Azizollah Mirzaei, Ali Roohani and Maryam Esmaeili
«Exploring Pragmalinguistic and Sociopragmatic Variability in Speech Act Production of L2 Learners and Native Speakers»
Journal of Teaching Language Skills, vol. 31, n.º 3 (2012)
Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) | Shiraz University | Shiraz | IRAN
Se incluye a continuación un extracto seleccionado de las páginas 80 a 81 y 93 a 98 de la publicación en PDF. Las referencias pueden consultarse en la ubicación original.
Enlace HTML.
Eric X @xarch, Unsplash
«Introduction
»Pragmatic competence is “the ability to use language appropriately in a social context” which involves both innate and learned capacities and develops naturally through a socialization process (Taguchi, 2009, p. 1). According to Dippold (2008), it is understood as knowledge of forms and strategies to convey particular illocutions (i.e. pragmalinguistic competence) and knowledge of the use of these forms and strategies in an appropriate context (i.e. sociopragmatic competence).
»In order to be pragmatically competent, learners must map their sociopragmatic knowledge on pragmalinguistic forms and strategies and be able to use their knowledge online under the constraints of a communicative situation (McNamara & Roever, 2006; Roever, 2004).
»The distinction between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of communication is an important one for both learners and teachers since both aspects must be considered in learning or teaching a language (Trosborg, 2010). According to Liu (2004), any failure in L2 learners’ comprehension and production of the idiosyncrasies of either component in any language use situation would lead to pragmatic failure or communication breakdown.
»As he states, pragmalinguistic failure relates to a linguistic deficiency “caused by differences in the linguistic encoding of pragmatic force”, while sociopragmatic failure results from a lack of sociocultural knowledge and “cross-culturally different perceptions of what constitutes appropriate linguistic behavior” (p. 16).
»In order to decrease instances of pragmatic failure, students should learn pragmalinguistic as well as sociopragmatic aspects of the target language use. However, as Yates (2010) points out, these two aspects cannot be taught unless teachers almost consciously know how these facets of communicative acts are realized in various contexts of language use.
»The study of speech act realization patterns and strategies in a wide range of language use situations has so forth yielded insightful results in comparative cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics research that explore how force can be mapped onto form by different language users (e.g., Achiba, 2003; Al-Zumor, 2011; Bardovi-Harlig, 2002; Barron, 2008; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Kasper & Rose, 2002; Nureddeen, 2008; Ogiermann, 2009; Rue & Zhang, 2008; Woodfield, 2008).
»This cross-cultural pragmatics line of inquiry has mainly examined how different types of speech acts are realized by nonnative speakers (NNSs) of a second language (L2) with a variety of language backgrounds and other learner-specific variations. This research has also investigated the differences between L2 learners and native speakers (NSs) in their choice of speech acts realization strategies, content, or form.
»Despite the rich literature on cross-cultural pragmatics, no sufficient research has yet been undertaken to explore the pragmalinguistic features and sociopragmatic values of speakers’ pragmatic performance across different languages and cultures. Therefore, as Trosborg (2010) states, much work is needed not only to investigate what is said by whom in what situation, but also why language is used the way it is.
»On that account, this study aims to explore the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic variations between American English NSs’ and Iranian EFL learners’ in their production of the apology, request, and refusal speech acts, using a written discourse completion test (WDCT) instrument and its accompanying multidimensional scoring system.
»Discussion
»The analysis of the data related to the apology situations showed that the Americans and the Iranian participants varied in the way they framed their apologies according to the three sociopragmatic variables of power, social distance, and degree of imposition. As Tatton (2008) argues, the variation might be due to sociocultural differences in the participants’ perception of these variables.
»This finding is supported by Ogiermann (2009) who claims that culture is a factor responsible for varying assessments of the variables resulting in differences in the selection of (in)appropriate strategies. The analysis of the strategies used by both groups revealed that the American participants utilized more strategies in apologizing than the Iranian participants.
»The reason, as Kwon (2003) points out, may be the limited pragmatic capacity of the learners or their limited knowledge of L2 sociolinguistic rules.
»The comparison of the level of directness of apology strategies showed that direct strategies were the most favored strategies used by both groups. The IFID was the most frequent direct strategy, indicating that both groups tried to preserve their positive face since, in Nureddeen’s (2008) words, this strategy would be a less risky one.
»Moreover, both groups were concerned about the hearer since they both used ‘Explanation of cause’ to justify the offence and placate the hearer. Moreover, the NSs tried to divert the hearers’ attention from the offence. As Marquez Reiter (2000) argues, one way to divert attention from the offence is the use of intensifiers, which were used by the NSs. In contrast, the NNSs used promise of forbearance to admit responsibility.
»The findings confirm the claim by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) that IFID emerges to varying degrees in all situations in most languages while the other apologizing semantic formulae are situation-dependent. In a similar vein, Afghari (2007) found that a direct expression of apology and an acknowledgement of responsibility were the most frequent apology formulae offered by Persians across the majority of the apology situations.
»The analysis of both sets of data from the request situations indicated that the choice of request strategy was again influenced by the assessment of the three variables of power, social distance, and imposition. The participants’ use of direct or indirect situations in different situations may clear the point. Moreover, the Americans were significantly more direct when making requests than the Iranians.
»According to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Eslami-Rasekh (1993), the level of directness of a request has a strong correlation with the expectation of right and obligations between hearers and speakers. The greater the right of the speaker to ask (+power) and the greater the obligation of the hearer to comply with the request (-power), the less is the motivation for the use of indirectness. The frequent use of syntactic downgraders by both groups or lexical downgraders by the Americans reveals that they both try to mitigate their requests.
»This strong preference for modifications in the English and Iranian data confirms previous findings (e.g. Eslami-Rasekh, 1993; Ogiermann, 2009). Moreover, the Iranian participants produced sweetener (an external modifier) such as ‘You are such a good cook’ more than the Americans to reduce the imposition involved.
»The findings related to the directness level of request strategies contrast with Eslami-Rasekh’s (1993) cross-cultural study. She found that Persian speakers used direct strategies more than the North American NSs. According to her, the reason may lie in the fact that Persian society is less individualistic and more psychologically depends on group mentality. Therefore, its people tended more toward using strategies of positive politeness which is opposed to negative politeness.
»In a similar vein, Ogiermann (2009) indicated that English and German speakers showed a strong preference for conventional indirectness. Considering the situations of refusal, the Americans’ and the Iranians’ refusal strategies revealed that the American participants preferred a direct strategy, while the Iranians utilized both direct strategies and indirect strategies. In the contexts of L2 use, the perception of the varying social and interpersonal factors, such as interlocutors’ power difference, social distance, and the degree of imposition, has influenced different participants’ directness levels, particularly Iranians’ varied directness levels of speech act expressions.
»The analysis of the data indicated that both groups of participants tended to begin refusals with an apology followed by a reason attributed to a concern for ending the refusal quickly. Considering the data, the American English reasons were found to be clearer and concrete in refusing. Plain refusals such as ‘No, Thank you’ and expression of negative ability were rarely used by the Iranian speakers. vBy explanation, these expressions are highly face-threatening (Lyuh, 1992), and Iranians usually cannot say 'no' directly to their addressees. In fact, they tried to protect both their interlocutor’s and their own face. The frequent use of fillers by the Americans, and intensifiers by the Iranian participants also pointed to the participants’ concern about their interlocutors. It seems that pragmatic transfer from Iranian culture occurs.
»Al-Issa’s (2003) belief that the sociocultural transfer may influence the EFL learners’ responses can support the above conclusion. The findings of the present study support the findings of the study by Alamdari, Esmaeilnia, and Nematpour (2010). They found that the Iranian EFL students utilized fewer negative ability strategies in their refusals than the native English speakers. The frequent use of fillers by the Americans and the use of intensifiers by the Iranian participants also pointed to the participants’ concern about their interlocutors.
»The overall findings corroborate the cross-cultural pragmatic variations documented in Allami and Naeimi’s (2010) study. They found that there were differences in the frequency, shift, and content of semantic formulae used in refusals by Iranian and American speakers.
»The Iranian participants used direct refusals considerably more towards a person of low status. Expression of regret and excuse/reason were the common strategies among both groups. Finally, the Iranian L2 learners tended to take a more mitigating approach than the American participants to soften their refusals.
»To sum up, in spite of the presence of a similar range of strategies, noticeable cross-cultural pragmatic variability was evidenced in the frequency and semantic content of the sociopragmatic formulae as well as the pragmalinguistic forms used in each language use situation. Pragmalinguistic variability was scrutinized in relation to sociopragmatic variations focusing on the contextual variables of power, social distance, and imposition for each speech act and learner-specific attributes.
»It was revealed that careful consideration of the interdependent dynamicity between the two levels of pragmatics can better depict why language users employ different speech act realization patterns across situations and cultures. The above findings can enrich the growing literature (e.g., Chang, 2010; Felix-Brasdefer, 2003; Marquez Reiter, 2000) where pragmatic variability has been explored with reference to the sociopragmatics and pragmalinguistics reciprocity.
»Pedagogical Implications
»As to the implications of the study for L2 research and pedagogy, it is suggested that, given the documented intricate reciprocity between the two levels of pragmatics, future cross-cultural pragmatics research should attempt to approach pragmatic variability on the two pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic planes of language use in context. This integrated approach can more clearly reveal why language users resort to varying speech act realization patterns across situations and cultures.
»In addition, the findings related to the speech act realization patterns that emerged in the American and Iranian participants' data can provide a starting point for classroom exploratory interactive activities to further probe the crosscultural L2 pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic variability by EFL teachers and learners.
»L2 teachers can benefit from the findings when planning metapragmatic assessment tasks and activities for L2 learners to deal with the patterns of realizing the apology, request, and refusal speech acts in the target community, the strategies and linguistic means needed to implement these speech acts, and the ways of making contextually appropriate choices. This way, they help learners to enhance their awareness and knowledge of appropriate speech act use and how to sound pragmatically appropriate in L2 use situations.
»Finally, the study underscores the importance of incorporating L2 pragmatics into the EFL syllabi in Iran in an attempt to bridge the gap that naturally exists between the two cultures on sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels. By implication, materials developers may also benefit from these findings and take practical insights for developing instructional materials that reflect the sociopragmatic values and pragmalinguistic strategies associated with particular speech acts.
»Conclusions
»The study aimed to explore the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic variability that existed between American English native speakers’ and Iranian EFL learners’ production of the speech acts by using the WDCT and the accompanying multidimensional scoring system. The results indicated that in spite of the presence of a similar range of strategies, the Iranian EFL learners differed in several ways from the American native speakers of English.
»Such differences relate to their choices of speech acts, semantic formulae, sociopragmatic content, and pragmalinguistic forms. The findings related to the directness levels of speech act expressions showed that in a situation which involved minus power (with the speaker being of a lower rank), plus social distance (in which the speaker and the hearer did not know or identify with each other), and plus degree of imposition (on the part of the hearer to carry out the request), a greater degree of politeness was required to allow the interlocutor to save face.
»In contrast, when the speech act involved a lower degree of imposition and addressed a person in an equal relationship (e.g. apologizing a friend for a delay), a lesser degree of politeness was required. Thus, the social factors of power, distance, and imposition are thought to make speech acts more demanding in certain situations.
»In addition, since there were some significant sociocultural differences between the American and the Iranian participants in the assessment of the three variables, some differences appeared between the American and the Iranian participants in their choice of L2 pragmalinguistic strategies. In fact, the findings supported the dynamic interrelationship between language and culture and produced a picture of cross-cultural pragmatic and stylistic variability in terms of English speech act realization patterns of L2 learners and native speakers.»
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario