Data for this study was obtained from one strata of the larger population of Syria and the US. The Syrian compliment responses were uttered by middle class people from an urban area (i.e. Damascus) and most of the American compliment responses were given by Caucasian university graduate students. One cannot assume that these findings generalize to other groups within Syria or the US or to other Arabic-speaking or English-speaking countries. Further research is needed to know how generalizable these findings are. In order for students to become communicatively competent in a second language, they need both grammatical and pragmatic competence (Thomas 1983). However, achieving pragmatic competence may, at times, be complicated due to pragmatic transfer – using the rules governing speech events from one’s L1 speech com-munity when interacting with members of an L2 speech community. Pragmatic transfer can lead to pragmatic failure, to not understanding the illocutionary force of an utterance, to not understanding what is meant by what is said (Thomas 1983). Such situations can result in cross-cultural misunderstandings and communi-cation breakdowns. Cross-cultural studies such as this one contribute to our know-ledge of appropriate compliment/compliment response competence in Syrian Arabic and American English and also to our understanding of pragmatic transfer as a possible cause for pragmatic failure. The results of this study suggest similarities and differences in Syrian Arabic and American English compliment responses. Similarities include the overall manner of responding – both Syrians and Americans are much more likely to either accept or mitigate the force of the compliment than to reject it outright. In addition, members of both groups use some similar response types (e.g. Agreeing Utterances, Compliment Returns, Deflecting or Qualifying Comments, and Reas-surance or Repetition Requests). Finally, males and females in both groups employ most of the response types. An exception is Agreeing Utterances; Syrian females did not use this response. Students of English and Arabic can use these similari-ties between Arabic and English compliment responses to their advantage by learn-ing the responses that are similar in both languages. As Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) point out, behaviors that are consistent across L1 and L2 usually result in communicative success. However, Hurley (1992) warns that the similarity of an L2 form to a form in the learner’s L1 can also be a pragmalinguistic problem. The danger is that the L2 learner may overgeneralize the form to inappropriate settings. Although the two groups share similarities in compliment responses, they also differ in important ways. In responding to compliments, US recipients are much more likely than Syrians to use Appreciation Tokens (e.g. thanks). The infrequency of this response in the Arabic data suggests that the utterance Shukran (‘thank you’) by itself is not usually a sufficient response to an Arabic compliment and needs to be supplemented by additional words. By itself, it may sound flat and awkward because it appears to signal the end of the conversation. As illustrated

2005 ◽  
pp. 187-187
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-358

Cultural differences are brought to attention basically in cross-cultural communication where members of each culture start to compare and contrast their culture to the cultures of their addressees. While some cultures like Arabic can be described as high context cultures for basically depending on non-verbal communication, other cultures might be low context cultures for relying basically on words. In cross-cultural communication, i.e. communication between speakers from different cultural backgrounds, speakers are not expected to find it difficult to understand their addressees as long as they have the required semantic and pragmatic competence. The present study examines the occurrence of cross-cultural pragmatic failure in a Jordanian social drama focusing on how pragmatic failure might contribute to communication breakdown. It is an attempt to identify aspects and sources of pragmatic failure in both Arabic and English, and to investigate how cultural factors might influence language use of native and non-native speakers. Keywords: Pragmatic failure; cross-cultural communication; politeness; sociolinguistics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-69
Author(s):  
Merawati Hutauruk ◽  
Dian Puspita

This research aimed to investigate the possibilities of pragmatic failure done by Indonesian EFL students through their translation. This study employed theories by Thomas (1983) and Muir et al (2011) to answer the research question coming along with the problem concerned. As mentioned by Natrio (2018) that Indonesian EFL students lack pragmatic competence because they don’t recognize the intention of one language transferring is inappropriate. This research used a descriptive qualitative method in collecting the data. The data were coming from students‟ performance in translating short dialogue texts which contained idioms in them. The instrument given was two-way translation, English-Indonesian, and vice versa. As the result, this study found that the respondents experienced pragmatic failure in their performance which happened in several types, namely pragma-linguistic failure and socio-pragmatic failure, both of which were found in all types of texts given. It was also found that the failure that happened in English-Indonesian text was higher in number compared to the other type of text in which in all the data found, the failure in English –Indonesian text translation is 161 while in Indonesian-English text translation is 139. On the other hand, this study also revealed that the factors of the students‟ pragmatic failure that happened in their translation performance were coming from both the pragmatic transfer which influenced by either their native, source language or their understanding and lack of linguistic proficiency.


In the context of language learning, one cause of pragmalinguistic failure is pragmalinguistic transfer, the use of L1 speech act strategies or formulas when interacting with members of an L2 speech community (Leech 1983). This trans-fer has been addressed in a number of speech act/event studies (e.g. Blum-Kulka 1982, 1983; Olshtain 1983; Olshtain and Cohen 1983; Edmonson, House, Kasper, and Stemmer 1984; Thomas 1984; Eisenstein and Bodman 1986; Garcia 1989; Wolfson 1989a; Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz 1990; Takahashi and Beebe 1993). In the anecdote at the beginning of this paper, the American, in respond-ing to Arabic compliments by transferring an appropriate response from his L1 to an L2, believes that he is politely accepting the compliment. However, if the native Arabic speaker interprets the illocutionary force of the utterance differently (e.g. interprets the response as impolite and inappropriate) pragmatic failure has occurred. It is, however, difficult, at times, to determine whether the pragmatic failure results from L1 transfer or from other factors. Hurley (1992), for example, notes that pragmatic failure may also result from developmental and proficiency factors or from L2 learners overgeneralizing the use of an L2 form to inappropriate set-tings. Stated differently, it is sometimes difficult to know why language learners experience certain kinds of pragmatic failure. In order to understand the reasons behind pragmatic failure, it is helpful, and perhaps even necessary, to conduct cross-cultural research to investigate students’ L1 strategies (Wolfson 1989a). Speech act and speech event studies have been criticized as being ethnocentric in that most have investigated variations of English (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989). Rose (1994) further points out that, in particular, little work has been done in non-Western contexts. The present study is valuable, in part, because it was conducted in Arabic as well as English. Compliment responses were selected for cross-cultural study for two reasons. First, although a body of knowledge exists on the speech act of complimenting (Wolfson 1981, 1983; Manes 1983; Knapp, Hopper, and Bell 1984; Barnlund and Araki 1985; Holmes and Brown 1987; Nelson, El Bakary, and Al-Batal 1993), less research has been conducted on responses to compliments. For non-native English speak-ing (NNES) students, knowing how to compliment is important, but it is equally important to know how to respond to a compliment. In fact, it could be argued that for NNES students in the United States, appropriately responding to compli-ments is more important than complimenting because of the frequency with which Americans compliment (Wolfson 1983; Holmes and Brown 1987; Herbert 1988). In other words, ESL students may receive more compliments than they initiate. A second reason is that, although a few studies have been conducted on compli-ment responses in English-speaking countries (Pomerantz 1978; Herbert 1988; Herbert and Straight 1989), few, if any, cross-cultural studies have investigated compli-ment responses in an Arabic-speaking country. For the purpose of this study, a compliment response is defined as a verbal acknowledgement that the recipient of the compliment heard and reacted to the compliment. Compliment/compliment response interactions have been referred to

2005 ◽  
pp. 172-172

that both Syrians and Americans are more likely to either accept or mitigate the force of the compliment than to reject it. Both groups employed similar response types (e.g. agreeing utterances, compliment returns, and deflecting or qualifying comments); however, they also differed in their responses. US recipients were much more likely than the Syrians to use appreciation tokens and a preferred Syrian response, acceptance + formula, does not appear in the US data at all. Recently, in a conversation with an American who had taught EFL in Damascus for two years, one of the researchers mentioned that she was investigating the strategies Syrians use in responding to compliments. The teacher looked surprised and asked, ‘What’s there to study? Syrians just say Shukran (“thank you”). When I’m complimented in Arabic, that’s what I say – Shukran.’ This teacher was apply-ing a rule from his L1 speech community to an L2 speech community. The rule he was transferring is one that American parents teach their children and one that is taught in etiquette books: ‘When you are complimented, the only response nec-essary is “Thank you” ’ (Johnson 1979: 43). Compliment responses in Syrian Arabic, as shall become clear later, are much more complex than saying Shukran when praised. In this paper, we report on a study of Syrian Arabic speakers’ and American English speakers’ verbal responses to compliments. The purpose of the study is to better understand the strategies used by Syrians and Americans in responding to compliments, to discover similarities and differences between the two groups, and to relate the findings to second language acquisition and second language teaching.

2005 ◽  
pp. 171-171

Author(s):  
J. César Félix-Brasdefer

This chapter provides an overview and an assessment of central topics in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP). The chapter begins by defining the pragmatics for ILP, followed by a selective account of the main concepts covered in the field, such as pragmatic competence, the distinction between pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics, second-language (L2) pragmatics, pragmatic transfer, pragmatic instruction, and types of pragmatic failure. Then, it describes and evaluates predominant theoretical and methodological approaches, as well as the methods generally used to collect data in ILP. The chapter also reviews research on pragmatic development, including longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, pedagogical intervention, study-abroad (SA) contexts, and pragmatic development as a result of incidental learning. The chapter ends with a discussion of future directions in ILP.


1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. NELSON ◽  
M. AL-BATAL ◽  
E. ECHOLS

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S2) ◽  
pp. 1308-1328
Author(s):  
Dina Abdel Salam El-Dakhs ◽  
Jawaher Nasser Alhaqbani ◽  
Sofia Adan

The current study investigates how university teachers decline students’ requests and examines the teachers’ refusal strategies from cross-cultural and interlanguage perspectives. To this end, 60 female university teachers at a private Saudi university participated in 10 role-plays which involved them in declining several students’ requests. The participants consisted of three groups; 20 native speakers of American English (NSE), 20 native speakers of Saudi Arabic (NSA) and 20 native speakers of Saudi Arabic who completed the role-plays in English as non-native speakers of the language (NNSE). The role-plays were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were coded using Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz’s (1990) refusal model and Trosborg’s (1995) model of internal modifiers. The results revealed the teachers’ general preference for the use of indirect over direct refusal strategies and the American teachers’ stronger tendency to use indirect and mitigating internal modifiers than Arab teachers. The results also showed that the cross-cultural differences between the American and the Arab teachers were limited and that there was no effect for negative pragmatic transfer for the NNSE. The results are interpreted in terms of relevant theoretical models and the existing literature.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gino Casale ◽  
Robert J. Volpe ◽  
Brian Daniels ◽  
Thomas Hennemann ◽  
Amy M. Briesch ◽  
...  

Abstract. The current study examines the item and scalar equivalence of an abbreviated school-based universal screener that was cross-culturally translated and adapted from English into German. The instrument was designed to assess student behavior problems that impact classroom learning. Participants were 1,346 K-6 grade students from the US (n = 390, Mage = 9.23, 38.5% female) and Germany (n = 956, Mage = 8.04, 40.1% female). Measurement invariance was tested by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across students from the US and Germany. Results support full scalar invariance between students from the US and Germany (df = 266, χ2 = 790.141, Δχ2 = 6.9, p < .001, CFI = 0.976, ΔCFI = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.052, ΔRMSEA = −0.003) indicating that the factor structure, the factor loadings, and the item thresholds are comparable across samples. This finding implies that a full cross-cultural comparison including latent factor means and structural coefficients between the US and the German version of the abbreviated screener is possible. Therefore, the tool can be used in German schools as well as for cross-cultural research purposes between the US and Germany.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document