fbr L2Requests by Japanese EFL

Japan Society of English Language Education

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education

Speed and Accuracy of Appropriateness JUdgments

fbr L2Requests by Japanese EFL Learners

Seiji FUKAZAWA

Hiroaki MAEDA

Shusaku KIDA Hiroshima Cinivensity

YukaYAMAUCM

Akiko TATSUMIGraduate SbhooL Hiroshima [inivensity

Abstract

The purpose of the present research is to examine how quickly and accurately JapaneseEnglish as a fbreign language (EFL) leamers can make apprepriateness judgments for secondlaiiguage (L2) requests. Previous studies in interlanguage pragmatics are limited in that they didnot distinguish between types of pragmatic inappropriateness and also in that they used only

oenine measurement through questionnaires. The present study therefbre distinguishes two types

ofpragmatic inappropriateness in L2 utterances (under-polite and over-polite) and measures the

reaction time ofIearners' appropriateness judgrnents. The participants were 45 Japanese university

students; they were asked to judge whether the presented L2 requests were appropriate or not inthe situation, as quickly and accuiately as possible. Six appropriate requests, five under-polite

requests, and five over-polite requests were judged. Further, the degree of inappropriateness inunder- and over-polite requests was manipulated from sligiitly inappropriate to very inappropriate.As a result, it was found that speed and accuracy of appropriateness judgments depend on thedegree of (in)appropriateness of requests. ln particular, extremely over-polite utterances were

dithcult fbr L2 learners to process.

1. Introduction

in interlanguage pragrriatic research, a great deal of research attention has been paid to

second language (L2) learners' pragmatic ewareness since the publication ofthe seminal paper onthis topic, by Bardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei (1998). Even though it has been replicated by studies in1ater years (e.g., Niezgoda & R6ver, 2002; Tagashira, Yarnato, & Isoda, 201 1), some limitationsofthe original wotk still remained. One is that neither the original study nor the subsequent studies

distinguished between types of pragmatic errors; another is that they exclusively used offline

125




measurement of L2 leamers' pragmatic awareness, meaning that no studies have examined

processing dimensions such as fiuency or processing speed as part of learners' pragrnatic

competence. Therefbre, the present study tries to bridge the gap between these two researeh fields

and shed more light on studies in interlanguage pragmatic awareness by examining how quickly

and accurately Japanese learners of English can identify different types of pragmatic

mappropnateness.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Politeness Theory

Many studies in interlanguage pragmatic research hewe employed the politeness theory

proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). This theory presupposes that all people bearface (socialdigriity or prestige) and maintain good interpersonal relationships with others by avoiding

face-threating acts (F[EAs), Face can be understood as "the

public selfimage that every rnember

wants to claim fbr himself' (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p, 61), According to Brown and Levinson,

two kinds or aspects of face exist and pertain te politeness: positive and negative face. Positive

face reflects one's desire to be approved ofby others, while negative face is one's desire not to be

imposed on by others, in this context, to estimate the weight of an FTA, Brown and Levinson give

a fbrmula involving mental distance between a speaker and a hearer, the power (hereafter,±Power) that the speaker has over the hearer or vice versa, and the rank ofimposition. Approp"ate

actions and utterances to show politeness vary by situation depending on the values ofthese three.

Even though many previous studies have rooted their theoretical frameworks in the theory

by Brown and Levinson (1987), fbcusing on how pragmalinguistic utterances become politeenough in a particular situation, Brown and Levinson's theory did not consider at which point

utteranees become oveitzpolite. Howeveg both underpoliteness and over-politeness are negatively

matked and inappropriate behavior (Culpepeg 1996; Kumon-Naicarnura, Glucksberg, & Brown,

1995; Wbtts, 2005); over-politeness, 1ike under-politeness, transgresses the boundary between

appropriateness and inappropriateness (Locheg 2004), and the appropriate level of politeness

seems to be located somewhere in between. Thus, undeFpoliteness and over-politeness could be

theoretically distinguished. In empirical studies, however, very few studies have distinguished the

two and shed light on over=politeness (Culpqpeg 2008).

2.2 Pragmatic Awareness

2.2.1 L2 Learners' Grammatical and Pragmatic Awareness

Thus far, L2 learners' pragrnatic awareness has been investigated by several studies

(Bardovi-Harlig & D6rnyei, 1998; Niezgoda & R6ver, 2001; Tagashira et al., 201 1; Xu, Case, &

Wang, 2009), The seminal paper iri this regard was the study condncted by Bardovi-Harlig and

D6rnyei (1998), who exarnined L2 learners' awareness to pragmatic and grammatical errors in a

126




target language. The participants were EFL learners and teachers in Hungary and ItalM and ESLlearners and teachers in the United States. Bardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei used a videotape and a

questionnaire in which grammatical but pragrnatically inappropriate, ungrammatical but

pragmatically appropriate, and both grammatically correct and pragrnatically appropriate

scenarios were shown, The participants were first asked to watch a given scene and then instmctedto judge whether the last sentence was appropriatefcorrect for seven seconds on the questiormaire.If learners chose no, they were asked to rate the severity ofthe problem on a six-point scale from

not had at all to vei:y bad. The results showed that EFL leamers tended to be more aware of

grarnmatical errors while ESL learners were more 1ikely to recognize pragrnatic errors.

The study was replicated by Niezgoda and R6ver (2001) with ESL learners in the U.S. and

EFL learners in the Czech Republic, The results showed that while ESL learners were more 1ikelyto detect pragrriatic errors, EFL leamers tended to rate the severity of both pragrnatic and

grammatical errors higheg implying that the nature of EFL leamers' pragmatic awareness was

complex (not one-dimensional). SimilarlM [fagashira et al. (2011) investigated whether and to

what extent 162 Japanese university students' motivational factors affect their pragrnaticawareness in English through their motivational profiles, and did show the possibility that EFLlearners' motivational profiles affect their pragmatic awareness.

[IIhese previous studies have shown that EFL learners' pragmatic awareness is complex and

that many factors seem to affect it. Therefore, more detailed investigation is necessary ln addition,

one of the limitations of the previous studies is that they did not distinguish pragrnatic errors by

type. This is because most of them used the questionnaire developed by Bardovi-Harlig and

D6rnyei (1998), primarily focusing on differences in learners' awareness between grammaticaland pragmatic errors. Therefbre, under- and oveFpolite pragmatic errors were mixed up,

representing pragmatic inappropriateness all together. [[he other major limitation ofmost previousstudies is that they used only oMine measurement. Eyen though fast, efficient processing isnecessary in real-life communication, few studies shed light on EFL learners' fluency in

processing pragmalinguistic input. Therefore, to date, it is not clear whether leamers show

diffbrent pattems ofpragrnatic awareness ofunder- and over-polite utterances or how quickly andaccurately they process L2 pragrnalinguistic utterances.

2.2.2 The Distinction Between Undeb and OveFPoliteness in Interlanguage Pragmatics

[[b address the first limitation ofpast studies mentioned above, Sawai (2013) exarnined 135Japanese EFL learners' pragrnatic awareness in cases of under= versus over=politeness, She

developed a pragmaticality judgment task based on Bardovi-Harlig and D6myei's (1998)questionnaire. She prepared 26 scenarios, of which five were employed from the questionnairedeveloped by Bardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei, while the others were developed by Sawai based onBardovi-Harlig and D6rnyei's scenarios, Sawai then asked nine native speakers of English to ratethe degree ofpoliteness ofthe last sentence in each scenario on a seven-point scale (Figure 1).

127




Mike asks his teacher for a book.

Mike: Mr. Franklin?Mr. Franklin: Yes?Mike: Ma 1 ossibl borrowthis bookforthe weekend if ou don't mind?

-3 -2 -1 O 1 2 3

" Under-polite Appropriate Over-polite

jFVgune 1. Example of scenarios shown to native speakers of English fbr the development of the

questionnaire in Sawai (2013)

Sawai (2013) first asked the nine native speakers ofEnglish to rate three scenarios that were

regarded as pragmatically appropriate in Bardevi-Harlig and D6rnyei (1998). Four native speakers

out ofnine were excluded as raters because they did not judge the three scenanos as appropnate.

Sawai used the remaining five native speakers' evaluations to select scenarios for the

pragrnaticalityjudgrnent task; 16 (al-d5) scenarios were finally chosen fbr the task ([Ilable 1).

Table1E]valuation

ofEach Strenario 's

Politeness Level by Aiative EPeakers ofEnglish in Stiwai (20IopAppropriate +PAppropriate

-P Under-polite Over-polite

al a2 a3blb2 b3cl c2 c3 c4 c5dl de d3 d4 d5

Rater1Rater 2Rater

3Rater 4Rater

5

1o11oo1o1ooo11o -1oo11 oooooooooo-3-2-2-3-3-3-1-2-3-3-31-1-2-2-2-1-1-1-2oo-1-1-23223322233111321o122o1121

Msw O.6 O.4 O.4

05 O.5 O.502

O.O O.O -2.6 -2.4 -1.4 -1.4 -O.8 2.6 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.0

O.7 O.O O.O O.5 O.8 1.4 O.5 O.7 O.5 O.6 O.8 O.7 O.6

Aibte: +P and -P refer to ±Power in Brown and Levinson's (1987) sense; a and b refer to

appropriate scenarios, while c and d refer to inappropnate scenanos.

In the pragrnaticality judgment task, the participants were asked to judge how inappropriate

the 16 target utterances were on a seven-point scale from O (not inamprtzpriate at alD to 6 (vepy inappmpriate). The results showed that while Japanese EFL learners with high English

proficiency could be aware ofboth under- and over-polite inappropriateness, it was dirucult fbr

low-English-proficiency learners to detect over-polite inappropriateness. Further, whether learners

were sensitive to the degree of inappropriateness also dqpended on their L2 proficiency This

suggests that EFL learners show differerrt degrees of pragrriatic awareness according to the

different types of pragrnatic errors they encounter, showing the theoretical importance of

distinguishing under- and over-politeness in interlanguage pragmatic awareness research.

128




2.3. Processing Speed and Fluency in Pragmatic Research

The second limitation of previous studies mentioned above is the lack of measurement of

L2 learners' .17uency in making appropriateness judgmerits. Although L2 competence can beunderstood from various perspectives, one of the most traditional approaches in second lariguage

acquisition (SLA) research is the distinction between learners' knowlecige of a lariguage and their

processing of it (e.g., Bialystok & Sharwood Smith, 1985). The processing dimension is oftenrelated to fluency or automaticity} and many theoretical frameworks used in human cognition or

SLA emphasize the importance ofthese capabilities (Anderson, 1983; Logan, 1988; McLaugh1in,Rossman, & McLeod, 1983). Although it is dithcult (and beyond the scope of this article) to

ultimately define the nature of automaticityl the characteristic that is most frequently associated

with it is speed ofprocessing (Segalowitz, 2003), Consideration ofprocessing speed is important

in L2 research because rapid comprehension ofL2 input is necessary in real-life comrriunication.

Howeveg researchers in many fields of SLA, including interlariguage pragmatics, have not paidadequate attention to this dimension oflaiiguage development. Therefore, even though the idea of

distinguishing knowledge tfom processing within 1inguistic competence seems clearly relevant to

pragmatic researz)h (Bialystok, 1993), very few studies have inyestigated L2 learners' processingspeed fbr pragrnatic input (faguchi, 2005). Taguchi's (2008a, 2008b) studies on pragmaticcomprehension (of refusals and statements of opinion) and processing speed revealed that

cornprehension skill and processing speed could be categorized as distinct aspects of ski11

acquisition, showing the importance for pragmatic research of investigating EFL learriers'

processing dimension, Moreover, processing speed can be enhanced by repeated practice and an

adequate (considerable) degree of exposure (Taguchi, 2008a), Given the fact that exposure to

English is limited in Japan, more and more research focusing on fluency will be necessary to help

understand complex nature ofEFL learners' pragmatic awareness.

2.4 Research Questions As mentioned al)ove, past studies were 1irnited in that they did not distinguish types and

degrees of pragmatic inappropriateness and did not fbcus on the processing dimension of L2

learners' pragmalinguistic input. [[herefore, this study examines Japanese EFL learners' pragmaticawareness, via the fo11owing two research questions.

1) Do different degrees of inappropriateness affect Japanese EFL learners' processing speed

and accuracy in judging under-polite requests?

2) Do different degrees of inappropriateness affbct Japanese EFL learners' processing speed

and accuracy injudging over-pelite requests?

129




3. Methed

3.1 Participants

[[he participants in the present study were 45 first-year university students. They were all

native speakers of Japanese and all had at least six years of fbrmal English instruction. Their

background inforrnation is shown in Tahle 2.

Table 2BackgTound

Injrormation ofParticipants in the Present SZudy (7V = 4"

Mean sw MinimumMaximum

AgeStarting

age oflearning English

Years of formal instmction

TOEIC score

SelfLrating: Listening

Speaking

Reading

Writing

18.96

11.91

6,58615,22

4.11 4.53

5.36

4.93

O.90

2.17

O.8996.56

1.72

1.79

1.85

1,84

18

4

6380

1

1

2 2

21

13

10780

7

8

9

9

Aibte. Selfiratings ranged from 1 (I have minimum prqf7ciency) to 10 <II have near-native

profcienay).

3.2 Materials

The experimenta1 materials were adopted from the questionnaire items developed by Sawai

(2013). They consisted of six appropriate and 10 inappropriate L2 requests. Among the six

appropriate ones, three were requests to those with higher power status in social context (+Power;;namely, in this case, teachers) (e.g., May Ipossibly borrow this bookfor the weekend ijlyou dbn 't

mind.2), while the other tlll:ee were requests to those of equal power (-Power; peers) (e.g,, Oh, ij"you are going to the librtzry can you please neturn ay book too2). Among the 1O inappropriate

requests, five were addressed to those of higher power status and the other five to those of equal

power. The former five were categorized as under-polite requests (e.g., I want you to neturn nty

textbook) and the latter five as over-polite requests (e.g., Jhope I don 't

interruptyou, but I amjust

wontiering tfyou wouldh 't

mind making a eup ofcojTeefor me.). The materials are shown in

Appendix.

3.3 Apparatus and Procedure

Epson ST12E computers with Windows 7 Professional (32-bit, Core 2 Duo CPU, 2,OO GB

RAM) were used in the experiment. For the presentation of experirnental materials and the

130




measurement ofparticipants' reaction times (RTs) and accuracy data, DMDX software (Forster &Forster, 2003) was used.

in this study, an appropriateness judgment task was used instead of the severity judgmenttask used in Bardovi-Harlig and Ddrnyei (1998), The task asked the participants to judge whether

or not the last sentence of the dialogue was appropriate in the provided context, as quickly Emd

accurately as possible. They pressed the yes button on the keYboard (the right control) if they

thought the sentence was appropriate and the no button (the left control) when they thought the

sentence was inappropriate. Therefore, four types of response were obtained:

(1)(2)(3)(4)Yey response to an appropriate request (called HiD,

Yes response to an inupprqpriate request (called iFlalse Alarm)

IVb response to an appropriate request (called Miss)

?Vb response to an inappropriate request (called Cbnect Rojection)

This study focuses on participants' Hit and Correct Rejection responses.

Befbre the main session, the participants took part in a practice session in which two

appropriate and two inappropriate L2 requests were shown. in the appropriateness judgment task,

the panicipants first read a description ofthe situation in Japanese that appeared on the computer

screen, fbr instance thke wants to bomow a book.fi"om th. F7anklinfor the weekend. After they

read the description, they pressed the space bar to move onto the next screen, where the dialogue

was presented excluding the target sentence, After they read the dialogue, they pressed the space

bar again, and the underlined target sentence was shown until the participant made an

appropriateness judgment. The RT was measured from the time the target sentence appeared on

the computer screen to the time the participarrt made the yeslno judgment. The whole data

collection process lasted ahout 15 minutes, and no break was taken during the task. The procedureis visualized in Figure 2.

Mikel:Mr.Franklint:ptvaLJS5ltLrtigt.Mike:Mr,Franklin?Mr,Franklin:Yes?

Mike:Mike:Mr,Franklin?Mr,Frankljn:Yes?Mike:Ma1ossibl

borrowthisbookfortheweekendifoudon'tmind?

Iigure 2.The procedure of the appropriateness judgrnent task used in the present experiment.

131




4. Results

4.1 Overall Results

The results fbr the RTs along with 959'6 confidence intervals (CIs), standard errors, and

accuracy rates fbr each condition are shown in Table 3. ln this paper, only the RTs and accuracy

rates ofcorrect responses (Hit and Correct Rejection) are reported. Overal1, the RTs were flister in

the pragmatically appropriate conditions (Situations a and b) than in the pragrnatically

inappropriate conditions (Situations c and d); also, the accuracy rates were higher in the

appropriate conditions compared to the inappropriate conditions. The participants mostly judgedappropriate requests correctly (Hit), that is, they judged the requests properly under the givensituations, marking more than 80% accuracy rates on average; however, theyjudged inappropriate

requests correctly (Correct Rejection) only around 5096 ofthe time on average,

Table 37he

Overall Results ofPragmatic Jldidgmentsfor Fbur Situations (?V = 4sy

Situation and

response

Averagek number RT(ms) ofwords

[95% Cq sa(MS) ACrCal

titCY

(a) Appropriate +P

(b) Appropriate -P

(c) Under-polite(d) Over-polite

3355 14.3310.0010.2016.00 6,869

5,832

6,86211,469

[6,126, 7,612]

[4,958, 6,706]

[5,862, 7,863]

[10,143, 12,794]

37544150466982%81%44%56%

Arbte. RT refers to reaction tirne of correct responses (Hit and Correct Rejectioll) and CI to

confidential interval, while +P refers to an interlocutor of a higher status and -P to one of an even

status.

42 Results for Appropriate Requests

Although this study fbcuses on speed and accuracy ofjudgrnent on inappropriate requests, it

seems usefu1 to briefiy overview the results for appropriate requests as a per[fbrmance baseline in

order to compare perfbrrnance on inappropriate requests, Moreover, as explained in the literature

review, the scenarios in the material were carefu11y developed to refiect not only different typesbut also diffkirent degrees ofinappropriateness, which are another focus ofthis study. Accordingly,

we will look at the results for each scenario.

The results for appropriate requests are shown in Figure 3. ln Situation a (Appropriate +P),

RTs of Scenarios al, ad, and a3 were 7,724 miiliseconds (ms), 8,045 ms, and 5,209 ms, and the

respective accuracy rates were 71%, 80%, and 93%. Judgment was the fbstest and most accurate

fbr Scenario a3 and the slowest and least accurate for Scenario al. ln Situation b (Appropriate -P),

RTs ofScenarios bl, b2, and b3 were 8,632 ms, 4,542 ms, and 5,066 ms, and accuracy rates were

132




649i6, 84%, and 93%. Judgrrient fbr Scenarios b2 and b3 was quick and accurate, while that fbr

Scenario bl was slower and less accurate. These results show a general tendency: accurately

judged scenarios were processed quickly and inaccuratelyjudged scenarios, more slowly.

lo℃ RTs

and

Accu

racy

Rates

of Appropriate

+P

Requests2oo[

8 lo℃ RTs and Accurecy Rates of Appropriate -P Requests 2oo[:8

80 80 15000 15000

."evtu60 FOt- \'60 S g loooosg loooog

:4o 'k' '4o

"v.

e Mti 2 5000 5000 20 20

o o o o al a2 a3 bl b2 b3 Severity Severitv +O,6 +O.4 +O.4 +o.2 o,e o.oJudgment Judgment Number Number 14 17 12 IS 15 10 ofWords ofWords

]F7gur:e 3, Results of appropriate situations (Situations a and b), Severityjudgrnent was as assessed

by native speakers ofEnglish in Sawai (2013), as shown in Figure 1. RT refers to mean reaction

time ofHit responses. Error bars refer to standard errors.

NAccuracyrate-O-RT DAccuracyrate-O-RT

4.3 Results for Inappropriate Requests

4.3.1 Results for Under-Polite Requests

The results for inappropriate expressions are shown in Figure 4. Situation c (under-polite)consists of five scenarios, Scenario c1 being the most under-polite and Scenario c5 the least basedon the severityjudgrnents by native speakers of English in Sawai (2013). The RTs for Scenarioscl through c5 were 5,914 ms, 5,684 ms, 6,865 ms, 7,576 ms, and 18,167 ms, respectively. Theaccuracy rates were 69% in Scenario cl, fo11owed by 55% in Scenario c2, 44% in Scenario c3,42% in Scenario c4, and only 9% in Scenario c5. The accuracy rates obtained in this condition

were the lowest fbr any of the fbur conditions, as shown in Table 3. [[Ihese results show that RTsand accuracy rates for each scenario were very different depending on the degree of

inappropriateness. That is, judgment was fhster and more accurate for extremely underpolite

requests and slower and less accurate for slightly under-polite requests.

4.3.2 Results for Over-Polite Requests

Situation d (over-polite) again consists of five scenarios, Scenario dl being the mostover-polite and Scenario d5 the least, again based on the native speakers' judgments in Sawai

(2013). The RTs for Scenario dl through d5 were 15,159 ms, 13,133 ms, 7,976 ms, 11,042 ms,

133




and 12,275 ms, respectively, and the accuracy rates were 48% in Scenario c1, 539,6 in Scenario c2,

78% in Scenario c3, 49% in Scenario c4, and 29% in Scenario c5. These results show that in

contrast to the results for the under-polite condition, the RTs and accuracy rates fbr over-polite

scenarios did not show the tendency for extremely inappropriate requests to be processed quickly

and accurately. lnstead, the RTs and accuracy rates for these types ofrequests (Scenarios dl and

d2) were relatively slow and inaccurate in the over-polite condition.

lo℃ RTs and Accuracy Rates of Under-Polite Requests 2oooMoS loig RTs end Accuraey

Rates ofOver-Polite

Requests

2oo[:8

80s26ov'ea4oe

20

o cl

Severity -2.6JudgmentNumber

sefWords

c2-2.48 c3-1.48 c4-1.410 cs-O,820

lsooe di

.l Fioooo8

.6

: ec5000

o

80s26olE84oe

20

o dlSeveFity

+2,6JudgmentNumber

19ofWerds

d2+2.422 d3+1.S14 d4+1.210d5+1,OIS

15000 e

.! le10000

S .b

8 ecseoo

o

]Figure 4. Results fbr inappropriate situations (Situations c and d). Severityjudgment was assessed

by native speakers of English in Sawai (2013), as shown in Figure l . RT refers to mean reaction

time for Correct Rejection responses. Error bars refer to staiidard erTors.

5. Discussion

ln this section, we wi11 briefly discuss the results fbr the appropriate requests. With regard to

the results fbr inappropriate requests in the present study, we will ascertain their generalizal)ility

through comparison with Sawai (2013), Further, we wi11 discuss the results for under- and

over-polite situations based on the distinction between pragmalinguistic and soeiopragmatic

knowledge (Leech, 2014),

First, the RT and accuracy rate results fbr appropriate requests showed a general tendency

for accurately judged scenarios to be processed quickly and inaccurately judged scenarios to be

processed more slowly. This was consistent with our intuition. Funher, the participams'

perforrnance on these requests was better than on inappropriate requests, The high accuracy rates

show that the task and scenarios used in the present study are valid and that the results can serve as

a baseline for the interpretation ofthe results obtained in the inappropriate conditions, The reason

fbr the faster RTs and higher accuracy rates in the appropriate condition may be attributal)le to the

134




amount ofinput participants received. Generally speaking, there are few chances to be exposed to

inappropriate utterances in natural communication, because people usually tend to be polite tosave their own face and their interlocutor's (Brown & Levinson, 1987). T[herefore, the amount of

pragmatically appropriate input encountered in language use or leaming should be much 1argerthan that of pragmatically inappropriate input, resulting in better perfbrmance on appropriate

utterances.

Second, in the under-polite situation, the results showed a similar tendency to those forappropriate requests; that is, accurately judged scenarios were processed quickly and inaccurately

judged scenarios more slowly. Both RTs and accuracy were clearly affected by the degree ofmappropnateness. More than half of the participants correctly recognized the inappropriateness of

severely under-polite requests (cl and c2) with a reasonable level of processing speed, while

detecting inappropriateness in an only sligtitly under-polite request (c5) was very difficult for the

participants and required a longer time to judge. Scenario c5 is a scene in which a student asks a

teacher to fi11 out a questionnaire, saying Helto. ILly na,ne is KLite Arista, ijyou don't mind Iwould like you toyfll this infor me (c5). The student's greeting is polite enough for the situation

(addressing a teacher), but the expression I would like you to ,., gives the teacher the impressionthat the student is implying that the teacher is not allowed to refuse the request. It is very diencultfor EFL leamers to detect this type ofvery slight inappropriateness. These results are consistent

with those obtained in Sawai (2013). In her study, Japanese university EFL learners with high,

intermediate, and low English proficiency were asked to make a severity judgrnent on a

seven-point scale from O (not inappmpriate at alD to 6 (vei)? inappropriate). [[he results showed a

simi1ar pattern to those in the prcsent study; that is, extremely under-polite requests were more

severely rated than slightly under-polite ones. ln particular, it was diMcult for students withintermediate or low L2 proficiency to detect the inappropriateness of the target utterance in c5;only students witli high English proficiency could recognize that the utterance was a littleinappropriate. Based on the results of the present study considered in combination with those ofSawai's studM therefbre, it can be concluded that the degree of inappropriateness in under-politerequests affbct EFL learners' pragmatic appropriateness judgments (specificallyl as the presentstudy revealed, their processing speed and accuracy).

[Iliird, in over-polite situation, the results partially corresponded to the degree of

inappropriateness, but in a different way firom under-polite situations. Even though the results fbrmoderately and just slightly over-polite requests (d3, d4, and d5) seemed to show a generaltendency in which accurately judged scenarios were processed quickly and inaccurately judgedscenarios more slowly, the results for extremely over-polite requests (dl and d2) did not fo11owthis trend. These scenarios were conversations between two close friends: in Scenario dl, a

student is going to the post othce when the other student asks on, ifyou wouldu 't mina may I

inconvenience you by (zsking you to put this tetter into the mailbox.? (dl) while in Scenario d2 astudent fuids another student, who is preparing coffee, and says Ihope I dbn

't

intemtptyou, but l

135




amjust wondering ijlyou woulcin 't

mind maldng a cup ofcofeefor me (d2). [rliese two utterances

sound too distant for someone to ask a close friend. It seems obvious to the native speaker that

these utterances are too polite, but in fact, it was difficult fbr Japanese EFL learr)ers to correctly

determine that they should reject these sentences. Sawai (2013) reported similar findmgs; in her

study, 31% and 38% of interrnediate- and low-proficiency panicipants respectively rated these

scenarios as O (not inappropriate at alD on the seven-point scale, and only 209'6 and 159,6 of the

participants in these greups respectively rated them as 5 or 6 (very inalzpropriate). In contrast,

45% ofhigh-proficiency participants rated them as 5 or 6 on the scale. These results show that

extrernely over-polite requests are dithcult fbr Japanese EFL leamers; therefbre, it can be

concluded that the degree of inappropriateness of over-polite requests affects EFL learners'

pragrnatic appropriateness judgments, but different from that of under-polite requests. Given that

both the present study and Sawai supported this point, it seems likely that the results obtained are

robust and have certain levels ofgeneralizal)ility among Japanese EFL learners.

It is interesting to consider why extremely under-polite requests were processed quickly and

accurately while extremely over-polite ones were processed slowly and less accurately. One

theoretical concept ofpotential utility in understanding this discrepancy is the distinction between

pragmalinguistic politeness and sociopragmatic politeness (Leech, 2014). The fbrmer is an

al)solute, unidirectional scale measured from lexical, syntactic, and semantic perspectives, while

the latter is a relative scale whose norms are decided within the context of a specific society,

culture, group, or situation. Therefbre, even a pragmalinguistically polite expression, for example

Could Ipossibly intenupt2 could be too polite if it appears in a casual conversation within a

family (the example is from Leech, 2014, p. 88). Based on this distinction, it could be argued that

under-polite requests in the present study were pragrnalinguistically less polite but could

nevertheless be sociopragmatically appropriate if spoken to a close ltiend, Therefbre, it is

plausible to assume that the participants in the present study had been exposed to similarly

under-polite utterances through texrbooks or in real-life, making their appropriateness judgmenisfor under-polite requests easier. In contrast, the over-polite requests in this study were both

pragmalinguistically and sociopragrnatically inappropriate; generally "over-polite

utterances are

1ikely to be perceived as insincere" (Kumon-Nakamura et al., 1995). It is miikely that the

participants in the preserrt study had been exposed to such utterances befbre. Therefore, the

distinction ofunder- and over-politeness which has been paid little attention in Bardovi-Harlig and

D6rnyei (1998) and other previous studies has freshly shed light on the complex nature of L2

pragmattc awareness.

The results of the preserrt study have clear pedagogical implications. Both texrbooks and

classroom practice, the main source of learners' English input, should give EFL learriers the

chance to be exposed to rich pragrnatic inputs. In reality, however, the pragrnatic exposure

proyided by texrbooks is sharply limited compared to that yielded by native speakers' utterances

136




(Fukazawa, 1997, 2002). Therefbre, exposure to rich contextualized input along with some

explicit instmction on pragmatic violations should help fbster learners' pragrnatic competence.

There seem to be two major limitations to this study. The first is that the material includedonly 16 scenarios, three for each appropriate situation and five for each inappropriate situation.

There should be more scenarios fbr both under- and over-polite requests in data collection

procednre, The second limitation is that the number of words in the intended request scenarios

varied, which may have complicated the RT data and made it difficult to directly compare

between scenarios. These limitations remain to be addressed by future research.

6. Conclusion

The present study investigated the speed and accuracy ofL2 pragmatic judgments to under-and over-polite requests with different degrees of inappropriateness by Japanese EFL learners.

The findmgs revealed that the RTs and accuracy rates of pragmatic judgments of under-polite

requests were affected by the degree of inappropriateness, indicating a general tendency fbrseverely under-polite requests to be processed quickly and accurately. For the over-polite requests,

on the other hand, the RTs and accuracy rates partially corresponded to the degree of

inappropriateness, but not in the same way as under-polite requests: instead, the judgrnent of

extremely over-polite requests was slower and less accurate. To interpret these results, we applied

the distinction between pragmalinguistio and sociopragmatic politeness, and argued that there

might have been fewer opportunjties fbr L2 learners to be exposed to very over-polite expressions,

which would help slow processing speed and reduce accuracy ofjudgment. These distinctions

between degrees and types of pragmatic inappropriateness and the findmgs on processing speed

give us a wider perspective to analyze L2 learners' pragmatic awareness.

Acknowledgment

This wotk was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25370690, Grant-in-Aid fbr

Scientific Research (C).

References

Anderson, J. R, (1983), the arehitecture ofcognition. Carnbridge, UK: Harvard University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1997), The place of second lariguage acquisition theory in language teacher

preparation. ln K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartfbrd (Eds.), Bayond methods: Cbmponents of second language teacher education (Pp. 18-41), New Ybtk, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Bardovi-Harlig, K, & D6rnyei, Z. (1998). Do language leamers recognize pragmatic violations?

Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 leaTning. 7ES(2L euarterly, 32,

137




233-262. doiil02307!3587583

Bialystok, E, (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence, ln

G Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), ]interianguagepragmaties {lpp. 43-59), New Ybrk, NY:

Oxfbrd University Press.

Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation

of the construct for second-laiiguage acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101-117.

doi:10.10931applin!6.2.101

Brown, R, & Levinson, S, (1987). Politeness: Sbme universals in tanguage usage, Cambridge

University Press,

Culpepeq J. (1996). [Ibwards an anatomy of impoliteness. .lournal ofpragmaties, 25, 349-367.

doi:10,1016!0378-2166(95)OOO14-3

Culpepeg J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational worlc and power, In D, Bousfield & M.

A. Locher (Eds,), impoliteness in languager SZudies on its interplay withpower in theoT:v and

practice (pp, 17-44). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.

Forsteg K, I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond

accuracy Behavior Reyearch Mdethods, lhstruments, & Cbmputers, 35, 116-124.

doi:10.3758BF03195503Fukazawa, S, (1997). Application ofresearch into pragmatic competence ofJapanese learners of

English: Analysis ofrefusals in EFL textl)ooks. (]4SELE Research Bulletin, 2 7, 287-292.

Fukazawa, S. (2002). A comparative study of requests in authentic language use and EFLIESL

textbooks, enSELE Research Butletin, 32, 79-85.

Kumon-Nakamura, S,, Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M. (1995). How al)out another pie¢ e ofpie: The

allusional pretense theory of discourse irony, in R. ViL Gibbs Jr. & H. L. Colston (Eds.), 1lo,ty

in ldnguage and thought (Pp. 57-95). New Ybtk, NY: [[laylor & Francis Group.

Leech, G (2014). 71hepragmatic y ofpotiteness. New Ybtk, NY Oxford University Press.

Locheg M. A. (2004). Power andpoliteness in action; Disagreement in oral communieation.

Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.

Logan, G D. (1988). Tbward an instance theory of automatization, Rsycholagical Review, 95,

492-527.doi:10,1037!O033-295X.95.4.492

McLaugh1in, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language leaming: An

infbrmation-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135-158,

doiilO.1111lj.1467-1770.1983.tl)O0532.xNiezgoda, K., & R6veq C. (2001), Pragrriatic and grarnrnatical awareness: A fUnction of the

leaming environment. In K. Rose & G Kasper CEds.), P}ragnzatics in language teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge University Press.

Sawai, Y (2013). Efacts of Jizpaneye univensity students' L2 prqficiencly on their pragmatic

awareness of undle-loveF polite neguests in English (Unpublished master's thesis).

Hiroshima Universityu Hiroshima.

138



Japar ユ　Society 　of 　English 　Language 　Education

Segalowi重z ，　N （2003）．　Automaticity　and 　second 　languages．　In　C。　J．　Doughty＆ M ．　H ，　Long （Eds．），

　　　The　handbook　qズsecond 　9anguageαcquisitゴon （茎）p．382qO8 ）．　Oxfbrd，　UKI　BIackwell，

Tagashira，　K ．

，　Yamato，　K ．，

＆ Isoda，工（2011）．　Japanese　EFL 　leamers’pragmatic　awareness

　　　through　the　looking　glass　ofmotivational 　profiles．」肌 TJouxnal，33，5−26．Taguchi

，　N （2005）．　Comprehending　implied　mean 血 g　in　English　as　a　fbreign　language．77ie

　　　M （）dern　Language丿burnal，89

，543−562．　doi：10，llll石．1540−4781．2005，00329．x

Taguchi，　 N ．（2008a）．　 Cognition

，　 language　 contact，　 and 　 the　 development　 of 　 pragmatic

　　　comprehension 　　in　　a　　study −abroad 　　context ．　ヱLanguage　　Learning，　　58，　　33− 71．　　　doi；10．1111石，1467−9922．2007．00434．x

Taguchi，　N ．（2008b）．　 The 　role 　of 　learning　environment 　in血e　development　of 　pragmatic

　　　comprehension 　　　StUdies　　in　　　Second　　Language　　／4cquisition，　　30

，　　423− 452．

　　　doi：10．10171SO272263108080716

Watts，　R 　J，（2005），　Lhlguistic　politeness　and 　politic　verbal 　behavior：Reconsidering　claims 　fbr

　　　universality　In　R 　W 磁 s，　S．　Ide

，＆ K ．　Ehlich（Eds，）．　Politeness加 language； Studies　in　its

　　　histoiy，　theoTJ？　andpractiee （pp　43−69），　Berlin，　Ge皿 any ：Mouton　de　Gruyter

Xu，　W ．

，　Case，　R 　E．，＆ Wang

，　Y ．（2009）．　Pragrnatic　and 　grarnmatical　competence

，　len帥 of

　　　residence ，　　　and 　　　overall 　　　L2　　　proficiency．　　　Sγstem ，　　　37，　　　205−216．

　　　doi：10．1016fj，system ．2008，09．007

Appendix

（a1）Mike は Mr，　Fran】dinに本を借りようとしています。Mike：Mr，　Franklin？Mz 　Franklin：Yes？

．．．．M．壟≦皇：．単§、．．、．．1．．．．黛§景1！〜具＿夐9攣9蕚ζ、．迦§．．hg9塩．、魚瓢．真h梟．轣ζ龕§1≦黨無4、．茎至．．．．．9具．．99塾’t　need 　it？

（a2 ）Ame は Mr ，　Fran亅din と個別面談をしています。

…Ame ：Mz 　Franklin？

…Mr．　Franklin：Yes？

1．…、鋤 e ：1’

mso 　but　if　ou 　don’t　mind 　would 　it　be

エアコンのせいで部屋がとても寒いです。

ossible 　to　tし u　the　air　conditionin 　？

…（a3）A e はリスニングの授業をとっています。

…　きとれません。

iA皿 1e：Excuse　me 　but　could〜．冂．冂．．1「．1「．1’．．’．．．’．”．”．’．．」．」

　　　　　’1「門

　　　　　　　　冂　　　　　　

．．　　　　　　　　　

凵

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　彼女の席はスピーカー

から遠いので，音

Anne は M 上Franldinに音量を上げるように頼みます。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 lease？ou 　tu臓 1　u　the　volume 　a 　bitF　幽　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　．

をよく聞

（bl）Mikeは図書館に行こうとしています。　 Johnは Mi鸛ピ自芬「あ．薗’善館1ぢ

1禾を

．返却テ

．る．』［…一．．’う’．1ど頼

．．

　　　みます。

Mike：Wel1， 1’11　see　you 　later．　1，

ve 　got　to　go　to　the　library　to　retUrn 　my 　bookS．　　　　　　　 1

．．．」9嘸i．．．9皇．．．．．工£．．．．鯉翆．．黛in．．．．！，9．．．冀he　libr　 can 　 Qu　 lease　retUrn 　m ．h99k．里9？

1

（b3）Anne は図書館までの道のりを知りたいので，近くにいる学生に道を尋ねます。

Anne ：　Excuse　me 　could 　 ou 　tell　me 　where 　the　libr　 is？

（b2）Kateは授業の前にカフェに行って何か飲もうとしています。

iShop　staff 　May 　1　help　you？

1．．．．1〜無僉三．．ムCU 　O£20壌§ leas曇・．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．「．．．．．．．．、「．、「．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．一、．．．．」F．」．剛

139

N 工工一Electronic 　 Library 　



Japar ユ　Soclety 　of 　Engllsh 　Language 　Educatlon

1（a）M 丘

冂振m n が配6たプリントが足りなかったので，Anne はもう

一枚プリントが必要です』

Anne：Give　me 　one 　more 　handout．

1（62）Ka肥は授業中1こ Mfs．　Clintonに教科書を貸しました。しかし Mrs．　Clintonは一週間たっても

．　　返すのを忘れているようです。．Kate ；Mrs ．　Clinton？Mrs ，　Clinton：Hi．

［Kate：Iwant　 ou 　to　retum 　m 　 textbook．L冂

てc3 ）Mike　lま忘年会の幹事をしています。出欠の返事の期限は昨日であったのに，　Mrs ・cli11tonか

　　　らの返事がまだありません、Mike は廊下で Mrs．　Clintonを見かけました。

Mike ：Hello，　Mrs．　Clinton．

Mrs．　Clinton：Hi，：Mike：Please　confirm 　 eur 　attendance 　as 　soon 　as　 ossible．　　　　　　　　　．L　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　’　　’　　　　　　　　　’’　’ 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　：（c4 ）Jo は Mr．　Fran】dinに何冊か本を借りようとします。

Jo ：Mr ．　Franklin？

Mr ．　Fran　klin：　Yes？John：Please　lend　me 　some 　of　 our 　books　f｛）r　the　weekend ．　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　、

i（635’Kafe は M 駕．　Oiintonにアンケ

ートに答えるように頼みにいきます。　K 且te は研究室のドアをノ

　　　ックします。

iKate ：（Knocks 　on 　the　door）Mrs ．　Clinton：Yes

，　come 　in．

lKate ：Hello．　M 　 name 　is　Kate　Arista．　If　 ou 　don’

t　min 　 I　would 　like　 ou 　to　fi11　this　in　for　me ．1（dl）Anne はハガキを買いに郵便局に行こうとしています。　 Mike は A e に手紙をポストに出す

，　　ように頼みます。

；Anne ：V陀乢 rll　catch 　you　later．　I　am 　going　to　the　post　of 行ce 　to　buy　postcards．、Mike：Oh　 if　 ou 　wouldn

’t　mind 　ma 　 I　inconvenience　 ou 　b　 askin 　 ou 　to　 ut　this　letter　into

the　mailbox ？

（d2）A 皿 e は研究室にいて，コーヒーが飲みたいと思っていま凱ちょうど Jo がコーヒーを入れ

・　　ようとしています。

：Anne ：Jo ？

．Jo ：Yes？．Anne ：Iho　e　I　don ’t　interru　t　 ou 　but　1　am 　iust　wonderin 　 if　 ou 　woUldn

’t　mind 　makin

acu 　 of 　coffee 　for　me ．．（d3）Mike は授業の前にカフェに行って何か食べようとします。

lShop 　staff：May 　1　help　you？Mike ：Wbuld　 ou 　be　so　kind　as　to　 ive　me 　a 　sandwich 　and 　 o lease？1（d4）Johnは授業中に書き間違いをしましたが，消しゴムを持っていません。　Jo は Mil（e に消し

．　　ゴムを貸してもらおうとします。：　 John：Mike？

Mike：Yes？lJo ；1’

m 　wonderin 　 if　 ou 　wouldn’t　m 血d　lendin　 me 　 our ・eraser．

L

（d5）Mike は病院に行くためにバスの時刻を調べたいのですが，携帯電話を忘れてしまいました。

Mike：　John？John：Yes？Mike；1

’

m 　so 　 b耳t　ma 　 I　bother　 ou 　to　hel　 me 　check 韓彑us 　tlmes 璽 se ？．．　．．．

140

N 工工一Electronlc 　 Llbrary 　

Documents

fbr L2Requests by Japanese EFL