THE INFLUENCE OF LEARNING CONTEXT

The learning context has also been empirically proved influential to the interlanguage pragmatic performances (see Kasper & Rose, 200, p.191-235). As an environment for learning a second language, an EFL classroom is less beneficial for developing pragmatic ability in the target language than an ESL one. This study has found that the instruction methods used in an EFL context as in Taiwan are principally responsible for Chinese students’ interlanguage faux pas. The first section below will present the pragmatic inadequacy commonly found in Chinese students’

interlanguage refusals. Other deviation including linguistic ossification and formulaic overuse will be introduced in the following two sections.

Pragmatic Inadequacy

The way Chinese students have been taught English may be responsible for the pragmatic inadequacy appearing in their refusal responses. In a traditional EFL learning context, only expressions of propositional meanings are given paramount importance, while little attention is devoted to the conversational situations where the expressions of interpersonal meanings are more crucial. For example, in a face-threatening speech act negotiation such as refusal, the interpersonal meaning should matter more considering the smooth of the communication. However, the traditional EFL instruction emphasizes only the mastery of grammar and semantics, which may make students generalize about the primacy of referential meaning over the interpersonal one. Instances of pragmatic inadequacy found in Chinese learners’

data are two-fold as follows.

1. Inappropriate content or expressions for specific semantic formulas:

There are two semantic formulas found in this type of inadequacy. First, the use of the Excuse semantic formula is extensively adopted by learners to alleviate the threat of the rejection; however, the faulty realization in its content may be interpreted as the speaker’s impatience or upset. For example, learners want to make an excuse that they have found another job, but their response turns out to be a blame for the requester’s late notification:

(112) No, I already have a new job. Your response is too late.

(113) No, your response is too late for the day I called you.

Second, the use of the conventional initiative before the refusal, namely, Positive opinion, is shown to be conceptually acquired by learners. However, they neglect the corresponding linguistic conventions (i.e., I would like to) or they may not even know such linguistic use but create their own way of expressing this concept. Examples are as follows:

(114) I admit that I do like to do the forming of the websites, but I don’t have so much time to finish it in such a short time.

(115) Sorry. I know it is quite a good chance for me to practice how to use English.

But I’m afraid that I couldn’t afford the workload. Because I need more time to finish it.

2. Unaware of the pragmatic adequacy for specific forms:

This type of inadequacy can be divided into use of Want statements and Emotional expressions. The heavy use of Want statements by Chinese learners is enacted in order to deliver their negative willingness pertaining to personal desire or needs. Partly motivated by a concern for clarity, learners then opt for the most easily recognized linguistic form pertinent to statements of willingness (i.e., want/want to).

Illustration of the Want use can be found in the Excuse formula (e.g., I don’t want to work during weekend), in the Performative formula (e.g., I want to refuse this job), and the Nonperformative formula (e.g., actually I don’t want this kind of job).

However, the achievement of clarity through the use of the direct Want statements here lessens the sense of indirectness, which can actually be attained by conventional

expressions in English such as modal markers.

The other inappropriate use by learners, Emotional expressions, may derive from the desire to relinquish their complaints against the weighty imposition of the requests. Being in the right and self-confident position under this demanding situation, learners utter words of strong emotions such as Oh my god, What the hell, and This is ridiculous, which then make them sound rude.

Linguistic Ossification

Traditional EFL instruction should play a decisive role in learners’ ossified reaction to the requested event. In a typical EFL classroom, speech acts are introduced mostly with reference to the form-function mapping. Then complete answers combining these forms are mechanically drilled in blind pursuit of a standard answer to a given situation. In the way that speech acts are presented and practiced, learners are probably misled to form conservative formation with constrained linguistic use in every real life situation.

As to the sentential level, learners in this study respond to the request in less flexible patterns such as Regret – Excuse or Regret – Conventional nonperformative – Excuse. Examples have been represented in (41) to (44).

However, native English speakers may not stick to these formulaic combinations but may rather give various types of constructions. Here are some refusal examples solicited from Americans cited in Nelson, Carson, Al Batal, and Bakary (2002).

(116) I appreciate the opportunity. (consideration of interlocutor’s feelings) I would like to take it. (suggestion of willingness)

But it’s not the best thing for my family right now. (reason)

I will have to turn the offer down. (direct refusal) (AM24) (117) I can’t do it. (direct refusal)

I’ve got, uh, I’ve got some o- some things I need to take care of at home.

(reason)

If/uh, it it’s any consolation (consideration of interlocutor’s feelings) But I can’t do it tonight. (direct refusal) (AM29)

Considering the lexical/phrasal levels, learners seek to minimize the face threat through the interior modal means. The collocation of these modal means invariably conforms to the pattern that the Epistemic modality (e.g., I think, I’m afraid and maybe) is prior to the dynamic one (e.g., can and can’t). Examples reflecting this composition can be found in (74), (75), (80), (82) and (83). By contrast, native speakers of English would deploy modals as Internal modification with more capricious choices of words rather than adhere to limited use of I think, maybe and can. Take the examples given by in Turnbull and Saxton (1997) from (120) to (123) for comparison with learners’ data as in (118) and (119).

(118) No, I think I wouldn’t. I’m afraid that I’m not a qualified assistant.

(119) I’m sorry but I’m afraid that my writing ability won’t enable me to do such a job.

(120) I guess I’ll have to say no. (epistemic, deontic) (168:M39)

(121) I’m probably going to have to pass on this one. (epistemic, deontic) (168:M153)

(122) I don’t think I’ll be able to make it. (epistemic, deontic) (169:M125) (123) I believe I’m busy on that day. (epistemic) (168:M62)

Formulaic Repeatability

The mechanical training of form-function matching and complete answer giving in the EFL traditional learning context does not equip students with comprehensive ability in dealing with social encounters. In the speech act of refusal, where face is usually threatened, learners would then look for compensation strategies (e.g., Excuse formula or other External modification) for the sake of communication needs. As university-level students who are at least competent in producing complete sentences, they may call for the compensation strategies in an excessive manner to conceal their insecurity as a non-native speaker. Wherefore they show the tendency to overuse the semantic formulas.

Chinese learners in this study heavily modify their refusal with prolonged and over-explicit use of semantic formulas, in particular the use of the Excuse. In (111), the second grounder (i.e., so that I’m afraid that I can do this job well) clearly gives a justifiable effect as an External modification. This makes the first piece of grounder (i.e., as you know, this semester, I’ve taken lots of credits) redundant and less effective than the second one. By using multiple excuses and causing semantic repeat, an over-explicit effect is found in learners’ responses. Moreover, the formulaic overuse can also be evidenced in the rather frequent use of discourse markers such as however in (112) and as you know and so that in (111).

(124) [F3 Actually, I really want to take this job for my first consideration.] Well, however, [F1 as you know, this semester, I’ve taken lots of credits] [F1 so that I’m afraid that I can do this job well.]

(125) [F3 I’d like to take this position to clear classrooms.] However, [F1 my schedule on the weekend is really full.] [F5 I’m afraid you need to find someone to

replace me.]

Another factor that may contribute to the repeat of the Excuse semantic formula lies in its pragmatic transparency in politeness function (Faerch and Kasper, 1989;

Hassall, 2001). The supplement of grounders as External modification is easier than the insertion of modal conventions, which usually requires tense and verb adjustments.

A further putative explanation to the heavy use of excuses goes to learners’ lack of confidence in making themselves understood, which thereby calls for lengthy External modification as a type of reparation (Hassall, 2001).

In effect, the repeatability and over-explicitness of semantic formulas may result in negative communicative effects. By providing more information than what is needed for the occasion, learners may face the risked of causing harm to the intended illocutionary force and to the hearers’ expectation of a clear answer to the request. In other words, parts of such a reply might be perceived by the hearer as irrelevant and thus might weaken the force of the speech act. Such deviant response may then lead to pragmatic inappropriateness or even pragmatic failure in foreign language communication.