CROSSCULTURAL

PRAGMATICS

Celia Fullana
celia.fullana@urv.cat
 READINGS
2

Today’s readings:
 Fernández Amaya (2008) “Teaching culture: Is it
possible to avoid pragmatic failure?”
 Chapter 2 (pp. 25-65) from Wierzbicka, A.
(2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of
human interaction (2nd ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.
 APPROACHES TO PRAGMATICS
3

 CONTRASTIVE PRAGMATICS

 Thestudy of how speech acts are realized in different

languages to see how they may differ from one
language to another. It focuses on the pragmalinguistic
dimension (Trosborg 1995, Yule 1996).
 APPROACHES TO PRAGMATICS
4

 CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATICS

 The study of how culture-specific variables influence the

way speech acts are realized in different languages
and cultures. Therefore, in order to be pragmatically
appropriate in a language it is necessary to know
cultural values and norms, and how they are portrayed
in linguistic forms (Trosborg 1995)
 SOCIOPRAGMATIC vs.
PRAGMALINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS
5

 Communities have sociopragmatic norms: what to

say in a given context
 Culture

 Age and gender

 Social class and occupations

 Status in interaction

(Thomas 1983)
 SOCIOPRAGMATIC vs.
PRAGMALINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS
6

 Pragmalinguistic choices refer to the use of

appropriate linguistic features for speech act in a
given situation, taking into account the norms of
behaviour in such situation
 SOCIOPRAGMATIC vs.
PRAGMALINGUISTIC DIMENSIONS
7

 Example of sociopragmatic dimension

 Knowingwhen to ask something in a given context,
language and culture
◼ How much their new car cost them

 Example of pragmalinguistic dimension

 Using an acceptable way to ask
◼ Boy, that car must have set you back to a pretty penny!

(Alcón 2008)
 LANGUAGE: A TOOL OF HUMAN
8
INTERACTION
 “All meanings involve interaction between the speaker and the
hearer: whether we talk about colours, animals, children, love, the
fate of the universe, or even pure mathematics, we use language
as a tool of social interaction” (Wierzbicka, 2003: 1)

 “There are many different possibles modes of interaction between

you and me, between me and you. They depend partly on what
you and I feel and want at any particular time; but they depend
also on who you and I are – both as individuals and as members
of particular social, cultural, and ethnic groups” (Wierzbicka,
2003: 2)
 COMMUNICATION
9

 What is the main purpose of learning a L2?

 COMMUNICATION!!!

◼ BUT many students are surprised when they realise that, in

spite of having a perfect dominion of the L2 grammar rules,
they have difficulties at interpersonal level when establishing
a conversation with native speakers.

◼ Some advanced learners lack COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

(Hymes, 1964): knowledge of SOCIOCULTURAL NORMS
◼ These norms vary from one culture to another
 LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
10

 Linguistic competence (Thomas, 1983)

 GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE
◼ Abstract knowledge of phonology, syntax, semantics, etc.

 COMMUNICATIVE / PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE

◼ Thecapacity to use a language effectively in order to fulfill
a certain goal and to understand language in context.
 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
11

 It is often overlooked by teachers

 BUT lack of pragmatic competence on the part of

L2 students can lead to PRAGMATIC FAILURE and
to a complete communication breakdown

 “Pragmatic failure might carry serious social

implications” (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1986: 169)
 PRAGMATIC FAILURE
12

 “The inability to understand what is meant by what

is said” (Thomas, 1983, 91)

 It takes place “whenever two speakers fail to

understand each other’s intentions” (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1986)

◼ COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
 PRAGMATIC FAILURE
13

 Two types of pragmatic failure:

 PRAGMALINGUISTIC FAILURE
◼ When the pragmatic force of a linguistic structure is
different from that normally assigned to it by a native
speaker
◼ An important source is PRAGMALINGUISTIC TRANSFER
◼ E.g. Using “Can you pass me the salt?” in Russian to make a request,
since this would be interpreted as a question to know if the listener
has the physical ability to pass the salt

 SOCIOPRAGMATIC FAILURE
 PRAGMATIC FAILURE
14

 Two types of pragmatic failure:

 PRAGMALINGUISTICFAILURE
 SOCIOPRAGMATIC FAILURE
◼ Stems from the different intercultural perceptions of what
constitutes appropriate linguistic behaviour
◼ This type is more difficult to correct and overcome by the
students since this involves making changes in their own
beliefs and value system
◼ E.g.
◼ The size of imposition: ‘What time is it?’
◼ Something taboo
◼ Power and social distance assessments: teachers
 PRAGMATIC FAILURE
15

 Can you think of any other example where a

pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic failure has
occurred?

 Have you ever experienced it?

 PRAGMATIC FAILURE
16

 Pragmatic failures not only affect production but

also understanding
A non-native speaker can interpret foreign language
conversations following his or her own cultural norms,
and will wrongly think that native speakers are being
rude in situations where they are acting appropriately
according to their linguistic community norms.
 PRAGMATIC FAILURE
17

 If participants share a conversational style, the

same metamessages will be successfully conveyed
between speaker and hearer

 If the participants do not share a particular

conversational style, the utterance interpretation
might be different from the listener’s expectation
and will carry a metamessage that the speaker is,
e.g., too pushy or too reserved
 CONVERSATIONAL STYLES
18

 Tsuda et al. (2007)

 Japanese / Americans
◼ Japanese participants employed Japanese style in
accordance with the Japanese manner, especially in
pausing, turn-taking management, and discourse structure
◼ The Japanese did not interrup nor overlap while others were
talking
◼ They said clearly that they did not change topics or raise new
topics because such behaviour was very rude
◼ Americans perceived such behaviour as odd rather than too
polite
◼ Japanese felt rushed by the introduction of new topics one after
another
 CONVERSATIONAL STYLES
19

 Tsuda et al. (2007)

 Japanese / Americans
◼ Differences in the way of responding: Japanese nodded more
frequently and more rhythmically without any vocal sound
◼ Americans stared at partners more often, which made the
Japanese feel stressed
◼ Japanese always sought to confirm whether they could take turns
or not. They could not find the right place to start the utterances
◼ Japanese often talk about experiences and Americans about
opinions
◼ For the Japanese, it is impolite to ask questions. The Americans
thought that they were not interested in the conversation
 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
20

 It is often overlooked by teachers

 WHY DO TEACHERS LEAVE PRAGMATICS ASIDE IN

L2 TEACHING?
 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
21

 WHY DO TEACHERS LEAVE PRAGMATICS ASIDE IN

L2 TEACHING?

◼ Pragmatic description has still not obtained the precision

level of grammar

◼ Pragmatics is a delicate area and it is not still very clear

how it can be taught (Thomas, 1983)
 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
22

 Should we become a different person just because

we are speaking another language?

 “Striving for intercultural competence does not mean

assimilation into the target culture” (Pohl, 2004)

 Ifwe understand cultural norms of the language that is

being studied, communication will not break
 PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
23

 Pragmatic “errors” might have their origin in

PRAGMATIC TRANSFER

 “Influenceexerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge

of languages and cultures other than L2 on their
comprehension, production and learning of L2
pragmatic information” (Kasper, 1992, 207)

 Students usually carry out speech acts, such as requests

or apologies, in accordance with the sociolinguistic
norms of their native language (Ellis, 1994)
 EXAMPLES OF PRAGMATIC FAILURE
24

 The pragmatic meaning of linguistic expressions is

conventionalised in different ways in different
cultures
 Fernández Amaya (2008): Swearing in Algeria in front
of a woman
 Richards & Sukwiwat (1983):
◼ E: Look what I’ve got for you! (maybe a gift)
◼ JE: Oh! I’m sorry (in Japanese, ‘thank you’ may not sound
sincere enough)
◼ E: Why sorry?
 EXAMPLES OF PRAGMATIC FAILURE
25

 Spanish student of English

◼ E: Will you be coming to my party on Saturday?
◼ SE: Well
◼ E: Well what?

◼ E: We must have lunch together some time

◼ SE: Let’s do lunch
◼ E: See you
◼ SE: Take care

 Taking leave in Spanish: “Ya te llamaré”

 EXAMPLES OF PRAGMATIC FAILURE
26

 Olshtain & Cohen (1989)

 Mrs G: native speaker of English in Israel
◼ Ms. G: I’m sorry (in Hebrew)
◼ Mr. Y: Lady you could at least apologize

A Hebrew speaker of English has forgotten a meeting

with a friend and apologizes for this:
◼I really very sorry. I just forgot. I fell asleep. Understand?
 EXAMPLES OF PRAGMATIC FAILURE
27

 Reynolds (1993)
 A (English) and B (Polish) have been travelling by train for a
couple of hours. The conversation is decaying and A tries to
liven it up:
◼ A: I wonder how many trees there are in Poland
◼ B: I cannot imagine who would want to know that

 Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1986)

 A is a Norwegian teacher and B a Hebrew technician
(conversation in Hebrew)
◼ A: It if is not too much bother, could you please make a video
cassette of this lesson?
◼ B: When have I ever refused to prepare a cassette for you? I’m
really surprised at you.
 EXAMPLES OF PRAGMATIC FAILURE
28

 OWN EXAMPLES?????
 READINGS
29

 Chapter 2 (pp. 25-65) from Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics:

The semantics of human interaction (2nd ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.

 Discusses a number of differences between English and

Polish, in the area of speech acts, and links these differences
with different cultural norms and cultural assumptions

◼ English places have restrictions on the use of the imperative and

makes extensive use of interrogative and conditional forms
◼ Linguistic differences are shown to be associated with cultural
values such as individualism and respect for personal autonomy in
the case of English, and cordiality in the case of Polish.
 CULTURAL ETHOS
30

 A society can be identified in terms of a unique

‘ETHOS’: strategies and patterns which constitute a
conversational style that can be thought of as ‘a
summation of the social norms tied to a linguistic
and cultural framework’ (Byrnes, 1986: 191)
 CULTURAL ETHOS
31

 Brown & Levinson (1987)

 American ethos: solidarity-based.
◼ Individual strategies used
◼ Notice, attend to hearer
◼ Exaggerate
◼ Claim in-group membership with hearer
◼ Claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge,
empathy
◼ Be optimistic
◼ Joke
◼ Indicate that Speaker knows Hearer’s wants and is taking them
into account
◼ Assume or assert reciprocity
 JOKING INTERACTION
32

 Joking (humour and irony)

 Characteristic of solidarity behaviour, built on shared

sociocultural knowledge, assumptions and attitudes
◼ Germans joke with friends, less likely to joke with
acquaintaces under small talk conditions
◼ It is private behaviour, whereas for Americans it is public as well
as private
 CULTURAL ETHOS
33

 Brown & Levinson (1987)

 German society
◼ Deference ethos in which power and social distance are
marked explicitly, for example through titles and different
use of pronouns
◼ Conversational styles places greater emphasis on the
‘information-conveying function of language, as compared
with the social bonding function’
◼ This emphasis leads naturally to more direct strategies
 ROLE OF THE TEACHER
34

 “Rather than being taught to be polite, learners should

be given the possibility of choosing to be either polite
or impolite” (Davies, 1986: 121)

 The task of the teacher is to make sure their students

know what they are saying

 The teacher has to take into account that

pragmalinguistic failures can be corrected, while
sociolinguistic failures are indicated since they show the
learner’s value systems and vision of the world
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
35

 “Pragmatic knowledge should be teachable”

(Kasper & Schmidt, 1996: 160)

 Instruction helps L2 learners in acquiring pragmatic

competence

 Students must learn that the codification of a certain

message is subject to the conventions of use and these
can vary from one linguistic community to another
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
36

 What must the students learn to be competent

from a pragmatic point of view? (Jung, 2002)
 Ability to carry out speech acts
 Ability to produce and interpret non-literal meanings

 Ability to use politeness strategies

 Ability to carry out discursive functions (e.g. taking turns,

pauses or silences, discourse markers, etc.)
 Ability to use cultural knowledge
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
37

 Techniques for developing L2 pragmatic

competence:
 Cognitive-awareness raising activities
 Receptive skills development

 Productive-skills teaching
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
38

 Kramsch (1981, 1983) approach

 1.Students learn to recognize and analyse pragmatic
devices in authentic texts

 2. They are provided with opportunities for their own

production through dialogues, role plays, and oral
chaining techniques
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
39

 Evans (2004)
 “We need to organize teaching around speech
activities as discourse rather than around isolated
speech acts”
◼ E.g. We could organize teaching around “small talk” as a
social practice, rather than around “requests”
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
40

 Class discussions should, for example, focus on:

 When the focus of a conversation is on information
content or social bonding
 When it is socially acceptable to argue and how
arguing is done
 Acceptable and unacceptable ways to interrupt people
 Who jokes with whom, when, how, and about what
 When it’s acceptable to express strong emotion
 What topics are acceptable and unacceptable for
small talk (politics, religion, sex)
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
41

 Is it right to teach native speakers’ conversational

styles or politeness strategies from the viewpoint
of English as a lingua franca?
 TEACHING PRAGMATICS
42

 Is it right to teach native speakers’ conversational

styles or politeness strategies from the viewpoint
of English as a lingua franca?
 It is important to know “different norms of interaction”
 It is important to provide learners with cross-cultural
pragmatic information
 At the same time, native English speakers must also be
willing to understand that they cannot expect the same
cultural norms from the learners with different cultural
backgrounds
HOW WOULD YOU BEHAVE IN
THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS?
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?
1. You want to ask for the time to somebody you don’t know
2. You want to ask a woman/man to go out for dinner
3. You disagree with your teacher
4. You run into a friend you haven’t seen for a long time
5. Guests at home that are about to leave
6. You are late to class
7. A friend of yours has asked you for advice
8. Small talk. You are at a party where you don’t know anybody