Pragmatic Failure/Transfer

Thomas (1983) identified pragmatic failure as “the inability to understand what is meant by what is said” (p. 677). She further differentiated two dimensions of pragmatic failure, say pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failure.

(2.7) Pragmalinguistic Failure & Sociopragmatic Failure

a. Pragmalinguistic failure, which occurs when the pragmatic force by S onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2

b. Sociopragmatic failure, a term I have appropriated from Leech (1983:

10-11), which I use to refer to the social conditions placed on language in use.

(Thomas, 1983: 693) In other words, pragmalinguistic failure is associated with proper form and force of an utterance while sociopragmatic failure involves the rules of speaking in the given context. For example, if L2 learners of English fail to interpret the utterance of ‘We must meet sometime” as a ritual utterance instead of a sincere invitation, it could be

3 Pragmatic overgeneralization result from strategy of least effort, ‘play -it-safe’ strategy and metalinguistic motives (Barron, 2003).

attributed to pragmalinguistic failure. If L2 learners of Japanese fail to differentiate the proper honorific forms in a given context out of unawareness of the social constraints in Japanese society, it is attributed to sociopragmatic failure. According to Thomas (1983), sociopragmatic failure stems from size of imposition, taboos, cross-culturally different assessments of relative power or social distance. Hence, compared with the pragmalinguistic failure, sociopragmatic failure is more difficult to deal with, for it encompasses the learners’ “systems of beliefs” (Thomas, 1983: 677).

Compared with Thomas’s (1983) distinction which focuses on the negative outcomes, Kasper’s (1992) classification of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfers is more comprehensive, for she suggests both positive and negative transfers (as cited in Barron, 2003: 36). According to Kasper (1992), pragmatic transfer is “the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of language and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information” (Kasper, 1992: 207, as cited in Barron, 2003: 36). Applying the definition and Thomas’s differentiation of two kinds of pragmatics failure, Kasper’s definition of the two kinds of pragmatic transfer is presented as follows:

(2.8) Pragmalinguistic Transfer & Sociopragmatic Transfer

Pragmalinguistic transfer is “the process whereby the illocutionary force or politeness value assigned to particular linguistic material in L1 influences

learners’ perception and production of form-function mappings in L2.”

Sociopragmatic transfer is “…the influence of the social perceptions

underlying languages users’ interpretation and performance of linguistic action in L1 on their assessment of subjectively equivalent L2 contexts.”

(Kasper, 1992: 209, as cited in Barron, 2003: 36-37).

The differentiation suggests that pragmalinguistic transfer encompasses the idea of both linguistic features and illocutionary force transfer from L1 to L2, while sociopragmatic transfer entails the idea of assessment of contextual factors such as relative power, social distance and size of imposition transfer from L1 to L2. Transfer could be either positive or negative. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996) made the distinction among positive and negative pragmatic transfer.

(2.9) Positive Pragmatic Transfer & Negative Pragmatic Transfer Positive pragmatic transfer:

…the projection of first language-based sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge where such projections result in perceptions and behaviours

consistent with those of second language users,…

Negative pragmatic transfer:

… the projection of first language-based sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic knowledge onto second language contexts where such projections result in perceptions and behaviors different from those of second language users.”

(Maeshiba et al., 1996: 155, as cited in Barron, 2003: 37)

In short, if the projection of L1 pragmatics results in consistent perception and behaviors with native speakers’, it is attributed to positive transfer; on the contrary, if the projection results in inconsistent perceptions and behaviors from native speakers’, it is attributed to negative transfer.

Selinker’s (1969) design has been widely adopted to investigate interlanguage pragmatic transfer (Chen, 2006). Data of learners’ language production of both native language and target language are collected and production of native speakers of the target language is collected too. The two sets of data of native language are treated as

the baseline for interlanguage analysis. The present study also followed the design.

2.6 The Speech Act of Expressions of Gratitude

In the review of pragmatics and the theoretical framework with regard to speech acts, it has been suggested that the styles or rules of speaking speakers employ to communicate vary cross-culturally and intra-culturally (Gudykunst et al. 1996). There is no exception in the styles individuals use to express thanking. There are preferred routine formulae or styles to express gratitude in individual cultures. Leech (1983) discussed thanking from socially oriented perspective. He suggested that the illocutionary goal of thanking is to establish and maintain a harmonious social atmosphere. Eisenstein and Boadman (1993) also suggested the significance of expressing gratitude in societal interaction. When appropriately expressed, expressions of gratitude can “engender feelings of warmth and solidarity among interlocutors” (p.64). On the contrary, failing to express gratitude in a proper manner would be attributed to impoliteness or imperfect personality. Because of its importance in societal interaction, compared with other units of speech acts, it is the speech act that is introduced at the early stage of life (Bates, 1981; Becker & Smenner, 1986; Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986, 1993; Grief & Gleason, 1980; Hinkel, 1994; Lin

& Yu, 2006). Accordingly, for native speakers, deciding the forms and force in expressing gratitude in a given context could be a spontaneous behavior. However, for nonnative speakers, it turns out to be a serious issue because L2 learners may fail to perceive the difference. In orther words, it doesn’t seem problematic for L2 learners to apply L1 rule to L2 and hence communication breakdown induces. Besides, in the process of second language learning, it is usually the grammatical features being emphasized rather than the pragmatic ones (Wolfson, 1989). Clankie (1993) adapted from Columas’s (1981) and suggested that knowing how to say thank you in another

language doesn’t mean knowing when and to whom we should say it according to the norms of interaction of the respective community. Studies have shown that even advanced L2 learners have difficulty in effectively showing thanking in the target language due to socio-pragmatic limitations (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986, 1993).

Brown and Levinson (1979) categorize thanking as an FTA (face-threatening act) because it implies that the speaker acknowledges a debt to the hearer in which threatens the speaker’s negative face (as cited in Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993: 65).

According to Searle’s (1979) taxonomy, thanking is classified as expressive speech acts whose paradigms of expressive verbs include thank, congratulate, apologize, deplore, welcome, and condole. In Searle’s words, expressive speech acts express speakers’ actual psychological state toward a state of affairs or a person specified in the propositional content. It is not the speaker’s intention to match his/her words to the physical context nor his/her intention to get the context match his/her words but the “truth of the expressed proposition is presupposed” (Searle, 1979: 275).

Interestingly, it is reflected in English syntactical presentation. Expressive verbs will not take that clause in performative occurrences but requires a gerundive nominalization transformation. Here are the examples Searle used to account for the traits.

• *I apologize that I stepped on your toe.

• I apologize for stepping on your toe.

• *I thank you that you paid me the money.

• I thank you for paying me the money.

(Searle, 1979: 276) Searle elaborated the examples by saying that in apologizing, it is not the speaker’s purpose to claim what he has caused. Similarly, in expressing thanking, it is

neither the speaker’s purpose to claim what the interlocutor has done for him/her.

Searle’s analysis of thanking implies that the illocutionary point of the expressive speech acts underlying two points, namely, to express attitude and the proposition content is factive. Expressing attitude corresponds to Van Ek’s (1977) categorization,

“thank you” is used to express emotional attitude (as cited in Eisenstein & Bodman, 1986: 168). The two points also underlie in Coulmas’s (1981) statement that “every sincere verbalization of gratitude is directed to some action (or actions) of a benefactor’ or to a result of this action” (p. 74). Sincerity and actions of benefactors or result of the actions echo attitude and factive propositional content respectively.

Coulmas (1981) called the elements the object of gratitude (p. 74) and believes that it can vary in a wide scale. He also provided four distinctions that seem to be particularly important. He also noted that the eight classes are not mutually exclusive.

(2.10) The object of Gratitude (Coulmas, 1981: 74) (i) -thanks ex ante (for a promise, offer, invitation) -thanks ex post (for a favor, invitation afterwards) (ii) - thanks for material goods (gifts, services)

-thanks for immaterial goods (wishes, compliments congratulations, information)

(iii) - thanks for some action initiated by the benefactor - thanks for some action resulting from a

request/wish/order by the beneficiary (iv) - thanks that imply indebtedness - thanks that do not imply indebtedness

According to Coulmas (1981), the eight classes could be classified in terms of real vs. potential, material vs. immaterial, requested vs. not requested, indebting vs.

not indebting. Though strategies for expressing gratitude and appropriate responses vary depending on the type of object of gratitude, the interpersonal relationship between the speakers is influential. For example, Chinese speakers may thank more to friends than to family members. Also, the length of the expressions of gratitude is determined by the degree to which the speaker perceives indebted (Wholfson, 1989).

Nevertheless, the assessment of the weight of object of gratitude and assessment of the interpersonal relationship vary cross-culturally. The following displays Searle’s (1969: 63) criteria of thanking (as cited in Aijmer, 1996: 34).

(2.11) Criteria of Thanking Thank (for)

Propositional content rule: Past act A done by H (the hearer).

Preparatory rule: A benefits S (the speaker) and S believes A benefits S.

Sincerity rule: S feels grateful or appreciative for A.

Essential rule: Counts as an expression of gratitude or appreciation.

(Searle, 1969: 63, as cited in Aijmer, 1996: 34)

Aijmer (1996: 34) concluded that thanking has the following features.

• Factivity, i.e. the truth of the state of affairs is presupposed by the speaker to be true

• a psychological state is expressed

• the propositional content expresses some property ascribed to the speaker or the hearer.

(Aijmer, 1996: 34)

Aijmer (1996) summarized from Searle’s criteria, stating that “the act for which the speaker expresses gratitude must be a past act done by the addressee, which

benefits the speaker; the speaker feels grateful for the act (or behaves as if he does), and the utterance counts as an expression of gratitude” (p. 35).

However, it has been suggested that the function of gratitude expressions is not limited to expressing thanking to a past event that is beneficial to the speaker (Norrick, 1978, as cited in Aijmer, 1996: 52). For example, thanking can be used as conversational closings (Aston, 1995). It can also be used to thank the hearer in advance for a coming beneficial event whose propositional content may not be realized afterwards. For example, in Chinese, ma-fan-ni-le, xie-xie/麻煩你了，謝謝 is the expression usually adopted either before or after a beneficial event is done. Aijmer (1996) summarized the functions thank you or thanks can have.

(2.12) Functions of Thank you/Thanks in English Thank you/thanks:

i. Acknowledging a major favour

ii. Acknowledging a favor such as being handed something iii. Assuring a person of one’s future attitude

iv. Dismissing a person or a person’s service

v. Accepting a proposal that the conversation should end vi. Closing the conversation

vii. Accepting an offer

viii. Making the hearer feel good (‘phatic’ function) when an offer is rejected (‘no thanks’) or one answer an enquiry about one’s health (‘fine thanks’)

ix. Irony, sarcasm, brusqueness

x. Negative request (‘thank you for not…)

( Aijmer, 1996: 52)

The review of the concept of thanking is mainly from western perspective. In the following section, thanking in Chinese will be covered so that in later discussion the cross-cultural differences can be shown.

2.6.1 Thanking in Chinese

Due to the fact that the concept of caring interactants’ mutual faces and of reciprocity of etiquette are carried out pervasively in Chinese culture, expressing gratitude adequately both verbally and nonverbally is highly valued (Lin & Yu, 2006). It can be observed from the phenomenon that babbling kids are instructed to express thanking by nodding heads when the beneficial act is recognized (Lin & Yu, 2006). However, in traditional Chinese societies, gratitude is relatively rarely expressed among family members. For example, a mother may not say thank you for the new dress the kid bought for her. Instead, the price is to blame. “Don’t you ever waste your money on it again!” But afterwards, the mother may wear it happily and show off to her friends by saying, “This is my kid bought for me.” In other words, it is nonverbal gratitude that is shown. It should be noted that in Modern Chinese society, people are encouraged to verbalize their gratitude to family members (Shih, 1986, as cited in Cheng 2005: 16).

The most common expressions of thanking in Chinese are Xie-xie/謝謝/Thanks and xie-xie-ni/謝謝你/Thank you. Variations include Xie-xie-nin/謝謝您/Thank you-honorific form, duo-xie/多謝/Many thanks, Gan-xie /感謝/appreciate, and Gan-ji /感激/grateful (Shin, 1986). It should be noted that in Chinese, Bu-hao-yi-si / 不 好 意 思 which is not translatable in English, is also frequently used in gratitude-elicit situations. Bu-hao-yi-si means I feel embarrassed and don’t deserve for the beneficial acts (Shih, 1986). It can be counted as what Coulmas (1981) terms as apologetic thanks (p73). According to Coulmas (1981), apology and gratitude share common properties. To name a few:

• They both “presuppose some intervention in the course of events a rationale of their performance.”

• Appreciative reaction is required.

• “They appear in second position functioning as a means to convey a certain interpretation of the respective first-position element.” (p. 71)

Cheng (2005) mentioned that gratitude in Chinese entails indebtedness. In gratitude-elicit situations, it is the inconvenience that the speaker thinks s/he has caused to the interlocutor is focused. Hence, when expressing gratitude in Chinese, apologetic thanking is adopted to express indebtedness toward the interlocutors regarding the trouble the speaker has caused. This is also found in the data collected for the present study. Besides Bu-hao-yi-si ， ma-fan-ni-le/ 麻 煩 你 了 was also frequently used in gratitude-elicit situation. The pattern was usually presented as , Xie-xie，bu-hao-yi-si，ma-fan-ni-le/謝 謝 ， 不 好 意 思, 麻 煩 你 了 or Xie-xie ma-fan-ni-le/謝謝，麻煩你了. The frequent use of ma-fan-ni-le which literally means The trouble is on you supports the idea that gratitude in Chinese entails indebtedness toward the interlocutor.

2.6.2 Previous Studies on Gratitude Behavior

Apte (1974) carried out research on South Asian languages, Marathi & Hindi. She found that among family members, any verbalization of gratitude could be treated as an insult or even ungratefulness. This is due to the fact that among the participants’

value system, offer providers would think it is their duty to provide offers to their family or close friends. The concept of gratitude is closely related to indebtedness.

Only when the speaker recognizes that it is not the interlocutor’s obligation to perform the beneficial act does s/he express gratitude.

Hinkel (1997) cited Lebra (1976) and Crane (1978) by saying that Japanese may be reluctant to verbalize their gratitude “for fear of inducing indebtedness” (p.75) and Koreans share similar precept. It is consistent with Brown & Levinson (1979) that thanking is a face-threatening act.

Coulmas (1981a) observed how Japanese express gratitude. The result of the observation showed that instead of arigato, equivalent to thank in English, Japanese uses sumimasen⁴, equivalent to I’m sorry in English, more frequently when expressing gratitude. This could result from the fact that Japanese are more

“debt-sensitive” (Brown & Levsison1987: 247, as cited in Eisenstein & Boadman 1986, 70). For Japanese, the individuals receiving favors from others usually think they must have intruded on the interlocutors; therefore, they tend to express their indebtedness in situations where expressions of gratitude are expected in Western societies.

Tames (1981) conducted research on the comparison of British’s and Japanese’s expressions of gratitude and found that “Where the English say I’m sorry, Japanese say ‘I can never repay’; the Japanese ‘Hello’ is literally ‘Excuse me’ and ‘Thank you’

is ‘I feel ashamed’” (p.109). In his study of the use of expressions of gratitude in English by Japanese and American students, Clankie (1993) found that in certain cases where the expressions of gratitude are expected, it is the expressions of regret elicited instead and, vice versa among both Japanese and American groups. He thus further indicated that the “expressions of gratitude and regrets fall into the grey area in which they may be used interchangeably under certain cultural circumstances in both languages [Japanese and English]” (p. 28).

Hymes (1971), on the other hand, found that thank you is a formulaic expression of gratitude in American English whereas in British English, it is less

4 Ide (1998) argues that ‘sumimasen’ functions more than expressions of apology and of gratitude.

significant in terms of expression of thanking. In British English, thank you frequently functions as a discourse marker or a conversation sequencer. He further indicated that, the rules of politeness in expressions of gratitude do not involve considerations of indebtedness, relative status, reciprocity, gender and age in neither American nor British English (as cited in Hinkel, 1994: 76). However, Okamoto and Robinson (1997) found that British thank you is often used when interacting with high-status interlocutors (as cited in Cheng, 2005: 14).

Rubin (1983) led a study in which data of uses of “thank you” were collected from a range of people and a variety of situations. The finding of the study suggested that ‘thank you’ is not limited as an expression of gratitude but encompasses other language functions, such as complimenting and ending a conversation. She termed the typical use of thanks/thank you in service encounters as ‘bald’ thank you which is almost an automatic thanks. She reported that expressions of appreciation were elaborated either when the beneficial act had taken up a large amount of the benefactor’s time, money or effort or when the speaker felt the action had been especially helpful (as cited in Bodman & Eisenstein, 1986: 168).

In Arabic cultures, thanking serves to establish social relationship. It establishes both social reciprocity and group membership among speakers. Thanking without signaling indebtedness (‘for my sake’) indicates that the purpose of exchanges of offers and thanking manifests in the involvement of a social group (El-Sayed, 1990, as cited in Hinkel, 1994: 76). In the discussion of face enhancing acts in Persian, Koutlaki (2002) reported from what she had observed from natural occurring data and interviews, suggesting that thanking in service encounter are routine formulaic interpreted as refusals instead of acceptance of the interlocutor’s offer. The following

is part of the transcription from Koutlaki (2002: 1751)⁵ in which S is the shopkeeper, J is S’s acquaintance, H is J’s friend.

J: jarime naqdi kon maro

(J says something incomprehensible to H) S: jafar jun boro

(Jafar soul, go)

Dear Jafar, leave it (i.e. it’s alright, don’t pay anything).

H: aqa gorbunet

J: ali jun bebin...az maqaze xodemun darim mibarim dige (Ali soul look...from shop-of ourselves we-take)

Look, my friend Ali...it as if it is our own shop!

S: boro jafar aqa

5 Full transcription see Appendix 3.

(go-IMP Jafar sir) Leave it, Mr Jafar !

H: aqa, qorbane sˇ oma, xeili mamnun.

(sir, sacri.ce-of-you-PL, very obliged) Thank you, sir, this is very kind of you.

Devine (1982) observed the politeness behaviors among Spanish-speaking cultures, finding that exaggeration is a common strategy for politeness reinforcement when expressing regrets and thanking employed by both males and females (as cited in Hinkel, 1994: 76).

Hinkel (1994) investigated English learners of several ethnic groups’ ⁶ judgment on appropriateness of expressions of gratitude, finding that those groups’

judgment was substantially different from English native speakers’. He further noted that there was almost no correspondent judgment on appropriate expressions within those groups. His finding supports the idea that the act of expressing thanks exist in most cultures, hence nonnative speakers may fail to recognize the differences that

judgment was substantially different from English native speakers’. He further noted that there was almost no correspondent judgment on appropriate expressions within those groups. His finding supports the idea that the act of expressing thanks exist in most cultures, hence nonnative speakers may fail to recognize the differences that