. Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal 91(2): 189–212. Edmondson, W. 1981. On saying you’re sorry. In Conversational Routine, F. Coulmas (ed.), 273–287. The Hague: Mouton. Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A. & Fatahi, A. 2004. The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ 8 (2): 1–12. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2006. Teaching the negotiation of multi-turn speech acts : Using conversation-analytic tools to teach pragmatics in the FL classroom. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, J.C. Felix-Brasdefer, & A.S. Omar (eds.), 165–197. Manoa HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. Fraser, B. 1981. On apologising. In Conversational Routine. F. Coulmas (ed.), 259–273. The Hague: Mouton. Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Holmes, J. 1989. Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 10(2): 194–221. House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 225–252. Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? [Network 6]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. . Kasper, G. 2006. Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 11, K. Bardovi-Harlig, J.C. Félix-Brasdefer & A.S. Omar (eds.), 281–314. Manoa HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai‘i. Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kite, Y. & Tatsuki, D. 2005. Remedial interactions in film. In Pragmatics in Language Learning, Theory, and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 99–117. Tokyo: Pragmatics Special Interest Group of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT).



Apologies 

Kondo, S. 1997a. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English: Longitudinal study on Interlanguage Apologies. Sophia Linguistica 41: 265–284. Kondo, S. 1997b. Longitudinal study on the development of pragmatic competence in a natural learning context – Perception behind performance. Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society 12: 35–54. Kondo, S. 1997c. The Development of Pragmatic Competence by Japanese Learners of English in a Natural Learning Context: Longitudinal Study on Interlanguage Apologies. MA thesis, Sophia University, The Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics. Kondo, S. 1998. A longitudinal study on the development of pragmatic competence: Explanation strategy in apology situations. Paper presented at Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, March. Kondo, S. 2008. Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 153–177. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G. & Ross, S. 1996. Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologising. In Speech Acts Across Cultures. S.M. Gass & J. Neu (eds.), 155–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Márquez Reiter, R. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Analysis of Requests and Apologies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nureddeen, F.A. 2008. Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2): 279–306. Olshtain, E. 1989. Apologies across languages. In Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), 155–73. Norwood: Ablex. Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A.D. 1983. Apology: A speech act set. In Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.), 18–35. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A.D. 1989. Speech act behavior across languages. In Transfer in Language Production. H.W. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds.), 53–67. Norwood NJ: Ablex. Owen, M. 1983. Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Robinson, J.D. 2004. The sequential organization of “explicit” apologies in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 291–330. Rose, K.R. 2000. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 27–67. Rose, K.R. & Kasper, G. (eds.). 2001. Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Sabate i Dalmau, M. & Curell i Gotor, H. 2007. From “sorry very much” to “I’m ever so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 287–315. Suszczynska, M. 1999. Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 31(8): 1053–1065. Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L.M. 1987. The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal 8: 131–155. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4: 91–112. Trosborg, A. 1987. Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 147–167. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T. & Jones, S. 1989. Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In Cross- Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), 174–196. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

 Sachiko Kondo Yoshida, K., Kamiya M., Kondo, S. & Tokiwa, R. 2000. Heart to Heart: Overcoming Barriers in Cross-Cultural Communication. Tokyo: Macmillan. Yoshimi, D.R. 2001. Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 223–244. Cambridge: CUP.

Appendix Examples of apology scenarios (adapted from Olshtain, 1989; Bergman & Kasper, 1993; Maeshita et al., 1996; Kondo, 1997a). 1. You promised your friend to go to a movie together for the first time. You are 30 minutes late and have kept your friend waiting. 2. You had an appointment to have an interview with your professor concerning a letter of reference for your job application. You are 30 minutes late. 3. You have had an accident with a car borrowed from your friend. 4. You borrowed a CD from your friend and accidentally broke its case. 5. You borrowed a magazine from your friend and poured coffee over it. 6. You borrowed your professor’s book, which you promised to return that day, but you forgot to bring it back. 7. At your office, you forgot to pass on an important business message to a senior colleague. 8. You completely forgot a crucial meeting at the office with your boss. 9. You forgot a get-together with a friend. 10. You bumped into a well-dressed elderly lady at a department store, causing her to spill her packages all over the floor. 11. You are on a basketball team. The ball you have thrown accidentally hits the face of your team-mate. His/Her nose is bleeding. 12. You offended a fellow worker during a discussion at work. After the meeting, the fellow worker mentions this fact. *Underlined parts can be replaced with different interlocutors in terms of gender, social distance, and status.

Complaints How to gripe and establish rapport Diana Boxer

University of Florida The speech act of complaint actually consists of two very different types of speech behaviours. While direct complaints are usually face threatening acts, indirect complaints typically serve to establish solidarity in social interaction. Little attention has been paid in the literature to indirect complaints, despite the fact that they are ubiquitous in ordinary social conversation in many English-speaking communities. This chapter focuses on the teaching of indirect complaints and outlines methodological issues in amassing data on complaining that can be put into use for effective language teaching. To date, few teaching materials have been based on ethnographic, empirical data. Based on this data, new ways of teaching complaints and their responses are suggested in a sample lesson plan.

1.  Introduction Speech act analyses in varieties of English have been widely carried out and disseminated over the past twenty five years. More recently, the field of Applied Linguistics has witnessed a burgeoning of research on the realisation of a variety of speech acts in languages other than English that are important in the spheres of education, commerce and diplomacy. Regarding complaining as a speech act, this is true for Danish (e.g. Trosborg, 1995), French (e.g. Ouellette, 2001; Kraft & Geluykens, 2002), Hebrew (e.g. Olshtain & Cohen, 1990; Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993), Italian (e.g. Nuzzo, 2006; Monzoni, 2008), Japanese (e.g. Tokano, 1997; Shea, 2003), Korean (e.g. Moon, 1997; Ouellette, 2001), Persian (e.g. Eslami-Rasekh et  al., 2004; Salmani-Nodoushan, 2008), Russian (e.g. Kozlova, 2004), and Vietnamese (Tran, 2002), to name a few. The immediate application of this body of research is in the arena of language teaching and learning. Indeed, we have in this period of time confronted the dangers of miscommunication inherent in not knowing what used to be termed the rules of speaking (Wolfson, 1983) of languages in our linguistic repertories. It is therefore important that users of any second language (L2) have a working knowledge of what native speakers of that language are attempting to accomplish

 Diana Boxer

by employing certain speech acts. Regarding complaining, we do not necessarily want to teach learners how to complain, but we surely want to illustrate how to respond so that the exchange creates rapport rather than alienation. While there continues to be a lag between research and practice, the more we know about how speech acts are realised, the more immediately we can translate this knowledge to pedagogical materials. The need is pressing; indeed, it is urgent. The knowledge of how to use speech acts in communicatively appropriate ways is the first layer in the communication onion. The indirect complaint is one such speech act in that knowing how to gripe and, more critical, how to respond, can open up relationships. While this seems counterintuitive, negative evaluations can serve as positive strategies, as we will see. This chapter will proceed according to the following structure: after a brief review of published recent work on the speech act of complaint, a detailed pedagogical proposal for its teaching is provided. This will take into consideration not only the realisation of the head act, but primarily and more importantly, the possible responses and their potential outcomes.

2.  Definition of complaints Complaints are fascinating from a variety of perspectives. First and foremost is the fact that the semantic label in English for this speech act, complaint, is an umbrella term that covers a range of speech behaviours. Two of the clearest types of complaint are what have been termed direct complaint (DC) (D’Amico-Reisner, 1985) and indirect complaint (IC) (Boxer, 1993a). These two speech behaviours are in fact quite dissimilar from each other. DC is typically a face-threatening act in terms of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory because it asks the addressee to remedy a complaint. IC is done for venting or seeking agreement; therefore, depending on the response, it has great potential to be a rapport-inspiring speech act. Of course, the IC is not necessarily a source of solidarity-building, but more of a hidden request for it. The fact that IC responses have the ability to function in this manner among interlocutors makes it a speech act that could have positive repercussions for L2 users. A clear definition and delineation of the two types of complaint is in order here. DC is a complaint directed to a person either responsible of a perceived offense or in a role in which s/he is able to remedy the offense. One is heard to utter DC in situations where it is expected or deemed appropriate by context. Thus, DC is expected in a complaint department. Such a place would be where, for example, a customer is returning an item to a store. When asked if there was a problem with



Complaints 

the item, a DC would either be expected or deemed appropriate. Let’s look at some hypothetical examples:

(1) The zipper isn’t functioning properly. (2) The cushion (of the chair) keeps slipping out.

Examples (1) and (2) above would be perfectly appropriate DCs, given that the role of the clerk at the return counter or complaint department is to remedy the offense. Likewise, and somewhat more nebulous, is the type of complaint that is sometimes heard in restaurants when a customer is dissatisfied with the way ordered food has been prepared. See Examples (3) and (4):

(3) This steak is well done. I ordered it medium-rare. (4) The soup is cold.

While DCs such as these are appropriate in a restaurant or the complaint department, they are not so in ordinary social interaction. In fact, in most North American speech communities at least, DCs are rare in this domain owing to the simple fact that they have great face-threatening potential. That DCs abound in the familial domain owes directly to the social distance factor (see, for example, Wolfson’s Bulge theory, 1989; Boxer, 2002). This point is important for teaching when ICs are more appropriate than DCs. This is precisely because IC is the opposite of DC. IC is directed to a person who is neither responsible for the offense nor responsible for remedying it (though some addressees may try via certain responses, as we shall soon see). ICs are sometimes referred to as griping, grumbling, or even bitching or bellyaching. These are all folk terms and semantically overlapping categories. Once the distinction between the two types of complaints becomes clear, it is possible not only to describe what speakers do in face-to-face complaining, but also how certain types of responses function in a conversational exchange. At this point and only at this point, after adequate description, can we begin to think about teaching speech act behaviour. This has been a hallmark of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). Having said this, it has also been a potential pitfall of ILP. The danger of teaching speech act performance is paramount with adult language learners. As adults we have a set cultural background that makes our norms of interaction part of our cultural identity. To teach an adult L2 learner to complain, therefore, is fraught with ethical considerations. However, because ICs are not usually face-threatening, it is a more acceptable speech act for people of different ethnolinguistic groups – even for Japanese, who generally avoid griping. Rather than focus on the complaint itself, knowledge of how to respond can have great positive outcomes. Following are some examples taken from ethnographically collected data.

 Diana Boxer

Several themes of ICs abound in ordinary social conversation in English (Boxer, 1993a). These are: (1) self-directed ICs, where speakers utter a self put-down (e.g. My thighs are beyond hope, [6.38% of the ICS], (2) other-directed ICs, where speakers complain about another person (e.g. He takes such bad care of himself [26.83% of the ICs], and (3) situation ICs, where speakers complain about a personal or impersonal situation (e.g. This bread is stale [66.79% of the ICs]). As we can see, the large majority of data were in this latter category. More interesting than IC themes for learners of English is the analysis of responses to ICs. It is in the way addressees respond that the establishment of rapport either is realised or not. Boxer (1993a) found six categories of possible responses: (1) no response or topic switch [6.67% of the responses], (2) question (e.g. In response to I just got back from vacation – got a flat tire: Where’ d you go? [12.16% of responses], (3) contradiction (e.g. In response to This bread is stale: I was just thinking it’s yummy [15.29% of responses]), (4) joking (e.g. In response to When we got here nobody was waiting: Gray line drops off a bus load every hour [6.47% of responses]), (5) advice/lecture (e.g. In response to I really don’t want to go to Boston tomorrow: You go, you spend a few hours, just do it [14.12% of responses]), and (6) agreement, reassurance, or commiseration (e.g. In response to God, it’s smoky in here: Yeah, I’m a smoker and I can’t stand it either [45.29% of responses]). Thus, almost half of the replies to 533 ICs were in the latter category. This is the type of reply that offers a rapport-inspiring or solidarity-establishing basis for asserting that ICs have a great potential for the building of social relationships. Some data will illustrate how this works. The next Example (5) took place in a departmental library of a university. Both A and B are female students; however, B is charged with the job of library assistant, for which she receives a stipend for sitting in the library while students make use of it. In other words, B assures that no books are removed from the room.

(5) A. They never have what you need in here. You’d think they’d at least have the important books and articles. B. They didn’t have what you were looking for? A. No B. That’s typical!

In the above sequence it is clear that the addressee, B, is not held responsible for the perceived offense of not having the books needed by A. On the contrary, B is only the temporary steward of the library. She has no role in its holdings. Because of this simple fact, A’s complaint is not a DC but IC. Her utterance is merely a gripe about her dissatisfaction. She does not expect B to remedy the situation. The role played by the addressee here allows her to commiserate with A. Her



Complaints 

reply (i.e. that’s typical), then, is one that has the potential to achieve at least a momentary solidarity with the complainer. Having said that, one can pose the hypothetical case that B is in the officially sanctioned role of librarian. The speech act sequence would be a quite different one with goals distinct from that which transpired above. If B is the librarian and A is the student looking for certain books, A’s utterance (i.e. they never have what you need in here) would be a DC to an individual capable of remedying an offense. B’s response would, in this case, be quite different from what we saw above. It might have been something like, Let me check another place where you might find what you’re looking for. In the role of librarian the addressee would take it upon herself to at least attempt to satisfy the complaint. Since it is also true that DCs are potentially face-threatening acts, a communi­ catively competent speaker would know that the complaint in the initial utterance would have to be couched in terms which would minimise the face-threat to B. Knowing this, it might have been uttered in a more hedged manner. Some hypothetical options are given in Example (6): (6) a. I’ve been looking for X book, but I can’t seem to find it. b. (Excuse me), I’ve had trouble finding some of the materials needed for my research. c. (Sorry to complain but) I’m feeling a bit frustrated about not being able to find X book.

These are but a few possible realisations of the DC. But because in the exchange above in Example (5) the speaker knew the addressee to be merely a student assistant, she voiced the complaint as an IC. Inherent in this knowledge was the freedom to couch the complaint as an exclamatory utterance expressing exasperation with the library’s holdings. Likewise, B’s role allowed her to respond with a complementary exclamation (i.e. that’s typical!). In so doing B is telling A that she completely understands, perhaps because she too has had a similar frustration. As we can see, then, the two types of complaint have very different communicative intentions necessitating radically divergent means for their realisations and responses. For DC, users of English need to know how to soften the force of the act, lest the addressee be offended. Such offense has the danger of resulting in non-compliance with the hidden request in the DC. On the other hand, with ICs one needs to know with whom it can be uttered. More important for IC exchanges, however, is the knowledge of what sorts of responses have the potential to be rapportinspiring. This is the critical issue for language learners. We deal here with the ubiquity of indirect complaints in ordinary social interaction in many English-speaking communities and how data collected from

 Diana Boxer

real conversations demonstrates strategies that can be directly applied to language learning contexts (Boxer, 1993 a, b, c). A possible taxonomy for the teaching of ICs and their responses is given in Table 1: Table 1.  Taxonomy for teaching ICs and responses. Examples taken from real data. Taxonomy

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Context: Commenting Context: Plunging Context: At an about a lecturer into a swimming airport check-in pool

1. IC itself It may be couched in the form of exclamation expressing frustration. 2. IC: Introductory expression It demonstrates how to begin an IC 3. IC: Response It should serve to agree, empathise, or commiserate

God, he’s got the most annoying laugh! God

Ow, it’s cold! You’re Gee, when we got brave! here nobody was waiting. Look at it now! Ow Gee

Response to IC above: Response to IC Yeah, I know. above: I thought so too when I first got in.

Response to IC above: Can you believe it?

3.  Research on complaints Until twenty or so years ago, the few studies of complaints as a speech act were done on what most native speakers of English think of when they hear the semantic label, complain. One of the principal issues in research on the speech act of complaint has been the focus on DC as opposed to IC. But in fact ICs are far more common in spontaneous social conversation than are DCs. In an elegant dissertation on what she termed adult scolding, D’Amico-Reisner (1986) carried out an ethnographic analysis that naturally led to her to differentiate scolding, by definition related closely to DC, from ordinary griping, or what she termed IC. Olshtain and Weinbach (1993), which looked at Hebrew learners of English, also focused on DC. A few studies that have looked at ICs are: Ouellette (2001), which studied troubles talk in French and Korean; Koslova (2004), which specifically addressed a comparison of ICs in Russian with American English, and Edwards (2005), which studied ICs in telephone conversations in British English. The large study on ICs (Boxer, 1993a) began by listening to how people complain. The corpus consisted of 533 audio-taped IC sequences collected in a short period of time just by sitting in such locations as lunch counters, waiting rooms, and work spaces where graduate students congregated to study and consult with one another. Several research assistants participated in data collection by turning on an audio-recorder when lunching or meeting with friends socially. Thus, a corpus of



Complaints 

IC data was amassed that had varied configurations of some of the sociolinguistic variables that emerged as salient in importance. Gender emerged as an important variable in ICs and their responses. Women and men gave very different responses to ICs, and uttered different types of complaints (see Boxer, 1993a).1 Social distance emerged as another significant variable in IC exchanges. That is, one’s relationship to an interlocutor (e.g. friends, acquaintances, strangers, colleagues) had an important impact on how the complaints were carried out; moreover, the relationship was critical to appropriately responding. Some more recent studies on complaining have had various foci. Further data on women and complaining has been carried out (e.g. Sotirin, 2000; Wolfe & Powell, 2006; Powell, 2007), corroborating the findings of Boxer (1993a) on gender differences in complaining and commiserating. That is, women tend to find griping as rapport-inspiring precisely because they employ agreeable and commiserative types of responses far more than men do. A much-discussed issue with extant speech act research is methodological. That is to say, a majority of the investigations have not tapped into ethnographically collected data that captures spontaneous speech (see Félix-Brasdefer, this volume). Most have employed role-plays (e.g. Trosborg, 1995; Shea, 2003; Nuzzo, 2006) and/or discourse completion tasks (DCTs) (e.g. Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993; Kraft & Geluykens, 2002; Shea, 2003). One notable exception is Salmani-Nodoushan (2008), which analysed conversational strategies in Farsi complaining behaviour. While DCTs and role-plays have their place in amassing large amounts of data, they give us only the canonical shape of how speech acts are realised (Beebe & Cummings, 1996). Ethnographically collected speech act data provide a view into how speakers use language in spontaneous interactions (see the early work of Nessa Wolfson, e.g. Wolfson, 1989). It is not surprising that so many speech act studies have used DCTs and roleplays. Particularly for rare speech acts, these methods are the only way of capturing a large amount of data in a short amount of time. However, if my own research on ICs is any indication, this is a type of complaint that abounds in ordinary social interaction. Nevertheless, it is unusual to find research on ICs that base findings on spontaneous recorded speech in any language. But it is precisely this kind of data that offers the best glimpse into how speech acts are realised among native speakers of any language. This is important for Applied Linguistics. If we are to have a true picture of how speech acts are carried out, we must base our analysis upon what speakers actually do rather than what our native speaker intuition tells

1.  Of course, a binary view of gender is always problematic. Analyses of lesbian, gay, and transgender speech act use is necessary.

 Diana Boxer

us that we do. Thus, while role-plays bring us a step closer than DCTs to true speech act realisation, they still fall short of reflecting real language interaction. The following pedagogical proposal, therefore, is based upon a corpus of spontaneous spoken indirect complaints (Boxer, 1993a) uttered in the social domain (Boxer, 2002). The data was collected in Philadelphia and was primarily in the form of audio-taped interactions with supplementary field notes and ethnographic interviews. 4.  Teaching the speech act of ICs and their responses Because most extant English Language Teaching (ELT) texts deal with DC rather than IC, the aim is to teach the learner the cultural value of mitigating or softening what is typically construed as a confrontational activity. Very little mention is made of the social strategy of establishing solidarity that is at the root of much IC behaviour. The teaching of speech acts based on spontaneous speech captures the underlying social strategies of the speech behaviour being studied. As asserted above, for ICs the most important piece of the speech act sequence is the response, since it is the way addressee’s reply that leads to different outcomes. Therefore, the lessons outlined here start with the responses and proceed to the ICs themselves. Learners need to know several things about ICs and their functions: (1) how to respond appropriately to ICs in order to achieve maximum conversational satisfaction, (2) what the speakers’ intentions are in their use of ICs, (3) how to formulate ICs, (4) how to maintain cohesion and coherence in their part of the conversations, and (5) how interlocutor variables affect the appropriateness of ICs and certain responses (see Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, this volume). The following sample lesson for the teaching of IC responses focuses on these steps. As indicated above, the lesson is based on spontaneous data from face-to-face interaction in a US university speech community. It was piloted and refined in English as a second language (ESL) classes at a university English Language Program. 4.1  Understanding the workings of IC responses The proposed lesson plan focuses on small ESL university classes (fewer than 15 students) at middle to high level of language study. The aim of this first step in the lesson is to present and discuss IC sequences taken from real verbal inter­ actions in social discourse. This could be done with students reading the parts of transcribed data, with subsequent discussion and explanation with the teacher. It serves as a springboard for discussion of cross-cultural differences. It is critical to point out that in American English, at least, the realisation of the response rather than the head act is what makes IC sequences play out as either rapport-inspiring or not. A typical response to ICs is demonstrated in Example (7).



Complaints 

Two female students are sitting in a large class. Their professor is lecturing in front of the room, using a microphone and occasionally laughing into it. The class is rather large, and it is difficult to hear what the professor is saying, as he tends not to speak loudly or clearly. This is why he is using a microphone. Learners should keep in mind that the most common responses (and the most rapport-inspiring) to ICs come in the form of agreement, reassurance or commiseration: (7) A. God, he’s got the most annoying laugh! B. Yeah and the mike doesn’t help matters much.

Advice sometimes occurs as an IC response. One of the important findings of Boxer (1993a) is that advice is not often sought by speakers when uttering an IC. In fact, griping is usually done to vent frustration, and thus seeks commiseration. However, if worded properly and with proper intonation, occasionally advice can serve as encouragement to the speaker, as seen in Example (8). The advice here serves to inspire the speaker to start swimming. After this brief opener, the interlocutors went on to divulge further information about their lives in which they sought commonalities: (8) A. Ow, it’s cold! You’re brave. B. Just take the plunge. It feels good once you get in.

Joking/teasing responses are often found in service encounters and between littleacquainted interlocutors who wish to demonstrate a light-hearted good will, as in Example (9). Bantering responses can create a sense of rapport between speakers and addressees, resulting in an exchange in which support is manifested. The context here is a service encounter in which A, a female speaker, notices a long line forming. B is the receptionist. (9) A. When we got here there was nobody waiting. Look at it now! B. Gray Line drops off a bus load every hour.

Question responses typically show interest in a speaker’s complaint. Among strangers and particularly in service encounters, questions are repeatedly found as interim responses that eventually lead to a commiseration, as given in Example (10). The initial questions led to further information from the speaker and an eventual commiserative response. This was a male/male service encounter. A is an apartment handyman, B a tenant. (10)

A. B. A. B. A. B.

I just got back from vacation. Drove in this morning and got a flat tire. Where’d you go? Just to the shore Good time? Well…and I had just had the thing plugged too. That’s too bad.

 Diana Boxer

Commiserations are often couched in exclamatory form, as in Example (11). Learners should be made aware that simple exclamations such as oh no! frequently suffice as commiserative replies that can be learned as unanalysed chunks. In the following, two female graduate students are in the same course that they both hate: (11) A. I sat through yesterday’s class with total non-comprehension. B. Oh, yesterday was the worst!

The examples given serve to illustrate the various ways that speakers of English respond to ICs. While agreement, reassurance, and commiseration are the most rapport-inspiring, other kinds of replies can also function in such a manner if some simple steps are considered to make the responses sound encouraging. Different realisations of the speech act sequence of IC can lead to different feelings of conversational satisfaction or, on the other hand, frustration. The next step of the approach has learners consider sample ICs from natural native speaker conversations to encourage discussion on how each IC makes students feel about the conversation. 4.2  Speaker intentions in the use of ICs The aim of this second step in teaching ICs and their responses focuses on situations in which an IC is given. Learners are asked to consider the context of the IC and, using their knowledge of IC response realisations from the samples previously given, formulate how they might respond in a way that achieve conversational rapport (see Examples 12 and 13). The classroom context would be one of teacher presentation and student discussion and brainstorming, or, alternatively, small group or paired discussion of the sequences with follow-up whole group analysis (see Appendix for the answer key). (12) How would you tend to respond if you were the addressee? a. My husband is in Greece this week, so I’m packing myself. Most of it is books and manuscripts (female talking to other female acquaintance while picking up her child at the other’s home). b. I feel exploited by my advisor. It’s always me giving and not getting much back. (Female student talking to male professor with whom she is friendly, over lunch.) c. I’ll probably end up at a terrible university! (Female talking to female friend at a picnic). d. I’ll tell you, I don’t envy anyone who’s single now, including myself! (Male talking to male friend over lunch).



Complaints 

(13) How would you respond if a stranger or almost-stranger said to you?: a. This line (queue) is so slow! (Female passenger in line at airport). b. Boy, I’m glad I’m getting out of this city. Six more months. (Male taxi driver to male passenger).

4.3  Formulating the IC Now that students have a sense of the range of possibilities of IC responses, the next step asks them to fill in the head act, or the IC itself, that might come before certain responses. This working backwards is logical with IC instruction, since the response is what makes for a felicitous or infelicitous exchange (see Example 14). Ask students to fill in the IC that might come before the following responses (see Appendix for the answer key): (14) Fill in the appropriate IC a. Female co-workers in an office. The addressee is a secretary (lower status in the workplace hierarchy); the speaker is the administrative assistant (higher status). Discussing the lack of heat in the office:   Secretary: “I guess we could call them to fix it. We could try, anyway.” b. Male speaker, female addressee. Teachers discussing the workload of the semester:   Female: “Relax. It will be over soon.” c.

Female friends at home discussing adolescent children:

  “They’re so difficult, these issues!” d. Husband is speaker; wife is addressee. Discussing cleaning out the bathtub.   Wife: “I know. I can’t do it well either.” e. Female strangers in elevator at a conference. Discussing how tiring it is to attend such a conference:  “I know what you mean. But it’s till good to get away from work for a few days.”

For each of the above exchanges have a group discussion about how setting, context, and interlocutor variables affect how people complain and respond. 4.4  Maintaining cohesion and coherence in IC sequence This next step in the lessons features discourse competence, an important part of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). While thus far we have been discussing the levels of appropriateness, this step asks the students to analyse how IC sequences fit together. Have students, in pairs or small groups, put the utterances

 Diana Boxer

in their logical order for conversations in which ICs and their responses occur (see Examples 15 and 16). .

(15) Two mothers of young children discussing school closing: a. It’s true. It seems the more you pay the less you get. b. So how much more time until school is out? c. They’ve already been out for a week. They go to private school. You know, you pay more and you get less. (Actual conversational sequence: b, c, a). (16)

Two female students doing homework together. a. He did? (rising intonation). b. He ignored me at the end of class when I asked a question. c. God! d. Yeah, he said we’ll get to that during the next class. (Actual conversational sequence: b, a, d, c).

4.5  The sociolinguistic variables and IC sequences This next step in the IC lessons serves the purpose of raising the learners’ awareness of the importance of interlocutor variables in speech act realisation. Students become aware that different characteristics of speakers and addressees affect how ICs and their responses are carried out successfully. This differs vastly from society to society. Have students give the context of a situation with gender, social status, and social distance relationships. In small groups, ask students to play roles in mini-dramas. Video-tape, play back and analyse, with reference to linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence (e.g. saying Oh no! rather than Uh, huh to keep the conversation flowing). 1. Two female colleagues upon meeting at a conference. They are roommates in the hotel. One of them complains to the other about the airplane breakfast she just had on her flight over. 2. A female receptionist at the dentist’s office complains to a male patient about how they are tearing down all the historical buildings in the neighbourhood. 3. A male student complains to a female professor, during an informal seminar that he is trying to tape record, about having bought the wrong kind of tape recorder. 4. Male nephew complains to his uncle about his recent separation from his wife. 5. Wife complains to her husband about a male friend who is a chronic complainer. The five scenarios above show how the sociolinguistic variables constrain what people say to each other and how they say it. This makes the teaching of speech



Complaints 

acts a challenge; indeed, many existing materials available for language learning ignore how context and interlocutor variables change the scope of speech act realisations. The scenarios above, taken from real conversational interactions, range from exchanges between strangers in service encounters, to social statusequal colleagues, to family members at talking at home. Research suggests that it is among strangers and friends/acquaintances that we do most of our rapportinspiring speech (Wolfson, 1989; Boxer, 1993b). In the actual IC sequences in natural discourse, agreement was the response in situation 1, advice was the response in situation 3, and contradiction in situation 5. In situation 5 we have intimates: contradictory responses abound among interlocutors of social closeness, as solidarity is not an issue. In situation 3 we have status unequals: it is well within the role relationship of professor/student for the professor to give advice. It is in contexts such as that of situation 1 that we see the most negotiation take place. Here we have participants at a conference who have a built-in solidarity based on co-membership (Erickson & Schultz, 1982). So even if they did not know each other, the gripe in this context is a part of phatic communication, communication in which we make small talk in order not only to pass the time, but to open and sustain a relationship.

5.  Conclusion The findings that IC sequences can have positive repercussions for English language learners makes their teaching important. Establishing solidarity with native speaking interlocutors achieves sequential interaction (Boxer, 1993c) that leads to increased opportunities for the negotiated interaction so important in second and foreign language learning. One of the principal dangers inherent in creating pedagogical materials for L2 learning is that we wrongly emphasise explicit rather than tacit knowledge of how native speakers realise speech acts. As native speakers, we tend to think of DC rather than ICs when we hear the word complaint. Thus it is the case that DCs rather than ICs are the typical focus when teaching the speech act of complaint. Dialogues found in most extant ELT texts tend to be contrived through the intuitions of their authors. Little or no information is given about setting or context or the relationship between speakers and addressees. However, everything now known about face-to-face interaction indicates that the way in which individuals speak to each other is heavily conditioned by such variables. Whether interlocutors are friends or co-workers, whether they are speaking at home or in the workplace, whether they are women or men, all constrain the kind of verbal exchange that takes place (see Yates, this volume). Materials writers need to take

 Diana Boxer

these factors into account when presenting sample dialogues and exercises for the acquisition of speech act competence. Materials for this end need to reflect the way people actually speak to each other. It is only when spontaneous speech is captured in authentic data that we can begin to see the underlying social strategies of speech behaviour. ICs are highlighted here to demonstrate the broader problems inherent in the teaching of speech act behaviour. By now, numerous speech act studies have been carried out that have relied on data from speech as it occurs spontaneously. It is such data that should be tapped when developing sociolinguistic materials for language teaching. It is generally accepted that the ability to communicate with native speakers appropriately as well as correctly is crucial. Whereas phonological, syntactic, and lexical errors are often forgiven as clear signs that a speaker does not have native control of a language, pragmatic or sociolinguistic errors are typically interpreted as breaches of etiquette. Only through materials that reflect how we really speak, rather than how we think we speak, will language learners receive an accurate account of the norms of speaking in a second or foreign language.

References Beebe, L. & Cummings, M. 1996. Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In Speech Acts Across Cultures, S. Gass & J. Neu (eds.), 65–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boxer, D. 1993a. Complaining and Commiserating: A Speech Act View of Solidarity in Spoken American English. Bern: Peter Lang. Boxer, D. 1993b. Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints Journal of Pragmatics 19(2): 103–125. Boxer, D. 1993c. Complaints as positive strategies: What the learner needs to know. TESOL Quarterly 27(2): 277–298. Boxer, D. 2002. Applying Sociolingusitics: Domains and Face-to-Face Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Canale, M. & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1–47. D’Amico-Reisner, L. 1985. An Ethnolinguistic Study of Disapproval Exchanges. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Edwards, D. 2005. Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies 7(1): 5–29. Erickson, F. & Jeffrey S. 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York NY: Academic Press. Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A. & Azizollah, F.A. 2004. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 8(2) Sept. A-2. Kozlova, I. 2004. Can you complain? Cross-cultural comparison of indirect complaints in Russian and American English. Prospect 19(1): 84–105.



Complaints 

Kraft, B. & Geluykens, R. 2002. Complaining in French L1 and L2: A cross-linguistic investigation. In EUROSLA Yearbook 2, S. Foster-Cohen, T. Ruthenberg & M.L. Poschen (eds.), 227–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Monzoni, C.M. 2008. Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of ‘pre-sequences’? Discourse Studies 10(1): 73–87. Moon, Y.I. 1997. Interlanguage Features of Korean EFL Learners in the Communicative Act of Complaining. Ph.D. dissertation. Dissertation abstracts 57(12), June, 5134-A. Nuzzo, E. 2006. Developing pragmatic competence: Complaints in Italian as a second language. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Theorica e Applicata 35(3): 579–601. Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A.D. 1990. The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada 7(2): 45–65. Olshtain, E. & Weinbach L. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), 108–122. Oxford: OUP. Ouellette, M.A. 2001. “That’s too bad”: Hedges and indirect complaints in “troubles-talk.” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 17(1–2): 107–126. Powell, E. 2007. Social and Cultural Differences in Utterance and Perception of Complaints. Ph.D. dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts 67 (09), Mar. 3389. Salmani-Nodoushan, M.A. 2008. Conversational strategies in Farsi complaints: The case of Iranian complainees. Iranian Journal of Language Studies 2(2): 187–214. Shea, H.K. 2003. Japanese Complaining in English: A Study of Interlanguage Pragmatics. Ph.D. dissertation. Dissertation abstracts 64(5), Nov. 1629-A. Sotirin, P. 2000. “All they do is bitch, bitch, bitch”: Political and interactional features of women’s office talk. Women and Language 23(2): 19–25. Tokano, Y. 1997. How people complain: A comparison of the speech act of complaining among Japanese and American students. Sophia Linguistica 41: 247–264. Tran, G.Q. 2002. Pragmatic and discourse transfer in complaining. Melbourne Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 2(2): 71–98. Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfe, J. & Powell, E. 2006. Gender and expressions of dissatisfaction: A study of complaining in mixed-gendered student work groups. Women and Language 29(2): 13–20. Wolfson, N. 1983. Rules of speaking. In Language and Communication, J. Richards & R. Schmidt (eds.), 61–87. London: Longman. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Appendix Answer key for Examples (12), (13) and (14). The responses in the data were the following: (12)

a. b. c. d.

Oh, I know. Packing is hard. I know you feel that way now, but it will all turn out fine. Of course you’ll get a good job. Your work is great. It’s gotta be hard.

(13) a. I know. Can you believe it? I thought I was getting here early! b. I wish I were you. I’d love to move away.

 Diana Boxer

The above are all responses that either commiserate, agree, or reassure. In (12c) the disagreement is intended as encouragement. (14) a. Gee, it’s cold in here. b. This seems like the longest semester! c. I want her to play with friends, but it’s so dangerous out on the street. I’m afraid to let her out. d. Darn, I just can’t get that tub clean. e. I feel like I’m going to need a vacation when I get back.

Compliments and responses to compliments Learning communication in context Noriko Ishihara Hosei University

This chapter focuses on the speech acts of giving and responding to compliments, including its multiple functions and discourses that expand beyond single-statement compliments. First, specific linguistic realisations of these speech acts are summarised, in addition to a discussion of cross-linguistic differences in pragmatic norms. Interlanguage pragmatics research is also reviewed in which compliments were taught in English as a second/foreign language and Japanese as a foreign language. The majority of the chapter is devoted to a pedagogical proposal that shows how these speech acts in English can be taught and how learners’ pragmatic development may be assessed in the classroom. Because learners’ subjectivities are closely intertwined with their pragmatic use, the instruction and assessment procedures facilitate learners’ negotiation of identities through giving and responding to compliments.

1.  Introduction Compliments and responses to compliments are among the most researched speech acts across languages. Earlier research on the syntactic and semantic categories and word choice of these speech acts have been widely disseminated; furthermore, many other studies reveal social norms and cultural values associated with compliments and responses to compliments in a variety of languages. These findings will first be summarised, as they can be directly applied to second/foreign language (L2) pragmatics instruction and serve as its empirical backdrop. In addition, interventional studies show that pragmatics is teachable and learnable (e.g. Kasper & Rose, 2002), and compliments and responses to compliments have been found not to be an exception in this regard. After reviewing the literature, a pedagogical proposal and practical tools will be offered that illustrate instruction on giving and responding to compliments in English, as well as classroom-based assessment of learners’ pragmatic development.

 Noriko Ishihara

2.  Definition of compliments and responses to compliments Compliments express one’s admiration or approval of other’s work, appearance, tastes, abilities, and the like, and often function as a social lubricant, establishing and maintaining solidarity (Manes, 1983; Herbert, 1990; Golato, 2005). Compliments and the discourses that expand beyond single-statement compliments can also serve multiple purposes. Speakers may give compliments which also function as various other speech acts such as greetings, thanks, apologies, and congratulations (Manes & Wolfson, 1981; Wolfson, 1989a). Compliments can also function to soften face-threatening acts such as apologies, requests, and criticism (Wolfson, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987) and serve as a conversation strategy for opening and sustaining conversation (Wolfson, 1983; Billmyer, 1990; Dunham, 1992). Through compliments, speakers can express gratitude for and appraise the performance or abilities of others (Golato, 2005) and reinforce desired behaviour (Manes, 1983), or even flirt (Campo & Zuluaga, 2000). The major referents of compliments include attributes of the interlocutor such as: appearance/possessions (e.g. You look absolutely beautiful), performance/skills (e.g. Your presentation was excellent), and personality traits (e.g. You are so sweet) (Knapp et al., 1984; Nelson et al., 1993). In what follows, linguistic realisation of compliments and responses to compliments in American English is summarised, as well as pragmatic variation in sociopragmatic norms across languages. 2.1  Syntactic categories and word choice for compliments In the 1980s, Wolfson and Manes collected over 1200 naturally-occurring compliments in American English. More recent studies investigating compliments appearing in the current U.S. media also found roughly comparable distribution of these grammatical structures (Rose, 2001; Tatsuki & Nishizawa, 2005). The nine categories that Manes and Wolfson (1981: 120) identified are listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Your blouse is/looks (really) beautiful. I (really) like/love your car. That’s a (really) nice wall hanging. You did a (really) good job. You really handled that situation well. You have such beautiful hair! What a lovely baby you have! Nice game! Isn’t your ring beautiful!

(NP is/looks (really) ADJ) (I (really) like/love NP) (PRO is (really) a ADJ NP) (You V a (really) ADV NP) (You V (NP) (really) ADV) (You have (a) ADJ NP!) (What (a) ADJ NP!) (ADJ NP!) (Isn’t NP ADJ!)

Eighty-five percent of compliments were found to fall into one of the first three structures and 97% used one of the nine (Manes & Wolfson, 1981). The most



Compliments and responses to compliments 

commonly used adjectives in compliments according to Manes and Wolfson (1981) were: nice, good, pretty, great, and beautiful, although the list may be somewhat dated and may differ for other varieties of English (see the pedagogical section for how the data could be updated).1 2.2  Semantic categories of responses to compliments Semantically, common responses to compliments can be categorised into acceptance, mitigation/deflection, and rejection with sub-categories within each. Below are categories and examples of compliment responses (adapted from Pomerantz, 1978; Herbert & Straight, 1989; Nelson et al., 1996): 1. Acceptance –– Token of appreciation (Thanks/Thank you) –– Agreement by means of a comment (Yeah, it’s my favourite, too) –– Upgrading the compliment by self-praise (Yeah, I can play other sports well too) 2. Mitigation/Deflection –– –– –– –– ––

Comment about history (I bought it for the trip to Arizona) Shifting the credit (My brother gave it to me/It really knitted itself) Questioning or requesting reassurance (Do you really like them?) Reciprocating (So’s yours) Downgrading (It’s really quite old)

3. Rejection –– Disagreeing (A: You look good and healthy. B: I feel fat.) 4. No Response 5. Request Interpretation –– Addressee interprets the compliment as a request: (You wanna borrow this one too?) In some cultures, compliments may often be interpreted as an implicit request (as in #5) (Holmes & Brown, 1987), so a response to a compliment on someone’s

1.  More statistical information regarding compliment exchanges in world languages can be found by referring to the research links provided in the individual language pages of the CARLA website http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/compliments/index.html (accessed December 20, 2009).

 Noriko Ishihara

possession may be: You can have it/It’s presented to you (lit.)2 (in Syrian Arabic, Nelson et al., 1996: 425). In fact, Arabic and Turkish speakers often use formulaic expressions and routines both in giving and responding to compliments (Dogancay, 1990; Nelson et al., 1993; Nelson et al., 1996). In other cultures, a flat rejection of compliments is often preferred as a strategy of self-praise avoidance; a compliment on one’s appearance or class presentation may be responded to with No, I look like an old woman (in Korean, Han, 1992: 24), No, I don’t [look great]. Don’t make fun at me [sic]. I know I’m just plain-looking (in Chinese, Yu, 2008: 42; also see Chen, 1993) or No, that is not true (in Japanese, Daikuhara, 1986: 120). In contrast, in other languages an equally positive compliment may appear in a response in a way that may not be typical in English (Golato, 2002, 2005; Huth, 2006; Kasper, 2007), as in Great, right? (in German, Golato, 2002: 566). As these examples show, appropriate or typical responses to compliments can vary greatly across languages. The following section takes this further by discussing the complexity of pragmatic variation with regard to compliments and responses to compliments.

3.  Research on compliments and responses to compliments 3.1 Further pragmatic variation with regard to giving and responding to compliments An appropriate or preferred range of pragmatic norms manifests itself differently depending not just on the interlocutors’ culture (see Meier, this volume), but also on their social backgrounds and individual personalities (e.g. regional, social, gender, ethnic, and generational backgrounds) (macro-social variation, Schneider & Barron, 2008). An example of macro-social variation with regard to complimenting is found to be in its frequency. In some cultures, compliments may be given more or less frequently than in some English-speaking cultures. In Barnlund and Araki’s (1985) research, for example, American participants are reported to have given a compliment within the previous 1.6 days, whereas in the case of the Japanese this occurred only within the previous 13 days. Because speakers of American English pay compliments as a way of acknowledging and praising positive attributes, failing or neglecting to do so in this culture can be interpreted as a sign of disapproval (Wolfson & Manes, 1980; Manes, 1983; Wolfson, 1989a). Furthermore, the use of piropos (flirtatious remarks) tend to be more socially accepted in

2.  A compliment response like this is often responded to with a formulaic expression, It looks much nicer on its owner (Nelson et al., 1996: 425).



Compliments and responses to compliments 

some Latin American cultures than in other Spanish cultures and in American culture in general (Campo & Zuluaga, 2000; Sykes, 2006).3 Research also shows evidence of possible gender differences in the use of compliments in some varieties of English.4 For example, women predominantly used first or second person compliments (e.g. I love your purse! You look great! as in Category #2) and exclamatory forms (What lovely earrings! As in #7), whereas men preferred impersonal expressions (Great shoes! as in #8) (Holmes,  1988; Herbert, 1990). Moreover, women may give and receive significantly more compliments to each other than they do to men or men do to each other (Holmes, 1988). Compliments offered by males may be more likely to be accepted especially by males than those given by females (Herbert, 1990). Compliments by females may often be employed as a negotiation of social distance and used to increase or consolidate solidarity between the interlocutors, while those by males might be viewed as face-threatening, indicating desire for the object being complimented (Holmes, 1988). Aside from macro-social variation, pragmatic language use is also sensitive to various (and often subtle) contextual factors leading to micro-social variation (Schneider & Barron, 2008), (i.e. variation depending on, for example, the interlocutors’ relative social status, psychological/social distance, and degree of imposition). For instance, according to Wolfson (1989a), whereas compliments on appearance or possessions can be given relatively freely regardless of the status of the interlocutors in American culture, those on abilities or accomplishments seem more restricted in their distribution. Speakers in higher positions are capable of evaluating the performance of those of lower status, thus utilising compliments as a means of reinforcing positive behaviour (Wolfson, 1989a). 3.2 Research on the effects of instruction on giving and responding to compliments Utilising the research findings such as those summarised in the previous sections, L2 researchers and educators have attempted to incorporate this information into L2 pedagogy. Research on pragmatics instruction has explored the relative effects of explicit and implicit instruction and found explicit instruction to be generally

3.  Piropos are typically issued by males to females about their physical appearance (e.g. My god! So many curves and me without brakes!, Campo & Zuluaga, 2000). The acceptability and interpretation of piropos depends on various factors such as the interlocutor’s regional variety of Spanish, age, occupation, and education. 4.  The research findings regarding gender differences in giving and responding to compliments may be due partly to the data collection procedures and need to be considered with care (see Golato, 2005).

 Noriko Ishihara

more effective than the implicit approach (e.g. Kasper & Rose, 2002). Past studies have investigated classroom instruction specifically on giving and responding to compliments to determine whether and in what ways learners would benefit from such instruction. These studies vary in terms of the research design and aims, the data collection methods, the participant profiles, and the instructional times and procedures, which can, in fact, help to assess potential effects of instruction across a range of methodologies and instructional contexts. Billmyer (1990) has investigated the effects of tutorials about compliments and compliment responses on nine English as a second language (ESL) learners and found considerable improvements in their pragmatic language use. After the instruction, tutored learners produced a greater number of appropriate and spontaneous compliments, used a more extensive repertoire of semantically positive adjectives, and adopted many more compliment-deflecting strategies in performing compliment-inducing role-plays. Rose and Kwai-fun (2001) examined the effects of inductive and deductive instruction on ESL learners’ performance in relation to compliments and compliment responses. While 16 learners in the deductive group were provided with metapragmatic information through explicit instruction before engaging in exercises, 16 learners in the inductive group conducted pragmatic analysis exercises with an expectation that they arrive at the relevant generalisations themselves. The authors found that both approaches assisted in pragmalinguistic improvement, although only the deductive approach led to sociopragmatic development as measured by written discourse completion questionnaires. Ishihara’s (2004) ESL classroom research also lends support to the positive effects of instruction reported elsewhere. As the instruction progressed, 31 participants produced longer written complimenting dialogues on appropriate topics, approximated native speakers in their use of syntactic categories of compliments, and utilised newly-learned response strategies in their written vignettes. One year after instruction, a subset of learners demonstrated retention of central skills through written vignettes although a limited number of response strategies were marginally employed. More recently, compliment-response sequences have been taught to 20 American learners of German based on naturally-occurring data (Huth, 2006). After the 100-minute instruction, learners’ post-instructional telephone dialogues with each other showed that they were able to anticipate and co-construct a typically German compliment-response sequence. Huth’s conversation analysis (CA) of the spoken data also documented instances of negative pragmatic transfers, conversational repairs, and awkwardness in concluding the sequence. In addition, learners also produced a typically-German discourse sequence with a distinct voice quality to mark the foreignness as a way of negotiating their cultural orientation. Huth (2006) and Huth and Taleghani-Nikazm (2007) point out benefits of



Compliments and responses to compliments 

using naturally-occurring data as a basis of pragmatics-focused instruction, and argue that CA-based analysis and materials can effectively serve language education (see González-Lloret, this volume). In a Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) context, enhanced pragmatic awareness was observed in L2 learners’ reflective journaling written in their first language (L1) after explicit instruction on giving and responding to compliments through online self-access materials (Ishihara, 2007). Learners demonstrated an understanding of the importance of, for example, appropriate word choice and semantic strategies in giving and responding to compliments according to the interlocutor and the situation, maintaining appropriate distance in giving a compliment, and the use of an appropriate pragmatic tone. In sum, research findings reported in this section appear to suggest that L2 learners can benefit from formal instruction on giving and responding to compliments in becoming more effective communicators in social interaction in the L2.

4.  Teaching the speech act of compliments and responses to compliments 4.1 Theoretical frameworks for pragmatics-focused instruction and implications for pedagogy A primary cognitive framework that serves as the backdrop of the instruction in the above-mentioned studies is an awareness-raising approach grounded in the noticing hypothesis (e.g. Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Schmidt, 2001). The assumption is that pragmatics can best be learned through explicit instruction, where learners consciously attend to both specific linguistic forms and relevant contextual factors and understand the relationship between the language and the context. Another framework that becomes relevant to the instruction of L2 pragmatics is second language socialisation theory (e.g. Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003), which views language learning as socially situated in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Novice community members (such as language learners or children) learn to use language appropriately through exposure to and participation in the practices of the local (or an imagined) community. Knowing linguistic patterns and appropriate language use, in turn, allows the novice members to become competent communicators and central participants in the community. However, language socialisation theory contends that novice members are not necessarily passive recipients of sociocultural practices, but rather may actively and selectively co-construct existing norms in the community and the outcome of the interaction (e.g. Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002). Due to their multicultural subjectivities, L2 speakers have been found to intentionally resist what

 Noriko Ishihara

they perceive as native-speaker norms at times, despite an awareness and linguistic command of such norms (e.g. Siegal, 1996; LoCastro, 2003). Learners’ pragmatic choices, whether an accommodation or a resistance to perceived community norms, are borne out of their negotiation of subjectivities and exercise of agency (Ishihara, 2008). Thus, care must be taken during instruction not to impose nativespeaker norms upon learners’ language production (e.g. Thomas, 1983; Kasper & Rose, 2002) and, in assessment, not to penalise learners for non-target-like behaviour for which they deliberately opted. In fact, a key to instruction and assessment of pragmatics may be to utilise distinct strategies for (1) learners’ awareness of community norms and pragmalinguistic control, and (2) their pragmatic L2 use as a way of negotiating their subjectivities. Teachers need to inform learners and assess their pragmatic comprehension based on the range of L2 norms so that learners are more able to interpret the intended meaning of community members according to the given social interaction. It is also important to ensure that learners become linguistically capable of producing the L2 if this is indeed the intention of the learners. At the same time, culturally-sensitive teachers would evaluate learners’ pragmatic use of language not in terms of how much it approximates the range of native-speaker norms,5 but based on the intended meanings and the nuances that the learners choose to communicate. Accordingly, the teachers’ task should include raising learners’ awareness of potential consequences of emulating or flouting community norms, such as their interlocutors’ possible interpretations and reactions to their pragmatically divergent behaviour (see Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, this volume). With these issues in mind, the following section provides a pedagogical proposal for teaching giving and responding to compliments. 4.2  A teaching approach As many have argued, pragmatics instruction should not depend solely on a teacher’s or curriculum writer’s intuition but should be drawn from research-based

5.  Because non-native speakers can be as pragmatically effective as some native speakers, and because not all native speakers are necessarily pragmatically competent, I wish to depart from the misleading dichotomy of native vs. non-native speakers wherever possible. Particularly with regard to English, the demarcation between native and non-native speakers is becoming increasingly blurred with the spread of English as an international language. Rather than relying on this questionable distinction, I view one’s pragmatic competence as contextually constructed in interaction that is often negotiable in context, whoever the speaker and the listener may be. This is another reason for emphasising the speaker’s goals and intentions, the way that they are interpreted by the listener, and the likely consequences of the interaction in pragmatics instruction.



Compliments and responses to compliments 

information as much as possible to reflect authentic language use. Research findings, such as those summarised in the last two sections of this paper, have been directly applied to the instruction proposed below. Because learners’ subjectivities are closely intertwined with their L2 pragmatic use, the instruction and assessment procedures suggested below are specifically designed to take this issue into account by facilitating learners’ cross-cultural interpretation of the speech acts of giving and responding to compliments and by supporting their negotiation of identities through the use of compliments and compliment responses. The instructional objectives can include one or more of the following: 1. Learners will be able to identify differing norms of behaviour across cultures with regard to giving and responding to compliments. 2. Learners will be able to assess appropriateness and sincerity of compliments and responses to compliments, considering the relative social status of the interlocutors, their familiarity with each other, and the suitability of the referents of compliments. 3. Learners will be able to express their intentions by producing: (1) compliments using appropriate adjectives, referents, and syntactic categories, and (2) responses of various syntactic categories according to the context. The instruction can be composed of activities at several stages, such as: (1) introduction, (2) discussion of functions and syntactic categories of compliments, (3)  learners’ data collection and analysis, (4) analysis of compliment responses, (5) interactive practice, (6) discussion of sociopragmatic norms across cultures/ sub-cultures, and (7) assessment and learners’ reflection. The instructional model proposed below can be used with intermediate learners, taking approximately 300 minutes of class time given in multiple sessions (i.e. six fifty-minute sessions). Alternatively, various sections of this lesson can be incorporated into a regular ESL and English as a foreign language (EFL) curriculum when the topic becomes relevant. It should be noted that these activities, the instructional time, and the sequence in which they are presented are merely a set of illustrative examples. In reality, various factors, such as learners’ proficiency and characteristics, the teacher’s principles and professional preparation, and constraints in instructional contexts, would play a role in determining how best this particular area of pragmatics can be taught. Below, each of the instructional stages is described and some are illustrated with actual learner responses. The student worksheets can be accessed from a link at: http://www.i.hosei.ac.jp/~ishihara.6 6.  A similar lesson plan and materials designed for intermediate/advanced Japanese can be found in Ishihara and Maeda (2010).

 Noriko Ishihara

4.3  Introduction At the initial stage, learners’ knowledge of their L1 pragmatics can be elicited and utilised as a point of comparison with L2 pragmatic norms. After the teacher gives some examples of compliments and defines the term, learners can engage in roleplay demonstrating a dialogue that includes compliments in their L1.7 Learners can then be asked to role-play the same situation in the L2 and discuss differences in the range of pragmatic norms that they may already be aware of. Learners’ L1 may be used strategically for the purpose of illustration or discussion. For the sake of cross-cultural analysis, it may be effective to use a scenario in which speakers of L1 and L2 often respond differently. For example, for Japanese EFL students, a suitable scenario may include one complimenting his/her interlocutor’s spouse or family member in the role of an acquaintance. In Japanese culture, intimates are often considered in-group members and even part of oneself, and a typical response would be to flatly reject (or at least deflect) the compliment (No, that’s not true) (Daikuhara, 1986). This is in sharp contrast with a generally acceptable English response of agreeing or even upgrading the compliment received (Yes, I’m proud of my son, Wolfson, 1989b). Because the rejection of the compliment typically constitutes avoidance of self-praise, a virtue in their culture, learners may choose to use the same strategy in English in an attempt to express their humility. This creates a teachable moment when students, with the teacher’s guidance, can learn about the range of pragmatic norms and underlying cultural values associated with the L2 (e.g. the value of gracefully accepting compliments, the virtue of expressing love and family pride). With the guiding questions shown in Example (1), learners may be able to analyse how differently their response could be interpreted in the home and target cultures and why that might be the case:

(1) Guiding questions

– How would a rejection of a compliment, No, that’s not true, sound to a typical Japanese speaker? How might it sound to an English speaker? – What would a response, Yes, she is beautiful and intelligent. I’m so proud of her sound to a typical Japanese speaker? How might it sound to an English speaker? – Give another situation where Japanese speakers may refuse a compliment they receive. What would they say? What might other Japanese speakers say in response to the same compliment? How might most English speakers respond in the same situation? How else might they react?

7.  At this stage, learners’ L1 compliments and responses may not accurately represent actual use. At a subsequent instructional phase, learners have an opportunity to observe authentic compliments by collecting and analysing naturally-occurring compliments in the L1 and L2.



Compliments and responses to compliments 

In this discussion, it is important to avoid stereotyping either of the cultures and to incorporate pragmatic variation as much as possible as in the last prompt. Incorporating examples of L1 intra-lingual variation in compliment and compliment response behaviour is one way to do this, particularly in a foreign language setting where learners share their L1. Depending on the level of the proficiency and pragmatic awareness of learners, as well as the instructional time available, additional discussions may follow. The guiding questions can include the following (Example 2):

(2) Guiding questions

– What do people compliment others on? (What are some of the topics of compliments?) – Who is giving and responding to the following compliments?8 Pay attention to what they say, and imagine who they are, where they are from, and what their relationship may be. a. “Nice shirt!” – “I just dug it out of my closet.” b. “I like the colour of your lipstick.” – “Oh, thanks.” c. “What an unusual necklace. It’s beautiful.” – “Please take it.”

These prompts can stimulate discussion on gender differences in complimenting and appropriate referents of compliments across cultures. For instance, an interaction such as b is likely to be acceptable between female friends (but not between cross-gender acquaintances) in English, although it can also be appropriate between male and female friends or acquaintances in some varieties of Spanish (Campo & Zuluaga, 2000; Ishihara, 2004). The idiomatic expression in response c may be uncommon in English while it can be acceptable in Samoan and Arabic cultures (Holmes & Brown, 1987; Nelson et al., 1996). The discussion about these examples may deepen learners’ understanding of world cultures and help to prepare for interaction with World English speakers. In a foreign language context, metapragmatic discussion may be more effectively conducted in learners’ L1. 4.4  Discussion of functions and syntactic categories of compliments Research-based information can be utilised in order to deepen learners’ understanding of multiple functions of compliments and provide some pragmalinguistic practice. Learners can work in small groups to match short dialogue samples with functions of the compliments. Learners can also be introduced to the syntactic categories of compliments (above) and practice using each structure in pairs, giving, as far as possible, natural and spontaneous compliments as possible.

8.  Examples a and b come from the data from Ishihara (2004); example c comes from Holmes and Brown (1987: 526).

 Noriko Ishihara

4.5  Learners’ data collection and analysis In this part of the instruction, learners observe complimenting behaviour of pragmatically-competent speakers of English in the community or in the media. Although language in the media is sometimes scripted and often delivered with exaggerated gestures and actions, the dialogues in these sources are not written for instructional purposes and thus can provide a relatively authentic model for pragmatic use, especially in language contexts where learners’ authentic input might be limited (e.g. Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008; Martínez-Flor, 2007). Using a worksheet, learners are to record three or more compliments that they give, receive, or overhear outside of class. Learners follow the format in the handout (see Appendix) and analyse the appropriateness of the referent and language of compliments in consideration of the given contextual factors (e.g. age, gender, social status, role, and distance of the interlocutors). Then learners can assess the overall level of perceived sincerity, spontaneity, and appropriateness of each interaction. This process of data collection and analysis can be modelled using authentic data, such as a scene from the film, Father of the Bride (see Appendix). Learners can also be asked to give compliments and record their own interactions. In paying compliments, learners are advised to be mindful of appropriate referents in relation to the recipient of the compliments and the context of each interaction. The initial learner involvement in this notebook data collection can raise learners’ pragmatic awareness, provide authentic linguistic input/output, and create a learnercentred class. Since complimenting could be naturally initiated by learners, they can practice this with other speakers during the course of the conversation. Examples (3), (4) and (5) provide some of the learners’ data quoted as written: (3)

A. B. A. B.

Your jacket is cool! My favourite! Expensive? No.

(4) A. You speak English very well. You speak fluently. B. No, I want to speak English more fluently. (5)

A. B. A. B. A. B.

Hi, there. Hi. You’re looking sharp! Really? Thanks. Yeah. Your tie really matches your suit. Thank you! This tie is actually a gift from my daughter. Wow, I must say she has a great taste.

Part of such learner-collected data can be shared with the entire class not only to review and identify the syntactic categories and adjectives used in the compliments, but also to identify the context in which these interactions occurred. For instance, learners can guess the relative social status, age, gender, the level of familiarity,



Compliments and responses to compliments 

and cultural backgrounds of the interlocutors, the cultural meaning and intentions that the interlocutors probably intended to convey, and the likelihood of those intentions being successfully communicated. Such data collection and analyses can function to update research-established information about pragmatic norms (as summarised in the second section of this chapter) and identify a range of pragmatic norms in the learners’ community or in the media (also see Lee & McChesney’s discourse rating tasks, 2000). 4.6  Analysis of compliment responses This is another phase of instruction where research findings can be directly shared with learners. Students can analyse examples of complimenting interactions and identify the semantic categories of the responses summarised above. Alternatively, learners can match the examples with the categories given in a random order. For additional practise, learners can go back to the data they collected themselves and analyse the semantic categories of the responses in the data. For intermediate or advanced learners, a sample of naturally-occurring dialogue may also be useful so that they can analyse the organisation of interactional discourse and the way compliments are used to open, develop, or close a conversation. 4.7  Interactive practice The giving and responding to compliments can be practised interactively in a mingling activity. Learners form two concentric circles, each one facing a partner (see Figure 1 below for this visualisation and an alternative). One compliments the other and the other responds. They then sustain the conversation until they are asked to discontinue and change partners. At this point, the outer circle rotates and each takes on a new partner. This procedure is repeated, making sure to switch the roles after learners have practiced a given role sufficiently. In this activity, the learners can be instructed not always to accept compliments, but are advised to express themselves in the most comfortable manner using the newly-learned expressions of self-praise avoidance when appropriate. In concentric circles

In rows

Figure 1.  Interactive practice for giving and responding to compliments

 Noriko Ishihara

In the case where learner production observed in this interactional practice is awkward or not sufficiently diversified, it would be helpful to expose learners to additional authentic language data. Learners can role-play authentic interactional samples provided by the teacher, analyse these in terms of the word choice and semantic categories, and produce similar role-plays to enhance their pragmalinguistic control.9 Subsequent class discussion can also enhance learners’ awareness of the nuances of the interactions (e.g. how sincere or appropriate the compliment sounds, how the interlocutors are likely to interpret each other’s pragmatic behaviour, and what the consequences may be). 4.8  Discussion of sociopragmatic norms across cultures/sub-cultures A reading assignment or additional class discussion can be provided utilising excerpts about pragmatic norms and values of a certain (sub)culture (e.g. positive values of mainstream Americans in Wolfson, 1983: 113–114) and prompts for critical reflection. Example (6) below provides some sample guiding questions. Teacher feedback can be given individually in writing or discussed in class as a whole. (6) Guiding questions – Does the positive value of being slender apply to both men and women in the U.S.? Why/why not? – What possible danger can accompany a compliment with regard to losing weight? – What does it mean in mainstream American culture when new appearances or possessions are not complimented on?

4.9  Assessment and learners’ reflection Assessment can be conducted not just by the teacher but also by learners themselves or by their peers. Informal assessment in particular does not have to wait until the end of instruction but can be incorporated into the regular instructional routine as a way of providing feedback.10 For language-focused assessment of learners’ production, the rubric in Assessment sample 1 (Table 1 below) can be used or adapted after the teacher (and ideally, the learners alike) gains a clear understanding of each of the criteria. This rubric is designed to assess the pragmalinguistic control of the learners by asking them to role-play what they think typical speakers of the L2 would say, rather than how they would negotiate their subjectivities. 9.  Student worksheets for this additional input are available from http://www.i.hosei. ac.jp/~ishihara 10.  Learners may need step-by-step scaffolding in learning to self-evaluate. See the student worksheet online for an example where learner and instructor feedback is juxtaposed to facilitate reflection on the part of the learners.



Compliments and responses to compliments 

Assessment samples 2 and 3 (Tables 2 and 3) illustrate an assessment of learners’ pragmatic use in relation to what they intend to convey. The written format of this assessment facilitates the learners’ reflection and the teachers’ analysis, and is convenient in the context of a large class. More authentic learner language may be elicited through role-play, and the teachers’ assessment can be provided based on audio- or video-recorded interactions. The sample instructor comments below serve to raise learners’ awareness of the range of community norms as well as of their interlocutors’ probable interpretations of the pragmatic behaviour. While these examples are of informal assessment using narrative feedback, a slightly amended format can be used for quantifying learners’ pragmatic awareness and production, which would be useful for a more formal assessment (see Ishihara, 2009, in press a, b for more details about numerical assessment and assessment of receptive pragmatics skills). Table 1.  Assessment sample 1 a. Overall directness, politeness, and formality, tone (e.g. use of intensifiers, word choice, use of space, eye-contact, and gestures) b. Choice of complimenting/responding strategies (e.g. choice of topic and use of grammar in compliments, choice and use of compliment response strategies) c. Overall comprehensibility (in terms of conveying intention) (e.g. pronunciation, word choice, grammar, sequencing)

Table 2.  Assessment sample 2 Your friend, Kate, is giving you praise. Write your response as if you were talking to her. Kate: I like your hat. You: Keep liking. Indicate your intention as a speaker. X_ I want to make a response the way most people do in the community. __ I would want my response to sound (a little) more (formal/informal), (polite/impolite), or ________ than most other people. __ I choose not to use common behaviour because __________________________ __ Other (Specify: ________________) Teacher’s comments: Because you and Kate are friends, your level of formality is appropriate. Your response carries a humorous tone because your word choice, keep liking, is uncommon in American English (even though keep –ing is grammatical). However, Kate will most likely understand your message fine. Most people would say, “Thanks” or “(I’m) glad you like it.”

4  3  2  1 4  3  2  1 4  3  2  1

 Noriko Ishihara

Table 3.  Assessment sample 3 Your friend, Steve, is complimenting you on your class presentation. Write your response as if you were talking to him. Steve: Nice job! You: No, I didn’t do well. Indicate your intention as a speaker. __ I want to make a response the way most people do in the community. X_ I would want my response to sound (a little) more (formal/informal), (polite/ impolite), or humble than most other people. __ I choose not to use common behaviour because __________________________________________ __ Other (Specify: _______________) Teacher’s comments: Because you and Steve are friends, your level of formality is appropriate. Steve may understand your modesty and politeness if he knows you well. Other people may feel rejected if you have a sharp or flat tone of voice; direct refusal of compliments is very strong and can be impolite. Most English speakers phrase their modesty this way: “Do you really think so?” “Well, I didn’t think so myself, but thanks,” or “I think it could have been better.”

At the end of the instruction, learners can individually or collectively reflect on what they have learned about giving and responding to compliments and what questions they may still have. The instruction can conclude with a discussion of the ways in which learners are able to discover answers to their own queries or an informal survey of the other areas of pragmatics which learners may be interested in.

5.  Conclusion Literature has heavily documented instances of embarrassment, dismay, and offense experienced by learners in giving and responding to compliments in English (Holmes & Brown, 1987; Dunham, 1992). Lack of pragmatic competence can easily lead to a negative interpretation of the interlocutor’s personal traits and stereotypes of other cultures (Wolfson, 1989a). Because compliments and responses to compliments reflect positive values underlying learners’ home and target cultures, instruction regarding these can enhance learners’ cultural literacy as well as their linguistic control of such speech acts. Compliments can also



Compliments and responses to compliments 

serve as a conversational tool whereby learners are able to establish solidarity and become more integrated into the target culture as they wish. Through instruction, teachers can assist learners in interpreting others’ compliments and responses as intended. Learners can also be encouraged to practise negotiating their own values, intentions, and subjectivities through giving and responding to compliments in preparation for authentic cross-cultural interactions. The endeavours of both teachers and learners in this respect will hopefully contribute to the enhancement of cross-cultural understanding in today’s globalising world.

References Barnlund, D.C. & Araki, S. 1985. Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 16(1): 9–26. Billmyer, K. 1990. “I really like your lifestyle”: ESL learners learning how to compliment. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6(2): 31–48. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Campo, E. & Zuluaga, J. 2000. Complimenting: A matter of cultural constraints. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 2(1): 27–41. Chen, R. 1993. Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20(1): 49–75. Daikuhara, M. 1986. A study of compliments from a cross-cultural perspective: Japanese vs. American English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 2(2): 103–134. Dogancay, S. 1990. Your eye is sparkling: Formulaic expressions and routines in Turkish. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 6(2): 49–72. Dunham, P. 1992. Using compliments in the ESL classroom: An analysis of culture and gender. MinneTESOL 10: 75–85. Eslami, Z.R. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. 2008. Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, E. Alcón & A. Martínez-Flor (eds.), 178–197. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Garrett, P.B. & Baquedano-López, P. 2002. Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology 31(1): 339–361. Golato, A. 2002. German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34(5): 547–571. Golato, A. 2005. Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Han, C. 1992. A comparative study of compliment responses: Korean females in Korean interactions and in English interactions. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 8(2): 17–31. Herbert, R.K. 1990. Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society 19(2): 201–224. Herbert, R.K. & Straight, S. 1989. Compliment rejection versus compliment avoidance: Listenerbased versus speaker-based pragmatic strategies. Language and Communication 9(1): 35–47. Holmes, J. 1988. Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4): 445–465. Holmes, J. & Brown, D.F. 1987. Teachers and students learning about compliments. TESOL Quarterly 21(3): 523–546.

 Noriko Ishihara Huth, T. 2006. Negotiating structure and culture: L2 learners’ realization of L2 complimentresponse sequences in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 38(12): 2025–2025. Huth, T., & Taleghani-Nikazm, C. 2006. How can insights from conversation analysis be directly applied to teaching L2 pragmatics? Language Teaching Research 10(1): 53–79. Ishihara, N. 2004. Exploring the immediate and delayed effects of formal instruction: Teaching giving and responding to compliments. Minne-WI TESOL 21: 37–70. Ishihara, N. 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, N. 2008. Transforming community norms: Potentials of L2 speakers’ pragmatic resistance. In Proceedings of the 2008 Temple University Japan Colloquium on Language Learning, M. Hood (ed.), 1–9. Tokyo: Temple University Tokyo. Ishihara, N. 2009. Teacher-based assessment for foreign language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3): 445–470. Ishihara, N. In press, a. Assessing learners’ pragmatic ability in the classroom. In TESOL Classroom Practice Series: Pragmatics, D. Tatsuki & N. Houck (eds.). Alexandria VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Ishihara, N. In press, b. Classroom-based assessment of pragmatics. In Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet, N. Ishihara & A.D. Cohen (eds.). Harlow: Pearson Education. Ishihara, N. & Maeda, M. 2010. Communication in Context: [Kotobato bunkano kousaten: Bunkade yomitoku nihongo]. London: Routledge. Kasper, G. 2007, April. Pragmatics in Second Language Learning: An Update. Paper presented at the Language Learning Roundtable, the Annual Conference of American Association for Applied Linguistics, Costa Mesa CA. (January 2, 2009). Kasper, G. & Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden MA: Blackwell. Kasper, G. & Schmidt, R. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(2): 149–169. Knapp, M.L., Hopper, R. & Bell, R.A. 1984. Compliments: A descriptive taxonomy. Journal of Communication 34(4): 2–31. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: CUP. Lee, J.S. & McChesney, B. 2000. Discourse rating tasks: A teaching tool for developing sociocultural competence. ELT Journal 54(2): 161–168. LoCastro, V. 2003. An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press. Manes, J. 1983. Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.), 82–95. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. 1981. The compliment formula. In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 116–132. The Hague: Mouton. Martínez-Flor, A. 2007. Analysing request modification devices in films: Implications for pragmatic learning in instructed foreign language contexts. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, E. Alcón & M.P. Safont (eds.), 245–280. Dordrecht: Springer. Nelson, G.L., Al-Batal, M. & Echols, E. 1996. Arabic and English compliment responses: Potential for pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 17(4): 411–432. Nelson, G.L., El-Bakary, W. & Al-Batal, M. 1993. Egyptian and American compliments: A cross cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 17(3): 293–313.



Compliments and responses to compliments 

Pomerantz, A. 1978. Compliment responses. Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, J. Schenkein (ed.), 79–112. New York NY: Academic Press. Rose, K.R. 2001. Compliments and compliment responses in film: Implications for pragmatics research and language teaching. IRAL 39(4): 309–328. Rose, K.R. & Kwai-fun, C.N. 2001. Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and compliment responses. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 145–170. Cambridge: CUP. Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. 1986. Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 163–191. Schmidt, R.W. 2001. Attention. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, P. Robinson (ed.), 3–32. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, K.P. & Barron, A. (eds.). 2008. Variational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siegal, M. 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17(3): 356–382. Sykes, J. 2006. Pragmatic Evolution: An Examination of the Changing Politeness Perceptions of Piropos in Yucatan, Mexico. Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (HLS), University of Western-Ontario, London, Canada. Tatsuki, D. & Nishizawa, M. 2005. A comparison of compliments and compliment responses in television interviews, film, and naturally occurring data. In Pragmatics in Language Learning, Theory, and Practice, D. Tatsuki (ed.), 87–97. Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching Pragmatics Special Interest Group. Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–109. Watson-Gegeo, K.A. & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in SLA. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds.), 155–177. Malden MA: Blackwell. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: CUP. Wolfson, N. 1983. An Empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds.), 82–95. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Wolfson, N. 1989a. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Wolfson, N. 1989b. The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior. In The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation, M.R. Eisenstein (ed.), 219–236. New York NY: Plenum. Wolfson, N. & Manes, J. 1980. The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 13(3): 410–451. Yu, M. 2008. Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly 42(1): 31–53.

Appendix Learners’ worksheet for their data collection and analysis For the next coming week, pay attention to any compliments that you give, receive, or overhear in English or in Japanese. Jot them down in the original

 Noriko Ishihara

language in your notepad as accurately as possible after the conversation has ended. Observe carefully the context in which these compliments were given and received in terms of gender, age, social status, distance, role, and compliment topics. Fill out the following form and then decide how appropriate the interaction seemed to be. (L1 instructions here if necessary) Gender Age Social Status

Distance Compliment AppropriRole topics ate? Sincere?

Example (from Father of the Bride): (note-taking and analysis to be M→F very close appearance modeled in class) Dad: You look all lit up inside. 40s → early 20s father → perfume Annie: Oh, I feel all lit up inside. status equals daughter Mom: Maybe we should go to Rome for a few months, honey. Annie: Oh, you two would love it. It’s the most romantic place on earth. Dad: You smell pretty good, too. Annie: Oh, you like it? It was a present. Interaction 1 (allow appropriate space on actual handout here and below) Interaction 2 Interaction 3

appropriate and sincere

Disagreement How to disagree agreeably Lewis H. Malamed Tokai University

This chapter will consider research findings related to the speech act of disagreement with the aim of supporting students in developing effective strategies to improve both receptive and productive skills in this area. Although some communicative behaviours may be effective in both the first language and the second language, students who carry over an inappropriate strategy run the risk of an unexpected reaction, including situations in which their intention to disagree will not be noted (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989a). This section will focus upon practical ways to raise students’ awareness of strategies for disagreement in English, and provide support for the use of mitigating expressions appropriate in various communicative situations.

1.  Introduction Dale Carnegie, in his 1936 book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, offers many principles to improve communication. Four are particularly relevant in situations involving criticism or disagreement: Begin with praise and honest appreciation. Call attention to people’s mistakes indirectly. Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person. Let the other person save face. (from Carnegie, 1936, 248)

We can draw two conclusions from these principles. The first is that the facethreatening nature of disagreement and the need for indirectness has long been recognised outside the field of linguistics and language teaching. The second is that advice in the use of these strategies is something even native speakers find beneficial. Body language, tone, word choice, and status all come into play, and considerable risk is involved when the communicant makes the wrong presentation. Not only may one’s ideas be misunderstood or rejected; communicants also risk losing face, exclusion from the group, and even, potentially, an escalation

 Lewis H. Malamed

leading to verbal or physical conflict. Carnegie (1936) recognised that there is an art to disagreeing agreeably, and that this art of expressing divergent opinions in a way that shows respect for others’ views and keeps the lines of communication open is a skill that can be learned. How strongly should a deeply-felt disagreement be expressed? At what time? Will the relationship with the listener be affected? Should the matter be dropped altogether? These questions are shared by native and non-native speakers alike. Communication across cultures increases the potential for misunderstanding, as cultural values and beliefs condition not only the way in which the participants perceive the topic, but also the ways in which ideas are expressed. Yet, one cannot be true to oneself nor obtain the things one needs and desires without incurring situations that call for expressing a divergent opinion. Non-native speakers at all levels may have difficulty expressing opposing views appropriately in a foreign language. Cultural differences related to available language forms, perception of status, and whether disagreement is preferred or dispreferred in a given context can create dissonance when transferred into the production of the target language. Therefore, not only appropriate language forms, but also a meta-view of the pragmatics of disagreement must be part of the toolbox we impart to our students. In order for learners to move toward more target-like usage, they require the opportunity for observation, a chance to gain sensitivity to the context, an understanding of pragmatics and status differences, and a great deal of practice. After a brief review of the research on the pragmatics of disagreement and the challenges non-native speakers face in adopting new pragmatic routines, this chapter will offer suggestions for teaching students to disagree agreeably in a variety of situations. As suggested by Kasper (1997: 10), the activities are designed to raise awareness of pragmatic conventions and provide “opportunities for communicative practice.” Including the speech act of disagreement in the second language curriculum increases the teacher’s and the students’ awareness of cultural conventions governing disagreement and can support positive cross-cultural communication beyond classroom transactions.

2.  Definition of disagreement Disagreement is a conflicting view offered as a response to an expressed view of a previous speaker. That disagreement is a response move and not an initial move distinguishes it from many other speech acts. More formally, Rees-Miller (2000: 1088) states: “A Speaker S disagrees when s/he considers untrue some Proposition P uttered or presumed to be espoused by an Addressee A and reacts with an utterance the



Disagreement 

propositional content or implicature of which is Not P.” Although disagreement sometimes occurs alongside criticism (see Beebe & Takahashi, 1989a: 204), disagreement is a reaction to a previously stated proposition. Thus, an observation such as Your tie is crooked, while having a referent, is not a disagreement. In pragmatics literature, disagreement is sometimes associated with argument; however, disagreement generally has fewer turns, and does not necessarily make a claim that requires support. Disagreement can be, for instance, a simple expression of personal preferences that differ from those of the previous speaker. Jackson and Jacobs (1981) express the view that an argument, unlike a disagreement, requires a degree of serious commitment (see also Leung, 2002: 2–3). Although disagreement is a component of both argument and debate, disagreement lacks the formalised setting and stylistic expectations that have come to characterise argument and debate. Although argument and debate are sometimes used to describe an exchange of opinions in unstructured interpersonal communication, the relative emotional investment, the intention to change a viewpoint, and the duration of such exchanges distinguish such communication from the speech acts of disagreement considered in this chapter. 2.1  A preference for agreement Cultural values affect the decision to disagree as well as condition the manner of disagreement. Leech (1983), in his Agreement Maxim, notes that people minimise disagreement and maximise agreement between self and other. Similarly, Pomerantz (1984: 63–64), identifies disagreement as a “dispreferred next action” when agreement is invited. In some cultures and in certain special situations, Leech’ s Agreement Maxim may not always hold. In examining Talmudic paired study in Israel, Blum-Kulka et al. (2002: 1583) found a “glaring absence” of “delay or mitigation of disagreement tokens” in the turn-taking mechanisms of study partners. Furthermore, “in terms of argumentativeness” the researchers found an “overall preference for challenge over support in relating to previous turns.” The sustained disagreement in these exchanges appears to be an essential element of the learning process. The idea of disagreement as a tool for learning also appears in Rees-Miller’s (2000) study of disagreement in an American academic environment, where students are encouraged to challenge a professor’s views. In this context, disagreement is perceived as face-enhancing rather than face-threatening, as it signifies the student’s engagement in the learning process. Blum-Kulka et al. (2002) also examined the confrontational and antagonistic debate style in an Israeli talk show, Popolitica, finding a “double framing of antagonistic game and serious debate” (2002: 1589). Such specialised contexts exist in the United States as well. People participate in message boards, listen to radio talk shows, and watch political campaigns where opponents

 Lewis H. Malamed

attack each other rather than attack the opponent’ s position. Disagreement appears “aggravated” (Rees-Miller, 2000: 1094) and participants show little regard for the face wants of the other (see Beebe, 1995 for discussion of instrumental rudeness). This chapter, however, is not intended to address these specialised contexts. Rather, this discussion focuses upon interpersonal interactions in which some degree of consideration for the other speaker’s face is retained and the desire for maintaining social harmony is shared by the speakers. 2.2  Challenges for non-native speakers When speakers of a foreign language express disagreement in English, they may fail to effectively communicate their meaning due to unfamiliarity with the cultural and linguistic conventions of the target language. When this problem in the second language (L2) is due to the influence of a pragmatic strategy carried over from the first language (L1), it is called negative pragmatic transfer (see Kasper, 1992). Writer Eva Hoffman, who immigrated to the United States from Poland as a teenager, eloquently expresses the challenges facing non-native speakers when they confront pragmatic conventions running counter to those from their own culture: I learn also that certain kinds of truth are impolite. One shouldn’t criticize the person one is with, at least not directly. You shouldn’t say, “You are wrong about that” – though you may say, “On the other hand, there is that to consider.” You shouldn’t say, “This doesn’t look good on you,” though you may say, “I like you better in that other outfit.” I learn to tone down my sharpness, to do a more careful conversational minuet. (from Hoffman, 1989, 146)

Unfamiliarity with the pragmatic strategies of disagreement and criticism caused Hoffman to appear rude. Her conversational minuet included not only learning the correct linguistic forms, but also refraining from directly expressing an opinion at a time and place in which a more indirect approach was expected. Negative transfer may also result in an unintended message. Beebe and Takahashi (1989a) tell of a student who repeatedly used a questioning strategy to disagree with a professor. The student’s intent was to allow the professor to see an error she was making without directly pointing out the mistake, but when the professor finally recognised her mistake, she suffered a much greater loss of face than if the student had simply corrected her. These examples clearly demonstrate that knowledge of pragmatic conventions is essential for functioning successfully in a foreign language environment. 2.3  Strategies for disagreement Disagreement generally is constrained in some way because of considerations of politeness. Central to this conditioning is the concept of face. Brown and



Disagreement 

Levinson (1987: 13) classify face as two different types of desire: “positive face” consisting of the “face wants” that are believed to be held either by the listener or speaker, and “negative face” which is the desire of each party to obtain the things he or she wants without interference or impediment. The researchers believe that disagreement inherently threatens positive face wants in that “[the speaker] indicates that he thinks [the listener] is wrong or misguided or unreasonable about some issue, such wrongness being associated with disapproval” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 66). Because disagreement involves risking loss of face, the speaker generally tries to minimise the threat by modifying disagreement in ways that reassure the hearer that “no such face threat is intended or desired” (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69–70). In considering the speech act of disagreement, Brown and Levinson (1987: 60) claim a speaker has a choice to perform (or not perform) the speech act, to go “on record” (be clear as to one’s intention), or to go “off record” (be deliberately ambiguous). The speaker also considers whether to perform the act “baldly” (without any mitigation) or “with redressive action.” Redressive action includes both positive politeness strategies, which show inclusivity and avoid damage to the speaker’s self-image (joking, partial agreement, we, us), and negative politeness strategies, which reduce the force of an utterance (modals, questions, I think, maybe, possibly, sort of, appears, seems, etc.). Mitigating devices such as pauses, hedges, and token agreement are often used to soften the impact of disagreement. Pomerantz (1984: 70) notes that options for softening disagreement include incorporating delay devices “such as ‘no talk,’ requests for clarification, partial repeats, and other repair initiators, turn prefaces, and so on.” (see Examples 1 to 4).

(1) Disagreement with a delay device (pause)

A. A. B.

(2) Disagreement with a pause and a request for clarification

A. B. A. B.

God isn’t it dreary. (0.6) Y’know I don’t think… Uhh… it’s warm though… You sound very far away. (0.7) I do? Yeah. Umm, no… I’m not.

(3) Disagreement using qualified agreement plus but

A. I know but I… I still say that the sewing machine’s quicker. B. Oh it can be quicker, but it doesn’t do the job.

 Lewis H. Malamed



(4) Disagreement using asserted and then qualified agreement

A. But you admit he is having fun and you think it’s funny. B. I think it’s funny, yeah. But it’s a ridiculous funny.  (adapted from Pomerantz, 1984, 65–73)

Pomerantz (1984: 76) labels the adjustment in Example (5) below a “backdown,” and notes that in such cases “though the participants seem headed toward a disagreement, there is still room to avert it.”

(5) Potential disagreement with a backdown.

A. A. B.

And that’s not an awful lot of fruitcake. (1.0) Course it is. A little piece goes a long way. Well that’s right. (adapted from Pomerantz, 1984, 77)

Moreover, Locher (2004), based on work by Aijmer (1986: 2–4), includes additional hedges to the ones mentioned by Pomerantz (1984), some of which may be used in other parts of the disagreement sequence, such as: “actually, anyway, as it were, basically, a bit, certainly, honestly, I mean, I think, in a way, in fact, just, kind of, let me, little, maybe, more or less, of course, perhaps, probably, say, see, so-called, somehow, sort of, stuff, suppose, type of, uh, uhm, well, whatever, what you call; or and and in final position” (Locher, 2004: 115). The following strategies for disagreeing are adapted from those noted by Pomerantz (1984), Brown and Levinson (1987), Rees-Miller (2000) and Locher (2004). As an illustration of these techniques, I suggest hypothetical examples of responses, noted in italics, to the assessment: I think New York City is the best place to live, don’t you? 1. Using hesitation words or sounds, like uhm, uh, and well, which show an intention to disagree, and are widely used as a preface to disagreement (e.g. Uhm, well, I’m not so sure about that). 2. Using partial agreement, often preceding but, admits part of the first speaker’s assessment, and often precedes disagreement (e.g. The shopping is good, but I don’t like the crowds). 3. Using but, after a weaker second assessment called a “downgrade” (Pomerantz, 1984: 68), or in the more formulaic Yes, but pattern, offers token agreement and often precedes disagreement (e.g. It’s not bad, but there are places I like better). 4. Giving emotional or personal reasons, which avoids taking complete responsibility for a contrasting view (e.g. I don’t know why, but cities just upset me). 5. Using modals, which is shown here as token agreement (e.g. It might be, but I prefer San Francisco). 6. Joking, which avoids a clear statement of disagreement, but may be understood as such (e.g. Sure, if you enjoy crowds and street gangs).



Disagreement 

7. Expressing an objection as a question (e.g. Do you really think so?). 8. Shifting responsibility, which avoids completely claiming the contrasting view (e.g. Some people prefer quieter places). 9. Using repetition, in this case in the form of a question, to challenge an assessment (e.g. The best place?). 10. Requesting clarification (e.g. You mean the best place in the world?). 11. Using mitigating expressions such as I think or it seems to me that, often after but, and before the actual contrasting view (Note that these chunks of language, called “lexical phrases” (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992: 1) are a “routinized way of making an assertion” (1992: 73), and will be revisited later in the teaching section) (e.g. Well, it’s okay, but I think Paris is more beautiful). 12. Using unmitigated disagreement (e.g. No, I don’t. I disagree). 13. Using aggravated disagreement (e.g. That’s ridiculous. Hilton Head is much nicer).

3.  Research on disagreeing 3.1  Issues affecting production – acquisition Developmental issues affecting disagreement and other oppositional talk are considered in Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig (2000: 73). The researchers found that although learners could not produce modal auxiliaries accurately enough to “maintain the face wants of their interlocutors,” they did use softeners of some kind and were aware of the pragmatic necessity for their use. The conversational extract below (see Example 6) in which Mousa (Mo) disagrees with the interviewer (I) about the source of his feelings about taking an aptitude test demonstrates his understanding of the need to mitigate his disagreement and his struggle to do so with the limited linguistic tools at his disposal.

(6) Mo: I don’t know, maybe when ah, I’m taking like TOEFL, I have, a kind of feeling, sometimes I don’t see, I don’t – I: –It’s called test anxiety. Mo: I don’t have quite like this, but I have a little, uh not quite like this, always, in, I think, in, every exam, we, don’t, the most thing, the most important thing for me is time, like I’m not someone who can work like very fast, yeah, always, like ah, for example when I was in high school, and they give like ah, my, my, my study like the section of, ah,??? or mathematics, like very strong, it was like four hours ??? yeah, only mathematic, so, but I take my time, but is very, is very precise like, sometimes I can do like little bit more than half, but everything, I, I, I, did like is right.  (from Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig, 2000, 67–68)

 Lewis H. Malamed

Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig (2000: 67–68) note: “Mousa mitigates his disagreement with the hedge quite and a partial agreement I have a little [anxiety].” He then summarises his argument by using “think and maybe (lexical expressions of modality), can, an early-acquired modal, and could, a late-acquired modal.” Such expressions show Mousa is aware of and concerned about preserving the face wants of the interviewer even though he is not always accurate in his language. The researchers also found that low-level as well as high-level students in the study tended to use lexical forms of modality to “unambiguously mark their pragmatic intent” (Salsbury & Bardovi-Harlig, 2000: 73). Such intuitive awareness of the need for mitigators in situations where there is a potential face-threat can be capitalised upon as teachers guide students toward improving linguistic production and pragmatic competence. 3.2  Issues affecting production – topic LoCastro (1996) looks at the Yes, but pattern in a comparison between Japanese and American English speakers. The initiating statement to the English-speaking group was Avocados taste rather good, don’t they? or Avocados don’t taste very good, do they? A Japanese close equivalent of these phrases was used with the Japanese speakers. Respondents in both groups generally expressed agreement with the positive assessment, but the negative assessment, contrary to expectation, elicited direct disagreement, the dispreferred response, from some respondents in both groups. LoCastro (1996: 17) suggests that “Food tastes may be part of the public domain…” and therefore disagreement is acceptable. When topics of greater importance are discussed, however, disagreement with the speaker’s point of view may not be well-received. Questions about avocados may be contrasted with topics in which the respondent has a greater stake, as in the interview between student and teacher in the study by Salsbury and Bardovi-Harlig (2000: 67–68), in which the student struggles to explain his feelings about testing. Disagreeing with a teacher presents a greater face-threat than discussing a preference for avocados, and the topic is of more importance to the learner (see Walkinshaw, 2009 for discussion of how learners deal with social distance in disagreement across cultures). Does the learner lose control of his/her production to a greater degree in such highly-charged situations? Our own experience tells us that emotional investment can impede expression of ideas. It is reasonable to expect non-native speakers to approach such situations with trepidation and to require more language support and preparation to express their ideas appropriately. 3.3  Issues affecting production – status, culture, and pragmatic routines Beebe and Takahashi (1989b: 110–113) administered a discourse completion task (DCT) depicting a higher-status to lower-status situation to American and Japanese



Disagreement 

native speakers. Contrary to cultural stereotypes that portray Americans as direct and Japanese as hesitant, the researchers found that Americans often used expressions of gratitude to soften the disagreement, and many included “a suggestion or request to talk further, reconsider, or rethink,” but that “many Japanese felt it appropriate to state the disagreement outright.” In a lower-to-higher status situation, Americans also tended to use “more positive remarks, more softeners, and most importantly, fewer explicit criticisms.” Does this mean that Americans are more polite, or do we say that Americans are less honest? If one takes the latter view and insists that higher-status people should not pretend that they have no power in a situation, then adopting such strategies may be difficult. Cultural attitudes toward status relationships shape communication in unexpected ways and have implications for language learning (see Meier, this volume). Beebe and Takahashi (1989a: 208) also note that Japanese often express disagreement by asking for facts, a strategy that American native speakers often did not always correctly interpret. In contrast, Americans tend to use a questioning strategy to express their doubts about a plan, saying, for instance, “Do you think it will really work?” Differences in pragmatic strategies grow out of differing cultural values, and learners listening for one kind of signal may be deaf to the messages the other person is sending (see Cheng & Tsui, 2009 for discussion of the interface between cultural values and the negotiation of face in conflict situations). 3.4  Issues affecting production – cross-cultural resistance The adoption of a new linguistic form or new pragmatic routine is not necessarily without internal cost to the learner. Learners may be familiar with both the appropriate linguistic forms and the pragmatics of a given situation, but nevertheless cannot easily enter into pragmatically foreign roles. Bardovi-Harlig (1996) reports on a discussion following a presentation by Takenoya (1995). American males in Takanoya’s interviews reported difficulty in adopting address forms that to them seemed sexist, and “a member of the audience ventured that successful language learners must give up part of themselves” (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996: 30). Similarly, Viney (2004: 1) reports the story of a Dutch learner of English who “found English expressions like, ‘I wonder if you could possibly help me…’ and ‘I’m terribly sorry, but I’m afraid that…’ annoying in the extreme” and that she “felt silly when she was saying them.” In both cases there appears to be a choice on the part of the learners to not actively adopt the L2 pragmatics in spite of an ability to do (see LoCastro, 2001). Language learners (and teachers) are deeply imprinted with their own culture’s ideas about the way things are and should be. These cultural assumptions clearly affect the degree to which a learner is willing to adopt the pragmatic conventions and routines of the target language. Some issues, like acquisition of modality,

 Lewis H. Malamed

require time to unfold. Others, especially those that impact heavily on the sense of self, require a willingness on the part of learners to dive into the pragmatics of a new culture, and the decision to do this cannot be imposed by a teacher.

4.  Teaching the speech act of disagreeing In this section, the pedagogical activities are organised into a framework consisting of two main sections: those that are designed to raise the students’ awareness of their L1 knowledge of pragmatics, and those intended to provide instruction about and practice of linguistic and pragmatic forms (see Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, this volume). Regarding the first group of activities, that is, raising awareness of L1, I begin with exercises designed to make students aware of their prior knowledge about their L1, and encourage them to discuss this knowledge in small groups. Cultural ideas about politeness, status, and indirectness are expected to surface during these discussions, perhaps with a bit of prodding by the instructor. The preliminary exercises, then, are exploratory in nature, so that students can access the ideas they will need to look critically at the strategies of L2. Regarding activities in the second group, that is, introducing linguistic forms, students are given examples of hedges used to soften statements in English, including those that occur within disagreement sequences. Through looking at examples and by being explicitly taught, students will begin to recognise commonly used forms. Students are then ready to find their own examples and make hypotheses about how some hedges or lexical phrases function in English. One of the more frequently occurring strategies in disagreement is introduced: that of weak agreement preceding disagreement. Through a statement and response pairing, with one student making an assessment inviting agreement, and the other student partially agreeing, and then using a softened disagreement, students get sufficient practice to start recognising the pattern, and may begin to use it in their production. Students may then be guided toward more open-ended production tasks such as role plays and open discussion of issues. The teaching objectives for this section are for students to gain some conscious awareness of the considerations for disagreement in the L1 and the L2 and for them to have an improved understanding of the interface between the available forms used in disagreement and the reasons for using them. By providing sufficient explicit instruction (see Tateyama, 2001) and practice, students begin incorporating some of these forms into their production. Kasper (1997) notes that some pragmatic knowledge is universal, and that if a correspondence exists between the form-function mapping of the L1 and that of the L2, some very specific pragmatic information will be transferred. Teachers



Disagreement 

can build upon this intuitive knowledge by first asking students to examine the pragmatic conventions of their own language and then to apply the knowledge to the target language. When the L1 and L2 languages have great differences in the execution of speech acts, however, transfer may be inappropriate and direct instruction concerning cultural values and pragmatics may be required. Thus, the language teacher’s task is two-fold: to activate prior knowledge and to introduce the unfamiliar pragmatic features of the target language. Students may or may not be aware of the knowledge they bring with them to the classroom. By accessing prior knowledge, students can find their true beginning place, which may be further along the path than they believe. From this point, guidance in understanding what is new and different, and even uncomfortable, can begin. The classroom becomes a safe environment in which to practice unfamiliar routines so that when students encounter a stressful, real-life situation, they have the tools to express their disagreement agreeably. The exercises below provide students with opportunities to access the knowledge that lies beneath their consciousness and to raise awareness of the pragmatic routines of disagreement as they are actually practised in English-speaking cultures. Explicit instruction in language forms, along with guided practice, enables even low-level students to express their ideas in a more socially-appropriate manner. 4.1  Exploring prior knowledge of pragmatics This activity helps students access prior knowledge and think more deeply about the cultural and linguistic aspects of disagreement. The goal is to discover cultural differences and identify individual attitudes and practices concerning disagreement. Students answer and discuss the questions in Example (7) with a partner, and then within a group of six, if possible.

(7) Guiding questions:

a. When is it absolutely necessary to disagree? Please give a few examples. b. In your culture, does the choice to disagree vary according to your relationship to the other person? Does the way in which you express your disagreement change? c. In your culture, does the choice to disagree vary according to the topic of conversation (food, war, restaurants, movies, religion, politics)? Are some topics not appropriate to talk about in your culture? What topics are appropriate to discuss?

4.1.1  Examining factors influencing language choice in various contexts This exercise asks the students to examine how politeness, status, or other factors might affect their language choices in general, and then how they shape disagreement

 Lewis H. Malamed

in particular. Students should rank the level of politeness they would use in speaking with the following people from 1 = most polite to 8 = least polite (see Example 8).

(8) Rankings



__ the 7 year-old child who lives next door __ your mother or father (if you would rank them differently, choose one) __ your younger brother or sister (imagine you have one if you don’t) __ your husband or wife __ a store clerk __ your best friend __ your grandfather __ a student in your English class

After students complete the list above, they should, in small groups, discuss their responses to the questions posed in Example (9) below:

(9) Guiding questions:

a. Do you use more direct language with people you know well? b. If the person you ranked #1 on your list says something you disagree with, would you act and speak differently than you would to the person whom you ranked #8? Why? Why not? c. What things did you consider when deciding what language to use in each case?

4.2  Teaching L2 forms for hedging The goal of this section is to acquaint students with the various ways in which hedges are used to soften disagreement. Examples can be found in corpora or authentic materials such as film scripts, comic books, etc. The following quote includes a disagreement sequence, and was found in a search of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). The excerpt is adjusted a bit for clarity; but and hedges are underlined. …And the final class of the course was that they were to kill and skin their own bunny. I, I knew the group of people who chose to take all the bunnies out before they were killed. And, and I felt – and I still feel – that silence was a more ethical choice than, than telling the truth. Well, you know, 〈Rep. Gingrich,〉 I wondered if you agree? Yes. I think if you’re asking me, actually I don’t agree. I think there is something to be said for civil disobedience a lot of the time, for openly showing your protest, openly doing something and taking the responsibility. But, just as with tax cheating, for instance, for noble purposes that you may think are very good, that’s also damaging. And to do this is in secret, I think was also damaging. So I wouldn’t agree on the whole…  (adapted from COCA – December 3, 1996 broadcast of NPR’s Talk Nation)



Disagreement 

Explain to the students how hedging may be used in social interaction to soften the effects of an utterance. Explain why the first speaker didn’t just say, Do you agree? Discuss why the second speaker didn’t just say, No, I don’t agree, and how the middle part of what he says before the word but serves to agree with a part of the previous speaker’s idea. Explain this idea simply, as the pattern of weak or partial agreement as a preface to disagreement will be revisited later. The next part of this exercise asks for students to do their own search for hedge words. Practically speaking, there is no easy way to limit the online search to a disagreement context, though students can be encouraged to select examples of this type when they are available. The word, well, is a frequently occurring starter for a number of strategies, including disagreement. A good selection for students combines well with other words that tend to occur at the beginnings of turns. I suggest they look for well actually, well I think, well of course, and well it seems. Students should go to http://www.americancorpus.org, select spoken English, and type their words in the search box (note that after 10–15 tries, they will need to register). They should bring two examples to the next class. Placing greater responsibility upon the students for obtaining data not only encourages students to become more autonomous, but also is likely to increase the quality of their involvement, as intrinsic motivation will be high. Ask students to share their samples with a partner, examine the words or phrases in context, and create an answer and response similar to the ones in their samples. 4.3  Pragmatics and form practice As noted in the research section, hesitation followed by weak or partial agreement often precedes a disagreement. As preparation for exercises that follow, the pragmatic moves in the conversation should be explicitly taught. The following conversation (see Example 10) is hypothetical, but in form follows a well-documented pattern. (10) A. This fried chicken is delicious, isn’t it? B. (pause) Well, it’s not bad, but it’s a bit salty for me.

In this example, Speaker A offers an assessment inviting agreement. B responds with a pause, and then with the word, well, showing his/her intention to disagree, and hesitancy about doing so. B uses a weaker assessment (not bad rather than delicious), and then offers his disagreement. The next section will offer practice of this pattern in combination with the lexical phrases, I think that and it seems to me that. 4.3.1  Combining practice of weak agreement and hedged disagreement This section aims at teaching a common pattern for disagreeing in English, that of partially or weakly agreeing with a point before disagreeing. Provide Examples (11), (12) and (13) below to the students as a worksheet. Explain the function of

 Lewis H. Malamed

the underlined parts in Example (11), especially how the partial agreement, a bit, functions as a downgrade. Suggest other examples of strong assessments and weaker assessments (the best/pretty good, great/not bad, delicious/not terrible, crazy/a bit odd, a genius/pretty intelligent). Have the students practice the first dialogue (Example 11) with attention to the quickness of the pause and other features of pronunciation. (11) Practice the following dialogue A. I think speaking English is more stressful than reading it, don’t you? B. (pause) Well, speaking English is a bit stressful, but I think that reading is more difficult because you have to know a lot more vocabulary.

Ask students to read the following list of opinions (Example 12) silently and to note the potential disagreements, given in parentheses. A suggested downgrade for the agreement part is given for the first two prompts (note that most of the others would work with the insertion of pretty before the adjective). Using the opinions (Example 12) and lexical phrases (Example 13) on the worksheet, the first speaker, Partner A, will state an opinion from the list of opinions. Partner B will answer with the following pattern: (Pause) + Well + weak agreement, + but + lexical phrase + disagreement (e.g. [Pause] Well, Elvis Presley was pretty good, but I think that John Lennon was better)

Students then switch roles and repeat. Possible reasons to disagree are shown in parentheses below each opinion (a–e), but intermediate to advanced students may prefer to give their own reasons. (12) List of opinions a. I think Elvis Presley was the best singer of all time, don’t you? (pretty good) (John Lennon [or your favourite singer] was better.) b. I think staying in one place is better than travelling around, don’t you? (not bad) (travelling around is more exciting.) c. It’s easier to talk with a parent than a grandparent, isn’t it? (grandparents have more patience.) d. I think that having friends is more important than having money, don’t you? (if you don’t have money, your life will be very difficult.) e. I think studying with friends is more enjoyable than studying alone, don’t you? (it’s easier to concentrate without other people around) (13) Lexical phrases I think that … it seems to me that …



Disagreement 

4.4  Role plays and discussion Because of the contextual nature of disagreement, role play is an excellent way to raise students’ awareness of cultural and situational influences and the language elements involved in disagreeing. Malamed (2003), available online, offers a series of lessons that allows students to learn features of both agreement and disagreement through writing and performing a role play of a disagreement situation. Students explore key points on both sides of controversial issues, and are evaluated to some extent by the thoroughness of their presentation of these points. This allows not only for practice with language features, but also for students to share what they learn about the culture with other members of the class. This type of activity serves as the basis of more open discussion of issues, where students do take an actual position, and can prepare students for situations they will encounter in their jobs or in their academic careers. The underlying tone for such a discussion, including respect for the views of others, will have been established through research of issues, and fruitful discussion will be able to take place. 5.  Conclusion: A disagreement story As Carnegie’s (1936) best-seller attests, there is an art to disagreeing agreeably. Because of the risks involved, however, many learners have developed disagreement avoidance strategies. Unfortunately, in some situations, confronting differences may be necessary. A case in point concerns the plight of an anonymous foreign student who reported his woes to my colleague years ago. This young man was very neat and tidy, but shared a summer rental with another student who shunned all housekeeping chores. Friends advised the student to confront the housemate, but having this kind of disagreement while maintaining the relationship was something the student felt linguistically and emotionally unable to handle. One day the housemate remarked, Isn’t it great to live away from home, where we don’t have to wash the dishes and clean up every day? The tidy student had no idea how to respond. He said nothing, although he was quite upset. The moment for expressing disagreement passed. Bringing up the matter would be much more difficult and much more likely to result in hurt feelings. Peace reigned, as did the dirty dishes. Although the two students continued to live in apparent harmony, the underlying tension remained. At the end of the summer, the two parted ways, and an opportunity to learn cooperation and compromise was lost. A better understanding of the pragmatics of disagreement might have resulted in the student not only living in a cleaner house, but also in continued friendship with a person whose company he enjoyed.

 Lewis H. Malamed

Because such situations are an inevitable part of our lives, an entire field has grown up around conflict management and mediation. The interest in popular literature dealing with these topics (e.g. Stone et al., 1999) attests to the fact that people from all walks of life feel the need for guidance in handling conflict effectively. Human behaviour is complex and infinitely variable; therefore, we cannot possibly equip our students with a compendium of set phrases for every situation. What we can do, however, is share what we know about disagreeing, encourage observation, explicitly teach key forms and routines, and offer opportunities to solidify learning through practice.

References Aijmer, K. 1986. Discourse variation and hedging. In Corpus Linguistics II: New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora. J. Aarts & W. Meijs (eds.), 1–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1996. Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 7, L.F. Bouton (ed.), 21–39. UrbanaChampaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Beebe, L. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental rudeness as pragmatic competence. In Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, B. Gallenberger & M. Ronkin (eds.), 154–168. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Beebe, L. & Takahashi, T. 1989a. Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. In The Dynamic Interlanguage, M. Eisenstein (ed.), 199–218. New York NY: Plenum. Beebe, L. & Takahashi, T. 1989b. Do you have a bag?: Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse, Pragmatics, and Communication. S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston & L. Selinker (eds.), 103–125. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M. & Hacohen, G. 2002. Traditions of dispute: From negotiations of Talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11): 1569–1594. Carnegie, D. 1936. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York NY: Simon and Schuster. (Revised edn. 1982. New York NY: Pocket Books). Cheng, W. & Tsui, A. 2009. ‘ahh ((laugh)) well there is no comparison between the two I think’: How do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other? Journal of Pragmatics. (July 3, 2009). Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 385 million words, 1990-present. . Hoffman, E. 1989. Lost in Translation: A Life in a New Language. New York NY: Penguin Books. Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. 1981. Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication 45(2): 118–132. Kasper, G. 1992. Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3): 203–231.



Disagreement 

Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? [NetWork 6]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre. (May 9, 2009). Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leung, S. 2002. Conflict talk: A discourse analytical perspective. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 2(3): 1–19. (March 10, 2009). LoCastro, V. 1996. Yes, I agree with you, but…: Agreement and disagreement in Japanese and American English. Paper presented at Japan Association of Language Teachers conference, November 22–24, in Hamamatsu, Japan. LoCastro, V. 2001. Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System 29(1): 69–89. Locher, M. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Malamed, L. 2003. “That’s Wrong!” Improving friendly discussion of controversial issues. In Teaching Pragmatics, K. Bardovi-Harlig & R. Mahon-Taylor (eds.). Washington DC: Office of English Language Programs, U.S. Department of State. (June 2, 2009). Nattinger, J. & DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP. Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action, J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP. Rees-Miller, J. 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics 32(8): 1087–1111. Salsbury, T. & Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Oppositional talk and the acquisition of modality in L2 English. In Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition, B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M.E. Anderson, C.A. Klee & E. Tarone (eds.), 57–76. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Stone, D., Patton, B. & Heen, S. 2000. Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. New York NY: Penguin Books. Takenoya, M. 1995. Terms of Address: Patterns of Use by Native Speakers and American Learners of Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Tateyama, Y. 2001. Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), 200–222. Cambridge: CUP. Viney, P. 2004. It all depends… Directness and being fuzzy. The Language Teacher 28(7): 45–49. Walkinshaw, I. 2009. Learning Politeness: Disagreement in a Second Language. Bern: Peter Lang.

Refusals How to develop appropriate refusal strategies Zohreh R. Eslami

Texas A&M University Refusal can be a difficult speech act to perform. As a disprefered response, it is complicated in form and it usually involves various strategies to avoid offending one’s interlocutor. For second language learners with linguistic limitations, performing refusals successfully may require a higher level of pragmatic competence than other target language speech acts. Thus there is a need for pragmatic instruction in order to help learners interpret and realise this speech act successfully. Based on previous research on the speech act of refusal and studies in instructional pragmatics, this chapter proposes a teaching approach that includes both awareness raising and production activities. The instructional strategies involve learners in translation, data collection, data analysis, reflection, and role-play activities.

1.  Introduction Refusals have been called a “major cross-cultural sticking point for many nonnative speakers” (Beebe et al., 1990: 56). Due to their face-threatening nature, refusals often involve a long negotiated sequence, and their form and content vary depending on the eliciting speech act. In response to requests, invitations, offers, and suggestions, acceptance is usually preferred and refusal is disprefered. Disprefered second actions are typically complex, mitigated, and indirect, and are accompanied by prefaces, hesitations, repairs, apologies, and accounts (e.g. Levinson, 1983; Pomerantz, 1984). Since failure to refuse appropriately can negatively affect the interpersonal relations of the speakers, refusals usually include various strategies to avoid offending one’s interlocutors. Takahashi and Beebe (1987: 133) noted that “the inability to say ‘no’ clearly and politely… has led many nonnative speakers to offend their interlocutors.” Due to the complex nature of this speech act and the inherent risk in offending someone, there is a strong need for pragmatic instruction in order to help learners interpret and realise this speech act successfully. A primary objective of this chapter is to summarise research findings on refusals, as they can be directly applied

 Zohreh R. Eslami

to second/foreign language (L2) pragmatics instruction and serve as its theoretical backdrop. The chapter will finish with the presentation of a classroom approach that focuses on both comprehension and production of refusals in different contexts. A variety of learner-centred instructional activities including translation, data collection, data analysis, feedback, reflection and role plays are used.

2.  Definition of refusals Refusals are considered to be face-threatening acts because they contradict the listener’s expectations. They are often realised through indirect strategies and thus require a high level of pragmatic competence (Chen, 1995). They function as a response to an initiating act and are considered to be a speech act by which “a speaker fails to engage in an action proposed by the interlocutor” (Chen et al., 1995: 121). The negotiation of a refusal may entail frequent attempts at directness or indirectness and various degrees of politeness that are appropriate to the situation. Furthermore, what is considered appropriate refusal behaviour may vary across cultures and pragmatic transfer is likely to occur as learners rely on their “deeply held native values” in carrying out complicated and face threatening speech acts like refusals (Beebe et al., 1990: 68). Therefore, appropriate understanding and production of refusals require a certain amount of culture-specific knowledge. Beebe et al.’s (1990) classification of refusal strategies, which is one of the most widely used taxonomies for refusals, serves as the classification system for teaching refusals in this study (Table 1). This classification of refusal was compiled based on the strategies used in refusals to invitations, requests, suggestions, and offers. Refusals can be seen as a series of: (1) pre-refusal strategies (i.e. strategies that prepare the addressee for an upcoming refusal), (2) main refusal (i.e. head act that expresses the refusal), and (3) post-refusal strategies (i.e. strategies that follow the head act to justify, mitigate, or conclude the refusal response). Depending on the eliciting speech act, the order of these strategies, their content, and form may vary but the classification can be used for teaching refusals in general. Table 1.  Classification of refusals (from Beebe et al., 1990: 60–70) Strategies

Examples

1. DIRECT   a. Performative   b. Nonperformative statement    i. “No”    ii. Negative willingness

I refuse I can’t; I won’t; I don’t think so.

(Continued)



Refusals 

Table 1.  (Continued) 2. INDIRECT   a. Statement of regret   b. Wish   c. Excuse, reason, explanation   d. Statement of alternative    i. I can do X instead of Y    ii. Why don’t you do X instead of Y   e. S et condition for future or past acceptance   f. Promise of future acceptance   g. Statement of principle   h. Statement of philosophy   i. Attempt to dissuade interlocutor    i. Th  reat/statement of negative consequences to the request    ii. Guilt trip    iii. Criticise request/requester, etc.    iv. R  equest for help, empathy, and assistance by dropping or holding the request.    v. Let interlocutor off the hook    vi. Self defence   j. Acceptance that functions as a refusal    i. Unspecific or indefinite reply    ii. Lack of enthusiasm   k. Avoidance    i. Nonverbal     –Silence     –Hesitation     –Do nothing     –Physical departure    ii. Verbal     –Topic switch     –Joke     –Repetition of part of request     –Postponement     –Hedging

I’m sorry…; I feel terrible… I wish I could help you. My children will be home that night; I have a headache. I’d rather…; I’d prefer… Why don’t you ask someone else? If you had asked me earlier, I would have… I’ll do it next time; I promise I’ll… or Next time I’ll… I never do business with friends One can’t be too careful. I won’t be any fun tonight (to refuse an invitation) I can’t make a living off people who just offer coffee (Waitress to costumers who want to sit a while) (Statement of negative felling or opinion)

Don’t worry about it; That’s okay; You don’t have to. I’m trying my best; I’m doing all I can do.

Monday? I’ll think about it Gee, I don’t know: I’m not sure

3. ADJUNCTS TO REFUSALS   a. Statement of positive opinion/feeling That’s a good idea; I’d love to or agreement   b. Statement of empathy I realise you are in a difficult situation   c. Pause fillers Uhh; well; oh; uhm   d. Gratitude/appreciation

Beebe et al. (1990) categorise refusal responses into semantic formulas (expressions which can be used to perform refusal) and adjuncts that cannot be used by themselves but go together with refusal strategies. Their refusal taxonomy includes two main categories of direct and indirect strategies. Under the direct category,

 Zohreh R. Eslami

they include two semantic formulas: performative (e.g. I refuse you), and nonperformative statement (e.g. I can’t). Indirect strategies include eleven semantic formulas. Additionally, four types of adjuncts of refusals include statement of positive opinion (e.g. I’d love to; that’s a good idea), pause filler (e.g. well, uhh) gratitude/appreciation (e.g. thank you) or alerters (e.g. address terms), among others. Beebe et al. (1990) classification system includes the main semantic formulas that can be used in refusal to different speech acts, such as requests, invitations, offers or suggestions. However, it should be pointed out that not all of these strategies may necessarily be used in response to each of the eliciting speech acts. As mentioned by Beebe et al. (1990: 56), “the form, sequence, and content of these suggested strategies may vary depending on the type of speech act that elicits them”. They also vary depending on the contextual factors leading to intra-lingual variation (Barron, 2005). Additionally, due to macro-social variation (Barron, 2005), an appropriate or preferred range of strategies manifests differently depending on the interlocutor’s individual personalities and social background. Another layer of complexity is related to multi-cultural subjectivity of the learners (Ishihara, 2008). L2 speakers may intentionally resist what they perceive as native-speaker norms despite an awareness and linguistic command of such norms. The following section takes this further to discuss the complexity of pragmatic variation with regard to refusals in different cultures.

3.  Research on refusals 3.1  Cross-cultural refusal studies Cross-cultural studies on refusals show that different cultures perform refusals differently. Their degree of directness in refusals, their sensitivity to social variables, and their performance in terms of the content of strategies might vary. A select review of cross-cultural refusal strategies is presented below. Rubin’s (1983) study was one of the earliest comparative studies on refusals. She proposed a taxonomy of refusal strategies which included nine ways of expressing no across cultures. Rubin indicated that in order for a non-native speaker to send or receive a message of no to a native speaker, three levels of knowledge are required: (1) form-function relation, (2) social parameter of saying no, and (3) underlying values. Liao and Bresnahan (1996) investigated the refusal to requests in the speech act performance of 516 Americans and 570 Taiwanese university students using a Discourse Completion Test (DCT). Their findings showed that Americans and Taiwanese used different formulaic expressions in refusals. Taiwanese used fewer



Refusals 

strategies at making excuses. In their conclusions, they suggest that both cultures are concerned about politeness; however the ways in which politeness is realised reflect the differences between western and oriental countries. Nelson et al. (2002) investigated similarities and differences between Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals using a modified version of the DCT developed by Beebe et al. (1990). The DCT consisted of three requests, three invitations, three offers, and three suggestions. Results indicated that both groups use similar strategies with similar frequency in making refusals, counter to Al-Issa’s (2003) findings where Jordanians used more indirect strategies than Americans. The findings, however, suggest that although methods such as the DCT may be appropriate for collecting pragmalinguistic data, they fail to reveal the sociopragmatic complexities of face-threatening acts (e.g. refusals). The Egyptians indicated that they would not make refusals in some of these situations, like refusing an invitation from their boss. The sociopragmatic complexities that indicate the participant’s informed decision not to refuse an invitation from their boss in an Egyptian culture cannot be revealed by using the DCT alone. More recently, Félix-Brasdefer (2008) examined refusals in two sociocultural contexts of Mexico and Dominican Republic. Data were collected in each country in face-to-face interactions involving refusing a request, an invitation, and a suggestion. The results showed that although situational variation was the norm between both groups, the Mexicans used a significantly higher number of refusal strategies across the interaction than the Dominicans, whose strategies were employed in fewer and shorter turns. Overall, the cross-cultural studies on refusals reveal that although different cultures may share similar refusal strategies, the choice of directness, mitigation and the reasons for refusing may vary across cultures. In addition, the frequency of refusal strategies in relation to the status of interlocutors has been reported to show cross-cultural variation. It is therefore likely that L2 learners may rely on their native language pragmatic knowledge to perform the target language refusals which may result in pragmatic failures. 3.2  Pragmatic transfer in refusals Negative pragmatic transfer is one potential cause of inappropriate performance in a L2. It occurs when speakers apply rules from their first language (L1) to their second language (L2). Beebe et al. (1990), for example, reported evidence of pragmatic transfer in refusals made by Japanese learners of English. It was found that the content of excuses in both Japanese and English made by Japanese learners of English was far less specific than the content of excuses made by American participants. Another significant finding was that the Japanese subjects were likely

 Zohreh R. Eslami

to make different responses to interlocutors of a higher or lower status in both Japanese and English. Their awareness of social status was transferred from Japanese culture. In a similar study by Robinson (1992), it was found that there was a sociocultural problem in Japanese-speaking women’s refusals of requests and invitations since they are brought up not to say no easily and thus the task of refusing was a difficult concept for them. Another refusal study, undertaken by Tickle (1991), looked at pragmatic transfer in English as a second language (ESL) refusals made by Japanese speakers in a business setting. The results showed that refusals on a customer’s turf (the customer’s vs. the businessperson’s) were more direct than those on the businessperson’s turf. They were also more direct when no prior relationship existed between the interlocutors. In refusals to invitations, lower-status interlocutors expressed more regret toward the higher-status one. In refusals to requests, more negative willingness/ability (e.g. I can’t) and empathy occurred. Results of this particular study provided material for cross-cultural programmes training American businesspeople to deal more effectively with Japanese clients. Widjaja (1997) studied date refusals by Taiwanese females compared to American females. Results showed that the Taiwanese preferred higher directness in refusing dates. Overgeneralisation from Chinese patterns, L1 pragmatic knowledge, and lack of pragmatic knowledge in L2, were factors that affected the learners’ pragmatic performance. Agency and subjective choice by the learners (Ishihara, 2006), not mentioned by the author, could have been another factor affecting the learner’s pragmatic performance. Another attempt by Al-Issa (2003) studied sociocultural transfer and its motivating factors. It was found that sociocultural transfer exists in the choice of selecting refusal strategies, length of responses, and content of semantic formulas. Each was found to reflect cultural values transferred from Arabic to English. More recently, Geyang (2007) studied refusal to suggestions in academic contexts corresponding to power variations by Japanese and Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. The findings revealed that Japanese and Chinese EFL learners preferred the way that a statement of refusal followed a statement of justification, which was the reverse of what was preferred by native English speakers. Power as a social variable affected the Japanese the most. Recently, Wannaruk (2008) studied pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals and found that pragmatic transfer existed in the choice and content of refusal strategies and that awareness of a person of a higher status and the characteristics of being modest in L1 culture motivated pragmatic transfer. Language proficiency is also an important factor in pragmatic transfer, although analysing it has not led to conclusive results. Takahashi and Beebe (1987) proposed the positive correlation hypothesis, predicting that L2 proficiency is positively correlated with pragmatic transfer. Although Takahashi and Beebe’s



Refusals 

own study on refusals performed by Japanese EFL and ESL learners did not clearly demonstrate the predicted proficiency effect, some studies (e.g. Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Blum-Kulka, 1982; Olshtain & Cohen, 1989; Cohen, 1997; Hill, 1997; Keshavarz et al., 2006) have supported Takahashi and Beebe’s notion that learners’ limited target language knowledge prevents them from transferring native language pragmatic knowledge. For example, Takahashi and Beebe’s (1987) results showed that highly proficient Japanese ESL learners often used a typically Japanese formal tone when performing refusals in L2. Also as mentioned by Keshavarz et al. (2006), more proficient students had enough control over the L2 to express their first language feelings at the pragmatic level. However, evidence contrary to Takahashi and Beebe’s positive correlation hypothesis exists in the literature both on language transfer in general and on pragmatic transfer in particular (e.g. Takahashi & Dufon, 1989; Maeshiba et al., 1996; Takahashi, 1996; Wannaruk, 2008). As Kasper and Rose (2002: 155) submit, “researchers should continue working with Takahashi and Beebe’s hypothesis by looking for explanations for the conflicting findings offered by these studies”. The studies on pragmatic transfer of refusals have indicated that differences between the learners’ native languages and the target language may lead to the transfer of native language refusal strategies which may be inappropriate in performing refusals in the target language. Factors such as learners’ perceived distance between their L1 and the target language (Takahashi, 1996), learning context (Takahashi & Beebe, 1987), and learners’ perception of social status (Takahashi & Beebe, 1987; Félix-Brasdefer, 2003) might influence learners’ refusal speech act performance. 3.3  Interventional studies on English refusals While there are a number of studies which examine refusal speech acts from crosscultural or interlanguage perspectives, the number of interventional studies on the effect of instruction on learners’ acquisition of polite refusal strategies is limited (King & Silver, 1993; Morrow, 1996; Kondo, 2001, 2008; Bacelar Da Silva, 2003). King and Silver (1993) used a pre-test/post-test treatment with a control group design, and taught polite refusal strategies to six intermediate level learners of ESL. Their treatment consisted of discussions of personal experience, reading and analysis of dialogues, explicit teaching, and role-plays during a seventy-minute class. Because of time constraints, the learners had limited opportunities for output practice. The study used a discourse completion questionnaire as a pre-test and post-test and telephone talks as a delayed post-test. The results showed limited effect of instruction on the written post-test and no effect on the delayed post-test. The authors speculate that the lack of exposure to natural data as input

 Zohreh R. Eslami

and limited output practice opportunities could have caused the minimum effect of instruction. Morrow (1996) studied the effect of instruction on learners’ production of refusals and complaint speech acts. His study followed a pre-test/post-test design, without a control group. He adopted an explicit approach which included explanation of semantic formulas, controlled output practice, and role plays for teaching the intended speech acts. The treatment lasted three hours and thirty minutes. Pragmatic appropriateness judgement test and pragmatic ability self-report were used as pre-tests. Role plays were used as post-tests. The data were analysed using holistic ratings of clarity and politeness as well as a comparison of pre-test and post-test distributions of discourse features with those of native English speakers. Results of the study showed that learners improved both in clarity and politeness. However, the delayed post-test results (6 months after) did not display a significant treatment effect. The author speculates that the non-significant delayed post-test results could be attributed to the small number of participants who came for the post-test. Considering the short amount of treatment for such complex speech acts (refusals and complaints), the gains on the immediate post-test are promising and show that with only a limited amount of instructional treatment, the participants could perform complaints and refusals more clearly and more politely, and, to a limited extent, more native-like. The third interventional study on refusals involves thirty-five Japanese learners of English (Kondo, 2001). Similar to Morrow’s (1996) study, this study used a pre-test/post-test design without a control group. However, the instructional component consisted of a combination of implicit and explicit teaching (model dialogues, explicit explanation, and analysis of semantic formulas, controlled/ free practice, cross-cultural comparison, and discussion). A DCT was used for both pre-test and post-test data. The results showed the effectiveness of instructional treatment and a change in learners’ refusals approximating target language (American English) refusals. Bacelar Da Silva’s (2003) study adopted a pre-test/post-test design with a control group. Explicit instruction which incorporated metapragmatic awareness into task-based methodological principles was used as the instructional treatment to teach refusal to invitations to ESL learners. Data for both the pre-test and the posttest was collected by role-play and a qualitative discourse analytic approach was used to examine the learning outcomes in the treatment group as compared to the control group. The findings demonstrated that the instructional approach led to gains in learners’ L2 pragmatic development in the intended area of refusals. Kondo’s (2008) interventional study on refusals is the most recent study in this area. She examined the instructional effects after teaching the learners with methods and materials that were specifically developed for teaching pragmatics



Refusals 

to Japanese EFL learners. The material was intended to raise learners’ pragmatic awareness and engage them in creating their own interlanguage identity. The instruction provided plenty of opportunities for learners to practise the use of the speech act in different contexts. A pre-test/post-test design without a control group was used. The data included both pre-test and post-test DCTs and also the learners’ discussion data. The results showed that the learners’ choice of refusal strategies changed and became more similar to the American pattern. The content of the class discussions revealed that the instructional procedure raised awareness concerning various pragmatic aspects involved in the speech act of refusals. As shown above, the interventional studies on the refusal speech act mainly reveal the effectiveness of instruction on pragmatic development of learners. Taking insights from these studies and previous research on refusals, a pedagogical proposal for teaching refusal speech act to learners of English is proposed below. For practical purposes and in order to maintain focus, I will only provide examples and interpretations of refusal to invitations in the teaching section. It should be noted that Beebe et al.’s (1990) classification of refusal strategies was developed to cover refusal strategies in response to invitations, requests, suggestions, and offers. Their classification system of strategies is therefore exhaustive, and can be used for teaching refusals that are the second pair part of any of these speech acts. According to Beebe et al.’s (1990) taxonomy, individual refusals consist of different selections from these formulas in accordance with eliciting speech acts, status, and power relationships existing between a speaker and a hearer. Thus, my approach is to present the potential type of strategies that could be used in refusals to invitations and let the learners practise their agency and subjectivity by making their own choices from the list of strategies provided in the list. It is clear that some strategies might be used more with invitations than other eliciting speech acts.

4.  Teaching the speech act of refusals The instructional approach proposed for this section includes two main instructional activity types: (1) activities aimed at raising students’ pragmatic awareness, and (2) activities offering opportunities for communicative practice (Kasper, 1997; Martínez-Flor & Usó-Juan, this volume). Since refusals are considered to be complex speech acts and performing refusals successfully may require a relatively high level of pragmatic competence, the language proficiency of the learners for the proposed activities is assumed to be intermediate. The proposed activities below combine teacher presentations of refusal strategies in addition to students collecting their own data in L1 and L2, reflecting on the data, and role playing of the refusal situations.

 Zohreh R. Eslami

4.1  Awareness raising activities 4.1.1  Teacher presentation and metapragmatic awareness Simple exposure to sociolinguistically appropriate input is unlikely to be suffi­ cient for development of L2 pragmatic competence because the pragmatic features are sometimes opaque or are defined differently by L2 learners (Bouton, 1994; Lyster, 1994). Thus, L2 learners may fail to experience noticing of crucial pragmatic issues for years. In this phase of instruction, the teacher can present research findings about refusals and how to politely say no in English. For example, it should be explained that while acceptance or agreement tend to be used in direct language without any delay, mitigation or explanation, refusals tend to be indirect, include mitigation, and/or delay within the turn or across turns. Research shows that refusals often include explanations and/or reasons (Beebe et al., 1990) and these strategies function to reassure the recipient of the refusal that s/he is still approved of but that there are necessary reasons for the refusal, and that the refuser regrets the necessity for the refusal. Following that, the refusal strategies based on Beebe et al. (1990) taxonomy are presented to the students (see Table 1 above). In a whole class format the teacher may present a discourse excerpt, point out the target speech act, and explain its pragmatic dimensions (a deductive approach). Or students are asked to identify the speech act that is occurring (an inductive approach) (Holmes & Brown, 1987). Once this is done, similar examples of the speech act are presented until students are able to recognise the pragmatic dimensions of the speech act(s) being studied. After students are introduced to the basic semantic formulas for making refusals, the teacher can use the other awareness raising instructional activity proposed in the Appendix to enhance student’s awareness of different strategies for making polite refusals. 4.1.2  Translation activities To raise the pragmatic awareness of students we can ask them to literally translate speech acts from their L1 into English (Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; House; 2008). This is an effective activity to illustrate how cultural norms are reflected in the language and why pragmatic translations of instances of language use can be challenging and what the peculiarities of literal translations are. The translation activity involves class discussion of pragmatic norms in different speech communities and students reflecting, and making some tentative generalisations based on the data. House (2008) suggests several pragmatic uses of translation to exploit the potential usefulness of translation for promoting learners’ pragmatic competence



Refusals 

and improving learners’ ability to recognise and reflect on pragmatic contrasts between native and foreign languages and cultures. A DCT which Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) used for data collection in cross-cultural pragmatics research can be used as a starter for translation activities (see Figure 1). The form contains situations in which students are to respond in their L1 and then translate it into L2. After students present their L1 and translated version of the intended speech acts, the teacher can present the relevant data from native speakers of English. Using L1 at the beginning has the benefit of validating the learners’ L1 as a useful resource and not merely as a negative factor to be endured, and it also shows that the emphasis is first on pragmatics, rather than on English (Cook, 1999; House, 2008). Once the students have a good understanding of what to look for in conducting a pragmatic analysis, English can be the focus. Please write in the provided spaces whatever you would say in the following conversational situation. A friend invites you to dinner, but you really don’t like this friend’s husband/wife. Friend: How about coming to my house Sunday night? We’re having a small dinner party. You: Friend: Are you sure you cannot make it? It would be fun to spend some time together. You: Friend: Well ... maybe next time. Figure 1.  Discourse completion task

It should be noted that the data collected through a discourse completion task does not exactly reflect the richness and complexity of natural data (see FélixBrasdefer, this volume). But as Rintell and Mitchell (1989) mention, it provides us with the stereotypical forms of language used in specific situations. Using the DCT is appropriate for the initial stages of learning the communicative functions of language. It provides us with language that is less complex and less variable than natural data, but is similar enough to authentic language. Using translation as an activity for pragmatic awareness raising can be intriguing for the students. Students realise how culture and language are interrelated (Eslami & Eslami-Rasekh, 2008; House, 2008) and that some of the linguistic strategies used to realise specific speech acts in their L1 cannot be easily translated into L2. Discussion of differences in refusal strategies between L1 and L2 enhances pragmatic awareness and hopefully promotes cross-cultural understanding.

 Zohreh R. Eslami

4.1.3  Presentation of examples of cross-cultural miscommunications It is also useful to present and share examples from cross-cultural (mis)communications that evidence some sort of pragmatic peculiarity and then present these examples to students for discussion (Rose, 1999). Teachers should be keen observers and take field notes in order to collect their own data of similar examples. In addition, teachers should train students to be good observers. The following two dialogues presented in Examples (1) and (2) (the first reflects a learner’s performance whereas the second one is closer to American English norms) can be used to show the importance of using delays, positive comments, and offer of alternative strategies and possible misunderstandings that can be caused as a result of using bare non-performative statements.

(1) Dialogue 1.

John: Hi, Noriko. I’m planning to go on a picnic with some friends this Saturday. Can you come with us? Noriko: No. I can’t make it this weekend. I’ve been invited to a party on Saturday.

(2) Dialogue 2.

John: Hi, Noriko. I’m planning to go on a picnic with some friends this Saturday. Can you come with us? Noriko: Uh, thanks for asking me, but I need to study for my biology exam coming up this coming Monday. Thanks for the invitation, though.

As far as sociopragmatic issues related to refusals is concerned, it can be noted that for example, in several middle eastern languages (including Persian) it is required to refuse an invitation several times and for the inviter to insist further (Eslami, 2005). A strong social convention in Eastern societies is that, out of modesty, any offer must be refused at least once and often more than once as a matter of course, resulting in the initiator’s stronger insistence. Such insistence is seen as a sign of consideration for the guests and of concern for the guests’ needs. However, this may cause misunderstandings in communication with Americans that do not use ritual refusals in response to invitations and offers as much. The situation has potential for cross-cultural miscommunication because the same amount of persistence may be interpreted as forcefulness in American culture. Students may be able to share other personal cases of problematic interactions from their own experiences or from watching movies and programmes in the target language. The point here is that teaching materials can be derived from such encounters and shared with students during the introductory phase of classroom instruction on pragmatic issues. After capturing students’ interest and heightening their curiosity, the next step is to involve students in data collection and analysis to enhance their pragmatic awareness and analytical skills.



Refusals 

4.1.4  Students collecting data After using the instructional activities described above, students should have a good level of understanding of the components of a refusal to invitations in American English and can become researchers themselves and observe and record native speaker data. The learners-as-researchers approach in developing pragmatic competence has been suggested by Tarone and Yule (1989) as a useful tool to offer learners enough clues to use the new language in ways that are contextually appropriate. Depending on the student population and available time, such observations may be open or structured. Open observations allow students to detect what the important contextual factors may be. For structured observations, students are provided with an observation sheet which specifies the categories to observe (Kasper, 1997). An example form for structured data collection which is a modified version of Kasper’s form is presented in Figure 2.

Participants: Speaker:

M/F

Age:

Hearer:

M/F

Age:

Dominance: Distance:

S>H

S=H

Intimates/family members 1

friends/acquaintances 2

SH), equal (S=H) or lower (S H**

– speakers’ rank of imposition

low

distant S=H

very distant S