6th International Conference on Social Network, Communication and Education (SNCE 2016)

Pragmatic Failures by Chinese Learners of English in Intercultural

Communication
Daxin Yang1, a, Ziwei Jia1, b, Lejing Zhao1, c, Hua Xue2, d and Hede Gong1, e*
1
Faculty of Ecotourism, Southwest Forestry University, Kunming 650224, Yunnan, China
2
School of Earth Science, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
a
493960806@qq.com, bjiaziwei1204@163.com, c1403701542@qq.com, d1542230150@qq.com,
e
gonghede3@163.com
*The corresponding author

Keywords: Intercultural; Communication; Pragmatic failure; Cultural differences; Strategy

Abstract. With the development of economic globalization, intercultural communication is

increasing rapidly in the world. Pragmatic failure usually leads to misunderstandings among
different people with various backgrounds. Understanding cultural differences is necessary for
successful communication. This thesis aims to analyze pragmatic failures in cross-cultural
communication from the following three aspects.
Chapter one focuses on pragmatic failures made by Chinese learners of English, namely
pragma-linguistic failure, socio-pragmatic failure and pragma-behavior failure. Chapter Two further
analyzes the factors influencing pragmatic failure in intercultural communication, that is, different
patterns of thought, ignorance of lexical gap and insufficient knowledge of pragmatic principles.
And this chapter illustrates how these factors influence Chinese learners’ mind in communication.
Chapter Three proposes three strategies, including enhancing pragmatic competence, avoiding
negative stereotyping and creating culture-rich learning environment, to minimize pragmatic
failures and help learners to enhance their pragmatic competence.
In conclusion, linguistic competence and pragmatic competence are certainly related but not
proportional totally. Learning culture can help language learners cultivate their cultural awareness
and improve their pragmatic competence to minimize the possibility of pragmatic failure in
intercultural communication.

Introduction
With the rapid development of globalization, human beings have increased chances for
communication with people from other countries. Due to the differences in culture, they often suffer
from breakdowns in intercultural communication. It is really necessary to pay more attention to the
cross-cultural failures, which results in misunderstandings, distrust, even conflicts. So this thesis
wants to grasp the current situation of Chinese learners’ pragmatic failures, and systemically
analyze the factors influencing pragmatic failures in intercultural communication, and propose some
strategies for them to minimize the possibility of pragmatic failures.
In order to have a more comprehensive outlook about the issues I have examined, I will first do a
state-of-the-art type of study and then see what has happened in this area over the past 30 or more
years. With the development of researches and active practice in our daily life, we are aware of the
significance of successful communicator. Since different individuals are from different cultures,
even the same information is understood differently. We usually suffer from breakdowns in
intercultural communication, which results in misunderstandings, distrust, even conflicts. How to
make effective intercultural communication and minimize the breakdowns in intercultural
communication is very meaningful for communicators from different cultures. Jenny Thomas called
this kind of breakdown pragmatic failure. Many researchers have analyzed this field from different
points. So some initial resources in my literature review I want to use include the following aspects.
According to H. P. Grice’s Speech Acts published in 1975, a speaker might be performing three
acts when he is speaking: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. From then on,
© 2016. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press 10
researches on pragmatics are become more in a period of prosperity. Conversational implicature,
was put forward by American philosopher H. P. Grice. According to Grice, in order to have a
successful communication, both sides should comply with some principles, which are called
“cooperative principle”. Based on the theory and all the principles, both sides can deduce the
implied meaning that isn’t in accordance with literal utterance from the context. Grice called this
kind of meaning “conversational implicature”. Cooperative principle is consist of four maxims:
quantity maxim, relation maxim, manner maxim and quality maxim. Grice’s theory aroused intense
interest of pragmatics field, and became the basis of pragmatics.
Then in 1986, “Pragmatics”, is firstly put forward by American philosopher Eugene
Rochberg-Halton in Meaning and Modernity, who divides semiotics into three branches:
semantics — the study of “the relation of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable”;
syntactics — the study of “the formal relation of signs to one another”; Pragmatics — the study of
“the relation of signs to interpreters”. But it was not until 1970s, researches on pragmatics arose in
the whole world as a branch of linguistics, which had three symbols: firstly, The First Monograph
on Pragmatics was published; secondly, Journal of Pragmatics was published; thirdly,
International Pragmatic Association was established .
He Ziran and Yan Zhuang study pragmatic failures from a new angle. Through questionnaires,
they carry out a test on the intercultural pragmatic skills of 87 university teachers. Their article,
“Pragmatic Failures of Chinese Students in Communication in English — An Investigation of
Chinese-English Pragmatic Difference”, was published in 1986. Based on the Thomas’s theory, they
analyze the intercultural pragmatic differences in socio-pragmatic and pragma-linguistic aspects.
The result of the investigation shows that socico-pragmatic knowledge and pragma-linguistic
knowledge are the main factors of pragmatic failures made by Chinese learners. Therefore, they
suggest that cross-cultural pragmatic knowledge should be taught in class. On the one hand, their
study is of great practical value for the exploration and analysis of the Chinese people's pragmatic
failure; on the other hand, the questionnaire also provides an example for future researches on
pragmatic failures.
According to “Pragmatic Problems in Cross-cultural Communication”, which was published in
1990, Wang Dexing extends study on pragmatic failures from study on pragmatics itself to
cross-cultural field. He supports the view that in order to avoid communicative breakdown in
intercultural communication, language learners need to have at least two abilities: the first is to be
able to realize that ongoing communication is not entirely successful; the second is to be able to
find where the communicative breakdown is and to take some remedial measures.
Gu Yueguo put forward “pragmatic errors” in Language and Linguistics in 1998. He elaborated
ten different pragmatic errors and pointed out that it is more important for language learners to
grasp the different forms of language in different backgrounds and non-verbal contexts, besides
learning necessary knowledge of the language such as grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary. In
this article, he suggests that pragmatic content which has relation with speech acts should be added
to the outline and taught to language learners.
In 2002, Dai Weidong and Zhang Hongling study pragmatic failures in terms of the reason. In
their article, “Cultural Transfer in Foreign Language Communication and its Enlightenment to
Foreign Language Teaching Reform”, they point out that cultural transfer is one of the main factors
leading to the pragmatic failures. According to their research, cultural transfer can be divided into
two categories: surface-structure transfer and deep-structure transfer, among which
pragma-linguistic failure belongs to the former, while socio-pragmatic failure belongs to the latter.
As Stephen C. Levinson states in Pragmatics in 2010, pragmatics is the study of those principles
that will account for why a certain set of sentences are anomalous, or not possible utterances.
Furthermore, some other scholars defined pragmatics in different aspects. Bierwisch Kiefer, and
Searle suggest that pragmatics is one of those words that give the impression that something quite
specific and technical is being talked about when in fact it has no clear meaning.
Therefore, it can be concluded that different researchers have different viewpoints. They explain
pragmatic failure from different perspectives, and all give reasonable and fruitful materials. For the

11
sake of understanding pragmatic failure, this thesis is based on reading a lot of books, national
journals to analyze the pragmatic failure.
The conclusion can be reached that linguistic competence and pragmatic competence are related
but not proportional totally. Culture learning can help Chinese learners cultivate their cultural
awareness and improve their pragmatic competence to minimize the possibility of pragmatic
failures in communication.

Chapter One Pragmatic Failures Made by Chinese Learners of English

With regard to classification of pragmatic failure made by Chinese learners of English, there is not a
settled statement. Pragmatic failure is the inability to understand what is meant by what is said. It
refers to the errors in our speech communication because of failing to accomplish a perfect effect.
Both verbal utterance and non-verbal behavior in intercultural communication can convey
information. Therefore, this thesis studies three pragmatic failure in intercultural communication:
pragma-linguistic failure, socio-pragmatic failure, and pragma-behavior failure.
Pragma-linguistic Failure. “Pragma-linguistic failure occurs when pragmatic force mapped by
students onto a given utterance is different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native
speakers of the target language.”1 Like intralingual pragmatic failure which is introduced in this
chapter, pragma-linguistic failure is closely associated with insufficiency of lexical and pragmatic
knowledge. Common pragma-linguistic failures are listed as follows:
The first kind of pragma-linguistic failure is violating the codes of language of native English
speaker. There is a convention in each language use, and English is with no exception.

Example 1:
A: Thanks for your help.
B: Never mind. (mei guan xi)2

This is a typical pragmatic failure made by Chinese learners of English. In Chinese, “never
mind” can be responded to gratitude and apology. But in English, “never mind” — which is usually
literally translated into “mei guan xi” — can be only responded to apology. When “Thanks a lot” or
“It’s a great help” is used in intercultural communication, “Never mind” may be blurted out by
Chinese people.
The second kind of pragma-linguistic failure is abusing the expressive structure of mother tongue.
Due to the thinking pattern of Chinese, Chinese learners of English usually equate Chinese
utterances with some certain English utterances .

Example 2:
A: Is the library available on Saturday?
B: Of course.3

“Of course” is not equivalent to “certainly” in Chinese in any situation. In Example 2, Speaker B
intends to reply to Speaker A with a positive tone. Contrarily, for the abuse of “Of course”, Speaker
A possibly comes to realize the meaning that only a foolish man would ask this kind of question.
The Similar utterances occur on the occasion of misusing “What?” for “Pardon?”, and “It is my
duty” for “It is my pleasure”.
The third kind of pragma-linguistic failure is ignoring the speaker’s intended meaning. This kind
of pragma-linguistic failure often occurs in our daily cross-cultural communication. People just
interpret the sentences foreigners speaking literally and can’t understand the deeper intention.
Theory.

Example 3:
Emily, an English student and her classmate Zhang Bing are in a dinner party.
Emily: May I have the cake on your left?
12
 Zhang Bing: Yes, help yourself.4

In this dialogue, Emily as the form of inquiry, conveyed her intention that she requested Zhang
Hua to pass her the cake. It seemed that Emily just asked for permission, but in fact, she had made
the act of requesting Zhang Hua to pass her the cake. Unfortunately, Zhang Bing couldn’t recognize
Emily’s real purpose by her utterance.
When people are in cross-cultural communication, they don’t translate the sentences literally and
try to catch the deeper meaning culturally. Therefore we can give a better answer to the question.
Socio-pragmatic Failure. Socio-pragmatic failure derives from the different intercultural
perceptions of what constitutes appropriate linguistic behaviors. As Thomas states, the
Socio-pragmatic failure is more difficult to correct and overcome by the learners because it involves
adapting to other countries’ beliefs and value systems. This is why Chinese people and native
English speakers have different even opposite responses to the same utterance. Chinese culture
roots in thinking pattern and language principles of Chinese people, which are automatically
brought into communication. Because of the same reason, native English speakers observe their
own social customs and pragmatic principles. In a word, socio-pragmatic failure mostly originates
from the following two categories.
The first category is the content of expression. Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman explains
the components of communication with free and non-free goods.

Free goods are those which are available in intercultural communication

without limits, while non-free goods are those which are taboos or privacies. On
the one hand, both of them are related to politeness, and the only difference is just
the level of politeness. On the other hand, free goods and non-free goods vary with
the objects and situations.5

In general, free and non-free goods are different in the eyes of Chinese and English people.
China is known as the country of ceremony and propriety, and Chinese people are told to express
and behave in civilized manners when they are children. Little do they come to realize that what can
be accepted by Chinese people will offend native English speakers, such as income, marriage and
religion and so on. Excessive praise regardless of the occasion will also arouse distaste.

Example 4:
In a Christmas party, Xiao Liu stepped up to Mr. Gary,
Xiao Liu: Mr. Gary, thank you to invite me to the wonderful party. By the way,
your wife is very beautiful.
Mr. Gary: … (felt embarrassed and a little angry) 6

In the eyes of Chinese people, praising the beauty of one’s wife in front of a husband is an act of
showing respect to him. On the contrary, native English speakers will consider it as a provocative
and pejorative act. In Example 4, the first portion of Xiao Liu’s utterances root in politeness, while
the other one is superabundance. There are lots of taboos which speakers should avoid touching, but
they also change according to objects and occasions. That is to say, different people have different
understandings on the same topic. But the same person will have different responses to the same
topic in different situations.
The second category is the manner of expression. As everyone knows, both sides in intercultural
communication should take the social status, conversational register and familiarity of the topic into
consideration. In intercultural communication, these elements are concerned with different cultures.
Taking the case of communication between Chinese and English, different perception of appropriate
utterance inevitably results in different manners of expression. Chinese people often greet other
people titled with their occupations instead of “Mr.”, “Miss” or “Mrs.” For example, Gary, an
American who has been in China for one month as an English teacher, is surprised that a student

13
calls him “Teacher Gary”. If the example of “Teacher Gary” can be ascribed to ignorance, the
example below maybe confuses many Chinese people.

Example 5:
After an academic report, Xiao Li stepped up to Dr. Rachel:
Xiao Li: “Dr. Rachel, Thank you! It is really a wonderful lecture.”
Dr Rachel: …7

In the eyes of Chinese people, Xiao Li’s words are appropriate, while it is an excessive praise for
a native English speaker. Because the academic report should be realistic, and the comment on an
academic report with “wonderful” is a satire on the reporter.
There are some differences in the word “change” between Chinese culture and English culture.
In western culture, especially in American culture, “change” can be equivalent to “innovate” in
certain degree. Some Chinese people are usually confused by the following conversation:

Example 6:
Chinese: Hey, it isn’t Kate?
American: Oh, Liu. I haven’t seen you for years. You are so beautiful now.
Chinese: Thank you! You didn’t change any more.
American: ……8

The Chinese don’t understand why the American people seem so embarrassed. In fact,
Americans cannot accept to be considered unchanged. In American culture, people are usually
encouraged to change for innovation or promotion. If someone is considered unchanged, it means
the man doesn’t get progress and has no pioneering spirit.
In practice, since the distinction between pragma-linguistic failure and socio-pragmatic failure is
not absolute, some socio-pragmatic failures can be explained by the pragmatic principles. This
phenomenon is worth more further study.
Pragma-behavior Failure. Most communications among people are face-to-face ones. Because
of the Internet, video technology provides the chance of face-to-face communication for people who
are in distance. Many scholars realize that instead of verbal behavior, most of the messages are
expressed by non-verbal behavior in face-to-face communication. Non-verbal behavior refers to the
elements which can inform the exporter or receiver. These elements may be artificially generated or
environmentally created. Non-verbal behavior includes body actions, gestures, facial expressions
and eye-contacts. The thesis adapts Bi Jiwan’s classification: body language, paralanguage, object
language and environmental language. The first two can be called “non-verbal act”, while the other
two can be called “non-verbal instrument”.
The classification of pragmatic failures by Thomas ignores failures caused by non-verbal
behavior, which is resulted from the fact that many linguists only focused on verbal communication
for ages. With the further study on non-verbal behavior, pragma-behavior failure has emerged little
by little and often occurs in intercultural communication.
In China, it is very common to have a sight of this scene: when a Chinese student meets his
American teacher and her two-year-old son by chance, he runs to them and says “What a lovely
boy!” and then hugs and kisses the baby. Chinese may regard it as the act of showing love, while
some western people would regard it as a bad manner. Westerners, especially native English
speakers, are sick of being touched by other people. Therefore, when western people communicate
with others, they will keep a certain distance from others. On the contrary, Chinese people usually
show their kindness or friendship with body touches such as hug and hand in hand. Many foreigners,
who firstly come to China, feel uncomfortable with such “warmth”.
There is another example between Chinese and English.
Example 7:
In Xiao Wang’s birthday party, Bob, one of his American friends, gave him a

14
 gift in a box.
Bob: “Happy birthday!”
Xiao Wang: “Thank you” (then put it aside carefully) 9

Although Xiao Wang’s utterance is appropriate, his non-verbal behavior may hurt Bob. Most of
the Chinese people will approve of Xiao Wang, because it is impolite to unwrap gifts in others’
presence. But Bob’s being rejected for Xiao Wang’s non-verbal behavior was showing dislike in his
own culture.
The three pragmatic failures, which are pragma-linguistic failure, socio-pragmatic failure and
pragma-behavior failure, act as important roles in intercultural communication. In cross-cultural
communication, because of the different speaking manners of how to present information and
express politeness, or people just apply their native language habits, it is easy to cause pragmatic
failures. People can avoid or correct them through English teaching. Studies on them will help
Chinese learners of English have better and successful intercultural communication.

Chapter Two Factors Influencing Pragmatic Failures in Intercultural Communication

There is large room for language learners to improve their pragmatic ability in intercultural
communication which influences pragmatic failure. It seems to be accepted or recognized by many
scholars that the first factor influencing pragmatic failures in intercultural communication is cultural
difference. In practice, it is inappropriate or not comprehensive. Interlanguage is the result of
interaction between the common factors in mother tongue and the target language. Thus, pragmatic
failure unavoidably occurs in the process of transfer between L1 and L2. Thomas attributes the
factors influencing pragmatic failures in intercultural communication to pragmatic transfer, which is
adopted in the thesis. In this chapter, three major factors resulting in pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication are provided in the following parts.
Different Patterns of Thought. Pattern of thought is the way when human beings think, which
is related to culture and embodies cultural psychological factors. As Sapir-Whoof hypothesis
suggest, people’s pattern of thought affects their utterances. Due to different cultures, people from
different cultures have different patterns of thought. The two sides in intercultural communication
act in their own patterns of thought in accordance with their own cultures. The difference in pattern
of thought is an important factor of negative socio-pragmatic transfer in communication. There are
two kinds of differences in patterns of thought between Chinese speakers and native English
speakers, which are discussed as follows.
The first kind of difference is synthetic and analytic. As mentioned above, since Chinese
speakers seek for harmonious relationship, they regard things as a whole. While since individualism
is rooted in western culture, native English speakers regard things as separated. That is to say,
Chinese pattern of thought is more synthetic and perceptive, while English pattern of thought is
more analytic and logical.
Chinese speakers prefer to choose synthetic pattern of thought, which stresses the extensive
mastery of things from all dimensions. In communication, they usually want to synthesize the
elements into the unified whole and grasp all of the things, which is in correspondence with
collectivism and harmony in the value system of Chinese culture. Taking address for example,
Chinese speakers would like to put it in the order from nation to province and then to city.
For example, Chinese is from big place to small place about the address on the envelope.
Chinese will Write “Zhong Guo, Beijing”, while westerns will write “Beijing, China”.
The pattern of thought of native English speakers is more analytic, which is in correspondence
with individualism in their own culture. Native English speakers usually tend to analyze things in
the sense of their own elements and put their most interested and important point in the first place.
It can be also reflected in addressing. Compared with Chinese speakers, native English speakers
tend to put the order from city to state and then to country.
The second kind of difference is inductive and deductive. Inductive pattern of thought and
deductive pattern of thought are generally used in dialectical one. The former lists the supporting
15
evidence one by one before the argument. But the latter states his view and then lists the supporting
evidence.
For example, Chinese people will say, “This room is big, bright and beautiful, so I like it.” But
westerns will say in another way, “I like this room because it is big, bright and beautiful.”
The deductive pattern is from general to specific. For example:
Line is the shortest distance between two points. And the shortest distance between points A and
B is Line A-B. Therefore, line A-B is a straight line.
The inductive is from specific to general. For example:
Peacocks fly, sparrows fly, woodpeckers fly ... ... peacocks, sparrows, woodpeckers are birds, so
all birds can fly.
Native Chinese speakers tend to prefer inductive pattern of thought. As mentioned above,
Chinese speakers express themselves indirectly instead of showing their opinions directly. When
they want to effectively prove the truth of their statements, traditional value pushes them to give the
supporting evidence in detail before the argument. In their point of view, summary should be placed
at the end.
When asked about the most important factor in the business negotiation, an American
businessman’s answer would be like that “all you need is the three Ws and one H: what, when, why
and how.”10 Obviously, English people prefer deductive pattern of thought. In other words, they
state their opinions at the beginning of the discourse, and then present the evidence one by one.
Therefore, native English speakers are usually impatient when Chinese explain their views
without a clear presentation on and on, while Chinese speakers are embarrassed by the bluntness of
English people without previous explanation.
In a word, in order to establish harmonious relationship, Chinese people adopt synthetic and
inductive pattern of thought. While individualism makes English people choose the analytic and
deductive pattern of thought. Inadequate transfer in pattern of thought results in breakdown in
communication between Chinese and English speakers.
Ignorance of Lexical Gap. Words are not only the basis of language but also the reflection of
culture. Different languages and cultures have different historical tradition, value, custom, religion,
and thought of pattern. So the same word will implicate its own particular meaning in different
cultural contexts and the corresponding emotions are also different, which is called lexical gap. It
shows that a word, term or utterance in one language has not correspondent counterpart in another
language. Specially, a word, term or utterance has rich pragmatic meanings in one language, while
it is only a symbol without associative meaning in another language.
The first kind of lexical gap is caused by partial equivalent transfer. This phenomenon is
common between English and Chinese speakers. For example, in Chinese, “Guan Xi” has different
meanings, one of which refers to relationship among people that can be accepted by English people.
But the other two meanings may confuse them, which refer to immoral relation or the fact that some
powerful leaders support for the certain person, because they don’t have such associative meaning
in English.
Lexical gap is also reflected on the names of plants, animals and vegetables in English and
Chinese. For example, “daffodil”, which is just translated into “Huang Shui Xian” in Chinese, can
refer to the symbol of spring and joy. “Beaver”, which is just translated into “He Li” in Chinese, can
stands for a person who works harder than he should. “Eggplant”, which is translated into “Qie Zi”
in Chinese, is an insulting remark on black people.
And lexical gap is reflected on cooking. Chinese food is famous for its strong flavors and diverse
cooking. In Chinese, different cooking methods can be described as “Jian”, “Liu”, “Zha”, “Hong
Shao”, “Bao Chao”, “Ba Si”, etc. But in English, the description of frying can’t cover so many
methods.
The second kind of lexical gap is caused by non-equivalent transfer. Through several centuries of
development, English and Chinese have absorbed a lot of words from each other. But there are still
some words in one language which can’t be translated into the other language properly and clearly.
Generally, these words contain cultural or religious implication. For example, some Chinese words

16
such as “Ba Gua” and “Tai Ji”, “Ren”, “Li”, etc. can’t be translated into English exactly. While,
some English words like “baptism”, “archbishop”, “saint”, “disciple” have no counterparts in
Chinese.
In sum, lexical gap in partial equivalent transfer may result in ambiguity, while in non-equivalent
transfer it may lead to being in dark. For a word in one language, a corresponding word cannot be
found in a different language.
Insufficient Knowledge of Pragmatic Principles. In intercultural communication, both sides
should observe pragmatic principles for successful communication. Violating pragmatic principles
or insufficient knowledge of pragmatic principles will cause ineffectiveness of illocutionary force
and negative pragmatic transfer that will cause pragmatic failure. The speech act theory, politeness
principle and cooperative principle are the theoretical basis of pragmatics. Therefore, negative
pragmatic transfer caused by insufficient knowledge of pragmatic principles is one of the important
factors of pragmatic failures.
The first kind is perception failure of speech act. As introduced above, when speaking, a speaker
might be performing three acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. In another
word, when speaking, a speaker not only shows the utterance with conceptual meaning (locutionary
act), but also expresses his intention (illocutionary act) and expects the hearer to respond
correspondingly (perlocutionary act). If the hearer can understand the speaker’s intention according
to the context and make the appropriate response, it will help to bring about a successful
communication. On the contrary, it will bring about pragmatic failures.

Example 8:
In an English class, Professor John stepped up to a student:
A: Can you answer my question?
B: Yes, I can.11

Obviously, misunderstanding John’s utterance as inquiry, the student failed to get the teacher’s
intended meaning, which was to answer the question. In such a circumstance, the student should
answer Professor John’s question directly. However, as a matter of fact, lacking speech act theory,
many Chinese people considered the student’s answer was appropriate.
Chinese students often make inappropriate responses to this type of question like “Have you seen
Jim lately?” The utterance seems to be a simple question which is just replied by “Yes” or “No”.
But it is used to know more information about Jim.
Because of the different cultural and social backgrounds, application of speech act theory can
help both sides have a better understanding of illocutionary force for successful communication.
The second kind is inappropriate use of politeness principle and cooperative principle. To
elaborate on Politeness Principle and Cooperative Principle, both presenters provide four and six
maxims. Nevertheless, the absorption and precedence rate of these maxims vary from one language
to another language. Because of different cultures, Chinese people have different opinions on the
maxims of CP and PP. Because Leech admitted that Politeness Principle was the supplement of
Cooperative Principle which is an independent principle of pragmatics, negative transfers caused by
inappropriate use of the two principles are discussed together. The thesis discusses them from three
types:
The first type is different applications of manner maxims. The manners used for different objects
by Chinese speakers and native English speakers may make these kinds of different applications
clear. In China, the more polite manner the speakers obey, the more successful communication they
will have, which is not completely applicable in western countries. In Chinese culture, requesting
other peoples’ help means the use of polite manner regardless of the objects, while native English
speakers can only use the utterance such as “Open the door” to show the same intention when they
speak to their best friends. Just as a passenger, a person has no need to show his intention in a polite
manner.
As stated by Levine, “though pragmatic principles are more or less universal, their relative

17
weights are culturally different”.12 In Chinese culture, manner maxim is prior than other countries to
a certain extent.
The second type is different applications of quality and quantity maxims. In China, proper
exaggeration is appropriate in communication or may even flatter the hearer. While a native English
speaker may regard it as a contempt of interfering his privacy. Since in the view of Chinese people,
this kind of exaggerative compliment can better show their favor. On the contrary, native English
speakers may feel insulted by such sentence as “I can’t believe”.
Similarly, out of hospitality or politeness, Chinese speakers usually elaborate in detail to express
their respect to the objects, which may be considered as a scunner by native English speaker.
Because answering others’ questions completely is the basic politeness in China. But native English
speakers only use “Yes” or “No” for response, which is the act of showing impatience.
The third type is different applications of modesty maxims. These kinds of different applications
are usually reflected in different replies to gratitude and compliment by Chinese and native English
speakers. Rejection of other people’s gratitude or compliment firstly by saying “No” is in
correspondence with Chinese traditional culture, while accepting them is considered as impoliteness.
But in English traditional culture, acceptance of others’ gratitude is an appropriate manner.
In fact, there are many factors contributing to pragmatic failures in Cross-cultural
communication. And in this chapter, the thesis focuses on three major factors, which are different
patterns of thought, ignorance of lexical gap and insufficient knowledge of pragmatic principles.
Through analyzing the factors influencing pragmatic failure, people can have a basic knowledge of
pragmatic failure and find that intercultural communication barriers mainly come from cultural
difference.

Chapter Three Strategies to Minimize the Possibility of Pragmatic Failures

Based on the survey, there is great room for English learners to avoid pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication. How to minimize the possibility of pragmatic failure has become a
practical problem for both English teachers and English learners. Many scholars have paid much
attention to the importance of teaching, thus this thesis proposes some strategies from the angle of
English learners. Because internal causes like English learners themselves are more important than
external causes such as teachers, strategies for English learners to minimize the possibility of
pragmatic failure in communication may be more practical.
Enhancing Pragmatic Competence. English learners in higher grade don’t perform so well as
people expecting. The result shows that linguistic competence and pragmatic competence are
related but not proportional totally. Pragmatic competence gradually arouses the interest of many
linguists.
Rachman’s model introduces two types of language competence. The first type is organizational
competence which is related to language skills. The second type is pragmatic competence which is
divided into illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence. Illocutionary competence
refers to the knowledge of communicative action connected with both verbal and non-verbal
behavior and how to implement. While sociolinguistic competence refers to the ability to choose
communicative action and how to carry it out. In the 1990s, Canale and Swain classified
communicative competence into four categories: grammatical competence, discourse competence,
sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence. Apart from the first one, the last three all
belong to the pragmatic competence. Thomas (1983) stated that pragmatic competence includes the
ability to use language correctly and act by native speakers.
From whatever angles, pragmatic competence does not belong to language skills but is
coordinated to grammatical competence or organizational competence. In the previous years,
English learners focused on improving organizational or grammatical competence. That is to say,
they just paid too much attention to grammar, vocabulary, or language itself, which lead them to be
able to know the literal meaning of the words but unable to grasp the native English speakers’
intention for further successful communication.
It should also be noticed that all of the definitions are related with communication. In fact,
18
language use covers two types of abilities: the ability to select appropriate form of sentences in
particular linguistic context and the ability to perform the function of the sentence on particular
occasions. They are all related to pragmatic competence. In order to have a successful and complete
intercultural communication, Chinese learners of English need to enhance their pragmatic
competence. At the same time, pragmatic competence can be obtained during the language learning,
Although pragmatic competence is interconnected to linguistic competence, they supplement
each other. Without vocabulary or the basic language skills, there is no successful intercultural
communication. Because grammar and vocabulary are the previous focus of English study for
English major students, they are not discussed in detail. As mentioned above, one of the influencing
factors of pragmatic failures in intercultural communication is negative pragma-linguistic transfer,
which ascribed to insufficient knowledge of pragmatic principles. Therefore, learning pragmatic
principles will be the most effective method. The Speech Act Theory, CP and PP are the basic
principles of pragmatics, so learning the three principles will be the emphasis.
The Speech Act Theory introduces English learners three types of acts: locutionary act,
illocutionary act and perlocutionary act, which are performed simultaneously when people are
speaking. Because both sides in intercultural communication will not be confused by locutionary act,
perlocutionary act and illocutionary act are more emphasized in intercultural communication.
Because illocutionary act and perlocutionary act are related with expectation for hearers and their
responses, English learners should learn to analyze native English speakers’ real intention according
to the contexts. The simple and effective way may analyze the context in a number of listening
practice.
As to learning CP and PP, it is not enough to only comply with the maxims. Learning CP and PP
should be combined with studying culture. According to Brown and Levinson (1978), the
application of principles differs systematically from culture. (Brown and Levinson, 1978:283)
Because of the differences in culture, Chinese speakers and native English speakers put the maxims
of CP and PP in different orders. Generally speaking, Chinese speakers seem to prefer Modesty
Maxim to Quality Maxim and Agreement Maxim, while native English speakers reverse the order
by giving priority to Agreement Maxim and Quality Maxim.
Furthermore, Chinese learners of English should realize that the connotations of politeness are
different from cultures. In Chinese culture, the sentences such as “people of your age should pay
more attention to health” are appropriate when showing the respect for the elder people, because
China is a vertical society as mentioned. In contrast, native English speakers will consider the
words as an insult. Because “people of your age” refers to “old” which replies impolitely, the
professor will be quietly offended. Based on different cultures, learning pragmatic principles can
effectively avoid this pragmatic failure in communication.
Avoiding Negative Stereotyping. Because intercultural communication is an interpersonal
contact between people from different cultures, it is mostly carried out by people, who are not only
influenced by cultures but also their own experiences and attitudes. How to evaluate the differences
of cultures is the vital dimension of effective and complete in intercultural communication.
Stereotype, which was put forward by Rivers in 1981, refers to “a method or experience of
organizing our imagines of an individual into fixed and simple categories that we use to mark the
whole group of people”.13 To some degree, stereotype is useful in intercultural communication,
since it can help people understand the characteristics of people from other countries. But it is not
available in all occasions, which is called negative stereotype.
Negative stereotype is to contract different cultures just based on a single dimension, and to
confine the interpretation within the ideological and artificial differences. However, different
cultures can affect intercultural communication, different experiences and personalities can also
affect people’s utterances and behaviors in intercultural communication.
Because of stereotype, people often confine their minds in some certain features, and use their
fixed knowledge to reduce the communicative uncertainty, which is not good for comprehensive
understanding in communication. For example, it is considered that Americans are aggressive while
the English are conservative. Is it true on all situations? The assumption amplifies stereotype in our

19
observation, because everyone is unique in the world with different experiences and personalities .
Different people may wear the clothes of the same size, but different people can’t be evaluated
by the same image. In order to make complete and effective intercultural communication, both sides
should have a comprehensive understanding of each other and know his culture very well, keep an
open mind for differences and avoid stereotyping.
Creating Culture-rich Learning Environment. It is accepted that the most effective way for
Chinese learners of English to minimize the possibility of pragmatic failures in intercultural
communication is to participate in the community in English cultural environment. Though it is
unrealistic for many English learners in China, they can participate in other ways both in and out of
English classes.
As the basic way of learning English, English classes can provide English learners with not only
grammar and vocabulary, but also culture. A classroom is an artificial environment for English
learning, which is not entirely controlled by the English teacher but should be predominated by the
student. In a word, English learners who usually just listen and take notes should change the
traditional learning methods into the active participation.
First, Chinese learners should emphasize the culturally-loaded words or allusions. As everyone
knows, every word contains massive knowledge of cultural background. When learning this type of
words, such as “Westward Movement”, “cowboy” and “Valentine’s Day”, besides English teacher’s
explanation, English learners need to collect more materials for better understanding.
Second, Chinese learners should participate in role-playing. Nowadays, College English
textbooks involve a lot of role-playings, which can help Chinese learners of English quickly study
how to speak and act as native English speakers. All the Chinese learners should do is to participate
in it.
Due to the limited time of English classes, together with the fact that juniors and seniors have no
English classes, what can help Chinese learners of English create culture-rich learning environment
are outside classes.
First, Chinese learners should develop interpersonal contacts with native English speakers. In
order to make complete and effective intercultural communication, English learners should grasp
any chances to practice English, especially with native English people, such as making friends with
them through the Internet, chatting with them in English corner, and inviting native English people
to give lectures or attending lectures given by native English people, etc.
Second, Chinese learners should use authentic materials. Building atmosphere needs the contact
with native English people not only directly but also through other media which are called authentic
materials, such as TV, film, radio, plays, literary dramas, books, etc. Authentic materials can
stimulate their interest of English learning in these vivid ways, which can help Chinese learners of
English have deep understanding of western culture, learn to respect western culture, reduce the
cultural bias, and fulfill positive cultural empathy.
Culture is involved in many aspects of society, so English learning should be done in
multi-dimension. There is no doubt that culture-rich learning environment can’t be created without
English teachers’ help, which has been realized and carried out by a lot of college English teachers.
But the most important factor to create culture-rich learning environment lies on English learners
themselves.
Thus, for a successful communication, the Chinese learners of English shall not only have a good
mastery of language, but also should enhance pragmatic competence, avoid negative stereotyping
and create cultural-rich learning environment. They shall reach a deeper understanding of different
country’s culture and apply the pragmatic principles appropriately to communication.

Conclusion
With the rapid development of society, people have marched toward the age of globalization in
which people are increasing contact with people from other countries. The significance of
intercultural communication is really highlighted. Because different people are from different
cultures, they often suffer from breakdown in intercultural communication, which brings about
20
misunderstandings, distrust, even conflicts. So people are aware of pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication.
The conclusion can be reached that linguistic competence and pragmatic competence are related
but not proportional totally. Culture learning can help Chinese learners cultivate their cultural
awareness and improve their pragmatic competence to minimize the possibility of pragmatic
failures in communication. Based on the research, the factors influencing pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication emerge: pragma-linguistic transfer and socio-pragmatic transfer, which
reveal how pragmatic principles, lexical gap, all social norms and cultures affect intercultural
communication. Cultural differences are specially stressed as the main factor of pragmatic failures
in intercultural communication. For effective intercultural communication, some strategies for
English learners in China are proposed. Because native Chinese speakers and native English
speakers put the maxims of pragmatic principles in different orders, English learners in China
should take culture into consideration to enhance their pragmatic competence. Furthermore, culture
learning involves a wide range of knowledge in all aspects of society. Therefore, in order to
strengthen cultural awareness, Chinese learners of English should cutivate cultural empathy, avoid
negative stereotyping, and create culture-rich learning environment.
The major significance of this thesis is to provide the knowledge of pragmatic failure in
intercultural communication to people who need them or want to know them. The study of
pragmatic failure in intercultural communication, not only can help the Chinese learn English well,
but also can help promote successful communication between Chinese and western people.
Pragmatic failure also can be studied in other aspects fully and deeply. This thesis still has its
limitation.

Notes
1. Thomas, J: Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure (Oxford University Press, British 1983) p 4.
2. Z. R. He: Pragmatics and English learning (Shanghai foreign language education press, China
1997) p 26.
3. Ibid, p32.
4. Ibid, p64.
5. Goffman, E: Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior (New York: Garden City, 1987)
57.
6. Wang Dexing. Cross-cultural communication pragmatic problems. (Foreign language teaching
and research, China 1990) p13.
7. Ibid, p37.
8. Ibid, p45.
9. Ibid, p78.
10. Scollon, Retal: Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. (Foreign Languages
Teaching and Research Press, China 2000) p203.
11. J.W. Bi. Intercultural nonverbal communication (foreign language teaching and research press,
China1999) p89.
12. Levine, D. R. & Adelman, M. B: Beyond Language: Intercultural Communication for English
as a Second Language (Prentice-Hall Inc., America 1982) p 57.
13. Rivers, W.M: Teaching Foreign Language Skills (University of Chicago Press, America 1981)
p27.

References
[1] Austin, J. L: How to Do Things with Words (Harvard University Press, America 1975).
[2] Bennett, Milton J: Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication (Intercultural Press,
America 1998).

21
[3] Bialystok, E: Communication Strategies (Basil Blackwell Ltd, British 1990).
[4] Blum-kulka, Shoshana & Olshtain, E: Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (1986) No.8.
[5] Broome, B.J: Communication Education, (1991) No.40.
[6] Brown, D: Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Prentice Hall, America 1987).
[7] Crookall, D. & D. Saunders: Communication and Simulation (Multilingual Matters, British
1989).
[8] Eugene, Rochberg-Halton: Meaning and Modernity (University of Chicago Press, America
1986).
[9] Gazdar, G: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form (Academic Press,
America 1979).
[10] Grice H. P: Speech Acts (Harvard University Press, America 1975).
[11] Kasper, G: Second Language Research, (1992) No.8.
[12] Leech, Geoffrey: Semantics: The Study of Meaning (Penguin UK,British 1974).
[13] Levinson, Stephen C: Pragmatics (Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, China
2010).
[14] Linell, Davis: Doing Culture— Cross-Cultural Communication in Action (Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press, China 2001).
[15] J.W.Bi: Intercultural nonverbal communication (Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press, China 1999).In Chinese.
[16] W.D. Dai and H.L. Zhang: Foreign Language World, (2000) No.2,p2-8.In Chinese.
[17] Y.C.Deng and R.Q. Liu: Language and culture (Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press, China 1989).In Chinese.
[18] Y.G. Gu: Language and linguistics (Foreign Language Education and Research Press, China
1998).In Chinese.
[19] Y.G. Gu: Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1992) No.4, p10-17.In Chinese.
[20] W.Z. Hu: Culture and communication (Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, China
1998).In Chinese.
[21] Z.R. He: Pragmatics and English learning (Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,
China 1997).In Chinese.
[22] Z.R. He and Z. Yan: Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1986) No.3,p 52-57.In
Chinese.
[23] Z.R. He: An introduction to pragmatics (Hunan Education Press, China 2002).In Chinese.
[24] Y.X. Jia: Cross-cultural communication (Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, China
2002).In Chinese.
[25] Y. Sun: An introduction to pragmatics and cognitive (Peking University press, China 2010).In
Chinese.
[26] D.X. Wang: Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (1990) No.4, p7-11.In Chinese.

22