W5 - 8004 - Handout

I N T E R L A N G U A G E A N D I N T E R C U L T U R A L P R A G M A T I C S

Communication Across Cultural Contexts

HG8004 Stefanie Stadler

New Material


Purpose of this Class

Introduce you to the field of pragmatics

Explore the notions of context, presupposition & inference

Give you an overview over several fields where pragmatics plays a crucial role, including

Speech Act Theory

Politeness Theory

Interlanguage pragmatics


What Pragmatics is not

Unlike linguistic philosophers or syntacticians, the truth value of a sentence is of little interest to pragmaticians

Pragmaticians aren‟t interested in whether what someone says constitutes a well-formed sentence

Pragmaticians aren‟t interested in whether what someone says is true or false


What is Pragmatics

Pragmaticians are interested in why people say something and why they say it in this particular way

Pragmaticians are interested in how an utterance gains meaning from the surrounding social and situational context

Pragmaticians are interested in how speaker and addressee create and negotiate meaning


Context

“Context can be understood as the particular environments in which communication, texts and meaning making occur and in which they function as meaningful” (Schirato & Yell, 2000: 109-110)


Context

Physical

I want that book

Be here at 9 tonight

Linguistic

I can‟t believe you said that

Social

I do hereby humbly request that you might endeavor to telephone me with news of your arrival at your domicile when such arrival occurs.


Context

Context is a conceptual dimension, a way of reading what is going on „out there‟

Context is a subjective interpretation

Idiosyncratic perception


Context

Contextual factors to consider

What is going on

Where it is happening

Those involved

The role of the text in the situation

The other texts (intertexts) which are related to this one

The wider social and cultural context


Context

Example: A member of the opposite sex asks you out for a coffee What is going on – an invite Where it is happening –

a) where is the invite made (in class, a nightclub, at a conference, in the street) b) where is the meeting proposed (the nearest starbucks, a private home, coffee

shop at place of business, in a romantic garden setting)

Those involved – a friend, a stranger, a boss The role of the text in the situation – out of the blue, after discussing organising a

get-together to do your group work, after a presentation at a conference, after a job interview

The other texts (intertexts) which are related to this one – did you just have a discussion about where you can get the best coffee in town, what have you just been talking about previously, what is your joint history of interaction together

The wider social and cultural context – is it appropriate in your culture society to ask a friend/stranger/employee our for a coffee under the given circumstances and is it appropriate for you to accept this?


Presupposition

Unchallenged Acceptance

Common ground

Assumptions

It must:

Be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context

Generally remain a necessary assumption whether the utterance is placed in the form of an assertion, denial or question

Generally be associated with a specific lexical item or grammatical feature (presupposition trigger) in the utterance


Presupposition

An implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Examples: Jane no longer writes fiction

Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction

Have you stopped eating meat? You had previously eaten meat

Example: The utterance John regrets that he stopped doing linguistics before he

left Cambridge has the following presuppositions: There is someone uniquely identifiable to speaker and addressee as John. John stopped doing linguistics before he left Cambridge. John was doing linguistics before he left Cambridge. John left Cambridge. John had been at Cambridge.


Inference

An act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true

The non-logical, but rational, means, through observation of patterns of facts, to indirectly see new meanings and contexts for understanding


Inference

Syllogism: correct three part inferences, that can be used as building blocks for more complex reasoning Example:

All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Fallacy: An incorrect inference - Philosophers who study informal logic have compiled large lists of them, and cognitive psychologists have documented many biases in human reasoning that favor incorrect reasoning Example:

All tall people are Greek John Lennon was tall Therefore, John Lennon was Greek


Inference

Speaker

Implied

Suggested

Meant

Addressee

Meaning derived from context

Interpretation of utterance

Deriving intended meaning


Areas of Interest within Pragmatics

Speech Act Theory

Politeness Theory

Interlanguage Pragmatics


Speech Act Theory

Speech acts are language in action

By making an utterance, people perform the action

Name some speech acts


Speech Act Theory

Speech acts by nature are relatively scripted and conventionalized

Rules govern which behaviour is appropriate for which speech act

Such rules and conventions vary across cultures


Speech Act Theory

Example: Disagreement

Researchers have argued that:

We mostly aim for agreement and conflict avoidance in interaction

Fundamental tendency to cooperate and align

We avoid threatening social bonds

Disagreement is downplayed or at least weakened


Speech Act Theory

Preferences differ across cultures

Cultures that avoid dissent include: Anglo-Saxon cultures, Japanese culture, Chinese culture, other Asian cultures

Cultures that enjoy a heated debate and like to engage in a confrontational style include: Jewish culture, German culture, Turkish culture, Polish culture, Spanish culture, some South American cultures


Speech Act Theory

Emphasis on the expression of surface-level agreement and maintenance of harmony

Whether disagreement is seen as harmony-destroying

Whether disagreement is seen as social event that builds bonds

Whether disagreement is seen to have a sociable nature

Whether cultures have a high involvement style

Whether it is seen as more face-threatening not to be able to defend own opinion

Genre-dependent


Speech Act Theory

Leave-taking

In British culture if dinner guests indicate they want to leave, the British let them go

Reasons?

Acknowledging their autonomy

Acknowledging their wish for self-determination


Speech Act Theory

Leave-taking

In Polish culture the hosts will try to persuade the guests to stay

Reasons?

Display of warmth and caring is more important than respect for autonomy

Seen as uncaring and cold if they didn‟t


Speech Act Theory

Consequence:

British see Poles as lacking consideration for others and showing a tendency to being inflexible, bossy and to interfere

Poles regard Brits as lacking in warmth, spontaneity and sincerity


Speech Act Theory

Example Compliments

Different cultures have different norms on

Compliment formulae

Who to compliment

When to compliment

How frequently to compliment

What to compliment on

How to respond to compliments


Speech Acts

For a speech act to be successful it is not enough to have the right intentions

It has to meet the cultural expectations

If it doesn‟t comply with what a culture considers appropriate it will fail


Example

On Germans: How they would like others to see them

“They would like to be respected for their devotion to truth and honesty. They are surprised that this is sometimes taken as tactlessness, or worse. After all, if I know you to be in error, surely it is my duty to correct you? Surely the truth is more important than pretending to like your ghastly shirt or sports coat? Foreigners just cannot seem to appreciate this.”

(Xenophobe‟s guide to the Germans)


How does this relate to Pragmatics

Speech acts acquire their meaning in the cultural context in which they occur

For a speech act to be successful a speaker‟s and a hearer‟s cultural expectations of what is (in)appropriate must align

The speaker‟s and hearer‟s respective evaluation of the situation, context, social aspects and the interlocutor must be accurate (and similar)


Applied Politeness

Utterances are never innately polite or impolite

What makes an utterance polite depends on the social and situational context in which they occur


Speaker intention

Cultural & social influences on the speaker (out of awareness)

Speaker

Assessing

applicable social & cultural norms

(conscious)

Assessing situational context

Assessing addressee

Assessing the level

of politeness perceived as appropriate

Utterance

Cultural & social filter (out of awareness)

Addressee

Assessing

applicable social & cultural norms

(conscious)

Assessing applicable social &

cultural norms (conscious)

Assessing situational context

Assessing speaker

Assessing politeness, prosody & non-verbal cues

of an utterance

Addressee interpretation


How does politeness relate to pragmatics?

What is polite is a culture-bound perception

Politeness is also strongly context dependent

The social context and situational circumstances influence when something is or is not polite


Sociopragmatic Factors

There are 3 main factors that influence our choices

How these 3 factors are perceived and weighted is culture-dependent

Power

Distance

Imposition



Power

Does a person have a lot or little power?

Is the person I am talking to in a higher or lower power position than myself?

Which impact does my culture attribute to such differences?

Which strategies are appropriate in my culture to use?

H -> L

Equals

L -> H



Distance

How well do I know the person?

How close a relationship do we have?

Strategies will depend on whether they are:

Strangers

Acquaintances

Friends

Family/intimate relationships



Degree of Imposition

What is it that I am asking for?

How much is it that I am asking for?

How easy or difficult is it for the other person to comply?

How much of an imposition is it on the other person?


Misconception

If people speak the same language they automatically understand each other

Wrong, because:

Language is just a message medium

Understanding stems from:

Appropriate „packaging‟ of a message (i.e. when to say what to whom under which circumstances)

Appropriate „unwrapping‟ of a message (i.e. culturally correct interpretation of context, presupposition, inference)



Interlanguage Pragmatics is the relationship between L1 and L2

Pragmatic transfer

Difficulties arising for learners from pragmatic transfer

Pragmatic failure



Relationship between L1 and L2

How similar are the pragmatic norms of the cultures

Do L1 strategies work in L2



Pragmatic Transfer

Is to transfer L1 sociocultural competence in performing L2 aspects of communication

Learners impose their own cultural norms on target language



Pragmatic Transfer

Types of transfer

Interference/negative transfer

Facilitative/positive transfer



Pragmatic Transfer

Factors in pragmatic transfer

Perception of language distance between native and target language

Learning context

Instructional effect

L2 proficiency

Access to target language



Pragmatic Transfer

Transferability is determined by learner‟s assessment of:

Contextual appropriateness of a given strategy in their L1

Assessment of equivalence of strategies in native and target language



Pragmatic failure

Miscommunication arising from pragmatic transfer

Communication breakdown due to lack of pragmatic understanding



Pragmatic failure results from

Overgeneralization

Simplification


Homework

Reading:

Zegarac, V. and Pennington, M. (2008). Pragmatic Transfer. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking, 141-163.


Documents

W5 - 8004 - Handout