Républi

queduCamer oun Republ

icofCamer oon
**
* * ****
Pai
x–Tr avai
l–Patrie Peace–Wor k–Fat herl
and
**
* * ****
Mi
nist
èredel’
EnseignementSupér
ieur Mini
str
yofHigherEducation
**
* * ****
Uni
versi
tédeMar oua BP:644Mar oua TheUniv
ersit
yofMar oua
**
* * Tel:(237)22292119 ****
Facul
tédesArt
s,Lett
resetSci
ences e-
mail
 :fal
sh.uma@gmail.
com Facul
tyofAr
ts,
Lett
ersandSoci
al
Humaines Sci
ences
**** ***
Dépar
tementdesLet
tresBi
l
ingues Depar
tmentofBi
li
ngual
Let
ter
s

COURSESYNOPSI
S

DISCI
PLINE 
LETTRESBILI
NGUES

COURSETI
TLE 

COMPARATI
VEANDCONTRASTI
VESTUDI
ES
CROSS-
CULTURALPRAGMATI
CS

HOURS
CYCLE CODE TYPEUE SEMESTRE CREDI
TS
CM TD/
TP TPE

MLB422
MASTERS UE/
F 2 10 10 5 5

By

Dr
.NKWAINJoseph
Lect
urer

1
 Cont
ent
s

1Cour
sepr
esent
ati
on 3

2Key
wor
ds 3
3Mai
nobj
ect
ive 3
4Speci
fi
cobj
ect
ives 3

5Compet
encesandr
esul
tsawai
ted 3

6Pr
erequi
sit
e: ……………………………………………………………………………….
..
..
4
7Cour
sedur
ati
on: 4

8Cour
sepl
an 4

9Cour
secont
ent 5

10Ev
aluat
ion…………………………………………………………………………………5

11Ref
erences 6

12Chapt
er1:
Gener
ali
ntr
oduct
ion 7

13Chapt
er2:
Typol
ogi
singpr
agmat
ics…………………………………………………….10
14Chapt
er3:
Cul
tur
e,i
nter
cul
tur
alpr
agmat
icsandpr
agmat
ict
ransf
er…….
.………………13
15Chapt
er4:
 
Fact
orsdef
ini
ngspeechbehav
iourpar
ti
cul
ari
ti
es 14

16Chapt
er5:
 OnEngl
i
shandFr
enchl
i
ngui
sti
cpol
i
teness 15

17Chapt
er6:
 Ex
posés……………………………………….
…………………………….
.16
18Chapt
er7:
 Ex
posés
19Chapt
er8:
 Ex
posés
20Chapt
er9:
 Ex
posés

2
Coursepresentation
Thiscour
sehi ghlightssomeoft hefundament alandv i
sibl
ear easofEngl i
shandFr enchusewi t
h
att
enti
onpai dt
ot hedi fferentpointsofconv er
genceanddi vergenceatthepragmaticlevelwhenbot h
l
anguagesar eused.Assuch,t hecour seexami nes,i
dentifi
es,expl
icat
esandexempl if
iescertai
n
domainst hatbringt ot hel i
melightthedi ff
erencesandsi mil
ari
ti
eswhi chcharacterizelingui
sti
c
perf
ormanceatt hatl evel.From acompar at
iveperspect
ive,thecoursesurveyst
hedi f
ferentpoi nt
sof
conver
genceanddi vergencet hatcharacteri
seEngl i
shandFr enchusageatapurelypragmat i
clevel
.

Key
wor
ds
- i
nference
- context
- i
mpl i
catur
e
- Pragmatictransf
er
- Pragmaticfail
ure
- Cult
ure
- Speechacts

Mainobject
ive
Themai nobject
iveofthecour
seistoenablestudent
sapprehendandaccountforthepoi
ntsof
conver
genceanddiver
gencewit
hregar
dtoEngl
ishandFrenchuseespeci
all
yatt
hepragmat
icl
evel
.

Speci
fi
cobjecti
ves
Bytheendofthecour
se,
student
sshoul
dbeabl
eto:
- under
standt
her
elat
ionshi
pbet
weenl
anguage,
cul
tur
eandcont
ext
;

- gr
aspt
hedi
ff
erentpr
agmat
icaspect
sofEngl
i
shandFr
enchcul
tur
es

- i
dent
if
y,accountforandexpli
cat
ethedif
fer
entpoint
sofconv
ergenceanddi
ver
gencewi
th
r
egar
dt oEngl
ishandFrenchpr
agmat
icl
anguageuse.

Competencesandr esul
tsawait
ed
Atthi
slevel
,studentshaveanaccept
ableleveloft
hef
undament alpr
agmati
cntinsfbt
hl anguages
evenift
heknowl edgeofeachi si
sol
ated.Thisisapr
erequi
sit
ef oranef
fecti
vecomparati
vit
yand
contr
ast
ivi
tyoftheident
if
ieddomai
ns.

Prerequi
site:
Beforeattempti
ngt
oest
abl
i
sht
hepoi
ntsofconv
ergenceanddi
ver
gencet
hatchar
act
eri
sebot
h

3
l
anguagesatthepragmat i
clevel,
studentsareexpect edtodemonst r
atebasicknowledgemast eryof
fundament
alpragmat i
c concepts such as i nferent
ialmechanisms,the constr
uction ofr el
ated
concept
s,thenonlit
eralusageofl anguage,i ntenti
onali
tyorcommuni cati
ongoal st hatunderli
e
Engli
shandFrenchusage,ther ol
eofcont extinget ti
ngenv i
sagedmeaning,basi
cinterpersonaland
groupcommunicat
ionprinci
ples,i
mplicat
ure,inferencing,
etc.

Coursedurat
ion:15hrs
Toat tai
ntheobjecti
vesofthi
scourse,thel ear
nerissupposedt
opr ogrammet hehoursofthe
l
earningacti
vit
iesli
nkedtothecour
se:r eadingofcoursesuppor
t,auto-
eval
uat
ion,consol
i
dat
ion
exer
cisesandassignment
stobesubmitt
edf orcontr
ol.

Cour
sepl
an:
Fi
rstweek

Gener
ali
ntr
oduct
ion

Secondweek

Ty
pol
ogi
singpr
agmat
ics

Cul
tur
e,i
nter
cul
tur
alpr
agmat
icsandpr
agmat
ict
ransf
er

Thi
rdweek

Fact
orsdef
ini
ngspeechbehav
iourpar
ti
cul
ari
ti
es

OnEngl
i
shandFr
enchl
i
ngui
sti
cpol
i
teness

Four
thweek

Exposés

Fi
ft
hweek

Exposés

Si
xthweek

Exposés

Sev
ent
hweek

Exposés

Ei
ght
hweek

Exposés

4
Evaluati
on  
Theev al
uationmar ks,gui
dedwork(GW)andPersonalsuper
visedwor
k(PSW)countfor:20%,20%,
and10%r especti
vely.Theendofsemest
erexam countsfor50%oftheeval
uat
ion.Justonere-si
t
sessionisprogrammed.

- PSW 
:20%

- GW 
:10%

- Ev
al:
20%

- Fi
nal
exam 
:50%

Ref
erences

Hamza,A.
A.(
2007)
.Cr
oss-
Cul
tur
alLi
ngui
sti
cPol
i
teness:Mi
sunder
standi
ngsbet
weenAr
abs and
Br
it
ish
Lakof
f,R.(
1972)
.Languagei
ncont
ext
.Language,
48(
4),
907-
927.USA:
Lingui
sti
csoci
etyofAmer
ica.
Leech,G.(
1983).Pri
nci
plesofpragmatics.London:Longman.Leper
e,Ger
aldi
ne.Mer
dehappens.
Why are French Peopl e so r ude? And what t o do about i t
. Ret
ri
eved fr
om:
htt
ps:/
/www.f
luenti
n3months.
com
Lodge,Ant
hony(1999).Col
l
oquialv
ocabul
aryandpol
itenessinFrench. TheModer
nLanguage
Revi
ew,94(2)
,355-
356.ModernHumani
ti
esResear
chAssociat
ion.
Maly
uga,E.N.&Orl
ova,S. N.(2017)
.Li
ngui
sti
c Pr
agmat
ics of i
nter
cul
tur
alpr
ofessi
onaland
Busi
nesscommuni
cat
ion.Spri
nger
.
Searl
e,J.(1969) .SpeechAct s:Anessayi nthephilosophyoflanguage.London:Cambr i
dgePress.
Shammas,N. A.( 1995),Pragmat i
cFailure:Misunderst
anding i
nVer balCommunicationBetween
SpeakersofAr abicandEngl ish(Unpubli
shedPhDThesi s).Loughbor
oughUni v
ersi
ty,Engl
and.f
rom:
htt
ps:/
/jour
nals.openediti
on.org/
Lexis/
820.doi:
10.4000/Lexis.
820.
Vander
veken,D.& Kubo,S.(
2002)
.Essay
sin Speech ActTheor
y.John Benj
ami
nsPubl
i
shi
ng
Company.
Wierzbi
cka,A.(
2003)
.Cross-
cul
tur
alPragmat
ics:TheSemant
icsofhumani
nter
act
ion(
2nd edn)
.
Berl
i
nandLondon:MoutondeGruyt
er.

5
 Chapt
er1

Gener
ali
ntr
oduct
ion

Whenadipl
omatsays y
es,hemeans‘
perhaps’
;
 
Whenhesays 
per
haps,hemeans‘no’
;
 
Whenhesays 
no,
hei snotadi
plomat
.—Volt
air
e (
Quot
ed,
inSpani
sh,
inEscandel
l1993.
)

Thesel ines— al soat tr

ibutedt oH.L.MenckenandCar lJung— mayormaynotbef airtodiplomats,butare
surelycor recti nremi ndingust hatmor eisinv olvedinwhatonecommuni cat esthanwhatonel i
ter
all
ysay s;
mor eisi nv olvedi nwhatonemeanst hant hest andar d,conv enti
onalmeani ngoft hewor dsoneuses.The
words‘ yes,’‘per haps,’and‘ no’eachhasaper fectlyidenti
fiablemeani ng,knownbyev eryspeakerofEngl i
sh
(i
ncludingnotv erycompet entones) .Howev er,ast hosel i
nesi ll
ust
rate,i
tispossi blef ordiff
erentspeakersin
dif
ferentci r
cumst ancest o mean di ff
erentthi ngsusi ng thosewor ds.How i st hispossi ble?What ’
st he
rel
ationshipamongt hemeani ngofwor ds,whatspeaker smeanwhenut teringt hosewor ds,thepar t
icul
ar
cir
cumst ancesoft heirutterance,theiri
ntent
ions, thei
ract i
ons, andwhatt heymanaget ocommuni cat
e?These
aresomeoft hequest i
onst hatpr agmaticstri
est oanswer ;thesortofquest ionst hat,r oughlyspeaki
ng,serve
tochar acterizet hefieldofpr agmat i
cs.

Althoughmanydef ini
ti
onsofpr agmat i
cshav ebeenpr oposed,inr ecentli
ter
atureiti sCrystal
'
swhi chhas
becomeoneoft hemostf r
equentl
ycited,part
icul
arl
ywithi
nthesubdomai nofint
erlanguagepr agmati
cswhich
i
nv olv
esthestudyofl anguageusebyL2speaker s(RossandKasper3) .Crystaldefinespragmati
csast he
studyoflanguagefrom thepointofv i
ewoft heusers,especi
all
yt hechoicestheymake,t heconstr
aintst
hey
encounterin using l
anguage in soci
ali nt
eract
ion and t
he effectst hei
ruse ofl anguage has on ot
her

6
parti
cipantsint heactofcommuni cati
on.Thisdefi
nit
ionrepr
esentsani mportantshiftfr
om otheroneswhi ch
emphasi zepr i
mar i
l
yspeakermeani ngbyhi ghl
ight
ingbothint
eract
ionandper l
ocution,theeff
ectthatlanguage
hason ot herpar ti
esi n an exchange (Rossand Kasper2- 3).Thisdefini
t i
on also expl
icit
lyadopt sthe
perspectiv
eofl anguageuser s.Aswewi l
larguethroughoutthi
sarti
cle,i
tisthisincreasi
nglyemi cpercepti
on
ofcommuni cati
onwhi chhasmadecont emporarypragmat i
csresearchpar ti
cularl
ywel l
-adapted t
o both
speciali
zedandnon- speci
ali
zedteaching.

Component sofpr agmat ics:soci opr agmat i

csandpr agmal i
nguist i
cs
Eversi ncet hedi sti
nct ionwasor i
ginallymadei n1983byLeech, manyr esearcher shav econt i
nuedt oconsi der
thatpr agmat icsconsi stsoft wocomponent s:sociopragmat i
csandpr agmal inguist i
cs(KasperandRose2) .
Sociopr agmat icsl i
esatt hei nter
sect ionofpr agmat icsandsoci ologyandconcer nst her el
ativev aluest hat
socialgr oups at tri
but et o par ticular communi cativ
e act i
ons ( Kasper and Rose 2) .An exampl e of
sociopr agmat icsi st hef actt hatcust omer swhoent eraFr enchshopar eexpect edt ogreett heshopkeeper .
Pragmal i
nguist i
cs, ont heot herhand, concernst herelati
onshipbet weenpr agmat i
csandt helanguagesy stem,
and t husknowl edgeofwhi chwor dsand expr essi
onscanbeusedt oi ndexi nt enti
onsori nt
er per
sonal
rel
ationshi ps( Timpe- Laughl inetal .6) .
 Anexampl eofpr agmal inguisti
csi st hef actthatt heFr encht erm
“Bonjour ”isagr eetingwhi chi sof t
enusedf orstrangers,andther eforecoul dbeusedt ogreett heshopkeeper
i
nt he abov e si tuat ion. Although t hese t wo not i
ons ov erlap as soci opr agmat ics ar e expressed v ia
pragmal i
nguistics,mai ntainingt hisdi sti
ncti
oncanbeusef ulforl anguaget eacher sbecausei tmayencour age
them t ofindabal ancebet weenpr agmat i
cinstructi
onemphasi zingt hecommuni cativenor msofsoci algroups
andpr agmat i
ci nstruct ionf ocusedont herelati
onshipbet weenl i
ngui st
icf or
m andf unct i
on.

Under standingt hescopeofpr agmat ics:Thecaseofpr agmaticsanddi scourseanalysi

s
As seen eal ier,contempor ary def i
nit
ions ofpr agmat i
cs havet aken a br oad perspecti
v e,i
ncl
udi ng al
l
“communi cativeaction”ratherthansi mplyunit
ssuchasspeechact s( KasperandRose2) .Undersuchabr oad
defi
nition,pragmat i
csmayappeart obeco- extensivewi t
hbot hsociol
inguisti
csanddi scourseanalysis.Why,
then,emphasi zepr agmaticsr athert han di
scour seanalysisorsoci olingui
sti
cs?I tist heemphasi sthat
contempor ar
ypr agmat i
cspl acesonbot htheuser '
sperspecti
v eandoncommuni cat
iveacti
on, asi
ll
ustratedin
Crystal’
sdef initi
on,whichhav ecompel ledustoemphasi zetheimpor t
anceofpr agmati
csr athert
hananot her
paradigm.Howev er
,duet othef actthattheydoof f
erinsightsoncommuni cati
veact i
on,bothdi scourse
analysisandsoci oli
nguisti
cshav et r
emendoussy nergywithpragmatics.

Bothdiscourseanal ysisandpr agmat i

csar econcernedwiththestudyofut terancesi
ncontext,t
houghtheyare
generall
yconsider eddi sti
nct.Thedi vergencesbetweent hesetwopar adi
gmscanbeaccount edf orbythei
r
di
fferentori
gins;di scourseanal ysisev ol
vedfrom thef i
eldoflinguist
icsasl i
ngui
stssaw theneedt olook
beyondt hesent enceandt otakei ntoaccountco- text
ualandcont extualfactor
sinor dert ounderst
and
l
anguageuse,wher easpr agmat i
csev olv
edf r
om thef i
eldsofphilosophyandl ogi
casr hetor
ici
anssaw the
needt olookbey ondt het r
uth-condi
tionsofut t
erancesandt oconsi dert hewayt hatlanguagei susedin
contextt o accompl ish actions (Cost e 246).Consequent l
y,each par adigm has dev el
oped it
s own
methodologi
esandt radit
ions.

Despi t
ethesedi ffer
ences,bothpar adi
gmshav ebeenappl i
edt olanguaget eachingforthesamer eason:
becauset heygobey ondgr ammarandl exi
conandpr ovideaccountsofcommuni cat
ion.Theassoci
ati
on
betweenpr agmat i
csandgener all
anguageteachi
ngcanbet racedtothewi despreadassimil
ati
onofspeech
actt heor
yi nt
ol anguagecur r
iculaatthedawnoft heCommuni cat
iveAppr oach.Theassociati
onbetween
discourseanalysisandspeciali
zedlanguageteachi
ng,ontheotherhand,canbet racedtothedevel
opmentof
7
Engl
ishforSpecif
icPurposes,
aspedagogi
ststur
nedtodiscourseanal
ysest
ochar
act
eri
zet
hel
anguageused
wit
hinvari
ousdiscour
secommuniti
es(Dudley-
EvansandSt.John19-25)
.

Despitethedi f
ferencesbet weenpr agmat i
csanddi scourseanal ysis,thewayst hatt heset woper specti
ves
“complementandi nfl
uence”eachot heri sincreasinglybei ngtakeni ntoconsiderati
onduet otheirshared
concernforthest udyofl anguageuse( SchneiderandBar ron3).Emphasi zi
ngt hesimi l
ari
tiesbetweent hese
paradi
gmscanhel punifyt hest udyofpur posefullanguageuseunderoneumbr ell
a,regardl
essofwhet heri
tis
oralorwrit
tenorofi t
sdegr eeofspeci al
izati
on,andr egardlessoftheuni tofl
anguageconcer ned--
speechact s,
speechev ents,conv ersations,t ext
s,genr esoranyot heruni t
.Dev el
opingtheconv ersat
ionbet weent hese
paradi
gmsf orst udying languageusehast hepot enti
alt oincreaseuni t
ylanguagei nstruct
ioni nhigher
educati
on,asect orinwhi chev erystudentisconcer nedwi t
hl anguageusei ncontext.

Pragmat icsExampl es
Pragmat i
c meanspr acti
calorl ogical.I
fsomeonecallsy ou pragmatic,theymeant haty out endtot hinkin
ter
msoft hepr act
icalorl ogicalr at
herthantheidealsituati
on.Thet erm pragmat i
cs 
ist heref
oreusedi n
contrasttosemant ics.Semant i
cshast odowi t
htheact ualdef i
nit
ionofawor dort ext.
 Pragmatics 
refersto
howwor dsar eusedi napract i
calsense.Wordscanmeandi f
ferentthi
ngs, andoftenthesamewor dcanmean
somet hi
ngdi ffer
entdependi ngont hecont
exti
nwhichitisused.Wor dscanal socarrysy mbolicmeani ngand
i
npr acti
ce, orpract
icalsit
uations,wewi l
lappl
yourunderstandingofsy mbol saswer eadorl ist
entoother s.

A pr
agmatic 
viewmeanst hatonedoesn'
tthi
nkinidealorabst
ractt
erms.Forexample,wordsthatat
temptto
expl
ainabstractconcepts-fr
eedom,beaut
y -
havenomeani nginandoft hemselves.I
nstead,someonewho
l
ooksat  
pragmat i
cs 
wouldat tempttounderst
andhow t heyarebeingusedinagi v
en,concret
e,pract
ical
si
tuati
on.I
not herwords,
theyl ookathowweapplythesewordsinpr
acti
cal
,every
daylanguage.

Exampl es:
1. Willyoucr ackopent hedoor ?Iam gettinghot .
Semant icall
y,thewor d"crack"woul dmeant obr eak,but  pragmat i
call
y 
weknow thatthespeakermeanst o
opent hedoorj ustal it
tl
et oletinsomeai r
.
2. I
 heart 
you!
Semant icall
y," heart"r efer s to an or gan i n our body t hat pumps blood and keeps us al ive.
Howev er, 
pragmat i
call
y,"hear t
"inthissentencemeans" love"-heartsarecommonlyusedasasy mbolforlove,
andt o"heart"someonehascomet omeant hatyoul ovesomeone.
3. I
fy oueatal lofthatf ood,itwill
makey ou 
bigger!
Semant icall
y,"bigger"i nt hissent encewoul dmeanl argert hany ouarecurr
entl
y.Thinkabouthow t his
sentence, pr
agmat i
cally
,woul dmeansomet hingdifferentdependi ngont hecont
ext.I
fitissai
dt oay oung
chi
ld, 
pragmat icall
y,itwouldmeant ogr owbigger.Ifiti
ssai dtoagr ownpersonwhoisalr
eadyobese,
itwould
meansomet hi
ngent i
rel
ydi ffer
ent.

Pr
agmat
ics:Knowi
ngwhatt
osayi
ncer
tai
nsi
tuat
ions

TheForei
gnLanguageTeachingMet
hodsmodulesfrom theUni
ver
sit
yofTexas-Austi
nincludesa sect
ionon
pragmati
cs 
–howcontextandsit
uat
ionaff
ectmeani
ng–whi chisext
remelyi
mportantforlanguagestudents
tolear
n,yetremai
nsdiff
icul
ttomaster
.Learni
ngwhatt osayandwhent osayit,theappr opr
iat
euseof
l
anguage,vari
essi
gni
fi
cantlyamongcult
uresandlanguagesandifstudent
sarenotev enawar eoft hese

8
diff
erences,theyri
skoffendi
ngorconfusi
ngothersormisunderst
andingwhatissaidtothem.Text
booksdo
address pragmat i
cs,buti nal i
mit
ed way ,such as off
eri
ng possibl
e wayst o accepta compli
ment,
agreeing/di
sagreei
ng,orsharingopi
nions.Theydonot ,andpr obablycannot
,provi
deal loft
hepossibl
e
responsesfoundi nnat
ivespeech.

Aspr agmat i
csencompassesal laspectsofl anguage,itisnotgoodenought osimplyknowt hegr ammarand
vocabulary;student s mustalso hav et he cultur
alknowl edge to underst and and respond appropr
iatel
y
accordingt osocialnorms.Howev er,atthebegi nningstagesoflanguagel earni
ng,pragmat i
csmayhav eto
takeabackseatt obasicv ocabul
ar yacquisit
ion.Ifstudentscan’
tev enpr oduceacoher entsentencei
nt he
targetlanguage,t heycertai
nlywon’ tbeabl et of ocusont hepragmat i
caspectoft heutteranceaswel l
.
Nev er
theless,wecant eachsomepr agmat i
cinformat i
ontobeginni
ngst udents.

Oneexampl eist heconst antmisuseof excuseme  and  I

’
m sor ry byFrenchst udents.I
nAmer i
canEngl ish,we
use  excuseme  whenwewantt ogetsomeone’ sattentionorneedt ogett hroughinacr owdedspace; wher eas
weuse  I
’m sorry toapol ogizeforhavingdonesomet hingort oexpr esssy mpat hyforsomeonewhohas
exper iencedsomet hingsadordi sappoi
nti
ng.Inaddi t
ion,wemayal sosay  Sorr
y? whenwedon’ tunderstandor
hav en’theardsomet hing.Yetwoul dconstantl
ysay“ excuseme”whent heyhaddonesomet hingwr ong  (
such
ast hrowi ngpenci l
sacr osstheroom…andy es,Itaughtatauni versi
ty)because excuse-moi 
iswhatt heywoul d
hav esai dinFrench.Thent heywoul dst
artwith 
I’
m sor ry 
whent heywant edt ogetmyat tent
ion.Itri
edt oteach
them t hedi f
fer
encesbet weent hetwophr ases,andinwhi chsituati
ont heyshoul duseeach,butt heirhabi tof
translatingli
terall
yf r
om Fr enchintoEngli
shalway sinterferedunt i
lIspecifical
l
ypointedoutt hecont ext,l
ikea
mot hert ryi
ngtot eachherchi l
dgoodmanner s:Ifyou’reapol ogizi
ngbecausey oudi dsomet hingwr ong,what
doy ousay ?

Anexampl eofAmer i
cansl earni ngf orei
gnl anguagesi stheov eruseof  I
’m sorry 
inthet argetl anguage.I n
somel anguages, suchasFr ench, sayingI’m sorr
yshouldnotbeusedt oexpresssy mpat hy.Ify ouneedt osend
fl
ower sbecausey ourfri
end’ sgr andf atherjustdied,youshoulddef ini
telynotwr i
te 
Jesui sdésol é ont hecar d,
becauset heny ouwoul dbeapol ogizi
ngf orhav i
ngdonesomet hing,i.e.causi
ngt hedeat h.Ast andar dphr ase
suchas  Veuil
lezaccept ertout esmescondol éances 
woul dbeappr opr i
ateinthissituati
on,i nsteadofal it
er al
translationof Sorryf ory ourl oss  or 
Myt houghtsar ewi thyou. Pardonisusedt oapol ogi zef orsomet hing
(accident al
lybumpi ngi ntosomeone)ort oasksomeonet or epeatwhatt heysai d( compar e Ibegy our
pardon?  
inEngli
sh)i nadditiont omeani ngexcusemewhent ry
ingt ogetsomeone’ sattention,justas  excusez-
moi  
isused,especi allyinr est aur antst ogett heser ver’
sattention.Excusez- moii salsof oundi nt heset
phrase  excusez-moi dev ousdér anger  –sorryforbotheri
ngy ou–sot herearesev eraltr
ansl ati
onsf orI’
m sor ry
i
nFr enchdependi ngont hecont ext.
Chapter2

Ty
pol
ogi
singpr
agmat
ics
Pragmaticsdeal swith utt
erances,bywhi chwewi l
lmeanspeci fi
cev ents,theintenti
onalactsofspeaker sat
ti
mes and pl aces,t ypicall
yi nvolvi
ng language.Logi c and semant i
cs tradi
tional
ly dealwith properti
es
of 
types ofexpressi
ons,andnotwi thproper ti
est hatdif
ferfrom tokentot oken,oruset ouse,or,asweshal l
say,fr
om ut t
erancetout t
erance,andv arywi tht heparti
cularproperti
esthatdifferent
iat
et hem.Pragmaticsis
somet i
meschar act
erizedasdeal ingwit ht heef fect
sof  
context.Thisisequi valenttosay i
ngi tdeal
swi th
utt
erances,ifonecollectivel
yrefer stoallthef actsthatcanv ar
yf rom utt
erancet outter
anceas‘ cont
ext.
’ One
mustbecar eful,howev er,
forthet ermisof tenusedwi t
hmor eli
mi tedmeani ngs.

9
Dif
ferenttheorist
shav efocusedondi fferentproperti
esofut t
erances.Todi scusst hem itwi l
lbehelpfulto
makeadi stinct
ionbetween‘near-si
depr agmat i
cs’and‘far-
sidepragmatics.
’Thepi ct
ur eisthis.Theutt
erances
phil
osophers usuallyt ake as par adigmat ic are asserti
v e uses of declarati
ve sent ences,wher et he
speaker 
say s 
something. 
Near-
sidepr agmat ics i
sconcer nedwitht henatur
eofcer t
ainf act
st hatarerel
evant
todeterminingwhatissaid. 
Far-
sidepr agmat ics 
isfocusedonwhathappens  beyondsay i
ng:whatspeechact s
areperformed in 
or 
bysayingwhati ssai d,or whati
mpl i
catures(seebelowf oranexpl anati
onoft heseterms)
aregeneratedbysay i
ngwhati ssaid.

Near
-sidepragmati
csincl
udes,buti
snotli
mit
edtoresol
uti
onofambi gui
tyandv agueness,theref
erenceof
pr
oper names,i ndexi
cal
s and demonstr
ati
ves,and anaphors,and at least some i ssues i
nvolvi
ng
pr
esupposit
ion.I
nal lofthesecasesfact
sabouttheutterance,bey
ondtheexpr essionsusedandt heir
meanings,
areneeded.

Wecandi v
idethesef actsintosev er
alcategori
es.Forindexicalssuchas‘ I
,’
‘now,’and‘her
e,’basicfactsabout
theutt
erancear erequired:theagent,andwhenandwher ei toccurred.Forot
herindexical
sanddemonst rati
ves,
speakerintent
ionsareal sorel
evant.Whi l
eitseemst her eferentof‘you’mustbeaper sonaddr essedbyt he
speaker,whichofsev eralpossibleaddresseesisr efer
redt oseemsupt ot hespeaker’sintenti
ons.Wi thi
n
synt
acti
candsemant icconst r
aints,anaphori
crelati
onsseem l ar
gelyamat terofspeaker ’
sintent.Speaker’
s
i
ntenti
onsandt hewayt hespeakeri sconnectedt othewi derwor ldbycausal/hi
stor
ical‘chai
nsofr eference’
arerel
evanttot heref
er enceofpr opernames.

Far-
side pr
agmatics deals wi
th whatwe do withlanguage,
 bey
ond  whatwe ( l
i
teral
l
y)say
.Thisisthe
concepti
onaccordingtowhi chVolt
air
e’sr
emarksbel
ongt opragmat i
cs.It
’supt osemanti
cst
otel
luswhat
someonel i
ter
all
ysay swhent heyuseexpressi
onsofagi v
ent ype;it’
supt opragmati
cst
oexplai
nthe
i
nformati
ononeconv eys,andtheacti
onsoneperf
orms,i
norbysay i
ngsomet hi
ng.

Intercultur
alPragmat icsi sconcer nedwi t
ht hewayt helanguagesy stem isputt ousei nsoci alencount ers
bet weenhumanbei ngswhohav ediferentfr
stlan-guages,communi catei nacommonl anguage,and,usual ly,
repr esentdif
erentcultures( cf.Kecskes2013) .Thecommuni cati
v eprocessi nt heseencount ersi ssy ner
gisti
c
i
nt hesenset hatint hem exi sti
ngpr agmat -
icnormsandemer ging,co- constr
uct edf
eatur esar epr esenttoa
vary ingdegree.InterculturalPragmat icsrepresentsasoci o-cogniti
veper specti
v ei
nwhi chi n-divi
dualpr i
or
exper i
enceand act ualsoci alsi t
uationalexperiencear eequal l
yi mpor t
anti n meaning con- struction and
compr ehensi
on.Focusi ngonbot horalandwr i
tt
enl anguageprocessi ngr esearchinint
er cul-
turalpr agmat i
cs
hasf ourmainfoci:
1.inter
acti
onbetweennati
vespeaker
sandnon-na-t
ivespeaker
sofalanguage,(i
tgoeswi
thoutsayi
ngthatt
he
t msnat
er iv
espeakerandnon-
nati
vespeakerar
enott hebestwaytodescri
belanguagepr
ofci
ency.However
,it
i
sst i
l
l t
heseter
mst hatmaket
hedisti
nct
ioncl
earerthananyothert
erms.
)
2.l
i
nguaf
rancacommuni
cat
ioni
nwhi
chnoneoft
hei
nter
locut
orshast
hesameL1,
3.mul
ti
li
ngual
discour
se,
and
4.l
anguageuseanddev
elopmentofi
ndi
vi
dual
swhospeakmor
ethanonel
anguage.
Themai
nf ocusofint
ercultur
alpragmat
icsi
slanguageuser
athert
hanpr
agmat
iccompet
encewhi
chi
scon-
si
der
edalanguagesocial
izati
onissuewi
thi
nthi
sparadi
gm.

10
Thesocio-cognit
iveapproachdefnesi nt
ercultur
ali
tyasaphenomenont hatisnotonlyinteracti
onall
yand
soci
all
yconst r
uctedinthecourseofcommuni cati
onbutal
sor
eli
esonrelati
velydef
nabl
ecul t
uralmodelsand
norms thatr epresentthe t
argetlanguage speech communit
y and speech communi t
ies to which t
he
i
nterl
ocutorsbelong.Consequentl
y,i
ntercul
turali
-t
ycanbeconsider
edani nter
imrulesyst
em t hathasboth
rel
ati
vel
ynor mati
v eandemergentcomponent s.
Inor derforust ounder st
andthedy nami
sm andev -
er-changingnat ureofi
nter cul
turalencounter
sweneedt o
approachi ntercult
urali
tydial
ecti
cal
ly.Cul
tur-
alconstructsandmodel schangedi achroni
call
ywhi l
ecul t
ural
representati
onandspeechpr oducti
onbyin-di
vi
dual
schangessy nchroni
cal
ly.Ther esultoftheco-const
ructi
on
processi sintercul
turesthatTom KooleandJanD.t enTi j
e( 1994:69)referredtoascul t
ureconst r
uctedin
cult
ur alcontact.
Kecskes( 2011)defnedint ercult
uresassi tuationall
yemer gentandco- const
r uctedphenomenat hatrel
ybot h
onr el
ati
velydefnableculturalnormsandmod- elsaswel lassi tuati
onall
yevol vingfeatures.I
ntercul
-tur
esar e
usuall
yadhoccr eati
ons.Theyar ecr eat
edi nacommuni cativeprocessi nwhi chculturalnormsandmodel s
broughtintotheinteract
ionf r
om priorexpe-rienceofi nterlocutorsblendwithf eaturescr eat
edadhoci nt he
i
nteracti
oninasy nergeti
cway .Ther esul
tisi ntercul
tur
aldi scourseinwhi chther eismut ualtr
ans-for
mat i
onof
knowledgeandcommuni cat i
vebehav iorrathert hantransmi ssion.Teemphasi si sont ransfor
-mationrather
thanont r
ansmission.
I
nter
cul
tur
alpr
agmat
icsv
ersusi
nter
-l
anguageandcr
oss-
cul
tur
alpr
agmat
ics
Wehav et o explai
nthedi f
erencebet weenint
ercul
tur
alpr agmat i
csandi nter
languageandcr oss-
cult
ur al
pragmatics.Ani mport
antreasonfortheemergenceofintercul
turalpragmati
csasanewf el
dofinquir
yatt he
beginni
ngoft he2000swast odist
inguishr
esearchonintercul
turalinter
act
ionanddi scoursef
rom inter
lan-
guagepragmat i
csandcross-cul
tur
alpragmati
cs.
Cross-
cul
tur
alpragmati
csrepresent
stheposi
ti
vi
stre-
searchendeavorsofthe1980’
sand1990’swithamotto
ofwhenyouareinRome, doast heRomansdo.I
norderforonetodot hatonehastobefamil
i
arwiththedi
fer
-
encesandsi
milari
ti
esoflanguagebehav
iori
ndif
fer
entcultur
es.Tf
isiswhyt hemaj
orgoaloft
hedisci
pli
ne
hasbeent oinvesti
gat
eandhi ghl
ightaspectsoflanguagebehav i
ori
nwhichspeakersfrom var
iouscultures
havedif
erencesandsimi l
arit
ies.Accordi
ngtoGabr i
eleKasperandRichar
dSchmidt(1996),t
hecr oss-
cult
ur al
pragmati
csappr oachi
scompar ativ
e,focusi
ngont hecross-cul
tur
alsi
mil
ari
tyanddifer
-enceinthel i
nguisti
c
real
iz
ati
onandt hesocioprag-maticjudgmentincont
exts.
Interl
anguagepr agmat icsfocusesont heacqui sit
ionanduseofpr agmat i
cnor msi nL2:how L2l earners
produceandcompr ehendspeechact s,andhow t heirpragmaticcompet encedev elopsov ert i
me( e.g.
Kasper /
Blum-Kulka1993; Kasper1998).Accor dingt oKasperandDahl ,thefocusofi nter l
anguagepr agmat -i
cs
i
sonacqui si
ti
on.I texpl esnonnat
or iv
espeaker scompr ehensi
onandpr oductionofspeechact s, andhowt hei
r
L2-rel
atedspeechactknowl edgeisacqui red,(Kasper /
Dahl1991:216)andal soexami neschi l
doradul tNNS
speechactbehav i
orandknowl -edge,t
ot heexcl usionofL1chi ldandadul tpragmat-ics«( i
bid.
).Todat e,many
cross-sect
ional
,l ongitudi
-nal,and theoreticalst udieshav e been conducted mai n-l
ywi thaf ocus on L2
classroom int
eract i
ons,whi chhasr esultedi naspeci alti
ebet weeninterl
anguagepr ag-mat
icsandsecond
l
anguageacqui siti
onr esearch.
Inaway ,i
nterlanguagepr agmat i
csi ncor
poratescross-culturalpragmati
cs( e.g.Wi er
zbicka2003),al-
though
thereissomedi fer
encebet weent hetwo.Thef undament alt enetofcr
oss-cultur
alpragmat i
cswasdef i
nedby
Anna Wi erzbicka inthe f ol
lowing way :In diff
erentsoci eti
es and di
fferentcommuni ti
es,people speak
diff
erentl
y;thesedi f
ferencesinway sofspeaki ngarepr ofoundandsy st
emat ic,t
heyr ef
lectdif
fer
entcultural
values,oratleastdi f
ferenthierarchiesofvalues;dif
fer
entway sofspeaking,diff
erentcommuni cati
vestyles,
canbeexpl ainedandmadesenseofi ntermsofi ndependent l
yestabl
isheddi ff
erentcultur
alvaluesand
cultur
alpri
orit
ies.(Wierzbicka1991: 69)
11
Cross-cult
uralpr
agmat icstakest hev iew t
hati ndi-
vidualsf r
om t wosoci et
iesorcommuni ti
escar ryoutt hei
r
i
nteracti
ons( whetherspokenorwr i
tten)ac-cordingt otheirownr ulesornor ms,ofenr esul
ti
ngi nacl ashin
expectati
onsand, ul
timately,
mi spercep-t
ionsaboutt heot hergroup«( Boxer2012:151).Cross-cultur
alst udi
es
focusmai nlyonspeechactr e-ali
zati
onsi ndiferentcultures,cult
uralbreakdowns, andpragmat i
cf ail
ures,such
asthewaysomel inguis-t
icbehav i
orsconsider edpoliteinonel anguagemaynotbepol i
teinanot herlanguage.
Asi gnif
cantnum- beroft hesest udiesuseacompar ati
v eappr oacht odif-f
erentcul
turalnormsr efectedin
l
anguageuse( cf
.Wi er
zbicka1991; 2003; House2008; Spencer -
Oat ey2000;Tomas1983) .
Theconcer nsofi ntercult
uralpr agmat i
cssi gni
fcant l
ydifferfrom thoseofbot hint
erlanguagepr agmaticsand
cross-
culturalpragmat i
cs.Thef ocusofi nter
culturalpragmat icsisinter
cultur
alcommuni cationthatinvolv
es
i
nteracti
onsamongpeopl ef r
om di fer-
entcul t
ures,ratherthancr oss-
cult
uralcommuni ca-t
ionthatinvolvesa
compar i
sonofi nteracti
onsamongpeopl efrom t hesamecul turetothosef rom anotherculture.Temai n
featur
esofi ntercul
turalpr agmat icscan besummar i
zed asf oll
ows.Fi r
st,thetheoreticalfoundation of
i
ntercult
uralpragmat i
csisasoci ocogniti
vef r
amewor kt hatwi l
lbedi scussedbelow.Sec- ond,focusi nthis
paradi
gm i sonintercultur
esr athert hanjustcult
ur esasr epresentedinthelanguageuseofi nterl
ocutor
s.
Int
erculturali
tyint hatf r
amewor khasbot hr ela-
ti
v elynormativeandemer gentcomponent s.I tisnotonl y
i
nteractionallyandsoci all
yconstructedi nthecour seofcommuni cationbutal sor eli
esonr elativel
ydef nabl
e
cult
ural model sandnor mst hatrepresentthespeechcommuni ti
estowhi cht heinterl
ocutorsbel ong.TheseL1
cult
uralmodel sandnor msar enev erfull
yr epresentedi nint
ercul
turalinteractions.Inf act
,somet imest heyare
notrepresent edatal l
.Theext enttowhi cht hespeaker srelyonthem i saf ectedbysev er-
alvariablesincludi
ng
thedy nami sm ofconv ersati
on,emer gentindividualintenti
ons,si
tuationalf actors,processofcommongr ound
buil
ding,emer gentsitua-ti
onalsalience,et c.Tird,thef ocusofi nterculturalpr agmat i
csresear chisont he
natureandchar acteri
s-ti
csofact uallanguageuser at
herthanonpr agmat i
ccompet ence,transfer,language
acquisit
ion, orspeechactr eal
izati
onsi ndiferentcultures.

Cont
rast
ivepr
agmat
ics
Contrast
ivepr
agmat icsfindsit
sor igin,notsurprisi
ngl
y,inamuchol dert r
adi t
ionofcont rast
ivelingui
sti
cs.A
cl
assicalcont
rasti
v eli
nguisti
cst extbooksuchasDiPi etr
o( 1971),howev er,bar el
ytouchesonaspect sof
l
anguageuse,bar r
ingaf ewremar ksoncr oss-
languagediff
erencesinst y
listicpreference.Butaboutadecade
l
ater,whenaf ixati
ononst r
ucturehadbeenov ert
akenby manyl inguists’concer nwi t
hpr agmat i
cissues,
Fi
siak’s(
1984)proceedingsoft he4t hInternat
ionalConfer
enceofCont rastivePr ojects(i
nChar zy
kowy ,Pol
and
1980,aft
erear
lierediti
onsinZagreb1970, Bucharest1975,andTrier1978)cont ained.
Foll
owi ngThomas( 1981)andLeech(1983),pragmali
nguisti
csdealswitht
hel i
ngui
sti
cresourcesavai
labl
et o
real
izespecifi
cfuncti
ons(e.g.conv
enti
onali
zedstructur
essuchasHowabout…t omakeani ndir
ectrequest)
,
wher eassociopr
agmaticsdealswithaspect
sofsoci alsit
uati
onswithinwhichspeci
fi
cfuncti
onsarer eal
ized
(e.
g.t heci
rcumstancesunderwhichcert
aintypesofspeechacts,say‘or
der
ing’,
canbeperfor
med) .
Fil
lmore’s“Remarksoncont r
astiv
epr agmatics,
”Ol
eksy’s“Towardspragmat i
ccontrasti
veanalysis,”aswellas
othercontri
buti
onsorient
edt opragmat i
cissuesevenifthelabelwasnotused, suchasEnkv i
st’s“ Contr
astiv
e
l
inguist
icsandt extl
i
nguist
ics,”FærchandKasper ’
s“Jaund?–oghv a’så?–acont r
asti
vediscour seanalysi
s
ofgambi tsinGermanandDani sh,”andSzwedek’s“Somepr oblemsofcontrasti
veanalysi
sandt ex tli
ngui
sti
cs.”
Fi
l
lmor
e’s(
1984)engagementwi
thcont
rast
ivepr
agmat
icsst
art
sfr
om t
hef
oll
owi
ngt
akeonpr
agmat
ics:
‘Thedataforpr
agmaticsaret
heli
nki
ngofsent enceswit
hthecontextsofuseinwhich‘perfor
mances’
ofthem
arewelcomeandf i
tt
ing,andtheeval
uat i
onoft henat
ureoft hefitbet
weent hesentenceandi t
scontext
s.
Preci
sel
ybecausethenoti
on‘cont
ext
’includessomuch,att
empt stocorr
elat
eparti
cul
arlingui
sti
cchoi
ceswith
speci
fi
caspectsofcontextaresodi
fficult
.(Fi
l
lmore1984:127).Hegoesont odisti
nguishbetweenwhathe
12
call
s‘ l
argefacts’(
suchaspol i
tenesssyst
ems,pat t
ernsofi ndir
ectness,patt
ernsofr hetori
calorgani
zat
ionof
discourse,etc.
)and‘ smal
lfacts,
’whichhefurthercharacteri
zesas“ thingsthatneedt obel ear
nedoneata
ti
me. ”Het hendecidestoconcentrat
eonsmal lfact
sonl y,i
.e.‘
li
stablepragmaticpractices’someofwhichdo
not‘tr
anslate’well
.Headducesexampl esofthefoll
owingki nds:
•TheSwedi shuseofpast-
tensev
erbsi
ncurr
ent
-experi
enceexcl
amati
ons(e.g.t
heequiv
alentt
oItwascol
d
t
odayutter
edwhenmeet i
ngsomeoneonacoldmorningoutofdoor
s)which,
ifcar
ri
edoverint
oEngl
ish,
wher
e
t
hepresenttensei
sexpect
ed,woul
dsoundf
unny.
• Engl
ishformulat
ionsofsuggestionsasnegat i
vewhy -quest
ions(suchasWhydon´ twegot otheopera
t
onight
?)which,i
futter
edinastructurall
yidenti
calwayinGer man,wouldnotcommunicat
easuggest
ionbuta
(
potent
ial
lyrepr
oachfulandof
fensiv
e)i nquir
yintoreasonsforapresupposednot
-goi
ngtotheoper
a.
•Japanesenegati
veper
missi
onquesti
onst hatsoundpol
i
te(e.
g.Gohanomoosukosii
tadakemasenka?
)but
becomesarcast
icorr
udewhendi
rectl
ytransferr
edint
oEngli
sh(Can’
twer
ecei
vesomemor erice?
).
•Formulai
cexpr
essionssuchasIthoughtyou’
dnev
erask,whi
chi
sinnocent
lyt
easi
ngi
nAmer
icanEngl
i
sh,
butcoul
dbever
yoffensi
veinot
hercontext
s.
Afinalexampleisacategor
yoflexi
calit
emswhichisfamousforbei
nghar
dtotransl
ate,namelypar
ti
cles.
Whent r
yingtorendert
heGermansentencesin(
1)inEngli
sh,t
her
earenocorr
espondi
ngpar t
icl
esavai
labl
e
andthespeakerofEngl
ishmustr
elyonformul
as.
(
1)Ger
manEngl
i
sh
I
chbi
njadei
nVat
er Iam y
ourf
ather
,youknow
I
chbi
nnäml
i
chdei
nVat
erYousee,
I’
myourf
ather
I
chbi
ndochdei
nVat
erIam,
aft
eral
l
,yourf
ather
Observi
ngthi
scont
rast
,Fi
l
lmor
emakesar
emar
kthatgoesi
nthedi
rect
ionoft
hef
ormul
ati
onofat
ypol
ogi
cal
di
ff
erence:
Thepr agmaticpoi ntstobemadeher ear e(1)thattheGer manparticlescor r
espond( howev eri
mperfectl
y)to
fai
rlysubtleparent heti
calformul ai
cexpr essionsincoll
oquialEngli
sh, and( 2)thattheseexpr essi
ons,ifusedin
Englishasof tenast heircount erpar
tsar eusedi nGer man,wouldpr oducev erymanner edspeech.A‘ l
arge’
pragmat icfactaboutGer mani st hatt hecol l
oquiallanguagewel comes( onemi ghtalmostsay‘ requir
es’)
pragmat icparti
clest hatr efl
ectchoi cesamongt henumer ousway si nwhi chi ndivi
dualut ter
ancescanbe
sit
uat edinthei
rdi scoursecont ext.Englishhasanumberofsuchexpr essions,too,butani mpor t
antdiffer
ence
i
st hatt hecorrespondi ngf or
msi nEngl ishcannotbegr ammat i
call
yi ncorporatedintosur faceclauses.This
dif
ferenceseemst oexistby[ 133]v i
rtueoft hef actthattheGermanf ormsar e‘parti
cles’whiletheEngl i
sh
formsar e‘for
mul as’.(Fi
llmore1984: 133- 134).
Heconcl udesbysayi
ngt hat‘smal
l
’f acts,requi
ri
ng,fort hei
rcontrast
iveanalysi
s,att
enti
ont ot
heenti
re
content
soft he‘
cont
ext’box,areof
teni nstancesof“‘
larger’pr
acti
cesbywhi cht wolanguagesdi
ff
ermore
seri
ousl
y”(Fil
l
more1984:134)andwhichmaybeasdi ff
iculttodescr
ibeascult
ures.
Fi
llmore’sformul ati
onwasnotev entheear l
iest.Notonlydiditcoincidewi t
hOl eksy(1984),buti
twasatl east
precededbyGl eason( 1968),Sajavaara(1977) ,
andbyRi l
ey’s(1979)“Towar dsacont rast
ivepragmali
nguist i
cs.
”
Ril
eycl aimst hat“ Contrast
iveAnal ysiswithoutapr agmal i
nguisti
cdi mensioni sinadequate”(1979:57) .He
suggest sthati nspiteofear l
iercalls,li
tt
lewor koft hatkindhasbeendonef orlackofawel l-
developed
pragmal i
nguisticmodelt or
elyon.Het henpr oposesasabasi sf orcontrasti
veanalysisa‘modelofdi scourse’
i
nv ol
vingmeani ngasaconst ructofbehav ior(t
he‘actofcommuni cation’ofwhi chthespeechacti sone
possiblereal
ization),i
ll
ocuti
ons, andnon- verbalcommuni cati
vebehav ior
.Anot heratt
emptwasmadei nOleksy
13
(1984)tocomeup,t entati
vely
,wi t
hagener almodelf orpragmat iccont r
ast i
veanal ysi
s.Incont r
asttoRi l
ey,
whot ookdi scourseashi sst ar
tingpoint
,Oleksyadv ocatesafocusont he‘ communi cati
veact,’
incorporati
nga
l
ocut i
onarycomponent( t
hepr oposit
ionex pressedint heutterance,notj ustthesent ence)
,ani l
l
ocut i
onary
component( traditi
onalspeechact swi t
ht heirsinceri
tyconditionsandt hei
rmul ti
plereal
izati
onf orms),a
pragmat i
co-cont r
astivecomponent( communi t
y/cul
ture-
basedr estri
ctionsont heuseofel ement sf r
om t he
speechactr epertoir
e),andani nt
eracti
vecomponent .Theov erallpurposei s“ handli
ngmat terspertai
ningt o
theunder st
andi ngofhow speaker sacrossl anguagesmani pulatel i
nguisticexpr essi
onst operform diff
erent
societaltasks”( Oleksy1984:362) .By1984,t helabel‘contrastivepr agmat ics’seemedwel l-
establi
shed,
witnessFill
mor e( 1984)andOl eksy(1984).
Chapt
er3

Cul
tur
e,i
nter
cul
tur
alpr
agmat
icsandpr
agmat
ict
ransf
er

Cul
tur
eandl
anguage

Ithasbeenwi del yaccept

edt hatl
anguageandcul t
ur earecloselyr
elatedwi theachot her .Nida(2005)asserts
that:“Sincecul t
ur eisdefi
nedsuccinctl
yast otal
it
yofbel ief
sandpr act
iceofasoci et y,nothingisofgr eat
er
strategicimpor t
ancet hanthelanguagethroughwhi chitsbelief
sareexpr essedandt ransmi tt
edandbywhi ch
mosti nt
eracti
onofi tsmember stakesplace.Wheni tisusedincontextsofcommuni cat i
on,itisboundupwi th
cultureinmul ti
pleandcompl exway s”(p.105).KIuckhohu,af amousant hropologi
stal soagr eesthatitis
unaccept ablet ot hi
nkofhumancul turewi thoutlanguage.I nordert ohav eabet terunder st
andingoft he
translati
onpr ocess,wehav et ofi
rstl
yexpl ainther elat
ionshipbetweencul tur
eandl anguage.Cul tur
eand
l
anguagecannotbesepar at
ed.Lotman( 1978)t hi
nkst hat:“Nolanguagecanexi stunl essitisst eepedinthe
cont extofculture”.

General
ly,Languageisanexpr essionofcultureandindivi
dualit
yofi t
sspeakers.I ti
nfl
uencesthewayt he
speaker
sper cei
vethewor l
d.Sof ocusingont heissueoftranslati
on from one language to anot
her,the
cult
ure ofbot hlanguages int heprocess oftransl
ati
on isi nfl
uenti
al.Ofcour se one shoul
d consi
der
thattowhatext entthecultur
ei sinthetextandtowhatext entthel
anguageisincult
ure.

As a mat teroff act,itisimpor t

anttobe famil
iarwitht he cult
ure,cust oms,andsoci alsetti
ngs of
dif
ferentl
anguages,dif
ferentstylesofspeaki
ng,andsocialnormsofbot hlanguages.Thisawareness,can
i
mpr ovehequal i
tyofl anguageuseandunderstandingtoagr eatextent
.Accor di
ngt oHat i
m andMason
(1990),thesocialcontextinat extispr
obabl
yamor ei
mpor tantvari
ablethanitsgenre.Theactofusi ng
l
anguage takes place int he socio-
cul
tur
alcontext.Consequently
,i tisi mportanttojudgeit
suseonl y
withi
nasoci al
context
.

Language,as a par toft he cul t

uralcore,is att he heartofcul ture.Whatpeopl e do withl anguage –
narr
ati
ve,poet ry,songs,pl ay s,etc – ar e sof t expressi
ons of a cul ture;they ar efacesofcul t
ure.
Languagesar esy st
emsofv erbalsymbol s–v ocaland/ orwrit
ten,or
gani zedbypar t
icularrul
es( gr ammar )&
used by par t
icular rules ( grammar ) and used by par t
icul
arcommuni ti
esi nor dertodev el
opand
communi catetheirthoughtsandaf f
ecti
ons.
Therearemanyi nstit
uti
onsandpr acti
cesthatexistinonecul t
ureanddon’ texisti
not hercult
ures.Deepl yheld
bel
iefsystems,ev encommi tment stotruthvar
yf rom cultur
etocul t
ure.Eachoft heseuni queculturall
ybased
psychol
ogicalent it
iesisassoci atedwi t
hwor dst hathav emeani nginonel anguaget hatisdistincttot hat

14
l
anguageandnotdupl icat
edi not
herl anguages.How wouldthoseuni
quefeat
uresofcul
tur
ebetr
ansl
ated?
Onlysomeonest eepedint hecul
turesofbot hsourcelanguageandtargetl
anguagecanhopet
omakean
i
nterpr
etat
ion.I
fnot,t
hereisapossiblecaseofuntransl
abi
li
ty.

I
nter
cul
tur
alpr
agmat
ics

Thel astdecadeshav ealsowi tnessedt hegrowt handel aborationofanot herki

ndofl anguagecompar ison,
nowgener all
ycall
ed‘i
ntercultur
alcommuni cation’or‘i
nter cul
turalpragmatics’(
cf.Samov ar,2009)
.Whatt hi
s
approachdoesi stocompar elanguageuser atherthansy stemsandi nsodoi ngreint
roducethecultural
contex ti
ntothecompar i
sont hatisnor mallyexcludedinanyanal y sofl
si angueorofcompet ence.I
n1999t hi
s
sub-discipl
ineofcompar ativelinguisti
csal soest abl
i
shedi tsspeci f
icforum forpublicati
on,theJournalof
Int
ernat i
onalCommuni cation,andt hef i
rstissueofat hemat i
call
yrelat
edj our Jour
nal( nalofInter
cul
tural
Pragmat ics)appear
edfivey earslater.

Itist helegacyofst ructurali

sm t hatlinguistsf rom variousschool soft houghtabst r
actf r
om thecont extsof
use:f rom t hecul t
ur alcont ext,from thesi tuationalcont ext,fr
om t hesoci alcontext,f
rom t hecontextofgenr e
andt oal argeext ental sof rom thehi stori
calcont ext
.Theonl ycont extualpar ameterst hatarestilltakeninto
accounti n compar isonsofl anguagesy stemsar emor eorl esst hef ol
l
owi ng (
cf .Lev i
nson,1983) :the
coordi nat
esoft hespeechsi t
uat i
oni ncludingt her el
ationsbet weenspeakerandaddr essee(  dei xi
s),their
preferences (  speech actt heory,conv ersationalanal ysi
s),t he stat us ofspeakerand addr essee ( 
poli
teness, honor i
fics) ,contextualassumpt ionsbasedonGr i
ceanpr i
nciplesofcooper ativecommuni cat i
on( 
conv ersational i
nfer ence)andt hecur rentst atusoft hecommuni cativeexchange( inf ormationstructure).All
otheraspect sofcont extualembeddi ngar el eftt osuchnewl yest abl
ishedsub- f
iel
dsaspr agmatics,hi stor
ical
sociolinguistics and i ntercult
uralcommuni cation.Thi slat t
ersub- field deals witht he pragmat i
c side of
l
anguagecompar ison,i .e.wi thcont r
astsbet weencommuni cativenor msandcommuni cati
vebehav i
orin
contex t.Thel anguageandcul turessel ectedf orsuchcompar isonsar epr eciselythoset hatpl ayar olein
regularandi mpor tanti nteracti
ons.Letusconsi deraf ewexampl esofphenomenat y pical
lydealtwi thint hi
s
approacht olanguagecompar isont hatwoul dal sobeofgr eatinteresttocont rastiv
eli
ngui sti
cs.

Anotherexampl eofdi fferentiati

onsandspeci fi
cnor msofusei nahier ar
chicall
ystruct
uredsocietyrel
atesto
verbsofgivingandr eceivingi nJapanese.Event hemostel ementar
yt eachingmanual sofJapanesement i
on
twodiffer
entv erbsf or‘ give’inEnglish,onebeinggl ossedas‘ t
ohumbl ypr esent
’forsituat
ionswher ethe
speakeristhesour ceoft het ransf
erandt hereceiv
eroccupi esamiddlesoci alposi
ti
on(ageru,agemasu)and
theotherone( kur eru,kur emasu)bei ngusedforact sofgivingwit
hthespeakerasr eceiver
.Thisdisti
ncti
onis
essenti
alevenf orel ement arystagesofusingJapanese, buttheover
allsystem ismuchmor ecompl i
catedand
canbedescr ibedasf oll
ows:

Ver
bsofgi
vi
ngi
nJapanese
Gi
ver Reci
pient St
atusofout
grouperVer
b
I
ngr
oup Out
group Low(
W:Ver
ylow) y
aru
Medi
um ager
u/agemasu ‘
to
humbl
ypr
esent
’
15
 Hi
gh o-
agesur
u
Ver
yhi
gh sashi
-ager
u
St
atusofi
ngr
ouper
Outgr
oup I
ngr
oup Low/
Medi
um kur
eru/
kur
emasu ‘
to
handdown’
Hi
gh kudasar
u

Thechoi
ceofverbroughlydependsonwhethergi
verandreci
pientbel
ongt
othe‘
ingr
oup’(samef
ami
l
y,same
company
,et
c.)ornot,andonthesocial
stat
usofgiverandr
eci
pient(l
ow–medium –high)
.

Thephenomenaj ustdescri
bedarepartofhonori
fi
csy st
ems,f oundespeci
all
yinlanguageswithastri
ct
hier
archi
calor
ganiz
ationofthei
rsoci
eti
esincur
rentorformerstagesofthei
rhist
ory.Otherr
ecurr
enttopi
csin
theanaly
sisofi
nter
cultur
alcommunicat
ionarei
nteral
iathefol
lowing:

- howt ouse/perform speechact

s(cri
ti
cize,r
equest,apologize,greet,i
nvit
e,decli
ningoff
ers)
- communi cati
oni ni nst
it
uti
onalset
ti
ngs:int heclassroom;busi nesscultures;negoti
ati
ng;tel
ephone
cal
ls;
- cul
tural
lydisti
nctivespeechcodes(e.g.dugri‘
str
aighttalk’inIsraeliSabraculture(
open,dir
ect,bl
unt
,
tot
hepoi nt))
;
Af
ewaddi
tionalexampl eswill
provi
deil
l
ustr
ationofthesetopics.

Event houghacul tur

al l
yneut raltermi nology ,assumedt obeappl i
cabl etoallkindsofcommuni cativesy stems,
i
susedt ot alkaboutspeechact sindi fferentl anguagesandcount ri
es,v ari
ousst udieshav eshownt hatt here
arecul t
ure-specifi
cway sofapol ogizing, ofcr it
icizingandofdecl i
ningof f
ers.Anal ogousdi f
fer encesar ef ound
i
ncommuni cati
onact ivit
iesi ninstitutionalset t
ings,suchasbusi nessnegot iations.Inpar t
icul ar,thei mpl i
cit
assumpt ionsofear l
yst udiesofspeechactt heor ies( Searl
e,1969;Lev i
nson,1983)t hatthef elici
tycondi tions
ofspeci fi
cspeechactt ypesandt heirf ormalencodi ngar emor eorl essthesameacr ossl anguageshav e
tur
nedoutt obenott enabl e(cf.Egner ,2006;Fahey ,2006;Ji ngLi u,2007) .Inawi dev ari
et yofcr oss-lingui sti
c
andcr oss-culturalstudiesofspeechact slike‘ giv i
ngadv i
ce’
,‘request s’,‘
promi ses’,‘apologies’ ,etc.impor tant
dif
ferenceshav ebeenr evealed.I nherar ti
cleont hespeechactofpr omi si
ngi nWest erncul tur esandAf rican
cult
uresEgner( 2006) ,forexampl e,poi ntsoutt hataf i
rm commi tmentoft hespeakeri snotpar toft he
essentialcondi t
ionsoft hatspeechact .Apr omi sei nt heAfri
cancul turesstudiedappear st obeusedpr imar il
y
asameansofpol i
telycl osingav erbalex change.Mor eover,differentmet alinguisti
cspeechactv er bsar e
avail
ableinanumberofWestAf r
icanl anguagest odi f
ferenti
ateabi ndi ngpromi sef rom anon- bi ndingone.I na
muchear li
erst udyoft hesequest ionsWi er zbicka( 1985)showedt hatEngl i
sh,i ncont rastt oPol i
sh,pl aces
heavyr estr
ictionsont heuseoft hei mper ativef orr equestsandor ders,encour agingtheuseofi nterrogat i
ve
and condi ti
onalf or
ms i nst ead These di f f
er ences ar e shown t o be a r eflection ofcul tur aldi f
fer ences,
describablei ntermsofspont aneit
y,di rectness,i ntimacyandaf f
ect i
onasopposedt oindirect ness,di stance,
tol
eranceandant i
-dogmat ism.InLi u( 2007)i tisshownt hatletter
sofr ecommendat i
onwr i
tt
eni nEngl andand
16
i
nChi nalookquitedifferent.And,togi veonef inalexample,Fahey( 2006)showst hatactsofapol ogi
zingare
expr
esseddi ff
erentl
yi nI ri
shandi nChileansoapoper as.Wher easexpr essionsofr egretaret heprefer
red
opti
onint heformer,directdemandsf orforgiv
enessar eprimar i
l
yf oundint helatter.Int
ercul
turalcontr
astsin
communi cati
onrelevanti ninst
itut
ionalsetti
ngsar eofspecialinterestandpr act
icalv al
uet obusinessmenand
busi
nesswomen.Ther ulesofbusi nessnegat ionsinJapan,f orexampl e,arenowknownt obev erydi
ffer
ent
fr
om thosepracticedint heUnitedStatesori nEurope.

Kinshipsy stemsmaybev erydif

ferentl
yor ganizedindi ff
erentsocieti
esandcul tures.Ev eni fwest i
llfi
nd
diff
erentl exicaldistincti
onsi nsomeEur opeanl anguagesE.g.Ger m.Onkel ,Oheim) ,thesedi st
inctionsar e
l
osingorhav eal r
eadyl ostthei
rsoci alsignifi
canceasar esultofpar al
lelsocialdev elopment s.St r
iki
ng
contrasts, howev er
, emer ge,assoonascompar i
sonsar ecarriedoutbetweenEur opeansy stemsandsy stems
ofdifferent i
ati
onsf oundi nr emotecultur
es,asf orinstanceinNewCal edoni
a.InPaicî,aMel anesianl anguage
ofthisisland,ki nshipt ermsar eonlydiff
erenti
atedf orthreegenerati
ons,i.e.foraper iodoft imet hatcanbe
experiencedbyt heav eragespeaker .Inotherwor dsthesameexpr essionsareusedf oragr andf
at heranda
son,foraf atherandagr andson,andf orthebrotheroft hespeakerhimselfandt hemalechi l
dofagr andchi l
d.
Finall
y,thereareculturall
ydisti
ncti
v espeechcodesthatplayanimportantroleinshapingthecommuni cation
ofaspeci fi
csociety
.Onewel l-
knownexampl eisdugri‘
strai
ghttal
k’adisti
nctivespeechst y
lei
nIsraeliSabr a
cultur
e.Inherdet ail
edst udyofdugr ispeechT.Katri
el(1986;2004)character
izeditas‘open,di
rect,bl
unt ,to
thepoi nt,si
ncere’asamani festat
ionofbeingtruetooneself.I
nneglecti
ngconsi der
ati
onsofpol i
tenessand
smoot hnessofi nterpersonalencounters,t
hisspeechcodecont r
astssharplywithmusay ra,acult
urall
yf ocal
wayofspeaki ngandact ingamongAr abs.

Pr
agmat
ict
ransf
er

Pragmat i
ctr
ansferinILPhasrecei
v edconsiderabl
eat t
ention.Olshtai
nandCohen( 1989)refertopragmat i
c
tr
ansferasL2l ear
ners’st
rat
egyofincorporat
ingnative-
language-
basedel ementsinL2pr oducti
on.Pragmat i
c
tr
ansferisani mport
antsourceofcr oss-
cult
uralcommuni cati
onbr eakdown(e.g.Beebe,Takahashi,&Ul i
ss-
Weltz,1990)
.Agoodexampl eofpragmal i
nguisti
ctransferisprov
idedbyTakahashiandDuFon’ s(1989)study
whichexami nednineJapaneseCross- Cul
turalDif
ferencesandPr agmaticTransferinEnglishandPer sian
Refusals.

Engli
shESLl earners’useofi ndi
rectnessintwo r equestsituat
ions.Theyf oundthatt heL2l earner
sat
begi
nni ngprof i
ciencylev elwereeithert oodi
rectort ooindi
rectintheirchoi
ceofindirectnessi
noneoft he
si
tuations.Inanot hercase,By on( 2004)identifi
edanddescr i
bedsociopragmati
cf eaturesofAmer i
cans
l
earningKor eanasaf oreignlanguagei ntheKor eancommuni cati
veactofr equest
s.Thesemant icformulae
usagepat ter
nsoft hel earnersofKor eanasaf orei
gnlanguagewer econsistentwit
hthoseoft heAmer i
can
ENSs, indi
cati
v eofanL1t r
ansfereffect.

Regardingpr agmati
ct ransfer
abil
it
y,Takahashi(1993,1996)mai ntainsthatifL1st rat
egyi sper ceivedtobe
fr
equent lyusedandassumedt obeappropriat
eenough,t hi
sst r
ategywoul dmor el ikel
ybet r
ansf er
redt othe
L2cont ext .Hersecondt ransfer
abil
it
ycrit
eri
a,thatisequi valenceofst rategi
esi nL1andL2,i sper ceivedthe
equi
v alentoft heL1andL2pai rofarequeststr
ategyint ermsofcont extualappropriateness.Basedont hetwo
abovecr i
teri
a,shepr oposedapr agmat i
ctransferabil
ityscal e,whichposi tsthatst r
ategiesr atedhi ghfor
cont
ex tualappr opri
atenessandv i
ewedascont extualequi valentsaremor etransferable,wher east hosethat
areratedl owf orappropri
atenessandconsideredcont extual
lydi f
ferentarelesstransf er
able.

Fact
orsaf
fect
ingpr
agmat
ict
ransf
er

17
Occurrencesofpr agmati
ct ransfermaybei nfluencedbyv ariousfactorsincl
udingL2l earners’per
cepti
onof
l
anguagedi stancebetweent heirL1andL2( e.g.Takahashi,1996),l
earningcontext( e.g.Takahashi&Beebe,
1987),inst
ructi
onaleff
ect( e.g.Bardovi-
Harli
g, 2001;Kasper,1982),L2pr of
ici
ency( e.
g.Ol shtai
n&Cohen, 1989;
Takahashi&Beebe,1987) ,andl engthoft imei nt heL2communi t
y( e.
g.,Féli
x-Br
adsef er,2004).Thestudyby
Robinson(1992)suggestst hatL2l ear
nersmaybemor epronet ot
ransfertheirpragmat icL1knowl edgewhen
theyholdauni ver
sali
stview.Mor especif
ical
ly,thesestudiesdemonst r
atedthatL2l ear ner
smaynott r
ansfer
L1pragmat icfeat
urestotheL2i ftheyperceivet hem aslanguagespeci f
ic.

Pr
agmat
icTr
ansf
erandL2Pr
ofi
ciency

Researchf i
ndi
ngsont herel
ati
onshipofpragmatictr ansferandL2pr of
iciencyhavenotl edtoconcl usi
ve
resul
ts.Takahashiand Beebe ( 1987)proposed the posi ti
ve corr
elati
on hy pot
hesis,predi
cti
ng thatL2
profi
ciencyi
spositi
velycor
rel
atedwithpragmati
ctransf er
.Somest udies(e.g.Blum-Kul
ka,1982;Cohen,1997;
Hill
,1997;Keshavarz,Esl
ami,&Ghahr eman,2006;Ol shtai
n&Cohen,1989)hav esupportedTakahashiand
Beebe’s noti
on t
hatL2 l ear
ners’li
mited L2 knowledge pr event
st hem f r
om transfer
ri
ng L1 pragmatic
knowledge.

Howev er,evidencecont r
arytoTakahashiandBeebe’ s( 1987)posi ti
vecor rel
ati
onhy pot
hesisexi stsinthe
l
it
erature.Forinstance,Maeshi
baetal.
’s(1996)studyinvolvedintermedi at
eandadv ancedJapanese- speaki
ng
ESLlear ner
si nHawai i
.Thei
rfi
ndi
ngsconf i
rmedt hatt
headv ancedL2l earnersshowedmor eposi ti
vet r
ansf
er
andl essnegat i
vetransf
erthatdoesnotsuppor ttheposi tivecorrelati
onhy pothesi
s.Sincet hest udyof
Takahashi andBeebe( 1987)wasconducted,notonlyhavether ebeenf ewI LPstudi
eswithexpli
citfocusonL2
prof
iciencyi nter
acti
ng withtr
ansf
er,butal so t
her angeofl anguagesst udi
ed hasbeennar row ( mostl
y
Japanesel earnersofEngli
sh)
.

Speechact
s

A moment ’
sr efl
ecti
onov erourdai lylanguageusewoul dattestthatspeechact sareani ndispensable
componentofev erydaycommuni cat
ioni nanyl anguage.Inhisseminalbook Howt oDoThi ngswi t
hWor ds
(1962)
,Austi
n,throughproposinghisspeechactt heory,
beli
evesthatthereisalotmor etoalanguagethant he
meaningofitswor dsandphr ases.Hemai ntai
nedt hatwhenweexpl oitlanguagetocommuni cate,wedonot
j
ustsaythi
ngsbutdot hi
ngs,thatisweper f
orm actionswhetherexpli
cit
lyorimpli
cit
ly.Amongv ari
oustypesof
speechacts,FTAssuchasr efusals,requests,anddisagreementsareparticul
arl
yproblemati
cforanL2l earner
i
fspeechrulesintheirL1areempl oyed( Beebe&Takahashi ,1989;Beebe,Takahashi
,&Ul i
ss-
Wel t
z,1990).

Chapt
er4

Fact
orsdef
ini
ngspeechbehav
iourpar
ti
cul
ari
ti
es

Itisqui teclearthatt her

ei sa need ofsuppl ement ing theexist
ing lackofknowl edgeconcerni
ng t
he
peculi
ariti
esofcommuni cati
onbehav i
ori ndiff
erentlanguagecommuni ti
esi naccordancewi t
htheabove
ment i
oned requi
rement sforpragmat icresearch inlinguisti
cs.The aim ofsuch r esear
ch istoident
if
y
simil
arit
iesanddi ff
erencesinfunctioni
ngoft heutterancest hatreali
zepr agmat i
cintent
ionofthemajor
speechact sbelongingt oeachoft hei l
l
ocutionarytypesandt odef i
nepr ototy
picalandperipher
almeans
expressingthem i
neachoft hecompar edlanguages.
18
Themostef f
icientwayt of ulfil
ltheseobj ectiv
esi stocombi nebot happroachest othecompar at
ivestudyof
speechbehav iorexhibitedbyr epresentati
vesofdi f
ferentcultures.Ont heonehand,t hebestpr acti
cef or
gatheri
ngandanal yzi
ngt hedat adev el
opedwi thintheseappr oachescanbeused.Ont heot herhand,itwi l
l
hel
pt odev el
opmor eusef ulandcompel l
ingmet hodsfordescr i
ptionofthephenomenaundert hestudy .Itis
i
nt hedirectcommuni cati
v einteractionatagi venmomentoft ime,inagi ven“ communi cationspace”wher e
varyi
ng degrees ofsoci o- cult
ur al
,age- specific,gender ,l
inguisti
c and ot herpecul i
arit
ies ofi ndi
vidual
i
nterl
ocutorsarer evealed.Bei ngr epresentat
ivesofacer tai
nlinguo-soci
oculture,inter
locutorsarethebear ers
ofmor alandet hicalnorms,aswel lasst rategiesofv erbalandnon- ver
balbehav iorcustomar yforthegi ven
cul
ture.

Communi
cat
ionbehav
iorpecul
i
ari
ti
esar
edef
inedbyt
hef
oll
owi
nggr
oupsoff
act
ors:

1)soci
o-pr
agmat
ic;
2)cul
tur
al;
3)si
tuat
ional
;4)l
i
ngui
sti
c.

Soci
o-pr
agmat
icf
act
orsar
econnect
edwi
tht
heper
sonal
i
tyofi
nter
act
ant
sandr
efl
ectt
hei
rposi
ti
oni
nthe
soci
al

spher
e.Her
ebel
ongv
ari
ouschar
act
eri
sti
csofcommuni
cat
ingi
ndi
vi
dual
s,f
ir
stofal
l
,thef
oll
owi
ng:

 soci
alstat
usofi nt
erl
ocutor
s,i.e.theirbel
onging to a cer
tai
n soci
algroup,prof
essi
on,posi
tion,
educat
ionl
evel
,fami
lyst
atus,et
c.;r
elat
ionsbetweeninter
locut
orscanbesymmet r
icandasymmetr
ic;

 soci
aldi
stancebet
weeni
nter
locut
ors:
zer
o,neut
ral
orcl
oser
elat
ions;

 bi
o-phy
siol
ogi
cal
char
act
eri
sti
csofi
nter
locut
ors,
fir
stofal
l
,thei
rsexandage;

 nat
ional
i
ty;

 psy
chol
ogi
cal
typeofi
nter
locut
ors,
i.
e.t
hei
rtemper
ament
,ext
rov
ertori
ntr
over
tor
ient
ati
on,
element
sof

 pat
hol
ogy
,et
c.;

 l
anguagecompet
ence,i
.e.knowl
edgeofacer
tai
nlanguagecodet
hati
nter
locut
orsusei
nver
bal
i
nter
acti
on;

 degr
eeofacquai
ntancebet
weeni
nter
locut
ors(
seeBogdanov
,1990,
p.28-29)
.

 Cult
uralf actor
sar econnect
edwithcult
uralspeci
fi
csofthesociet
ywher
einterl
ocut
orsbel
ongto.
Thesef actorsareexpr
essedint
radi
ti
ons,cust
omsandcult
uralnor
ms.Themostimport
antf
act
orsare
thefol
lowi ng:

 nor
msofet
iquet
te,
i.
e.gener
alt
radi
ti
onal
rul
esdi
ctat
ingbehav
iorpat
ter
nsi
nasoci
ety
,

 nor
msofpol it
enesst
hatr egul
aterel
ati
onsbetweeninter
locut
orsi
nagi v
ensituat
ion.Thenoti
onof
pol
i
tenessisundoubt
edlyconnectedverycl
osewi t
ht henoti
onofspeechet
iquett
e.However,i
nour
opi
nion,
itwoul
dbeami staketoequat
ethesetwonotions.

Whil
espeechet i
quett
edef i
nest herulesofbehavi
orandconsequent
lyt
heuseofappr opri
atel
i
nguist
ic
expr
essionsin cert
ain gi
ven si
tuat
ions,pol
i
tenessisdir
ect
ed atmutual
l
yrespect
fult
reatmentbet
ween
i
nter
locutor
s.Therulesofeti
quet
tearenotequalt
othemoralr
ules.

19
  soci
alst
ereot
ypesasst
andar
dizedopi
niononcer
tai
nsoci
algr
oupsorr
epr
esent
ati
vesoft
hesegr
oups;

 Sit
uati
onalf
act
orsbel
ongdi
rect
lyt
othesi
tuat
ioni
nwhi
chcommuni
cat
iont
akespl
ace.Theyar
ethe
fol
lowi
ng:

 t
imeandpl
aceofev
ent
;

 connect
ionofspeechactwi
thot
herut
ter
ances;

 curr
entpsy
chol
ogi
calst
ateofi
nter
locut
ors,
i.
e.t
hei
rmood,
cur
rentknowl
edge,
obj
ect
ivesandi
nter
est
s,
etc.

 187El
i
zav
etaG.Kot
orov
a/Pr
ocedi
a-Soci
alandBehav
ior
alSci
ences 154(2014)184–192

 Li
ngui
sti
cfact
orsar
econnect
edwi
thspeci
fi
csofsy
stemi
c-st
ruct
uralor
gani
zat
ionofl
anguage.The
most

 i
mpor
tantl
i
ngui
sti
cfact
orsar
e:

 setofgr
ammat
ical
cat
egor
iesspeci
fi
cforagi
venl
anguage;

 speci
fi
csofor
gani
zi
ngnat
ional
discour
se;

 f
requencyofuseofcer
tai
nlanguagemeansi
ncommuni
cat
ion.

Manyoft heafore-
ment ionedfactorsbearnati
onalspeci f
ics.Thisisachar acter
ist
icf eatureof1)manysoci o-
pragmat i
cf act
ors(f
orexampl e,t
hedegr eeofinfl
uenceoft heagef actororthesocialst atusfact
oronspeech
behav i
orcansubst antiall
yv aryineast er
nandwest erncount ri
es) ,2)generalculturalnor ms( therulesof
speechet iquet
teandi deasofpol itenessarenotthesamet ooindi ffer
entcommuni cationsocieti
es),and3)
si
t uati
onalnorms(predomi nanceofcommuni cati
onbel ongingtov erti
calorhori
zontalt ype,observanceofthe
distancebet weeninterl
ocutors).Infl
uenceoft helinguisti
cf act
orsi sconnectedt ot hepecul i
ari
ti
esoft he
l
anguagecodeusedbyi nterl
ocutors.
Themostappr opriatemet hodt ost udyt hewayt hef i
rstthr
eegr oupsoft heabov e-mentionedf actorsf unction,
i
st he questi
onnai re survey.Itmakes i tpossiblet o selectsi t
uations and cont rolt he v ari
abili
tyofi t
s
extral
ingui
sticparamet er
s.Theanal y
sisofquest ionnairesresultsinmaki ngal argecor pusofspeechpat terns
i
neachl anguageundert hecompar ison.Thi smet hodal l
owst ouseanecessar ynumberofsi tuationswi t
h
diff
erentcombi nationsofsoci opragmat i
c,cult
uralandsi t
uationalf actor
si ntheanal ysis,inor dert oel i
cit
correl
atesofspeechact sint hegi
v enl anguagesont helevelofpar ti
cularsi
tuationsofcommuni cation.When
developingthequest ionnaires,oneshoul dtakei
nt oaccountt heexi st
ingbestpr acticesandr ecommendat ions
(seeBower s,&Cour t
right,1984;Blum- Kulka,House, &Kasper ,1989; Keyton,2001).Howev er,thisallshoul dbe
adaptedandadj ust edwi threspectt othespeechact sunderst udyandspeci fi
cci rcumst ancesofcar ryi
ngout
thequest i
onnair
esur vey.

Thenot
ionofcommuni
cat
ive-
pragmat
icf
iel
d

Ani mportantaspectofcontrasti
vepragmali
nguist
icsiscompar i
ngf or
msofr eal
izati
onofv ari
ousspeech
behaviorpatter
ns( speechacts)inthelanguagesundert heanalysi
s.Inordertof ul
fil
lthisobjecti
ve,we
proposeani nnovativemethodologybasedont hesynthesi
sofi deasaboutthepr ototypi
calstruct
ureof
categori
esandcl assesofobjects(E.Rosch,G.Lakoff)andt hepossibi
li
tyofpresenti
ngv ariousli
nguist
ic

20
phenomenai
nthef
orm ofaf
iel
d(J.Tr
ier
,E.Coser
iu,
A.Bondar
ko)
.

Thef iel
dappr oachhaspr ovent obear atherproductivewayofr epresent i
ngrelati
onst hatexi stbetweenthe
element sofal anguagesy stem.Thet erm‘ f
iel
d’ meansi nthiscaseacer t
aingroupofl inguisti
celement st
hat
exhibitrel
ati
onsandi nterdependencewi t
heachot her.Thenot i
onof‘ f
iel
d’hasl ongbeenusedonl yforthe
analysisanddescr iptionofst ructur
aldivisionoft helanguagev ocabulary(J.Trier,L.Wei ßgerber,E.Coseri
u
etc.)
.Thef urt
herdev elopmentoft hefieldtheor ybroughtupt heideat hatthefieldprincipl
ecoul dbeappl i
ed
mor ewi del
y,i
npar ticular,asamodelf orsemant icdescripti
onofthel anguagei ngener al
,andal soasabasi c
fr
amewor kfordet ermi ningthef uncti
onaldi vi
sionofl anguage.Thef undament alidear emai nsthesamet hat
l
inguisti
cel ement st hathav esomecommonpr oper t
y( ei
therformal ,orsemant i
c,orf uncti
onal)canbe
arrangedaccor di
ngt ot hef i
eldprinci
ple.

Itisal sopossi bletor egardt heaim ofacommuni cat i

v eactori tsil
locutionar yf orceasaf i
elddomi nant .This
appr oachpr ovi
desapossi bilitytoconsolidat eallpossi blespeechactr ealizationsi nal anguagewi thagi v
en
i
llocut i
onar yf orcei ntoaf ield.I ti
st hi
sf i
eldt hatwecoul dcal lacommuni cative-pr
agmat icfield.Thei deato
concept ualizespeechact sont hebasisoft hef i
eldmodeldat esbackt ot he70s- 80soft he20t hcent uryinthe
EastGer many .Thepr oposedhy pothesi
swast hatt hef unct ional-communi cativ efi
eldsexi stasar eal i
tyinthe
l
ingui sti
cconsci ousness( spr achl
ichesSel bstbewusst sei n)andar echar act erizedont hel i
nguist i
cl evelasa
kindofcommonnessofexpr essivelanguagemeanswhi chf or m apot ent i
alsemant icuni tybecauseofi ts
attachmentt oapar ti
cularcommuni cati
vei nt
entandspeci ficr efl
ectionoft heobj ectofcommuni cat i
on( cf.
Wi l
ske,1979,p.56;St arke,1979,p.145) .Thesci entificbasi soft hisconcept i
onwas,ont heonehand,t he
theor yoff unctionalgr ammar ,whichusedt hefieldmet hodt or epresentt hef unctional-semant i
ccat egor i
es,
funct i
onal -semant icf i
elds, grammat i
cal
-l
exi calfiel
ds.Ont heot herhand, theabov ement ionedhy pothesi shad
beendev elopingwi thi
nt her esearchf r
amewor kdev otedt ot hest udyofl anguagecommuni cativeact ivi
tyasa
meansofacqui sit
ionofl anguageandsoci alexper i
ence( Starke, 1979, p.139) .Thesci ent i
fi
cobj ectivesoft he
maj orityoft heaut horswer et herefor
emai nl
yofmet hodol ogicalandpedagogi calnat ure.Summar izi
ngt he
resear chact ivi
tywi thi
nt hisdi recti
on,KarlEr nstSommer feldtdef i
nest hef unct i
onal-
communi cativef i
eldasa
groupofl i
ngui sticmeansandt heircombi nationsr epr esent ingt hespeci fi
ct y peofl i
ngui sti
ccommuni cative
actionwi thitsspeci ficfeaturest ructur
e(1984, p.20- 21) .

Thesei deas,unf ortunatel

y,didnotr eceiveanyf urtherdev elopmentnei theri ntheor eti
calnori npracti
cal
respect,andt her
ef orehaver emai nedasamer ehy pot hesis.Thi shypothesis,howev er,inouropi ni
on,isvery
effi
cient.Inthemoder nGermanl inguist
iclit
erature,thet erm “ communi cati
v e-
pragmat icf i
eld”(kommuni kati
v-
pragmat ischesFeld)asi nt
erpretedbyW.Fl ämigi sver ysimi l
art otheterm"funct i
onalsemant i
cf i
eld"pr
oposed
i
nt het heoryoffunct i
onalgrammardev elopedbyA.V.Bondar koandhi sdiscipl
es.Suchf i
elds,accordi
ngto
Flämig,combi neasetofv ariousl exi
calandgr ammat icalmeansser vingtoexpr essgr ammat i
calmeanings
andcommuni cati
ve-pragmat i
cconnect i
ons.Asat y picalexampl e,Fl
ämi gci t
est heexpr essionofmodal i
ty
usingwor dswit
hamodal val
ue, modal verbs,ormodal constructions(1991,p.326-327) .

Applyi
ngaf iel
dmodeltotheanal
ysi
sofspeechactreali
zat
ionpat
ternscoul
dmakeavaluabl
econtr
ibut
ionto
thedev el
opmentofthespeechactt
heory,si
ncedespit
eallthedi
ff
erencesi
nthei
nter
pretat
ionoft
henotion
‘
fiel
d’,
itispossi
blet
onamemanyadv ant
agesofthefiel
da

rel
ati
onsbet
weent
heel
ement
s,t
husr
eveal
i
ngt
hei
rfunct
ionali
nter
dependennal
ysi
smodel
.Amongt
hem ar
e
t
hefoll
owi
ng:

 wi
tht
hehel
poft
hef
iel
dmodel
iti
spossi
blet
oident
if
ysy
stemi
cce;

 t
hef
iel
dst
ruct
ureal
l
owst
ocl
ear
lydemonst
ratepar
adi
gmat
icandsy
ntagmat
icr
elat
ionsbet
weent
he
21
 el
ement
s;

 thefieldmodelmaycontri
butet
osomeext entt
oadv anci
ngandpr ov
inghypot
hesesaboutt
het
ypeof
organizat
ionofv
ari
ouslanguagesubsy
stems(cf.Schi
ppan,1992,
p.223).

Theabov e-mentionedposi ti
veaspectsofthef i
eldtheoryarev al
i
datt hepr agmaticl
evelaswellwit
hr egardto
thespeechactsy st
em i nwhi chcommuni cati
veact ionsar ereal
ized.I l
locut
ion(orill
ocuti
onaryf orceof
utter
anceaccor dingtoAust in)canberegardedast hemosti mport
antpar tofanycommuni cati
veact.Usually,
sounds, wor dsandsent encesar eutt
eredonlytof ul
fil
lcert
aincommuni cati
veint
enti
ons.Anil
locut
ionaryactis
settor eali
zet hegoaloft hei nt
erl
ocut
orandi sdef i
nedbyt hesit
uati
ont heint
erl
ocut
orisinandwhatgoal she
orshepur sues( awish,ar ecommendat i
on,awar ni
ng,etc.)
.Thisstrategyofcommuni cati
onbehav i
ori mpli
es
thattherewi ll
beusedcer tai
nl i
ngui
sti
cmeanst or eali
zeit.

CHAPTER 5

Pr
agmat
icPr
inci
plesandPat
ter
ns

Severalpr i
nci
plesandpat t
ernshav eemer gedf rom vari
ousper specti
vesanddisci
pli
nesinat temptingt o
describe,gener
ali
ze,orexpl
ainpragmaticphenomena.Thesepr inciplesandpatt
ernshav ediff
erentbeari
ngs
onpr agmaticsandaddressdif
fer
entaspectsoftheconstruct
.Thecol l
ecti
vecont
ributi
onsofthepr i
nci
plesand
patt
er nsarehelpf
ulinthedefi
nit
ion,cl
ari
fi
cation,andunderst
andingoft he"messy,unfor
malizableel
ement s"
i
npr agmat i
cs.
Gr
ice'
sCooper
ati
vePr
inci
ple
Inhiscooper at
iveprinciple,Gr i
ce( 1975)mai nt
ainst hatpeopletryt o cooper
atewi t
heachot herwhen
communi cat
ing,byintendingt obei nformati
ve,tr
uthful
,rel
evant,andclear.Thehearerwillnormallyassume
thatthespeakerisf oll
owi ngt hesecr i
ter
ia.Speci
fical
l
y ,t
hecooper at
ivepr i
nci
pleisstatedas" Makey our
contr
ibut
ionsuchasi sr equired,atthest ageatwhi chitoccur
s,bytheaccept edpurposeofdi recti
onoft he
tal
kexchangei nwhichy ouar eengaged"( Gri
ce,1975,p.47).Thecooper ati
veprinci
plei
sel aboratedinfour
maxims(Gr i
ce,1975,p.45-47) :
(1)Themaxim ofquant
it
y:Makeyourcont
ri
but
ionasinf
ormativ
easisrequi
redf
ort
hecur
rentpur
posesoft
he
exchange;
donotmakey ourcont
ri
but
ionmorei
nformati
vethanisr
equi
red.
(
2)Themaxim ofquali
ty:Tryt
omakey ourcontr
ibuti
ononet
hati
str
ue.Donotsaywhaty
oubel
i
evet
obe
f
alse;
donotsayt
hatforwhichyoul
ackadequat
eev i
dence.

22
(
3)Themaxi
m ofr
elat
ion:Makey
ourcont
ri
but
ionr
elev
ant
.
(
4)Themaxi
m ofmanner
:Beper
spi
cuous.Av
oidobscur
it
y,av
oidambi
gui
ty,
bebr
ief
,andbeor
der
ly.
Gri
cealsoindi
cat
est
hatthespeakermay"optout"ofthecooper
ati
vepr
inci
pleby
,forexampl
e,wi
thhol
ding
i
nformati
onasameanstogett
hehearert
olookforanimpli
ed
meaning,oraconv ersat
ionalimplicature.Gri
cedisti
nguishesconversati
onali
mpl i
catur
efr
om conv ent
ional
i
mpl i
cat
ure.Theformerist obecalculatedinthespeci
ficcontextofagivenconver
sation,
whereasthel at
teri
s
for
medbyconv ent
ionofl anguageuseandi sthusautomat i
candr outi
ne.Bothtypesofimpli
cature,asMey
suggest
s,arecult
ure-
specifi
c(1993, p.105).
SpeechSi
tuat
ion/
Event
/ActandSPEAKI
NG
Inanal yzingandcat egor i
zingpat ternsofspeaki ng,Hy messeesat axonomyt hatiscomposedofaspeech
sit
uat i
on,aspeechev ent ,andaspeechact .Accor dingt oHy mes( 1974b,p.51) ,aspeechsi t
uat ionincludes
contex t
ssuchasmeal s,ceremoni es,fi
ghts,hunt s,et c.Gener al
ly,speechsi tuati
ons,asset ti
ngs,ar enot
governedbyspeci fi
cr ulesf orconduct i
ngspeech.Aspeechev ent(e. g.,aprivateconv ersati
on,acl assroom
l
ecture, apol i
ticaldebate, etc.
),howev er
,ref
erst ospeci fi
cspeechact iviti
esandar e"di r
ectlygov ernedbyr ul
es
ornor msf ortheuseofspeech. "" Aspeechev entmayconsi stofasi nglespeechact ,butwi l
lof tencompr i
se
several"(Hy mes, 1974b, p.52) .Aspeechact" isthemi nimalterm oftheset "(Hymes, 1974b, p.52) ,whi
chi sto
bedist i
ngui shedf r
om t hesent enceandi snott obei denti
fiedwithanyuni tatanyl evelofgr ammari nthat,f
or
i
nstance, "asent enceint errogati
vei nfor
m maybenowar equest,nowacommand, nowast atement ;arequest
maybemani festedbyasent encet hati
snowi nterrogativ
e,nowdecl ar ati
ve,nowi mper at
iv einf orm;andone
andt hesamesent encemaybet akenasapr omi seorat hreat,
dependi ngont henor m ofinterpretat i
onappl i
ed
toit
"( Hy mes1974b, p.52- 53).
Hy mesal sosuggest st hatcommuni cati
oncanbeunder st oodbycomponent sofei ghtgr oups,whi chhe
acrony medasSPEAKI NG( 1972,p.59- 65)."S"st andsf or"situat
ion"
,incl udingtheset t
ingandt hescene." P"
standsf or" parti
cipants" ,i
ncludingspeaker /senderofamessage,addr essor ,andaddr essee." E"standsf or
"ends"( i
.e.purposes,out comes,orgoal s),whichar ewhatt hespeakeri ntendst oaccompl ish."A"st andsf or
"actsequence"( e.g.messagef orm andcont ent),whichi swhati ssaidandi tsform."K"st andsf or"key s"(e.g.
serious,joking,sar castic,play,etc.
),whichi st hemannerorspi riti
nwhi chsomet hi
ngi ssai d." I
"st andsf or
"i
nst r
ument alit
ies"(includingchannel sandf ormsofspeech) ,whicharemeansoragenci esofcommuni cation.
"N"st andsf or" nor ms"ofi nteract
ionandi nterpretat
ion.And" G"st andsf or"genres"( e.
g.poems,cur ses,
prayers,jokes,pr overbs,commer ci
als,etc.)
,whi char ecategor i
esofcommuni cati
on.Al thoughi tisnott obe
assumedt hatal loft hesecomponent swi llber el
evantt ocommuni cat i
onofanyt y
pe,t heydopr ov i
dea
compr ehensi vepi ctur
eofpossi bl
ev ari
ablesthatmaybehel dconst antori nvesti
gatedf oranal yzi
ngspeech
communi cation.

Pol
it
enessPr
inci
pleandFace
I
ndef i
ningthephenomenaofpol it
eness,Leech(1983)considersitasasurface-
lev eladherencetosoci al
nor
ms.ToTannen( 1986)
,polit
enessis"t
hebroadconceptofthesocialgoal
sweserv ewhenwet al
k...tryi
ng
tot
akei ntoaccounttheeffectofwhatwesayonot herpeople"(p.21)
.Lakof
f(1973)speci fi
edt herulesof
bei
ngpol i
teas(1)don'ti
mpose;keepy ourdist
ance;(2)gi
veoptions;l
ettheot
herper sonhav easay ;and(3)
befr
iendly
;maintai
ncamar aderi
e.
Themostsignifi
cantcontr
ibuti
ontothepoli
tenessphenomenainconv er
sati
onalcommuni
cati
onisBrownand
Levi
nson'
s( 1978)poli
tenesspr i
nci
ple.Theypr oposethatpol
i
tenessphenomenaar eassociat
edwi t
hthe
not
ionofface,whichconsistsoftwocomponent s,t
heposi
ti
veface,andthenegati
vef
ace.Theformerist
he

23
i
maget hatonewi shesforotherstober ecognizedandappr eciatedandt hedesir
et hathis/herwant sbe
desi
rabl
etoot her
s.Thelatt
eristheneedf orpersonalspaceandpr ivacy,t
hedesiretobef reefr
om i nt
err
uption
andimposit
ion,andisrel
atedtoone'srightsasani ndi
vidual
.Anat tempttomai ntai
ntheposi t
ivefaceiscalled
posi
ti
vepolit
eness,andanef forttomai ntai
nthenegat iv
efacei scal l
ednegat i
vepoli
teness.Itisuniversall
y
commont hatpeoplemaintai
neachot her'sposit
iveandnegativ
ef acei nordertogetal
ongi nasoci ety
.
Howev er,howt heposi ti
veandt henegat i
veaspectsoffacearemai ntainedandbal ancedisaculturalissue.It
i
sal soasour ceofmanycr oss-cult
uralmisunderst
andings.Mit
igatingr i
sktof aceisanal t
ernativet oface
maintenance.Accor dingt oBrownandLev inson,t
hedegr eeofmitigationrequi
reddependsonaf ewf actors:
soci
aldi stance, relativ
epower ,sizeofi mposit
ion,ri
ghtsandobl igati
on,andt henegot i
ati
onwi thinthe
i
nteracti
onoft hesef actor
s.Byt hisprinci
ple,t
hemor esocial
lydistanttwoper sonsar ethemor ef acewor k
maybecal l
edf or;t
hegr eatert
hedegr eeofr i
sktoface,
themor econst rai
nedtheopt i
onsformiti
gationar e.
Thepol i
tenessprincipleal
soservesasanaccountf orinstancesi nwhichpeopl eseem todeliberatel
ydev i
ate
from Gri
ce'scooper ati
vepri
ncipl
e."Onepower f
ul andpervasivemot i
vefornott al
ki
ngmaxi m-wi seisthedesire
to,givesomeat tentiontoface"(Brown&Lev inson,1978,p.100) .Forinstance,bybeingindir
ect ,thespeaker
viol
atesamaxi m ofmanner , "
avoidambiguit
y",andinexchangesav eseit
herhis/herorthehear er'sposi
ti
veor
negativeface;optingoutofanot hermaxim ofmanner ,"bebr i
ef'
,thespeakerchoosest oel aborateont he
reasonwhyhe/ shehast oturndownaf r
iend'sdinnerinvit
ationsoast osav eboththef r
iend'sandhi s/her
faces.

Pr
agmat
icFai
lur
e
Giventhemanypr agmat i
cpr i
ncipl
esandpat t
ersthathavebeenobser vedandt hei
rcontri
buti
onsindel i
neating
theconst ructofpr agmatics,ithasal sobeennot edt hatthereexist sindeter
minacyofmeani ngandt hat
ambivalencei sact ual
lypar toft henat ureofpr agmat i
cs.Ambi v
al enceal l
owsf ormisunderstanding,and
misunderst andi
ngr efl
ect
s.Thepr agmat icpr
inci
plesandpat ter
nsdi scussedi ntheabovesect i
onat temptt o
understandt heconstructofpr agmaticsf r
om thepositi
veside,byexami ni
nghowi tfunct
ions.Anotheraspect
forunder standingtheconst ructist hrought heinvesti
gati
onoft hesi t
uati
onswher emal f
unct i
onsoccur .
Malfuncti
onssuggestpr agmat icfail
ure.This"negati
ve"aspectishel pf
uli nuncover
ingareasandf actor
si n
pragmat i
cst hatareimportantbutof t
eni gnor
ed,unti
lthey"actup."
Bef orewedi scusspr agmat i
cf ail
ure,weneed t o hav eadet ai
led def inition f orpragmat iccompet ence.
Accor dingt oCanal e,Pr agmat i
ccompet encei s...concer nedwi t
ht her elationshi psbetweenut terancesand
theact soff uncti
onst hatt hespeaker sintendt oper formt hrought heseut terances...andt hechar acterist
ics
oft hecont extofl anguageuset hatdet erminet heappr opriatenessofut terances.Thenot ionofpr agmat i
c
compet ence...t husi ncl udesill
ocut ionarycompet ence,ort heknowl edgeoft hepr agmaticconv entionsof
performi ng accept abl e l anguage f unctions, and soci ol
inguisti
c compet ence, or knowl edge of t he
soci ol
inguisticconv ent ionsf orper f
or mingl anguagef unct i
onsappr opr i
atelyi nagi vencontext .(Canale,1988,
p.90)Pr agmat icfail
ur eoccur swhenonel acksei therillocut i
onarycompet enceorsoci oli
nguisticcompet ence.
Thomas( 1983) ,whoi sci t
edv eryf r
equent l
yi ndiscussi onsofpr agmat i
cs, arguest hatpragmat i
cf ail
ureshoul d
notbet ermedaspr agmat i
c"error"asmanyot heraut hor sdo( e.g.,HouseandKasper ,1981;Ri nt
ell
,1979) .
Although i ti spossi blet o errgr ammat ical
lybyv i
ol ati
ng pr escriptive gr ammat i
calr ul
es," the nat ure of
pragmat i
cambi valencei ssucht hati tisnotpossi blet osayt hatt hepr agmat i
cf orceofanut terancei s'wr ong'.
Allwecansayi st hati tfailedtoachi evet hespeaker 'sgoal "(p.94) .
Thomasmai nt
ainsthat,f
oranutter
ancet obepr agmat i
call
ysuccessful
,twot y
pesofj udgementareinvol
ved:
pragmali
nguisti
cjudgementandsociopragmat i
cjudgement .Theformerreferstothe"basical
ly
_grammat i
cal.
assessmentoft hepragmaticfor
ceofal i
nguisti
ct oken"andthelatt
eris"[t
he]judgementconcerningthesize
ofimposit
ion,cost/
benefit
,soci
aldi
stance,andrelati
veright
sandobl i
gati
on"(p.103).Whent hesej
udgement s
24
are notexer
ted,Thomassay
s,t
wo t
ypesofpr
agmat
icf
ail
ure mayoccur
:pr
agmal
i
ngui
sti
cfai
l
ure and
soci
opragmati
cfai
lur
e.
Pragmal inguisti
cf ail
ur eresul
tswhenl anguagel earner
st r
ansl
ateanutterancefrom theirnativelanguageinto
thet argetlanguagebutf ailt
ogett heirmeani ngacr ossbecausethecommuni cativeconv enti
onsbehi ndthe
utterancesar edi ffer
ent .Anexampl eWol f
son( 1989a,p.16)gavet oil
lustr
atepr agmalinguist
icf ai
lur
eisan
Englishindirectrequestsuchas" Cany oupasst hesal t
?"or"Whydon'tyoucloset hewindow? "which,tonati
ve
speaker sofEngl ishi snotar equestf orinformationbutforacti
on.Howev er,whenanat ivespeakerofEngl i
sh
l
ear ningRussi ant ranslatessuchani ndirectrequestlit
eral
lyi
ntothetargetlanguage,thenat i
vespeaker sof
Russi anwi llmostl ikelyunderstandt heut t
erancenotasar equestbutasaquest ion,accor dingt othe
pragmal inguisti
cconv enti
onofRussi an.
Theot hert y
peofpr agmaticf ail
ure,sociopr agmat i
cf ail
ure,isrelatedt otheknowl edgeofwhatt osayand
whom t osayi tto,whichdiffersbycompl i
cat edfactorssuchast hesi zeofi mposi t
ion,tabus,cr oss-culturall
y
dif
ferentassessment sofr el
at i
v epowerorsoci aldistance,andv aluej udgement s.Anot herexampl eWol f
son
(1989a)pr ovi
dedi ll
ustr
atest histy peofpr agmat i
cf ail
ure:Japanesest udentsandi mmi grantsl i
vingi nt he
UnitedSt at
es,forexampl e,repor tt hattheyf i
nditst r
angeandr at herof f
ensivewhenAmer icansext endan
i
nv i
tati
ont oasoci algatheri
ngbyi ndi cat
ingwhenandwher ei twilltakepl aceandt henaddi ngsomesor tof
phrasel i
ke"Comei fyouwantt o.
"Si nceJapaneser ulesofspeaki ngr equi r
et hatapot enti
alguestbeur gedt o
acceptani nvit
ation,whil
eAmer i
canr ulesi mposeaconst raintonpi nningpeopl edownt oaccept i
ngpossi bly
unwant edinvit
ations,andsincenei thergr oupi sli
kelytobeawar eoft heother'srules,itisdi f
ficultt
oav oid
misunder st
anding.(p.17)
Thomas( 1983)mai ntainsthat" whilepr agmalinguisti
cf ail
urei sbasi call
yal inguisti
cpr oblem,causedby
dif
ferencesi nthel i
nguisti
cencodi ngofpr agmat i
cf orce,soci opragmat i
cf ail
urest emsf r
om cross-cult
ural
ly
dif
ferentpercept i
onsofwhatconst i
tutesappr opri
atelinguisti
cbehav i
or"(p.99) .Mi sunderstandi
ngcausedby
sociopragmat i
cf ail
ureisfarmor edet ri
ment althant hatcausedbypr agmal i
nguisticfailur
eassoci opragmatic
fai
luremaygosof arast or esultini naccurate( andof t
ennegat i
ve)st ereotyping,suchas" thei nsi
ncer
e
Amer ican"or"theimposi ngJapanese" .Ther ef
ore,especi al
lyinr ef
erencet oforeignl anguagel ear
ning,Thomas
i
smor econcer nedwi thsociopr agmat i
cf ail
ureaspr agmal inguisti
cf ail
urei sf airl
yeasyt oov ercome,by
l
ear ni
ng conv entionali
zed usage as " partoft he gr ammar ".Sociopragmat icf ail
ure,howev er,is more
problemat i
casi tinvolvesthel earners'beli
efs.Thomast husemphasi zest heimpor tanceofr ai
singlearner
s'
met apragmaticawar enesstor educe( socio)pr
agmat i
cfai l
ure(p.91).

Met
apr
agmat
ics
Relatedt ot heabov epointThomasmadeaboutmet apragmati
cawar enessi sherv iew t
hatpr agmat i
cs
embedsone' sknowl edgeof,andbeli
efsabout ,languageandt heworld(Thomas,1983,p.99) .Byl ookinginto
met apragmat ics,wemayr evealtheunderlyingknowl edgeandbel i
efsthespeakerhasabout( the)l anguage
andt hewor l
d, soast obett
erunderstandther ationaleormot i
vat
ionofhis/herspeechbehav i
orort hecul t
ure
ofwhi chhe/ shei samember .Howev er
,asamet hod,aconst ruct
,oraper specti
ve,metapragmat i
cshas
defini
ti
onsandr ef
erencesthatareev env aguerandmor edi v
ersethanpragmat ics.Few l
anguaget heori
sts
havei ncorpor atedmet apr
agmat i
cs(howev eri tmaybedef i
ned)int
ot hei
rdiscussions.Mey( 1993,p.272)
discoveredthatt heterm"met apr
agmat i
cs"wasnotment i
onedinanyoft hethreemaj orworksonpr agmat i
cs
thathav eappear edduri
ngthepastfif
teent ot went yy ears:Gazdar'
sPragmat i
cs(1979),Levi
nson'sPr agmat i
cs
(1983),and
Leech'sPri
ncipl
esofPragmatics(1983).Inatt
empt i
ngtodefi
nethi
sverynewt er
m( andthenoti
onbehindit)
,
Mey( 1993)suggest
sthatmetapragmat i
csbebr oadl
yunder
stoodasref
lecti
onsonthelanguageuser
s'use(p.
182).Amor edetail
eddefi
nit
ionhegi vesisthatthepref
ixmeta-...i
ndicat
e[s]ashi
ftof"l
evel
":f
rom thatof
25
tal
ki
ngaboutanobj ecttothatofdi scussingt hetal
kitself
....A" metal
anguage"thusisal anguagethat
commentson,examines,cr
it
ici
zes,etc.whathappensont helev
eloflanguageitsel
f....wecansayt hatthe
metapr
agmati
cleveliswherewedi scusst heoreti
cali
ssuesinpr agmati
cshavingtodowi t
hpragmat i
csit
self
:
apragmat
icdi
scussiononpragmatics.(Mey ,1993,p.269-270)
Regardinghow met apr
agmati
cscomei nt
oplay,Mey( 1993)proposedthat"pragmati
cs,byitsel
f,cannot
explai
normot i
vateitspri
nci
plesandmaxi
ms"(p.270);metapragmati
ccondit
ionsoflanguageuse,inst
ead,
ref
lectthesoci
etal
stateofhumanmeani
ngsasexpressedinthepragmati
cconstr
aint
sonlanguage(p.283).
I
nr eviewi ngt heev olv
ementofpr agmat ics,itseemst hatsomeaut hors,alt
hought heydidnotgi vespecific
defi
nitionst ot heterm, di
dal ludet otheimpor tanceofwhatwoul dbemet apragmat i
cs, asaconceptorat ool.
Forinst ance,ithast obeamet apragmat icper specti
vethatHymesi mpli
edwhenhear guedf ort
henecessi t
yof
describingt henat ivespeaker '
sinternali
zedknowl edgeabouthow t ouset her esourcesofhis/herlanguage
andt heneedt oidentif
yt her ules,patterns,pur poses,andconsequencesofl anguageuse( Hy
mes,1974b,p.
75).Kasper( 1989)alsost ressest hepot entialofmet apragmati
cjudgement sinuncoveringthecult
ure-speci
fic
val
ues,wei ght sofcont extualf actors,andspeaker s'percept
ions(p.50).Inasi mi l
arv ei
n,Bl
um -Kul kaand
Sheffer( 1993)seei nmet apr agmat icstheabi l
ityofspeakerstoformulat
eexpl i
citrul
esofspeaking(p.216) .
Thi
slastar
gumentalsoi
ntroducesthecont
rov
ersi
ali
ssueofhowr
eli
abl
ethespeaker
'si
ntui
ti
oncanbeand
howmuchtrustwecanhaveinmet apr
agmat
icj
udgement.

Speaker
s'I
ntui
ti
on
Wolfson( 1989a)mai ntai
nst hat(meta)pr
agmat icknowl edgeismost lyunconsci ous.Nati
vespeaker sar e
undoubtedlycapabl e ofjudgi ng t
he correctness and appropriat
eness oft he speech behav i
oroft heir
i
nterl
ocutorsandcanr ecogni zethedev i
ati
onwhenapr agmati
cr uleisvi
olat
ed.They ,however,arenotawar e
ofthepatternednat ur
eoft hei rownspeechbehav i
orandar enotabl etodescri
bet heirownrul
esofspeaki ng.
Byciti
ngsev eraltypesofev idence,Wol f
sonclaimst hatspeakersdonothav erel i
ableinf
ormationconcerni
ng
thewaysi nwhi chtheyusel anguage; f
orinstance,peoplewhoar ebi l
i
ngualorbidial
ectalmayswi t
chfrom one
l
anguageordi alecttoanot herwi t
houtbeingawar eofi tandcannotaccur at el
yr epor
tthei
ruseoft hese
l
anguagesordi alects(Bl
om &Gumper z,1972).
Schmi dt(1993) ,ont heot herhand, arguesagainstWol f
son' s( 1989a)positi
onregar dingthef al
libil
i
tyofnat i
ve
speaker s'i
ntuiti
onaboutl anguageuse.Schmi dtmai ntainst hat( meta)
pragmat i
cknowl edgei satl eastpar tl
y
consciousandpar t
lyaccessiblet oconsci ousnessandt hatl anguagei snotalway susedaut omat i
call
yand
unrefl
ect i
vely.Schmi dtci tedseveralaut horstosuppor thiscl ai
m:Odl in(1986),f orinstance,suggest st hat
l
inguisti
cf ormst hatar eimpor t
antf orcommuni cati
vecompet enceare,ingeneral,highlysali
entandaccessi ble
to awar eness;Ochs ( 1979)al so suggest sthatpeopl e do notal way s use l anguage aut omat i
cally or
unrefl
ect i
vely,andcommuni cati
onscanv arygr
eat l
yinter msofspont aneit
yandpl anning;Kendal l(
1981)ev en
enumer atesi nstancesi nwhi chspeaker suset hel anguageconsci ously.Forinst ance,peoplemaypr eplan
(i
mpor tant)t el
ephoneconv er
sations;wr iti
nginvolvesagr eatdealofconsci ousdel i
berati
onandchoi cesi n
discourseor ganizati
on;t herear eal sooccasi onsi nwhi chpeopl egivepar ti
cularcar et omakesur et he
l
anguaget heypr oducei sappr opr i
ateandpol i
te;andst udent smaybeconsci ousabouthow t oaddr ess
professors( Kendal l
,1981asr epor t
edi nSchmi dt1993) .
Blum-KulkaandShef fer
's(1993)ar gumentisi nli
newi thSchmi dt'
s.Act ual
ly,Blum-KulkaandShef f
erevengo
sof arastoclaimt hatmet apragmaticknowledgei simplici
tl
yt heref ornativespeaker stodrawon,although
mor eretri
evabletosomepeopl et hant oot hers.Blum-KulkaandShef fermai nt ai
nthat,alt
houghnat i
ve
speakersseem t ovar
yintheirabil
itytoformulaterulesexpli
cit
ly,t
heyshowhi ghlevelsofagreementinj
udging
theappr opri
atenessofaspeci f
icr equestvariantin agi vensi tuation(Ol sht
ain& Bl um-Kul
ka,1985)or
producingcultural
l
ydetermi nedrequestv ari
antsf orthesamesi tuation(Blum- Kulka&House,1989) .Blum-
26
KulkaandShef ferthusclaimt hatsuchr esul
tsconfi
rm" t
hecr oss-
cul
tural
lyvari
edsyst
emati
cit
yofpr agmati
c
systemsandt hedegr eetowhi cht heknowledgeofsuchr ulesisimpl
icit
lyt
herefornati
vespeaker
st odraw
on"(p.217).Theyalsoindicatet hatiti
sthejoboftheresearcher,t
hepragmatici
an,
orthesoci
oli
ngui
stt ohel
p
explor
ingtheimplici
tknowl edgeofl anguageusethati
sinherentinthespeaker.

Met
apr
agmat
icJudgement
Giventheaboveclai
msaboutt heexistenceoftheknowl edgeofappr opri
atelanguageuse( di
sregar
dingthe
contr
oversyonitsdegreeofr etr
ievabil
it
yorexplici
tness),met apr
agmaticjudgementser vesasat oolin
uncoveri
ngthesociocul
turalr
ulesinthespeaker'scommuni cati
vecompet ence.Met apr
agmaticjudgement
al
sohasagr eatv
alueincross-
cult
uralandcross-
li
ngui
sticstudies,asOlsht
ainandBl um-Kul
kapointout:
A[ metapr
agmati
c]j
udgementtestcanhelpest
abl
ishdegr
eesofequival
encebetweent woormorelanguages
bothatt hesoci
ocul
tur
alandpr agmali
ngui
sti
clevel
s.Theresponsesont hej udgementtestpoi
ntt othe
fr
equencyofusageofar angeofv ari
antsasr el
atedt
osocialconstrai
nts,enabli
ngust odiscoverthe
prefer
encest
hat
nativespeaker sofdi ffer
entl anguageshav eacrosssocial
lyv ari
edsi tuati
ons.(Olshtai
n&Bl um-Kulka, 1984,p.
244) .Givent hatmet apragmat i
csi sanew domai ninpr agmat icsandi sst i
l
linneedofamor ecommonl y
agreed- upondef ini
tion,itisnotsur pri
singtofindveryfewst udiest hatempl oyedamet apragmat i
cjudgement
test.Fort hosef ewst udi
es, thef ormatoft hejudgementt estalsov ariesaccordingt othespeci f
icpur posesof
thest udi
es.Oneex ampl eofamet apragmat i
cjudgementt est,conduct edbyOl shtainandBl um -Kul ka(1984),
i
swhatt heycal lan" accept abil
ityst udy".Thetestconsistsoff ourr equestandf ourapol ogysituations.Each
i
tem i ncl
udesadescr i
pti
onoft hesi tuati
onandsi xphrasesoft her equestorapol ogyinquest ion,representing
(1)f ormal ,polit
ev ariantsoft her equestorapol ogy,(2)informal,int i
mate-l
anguagev ari
ants,and( 3)direct
,
bluntv ar
iant s.Ther espondent swer easkedt orateeachoft hesi xphr asesonanappr opri
atenessscal eof1t o
3.Howev er,therewer enoopen- endedquest i
onstoel i
citther espondent s'opinionsont hephr asesort he
reasons f ort hei
rr at i
ngs,whi ch woul d hav e pr
ovided mor ei nsightsi ntot he respondent s'cr i
teri
af or
appr opri
at enessjudgement .
Amet apragmat i
cj udgementt est,li
kemostr esearchinstrument
s,hasl i
mitati
ons.KasperandDahl( 1991)
suggestthat,i
ninterpret
ingmet apragmati
cjudgementdat a,onehastotakeintoconsider
at i
onfactor
ssuchas
therespondents'subjectiv
eunder standi
ngoft het askandt hei
rmentalelaborationoft hecontentandt he
context
,whi chmaybedi f
fer
entf rom whatisintendedt obeunderstood.Itis,thus,veryimportantf
ort he
resear
chertobecaut i
ouswi t
ht hedesignandtheadmi nistr
ati
onofthetest,theint
erpret
ationofthedata,and
thegeneral
izati
onsmadef rom thefindi
ngs.
Untilt
hispoint
, t
hediscussi
oninthischapt
erhasbeenonthebr
oadscopeofpragmati
cs.Assuggestedear
li
er,
thereisonear eainpragmaticsthathasatt
ractedmuchatt
ent
ion,asiti
snotonl
ysigni
fi
cantastheori
esbut
also i
mpor t
antt olanguagel ear
ning.Thi
sar eahastodowi t
ht hecent
ralmeani
ngoft heconst r
uctof
pragmatics:l
anguageinuseandspeechi naction.

27
 Chapt
er6

OnEngl
ishandFr
enchl
ingui
sti
cpol
it
eness

Ther ear esev er alareast oexpr essli

ngui sticpol itenessi nf ormst hatar eculture- specifici ntheir
communi cativev alueandl anguage- speci fi
ci nt heiruse.Tobenot edt hatev eryt ranslationt hatisopt ed
fordoesnotr ef l
ecti nexact itudetheor i
ginalexpr essionai medbyt hespeaker .FrenchandEngl ish-speaki ng
count rieshav edi fferentexpr essionst ogl orif
yt heirleader sandwi thal esserdegr eeandamor emoder ate
reper t
oi reofgl or if
icat i
ont erms.
1.Thef ieldofmagni ficationandgl orificationofapar ti
cularper sonandt heuseoft he
nicknameort hef ami l
ynamei nst
eadofusi ngt hef i
rstname.
Fori nst ance, addr essi ngmenandwomenwi tht henameoft heireldestchi l
d( Samer ’
sf ather/Samer ’smot her)
i
sanal ternati
v et ousi ngt hei rpersonalnamesort heirf ami lynames.I nAr abi c,theuseoft henameoft he
fatheri saki nd ofpr aise and gl ori
fi
cat ion.ForAr abic- speaki ng communi ties,pr aise and r ev erence ar e
some oft hemosti mpor tantmot ivations f orpol i
teness expr essi ons use.Exampl es incl
ude:t he wor d
"father"asar ef erencet ot heuncl e,ort hewor d" mot her"t or efert ot heaunt .Thel ackofexpr essions
ofgl orificationi nFr enchcanbeexpl ai nedwi t
hr eferencet oLeper e,Ger aldinewhoasser tedt heFr ench
peopl e’sr eputat i
onofbei ngr ude,cold,andar rogant .We can add t ot his pat ternt he use oft itl
es when
addr essi ng a hi gh- ranking per son orwhent alkingabouthi m,l ikewhenwesay :Hi s Excel lencyand Your
Maj est y.I n ot herwor ds,t he equi valences f ort he t erms maj esty and excel lency ar e numer ous.I n
French,t herear ef ew t ermsaswel l
:" Émi nence,Maj est é,Excel lence"ascanbeshowni nt hef ollowi ng
exampl es:SaMaj est éleRoi ,sonÉmi nence,SonExcel lencel ePr ési dent /
leDéput é,Al -Beek,LePasha.Thi s
refl
ect st he sobr iet y and moder ation of t he Engl ish and Fr ench- speaki ng peopl e whenaddr essi ng
l
eader s,ascompar edt oAr abi cspeaki ngcount rieswher epeopl eexagger atet heirmodal i
tyofr espectand
reverenceandt hisisani ndicat orofthedi fferencesi nthecor respondi ngcul tures.

2.Thef i
eldofbli
ndingormy st
if
icati
onandconceal ment :
I
nt hisf i
eld,the speakerdoes notdi sclose the identi
tyoft he person whet
herdi rect
lyorindi
rectl
yin
ordert oavoidrev
ealinghis/
hername.Fori nstance,InFrenchandEngl ish,whent hei dentit
yofthepersonis
disclosed,thepronouns“ el
le”(French)and“ she”( Engli
sh)arealsousedbutv eryrarelyandl esscommonl y
whencompar edtoAr abi
c.Therei sanexampl efrom Englishpoetr
ywher ethenameoft hebelovedi
snev er
revealedbyt hepoetLordBy ronasitwasr eferredtoas“ She”in“
Shewal ksinbeaut
yliket henight”
.

3.Thef i
eldofmov ingawayf rom thev ul
garandobscenewor ds:
Oneessent i
alt oolto show r espectanddecencyi sto avoidv ul
garandobscenewor ds,orexpressions
thathav e negativ
e connot ati
ons.The av oi
dance oft hese is made through the use ofmet aphor s.
Met aphori st he language off i
tness,elegance,tast
e,and r efi
nement
.Ev en t
he use ofmet aphorical
expressionsi sv ari
ableamonggener ati
onsbecausei tdependsont helev elofformali
tyand poli
teness
ofacommuni tyofspeaker s,whi chi sunfort
unatel
yshowi ngadecl i
neespeci al
l
yi ntoday’
sgenerati
ons.
Inthiscontext,itisqui ntessenti
alt o expl
ainthenot i
on off aceasexpl ai
ned byBrownandLev i
nson.In
everyconv ersati
onalinter
action,thespeakerSandt hehear erH tr
yasmuchaspossi bl
et opreser
vet heir
28
publ
icself
-i
mageorf ace.Accor dingtoMill
s(2003),"
face"isaterm usedt
odescribet hesel
f-
imagewhichthe
SorHwoul dli
ketoseemai ntainedintheinter
acti
on"(p.58).Br
ownandLev i
nson( 1978)discussedt
hev al
ue
andpresenceoffacef orev
eryindivi
duali
nasoci et
yandt heyarguedaboutthet endencyoft hespeakerto
use a poli
teness st
rategywhen doi ng an actthatcancauset hehear
ertolosef aceinordertomini
mize
ther
isk.

3.1.Theposi t
iveandt henegat i
vef aceofBr ownandLev inson:
Thepr esentstudyi sbasedonBr ownandLev inson’sv i
gor ousmodelofl i
ngui st
icpolitenessthatexplains t he
useofdi ff
erentl evelsoff ormal i
ty/i
nformal i
tyinday -t
o- daycommuni cationandconv er
sationalexchange.
Accor dingtoBr own&Lev i
nson( 1987) ,t
her earetwot y pesoff ace,negativeand posi ti
vef ace.Mi l
ls( 2003)
explainedt hatat hreattoaper son'sface i st ermedaFaceThr eat eni
ngAct( FTA)accor dingtoBr own&
Levinson, andt hatsucht hr
eat sneedast atementthati slessi nt
ense,orsomev erbalrepairthr
oughpol iteness.
Inordert oensur easuccessf ulconv er
sat i
onalexchange, weneedl inguisti
cpol i
tenessmar kersandst rategies
suchast heuseofconnot ationsandmet aphorswhi char e obser v
ed f requent l
yi n Arabic,French and
English-speaking communi ti
es.Thus,i nt hese cultures,t hebestwayt oav oidsaddeni ng,underminingand
beli
ttli
ngahear eri stouseeuphemi sms, met aphors,andconnot ati
vemeani ngsofwor dswhoseusageal l
ows
peopl etoav oidt abooandobscenewor ds.

I
nt hi
s cont ext
,Mi ll
s( 2003)sees t hatposi ti
ve polit
eness is concer ned with showi ng closenessand
belonging to a group,whi l
e negat i
ve polit
eness isr elat
ed to distance and f ormali
tyand t opr otecti
ng
ourselv
esf rom impositi
on.Fr ench and Engl ish speakers usual
lyr ecurt o negative poli
teness st rategi
es
because t hey keepaway f rom t ransgressi
ng t he personallif
e and t he i
ntimacy oft he interlocutors.
Hence,t heyselectlingui
sti
cdev icesthatincreasethedistancebetweent hepart
icipantsinaconv ersat i
on.
Alltwocommuni ti
esofspeaker susej okingasaposi t
ivepolit
enessst r
ategytoputt hehearerateaseand i t
i
s al way st he speech si t
uation that det ermines the t y
pe of v ocabul
aryt hat they use( colloqui
al,
vernacular
, st
andard)independentlyofthesoci alr
anking.

3.2.Theuseofphonol ogi calfeat

ures,col
loquial
isms, euphemisms,connot ativ
emeani ngsand
met aphors:
3.2.
1.Phonol ogicaldev ices:
BothEngl ishandFr ench speaker s manipulatet he r hy
thm,r hyme of wor ds and other phonological
features todist
ancet hemsel vesfrom thebaddenot ationsoffacethreateningexpressi
onsbyr epl
aci
ngt hem
withfigurati
vemet aphor icalexpressi
ons.Int heuseofphonol ogi
calf eaturessuchasr hythm andr hy me,
thedemonst r
atet herefinementofi t
swor ds,str
ucturesandf l
exibi
l
ityofexpr essions.I
tisadv ancedi
nt erms
ofpoliteexpressionsaswel l
.

3.2.
2.Sl angandv ernacul
arl anguage:
French and Engl i
sh speaker st end to use sl
ang orv ernacul
arl anguage ininformalsi tuat
ions i
norder
to conv ey words wi t
h negat iv
e connot ati
ons.In Fr ench,Gui r
aus,Pi erre,as cit
ed i n Lodge,Anthony
(1999)hi ghli
ghted the f r
equentuse ofmet aphorand met ony my int he coll
oquialspeech ofFr ench
people,and expounds t his use bypinpointi
ng the inabili
tyoft he speakerstoabst ractnot i
ons,andthe
tendencyoft heill
i
teratespeakerst oconcreti
zeabst r
actt erms.Int hethelanguages,speaker susecoll
oquial
l
anguagewhent heycooper atetogetherinthespeechexchangeandwhent heyclaimt ohav eacommon
ground.El l
i
psisandcont racti
onsar eusedaswel lwhenbot hthespeakerandt hehear ershar ecommon
mut ualknowledge.I nthisr espect,i
ti sv er
yi mportantt o accountf orotherlingui
sticv ari
ablessuchas
the
29
sit
uat i
onalcont extoft he speech,t he distance bet ween the speakerand t he hearer,the l evelof
formal i
ty,the age,sex,and gender .These v ariabl
es should be taken into accounti n studying any
l
anguagebecauset heyrelat
ivel
yaffectthesocialencodi ngofexpressions.Anotherfact
orthatshoul dnotbe
neglectedandt hatt
heresearcheristryi
ngtounder l
i
neist heli
ngui
sticnatureofthelanguageandi tslingui
stic
repertoir
ebecauset her
esearchertri
est opr
ov ethatEngl ishandFrenchhasal esserand poorerreper toi
re of
fi
xed pol i
teformulasint ermsofl exi
con andv ocabularyon onehand.On t heot herhand,Fr ench and
Englishuseawi dearr
ayofst yl
i
sticandsy ntacticdevicestoexpresspolit
eness.

3.2.3.Theuseofeuphemi smsandmet aphors:

Inal lthelanguages,euphemismsal ongwi t
hmet aphorsasmet onymicdescr i
pti
vephr asesareusedwhen
speaker sfeelcompel ledtoavoi
dt he usageofterms t hatcannotbe ment i
oned inapol i
tecompany and
thatshockt he hearers,off
end them,orsadden t hem.A t ypi
calinstance ofthese ist heuse ofpass
away ,go t o sleep,go overtot heothersi de(Engli
sh) .Otherexamplesi nvol
vet hemet aphor
sused in
the t hree l
anguages when someone i s naked,urinating and defecati
ng,ordr unk thisisshowninthe
foll
owi ngcases:
Table1.
Euphemi smsf orsex,def
ecati
on,anddrunkennessinFrenchandEngl i
sh

French  andsex:Coucherav ec, par t

ager ,lanuit,fair
el ’
amour ,connai tre, avoi runer elationint i
me.
Déf écat ion  :défécat i
on,  déchar ge, l
essel l
es,Alleràl at oilet
te.
Dr unkenness  :Pr endr eunacompt e,Pr endreuneav oinée,Êt rechaudcommeunmar ron,Senoi r ci
rcommeun
cor beau
Engl ish :Rel ationshi p, maki ngl ov e,sleepingt ogether ,hookup, hankypanky
Déf écat ion  :goingf oraj i
mmy /pony ,havingat i
nkle,poi ntingpercyatt hepor cel ain
Dr unkenness  : t
hr eesheet st othewi nd
FARTI NG
URI NATI NGI NBED
INCEST
TAB00S
Theseexpr essionswi delyav ailablei nt het wol anguages,ar eusedf ort hesakeofmai ntainingal evelof
pol i
tenessandr espect ingsoci alnor ms.Theyar ei nf ormal ,casualandcr eat eaposi tivesoci alv al
ue.I nf act,
theAmer ican cul turalt aboo aboutt heel i
minat i
on ofper sonalbodi l
ywast ei sso gr eatt hatAmer i
can-
Engl ish l anguage of fers onl yeuphemi sms bynami ng t he locat ion i n whi ch thi s activit
yoccur s.Sucha
useoft hiski ndofl anguagei scal ledt he'unconsci oususeofeuphemi sm'( Rawson,1981:3) .Thisi salsoa
commonpr act i
cei nFr enchcul tures.Al most ev ery si ngl
e expr essi on f or sex euphemi sm can be
transl ated ev en t hough t heFr enchandEngl ishequi valentsar enott hesame.The t ranslati
on ofsome of
sexeuphemi smscl ear lyindicat est hati tispossi blet of indt hecor rectt ermi nt heot herlanguagebuti ti
s
almosti mpossi bl et of i
ndequi v alentt ermsbecauseoft hecul t
ur al, soci al,andr el
igiousdi fferences.Howev er,
thest rat egiesusedi nt het hreel anguagesar ethesameandt heyal way si nv olvet heuse of euphemi sms,
met aphor s,and col loquiali
sms.Thi si s a pr oofoft he usef ulness ofBr own andLev inson’st heoryin
expl ainingt hesest rategies.Br ownandLev i
nsoncl aimt heuni v ersal ityoft hesetofst rategiesf rom whi ch
i
ndi v i
dualcul tureschoose.Gr undy( 2000)st atest hatt hecent ralcl aim ofBr own&Lev inson'smodeli sthat
"broadl ycompar abl el i
nguisticst rategiesar eav ail
abl ei neachl anguage,butt hat t here ar el ocalcul tural
differences i n whatt ri
gger st heiruse"( p.156).Hence,what ev ert hel anguageusedi s,f actorsofage,
i
nt imacy ,gender ,soci alranking,f ormal i
ty/inf
or malityinaddi t
iont ot henat ureofl ingui sti
cmar kersshoul dbe
account edf orbyt hespeakerwhenchoosi ngt hest yli
st i
cdev icet hati ssui tabl ef orthecont extorsi t
uation.
30
4.Thepat ter nsofaddr essusage:
Oneoft hemodesofshowi ngsi gnsofpol i
tenessi st heuseofcommonpol i
tef ormul ast hatmai ntai
n
good and sound r elationshi ps among communi t
y member s.For i nst ance,gr eeti
ng,compl iment ing,
congr atulat i
ng,t hanki ng,andof feringcondol encesar eallpol iteact s.Toexpr essal lthesespeechact s,the
speakeruseswhatwecal l“ready -made”pol i
tef ormswhi char eatt hespeaker ’
sdi sposali fneeded.These
fi
xed pol itef ormul asar est udi ed underwhati scal l
edlingua- pragmat i
cs, whichi sdef i
nedast he:“studyof
thef i
xedf ormsofl anguaget hathav ef ixedsoci o-
pr agmat i
cv al uesinact ualv erbalcommuni cati
on. ”(
Mal y
ufa
andOr lova, 2017) .
Such f ormsar edi f fer entfrom al lotherformsofl anguagei nthei rtranslatabili
ty,politeness
andot herf eatures.Li ngua- pr agmat i
cs i sat erm coi ned byShammas ( 1995) .The f orms st udied under
l
ingua- pragmat icsar eusedf ormai ntaini ngsoci alt
ies, r
ecogni zingsoci aldistanceandkeepi ngt othescal eof
cultur
e- speci fi
cpol itenessi ni nterper sonali nteracti
on( ci
tedi nBoubendi r,2012) .Theabi lityofusi ngt hese
formsaddst ot henat uralnessofaspeaker ’sspeech.Speaker soft hesame l anguage who shar et he same
cultur
albackgr ound can easi l
yi nter pr etlingua-pr agmat i
cf or ms,whi l
e non- nat iv
e speaker s may f ace
some di ffi
cul ti
es int he under st andi ng oft he message car ri
ed byt hese f orms and t hi sis due t ot he
fact t hat l ingua-pr agmat icf orms ar et otall
yl anguage- speci f
ic andcul tur
e- speci fi
c.Because of t he
cultur
e and l anguage speci fi
city oft hese f orms,t hey can har dl
y beunder st ood by member s ofa
remot e cul ture whet heri n cont extori ni solati
on,unl ess we f i
nd si milarut terancesi nthe communi ty
l
anguage oft hatcul ture;exampl es oft hese wor ds aret hewor ds…. .( whensomeonei mpr essesuswi t
h
his/herbeaut y,ori ntel l
igence,orweal th)ort hewor ds…( whensomeonegotanew hai rcut)or…. .( when
peopleaskeachot heraboutt hemsel v es)or…( t
omeancome/ hur r
yup)or ….( toaper sonwhohasj ustt akena
shower ),
…( toaper sonwhoi seat ing) ,…( t
oaper sonwhohasbeenwor king) ,etc..Theseexpr essionsar enot
transl
at ablebecauset heyar ecul tur e-boundt ermsandmaynothav eequi valencesi nFr enchandEngl i
sh.

4.1.Thef ixedf ormulas:

Allexpr essionsusedi nsi
tuati
ons,suchasgr eeti
ngs,compl i
ments,t
hanksandcongr atul
ati
onsaswellas
poli
tef ormul assuchast hoseusedi napologi
es,compl ai
ntsandcondolences,ar
ei ncl
udedinthescope of
thelingua- pragmatics.Thef ol
lowi
ngt abl
espr esentthel i
nguist
icvar
iat
ionsoft hef i
xedfor
mulasamong
thethreecommuni t
iesofspeakers.
Exampl esofFr enchandEngl i
shgreeti
ngs:

bienvenu,vousêteslesbi
envenus,soy
ezlesbienv
enus,Enchant
é(e)
Wel come!You’r
ewel come,y
ouar emostwelcome, Ni
cetomeety ou,
Pleasedt
omeety
ou,
Itwasapl
easur
eto
seey ou,Keepwell,
putyourshoulderi
ntoi
t.

I
nt hisspeci
fi
cexampl eofgreeti
ngs,wenoti
cevari
ati
onsinthelengt
hofexpressi
ons.I
nFrance,ify
ouwantt o
bewar mlywelcomebyFr enchpeople,t
henyoushouldstar
tanysimpleconv
ersati
onwithgreet
ingsthatr
eflect
awel l-
behav
edexchangeandgoodmanner s.Howev er
,FrenchandEngli
shgreeti
ngsareveryshorttoconv ey
thesamemeani ng.Thi
siscer t
ainl
ynotappl
icabl
etoallformul
as butitcan be considered as a general
featureofAr abi
cascompar edt otheothertwolanguages.

4.
1.2.Exampl
esofcondol
encesandf
orl
ossordi
sappoi
ntment
:

mei
lleur
escondol éances,
sincèr
escondol
éances,nousappart
enonsàDieuetchezluinousr
etour
nons.
Sor
ryforyourloss,Godhav emercyonhim,Godresthissoul
,mayhissoulr
estinpeace.
net’
enfaispas,c’estpaslafi
ndumonde, av
ecchaquemal ,i
lyatouj
oursdubien,
31
nev
ermi
nd,
thi
sisnott
heendoft
hewor
ld,
don’
twor
ry,
don’
tmakeamount
ainoutofamol
ehi
l
l.

Thereisamult
it
udemul ti
tudeofexpr essionsf orphat
icorformulai
cexpr
essi
onsand cr
eat
iveconsol
ing,
rel
i
eving,andcomfort
ingut t
erances.Someoft hem desi
gnat
et hedegr
eeofloss(
death/
fai
l
ure,et
c.)
,the
for
mal i
tyofthesit
uation,andt heinterpersonall
evelofrel
ati
on.

Nev er
theless,
inminori
ssuesoflosssuchasastudent
’sf
ailur
einasubj
ect/
year,
agirlbr
eaki
ngupwit
h
herboyfr
iend,etc.
,si
mil
arexpressionsareusedintheFrenchandEngli
shcult
ures.Exampl
esofthesear
e:

Engli
sh:“Oh,nevermind”,“t
ryagai
n!”,
“Therei
salway
st omor
row!
”,“
Shei
snotwor
thyofy
ou!
”
Fr net
ench: ’
enfaispas,essayezencore,
ell
enetemérit
epas.

But,ofcour se,the li
ngui
sti
cr epresent
ati
ons ofsuch f uncti
ons need t
obe learned as partoft he
l
exicon in French and Engl
ishbecauseoft hemor ecompl i
catedgrammarofsuchut t
erancesinthesetwo
l
anguages.
Howev er,the complexi
tyofFr ench and Engl
ish l
ies i
nt heirgrammat i
calstr
uct
ures ascan beseeni n
َٔveuil
l
ezagr éerà mescondol éancesémues etàl ’
expr
essiondemasy mpathi
elaplusfranche.Engl
i
shis
character
isti
call
ybri
efandmor epr se–Mysi
eci ncerecondolences.

4.1.3.Examplesofexpressi
onsofcongr at
ulat
ions:
Sincewest erner
sandAmer icanshaveadi f
ferentwayofexpr essingemotions,i
.e.non-li
ngui
sti
cal
lyand
non-verball
y,t
heydonothaveawi dearrayoffi
xedex pressi
onsforev erysi
ngl
ehappyev entsuchaschil
dbi
rth,
success,andt heli
ke.Addtot hat
,theydonoti nter
fer
ei nother
s’li
vesandsayj ustt
hemi ni
mum requi
redto
congr at
ulat
esomeoneonsomet hi
ngofv al
ue.

Congrat
ulati
onsinAr abic,French,andEngl i
sh
 Félici
tat
ions,Quel l
ebeauté, quel l
ebell
efi
ll
e.
 Congr at
ulati
ons, bestwishes, that’
slovel
y,whatasweetdress,thatreall
ysuitsyou.
Ther
earesev er
alexpr essionsandwi shesont heoccasionofbabybir
thi neverysingl
elanguageas;t
hereare
al
so specialreli
gious pr ayersf ort he newborn,whi chcompl
icatest hetransl
ati
ont askamongthet
hree
l
anguages.Examples:
 Wewer edelightedt ohearoft hebi r
thofyournewbabyboy /gi
rl(Engli
sh)
 Nousav onsét éheur euxd’entendr edelanaissancedevotr
ebébé( Fr
ench)

4.1.
4.Exampl esoff arewel l
sinpoli
teexpressions:
French:Aur ev
oir
, j
ev oussouhai t
eunbonv oyage,bonnechance
Engli
sh:haveani cet r
ip,takecare,t
akegoodcar eofy oursel
f,goodluck,st
ayintouch!
Thepol i
teformul
asusedi nthi
scasear eusuall
yshortbutagai nther
earemor echoicesandalt
ernat
iveswher
e
expressionsareculture-boundandr ef
lectthespeaker’stendencyt oimprov
isenew andcr eat
ivewordsand
formulas.

4.
1.5.Expressi
onsusedwi thfoodandinv
itat
ions:
Fr Bonappét
ench: it.
Engli
sh:Helpyour
self,
y ouarewel
come.
Asment i
onedearli
er,theFrenchexpr
essi
onusedwhensomeonei
seat
ing“
BonAppet
it
”hasnoequi
val
enti
n
Engli
sh.
32
4.1.
6.Expr essionsusedt oapologize:
French:S’
ilv ousplait
,jem’excuse,excusez-
moi ,par
don
Englsh:Excuse me,par
i donme,Iam sor ry,Iapologize,youareright,Iam wr ong!Iwonderi fy
oucoul d
possibl
y…, forgi
v eme.
French and Engl i
sh speakers hav e adif
ferentwayofexpr essinghospi tal
i
tyandinti
macy .ThoughFr ench
and English pr esentcultur
aland soci aldiff
erences onthelevelofl ingua-
pragmati
cexpressionsandt hei
r
tr
anslati
onbot hlanguagesprefertheuseofmodal s,e.g.wil
l,woul d,could,etc.and question for
mst o
minimizei mposi ti
onandmaxi mizethefact
orofopt i
onalit
yinfavoroft headdressee.

4.1.
7.Thecompl i
mentspeechact :
Eachlanguagehasitspecul i
arwayi nexpressingcompl i
ment sandt heirr esponse.Incompl i
mentsinEnglish,
forinstance,i
twoul dbecount er
producti
veandev enf unnyt otranslatecertainutterancesi
ntoArabi
cwi t
h
theattemptofpreservingthesamepr agmaticforce.Forinstance, t
heEngl i
shut t
erance:“yousmellgood”can
be taken as a sev ere crit
ici
sm of t headdr esseei nAr abic,wher east heAr abi
cequi val
entof“Whata
good/lovel
ysmell!
”isaccept ableonlywithreferencet ot heki nd ofper fumeused byt headdressee.But
i
fnoper fumeisost ensiblyusedbyt headdressee,thi
sut t
erancewi llalsobei nter
pretedassarcasti
c.

4.1.8.Formalpoli
tephr asesf orclosinge-mails:Instancesofe-mailexpr
essi
ons:
Phrasesandsent encesf orclosinge-mai l
sinFr ench,andEngli
sh
Jev ouspriedebienv ouloi
rcr oi
re/agréer,cherMonsi eur,enl
’
assurancedemesr espect
ueusesethonor
abl
es
salutati
ons/demapl ushaut econsi dérati
on.,
Bestr egar
ds,ki
ndr egards,si
ncer ely,
y our
ssincer el
y.

Unli
keFr ench,Englishphrasesusedf orclosinge-
mai larerelati
velyshor t
.In Engl i
sh,emai ls are usuall
y
cl
osed wi thv eryshortexpr essi
onssuch as:Bestr egards,kindr egards,si
ncerely,your
ssincerel
y.French
people often use expressions ofcourtesy atthe end ofan emai land t hese should bef ormaland
expressourr especttot hei nt
erl
ocut
orsbecauset hesi t
uationalv ar
iableher eisf ormali
ty.Accordi
ngt o
Frenchpeopl e,itispreferabletousel engthyexpressionstoav oidshowi ngal ackofr espect.

4.2.Request s:
In English,a r equestcan be l i
nguisti
call
yr eal
ized withi mperati
ves,i nterrogati
ves anddecl arat
ives.
Howev er,Leech ( 1983) expl ains thati mper ati
ves ar et he leastpol i
te const r
ucti
ons si ncethey are
tactl
ess int hatthey j eopar di
ze compl i
ance by t he addressee.Fort hi
sr eason,i ndi
rectmeansar e
usuallysoughtt orealizeillocuti
onaryneeds.The speech actofr equesti n Ar abic can be r eal
ized by
diff
erentl i
nguisti
c const ructions:interr
ogati
v es,imper ati
ves and decl arat
ives.Howev er
,notal lthese
request strategi
es hav et he samef orce;wecanseepr eferencestouseoneconst ructi
onov eranother,
dependingonsev er
al sociologicalandsi t
uati
onal variabl
es.
-Excuseme, brot
her,cany ouopent hewi ndow?
-Excusez-moimonf rère,estcequet upeuxouv ri
rlaf enêt
re
Inthisexampl e,t
hemai nacti scany ouopent hewi ndow?and i tcanst andbyi t
selfasacompl eteandclear
request.Excusemebr otheront heot herhand,act sasmodi fiertomi t
igatetheef f
ectoft herequestont he
addressee.

Syntact
icdev
ices:
4.
2.1.Theuseofinter
rogat
ivesf
orr
equest
s:
33
Si
ncetheuseofimper
ati
vesisconsi
deredasrude,i
nter
rogat
ivesar
eusedi
nst
ead:
 Couldyoupl
easedomeaf avor
?/pl
ease,f
avormewi t
hananswer
 Estcequevouspouvezmef air
eunservi
ce?

4.2.
2.Theuseoft hepassi ve
Engli
sh:Thedi rectoraskedforthefi
lestobesubmi t
tedont ime.
French:Ledirecteurademandéquel esdossier
ssoientdéposés
Engli
sh:Thef i
lewasn’ tsubmitt
edorYoudi dnotsubmi ti
t:mor epoli
teexpressi
ons
French:Lesdossi ersn’ontpasétédéposésOrVousn’ avezpasdéposél esdossi ers.
Ascanbeseeni ntheabov eexamples,thepassiv
econst ructi
onisusuall
ypr ef
erredbyEngl
i
sh
andFr enchspeaker swhent heywanttoavoidascri
bingresponsibil
i
tytotheaddr essee.

EXPOSETOPI CS :
selfpraise thev ulgarandobscenewor
ds accusi ng
apologising i
mpol ite cur sing
agreement /acceptance and conv ivials reprimandi ng
reff
usals offering gener al ext enders
met aphor inv i
ting exagger ating
humor thanki ng hedgi ng
general ext
enders pr omi sing met aphor s,euphemi sms and
will
ingness/abil
ity vowi ng dysphemi sms
expressingregret claimi ng magni f
ication and gl ori
fi
cat
ion
excusing boast ing, ofapar ti
cularper son
empat hy compl aining addr esspat ter
ns
swear i
ng order i
ng, greet i
ngsandf arewells
askingforforgiveness demandi ng, condol ences and f orl oss or
i
nsul t
s adv i
sin disappoi ntment
taboosandmov i
ngawayf
rom commandi ng expr essionsofcongr atul
ati
ons

34